By now, the testimony of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is well known to most readers. It will take some time for us to digest the revelations made therein, and still more to see what impact they may have moving forward.
I speak of “revelations” as opposed to accusations deliberately. At this point in time, knowing what we know, absolutely nothing in Viganò’s testimony smells of fabrication.
Even so, at least one prominent Vaticanista has seen fit to question Viganò’s motives rather than accept at face value what he stated; namely, that his conscience urges him to speak out. I won’t waste time debating such things as those known only to God.
That is not to say, however, that Viganò is beyond reproach in the matter of protecting homo-deviant clerics.
As Randy Engel revealed in her two part series of articles written for The Catholic Inquisitor, as Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S. in 2014, Viganò ordered the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis to suspend its investigation into Archbishop John Nienstedt’s handling of homo-predator priests; even though it was far from complete and had already recorded credible testimony that Nienstedt himself is an active homosexual.
Upon doing so, the two auxiliary bishops in charge of the investigation warned Viganò, in writing, that doing so would be viewed as a cover-up.
Viganò responded not only by insisting that the investigation be suspended, he also ordered the bishops to retrieve and destroy the letter – a felony under state and federal law given the nature of the investigation and the rules of evidence.
That said, even though he has much to answer for in the Nienstedt case, what Viganò reveals is more than credible. With this in mind, here, I will offer some initial, common sense observations and four key takeaways from his testimony, as well as Bergoglio’s reaction to it.
1. Viganò’s testimony serves as a severe indictment of Pope John Paul II.
Though he labors to avoid pointing the finger of blame at the Polish pope, one cannot help but conclude otherwise.
According to Viganò, the Holy See had been informed of McCarrick’s “gravely immoral behavior with seminarians and priests” by November of 2000 at the very latest. It was in this same month and year that John Paul II appointed McCarrick Archbishop of Washington, D.C., thus elevating his influence considerably over that which he enjoyed as Archbishop of Newark, NJ.
The million dollar question is whether or not John Paul II knew about McCarrick’s homo-predatory behavior prior to making that decision. Viganò addresses this, stating:
Was McCarrick’s appointment to Washington and as Cardinal the work of Sodano, when John Paul II was already very ill? We are not given to know. However, it is legitimate to think so…
Nonsense. By his own testimony it is absurd to think so. Viganò writes:
[McCarrick’s] nomination to Washington was opposed by then-Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re. At the Nunciature in Washington there is a note, written in his hand, in which Cardinal Re disassociates himself from the appointment and states that McCarrick was 14th on the list for Washington.
In order for one to conclude that John Paul II did not know about McCarrick’s background, we must believe that the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Battista Re, who most certainly knew the truth and felt very strongly that McCarrick should not receive the appointment, simply failed to inform the pope.
Like I said, absurd.
And yet, John Paul II not only went ahead with the appointment anyway, he made McCarrick a cardinal in February 2001, thus giving him a place in the conclave that would elect his successor!
Equally as absurd is the excuse that John Paul II, whose travels between 2001-2004 number no less than a dozen-and-a-half, was so “very ill” that he cannot be held accountable.
Bottom line: John Paul II knew about McCarrick and not only covered for him, he also chose to advance his ecclesial career and his prestige; even against the input of the Cardinal-Prefect for the Congregation for Bishops.
Why does Viganò find it so difficult to reach this obvious conclusion?
Simple: Whether consciously or not, acknowledging John Paul II’s culpability comes far too close to admitting that the conciliar church’s Santo dei tutti Santi isn’t really a saint, and from there it is but a small step toward acknowledging that the Almighty Council that he labored to implement was a mortal disaster in its own right.
2.Viganò’s testimony is also a severe indictment of Pope Benedict XVI.
According to Viganò, Pope Benedict XVI sanctioned McCarrick sometime in either 2009 or 2010; decreeing that he “was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.”
Sanctions such as these are placed on a cleric for two reasons; first, to protect the members of the Church from a man whose office carries a great deal of influence and credibility, and secondly, to affect that man’s conversion. They are remarkably grave; especially when placed upon a member of the College of Cardinals.
And yet, the sanctions against McCarrick were never made public.
Viganò makes much about the degree to which the Nuncios to the United States, including himself, had called McCarrick to abide by the sanctions that were placed upon him by the pope, and how he personally confronted his successor, Cardinal Wuerl, when the sanctions were not being observed.
He fails to explain, however, why he and the other Nuncios always spoke of the McCarrick situation in private; behind closed doors. The reason, however, seems obvious enough.
The Apostolic Nuncio is the pope’s representative; i.e., he speaks for the pope. He delivers whatever message the pope wants him to deliver, and he keeps to himself those things that the pope wishes to be held in confidence.
It is unthinkable that Archbishops Sambi and Viganò took it upon themselves to keep the sanctions placed upon McCarrick a well-kept secret; rather, it is almost entirely certain that they did so at the behest of the pope, who without any doubt, did not order that the sanctions be made public as clearly they should have been.
Bottom line: Benedict XVI is culpable, and not only insofar as the McCarrick case is concerned.
Now is the perfect time for Benedict to act upon the influence of his own conscience concerning a number of points; if indeed he has not silenced it altogether.
For example, it is time to tell the whole truth about the Third Secret of Fatima and his hand in covering it up, the contents of the 300 page dossier, the real circumstances surrounding his resignation, etc.
3. Francis broadcast the game plan to his minions; publicly reminding the clerical homo-network of its duty to observe omertà.
Speaking to journalists aboard Heretic One yesterday, Francis said of Viganò’s bombshell:
I will not say a word about this. I believe the statement speaks for itself, and you have enough journalistic capacity to draw conclusions. It is an act of trust: when some time has passed and you have drawn conclusions, perhaps I will speak.
Let’s dissect this statement, shall we.
One of the messages being delivered here is intended specifically for the clerical homosexual network. In essence:
Those of you who have been named by Viganò are to keep silent. Let us give the homo-sympathetic media, Catholic and otherwise, a little time to spin the matter, to discredit the whistleblower, and to provide a framework for our defense. When the time is right to speak, if ever, I will let you know.
In the meantime, though he may encounter some bumps along the way, we can expect that Francis will simply stay the course; taking the conciliar church further down the road to perdition however he so pleases. We can also be certain that he and his devotees in the Curia will be carefully making note of those churchmen and others who dare to cast their lot with his critics.
As for the journalists, the message is plain. “It’s an act of trust…”
In other words: I’m counting on you in particular to carry my water and to draw conclusions that are favorable to me. If you want a seat on this plane moving forward, you’ll do just that. I will be watching.
4. Over the next few weeks, we will learn just how extensive the homo-rot truly is.
Clearly, Archbishop Viganò is hopeful that by breaching the wall of silence, such as he has, he will have set a precedent that encourages others to follow suit:
I implore everyone, especially Bishops, to speak up in order to defeat this conspiracy of silence that is so widespread, and to report the cases of abuse they know about to the media and civil authorities.
As I’ve written numerous times in this space, the problem at its core is not the homosexual network per se, it is the abandonment of faith; the Council, the new Mass, the dethronement of Christ the King, etc. As such, the next few weeks do not represent a “defining moment” for the Church, properly speaking.
They do, however, represent a defining moment for the present crop of churchmen as individuals; including those that claim to be champions of tradition (e.g., SSPX, FSSP, ICK). For each and every one – the bishops, the cardinals, the Superiors General especially, there will be nowhere to hide.
The Viganò testimony demands a response, and only one is appropriate in the immediate sense; that is, joining the Archbishop in calling for the removal of every complicit cleric named therein, Jorge Mario Bergoglio first among them.
If a churchman wishes to preface his comments to that end with, “If indeed the revelations are true…” fair enough; in fact, that would be most appropriate. Beyond that, however, no other qualification is excusable.
So, what should we expect?
Only time will tell what will happen over the next week or so, but I suspect that some among the homosexual network will be so overcome with diabolical emotion that they won’t be able to contain themselves and will, therefore, lash out in the media. Needless to say, those who attack Viganò directly are clearly working for the enemy.
I would go further to say as well that those who have very little to say under the guise of prudence, even if out of sheer weakness, and those who even hint at minimizing the problem, these men are also to be numbered among Satan’s servants.
In conclusion: As the dust settles from Viganò’s bombshell, whether or not it leads to Bergoglio’s undoing is not the most important thing; rather, it is what we will learn from observing how the rest of the hierarchy responds.
I think something must be made clear and that people had better be careful about how they judge others! Archbishop Vigano told Vaticanist Aldo Maria Valli that “the…… network of complicity, silence, cover and mutual favors is extended beyond all words, and involves all the leaders, both in America and in Rome”. And when Mr. Valli asked “Why” the Archbishop replied: “Because those cracks mentioned by Paul VI, from which Satan’s smoke would have slipped into the house of God, have become chasms. The devil is working great. And not to admit it, or turn your face to the other side, it would be our greatest sin.”
Not let’s get this straight! Benedict, as I have shown in my “Thesis” maintained the Papacy, and this is proved through an analysis of the Official Latin Text of his Renunciation–which has never been refuted! He did not resign the Petrine Office as the enemies wanted him to do and hence what he did was an act of valor and courage, as well as trust in the protection of Our Lady. This act on the part of Benedict was contemplated, and most likely on account of his knowledge of the Third Secret as well as his knowledge as Prefect of the CDF and as active Pope.
But as Archbishop Vigano states clearly, what began as “cracks” turned into “chasms” and then says that “not to admit it, or turn your face to the other side, it would be our GREATEST SIN.” Why would it be “our greatest sin”?
The answer which cannot be denied IS because, as Benedict told those present at his last Wednesday audience on 2 February 27, he resigned the “EXERCISE” of the Office of Governing and of Teaching FOR A GREATER GOOD.
AND THAT GREATER WAS FOR THE COMMON GOOD OF THE CHURCH! BY WHAT HE DID, HE IN FACT KEPT THE PETRINE OFFICE OUT OF THE CONTROL OF THOSE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SATAN AND THUS PRESERVED CHRIST’S PROMISE TO PETER AT CAESAREAE PHILIPPI THAT “THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT [THE CHURCH]” FROM BEING A LIE AND THUS PROVING THE INDEFECTIBILITY OF THE CHURCH.
NOW!!!! THE PETRINE OFFICE IS A COMMON GOOD AND A COMMON GOOD IS GREATER, YES GREATER THAN ANY PERSONAL GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!! WHETHER IT BE BENEDICT’S OR THE GOOD OF INDIVIDUAL FAITHFUL. BUT….. IF BENEDICT HAD TAKEN ACTION ON MCCARRIK TO ITS LIMITS, HE WOULD MOST LIKELY HAVE BEEN MURDERED, AND THE CONCLAVE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED WOULD HAVE OFFICIALLY ELECTED BERGOGLIO, AND IT COULD THEN BE SAID THE SATAN HAD PREVEILED OVER THE CHURCH AND HENCE CHRIST WAS A LIAR.
That Benedict was aware of the real possibility that he could be murdered if he tried to interfere too much CANNOT be denied. I challenge anyone to deny that this possibility absolutely existed.
So it is time we put our own personal goods, personal preferences, personal opinions, personal pride to rest and look at the COMMON GOOD OF THE CHURCH! And that is why Archbishop Vigano did what he did, he put his personal safety aside for the Common Good of the Church when he says “It would be our greatest sin” not to admit the attack of Satan on the Church!!! And he had flee his home on account of what he did! This is THE SAME SACRIFICE Benedict made and IT IS HIGH TIME that the Faithful admit that they have an obligation in truth and justice to recognize this and quit judging according to PERSONAL GOODS–which by the way in nothing other than JPII’s Personalism and Phenomenology!!!!! May Our Lady of Fatima inspire all to understand the real nature of what Benedict did.
But its ok for you to judge Benedict’s actions as heroic according to your PERSONAL GOODS.
Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger failed. He should have laicised McCarrick and turned over all the pertinent documents to the state and asked for prosecution.
McCarrick belongs in the slammer but this career criminal was allowed to walk a free man.
Where is he now? Prolly somewhere safe in Italy as omertà is practiced by our Hierarchy
THAT is how much modern Popes treasure the laity and defend the innocent sheep against the ravenous wolves.
So what if who-knows-how-many lives were ruined and souls were destroyed, we can’t let the pew dwellers know what is gong on because scandal….
Pffft it is all so much hooey
By their actions one can see that don’t give a damn about the Faith or their flock.
One wonders if even a majority of the Prelature are even Christian
The real question is what really motivated Archbishop Viganò? HIS PERSONAL GOOD?
frdbelland–Your comment demonstrates how evil the V2 pseudo-church really is. The smoke of Satan was invited in.
Dear Tom, I first examined and analyzed Benedict’s Official Latin text of his Renunciation and saw without a shadow of a doubt that he intended to retain the Papacy. Therefore the judgment follows the ACT. For anyone to do what he did given the conditions under which he was laboring would be nothing short of heroic. If he had actually resigned from the Papacy, it certainly would be giving into the commands of the perverts and could hardly be termed “heroic”.
Also, in an article by Fr. Joseph Schweigl, S.J. entitled Fatima and the Conversion of Russia which appeared in 1956 in a journal issuing from the Russicum College in Rome, where the Commission for Russia
instituted by Pope Pius XII was operating, Fr. Schweigl states the following: “The Third Secret [of Fatima] deals with a victorious, triumphal decision by the Pope, triumphal, yes, but also difficult and heroic.” Fr. Schweigl was entrusted by Pope Pius XII in 1952 with a mission to interrogate Sr. Lucy concerning the message of Fatima. He had 31 questions which he presented to her and which she addressed candidly and amply. Before he left Portugal, however, he was instructed by Chancery at Coimbra, the Diocese where the Carmelite Convent where Sr. Lucy resided was located, that he could not reveal anything of the interview he had had with Sr. Lucia.
Nevertheless, he did disclose to his cousin, a Fr. Cyrille Karel Kosina, that “I cannot reveal anything about what I have learned at Fatima about the Message, but I can say that it has two parts. The one concerns the Pope, the other logically, although maybe I should say nothing, should be the continuation of the words, “In Portugal the Dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, etc….” (This information comes from tape #4 of an 11 tape recording of a series of talks by Guido Del Rose (RIP) entitled Fatima and the ‘Last Times’ Apostasy; Mr. Del Rose was a former Custodian of the National Pilgrim Statue for the U.S. At the time Mr. Del Rose was Custodian the Organization he worked for was the Blue Army of Our Lady, today known as World Apostolate of Fatima. The Blue Army would prepare prospective Custodians by sending them to Europe to attend Conferences on Fatima at which the various Fatima experts would speak on the various aspects of the Fatima Message and history.
It should be added here that that difficult, heroic and triumphant “decision” by a Pope does not refer the Consecration of Russia, since, as Fr. Schweigl mentioned, it concerns the Third Secret, but the Consecration of Russia was spoken about in the Second part of the Fatima Secret. And besides, the Consecration of Russia demands obedience by Pope AND Bishops to a REQUEST, and not a decision by the Pope. The article by Fr. Schweigl as well as the decision were mentioned in a footnote in the Third Volume of Frere Michel’s “The Whole Truth About Fatima”.
::Still waiting for “frdbelland” to provide Church teaching that allows for a pope to not govern nor teach the Church::
Are you saying that a personal sin is a good if it is for the common good? That is not true. And are you saying that a bad guy validly elected Pope can actually thwart the power of the Holy Ghost? That also is not true.
It is not your analysis of the crisis that I criticize. Your assessment may very well be correct. My point is that in this time of confusion we all are left with our our personal judgment to explain the crisis. There are many who will agree with your conclusion and many who will not. Personally, as you most likely have guessed, I do not think Benedict ever possessed the authority from Christ owing to his heresy at Vatican 2. We are left with our own judgments based on what we know of Church teachings to explain this mess.
Dear Fr. Belland (assuming this is indeed your name?),
“Not let’s get this straight! Benedict, as I have shown in my “Thesis” maintained the Papacy, ”
1. Where can one obtain a copy of this “Thesis” of yours?
2. How does your thinking on faux-resignation and loss of office align with that of Fr. Paul Kramer, or Mr. Verrechio?
3. Do you have a blog / site / page of your own?
Thank you for your comment. May God bless and protect you.
Dear Fr. Belland,
With do respect, please ponder on the below sentence from Bishop Athanasius Schneider:
‘It is a rare and an extremely grave fact in Church History that a bishop accuses publicly and specifically a reigning POPE.’
https://akacatholic.com/vigano-testimony/#comments
Does the good bishop say Pope Benedict XVI?
As for Benedict still being the Pope, it’s another of those many controversies the Devil has spread among Catholics to further divide and
confuse us, and divert our attention from all the good works we are supposed to be doing to glorify God, convert our neighbors, the world, and rebuild the Church. It’s all we are called to do, not engage in endless debates (each to it’s own truth), which millions of traditional Catholics (priests) are obsessed with.
Such debates are a totally sinful waste of time, to say the least…..Miserere!
Vigano revealed his motive in the legal document he submitted. But, his motives are totally irrelevant. It only matters whether his testimony is the truth. At least two direct witnesses have now come forward and said that it is.
Other than Vigano’s side of the story, is there any written evidence that Ratzinger put Uncle Ted out to pasture?
I think Vigano sees the writing on the wall with the entire abuse scandal. His silence over the years puts him smack in the middle of the mess. This “bombshell” may be his way of shifting blame away from himself. It would be no surprise if his allegations are 100% true, but it in no way exonerates him, nor the previous “popes” he served. As Louie correctly points out, Wojtyla and Ratzinger are the two culprits that promoted the Uncle Teds and Bergolios. This bombshell will fizzle but it will have the long term effect of even less money in the collection baskets on future Sundays.
Well ABS , for the first time I agree with you 100% !
Leeny B read what an Italian journalist says . Vigano met with at his home several times and informed him of his personal motivations in releasing his
( translated memorial) memorium. You might have to use google translate Italian to English and ignore personal pronoun mis translations but it explains why.
https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2018/08/27/cosi-monsignor-vigano-mi-ha-dato-il-suo-memoriale-ed-ecco-perche-ho-deciso-di-pubblicarlo/
Tufty you are Absolutely correct.
He is retired with nothing to lose or gain but his own soul. Or maybe his life which is why he left Rome.
He followed the orders of his bosses .The Pope and Secretary of State Parolin whom he also has much to say about.
Personally when I witnessed abusive behavior (physical not sexual in nature) of those in my care by employees , I decided to quit and document everything and present it to corporate. I had family to fall back on .I do not know if I were in shoes what I would do if I had no safety net. I would like to think I would have done the same but I do not know for sure.
Fr Belland’s thesis has some merit aside from the very real fact Ratzinger himself was instrumental in Vatican Two and sat for years and years on the Maciel abuse scandals as did P JP2 until it was made public in the Press and by the people who were scandalized and abused by the Legion /Regnum Christi cult.
I think all of this is atrocious when you look at the Early Church and how they were willing to die for their Faith and then we look at our clergy and see how they ” protect the common good” which Fr Belland apparently refers to as the Church institution, rather than the souls of the victims , their families and countless pew people who have been subjected to heretical Masses and homilies inspired by these devils within the institution itself.
Peter was willing and did die for Christ but Benedict chose another way ?
Apparently there are documents because the Vatican does put everything like that in writing. We cannot see it unless there is a subpoena and it is published.
Another priest weighs in. Note he does not condemn the sheep as being “disgusting” because they discuss it, as on this blog, Fr Belland ?
https://soundcloud.com/anthony-amato-24873301/the-crisis-in-the-church
Yes From Poland and My2Cents we must pray for God to send us holy priests BUT
how many of them were driven out by other bad priests and Bishops who certainly need out prayers too?
Dear Introibo, First off, I apologize for the typo “Not” instead of “Now”. Now, in answer to your questions.
1. Anyone may email me at frdbelland@netscape.net with a request for my work.
2a. I differ from Fr. Kramer in that he insists that Benedict made an error, due to what Fr. Kramer considers Benedict’s modernist theology, alleging that, Benedict, was supposedly trying to set up a Diarchy, a situation where there can be two Popes–one Pontificate with two Popes. And since in Canon Law an error invalidates a resignation by the law itself. The idea of Diarchy, which considers that by accepting his election the Cardinal elect receives a kind of sacramental character and hence he is always Pope, even if he resigns. This so called School was formed at Bologna, Italy, by Giuseppe Alberigo, a Professor of Church History and the most liberal theologians from around the world, after the VCII. Its purpose was an attempt to interpret VCII in a extremely modernist way.
2b. I’m not sure how Mr. Verrecchio argues that Benedict is Pope, although some attempt to argue that Benedict was not free due to coercion, threats, force, blackmail, manipulation, or whatever, that would impede his freedom. However, Benedict has always adamantly protested that he acted freely.
3. Unfortunately, I don’t have a blog/site/web page of my own.
And yes, I am Fr. David R. Belland. God bless and Our Lady protect you always.
Thank you Louie, for a great and honest analysis of this. Nobody in Rome will come out of this unscathed. I posted the following on LifeSiteNews on a article about Francis’ coverup of the McCarrick abuse by Peter Kwasniewski. It was removed:
Dear Peter,
I did comment in the past on OnePeterFive but since I was banned permanently for implying that the Dubia Cardinals were vulnerable to “sudden unexplained deaths”, I have to comment here instead. Apparently LifeSiteNews is more broad minded.
Francis is “unCatholic”. He is also uncouth. He is also a heretic and a masonic infiltrator. He is NOT a duly elected pope. He was a heretic before election which made him ineligilble for the papal office. He must be removed from office just as Saint Bernard of Clairvaux was attempting to do with Anacletus II, that is, with the aid of the Catholic crowned heads of Europe. His example should be our guide. Find the Catholic heads of government of Europe, insert a military posse, remove cancer in the Catholic body, AKA, Francis, the Merciful. Finally, conduct an inquisition to ferret out all sodomites, modernists, heretics and masons. Then and only then can a group of proven Catholic men elect a true Catholic to the papacy.
Francis won’t leave except at the end of a barrel of a gun.
Apparently, this was too much frankness for LifeSiteNews, which some here have intimated is run by Opus Dei.
I also had the following removed:
The Church is not the same since 1914, when Pope Pius X died August 20th and the head of the Jesuits, Father Wernz, an expert in Papal operations and theology, died not 24 hours before.. Fr. Wernz literally wrote the book on how the papacy should operate. I believe there are sufficient grounds to assume that both were murdered by freemasons, with Benedict XV being the first fully masonic pope.
From the former Mary Wessel.
I don’t know if this adds to the discussion but I do know that a great deal needs to be discussed with regard to the next steps in getting rid of this pope. Pedestrianism is not an option in the present circumstances.
The Mysteries of the Holy Rosary
Offered for the Fortification of Priests
ANNUNCIATION + For saintly Priests
VISITATION + For unworldly Priests
NATIVITY + For pure Priests
PRESENTATION + For worthy Priests
FINDING + For Priest who love the Eucharist.
AGONY + To help Priests see the enemy clearly
SCOURGING + To aid Priests who are suffering
CROWNING + To aid Priests who are scandalized
CARRYING + To aid Priests with heavy burdens
CRUCIFIXION + To gain Priestly perseverance.
RESURRECTION + To help Priests to glory only in Christ
ASCENSION + To help Priests to hope only in Christ
PENTECOST + That Priests be filled with the Holy Ghost
ASSUMPTION + That Priests may lead us to Mary
CORONATION + For an increase of holy Priests.
May God grant us many holy religious vocations, and many Catholic families!
Archbishop Lefebvre, a devoted servant of the Holy Mother Church, pray for the holy priesthood!
Fr.
If he can deny the dogma EENS in an attempt to save his butt, his failure to renounce the Munus is most likely just one more heresy and novelty of his which resulted in his butt being saved from murder as you say. If he is to do something heroic, let him renounce publicly his own heresy and that of Vatican II and that of pope John Paul II. In that act of humility, he could convict his butt, and bring out the thirst for his blood by the enemies of the Church, that would be heroic! With that said, Anne Barnhardts explanation that he is the worst pope in history is more logical, since her conclusion is the same as yours, of him still being pope.
Fr. Ripperger has released an app version of the Auxilium Christianorum prayers:
Auxilium Christianorum Apps Now Available & New Website
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5uUf8fsuoc&frags=pl%2Cwn
Begin using immediately.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vigano-issues-new-statement-documents-to-clear-his-name-of-false-charges
Seems Vigano has the proof to discredit what was reported about how he dealt with the Nienstadt case. First reported by the New York Times in 2016, and apparently picked up by Randy Engel and now Louie. Shouldn’t more care be taken when putting this stuff out on the internet? Doesn’t this just make us all a bunch of gossip mongers at heart?
Dear FromPoland who says: ‘It is a rare and an extremely grave fact in Church History that a bishop accuses publicly and specifically a reigning POPE.’
Bishop Schneider, I’m sure, is referring to Begoglio. Having read much of Bishop Schneider writes or having listened to his talks, he has never given the smallest hint that Benedict may still be Pope. I have sent him my work, but have never heard from him. And what he thinks Benedict is trying to prove by being called Pope and wearing the white Soutane, I have no idea–he’s been absolutely mum on Benedict. Whether Bishop Schneider calls Benedict Pope Benedict XVI, I have never heard or read where he does.
It is so true that Satan sows division, but truth also causes division. Simply put the difference is that Satan causes division between good people, while truth divides the bad from the good is such a way that a good person who finally sees the truth will embrace it while the evil person will reject it even when he knows it is true. That having been said, I don’t think one can say that it is Satan, or if you will, the devil who is to blame when men have differences of opinion concerning legitimate issues. Certainly, when it comes to practical matters, i.e., how one should build a house this way or that; how a particular problem should be solved, etc., yet, each party must recognize that each is free to choose the way he thinks best without trying to force the other guy to follow one’s will. If there is a “fight” it isn’t Satan as such, but the inordinate behavior of a party or both parties.
When it comes to theological and moral matters, there is true belief and false belief, there is a good way of acting and an evil way of acting. But when the Church, the authorities, are not arbitrating, each one becomes his own Pope. And certainly that is a situation Satan uses to divide and God is not glorified nor the neighbor edified.
Now, concerning the Papacy, we can only have one Pope, and that Pope must be a source of truth and unity. And when there is a question of two men who claim to be Pope, one of them must be an anti-Pope. Indeed, there can be no doubt that Satan is the cause of this problem. Yet, the problem must be solved so that order can be restored within the Church. Thus, it is legitimate for those who are qualified to investigate and study the situation in order to get to the bottom of things. But when every Tom, Dick and Harry starts playing God thinking they have the solution they can cause some very harmful effects. Everyone wants to be the professor today and no one, or very few, are humble enough be the student. And as a result pride extinguishes Charity, which is what Satan wants. God bless and Our Lady protect you always.
The care should have been taken by the NYT in accurate reporting.
ArchBishp Vigano himself should have alerted the paper as to their inaccuracy.
CMtv reported it inaccurately also tonight on their Live broadcast on the topic. They said Vigano returned the report because it was unsubstantiated and according to a Canon Lawyer he did so according to canon law .
But tonight they issued this correction from ArchBish himself.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/vigano-defends-himself-in-face-of-attacks
“Needless to say, those who attack Viganò directly are clearly working for the enemy.
I would go further to say as well that those who have very little to say under the guise of prudence, even if out of sheer weakness, and those who even hint at minimizing the problem, these men are also to be numbered among Satan’s servants.”
Thanks for pointing this out. Just read that Cupich guy already doing just that. So simply in front of our faces- these evil ones, so obvious, but still they will do this…fake news, for a purpose. It’s pathetic that they would even think to continue on this route, but I guess people still buy it. So bold! Unbelievable.
She is here though. This is it. She will crush his head. All the way.
Thanks, Alphonsusjr. So worth while. Appreciate it.
LT,
When it comes to protecting the vulnerable from the wolves , if one speaks out it is not “gossip mongering ” .
A dear Archamandrite priest told me that when we ( five mothers) were threatened with a suit from an alleged “katholic” college after our children were subjected to literal horrors in their pre college summer camp run by Regnum Christi counselors and a Dean who later became a late vocation priest. The college later was closed and sold . Also they “did not know” one of the priests who was invited there had a history of sexual abuse.
Sadly, we were not aware we were signing over our parental rights to them under the application clause that stated they were “loco parentis ” and some of the distraught kids were not allowed to call their parents at home.
If you know something very evil to be true that can cause grave harm to body and soul and you keep silent for fear of gossiping or calumny then you are culpable in your silence.
Unfortunately too many clerics have chosen to protect an institution over grave harm to the flock. Jesus did not command Peter thus.
He said ,”Feed my sheep” and “Feed my lambs”. A millstone and drowning was recommended by the Lord for those who did otherwise.
Benedict XVI has now confirmed it himself according to NCR.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-benedict-confirms-he-disciplined-mccarrick-sources-claim
With even Voris now finding it in himself to criticize the Pope (but not for theological reasons, or something…) there are calls for his resignation.
Perhaps it’s fitting for Vigano and Voris to call for it now given that Francis has had his Nathan Vs. King David moment where Francis judges himself by his own criteria.
Nonetheless, this calls for resignation crap is a bad idea.
Pope should die in office. Francis should not resign so that there can be now three ‘Popes’ each sharing a part of the ‘munus’ like a pizza pie.
The ‘resignation’ is likely a necessary step, but the first thing to do is NOT a conclave, but to haul Benedict and Francis both before a Council, emeritus or not, and first and foremost condemn Bergolio as a heretic and give him the choice to apostacize formally and publicly before the court or recant and be shipped off to a cell in the mountains without any luxuries.
Then the confusion of Benedict’s resignation should be cleared up.
– Was his resignation invalid due to grave error, or was he coerced to resign, thus that he remains Pope and Francis was an antipope all along.
– Was his resignation valid and he was just waxing poetic about that munus retention stuff?
– Even if his resignation was invalid, was his ideas about splitting the Papal office by itself a heretical act, and thus Benedict also deposed himself?
– If they can’t figure it out, then get Benedict to clearly, formulaicly and publicly denounce every potential error his resignation’s wackier ideas caused, that for safety’s sake he make his abdication again in plain language, lose the Papal robes, the ring, the emiritus title, the court of arms, go back to Cardinal and only then proceed with a conclave.
Also as Louie said, force him to spill the beans about Fatima, the 3rd Secret, and then with whatever those implications bring set about the business of the next Pope, the Consecration of Russia, and finally all that Vatican II business. And we’re going to need that Consecration done so as to identify the legitimacy of the Pope who will need a miracle backing him in order to tear down the false paradigm that has festered within and also to impose his will to change things around and steer the bark back.
Already things are heating up in Syria again with the Russian’s warning of another potential false flag being laid to blame Assad and reignite the conflict while the American Deep State and other actors throughout Europe prepare their ‘Russian interference’ excuses for when they lose in the elections. Which means the possible overthrow of all democracy worldwide by the cabal, more sanctions and possibly all out war, civil and external.
Both these things happening in the world and in the Church are not a coincidence.
LennyB, Every CAUSE is greater than it’s effect. Now if Vigano’s personal good can only be achieved, or effected by his love and concern for the Greater Good, the Good of the Church, a true Common Good, by exposing the evil within, then that Common Good is the cause of his personal good, and thus it must be admitted that he is motivated by that Greater Good, or rather the Common Good. In other words, it is the love of the Common Good which is first and foremost that effects the personal good and hence that which ultimately motivates the Archbishop. God bless you.
This is what has been happening to priests who go to their Bishops with credible complaints about clerical perverts they are forced to share a rectory with.
https://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-vigano-atomic-bomb-and-conversation.html#more
Not only do the filthy sexual abusers and their enabling prelates have to go ,but
more has to be changed to protect decent clerics who speak out against perversion in their midst. Instead they are excommunicated for violating the code of silence that has gone on so long and enabled the acting out of sexual miscreants.
2Vermont, Benedict was being manipulated by the demonic network within the Vatican to do what he knew was wrong and being prevented from doing what he know he should do. But because of the way demonic networks work, he does not know nor can he know who the members are, where they are, how many there are, and thus can really do nothing about it, especially when they all cover for each other. Just remember that the devil works in the dark and it is difficult to fight the enemy when you can’t see him.
Secondly, Benedict, having been legitimately elect has a RIGHT to the Papacy; but he also has an obligation to keep the Petrine Office from the stooges of Satan!!!
So……….. he renounces the “EXERCISE” of the Powers of Governing and Teaching, while maintaining the “EXERCISE” of Sanctifying by praying and praying and doing penance in the former convent, Mater Ecclesiae.
This is no different a situation, even if more complicated, than a Pope in captivity who cannot govern or teach, though he can sanctify–Pope Pius VII;
than a Pope in exile–Pope Gregory the Great; than a Pope in hiding–Pope Caius. These Popes, though they couldn’t govern or teach, yet still were able to sanctify DID NOT LOSE THEIR PETRINE OFFICE!
The principles involved in the actions of Benedict are all part of Catholic Teaching, and just because he placed himself Officially in the position in which he was while “active” i.e., not being to govern or teach, a position that those Pontiffs who before Benedict found themselves, although through different circumstances than Benedict, IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH! God bless you.
Melanie, I’m sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say or to what your question refers. God bless you.
Wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles!
AlphonsusJr actually made a post here that was coherent, relevant, and free from his usual symptoms of spiritual Tourette’s syndrome (“cuck”, “RAAACISSSS”, “Paco, Jamal, Abdul, Wong”).
Next up: fire falls from Heaven.
There is hope for you yet, Alphonsus. Perhaps you are still Smeagol and not Gollum somewhere deep inside. God bless you. ^_^
LifeSiteNews does a good job breaking scandalous (and generally true) stories with gusto, but its other allegiances are suspect, to say the least. If any secular “star” makes a statement that sounds vaguely pro-life, anti-sodomy or even pro-modesty, they immediately put them on a pedestal, regardless of whatever heretical views they may hold otherwise. Case in point: {{{Mayim Bialik}}}. (The parentheses were for my good buddy AlphonsusJr, who loves them for some reason. Kids are funny that way. My 3-year-old loves asterisks, for example.)
When LifeSite decides to stick to Catholicism pure and entire rather than the warm and fuzzy “pro-life” banner, I’ll take them a whole lot more seriously. But they’d never listen to a dirty integralist like me, would they? =)
Hi Louie
Abp Vigano has responded to the allegation that he ordered the investigation into +Nienstedt be halted… In short, He never did attempt to stop the investigation. It looks like someone was attempting frame +Vigano and failed.
Source: Lifesite news, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vigano-issues-new-statement-documents-to-clear-his-name-of-false-charges
Statement by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò regarding the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis
Accusations against my person appeared in the media – in July 2016, when I had already left my mission in Washington, D.C. – following the publication of a memorandum written by Father Dan Griffith, the then delegate for the protection of minors in the Archdiocese.
These accusations – alleging that I ordered the two Auxiliary Bishops of Minneapolis to close the investigation into the life of Archbishop John C. Nienstedt – are false.
Father Griffith was not present during my meeting at the Nunciature with the Archbishop and the two Auxiliaries on April 12, 2014, during which several affidavits containing accusations against Archbishop Nienstedt were handed to me.
These affidavits were collected by the firm, Greene Espel, who was retained by Father Griffith on behalf of the Archdiocese to investigate Archbishop Nienstedt. This firm belongs to the group “Lawyers for All Families,” who fought against Archbishop Nienstedt over the approval of same-sex marriage in the State of Minnesota.
In one of these affidavits, it was claimed that Archbishop Nienstedt had had an affair with a Swiss Guard during his service in the Vatican some twenty years prior.
Private investigators from the Greene Espel firm had conducted an inquiry in an unbalanced and prosecutorial style, and now wanted immediately to extend their investigation to the Pontifical Swiss Guard, without first hearing Archbishop Nienstedt.
I suggested to the bishops who came to the Nunciature on April 12, 2014, that they tell the Greene Espel lawyers that it appeared to me appropriate that Archbishop Nienstedt be heard before taking this step – audiatur et altera pars – which they had not yet done. The bishops accepted my suggestion.
But the following day, I received a letter signed by the two auxiliaries, falsely asserting that I had suggested the investigation be stopped.
I never told anyone that Greene Espel should stop the inquiry, and I never ordered any document to be destroyed. Any statement to the contrary is false.
However, I did instruct one of the auxiliary bishops, Lee A. Piché, to remove from the computer and the archdiocesan archives the letter falsely asserting that I had suggested the investigation be halted. I insisted on this not only to protect my name, but also that of the Nunciature and the Holy Father who would be unnecessarily harmed by having a false statement used against the Church.
The very day the news appeared in the New York Times, on July 21, 2016, the Holy Father asked Cardinal Parolin to phone the Nuncio in Washington, D.C. (Christophe Pierre), ordering that an investigation into my conduct be opened immediately, so that I could be reported to the tribunal in charge of judging abuse cover-up by bishops.
I informed the Vatican Press Office in the persons of Father Lombardi and Mr. Greg Burke. With the authorization of the Substitute of the Secretary of State, then-Archbishop Becciu, Mr. Jeffrey Lena – an American lawyer working for the Holy See – went to the Congregation for Bishops where he found documents proving that my conduct had been absolutely correct.
Mr. Lena handed a written report exonerating me to the Holy Father. In spite of this, the Vatican Press Office did not deem it necessary to release a statement refuting the New York Times article.
The Nunciature also responded to Cardinal Parolin with a detailed report, which restored the truth and demonstrated that my conduct had been absolutely correct.
This report is found in the Vatican Secretariat of State and at the Nunciature in Washington, DC.
On January 28, 2017, I wrote to both Archbishop Pierre and Archbishop Hebda (who had succeeded Nienstedt), asking them to publicly correct the Griffith memorandum. In spite of repeated emails and phone calls, I never heard back from them.
August 26, 2018
ALSO ALERT TO LOUIE AND RANDY ENGEL –
Both of you might want to include this article’s information with regards to accusations against Vigano. Charity demands it.
Archbishop Viganò responds to criticisms of handling of 2014 Nienstedt investigation (Updated)
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/08/27/archbishop-vigano-responds-to-criticisms-of-handling-of-2014-nienstedt-investigation/
I wouldn’t blame Louie or Randy for repeating it. It’s not their fault the NYT reported it, and it was not the NYT’s fault either as they’d been fed deceitful information, though I’m also prone to suspect the NYT’s complicity.
That said, Louie and Randy should correct it, or add a link to Vigano’s defence.
Certainly more care should have been taken given that the Media – particularly the NYT penchant for attacking truth -tellers and spreading fake news!
Sadly Louie and Randy have both fallen into the trap of being led by the nose by the anti-Catholic main stream media.
Thank God Archbishop Vigano has the written, recorded truth to prove he is not a “bent” as are most of the others.
Stand by for more feeble attempts to discredit a good man – that’s the only defence the Sodomite rabble have.
Absolutely! Thank you Johnno.
You’re a real queen, Professor. Go jump into bed with McCarrick and Bergoglio, faggot.
Could it not be a set up? The timing is pretty near perfect: the Irish Synod, the airplane convivium and an impeccable witness.
The Freemasons wrote in the 30’s that their beloved one world religion will not take shape until they have dethroned the pope.
Projection is a classical defence mechanism used by the insecure, latent homosexual, bedwetting, wannabe “cool kid” sociopath. Try again. ^_^
In case my previous response was too subtle for my good buddy Alphie, let me spell it out for all the rest of us:
Alphonsus is actually suffering from a psychological disorder known as “same-sex attraction”, which liberals call “gay orientation”.
Alphonsus has multiple partners, named Paco, Abdul, Jamal, Wong and Shekelstein (or some trivial variations thereof). He does this because his SSA idol, MILO, believes in inter-racial sodomy.
Alphonsus, having some vestiges of Catholicism within him (hence my Smeagol / Gollum reference) feels tremendous guilt about this.
However, instead of assuaging his guilt by repenting, the Sacrament of Penance and chastity, he projects his anger at himself outwards, onto his partners – and believes that his tough-guy “race realism” will absolve him from the sin of homosexuality.
Somewhere in Heaven, the real St Alphonsus prays for this poor, misguided, tragic boy.
Yup, I smell a rat in all this. The whole conservative/trad world smells blood in the water. I wouldn’t get too excited because this is an internal battle between modernists. The old adage is to never interfere when your enemy is fighting amongst themselves. But based on the reactions I have read, it appears the majority of Trads have thrown in their lot with the NO neo-conservative wing. This is quite unfortante but predictable. Doctrines and dogmas have again taken a back seat to the fleshier issues.
The secular world is not interested in cleaning up the filth inside what the world thinks is the Catholic Church. The world wants to silence the Catholic Church forever. Even Bergolio’s heretical brand of ecumenism is too much for the world. They will use this crisis to completely discredit the Church and even pass laws to restrict religious activities. I wouldn’t take too much joy just yet in seeing Bergolio toppled.
Yet more drama queenery. So faggy.
“Bottom line: Benedict XVI is culpable, and not only insofar as the McCarrick case is concerned.”
I respect this. From what I am reading, it seems that most folks don’t want to call a spade a spade with this situation. Always excuses for Benedict. Or worse yet that he was …. heroic!
FrdBelland, thank you for answering. I have some other questions:
So what happens when Benedict dies and has said nothing about Vatican II, Francis, and the Homo Scandal? What exactly did he accomplish then wrt your “thesis” (please answer assuming he dies before Francis dies or resigns)?
Also, it sounds from your posts that it is your current position that Vatican II is a legitimate Council of the Catholic Church and that it is in accordance with Catholic teaching. Is that your position? If not, then what is your position?
Also, were you conditionally “re”-ordained in the Old Rite by Bishop Williamson?
This is the problem with those who continue to believe that he is a true pope….active or not, hidden or not.
Dear Fr. Belland,
‘ Everyone wants to be the professor today and no one, or very few, are humble enough be the student.’
Yes, Father this is the confusion amongst us Catholics……legions of self-made theologians of every stripe, all with itching ears all over the internet, but very few who are willing to learn from history, from the saints………above all, from our Lord Jesus Christ, Himself……. thinking foolishly of their own solutions to ‘save’ the Church, so they remain in their ‘pride’, ‘blindness’, and ‘errors’, each according to it’s passions.
Who is to blame? Yes, all of us Catholics, but above all, the ‘sacred hierarchy,’ priests and religious.
(not my words, but very true….written at the time of the reign of Pope Benedict XVI);
“The Popes of Second Vatican Council were not only NOT at all powerless to stop the apostasy of the past 50 years –THEY LED THE CHARGE AGAINST CATHOLIC TRUTH AND TRADITION. They could have stopped the diabolic trend at any time by threatening to excommunicate the revolutionaries. This is what St. Pius X did, and was able to keep even liberal bishops and cardinals under control. The V-2 popes chose instead to allow the Bride of Christ to be ravaged and beaten down and scores of souls to perish – a crime which we are not permitted to ignore or play down – lest these betrayers convert and renounce their past crimes.
“These popes are no more innocent of these crimes than the bishops. In fact they have the greater guilt because they have been given the greater grace and greater responsibility and therefore will be held much more accountable than the worst of the bishops.
““Pope Benedict, he throws traditional Catholics a few crumbs here and there, but continues with the main feast going to all the gluttonous vultures – the Jews, Masons, Marxists, Protestants, Modernists, etc., who only want to destroy the Church and obliterate the very name of Jesus from the world of man.
“Benedict has one foot in each camp – both, the camp of Christ and the camp of His enemies. These popes are not integrally Catholic, which must be 100% orthodox – not even 99% is good enough. Catholicism is either 100% – or it becomes Protestantism. And it’s not up to us to determine whether they are 100% or not, as the sedevacantists do; it’s up to the MAGISTERIUM. In other words, the only criteria for a pope being loyal or disloyal to Christ, is his conformity to Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.”
What a ‘joy’ to the enemy (of every stripe) of God and His Church, all Catholics (of every stripe…..sigh) have become;
‘THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH!’
What a ‘harvest’ for Satan!
Father, may God bless you, our Lady protect you, and Saint Michael defend you!
Yes, if we think about what the end game is here it is….the Vatican II modernist church still appears to be the Catholic Church because one side appears to be the good guys. So many “trads” and Novus Ordo conservatives are getting so sucked into it.
Indeed. The damage wrought by Modernism to the visible Church and the subsequent wholesale destruction of supernatural faith in individuals has been done.
Bergoglio’s resignation isn’t going to suddenly undo that. And it may come to pass before long, as you suggest Tom A., that all this scandal will be used by civil authority to place severe restrictions on what’s left of the public practice and profession of the true Catholic religion and faith. I’m expecting it, barring a sudden reversal. Get your catacombs, such as they are, ready because that’s where the Church is going to have to return to.
Undoing all this will be the work of ages as far as I’m able to see, provided God gives us the time and doesn’t pull the plug. And it will entail many monks and even more martyrs.
Yes and this is the hardest part of the whole battle: showing “conservative” Novus Ordites, many of whom actually have supernatural faith, that what they think is the Catholic Church in fact is not it at all but rather a Modernist impostor.
I know.
John XXIII: heroic virtue? Heretic
Paul VI: heroic virtue? Heretic
Jhn Paul II: heroic virtue? Heretic
Benedict XVI:heroic virtue? Heretic
Thank you for that, FromPoland.
On that note, here’s a link to purchase a copy of St. Alphonsus Liguori’s treatment of the dignity and duties of the priest: http://a.co/d/6YRoFPE
Please intercede for us all and for the Catholic priesthood as a whole, St. Alphonsus.
From Poland, while I agree with most of what you wrote above, I do have one correction. You stated that popes like Benedict and Francis have greater guilt since they were given greater grace and responsibility. While it is true they have greater guilt having had greater responsibility, it is obvious they were given absolutely no grace whatsoever otherwise we wouldn’t be dealing with the crisis of the last 60 years.
@TomA,
….from ‘My Catholic Faith’….
“Actual grace is a supernatural help of God which enlightens our mind and strengthens oour will to do good and to avoid evil.
In every age, His grace made the wise and fearless men, going forth to preach Christ everywhere, ready to die for their faith.
Grace is given to all men, although not in equal amounts. Some receive more, some less. Some ordinary graces are granted to all men; certain extraordinary graces are granted to chosen ones…….our graces depend also on our ‘dispositions’…..for God will not save us without our cooperation.
Herod was offered actual grace when he heard of the birth of the Messiah from the three wise men, but Herod rejected the grace, and added to his sins.
Unfortunately, we can resist the grace of God, for our will is free, and God does not force us to accept His grace.”
Is there a wonder that ‘mankind,’ and the ‘animal kingdom,’ is suffering, and that the earth groans?
For we’re not fighting against Aliens, nor ‘dinosaurs’, but man vs. man……Miserere, Domine!
Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis!
Thank you for the correction, it is obvious that they have rejected any extraordinary graces they were given.
Sure, I understand about the necessity of warning about grave danger. But anyone who is in the position of reporting information is responsible for verifying the accuracy of that information, especially if it concerns another’s good name. For, as we all know, everyone is entitled to their good name. And if information thought to be credible is found not to be so, it should be retracted.
It is obvious from various blogs and personal communication that bishops and priests are in full crisis mode now. I think that in the past (before the Vigano testimony) it seemed prudent to many clerics to keep quiet on the evil present in the Church for whatever reason, but now the hand is played for them. What is of interest to me, as Louie wrote: “is what we will learn from observing how the rest of the hierarchy responds,” and, I would add, of every priest, religious, and even individual catholic.
My response is that the restoration has begun because good men and women in the Church will be emboldened to speak.
Dear TomA, there’s a great reminder for all of us Catholics;
‘TO BE A ‘CHILD OF THE CHURCH’ IS THE MOST GLORIOUS TITLE FOR A CHRISTIAN AND SECOND ONLY TO THAT OF A ‘CHILD OF GOD.’ (Divine Intimacy)
‘May Thy Church always remain pure and living! May ‘she’ chant Thy praises under the guidance of the holy angels! We pray to Thee for all her members; grant them pardon and remission of all their sins; grant that they may sin no more. Be their defense; take away from them all temptation. Have pity on men, women, and children; reveal Thyself to all, and let the knowledge of Thy Holy Name be written in their hearts.” (from an ancient Liturgy).
FromPoland: “And it’s not up to us to determine whether they are 100% or not, as the sedevacantists do; it’s up to the MAGISTERIUM. In other words, the only criteria for a pope being loyal or disloyal to Christ, is his conformity to Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.””
So exactly how does that play out practically speaking fromPoland (since true popes have no judge on earth)?
Papal politics:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/27/us/vigano-pope-resign-abuse-analysis/index.html
John 314: Will the SSPX be emboldened to speak? Remaining silent in the midst of all this shows lack of courage and fortitude. Generals and Armies do not defeat the enemy by hiding in a bunker. To Restore All Things in Christ—the motto of the SSPX.
Professor Q, Years ago I had a lawyer, a Catholic lawyer, who was SPXX. She told me most of the pro-life movement was filled with phonies, people who were in it for the money and would sell out the cause. I never forgot that and became skeptical of any group that made a big show of their pro-life particulars. The problems of the Catholic Church are endemic, ongoing and drive right to the core of every Catholic’s knowledge and application of belief. The current obsession with sodomy, and it’s likely association with satanism, in the priesthood, is only the most visible, and agregious offense against Christ and His Church. Masonic infiltration seems to be discussed in no forums at all, in spite of the fact that it is obvious that outsiders have great influence over the Church. Sodomy and the infiltration of sodomists in the Church would have happened in any century, but prelates loyal to Christ would have stopped it dead in it’s tracks. The reason why the 20th century and continuing into the 21st, have been such fertile ground for their infiltration into the Church, is because they were allowed into seminaries, welcomed in fact, then into ecclesiastical circles. The welcoming party or parties had to have been an organized group with methods and objectives consistent with a group that desired the overthrow and suppression of the Catholic Church. These sodomists didn’t fly up from hell on their own. Somebody recruited them and let them in. Masons and the Jews behind them, people who hate the moral and natural law not to mention Christ, were known infiltrators. LifeSiteNews gets it’s knickers in a knot every time I mention the masons. I’m coming to the obvious conclusion. Either they are masons, associated with masons or controlled by masons or masonic organizations, Opus Dei, my number one suspect.
Louie:
“In order for one to conclude that John Paul II did not know about McCarrick’s background, we must believe that the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Battista Re, who most certainly knew the truth and felt very strongly that McCarrick should not receive the appointment, simply failed to inform the pope.”
I think the most reasonable case is that Battista Re *did* make the effort to inform John Paul II about McCarrick’s behavior; and that he was likely not the only source of that information. He almost certainly had to know about it, to some considerable degree.
But there is another possibility here: John Paul II received the information, but chose not to believe it.
There’s been growing examination of John Paul II’s approach to sexual abuse allegations against Catholic clergy, and how it was formed by his experiences in Poland – where it was common for the communist regime to fabricate such claims as a way of discrediting specific priests or bishops, and the Church generally. This seems to have heightened his skepticism generally about such allegations throughout his career. Did that happen here, too? We don’t know. An investigation into the surviving witnesses and the documentation from 2001 would seem to be essential.
I say all this because it is a plausible explanation, but also because even if it is true, it still reflects quite badly on John Paul II, who had a duty to fairly examine such allegations aside from his parochial experiences. It also does not let him off the hook for the other failures of his pontificate. And in the end, however you cut it, his track record on handling sexual abuse problems was simply woeful. And it should have been properly weighed in considering his canonization.
Dear FromPoland,
Answer me this: If in fact Benedict was acting upon the Third Secret, is he not to be commended for what he did? And is it possible that Benedict’s earlier theological thinking was rejected on account of the message of Fatima? You in no way can deny with any certitude at least the possibility that both scenarios are possibilities, for God’s Grace is more powerful than any human efforts, and not just in the case of Benedict.
Also, I have shown in my “Thesis” that what Fr. Joseph Schweigl, S.J., in an article entitled “Fatima and the Conversion of Russia” which appeared in 1956 in a journal issuing from the Russicum College in Rome, stated that “THE THIRD SECRET [of Fatima] deals with a victorious, triumphal decision by the Pope, triumphal, yes, but also difficult and heroic.” applies to Benedict’s “decision” to Renounce the “Exercise” of the Office of Governing and of Teaching, rather than the Consecration of Russia itself. And this for two reasons.
1. The Consecration of Russia is not a decision, it is an ACT OF OBEDIENCE to God and His Blessed Mother, an act which applies not only to the Pope, BUT ALSO TO TH BISHOPS.
2. Fr. Schweigl posits this “decision” as PART OF THE OF THE THIRD SECRET!!!
As Scripture tells us “Man sees the appearance, God sees the heart”. Yet given the demonic influence not only in the Vatican but throughout the world, and especially in the materialistic West, people just cannot lift their minds above their necks. There is no Trust in God and His Providence, there’s no viewing the events of this age in light of the supernatural. Today mens’ minds can only think and look at everything in materialistic terms, and then spout ideas as “infallible”. It is Satan’s plan, as well as VCII’s, to have men think he is god almighty and omnipotent, and let me tell you, Satan has been most successful.
I hope this helps. God bless and Our Lady protect you always.
ArchBishp Vigano himself said the Vatican Press Office was responsible to correct the secular News feeds about their error and failed to do so.
I know Randy and she once believed Fr Cipolla’s lie but once she was introduced to the mother of his first two victims and saw the evidence she knew he was lying and wrote a lengthy expose which ,btw ,was used by the Attorney General in the GJ investigation according to the victims.I have no doubt she is researching the facts of the whole story behind the story right now and will write a followup.
OMERTA is anti Christian no matter how you try to spin it for the church institution or the mafia. Didn’t Jesus preach that the Truth should not be kept hidden under a basket ( or under the dome of St Peter’s) ?
Only God Himself knows how many souls have been lost through church justifying spin doctors who knew the truth and hid it.most of them have been priests and prelates and their ugly attack dog Bill Donahue.
Mary, As far as I can see, there is nothing humanly speaking that can be done to prevent Freemasonry or any other cabalistic group from infiltrating and taking over any institution on Earth. Literally, everything is corruptible. The Devil is the prince of this world. We Christians are so constrained by our efforts to virtue, honesty and charity to even see these guys coming. I mean, I thought it was a given that the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the rock of Peter was the only indefectible institution. To me, the fact that the alleged Magisterium is steeped in HERESY, never mind sins of unnatural sexuality and dishonesty, is evidence not that the Church has defected… It WOULD be if Jesus Christ, Himself, didn’t preclude that happening. Since He did and I believe in Him above anything else, the only explanation is that the Magisterium that presents itself is an imposter, a fake, a pretender and that the seat is empty, waiting to be filled or the Pope is in exhile somewhere, something along these line. Obviously, there has been secret activity to effect these results but the overt activity is enough to prove, without doubt, that these men are not who they claim to be.
Excellent points My 2 Cents .The Vatican was first alerted that Maciel was a pederast and a morphine addict in the fifties abusing over ten so called seminarians he brought to Europe from Mexico approximately age twelve. Since then they received many other accusations and unlike Voris stated, Benedict did NOT act quickly. In Fact , he slapped Jason Berry’s hand when he asked him if anything was being done LONG after the reports hit the secular press.
I first read about it when a former Fr Fernandez LC gave his testimony to his caregivers as he lay on his deathbed in a CA hospital.
OMERTA………very evil.
The excuses now given are that the CDF is backed up with almost three thousand cases.
Well they let the evil in so they better assign more priests to get the evil out.
Shock troop clerics are needed and not ones whose job is to make excuses or compose Theses. They should have acted immediately when Bella Dodd gave ArchBishp Fulton Sheen the list of Communist Party homosexuals she planted in the seminaries. A false image should never take precedence over innocent souls.
Melanie, Yes, it has to be the obvious conclusion: If Christ promised to protect the Church (not necessarily the pope) until the end of the age, but the organs of the Church, that is, the pope, bishops, cardinals, Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith,etc. ALL appear to advocate heterodox positions, completely out of line with the doctrines of Christ and the Church of 19 centuries, Then it cannot be the Church founded by Jesus. It must have been infiltrated by the enemy. I do not believe that dispair is in order. This is Christ’s Church but we are His hands, His feet, His mouth, eyes and ears. If we want to get to Heaven we have to speak out and act to reverse this sacrilege. Yes, the devil has power, yes, the masons have free reign in any institution they attempt to infiltrate. .. but knowledge is power. We know now what has happened. We know we have to keep the faith, regardless of whether we are part of the heretical Novus Ordo or sedvancantist. We all want to be part of the true Church of Jesus Christ, get ourselves, our families and our neighbors to Heaven. I advocate an Inquisition after a military invasion of the Vatican to depose both “popes”. A good well run inquisition by doctrinially pure Catholics would go a long way towards eliminating masonry from the Church. The governments of Catholic Europe (only the conservatives) must be lobbied to put together such a military possee. St. Bernard of Clairvaux did the very same to evict Anacletus II from the Papal throne. We should follow his example.
The priest who usually celebrates the Summorum Pontificum mass I attend has been sermonizing on this topic every Sunday to the point now of mentioning the pope. He is clearly disturbed by the whole situation.
Mary Podlesak, You’ve layed out exactly what needs to occur. I’ve written my letters and I pray my Rosary. We will see if good men act. I think even men of goodwill, lacking the fullness of the Catholic faith, can begin to recognize the criminal Communist front group that occupies our buildings now. Bergoglio has done us a service in this respect. Maybe that’s why they’re looking to replace him with someone less of a scowling caricature of villainy.
Dear Fr. Belland;
The Catechism is teaching us, that conscience is often called ‘the voice of God’ within us. The saints teach us, that God for beloved sinner gives long life, a time for true repentance and penance.
I, offer the holy Rosary on every Tuesday, for the Pope in Rome, for Emeritus Benedict XVI, for all ‘sacred hierarchy’, priests and religious…….. concluding with the prayer that the Angel at Fatima, has taught the children……
”My God, I believe, I adore, I hope, and I love Thee. I ask forgiveness for those who do not believe, nor adore, nor hope nor love Thee……..etc.”
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1993_August/They_Think_Theyve_Won.htm
Our Lady of Fatima, specifically, revealed to the children that She would ask the Pope to consecrate the nation of Russia, to her Immaculate Heart. Tragically, and mysteriously, from Pius XI to Pope Francis, HAD NOT OBEYED THE MOTHER OF GOD!
Here’s a worthy (among many) of admiration, and one who’s voice is of a very good shepherd, who feared God only, rather, then men……… Pope Saint (true saint) Felix III: “Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it.”
Our Lord Jesus Christ says, ‘THE TRUTH WILL MAKE YOU FREE’ (Jn. 8:32). ‘WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD, RATHER THEN MEN” (Acts 5:29).
Clear as day today, we see, and feel the sufferings and groaning of the ‘good’ and ‘faithful’, for the Popes of Vatican II have chosen their own ways, not Heaven’s way. They have brought turmoil to the Church and the world…..Miserere, Domine!
Dear Father, Have a blessed and fruitful day!
They just finally officially responded to the Death Penalty issue. Give them another month!
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/no-death-doctrinal-crisis-40132
I think you are correct Bergoglio has become a liability. He’ll be replaced in some way or another. While from all outside appearances, Vigano appears to be sincere, it is not impossible that he is being used.
After reading the Inquisitor article about Bishop Vigano, I was very disheartened to see that Saturday’s explosive revelations were authored by none other than that same discredited Nuncio. Coming from Randy Engel, it seemed unthinkable that the claims were anything but true. However, I am now sorry to have to ask whether she may have been mistaken. Bishop Vigano has made a very good case to re-examine the charges laid to him by none other than the always-orthodox New York Times. Would it not be in order to inquire whether Mrs. Engel has been deceived into helping discredit Bishop Vigano in advance of his whistle blowing missive?
You are absolutely right. LifeSite, like many other “neoconservative in Traditional clothing” sites and blogs – such as Church Militant and Fr. Z – are very uncomfortable with any discussion of Freemasonry, Zionism, or Protestant heresies.
Good link M2C, they have finally established their counter narrative : Viganò is just a disgruntled employee. Actually, Francis took action not like the “contemplative” Papa Emeritus: “But the Pope didn’t cover for McCarrick. Unlike his predecessors, Francis forced the former cardinal to resign in July. And Thavis said Vigano’s assertions about Benedict putting restrictions on McCarrick, including not allowing him to participate in church events or celebrate Mass in public, are patently false. “McCarrick appeared at several high-profile events with Benedict,” he said.”
Nothing to see here folks, now the “Dictator Pope” can begin removing those who came out in support of Viganò ASAP.
Father Belland, should the Papa Emeritus call a press conference and courageously defend his faithful Nuncio or just allow him to be smeared by the Dictator Pope for the COMMON GOOD?
The Neo-SSPX is cowardly setting out this scandal. They have lost the will to fight back against error, for the sake of someday returning to the graces of mother Rome. Once you accept the authority of Rome over that of Christ, you are blinded and neutralized from action. Throw off the bondage of Rome and return to Christ and his eternal Word. The only authority left.
Dear FromPoland,
Whatever happens, bar nothing, happens either through God’s dispositive Will or his permissive Will. And since God is all Good, he allows nothing that does not bring about something good. Our Lady warned the world at Fatima and at Akita that men must amend their lives or there will be a severe punishment. She also asked for the Consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart by the Pope and the Bishops, which has not been done properly to this day. Nevertheless, the fact that things turned out as we see them today in no way rules out that God will bring out some good.
Whatever the situation is, each person has first and foremost the responsibility to save his souls and thus must accommodate God’s plan for salvation. And since there are grades of authority as well as subjects, each one must do what he can according to his state in life, along with doing what we can to help our neighbor, each on according to his talents and standing in society. As long as we do OUR job, Almighty God is pleased, and that’s all that counts.
That everyone thinks he can be a savior in correcting the situation in the Church or thinks he has the solution, that everyone must follow, is precisely one of the problems in the Church today. There is no trust in ANY authority, so we make ourselves the authority, there is no confidence in God, so we make ourselves gods. Such attitudes will accomplish nothing. Each of us must humbly DO HIS OWN DUTY, and not presume that he can do everyone else’s as well.
So many talk about Fatima, complain about the NOM, criticize the heretical theologians, for hours on the Internet and probably for hours beyond the Internet. Are these individual really interested in the spiritual aspect which Our Lady emphasized over and over again at Fatima and Akita? Do you say your daily Rosary, do fulfill the 9 First Fridays, the 5 First Saturdays, do you say the beautiful Fatima Prayers given th the Angel? These practices will do more to fix the problem that the billions of words that are “uttered” on the Internet and other media.
Think about this. I bet practically every one who had a computer has an iPhone, an iPod, iBook or whateve iXXXXXX. Then there are the MeThis, MeThat, and on and on. What this do to the mind? It directs one’s attention to himself. Today the material world is all about ME, SELF, I. But remember this dictum: WE BECOME WHAT WE KNOW. And if we are going to be in constant contact through sight, hearing, touching with all this man centered creatures we’re going to be come them. AND IT IS PLAINLY EVIDENT EVERYWHERE ONE GOES. It’s time to get down on your knees and come into contact with the supernatural world!!
Where were all the “disturbed” prelates when they forced them to say a protestant mass?
@dontlikequitters;
Where’s the strength and courage of the Resistance?
Who’s your pope…….Bishop Williamson?
Why all the bitterness, backbiting, anger and envy?
Love is what is missing in your hearts, for Pharisaical pride and rigorous mind has hardened your hearts…….
May God grant you all, the grace, and desire, to serve God in holy fear of God!
……be in peace, for you are, were you want to be. Yes, or No!
How did Pius XI know that was exactly what Our Lady told Sr Lucia. Everyone likes to say that the Consecration of Russia is a de fide infalliable revelation necessary for all Catholics to believe and seek. It is private revelation and not necessary for salvation. For whatever reasons unknown to all of us, Pius XI and XII did not complete the request. I am not saying that Sr Lucia invented this request, I am saying that many faithful place way too much hope in a private revelation.
Pearl87, I just did and I am sure she is polishing her pistol and loading her silver bullets as I type.
I know her and I trust and love her dear heart !
A very interesting insight, Pearl.
Fr., a little clarification please. You stated, “THE CONCLAVE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED WOULD HAVE OFFICIALLY ELECTED BERGOGLIO, AND IT COULD THEN BE SAID THE SATAN HAD PREVEILED OVER THE CHURCH AND HENCE CRIST WAS A LIAR.” I am in no way convinced beyond all doubt that the man known as Fr. Bergoglio is the current Pope, (nor do I hold the opposite), but I find it incredulous that Our Lord believes He dodged a big one but for the heroic dissembling of Pope Emeritus. The one who continues to heap praise on his savior, Francis. Thanks to Benedict’s effusive praise, he strongly infers that Francis is THE successor of Peter. To think that he saved Jesus from being a liar, the one Who said, ” Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Anything else is from the evil one.”
Francis: “I will not say a word about this,” etc. When you are innocent, you quickly say, “That’s not true! I never did that! It didn’t happen!”
When you’re guilty, you temporize.
The vatican 2 are cannibalizing one another. Good.
Yes Rich but they are confusing people who want very much to be Catholic.
Vigano’s friendship withe Ninestadt is well documented as they worked together in the same offices for five years. The more I watch this play out he more rotten it smells. Vigano is protesting against his critics a bit too much much, primarily the huge Ninestadt coverup. First Opus Dei funded Voris and company blamed it all on canon law which they clained Vigano was just following , then Vigano comes out in another Press release blaming the Opus Dei run Vatican Press Office ( Greg Burke OD numerary) for a slip in not correcting the NYT mis statements. Guys it wasn’t corrected because it wasn’t a mis atatement. Then two Opus Dei connected prelates publicly come out in support of Vigano’s truther release. Burke and Morlino ,the former having consecrated St Michael Media studio for Voris right about the time Voris did his one of his first Vortex’s which told everyone how to be sure they are “Real Catholics” ,”become a member of Opus Dei”.
Then during the conclave Voris was actually lobbying for Burke.
Folks opus dei does not seem to have a problem with pervert clerics either. They only prefer the more discreet ones who do not make the News.
The diabolical sulfur seems to be leaking from the demonic chasms Vigano spoke of.
CMtv explains away their sudden U turn in speaking out against the Pope because it is a matter of morals and not theology ………
Uhmmm ,well why couldn’t anyone speak out when referring to the public pervert Ricca , Borgolio said ,”Who am I too Judge? Why when people attempted to criticize the homosexual monastics that Borgoglio chose to design the Creche Scene in Vatican Square did Voris censor their comments about the Pope? Nothing against the Pope was allowed UNTIL the Big Vigano reveal. Coordinated on the heels of the PA GJ Report when the laity’s minds and hearts were on fire to take back their church from all these perverts?
YEARS ago when I commented on the Voris production about the three out of five documented sodomite pastors we endured in out little Eastern Catholic mission Church , the moderator responded with ,”We are not interested in your experiences with the dark side of the church.” Now they are literally begging for people to contact them on just that !
I watched their numbers and the ONLY time they exploded was on stories about the sodomite networks in the clergy.
Something stinks like “Ca Ca” to quote the foul mouth you know who with this entire thing ! Even the secular media is noticing.
https://www.skywatchtv.com/2018/08/28/archbishop-carlo-maria-vigano-ratchets-up-explosive-vatican-testimony-says-pope-francis-and-the-roman-curia-are-actively-involved-in-cover-up-of-pedophile-priests-ring-insists-petrus-romanus-resign/
Who wants to bet that if he does ever resign ,we will see a Koran kissing OD hand picked Pope once again?
Yes I know fr dbelland , I am a “filthy” “disgusting” calumnizer. Get over it because Vigano is an outright liar on certain aspects of his so called “memorium”. But I guess you can lie for he greater good too in the New Order of the church, eh father? Phooey!
Except for one thing Lily Flower .They all know who is who in the Hierarchy and Ninestadt has a long history of homo sex predation on seminarians along with other well known sodomite dalliances and he worked in the same office with Vigano for five years.
There is NO way Vigano didn’t know what he was and the complaints against him. NOW he accuses Borgolio of doing the same??
It’s funny Rich. I hadn’t read the August Inquisitor yet but people kept mentioning how Randy Engel needs to apologize to Viganò for her bad article about him so, naturally, I’m reading it now. The whole cast of characters from her August story are involved in this Viganò paper now, even the guy from Napa Institute, Busch. Frank Walker mentioned that you don’t normally hear a story direct from this guy Busch’s mouth, but you hear from him now. And Opus Dei’s Michael Voris is even ditching Bergoglio now. I hate to laugh at this clown show because it really involves the worst depths of evil and depravity but sometimes you’ve gotta just sit back and laugh. Kind of like how you laugh at Fargo then realize, dear, this is not funny at all, it’s awful.
I have the same exact suspicion Sweep. Can you imagine if these guys actually orchestrate the removal of ANOTHER “Pope” and the installation of a third living fake Pope?! If Catholics ignore that then they have totally lost the thread. They have my attention; I’m fascinated to see what happens next here.
Hi Melanie,
It is a great joy to witness your continued journey into truth as Reality and not as deception. I trust you are continuing to sense that you are now becoming more of an island, a wolf crying out from the wilderness, even among those closest to you in life. Mr. dbelland is in grave error when he opines about the so called, “common good”, and contrasts that with what he calls, “personal good”, as to quote him:
“…A COMMON GOOD AND A COMMON GOOD IS GREATER, YES GREATER THAN ANY PERSONAL GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!! “.
The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church simply does not teach that the common good is somehow greater than the good of the singular human person, as these goods are not in opposition, as what is truly good for the one, is good for the many. The “common good” is not material, rather it is formal, as justice, peace, friendship, etc. His commentary is his own conjecture and is dangerous. The good of the singular human person is infinite as it is created by Almighty God in His own divine likeness and image and as thus, the human person is an end unto himself as the Catholic Church teaches, and NOT a means to an end, as Mr. dbelland claims in his false conjecture. This, “common good is greater than any personal good”, ideology of Mr. dbelland, is simply not Catholic, rather it is the stuff of Communism, and concordant with the attendant colloquial expression of: “If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs”. The one can NEVER be sacrificed for the sake of the whole, when we speak of the infinite, immanent worth of the singular human person, as in the Mind of God. In properly understood Thomistic, philosophical psychology and ethics, it is taught that the whole of the individual human person is greater than the sum of his parts but the whole of society is not greater than the sum of each and every singular human person who is integral to the makeup of that same society, period and end. To consider otherwise is simply not authentically Catholic, as it suggests that any singular, as any individual human person is somehow expendable, which is utterly diabolical in its foundation. We are finite as individual men, as the man dies but we are infinite as human persons, as the person parts the man at death and undergoes his personal as particular judgment, living on then into eternity in Heaven or in Hell. I pray this helps. In caritas.
I agree Melanie ! Two factions within the corrupted institution in a dog fight for power and control .The sad thing is both are using the laity’s anger over the sodomite infiltration and the victim stories to bolster their own agendas.
Power money and control seems to be the name of the game.
Vigano seems to be lying though his dentures. I know La Stampa is considered a liberal outlet by the neo cons , but I think they raise some good time line points proving the story Vigano is spinning has some big holes .Randy raised some points on this too.
http://www.lastampa.it/2018/08/28/vaticaninsider/facts-and-omissions-of-vigans-testimony-against-francis-ojjiYm4VJw2e1ELhURticP/pagina.html
Hello Sweep…,
What we are witnessing is part and parcel with the Freemasonic playbook and its surrogate, the Fabian Socialists, “ordo ab chao”. Precious none of this is somehow pleasant to bear witness to and it is a clarion call for much, much worse to come, as the reality is hidden in deception, right before our eyes. The authentic Catholic Church has always admonished any partaking in intrigue and this is the summa and summit of all that. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Richard, JP2 was an opus dei Pope. One of his first acts when he was elected was to run and kiss rscriba’s grave.He is responsible for eliminating the role of the Devil’s Advocate in the process of canonization ,even having appointed OD clerics onto the commission to make Escriva a Saint. It was well documented
that people wanted to present evidence o the contrary regarding Escriva’s sanctity but they were barred from the process. Opus Dei became much more powerful during his Pontificate
Not many people realize that Lech Walesa was proven to have been a KGB informant in Poland and a member of Opus Dei.
The Polish people barred his name from the official “Book of Remembrances” ,on the history of those who resisted soviet communism.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35602437
Thanks for the info In Caritas .It is all a classic communist masonic tactic.
Thesis vs Anti thesis = Synthesis
“The authentic Catholic Church has always admonished any partaking in intrigue” VERY TRUE !!! Jesus told us not to hide the truth under a basket.
“The authentic Catholic Church has always admonished any partaking in intrigue”
I think In Caritas just destroyed frdbelland’s thesis.
Well state ,In Caritas !
Tufty, I feel obligated to clarify my comment above .He was correct on the premise that Francis knew about McCarrick but so did everyone else including Benedict and P JP2.
Mary, I continually ask the same question. Bella Dodd who converted under ArchBish Fulton Sheen testified she planted over a thousand Homosexual Communist Party member in seminaries to destroy the Church .
If Fulton Sheen did in fact have those names ,why didn’t he turn them over to the Vatican? If he did , why didn’t they act immediately to remove the infiltrators?
Bingo!
“Opus Dei, my number one suspect.”
“Bishop against Bishop. Cardinal against Cardinal” Sounds familiar. I wonder who said it?
FrankIII , but the same could be said about Vigano, can it not? He did nothing about the news outlets including the NYT when they allegedly reported his tight relationship with Ninestadt.
If it was not true he should have “memorialized” his objection to have squelched the investigation into a notorious homosexual with a predilection for corrupting seminarians immediately too !
He did not ,until the oopsie moment AFTER his written accusations of Borgoglio doing the same thing.
Yes! Thank you In caritas, you said it perfectly. I wonder if you might tell me what you think of this? https://holyrosarychapel.vpweb.com/ARCHBISHOP-THUC.html
I don’t find this listed on the Vatican website https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/es/motu_proprio.index.html
Do you think this could be legitimate? It does look like his signature. Is it possible? I normally default to dismissive skepticism because fraud is just a keystroke of effort nowadays. But this dealing with access to valid and licit Sacraments, I hate to be wrongly skeptical. I’d value your thoughts.
sweep, EXACTLY.
Bishop Sheen was a very contoversial bishop of Rochester, NY and promoted programs and individuals that gave that diocese a modernist liberal slant.
The big problem with Opus Dei is that it is a secret network linked to the secular secret networks… so the orders get passed down to the minions in the pews. Was Bishop Sheen Opus Dei? Maybe the people in Rochester, NY know the truth. It is these secret networks: Opus Dei, Regnum Christi, and the seculars, the masons, Elks, Rotary, etc.; that infiltrate with their belief systems and behavioral abberations (homosexuality) in an attempt to change and ultimately destroy Catholic faith. Homosexuality (and communism) in the clergy is a consequence of this secret network infiltration. While it is true that homosexuals must observe Omerta, that Omerta does not by itself produce a greater propensity to join secret societies. It is from the secret societies that they learn the practices of Omerta, not from homosexuality. The homosexuals that I have known have a natural desire to share their abberant life style. They seek approval. Omerta is not a natural side effect of homosexuality.
…….excerpts from ‘Fatima in Twilight’ by Mark Fellows.
“John Paul’s relationships with Solidarity and Opus Dei proceeded his election to the papacy. “Poland was Opus Dei’s first deep-penetration operation,” (investigative journalist Robert Hutchison), Opus’ home base was Vienna. By coincidence, an influential community of Polish intellectuals-in-exile also resided in Vienna and they were actively recruited by Opus. Doing 1970’s, Cardinal Wojtyła frequently visited Vienna ‘it was rumored inside Opus Dei that Wojtyła had been inducted into the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross….’ “
“John Paul’s biographers Bernstein and Politi declare: “Opus Dei had supported Karol Wojtyła since he was Archbishop of Cracow. He had frequently been invited to address its members. In the days just before the conclave that elected him Pope, he went to pray at Escriva’s tomb.”
“Father Stanisław Dziwisz, according to Hutchison, who adds: “Opus Dei’s milites Christi brought to Poland the financial means to form a catholic underground that would act, if not in outright defiance of, at least in parallel to the government”
“The other organization he was closely connected with was Solidarity. The exact origins of Solidarity are disputed, but it was definitely influenced by the ‘Worker’s Defense Committee – in Polish KOR, an illegal underground group of socialists, Marxists, and left wing Catholics who agitated agains Poland’s Communist government. Many KOR members were familiar to paper, Znak (Sign). According to John Paul’s biographer Tad Szulc “Wojtyła quickly established close ties with KOR , which was already linked with the Catholic Intellectuals’ Clubs (KIK), which played a significant role in the great events to come in Poland.”
“After Wojtyła became Pope, KOR dsplayed a painting of John Paul II, ‘muscled like an athlete, hands clenched under his chin – one a fine intelligentsia hand, the other a gnarled worker’s hand.’ It was probably the first time socialist art had presented a Pope in a favorable light. This incited Poles against the Communist government, and planned and executed nationwide strikes. Unrest grew.”
“Solidarity was never simply an organization of Gdańsk shipyard employees. According to former KGB agent Anatoliy Golitsyn; ‘…..there were 1 million communist Party members in Solidarity. 42 out of the 200 members of the (Polish Communist) Party’s Central Committee in 1981 were Solidarity members. These leaders (Wałęsa among many) were not expelled from the Party for their membership in Solidarity. On the contrary, Solidarity recognized the leading role of the Party and the Party recognized Solidarity’s existence…..Solidarity enjoyed access to the state-controlled media Obstacles were not placed in the way of Wałęsa’s extensive foreign travels……etc…”
“In other words, Poland’s Communist government treated Wałęsa the same way they had treated Cardinal Wojtyła. And for what it’s worth, it is claimed by those who have studied the situation that Opus Dei, not the CIA, was Solidarity’s cash cow…..Wherever the money came from, there was enough not only to finance Solidarity operations in Poland, but to open an international Solidarity headquarters in Brussels.”
May the ever-Blessed Virgin Mary and Her Spouse, the Holy Ghost, illumine this present darkness foretold in the Third Secret of Fatima!
Dearest Melanie,
I beg your submission into the authoritative as infallible teaching of Pope Paul IV, who penned his only Apostolic Constitution during the Council of Trent in 1559, and in Almighty God’s infinite Providence, preparing His Church for this our time, as in this time, His Church is present without the visible human hierarchical element, Amen, as per “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio” (http://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm). In His gentle as infinite consolation, Almighty God in the Person of the Holy Ghost, caused the affirmation (not that it was necessary) of this Apostolic Constitution, “Cum Ex…”, by the next great Pontiff to immediately follow Pope Paul IV in Apostolic Succession, as Pope Saint Pius V.
Please, I implore you, do not frustrate yourself with the diabolically disoriented summation of all that has occurred in the false church of the Antichrist, since its genesis with Roncalli as John XXIII in 1958. Why would we possibly concern ourselves with this creature beast thing from Hell itself, as it is the Devil’s playground, which must be fully as utterly rejected, by anyone who holds the One True Faith in the free assent of his will. This thing which masquerades as the Holy Catholic Church, as commanded into being by the Son of God made true man, is the abomination of desolation. All of its sacraments are false (but for Baptism not requiring a priest), as a pious 12 year old must know to save his soul, as it is a false church. That which is “false” simply cannot effect that which is “true”, as to suggest otherwise, places an affront to the law of non-contradiction, which defies “being as being” and suggests then that “non-being is being”. Patently absurd. The great apostasy is in our midst as is existentially evident through the power of right reason, as people actually debate authenticity of “sacraments” which find their wellspring in the false church and thus are actually as literally debating whether a church which is founded in heresy, as is the so called “Second Vatican Council”, can have a true Pontiff as its chief shepherd, and have true as valid Sacraments, as commanded into being by the Son of God. You simply cannot make this stuff up in the most sophisticated horror story. How could anything of Christ Jesus find its wellspring in that which is the creature beast of Lucifer? This is the abomination of desolation right before our eyes, as the once temporal holdings of the Church established by Christ, are now and since the false conclave in 1958, in the very physical possession of the church of the Antichrist. This was none other than a coup d’ etat, accomplished by men dressed in red as Shepherds who had lost all Supernatural faith and others at the top who had not just lost all personal faith but actively sought the takeover of the visible Church by removing, “he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way,…” (2 Thes 2:7), as the true Holy Roman Pontiff and Vicar of Christ. They took him, “out of the way”, simply by not validly replacing him. We know this through, “Cum Ex….”, as infallibly taught by Pope Paul IV, and that we know with certitude, because Roncalli could never have been a true Pope, as he was an heretic. Amen. Alleluia. I fervently pray this helps. In caritas.
My father was president of the AFL-CIO in Buffalo, NY. Walesa came to Buffalo in the 1980’s and met with bunches of labor leaders. Somewhere in my stack of mementos I have proof of that. At the time I remember asking myself , How is it that a labor leader “revolutionary” from an authoritarian regime would get permission to come to Buffalo, NY??? JPII also came to Buffalo ( having a large Polish concentration) to Assumption parish, before he was elected pope. My husband and I met there at Assumption at a Catholic Alumni Club meeting.
Thank you In caritas, that helps. Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio is perfectly clear. Couldn’t be more clear.
I grew up in Communist Poland, the borders where closed, nobody was allowed out. Few years later, already living in the States, I have learned from some Catholic sources in Poland, how Karol Wojtyła as a young priest was able to travel in and out of Poland…..and this always bothered me, for I knew how persecuted and governed with an iron fist where my people.
So sad, because it is very clear that he has learned from his youth, to compromise to get along, which followed him even as a Pope, in the name of false love, false mercy, false ‘liberty, equality, fraternity.’
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. Amen.
This whole scandal would not have gained any traction at all if it had not been framed in a way that attracted the attention of the secular press. The secular press that loves destroying the Church anyway. I predict the only outcome of this will be a change in policy to allow married priests.
Tom – please read Fr Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari’s rationale for Fatima being a PUBLIC revelation. You might just learn something.
Thank you Sweep! Once again you have pot it in the proverbial nutshell. God bless you,
I don’t like you . You have been a persistent and noxious troll since you arrived. My advice to Alphonsus Jr and all the other regulars on here who have integrity and loyalty to Christ is that they ignore you and treat you with the contempt you so richly deserve.
Archbishop Vigano – using written and recorded proof that he never participated in a clerical sexual abuse cover up – has pulled the rug out from under the Vatican inspired liars. No wonder this wonderful man has had to go into hiding!
mary_podlesak
It great to see you back here !
You are spot on with Life Site, they are OD connected and no wonder they banned you !
Voris ditched me years ago when I mentioned the sodomite we encountered as our pastors in the NO , the Eastern Byzantine Cath carpatho ruthenian rite , the SSPX chapel we attended ( that priest now formed his own group SSPX MC ) and the Catholic Melkite Diocese whose new Bishop took in (our former Byzantine (Real Presence denying cross dresser) as his personal Secretary ( which they all do when hx and then advance them on).
Oh NO! The OD funded Church Militant did not want to hear about this even in private, despite correlating documentation.
So curious they want any and all tips now!
Something stinks to high heaven with all of this Vigano revelation !
Fool us once OPUS DEI with JP2,and the “fake fall of communism” shame on us , fool us twice with forcing Borg to resign , shame shame on everyone who does not see the Vatican 2 church is in control and had apostatized a long time ago!
Opus Dei stands ready and waiting to place all their own into the masse resignation slots.
Read it and weep Fr dbelland ! You who apparently cannot figure out whether you should follow the traditions of the Church and Scriptural word of God or what, with your PhD !
It seems clear that Opus Dei, in keeping with its worldly-and political-power-seeking, is very involved with the UN and NWO “One World Religion,” for the better subjugation and corruption of the masses.
In the days of St. Vincent Ferrar and St. Collette there were three popes. It had to have been a time of mass confusion. St. Vincent and Collette followed the Avignon pope, Benedict XIV(?). It was only toward the end of his life that he understood he could not be the validly elected pope and demanded that he resign for the good of the Church. Benedict refused and Vincent then denounced him to the faithful Catholics. Our time is even greater in it’s confusion and the sin that accompanies it.
Anyone, whether it be Michael Voris, Opus Dei, SPXX, Benedict XVI; who thinks they can turn this mess into some power play to advance themselves, or like Cardinal Vigano, is trying to move the spotlight away from their own guilt and complicity, will find out very quickly no one is buying it. As happened in the 14th and 15th centuries, I believe the slate has to be wiped clean. The “popes” must be evicted, not to mention the Cardinals they appointed, an inquisition of holy theologians and historians called, to purge the church of sin and error, and a new pope elected in the true line of Peter.
How would married priests solve the problem of homosexuality and pedophiles in the priesthood? Do you think priests attracted to young boys (or girls) will be faithful to their spouses?
Is the hierarchy the Church? Not really, it is but one part of the Body… and the diseased part needs to be amputated now. There is no other way.
It is past time to purge all the homosexual clergy and their enablers… withhold donations until this is done… not a dime to the official Church… they are false shepherds as evidenced by their rotten fruits.
My2Cents, apparently you are on to something here. I just read Barnhardts coverage of Fr Williams LC, and his affairs with Vatican luminary (sarc) MaryAnn Glendon’s daughter in Rome whom he finally married. Okay that was scandalous BUT I hit the floor when Ann said his sodomite affairs with students is what got him to the point of having to give up the priesthood when his dossier was reviewed by the CDF.
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/08/28/frthomaswilliamsexactlylikemccarrick/
mpoulin , We can only pray the purge includes all the secret omerta cults like Opus Dei too.
I want to hear homilies Faithful to God’s Word coming from their mouths and nothing but !
“The charge against Viganò must now be investigated”
“The basis for the charge against him is a July 7, 2014 memorandum on the Nienstedt investigation written by Dan Griffith, a priest and lawyer who managed the investigation as the archdiocese’s delegate for a safe environment. The 11-page, single-spaced document was sent to the archdiocese’s two auxiliary bishops — Lee A. Piché, who had overall responsibility for the investigation, and Andrew Cozzens — shortly after the two lawyers hired to investigate Nienstedt’s behavior tendered their resignations.
Griffith, profoundly upset, tells the story of how the investigation was shut down. Briefly, the lawyers had come up with a large amount of compelling evidence that Nienstedt had been abusing seminarians and engaging in flamboyant sexual activity for many years. The two auxiliary bishops and other clergy involved in the investigation reached a consensus that Nienstedt would have to resign.
Piché and Cozzens then flew to Washington with Nienstedt to meet with the nuncio to reach a “pastoral resolution”; i.e. a smooth resignation. Although they called Griffith after the meeting to say that such a resolution was in the offing, a subsequent one-on-one between Nienstedt and Viganò led to the nuncio’s telling the bishops that he didn’t think the allegations were that serious, and that the investigation should be halted.
The bishops immediately responded by writing Viganò a letter in which they “disagreed with his decision to shut down the investigation, noting that this would rightly be seen as a cover-up.” The nuncio, in response, told the bishops to get rid of their letter. Indeed, he admitted doing so in his statement on Sunday:
” I did instruct one of the auxiliary bishops, Lee A. Piché, to remove from the computer and the archdiocesan archives the letter falsely asserting that I had suggested the investigation be halted. I insisted on this not only to protect my name, but also that of the Nunciature and the Holy Father who would be unnecessarily harmed by having a false statement used against the Church.”
If you believe that this was about anything more than Viganò protecting himself from criticism, then you have to believe that Piché and Cozzens not only misunderstood Viganò but also, after receiving the instruction to correct the misunderstanding, shut down the investigation anyway, thereby leading to the resignation of the lawyers.
This is, quite simply, incredible.”
https://religionnews.com/2018/08/28/the-charge-against-vigano-must-now-be-investigated/
For the first time, there is a churchman in the upper ranks willing to accuse Pope Francis, on the record, of a crime. Yet Randy Engel, Melanie, sweepoutthefilth, and some others have chosen to:
1) Slander and try to destroy Vigano;
2) Slander and try to destroy JPII;
3) Blame Opus Dei for everything.
Thoughtful readers might consider the extraordinary level of irrational rage and monomania it must take for these to seem like logical reactions to the situation at hand.
mpoulin-I agree. However the CONCILIAR church should never be addressed as the “official” church–because it has lost all authority.
Ah, Mr. Bard, cool down will you. All, and I mean all, of those prelates in the upper reaches of the Vatican had to have known what was going on or participated in it. There could not have been plausible deniability. Yes, Vigano is acting courageously, according to superficial appearances. Yes, it is possible he was trying to mitigate damage to the Church and scandal to the faithful. But does that imply he was free from guilt? Hardly. I could use an example from my own personal situation, but I don’t have the time to explain. Vigano at least is attempting candor. JPII was in no way attempting candor, in fact he attempted to cover up, and obfuscate. Opus Dei makes no secret of it’s efforts to keep it’s operations secret.
?Four months into the investigation, preliminary findings included 10 sworn affidavits detailing behavior by Nienstedt that sounded simply tawdry but would have an added layer of seriousness if he was, in fact, using his power to influence careers. There was also evidence that Nienstedt had a close relationship with Curtis Wehmeyer, a former priest, who pleaded guilty in 2012 to sexually abusing three boys. Nienstedt and Wehmeyer were quite the social couple, apparently. Nienstedt even made Wehmeyer a pastor against the advice of people who apparently knew better than to put that character in charge of anything, much less a parish.
In April 2014, Griffith, Piche and Cozzens reviewed the material that had come in from the law firm and agreed that Nienstedt had to go. It apparently isn’t as easy as merely telling him. He was the archbishop of a large archdiocese. Piche and Cozzens went to see Vigano in Washington. Nienstedt went with them. Why, we don’t know, to plead his case? According to Griffith, Vigano met with the three men and told them to stop looking into new leads and wrap up the investigation. That had to be a strange flight home. Cozzens and Piche persisted. They wrote a letter to Vigano, saying, in effect: “We can’t stop this investigation. It would look like a coverup.’’
Which is exactly what Vigano apparently intended.
Vigano ordered them to take their letter back and put it where the sun don’t shine. He told them to destroy the letter.”
https://www.twincities.com/2016/07/21/pioneer-press-soucheray-the-quashing-of-the-investigation-into-archbishop-nienstedt/
Dear In caritas, I don’t know whether you are trying to be funny, contentious, sarcastic, facetious or whatever, but let me try to explain “common good”.
The true Thomistic notion of a common good is: “something that can be shared by many WITHOUT BEING DIMINISHED”. Examples of common goods are: God, Grace, truth, goodness, Faith, the Mystical Body of Christ, among many others. So, when I say that Benedict was concerned for the Common Good of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ can you in truth say that he sacrificed a greater good for a lesser good?
I dare you, In caritas, to compare these true common goods with the material good of a singular being or even of 7 billion human beings, whatever you intend that good to be, and then declare publicly and absolutely that that good of a singular human is greater than any of the true common goods cited above. Actually, doing so would be tantamount to apostasy.
Now, what I attempt to do in my “Thesis” is to show first that Benedict actually maintained the Petrine Office, and remain the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, Benedict being the VISIBLE Head with Christ as the Invisible Head of His Mystical Body. And he did this on account of his knowledge of the filth in the Church due to his experience as Prefect of the CDF and as Pope, or from the contents of the Third Secret, of which he was certainly aware OR both. And since, as is becoming more and more evident today (see quote from Archbishop Vigano in the post from which you took information with which you criticized me), that Satan is involved in the atrocious situation in which we are today, and I will say that he is even involved with Bergoglio whom Benedict knew would be elected if he were to be murdered. In other words Benedict kept control of the Mystical Body of Christ from the power of Satan, or if you will, the “gates of hell”.
He, Benedict, also made it possible to expose the enemies of God who were ensconced within the bosom of the Church, including the identity of those whom NO ONE COULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO KNOW OTHERWISE THAN THAT THEY WOULD EXPOSE THEMSELVES. This in itself is truly a grace for the Faithful. For it is much easier to do battle with the enemy when one knows who and where he is.
Furthermore, as Matthew states in 18: 1 – 10, PRECISELY when he speaks about scandalizing “one of these little ones”, “Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that SCANDALS COME: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh”.
Christ Himself became scandal to the Jews and was crucified, and so it must be with the Mystical Body, and the Vicar of Christ, Benedict, is suffering as well from that scandal in reparation for such horrible crimes, but is also STRENGTHENING THE FAITHFUL THROUGH HIS PRAYER, PENANCE AND SACRIFICE, his sacrifice most probably being the Holy Father being martyred atop that mountain where he is killed by arrows and bullets.
May all the Faithful, who today experience so much pain, anguish, hurt and anger pray for Benedict and Holy Mother Church and ask for the grace to face martyrdom, if necessary, for we are at the point where each one, Catholic or not, must make the decision to be WITH Christ or AGAINST Him. Bergoglio will not step down, because Soros and the One Worlders have him as their “chosen” one and they will come to his rescue, first with the press and then with armies.
Dr. de Mattei wrote an excellent article posted on the Rorate Caeli webside where he says: “«Le cléricalisme, voilà l’ennemi!». “Behold the enemy – clericalism,” The famous phrase pronounced on May 4th 1876 in the French Chamber of Deputies by Léon Gambetta (1838-1882), leading exponent of The Grand Orient of France, could easily have been made Pope Francis.” And that expression is being repeated by the enemy around the world.
Then, on the plane flight home from Ireland words which are again echoed around the world were reported: “‘It’s an act of faith,’ …….. ‘When time has passed, and you have the conclusions, maybe I will say some more. But I want for your professional maturity to do the job,” adding, “It will be good for you.’”
“It will be good for you” is nothing short of a warning that the media had better do their job, OR ELSE. Be ready dear friends. God bless and Our Lady protect you all. Father Belland
With respect Father, what Benedict DID was to pave the way for Francis to wreak havoc, heresy, and evil on Holy Mother Church and causing the damnation of millions of souls as foretold by Our Blessed Lady.
* The St Gallen Mafia and their machinations in rigging Francis’ election was an open secret
* Francis has promoted and surrounded himself with know Sodomites as counsellors, advisers and leaders of various dicasteries
* Francis has openly reviled true holy priests and Prelates; and traditional Catholics.
*He fired ALL pro-life members of the Vatican life and family groups and installed Soros SGD atheists
* He signed up with the Soros backed SGD 2030 project for world population control which focuses on contraception, abortion and euthanasia specifically
* He openly stated the humanist heresy that “God couldn’t exist without MAN”.
And this is the tip of the Bergoglian iceberg. So I ask with humility – how in the name of God and His Blessed Mother is this in any way, shape or form GOOD?
“Thoughtful readers might consider the extraordinary level of irrational rage and monomania it must take for these to seem like logical reactions to the situation at hand.”
No Herve or whoever you are .There is no rage here .Simply a quest for the truth. Sorry Hervey but the laity appears to have been played for a very long time.
I remember when Evaristo held Lucia’s hand to bring her up to the stage to meet P P 6th. They walked along the left side of the audience he, holding her hand high . SHE was weeping and people all wondered why. No big smiles on her face as she whispered to the Pope. Allegedly she wanted to speak to him in private but he told her to just speak to her Bishop. Don’t we have a right to be told the truth?
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/
Archbishop Vigano is one of the few men in the Catholic Church today who has proved that he’s willing to stand up and be counted. The man is well-known in Rome for having ALWAYS been against the Sodomite infested Sect within the Church whose members have been elevated and promoted to the Vatican Elite Club by Francis.
Within hours of Vigano’s bombshell the Vatican / BBC / NYT went into “Smear mode” and made the false and malicious statement that Vigano had a personal axe to grind because HE covered up clerical sexual abuse.
Vigano responded immediately with written, recorded proof that he did NOT cover up any abuse – he fought it!
Sadly, the Francis apologists on here compound the abuse of clerical sexual abuse victims by USING them against a good and holy man who swore a public oath before God that what he said was true.
At 77 he rightly stated that he doesn’t care what people say as long as he can stand before God and say with perfect faith, hope and truth that he did everything he could to honor his priesthood and Christ the King.
I’m disappoinbted in you Sweep. That comment is unworthy of your usual honesty. HOW can you say Vigano is after power, control and money? Vigano is 77 and retired???? What control or power could he possibly HAVE? As for money – as a retired Prelate all his needs are provided for.
My God, we’ve really sunk to new lows if we look for naïve and juvenile malice to destroy someone who has exhibited courage and integrity when the Church desperately needs the TRUTH about these satanic Sodomites.
To damn Vigano is to spit in the face of every single abuse victim. And I am not being emotive – I am coldly disgusted at the lack of integrity here.
Dear dbelland,
Firstly, I was writing to Melanie. Thus, as you choose to respond, the reality as truth, is that you freely choose to partake in the realm of “intrigue”, that which the true, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has always admonished as sinful, as there is precious nothing new under the sun. The Truth of Holy Mother Church speaks simply, without cover, without error, thus without intrigue and deceit, which is the work of the diabolical, to create the appearance of complexity, and as thus to instill despair, consequent to a perceived inability to understand, “that which is just too complex for me to understand as a simple man”. There is no surprise in this partaking of yours’ though, in the realm of intrigue, as you freely assent to the false church, the church of the Antichrist, as it teaches a false gospel, and it does so in the definite realm of objective reality. That reality which we are compelled to know, therefore, and with the pain of spending our eternity in Hell. I will not partake in your conundrum, as the wellspring for your conundrum is the false church.
Lumen Gentium 16, “SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964” (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html), is the most utterly blasphemous, as heretical language, one might imagine, as it tacitly denies the Credo, as it denies the Blessed Triune Godhead as the One True God, as it denies thus the divinity of Jesus the Christ. This is not, as it simply cannot be, the teaching of the One True Church, as “Solemnly Promulgated”, by a true Vicar of Christ Jesus. Again, we know this simply as it was definitively defined at the true Vatican Council in its 4th and final session, 1870, 18 July, whereby it deemed infallibly, that Peter and his Successors can never lose their personal faith. As heresy is in opposition to faith, those who assent to that which is in opposition to the faith, have lost their faith, as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect, period and end. A man who has lost his personal faith simply cannot be a true Vicar of Christ, as the Vatican Council defined. Therefore, all those men who call themselves “pope”, since the death of Pius XII in 1958, simply cannot be the Holy Roman Pontiff as the Vicar of Christ in this world, as the Vatican Council infallibly as definitively taught in July, 1870, period and end. The so called “R&R” crowd simply ignores this definitive teaching of the Council, at their own eternal peril, regarding the protection by the Holy Ghost of His true Vicar from ever loosing his personal faith, as they must, to proffer their perverse argument that “only a Council, perfect or imperfect, can depose a Pope”, while in truth, NO ONE deposes a true Pontiff, as he has no peer on this earth. There can simply be then, no question at all in the objective realm, that all of these men were false popes, as they all assented/assent to a “solemnly promulgated” document which blasphemes the Credo, the Blessed Trinity as the One True God, and blasphemes Jesus the Christ thus, in His divinity. What did Christ Jesus our Lord command about this: He who denies Me, denies the One Who sent Me; and He who denies Me, I will deny before My Father. Thus, the Mohammedan as Mohammedan goes to Hell, period and end, while at once, the so called “Second Vatican Council”, blasphemes Almighty God, claiming that, “Mohammadens, together with us [Catholics], adore the One and Merciful God.”, and as thus, those that adhere to the church which proffers this blasphemous lie as truth, are also with the Mohammedans, outside the Church, where there is no salvation, whether they know it or not. False church, false pope, false religion, false faith, false exegesis, false catechesis, false sacraments. Thus, your prefix is Mr. or Dr. but it cannot be, “Father”. I fervently pray this helps. In caritas.
I was under the assumption there is no more public revelations since the death of the last Apostle.
A much simpler explanation is that Pius XII was the last true Pope. The crazier the conciliar church gets, the more convoluted the explanations become.
Hello TomA,
Actually, the truth is always simple. Lumen Gentium 16 is heresy. Heresy is in opposition to faith. The true Vatican Council definitively taught in July, 1870, and therefore this teaching can NEVER again be debated by anyone, if they freely will to hold the true Faith and not fall into heresy themselves, or in the overwhelming majority of cases the world over, remain in heresy, that the Holy Roman Pontiff can NEVER lose his personal faith, period and end. Because all of the men who call themselves, “pope”, since and including Roncalli, give their willful assent to Vatican II, thus to heretical teaching, they simply CANNOT be true Popes, thus they are false popes, and thus the church they assent to is false, not “conciliar” but FALSE, to be perfectly clear. The true Church cannot both be the true Church and not be the true Church (and thus be the false church), at the same time, as that defies being as being (law of non-contradiction). So please tell us TomA, what is it that is so hard about this reality as truth to understand and then willfully assent to?
What you simply fail to recognize TomA, is that simply because you say this, “A much simpler explanation is that Pius XII was the last true Pope.”, it isn’t necessary reality as truth, unless you can prove it, using not your own power of reasoning in isolation but through the use of the Holy as authoritative and definitive teaching of the authentic Magisterium, always and everywhere infallible unto the end. I pray this helps. In caritas.
GSF, No i did not say Vigano is after power and money rather Opus Dei does.
As for Vigano there are a few possible scenarios.
He is doing the bidding of Opus Dei.
He is guilty and is putting out his defense first in case of a Fed Rico investigation which Shapiro has also stated may happen as he claims he was contacted by the US Justice Dept about exactly that. And or ,he has an excuse to go into hiding now. i.e, fear of retribution from the HX network in the Church or fear of being supoened in a Federal Rico investigation.
My point was to illustrate the complex scenarios devised by those who must twist reality in order to profess how a true Pope and true Church can promulgate heresy (such as Lumen Gentium). When often, it is the simpler solution that is true. In this case, the simple solution is that these evil heresies are not the product of Holy Mother Church. In fact, to say these evil heresies are products of Holy Mother Church is a heresy itself.
Whatever Vignano’s motives are, he is still trying to prop up a false concliar religion passing itself off as the Catholic Church.
In caritas: “Again, we know this simply as it was definitively defined at the true Vatican Council in its 4th and final session, 1870, 18 July, whereby it deemed infallibly, that Peter and his Successors can never lose their personal faith.”
–
Vatican I taught no such thing. The unfailing faith of Peter means a Successor of Peter cannot err when he exercises Peter’s office by defining a doctrine to be held by the entire Church. Nowhere did Vatican I teach that a pope is unable to lose his personal faith.
Dear TomA,
Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
Dear Ignatio,
You simply deny reality as Truth, whether you are ignorant of the authentic teaching of the Vatican Council or in spite of it, you deny. For your sake, find it here as quoted:
“6.For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was
embraced by all the venerable fathers and
reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,
for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples:
I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .
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. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.”
(http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm).
If you deny this Ignatio, may Almighty God have mercy on your soul. I fervently pray this helps. In caritas.
And when Benedict dies before Francis, Frdbelland’s “thesis” goes down the drain.
Dear In caritas,
Thank you for the ad hominem attack, for you don’t really attack my argument. But before I get into that I would like to mention a few things.
1. You don’t know Latin, for if you did you would call yourself In caritatem, or In caritate depending upon how you want to represent yourself and NOT In caritas. Caritas is the Nominative Case, but when the pronoun “in” is used, that pronoun takes either the Accusative or the Ablative case.
2. You complain about my having replied to you for what you addressed to Melanie, but I don’t give two hoots whether you were addressing your comment to Superman or Captain Kangaroo. The fact that you do complain makes me think that you were afraid to address your tirade to Fr. Belland directly. It that true?
3. You set yourself up as a Thomist when in fact you haven’t a clue about Thomistic teaching, that’s pride Mr. Caritas. And after I have given the proper meaning of a common good, you’re a coward again, for you will not attempt to refute what I said, but resort to an ad hominem attack.
4. Now what is one to think when you don’t know Latin, you are ignorant of the teaching of St. Thomas, you are a coward? How can you have any credibility when you pontificate as you do? How can anyone really put any confidence in your arguments.?
Since you say we have had no Popes since Pius XII, who died in 1958, what Bishop is living today who can claim to have been a Bishop at the time of Pius XII or has been consecrated by one having been consecrated in the reign of Pius XII? I don’t know who he or they may be, and if one is or they are still around where are they? I ask this because one of the qualities of the True Church is Visibility, and that consists of three elements: “the profession of the same Faith, the use of the same means of grace, and the subordination to the same authority” (Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine, Ott).
But if the lineage of Popes stops at Pius XII and the lineage of Bishops, if they even still exist, who claim some connection with Pius XII are nowhere to be seen or even known, where is the Church. There are those “Bishops”, who have been clandestinely consecrated and make a claim of being a traditional Catholic Bishop, running around everywhere. But, if they cannot trace any connection back to Pius XII, where is their jurisdiction? Where is their Mission? Furthermore, there is no unity among them; they each act as if they’re their one Pope. Even if they can claim valid sacraments, they’re not much different than the Church of Henry the VIII, who “convinced” all validly consecrated bishops but one bishop to join him. It seems to me that this would be what you describe as “that which is just too complex for me to understand as a simple man”. I certainly couldn’t grasp where the real Church is.
And given that others the likes of yourself are running around with no Latin background, no Theological or Canonical training, no Thomistic formation, and proclaiming that there’s a Church out there somewhere, I don’t understand how anyone with any common sense could follow such types. God bless, Father Belland
Dear Mr. (or Dr.) dbelland,
You simply deny the teaching of the Vatican Council in its 4th session, July, 1870, as you deny the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, promulgated in 1559, and the election law of Pope Pius XII in 1945, “Vacantis Apostolica Sedis”, while at once you fail to address the abominable as heretical blasphemy of the tacit denial of the Credo, the Blessed Triune nature of Almighty God, and the divinity of Jesus the Christ as “solemnly promulgated”, by the false pope as an enemy of Christ, Giovanni Batista Montini, in “Lumen Gentium”, November 21, 1964.
You freely assent to the denial of infallible Papal teaching, while you also assent to your own understanding of Church “visibility”. A theologian’s view of Church “visibility” is anything but infallible and thus you choose to deny infallible teaching as noted above and accept the “visible” Church opinion of theologians, writing in their particular time in history, whereas the infallible teaching of the authentic Vicar of Christ and his governing authority is timeless. Woe to you dbelland. Your ad hominem speaks as res ipsa loquitur, for all those with eyes which see. I made it patently as pristinely clear to you why I will not address your postulate, as it is a paradigmatic construction of yours, as you assent to the church of the Antichrist, as though it could possibly be the Church which Jesus the Christ, Son of the living God, commanded into being. As you place an affront to “being as being”, you accuse me of a lack of Thomistic foundation, as a classic ad hominem. I do pray this helps, for the purpose of your very salvation. In caritas.
In other words GSF, what Benedict did was do what a good, little Modernist would do…..help advance the Modernist scheme.
Dear In caritas,
You are quite mistaken. What you called a denial of reality is, in fact, the truth.
–
The portion of Pastor Aeternus you quoted is the lead up to the definition of Papal Infallibility, which is the immunity from error when defining a doctrine, ex cathedra, not the inability of a Pope to fall into personal heresy. This was explained to the Fathers of the First Vatican Council on July 11, 1870, one week prior to their vote on Papal Infallibility (see: Mansi, vol. 52, col. 1218).
–
The Pope enjoys the divine assistance promised to him by Christ – the “truth of never-failing faith” – when he exercises Peter’s office by defining a doctrine, ex cathedra. The charism of truth is attached to THE PAPAL OFFICE, and the privilege is enjoyed by the personal occupant of the office (the Pope) only when he exercises his supreme authority, as the teacher of all Christians, by defining a doctrine. ONLY THEN does the divine assistance prevent a Pope from erring, thereby keeping the See of Peter unblemished from any error, in accord with the promise of Christ. That is what the excerpts you quoted mean, as is evident by reading them in context to the end. See for yourself:
–
Pastor Aeternus: “6.For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, BY HIS ASSISTANCE, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that THIS SEE OF ST. PETER ALWAYS REMAINS UNBLEMISHED BY ANY ERROR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIVINE PROMISE of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
“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. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
.
“8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
.
“9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that WHEN THE ROMAN PONTIFF SPEAKS EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he DEFINES A DOCTRINE concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, HE POSSESSES, BY THE DIVINE ASSISTANCE PROMISED TO HIM IN BLESSED PETER, THAT INFALLIBILITY WHICH THE DIVINE REDEEMER WILLED HIS CHURCH TO ENJOY IN DEFINING DOCTRINE CONCERNING FAITH OR MORALS. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.” (Pastor Aeternus)
–
The Pope enjoys the divine assistance WHEN he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. That is when the promise of unfailing faith prevents him from erring, and that is when the See of St. Peter remains unblemished by any error.
–
Nowhere does Vatican I teach that the unfailing faith of Peter will prevent a pope from falling into personal heresy, which is one of the countless errors professed by members of your heretical sede-vacantist sect,. Any approved commentary will prove that what I have written is correct, and what you and your fellow heretics assert is entirely false. I will provide one of MANY quotations to support my interpretation.
–
The following is taken from De Religione et Ecclesiam (1905), by Cardinal Mazzella, who was personally appointed to fill the chair of theology at the Gregorian by Pope Leo XIII, in the years following the Council. Who better to provide the correct interpretation of Vatican I?
–
Cardinal Mazzella: “It is one thing that the Roman Pontiff cannot teach a heresy when speaking ex cathedra (what the council of the Vatican defined); and it is another thing that he cannot fall into heresy, that is become a heretic as a private person. ON THIS LAST QUESTION THE COUNCIL SAID NOTHING; and the theologians and canonists are not in agreement among themselves concerning it.” (De Religione et Ecclesiam (1905)
–
“On this last question the council said nothing”.
–
Now, will you have the humility to admit that you were wrong in your interpretation of Vatican I, or will you persist in your error and accuse the great Cardinal Mazzella of denying reality? I fervently pray this helps. Ignatio.
I have no idea why you randomly included this garbage link to “RadTradThomist” in your reply, but I do need to thank you for the laughs.
That you cannot recognize a blatant scam and have clearly sent the fraud Chojnowski your money is lamentable. It also speaks to your credibility.
The very first blogpost talks of Photoshopping in Sister Lucia, but a quick look at the people and elements in the background shows the two pictures are taken from different angles and elevations, and at different times.
Chojfraudski quotes a plastic surgeon (unnamed, of course, as are all the “experts” he claims to have hired with your money) to back up a claim that even a freshman graphic designer would find ludicrous. How a person (again, of course, unnamed) who earns his keep embiggening bosoms and pruning probosci is qualified to make pronouncements on ancient photographs is beyond me.
So when you talk about a “quest for the truth”, please remember where you’ve send your dollars and spare the rest of us your sanctimonious blather.
Dear Ignatio,
Your zeal for the ad hominem and not the argument shines forth as you had this to say,
“Nowhere does Vatican I teach that the unfailing faith of Peter will prevent a pope from falling into personal heresy, which is one of the countless errors professed by members of your heretical sede-vacantist sect,. Any approved commentary will prove that what I have written is correct, and what you and your fellow heretics assert is entirely false. I will provide one of MANY quotations to support my interpretation.”
You claim that I am an heretic, while I fully reject the heresy “solemnly promulgated” by the false pope, “Paul VI”, as “Vatican II” and as in “Lumen Gentium”, on November 21, 1964, knowing with certitude that such opposition to the Faith, as heresy, cannot at the same time, not be heresy, and be in concordance with that same Faith. That is a metaphysical absurdity, as it places an affront to the law of non-contradiction, which therefore cannot have being as being and yet you assent to it Ignatio and you hurl the accusation of heresy upon me. As you affirm “Vatican II” as being a Council of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, you dear Ignatio are in apostasy and you don’t even know it. Yet you, as all of the rest of us miserable human creatures, have no excuse, period and end. Because Lumen Gentium, “solemnly promulgates” heresy at paragraph 16, as the most blasphemous of the heresies, it simply cannot be a Council of the One True Church established by the Son of God and yet you give your free assent to it Ignatio, while at once in a typical ad hominem screed, you hurl that condemnation at me. Poor, poor Ignatio. Almighty God simply cannot bind His Church to heresy Ignatio, period and end.
And again as is typical for those who hurl the accusation of heresy, when they themselves are in actual apostasy, at those who actually fully reject heresy, you site a fallible theologian as Cardinal and you parse what he said and to quote you, quoting him:
‘ “On this last question the council said nothing”.’
When in truth, he actually said, and to copy and paste from your response:
‘ “ON THIS LAST QUESTION THE COUNCIL SAID NOTHING; and the theologians and canonists are not in agreement among themselves concerning it.” ‘.
You see Ignatio, that tactic is typical of the one whose primary weapon is the ad hominem attack of the character of the other, as your argument is false. How do I know with certitude that it is false? I will provide an infallible teaching and not that of a merely fallible theologian, as the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, promulgated some 311 years before the Vatican Council defined the reality as Truth that a true holy Roman Pontiff, as the Vicar of Christ, can never lose his personal faith. Find it here: http://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm.
As you read Cum Ex…., you will see that Pope Paul IV infallibly taught that even if the Pope, is at any time discovered to have been in heresy, PRIOR TO his elevation to the Chair of Saint Peter, his elevation NEVER occurred as null and void, regardless of receiving universal acceptance by all the Cardinals and by all writ large. You will find this language and much more in paragraph 6. No authority shall have been granted to the purported Pontiff in the spiritual or temporal domain, period and end.
Finally then Ignatio, if Paul IV would have believed, which in truth he could not have believed, as he and his Successors can NEVER lose their personal faith, that a true Holy Roman Pontiff could lose his personal faith, he would have said so. I do fervently pray this helps, as your eternal salvation is in the balance. In caritas.
You seem to imply that this is a question of whether Bp Vigano knew or believed the charges were true, when in fact, it is really a question of whether the Randy Engel story is accurate in reporting that Vigano stopped the investigation and asked that evidence be destroyed. I appreciate that you are a devoted fan, but I am only asking her and Louis, in all charity, if that claim could have been falsely and maliciously made to use Mrs. Engel’s credentials and reputation in service to the cause of protecting our corrupted “pope” and hierarchy by discrediting Vigano before his bombshell exploded.
Your zeal in defense of Randy Engel is wasted on me. I have no desire to attack or repudiate her. But I would ask that she review her sources and be certain of the facts. If she is mistaken, even through no fault of her own, justice demands that Vigano be vindicated.
Thanks for that. I’m inclined to agree with you.
How so? His letter tears away all plausible deniability from the stinking papal dung heap. Vigano’s detractors seem irrationally malicious toward him. I can’t for the life of me figure out why. We should all be far more cautious in these times, and wait for all the facts to come out.
The only “guilt” Vigano could have in this narrative is in shutting down the investigation and covering it up. That’s what he’s being accused of. But look who made the accusation! The NY Times. And the “evidence” for this is a certain NO priest who wasn’t even present!
Everyone needs to breathe and wait for the truth to reveal itself. There is far too much jumping to conclusions here.
Oh wow you’re right! I never caught that. Thanks for pointing it out.
Un Caritas: “… you site a fallible theologian as Cardinal and you parse what he said and to quote you, quoting him: ‘On this last question the council said nothing.’ When in truth, he actually said, and to copy and paste from your response: ‘ON THIS LAST QUESTION THE COUNCIL SAID NOTHING; and the theologians and canonists are not in agreement among themselves concerning it.’ You see Ignatio, that tactic is typical of the one whose primary weapon is the ad hominem attack of the character of the other, as your argument is false.”
–
This tactic? I quoted everything you did, and simply re-quoted the pertinent sentence. But what you seemed to have missed is that if Vatican I had defined that a pope is unable to fall into personal heresy, “the theologians and canonists” would no longer be in disagreement “among themselves concerning it.” The reason they remained in disagreement is precisely because “the Council said nothing” about it.
–
Un Caritas: “Pope Paul IV infallibly taught that even if the Pope, is at any time discovered to have been in heresy, PRIOR TO his elevation to the Chair of Saint Peter, his elevation NEVER occurred as null and void…”
–
We’re not talking about pre-election heresy. The question is whether Vatican I taught that a pope is unable to lose his personal faith.
–
Un caritas: “Finally then Ignatio, if Paul IV would have believed, which in truth he could not have believed, as he and his Successors can NEVER lose their personal faith, that a true Holy Roman Pontiff could lose his personal faith, HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO.”
–
You attempt to justify your erroneous interpretation of Vatican by referring to what Paul IV DID NOT SAY, thee centuries earlier? Is that the best you can do? What about what Pope Innocent III DID SAY:
–
Pope Innocent III: “For faith is so necessary for me that, while for other sins I have only God as my judge, only for that sin which is committed against faith could I be judged by the Church.”
–
If Pope Innocent III believed he was unable to lose his personal faith, his comment would have been deceptive, since it implies that he can.
–
The fact of the matter is that Vatican I did not teach that a pope is unable to lose his personal faith. It only taught that a pope is unable to err when he teaches ex cathedra. If you spent more time studying Catholic doctrine and less time pontificating, you would know this. In fact, the title of chapter four of Pastor Aeternus was changed from ‘On the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff,’ to ‘On the Infallibility of the TEACHING OFFICE of the Roman Pontiff,’ for the express purpose of excluding the notion that a pope is personally infallible. Here is what Cardinal Manning wrote concerning this:
–
Cardinal Manning, The True Story of the Vatican Council: “We have seen that its title was changed from De Romani Pontificis Infallibilitate (On the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff) to De Romani Pontificis Infallibili Magisterio (On the Infallible Teaching Office of the Roman Pontiff). The reason of this change was not only for greater accuracy, BUT BECAUSE EVEN THE TITLE OF THE DECREE EXCLUDES AT ONCE THE FIGMENT OF A PERSONAL INFALLIBILITY. This, as it is imputed to the supporters of the definition, is a fable. (…) The assistance of INFALLIBLE GUIDANCE IS ATTACHED TO THE MAGISTERIUM OR TEACHING OFFICE, and the magisterium is contained in the primacy. THE INFALLIBILITY IS THEREFORE ATTACHED TO THE PRIMACY. IT IS NOT A QUALITY INHERENT IN THE PERSON, but an assistance inseparable from the office. IT IS THEREFORE NOT PERSONAL, but official.”
–
Did you catch that? Infallibility is attached to the teaching office, it is not a quality inherent in the person. It is enjoyed by the person of the Pope only when he exercises his teaching office by defining a doctrine.
–
And as Cardinal Manning alluded to above (‘as it is imputed to the supporters of the definition’), it was the heretics who rejected the dogma of papal infallibility who falsely CLAIMED Vatican I taught that a pope could not lose his personal faith, just as you and your fellow heretics do today. This false accusation of your forefathers was repeatedly refuted by the Catholic theologians in the years following the Council. Cardinal Manning comments on this again a little later in the same book:
Cardinal Manning: “The decree then assigns the reason of the definition. It says: ‘In these days, when the effectual authority of the apostolic office is especially needed, there are not a few who diminish it and speak against it. Therefore, because it is a divine truth, and because it has been contradicted and denied, we judge it to be altogether necessary to declare with all solemnity the prerogative which the Divine Founder of the Church has seen fit to unite with the supreme pastoral office.’ IT SEEMS HARDLY CREDIBLE THAT MEN WITH THESE WORDS BEFORE THEIR EYES SHOULD IMPUTE TO THE VATICAN COUNCIL THE DOCTRINE OF PERSONAL INFALLIBILITY, THAT IS, OF INFALLIBILITY INHERING IN THE PERSON.”
–
The divine assistance promised to the Pope by Christ only prevents him from erring when he defines a doctrine. That’s what Vatican I defined. Infallibility is only ‘personal’ in the sense that it is exercised by the person who fills the papal office, when he teaches ex cathedra. It is not personal in the sense that it adheres in the person and prevents him from losing his faith, or from teaching heresy when he is not exercising the papal office by defining a doctrine. As I mentioned in the previous post, all of this was explained to the council fathers before they voted on the dogma, and it is confirmed by all the theological manuals published after the council.
.
It will be interesting to see if continue to persist in your error, or if you will have the humility to admit that you’ve been wrong. My guess is that you will choose the former.
Dear Ignatio,
Poor, poor Ignatio, you continue to believe that which you choose to believe, a religion in your own likeness and image, but not one founded in the true Catholic Faith. It is an utter absurdity to suggest that the Holy Roman Pontiff can lose his personal faith, while at one and the same time, protecting the deposit of Faith from any iota of error, as that which his own faith depends upon as its wellspring, the One True Faith, as if he could protect that which he himself had already lost. This, a pious 12 year old must know to save his own soul and you Ignatio, deny it. Now we will touch upon the metaphysics and philosophical psychology to help you understand reality as truth in lieu of your reality as deception.
You quote Cardinal Manning Ignatio and you don’t even properly comprehend what it is that he is saying. He says nothing there about so called, “ex-Cathedra” infallibility. You quote him writing this, as I copied and pasted:
‘ “IT SEEMS HARDLY CREDIBLE THAT MEN WITH THESE WORDS BEFORE THEIR EYES SHOULD IMPUTE TO THE VATICAN COUNCIL THE DOCTRINE OF PERSONAL INFALLIBILITY, THAT IS, OF INFALLIBILITY INHERING IN THE PERSON.” ‘
Cardinal Manning is speaking to the reality as truth that the infallible charism given the Successor of Saint Peter is present in the metaphysical form of the Papacy, which is the Chair of Saint Peter as the Vicar of Christ. The metaphysical matter is the man who freely assents into the Chair of Saint Peter, knowing fully that he has freely chosen to be protected by the Holy Ghost then from every losing his personal faith. The man, as Holy Roman Pontiff, is then protected from ever losing his personal faith, as the charism is given him in the Chair of Saint Peter as the Vicar of Christ. The individual “man”, as the metaphysical matter of the Papacy, was not protected from losing his personal faith in his person, until he is freely joined to the Chair of Saint Peter, which is the metaphysical form of the Vicar of Christ and it is this form of the Papacy thus, which carries the divine protection. You see Ignatio, “man”, as metaphysically constituted, is both body and soul, corpus and person. The corpus is never, as it can never be, separated from the person, until death, when the man dies and the person lives on unto eternity and receives his personal judgment. As this separation cannot occur until death, when the man as an individual, freely assents to the Chair of Saint Peter, his person (his soul which contains the operations of the intellect and will) then receives the charism of protection inherent in the metaphysical office of the Papacy, because his person is inseparable from his individuality as man until death, period and end.
When Cardinal Manning says that the charism of infallibility DOES NOT INHERE in the “person”, he is of course correct, as a pious 12 year old must know when it is explained to him, because if the charism of infallibility did “inhere” in the “person” of the man who freely assented to the Chair of Saint Peter, the charism would then die with that one individual man, and thus it would have died with Blessed Peter the Apostle and the Church would have failed after the death of Peter. The charism of infallibility inheres in the metaphysical form of the Papacy, in the Chair of Saint Peter, and when the man as an individual freely assents to it, he then becomes the matter of the Chair of Saint Peter, and together with the form of the Papacy, the “being” of the Vicar of Christ is then created by Almighty God with the gift of the charism of infallibility now joined to the person of the man who freely assented, as the person is inseparable from the man until death. If you deny this, you deny the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas in his metaphysics and philosophical psychology and as Saint Pope Pius X taught, you place yourself in grave danger of error, as you are in profound error as existentially understood and this to be known as res ipsa loquitur. Let this be a warning to you Ignatio. Isn’t it interesting that the one who continues to hurl the ad hominem in the form of the question of humility on my part, is actually the one who is indeed utterly prideful. I do pray this helps, as your very salvation hangs in the balance, as outside the One True Church, there is no salvation, deFide. In caritas.
Mr. Belland: Please explain how it is possible that Benedict is Pope when he is himself a public heretic, prior to and during his “papacy”. After all and for one, he, too, gathered to pray with false religions just as did JPII.
Ignatio: It is a fact that Papal infallibility also extends to the Ordinary Teaching Magisterium of the Church. We can’t be required by the Church to submit to the Pope in order to be Catholic, and then have to decide for ourselves whether or not he’s teaching truth or error because, well, it wasn’t ex cathedra. Good little children don’t question, they obey.
Mr. Belland:
In Caritas may or may not be as “uneducated” as you suggest, however, let me remind you that God reveals His Truths to the little ones, and hides it from the learned and the wise (Mt 11:25).
Furthermore, with respect to the Apostolic line of succession, do you dare to say that God – the Creator and ruler of all that exists – could not possibly sustain a valid bishop consecrated by Pope Pius XII to this very day? That even a young bishop of 35 could not possibly be still living today at 95 years of age? If so, how is that not an utterly arrogant and prideful assertion?
I draw your attention to the Apparition of Knock, Ireland. St. John appeared wearing a bishop’s mitre. Never before have we seen an Apostle depicted wearing a mitre. Now turn to St John’s Gospel, chapter 21, verses 20-23, and then tell me how it is that Christ could not so arrange things as to provide and preserve the (valid) Apostolic Succession in His Church?
Un Caritas,
It’s clear that you’ve never studied Catholic doctrine on papal infallibility, which explains why you’ve been unable to quote a single authority to support your interpretation of Vatican I. The only thing you got right is that the pope is the “matter” of the pontificate, but being the matter of the pontificate does not make the Pope personally infallible.
The pope is also the ordinary of the diocese of Rome, the Primate of Italy, the Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, and the Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, YET HE IS NOT INFALLIBLE WHEN HE ACTS IN ANY OF THESE LESSER CAPACITIES. He is infallible only when he acts in his official capacity AS POPE, and even then he must use his authority as teacher of all Christians at its maximum power by defining doctrine, ex cathedra, according to the conditions defined by Vatican I. Only then is he preserved from error.
Since you have clearly never studied this doctrine, I will provide a lengthy quotation from Msgr. Van Noort so you can see what the Church teaches.
–
Van Noort: “The conditions for papal infallibility are summed up in the words: ‘when he speaks ex cathedra.’ A throne (cathedra-chair-judicial bench) is normally a symbol of authority and particularly of doctrinal authority. The consecrated formulae: ‘to speak ex cathedra,’ or ‘an ex cathedra definition’ were in use in theological schools long before the Vatican Council. They designated THE FULL EXERCISE OF THE PAPAL MAGISTERIUM. The Vatican Council, however, added this precise explanation: ‘that is: when exercising his office of supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, that some doctrine on faith or morals must be held by the universal Church.’
“Keeping in mind, then, what has already been explained in discussing the object of infallibility (see nos. 85-96), ‘to speak ex cathedra’ signifies two things: (a) the pope is actually making use of his papal office – of supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians; (b) the pope is using his papal authority AT ITS MAXIMUM POWER. Both these facts must be made known clearly and indisputably. (…)
“In reference to point a: A man holding public office does not always act in his official capacity. Again, if the same person holds several offices simultaneously, he does not have to be constantly exercising his highest function. WE MUST KEEP THESE POINTS IN MIND WHEN DISCUSSING THE POPE’S INFALLIBILITY, FOR HE FULFILLS SEVERAL POSITIONS SIMULTANEOUSLY. He is not only the pope of the whole Catholic Church, he is also the local bishop of the diocese of Rome, metropolitan of its surrounding sees, and temporal sovereign of the Vatican state. Consequently, IF THE POPE SPEAKS MERELY AS a private individual, or as a private theologian, or as a temporal sovereign, or precisely as ORDINARY OF THE DIOCESE OF ROME, OR PRECISELY AS METROPOLITAN OF THE PROVINCE OF ROME, HE SHOULD NOT BE LOOKED ON AS ACTING INFALLIBLY. He may, for example, as a private individual air his private views – political, economic, or spiritual. As a private theologian he might write a book on some aspects of the spiritual life. As temporal sovereign of the Vatican state, he might issue decrees on taxes, or economic reform, or might set up a law granting religious liberty to non-Catholic worship in return for territory restored to himself and so on. Speaking precisely as ordinary of the diocese of Rome he might give a series of instructions or a retreat to the people of some definite parish in the city.
“WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR AN INFALLIBLE DECLARATION, THEREFORE, IS THAT THE POPE BE ACTING PRECISELY AS POPE; that is, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians so that his decision looks to the universal Church and is given for the sake of the universal Church. (…)
“With reference to point b: – A MAN WHO ACTS IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY DOES NOT ALWAYS MAKE USE OF HIS FULL POWER, OF THE WHOLE WEIGHT OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH HE POSSESSES BY HIS VERY POSITION. A president may, for example, disagree with a bill of Congress, and express his disapproval and yet not take the step of vetoing the bill. Thus the pope, even acting as pope, can teach the universal Church without making use of his supreme authority at its maximum power. NOW THE VATICAN COUNCIL DEFINED MERELY THIS POINT: THE POPE IS INFALLIBLE IF HE USES HIS DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY AT ITS MAXIMUM POWER, by handing down a binding and definitive decision: such a decision, for example, by which he quite clearly intends to bind all Catholics to an absolutely firm and irrevocable assent.
“Consequently EVEN IF THE POPE, AND ACTING AS POPE, PRAISES SOME DOCTRINE, OR RECOMMENDS IT TO CHRISTIANS, OR EVEN ORDERS THAT IT ALONE SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS, THIS ACT SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE CONSIDERED AN INFALLIBLE DECREE since he may not intend to hand down a definitive decision. (…) For the same reason, namely a lack of intention to hand down a final decision, not all the doctrinal decisions which the pope proposes in encyclical letters should be considered definitions. In a word, there must always be present and clearly present the intention of the pope to hand down a decision which is final and definitive.” (Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, Christ’s Church).
–
What you have just read is the Catholic doctrine on papal infallibility. If the Pope were “personally” infallible when not defining a doctrine, as you claim, he would be unable to err at any time – not just when he exercises the papal office as teacher of all Christians, at its maximum power, by defining a doctrine – yet he is not.
This also proves that being the “matter” of the pontificate is not what renders the pope infallible, since he remains the matter of the pontificate when he teaches as a private person, or in his official capacity as the ordinary of the diocese of Rome, or as the metropolitan of the province of Rome. Yet in none of these capacities does infallibility prevented him from falling into heresy, as Fr. E. Sylvester Berry explains:
–
“The [First Vatican] Council declared the Roman Pontiff personally infallible when speaking officially as head of the universal Church, BUT LEFT UNTOUCHED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE POPE IN HIS PRIVATE CAPACITY, OR IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS BISHOP, PRIMATE OR PATRIARCH, CAN FALL INTO HERESY OR TEACH HERESY. Some theologians maintain that he can. Straub cites Hadrian II and Innocent III as favoring this opinion.” (The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, 1955, p. 273).
–
I truly hope you will find the humility to renounce your error and accept the Catholic doctrine presented above.
A Simple Bear: “Ignatio: It is a fact that Papal infallibility also extends to the Ordinary Teaching Magisterium of the Church.”
–
The Pope is only preserved from erring when he defines a doctrine, ex cathedra, according to the conditions defined by Vatican I. The infallibility of the ordinary magisterium is an entirely different issue, AND IT DOES NOT PREVENT A POPE FROM ERRING.
If you want to discuss this doctrine, you will need to begin by providing an authoritative citation to support your position so I can comment on it. It would take too long for me to explain the doctrine without you doing so. Any pre-Vatican II book with an imprimatur will suffice.
Ignaramous: (just kidding – maybe?)
If a Pope is not protected from teaching error, then he’s no better than you or me. What a bunch of popular hogwash and wishful thinking.
For one:
Humani Generis:
“NOR must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does NOT of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say,
“He who heareth you, heareth Me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.”
For another:
The Church Speaks to the Modern World
. Social Teachings
-Pope Leo XIII. Edited by Etienne Gilson -1954: 8
“The primary object of an Encyclical is not to define the dogma, that is, the faith, of the Catholic Church. To do so is the proper object of what is technically called the “extraordinary magisterial teaching of the Church.” This “extraordinary” teaching enjoys, in each and every one of its parts, without ANY RESERVATION, the grace of INFALLIBILITY. This grace belongs to the so-called “ecumenical councils,” that is, to councils representing the whole Christian world and, consequently, the preaching of the whole Catholic Church; but, following a decision of the Vatican Council (Session IV, Const. Pater aeternus), the same grace of infallibility also belongs to the pronouncements of the Pope when, speaking in his capacity as pastor and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he declares that a certain doctrine concerning faith or moral conduct should be held as true by the whole Church. Such infallible pronouncements, therefore, are FINAL and IRREFORMABLE by themselves, and not by virtue of the consent of the Church.
The proper object of the “ordinary” teaching of the Church, as given by bishops to their own diocesans and by the Bishop of Rome, that is, the Pope, to all the faithful, is to diffuse this infallible teaching of the Church, to defend it if necessary, and to apply it to some particularly important problems of the day as they arise in social and political life. The Encyclical letters are the USUAL means by which the Popes exercise this definite teaching function.
These letters are the HIGHEST EXPRESSION of the ORDINARY teaching of the Church. To the extent that they restate the INFALLIBLE teachings of the Church, the pronouncements of the ENCYCLICAL LETTERS ARE THEMSELVES INFALLIBLE.
Moreover, while explaining and developing such infallible teachings, or while using them as a sure criterion in the condemnation of errors, or even while striving to solve the social, economic, and political problems of the day in the light of these infallible teachings, the Popes enjoy the special ASSISTANCE of the Holy Ghost, a higher guidance in which the supernatural gift of prudence plays a decisive part.
This is to say, the teachings of the Popes, as found in their Encyclical Letters, can by NO MEANS be considered as expressing MERE OPINIONS which ANYONE is FREE to hold or to reject at will.
Even though they may NOT BE BINDING as to faith in ALL their parts, the teachings of an encyclical are ALL DIRECTLY related to FAITH by the SUPREME teaching authority of the Church with the special assistance of the Holy Ghost.
There is ALWAYS GRAVE TEMERITY in NOT ACCEPTING THE TEACHING OF AN ENCYCLICAL ON ANY ONE OF THE POINTS IT TOUCHES.”
Ignatio:
And furthermore, this statement contradicts itself. Perhaps you’re tired:
The infallibility of the ordinary magisterium is an entirely different issue, AND IT DOES NOT PREVENT A POPE FROM ERRING.
Dear Ignatio,
Poor, poor Ignatio (?aka J. Peters, who also could never formulate his own argument properly, using the opinions of theologians, blinded in personal pride, while at once hurling the ad hominem of pride onto the other). It is now patently clear that you have no true zeal for Truth, rather your zeal is for your blinded argument, using the fallible opinions of mere theologians, men who have no more immanent authority in the Magisterium of the Church than any layman, unless a true Pontiff assimilates their ideology into his own, as well as your having no fundamental understanding of matter and form, potency and act, as inseparably rooted in Thomistic epistemological metaphysics, as properly understood. You spoke of the “matter” of the Papacy but not the “form”, as though it doesn’t exist, because it suits your position. Matter and form do not in and of themselves have being Ignatio, rather they are the pre-determinates of being known by Almighty God alone.
You simply continue to insist on the conflation of the two distinct charisms (gifts), one of “infallibility” and the other of the “gift of truth and never failing faith” , as definitively taught, by the only Vatican Council in 1870. “Infallibility” is not “never failing faith” Ignatio, as one speaks to a charism granted to the Vicar of Christ in his teaching authority and the other speaks to his PERSON, as never loosing his PERSONal faith, period and end, as the Council definitively taught and therefore it is no longer open to debate. What it does not speak to, as I already attempted to help you understand, is that while this charism of never losing his personal faith, does not “inhere” in his person, it is ontologically bound to his person, as the individual man (corpus and person, aka: body and soul) is the metaphysical matter of the Papacy. Whether you understand this or not, reject it or not, is immaterial to the reality that it simply is. To conflate “infallibility” with “the gift of truth and never failing faith” is an ontological absurdity as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect. The “respect” of each of these charisms is ontologically distinct and this a pious 12 year old could properly understand; one in the respect of the teaching authority of the Pope and the other, in the respect of the personal faith of the Pope. It is patently absurd to suggest that these charisms are one and the same reality, period and end. Once again poor Ignatio, as the one who never ceases in hurling the ad hominem of lack of humility onto the other, you are utterly self righteous in your conflation, which places a literal affront to the law of non-contradiction, as a demonstration of pride writ large. The true Holy Catholic Church cannot hold contradiction in Her Mind as you do in yours Ignatio.
The Vatican Council taught this in its Fourth Session, July, 1870:
“6.For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was
embraced by all the venerable fathers and
reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,
for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .
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.”
Starting with point 6: “For the Holy Spirit was promised to the Successors of Peter…that, by His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles.”
“Religiously guard and faithfully expound”. What is it that you don’t comprehend about those two distinct realities, reflecting the two distinct charisms, Ignatio? To “guard” is NOT to “expound”. To “guard” is to protect that which is already known objectively, as that which is already there, as the Holy Deposit of Faith. To “expound”, is to further distill, to clearly define, as the Vatican Council did regarding these two distinct charisms of the Holy Ghost, Ignatio, as two is not one but two distinct charisms; one, the protection from error in teaching and the other, the protection from the loss of his personal faith, in guarding that which has already been taught by all Popes before him, as held in the Magisterium.
And the Council taught this:
“for they [venerable Fathers and Orthodox Doctors] knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .
What is it that you do not comprehend about: “…that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”
Ignatio, “always”, means forever without exception. What do you not comprehend about the Council infallibly teaching that, “…this see of Peter ALWAYS remains unblemished by ANY error.” Those are most definitive commentaries leaving no room, NONE, for exception. “Unblemished by ANY error” simply means that there cannot be one iota of error, period and end. Your shuck and jive, piecemeal, and jingoistic use of fallible theologians alters NONE of the true language and definitive meaning of the Council Fathers in union with the true Pope in 1870, period and end.
Lastly, for now, the Council taught this:
“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 …”
Again Ignatio, a pious 12 year old can be taught this, know it, and freely assent to it, as it is very simple, as Christ is Simplicity Himself. As the Council infallibly taught:
“This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see…”
This “gift of truth and NEVER-FAILING faith” was “divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see…” Not only was this defined but its origin is divine revelation in Luke 22: 31,32. A pious 12 year old accepts this reality as Truth and not as deception Ignatio. “NEVER_FAILING faith”, simply means what it says, that Peter and his Successors were given the charism of a protection of their personal faith which simply CANNOT fail thus and this charism is not inherent in their person but it inheres in the Primacy (the metaphysical form of the Papacy, if you will), which is ontologically bound to their person, as the “man” (corpus and person which are inseparable unto death) is the “matter” of Papacy, whose form is the Primacy. A pious 12 year old would know with certitude when taught, that this protection of never failing faith given by the Holy Ghost to the Vicar of Christ is utterly necessary, as if he could lose his personal faith, he simply could NOT then protect the whole Deposit of Faith, handed down to him unchanged from the Apostles, from one iota of error. To suggest otherwise is an ontological absurdity and thus it simply cannot have being as being, as the Pope cannot protect that which he has already himself lost, as protecting the Faith, when he has lost his own personal faith, period and end. I do fervently pray this helps, as your very salvation depends upon your assent into the true Church, while abjuring the church of the Antichrist, all dressed up Catholic but in truth devoid of all things Christ Jesus, as the abomination of desolation. Amen. In caritas.
A Simple Bear: “Ignatio: And furthermore, this statement contradicts itself. Perhaps you’re tired: ‘The infallibility of the ordinary magisterium is an entirely different issue, AND IT DOES NOT PREVENT A POPE FROM ERRING.’
–
No contradiction at all. The ordinary magisterium is an ORGAN of infallibility, just as the pope is an organ of infallibility. The ordinary magisterium is ‘a means by which’ the Church CAN teach infallibly, but that does not mean it is impossible for individual acts of the ordinary magisterium to be in error. Just as the pope must meet certain conditions to teach infallibly by virtue of his extraordinary magisterium, so too must the ordinary magisterium meet certain conditions to teach infallibly. This is basic Catholic doctrine.
The quotations you provided do not teach that everything in the ordinary magisterium is infallible.
–
ASB: The Church Speaks to the Modern World: “following a decision of the Vatican Council (Session IV, Const. Pater aeternus), the same grace of infallibility also belongs to the pronouncements of the Pope when, speaking in his capacity as pastor and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he declares that a certain doctrine concerning faith or moral conduct should be held as true by the whole Church. Such infallible pronouncements, therefore, are FINAL and IRREFORMABLE by themselves, and not by virtue of the consent of the Church.”
–
All this is saying is that the pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals outside of a council, as taught by Vatican I.
–
ASB: The Church Speaks to the Modern World: “The Encyclical letters are the usual means by which the Popes exercise this definite teaching function. These letters are the highest expression of the ordinary teaching of the Church. TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY RESTATE THE INFALLIBLE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH, THE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE ENCYCLICAL LETTERS ARE THEMSELVES INFALLIBLE.”
Saying the pronouncements of encyclicals are infallible when they “restate” an infallible teaching would be a nonsensical if everything in an encyclical was infallible. It is not, and nothing in the quotation you provided suggests that everything is.
–
ASB: The Church Speaks to the Modern World: “the teachings of the Popes, as found in their Encyclical Letters, can by no means be considered as expressing mere opinions which anyone is free to hold or to reject at will. Even though they may NOT BE BINDING AS TO FAITH IN ALL THEIR PARTS…”
–
If everything in an encyclical was infallible, everything WOULD BE binding ‘as to faith’ in all its parts, since Catholics are bound to give the assent of faith to all infallible teachings. The quotation you provided directly contradicts your position.
Your error is imagining that if Catholics are required to consent to the teachings of an encyclical, it must mean everything in an encyclical is infallible. That’s not what it means. Both infallible and non-infallible teachings require consent, but not the same degree of assent. Those that are infallible require the assent of faith, those that are not infallible only require “religious assent”. The former degree of assent is absolute and admits of no exceptions, since the doctrine is guaranteed to be infallibly true; the latter is conditional and admits of exceptions, since the doctrine could be false. I’ll allow Fr. Jung to explain the different levels of assent:
–
Fr. Nicolas Jung, Le Magistère de L’Église (1935): “Since NOT EVERYTHING TAUGHT BY THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM IS INFALLIBLE, we must ask what kind of assent we should give to its various decisions. The Christian is required to give the assent of faith to all the doctrinal and moral truths DEFINED by the Church’s Magisterium. He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted BY THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith. In this case it suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. THIS IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE ASSENT, BECAUSE SUCH DECREES ARE NOT INFALLIBLE, BUT ONLY A PRUDENTIAL AND CONDITIONAL ASSENT.”
–
The ‘religious assent’ owed to non-infallible teachings of the Sovereign Pontiff can be suspended when there is sufficient reason to believe the teaching if false, as Pesch explains:
–
Pesch, Praelectiones Dogmaticae (1898): “one must assent to the decrees of the Roman congregations, as long as it does not become positively sure that they have erred. (…) For, since the religious assent referred to is not based on a metaphysical certainty, but only a moral and general one, it does not exclude all suspicion of error. For this reason, AS SOON AS THERE ARISES SUFFICIENT MOTIVES FOR DOUBT, THE ASSENT WILL BE PRUDENTLY SUSPENDED: nevertheless, as long as such motives for doubt do not arise, the authority of the Congregations is sufficient to oblige one to assent. THE SAME PRINCIPLES APPLY WITHOUT DIFFICULTY TO THE DECLARATIONS WHICH THE SUPREME PONTIFF EMITS WITHOUT INVOLVING HIS SUPREME AUTHORITY, AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS OF THE OTHER ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERIORS WHO ARE NOT INFALLIBLE.”
–
The quotations I have provided DIRECTLY confirm my position and DIRECTLY contradict yours. The quotations you provided, on the other hand, not only failed to support your position, but implicitly contradicted it.
Ignoratio:
Christ stated to Peter: “He who hears you hears Me.” The Word did not say, “He who hears you hears me, but only under certain circumstances.”
Christ did not leave us with a Vicar – a Supreme Pastor and Shepherd – whom we cannot trust except on very rare occasion to guide us in all things spiritual – guide us to heaven. He also refers to us as sheep, and sheep are extremely dumb animals. The system must be such that even the simplest of minds does not have to be some self-professed theologian to know, hear and follow the Voice of Christ through His Vicar and Church. How can one be like a little child (in order to enter heaven), yet at the same be required to sift through and potentially reject this or that teaching coming from a Pope? This is Protestantism at best.
I’m afraid therefore that your position may actually be blasphemous in nature. I just don’t hear Christ’s Voice in your personal conclusions. I’m sorry.
Dear poor, poor Un Caritas:
You’ve erected a false system based on your private interpretation of Vatican I. That’s why you’ve been unable to locate a single authority who agrees with your error. This, in and of itself, proves that you simply made it up your position.
Had you studied the doctrine by reading imprimatured books written by theologians trained in the science of theology, or by reading the official explanation of the doctrine delivered to the Council Father before their vote on Pastor Aeternus, you’d be able to provide a quotation from one of your sources to support of your position; but you can’t.
And what’s worse, when you’re presented with quotations from approved sources who all agree in their explanation of the doctrine, and who directly contradict your false interpretation, you simply dismiss them as being “fallible”, in order to persist in your own fallible opinion WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY NO ONE. And the more authorities I quote who contradict your error (and I have many more), the more angry and belligerent you become. Your actions are not those of a faithful Catholic. They are instead identical to those of all prideful heretics who think they know better than everyone else.
Poor, poor Un Caritas: “You simply continue to insist on the conflation of the two distinct charisms (gifts), one of ‘infallibility’ and the other of the ‘gift of truth and never failing faith’, as definitively taught, by the only Vatican Council in 1870.”
–
Ignatio: Notice what’s missing from your explanation of the doctrine you made up. That’s right! A quotation from ANY approved source in support of it. That’s because you’re making it up as you go along.
The fact is that the ‘gift of truth and never failing faith’ and ‘infallibility’ are one and the same thing. It is one charism, not two, and it’s a ‘gratia gratis data,’ not a ‘gratia gratum faciens,’ which further proves that you position is false. Why? Because the former is given for the good of another, while the latter is given for the sanctification of the one who receive it. The charism of infallibility is given so the pope can teach infallibly when he exercises Peter’s office by defining a doctrine. It is not given for his own sanctification or personal infallibility. Cardinal Manning made this same point in his explanation of the doctrine.
Referring to the paragraphs of Pastor Aeternus which precede the actual definition as the “introduction”, he writes:
–
Cardinal Manning: “The Introduction proceeds TO DESCRIBE INFALLIBILITY TO BE “A CHARISMA OF INDEFECTIBLE FAITH AND TRUTH”. By this again the notion of a ‘personal’ infallibility IS EXCLUDED. The word ‘charisma’ is used to express NOT A GRATIA GRATUM FACIENS, as theologians say, that is, a grace which makes the PERSON acceptable in God’s sight, BUT A GRATIA GRATIS DATA, or a grace the benefit of which is for others, such as prophecy or healing, and the like. Now these gifts, as may be seen in Balaam, Caiaphas, and Judas, were NOT GRACES OF SANCTIFICATION, NOR GIFTS THAT SANCTIFIED THE POSSESSOR. (…) To be illuminated or guarded from error may co-exist with the sin of Caiaphas [i.e., the sin of rejecting Christ], who was a prophet [the High Priest], and crucified the redeemer of the world. The decree says that this charisma was given by God to Peter and his successors that IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICE they might not err. IT DOES NOT EVEN SAY THAT IT IS AN ABIDING ASSISTANCE PRESENT ALWAYS, BUT ONLY NEVER ABSENT IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR SUPREME OFFICE.”
–
The ‘gift (charisma) of truth and never failing faith that the Popes receive, IS the charism of infallibility, as Cardinal Manning and every other theologian who has commented on the doctrine teaches.
Poor, poor Un Caritas: “’Infallibility’ is not “never failing faith” Ignatio, as one speaks to a charism granted to the Vicar of Christ in his teaching authority and the other speaks to his PERSON, as never loosing his PERSONAL faith, period and end, as the Council definitively taught and therefore it is no longer open to debate.”
Ignatio: You’re simply repeating the doctrine you made up based on your private interpretation of the Council. As I explained in a previous post, during the official explanation of Pastor Aeternus delivered to the Council Fathers before their vote, the official relator addressed your error directly, and stated that the Council was not teaching that a pope is unable to lose his personal faith. You’re only digging yourself into a deeper hole by continuing to defend your error.
Poor, poor Un Caritas: “What is it that you do not comprehend about: “…that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. Ignatio, “always”, means forever without exception. What do you not comprehend about the Council infallibly teaching that, “…this see of Peter ALWAYS remains unblemished by ANY error.”
Ignatio: I comprehend it perfectly. The see of Peter (not the Pope) remains unblemished from any error because when the Pope teaches AS POPE, by defining a doctrine ex cathedra, he is prevented from erring – not simply when the person of the pope teaches, but when he exercises his supreme magisteirum by teaching ex cathedra. Only then is he prevented from erring. That’s what it means, as you would know it if you took the time to study what the approved sources teach.
If you deny that’s what it means, answer me this: If it means the Popes ALWAYS teach infallibly, how is it possible that Pope John XXII taught the FALSE DOCTRINE that the souls of the just will NOT enter the beatific vision until after the Final judgment? His immediately successor, Benedict XII, infallibly defined the very doctrine that John XXII publicly denied. Here is the account of John XXII’s false teaching, taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
–
Catholic Encyclopedia: “In the last years of John’s pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which WAS BROUGHT ON BY HIMSELF, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. AFTER BECOMING POPE, HE ADVANCED THE SAME TEACHING IN HIS SERMONS. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope’s view. (…) Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.”
–
Please explain how it was possible for a pope who was personally infallible to publicly teach a false doctrine, without the see of St. Peter becoming “blemished” by an error. And don’t give me the excuse that the doctrine he denied was not yet been infallibly defined. That has nothing to do with it, since if popes are personally infallible (unable to err), as you claim, the charism would have prevented him from falling into error even before the doctrine he denied had been defined. And if a false doctrine publicly taught by a pope (when he is not speaking ex cathedra), results in the faith of the See of Peter becoming blemished, explain how the faith of the See of Peter remains unblemished during the reign of John XXII. I look forward to you answer.
–
And I will end by again asking you to back up your interpretation of Pastor Aeternus with quotations from approved sources. If you can’t do so, at least have the honesty to admit that it’s based on nothing but your own private interpretation.
Ignatio, one thing you should consider is the nature of Pope John XXII’s error. In no way was his error evil nor did it lead souls to hell. The Catholic Encyclopedia correctly refers to this error as an “opinion” and not a teaching.
A Simple Bear: “Ignoratio: Christ stated to Peter: “He who hears you hears Me.” The Word did not say, “He who hears you hears me, but only under certain circumstances.”
“Ignoratio”: A Simple Bear, Christ did not say “He who hears you hears me to Peter. He said it to the seventy-two disciples, and the seventy two disciples were not infallible. Check the footnote in Humani Generis and you will see that it refers to Luke 10:16:
Luke 10:16-17: “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. And the seventy-two returned with joy, saying: Lord, the devils also are subject to us in thy name.”
A Simple Bear: “Christ did not leave us with a Vicar – a Supreme Pastor and Shepherd – whom we cannot trust except on very rare occasion to guide us in all things spiritual – guide us to heaven.”
–
I agree that we can normally trust what the popes say, even when they are not teaching infallibly. This is true historically. But what else is historically true is that popes have taught false doctrines, and misled the faithful. It is not the norm, for sure, but it is the “possible”.
If you believe Catholics are hearing the voice of Christ when the pope teaches – “he who hears you hears me” – how do you explain the false doctrine taught by John XXII? Were the faithful who listened to him hearing the voice of Christ? Were those who rejected his false doctrine, and defended the truth, resisting the voice of Christ? And did Christ teach the opposite doctrine when Benedict XII infallibly defined the doctrine that John XXII denied?
The fact of the matter is that popes can err when they are not defining a doctrine, according to the conditions defined by Vatican I. It is not the norm, but it has happened, and it has even happened with series of Popes.
For example, during the papal chaos that shook the Church at the end of the first and beginning of the second millennium, Pope Stephen VI erred, along with the council he convened, when he taught that the ordinations of his immediate predecessor, Pope Formosus, were invalid. The next Pope, Romanus, committed the same error when he confirmed the false teaching of Pope Steven. Next came Pope Theodore, who corrected the error of his predecessors, by declaring Formosus’ ordination to be valid. Next came Pope John IX, who confirmed the judgment of Pope Theodore. Then came Pope Sergius III, who erred during the council he convened to consider the matter, when he overruling the teaching of Popes John IX and Theodore and again confirmed the false teaching of Popes Stephen and Theodore.
Were the faithful who heard Pope Stephen VI, Pope Romanus, and Pope Sergius hearing the voice of Christ when these Pope taught them that Pope Formosus’ ordinations were invalid, or were they hearing the voice of Christ when Popes John IX and Theodore taught them the opposite?
Based on your doctrinal position vis-à-vis the infallibility of the Pope and our obligations to accept their teachings, what conclusion would you have drawn about these popes if you lived at the time, and which of the contrary Papal judgments would you have accepted as true?
–
We are living at a time when people are being tempted to believe the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church, and the reason they believe it is because of a false understanding of infallibility. If they had a correct understanding of Catholic doctrine, they would know that everything that has happened in the past 60 years is just as possible as what happened during the 9th, 10th, and 11th centuries. The gates of hell did not prevail against the institution of the Church then, and it has not prevailed against the institution of the Church today.
What’s interesting is that during the Papal crisis of those days, the clergy was infested with homos – just as it is today. This was the time St. Peter Damian wrote the book Liber Gomorrhianus, in which he said the gay Bishops were committing “absolutely damnable acts with their spiritual sons.” By spiritual sons he means the priests. He continued: “Who can expect the flock to prosper when its shepherd has sunk so deep into the bowels of the devil (…) Who will make a mistress of a cleric, OR A WOMAN OF A MAN? (…) Who, by his lust, will consign a son whom he has spiritually begotten for God to slavery under the iron law of Satanic tyranny.”
Sounds like today. That papal crisis is also the time in which the Orthodox split from the Church, never to return. Similarly, the Protestants also split from the Church following a time of time of papal crisis – the days of the Borgia Popes, just like the sede-vacantist heretics (and many others) have split from the Church today, during the present papal crisis.
The truth is that Francis is just as much the pope as were Stephen VI, Pope Romanus, and Pope Sergius, and the Church is just as much the true Church today as it was at the time they reigned. Unfortunately, as history shows, during a time of Papal crisis many will fall away from the Church, never to return. “Many are called, but few are chosen.”
Poor, poor Ignoratio, holding on to the lies about Popes being heretics so that he can be Protestant and have his beloved “Saint” John XXIII through Francis I and eat that apple, too.
John XXII in fact did NOT teach heresy to the Church, and the matter had not yet been settled and defined. Herein are the facts:
https://novusordowatch.org/2017/10/brief-facts-on-pope-john22/
Poor, poor Ignoratio, holding on to the lies about Popes being heretics so that he can be Protestant and have his beloved “Saint” John XXIII through Francis I and eat them apples, too.
John XXII in fact did NOT teach heresy to the Church, and the matter had not yet been settled and defined. Herein are the facts:
https://novusordowatch.org/2017/10/brief-facts-on-pope-john22/
In all fairness to you, Ignatio, I do get the sense that you sincerely want to be Catholic. However, the devil is conquering you via intellectual pride. The Gift of Faith is Supernatural and doesn’t hinge one iota upon how many Church documents we have read and/or self-interpreted. Have you ever asked God to guide you to and shed light upon the Truth, or have you relied only upon yourself and your “book smarts”? Just a thought.
A Simple Bear: “John XXII in fact did NOT teach heresy to the Church, and the matter had not yet been settled and defined. Herein are the facts.”
Ignatio: Only a fool would turn to NO Watch to get their “facts”. And I never said John XXII taught heresy, even though he was accused of doing so at the time. I said he taught a false doctrine, which is true. He taught it publicly numerous times, and it caused a tremendous division in the Church. And the teaching was not a private act, but a public act of his teaching office, or magisterium – no different than the “sermon” given by St. Peter on the day of Pentecost.
Some followed Pope John XXII into error by accepting his false doctrine, others rejected it and continued to defend the truth, while a third group claimed he was a false Pope. Which category would you have been in, and which category does history tell us was right?
And you didn’t answer my question: were those who heard John XXII teach his false doctrine hearing the voice of Christ, or not? Remember what you wrote earlier: “The Word did not say, “He who hears you hears me, BUT ONLY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.” Are you now going to place conditions on when the public teaching of a pope is the voice of Christ and when it is not?
Tom A: “Ignatio, one thing you should consider is the nature of Pope John XXII’s error. In no way was his error evil nor did it lead souls to hell.”
In no way was it evil? The Pope publicly denied a doctrine revealed by God and contained in the Deposit of Faith. It that wasn’t evil, why did his confessor refuse to give him absolution – when he was on his death bed, no less – until he renounced it in writing?
And in those days, heresy was not understood in the strict sense that it is today. An error against the faith was considered heresy – even if the doctrine being denied had not been infallibly defined. That’s why John XXII was accused of heresy by those who “resisted” his false doctrine and held fast to the truth revealed by God.
A Simple Bear: “In all fairness to you, Ignatio, I do get the sense that you sincerely want to be Catholic. However, the devil is conquering you via intellectual pride. The Gift of Faith is Supernatural and doesn’t hinge one iota upon how many Church documents we have read and/or self-interpreted.”
Ignatio: How is it intellectual pride for one to study what the Church and its approved theologians consistently taught prior to Vatican I, and believe it? Is that not what every faithful seminarian did before Vatican II? Indeed it is, and they did not endanger their faith by doing so.
It was the Modernists who rejected the traditional doctrine taught before the Council, and who ended by losing their faith. THAT was intellectual pride, and it is exactly what we’re witnessing Un Caritas do now.
Ignatio: In your understanding, is there a distinction between the concepts of “to err” and “to profess”? For instance, is there a distinction between a first situation where the Pope during a homily innocently leaves out a “not” in a sentence and therefore errs in his teaching by contradicting a doctrine of the faith because of the omission of the “not”, and a second situation where the Pope willfully professes a heresy in a homily? In other words, would you interpret every instance of public profession of heresy by a Pope in his private teaching capacity as merely an “error”?
Dear J. Peters (aka: Ignatio)
Firstly, if I am wrong, deny that you are J. Peters, the same J. Peters that, I believe about last October on this very blog, where you and I had a laborious back and forth then, when you erred profoundly in your false belief that the “person” dies with the “man” and the “soul” then goes on to his personal judgment. That same time when your ad hominem attack of my person was based in your claim of my simply not knowing Thomistic metaphysics and as you claimed then, you knew it far better than me. Then, as now, you remain implacable in your error, while at once you assert that it is I who lack humility. That same J. Peters, aka: Ignatio? Just so we clear the air, eh? The next question that would logically follow would then be, why the clandestine behavior, J. Peters? What is it that you have to hide, other than your very fragile sense of self, based certainly in the lies that you hold as your truth as you reject the Truth. The truth as Truth does cut hard, doesn’t it, Ignatio?, as He commanded that He came not to bring peace but the sword, as it is in division where the truth as Truth springs forth and is plainly seen.
Now then, it remains patently as pristinely clear that you still hold no zeal for the Truth, as you continue to deny Him, hiding behind the utterly fallible theologians and their theological opinions, as you use their knowledge in an attempt to formulate your own opinion. While it is patently clear that your interest is the “argument” and “winning” it and not the truth as Truth. Do you know what “opinion” is, Ignatio? Opinion is a movement of the will, as it has been informed by the intellect, whereby the holder of opinion, while he believes his position to be true, he continues to hold doubt that the opposing position is false. “Doubt” Ignatio, that is what the theologians hold as part and parcel to their opinions, doubt that the opposing position/belief is false and thus they simply do not know if their position is true with certitude. That is simply not how a soul gets to Heaven, in doubt of Truth, Ignatio. Not only do you not formulate your own thought based in sound as infallible Papal teaching, as a Catholic who holds certitude and not simply theological opinion does, while you attempt to reassemble fallible opinions of theologians as your own “proof” of this or that, you actually copy me in my referring to you as “poor, poor Ignatio”. Is there a genuine bone in your constitution, J. Peters/Ignatio?
Cutting to the chase now, as time is of the essence, you had this to say:
“Ignatio: I comprehend it perfectly. The see of Peter (not the Pope) remains unblemished from any error because when the Pope teaches AS POPE, by defining a doctrine ex cathedra, he is prevented from erring – not simply when the person of the pope teaches, but when he exercises his supreme magisteirum by teaching ex cathedra. Only then is he prevented from erring. That’s what it means, as you would know it if you took the time to study what the approved sources teach.”
As I said months ago to you as J. Peters, it is exquisitely tedious responding to you as your errors in ontology are so rudimentary, that everything you write has to be distilled and defined. For example, as I quoted you above saying this as you opine:
“The see of Peter (not the Pope) remains unblemished from any error because when the Pope teaches AS POPE, by defining a doctrine ex cathedra, he is prevented from erring – not simply when the person of the pope teaches…”
As the see of Peter is the authentic Magisterium and it indeed remains perfectly unblemished, and that see is filled with the infallible teaching of men as Pontiffs, and these men as Popes are human persons, just who is it that is ever teaching, Ignatio, if and to quote you, ” not simply when the person of the pope teaches…”
The “person”, as properly understood using the philosophical psychology of Saint Thomas, is the “soul”, which contains the operations of the intellect and the will. If, as you claim, it is not the “person of the pope” who is teaching in the Magisterium, then who is it that is indeed teaching, because to teach, one must first know, and to know, one must have an intellect, and to have an intellect, one simply must have an immortal soul and BE a PERSON. I will ask a rhetorical question now. Do you see how flawed your reasoning is, as it is distilled down to what you are actually opining? Of course you don’t, as you are blinded by the “operation of error to believe lying”, which existentially speaks, as res ipsa loquitur. You are not receiving God’s grace thus to see that which a pious 12 year old must and can know, to save his soul, his person. Of course it is the person of the Holy Roman Pontiff who teaches infallibly and who is protected by the Holy Ghost from EVER losing his PERSONal faith, period and end. And for the third time now Ignatio, while the charism of truth and never failing faith does NOT INHERE in the person of the Pope, it is ontologically bound to him, as when he freely accepts the office, as he is the metaphysical matter of the Papacy as “man” (corpus and person) and he is then divinely joined to the metaphysical form of the Papacy as the Primacy, then Almighty God has created ex nihilo, the new being of a Vicar of Christ, as Pope, protected from ever losing his personal faith, while given the charism of infallibility in his teaching, and whenever and wherever he teaches in whatever medium he freely chooses to teach, period and end. ALWAYS infallible in teaching the defined deposit of Faith and Morality.
And finally now to address this question of yours to me, quoting you:
“If you deny that’s what it means, answer me this: If it means the Popes ALWAYS teach infallibly, how is it possible that Pope John XXII taught the FALSE DOCTRINE that the souls of the just will NOT enter the beatific vision until after the Final judgment? His immediately successor, Benedict XII, infallibly defined the very doctrine that John XXII publicly denied. Here is the account of John XXII’s false teaching, taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
–
Catholic Encyclopedia: “In the last years of John’s pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which WAS BROUGHT ON BY HIMSELF, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. AFTER BECOMING POPE, HE ADVANCED THE SAME TEACHING IN HIS SERMONS. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope’s view. (…) Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.”
And again J. Peters, it is tedious working to clean up your arrogant as pompous mess. In another of your oft used devices, conflation, you conflate the term “doctrine” with theological “opinion” as though they are one and the same, which of course is an ontological absurdity, as doctrinal teaching requires the assent of faith and opinion, well it isn’t often worth much, certainly not requiring an assent of faith, period and end. You said it this way:
“”If you deny that’s what it means, answer me this: If it means the Popes ALWAYS teach infallibly, how is it possible that Pope John XXII taught the FALSE DOCTRINE that the souls of the just will NOT enter the beatific vision until after the Final judgment?
In truth and as per the teaching of the holy Saint and Doctor of Holy Mother Church, Robert Bellarmine, not opinion of a mere theologian, the doctrine of the Beatific Vision was not yet just that, “doctrine”, and as you also write, it was not defined until after the death of John XXII, by Pope Benedict XII. Pope John XXII could not “teach infallibly” that which had not yet been defined, as it was not doctrine in his time but theological opinion. What John XXII did, was render theological opinion, which happened to be wrong. Citing your own source above as you did, the Catholic Encyclopedia, nowhere do they suggest John XXII was “teaching” a, “FALSE DOCTRINE”, as you opine, Ignatio/J.Peters. Why is it that you objectively demonstrate such animus toward Vicars of Christ, as Pope John XXII, because you are perfectly as miserably fallible, as all the rest of us, and you think that you are a cut above? In fact Ignatio, your source uses a perfectly as ontologically distinct term, in opposition to your certainly derogatory language toward an Holy Roman Pontiff, as “taught the FALSE DOCTRINE”, the C.E. says it this way, “who adhered to the usual opinion”. The C.E. writes of the later to be defined doctrine of the Beatific Vision, as simply being, “the usual opinion” of theologians, prelates, and the faithful of the time of Pope John XXII. They do not as you do, accuse the Holy Father of heresy, in teaching a “FALSE DOCTRINE” as according to your utterly and implacably false accusation of a true Holy Roman Pontiff. May Almighty God show His mercy upon you, J. Peters, as you remain obstinate in your heretical beliefs. This is more objective evidence of the utter contradiction which you hold in your intellect and will, as “doctrine” cannot both be “doctrine” and not be “doctrine”, at the same time, and under the same respect of what “doctrine” is and it is not with ontological certitude, “USUAL OPINION”, period and end. “Doctrine” is not “usual opinion”, as a “pig” is not a “person”.
Lastly then you had this to say in query of me:
“Please explain how it was possible for a pope who was personally infallible to publicly teach a false doctrine, without the see of St. Peter becoming “blemished” by an error. And don’t give me the excuse that the doctrine he denied was not yet been infallibly defined. That has nothing to do with it, since if popes are personally infallible (unable to err), as you claim, the charism would have prevented him from falling into error even before the doctrine he denied had been defined. And if a false doctrine publicly taught by a pope (when he is not speaking ex cathedra), results in the faith of the See of Peter becoming blemished, explain how the faith of the See of Peter remains unblemished during the reign of John XXII. I look forward to you answer.”
The answers to your final questions are again very simple, Ignatio, as that which a pious 12 year old could understand when taught and make his free and willful assent to. Firstly your request is this:
“Please explain how it was possible for a pope who was personally infallible to publicly teach a false doctrine, without the see of St. Peter becoming “blemished” by an error.”
We know with divine certitude that the See of Peter simply CANNOT be blemished with one iota of error. If you deny this, you are an heretic, period and end. That understood with certitude and not mere theological opinion, your request contains two contradictions in terms. The true Holy Roman Pontiff IS NOT “personally infallible”, period and end. The gift he has received “personally” is the, “gift of truth and never failing faith”, period and end. To quote the only Vatican Council in this reality as truth, they taught this:
“7.This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see…”
Your second contradiction, both contained in one single sentence, is this:
How is it possible for a Pope, “to publicly teach a false doctrine”? The answer is simply that IT IS NOT POSSIBLE for a Pope to publically or otherwise teach a “false doctrine”, and again Ignatio, Pope John XXII, no matter how many awful times you derogate him with your lies and deceitful partial truths, he did not teach, “a false doctrine”, simply and clearly as a pious 12 year old would know when taught, because there was no doctrine of the Beatific Vision which yet had metaphysical “being” during his life on this earth, period and end, as BEING CANNOT BOTH BE AND NOT BE, AT THE SAME TIME, AND UNDER THE SAME RESPECT. It is truly tiring dealing with the darkened likes of you, J. Peters, aka: Ignatio.
Now your final request:
“And don’t give me the excuse that the doctrine he denied was not yet been infallibly defined. That has nothing to do with it, since if popes are personally infallible (unable to err), as you claim, the charism would have prevented him from falling into error even before the doctrine he denied had been defined.”
As you have been warned now many times, Popes ARE NOT personally infallible. Popes ARE NOT personally infallible. Popes ARE NOT personally infallible. Your conflation of the two distinct charisms becomes more existentially evident. It is the charism of the, “gift of truth and never failing faith”, which prevents a true Vicar of Christ from losing his personal faith, thus falling into heresy. Since the doctrine of the Beatific Vision had not yet been defined during the life of Pope John XXII, and as the doctrine cannot both be defined and not be defined, at the same time, and under the same respect of what doctrine is in contradistinction to theological opinion or pious belief, it was not heretical to question the as yet pious belief, period and end, as the Church teaches. Therefore and finally then, Pope John XXII did not lose his personal faith while erring in his theological opinion about the Beatific Vision, as there was no article of Faith yet established for him to lose, period and end. A Pontiff is not personally infallible and as thus can err in his theological opinion, as the Church teaches. As he could not have lost his personal faith in this matter, he was not an heretic, as it is blasphemous to suggest that a true Holy Roman Pontiff can fall into heresy, since the Vatican Council defined this reality, period and end. The pious theologians now passed, those that are not now in Hell, were simply blinded in the Mystery of divine Prophecy, Ignatio. Jesus the Christ admonished His disciples for knowing the signs of the weather and not knowing the signs of the prophetic time. Those pious theologians were blinded not because of a lack of faith but in the Mystery of divine Prophecy, whereby everything is revealed ONLY in its time. You, dear Ignatio, are blinded in the Mystery of Iniquity, as you are receiving the “operation of error to believe lying”, as what you obstinately deny, a pious 12 year old can and must know, to save his very soul. I do fervently pray this helps, as your eternal soul hangs in the balance. Amen. In caritas.
And again J.Peters/Ignatio,
To quote part of your response to A Simple Beggar above:
“A Simple Bear: “John XXII in fact did NOT teach heresy to the Church, and the matter had not yet been settled and defined. Herein are the facts.”
Ignatio: Only a fool would turn to NO Watch to get their “facts”. And I never said John XXII taught heresy, even though he was accused of doing so at the time. I said he taught a false doctrine, which is true”
You have the utterly unbridled as unmitigated hubris to impugn the Vicar of Christ, as Pope John XXII writing: “And I never said John XXII taught heresy,” and then one whole sentence later, you write this:
” I said he taught a false doctrine, which is true”.
Who the hell do you think you are? You suggest that a Pontiff can teach a “false doctrine” and that is not “heresy”. You have now descended to the level of pure madness, man. What the hell do you think heresy is? “False doctrine” is a “false teaching” and a doctrinal teaching requires the assent of faith and heresy is in opposition to faith, so to teach a “false doctrine” is to teach “heresy”, full stop, period and end. Let’s look to the Angelic Doctor on heresy and doctrine, from C.E.:
“On the contrary, Augustine says against the Manichees [Cf. De Civ. Dei xviii, 1]: “In Christ’s Church, those are heretics, who hold mischievous and erroneous opinions, and when rebuked that they may think soundly and rightly, offer a stubborn resistance, and, refusing to mend their pernicious and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them.” Now pernicious and deadly doctrines are none but those which are contrary to the dogmas of faith, whereby “the just man liveth” (Romans 1:17). Therefore heresy is about matters of faith, as about its proper matter.”
You are pertinacious and malignant. To be avoided. May God have mercy on you. In caritas.
Un Caritas: “it remains patently as pristinely clear that you still hold no zeal for the Truth, as you continue to deny Him, hiding behind the utterly fallible theologians and their theological opinions.”
.
Ignatio: Let me get this straight. If someone rejects your false interpretation of Vatican I, which contradicts the obvious meaning of the text, and instead accepts the explanation given by Cardinal Mazella, who held the chair of theology at the Gregorian in the decades following the Council, and that of every theological manual published after the Council, which explains Pastor Aeternus exactly the same way, you “interpret” that as meaning they have “no zeal for the truth”? Incredible.
Do you really imagine yourself to be the infallible rule of faith, whose interpretation of magisterial texts Catholics must submit? The degree of intellectual pride you are revealing is frightening. The only difference between your method and that of Luther, is that he relied on his private judgment to interpret the remote rule of faith (Scripture), while you are relying on yours to interpret the proximate and animate rule (Magisterial texts).
.
Un Caritas: “you attempt to reassemble fallible opinions of theologians as your own “proof” of this or that…”
.
Ignatio: None of the quotations I provided were theological OPINIONS. They were the official EXPLANATIONs of Papal Infallibility taken from imprimatured books, written by approved theologians, and which were used to train priests in seminaries before Vatican II. And I again note that you have been unable to locate a single authority who agrees with your interpretation of Vatican I. Why do you think that is? Do you believe everyone else was wrong, and you alone are right? That’s what Luther thought. What about the official explanation of Pastor Aeternus that delivered to the Council Fathers before their vote of Papal Infallibility? Did the spokesperson for the Deputation, who is recognized as one of the greatest theologians at the Council, and who provided the Council Fathers with the official explanation of Papal Infallibility, also not know the “true” meaning of Pastor Aeternus? If you answer “yes”, you will discredit yourself more than you already have (if that’s possible). If you answer “no”, you will also discredit yourself, since he explicitly stated that your interpretation is NOT what the council was teaching.
.
Un Caritas: “The ‘person’, as properly understood using the philosophical psychology of Saint Thomas, is the ‘soul’, which contains the operations of the intellect and the will. If, AS YOU CLAIM, IT IS NOT THE ‘PERSON OF THE POPE’ WHO IS TEACHING IN THE MAGISTERIUM, then who is it that is indeed teaching, because to teach, one must first know, and to know, one must have an intellect, and to have an intellect, one simply must have an immortal soul and BE a PERSON. I will ask a rhetorical question now. Do you see how flawed your reasoning is, as it is distilled down to what you are actually opining? Of course you don’t, as you are blinded by the ‘operation of error to believe lying’.”
.
Ignatio: Poor Un Caritas. Poor, poor, poor little confused Un Caritas. The intellectual defect you’re suffering from – the one that prevents you from properly interpreting the written text – is showing itself again. I never said “it’s not the person of the Pope who is teaching in the Magisterium”. What I said is the person of the Pope is not prevented from teaching error, unless he is teaching ex cathedra, according to the conditions defined by Vatican I. The person of the Pope teaches infallibly when he meets the conditions for infallibility, but he not prevented from erring when he does not. Next time quote me directly so we can see what you misunderstood.
.
Un Caritas: “Of course it is the person of the Holy Roman Pontiff who teaches infallibly and who is protected by the Holy Ghost from EVER losing his PERSONal faith, period and end.”
.
Ignatio: Well, at least you got something right, for once. It is the person of the Pope who teaches infallibly. Unfortunately, you continue to persist in your error, in spite of the plain meaning of the text and the numerous quotations I’ve provided that prove you are wrong.
.
What it is now quite clear is that you will never overcome your error. How could you possibly do so when you consider your own private judgment to be infallible, and reject every authority who disagrees with you?
.
You did the same when my friend JPeters refuted your errors in metaphysics with quotations from an old manual that was used to train priest in the science during the reign of Pius X? Remember that? Remember how you completely disregarded those quotations, just as you are now with the quotations concerning Papal Infallibility, and persisted in your errors, without being able to provide any authority who agreed with you?
.
Poor, Poor Un Caritas. You imagine yourself to see, but you are blind. Do you really believe your interpretation of Pastor Aeternus, which is exactly contrary to every approved theologian and to the official explanation of the text delivered to the council Fathers, comes from the Holy Ghost, rather from your own false lights?
You think you see, but you see not, and in claiming to see, God has left you in your blindness: “For judgment I am come into this world; that they who see not, might see, AND THEY WHO SEE MIGHT BE MADE BLIND.” (John 9:39) That’s you, Un Caritas, and here’s the meaning:
.
The Spiritual Life: A Comprehensiv Guide For Catholics Seeking Salvation: “THE GREATEST OF ALL EVILS IS TO THINK THAT WE SEE WHEN WE DO NOT SEE. This was the evil of the pretended wise men of paganism, and of the proud Pharisees of Judaism. (…) As long as our trust in our own spirit, as long as our self-love reigns in us, so long we are blind in many respects, both as regards god and ourselves. (…) The Divine light can disperse this blindness easily, when it is not voluntary. But how can the Divine light disperse a blindness to which we will not acknowledge? HOW CAN IT ENLIGHTEN THOSE PROUD SOULS WHO THINK THEY SEE EVERYTHING, and [are] … DETERMINED TO SEE THINGS ONLY IN A FALSE LIGHT WHICH THEY HAVE CREATED FOR THEM SELVES? This is a very common disease with pious persons; and because THE ROOT OF IT IS PRIDE, it opposes to Divine grace an obstacle which humility only can overcome, and which humility even does not always overcome. Jesus Christ is the Light of the world: He came to cure our blindness. But in doing this He exercises a kind of judgment which is full of goodness for some, and of justice for others. He gives sight to those who see not, and He blinds those who see. What do these words mean? Do they mean that amongst men, before our Lord enlightens them, there are some who see, and others who do not see? No: all are equally blind. But SOME, ENLIGHTENED BY GRACE AS TO THEIR SAD STATE, ACKNOWLEDGE HUMBLY THAT THEY ARE BLIND; THEY IMPLORE OUR DEAR LORD EARNESTLY AND WITH IMPORTUNITY FOR THEIR CURE; AND TO THEM HE WILL GIVE SIGHT, and He will never cease to grant them that sight as long as they make a good use of the light He has granted them, and allow themselves to be entirely guided by it. OTHERS WILL NOT CONFESS THAT THEY ARE BLIND, AND THESE HE WILL LEAVE IN THEIR BLINDNESS, UNTIL IT BECOMES INCURABLE.”
.
That’s you, Un Caritas. Meditate on it. You have received the just punishment for your sin, and your miserable state is a warning to us all. May we benefit from your misfortune, by humbling ourselves before God, lest we too sink to the depths to which you, in your pride, have fallen; for “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble”.
Dear JPeters/Ignatio,
Do you freely and willfully assent to the “Solemnly Promulgated”, by “Pope Paul VI”, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, so called, “Lumen Gentium”, November 21, 1964, and its being a constitutional document of an Ecumenical Council, solemnly promulgated by the Holy Roman Pontiff in union with his Bishops, and of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? I pray this helps. In caritas.
All I know is we are almost powerless, like infants trying to win a battle against armed killers. The Holy Rosary must serve as our protection as availability of the true Mass has almost disappeared for most of the faithful.
And Finally JPeters/Ignatio,
Your last “rebuttal” of my critique of your error was not a rebuttal at all, as you did not touch on what the argument said, yet alone its essence, not even did you slightly touch the proper interpretation of Vatican I in today’s epistemological season, period and end. Your entire response was an ad hominem screed. Why? Simply because you hold no capacity to do so, as the metaphysics, as to the potency and act, being and non-being, are sound. Thanks be to Almighty God alone, as I can only remain a perfectly miserable creature, this side the veil. Amen. You cannot answer my last query of you, can you JPeters, as to your assent to the “council” called, “Vatican II”. And so you posit JPeters to be your “friend”. Well if he is your “friend” Ignatio, he is writing for you as Ignatio, as the words cannot be masked. Also, it doesn’t matter what “text book” you read to create your profound error last October, as it relates to “man” as “man” and “man” in his “personhood”, it was profoundly in error, period and end. You have not the capacity to know this, as this thing itself speaks. You simply cannot know what you do not know, JPeters, as all contingent creatures in the cosmos are moved by the Primemover, unmoved, as pure Act Himself. Amen. Alleluia. May Almighty God have mercy on you and me, JPeters. In caritas.