Latest topics
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?
Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:59 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Padre Pio told Fr.Gabriel Amorth," It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church" -Bishop Richard Williamson
Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Mons. Brunero Gherardini misled the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and many traditionalists
Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM too is teaching error : Bishop Sanborn cannot report at the Chancery office
Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:50 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  columba on Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:54 pm

Bernadette,
Contrary to MRyan's definitive view that it could never be held that the chair of Peter could remain vacant for an extended period of time or be illegitimately occupied, has not been the opinion of many theologians who considered this subject. Mike would have to conclude then, that those theologians were heretics also, even though they were never declared to be such by the Church and remained fully Catholic until death.

I'm not dealing here with whether or not B.XVI is/was a heretic. I'm taking issue with Mikes assertion/assumption that the Church will always have a reigning Pope at any given time in history.
Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly was a well respected Irish theologian who lived around the mid 18 hundreds and the following are extracts from his considerations on the subject.


Quote from: Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly: The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, 1882.
“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”

and continues in a later page

“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical [absurd]. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises… We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself by His promises. We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."


Heresy or what?
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Allie on Tue Sep 20, 2011 8:58 pm

Hi Columba- I hope you are doing well!

I have a couple of things I was wondering if you could clarify for me:

columba wrote:Bernadette,
Contrary to MRyan's definitive view that it could never be held that the chair of Peter could remain vacant for an extended period of time or be illegitimately occupied, has not been the opinion of many theologians who considered this subject. Mike would have to conclude then, that those theologians were heretics also, even though they were never declared to be such by the Church and remained fully Catholic until death.

I am curious as to who the theologians are that have considered this (the highlighted above) and what their reasoning/circumstances consist of to make this opinion their own.


columba wrote:I'm not dealing here with whether or not B.XVI is/was a heretic. I'm taking issue with Mikes assertion/assumption that the Church will always have a reigning Pope at any given time in history.

First of all, I thought that I read earlier in the thread that you do consider Pope BXVI to have been a heretic prior to election of papacy and also after...is this correct?

Second, how can someone be subject to the Roman Pontiff if there is not a "validly" sitting pope; particularly if their entire lifetime has existed during this multi-decade interregnum?

Would it simply be based off of existing dogma, doctrines, etc existing prior to the interregnum?

And if so, then exactly what need would we have for a pope at all; particularly after all divine revelation has occurred and all dogmas, doctrines necessary for salvation have been given/defined? (I realize that we may well have future dogmas defined, particularly regarding the Blessed Mother).

I have a few other questions and thoughts about your position that I am interested in, but I will leave it here for now.

I look forward to hearing from you (or others).

avatar
Allie

Posts : 100
Reputation : 116
Join date : 2010-12-20
Location : southern Ohio, USA

Back to top Go down

Sedevacabtism OK as opinion, But not as Fact

Post  George Brenner on Tue Sep 20, 2011 9:53 pm

CAN. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith. Apostacy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawl of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him. (Code of Cannon Law)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please, Please, Please love, support , pray and be subject to our Pope on all matters of Church Doctrine and when speaking by virtue of his office as Supreme Pontiff , when teaching as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christs faithful, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith and morals. The College of Bishops ALSO possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops together in Ecumenical Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals. Be ever mindfull of our place in the church and not quick to challenge or condemn our Church leaders. They have the the weight of the world on their shoulders and are accountable for proper guidance to help save our souls.

By Example how many are aware of the Following:
Shockinly, Cardinal Recants Error about Female Ordination
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholictide.com%2F11%2Fshockingly-cardinal-recants-erroneous-claims-about-%25E2%2580%259Cfemale-ordination%25E2%2580%259D%2F&ei=6zJ5TvHBMe6HsAK72aHSDQ&usg=AFQjCNHPLXkHhFzlZcuO00tq7_2xYiV64A

Leave Heresy to the Jursidiction of Holy Mother Church; stay in the unity and bosom of Our Church and place your efforts in being defenders of the Faith.

To say that our Church is not is crisis, especially in the last fifty years violates our right and duty to manifest to the sacred Pastors our views on matters of scandal or grave concern. These matters as we know them break our hearts and beg being addressed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CAN. 212 Christ's faithful , conscious of their own responsibilty, are bound to show christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church.

Christ faithful are at LIBERITY to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church.

They have the RIGHT, indeed at times the DUTY, in keeping with their knowledge. competence and position, to MANIFEST to the sacred Pastor THEIR VIEWS on matters which concern the GOOD of the church. They have the RIGHT to make their views known to others of Christ faithful. BUT in doing so must ALWAYS respect the ingreity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and dignity of individuals. {Cannon Law}
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With the above being said,

I am not a war with the Catholic Church. I love my Catholic faith. I believe in everything that must be believed as taught in the deposit of Faith from the instituition of Our church until now.

I am at war with those who attack Our Church, scandalize our church and most importantly the relentless attacks of the devil both from within and from the outside of Our Catholic Faith.
I strongly feel that my first example of how to properly speak up, as it were in the correct manner far exceeds my personal abilities; nonetheless, I will not stand by while our Church undergoes rampant abuses and scandal imposed by some upon the the faithfull. That is not to say that I am not deeply thankfull and appreciative beyond words of the countless Priests and faithfull that show by example and deed Christs saving mission.

EG: Very relevant when written and very relevant now.....
The Letter of Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani
and Antonio Cardinal Bacci
to Pope Paul VI


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=14&ved=0CDUQFjADOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcatholic.shrineofsaintjude.net%2Fhomec014.html&ei=dp13TuaZKMWDsgKhvpWMBQ&usg=AFQjCNGIixw0J6NJf1b4ImviL234VfmIlw




avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Tue Sep 20, 2011 9:55 pm

columba wrote:Bernadette,
Contrary to MRyan's definitive view that it could never be held that the chair of Peter could remain vacant for an extended period of time or be illegitimately occupied, has not been the opinion of many theologians who considered this subject. Mike would have to conclude then, that those theologians were heretics also, even though they were never declared to be such by the Church and remained fully Catholic until death.

I'm not dealing here with whether or not B.XVI is/was a heretic. I'm taking issue with Mikes assertion/assumption that the Church will always have a reigning Pope at any given time in history.
That’s a complete distortion of my position; and it is simply and factually incorrect. Please, columba, try a little harder to get it right.

And isn’t it ironic that the person who throws the Summa Theologica out the window only to “cite” the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church under the hermeneutic of columba’s private interpretation, now brings as an authority on the matter a 19th century theologian; but columba has nothing to say about the dogmatic pronouncements already brought forth as proof of the objective heresy of the sede model that only demonstrates that the Church has failed and that perpetual and visible succession is a joke, as a whole series of imposters have fun at their respective turns ruling over the visible and universal “false Church”.

But let’s see what Fr. O’Reilly has to say.

Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly was a well respected Irish theologian who lived around the mid 18 hundreds and the following are extracts from his considerations on the subject.

Fr. James O’Kane was also a well respected Irish theologian and Dean of Maynooth (1852-1871), and taught baptism of blood and baptism of desire. Hey, I’ll bet you a pint O’Reilly did as well. Oh, wrong subject; sorry. Laughing

Quote from: Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly: The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, 1882.

“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.
I don’t dispute any of that. But here’s the major and vital difference; no where does O’Reilly suggest, like the sede-spleenists, that an antipope can be accepted by the universal Church and rule from the Chair of Peter during an “interregnum”. In this case, there was always a valid Pope, but a universal consensus was lacking, so doubt as to the identity of the true pope was excusable. Here’s the other difference worth noting; not one of the “popes” was a heretic, not one. In fact, the true Pope resigned for the good of the Church so another election could ensue so as to remove all doubt.

Fr. O’Reilly would find the prospect of a public manifest heretic ruling over the universal Church to be as repulsive and heretical as I do (and so does VCI).

and continues in a later page

“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical [absurd]. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise.
Correct, there is no guarantee that another similar situation will not occur where the true Pope could not be ascertained for some time (due to persecution, exile, two or more elections, great confusion, etc.). It can happen.

But, again, does O’Reilly suggest that a manifest public heretic and antipope can usurp the Chair of Peter and be recognized by the universal Church for years on end, or for any length of time? NO!

What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises… We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself by His promises. We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."
And what were those Divine "promises ...", "we are absolutely certain He will fulfill"?

Are the ellipses after "promises ..." there for a good reason, columba? Did he happen to mention any of those Divine promises?

Do you want me to cite those infallible dogmatic “Divine promises” again?

I agree with him; but he is not suggesting what you seem to imply. He is extremely vague, and aren’t we already in a time of great turmoil? But, is there another “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the anti-Christ” citation coming our way? Are you going to fall for that blasphemous and illicit bit of heresy as well?

As bad as it might get (and it will get pretty bad), Christ will not abandon His Church; and “St. Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock which he had received, hath not abandoned the government of the Church which had been confided to him” … and “it can never be that the Church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail...", for “our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, lives, presides and judges to this day, always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome”.

Do you think that these were the “Divine promises” Fr. O’Reilly had in mind when he spoke of them as being excluded from the contingencies we might be facing in the future?

My charge stands: It is an objective heresy to maintain that an antipope can be elected as the Roman Pontiff and be recognized by the universal Church as Christ’s true Vicar. I don’t know where sede’s get the idea that their little dissenting remnant constitutes in any way a legitimate challenge to the pope's universal acceptance.

And I'm ready to bet you two pints that Fr. O’Reilly would agree.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Tue Sep 20, 2011 10:27 pm

George Brenner wrote:
EG: Very relevant when written and very relevant now.....
The Letter of Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani and Antonio Cardinal Bacci to Pope Paul VI

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=14&ved=0CDUQFjADOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcatholic.shrineofsaintjude.net%2Fhomec014.html&ei=dp13TuaZKMWDsgKhvpWMBQ&usg=AFQjCNGIixw0J6NJf1b4ImviL234VfmIlw
I wonder what good it does to continuously cite the “Ottaviani Intervention” when Cardinal Ottaviani is on record as submitting entirely to the manifest will of the Holy Father once his will was known and promulgated. The matter was settled, and all of the major difficulties were resolved to the Cardinal’s satisfaction.

Sorry George, but I don’t find the constant public posting of the “Intervention” to be constructive to the well-being and good order of the Church; and I dare say Cardinal Ottaviani would agree. What rad-trads on this forum call “papolotry”, Cardinal Ottivani would call filial obedience to the authority and universal Primacy of Christ’s true Vicar over the Liturgical rites of the Church.

As to the issue of “blindness” (the Cardinal didn’t know what he was signing), this is just one more conspiracy designed to throw smoke around the facts.

I read this on another forum, and I found the comments apropos:

In my estimation, blind people are not unable to know what they are signing. Card. Ottaviani made two statements affirming the Pauline rite, not one, and he lived for 8-9 years after those statements, during which time he gave interview(s) and could easily have said that his 'true view' was suppressed. Instead, during those interview(s) he affirmed that it is wrong to break with the Holy Father.

I think it is important to remember that Card. Ottaviani was writing his "Intervention" at a time prior to the release of the Pauline rite. At that time, the theologians and others in the Church were operating on the rite with the assumption that it was in a draft form. Prior to something being codified or finalized, theologians comment on possible aspects and problems, but once the Holy Ghost seals a decision with the power of the keys, the Church has resolved the matter in question, and then in faith we know how to see it properly. Card. Ottaviani affirmed the orthodoxy of the Pauline rite of mass, and he was correct to do so.

It strikes me that this essay of his, being circulated now, would be akin to an Iconoclast circulating in the early 400s various parchments written by those who had debated the use of icons in the Church, and trying to argue from those drafts and discussions that sacred art is problematic and idolatrous. The point in response would be that the Church had decided that it is not idolatrous, and we accept that because we trust the power of the keys, notwithstanding the theologians who opined otherwise prior to the decision, some of whom may have had reasonable-seeming arguments. Similarly, we trust that the Church cannot issue a liturgy of sacrilegious, heretical, or other divisive nature. To derive the horrid conclusion that this has happened, "traditionalists" engage in various forms of erroneous reasoning, which have been partly outlined [already].

I was once in the spiritual situation in which you may possibly now be (I can't be certain, of course): Concerned about what I saw in Church, I began to cast about for something more holy, and for explanations about what was happening. I developed a ticklish ear (2 Tim 4:3) and began to walk in things too sublime for me (Ps 131). I recovered when I realized that form, matter, and intent are intact for all the Pauline rites in the Church. Putting faith first allowed me to understand correctly, which is what St. Augustine said: I believe in order to understand.

I think I developed a ticklish ear because of an impatience in my disordered nature, and I have learned that it was wrong for me to ignore the wise counsel of others and to try to branch out on my own. The "traditionalist" literature is rife with half-truths, and each day I pray for the intercession of St. Pius X, as it is in his name that much error is promoted. Those who wish to pray for unity could do likewise! Imagine the din offered daily to St. Pius X, people with judgment in their hearts invoking his name.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Jehanne on Tue Sep 20, 2011 10:57 pm



Mike,

Nothing that you could ever say to me would excuse the above act. As far as I am concerned, Pope John Paul II, when he committed the above blaspheme, excommunicated himself from Christ's Church; whether he recovered from his blasphemes and heresies, I do not know. I would like to think that he did, but in lacking a public confession for such a public act, I suspect that he did not.

Join him in Hell, if you wish; I choose not to. I hope that he is not there, of course, but I suspect that he is.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:29 am

Let me get my crayons out again and make this really simple:

Bernadette wrote: My answer to your idiotic question...there is no 'newly appointed' leader of my traditional church, like I said before, I am a Roman Catholic...the chair of Peter is occupied by a heretic...by an apostate, raging liberal, modernist, phony "pope", and thanks to you and all of the rest of the stupid, duped, NO Catholics that bought into the papolotry business...we have to suffer the heretics until God sees fit to intervene.
Heresy, pure and simple. And heresy topped with arrogance, hubris, vitriolic hatred, condescension and bloviating bluster.

Here is the Church’s answer to this filthy heresy:

He made Peter a perpetual principle of this two-fold unity [faith and communion] and a visible foundation, that on his strength an everlasting temple might be erected and on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven. But the gates of hell, with a hatred that grows greater each day, are rising up everywhere against its divinely established foundation with the intention of overthrowing the Church, if this were possible. We, therefore, judge it necessary for the protection, the safety, and the increase of the Catholic flock to pronounce with the approval of the sacred council the true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. (VCI, Session 4: 18 July 1870 First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ)
And to the "stupid" an spineless Catholics who "bought into the papolotry" by taking Pope Pius IX at his infallible word (that God would never allow “...the chair of Peter [to be] occupied by a heretic...by an apostate, raging liberal, modernist, phony ‘pope’”), bernadette replies:

I would also suggest that you try to drop your vitriolic hatred towards those who hold fast to the traditions of the church ... it appears that you and most of your NO ilk, possess a deeply rooted guilt for accepting and going along with the heresies espoused by the apostates … you Protestantized Catholics are the biggest enemies of the Church...you have no back bone and no true love of your Faith...if you did...you wouldn't sit complacently by while the modernists destroy Christ's church...you'll have to answer for that someday.
We will have much to answer for, as will you.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Allie on Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:22 am

I want to clarify something from my earlier post (and I can't edit anymore):

I had written:

"...Second, how can someone be subject to the Roman Pontiff if there is not a "validly" sitting pope; particularly if their entire lifetime has existed during this multi-decade interregnum?"

But I should have added the following highlighted: "Second, how can someone be subject to the Roman Pontiff if there is not a "validly" sitting pope; particularly if their entire lifetime has existed during this multi-decade interregnum that had a supposed invalid or illegitimate pope pretending to head the Catholic Church?"

I also had written:

"...And if so, then exactly what need would we have for a pope at all; particularly after all divine revelation has occurred and all dogmas, doctrines necessary for salvation have been given/defined? (I realize that we may well have future dogmas defined, particularly regarding the Blessed Mother)."

I would like to clarify that I believe we need the Pope (and have a valid Pope); but I am simply trying to follow the logic of how it would work out on the whole if (God forbid) we had had illegitimate popes claiming the papacy for the last however many decades; and that we had not been given explicit warning that this was about to occur; and we do not have any scriptural evidence or biblical types to warn us of this occurring (that I am aware of).

I haven't had any direct responses to my questions yet, so I am not going to hold my breath on it; however, I am interested in having these questions answered.

Thanks and God bless,
Allie
avatar
Allie

Posts : 100
Reputation : 116
Join date : 2010-12-20
Location : southern Ohio, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:47 am

"Saviorsheart" wrote:

"Today's Protestants are Catholics from what the church teaches, even though they may not have the fullness of the truth"
Saviorsheart, Protestants do not have the fullness of the truth; true, but they are NOT Catholics ... and never has the Church suggested this. With such careless and erroneous statements, you only give the false trads ammunition to attack the Church as if she teaches this nonsense.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Sedevacanist OK as opinion as opinion, but not fact??

Post  George Brenner on Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:24 pm

Comment and question to Mryan,

You have so much information it seems at your fingertips; how do you do it?. Pretty awesome.

My next post depends on your answer to this question.

How is it that the scandals by Farther Reginald Foster go unanswered and Our Church is not defended from such attacks. Please listen to the words from Fathers mouth from you tube discussion with Bill Maher.
You can also to read many of his quotes which include him saying that he says Mass in the nude and if God doesn't like it, that is too bad.
I wrote a letter to the Hierarcy concerning this and more importantly that he was about to be given an honoray degree at a catholic university. The visit and degree were bestowed. I wanted that visit , honor and recognition and degree stopped and wanted to know why he was allowed to be the Popes Papal latinist working for many many years down the hall from the Popes in the vatican.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDkQtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DExElEMpJN3M&ei=rf15Tpn9NafosQKg4uzeDQ&usg=AFQjCNE_61j7UUXG1weskUXaPYqnViTSSA
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  bernadette on Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:54 pm

MRyan wrote:
bernadette wrote:
You and bernadette are two peas of the same heretical pod; and your “doctrines” represent the spectacle of a false tradition that has the audacity to call itself “traditional”.


Your fingers must be sore from typing "or this..."!

I have no idea what you mean by “or this …!” But, never mind.

bernadette wrote:So what is the heresy that I'm being accused of MRyan? What is the 'doctrine' that I represent which is a spectacle of false tradition?

Quit beating around the bush and pasting endless quotes...just tell me what heresy I'm guilty of.
I am not one for beating around the bush, and I can’t help it if you haven’t kept up with these exchanges where I laid out the case for the objective heresy of the sede-spleenists more than once.

If my numerous dogmatic citations from VCI and other magisterial pronouncements have not yet resonated with you, let me recap:

Blessed Peter, the Prince and chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides and judges to this day, always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome….The disposition made by Incarnate Truth (dispositio veritatis) therefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock’s strength which he received (in accepta fortitudine petrae perseverans), has not abandoned the direction of the Church.” (VCI)
Your objective heresy denies that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, lives, presides and judges to this day, always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, and that Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock’s strength which he received, has not abandoned the direction of the Church.”

Tell us, bernadette, if we have no pope and have had no pope for 53 years (or 133 years or 500 years), what is the direction of the visible Church on earth - today? If our Lord did not abandon the direction of the Church that He has placed in the hands and faith of Peter, where is Peter and where is the Church?

Shall I use crayons?

“To this day” means “to this day”, and not to some future date which remains entirely subject to your private opinion as to when Christ’s true Vicar is actually elevated to the papacy, while you reject the visible and perpetual succession of how ever many popes you have declared to be “antipopes” who sit as usurpers in the Chair of Peter, and who only pretend to have a universal recognition by the “false” universal Church, and only pretend to possess the full and immediate Primacy and plenary Power over the universal Church that is conferred directly upon each and every visible and recognized successor to Peter.

You make our Lord into a liar. Oh, and our Lord is NOT a sedevacantist.

Your objective heresy denies “The Church [is] Always Visible”, and you deny “therefore, the ordinance of truth”, that “St. Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock which he had received, hath not abandoned the government of the Church which had been confided to him”.

Your objective heresy denies “that neither against the rock upon which Christ builds His Church nor against the Church shall the gates of Hell prevail'; for your objective heresy denies “The meaning of this divine utterance” which “is, that, notwithstanding the wiles and intrigues which they bring to bear against the Church, it can never be that the Church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail..." (Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", 1896)

Where is your visible Church that cannot in any wise fail? In your house? In a trailer in upstate NY? In a compound in New Mexico? Where is your “little remnant” of believers who are without Pope, without ordinary jurisdiction, without Apostolic succession, without the ordinary means of sacramental grace and without any means for recognizing a “true” Pope? Oh, is God supposed to provide for you and your “remnant”? You place this ON HIM when He said He would never abandon His flock by letting His Church fail or let it be “eclipsed” for generations on end? Is your last pope portrayed in a picture hanging on the wall? Who is that, Pope Pius IX, Pius XII, John XXIII?

Your objective heresy denies that Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly” … “at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth”; and that “it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all (Pope Pius XII, "Mystici Corporis Christi", 1943)

As Dr. Ludwig Ott wrote in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

That the Primacy is to be perpetuated in the successors of Peter is, indeed, not expressly stated in the words of the promise and conferring of the Primacy by Our Lord, but if flows as an inference from the nature and purpose of the primacy itself. As the function of the Primacy is to preserve the unity and solidarity of the Church; and as the Church, according to the will of her Divine Founder, is to continue substantially unchanged until the end of time for the perpetuation of the work of salvation, the Primacy also must be perpetuated. But Peter, like every other human being, was subject to death (John 21, 19), consequently his office must be transmitted to others. The structure of the Church cannot continue without the foundation which supports it (Mt. 16, 18): Christ's flock cannot exist without shepherds (John 21, 15-17).
And what is that visible FOUDATION; that “impregnable foundation of his Church” that “was laid by Christ the Lord", and upon which the entire structure of the Church rests?

It is this:

He made Peter a perpetual principle of this two-fold unity [faith and communion] and a visible foundation, that on his strength an everlasting temple might be erected and on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven. But the gates of hell, with a hatred that grows greater each day, are rising up everywhere against its divinely established foundation with the intention of overthrowing the Church, if this were possible. We, therefore, judge it necessary for the protection, the safety, and the increase of the Catholic flock to pronounce with the approval of the sacred council the true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. (VCI, Session 4: 18 July 1870 First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ)
Abbot Guéranger writes:

The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of, her liberty, acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself. (, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, pg. 188)
Cardinal Billot wrote:

Finally, what one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy." And this is based on the Church’s attribute of Indefectibility as defined by "the promise of the infallible Providence of Christ [that] ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ and ‘Behold, I am with you all days even unto the end of the world.’ For the adherence of the Church to a false pontiff would be the same thing as its adherence to a false rule of Faith, since the pope is the living rule of the Faith that the Church has to follow, and that in fact, She always follows."

He continues:

"God some times can allow that the vacancy of the Apostolic See be for a certain time. He can allow also that a doubt may come concerning the legitimacy of such-and-such an election, but He cannot allow that the whole Church accept as a pontiff one who is not really legitimate. Therefore, from the moment that the pope is accepted by the Church and is united to Her as the head to the body, we can no longer raise the doubt on the possible bias of election or the possible lack of the necessary conditions for legitimacy. Because this adherence of the Church heals in its root all faults committed at the moment of election, and proves infallibly the existence of all the conditions required."
Now, anticipating your response that posits that the Vicar of Christ is not “visible” during a legitimate interregnum (between the death of a pope and his elected successor), the Church makes provisions for these ordinary occurrences in the following manner:

Between the death of the pope and the election of his successor (sede vacante) the cardinal-camerlengo is the head of the Sacred College. It is his duty to verify the death of the pope, to direct the preparations for the conclave, and to take charge of the same. The camerlengo does not make any decisions that are not of immediate necessity to the administration of the Church. Any decision that is not urgent to the running of the Church is postponed until a new pope is elected.
And, while the longest sede vacante period lasted for about 3½ years due to persecution and political strife, the Church recognizes that these periods are not part of her ordinary constitution, which is why these interregnums must be of relatively short duration (some theologians speculate that the longest period before indefectibility and perpetual Apostolic succession would be adversely effected is one generation, or 20-22 years; though I find even this length to be implausible in consideration of everything that has already been presented).

But here is this major flaw in your heterodoxy: Your “interregnum” is not a true interregnum that happens every time a Pope dies, yours is a gross and unprecedented distortion of a true interregnum that sees in the place of a true pope a heretical imposter who visibly sits upon the Chair of Peter and who has usurped full and immediate Primacy over the universal Church, and for generations on end; and whose election was contested by no one (by anyone that matters).

Again, not in the entire history of the Church has an antipope been recognized as Christ’s true Vicar; and never has an antipope usurped the papacy without there already being a valid Pope.

In summary:

He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See." Satis Cognitum
For you, the Apostolic See is GONE; and so long as you remain stuck in the quagmire of objective heresy, you shall never find it.

Therefore, those who believe that they can accept Christ as the head of the Church, without giving loyal adherence to his vicar on earth, walk the path of dangerous error. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity, and they so disfigure the true concept of the mystical body of the Redeemer that it cannot be recognized or found by those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation..


Fact of the matter is, Ryan...I never said the pope wasn't validly elected...I never said he wasn't the "pope", I never said the chair has been empty for 53 years...only YOU attributed these statements to me, and you know why? Because you're guilty of ASSUMING....and what's the old saying? Never ASSUME, you'll only make an ASS out of U and ME.

I believe we have a heretic sitting in Rome. The Church allows a heretic to be elected. It isn't my place to convict him, he's convicted himself by his very actions....but it IS my place to know my faith and not to follow and obey error and heresy....too bad you just don't get it.

bernadette

Posts : 15
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2011-09-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  simple Faith on Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:31 pm

So then Bernadette, just let me sum up your response as I understand it.
1. The Pope has been validly elected.
2. He is the Pope.
3. The chair has been occupied for 53 years.
4. It's not your place to convict the Pope of being a heretic.
Great, I didn't realise there was so much common ground between us. Now it's just a matter of learning your faith so as you don't follow error or heresy.
avatar
simple Faith

Posts : 164
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2011-01-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  columba on Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:43 pm

Allie wrote:I want to clarify something from my earlier post (and I can't edit anymore):

I had written:

"...Second, how can someone be subject to the Roman Pontiff if there is not a "validly" sitting pope; particularly if their entire lifetime has existed during this multi-decade interregnum?"

But I should have added the following highlighted: "Second, how can someone be subject to the Roman Pontiff if there is not a "validly" sitting pope; particularly if their entire lifetime has existed during this multi-decade interregnum that had a supposed invalid or illegitimate pope pretending to head the Catholic Church?"

I also had written:

"...And if so, then exactly what need would we have for a pope at all; particularly after all divine revelation has occurred and all dogmas, doctrines necessary for salvation have been given/defined? (I realize that we may well have future dogmas defined, particularly regarding the Blessed Mother)."

I would like to clarify that I believe we need the Pope (and have a valid Pope); but I am simply trying to follow the logic of how it would work out on the whole if (God forbid) we had had illegitimate popes claiming the papacy for the last however many decades; and that we had not been given explicit warning that this was about to occur; and we do not have any scriptural evidence or biblical types to warn us of this occurring (that I am aware of).

I haven't had any direct responses to my questions yet, so I am not going to hold my breath on it; however, I am interested in having these questions answered.

Thanks and God bless,
Allie

Hi Allie,
You addressed those questions to me and I'll reply as soon as I can.
I won't have much time at the computer until tomorrow so please bear with me.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:36 pm

bernadette wrote:
Fact of the matter is, Ryan...I never said the pope wasn't validly elected...I never said he wasn't the "pope", I never said the chair has been empty for 53 years...only YOU attributed these statements to me, and you know why? Because you're guilty of ASSUMING....and what's the old saying? Never ASSUME, you'll only make an ASS out of U and ME.

I believe we have a heretic sitting in Rome. The Church allows a heretic to be elected. It isn't my place to convict him, he's convicted himself by his very actions....but it IS my place to know my faith and not to follow and obey error and heresy....too bad you just don't get it.
Then your heresy is even more egregious.

You say that the Church allows a heretic to be validly elected and recognized by the universal Church as Christ's true Vicar. Nowhere does the Church "allow" or teach any such thing; and her infallible dogmatic pronouncements, which you cannot respond to, declare just the opposite.

You say you "never said he wasn't the 'pope'", and then turn right around and tell us "you have a man by the name of Ratzinger, sitting on the chair of Peter under the guise of a Catholic".

So is the man named Ratzinger the validly elected "pope", or isn't he? If he is the validly elected pope, why do you refuse to recognize him as Pope Benedict XVI?

If the "pope" is not a Catholic, can he be the pope? Since when? If so, why do you place "pope" in quotations, as if "Ratzinger" is not the pope? I think many of your sede friends would condemn this as outright heresy against the Divine law. So would St. Robert Bellarmine.

You also said that the visible "church that you entertain in your mind as still existing...ended with Vatican II". So, we are to understand the validly elected "pope", represented by the person named Ratzinger, is the validly elected "pope" of the visible universal Church "that ended with Vatican II."

Gee, this is very confusing. A "validly elected" heretical "pope", who goes by the name of "Ratzinger" (and never did you say "he wasn't the 'pope'"), is "sitting on the chair of Peter under the guise of a Catholic" and presiding over a non-existent Church that "ended with Vatican II."

Can you explain how a man named Ratzinger (who, apparently, as the "validly elected 'pope'", is not really Pope Benedict XVI) can be validly elected as the Supreme Pontiff with full and immediate Apostolic Primacy over a universal visible Church that does not exist?

In conclusion, you hold that "the chair of Peter is occupied by a [validly elected] heretic...by an apostate, raging liberal, modernist, [validly elected] phony 'pope' (and never did you say "he wasn't the 'pope'")"; and that this validly elected heretical phony 'pope', who goes by the name Ratzinger, "sits in the Chair of Peter" and presides over a non-existent Church, and to top it all off, you say, "thanks to you and all of the rest of the stupid, duped, NO Catholics that bought into the papolotry business...we have to suffer the heretics until God sees fit to intervene."

Got it (ha!); and none of this is opposed to VCI and its solemn and infallible declaration that says:

Blessed Peter, the Prince and chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides and judges to this day, always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome….The disposition made by Incarnate Truth (dispositio veritatis) therefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock’s strength which he received (in accepta fortitudine petrae perseverans), has not abandoned the direction of the Church.” (VCI)
Again, your objective heresy denies that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, lives, presides and judges to this day, always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, and that Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock’s strength which he received, has not abandoned the direction of the Church.”

You really do take us for "stupid" dupes and fools, don't you?

But anyway, with such assumptions, you can make an "ASS" of yourself without any help from "ME".
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:11 pm

bernadette wrote: "MRyan...why do find it necessary to insult others? Can't you make your point otherwise? You may as well just go ahead and crown yourself pope since you're never wrong. .. Listen here, a bit of advice....Lourdes was right on the mark in calling you on your uncharitable treatment....if you would be so kind as to stop talking down to others, you might prosper in your arguments. Rudeness really isn't necessary all the time, you know."
That’s really good advice. And its so nice to know you practice what you preach:

bernadette wrote: My answer to your idiotic question...the chair of Peter is occupied by a heretic...by an apostate, raging liberal, modernist, phony "pope", and thanks to you and all of the rest of the stupid, duped, NO Catholics that bought into the papolotry business...we have to suffer the heretics until God sees fit to intervene … you Protestantized Catholics are the biggest enemies of the Church...you have no back bone and no true love of your Faith …You are a raging apostate.... Cowards resort to acting boorish in my experience.

What is that line columba is fond of saying; “Physician, heal thyself”?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:36 pm

DeSelby wrote:
MRyan wrote:
DeSelby wrote:
Not even the anti-popes or the legitimate but personally immoral popes said anything remotely doctrinally unsound, as far as I understand the matter. St. Peter's faults were merely human weaknesses.
Then you don't understand the matter very well, and are a poor student of history.

As to the second part, hey, you actually gave me some credit. I'll simply show you my other cheek.

However, I will say that, in this instance, you are a poor corrector of errors and a poor teacher of history; for I do not see anywhere in your post my supposed historical errors corrected.

I suppose I'm guilty as charged since I did not follow-up. It should stand to reason, however, that whether a pope is "personally immoral" or not has no bearing on his capability to say "anything remotely doctrinally unsound".

I am speaking of his capacity as a private theologian and his being subject to human error. In fact, the charges (unfounded or not) against Liberius, Vigilius, Honorius I (though his "error" was not "private"), Boniface IV, John XXII and others simply proves the point.

Pope Alexander VI was so corrupt and immoral that Fr. Savonarola believed the Pope couldn't possibility believe in God, let alone profess the Catholic Faith.

However, I would be so bold as to challenge anyone to demonstrate doctrinal "error" in any official teachings of the Pope (as a public person), whether by way of Encyclical, Allocution, Canon law, or even the Roman Catechism.

Not that it cannot happen ... I've just never seen even one credible example.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  DeSelby on Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:25 pm

MRyan wrote:It should stand to reason, however, that whether a pope is "personally immoral" or not has no bearing on his capability to say "anything remotely doctrinally unsound".

I completely agree, and have, moreover, never doubted that.

MRyan wrote:I am speaking of his capacity as a private theologian and his being subject to human error. In fact, the charges (unfounded or not) against Liberius, Vigilius, Honorius I (though his "error" was not "private"), Boniface IV, John XXII and others simply proves the point.

So, just so I'm clear on this, you are simply stating that they (popes) can err in their capacity as private theologians, correct?


MRyan wrote:However, I would be so bold as to challenge anyone to demonstrate doctrinal "error" in any official teachings of the Pope (as a public person), whether by way of Encyclical, Allocution, Canon law, or even the Roman Catechism.

Not that it cannot happen ... I've just never seen even one credible example.

That's the whole post-Second Vatican Council conundrum...

I think I'll stay out of this one for a little bit; as, I'm sure others will have something to add quite soon, anyway. There are still a few things I want to respond to from earlier in the thread, which eventually I'd like to get to.
avatar
DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Jehanne on Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:35 pm

Mike would have us believe that the following propositions are true:

Vatican II taught without error. We know that this is not true, because not only did the Council contradict Tradition but that it also contradicted itself. The same is true of post-conciliar Popes.

A Pope, once elected, no longer has human free will. The word "heresy", in Latin, means choice. Vatican I never taught that the Pope could not promulgate false teachings, only that he, as Vicar of God, could not bind Catholics to believe in false beliefs.

The infallible definitions of the Church have "hidden" meanings. Let's consider one:

Condemned Proposition: That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit. (Exsurge Domine, #33)

The above definition is infallible, comes from a valid Pope, and is de fide ecclesiastica. (The Catholic Church, after all, burned pre- and post-Protestant heretics for centuries.)

Now, Mike would us believe that Vatican II's teaching on ecumenism, religious liberty, etc. is de fide ecclesiastica; however, by the Law of Non-contradiction, such a conclusion is manifestly absurd. The One and Triune God does not speak with a "forked tongue."

So, what to make of this paradox then, given the fact that the One and Triune God is a Perfect Being? The answer is simple: man. The Pope is a human being, which means that he can choose to believe in false things, and Catholics can choose to follow him (straight to Hell), or they can choose to follow the infallible, immutable teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church. In choosing the latter option, we are not claiming that the current Pope is not the valid Successor of Peter (for he is "judged by God alone"), only that he is espousing ideas that Jesus Christ Himself would condemn. Saint Peter, after all, denied Christ.

Mike can quote various pre-Vatican II Pope's "charitable statements" towards Protestants just as he can find "charitable statements" from various Inquisitors over the centuries which they made before abandoning Protestant heretics to secular justice to be burned alive.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:14 pm

George Brenner wrote:Comment and question to Mryan,

You have so much information it seems at your fingertips; how do you do it?. Pretty awesome.

My next post depends on your answer to this question.

How is it that the scandals by Farther Reginald Foster go unanswered and Our Church is not defended from such attacks. Please listen to the words from Fathers mouth from you tube discussion with Bill Maher.

You can also to read many of his quotes which include him saying that he says Mass in the nude and if God doesn't like it, that is too bad.

I wrote a letter to the Hierarcy concerning this and more importantly that he was about to be given an honoray degree at a catholic university. The visit and degree were bestowed. I wanted that visit , honor and recognition and degree stopped and wanted to know why he was allowed to be the Popes Papal latinist working for many many years down the hall from the Popes in the vatican.
And I applaud your efforts to this end; truly. I admire your perseverance and obvious love for the Church and our Faith.

Unfortunately, as you know, these types of scandalous examples of infidelity to the Faith and to the Church can be multiplied almost without end.

I don’t know how it is that the scandals by Farther Reginald Foster, and others, to include Bishops, “go unanswered and Our Church is not defended from such attacks”.

That’s THE question of the last several decades, is it not? And there are no easy answers.

I didn’t have this at my finger tips (it was on my book shelf), and I just finished scanning several pages into my computer; but the following words of James Larson from his book “The War Against the Papacy” represent a fairly accurate summation of my own feelings about this vale of tears and devastated vineyard we find ourselves in, while a weak and even a seemingly oblivious Vatican does nothing to stop the pain, the scandal and the bleeding. As someone once said, enough about the rights of man, what about the rights of God?

Let me begin with this bit of profound wisdom:

For a Catholic, the demands of supernatural charity, according to the Will of God, can supersede the demands of natural justice and natural reason.
I will have Larson return to this further on, but first, he writes (Note: to facilitate ease of reading, I am not wrapping these extracts with the customary "quote" function):

"As I have said before, the most effective chastisement which God can inflict upon man in such a situation is simply to hand him over to his own natural freedom. I believe that that is what Dignitatis Humanae is all about. It is what the New Mass facilitates. And it is what a whole host of other "new" things in the Church is all about—the relaxation of the fasting laws, the permission for altar girls, the indiscriminate promotion of NFP, etc. And, possibly, pre-eminent among these chastisements is the ecumenical movement by which the Church, and all the faithful, are in effect lowered into the pool of the world's errors and sins. If we had come to the point of living profoundly duplicitous lives; if we had surrendered ourselves to serving the world in all the other aspects of our lives: political, economic, educational, recreational, etc. – then why should we deem it surprising that God should hand us over to Satan in our spiritual lives so that we might "learn not to blaspheme?" (1 Tim 1:20).

"All these things have the effect of promoting natural freedom, and a veiling of the protective cover of Christ's Kingship over our lives. They are, in reality, spiritual democracy. And we have deserved it, and for the most part still do. I believe, in fact, that Mr. XXXXX' superficial view, that full responsibility for everything that is wrong with the Church lies upon John Paul II, is profound testimony to this "desert" on our part. It is, after all, the dominant view among those who call themselves traditional Catholics. It is in fact this orientation towards blaming Popes, bishops, priests, etc. which prevents us from perceiving the real roots of infidelity in our own duplicity – such double-mindedness being at the root of the present chastisement and chaos in the Church.

"What is necessary in order to understand this crisis is true Christian piety. In one of its roots the word piety connotes "fidelity" in fulfilling ones obligations towards God, and to others in any way responsible for our existence or well-being. In another nuance, it finds roots in the Italian word for "pity" – thus we have the "Pieta" of Michelangelo. And in another root, it means "appeasement" (which, of course, is closely linked to the Catholic idea of reparation and sacrifice). True piety therefore reaches almost infinitely deeper than any strictly human rational analysis into the roots of suffering, confusion, and chaos that is present in the Church. It reaches into the very Heart of Christ, into His Merciful Love, and therefore into the mysterious interplay between chastisement and blessing through which God works to "draw good out of all the evil in the world."

"It is this "piety" which came into play in my attempted analysis of the events at Assisi. I first of all established quite clearly through the Pope's Wednesday General Audience, held just previous to this event, that Pope John Paul II believes that there is no salvation except through Jesus Christ. He cannot therefore be justly accused of heresy. How then do we account for what I have also called the "nightmare" of Assisi? The whole Pontificate of Pope John Paul II, as I see it, is devoted to the "project" of God's Divine Mercy through Jesus Christ. In the promotion of God's mercy John Paul II looks deeply into the heart and nature of man and sees God's image, and therefore the profound dignity of every man, even the greatest sinner. According to his own writings therefore, he believes that even within the most pagan religions there are "seeds of the Word" – towards the one true God. This is not a new idea confected by Pope John Paul II. Certain early Church Fathers spoke of this concept, and Saint Clement of Alexandria even went so far as to speak of a "dispensation of paganism." At any rate, the Pope believes that the time has come that God wishes us not to try to impose Christ's Kingship from the top, but to draw out, through dialogue and ecumenism, these "seeds of the Word" into the fullness of truth in Christ.

"As I say, I believe I can understand what he is doing. There is no denial of Catholic doctrine in such a position. There is also, certainly, some truth in it. It does not make Pope John Paul II a heretic. But it does make for nightmare. And I think the nightmare is one we deserve.

"We deserve the nightmare because we have possessed the faith of Catholicism, but not its heart. We have “tithed mint and rue and every herb; and passed over judgment, and the charity of God." (Luke 11:42) In other words, besides the spiritual duplicity which sought to have the things of this world more than ever before, there was in pre-Conciliar Catholicism something akin to the religion of the Pharisees. The Pharisees possessed God's promise and covenant, possessed God's law, possessed the Promised Land, and possessed the true religious worship. And they used these possessions to deny God's love and mercy not only towards other human beings, but even so as to destroy in themselves and many others the very love man owes to God – thus causing Christ to say through his Prophet: "I saw no one to comfort me."

"[…] It is my belief, therefore, that the chastisement which we are experiencing, especially in this country and in the West generally, is the fruit of our having possessed the faith of Catholicism, but not its heart. We have become "as fat as butter" while two-thirds of the world goes to bed hungry every night. We have self-righteously dismissed all pagan people because "all the gods of the pagans are devils" while failing to realize that in the depths of the hearts of many of these same pagans are the hearts of children crying out implicitly, if not actually, for Jesus Christ. We gave our pittance to the missions and our hundred dollar bills to the purchase of new TV's, cars, boats and motors, snowmobiles, and degrees from secular and atheistic institutions.

"I believe that Assisi was a nightmare because it was an expression of false philosophical approaches (as examined in the final section of this book), and that it involves an extraordinarily naïve approach to dialoguing with error, superstition, and evil. Despite all this, I also believe that it involves the heart of a Catholic Pope who suffers deeply for the salvation of others in his desire to bring God's mercy to all men. Yet, it is also true that the whole concept of mercy can be abused. His writings reveal that he sees himself as ruling through serving, and that this serving is at the very heart of his concept of mercy. But it is equally true that in order to truly serve, a Pope must rule. And this I cannot see that he has effectively done. He has been merciful, and even rewarding, to Cardinal Law, but through his failure to govern, he has done little to prevent a whole generation (or two) of Catholic children from being spiritually, and in many cases physically, raped by those who are ministering in the name of the Church. I understand, in fact, that in his latest book Pope John Paul II also expresses personal misgivings about his government of the Church.

"And this is why I, and I think many others who are caught in the web of these extremes, feel as though "My heart is become like wax melting in the midst of my bowels." On the one hand, we have no idea how to convince Pope John Paul II that the cause of Divine Mercy may be best served through a return to the traditional concept of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, to the Traditional Mass, and through a radically new commitment to the spirituality and passion of which this Mass is the perfect expression in prayer. On the other hand, we see a deeply fractured and divided traditionalist movement, divided for the most part because of a multitude of errors concerning the Papacy, these errors being rooted in a profoundly superficial understanding of the relationship of Christ to His Mystical Body the Church. I further believe that it is this division from the Papacy which is depriving the Church of that suffering and reparative charity which is necessary for its reform. Archbishop Lefebvre, for instance, called Pope John Paul 11 an "anti-Christ, and yet stated that he prayed for him at every Mass. How can there be anything of the power of reparation and reform in a prayer rooted in such a judgment, and in such duplicity?

An Attempt At Understanding

"So what is happening in the interior of Pope John Paul 11 that enables him to do what he does? Holy Scripture tells us, of course, that no man can understand another's heart. But there are qualities and realities built into both the nature of supernatural Revelation and man's response to it in faith that might at least give us a handle on how this strange and heart-rending state of affairs has come to pass. And it is precisely this "handle" which we are so much in need of in order to retain some sort of Catholic sanity in the midst of this confusion. We need, in other words, an explanation of how Pope John Paul II can do these things while still possessing the never-failing faith" guaranteed by Christ to all Popes.

The key to this explanation lies, I believe, in understanding the difference, and even conflict, which can exist between faith and personal philosophy."

[END OF EXTRACT]

And now, back to this bit of wisdom:

James Larson writes:

"For a Catholic, the demands of supernatural charity, according to the Will of God, can supersede the demands of natural justice and natural reason."

"This "charity through obedience" is not an option. It is a demand of our faith. The dogma of the Papal Primacy locks us into a sacrificially obedient love towards the Papacy in much the same way as marriage locks spouses into a sacrificial relationship to one another and to the sacrament which they have received. We have previously quoted St. Gregory's statement, "Divine Justice provides shepherds according to the just desserts of the faithful." We may now look at this statement in a deeper light. Bad shepherds are not just a punishment. They are a wound in our own Body which requires the reparative grace of our suffering charity. They are a specific call from God for an increase in this charity.

"… If there is anything that appears most striking about the Church at this moment in history, it is its apparent weakness. The Church seems drained of power. Priests have no power to resist the temptations of the world. The Pope seems to have no power over bishops, clergy, or religious. The Catholic man or woman in the world has no power to defend his or her faith against either militant secularism or Fundamentalism. Catholic works without a Catholic Heart is impossible. Faith without works is dead. We have become impotent because we have become independent. We must pray for the grace to return to the "first love" and "first works" which is the Cross of Christ, and, the power that overcomes the world.

"There are millions of people who assisted at the Traditional Latin Mass during all the years of their childhood, and yet effectively lost their Catholic Faith during a few years subsequent to Vatican Council II. Retention of the Faith is not primarily dependent on "having” the Old Mass. It is primarily dependent upon being faithful to God's grace – believing in His Truth, being obedient to His commands and precepts, and possessing that sacrificial love for Christ and His Mystical Body which we have already examined. We cannot communicate this love, which is necessary for salvation, to our children if we are in rebellion against the Holy Father.

"It is therefore absolutely essential for our children to see and sense in us this love for the Pope and the Church. It must be a deeply personal love; and since the Church is now in terrible agony, it must be a deeply suffering love. Our children can certainly sense if this love is insincere. If we pray for the Pope during Mass, and afterwards gossip about what we think are his latest sins, then our children will discover our hypocrisy and be drained of their faith –that faith which, according to St. Paul, is dead without charity.

"There is no doubt that our responsibilities as parents are increased in times such as these. If we assist at a Mass where there is irreverence or where our children might hear something that is not in accord with the faith, we must spend additional time explaining to them what is right and true, Even more important, we must spend additional time praying for these people and in reparation for such offenses committed against God. We must impart to our children a vision of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ – pure and unstained in its invisible nature – wounded, scourged, and defiled in its visible nature, even by those who are its members. We may have to travel many miles on Sunday to find a Mass offered in a manner more in keeping with God's Will. We have to shelter our children – surround them with friends, books, entertainment, and (most important) schooling, which are in accord with our faith. All this, hopefully, will be communicated to our children as a love and passion for Christ and His Church.

"In this sense we are blessed. The pre-Vatican II parent felt little of the holy terror of the world which we feel. Father and Mother trusted the bishop, trusted the pastor and sister, slowly amalgamated their faith to American pluralism, and watched their children slip away.

"We are blessed if we and our children learn from all this how to love as Christ loved us.

"And now we follow thee with all our heart, and we fear thee, and seek thy face. Put us not to confusion, but deal with us according to thy meekness, and according to the multitude of thy mercies." (Dan 3:41-42)"

[END]

Sorry for he length of this response.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:27 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike would have us believe that the following propositions are true:
Since there is not a single factual statement in your entire post, I am not going to waste my time with a response.

We both know its a wasted effort to correct your egregious errors and appalling ecclesiology.

Your non-stop and unnecessary accusations and fulminations against Pope JPII will not bode well for you. This has gone way past "fraternal correction" and any semblance of true charity.



avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Sedevacantism OK as opinion not Fact ??

Post  George Brenner on Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:39 pm

Wow, I almost put in a new subject, it really seems to me that so many of my comments should be disussed under, Crisis (or no , if thats your choice) in the Church.

My prayers and soul tell me that there is absolutely no doubt,{ none, zero} that the Popes over the last fifty years have been the true Vicar of Christ and completely legitimate and sound on doctrine and matters of pronounced faith and morals. No power on earth, except God or Holy Mother Church can judge whether a Pope has lost his authority or found guilty of heresy. The keys to the kingdom are not lost or in the domain of someone who we do not know. The church is not Popeless.
The Catholic church in itself is a miracle in the fact that it has been here 2000 years,although some years and decades went much better than others. The fact we are still here is a guarantee , a promise , a vow from Jesus's mouth to Peter. Every second of every year, the deposit of Faith has been safeguarded by the Holy Spirit. Think about that if you would. We are not on Otto-Pilot.

Our current Pope Benedict XVI has much on his physical and spiritual plate.( I will get to crisis in the church latter}.
I love and pray for our Pope and am submissive to him as the successor of Saint Peter.

I now go back to 2007, seems like just yesterday. I would tell you that at least 97 % { thats a quesstimate give or take 3 % } of Catholics I talked to or directed to the article said no way. That is a crisis!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.
The line above are all little crosses + + + etc

This article was in many major and small town newspapers.

Date of : July 11, 2007
Lorenzago Di Cadore, Italy {AP}
Headline: Pope says Catholic Church only True Church
Sub Headline: Statements bring swift condemnation from Protestants

Paper article exactly as released:

Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says other christian communties are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the ONLY true path to SALVATION.
The statement brought swift criticism from Protestant leaders. " It makes us question whether we are indeed praying for Christian unity " said the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, a fellowship of 75 million Protestants in more than 100 countries.
" It makes us question the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogues serious with the Reformed Family and the other famlies of the Church". The group said in a letter charging that the Pope's document took ecumenical dialogue back to the era before the Second Vatican Council.
It was the second time in a week that Pope Benedict has corrected what he says are erroneous intrepretations of the second Vatican Council, the 1962-1965 meetings that modernized the church. On Saturday, Benedict revived the old Latin Mass.
Pope Benedict has long complained about what he considers Vatican II's erroneous interpretation by liberals, saying it was NOT a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith , which Benedict headed before becomming Pope, said it was issuing a new document Tuesday because some contemporary theological intrpretations of Vatican II's ecumenical intent had been "ERRONEOUS or AMBIGUOUS" and had prompted confusion and doubt.
The new document restates the key sections 0f a 2000 text the pope wrote when he was Prefect of the congregration, " Dominus Jesus" which riled protestant demoninations because it said they were not true churches, but merely ecclesial communties and therefore did not have the "means of Salvation"
The Pope repeated church teaching that says The Catholic Church has " the fullness of the means of salvation"
The other communties " can not be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession-- the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's orginal apostles--- and therefore their priestly ordinations are not valid."

End Of Article + + + ===+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So if anyone thinks that we do not today have and have had true Popes for the last fifty plus years, I say Please please Gus or Gusette get on the One Holy Catholic and apostolic bus.

Revelations 3 15-16
I know thy works , that thou are neither cold or hot. I would thou wert cold or hot.
But because thou art luke warm and neither cold, not hot I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Physicians use lukewarm water to induce vomiting.


Now having said all the above , I will do my next posting under, Crisis in the Church which will be more appropriate for me to discuss the terrible scandals, the undermining of Our faith from within and cancerous growth of modernist theology that has implanted itself and is festering within the celebration of even the most sacred mysteries.

Many of the specific abuses that so many of you have brought up in these postings must be discussed for their gravity or lack thereof and with the grace of God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Blessed Mother and all the angels and saints be corrected.




avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Sedevacantism ,OK as opinion not Fact

Post  George Brenner on Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:07 pm

To MRyan,

Thank you very much for your last post. I had to read it three times. I think once for my brain, once for my heart and once for my soul. I know one thing, I will read the book. More comments tommorrow.

Just a another quick thought on another subject that has been discussed a lot on this forum. It use to deeply bother me on what would happen to unbaptised babies, an invinceablly ignorant person and of course the ever discussed baptism of Blood or desire.
These are all situations that exist in principle. I know that all of these situations are known to God. One of the times as I was praying, I shivvered with a comforting thought. Is it just an idea I came up with, or answer to a prayer? . I do not know the answer; but this subject is resolved in my mind. God is the ultimate judge and we cannot even imagine his mercy combined with justice.
Angels are messengers. They took on human form when the went to Sodom as visitors.
I would not be surprized if angels were sent to baptize a baby with physical water or visit those natives we always talk about in the most remote Jungle in the world.























avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Jehanne on Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:53 am

George,

I discuss such a possibility on my blog, which you can read here:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/absolute-necessity-of-sacramental.html
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  bernadette on Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:28 am

MRyan wrote:
bernadette wrote: "MRyan...why do find it necessary to insult others? Can't you make your point otherwise? You may as well just go ahead and crown yourself pope since you're never wrong. .. Listen here, a bit of advice....Lourdes was right on the mark in calling you on your uncharitable treatment....if you would be so kind as to stop talking down to others, you might prosper in your arguments. Rudeness really isn't necessary all the time, you know."
That’s really good advice. And its so nice to know you practice what you preach:

bernadette wrote: My answer to your idiotic question...the chair of Peter is occupied by a heretic...by an apostate, raging liberal, modernist, phony "pope", and thanks to you and all of the rest of the stupid, duped, NO Catholics that bought into the papolotry business...we have to suffer the heretics until God sees fit to intervene … you Protestantized Catholics are the biggest enemies of the Church...you have no back bone and no true love of your Faith …You are a raging apostate.... Cowards resort to acting boorish in my experience.

What is that line columba is fond of saying; “Physician, heal thyself”?

Everything I said is true....still, you refuse to understand. An apostate can sit in the Chair...a heretic can be a pope...I'll say it because the evidence is there...you won't because you suffer from papolotry and cowardice. Does it matter if I say it? No. Does it mean I have to follow the 'pope' into heresy? As a Catholic, I'm duty bound to know the faith, and I'd be sinning if I did.

You're a Protestant and you don't even know it.

bernadette

Posts : 15
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2011-09-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  tornpage on Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:38 pm

George,

First, welcome to the forum. I'm not here much, but they know me around here. Very Happy

It use to deeply bother me on what would happen to unbaptised babies, an invinceablly ignorant person and of course the ever discussed baptism of Blood or desire.
These are all situations that exist in principle. I know that all of these situations are known to God.

Indeed, God knows. He doesn't have to tell us how he deals with these situations.

However, I think such questions, particularly the question about the fate of unbaptized infants, are very helpful. How does a belief system respond to the question? Is that response consistent in light of its teachings in other areas?

Truth does not contradict itself. For a seeker like me, thinking about an issue such as the fate of unbaptized infants in world a subject to God's providence and decree puts things into focus.

Perhaps you'd like to share some thoughts you have, if any, on that issue here: http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t467-1-timothy-24#4374
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Jehanne on Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:43 pm

I am really shocked, tornpage. Infants who die without Baptism are forever excluded from Paradise:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/infants-who-die-without-sacramental.html

If the Church was wrong about this, then Catholicism is a lie.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  tornpage on Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:07 pm

I am really shocked, tornpage. Infants who die without Baptism are forever excluded from Paradise

I seem to remember the CDF coming out with a document about this awhile back. That was not the conclusion in it. Very Happy

If the Church was wrong about this, then Catholicism is a lie.

Thou sayest.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Jehanne on Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:31 pm

tornpage wrote:
I am really shocked, tornpage. Infants who die without Baptism are forever excluded from Paradise

I seem to remember the CDF coming out with a document about this awhile back. That was not the conclusion in it. Very Happy

If the Church was wrong about this, then Catholicism is a lie.

Thou sayest.

It was not the CDF but the ITC (see my link above), which has no Magisterial authority. If you want to be a papolotrist (okay, it's not a word), go ahead; I am not into ruining individuals' fantasy lives. If you believe that an infant who dies without Baptism goes to Heaven, then you are a heretic. If the Pope believes such, then he is a heretic, also; so is the CDF, if that papal body actually stated anything resembling what you are claiming for them.


Last edited by Jehanne on Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  tornpage on Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:37 pm

If you believe that an infant who dies without Baptism goes to Heaven, then you are a heretic. If the Pope believes such, then he is a heretic, also.

Since you're pronouncing: would having hope that an infant who dies without baptism goes to heaven make one a heretic?
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Jehanne on Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:38 pm

tornpage wrote:
If you believe that an infant who dies without Baptism goes to Heaven, then you are a heretic. If the Pope believes such, then he is a heretic, also.

Since you're pronouncing: would having hope that an infant who dies without baptism goes to heaven make one a heretic?

Yes.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  tornpage on Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:38 pm

Yet another: the ITF document is then heretical?
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  tornpage on Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:40 pm

Gotta follow those acronyms correctly. I meant the "ITC" document.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Jehanne on Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:09 pm

tornpage wrote:Gotta follow those acronyms correctly. I meant the "ITC" document.

The last couple of paragraphs, definitively, yes. Some parts of the document are actually quite good, as Brother Andre noted, in that they provide a thorough and honest overview of the Church's true teachings, as enunciated by 1,900 years (well, excluding the last 50 years or so) of constant and universal teaching.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  tornpage on Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:32 pm

Jehanne,

You say in your blog entry on this topic (which you linked): "Many so-called "authorities" claim that the CCC never talks about Limbo; not true, 'Limbo' appears in the Index. And, its sole reference is #1261."

I have a 1994 and a 1997 English translation: in neither does "Limbo" appear in the Index.

Was there an earlier edition?
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:47 pm

Jehanne wrote:
tornpage wrote:
If you believe that an infant who dies without Baptism goes to Heaven, then you are a heretic. If the Pope believes such, then he is a heretic, also.

Since you're pronouncing: would having hope that an infant who dies without baptism goes to heaven make one a heretic?

Yes.
At least you're on the appropriate sub-forum. You fit right in with the sede-spleenists.

You like to cite Br. Andre, but you forgot to mention that he flat-out rejects your accusation.

Say, speaking of which, how's that M.I.C.M third order quest going?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:48 pm

bernadette wrote:
MRyan wrote:
bernadette wrote: "MRyan...why do find it necessary to insult others? Can't you make your point otherwise? You may as well just go ahead and crown yourself pope since you're never wrong. .. Listen here, a bit of advice....Lourdes was right on the mark in calling you on your uncharitable treatment....if you would be so kind as to stop talking down to others, you might prosper in your arguments. Rudeness really isn't necessary all the time, you know."
That’s really good advice. And its so nice to know you practice what you preach:

bernadette wrote: My answer to your idiotic question...the chair of Peter is occupied by a heretic...by an apostate, raging liberal, modernist, phony "pope", and thanks to you and all of the rest of the stupid, duped, NO Catholics that bought into the papolotry business...we have to suffer the heretics until God sees fit to intervene … you Protestantized Catholics are the biggest enemies of the Church...you have no back bone and no true love of your Faith …You are a raging apostate.... Cowards resort to acting boorish in my experience.

What is that line columba is fond of saying; “Physician, heal thyself”?

Everything I said is true....still, you refuse to understand. An apostate can sit in the Chair...a heretic can be a pope...I'll say it because the evidence is there...you won't because you suffer from papolotry and cowardice. Does it matter if I say it? No. Does it mean I have to follow the 'pope' into heresy? As a Catholic, I'm duty bound to know the faith, and I'd be sinning if I did.

You're a Protestant and you don't even know it.
Priceless.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Jehanne on Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:48 pm

tornpage wrote:Jehanne,

You say in your blog entry on this topic (which you linked): "Many so-called "authorities" claim that the CCC never talks about Limbo; not true, 'Limbo' appears in the Index. And, its sole reference is #1261."

I have a 1994 and a 1997 English translation: in neither does "Limbo" appear in the Index.

Was there an earlier edition?

Look in the back. It's in the one with the green cover, both hardbound and softbound.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  tornpage on Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:06 pm

Jehanne,

I don't have one with a green cover. Must be another edition.

avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Allie on Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:25 pm

tornpage wrote:
If you believe that an infant who dies without Baptism goes to Heaven, then you are a heretic. If the Pope believes such, then he is a heretic, also.

Since you're pronouncing: would having hope that an infant who dies without baptism goes to heaven make one a heretic?

Wasn't the ITC document discussing whether or not unbaptized babies would actually suffer the pain of sense- some saying yes, others saying no because they have committed no actual sin? Not whether or not Limbo exists?

I believe Limbo exists and that unbaptized babies and those who die with original sin only go there.

However, I do not believe you are a heretic if you have a hope that your miscarried or unbaptized baby could in some manner be baptized and attain salvation. The parents supply the Faith for a baby being baptized, so in good hope why could you not pray that you could supply the Faith for the dying/deceased baby to, in a "mystical" way, be baptized as well? Can't we pray on behalf of them in an intercessory fashion?

And besides, what parent who has lost a child before baptism or who considers how many children die without baptism could just say, "oh well, they are not going to heaven." without at least some cry to God to in some way please allow this child to attain eternal salvation. I believe it is a lack of charity not to cry to God for them. (And it may be a safeguard against despair).

In the end when we are able to see the unveiled Truth and Justice and Mercy of God according to His ways- if it is revealed to us that those unbaptized babies we prayed for and hoped for to be in heaven are not in heaven but instead are in Limbo in a state of perfect natural happiness- then how can we be upset? We wouldn't be mad at God we would see it according to His ways, not our own.

Heaven is a gift, it is owed to no one.

Just my 2 cents on my (admittedly probably limited) understanding of the subject. I am open to being corrected if anything I have written is truly opposed to Church teaching.

God bless you.


Last edited by Allie on Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Allie

Posts : 100
Reputation : 116
Join date : 2010-12-20
Location : southern Ohio, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  tornpage on Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:31 pm

Limbo, #1261. There it is on the Vatican site's Index to the CCC:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/index/l.htm
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  tornpage on Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:37 pm

Hi, Allie.

Heaven is a gift, it is owed to no one.

Yep.

The document does talk about the issue of salvation with regard to unbaptized infants.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  MRyan on Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:02 pm

bernadette wrote:
Everything I said is true....still, you refuse to understand. An apostate can sit in the Chair...a heretic can be a pope...I'll say it because the evidence is there...you won't because you suffer from papolotry and cowardice. Does it matter if I say it? No. Does it mean I have to follow the 'pope' into heresy? As a Catholic, I'm duty bound to know the faith, and I'd be sinning if I did.

You're a Protestant and you don't even know it.
I think by now, notwithstanding the objections of the sede fence-sitters and sympathizers who welcomed you to this forum (at least two of whom joined you in accusing simple-faith and myself of “insulting” others; and have yet to utter one word of protest to your specious and vicious ad hominem invectives), anyone reading this exchange knows where Catholic truth lies, and who among us is the real private judgment Protestant.

Nothing you have said is true, and your absurd statement that a manifest and obstinate public heretic can be validly elected and sit on the visible Chair of Peter as Christ’s “phony” Vicar is proven by the so-called “evidence”, is the worst sort of fallible deductive reasoning, and in this case, schismatic and heretical reasoning, that goes like this:

“I hold that the objective evidence conclusively proves (with subjective and fallible moral certitude) that the validly elected ‘pope’ is an obstinate and public heretic, ergo, he is an obstinate and public heretic” (who validly presides over the non-existent Catholic Church).

Of course, if the evidence says that a validly elected pope is a manifest public heretic, we can summarize your logic as Cogito ergo sum: "I think, therefore I am"; which only proves that your fallible mind exists; the proof of which: it is capable of observing the “evidence”, and that's all it means.

And this is no different from saying “The Church is NOT indefectible because the evidence before me says that the visible Church has failed and ended with VCII”.

And this is no different from saying “There is salvation outside the Church because those too can be saved who remain outside her visible structure (through no fault of their own) provided they possess the necessary faith, charity and intentions”.

Each of these propositions is false.

You have not answered the question of how a validly elected pope, whose election was contested by no one, can be a “phony ‘pope’”. If he is the valid pope, how can he not be the pope (as you suggest by your quotation marks around “pope”).

Are you suggesting that is the validly elected pope, but is not the valid pope? And who makes such a determination after he is universally recognized as Christ’s true Vicar?

Please answer the question.

You have not answered the question of how your species doctrine can be reconciled with the infallible dogmatic pronouncement that declares that “our Lord Jesus Christ” who “lives, presides and judges to this day” IN the “successors” (i.e., the validly elected successors) of “Blessed Peter”, “the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church”, who “abiding in the rock’s strength which he received, has not abandoned the direction of the Church.

So it is your contention that our Lord Jesus Christ does NOT live, ‘preside and judge “to this day” IN the person of the validly elected successor of St. Peter?

Please answer the question.

Is it your contention that the validly elected pope does not abide in the rock’s strength he received immediately upon his acceptance and confirmation that he is in fact the validly elected successor to Blessed Peter?

Please answer the question.

And is it your contention that this same “validly elected pope” has in fact abandoned the direction of the Church that our Lord promised would never be abandoned because it is our Lord who “lives, presides and judges to this day” IN the [visible] “successors” (the validly elected successors) of “Blessed Peter”)?

Please answer the question.

If, as you say, we have a validly elected pope, does it remain true that “Peter and his successors [validly elected popes] have free judgment over all the Church” and “no one should remove their status because 'the highest See is judged by no one.'” (Pope St. Leo IX, 1053 A.D.)?

Please answer the question.

If, as you say, we have a validly elected pope, does it remain true that “It is evident that the judgment of the Apostolic See, than which there is no authority greater, may be rejected by no one, nor is it lawful for anyone to pass judgement on its judgement." (Pope Nicholas I, 9th century A.D.)?

Please answer the question.

Finally, is it your private indictment against the “pope” whose name is “Ratzinger” that he is a manifest heretic and therefore a "phony 'pope'", and you are thus allowed to withdraw your subjection to the "validly elected 'pope'" until such time that a future pope or council condemns him as an obstinate manifest heretic?

Please answer the question.

If you hold this position, and it appears that you do; did you know that this represents an act of schism and contains a condemned heresy?

Since you say that you recognize that we have a validly elected "pope", but it appears that you refuse to be subject to him until a future pope or council condemns him for heresy, you have expressed what is known in moral theology as "practical doubt", which simply says that if you refuse subjection to the Roman Pontiff with a practical doubt about his legitimacy, you commit an act of schism.

Furthermore, if you maintain that you can refuse subjection to the validly elected Roman Pontiff and hold him as a manifest heretic until a future pope or council condemns him as such, this heresy was explicitly condemned by Pope Pius II in his Bull Execrabilis (1459):

Execrable and unheard of in the earliest times, an abuse has grown in our age whereby some men imbued with the spirit of rebellion, and not with the desire of sounder judgment, but with the escaping of the sin they have committed, presume to appeal to a future Council from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, to whom it was said in the person of Blessed Peter: "Feed my sheep," and "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven." Anyone familiar with the law can readily appreciate to what extent this is at variance with the sacred Canons, and how much harm this brings to the Christian commonwealth. For (to pass over other considerations which most clearly oppose this corruption) who would not regard as ridiculous the appealing to something that does not exist anywhere, and the future date of whose existence is unknown? The poor are oppressed in multifarious ways by those who are more powerful, crimes remain unpunished, rebellion against the First See is nourished, freedom to commit offenses is granted, and all ecclesiastical discipline and hierarchical order are confounded.

Even if you believe (as you appear to) that some of the things "Ratzinger" said as a private theologian are “objectively” heretical, sede-spleenists always seem to ignore one particularity relevant part of their favorite citation from St. Robert Bellarmine in his De Romano Pontifice, II, 30, when speaking of a claimant to the Papal Office:

"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ."

If a heretic is to be avoided after two warnings, the argument from authority presupposes that there is a proper ecclesial authority that can confront the “manifest heretic” (and “manifest” does not mean “obstinate”); meaning, while there is objective evidence of manifest heresy, the accused must be given the opportunity to explain and/or defend himself. If, after showing himself to the proper ecclesiastical authorities, he shows himself to be “manifestly obstinate” in his heresy (he stubbornly refuses to recant his heresy – pertinacity), Catholics can withdraw their subjection to his unlawful authority even before a canonical expulsion.

Again, justice demands, especially in the case of ecclesiastics, that even if a manifest heretic is already judged by God to be separated from the body, we are not allowed to judge his “obstinacy” (the external manifestation of heresy does not make it obstinate) until he has shown himself to be stubbornly obstinate in his heresy even after two warnings by the proper ecclesiastical authorities who are competent to judge such matters.

This is why every attempt by columba and the like to “prove” that Fr/Cardinal Ratzinger was a manifest public heretic who lost the Catholic faith will fail; because they must also prove that he was obstinate in his heresy; which can only be known if he had shown himself to the proper ecclesial authorities and, even after two warnings, he stubbornly persisted in his heresy and defiantly refused to recant or to amend his errors.

Of course, the argument that there was no one in authority to challenge his private theological writings because they too were infected with the same “heresies” is completely self-serving and contradictory when it is also alleged that Fr. Ratzinger was under “suspicion for heresy”.

Even if true, suspicion of heresy is not heresy, let alone obstinate heresy, and there were many saints and would-be popes accused of the same.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  columba on Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:22 pm

Allie wrote:
I want to clarify something from my earlier post (and I can't edit anymore):

I had written:

"...Second, how can someone be subject to the Roman Pontiff if there is not a "validly" sitting pope; particularly if their entire lifetime has existed during this multi-decade interregnum?"

But I should have added the following highlighted: "Second, how can someone be subject to the Roman Pontiff if there is not a "validly" sitting pope; particularly if their entire lifetime has existed during this multi-decade interregnum that had a supposed invalid or illegitimate pope pretending to head the Catholic Church?"

In such a case, one could subject oneself to the authority of the Church by believing her dogmas, universal teachings and disciplinery laws. In so doing one would be subjecting oneself to the authority of the chair of Peter and all legitimate previous occupants.

BTW, I still subject myself to BXVI while sitting on the fence as to his lergitimacy. By subjecting myself thus, does not mean that I accept everything that he implicitly proposes for belief. I would accept any disciplinery laws he imposed provided they occasioned no sin on my part (details given on request) while still feeling at liberty to follow the older disciplines if they were more beneficial for my soul. For example; observing the longer fast before Holy Communion, the pre-Vat II friday fast and such.

Thus far, nothing that has proceeded from Vat II council since Pope Paul Vi to the present Pope has impaired my ability to live my Catholic faith though it would have, if I hadn't got in touch with traditional Catholicism (details of those things that would have impaired me given on request).

May I ask you Allie, In what way are you subject to the current Pope? Do you feel a pressing obligation to read all that he writes and, what (if any) would be the negative consequences of ignoring his befuddled musings both as Pope and private theologian and taking your guidence from the earlier, clearer-thinking and more comprehensible Popes?
I only read what he writes in order to argue with MRyan, otherwise I would just keep reading the saints and earlier papal bulls and encyclicals; not out of disreapect for his office, but merely because from his words and actions I don't know what he wishes me to believe or follow different from what I already believe and follow. In fact, even the sede's could say they are subject to BXVI while just keeping doing what they're doing. The only difference being, they won't stop stating as fact, "The chair of Peter is vacant."

In a nutshell, whether he be true Pope or false pope, either/or, we are, for all practical purposes, popeless. His main concern seems to be the accomodation of those outside the Church while those inside are scattered in all directions. Some Protestants are more Catholic than the present-day Catholic so I ask, which sheep is he meant to be feeding?


I also had written:

"...And if so, then exactly what need would we have for a pope at all; particularly after all divine revelation has occurred and all dogmas, doctrines necessary for salvation have been given/defined? (I realize that we may well have future dogmas defined, particularly regarding the Blessed Mother)."

We still need a Pope to protect (by his authority) the sacraments and to excommunicate (by his authority) the wolves in sheeps clothing; to call out to those outside the Church to come within and be saved.
When these be lacking it becomes all the more apparent why the Church needs a Pope.

I would like to clarify that I believe we need the Pope (and have a valid Pope); but I am simply trying to follow the logic of how it would work out on the whole if (God forbid) we had had illegitimate popes claiming the papacy for the last however many decades; and that we had not been given explicit warning that this was about to occur; and we do not have any scriptural evidence or biblical types to warn us of this occurring (that I am aware of).

The present state of the Church is probably what you would expect (if God forbid) we had illegitimate Popes for decades.
We have Our Lords own words as warning together with the warnings of His apostles and disciples in their epistles but prophecies are never fully understood til their fulfillment.

I haven't had any direct responses to my questions yet, so I am not going to hold my breath on it; however, I am interested in having these questions answered.

Thanks and God bless,
Allie

That's my anwsers Allie for what they're worth. Sometimes it could be that all we have to go on are the fruits and the signs of the times. I look at the fruits, read the signs and sit on the fence.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  columba on Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:51 pm

MRyan wrote:
You have not answered the question of how your species doctrine can be reconciled with the infallible dogmatic pronouncement that declares that “our Lord Jesus Christ” who “lives, presides and judges to this day” IN the “successors” (i.e., the validly elected successors) of “Blessed Peter”, “the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church”, who “abiding in the rock’s strength which he received, has not abandoned the direction of the Church.”

Mike. in this quote from your reply to Bernadette, you ask how her views can be reconciled with the infalible dogmatic pronouncement. Are you now wearing the "take the dogma as it's written cap?"
Was it not you who told us that we must understand the dogmas as the Church interprets them and not as they're written?


Compare,

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”


and tell me, where do you find the ambiguity in this? If it is ambiguous how comes your quote is not?
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Missouri Mark on Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:52 pm

I had posted this exact thread topic in Catholic Answers Forum. This is the message I received from Catholic Answers Forum after they shut down that thread. I've also included the response message I sent back to them.....


Re: You have received an infraction at Catholic Answers Forums
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Casey
Dear HolyBeThyName,

You have received an infraction at Catholic Answers Forums.

Reason: Agenda posting
-------
This constitutes agenda posting. The pope is not to be placed on trial on this forum.
-------

This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=8343048
Quote:
You guys keep saying that Benedict XVI hasn't said anything which is at odds with Church teaching and are asking me for examples, so I'll give one recent example. Is it not true that Benedict XVI made the case in his most recent book, "Jesus of Nazareth", that the Church doesn't have a mandate to pursue the conversion of Jews or at least no longer has that role? Every Catholic scholar and Priest I've spoken to has told me that it is De Fide Church teaching that the Church has always had a mandate to pursue the conversion of all souls, which includes the Jews. Now these same scholars and priests excuse Benedict XVI's statements by saying that he was only expressing his "personal opinion" and that Benedict XVI's "personal opinions" are not binding on any Catholic. They apparently see no problem with someone expressing a theological view, even if it is at odds with Church teaching, just as long as it is one's "personal opinion".

So, that is why I asked if its OK for a Catholic to hold the theological "personal opinion" that Benedict XVI possibly has fallen into heresy and therefore is no longer a true Pope, as long as that Catholic doesn't believe in and state his opinion as being a "Fact".

If a Catholic can't hold such "personal opinions" that may or may not conflict with some teaching of the Church, then why does Benedict XVI get a pass ? Why is he able to get away with stating his "personal opinions" and its said to be OK even if it goes against some Church teaching, but someone who has the "personal opinion" that Benedict XVI may possibly not be a true Pope cannot state his "opinion" publicly without being condemned as a schismatic?


All the best,
Catholic Answers Forums

And here is the response I gave to Catholic Answers Forum...

First off, I am not a sedevacantist. I accept Pope Benedict XVI as being my Pope. Secondly, I apologize if you thought I created a thread attacking Pope Benedict XVI, but that was not my intention. Thirdly, its not Pope Benedict XVI that I have placed on trial in this thread, but instead the Catholic who holds to the "personal opinion" that Benedict XVI might possibly not be a true Pope, but doesn't state his "opinion" as being a "fact". Surely you at CatholicAnswersForum can see that.

Infact, didn't your own Catholic apologist, Mr Akin, defend Benedict XVI in regards to the Pope's comments on the jews? Wasn't one of the arguments he made in favor of Benedict XVI was that even if the Pope was in error, then its OK since its the Pope's "personal opinion" and therefore not official Church teaching which is binding on anyone? So I don't exactly see the problem with expounding on this, in asking a theological question. But again, I am sorry if you took it wrongly.

Missouri Mark

Posts : 21
Reputation : 30
Join date : 2011-02-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Guest on Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:24 pm

You all need a break.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum