Re: Arguments against sedevacantism

MRyan Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:06 pm

Fatima for our times wrote:
That's a nice way to welcome a newcomer to the site. It's also a nice cold first impression you have just made too. I take it by the sarcastic, pretentious wording that you use you think you know it all. Let me tell you something now MRyan before i get one foot in the door, i have a sharp tongue too at times and ill use it on the likes of yourself if i have to, who are one to make rash judgements on a person you know nothing about.

What you are saying is "worthless," "exaggerated" and "lies, lies and more lies" etc is the teachings of Pope Eugene IV, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, Pope Inocent III, Pope Paul IV, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis De Sales, St. Antoninus and the Catholic Encyclopedia. Think about that for a second.

You are right about one thing though, it is a copy and paste job. If you think you can refute these teachings of the Popes and Saints and explain away the heresys coming from Vatican II by all means bring your debate forward for all to see and we can take it from there. I am keeping an open mind on everything and i think we are all in search of the Whole Truth here.

And that was a “nice way” to introduce yourself; by copying and pasting an entire tract from a notorious sede website and then asking someone (Rasha) to demonstrate why the sede position is wrong - because it sure seems like the correct position to you. Of course it does; you’ve been feeding your soul and your faith on this refuse … so it’s to be expected.

This thread already had three pages of commentary when you decided to impose your epic C&P tract as if nothing that went before is of interest to you. Great, so let’s start all over again, drop everything and attend to the rantings of a couple of un-schooled notorious sedes while you sit back and wait for a response as you list one alleged “heresy” after another and provide “proofs” for why these “manifest heretics and apostates who totally reject Catholic dogma and Catholic teaching” are anti-popes, and why anyone who is in communion with them must support these same “heresies”.

Why should someone else to the heavy lifting for you? Have you read nothing under this forum heading that even begins to resonate with you as to why the sede position may in fact be wrong?

Btw, I am not one of those who believe that a manifest heretic who has lost the Catholic Faith can, at the same time, be Christ’s true Vicar. I reject outright the nonsensical “half-a-pope” thesis by which a pope keeps only a portion of his full and supreme powers of Primacy (only that of jurisdiction); with those full and supreme powers granted to the person of Peter directly by our Lord. It is IN Peter’s faith and authority that the entire foundation of the visible Church rests, and its that simple.

This is what I object to as the sort of refuse coming from that site you have no problem posting here, while adding one or two comments of your own:

Without a doubt the last five climates to the Papacy have been and still are manifest heretics and apostates who totally reject Catholic dogma and Catholic teaching, therefor they must be totally rejected as being the heads of Christs Church. If you say that Benedict XVI is the true vicar of Christ on earth and the head of your Church then you are saying that you have the same faith as him. Benedict XVI teaches that our Lord may not be the Messiah, that the Old Covenant is valid, that Jews and others can be saved without believing in Christ, that schismatics and protestants don't need conversion, that non-Catholics are not bound to except Vatican I, that protestant monasteries should be formed, that protestantism itself is not even heresy, that Mass is valid without any words of consecration, that infant baptism has no purpose, that the dogma of the Mass is corrupt to the core, that scripture is filled with myths, that the false religion of Islam is noble, that pagan religions are high, that salvation can be had outside the Church, that Catholic dogmas need to be purged, that Vatican II rejected Catholic teaching on Religious Liberty, that the unity of the Church does not exist and that the resurrection of the body will not accrue just to name a few and that's not even going into his most resent heresys. If you say that you are in communion with Benedict XVI then you are following and adhering to all these heresys. Is that not true? If this is not true could you please explain to me how it is not true.

Lies, distortions, logical fallacies, factual errors, exaggerations … its all there.

And now you challenge me to refute each and every one of those lies and distortions? Some of these lies have already been refuted in other threads -- but that’s the nature of forums, always beginning anew when a stale accusation of heresy against the pope pops up; and in your case, in rapid fire succession as if sheer numbers might give them credibility.

I have no need to “refute” the teachings of Popes and Saints on why a manifest heretic cannot be the pope, just as I have no need to “refute”, as others do, St. Bellarmine’s belief that such a “theory” as manifest heresy in Christ’s Vicar is all theory, with no chance of ever coming to fruition due to Christ’s promise to Peter. VCI only confirmed this belief of Bellarmine’s, and many others, that they were right. No pope has ever fallen into manifest heresy, and none ever shall - our Lord will not allow it and He does not take back His promise to Peter.

I’m glad you are keeping an open mind and I’m also hoping that you can do a mind-dump of the poison you’ve been reading elsewhere -- and posted some of it here.

I don’t have time for this shot gun approach … but, since you dared me to correct the lies and distortions, let’s begin with one of the alleged “heresies” of Pope Benedict XVI.

Show me the “manifest heresy” and the exact context it was said or written.

Good luck with that ... and welcome to the forum.

MRyan Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:37 pm

Fatima for our times,

Seriously, don't be put off by my rather brusque initial response.

You may have gathered correctly that I have a low opinion of certain sede sects. I believe that these notorious types are a true menace and amount to spiritual suicide for those who fall into their rather elaborate traps.

Anyway, if you can't see a way out of this trap, let's begin in earnest to expose the fallacies one false argument at a time.

I only ask that you be specific with an alleged "heresy" and provide the complete context.

We can do the same with any of the citations of the saints and popes you listed and demonstrate how these citations may, or may not, apply to present circumstances.

Forum Janitor Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:25 pm

By the way I asked Fatima for Our Times to pasted his/her post in this forum. He/she originally sent it to me as a PM. This week I don't really have time to dedicate to the forum other than logging in every day and doing maintenance, therefore I thought it best that they bring their objections to this section so it can be discussed, after all it is a discussion forum. I told her/him to paste it here rather than PM-ing me with it.

Thanks,

Rasha

Guest Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:02 am

Duckbill in response to your questions:

1. Who has the power to rule? The Magisterium is the ability and authority of the Church to teach the truths found in the Deposit of Faith. The Deposit of Faith consists solely of Tradition and Scripture. The Deposit of Faith is Divine Revelation from God. Everything taught by Tradition or Scripture is entirely true and infallible.

2. Who is a heretic? A heretic is a baptised person who rejects a dogma of the Catholic faith.

3. Who isn't a heretic? A person who believes and adheres to Catholic teaching and all dogmas of the faith handed down by the Magisterium of Christs Church would be a true Catholic and not a heretic.

I am not a person to accuse someone of something that they are not guilty of, but when i see things that are happening in the Church that are being brought about in the most cunning way without barely any Catholic on earth realizing what is actually going on and what is actually being taught i realize that somebody has to say something.

Pope Felix III said: "Not to oppose error, is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them."

St. Catherine of Siena said: "We've had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence."

Nobody has given me the right to excommunicate anybody and i have not excommunicated anybody. I am only a simple lay person. When i read up on what the Church teaches on heretics i see that they excommunicate themselves.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“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..."

St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and
head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.
Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all
the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

It is not my criteria that i am following on excommunication, it is our Lord Jesus Christ teaching in Holy Scripture and Holy Mother Church teaching that i go by.

Take for example in Benedict XVI book Salt of the Earth it states in page 24: "Q. But could we not also accept that someone can be saved through a faith other than the Catholic? A. That’s a different question altogether. It is definitely possible for someone to receive from his religion directives that help him become a pure person, which also, if we want to use the word, help him please God and reach salvation. This is not at all excluded by what I said; on the contrary, this undoubtedly happens on a large scale.”

Here we have Benedict XVI clearly denying the dogma on Outside the Catholic Church There Is No Salvation. Not just once has he denied this solemnly defined dogma but many times over.

Pope Leo XII: “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.” (Ubi Primum #14, May 5, 1824)

Galatians Chapter 1: 8-"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."

"If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you." (II John 10)

If Benedict XVI believes that salvation can be had outside the Catholic Church, is he a heretic in your opinion?

When Catholics read his books knowing what the Church teaches on this issue, but go along with and embrace what Benedict XVI is saying because they say "he is the Pope, he's is right in what he says, he is leading them into mortal sin, therefor in danger of losing their soul and that to me is evil and needs to be exposed.

As for Pope Pius XII he was certainly the Pope. I don't know much about what happened in China that got allot of the Jesuits martyred, i will have to look into that one and get back to you study

No matter what, we must always stand up for the truth and expose and defeat evil.

On the sedevacantist groups the Oneness in that position is the Traditional Catholic Faith. The True Faith. If you are honest you will admit that what is being taught in the Church today in almost every diocese in the world is far from True Catholicism. We only hear what we want to hear. We never hear about dogma, morality and what the Church is about.

Also i don't think i am taking the "Luther way." I am open to working within the structure so long as one still stands. As time goes by the structure is falling down around us and the sedevacantist position describes the position of Traditional Catholicism who hold that the Chair of St. Peter is presently vacant because the man in Rome can be proven to be a public heretic, and therefore not the Pope according to the doctors of the Church.

Guest Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:05 am

Yea sorry about that Rasha, just getting used to the forum.

Guest Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:27 am

MRyan wrote:Fatima for our times,

Seriously, don't be put off by my rather brusque initial response.

You may have gathered correctly that I have a low opinion of certain sede sects. I believe that these notorious types are a true menace and amount to spiritual suicide for those who fall into their rather elaborate traps.

Anyway, if you can't see a way out of this trap, let's begin in earnest to expose the fallacies one false argument at a time.

I only ask that you be specific with an alleged "heresy" and provide the complete context.

We can do the same with any of the citations of the saints and popes you listed and demonstrate how these citations may, or may not, apply to present circumstances.

MRyan: Sounds like a plan indeed. Leave it with me. I will get back to you soon enough. I will be away from the forum for a few days. On my return i will present a few citations that we can hopefully discuss in good standing.

Thanks for the welcome.

Elisa Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:26 pm

Also i don't think i am taking the "Luther way." I am open to working within the structure so long as one still stands. As time goes by the structure is falling down around us and the sedevacantist position describes the position of Traditional Catholicism who hold that the Chair of St. Peter is presently vacant because the man in Rome can be proven to be a public heretic, and therefore not the Pope according to the doctors of the Church.

Fatima, when I see things like this from obviously nice and well meaning Catholics who love the faith, it breaks my heart. I actually got choked up when I read that last paragraph.

And it makes me hate the father of lies all the more and the sede internet leaders who spout this stuff.

"The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

The thing that I can never wrap my mind around is how a Catholic can think that the chair of Peter can be vacant for over 40 years (unprecedented) and God would allow imposters teaching lies to all the millions of faithful around the globe (again, unheard of, unprecedented) and that this scenario would not be "the gates of Hell prevailing against it."

"the structure is falling down around us" yet Satan hasn't triumphed in some way? The gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Church?

Since you quoted St. Catherine of Sienna, who never denied the Pope, but respectfully and humbly reprimanded him, I'm sure you've heard this quote from her also.

"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope."

Guest Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:27 am

Good post, Elisa.

I could've said nearly the same thing, especially:

Elisa wrote:"The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

The thing that I can never wrap my mind around is how a Catholic can think that the chair of Peter can be vacant for over 40 years (unprecedented) and God would allow imposters teaching lies to all the millions of faithful around the globe (again, unheard of, unprecedented) and that this scenario would not be "the gates of Hell prevailing against it."

"the structure is falling down around us" yet Satan hasn't triumphed in some way? The gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Church?

MRyan Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:35 pm

Elisa wrote:
The thing that I can never wrap my mind around is how a Catholic can think that the chair of Peter can be vacant for over 40 years (unprecedented) and God would allow imposters teaching lies to all the millions of faithful around the globe (again, unheard of, unprecedented) and that this scenario would not be "the gates of Hell prevailing against it."

Elisa,

Make that 53 years for most sedevacantists who are without a visible Church, without a pope, without a visible hierarchy and without ordinary jurisdiction.

And this is the "visible" Church and the "visible" Vicar promised by our Lord that would remain as visible proof of the divinely established One True Church until the end of time (interregnums between elections while a conclave chooses the next pope does not violate perpetual succession).

Allegedly, for 53 years and counting our Lord has left His apostate visible Church with an apostate pope, dubious sacraments, an invalid and "evil" Mass and an invalid hierarchy; with the "true Church" found in warring little sede sects, or with individual "home-aloners" -- the "true remnant".

And the sede wants to be taken seriously.

columba Fri Jan 14, 2011 3:31 pm

I think what plays into the hands of sede's more than anything is when the ordinary "Joe Blogs" is told by those who oppose sedevacantism that there's nothing to be alarmed about; that the Church is going along just fine; that the new Mass is just as orthodox as the old or even better. That doctrine and dogma aren't being twisted and we are still holding the same meaning of such that has always been held. That recent Popes are not insinuating universal salvationism in word and in deed.

One does not need to be a theologian either of the learned or armchair variety to see and hear with ones own eyes and ears that something is amiss. When even the present Pope tells us that Satan is in the very veins of the Church while at te same time doing and saying the very things that made one suspect this in the first place.

If sedevacantism is to be exposed as a lie, then those exposing it must be 100% truthful and admit that a crisis of faith does in fact exist and those who are in the position of authority while acknowledging this, seem to take no practical steps to reverse it. Sedevacantism is not so much the disease as the symptom. If the disease is combatted then the symptoms will disappear, but when so many deny the obviously glaring facts, it's llittle wonder that sincere Catholics are at a loss to know which way to turn.

Not surprisingly there's no small amount of the younger generation being attracted to the error of sedevacantism when they can find no stability in either doctrine or expression of faith that would entice their allegiance to the modern inconsistancies that are presented as the Catholic Faith. This younger generation have had no prior experience of traditionalism and yet they take to it like a duck to water. They obviously recognize something there that is absent in the modern Church.

Until the real and glaring issues of modernism are honestly confronted instead of being denied or even defended then I for one won't be surprised when the present exodus from the pews eiether end up at the sede camp or (what's becoming even more apparent) the occult camp.

MRyan if you can take this "zero tolerance" stance with those who are attracted to such things then maybe you're refusing to see the extent of the current crisis. The people who I know personally that are searching for answers end up exploring the alternatives when they can't find anything with the ring of truth in the current Church as it's now presented. These people are as sincere as you or any of us here in their seach for truth. The ones who don't explore outside the box are usually those on the Parish Councils promoting more of the same dead-end solutions to a problem they don't even believe exists. How many clerically assisted or permitted desecrations of the Eucharist can one witness before losing faith in the Real Presence? And how can one still be Catholic when this faith dies?

MRyan Fri Jan 14, 2011 4:00 pm

Once again you cannot seem to differentiate what I say from what you think I said. I made it quite clear that my “zero tolerance” is with a certain type of notorious and noxious sedevacantism which has the arrogance and temerity to condemn to hell anyone and every one who disagrees with them (after reading their enlightened pronouncements, of course).

If I come down rather hard on those who frequent and are influenced by these evil sites -- it’s because they need a shock to their system.

I am very familiar with the sede position and have even defended certain among them who are actually well informed (and trained) in other areas of the faith from the wrath of uncharitable “trad” Catholics (and even a so-called Feeneyite) who accuse each and every one of them, without knowing them or what they write, of being manifest and pertinacious heretics who have lost the Faith.

I know the allure of sede’ism; but, it is sheer poison and a dead-end. It divides families, it divides Catholics, it leads to other errors and it can easily turn into cult-type behavior. I’ve seen it, and have lost friends to this faith-killing swamp.

The fewer excuses we make for it, the better.

Guest Fri Jan 14, 2011 4:41 pm

I kinda agree with Columba, although I can see your point too MRyan. I was once a BIG Catholic Answers follower, they helped me understand a lot about the Faith. But they also seemed to paint a Pollyanna Church. They even had an article I think in one of their issues on that. But the reallity to me as Columba well said is there is a crisis not being met.
One reason I like hanging out in this forum is there is a real quest to understand what's going wrong. Solutions are hard to come up with that work but there can be no solution without admitting a problem.

Columba is writing from Ireland if I understand well, and they seem to be losing the Faith. If a country that suffered for the Church for hunfreds of years seems to have lost it in matter of 40 years of so, then this is a real crisis!

I don't think MRyan denies that there are problems in the Church but he see Sedeviatism as the worst possible reaction, at least that is what I understand he is saying.

I posted a prayer on here https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t165-prayer-for-truth-and-peace?highlight=prayer

and I would like all of us to pray it, especially when participating in this tread. I have no good arguments and am still learning but, what I have I give in the form of prayer, if God is who he is we can call on him to help us.

MRyan Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:58 pm

cowboy wrote:
I kinda agree with Columba

Sorry, but that's not allowed. We'll let that slide this one time.

cowboy wrote:
I don't think MRyan denies that there are problems in the Church but he see Sedeviatism as the worst possible reaction, at least that is what I understand he is saying.

Precisely.

Guest Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:49 pm

Fatima, when I see things like this from obviously nice and well meaning Catholics who love the faith, it breaks my heart. I actually got choked up when I read that last paragraph.

Hi Elisa, I get choked up all the time when I hear Benedict XVI praising and esteeming false religions that are abominable before God. I was nearly sick when he went into the Muslim mosque and prayed like the Muslims toward Mecca, with his arms crossed in the prayer gesture the Muslims call "the gesture of tranquility," on Nov. 30, 2006. This kind of stuff breaks my heart. I am sorry if it upset you to read the last paragraph on my last thread, i really am, but what is one to do when this kind of apostasy is going on all the time.

Pope Callixtus III: "I vow to... exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet [Islam] in the East."

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: "... if anyone were to... worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate."

Bl. Joachim (d. 1202): “Towards the end of the world, Antichrist will overthrow the pope and usurp his see.” (Rev. Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, Tan Books, 1974, p. 130.)

"The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

Here you are referring to Matthew 16:18. But five verses later, in Matthew 16:23, Jesus said to St. Peter: "Satan, get behind me, thou art a scandal unto me: because you regard not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men. In Galatians 2:14, St. Paul had to rebuke St. Peter because he "walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel." Again we read St. Paul, "Withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal. 2:11)

The following was condemned by Pope Alexander VII: "Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce him..." (condemned)

The thing that I can never wrap my mind around is how a Catholic can think that the chair of Peter can be vacant for over 40 years (unprecedented) and God would allow imposters teaching lies to all the millions of faithful around the globe (again, unheard of, unprecedented) and that this scenario would not be "the gates of Hell prevailing against it."

"

The thing that i can never wrap my mind around is how a Catholic can think that the chair of St. Peter can not be vacant for 52 years and three months on January 28, 2011. God allows such a thing to happen for the punishment of sin.

Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”

The crises in the Church today is precisely what is predicted to happen in the last days by approved Catholic prophecy. In the last days it has also been predicted that the true Church of Christ will be reduced to a small remnant of true believers, and our Lord tells us in Luke 18:8 "But yet the son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" Think on the fact that there is almost one billion Catholics in the world today and, our Lord tells us on his second coming will he find any faith on earth. I truly believe that we are in the final days before our Lord second coming.

One example of why i believe that we are in the last days is, because Sr. Lucia told Fr. Fuentes in 1957 the following:

"Father, the Most Holy Virgin did not tell me that we are in the last times of the world but she made me understand this for three reasons. The first reason is because she told me that the Devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Virgin. And a decisive battle is the final battle where one side will be victorious and the other side will suffer defeat. Hence from now on we must choose sides. Either we are for God or we are for the Devil. There is no other possibility.

“The second reason is because she said to my cousins as well as to myself that God is giving two last remedies to the world. These are the Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. These are the last two remedies which signify that there will be no others.
“The third reason is because in the plans of Divine Providence, God always, before He is about to chastise the world, exhausts all other remedies. Now, when He sees that the world pays no attention whatsoever then, as we say in our imperfect manner of speaking, He offers us with a certain trepidation the last means of salvation, His Most Holy Mother. It is with a certain trepidation because if you despise and repulse this ultimate means we will not have any more forgiveness from Heaven because we will have committed a sin which the Gospel calls the sin against the Holy Spirit. This sin consists of openly rejecting with full knowledge and consent, the salvation which He offers. Let us remember that Jesus Christ is a very good Son and that He does not permit that we offend and despise His Most Holy Mother. We have recorded through many centuries of Church history the obvious testimony which demonstrates, by the terrible chastisements which have befallen those who have attacked the honor of His Most Holy Mother, how Our Lord Jesus Christ has always defended the honor of His Mother."

The Catholic Church has always understood the gates of Hell to be heretics, and since heretics are completely cut off from and, outside of the Church they cannot command in the Church.

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”

Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.” (Denz. 351)

St. Thomas Aquinas taught the same in his epistle to Pope Urban IV on the publication of the Catena Aurea:

St. Thomas Aquinas: “Thy heart, Most Holy Father, who art lawful heir of this Faith and this Confession, gives watchful care that the light of this so wondrous Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of hell.” (The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 1, pp. xxiii, xxiv.)

The fact that heretics are the gates of hell, as officially declared by Popes, is something very important to understand. Since heretics cannot be members of the Church as past Popes, Saints and Doctors of the Church correctly point out the sedevacantists are not asserting that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church. It is just the opposite: those who assert that the “Church” can be headed by a heretic and can teach evil doctrines are asserting that the gates of hell have prevailed. The fact that heretics are the gates of hell is precisely why all the Doctors of the Church who addressed the issue agree that a manifest heretic could not be the Pope.

Here is one example:

St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and
head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.
Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all
the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope."

True. St. Catherine could not have said it better, unless of course the Devil incarnate was a heretic. Since Benedict XVI can be and, has been proven to be a public heretic along with the rest of the Vatican II "popes" they are outside of the body and unity of the Catholic Church and therefor they cannot command in the Church.

The true Church still exists but, only in a remnant of Traditional Catholics who hold to the teaching and tradition of the Church of all time and, the gates of Hell will never prevail against this Church.

Catholic_Truth Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:06 pm

Fatima for our times wrote:
The true Church still exists but, only in a remnant of Traditional Catholics who hold to the teaching and tradition of the Church of all time and, the gates of Hell will never prevail against this Church.

Fatima for our times, I am an agnostic when it comes to Sedevacantism, but I must say that you make a very convincing case. It doesn't make me sad to read any of your words, but instead, what makes me sad is the seemingly notorious heretical actions and statements which have been coming from these recent Popes over the last few decades. So, maybe we are in the last days.

Catholic_Truth Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:19 pm

St. Malachy's Prophecy of the Popes apparently claims that there is only one more Pope after Benedict XVI and then comes Judgement Day

columba Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:43 pm

Catholic_Truth wrote:
St. Malachy's Prophecy of the Popes apparently claims that there is only one more Pope after Benedict XVI and then comes Judgement Day

If St Malachy considered the present and recent Popes to be genuine Popes then sedevacantism can't be true. If he didn't then we still have 4 or5 popes to go.
(Just an observation).

What I have found when listening to debates on sedevacantism is that those who are opposed to the sede side always make the claim that the chair of Peter can't remain vacant for any extended period of time but they seldom address the issue of whether or not the Popes have spoken or parcticed heresy. It seems to be taken for granted (on both sides) that they have done so.

Catholic_Truth Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:54 pm

columba wrote:
Catholic_Truth wrote:
St. Malachy's Prophecy of the Popes apparently claims that there is only one more Pope after Benedict XVI and then comes Judgement Day

If St Malachy considered the present and recent Popes to be genuine Popes then sedevacantism can't be true. If he didn't then we still have 4 or5 popes to go.
(Just an observation).

Saint Malachy's vision had included true Popes along with anti-popes, but doesn't mention which Popes are the true ones and which are the anti-popes.

simple Faith Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:58 am

Hello to everyone here. I've been looking in on this forum over the past few weeks and have got a sense of what is going on. I have never posted on a forum before so appologies if I make any blunders.

The threads I have read to date have been interesting and have challenged some aspects of my faith which I believe is a good thing. Unfortunately (or possibly fortunately) I will be unable to contribute by quoting from the many Papal Encyclicals, church councils and Latin documents and terminolgy often used in the forum (I just don't have this type of background) but I do try my best to understand what members have posted and the postion they adopt.

I also note that things get quite 'heated' here at times but I accept that this is only a natural and human response when others can't or won't see or accept things from our own established view point. I don't mind therfore if any of my opinions or contibutions are challenged or attacked (I have quite a thick skin). May I also appologise in advance if any of my contributions cause personal offence as that will not be my intention.

I myself come from a Catholic upbringing and try to practice my faith according to instruction of the Catholic Church. I am not a theolgian (not even an armchair one) but I think discussion can help by getting various viewpoints on areas of doubt.

Anyway, to give a quick overview of my sense of the current state of play on this forum here are my observations to date.
I feel that many members have started to peel layers of skin off the onion to explore what is underneath only to such an extent that by the time they have finished peeling there is nothing there and they have now only a sense of what they first started with and have forgot what they were originally looking for or hoping to find.

Let me explain, many good Catholics here seem to have almost talked themselves out of their duty-bound loyality to the Pope as head of the ONE TRUE CHURCH by getting carried away with certain individual aspects of the faith to the detriment of the WHOLE faith. I get the feeling they want to maintain loyality to the Pope but by their quest for deeper knowledge are gradually loosing what they originally had and I fear that some may (or already have) split from the Catholic Church by regecting the appointed head of the very Church which can bring them salvation.

The Pope is either the Pope or he is not the Pope ( in the same way that a woman can not be a little bit pregnant, she either is pregant or she is not pregnant).

I have read some responses from MRyan and I think he does a good job (obvioulsly lots of research) in trying to prevent some members getting too far away from the Church and thus rejecting the Pope.

No doubt there are many problems within the church which need addressed but lets not just blame the Pope, we are all part of the body of the church so lets first concentrate on removing the plank from our own eye first.

Elisa Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:58 pm

The true Church still exists but, only in a remnant of Traditional Catholics who hold to the teaching and tradition of the Church of all time and, the gates of Hell will never prevail against this Church.

Fatima,

Let me tell you what concerns me most about this statement. You believe that you and other Traditionalists alone belong to the remnant of the true Church. Since I am not a Traditionalist (I’m what you’d call an EWTN type neocon), I would not be part of the true Church, according to you, because my allegiance would be to this false church that has Pope Benedict as its visible head.

And you have separated the remnant of Traditionalists from the Church with Pope Benedict as its visible head. So a person belonging to one, cannot belong to the other.

Now, it doesn’t matter to me what anyone thinks of my faith, I know what I know and am very secure in that (praise be to God for this gift, because I know there are good people who struggle.) What bothers me most is not that I am not included in this remnant of yours, but that you have purposefully set yourself apart from my Church. The Church that hundreds of millions of nonTraditionalists belong to, as well as about 5 or 10 million Traditionalists. (I realize that there are probably not over a billion true believers who are Catholic.)

Now if I am right and I belong to the true Church, then that means that you have purposely set yourself apart from the true Church. You are not wondering which is correct or leaving it up to God to decide. You have decided and rejected the Church that has Pope Benedict as its visible head.

I think you should take a step back and rethink this remnant thing as a definite and be open to the possibility that you could be wrong and not remove yourself entirely from the Church that has Pope Benedict as its visible head. Because if you are wrong (because you are not infallible) then you have placed yourself outside the one true Church of Jesus Christ.

I’m going to have to get back to you on the rest because I have to digest some emotions first. While it doesn’t bother me to have people question my faith beliefs, it does bother me to see someone emphatically call Pope Benedict a “public heretic” and “outside of the body and unity of the Catholic Church.” With no actual proof of such, just someone with no authority interpreting Scripture, Tradition and a Pope’s personal prayers and actions on their own. Private interpretation of things whose rightful interpretation belongs only to the Church.

Unfortunately this is a quote that I have often quoted to Protestants online.
2 Peter 1:20:
“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation.”

I am not separating myself from anyone or anything. I am following the faith as proclaimed by the Church that has had a visible head for 2,000 years, with only minor interruptions for elections. (Where are the elections going on by legitimate Bishops of the Church who are still looking to find a replacement for Pope Pius XII?) If I am mistaken in my loyalty, and this Church structure has ceased to be the true Church, I still have never separated myself from His Church by any action or statement of mine. I have been duped along with millions of faithful. But I have never been proactive in personally deciding where the true Church subsists or who its members are or are not.

The only other people online (besides sedes) who I ever heard say that the visible Catholic Church fell away from the true faith entirely and is no longer the Church and is heretical are Protestants who each have their own timeline of when this event occurred. Either with the death of the last Apostle, or during the time of Constantine or some time in the middle ages, etc.

It didn’t bother me to be called “the Romanist” online by some Protestants, because “they know not what they do.” (Some are proud or hate, but most are simply wrong.) I often feel the same way when reading sedes and SSPX theology. I understand that some people love Our Lord and want to believe His truth and get confused by all the nonsense and lies going on in the world.

I’ll get back to you on the rest later. Have a good day everyone.
God bless you, Fatima, and everyone here.
Love,
Elisa

Elisa Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:16 pm

Welcome, simple Faith. You are a breath of fresh air.

It doesn’t matter that you don’t know about encyclicals and Papal statements (I don’t know much about them either). I have been on many a wild goose chase researching statements only to find the person who quoted them was wrong in their interpretation or they were taken out of context. (Not MRyan, of course, lol, and a few other online friends.)

All that matters is the “simple faith” in your heart. That is the only thing that Jesus said we need for salvation.

Matthew 18:3-4: "Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

Mark 10:14-15: “for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.”

We aren’t saved by what is in our heads, we are saved by the faith in our hearts. No Catholic needs to know about any of these discussions to be saved. Most don’t. A child with faith in their heart who knows nothing will still be saved. And salvation and love of God is all that matters in the end.

Proverbs 3:5:
“Trust in the LORD with all your heart, on your own intelligence rely not”

Detailed knowledge is helpful when reading or discussing these things, but not necessary. You and I and others here find these things interesting and intriguing. And learning about these things can deepen our faith. So they are good discussions.

But you have correctly noted that some people can be led astray by these discussions.

Let me explain, many good Catholics here seem to have almost talked themselves out of their duty-bound loyality to the Pope as head of the ONE TRUE CHURCH by getting carried away with certain individual aspects of the faith to the detriment of the WHOLE faith. I get the feeling they want to maintain loyality to the Pope but by their quest for deeper knowledge are gradually loosing what they originally had and I fear that some may (or already have) split from the Catholic Church by regecting the appointed head of the very Church which can bring them salvation.

Bingo. I get the feeling you know a lot and are just being humble.

I’m honored to have read your first online post. I remember when I wrote my first one almost 6 years ago on the Passion of the Christ website about the movies. Protestants were going back and forth about who was at the foot of the cross and I couldn’t take it anymore, so I registered. Then a Protestant man took issue with advice I gave a Greek Orthodox woman, when she asked how to get closer to Jesus. Besides prayer and scripture, I said visit Him in the Blessed Sacrament at her Church. He called it “just a building” and the rest is history. My kids called me a hypocrite because I always told them never to talk to strangers online. lol

In all these years online, plus the decades I loved to read and learn about the faith, I never valued the knowledge in my head as much as the love and faith in my heart.

So don’t minimize any future contribution of yours to this forum. I look forward to hearing from you.

God bless you.
Love,
Elisa

columba Sat Jan 22, 2011 5:37 pm

The folowing extract is from Fr Wathens book, The Great Sacrilege. The book deals with the arguments against the validity of the new Mass but the opening chapters deal with Papal authority whch is relevent to this discussion.
What are your thoughts on what he says concering this. I posted a link to a free online version of the book I found yesterday. I've only thus far read the first few chapters before posting this extract so if anyone wishes to read I would welcome any comments.

Papal Authority
The Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Blessed Peter in primacy, has not only the primacy of honor, but also supreme and plenary power of jurisdiction throughout the universal Church, both in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which have to do with the discipline and order of the Church.
This power is truly Episcopal, ordinary and direct, both over all and each of the churches of Christendom, over all and each of the pastors and faithful, and independent of all human authority whatsoever.4

4. Codex Iuris Canonici. Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1954. Canon 218, Paragraphs 1 & 2.

This is to say that all Catholics, from cardinals to newly-baptized converts, are bound to obey the Holy Father in all religious matters, except a command to do something sinful. 5

5. If there is no point of religion involved, we would not be bound to obey a command which was not sinful, as for instance, a command to vote for a certain person. However, for a religious reason, we might be commanded not to vote for someone.

There is no suggestion in the law quoted above that the Pope is infallible in the exercise of this plenipotentiary authority. Nor is there anything in Divine Revelation or ecclesiastical law which guarantees that the Pope will never make an unwise law, or repeal a wise one; appoint an inept bishop, or a bad one; impose an unjust interdiction, or refuse to impose a necessary one; teach erroneous notions (even rank heresy) and say and do things which lead to mistaken conclusions, or permit his subordinates to do so. Nothing-except Divine Providence, if He so chooses-prevents there being a totally incompetent, or imprudent, or immoral Pope. Indeed, forbidding as such a thought may be, it is not inconceivable (i.e., out of the realm of possibility, or, the same thing, contradictory to the doctrine here under discussion) that there ascend the Throne of St. Peter a malicious Pope, one bent on the total destruction of the Church, he being faithless enough to thing such a thing possible! That even such a one, with such unrestricted and unrestrictable power, with all the help of his similarly-minded appointees, would be unable to succeed in such an effort is guaranteed by the doctrine of the Church's Indefectibility. And the reason even such a one would not be able to succeed is, in fact, Papal Infallibility itself, as we shall see a little later.

There is at the same time nothing in the definition of the Papacy which guarantees that the Supreme Pontiff could not give sinful commands and permit, or even encourage, the gravest abuses, or raise wicked and conspiratorial men to the episcopacy and the Cardinalate, to give them free reign to teach every kind of error and command or permit every kind of misdeed. In a word, there is no divine promise that the Pope will not be permitted to use his great authority in the most wicked and destructive ways.

Such a Pope would not, despite any and all manner of unholy action, lose his own legitimacy, all his all-comprehensive jurisdiction, nor the divine prerogative of Infallibility; so that, should an avowed conspirator become the Roman Pontiff, were he converted, he might immediately set about repairing the damage he himself had helped to inflict on the Church, without needing to be re-elected and re-instated or re-confirmed in his Office; only his private confession and absolution from any censure he might have incurred would be required. 6

6. The widespread notion that anyone who incurs "ipso facto excommunication" is thereby out of the Church (i.e., no longer a member) and therefore loses all ecclesiastical office, dignities, etc., is based on a fundamental misconception. "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic" is a valid principle. "Anathema sit" does not mean that the Church thereby excludes a person altogether; but the subject may not participate in the life of the Church, that is, receive any of the Sacraments of the Living, or participate in liturgical ceremonies, take part in Church functions, etc. As regards any offices, they are lost through a canonical condemnation only. Loss of an ecclesiastical office occurs immediately upon a declaration of "excommunicatus vitandus" ("excommunicated and to be avoided") by the Pope himself. Obviously the Supreme Pontiff cannot incur this censure. (Cf. Codes Iuris Canonici. Nos. 2256-67.

Cardinal Journet explains that the Church cannot depose a Pope, no matter how wicked he may be because there is no authority above the Papacy. God Himself must do it. (Journet. Op. cit., Vol 1 pp. 425-26). If he is a heretic, the Church can declare him "worthy of deposition." "The Church's action is simply declaratory; it makes the fact plain that an incorrigible sin of heresy exists; then the authorative action of God disjoins the Papacy from a subject who, persisting in heresy after admonition, becomes in divine law, inapt to retain it any longer." (Ibid. p. 484). These words do not mean that the Church, i.e., the bishops in council, have the power to deprive even an heretical Pope of his office and jurisdiction. They mean that the Church may use every moral means to force his abdication or prevent his acts from causing too great confusion and scandal. The defenders of the Faith in such a case would have to urge the people to pray, either for the Pontiff's conversion or for his direct removal by God, while they warned the people that his teachings were pernicious. From all this it can be seen that an individual Catholic or group of Catholics cannot decide that the Pope is "worthy of deposition," let alone already deposed.

Obviously then, there is no imagining what a terrible source of scandal either a morally bad or a doctrinally careless Pope can be to how many millions of souls. Nor is there any way of describing the satanic glee in the camp of the Church's inveterate enemies should they ever be able to infiltrate one of their own into his position, or subvert or subdue the Supreme Roman Pontiff to their service.

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility by stating in what respect the Pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives the Pope is completely fallible. And since this papal fallibility is as certain a fact as the holy doctrine which we are here discussing, Catholics must be convinced of the following most important principle, a principle which has a special relevance in the context of this present writing. It is this: No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another - even an errant Pope - for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any person - even the Pope - to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same. Ignorance of the law or ignorance of the Faith is never an excuse for sinning; one is bound to know when he is being commanded to sin. The notion is abroad that one may always simply follow the Pope and the bishops and thus be sure of salvation. Ordinarily this is a reliable norm. But it is so only because ordinarily the Pope and the bishops are more zealous for and more perfectly instructed in the Faith than their subjects.

Neither can anyone get permission to sin through the erroneous teaching of the Pope or any of his other spiritual superiors, nor through their failure to teach what they ought. Everyone is bound to keep God's law and the Faith. The obligation to do that which is good and avoid that which is evil and to believe the truths of Catholicism does not arise from the Hierarchy of the Church, nor from the Papacy, but from the intrinsic nature of things and the commands of Christ, Who is Lord of all. 7

7. The principle is given no notice at all by those who reject the teaching of Pope Paul VI on contraception and/or that of Pope Pius XII on rhythm, on the ground that the specific papal statements on these moral questions were not ex cathedra definitions.

When religious superiors officially and explicitly propound and explain our moral obligations and the truths of the Gospel, we are assisted thereby (both personally and collectively); and it is not only their right to do so, it is their grave duty (and to see that we fulfill them besides); that is what their jurisdiction is for. But whether they do so or not in no way alters our relationship to God, from whom ultimately our duty derives.

And, lest the point be missed, just as we must perform our duties, whether or not we are commanded and compelled to do so by those whom God has charged with the task, likewise, we must perform our duties should we be commanded not to do them, or to do something wrong instead. In the Church, no individual is the standard of perfect virtue or purity of doctrine - only Christ Our Lord.

And, lest anyone think these things are spoken lightly, let him reflect: it is a true saying that if anyone denies so much as one doctrine of the Faith, he is, morally speaking, denying it completely. And if he denies his Faith, he will lose his soul. Even if he denies his Faith implicitly, though knowingly, he is still denying it, none the less. If we may not disavow the revealed teachings of Christ at the command of a pagan government, neither may we do so if our religious superiors command it. "But he that shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father Who is in Heaven" (Matthew 10:33).

No more does the great holiness and shining orthodoxy or the faultless rule of one Pontiff assure any Catholic of his salvation than does the wickedness of another Pope cause anyone's perdition. The Papacy is not a Sacrament! Nor is the personal faith of any one Pope the touchstone of Orthodoxy; rather, it is the solemnly defined doctrines of the Church and all those teachings and norms which flow logically from them. It is the traditional Faith of Catholicism we must adhere to - the Faith of the Saints - no matter what happens during any given period of the Church's history.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2001Oct/tgs2.htm

MRyan Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:08 pm

Much of what Fr. Wathen said is true, but most of this appears to be “special pleading” that would justify rebellion against the Petrine authority of the pope for reasons that always turn out to be wrong - at least every bogus reason I have seen.

Sorry, but the work called “The Great Sacrilege” was itself a sacrilege and Fr. Wathen lost all credibility with his subsequent explanations, even if much of what he said on the papacy is true. All of this theoretical talk about apostate popes bent on the destruction of the Church is just that - theoretical nonsense. We have a valid pope and he is Christ’s true Vicar. He is the foundation upon which the institutional Church rests and is responsible for ensuring that the deposit of faith is passed on in all its integrity. He has been given the divine assistance and promise that his faith shall fail not - and our Lord is true to His word.

But I’m sure this “justifiable dissent” stuff is music to the ears of many sede leaning Catholics. And wouldn’t you know that the site that carried the extract from his book is sedevacantist.

Just saying; you reap what you sow.

simple Faith Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:10 am

Many thamks Elisa for your warm welcome and kind and sincere words (much appreciated). I have now taken a step forward in this forum and have managed to add an avatar Very Happy

(and a smilie). Now that I have got to grips with technology back to business.

A question for 'Fatima of our times'.
Sr. Lucia of Fatima died in 1995 and was, as I am sure you would agree, fully aware of all our Lady's messages and of the state of the Catholic Church during her life. She lived through the changes of Vatican 11 and was then afterwards subject to two Popes, John Paul 1 and John Paul 11. With all the knowledge and graces she had did she ever reject the Pope as the true head of the Catholic Church on earth?
Did Sr Lucia ever call the Pope a 'heretic'?

Fatima of our times I have no doubt you are very serious about your faith and very protective of it. The Catholic church really needs people like you within it's ranks but don't let the great deciever twist and play upon your desire to be truly faithful by cunningly using your gifts against the very Church that you love. We are always taught to pray for our Pope (was this not what Our Lady asked Sr Lucy to do?).
The more we are aware of the dangers facing the Church the more we must pray for the Pope. Please reconsider your position and look towards Sr. Lucia's life as an example of loyality to the Pope and the Catholic faith.

May God blees you.

Catholic_Truth Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:44 am

simple Faith wrote: Please reconsider your position and look towards Sr. Lucia's life as an example of loyality to the Pope and the Catholic faith.

Good point SimpleFaith. I don't believe the Dimond brothers in regards to their claim that Sister Lucia after 1960 was an imposter. The Dimond brother's conspiracy theories are looney. This is just another reason why I am skeptical of Sedevacantism even though the Sedevacantists make a convincing case. I agree with you that its best to stay connected with Rome, but at the same time a Catholic should not always accept what comes out of Rome. For example, just because some in Rome have little faith and therefore accept evolution as being most probably a truth, doesn't mean that the traditional Catholic who has a strong faith should accept it.

I do believe, however, that the Dimond's are correct about WATER baptism being an intrinsic necessity of means for every humanbeing based on what the infallible dogmatic statements of the Church tells us.

MRyan Mon Jan 24, 2011 2:42 pm

Catholic_Truth wrote:
I do believe, however, that the Dimond's are correct about WATER baptism being an intrinsic necessity of means for every humanbeing based on what the infallible dogmatic statements of the Church tells us.

You mean the Church (as well as the universal moral consensus of Saints, Doctors and theologians) is wrong in her understanding of her own “infallible dogmatic statements”, and the Dimond’s are correct when they declare that the effects (necessary for salvation) of the sacrament of baptism are intrinsically bound to matter.

In other words, we must acknowledge that the dogmatic declarations of the Church, contrary to how the Church, her saints and her theologians hold them, declare that God can never translate a soul into the justice of His love without actual sacramental ablution. We must also acknowledge that the Spirit cannot breathe where He will, but breathes the initial translating gift of sanctifying grace into a soul only through the instrumental cause and means of justification.

We must acknowledge, finally, that no one can be initially justified and finally saved through the unifying (and intrinsically necessary) bonds of supernatural Faith and Charity -- without the sacrament of baptism; for no one can be saved who is not materially incorporated into the visible Mystical Body - the Church.

And of course, the Church has been in error for all of these centuries for not only allowing Catholics to believe in baptism of desire and baptism of blood, but for teaching these same doctrines and for venerating as Martyrs certain heroic souls who appear not to have been baptized in water.

How do we know all this? Because a couple of guys in upstate NY have decreed that their understanding of the dogmatic declarations as they were “once declared” is correct, and anathema sit to anyone who says otherwise and stands with the Church.

Catholic_Truth Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:56 pm

MRyan wrote: How do we know all this? Because a couple of guys in upstate NY have decreed that their understanding of the dogmatic declarations as they were “once declared” is correct, and anathema sit to anyone who says otherwise and stands with the Church.

The guys in upstate NY(Dimond brothers) didn't decree any anathema on this, but instead the Church did.....

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

MRyan, but why continue to debate myself and others in this Forum on these topics when you could use your obvious verbal skills to refute the Dimond brothers in an audio debate with them? This way you could reach a much broader audience and perhaps help in saving many more souls. The Dimond brothers are confident in their traditional Catholic beliefs and are always willing to debate persons such as yourself. You can contact them at mhfm1@aol.com or call them toll free at 1-800-275-1126.

Ofcourse, MRyan, you'll probably use the same lame excuses all the modernists give to dodge debating the Dimonds.

Roguejim Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:57 pm

Elisa wrote:Welcome, simple Faith. You are a breath of fresh air.

It doesn’t matter that you don’t know about encyclicals and Papal statements (I don’t know much about them either). I have been on many a wild goose chase researching statements only to find the person who quoted them was wrong in their interpretation or they were taken out of context. (Not MRyan, of course, lol, and a few other online friends.)

All that matters is the “simple faith” in your heart. That is the only thing that Jesus said we need for salvation.

Matthew 18:3-4: "Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

Mark 10:14-15: “for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.”

We aren’t saved by what is in our heads, we are saved by the faith in our hearts. No Catholic needs to know about any of these discussions to be saved. Most don’t. A child with faith in their heart who knows nothing will still be saved. And salvation and love of God is all that matters in the end.

Proverbs 3:5:
“Trust in the LORD with all your heart, on your own intelligence rely not”

Detailed knowledge is helpful when reading or discussing these things, but not necessary. You and I and others here find these things interesting and intriguing. And learning about these things can deepen our faith. So they are good discussions.

But you have correctly noted that some people can be led astray by these discussions.

Let me explain, many good Catholics here seem to have almost talked themselves out of their duty-bound loyality to the Pope as head of the ONE TRUE CHURCH by getting carried away with certain individual aspects of the faith to the detriment of the WHOLE faith. I get the feeling they want to maintain loyality to the Pope but by their quest for deeper knowledge are gradually loosing what they originally had and I fear that some may (or already have) split from the Catholic Church by regecting the appointed head of the very Church which can bring them salvation.

Bingo. I get the feeling you know a lot and are just being humble.

I’m honored to have read your first online post. I remember when I wrote my first one almost 6 years ago on the Passion of the Christ website about the movies. Protestants were going back and forth about who was at the foot of the cross and I couldn’t take it anymore, so I registered. Then a Protestant man took issue with advice I gave a Greek Orthodox woman, when she asked how to get closer to Jesus. Besides prayer and scripture, I said visit Him in the Blessed Sacrament at her Church. He called it “just a building” and the rest is history. My kids called me a hypocrite because I always told them never to talk to strangers online. lol

In all these years online, plus the decades I loved to read and learn about the faith, I never valued the knowledge in my head as much as the love and faith in my heart.

So don’t minimize any future contribution of yours to this forum. I look forward to hearing from you.

God bless you.
Love,
Elisa

Maybe Elisa can expound a bit on this "simple faith", the only thing required for salvation. You say more by what you omitted, than by what you wrote. This sort of stripped down minimalism, frankly, reeks a bit of Protestantism, i.e., it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you have Jesus in your heart...

simple Faith Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:34 pm

Hi Roguejim, what is it that you believe Elisa omited to tell me regarding my faith?
What are the other aspects you think that I should know that would have been denied me in my lifetime of being loyal to my Catholic faith and upbringing?

Should I investigate why or how our Pope might be a heretic and how he might not understand the very Dogmas of the Church of which he is the true head of here on earth? (and you suggest my faith "reeks a bit of Protestantism")

Would doing so make me a 'better' Catholic? Would this indepth knowledge lead me to know more than the Pope? Would I then have the right to interpet the teachings of the Church and the Pope and tell everyone how wrong he is and how gifted and blessed I am with my own personal surperior intellect?
Well if the outcome of an intellectual faith is such then I think I'll stick with the 'simple' version.

God Bless

Elisa Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:47 pm

Thanks so much, simple Faith. I’m glad you understood what I was saying.

Really, Jim? Are you kidding me? You should know better. I wasn’t talking here about all the requirements for salvation. (the grace from His sacraments, perseverance in faith, repentance, charity, etc.) I wasn’t talking about simply having "Jesus in our hearts" like a Protestant. (not to minimalize that in any way for it is one of the most important things.) I was talking about what simple Faith understood.

A baptized Catholic who knows the basics of the faith and loves Christ doesn’t need to know all these details we talk about to be saved. And salvation and pleasing God is the most important thing.

Actually a four year old Catholic child who never even heard of the Eucharist who dies suddenly can be saved if the child is one of His elect, no? So the child doesn’t need to know about the Eucharist before the child is of age to receive it. It’s good for them to knew from the earliest age, but not necessary for them for salvation.

Same with so many of the things we talk about here.

I can tell you right now that my husband never even heard of Baptism of Blood or Baptism of Desire. (and he probably doesn’t care.)

As far as Outside the Church there is no Salvation – do you remember an email I sent you months ago about my evangelical friend who was insulted that a mutual Catholic friend innocently asked her last Easter if she believed Jesus rose from the dead. Our Catholic friend had no idea what Protestants believed. When I told my husband this story, in all seriousness he asked me, “well, do they?” lol

He doesn’t know or care what Protestants believe. He knows Jesus rose and he knows he and his family are baptized and he loves Christ and receives Him every single day at the 7AM Mass.

And that’s all that matters to him. The basics of the Catholic faith that he and his family believe and that his kids go to Church. Those are the things he loves and he could care less what other people believe. He (and that Catholic friend of ours) only know that Catholics are right and Protestants are wrong. I don’t think he ever wondered if they are going to Heaven or if an unbaptized martyr goes to Heaven or if the Pope is really Catholic.

And if he read some of the discussions I read online, he would think the people were crazy and he would have no patience.

He doesn’t need to know everything about Catholic theology. No Catholic does. Just the basics. Just the truths we live everyday and at Mass. The Eucharist and salvation and baptism.

Most good Catholics don’t know all the details we talk about that we here find interesting. My grandmother in Spain went to Mass everyday and twice on Sundays and the rosary every day and twice on Sundays. And she never heard of the things we talk about. She knew Catholics were saved, that you baptized your babies as soon as possible so they went to Heaven and Jesus was in the Eucharist. (where do you think I came up with conditional retroactive baptism of emergency? lol I remembered my grandmother brought her kids to be baptized a few days after they were born.) She never heard of Transubstantiation, she just knew the bread became Christ. She never read or heard of any quotes of the early Church fathers, Papal encyclicals, or canon law. Actually, she couldn't read. She accepted truths she was taught from her parents and priests. She didn't question them or dissect them. I realize she lived in another world, but she lived to be 93 and she loved the Church till the end. Changes and all.

She didn’t have to know that stuff to be saved. And if she heard there were Catholics who didn’t think the Pope was the Pope, she would not understand and she would pray for them.

She was born in 1890 and saw TV for the first time when she was 80 yrs old. When someone on the show died, she would say the rosary for them. My family tried to tell her it wasn’t real and she’d think they were lying and say, “well, that man won’t be going home to his family tonight.”

Now are you clear on what I was talking about? It’s the simple CATHOLIC faith that saves us. It's not that complicated to know.

I forgive you. lol Because I love you. Don’t do it again. lol

Good night, my friend. God bless everyone here.
Love
Elisa

columba Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:58 pm

MRyan wrote:
You mean the Church (as well as the universal moral consensus of Saints, Doctors and theologians) is wrong in her understanding of her own “infallible dogmatic statements”, and the Dimond’s are correct when they declare that the effects (necessary for salvation) of the sacrament of baptism are intrinsically bound to matter.

I think what CT means is what has been said before. The Dimond bros are corect and the Church has already determined infallibly that water Baptism is necessary for salvation and that the universal moral consensus of saints, doctors and theologians agrees with this and the effects of the sacrament "are" intrinsically bound to matter. i.e, water.

In other words, we must acknowledge that the dogmatic declarations of the Church, contrary to how the Church, her saints and her theologians hold them, declare that God can never translate a soul into the justice of His love without actual sacramental ablution. We must also acknowledge that the Spirit cannot breathe where He will, but breathes the initial translating gift of sanctifying grace into a soul only through the instrumental cause and means of justification.

God can of course (if He so wishes), translate a soul into the justice of His love (whatever that means) without actual sacramental ablution. In Fact God can do whatever He wishes just by willing it so. As far as the heavens are above the earth, so far are My ways above yours, My thoughts above your toughts, says the Lord. Howerver. God is truth and cannot deceive and when He Himself declared infallibly through His own words and through the Church that water Baptism is necessary for salvation, you can bet your very soul that this is the truth.
Has God limited His power by not providing salvation in another way? Of course not. He could just as easily keep a just soul alive on this earth until that soul receives Baptism.

We must acknowledge, finally, that no one can be initially justified and finally saved through the unifying (and intrinsically necessary) bonds of supernatural Faith and Charity -- without the sacrament of baptism; for no one can be saved who is not materially incorporated into the visible Mystical Body - the Church.

Yes. This is what we must acknowledge and believe as being revealed by God Himsef.

And of course, the Church has been in error for all of these centuries for not only allowing Catholics to believe in baptism of desire and baptism of blood, but for teaching these same doctrines and for venerating as Martyrs certain heroic souls who appear not to have been baptized in water.

That is your assumption MR. The Church in fact has never taught th above error.
The error She did teach was that of a soul being sanctified outside sacrmntal Baptim.
"If anyone should say that water isn't necessary" etc etc, "let him be anathema."
Ther is not even one case in the whole history of the Church of a martyr referred to as being unbaptised.

How do we know all this? Because a couple of guys in upstate NY have decreed that their understanding of the dogmatic declarations as they were “once declared” is correct, and anathema sit to anyone who says otherwise and stands with the Church.

If it were only a couple of guys in upstate NY who were saying this then you might have a point. Your argument would be then that if the NYer's state that Transubstantiation is a dogma of the faith then we should disbelieve this?
What the Dimond bros are saying, is what the Church has already said and declared dogmatically. If it weren't, then everyone of their other arguments would lose credibility too. The fact that their position is so in line with Church teachng has made their final erronious conclussion all the more palatable. That of course being that the seat of Peter is vacant.
This conclusion of theirs goes against reason as well as faith. They have made a judicial statement far exceeding their status. Even if a Cardinal were to say such a thing, one would have great reservations concerning his authoruty to do so.
The arrogance of the Dimonds in asserting that they now are the only true means of knowing the faith infallibly, and that anyone who disagrees with their conclusionn is anathema is itself worthy of being declared anathema. They believe that not only has the chair of Peter become vacant, but that they themselves are the pesent occupiers.

Having said as much, They are correct in many things including that our present and recent Popes have done and said things which are contrary to the faith, but if the Church is to be renewed (which it is) it will be within the current structure.
Putting on the blindfolds and pretending that everything is perfect in the church and in Rome (I mean of course church members; even those who sit in Rome and not the "Church" as an organism which is Holy and spotless) doesn't help in combatting the problem.

Elisa Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:12 pm

I just want to correct one thing. My husband probably did hear the words baptism of blood and baptism of desire. My year was the last year we all had to memorized the Baltimore Catechism for Confirmation.

So he probably heard the words or recited the words, but they went in one ear and out the other. This is not his thing.

but he knows what is important. And I have ALOT of respect for him.

After my post I thought of some of the discussions we have here and what he would think. I thought about the one about if permanent deacons should be allowed to sleep with their wives and it made me laught to imagine his reaction.

I want you all here to know something. I might like and respect you and I have learned alot from many of you.

but the thing I like most about you all and the things I respect the most and the thing that is most endearing to me is the simple Catholic faith I read in your writings. The charity you show, the devotion to Our Lord and Our Lady, the obvious love you have for the Church.

columba Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:16 pm

CatolicThruth wrote:
Good point SimpleFaith. I don't believe the Dimond brothers in regards to their claim that Sister Lucia after 1960 was an imposter.

This is a good subject CT. I was of the same oppinion as you even when those photo's of Sr Lucy where presented by the Dimond Bros as eveidence, But what really got me worried was the footage of Sr Lucy receiving Holy Communion from Pope JP II where she goes forward as if to receive on the hand and then after JP gave her Communion on the tongue, she grabbed his hands and kissed them, then turned to the bishop on her left and began to talk to him with Communion still in her mouth.
This is very strange behavior from a seer who witnessed the angel of Portugal suspending the Host in the air while prostrating himself on the ground before administering the Host to the seers on the tongue while they knelt.

The seers used to kneel at the apparitions of Our Lady so what would their response have been if the Lord Himself had appeared? Thwe Lord indeed did appear at Mass under the form of bread and wasn't shown the same reverence by Sr Lucy as the Blessed Virgin received. Very very strange to say the least.

columba Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:35 pm

Elisa I agree with you that everyones intentions here are good. If we didn't care about the faith we wouldn't waste so much of our tme debating it. Whether we achieve anything or not is another thing but at least we get a wide perspective of oppinion that indeed can help to bring things to the table that may have not been considered before. Smile

A little charity goes a long way even though I often be the uncharitable culprit at times. (but more so the frustrated culprit ) bounce

BTW. Welcome Simple Faith.
I hope it ends up as simple as your name suggests. Arguments against sedevacantism - Page 2 95220

MRyan Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:05 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
You mean the Church (as well as the universal moral consensus of Saints, Doctors and theologians) is wrong in her understanding of her own “infallible dogmatic statements”, and the Dimond’s are correct when they declare that the effects (necessary for salvation) of the sacrament of baptism are intrinsically bound to matter.

I think what CT means is what has been said before. The Dimond bros are corect and the Church has already determined infallibly that water Baptism is necessary for salvation and that the universal moral consensus of saints, doctors and theologians agrees with this and the effects of the sacrament "are" intrinsically bound to matter. i.e, water.

I wonder if you keep a straight face when you write such things as these “infallible” errant syllogisms that are manifestations of some perverse reality where facts are conveniently denied or changed so that the universal moral consensus of saints, doctors and theologians is what you say it is, not what it actually is.

You simply ignore what the Church teaches and make some spurious Gnostic-like claim to holding the “true” doctrine while the Church, her saints and her theologians have been wallowing in objective heresy for centuries.

The universal and constant testimony of popes, saints, doctors and theologians, not to mention the dogmatic Council of Trent, proves without a shadow of a doubt that the Church teaches that one may in fact be sanctified apart from actual ablution; but please, don’t let these infallible inconvenient little facts put a damper on your private magisterial pontifications.

And it only gets worse when you write: “The Church in fact has never taught the above error [of baptism of desire and baptism of blood].The error She did teach was that of a soul being sanctified outside sacramental Baptism.”

So you not only deny that the Church has ever taught baptism of desire and baptism of blood, you also spread the heresy that the Church can teach error on a matter of faith (for centuries, no less), when Pope Sixtus IV condemned this proposition outright, that: “The Church of the city of Rome can err.” (DZ, #730)

The First Vatican Council would infallibly prescribe this same teaching as follows:

"...in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled, and her well known doctrine has been kept holy...knowing full well that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of errors, according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour..." (First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, July 18, 1870)

In his official Relatio of July 11, 1870 on chapter four of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus Bishop Gasser stated the following:

“This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity. The bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: ‘If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered – which in fact is impossible.’” (Cf. Gasser, The Gift of Infallibility, Ignatius, 2008, pp. 24-25; K Gurries, On Rupture Theology, May, 2009)

Your denial of objective truth and accusation of "error" against the Church is the result of your descent into the pit of private interpretation and non-Catholic reality.

The Church teaches and has always held that one may be sanctified by "the desire thereof"; but you say no; that this is a heterodox doctrine that the Church has never taught (at least not the "true" Church?) and you are free to reject; when the Church has been teaching this so-called "error" for centuries on end. No wonder you defend the guys in upstate NY; dogmatic private interpretation is your sock in trade.

You also made the gratuitous assertion that “Ther is not even one case in the whole history of the Church of a martyr referred to as being unbaptised.”

According to Fr. Butler in his Lives of the Saints:

“There lived an Nantes an illustrious young nobleman, called Donatian, who, having received the sacrament of regeneration, led a most edifying life, and laid himself out with much zeal to converting others to faith in Christ. His elder brother, Rogatian, was not able to resist the moving example of his piety … and desired to be baptized. But the bishop having withdrawn and concealed himself for fear of persecution, he was not able to receive that sacrament, but was shortly after baptized in his blood.”

And of course, the Martyrology “refers” to Saint Emerentiana, Saint Victor of Braga, Heraclides and others as having received Baptism of Blood while still “unbaptized”. But then again, I forgot that you know better than the testimony of the saints and the Martyrology in this matter; how silly of me.

Sorry, columba, if I don't jump into your heretical camp which has diplomatic ties to a private sede campground in upstate NY.

columba Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:43 pm

MRyan wrote:
You mean the Church (as well as the universal moral consensus of Saints, Doctors and theologians) is wrong in her understanding of her own “infallible dogmatic statements”, and the Dimond’s are correct when they declare that the effects (necessary for salvation) of the sacrament of baptism are intrinsically bound to matter.

The universal moral consensus of Saints, Doctors and theologians is not wrong, but your insisting that such a universal consensus exists is what infact is wrong.
I have claimed (using your logic) that the consensus agrees with my position. For every Doctor or Saint that you use to support your view, I could find one that rejects it. However, as it is not the Doctors or Saints who determine the infallible teachings of the Church but rather the Papal infalible declarations themselves, we therefore must give way to these infallible pronouncements as the Doctors and Saints themselves would do.

MRyan wrote:
We must acknowledge, finally, that no one can be initially justified and finally saved through the unifying (and intrinsically necessary) bonds of supernatural Faith and Charity -- without the sacrament of baptism; for no one can be saved who is not materially incorporated into the visible Mystical Body - the Church.

Yes.. This is what we must acknowledge bdecause this is what the Church teaches infallibly. How difficult is that to do?

MRyan wrote:
And of course, the Church has been in error for all of these centuries for not only allowing Catholics to believe in baptism of desire and baptism of blood, but for teaching these same doctrines and for venerating as Martyrs certain heroic souls who appear not to have been baptized in water.

The Church has not been in error all these centuries but certain members (both high and low) have been. Those who deny the infallible declarations are the ones who are in error whether they do this intentionally or through lack of understanding of what precisely an infallible decaration is.
Regarding the Martyrs, the operative word here is "appear." The Church has never declared that they were unbaptised but rather in recognising that they where catechumens and believing in the providence of God, have not doubted that the water of regeration was miraculously supplied to them before death.

How do we know all this? Because a couple of guys in upstate NY have decreed that their understanding of the dogmatic declarations as they were “once declared” is correct, and anathema sit to anyone who says otherwise and stands with the Church.

We don't know this because of a couple of guys in upstate NY. We know this because the Church teaches it. If the Dimond bros believe this too then we don't have to renounce Church teaching just to be in oppsition to them.

Guest Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:28 pm

I have to say that Columba comes across logical and friendly and is winning me over.

I really enjoy your posts Columba.

I think it is ironic that people told me to be careful of feeneyites because they are uncharitable but I find on this forum they seem pretty charitable-- not saying anyone has been bad here, just my impression of what people say feeneyites are like.

simple Faith Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:26 pm

Thank you for your welcome Columba.

With regards your recent comments concering Sr. Lucy I respectfully request you reconsider what you said.

I have watched the video to which you refer and ask that you also view it again.
If you do I ask that you take into consideration the fact that the event took place in the year 2000 when S.r Lucy was 93 years of age.

You State: "..she goes forward as if to receive on the hand .."
No she doesn't, watch again (without the Dimond commentary). Sr. Lucy who is obviously frail, is helped up some steps by two assistants, who each support and hold her by the arms whilst she receives Communion on the tongue. Nowhere in the video does it show her holding out her hands and being over-ruled by John Paul II.

You State: ".. she grabbed his hands and kissed them ..".
No she doesn't, watch again (without the Dimond commentary). Sr Lucy, gently takes the Pope's right hand, in her hand, and humbly and respectfully kisses the Piscatory Ring (the Ring of the Fisherman), an age old tradtion that shows respect, submission and honour to the Chair of Peter.

You state she: ".. then turned to the bishop on her left and began to talk to him with Communion still in her mouth.
"No she doesn't, watch again (without the Dimond commentary). There is no Bishop beside Sr. Lucy, only the two assistants, one of whom says a few words to her before helping her back down the steps. Although Sr. Lucy's back is to the camera, the Dimond brother is able to interpet what she says (obviously another special spiritual gift he has to lip-read from behind someone's head).

Now Columba, please reflect upon the following:
*What good did you hope to achieve by making your comments about Sr .Lucy?
*Would someone reading your comments, and taking them at face value, be more likely or less likely to have his or her's faith in Sr. Lucy and her messages increased?

Just assume for a moment your interpetation (or rather the Dimond brothers interpetation) of what happened is wrong. Is that possible?
If so have you wronged Sr.Lucy?

Or, just assuming you interpetation is correct, would it not be better then to take into consideration the age and state of health of Sr Lucy before casting aspertations upon her?

I'm sure you would agree the Church is under enough of attack without the need for good Catholics to assist it's enemies.

God Bless

Elisa Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:44 am

MRyan:

According to Fr. Butler in his Lives of the Saints:

“There lived an Nantes an illustrious young nobleman, called Donatian, who, having received the sacrament of regeneration, led a most edifying life, and laid himself out with much zeal to converting others to faith in Christ. His elder brother, Rogatian, was not able to resist the moving example of his piety … and desired to be baptized. But the bishop having withdrawn and concealed himself for fear of persecution, he was not able to receive that sacrament, but was shortly after baptized in his blood.”

And of course, the Martyrology “refers” to Saint Emerentiana, Saint Victor of Braga, Heraclides and others as having received Baptism of Blood while still “unbaptized”.

Thank you, Mike, so much for all your hard work and actual facts and concrete explicit examples to back up all your posts on all these topics.

So, after Columba (good man that he seems to be) said, “Ther is not even one case in the whole history of the Church of a martyr referred to as being unbaptised

Mike has produced actual names of martyred Saints who have not had visible earthly water baptism. Their histories are there online for anyone who cares to read them.

I would think it’s “case closed” on this topic, but no. Some would prefer to believe that the history of these Saints is wrong. That in fact they were secretly baptized with water right before their death and no one knew about it. Every single last martyr. How likely is it that every single one was baptized and everyone in the Church erroneously thought that some were not given visible water baptism? Only likely if you want it to be so, because for some reason you can’t stand the POSSIBILITY of Baptism of Blood or Baptism of Desire.

Of course, we believe the possibility of some miraculous baptism in the state between life and death, earth and Heaven, administered by someone from Heaven or Christ Himself. In fact, I personally think this is very likely for some. That would fall into the category of Baptism of Blood or Baptism of Desire. Because it would not be a visible earthly water baptism, the norm. This miraculous baptism may not be necessary, but could very well be fitting and beautiful.

Well, hypothetically, lets say that these people were secretly baptized on earth with actual visible water by a human being. IT WOULDN’T MATTER to our point that the Church always taught that they were saved without visible water baptism and that they were saved by Baptism of Blood.

Because the Church has never prayed for martyrs. Any martyr, including those without earthly visible water baptism. Including those Saints that the Church names with histories as never being baptized with water. In none of it’s liturgies or prayers ever. So if the Church has never prayed for any martyrs, she would be callous and negligent if she did not believe they were all saved. Even the ones the Church thought (correctly or erroneously) were never given visible water baptism.

St. Augustine also said we should never pray for martyrs:

“A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers.” - from Against Faustus the Manichean, by Saint Augustine

“There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for the dead who are remembered. For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended.” - from Sermons by Saint Augustine

“At the Lord’s table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps.” - from Homilies on John by Saint Augustine

The fact is the Church teaches they are all saved by Baptism of Blood, so they are. The fact that the Church never prayed for any martyr proves this logically.

And we still have never been given a single example of any Church Father who ever specifically denied the possibility of Baptism of Blood or Baptism of Desire. (Of course all the Church Fathers and all of us here believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation. Not something to be postponed or neglected in any way.) While we have many Fathers and Church councils and Church authorities who proclaim both baptism of blood and baptism of desire as Catholic truth.

Cowboy, I also think that Columba seems like a nice friendly person and he also seems like a smart man, but I don’t understand how you can say his theories are logical. They fly in the face of facts and the history of the Church. No offense, Columba.

But do either of you have a way of logically disproving with facts what I just said in this post? If the Church didn’t teach Baptism of Blood and thought some martyrs were never given water baptism, why would the Church never once pray for any of them and make a point that it would be wrong to pray for them?

God bless you all.
Love,
Elisa

PS I agree with you simple Faith about everything you said about Sr. Lucia. Thanks.

Elisa Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:55 am

Here is one more old tradition (small "t") about St. James the Greater.

http://sacred-texts.com/chr/lots/lots234.htm

Butler’s Lives of the Saints

July 25.—ST. JAMES, Apostle.

AMONG the twelve, three were chosen as the familiar companions of our blessed Lord, and of these James was one. He alone, with Peter and John, was admitted to the house of Jairus when the dead maiden was raised to life. They alone were taken up to the high mountain apart, and saw the face of Jesus shining as the sun, and His garments white as snow; and these three alone witnessed the fearful agony in Gethsemane. What was it that won James a place among the favorite three? Faith, burning, impetuous, and outspoken, but which needed. purifying before the "Son of Thunder" could proclaim the gospel of peace. It was James who demanded fire from heaven to consume the inhospitable Samaritans, and who sought the place of honor by Christ in His Kingdom. Yet Our Lord, in rebuking his presumption, prophesied his faithfulness to death. When St. James was brought before King Herod Agrippa, his fearless confession of Jesus crucified so moved the public prosecutor that he declared himself a Christian on the spot. Accused and accuser were hurried off together to execution, and on the road the latter begged pardon of the Saint. The apostle had long since forgiven him, but hesitated for a moment whether publicly to accept as a brother one still unbaptized. God quickly recalled to him the Church's faith, that the blood of martyrdom supplies for every sacrament, and, falling on his companion's neck, he embraced him, with the words, "Peace be with thee!" Together then they knelt for the sword, and together received the crown.

columba Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:24 pm

Simple Faith wrote:
With regards your recent comments concering Sr. Lucy I respectfully request you reconsider what you said.

I have watched the video to which you refer and ask that you also view it again.
If you do I ask that you take into consideration the fact that the event took place in the year 2000 when S.r Lucy was 93 years of age.

You State: "..she goes forward as if to receive on the hand .."
No she doesn't, watch again (without the Dimond commentary). Sr. Lucy who is obviously frail, is helped up some steps by two assistants, who each support and hold her by the arms whilst she receives Communion on the tongue. Nowhere in the video does it show her holding out her hands and being over-ruled by John Paul II.

You State: ".. she grabbed his hands and kissed them ..".
No she doesn't, watch again (without the Dimond commentary). Sr Lucy, gently takes the Pope's right hand, in her hand, and humbly and respectfully kisses the Piscatory Ring (the Ring of the Fisherman), an age old tradtion that shows respect, submission and honour to the Chair of Peter.

You state she: ".. then turned to the bishop on her left and began to talk to him with Communion still in her mouth.
"No she doesn't, watch again (without the Dimond commentary). There is no Bishop beside Sr. Lucy, only the two assistants, one of whom says a few words to her before helping her back down the steps. Although Sr. Lucy's back is to the camera, the Dimond brother is able to interpet what she says (obviously another special spiritual gift he has to lip-read from behind someone's head).

Now Columba, please reflect upon the following:
*What good did you hope to achieve by making your comments about Sr .Lucy?
*Would someone reading your comments, and taking them at face value, be more likely or less likely to have his or her's faith in Sr. Lucy and her messages increased?

Ok Simple Faith, The only thing I hoped to achieve by my comments was to elicit some responses from members here who have seen that footage and you are the first to respond.
Unfortunately I don’t have the particular clip to view again and I can’t seem to find it on you tube (if you have a link I’d appreciate it) so what I said was from memory and I did view the clip at least 3 or 4 times.

My comments were a retelling of what I’d seen and my thoughts at the time. Faith in the message of Fatima as given to the seers has already been determined by the Church as being worthy of belief and confirmed also by a miracle witnessed by over 70,000 people. The clip hasn’t dented my belief in Fatima but it has given pause to consider the Dimond bros claim that it may not be the real Sr Lucia.

Call me naïve but when one witnesses some of the things taking place within the Church and the disregard shown for the real presence in the Sacred Host in the Novus Ordo Mass, certain other things don’t appear so far fetched as to be considered impossible.

Just assume for a moment your interpetation (or rather the Dimond brothers interpetation) of what happened is wrong. Is that possible?
If so have you wronged Sr.Lucy?

I do consider my interpretation as possibly being wrong but if we are prohibited from airing our thoughts and there actually is something funny going on then Sr Lucia may have been wronged without anyone ever realising it.

Sr Lucia lived through a time when Political Correctness hadn’t quite attained the status of a god and I’m sure from heaven she knows exactly what I’m up to.

Or, just assuming you interpetation is correct, would it not be better then to take into consideration the age and state of health of Sr Lucy before casting aspertations upon her?

My point in mentioning this incident in the first place was in response to C T’s comment that he didn’t believe the Dimond brothers claim that an impostor Sr Lucy had been at large. I agreed with him on that until my suspicions were aroused by that video footage. If the woman in the video was not the real Sr Lucy then she certainly would deserve aspirations cast upon her. If it is the real Sr Lucia then I agree with everything you say and put it all down to frailty of age.

I'm sure you would agree the Church is under enough of attack without the need for good Catholics to assist it's enemies.

This is a good point to respond to and what I’m about to say may sound like sarcasm but believe me I’m not trying to be sarcastic.

Considering the Church today doesn’t have any enemies I don’t think I could be assisting them in any way. Everyone now is our friend and it’s very intolerant to ascribe the term “enemy” to those who actively will the destruction of the Church, such as Jews, Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, Witch Doctors, Communists, Free Masons etc etc. In fact the only real enemy we can see at present are Traditionalist Catholics.
Well, maybe those who attack the body and can do no more could be considered enemies, but we mustn’t consider as enemies those who attack the soul and destroy faith and make Catholicism as something we should be ashamed of.

The Dimond brothers may well be misled but I don’t believe it was to them Our Lady was referring in the third secret of Fatima, La Salette, Quito Equador, Laus in France and many more of her apparitions when she stated that Rome would lose the faith and the apostasy would begin at the top.
Why would Our Lady give warning of such impossibilities (as some would declare) while reaffirming many prophecies of the saints and the warnings of Pope St Pius X?
If Our Lady hadn’t warned us, who would have had the gall to believe such a thing were possible never mind actually happening in front of our eyes?

As the saying goes, “Fore-warned is fore-armed,” and we can’t say we weren’t warned.

columba Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:50 pm

Elisa I've read your posts and despite appearances I hope to show that it's not "closed case" as yet. I haven't time right now but will respond soon.

God Bless.

Catholic_Truth Wed Jan 26, 2011 9:22 pm

First off, I would like to repeat that I am not a sedevacantist for all who are reading this thread. Maybe the Novus Ordo defenders are correct or maybe the sedevacantists are correct. I make no judgement on anyone. That being said, I will now respond to the quote below from Elisa.

Elisa wrote: Mike has produced actual names of martyred Saints who have not had visible earthly water baptism. Their histories are there online for anyone who cares to read them.

Elisa are you seriously trying to convince us that a person's entire history, every minute of their life, from when they were born till when they died, is online and/or in some history book? Elisa, you and MRyan had never "visibly" witnessed my earthly water baptism, so does that mean I was never water baptized ?

Elisa wrote:
I would think it’s “case closed” on this topic, but no. Some would prefer to believe that the history of these Saints is wrong. That in fact they were secretly baptized with water right before their death and no one knew about it.

I'm sure you and MRyan would like for the "case to be closed", just as Al Gore would like the debate on Global Warming to be "case closed" in his favor, but the fact of the matter is that you and MRyan, though you claim Saints were not water baptized, can't prove that these particular Saints had not been water baptized at some point in their life. Even these particular Saints may have not known of their own water baptism having taken place if they were baptized as infants and not told of it. Also, we already have an example of God sending an Angel to administer a sacrament at Fatima. Plus, you baptism of desire and baptism of blood defenders love to quote St. Thomas Aquinas in favor of your position, but refuse to accept what he said in regards to God sending an angel to Water baptize a person at the moment of that person's death if need be.

Elisa Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:18 pm

Columba,

I wonder if you realize the ramifications of what you are spreading about Sr. Lucia.

Not only are these vile internet lies and ridiculous conspiracies that you are repeating a calumny against the Pope and the Vatican and the woman who you think is the imposter, but this conspiracy would require that all the nuns that Sr. Lucia lived with would have remained quiet about this lie all these years when they saw the real Sr. Lucia replaced decades ago. These good holy woman who lived with Sr. Lucia would not be fooled by an imposter. So they would have to be part of the lie and the great sin.

Your spreading theories without any proof whatsoever, may make someone reading here believe that these people have all lied to the whole world about something of great importance to the Church. A huge sin on their part.

And someone might believe it because you posted that you believe it. So not only the Dimond Brothers and Tradition In Action guilty of calling these nuns and the Pope and others liars, so are you.

Unless you are 100% certain these people are all lying, you shouldn’t call them liars. All from videos and pictures that are not convincing to many of us anyway. No other proof.

Please rethink this, Columba. Offer some sort of retraction and, please, don’t spread this calumny in the future.

I say this for your benefit and so that the truth related to Sr. Lucia is not tarnished and people don’t believe lies and unproven theories concocted by people who. . . . well, I’d rather not say what I think of the Dimond Brothers and Tradition In Action.

God bless you, Columba.
Love,
Elisa

Elisa Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:21 pm

C-T,

I don’t think you read my whole post because it addressed your 2 points. So I will repost some of it.

And I do not "claim" anything about these Saints. The Church claims it. I get my information from the Church. I don't dream these things up myself.

As to if these Saints were secretly baptized:

Well, hypothetically, lets say that these people were secretly baptized on earth with actual visible water by a human being. IT WOULDN’T MATTER to our point that the Church always taught that they were saved without visible water baptism and that they were saved by Baptism of Blood.

Because the Church has never prayed for martyrs. Any martyr, including those without earthly visible water baptism. Including those Saints that the Church names with histories as never being baptized with water. In none of it’s liturgies or prayers ever. So if the Church has never prayed for any martyrs, she would be callous and negligent if she did not believe they were all saved. Even the ones the Church thought (correctly or erroneously) were never given visible water baptism.

St. Augustine also said we should never pray for martyrs:

(see above first post for quotes)

The fact is the Church teaches they are all saved by Baptism of Blood, so they are. The fact that the Church never prayed for any martyr proves this logically.

If the Church didn’t teach Baptism of Blood and thought some martyrs were never given water baptism, why would the Church never once pray for any of them and make a point that it would be wrong to pray for them?

As to if they might have been baptized by an angel. I already said I believe those things are possible and personally, I think they are likely:

Of course, we believe the possibility of some miraculous baptism in the state between life and death, earth and Heaven, administered by someone from Heaven or Christ Himself. In fact, I personally think this is very likely for some. That would fall into the category of Baptism of Blood or Baptism of Desire. Because it would not be a visible earthly water baptism, the norm. This miraculous baptism may not be necessary, but could very well be fitting and beautiful.

Hope this helps.
God bless you all and good night.
Love,
Elisa

Elisa Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:34 pm

PS The reason I thought of the nuns was because I used to have a tablecloth embroidered by some of the nuns who lived in the convent with Sr. Lucia because an acquaintance was related to one of them.

PSS I am getting a big laugh reading various posts about MRyan where people here think of him as a defender of the Novus Ordo and abuses in the Church and modernism.

I may be an EWTN neocon, but Mike is certainly not. If you had read past posts of his, you would love him.

Actually, there is nothing written on this website, (except conspiracy theories and errors) that I didn't first read from Mike.

columba Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:38 am

Elisa.
I don't think you read my post correctly concerning the video clip of Sr Lucy. I didn't say I was convinced that the Dimond bros interpretation was the right one, I merely said that my suspicions were aroused.
If your faith in the human element in the Church is unshakeable then that's ok with me but I have to say that mine isn't.
When something arouses suspicion I'm more inclined to hold an open mind rather than dismiss everything out of hand simply because so n so of questionable repute has made the claim. if more people in the past had adopted this attitude we may not have had such scandals as we've witnessed in the past few years.

It's a very strange world we live in. On one hand we have people up in arms about two sedvacantists who believe we don't have a Pope while at the same time we have a mainstream clergy who believe it doesn't really matter whether we have a Pope or not. In fact they believe the Church can get on quite well if left to the Parish Councils headed by atheistic nuns who exspend most of their energies organizing Rheiki classes, Enneagram weekends, Yoga Therapy or Winter Soltice events at the seaside,
rather than running good catachisis courses for the faithless young who are left wondering around like lost sheep while bishops wonder what new novelty they can devise to increase the Sunday collection.

Did you view the video posted by Cowboy? Does Fr Barron sound as if he believes the Church would fall apart without a Pope?
If the EWTN mindset produces a laity of such unquestioning loyalty as to cut themselves off from reality and any kind of critical analysis then this could actually be contributing more to the popularity of the Upstate NYer's than anything I have said or questioned in previous posts.
Meanwhile, if we can all agree that baptism of desire is a Church doctrine while salvation is a foregone conclusion for the whole world (except for Traditionalists and two infamous bothers of course) then we can get back to dicussing the wonderful sermon Fr Corapi gave recently on the social justice initiatives that are currently going so well with the Mormans, Jehovahs, Methodists and catholic Brotherhood of Man.

Sorry Elisa for the rant. It probaly sounds as if I've lost hope in the world but really I haven't. I'm very optimistic. I've merely lost hope in humanistic solutions to spiritual problems.
Like St Paul says, "If our hope in Christ is for this world only, we are of all men most miserable."
The Church will not only survive,but triumph with or without me, but none of us can survive without the Church and no one can be happy to witness it in it's present state.

columba Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:11 pm

PS.

I may be an EWTN neocon, but Mike is certainly not. If you had read past posts of his, you would love him.

This is not allowed. Arguments against sedevacantism - Page 2 289808

Elisa Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:50 pm

Columba,

I just want to explain this one more time so you are clear on what I am saying and then I will drop it and leave it to own conscience.

It doesn’t matter if you are totally convinced of this conspiracy theory or just think it’s POSSIBLE. You are still participating in this calumny by PUBICLY lending credence to it by saying you believe it possibly could be true. Whatever you think PRIVATELE is fine. Even talking to your family about it is fine. But to encourage this conspiracy theory on a public forum spreads it and there may be someone out there who reads your post and likes you and may now also believe it or think it is possible. That’s how rumors and gossip and calumny spread. One at a time. If this person believes it, maybe I should too. Then they spread it. And once you open our mouth to spread this, you can’t take it back. It’s out there. You can only minimize it’s effect by recanting.

And while you may not care about calumny against the Pope, the Vatican and this woman who you think possibly may be an imposter, they are not the only ones who the conspiracy calls liars.

The good and holy nuns who lived with Sr. Lucia at the time of the switch (1958 or 59) would also be complicit and liars and part of the cover up by their silence. Because they would not be fooled by the imposter, so they knew. Worse, they didn’t mind the real Sr. Lucia being taken away from the world like a prisoner. Or she died or was killed and was replaced and no nun cared that her memory would forever be false, that no one knew when she died and her grave was unmarked somewhere or falsely marked, or that she might have been killed. What a huge sin these nuns have participated in by lying to the world all these years on something so important. Didn’t any of these nuns love Lucia or feel a guilty conscience at some point years later?

This calumny is against these nuns as well. This ridiculous theory and vile lie touches them. And what about her family members who were allowed to see her occasionally? They lied too.

And all this with no proof whatsoever. Pictures that to me definitely look like the same person. Same exact features and light in her eyes when she smiles. One picture has her smiling exuberantly and “showing her wrist.” (Gasp) So holy people must be serious all the time? Don’t most saintly people have the joy of Christ now and then? What about St. Theresa of Avila who said, “God save us from sour-faced Saints.” Everyone I know including myself can look one way in one picture and a little different in another, even taken the same year. My grandmother in the US was a very serious woman and I remember that the few times she did laugh and smile she was very exuberant about it and she looked like a different person to me. I couldn’t believe one photo I saw of her laughing and I did a double take one day when she lit up watching her great grandchildren.

And I saw the video and I thought exactly what simple Faith thought. One can’t receive the Eucharist sometimes smiling with joy? That’s disrespectful? I’ve done it sometimes. Sometimes I’ve cried. Sometimes I’m peaceful. Sometimes contemplative. Always respectful.

This elderly woman lived to see her cousins canonized and on that day was happy to receive Our Lord from the hand of His Vicar and respectfully kissed the ring of the fisherman. (Gasp again) Please. I am around a lot of old people and I can tell you many get less reserved with age. Sr. Lucia did nothing wrong. We should pray that God has mercy on the Dimond Brothers. Especially the bit about how they read her lips from the back of her head. Not only did they think she was talking, but they knew what she said. (simple Faith I laughed when I read what you wrote about “another special spiritual gift.” lol.)

The pictures and the video are ridiculous. People read into them whatever they want.

I guess what is most astounding to me is that this lie is spread with no proof at all. Unless you know something for sure, you shouldn’t gossip publicly like this.

And what is the reason for these new revelations about Sr. Lucia being an imposter? No one brought up photos for 40 years until the Dimond Brothers and Tradition In Action in this new century.

The reason is because these online talking heads who hate the Pope and “newchurch” had to find an answer to the question posed them (as was posed to Fatima for our times here) about why Sr. Lucia accepted Vatican II and the authorized changes to the Mass. (not talking about abuses here.)

They had no answer, so they made one up. It isn’t really not Sr. Lucia. Magic. Problem solved.

Again, you have no way of knowing if it’s true and you are participating in this calumny when you PUBLICLY repeat it and say you think it could be possible. You lend credence to the lie. And it doesn’t matter that you are not the only one spreading this online. We only answer for our own actions.

Don’t mean to be harsh here. And I don't want to annoy you. I think you are a good person. But you seem to be missing the point I’m making and it is a serious one that you dismissed. Maybe now I’m clearer and you may understand. I will not bring it up again.

Your subsequent “rant” is fine by me. Even though I may not find every single thing objectionable that you might, I get upset about things going on today too and I hate abuses and unorthodox teaching and liberalism. Most EWTN listeners are not stupid or complacent. But none of that has anything to do with proof about the Dimonds’ lies about Sr. Lucia. It is all besides the point of calumny. It is a reason, not an excuse.

God bless you and everyone here.
Love,
Elisa

Guest Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:16 pm

Nah, I don't think anyone is guilty of calumny. Let's all relax a bit. I mean the conspiracy theory re Sr. Lucia is already widely publicized on the web (the Dimonds do a ton of Google ads), I don't see that much harm in someone commenting on it. I am going to lock this thread because it has veered off topic quite a bit.

As CAF says "Thanks to all who participated!" LOL

Sponsored content