FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Question about Heresy and the Popes
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
So I came upon a certain website that claims Popes Pius IX,Pius X and Pius
XII thought heresy . Is this a belief shared by many trads or is it just the opinion of the website owner?
Here is the website
That website is a real nightmare!  whoever wrote it must be out of his mind.  The rightful Pope has the special assistant of the Holy Spirit, so he could not commit heresy.  That website is a real heresy! (and an insult to common reason).
Wanna know what's worse than heresy? Arm chair theologians with an internet connection. This did provide me with a good laugh. I always assumed something like this would happen if the Dimond Bros took their heretical interpretations of "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" to its logical conclusion. Almost all the popes for the last 1000 years were heretics! Hurrah! I think these websites are meant to break peoples faith and not help them. I think Satan's biggest game plan in 2013 is to get everyone away from the sacraments by whatever means, with traditional Catholics he'll just make them "home-aloners" or something of that nature.

The author of this digital dung stain is an ultra-orthodox Talmudic Jew uhm I mean Calvinist no no no what I meant to say is Jansenist. Yeah, that's right. A Jansenist. Sorry I get my heretical misinterpretations of St. Augustine (with racist Talmudic salvation doctrines "Catholicised" ) all mixed up. This is everything wrong with "internet traditionalism" all mixed together in a giant sewer of smut. I'd never thought I'd see a Jansenist/sedevacantist/holocaust-denying/unbaptized infant burning/anti-Feenyite Feenyite.  LOL Internet!

Time to take a long shower.

(11-29-2013, 08:43 PM)CatholicLife Wrote: [ -> ]So I came upon a certain website that claims Popes Pius IX,Pius X and Pius
XII thought heresy . Is this a belief shared by many trads or is it just the opinion of the website owner?
Here is the website

No, it's not a belief shared by "many trads," nor is it so that "[m]odern Traditionalists generally admit the last five popes to have been heretics" (their opening statement on that page). That site is insane. Man, don't post crap like that here. Really. It wouldn't surprise me if that site weren't set up by enemies of Tradition to make us all look like a bunch of nutjobs.

THIS is what traditional Catholicism is:

And as far as this forum goes, sedevacantism can only be discussed in ONE sub-forum (the same with debates about the SSPX). That sub-forum is the "Diocesan vs SSPX vs Sedevacantism vs Novus Ordo Discussion" sub-forum

Further, "Toxic Trads" are not welcome to post here at all. On the "landing page" one ends up at first when clicking the link to the forum on the site's front page, I have a list of behaviors that are indicative of a "trad" who is "toxic." It looks like this:


Are you a toxic trad?
You might be if you...

treat the Holy Faith like a mere philosophy;

treat having faith as something you've "accomplished" rather than as a supernatural gift;

equate having faith with coming to an intellectual conclusion, and think that your having come to that conclusion will save you (see I Corinthians 13:1-8 and James 2:14-26);

treat with disdain good-willed and charitable folks who haven't come to your intellectual conclusions;

have no idea what Jesus meant when He said, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man" (Matthew 15:11)

don't say but act as if "the ends justify the means";

interpret "Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus" or "Outside the Church there is No Salvation" in a way that means anyone who is not formally baptized and doesn't have explicit faith in Jesus Christ is gonna burn in Hellfire forever -- and sorta liking that idea;

are OK with turning folks away from Christ, His Church, and Tradition if it means you get to vent your rage;

act as if and treat others as if you have no faith in grace, no trust that people can change, learn, and grow, and, therefore, you hold people's pasts against them;

are really fond of "admonishing sinners" without caring at all about the Church's teachings about whether, when, and how to go about that;

treat non-traditional Catholics as immoral and bad rather than simply uninformed and beloved and, quite possibly, very holy;

think that all women belong only either at home as  homemakers or in a convent, no matter who they are or what their gifts and challenges are;

think that anything "modern" is "modernist";

confuse the words "effeminate" with "feminine," don't care about the meaning of the word originally used in place of the English "effeminate" in Sacred Scripture, and ostracize any man who isn't "manly enough";

think not that fathers and husband are heads of their homes, but that "men" are the heads of "women," as if any man has some right to tell any woman what to do;

believe that "ideas aren't for girls";

love to copy-paste stuff out of context in order to win ("win" being the operative word) a discussion (wait: "discussion"? No such thing! There are only debates!);

use words in an outdated way to prove how counter-cultural you are (e.g., "courting" instead of "dating," or "maiden" instead of "girl");

think attending TLMs offered "inside the structures" is co-operating with "evil";

hate on the Pope and talk about him like he's some pool boy who's been boinking your wife and stealing your liquor;

get bent out of shape because a "so-called Catholic" like the writer above uses the word "boink, as if fornication and adultery are just a joke," blah blah;

never give the Pope the benefit of the doubt, always interpet his words in the worst way possible, assign motives to him that you can't possibly know, and talk about it all with great disrespect for him;

think that emotions are for sissies and "mere" women, unless it's anger, which is always "righteous" if it's coming from bitter zealots;

focus only on Ephesians 5:24 ("Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.") and forget what comes after in Ephesians 5:25 ("Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it"), treating the Church's teaching on the submission of wives to their husbands as a right of husbands to treat their wives like maids, children, slaves, and general non-persons;

hear certain words ("homosexual," "transsexual," "modern," etc.) and have instantaneous and irrational reactions, coming to conclusions -- which you express with great vehemence -- without thinking for one minute;

love to find dirt on people and dish it up;

love to make things up about people or distort things if you can't fnd any real dirt to dish up;

hear what you want to hear and see what you want to see, with what you're wanting being things that really get you mad and, therefore, having to admonish someone;

think "scandal" is defined as "a situation in which one is made to clutch one's pearls";

love to find "scandal" and often claim to be "scandalized";

love to make assumptions and leap to conclusions about things you know nothing about and then proclaim "scanda!l" (e.g., "They share housing? That means they're having sex! Scandal! Fornicators!");

put people into categories of "good" or "bad" and then expecting no good from the "bad," and no bad from the "good."  The "good" (certain conservative groups, for ex.) are always right, and the "bad" (e.g., a liberal group) are always wrong, etc.;

lack a sense of humor;

advocate non-defensive violence;

think it's worthy of a 20-page thread to ask and answer questions like, "Is it OK to sneeze while you pray the Rosary?";

call someone a "radical feminist" because he thinks things like equal pay for equal work are good things;

never say words like "penis" or "vagina" or talk frankly about sexual matters, and frown on such a thing even if the writer writes so as to not incite lust;

equate modesty with ugly or outdated (think "Little House on the Prairie") attire, force it on your daughters, thereby setting them up to feel like social freaks (who will likely rebel at the first chance they get);

are, if female, a social masochist and denigrate your own intelligence;

think that an occasion of sin for you is an occasion of sin for everyone, and, therefore, accuse people of sinning by putting themselves in near occasions of sin that aren't near occasions of sin for them, but are for you;

hang on to a notion if it "sounds" trad, even though it isn't, and even though you've lost an argument about it but won't learn anything and won't stop arguing;

refuse to ask your priest about controversies regarding things that require subtlety of thought and accuse others of being wrong, heretical, and, of course, "modernist" for things you know nothing about and are unwilling to learn about;

think of the perfect as the enemy of the good (ex., "Apologist X does everything great and is always right, but he doesn't talk about Y. Therefore, he's a gelded modernist and not worth a damn!");

hate homosexuals, think and write as if every homosexual is an active homosexual, think and write as if every active homosexual engages in anal sex, think and write as if all homosexuals are homosexual activists who are out to destroy the Church and Western civilization; think and write as if all homosexuals would automatically have sex with any other homosexual (such that you think things like "two homosexuals should never be left alone together because it'd be a near occasion of sin," etc., blah blah);

accuse people who don't think like you do with regard to the above lines about homosexuals of being "modernist" or "liberal" or "unwilling to call sin a sin" or of having "gone soft," etc.;

are not merely a race realist, but are a supremacist and against "miscegenation";

don't just simply know what post-Temple Judaism teaches, about the history of usury and its effects, or about the power of AIPAC, etc., but talk about these things with no prudence whatsoever and also think that all Jews are nefarious creatures, in on some conspiracy, who are automatically damned to Hell;

treat objects as evil in themselves (the reality of a particular object being cursed aside);

treat a woman's wearing of pants as intrinsically evil, in all times, in all places and circumstances ;

think anyone liking any music but Gregorian chant is being immoral.

Pope St. Pius X in his E Supremi:
"But in order that the desired fruit may be derived from this apostolate and this zeal for teaching,
and that Christ may be formed in all,
be it remembered, Venerable Brethren, that no means is more efficacious than charity.
'For the Lord is not in the earthquake' (III Kings xix., II) -
it is vain to hope to attract souls to God by a bitter zeal.
On the contrary, harm is done more often than good
by taunting men harshly with their faults, and reproving their vices with asperity".


While all trads are welcome to post here if they mind the rules of the place, this forum is mostly for trads who worship inside diocesan structures (e.g., with priests from the FSSP, ICK, diocesan priests who've taken it upon themselves to learn how to offer the traditional Sacramental rites, etc.). "Inside the structures" is where I worship and where most trads worship. Most trads would look at that site you linked to (and please know that linking to a site gives it traffic) and be revolted. In between fits of laughter, that is.

For real, stay away from stuff like that if you're new to the Faith or not strong in the faith. If you're either of those, weirdness like that -- the copy-pasting of stuff way out of context, the mischaracterizing of text and of people -- leads to nothing but confusion at best. And if you've been a member of the Church for a long time and are strong in the Faith, unless you're reading stuff like that for laffs, or posting about if for the same type of reason, you're doing nothing but giving them traffic they don't deserve -- at least if you're linking to them.

(11-29-2013, 08:43 PM)CatholicLife Wrote: [ -> ]So I came upon a certain website that claims Popes Pius IX,Pius X and Pius
XII thought heresy . Is this a belief shared by many trads or is it just the opinion of the website owner?
Here is the website
I've just visited that site and it is worse than I believe!! How can any human being say those things!!!! 
Sedevacantism and toxic traddism is giving re-birth to Protestantism

Dr. Martin Luther would be proud  Eye-roll
It's mad how, if you don't proclaim the faith in all its detail, nuances and theology, you're suddenly a heretic as if by magic -according to folks like that and Diamond Brothers etc.

You could probably make anything into a heresy if you tried hard enough. Some people seem to forget that to be a heretic is to choose something contrary to truth as a conscious choice.
Say if you're having a bad day and you choose the wrong wording to explain something about the faith: BOOM! You're heretic!

I don't think it quite works like that. The faith isn't just for those with mega-brains. I'm sure many people have no ideas they are holding a heretical idea, or inadvertently express one. Is being ignorant of a fact a sin? I don't think so... but then again, that's probably a heresy.

My profile pic is meant to be a bit of a joke about how people throw around this accusation of 'heretic'.
I'm more concerned about what 99% of the Novus Ordo Church is doing in destroying the faith than what an obscure website says.
What bothers me is that many modern Catholics think that being traditionalist means holding to the views in that website (or similar views) - that is, being a anti-Catholic kook. 
Ah, yes.

I remember a similar blog years ago that tried to argue that Pius IX was the last real pope.

Holy Schtuff... this guy claims Pius V, Innocent X, and Clement XI were heretics!

Fr. Cekada, please refute this!!!  Grin
Pages: 1 2