SSPX says no to Rome
#31
(07-15-2012, 09:34 PM)Joshua Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 08:06 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ." Yes it is very confusing. But more frightening then confusing.

For as much as crypto-sedes like to trot out that quote, it was added to the visionary's statement after it was released and it does not enjoy the approval of the Church. Our Lord saying the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church doesn't exactly mesh with it becoming a "church of satan", as you called it or "becoming the seat of the antichrist".  You can keep your BS. Thanks!  :tiphat:

The Dying Flutchman Wrote:He's not however the Pope "greatly esteems the spirituality of Martin Luther" or so he said earlier this year.

Yeah, Donatism is an easy trap to fall into. You a sede or what?

Sedeprevationist=That means I think the Pope was validly elected and he will become the actual Pope when he follows the Catholic faith. See SSPV

REAL big surprise the church didn't approve of that part isn't it. :eyeroll:
And the Church does exist within the trad groups, just like it did during the Arian heresy when one Pope was an Arian and his follower a Semi-Arian. Same thing here except for being Arian heretics the last few Popes have been Modernist heretics.
You can keep your Ultramontane neo-con rose colored sunglasses. :tiphat:
Reply
#32
Stubborn Wrote:Says you.
Please provide proof or admit you are wrong yet again.

Again?  :LOL: I went to Mass today celebrated by the living contradiction to your ignorant screeds. Grudges aren't nice. Let it go, junior.
That particular phrase appeared in an 1879 text, more than 30 years later from the original 1846 vision. This text from 1879 never received approval from Pius IX.

Do your own research:
http://www.pugiofidei.com/matatics.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09008b.htm

Stubborn Wrote:You have the Catholic Church mixed up with the NO church

:blah: The sedevacantists called. They want their hackneyed ecclesiology back.

The Flying Dutchman Wrote:REAL big surprise the church didn't approve of that part isn't it.

Yeah, Pius IX, Pius X and all of their successors were definitely in on it. Modernist pigs!
Reply
#33
(07-15-2012, 09:58 PM)Joshua Wrote: :blah: The sedevacantists called. They want their hackneyed ecclesiology back.

:LOL:

Hackneyed ecclesiology?!  "In other words, recognizing that those communities, which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, have the character of Churches also means necessarily that these Churches are — in an apparent paradox — portions of the one Church, that is to say, of the one Catholic Church, portions in an anomalous theological and canonical situation" (Fernando Ocáriz, consultor of the CDF since 1986).

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm

On the contrary:  "Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord, cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that one Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity" (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, 13 September 1868.).

http://radicalpapist.blogspot.com/2010/0...s.html?m=1
Reply
#34
(07-15-2012, 11:00 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 09:58 PM)Joshua Wrote: :blah: The sedevacantists called. They want their hackneyed ecclesiology back.

:LOL:

Hackneyed ecclesiology?!  "In other words, recognizing that those communities, which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, have the character of Churches also means necessarily that these Churches are — in an apparent paradox — portions of the one Church, that is to say, of the one Catholic Church, portions in an anomalous theological and canonical situation" (Fernando Ocáriz, consultor of the CDF since 1986).

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm

On the contrary:  "Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord, cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that one Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity" (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, 13 September 1868.).

http://radicalpapist.blogspot.com/2010/0...s.html?m=1

Commercial interruption:  I added a new thread in the Cornfield regarding the quote "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ.":
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33768926

Now back to your regularly scheduled program
Reply
#35
(07-15-2012, 11:00 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 09:58 PM)Joshua Wrote: :blah: The sedevacantists called. They want their hackneyed ecclesiology back.

:LOL:

Hackneyed ecclesiology?!  "In other words, recognizing that those communities, which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, have the character of Churches also means necessarily that these Churches are — in an apparent paradox — portions of the one Church, that is to say, of the one Catholic Church, portions in an anomalous theological and canonical situation" (Fernando Ocáriz, consultor of the CDF since 1986).

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm

On the contrary:  "Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord, cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that one Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity" (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, 13 September 1868.).

http://radicalpapist.blogspot.com/2010/0...s.html?m=1

So because I rightfully call out the absurdity of sedevacantism, then according to your logic, I must be a proponent of post-conciliar theology? So now, one is either a sede or a Modernist? Wow.  ...  :LOL:  Southpaw, surely you can see what a gross assault against logic that is, yes?
Reply
#36
(07-15-2012, 11:23 PM)Doce Me Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 11:00 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 09:58 PM)Joshua Wrote: :blah: The sedevacantists called. They want their hackneyed ecclesiology back.

:LOL:

Hackneyed ecclesiology?!  "In other words, recognizing that those communities, which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, have the character of Churches also means necessarily that these Churches are — in an apparent paradox — portions of the one Church, that is to say, of the one Catholic Church, portions in an anomalous theological and canonical situation" (Fernando Ocáriz, consultor of the CDF since 1986).

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm

On the contrary:  "Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord, cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that one Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity" (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, 13 September 1868.).

http://radicalpapist.blogspot.com/2010/0...s.html?m=1

Commercial interruption:  I added a new thread in the Cornfield regarding the quote "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ.":
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33768926

Now back to your regularly scheduled program

Thank you, Doce me. I invite Stubborn and others to continue that particular debate on the above thread.
Reply
#37
The reaction of Rome to the phrase, "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist", had an enlightening parallel in the life of Cardinal Manning, during the same era. Manning published a book in which he repeated what various approved theologians had said about the fate of Rome during the period of Antichrist (i.e. Rome will apostatise and become the seat of Antichrist). This caused some consternation in Rome, where Propaganda was asked to take a look at it. The upshot was that there was no doctrinal problem to be found, and the only issue was that Manning's bringing this material to light at that time was considered by some to be "inopportune" (i.e. potentially dangerous and therefore imprudent). Nothing came of it and Pius IX certainly didn't take any action against it, and even approved it for publication, and he continued to treat Manning with the greatest predilection (Manning had direct access to his rooms, via a back entrance, and could see him any time he liked, which was an unique privilege).

From Manning's journal: "At this time the controversy on the Temporal Power was blazing in pamphlets and newspapers. The first Red Book [large folios, in which Manning bound up cuttings from the newspapers] contains endless attacks on me, and my answers. I then published the three things, afterwards united, on The Temporal Power of the Pope which was attacked in Rome (See Mgr. Talbot's Letters). P. Ferrari, Dominican, wished omissions. The Franciscan Bishop of Potenza, P. Antonio di Rignano, wished it to be published as it stood. The attack was on the quotations from Suarez and Malvenda — as inopportune. A Jesuit wrote De Bello Romano to clear Suarez, which he does not do. My book was translated, and published at Propaganda, and approved by Pius IX; Cardinal Barnabo and P. Pinirillo commended it very much to our Cardinal [i.e. Wiseman]. P. P. was the Editor of the great collection of volumes on the Temporal Power." — Cardinal Manning's Journal, 1878-82.

Extracts from a letter from Mgr. Talbot to Manning dated Vatican, 6th July 1861: —

"My dear Mgr. Manning — ... I think the affair about your Lectures on Anti-Christ has been settled satisfactorily. It was an intrigue of your enemies in order to injure you in Rome. I wrote a long letter to Cardinal Barnabo on the subject, explaining the nature of the Lectures, and attributing what had been said about them to a certain party in England, who act more from motives of prejudice and jealousy than from zeal for the Salvation of souls and greater Glory of God.

"As I wrote in virtue of my being Consultor of Propaganda, I received an official answer from the Secretary, Mgr. Capalti, to the effect that your 'Lectures on the Temporal Sovereignty of the Popes, and the Present Crisis of the Holy See, Tested by Prophecy,' had been carefully considered by Propaganda and approved of, though some statements were considered as inaccurate. Mgr. Capalti expressed regret at the prophecy which you had introduced that the City of the Popes would relapse into Paganism and become the city of Anti-Christ. This statement Mgr. Capalti held to be inopportune. "
Reply
#38
(07-15-2012, 09:34 PM)Joshua Wrote:
(07-15-2012, 08:06 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ." Yes it is very confusing. But more frightening then confusing.

For as much as crypto-sedes like to trot out that quote, it was added to the visionary's statement after it was released and it does not enjoy the approval of the Church. Our Lord saying the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church doesn't exactly mesh with it becoming a "church of satan", as you called it or "becoming the seat of the antichrist".  You can keep your BS. Thanks!  :tiphat:

I'm not saying whether the quote is authentic or not, but the possibility that majority of Rome (or the Bishop of Rome) could lose the Faith isn't the same as saying that the Church itself could lose the Faith.
Reply
#39
(07-14-2012, 08:21 PM)John Lane Wrote: Rorate is extreme left itself. 

What's the name of the cubical Bizarro World that you live on, buddy?

You and Dying Flutchman sound like you're headed for Hell. Shape up and become Catholic before it's too late.

Reply
#40
(07-16-2012, 01:27 AM)Adeodatus01 Wrote: You and Dying Flutchman sound like you're headed for Hell. Shape up and become Catholic before it's too late.

How are they headed for Hell? Are they members of a false religion? Have they committed a public mortal sin? The cornfield is available for you to make your case.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)