I'm not a Sedevacantist, but....
#11
(02-16-2017, 08:34 PM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(02-16-2017, 08:07 PM)Credidi Propter Wrote: Other than my firm belief that he is a downright rotten pope, my carefully-deduced impression that he is not nearly as "humble" as he is often portrayed, [...]

This.

It drives me crazy.

I said, just days after his election that he was the most sinfully prideful man ever to hold the Papacy! Bragging about his humility, refusing to wear the accouterments of the Office, forbidding the Cardinals from wearing theirs, ignoring the governance of the Church to personally cancel his newspaper subscription, and on and on. I see no evidence of true humility whatsoever in the man.

For now, at least, I still believe he is the Pope, but my daily prayer is, 'How long, O Lord, how long, until you send us a Catholic Pope'? If he does do something like introduce womyn deacons, as is mentioned in another thread, I'm gone!
Reply
#12
(02-17-2017, 12:01 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: If he does do something like introduce womyn deacons, as is mentioned in another thread, I'm gone!

What do you mean by "I'm gone"? You're not leaving the Church, are you? Regardless of what Pope Francis does, the Church isn't going to come to a crashing halt.
Reply
#13
(02-17-2017, 12:51 AM)In His Love Wrote:
(02-17-2017, 12:01 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: If he does do something like introduce womyn deacons, as is mentioned in another thread, I'm gone!

What do you mean by "I'm gone"? You're not leaving the Church, are you? Regardless of what Pope Francis does, the Church isn't going to come to a crashing halt.

I am an old guy. I was in High School when the Nuns started coming to class in 'civilian' dress, when they ripped out the altar and moved out to the middle of the sacristy, when they put the Tabernacle off in another part of the sacristy, but lower than the Altar, when my 'Daily Missal' I got when I was Confirmed by our Cardinal, suddenly didn't work anymore. It was a very confusing time and it wasn't long before I left for a while.

When I came home, it was not the home I recalled, but I 'adjusted' and accepted, but it still wasn't 'right'. It was too "Protestant-ish" too much koombyah guitar, et al. I've put up with this Novis Ordo long enough and I am getting to believe that since Vatican II, our hierarchy has lost it's collective head, with few exceptions, especially in the higher of the hierarchy.

There are many that give compelling arguments that support the belief that even the Consecration is invalid and the ordination of many of our priests and bishops also invalid due to improprieties in the ceremonies from the true Roman Rite.

Anyone with any knowledge of the PreVatican II Church , that hasn't fully fallen into acceptance of all of this, would be concerned about this stuff, because these are vital concerns. While I think that the church, a specific Parish, that I currently attend, has a very holy man as our priest and who seems quite 'Traditional' and leads me to basically accept this much as the best I can get. And yet, I still wonder...these are the days before the Chastisement and the Warning may come soon...I just don't want to get a bad surprise when my Warning experience takes place.

Basically, I have put up with a lot of changes to come 'home'. I have a feeling, that because of the current state of the world, this NO Church may be all that is left for most of we Catholics to get to. If there is no other realistic option, then one is in a kinda 'Catch 22'; no matter your decision, it is found inadequate and wrong. I just want to get back to the basics, to a more Traditional Church, like it once was.

But if this added feminization of the clergy begins, I'm gonna have to make some decisions. It would be a "last straw" moment for me.
Reply
#14
(02-17-2017, 12:51 AM)In His Love Wrote:
(02-17-2017, 12:01 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: If he does do something like introduce womyn deacons, as is mentioned in another thread, I'm gone!

What do you mean by "I'm gone"? You're not leaving the Church, are you? Regardless of what Pope Francis does, the Church isn't going to come to a crashing halt.

No, but I will be forced, against my will, to become a sede. If a 'Pope' authorises the 'ordination' of women, he is, prima facie, not a Pope of the Catholic Church. I accept that Papa Emeritus' resignation was canonically valid, ergo, if Francis falls into egregious and blatant heresy by attempting to change 2,000 years of Catholic teaching in such an 'in your face' way, I will have no alternative than to believe that the Chair of Peter is vacant until such time as God sends us a Catholic Pope

There is a sede parish just a few miles away, into which I've never set foot, but if this happens, I'll be checking out city bus schedules.
Reply
#15
There was a  conclave and an election. When the white smoke came out of the chimney out came Cardinal Bergoglio and he said his name is now Francis. Nobody in that conclave said, "Who are you?" "We didn't pick him!!!" Those who were there all agree that Francis is the Pope.   
Reply
#16
(02-17-2017, 01:46 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: ...I will be forced, against my will, to become a sede. If a 'Pope' authorises the 'ordination' of women, he is, prima facie, not a Pope of the Catholic Church. I accept that Papa Emeritus' resignation was canonically valid, ergo, if Francis falls into egregious and blatant heresy by attempting to change 2,000 years of Catholic teaching in such an 'in your face' way, I will have no alternative than to believe that the Chair of Peter is vacant until such time as God sends us a Catholic Pope

I would probably attend my local parish, as I have always done.  Still, I would believe with all my heart that Francis is an antipope.  I would attend Mass for the sacraments, but in my heart I would be a sedevacantist.  Given these times, I imagine that's a fairly common position already, perhaps even among priests.  There are no ordained women.  There never have been any ordained women, and there never will be any ordained women.  To say that a woman can be ordained is heresy, and such a move would make Francis an antipope, whether or not most would recognize him as such.  Keep praying for the Church.
Reply
#17
(02-17-2017, 01:46 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(02-17-2017, 12:51 AM)In His Love Wrote:
(02-17-2017, 12:01 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: If he does do something like introduce womyn deacons, as is mentioned in another thread, I'm gone!

What do you mean by "I'm gone"? You're not leaving the Church, are you? Regardless of what Pope Francis does, the Church isn't going to come to a crashing halt.

No, but I will be forced, against my will, to become a sede. If a 'Pope' authorises the 'ordination' of women, he is, prima facie, not a Pope of the Catholic Church. I accept that Papa Emeritus' resignation was canonically valid, ergo, if Francis falls into egregious and blatant heresy by attempting to change 2,000 years of Catholic teaching in such an 'in your face' way, I will have no alternative than to believe that the Chair of Peter is vacant until such time as God sends us a Catholic Pope

There is a sede parish just a few miles away, into which I've never set foot, but if this happens, I'll be checking out city bus schedules.
I'm relieved to hear you aren't leaving the Church over this. That said, Jovan, sedevacantism is truly a dead end. Do we even know if the 'women deacons' that are being proposed here are going to be ordained, or will they be like glorified adult altar girls (which is bad enough)? Sedes don't even agree with each other. From what I've read, the SSPV and SGG (Fr. Cekada's post) conflict. The wacko Dimond Bros conflict with pretty much everyone except for themselves and their small cult. The CMRI seems the most 'stable' in terms of their position and their view of traditional Catholics who are not sedes (they don't have that diseased, "the true Catholics are sedes and everyone else is confused" position), but I still think it's a step too far.

Remember that when the Church had three men identifying as the Pope that two Saints backed two different men. St. Catherine of Siena backed the true Pope, while St. Vincent Ferrer (a Saint so powerful that he raised people from the dead) backed a false Pope. St. Vincent Ferrer was genuine in his belief of the validity of that man's Papacy, but that didn't invalidate his Masses (I know that at least one sede group highly discourages attending even the most traditional of Masses if they acknowledge the Vatican II Popes). He was simply mistaken. Better to be mistaken than to run off into one of these independent groups who can't even agree with each other.

We have had Popes in the past who confessed at least material heresy (Pope John XXII), and we've had Popes who seemed to be seriously influenced by heresy (Pope Liberius). Claimants to the Papacy can be declared anathema posthumously, like Honorius was, but it's important not to take too much of this into our own hands and to be obedient to the proper authorities.

Just be careful, okay?

Reply
#18
(02-17-2017, 01:50 AM)Poche Wrote: There was a  conclave and an election. When the white smoke came out of the chimney out came Cardinal Bergoglio and he said his name is now Francis. Nobody in that conclave said, "Who are you?" "We didn't pick him!!!" Those who were there all agree that Francis is the Pope. 

I agree, but does he remain Pope if he endorses an openly and egregious heresy such as the 'ordination' of women?
Reply
#19
(02-19-2017, 03:33 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(02-17-2017, 01:50 AM)Poche Wrote: There was a  conclave and an election. When the white smoke came out of the chimney out came Cardinal Bergoglio and he said his name is now Francis. Nobody in that conclave said, "Who are you?" "We didn't pick him!!!" Those who were there all agree that Francis is the Pope. 

I agree, but does he remain Pope if he endorses an openly and egregious heresy such as the 'ordination' of women?
Do we even know if the discussion is over women's ordination? The women deacons in the early Church weren't ordained, so even if this practice does come back (which I wouldn't be a fan of), it isn't necessarily a heresy. Ordination, of course, would be, because women can't be ordained to any position tied to the clergy.
Reply
#20
(02-19-2017, 03:46 AM)In His Love Wrote: Do we even know if the discussion is over women's ordination? The women deacons in the early Church weren't ordained, so even if this practice does come back (which I wouldn't be a fan of), it isn't necessarily a heresy. Ordination, of course, would be, because women can't be ordained to any position tied to the clergy.
As I pointed out earlier, I went through this same thing in the Anglican Communion 40+ years ago. First it was the 'restoration of the ancient Order of Deaconesses'. Then it was the 'ordination' of female 'deacons'  (at which point I left). Then, after 'womyn deacons' had been approved, it was a battle over 'womyn priests'. They were approved, and then the fight was over 'bishopesses', now, totally approved by the Anglicans. At each step, the faithful were assured there was nothing to worry about, that it wouldn't go any further. I didn't believe the bollocks then, any more than I believe the claptrap mow.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)