Apostate Vatican II Antipopes praise and practice false religions
#11
(01-04-2018, 12:18 AM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(01-03-2018, 10:28 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: One of the first questions I typically ask a Sedevacantist interlocutor (when speaking, since in writing it doesn't work so well) is I'll bite and discuss, if, and only if, they can name in 30 seconds all of the Apostles (and any alias they had) that Our Lord called during his earthly life (Hint: It's 12). They are allowed one mistake, and this, without, obviously, looking it up.

This is a fantastic idea. I imagine asking them to recite the Decalogue or the Beatitudes would have a similar outcome...

To be more clear, it's a go to technique for any armchair theologian. Having studied philosophy and theology for several years, and still not claiming to be any expert on the subjects, I can't see how someone who has read a handful of books could ever be competent to make the kind of wild and crazy conclusions that many such armchair theologians do (and not just SVs).

It is also a great thing over which to quiz older children in catechism. More than a few times I have written catechism tests for students and included a massive bonus question at the end with something like this, rarely do any get the correct answers, and then it become a "teachable moment" in which I invariably bring up Sirach 3.22ff.:

Quote:Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived many, and hath detained their minds in vanity.
Reply
#12
(01-03-2018, 10:28 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: One of the first questions I typically ask a Sedevacantist interlocutor (when speaking, since in writing it doesn't work so well) is I'll bite and discuss, if, and only if, they can name in 30 seconds all of the Apostles (and any alias they had) that Our Lord called during his earthly life (Hint: It's 12). They are allowed one mistake, and this, without, obviously, looking it up.

From https://www.fisheaters.com/lists.html#12apostles :


Quote:A little poem to help you remember:

Peter, Andrew, James and John,
Phil and Bart and Matt and Tom,
James the Less and Jude and Simon --
Then Judas who betrayed the God-man.
:P
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#13
(01-04-2018, 04:34 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
(01-03-2018, 10:28 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: One of the first questions I typically ask a Sedevacantist interlocutor (when speaking, since in writing it doesn't work so well) is I'll bite and discuss, if, and only if, they can name in 30 seconds all of the Apostles (and any alias they had) that Our Lord called during his earthly life (Hint: It's 12). They are allowed one mistake, and this, without, obviously, looking it up.

From https://www.fisheaters.com/lists.html#12apostles :


Quote:A little poem to help you remember:

Peter, Andrew, James and John,
Phil and Bart and Matt and Tom,
James the Less and Jude and Simon --
Then Judas who betrayed the God-man.
:P

The one I learned is similar (though slightly different rhythm) :

Peter, Andrew, James, James, John
Phil, Bart, Matt, Simon and Tom,
Jude, Judas.

But also don't forget that Peter is also Cephas or Simon bar Jona, Bartholomew is also Nathaniel, and Jude is also Thaddeus.
Reply
#14
I have a feeling this was a drive-by. I just checked his profile. He joined yesterday, spent a total of 8 minutes 10 seconds on the forum, went inactive as soon as he edited his post, and hasn't been back. I think it's a classic troll.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#15
(01-04-2018, 03:45 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
Quote:Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived many, and hath detained their minds in vanity.

I like this, I think it's a super common problem in our modern age. Many people seeking that which is unnecessary or beyond their spiritual state. 
If you want to think of it as levels, people try to learn Level 5 theology before they're Level 2 in the spiritual life. Leads to all sorts of problems.
Blood of Christ, relief of the burdened, save us.

“It is my design to die in the brew house; let ale be placed in my mouth when I am expiring, that when the choirs of angels come, they may say, “Be God propitious to this drinker.” – St. Columbanus, A.D. 612
Reply
#16
(01-04-2018, 08:17 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: I have a feeling this was a drive-by. I just checked his profile. He joined yesterday, spent a total of 8 minutes 10 seconds on the forum, went inactive as soon as he edited his post, and hasn't been back. I think it's a classic troll.

We have all been spared.
[-] The following 1 user Likes In His Love's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#17
(01-04-2018, 06:48 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Peter, Andrew, James, James, John
Phil, Bart, Matt, Simon and Tom,
Jude, Judas.

But also don't forget that Peter is also Cephas or Simon bar Jona, Bartholomew is also Nathaniel, and Jude is also Thaddeus.

James the Greater and John are the "sons of thunder" or Boanerges and the sons of Zebedee, Thomas is Didymus, James the Lesser and Matthew are the sons of Alpheus, and Matthew is also Levi.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
Reply
#18
(01-03-2018, 09:17 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: You are not going to be asked at your judgement who was Pope.

You will be asked how much Charity you have ("In the end of our life we will be judged on charity" -- St. John of the Cross).

Therefore, do what you need to do to have Charity (a love of God and neighbor for love of God), and don't worry about who's Pope.

I agree that it does not seem in keeping with what we know about God that this would be a question He would ask at our judgement.

However, I think the real fear and anxiety here by say-day vacationists and others looking into the issue is the possibility  that the Church emerging from VII was a counter Church, Catholic in name still and possessing all of the buildings and institutions but a robber church nonetheless. 

As Archbishop Lefebvre explained:

[T]his Council represents, both in the opinion of the Roman authorities as in our own, a new church which they call themselves the "Conciliar Church". We believe that we can affirm, taking into consideration the internal and external critique on Vatican II, that is, in analysing the texts and in studying its circumstances and its consequences, that the Council, turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, is a schismatic council. The tree is known by its fruits. Since the Council, all the larger newspapers throughout the world, American and European, recognise that it is destroying the Catholic Church to such a degree that even the unbelievers and the secular governments are worried. ... Accepting this new principle [of indifferentism], all the doctrine of the Church must change, as well as its cult, its priesthood, its institutions, because everything in the Church until the Council had demonstrated that she alone possessed the Way, the Truth and the Life in Our Lord Jesus Christ, Whom she kept in person in the Holy Eucharist, and Who is present thanks to the continuation of His sacrifice. Thus a total overturning of Tradition and of the teaching of the Church has occurred since the Council and through the Council. All those who cooperate in the application of this overturning accept and adhere to this new "Conciliar Church", as His Excellency Mgr. Benelli called it in the letter that he sent me in the name of the Holy Father last June 25, and they enter into the schism. - Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre in Écône, on August 2, 1976 and published in the French magazine Le Figaro, August 4, 1976. 

We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.... -  Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on Suspension a divinis, June 29, 1976. 


I believe that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals (who were indeed saintly persons and who were defenders of the Church and of the Catholic Faith) it seems to me that I would have the right to ask them, “Are you with the Catholic Church?” “Are you the Catholic Church?" "With whom am I dealing?" If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a person? Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?- Ordination Sermon, June 29, 1978. 

It thus appears impossible to approach the basic problem, which the agreement of the Conciliar Church, as H. E. Mgr. Benelli himself calls it in his last letter, and the Catholic Church. Let there be no mistake. It is not a question of a difference between Mgr. Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. It is a question of the radical incompatibility between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church, the Mass of Paul VI being the symbol and the program of the Conciliar Church.- Archbishop Lefebvre, Declaration, November 21, 1974

Now of course, Archbishop Lefebvre never officially came down on the side of sedevacantism and even threw out those who adhered to it, but only after they started making an issue of the "una cum" in the mass.  You could tell though that he was not really sure if the post conciliar Church was really the Catholic Church or not.  He went back and forth as the years went by.

 Adhering to this Church would mean that one was out of communion with the true Catholic Church alive only in the remnants until Christ restored it or wraps everything up. 

"To adhere to a false Bishop of Rome [a false "pope"] is to be out of communion with the Church." -St. Cyprian, Church Father

This is the fear. And I think it is a legitimate one.  The issue though goes much further than the theological speculation on whether a papal claimant remains valid if he deviates from Church teaching.  What is going on is more like the question of "Ecclesia vacantism."
Reply
#19
The problem with what quote:
"To adhere to a false Bishop of Rome [a false "pope"] is to be out of communion with the Church." -St. Cyprian, Church Father

Is that, if in fact these popes are false popes, people are not adhering to a false pope out of desire. They are being lead to believe that this pope is THE pope. How can anyone have moral culpability in such a situation?
Blood of Christ, relief of the burdened, save us.

“It is my design to die in the brew house; let ale be placed in my mouth when I am expiring, that when the choirs of angels come, they may say, “Be God propitious to this drinker.” – St. Columbanus, A.D. 612
Reply
#20
(01-05-2018, 09:36 AM)GangGreen Wrote: The problem with what quote:
"To adhere to a false Bishop of Rome [a false "pope"] is to be out of communion with the Church." -St. Cyprian, Church Father

Is that, if in fact these popes are false popes, people are not adhering to a false pope out of desire. They are being lead to believe that this pope is THE pope. How can anyone have moral culpability in such a situation?

I agree. Canonists have told us that those are not schismatic , who if they recognize the papacy, do not intend to reject a true pope and act with good reason. 

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943) 

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948) 

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)