Apostate Vatican II Antipopes praise and practice false religions
#21
(01-03-2018, 11:50 PM)In His Love Wrote: We've had a Pope hold the private opinion that souls don't see the Beatific Vision until the last judgment. We've had Popes who gave very ambiguous statements. We've had very sexually immoral Popes. Our personal opinion doesn't take any of them off their Chair.

Sedevacantism is like the new Gnosticism: "Most Catholics have not obtained this secret knowledge that the Pope is not the Pope, but I have, because I've read some blogs/websites."

The difference would be that Pope John XXII speculated on something that had not been dogmatically defined yet, and after he was informed he had erred, corrected himself. The current conciliar popes and Vatican II documents are relentlessly contradicting previously defined and settled doctrines , at times well past mere ambiguity.  

Sexual immorality or other mortal sins not pertaining directly to the integrity of the Faith do not sever one from the Church like heresy does.

"Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasyMen may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins."

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23; underlining added.)
Reply
#22
(01-05-2018, 09:39 AM)BC Wrote:
(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)

So then, I guess no matter what your position. Sede or not. R&R or not. It shouldn't really matter as long as you're holding that position with a justified reason since all of these groups recognize the office of the Pope.
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
#23
(01-05-2018, 09:46 AM)BC Wrote:
(01-03-2018, 11:50 PM)In His Love Wrote: We've had a Pope hold the private opinion that souls don't see the Beatific Vision until the last judgment. We've had Popes who gave very ambiguous statements. We've had very sexually immoral Popes. Our personal opinion doesn't take any of them off their Chair.

Sedevacantism is like the new Gnosticism: "Most Catholics have not obtained this secret knowledge that the Pope is not the Pope, but I have, because I've read some blogs/websites."

The difference would be that Pope John XXII speculated on something that had not been dogmatically defined yet, and after he was informed he had erred, corrected himself. The current conciliar popes and Vatican II documents are relentlessly contradicting previously defined and settled doctrines , at times well past mere ambiguity.  

Sexual immorality or other mortal sins do not sever one from the Church like heresy does.

You are right: We had several popes who were immoral individuals and/or public sinners: Adulterers, fornicators, active homosexuals, liars, thieves and murderers, but none of them did seriously err in the Faith issues, at least up to the levels everyone may acknowledge of under Francis' pontificate.
Since I, a basic catholic faithful, am fully ignorant in theological matters, though I could hear our Pope uttering many times things opposite to what I was taught until now by the catechism, I decided to shut my ears until he will no longer be the Pope, since I am unable to sort between the right and the wrong he is saying.
Reply
#24
(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

St. Vincent Ferrer commemorated an antipope in the Canon multiple times, so definite knowledge has to be assumed.
Reply
#25
(01-05-2018, 09:46 AM)BC Wrote:
(01-03-2018, 11:50 PM)In His Love Wrote: We've had a Pope hold the private opinion that souls don't see the Beatific Vision until the last judgment. We've had Popes who gave very ambiguous statements. We've had very sexually immoral Popes. Our personal opinion doesn't take any of them off their Chair.

Sedevacantism is like the new Gnosticism: "Most Catholics have not obtained this secret knowledge that the Pope is not the Pope, but I have, because I've read some blogs/websites."

The difference would be that Pope John XXII speculated on something that had not been dogmatically defined yet, and after he was informed he had erred, corrected himself. The current conciliar popes and Vatican II documents are relentlessly contradicting previously defined and settled doctrines , at times well past mere ambiguity.  

Sexual immorality or other mortal sins do not sever one from the Church like heresy does.

You are right: We had several popes who were immoral individuals and/or public sinners: Adulterers, fornicators, active homosexuals, liars, thieves and murderers, but none of them did seriously err in the Faith issues, at least up to the levels everyone may acknowledge of under Francis' pontificate.
Since I, a basic catholic faithful, am fully ignorant in theological matters, though I could hear our Pope uttering many times things opposite to what I was taught until now by the catechism, I decided to shut my ears until he will no longer be the Pope, since I am unable to sort between the right and the wrong he is saying.
Reply
#26
(01-05-2018, 10:08 AM)GangGreen Wrote: So then, I guess no matter what your position. Sede or not. R&R or not. It shouldn't really matter as long as you're holding that position with a justified reason since all of these groups recognize the office of the Pope.

Personally, I suspect God will give us some leeway (could be wrong) on this whole matter.  I would not say that it does not matter what position you hold, but we do have a duty to have a rightly informed conscience.  There are many intelligent, holy Catholics who have differed over this issue the past 50 years.  Theologians of the past never really tackled the issue of "Ecclesia vacantism" because they probably thought it was not possible, so there can be legitimate disagreement, in my opinion.

For me, I think the most important thing is making sure we avail ourselves of the most probable valid sacraments so we have as much grace as possible, pray the Rosary daily and wear the brown scapular and entrust ourselves fully to be protected under our Holy Mother Mary's mantle, and pray that God would have mercy on us and end this terrible, confusion situation, though it is a just chastisement.  

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”- St. Augustine
[-] The following 3 users Like BC's post:
  • cassini, Sacred Heart lover, The Tax Collector
Reply
#27
I thought Ovenbird's post was very interesting in that it depicted many of the anti-Catholic behaviour of popes since Vatican II.

Alas, I see it is his sedevacantism that got all the attention and rebuttals.

My own position is that we individuals do not have the authority to make such decisions. That I leave to the Church.

Nevertheless the situation God has allowed His Church to fall into is not easy for 'traditional' Catholics to comprehend. Accordingly of course you are going to get Catholics trying to sort things out like no other time in Catholicism. If some are 'driven' to sedevacantism' it is because of their faith and not for any other reason. I have known such men, 100% Catholic, now gone to their graves before the Good Lord sorted this crisis out. They remained my friends and I understood their sedevacantism and how they were driven to such a judgement. As I do not judge the popes as non popes, neither do I judge sedevacantists as guilty of any grave sin.

Indeed there are times when traditional Catholics, trying to understand their Church find they are now damned if they do and damned if thery dont.
[-] The following 1 user Likes cassini's post:
  • Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#28
When it comes to the sede crisis, the main issue becomes whether the Sacraments are really the Sacraments and whether there is a valid priest or bishop conferring the Sacraments. I guess no one this side of heaven really knows for sure. I'd hope that God would not withhold the Sacraments from those who live a good Catholic life and desire them due to this insane crisis regardless of where they fall on the debate regarding the papacy.
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
#29
(01-05-2018, 02:29 PM)cassini Wrote: Alas, I see it is his sedevacantism that got all the attention and rebuttals.

Probably because most people don't object to the principles, but to his conclusions ...

He's "preaching to the converted" when it comes to laying out the problems with Popes in the past 60 years or so. Few here would disagree, so why issue a rebuttal to something that is uncontroversial, or even, perhaps, correct?

Most would disagree that the correct conclusion is that they are not Popes, hence the rebuttals
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#30
(01-05-2018, 09:33 AM)BC Wrote: "To adhere to a false Bishop of Rome [a false "pope"] is to be out of communion with the Church." -St. Cyprian, Church Father

I love those little snippets that quote people without citation and then add the tag line "Church Father" (because the reader wouldn't know that, and just be impressed with the title). Written like that, it's an appeal for people to do theology who have no business doing so. If you don't know who St. Cyprian is, and can't read his works to understand his contexts, then you have no business worrying about whether the bishop of Rome is a false one or not. It would be like quoting Tom Maglliozzi (of CarTalk fame) saying, "If it falls off, it doesn't matter" and then having someone who doesn't even know where the fuel cap is on a car say that the engine is running fine despite that knocking sound.

I don't easily find the phrase with citation to the original work (just attribution) in a quick search, so I would be interested to see the reference (so we could deal with his actual quote). It's like the "he who sings, prays twice" of St. Augstine (which he never wrote or said, in fact, though that's a decent summary of one passage).

Even if that is an accurate quote, still we're dealing with the same man who gave us "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus," which while correct certainly needs to be interpreted to understand it correctly (for which we have the help of tradition, theologians and the Magisterium, who explain what "outside" ore "without" means and what makes one "outside" or "without").

Clearly it is not as categorical as you suggest, given that during the Great Western Schism, we had Saints who accepted different claimants, and that is much more clearly an example of accepting a false Bishop of Rome. During that time, people we accepting one claimant and rejecting the true Pope. That's the definition of schism.

In the present situation (even if we grant the SV hypothesis, which I don't), at worse one is accepting a claimant to the Papacy who is not truly Bishop of Rome, rather than accepting another against the true one. Which could hardly be schism, since one is not rejecting any true Pope.

Either way, I don't see this working or being a "legitimate" concern.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)