Catholic Church: now run by heretics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter blessedrosary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

blessedrosary

Guest
I found a disturbing website and it basically says that pope pious XII was our last true pope and that every Pope after Vatican II are heretics. The scary thing is, is that the guy who made the site uses quotes from Code of Canon Law and of Sacred Tradition from earlier Popes and Church fathers to show where the Catechism or our current Pope(s) contradict those. Here, check it out and tell me what you think:
truecatholic.org
 
Just believe what christ said that the “gates of hell will never prevail against it”
 
40.png
Seamus:
The conclave “was held in a rented hotel ballroom in Kalispell, Montana.”

truecatholic.org/pope/p13-bishop.htm

God, I love the Internet.
Hi marlo.

It makes little difference where the conclave was held, even if in a farmhouse somewhere in Texas. What I feel is needed here is a convincing rebuttal to Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher’ argument! I, for one, don’t have it.

Just my thoughts.
 
Wow,
I wonder how many Cardinals made it to the election, some people!!!
And a Capuchin? :whacky:
 
40.png
CreosMary:
Wow,
I wonder how many Cardinals made it to the election, some people!!!
And a Capuchin? :whacky:
Welcome CreosMary.

I would say “likely none.” But I still think a well-formed and convincing rebuttal to Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher’s argument would be more in order here. For surely, it would be more helpful to the original poster, blessedrosary (and to me also)!

Again, Just my thoughts.
 
40.png
fcfahs:
What I feel is needed here is a convincing rebuttal to Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher’ argument! I, for one, don’t have it.
.
Do you think that Father P. is correct in some of his arguments?
 
40.png
fcfahs:
Hi marlo.

It makes little difference where the conclave was held, even if in a farmhouse somewhere in Texas. What I feel is needed here is a convincing rebuttal to Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher’ argument! I, for one, don’t have it.

Just my thoughts.
To quote from G. K. Chesterton’s book Orthodoxy:
Code:
 "The madman's explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory.  Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness.  If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators do.  His explanation covers the facts as much as yours.  Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were the King of England that may be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do.  Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ's.
 "Nevertheless he is wrong.  But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed.  Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle.  A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large...There is such a thing as a narrow universality; there is such a thing as a small eternity; you may see it in many modern religions...The lunatic's theory explains a large number of things, but it does not explain them in a large way."
This conclave in Montana may explain a number of things in the tiny universe of these lunatics, but it doesn’t explain quite as much as the Universal Church does. I would put my trust in the Bishop of Rome rather than the Bishop of Kalispell.
 
God has given us all free will. It is up to us, individually, whether or not we decide to follow those who are in schism with the “True Roman Church” or not. It is unfortunate for those who choose poorly. I pray that they will only be lead to a truer formation of their faith and through that formation and prayer, God will show them Truth, His truth and the truth of our Founding Fathers.
 
40.png
blessedrosary:
I found a disturbing website and it basically says that pope pious XII was our last true pope and that every Pope after Vatican II are heretics. The scary thing is, is that the guy who made the site uses quotes from Code of Canon Law and of Sacred Tradition from earlier Popes and Church fathers to show where the Catechism or our current Pope(s) contradict those. Here, check it out and tell me what you think:
truecatholic.org

A heretic is someone who is under the impression that we are no longer living in the sixteenth century 🙂

They would have denounced St.Paul - they would probably have condemned the Pharisees for being so liberal as to believe in a resurrection. ##
 
Gottle of Geer:
A heretic is someone who is under the impression that we are no longer living in the sixteenth century
I don’t think so. I think that you have to formally reject a dogma of the Church before you can be a theological heretic.
 
Does anyone have a comment or two about the vision of Pope Leo XIII (a vision totally approved by the RCC church) and how it ominously parallels the prophecy spoken of Daniel the prophet? In Mark 13:14, we read:

“But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:”

This Pope’s vision is being used as ammunition by sedvactist church to undermine the doctrinal changes of Vatican II and the Papal mindset of the post-Pope Pius XII era Popes, especially Pope John Paul II.

For infornation on this miracle and what the sedvantists are concerned about, I refer you to the following this article (albeit with caution, because this web page is hosted by a sedvactist church):
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## A heretic is someone who is under the impression that we are no longer living in the sixteenth century

That’s what our teachers in college used to say to keep us from looking into what a heretic actually does mean. Basically it means “to pick and choose,” i.e., pick and choose what one wants to believe and rejects the rest. From Fr. Hardon’s Pocket Catholic Dictionary:
HERESY. Commonly refers to a doctrinal belief held in opposition to the recognized standards of an established system of thought. Theologically it means an opinion at variance with the authorized teachings of any church, notably the Christian, and especially when this promotes separation from the main body of faithful believers.
In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.
Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith. (Etym. Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice, sect, heresy.)
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
Again, to paraphrase Chesterton, heretic is an ugly word because heresy is an ugly thing.
 
There are many reasons why Lucien Pulvermacher, the alleged “pope” Pius XIII, is not and cannot be a true pope.
For one thing, he is a priest and has never been validly consecrated as a Catholic BISHOP. That fact alone, apart from all other considerations, should open people’s eyes to this man’s delusional mindset.

Whether or not he raises some valid questions or even interesting questions comparing pre-Vatican II teaching with post-Vatican II is irrelevant. The man is a mere priest, not a bishop.

Love,
Jaypeeto3
 
40.png
fcfahs:
Does anyone have a comment or two about the vision of Pope Leo XIII (a vision totally approved by the RCC church) and how it ominously parallels the prophecy spoken of Daniel the prophet? In Mark 13:14, we read:

“But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:”

This Pope’s vision is being used as ammunition by sedvactist church to undermine the doctrinal changes of Vatican II and the Papal mindset of the post-Pope Pius XII era Popes, especially Pope John Paul II.

For infornation on this miracle and what the sedvantists are concerned about, I refer you to the following this article (albeit with caution, because this web page is hosted by a sedvactist church):
fcfahs,

I can understand your concern and it does appear that the Church needs to be more outspoken in its proclamation of God’s truth. However, we do not solve one problem by creating an even bigger one. Jesus, Our Lord, promised Peter and the disciples that He would be with His church until the end (His return). This promise is absolute and unequivocal.
The sedevacantists have simply followed Luther into schism because of what they perceive as irreformable faults in the Church. This shows a lack of trust in God. Certainly the Church has weak and fallible members in it who are betraying the faith, however God has promised to be with His Church until the end and we are expected to be faithful to the Church Jesus founded - the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church under Peter and his successors.
Perhaps John-Paul said some things in a way that could be misinterpreted - the doctrine of Papal infallability does not guarantee that every word a Pope says is infallible. What the doctrine does guarantee is that the Pope will not formally teach to the Church something that is heretical. No Pope has ever done that and John-Paul is no exception. In spite of some rather “liberal” sounding statements he did not formally declare or proclaim as dogma anything that was heresy. The sedevacantists have simply gone too far and, as all the shismatics, Protestants and heretics before them, have decided that they know better than God’s Church and have made themselves the “truth”.
 
40.png
fcfahs:
Does anyone have a comment or two about the vision of Pope Leo XIII (a vision totally approved by the RCC church) and how it ominously parallels the prophecy spoken of Daniel the prophet? In Mark 13:14, we read:

“But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:”

This Pope’s vision is being used as ammunition by sedvactist church to undermine the doctrinal changes of Vatican II and the Papal mindset of the post-Pope Pius XII era Popes, especially Pope John Paul II.

For infornation on this miracle and what the sedvantists are concerned about, I refer you to the following this article (albeit with caution, because this web page is hosted by a sedvactist church):
Here I am an ex-Catholic (now fundamental) searching too find truths to bring me/convince me to “come home to Rome” and this is very frightening. That link, those pages…

Is there an “official” statement or position issued from Rome?

I am sure you are all aware of fundamental’s belief’s in “separation” from those who teach false doctrines, as well as we would never pray with others who pray to a “different” God (not judging or accusing here) but I have seen those pictures before all trying to “prove” Catholicism cannot be the true church. Not saying this to debate if it is or not, just how it looks.

Especially this vision below, is it true?

*Exactly 33 years to the day prior to the great Miracle of the Sun in Fatima, that is, on October 13, 1884, Pope Leo XIII had a remarkable vision. When the aged Pontiff had finished celebrating Mass in his private Vatican Chapel, attended by a few Cardinals and members of the Vatican staff, he suddenly stopped at the foot of the altar. He stood there for about 10 minutes, as if in a trance, his face ashen white. Then, going immediately from the Chapel to his office, he composed the prayer to St. Michael, with instructions it be said after all Low Masses everywhere. When asked what had happened, he explained that, as he was about to leave the foot of the altar, he suddenly heard voices - two voices, one kind and gentle, the other guttural and harsh. They seemed to come from near the tabernacle. As he listened, he heard the following conversation:

The guttural voice, the voice of Satan in his pride, boasted to Our Lord:
“I can destroy your Church.”

The gentle voice of Our Lord:
“You can? Then go ahead and do so.”

Satan:
“To do so, I need more time and more power.”

Our Lord:
"How much time? How much power?

Satan:
“75 to 100 years, and a greater power over those
who will give themselves over to my service.”

Our Lord:
“You have the time, you will have the power.
Do with them what you will.”

Let us think about this for a minute. This happened in 1884. The devil said he needed 75 to100 years. Well, 75 years from 1884 is 1959. Wow, what a coincidence that it was on January 25, 1959, that John XXIII publicly summoned the Second Vatican Council.

Remember that after the vision, Pope Leo XIII immediately wrote the Prayer to St. Michael to help us overcome the devil in his quest. He instructed that it be said after every low Mass.

One of the first changes to come from Vatican II, was the deletion of the Leonine Prayers which included the prayer to St. Michael. These prayers were eliminated in 1964, the 80th year of the devils 75 - 100 years needed to destroy the Catholic Church. It would seem that this would be the time to especially say that prayer, not to delete it.

The 100th year would be 1984. By 1984 John Paul II had let the devil develope a church that is called Catholic, but is not.
This is obvious from his teachings. *

From:

stjosephschurch.net/leoxiii.htm

For copyright (I am learning) here is the link:

truecatholic.org, (posted above)
 
What do you mean by heretics? The most I know is the Arian, Nestorius, Jansenius etc etc.

Many people I think oppose the idea of liturgical renewal. What Latin is better, priest should face backwards, and only Altar servers are answering whatever. Those ignorant people do not believe what the Church teach!! As Catholic, we must believe in and with the Church. Don’t forget, orders of Council is higher than Pope itself.
 
Albert Ko:
What do you mean by heretics? The most I know is the Arian, Nestorius, Jansenius etc etc.

Many people I think oppose the idea of liturgical renewal. What Latin is better, priest should face backwards, and only Altar servers are answering whatever. Those ignorant people do not believe what the Church teach!! As Catholic, we must believe in and with the Church. Don’t forget, orders of Council is higher than Pope itself.
Dear Albert Ko:

In my Roman Catholic highschool theology class (if not before) I was taught that the mass was said in Latin, not to make it cryptic of mysteriously secret like some Masonic ritual, but rather because Latin is a dead language. And, being a dead language (not subject to any change in the meaning of its words and/or or phrases), the use of it for saying the mass prevents the original meaning and import of the words of the mass from being adulterated by the evolutionary changes that a living language, like English, is subject to. Indeed, the meaning of some words and expressiond in our English language have not only changed, but have actually come to mean the exact opposite of their original meaning!

Just making an observation,

Frank
 
Albert Ko:
What do you mean by heretics? The most I know is the Arian, Nestorius, Jansenius etc etc.

Many people I think oppose the idea of liturgical renewal. What Latin is better, priest should face backwards, and only Altar servers are answering whatever. Those ignorant people do not believe what the Church teach!! As Catholic, we must believe in and with the Church. Don’t forget, orders of Council is higher than Pope itself.
Peace be with you!

Pope Benedict XVI himself said, as Cardinal Ratzinger, that he thought Paul VI went a little too far with the changes made to the Mass. Out of every person in the world, I would say that the LEAST ignorant person on Church teaching was Cardinal Ratzinger. My uncle said he thinks that there is a good chance of some things from the old Mass coming back during Benedict’s papacy.

That whole post about the St. Michael prayer can be used to refer to the Sedevacantists themselves. It wasn’t until after Vatican II that these people began to emerge. I personally would like to say the St. Michael prayer after every Mass, and it is also my personal preference to have some Latin prayers and older hymns during Mass, but that doesn’t mean that just because that’s not very common anymore the devil has taken over the Church. If he had, then Christ was either a liar when he said the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church, or the devil is actually more powerful. Either of those things is heresy and blasphemy.

I’ve never been to a Tridentine Mass yet, though there is one church here in Portland (St. Birgitta’s) that I hear uses the 1962 missal. We also have Holy Rosary Church, which does a Latin Mass every week, though some prayers are in English and it’s in accordance with the Novus Ordo. Both these are approved by the archbishop, so it’s not like all this stuff is completely gone from the Church. Like I said, I personally prefer a more “traditional” Mass, but Mass is Mass and I recieve Christ no matter what. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the only problem with Vatican II is that it wasn’t explained well enough, and that’s the reason why we have so many liturgical abuses going on and we have the Sedevacantists thinking the Novus Ordo is of the devil.

Just remember, the body of Blessed John XXIII (who the Sedevacantists claim was a heretic and is now in hell) is still uncorrupted after over 40 years. The sign of a saint!

In Christ,
Rand
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top