No Pope

[pnewton]

Please, spare me the false notion that we must blindly obey error…it is the DUTY of a Catholic to KNOW ONES FAITH, AND REFUSE TO FOLLOW ERROR…AMEN.

An everyone decides for himself what this means? Is this why those that break communion with the Catholic Church have no agreement upon which popes were popes, which doctrines where modernist and who to follow? Fortunately there are few that fall into your error so there is little chance that your ilk will rival Protestants in the number of splits.

Did you know that clergy take a solemn oath of obedience? Schism is also breaking an oath taken before God. (as is disobedience by liberal priest, too)

 

[pnewton]

Maybe we’re all going at this the wrong way. We’re turning this thread into the PW Show and not speaking about the original post.

Yes, but I was called cute (at least my posts were). I live for the fans. Seriously, such is the way of these threads. I would sure hate to be a moderator.

 

[NicPais83]

Yes, but I was called cute (at least my posts were). I live for the fans. Seriously, such is the way of these threads. I would sure hate to be a moderator.

Yeah, but it’s true that this thread went from discussion on whether or not a certain phenomenon is possible, and turned into a debate over the Second Vatican Council.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

No, it isn’t possible. What is possible though, is that we have had nothing but bad popes since Vatican II, and in my humble opinion, it is not only possible, but true.

Piuswoman, I will hold you most sincerely in prayer. You say you are Catholic to the core (my paraphrase) yet your actions and postings deny the very promise which Jesus himself gave to the Church. i.e., that he would be with his Church for all times and that the gates of hell shall not prevail. He also said that Peter and his successors would have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Your actions and posts either deny this, or you are saying the Holy Spirit is wrong, which I think we would both agree cannot be. That being said, the only alternative is that Jesus was wrong in his promise. I think we both agree that also cannot be. The only thing left would be that you Piuswoman are wrong in your conclusions, yet obstinately hold to them. I agree that the Church is under attack, but it is not from the hierarchy within, but from those not in the hierarchy, which we both agree that you are not part of. This is why I do and will continue to earnestly hold you up in prayer. Please pray for me also.
Prayers & blessing’s
Deacon Ed B

 

[ethelzguy]

Yeah, but it’s true that this thread went from discussion on whether or not a certain phenomenon is possible, and turned into a debate over the Second Vatican Council.

And this surprised you in what way? This IS the TC sub-forum, ya’ know…

 

[I_Believe]

And this surprised you in what way? This IS the TC sub-forum, ya’ know…

And it’s Satan’s favorite sub forum. Nowhere else on the internet can one find the volume of traffic that comes through here doing his work of defending heresy, revolutionary change, and novelty.

And hey, where else is one going to find Roman Catholics who hold dear Tradition, being hammered so visiously ?

Anyone into anti-catholicism ? This here sub forum is your huckelberry.

 

[ethelzguy]

And it’s Satan’s favorite sub forum. Nowhere else on the internet can one find the volume of traffic that comes through here doing his work of defending heresy, revolutionary change, and novelty.

And hey, where else is one going to find Roman Catholics who hold dear Tradition, being hammered so visiously ?

Anyone into anti-catholicism ? This here sub forum is your huckelberry.

What have I said that is “anti-Catholic” in any way, in any of my posts?

Where have I promoted “heresy, revelutionary change, and novelty”?

I promote obedience to the HMC. I defend her against those who feel that they are somehow qualified to judge her hierarchy.

 

[ethelzguy]

And hey, where else is one going to find Roman Catholics who hold dear Tradition, being hammered so visiously ?

If the folks on this sub-Forum were truthful with themselves and God, it would be painfully obvious, that the bashing and criticizing starts with the traditionalist crowd, and is responded to by those who defend the HMC.

If you start threads and post posts criticizing and bashing the HMC, why are you surprised when others take you on?

What gets lost in all of this, is that the Church herself is in charge of things…not you, not me…so all the beefin’ and bellerin’ is really just a lot of background static noise when you really get right down to it.

 

[I_Believe]

What have I said that is “anti-Catholic” in any way, in any of my posts?

Where have I promoted “heresy, revelutionary change, and novelty”?

I promote obedience to the HMC. I defend her against those who feel that they are somehow qualified to judge her hierarchy.

I did not say you did. You mentioned that this sub forum is unique. (I’m paraphrasing here) I was just expanding on that. It is a unique sub forum. It’s a very ugly “place”.

Those on both sides of the issues feel the need to keep the debates going. I don’t blame those who disagree with trads for doing what they feel is needed to “protect” others from the trad mindset. One only knows what he/she hears from the pulpit at the home parish.

Same with the trads.

I foolishly stopped attending mass as a teen. Now, by God’s grace, I’m back where I belong. It just so happens that the time I was away, was from the beginning of all the fuss, up until December '06. I come back, not having been old enough to have embraced traditional catholicism at the time I left. The time I was away, missing all the fuss, has allowed me to really look at both the trad mindset and the contemporary mindset, with an unbiased opinion. Since I had not become jaded by either mindset, I could make a somewhat reasonable choice. And I’ve determined the trads are the ones who see the truth. (I don’t include sedes in this group)

One thing that stands out, and I can’t throw out of the equation, is that traditional catholicism is in no way, shape, or form, responsible for the crisis. And with all the words of saints and popes throughout time, giving the trads solid ground to stand on, it’s a no brainer for me.

When the man Bugnini called the greatest liturgical expert of his day, and had a huge hand in designing the new Mass, states a few years later that the liturgy has been destroyed, it raises concern. Not to mention similar words from those in full communion with Rome, including one who is now pope.

The traditionalist minset is the best bet IMO.

 

[NicPais83]

And it’s Satan’s favorite sub forum. Nowhere else on the internet can one find the volume of traffic that comes through here doing his work of defending heresy, revolutionary change, and novelty.

And hey, where else is one going to find Roman Catholics who hold dear Tradition, being hammered so visiously ?

Anyone into anti-catholicism ? This here sub forum is your huckelberry.

Now, if you are paraphrasing the “huckelberry” part from Doc Holiday from Tombstone, then I have to give you credit. If not, then you lost the only credit I can give you. I respectfully ask that you do not refer to us who do not adhere to the mindset of SSPX as anti-Catholic. The Archbishop and those he consecrated as bishops were all excommunicated, and the priests, although validly ordained, are suspended from administering the sacraments until their situation is stabilized with Rome. Now, it is divisive to refer to people as “Traditionals” or “Contemporaries,” since we are all members of the Mystical Body of Christ. And unless any of us has openly disputed any Catholic dogma or teaching, you have to assume that we all practice the same faith. We can’t be both for something and against it, but without full submission to the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, then we reject Christ’s prayer that we all be one as the Father and the Son are one.

 

[I_Believe]

Now, if you are paraphrasing the “huckelberry” part from Doc Holiday from Tombstone, then I have to give you credit. If not, then you lost the only credit I can give you. I respectfully ask that you do not refer to us who do not adhere to the mindset of SSPX as anti-Catholic. The Archbishop and those he consecrated as bishops were all excommunicated, and the priests, although validly ordained, are suspended from administering the sacraments until their situation is stabilized with Rome. Now, it is divisive to refer to people as “Traditionals” or “Contemporaries,” since we are all members of the Mystical Body of Christ. And unless any of us has openly disputed any Catholic dogma or teaching, you have to assume that we all practice the same faith. We can’t be both for something and against it, but without full submission to the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, then we reject Christ’s prayer that we all be one as the Father and the Son are one.

Typical tactic. Can’t argue what I said, so you argue against what I didn’t say.

SSPX ? Uh, I said trads as a whole.

Yea Doc was where I got that, but frankly I could care less if you respect me or not.

Google the word “context”, then someday we might talk.

Have a liberal day

 

[piouswoman]

We have to be very careful. To claim that Pope Benedict “is a modernist through and through” is to claim that he is a heretic.

If that is the case, then the chair of Peter is empty. That goes back to the original post. Can there be a time without a pope? This alleation would imply that we are living such a time.

This is dangerous. Sedevacantism is serious business. Not only is it prohibitted by CAF rules, but it is a grave moral claim

I doubt that St. Pius X would have made such a statement about a man who has lived a holy life and is struggling to bring unity to the Church.

St. Pius X was not canonized because of his encyclical against modernism, but because of his intense life of holiness, which included charity, humility, truth, justice, mercy and prudence in his judgements.

Even when he wrote his encyclical he was also making changes in the Church that would make it easier for people to find salvation. His concern was not with rules, but with his duties as the successor of St. Peter. It was his fidelity to this vocation that made him a great saint.

He would probably look at the Vatican II popes and see their fidelity to their duties and praise them for their effort, even if their approach is different.

In addition, one common thing about saints is there show of charity toward all, even those whom they may consider to be in error. To a saint, an apparent sinner is his brother.

Saint Teresa of Avila once said that she would never in her life want to consider herself or call herself pious, unless she was a Pope. When asked why, she responded that her mission was not to save her soul, but to serve Christ and the Church. The salvation of her soul was in Christ’s hand. If she undertook the salvation of her soul as her vocation, she would be in conflict with Christ. “Christ did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at, but he humbled himself to become one of us.” This was her model. Her mission was to be a daughter of the Church, not a saint.

Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton shied away from being called a pious woman. She said that she was a mother first and a daughter of the Church.

Saint Louise de Marillac shied away from all signs of piety and gravitated toward the perfection of mercy and charity.

I believe these great woman knew something about being holy that we have missed.

JR

No, saying the pope is a liberal is NOT saying he is a heretic, and until I say in those exact and precise words that I believe him to be a heretic, then you haven’t any business telling me what I am saying. Furthermore, a pope may hold heretical views and believe that he does not…only a manifest heretic cannot be pope.

I am very tired of the deceit that goes on with posters here that like to hint that others are borderline or out and out sedevacantist…and what is **dangerous here is the label **you try to transfix on me…**the mere suggestion is **serious business and gravely immoral on your part.

In addition, your assumptions as to what statements Saint Pope Pius X may or may not of said is irrelevant and meaningless.

I admire St. Catherine of Siena, a Doctor of the Church…she spoke with candor and authority.
I find that your subtle and uncharitable hints on lack of piety towards me, reflect a real hypocrisy on your part. Remember that there is such a thing as “false charity” and when you fail to speak the** truth of our faith **out of human respect, or a desire to be politically correct and in favor with others, then you are in sin.

 

[piouswoman]

Piuswoman, I will hold you most sincerely in prayer. You say you are Catholic to the core (my paraphrase) yet your actions and postings deny the very promise which Jesus himself gave to the Church. i.e., that he would be with his Church for all times and that the gates of hell shall not prevail. He also said that Peter and his successors would have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Your actions and posts either deny this, or you are saying the Holy Spirit is wrong, which I think we would both agree cannot be. That being said, the only alternative is that Jesus was wrong in his promise. I think we both agree that also cannot be. The only thing left would be that you Piuswoman are wrong in your conclusions, yet obstinately hold to them. I agree that the Church is under attack, but it is not from the hierarchy within, but from those not in the hierarchy, which we both agree that you are not part of. This is why I do and will continue to earnestly hold you up in prayer. Please pray for me also.
Prayers & blessing’s
Deacon Ed B

You Deacon EdB are wrong, not I. My postings deny nothing about my faith, and you have a misunderstanding of our faith and a real problem with papolatry. You admit that the church is under attack but not from the hierarchy, and in doing so,
you are denying the words of Our Lady of Good Success:
“the secular Clergy will leave much to be desired because priests will become careless in their sacred duties. Lacking the divine compass, they will stray from the road traced by God for the priestly ministry, and they will become attached to wealth and riches, which they will unduly strive to obtain. How the Church will suffer during this dark night! Lacking a Prelate and Father to guide them with paternal love, gentleness, strength, wisdom and prudence, many priests will lose their spirit, placing their souls in great danger. This will mark the arrival of My hour.”
source:
olrl.org/prophecy/goodsuccess.shtml

And from Our Lady of Fatima, the yet to be released third secret:

“In the Third Secret we read, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church begins at the top.”

• Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, Papal theologian for 40 years to five popes
  from:
  fatimacrusader.com/cr86/cr86pg5.asp

I will continue to pray for you also Deacon Ed, that the scales may be lifted from your eyes…

Prayers and blessings,
Piouswoman

 

[allhers]

Try this one instead, it’s the one approved by the Church.
fatimafamily.org

…and for information on the 3rd Secret:
ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp
(click on general questions not covered elsewhere and then click on Fatima, 3rd Secret.)

 

[JReducation]

No, saying the pope is a liberal is NOT

 

[piouswoman]

I’m sorry, but this sounds more Martin Luther than Catholic. The Individual has become the arbitrator of orthodoxy rather than the Church and the Vicar of Christ.

It also sounds very Fundamentalist with the cherry picking of quotes and the private interpretation of Scripture.

Somebody posted an assortment of quotes to me which he/she had “cherry picked” to back up his/her argument. I responded in kind. So are you addressing your reply, above, to me alone, or to both of us?

 

[piouswoman]

piouswoman;3778856:

Ok, but let’s stop and think. In this thread the word liberal is often seen as a dirty word and equated with modernism. Given the audience on this thread, isn’t it a dangerous term to use? Shouldn’t one define what one means by liberal or what makes Pope Benedict a liberal? Liberal to one person is not liberal to another.

I’m sorry if you felt that I was putting words in your mouth. That was not my intention. I was focussing on the danger of using the term liberal on the Traditionalist Forum.

But in fairness to Pope Benedict or any pope, shouldn’t that be decided by a council of bishops, not by any individual?

I understand that we all have the right to an opinion. But do we have the right to say things that may do damage to a person’s reputation and to the faith of others who love and trust the Holy Father?

This can only be decided by a council.

No one tried to transfix the label on to your person. What is being said is that the language that you used in your post can lead others to believe this. We must be careful with language, because others are watching. Many of those who are watching are people who are considering entering the Catholic Church or returning. The last thing that we would want to do is to discourage them, because of a misused term or a term that can have a very negative and destructive meaning, such as liberal.

They may be irrelevant and meaningless to you. Let them stand for themselves to others. Others find my insights to be very logical.

We share an admiration for a great saint. She was an excellent theologian, besides being a holy woman. She spoke with great confidence in God’s mercy that he would not mislead her. She also spoke with great humility. She never considered herself to be an authority. In fact she used the gift of reason and persuasion to make her point stick, not authority. She accepted that she was not part of the hieararchy. The Holy Father and the bishops loved her and trusted her, because of her holiness, humility and mystical insight. She also had a charming personality and a witty sense of humour which she used in presenting her arguments and teachings.

I’m sorry for that too. It was not meant to be subtle. I intended to be more direct.

We agree on this.

JR

I am glad we can agree on somethings, JR.

 

[pnewton]

And hey, where else is one going to find Roman Catholics who hold dear Tradition, being hammered so visiously ?

Anyone into anti-catholicism ? This here sub forum is your huckelberry.

I think you are mistaken. It is not the traditionalists that are “hammered.” It is those who attack the Holy Father or advocate schism with the Catholic Church. Most traditionalists are faithful to the Holy Father and the Catholic Church. It is unfair to lump them together with those who have gone overboard.

 

[NicPais83]

Typical tactic. Can’t argue what I said, so you argue against what I didn’t say.

SSPX ? Uh, I said trads as a whole.

Yea Doc was where I got that, but frankly I could care less if you respect me or not.

Google the word “context”, then someday we might talk.

Have a liberal day

Except you didn’t say anything other than make a comment about how this is a vehicle for Satan. As for my use of the word SSPX, I have said numerous times that I refuse to use labels such as Traditional or Liberal because I seem them as divisive.

Likewise, I have not said anything about having no respect for you. I was trying to open with a friendly comment. If anything, I have tried very hard to open up and understand the SSPX position on things by reading every and all pieces of information that are offered for me. I have attempted to be open-minded and fair and not argue without citing sources, so please do not treat me as if you know anything about the style that I argue with, as you have had little to no experience with me.

Finally, if you have been reading any of my posts, while I do reject the labels, I take offense to being labelled myself as “liberal” with comments such as “have a liberal day,” followed by eye rolling. I have shown respect. I have argued, but I endeavor to be polite and take the time to read any articles offered me, while adhering to the Magesterium. You have not shown me the same respect at all and instead roll your eyes at me.

 

[JReducation]

I think you are mistaken. It is not the traditionalists that are “hammered.” It is those who attack the Holy Father or advocate schism with the Catholic Church. Most traditionalists are faithful to the Holy Father and the Catholic Church. It is unfair to lump them together with those who have gone overboard.

I agree with you 100%. I have nothing against Tradition with a capital T. When we confuse Tradition with holding on to the old for its own sake, instead of Tradition for its sanctifying effects, then we have a problem.

Obedience to the Holy Father, trust in the promises of Christ to the Church that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, and the belief that there is only one saviour, Jesus Christ, not a renegade bishop or lay man are part of our Holy Tradition.

JR