No Pope

  • Thread starter Thread starter podger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, too bad you have it so upside down and backwards…erase Vatican II from the annals of history and we see the Catholic Church in all of Her glory and truth.
Truth does not change, no matter the Council. You cannot erase any of the Councils, and you cannot alter Truth, since Jesus is Truth. John XXIII place St. Joseph in his rightful place alongside the Blessed Mother within the Canon Missae, and opened for us the Second Vatican Council which called for us to renew our committment to Christ. Paul VI declared for the world that the Catholic Church alone defies the world’s acceptance of contraceptives and abortion, while promulgating the beautiful novus Ordo Missae. John Paul I was taken away before we could really know him, sadly. John Paul the Great stood up to the Soviet Union, called for increased devotion to Our Lady’s Rosary, gave us 5 new mysteries, Consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart, and gave us the Theology of the Body, which teaches that the Church alone embraces sexuality in its fullest beauty as a sign of Christ’s union with the Church in the Eucharist. Benedict XVI has granted us the Motu Propio liberalizing the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, has not backed down from attacking the threat of relativism and the evils of Liturgical banality, and has taken concrete steps towards reuniting with separated brethren, such as the Eastern Orthodox. He has pledged his love and affection to the Church suffering in China, and has moved to teach that the Liturgy does not belong to any one individual, but to the Church herself, as the Bride of Christ, in order to give Him praise and offer as a Sacrifice for our sins His Body and Blood.
 
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.
The thread is about a prophecy. But I am noticing a pattern here.

Piouswoman, do you realize that everytime the term “pope” comes up you have something negative to say about the popes of the last 40 years?

I don’t know if you realize it or not. But it is becoming very obvious.

I don’t know if you really want to come across as a papal critic or negative on everything that has to do with Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Sometimes we are angry at the Church. When this happens, it’s very painful. Because when we are angry at the Church it’s very much like being angry at a parent. Parents are the most difficult person to forgive.

When we are in that mindset, we can become blinded to their virtues and the good that they have accomplished, even blind to their holiness.

Pain and anger can be dangerous.

JR 🙂
 
Another thought occurs to me - there have already been periods (short ones, I think the longest was about three years or so) in between Papal elections, for different reasons such as inability to agree on who to choose as Pope. During those times there was no Pope, obviously, but that doesn’t mean the Church founded on Peter wasn’t still continuing and functioning just fine.

Now the point is the Cardinals and Bishops ARE all valid successors of the Apostles, all promised to be guided by the Holy Spirit, so their collective choice of Pope (ie when the election is undisputed) is necessarily valid too.
This eliminates the ‘antipopes’ of the Western Schism whose elections were so hotly disputed that it could only be ended by Pope and antipope(s?) all resigning and agreeing to abide by a fresh neutral choice of candidate.

There’s no question of an undisputed choice of Pope having been made by the College of Cardinals and their choice of Pope not being valid.
I like your explanation, but we should add here that until 1983, any Catholic male was papabili, could be elected pope. It has happend twice that two men were elected popes who were not priests. I can’t recall the name, but one was a monk and the other a lawyer.

Canon law of 1983 says that only clerics can be elected popes, this includes deacons.

Both in the old canon law and the new, the procedure is the same. If the person is not a priest, such as a deacon, he must be ordained a priest, consecrated a bishop and then be installed as pope. It can even be done on succeeding days. It cannot be done all on the same day.

There is another interesting fact here, the new canon law of the Church is that a man must have a doctorate degree to be a bishop, but need not have any formal education to be a pope. If a non doctor were elected as pope, he would be given an honorary doctorate, so that he could be consecrated bishop. This is not the case for other bishops. They must have graduated from university and have PhDs, STD, JCD, D.Div, or DSS.

JR 🙂
 
The thread is about a prophecy. But I am noticing a pattern here.

Piouswoman, do you realize that everytime the term “pope” comes up you have something negative to say about the popes of the last 40 years?

I don’t know if you realize it or not. But it is becoming very obvious.

I don’t know if you really want to come across as a papal critic or negative on everything that has to do with Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Sometimes we are angry at the Church. When this happens, it’s very painful. Because when we are angry at the Church it’s very much like being angry at a parent. Parents are the most difficult person to forgive.

When we are in that mindset, we can become blinded to their virtues and the good that they have accomplished, even blind to their holiness.

Pain and anger can be dangerous.

JR 🙂
Thanks for your concern…you have obviously been blinded with stars in your eyes for the conciliar popes…I had been too, until I educated myself…the facts speak for themselves, the truth is staring you in the face…whether you acknowledge it or not is your decision…but for the sake of our faith and for the salvation of my soul…I will not blindly follow error, I will continue to pray for the Holy Father and for Holy Mother Church…if you take the time to read the facts, if you cover every aspect of the history of the church beginning long before Vatican II council and what has transpired since then, if you understand our faith and what is expected of us as Catholics, and if you do not avoid reading that which you are afraid may change your mind, and still feel the way you do, then fine, continue on in your ignorance, until then…I will not listen to those who try to wear me down, to change my thinking, to lead me away from my true Catholic faith and into sin.

This isn’t about anger, this isn’t about childish feelings…this is about me and my concern for the salvation of my soul and the souls of my family…until you realize that, there can be no agreement.
 
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.
So when did you decide that Pope Benedct was a "bad pope’? The day he was elected? Well, not surprising if your use of bad is the same as your own self-declaration of piety. Boy, the Holy Spirit must be really xcrewing up to make a mistake four time in a row.
 
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.
Wow, too bad you have it so upside down and backwards…erase Vatican II from the annals of history and we see the Catholic Church in all of Her glory and truth.
Obedience

“For those who have become lazy in fulfilling the commandments and desire to banish murky obscurity, there is no better or more efficient cure than complete obedience in everything, with faith and without argument.”
St. Gregory of Sinai

Eph 4:29 - 31 Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth; but that which is good, to the edification of faith, that it may administer grace to the hearers. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God: whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and anger, and indignation, and clamour, and blasphemy, be put away from you, with all malice. And be ye kind one to another; merciful, forgiving one another, even as God hath forgiven you in Christ.

Eccl 10:12 The words of the mouth of a wise man are grace: but the lips of a fool shall throw him down headlong.

Rom 14:19 Therefore let us follow after the things that are of peace; and keep the things that are of edification one towards another.

Col 3:8 But now put you also all away: anger, indignation, malice, blasphemy, filthy speech out of your mouth.

If we say we love the Church and Christ, who is the Head of her, we will humble ourselves in obedience with love, for this is what is pleasing to Him. Speaking constant malice towards the Church and those who have been given authority over her in the name of her Head, these that Christ gave his very own blood for, does nothing but grieve Him. We say that we love Him and then we add wounds to his sufferings in the same breath. This is not logical. 🤷
 

For the record, I don’t think the OP is referring to sedevacantism at all.

As to the last question: Kathy, it is true that many abuses have taken place since V2, and it also true that no Pope since then has liked them. Paul VI said that the “smoke of Satan” had entered the Church. However, this cannot be blamed on the Bishops. Bishops have not muscled the Pope into neutrality in recent years. He has as much authority as he always had. He’s the Supreme Pontiff, and has the final, infallible, word on anything he wants. However, this does not mean that he micromanages everything. The Holy Father isn’t going to write your Pastor a letter about his sloppy liturgy, or come and visit one day to inspect. Bishops look after these things, and they don’t have more power now than they once did. In fact, it can be argued that since the creation of Bishops’s conferences after V2, individual Bishops have less power than they once had. Most post-V2 problems started on a grass-roots level (in parishes, and amongst priests and laypeople) and then sometimes crept into the Episcopate. Now, we are seeing the opposite–a grassroots initiative promoting Orthodoxy and tradition, which is becoming more prevalent in the Episcopate, e.g., Archbishop Ranjith.

Nobody ever allowed these abuses. Many just started happening, and overwhelmed the Bishops. These things had to be dealt with carefully. JP2 worked diligently and slowly to turn things around, knowing that if started a massive “crack-down” many would leave the Church, and be lost. Benedict XVI is only able to do the wonderful things he does because of the groundwork of his predecessor. There is no Benedict without John Paul, just as there is no sunset without a sunrise.

Hi! Thankyou! that was a excellent answer and to others that were so kind to point these things out.
Theres alot of things I don’t know, and everyone here is
way above me! So I ask questions but not with the intent of causing any kind of trouble. I am sorry for that.
If I were a sedevacantist or whatever else that shouldn’t be on this forum I would either not be here or would keep my mouth shut.
sorry again for the misunderstanding:D
 
So when did you decide that Pope Benedct was a "bad pope’? The day he was elected? Well, not surprising if your use of bad is the same as your own self-declaration of piety. Boy, the Holy Spirit must be really xcrewing up to make a mistake four time in a row.
You need to read a little bit…you can’t just sit idly by, saying things based on nothing, you need to understand that the pope is a modernist through and through, he is liberal to the core, and modernism has been condemned by previous popes, as it is against Catholic truths, Catholic Doctrines…so instead of making cute but inaccurate posts, why don’t you read up on the FACTS?
Here is a start:
cfnews.org/SC.htm
 
Thanks for your concern…you have obviously been blinded with stars in your eyes for the conciliar popes…I had been too, until I educated myself…the facts speak for themselves, the truth is staring you in the face…whether you acknowledge it or not is your decision…but for the sake of our faith and for the salvation of my soul…I will not blindly follow error, I will continue to pray for the Holy Father and for Holy Mother Church…if you take the time to read the facts, if you cover every aspect of the history of the church beginning long before Vatican II council and what has transpired since then, if you understand our faith and what is expected of us as Catholics, and if you do not avoid reading that which you are afraid may change your mind, and still feel the way you do, then fine, continue on in your ignorance, until then…I will not listen to those who try to wear me down, to change my thinking, to lead me away from my true Catholic faith and into sin.

This isn’t about anger, this isn’t about childish feelings…this is about me and my concern for the salvation of my soul and the souls of my family…until you realize that, there can be no agreement.
I have read everything that you have given me, and I still feel bound by conscience, the Holy Spirit, and loyalty, to accept the validity of the Second Vatican Council and I embrace the Popes after the Council just as much as I embrace the Popes prior to the Council. Pope Pius XII, for example, began the process of Liturgical reform which led to the Council, having appointed Bugnini to revise the Triduum. Pope Pius V first called for a reform at the Council of Trent (I believe I got the number right, but if I didn’t, I am sorry). If any of the Popes after the Council have any error, then so do so many prior to the Council. But John Paul the Great inspired so many of us to embrace the Church that Christ instituted; likewise Benedict XVI and Paul VI struggle and struggled with the forces of relativism to make the bold statement that evil is objective, not subjective.
 
Obedience

“For those who have become lazy in fulfilling the commandments and desire to banish murky obscurity, there is no better or more efficient cure than complete obedience in everything, with faith and without argument.”
St. Gregory of Sinai

Eph 4:29 - 31 Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth; but that which is good, to the edification of faith, that it may administer grace to the hearers. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God: whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and anger, and indignation, and clamour, and blasphemy, be put away from you, with all malice. And be ye kind one to another; merciful, forgiving one another, even as God hath forgiven you in Christ.

Eccl 10:12 The words of the mouth of a wise man are grace: but the lips of a fool shall throw him down headlong.

Rom 14:19 Therefore let us follow after the things that are of peace; and keep the things that are of edification one towards another.

Col 3:8 But now put you also all away: anger, indignation, malice, blasphemy, filthy speech out of your mouth.

If we say we love the Church and Christ, who is the Head of her, we will humble ourselves in obedience with love, for this is what is pleasing to Him. Speaking constant malice towards the Church and those who have been given authority over her in the name of her Head, these that Christ gave his very own blood for, does nothing but grieve Him. We say that we love Him and then we add wounds to his sufferings in the same breath. This is not logical. 🤷
Here, let me throw out a few quotes for you:

WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD…RATHER THAN MEN. Acts 5:29

And there is no reason why those who obey God rather than men should be accused of refusing obedience; for if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, these rulers exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice, nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null. - Leo XIII, “Diuturnum Illud”

Lawful superiors are to be respected as the representatives of Christ
BUT
if they depart gravely from the Catholic Faith, I may even rebuke them in public - Galatians 2:11-14

God through His Catholic Church has absolute authority over my conscience
BUT
in the last resort God meant me to judge, if His hierarchy is departing from His teaching. Obedience to men has limits - Galatians 1:8-9

According to the great theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, true obedience is a balance between twin errors of defect and excess, which are disobedience and false obedience (IIaIIae, Q104,5 ad 3). Today this second error is common among Catholics who, when they follow orders to depart from Tradition, think they are being obedient.

"Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.
  • St. Thomas Aquinas,
    Doctor of the Church
  • Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104
But though we , or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema - Galatians 1:8

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.
 
You need to read a little bit…you can’t just sit idly by, saying things based on nothing, you need to understand that the pope is a modernist through and through, he is liberal to the core, and modernism has been condemned by previous popes, as it is against Catholic truths, Catholic Doctrines…so instead of making cute but inaccurate posts, why don’t you read up on the FACTS?
Here is a start:
cfnews.org/SC.htm
When a vast majority of the citations are radio shows, newspaper articles, and books written by people commenting on the Council as they see it, I hold this article suspect. Where has the Holy Father steered us wrong? Where has he broken with Tradition? The Successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, and we have been reduced to making criticisms based on how far he chided American politicians? He chided them, and Canon Law gives the power to enforce the laws of the Church to the local ordinary. This is the proper procedure, as the Bishop is the head of his particular Church. Articles such as this make comments on the problems with the Pope without exploring the workings of the Church layed out in Canon Law, spotlighting only fragments of reality in order to misinform the reader.
 
Here, let me throw out a few quotes for you:

WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD…RATHER THAN MEN. Acts 5:29

And there is no reason why those who obey God rather than men should be accused of refusing obedience; for if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, these rulers exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice, nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null. - Leo XIII, “Diuturnum Illud”

Lawful superiors are to be respected as the representatives of Christ
BUT
if they depart gravely from the Catholic Faith, I may even rebuke them in public - Galatians 2:11-14

God through His Catholic Church has absolute authority over my conscience
BUT
in the last resort God meant me to judge, if His hierarchy is departing from His teaching. Obedience to men has limits - Galatians 1:8-9

According to the great theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, true obedience is a balance between twin errors of defect and excess, which are disobedience and false obedience (IIaIIae, Q104,5 ad 3). Today this second error is common among Catholics who, when they follow orders to depart from Tradition, think they are being obedient.

"Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.
  • St. Thomas Aquinas,
    Doctor of the Church
  • Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104
But though we , or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema - Galatians 1:8

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.
Except the Pope does not speak for himself. Catholic teaching holds that he is the Vicar of Christ, and that the office itself was instituted by Christ to tend for His sheep. Just as praying to Mary is not worship of the Blessed Mother, but rendering praise to Christ, so it is with obedience to the Holy Father.
 
if you take the time to read the facts, if you cover every aspect of the history of the church beginning long before Vatican II council and what has transpired since then, if you understand our faith and what is expected of us as Catholics, and if you do not avoid reading that which you are afraid may change your mind, and still feel the way you do, then fine, continue on in your ignorance,
I have done all of this reading and studying at many levels, but I don’t see the evil in these men. I’m referring to John XXIII, Paul VI, John Pau I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

What I see in them is an earnest effort to bring all souls to Christ using whatever means are at their disposal and making legitimate use of their authority to bind and unbind.

Let me offer an example. When previous popes said that there was no salvation outside the Church, Pope Paul VI and his successors began a long period of reflection and mystical contemplation. They accepted the doctrine. But they also knew that they must find a short-term solution to the problem. The long-term solution was obvious. Eventually, all men and women will be led to the Catholic faith.

But given the many centuries of conflict, doubts, mistrust, abuses on both parts (including Catholics against others), misunderstandings and spiritual arrogance on both sides, this is not likely to happen too soon.

In the meantime, there are souls who need salvation today. So Paul VI and his sucessors enter into a deeper mystical prayer life. As a result of this the Holy Spirit reveals another perspective and opportunity that is open to them.

They are the keepers of the keys and they do have the power to bind and unbind. They are the legitimate interpreters of sacred scripture and sacred tradition. Without them there is no teaching Magisterium of the Church. In other words, they possess awesome power that has been given to them by God for the salvation of souls.

They take the teachings of their predecessors on no salvation outside the Church and they agree with it. But they raise another question. What does it mean to be outside the Church? They do not question the doctrine. They raise a question about the subordinate clause which identifies Protestants, Jews, Muslims and other religious faiths as being outside the Church.

They engage is a search to find legitimate spiritual coverage for these people, to increase the possibility of salvation for as many as possible.

But as Vicars of Christ, it is their duty to save as many as possible. Through prayer, dialogue, reflection, study of their predecessors and the doctors of the Church and through their own mystical experience, they realize that traces of the Catholic faith can be found in other faiths. They look at someone like the great Franciscans, esepcially St. Leonard and find in his writings that God offers means of salvation to others of which we are unaware.

They reveal this hope to the world, both Catholic and non Catholic. They do not espouse this as the conclusion or the solution to the long-term problem, but they present the Church as merciful as Christ is merciful. They practice mercy as their Lord is merciful, by looking for means to salvation. The find seeds of Catholicism available in other faiths for those who want to take advantage of them. The choice is still with the individual.

However, at least these holy men have unbound these people from a rigid belief that they have no truth and recognized that there are signs of the truth among other faiths. They place their hope that where there are signs of the truth, there is also a hope for redemption.

They also clarify for Catholics and others that the fullness of truth subsists within the Catholic church. They do not hide this from anyone. Based on this truth that binds the Church metaphysically to her founder, they find a glimmer of hope for the salvation of many, nut just some Catholics. They use their authority, which is part of the truth that subsists within the Church, to bind us all to this belief in the mercy of God who acts both in the short-term and long-term.

We should be proud. While others are saying that they are the be all and end all, our popes have the humility to say, that others are part of us, even if imperfectly united to us. Why other faiths deny any relationship with non members, our holy fathers, remind the world of our eternal brotherhood, because we are sons of the same Father. As long as we share the same Father, we are at the very least, spiritually connected to the Church outside of which there is no salvation. This connection, even if it’s faint, extends the mantle of the Church over those who have not yet come to the fullness of truth.

This is mercy, this is love, this is the work of Christ. This is the work of Peter taking care of Christ’s sheep. I for one am proud that we have such holy fathers.

JR 🙂
 
I have read everything that you have given me, and I still feel bound by conscience, the Holy Spirit, and loyalty, to accept the validity of the Second Vatican Council and I embrace the Popes after the Council just as much as I embrace the Popes prior to the Council. Pope Pius XII, for example, began the process of Liturgical reform which led to the Council, having appointed Bugnini to revise the Triduum. Pope Pius V first called for a reform at the Council of Trent (I believe I got the number right, but if I didn’t, I am sorry). If any of the Popes after the Council have any error, then so do so many prior to the Council. But John Paul the Great inspired so many of us to embrace the Church that Christ instituted; likewise Benedict XVI and Paul VI struggle and struggled with the forces of relativism to make the bold statement that evil is objective, not subjective.
Vatican II was a *“pastoral” *council and did not intend to define dogma or to condemn errors.
sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2003_January/errors_of_vatican_II.htm
 
Here, let me throw out a few quotes for you:

WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD…RATHER THAN MEN. Acts 5:29

And there is no reason why those who obey God rather than men should be accused of refusing obedience; for if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, these rulers exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice, nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null. - Leo XIII, “Diuturnum Illud”

Lawful superiors are to be respected as the representatives of Christ
BUT
if they depart gravely from the Catholic Faith, I may even rebuke them in public - Galatians 2:11-14

God through His Catholic Church has absolute authority over my conscience
BUT
in the last resort God meant me to judge, if His hierarchy is departing from His teaching. Obedience to men has limits - Galatians 1:8-9

According to the great theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, true obedience is a balance between twin errors of defect and excess, which are disobedience and false obedience (IIaIIae, Q104,5 ad 3). Today this second error is common among Catholics who, when they follow orders to depart from Tradition, think they are being obedient.

"Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.
  • St. Thomas Aquinas,
    Doctor of the Church
  • Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104
But though we , or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema - Galatians 1:8

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.
Under all of this there is an apriori assumption that the popes are teaching error.

Do we have this from a legitimate source of authority who can defend this? The way the law of the Church works is that such an accusation must be made by a council of bishops, not by dead popes. Aside from the Pope, only a council of bishops can legitimately interpret and apply what previous popes, scripture and tradition have said.

Is there such an authoritative body that has declared these men to be leading the Church into error?

If they are leading the Church into error, is their election valid?

Even if their election was valid when they came to office, does it continue to be valid?

Is Benedict XVI still a pope or has he forfeited this office?

JR 🙂
 
Here, let me throw out a few quotes for you:

WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD…RATHER THAN MEN. Acts 5:29

And there is no reason why those who obey God rather than men should be accused of refusing obedience; for if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, these rulers exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice, nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null. - Leo XIII, “Diuturnum Illud”

Lawful superiors are to be respected as the representatives of Christ
BUT
if they depart gravely from the Catholic Faith, I may even rebuke them in public - Galatians 2:11-14

God through His Catholic Church has absolute authority over my conscience
BUT
in the last resort God meant me to judge, if His hierarchy is departing from His teaching. Obedience to men has limits - Galatians 1:8-9

According to the great theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, true obedience is a balance between twin errors of defect and excess, which are disobedience and false obedience (IIaIIae, Q104,5 ad 3). Today this second error is common among Catholics who, when they follow orders to depart from Tradition, think they are being obedient.

"Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.
  • St. Thomas Aquinas,
    Doctor of the Church
  • Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104
But though we , or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema - Galatians 1:8

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.
And all this being done with the greatest of charity and humility, I am assuming. Thanks be to God.
 
Vatican II was a *“pastoral” *council and did not intend to define dogma or to condemn errors.
sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2003_January/errors_of_vatican_II.htm
You have already given me that document, and I did not use the argument of the Council being Pastoral verses Dogmatic. What I said is that the Council is valid, which not even this document addresses. The document hinges on the idea that the Council is invalid due to it not being dogmatic and therefore possibly in error. That argument would work, if not for the fact that an Ecumenical Council by its nature is guided by the Holy Spirit, dating back to the First Council of Jerusalem. The main drive of the article is based on faulty logic that does not follow. It would be if I said “Night time is dark. The devil is the prince of darkness. Night time is a product of the devil.” This logic requires you to believe that there is a connection with the darkness of night and the evil that the devil causes, but is contradicted by Genesis calling the night good. If the Council Fathers and the Pope called it good and asked for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, how can we think any different?
 
I have done all of this reading and studying at many levels, but I don’t see the evil in these men. I’m referring to John XXIII, Paul VI, John Pau I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI…

…We should be proud. While others are saying that they are the be all and end all, our popes have the humility to say, that others are part of us, even if imperfectly united to us. Why other faiths deny any relationship with non members, our holy fathers, remind the world of our eternal brotherhood, because we are sons of the same Father. As long as we share the same Father, we are at the very least, spiritually connected to the Church outside of which there is no salvation. This connection, even if it’s faint, extends the mantle of the Church over those who have not yet come to the fullness of truth.

This is mercy, this is love, this is the work of Christ. This is the work of Peter taking care of Christ’s sheep. I for one am proud that we have such holy fathers.

JR 🙂
Have you forgotten the very words of Our Lord?
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

What are you proud of? That the conciliar popes have said there is salvation in other faiths? If that is true, then why did Our Lord die an ignominious death upon the wood of the Holy Cross for the salvation of souls? They are denying, in their puffed up modernist minds, the words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. The pope may only teach that which is grounded in DOGMA. He may NOT decide to teach a modern and liberal understanding of salvation of souls which is derived from the very bowels of a weak and sickly sweet nature that holds “political correctness” as its god.
 
We should be proud. While others are saying that they are the be all and end all, our popes have the humility to say, that others are part of us, even if imperfectly united to us. Why other faiths deny any relationship with non members, our holy fathers, remind the world of our eternal brotherhood, because we are sons of the same Father. As long as we share the same Father, we are at the very least, spiritually connected to the Church outside of which there is no salvation. This connection, even if it’s faint, extends the mantle of the Church over those who have not yet come to the fullness of truth.

This is mercy, this is love, this is the work of Christ. This is the work of Peter taking care of Christ’s sheep. I for one am proud that we have such holy fathers.
JR 🙂
Agreed!

Proud and humbled at the same time, to be able to see and understand these truths.

Thank you for this post.
 
Have you forgotten the very words of Our Lord?
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

What are you proud of? That the conciliar popes have said there is salvation in other faiths? If that is true, then why did Our Lord die an ignominious death upon the wood of the Holy Cross for the salvation of souls? They are denying, in their puffed up modernist minds, the words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. The pope may only teach that which is grounded in DOGMA. He may NOT decide to teach a modern and liberal understanding of salvation of souls which is derived from the very bowels of a weak and sickly sweet nature that holds “political correctness” as its god.
But the Lord also said to Peter “you are Rock and on this Rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail.” But, if Hell has prevailed, then once again the Lord lied to us. Now never in my life time, or in anything that I’ve read has any Pope ever taught that there is salvation in other faiths. There is NO salvation outside of the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top