Question for the Sedevacantist

[JKirkLVNV]

Does that surprise you? Remember, as Cardinal Ratzinger he went along with John Paul II who issued a dissembling and misleading “Indult” for a Mass that had never been forbidden, thereby confirming the dissembling and misleading impression that arose under the Pontificate of Paul VI with respect to the Old Mass. Both Cardinal Ratzinger and John Paul II knew full well that the old Mass had never been forbidden, yet the dissembling and misleading “Indult” was issued anyway.

Isn’t the formal issing of an Indult for a Mass that was never forbidden more misleading than allowing an ambiguous letter to be used as an introduction to a book that you personally don’t agree with?

After all, one is a formal act of the Papal office, while the other is simply a personal letter being included as the intro to a book.

In your opinion, which is worse?

I reject your premise that it was dissembling and misleading for Pope John Paul II to establish the indult. You have apparently already judged the old Holy Father, but I would submit that it was rather more of hope on his part that the bishops would come around around in charity rather than because it was taken out of their hands.

Also, we’re not talking about an polite, but ambiguous letter, like the Cardinal sent to the lady in Germany who objected to Harry Potter (which people then took to mean that at least Cardinal Ratzinger and maybe the Holy Office frowned on children reading the books). We’re talking about a sitting pope’s interactions and relationship with his Cardinal Secretary of State, a man that he himself appointed.

Further, in these conversations about the Pope, about Archbishop Bugnini and other hierarchs, don’t we have an obligation to observe what the Catechism teaches:

“2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.”

You and I have no idea as to the old Holy Father’s motive in the indult , just like we have no idea whether Buggsy was a mason or not. What answer will we give in the day of judgment if we’re charged with the sin of calumny?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I reject your premise that it was dissembling and misleading for Pope John Paul II to establish the indult.

An indult is special permission to do that which is contrary to the law. I am not judging his motives (which may have been good), all I am saying is that issuing an indult for something that was already allowed, is, you must admit, misleading and served to confirm those who were in error, in their error.

You have apparently already judged the old Holy Father, but I would submit that it was rather more of hope on his part that the bishops would come around around in charity rather than because it was taken out of their hands.

Again, I am not judging the intent of John Paul II. He may have had a good intention for issiung the misleading indult. As you said, maybe he hoped that the Bishops would come around. It didn’t happen, but maybe he hoped that it would.

Also, we’re not talking about an polite, but ambiguous letter …We’re talking about a sitting pope’s interactions and relationship with his Cardinal Secretary of State, a man that he himself appointed.

“We’re are not talking about … a … Pope’s interactions … with his Cardinal Secretary of State, a man that he himself appointed”, we are talking about an official act of John Paul II’s Pontificate: A Motu Proprio granting an Indult for something that many had been deceived into believing was forbidden, but which he himself knew was not.

Further, in these conversations about the Pope, about Archbishop Bugnini and other hierarchs, don’t we have an obligation to observe what the Catechism teaches:

“2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.”

I agree completely.

You and I have no idea as to the old Holy Father’s motive in the indult

I have never judged John Paul II’s motive for granting the objectively misleading indult which served to confirm the error that virtually all of the hierarchy was entangled in.

just like we have no idea whether Buggsy was a mason or not. What answer will we give in the day of judgment if we’re charged with the sin of calumny?

Good point. If you or I have ever committed calumny against Archbishop Lefebvre or Fr. Gruner, what will answer will we give on judgment day if it turns out they were right?

And I don’t know if Buggsy was a Mason or not, but, according to Buggsy himself, Paul VI was presented with a dosier that “prooved” that Bugsi Bugnini was a Freemason, which is why he was immediately removed from his position.

You and I may not know for sure if Buggsy was a Freemason, but it seems that Paul VI had no doubts - and he is the one that saw the evidence!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Good point. If you or I have ever committed calumny against Archbishop Lefebvre or Fr. Gruner, what will answer will we give on judgment day if it turns out they were right?

And I don’t know if Buggsy was a Mason or not, but, according to Buggsy himself, Paul VI was presented with a dosier that “prooved” that Bugsi Bugnini was a Freemason, which is why he was immediately removed from his position.

You and I may not know for sure if Buggsy was a Freemason, but it seems that Paul VI had no doubts - and he is the one that saw the evidence!

Not necessarily. He may have done so simply to bring the matter to a close. It has not been established in FACT that the Archbishop was a Mason.

And as to chairity, that’s why I try to stick to the objective. Objectively, all we can say is that the Archbishop and the other bishops were excommunicated, the priests are suspended ad divinis, and the laity are warned against the sin of schism by participation in their activities. Objectively, Fr. Gruner’s status with the Church is that he is suspended and his apostolate does not have the sanction of the legitimate authority of the Church.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

And I don’t know if Buggsy was a Mason or not, but, according to Buggsy himself, Paul VI was presented with a dosier that “prooved” that Bugsi Bugnini was a Freemason, which is why he was immediately removed from his position.

You and I may not know for sure if Buggsy was a Freemason, but it seems that Paul VI had no doubts - and he is the one that saw the evidence!

This of course is logical and goes without mention.

 

[latinmasslover]

Cardinal Bertone’s book refuting the allegations of Antonio Socci has as its introduction a preface by Pope Benedict XVI. So, it again boils down to the question: who are we to believe?

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=82379

The truth.

How do we determine? Which statements are in fact Catholic, and which are a bunch of mumbo-jumbo hind-end kissing half-truths? Obviously, the Catholic statements. For Cardinal Bertone or any of the other bishops to reveal the Third Secret in it’s entirety would cause a panic, as Cardinal Ratzinger said. The Third Secret refers to the Apostasy, as has been stated by those who read it, resulting from the bad doctrine of false shepherds.

The Sedevacantists are fighting a very real problem, but with the wrong solution. We’ve had a couple of very sick, twisted popes, yet they’re still valid popes. They need to keep that in mind. Not to mention, they’ve corrupted the “outside the Church there is no salvation” statement.

 

[Sure]

The truth.

How do we determine? Which statements are in fact Catholic, and which are a bunch of mumbo-jumbo hind-end kissing half-truths? Obviously, the Catholic statements. For Cardinal Bertone or any of the other bishops to reveal the Third Secret in it’s entirety would cause a panic, as Cardinal Ratzinger said. The Third Secret refers to the Apostasy, as has been stated by those who read it, resulting from the bad doctrine of false shepherds.

The Sedevacantists are fighting a very real problem, but with the wrong solution. We’ve had a couple of very sick, twisted popes, yet they’re still valid popes. They need to keep that in mind. Not to mention, they’ve corrupted the “outside the Church there is no salvation” statement.

But didn’t Cardinal Ratzinger say that the Third Secret was revealed in it’s entirety?

 

[latinmasslover]

Further, in these conversations about the Pope, about Archbishop Bugnini and other hierarchs, don’t we have an obligation to observe what the Catechism teaches:

“2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.”

…What answer will we give in the day of judgment if we’re charged with the sin of calumny?

What will we answer if we’re wrong? In the spirit of Vatican II it doesn’t matter because we’re sincere. What will some answer on Judgment Day if they’re wrong because they ignored the facts? “We were just following orders.” Sound familiar. Sorry, that doesn’t cut it. God gave us all a brain to use, and being a priest or bishop doesn’t make you wiser than the laity, especially these days when anyone is ordained.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

But didn’t Cardinal Ratzinger say that the Third Secret was revealed in it’s entirety?

Socci has concluded that they are using a mental reservation. Either they are considering the “attachment” (the rest of the Third Secret) to be a continuation of the Second secret and thus part of the Second secret; or they believe that Sister Lucy just made it up, which means it is not really part of the Third Secret.

The reason they might be considering it a part of the Second Secret is because the rest of the Third Secret begins thus: “In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will alway be persrved, etc.”. In her 4th memior, Sister Lucy incuded this statement on the end of the Second secret, which is the beginning of the Third.

Since it was included immediately after the Second Secret, they might by using the mental reservation by pretending that this is actually part of the Second, and not Third Secret. By thinking along those lines, they would be able to say “The entire Third Secret has been revealed, and there is nothig more”, when in reality there is more, but they are pretending that it was part of the Second Secret.

Of course, this not-yet-released portion has always been consider part of the Third Secret, not a contunuation of the Second.

It is also very interesting to read what those who have read this not-yet-released text say that it says. This is what Cardinal Ciappi, who read the text, said about it:

Cardinal Ciappi. “In the Third Secret, it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”

Maybe this explains why those “at the top” don’t want it released.

 

[Sure]

Socci has concluded that they are using a mental reservation. Either they are considering the “attachment” (the rest of the Third Secret) to be a continuation of the Second secret and thus part of the Second secret; or they believe that Sister Lucy just made it up, which means it is not really part of the Third Secret.

The reason they might be considering it a part of the Second Secret is because the rest of the Third Secret begins thus: “In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will alway be persrved, etc.”. In her 4th memior, Sister Lucy incuded this statement on the end of the Second secret, which is the beginning of the Third.

Since it was included immediately after the Second Secret, they might by using the mental reservation by pretending that this is actually part of the Second, and not Third Secret. By thinking along those lines, they would be able to say “The entire Third Secret has been revealed, and there is nothig more”, when in reality there is more, but they are pretending that it was part of the Second Secret.

Of course, this not-yet-released portion has always been consider part of the Third Secret, not a contunuation of the Second.

It is also very interesting to read what those who have read this not-yet-released text say that it says. This is what Cardinal Ciappi, who read the text, said about it:

Cardinal Ciappi. “In the Third Secret, it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”

Maybe this explains why those “at the top” don’t want it released.

Or, on the other hand, maybe Cardinal Ratzinger means what he says when he says it has been published in it’s “entirety.”

I vote for that one. Of course, if you want to believe in conspiracies and the Pope making crafty "mental reservations, you are free to do so.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Or, on the other hand, maybe Cardinal Ratzinger means what he says when he says it has been published in it’s “entirety.”

I vote for that one. Of course, if you want to believe in conspiracies and the Pope making crafty "mental reservations, you are free to do so.

Have you looked at the evidence? Socci believed exactly as you believe. He entered into a debate with another well known media figure in Italy over this very point. After seeing the evidence presented by the other party, he realized that there was more to the story than he suspected. After reviewing all of the evidence, he completely reversed his position.

Some people have been conditioned to reject anything that they deem a conspiracy, without even looking into the evidence. Others are willing to look at both sides.

 

[latinmasslover]

Or, on the other hand, maybe Cardinal Ratzinger means what he says when he says it has been published in it’s “entirety.”

I vote for that one. Of course, if you want to believe in conspiracies and the Pope making crafty "mental reservations, you are free to do so.

And you certainly have the freedom to reject the truth for the sake of blind obedience. Jesus does not condone hardening your heart to the truth. The facts are all there.

 

[Sure]

And you certainly have the freedom to reject the truth for the sake of blind obedience. Jesus does not condone hardening your heart to the truth. The facts are all there.

I respect your opinion, though I disagree with it. Perhaps you could return to me the same courtesy and refrain from saying that I am “rejecting the truth” or being “blindly obedient.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And you certainly have the freedom to reject the truth for the sake of blind obedience. Jesus does not condone hardening your heart to the truth. The facts are all there.

On the contrary, the facts are very MUCH in dispute.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

We’ve had a couple of very sick, twisted popes, yet they’re still valid popes.

We’ve had a couple of very heroic popes, one of which will undoubtedly be declared a saint someday, if the prayers of most of the faithful, at the urging of his successor, bear fruit. The papacy is probably the heaviest cross there is to carry save One. May God forgive you for this slander and calumny. May He have mercy on you.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

What will we answer if we’re wrong? In the spirit of Vatican II…,… and being a priest or bishop doesn’t make you wiser than the laity, especially these days when anyone is ordained.

A truism that modernists have failed to perceive. This truth has, in many cases, been revealed by modernist priests themselves.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Of course, this not-yet-released portion has always been consider part of the Third Secret, not a contunuation of the Second.

It is also very interesting to read what those who have read this not-yet-released text say that it says. This is what Cardinal Ciappi, who read the text, said about it:

Cardinal Ciappi. “In the Third Secret, it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”

Maybe this explains why those “at the top” don’t want it released.

**Of course, again logically if Apostasy begins at the top, it follows that those at the top would not want it released. The facts are present, whether an individual wants to believe them is another unfortunate dilemma entirely. **

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed.