K
kellie
Guest
Can someone please tell me why some people don’t believe the Pope should be in the Seat of Peter?
Love Kellie
Love Kellie
- Status
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
There’s several different theories:
- A heretic can never be pope. Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) was a heretic; therefore, he was never pope. Ditto for Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II.
- Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) was a freemason; and by the old canon law, freemasons are automatically excommunicated. Therefore, he was never pope.
- Pope Paul VI was kidnapped, and replaced by a double. We know this latter-Paul VI is a double because if we compare photographs taken at the beginning, and then end, of the Pope’s pontificate, we find that the dimensions of one of his ears is radically different; since Paul VI’s abduction, the See has been vacant, occupied by communists/Modernists/freemasons, et al.
S
Smack_Daddy
Guest
Sedevacantists have their own personal beliefs as to how the Church should be governed, how the faith should be promulgated, what songs, prayers, etc… should be sung, prayed and so on. Since Pope John Paul II doesn’t govern, promulgate the faith, sing and pray in accordance with their person beliefs, they believe he’s a heretic.
The best thing to do is just ignore their sophisticated arguments, and trust Jesus. He said the gates of hell would not prevail again the Church, and I take him at his world.
K
kellie
Guest
Can you please elaborate? Im sorry, I don’t know the order of the Popes, but I am presuming the above is the succession. So if one Pope is a heretic, the rest that follow aren’t correct successors? Is that due to who voted for the next Pope when one dies? Sorry, I don’t know the procedure for electing a new Pope.
So how did he get voted to be Pope?
Is this serious ?
Thanks so much for replying, I see this argument a lot on this forum, and I get so lostAt least these are the theories I’ve heard. And I note them with a straight face.
Love Kellie
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
No, that does not follow. This argument holds that all the post-Pius XII Popes are heretics, even the present one, and so they can’t be true popes.
Because a) the Cardinals are all, or mostly all, heretics and freemasons, or b) John XXIII was a secret freemason.
Supposedly.
Just so you know, traditional Catholic teaching is that a pope can be a heretic, even publicly. But his charism of infallibility will prevent him from forcing the Church to adopt heresy. His heresy would just be his opinion.
K
kellie
Guest
Why are post-Pius XII Popes considered heretic?
K
kellie
Guest
DominvsVobiscvm said:
This quote is on that web site …
“Many Catholics do not realize that the “mass” they attend is a modernistic, protestantized fabrication by a committee that was headed by a bishop who was most likely a Freemason, and whose intention it was to delete everything from the True Catholic Mass that could offend Protestant (and Jewish) sensibilities.”
It is my understanding that to become a bishop of high power as to influence the Vatican, you must be a priest for a long time, do your service, and be promoted.
How could this bishop in question be a Freemason, and keep up his Catholic Priesthood duties to the large extent that it takes to become so influential?
This web site also says …
“Supposedly, all the changes made in the name of Vatican II would make the Mass more understandable. In fact, however, fewer people today truly understand what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is, or have a completely different notion of what the Mass is about. And this seems to me the real problem – the Mass suffered significant changes that made it seem something different from what it really is.”
Well, I was born in 1970, and have only ever attended the Novus Ordo Mass. I fully understand the Holy Sacrifice. I fully see the link between the Sacrifice Jesus made, and how we celebrate that today. Jesus told us to “Do this in memory of Him”, and we do. His Body and Blood are shared for our salvation.
I won’t go in to it all, but how can they say that fewer people today understand the true sacrifice?
Understanding the true sacrifice and celebrating it, are 2 different things, but are 1, if that makes sense.
Just because I celebrate my birthday by eating 2 hamburgers, and my neighbour celebrates his birthday by eating 3, well, that doesnt mean we dont understand the true meaning of our birthday.
(sorry - hamburgers was the only analogy that came to mind, I’m hungry)
This can be said for the Celebration of Mass.
As long as we don’t argue with the Vatican, and have FAith in the Infallibility of the Pope.
Many of us may like the Tridentine Mass, but that isn’t how our Popes want it anymore, and I am happy with accepting that.
Peace to all
Love Kellie
P
plakamhil
Guest
Luke 19:7
Quote:
“….they all complained, saying ‘He has gone to be a guest with a man who is a sinner’.”
That’s why
M
mrS4ntA
Guest
from the website:
Can anyone respond to that? any references I can read?
K
kellie
Guest
mrS4ntA, that passage confused me big time
I hope someone can explain it
Love Kellie
I hope someone can explain it
Love Kellie
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
If we have Cardinals and even a Pope that was a Freemason, that’s pretty bad. The 18th degree of freemasonry is about as anti-catholic as you can get and once you get into the high twenties or low thirties, it is revealed that they are actually worshiping Satan …
… see The Virgin Mary’s War against Freemasonry: The Third Secret of Fatima Revealed.
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/pics/cabletow.jpg
M
mrS4ntA
Guest
So did it too to me! and I’m hoping the same thing…mrS4ntA, that passage confused me big time
I hope someone can explain it
Love Kellie
M
mrS4ntA
Guest
Umm… might I ask what “freemasonry” is?
J
jordan
Guest
Originally Posted by kellie
*mrS4ntA, that passage confused me big time *
mrS4ntA:
The sedevacantist position and the issue of the word “subsists” are discussed at length by sedevacantist “JLC,” and catholic/orthodox “theMutant.” I believe the sedevacant argument is less than weak, but I fear many of these have simply hardened their hearts.
The fundamental infallible teachings of the church have not, cannot, and will not change - although they can develop and be clarified. The sedevacantists seem disaffected with liturgical changes (can’t say I blame them) and are grasping at straws to justify their disobedience. They misinterpret authoritative teachings, and muddy the waters with questionable non-authoritative quotes often taken out of context from all kinds of sources from the Bible, Popes, saints, canon law, etc. Whatever they think might help their position.
In the long run it would help them, and the Church, if they would stop using terms like heresy and heretic in regard to anything post-Vatican II, and Popes from John XXIII to JP II. They have cut themselves off from the living Church, which makes them a sect. These people need to understand that the “new” mass is valid, and represents the same sacrifice as the “old” mass. The “old” mass has never ceased to be valid, although access to it has been, and is, most regretably difficult. JP II has asked the Bishops to make this mass (according to the 1962 Missal) available to those who are “attached to it.” This has been done in many dioceses (referred to as an “indult” mass). There is also an order of priests, not in schism mind you, who are authorized to say it. They have a seminary in the US, and are a growing order. Here’s their website if you’re interested:
fssp.com/
A group called “Una Voce” is dedicated to restoration of the “old” mass. They are very loyal to the Bishop of Rome, and seek to expand the “indult” masses.
unavoce.org/
Here’s something Karl Keating wrote that summarizes the Freemason thing:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CAMASON1.HTM
Hope you get your answers.
*mrS4ntA, that passage confused me big time *
I hate to do this to you, but… there’s a thread that is currently six pages in this forum with the Subj: “Would I be welcome here if…”
The sedevacantist position and the issue of the word “subsists” are discussed at length by sedevacantist “JLC,” and catholic/orthodox “theMutant.” I believe the sedevacant argument is less than weak, but I fear many of these have simply hardened their hearts.
The fundamental infallible teachings of the church have not, cannot, and will not change - although they can develop and be clarified. The sedevacantists seem disaffected with liturgical changes (can’t say I blame them) and are grasping at straws to justify their disobedience. They misinterpret authoritative teachings, and muddy the waters with questionable non-authoritative quotes often taken out of context from all kinds of sources from the Bible, Popes, saints, canon law, etc. Whatever they think might help their position.
In the long run it would help them, and the Church, if they would stop using terms like heresy and heretic in regard to anything post-Vatican II, and Popes from John XXIII to JP II. They have cut themselves off from the living Church, which makes them a sect. These people need to understand that the “new” mass is valid, and represents the same sacrifice as the “old” mass. The “old” mass has never ceased to be valid, although access to it has been, and is, most regretably difficult. JP II has asked the Bishops to make this mass (according to the 1962 Missal) available to those who are “attached to it.” This has been done in many dioceses (referred to as an “indult” mass). There is also an order of priests, not in schism mind you, who are authorized to say it. They have a seminary in the US, and are a growing order. Here’s their website if you’re interested:
fssp.com/
A group called “Una Voce” is dedicated to restoration of the “old” mass. They are very loyal to the Bishop of Rome, and seek to expand the “indult” masses.
unavoce.org/
Here’s something Karl Keating wrote that summarizes the Freemason thing:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CAMASON1.HTM
Hope you get your answers.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Bless yourself with some holy water, have a rosary near by and go here (the site exposes the truth about freemasonary and is NOT associated with them – as a matter of fact, the freemasons have tried a number of times to shut these type of sites down) and be sure to follow ALL of the links (and they’ve got hundreds of links). After reading a quarter of the site (or less), it’ll start giving you the chills as a Catholic.
M
mrS4ntA
Guest
Sir Knight:
a Satanic cult? couldn’t keep going after halfway through pg 2! wonder why I’ve never heard of it before…
OMG!!
a Satanic cult? couldn’t keep going after halfway through pg 2! wonder why I’ve never heard of it before…
J
Joe_Omlor
Guest
Has anyone posted this yet?
Joe
**Have I “Rejected the Authority of the Pope”?
**A Letter to The Remnant
By Father Anthony Cekada part one
In his column in an April 1992 *Remnant, *Michael Davies reprinted a favorable review of my recent study, *The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass *(Rockford IL: TAN Books 1991). The editor of *The Remnant, *Walter Matt, appended his own commentary to the review, and stated that I have “apparently rejected the authority of the Pope.” In a subsequent issue, Mr. Matt printed a letter to the editor attacking me on the same grounds.
The charge is utterly false and unfairly portrays me as a schismatic. The following is a letter I sent to *The Remnant *shortly after the first article appeared. After two letters and a phone call from me inquiring why this letter never appeared, *The Remnant *finally published it in late 1992.
May 25,1992
The Remnant
Attn. “The Remnant Speaks”
2539 Morrison Avenue
St. Paul MN 55117
Editor, The Remnant:
I commend Walter Matt and Michael Davies for their objectivity in printing a review of my study, *The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass. *(The Remnant, April 31, 1992.) We have indeed often disagreed over the source of the problem in the post-Conciliar Church and over the solutions to be applied. Some of my past writings dealing with Mr. Matt and Mr. Davies, moreover, wandered off into personal attacks instead of coolly sticking to issues. Age makes one a bit wiser, and I apologize for any offense.
I must write, however, in order to correct Mr. Matt’s unfortunate statement that “sedevacantists” - he lumps me among them - have “apparently rejected the authority of the Pope.” I fear Mr. Matt has misunderstood something.
All traditional Catholics know the disastrous effects the changes produced. We resisted those changes as harmful to souls, even though they were approved with what purported to be the authority of the Church. All of us have grappled with the problem of how to reconcile the doctrine of the indefectibility of the one, true Church of Christ and her authority on one hand, with the state of the post-Vatican II Church on the other. Traditional Catholics have offered various solutions. Some (including *The Remnant *and Mr. Davies, I assume) base their resistance to the changes on the notion that individual members of the post-Conciliar hierarchy are abusing their authority. Others (sedevacantists) contend that men who have defected from the faith now occupy the Holy See and all (or most) episcopal sees, and that all such sees at present are therefore juridically vacant - or that there is at least a doubt present as to whether the current occupants of these sees obtained or retain juridical authority.
Joe
**Have I “Rejected the Authority of the Pope”?
**A Letter to The Remnant
By Father Anthony Cekada part one
In his column in an April 1992 *Remnant, *Michael Davies reprinted a favorable review of my recent study, *The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass *(Rockford IL: TAN Books 1991). The editor of *The Remnant, *Walter Matt, appended his own commentary to the review, and stated that I have “apparently rejected the authority of the Pope.” In a subsequent issue, Mr. Matt printed a letter to the editor attacking me on the same grounds.
The charge is utterly false and unfairly portrays me as a schismatic. The following is a letter I sent to *The Remnant *shortly after the first article appeared. After two letters and a phone call from me inquiring why this letter never appeared, *The Remnant *finally published it in late 1992.
May 25,1992
The Remnant
Attn. “The Remnant Speaks”
2539 Morrison Avenue
St. Paul MN 55117
Editor, The Remnant:
I commend Walter Matt and Michael Davies for their objectivity in printing a review of my study, *The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass. *(The Remnant, April 31, 1992.) We have indeed often disagreed over the source of the problem in the post-Conciliar Church and over the solutions to be applied. Some of my past writings dealing with Mr. Matt and Mr. Davies, moreover, wandered off into personal attacks instead of coolly sticking to issues. Age makes one a bit wiser, and I apologize for any offense.
I must write, however, in order to correct Mr. Matt’s unfortunate statement that “sedevacantists” - he lumps me among them - have “apparently rejected the authority of the Pope.” I fear Mr. Matt has misunderstood something.
All traditional Catholics know the disastrous effects the changes produced. We resisted those changes as harmful to souls, even though they were approved with what purported to be the authority of the Church. All of us have grappled with the problem of how to reconcile the doctrine of the indefectibility of the one, true Church of Christ and her authority on one hand, with the state of the post-Vatican II Church on the other. Traditional Catholics have offered various solutions. Some (including *The Remnant *and Mr. Davies, I assume) base their resistance to the changes on the notion that individual members of the post-Conciliar hierarchy are abusing their authority. Others (sedevacantists) contend that men who have defected from the faith now occupy the Holy See and all (or most) episcopal sees, and that all such sees at present are therefore juridically vacant - or that there is at least a doubt present as to whether the current occupants of these sees obtained or retain juridical authority.
J
Joe_Omlor
Guest
**Have I “Rejected the Authority of the Pope”?
**A Letter to The Remnant
By Father Anthony Cekada
part two
The sedevacantist position - I risk oversimplifying a complex issue - flows from two considerations; one of fact, the other of law.
Now, one who opposes the sedevacantist position may care to argue that members of the modern hierarchy are not guilty of heresy, or that (pace Robert Bellarmine and commentators on the 1983 Code) a pope cannot fall from office through heresy.
It is unfair and unreasonable, however, to assert that the sedevacantist - who merely puts two entirely defensible propositions together and draws a logical conclusion from them - has “rejected the authority of the Pope.” Such is tantamount to calling the sedevacantist a schismatic. But he is no such thing, as is evident from one highly respected commentary on the Code:
"Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of Urban VI) or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church.’ (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum [Rome: Gregorian 19371, 7:398, my emphasis.)
I concede (ruefully) that members of the sedevacantist camp have frequently adopted a rabid tone against others in the traditional movement. But sedevacantists aren’t the only ones guilty of this. Their opposite numbers in the movement -partisans of positions similar to those of Mr. Davies or *The Remnant or the St. Pius X Society - have in return consistently tried to demonize the sedevacantists.
All this poisons the atmosphere and makes impossible any rational discussion of a serious and complex issue.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Recently the Rev. Donald J. Sanborn *(Catholic Restoration, *1409 W. 14 Mile, Suite 100, Madison Heights MI 48071, December 1991 and May 1992) and the Most Rev. Richard Williamson (“Letter to Friends and Benefactors,” St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, RR1 Box 97 A-1, Winona MN 55987, April 1992) crossed swords (pens, actually) over the *sede vacante *thesis. While each strongly criticized the other’s position, they both managed to do so without resorting to the nasty and irrational polemics which usually characterize such exchanges. An enlightening debate resulted.
I’m announcing, therefore, the foundation of a new school of thought for traditional Catholics who wish to debate the pope issue: “sedevacationism.” The first part is from sede - as in “Sit down.” The second part is from vacation - as in “…and take a vacation from reading out of the Church those with whom you debate.”
Anyone care to join? In Christo,
The Rev. Anthony Cekada
**A Letter to The Remnant
By Father Anthony Cekada
part two
The sedevacantist position - I risk oversimplifying a complex issue - flows from two considerations; one of fact, the other of law.
- **Fact. **Certain pronouncements of Vatican II and the post-Conciliar popes on religious liberty, ecumenism and various other doctrinal matters appear to contradict, sometimes word for word, previous Church teachings, or appear to propose as true certain teachings which the Church has condemned in the past. Those who adhere to the sedevacantist position would contend that such pronouncements represent a public defection from the Catholic faith.
- Law. According to church law, public defection from the Catholic faith automatically deprives a person of all ecclesiastical offices he may hold. Theologians and canonists such as St. Robert Bellarmine, Cajetan, Suarez, Torquemada, and Wernz and Vidal maintain, without compromising the doctrine of papal infallibility, that even a pope may himself become a heretic and thus lose the pontificate. (Some of. these authors also maintain that a pope can become a schismatic.) This possibility is recognized even by an authoritative commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon “Law”.
Now, one who opposes the sedevacantist position may care to argue that members of the modern hierarchy are not guilty of heresy, or that (pace Robert Bellarmine and commentators on the 1983 Code) a pope cannot fall from office through heresy.
It is unfair and unreasonable, however, to assert that the sedevacantist - who merely puts two entirely defensible propositions together and draws a logical conclusion from them - has “rejected the authority of the Pope.” Such is tantamount to calling the sedevacantist a schismatic. But he is no such thing, as is evident from one highly respected commentary on the Code:
"Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of Urban VI) or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church.’ (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum [Rome: Gregorian 19371, 7:398, my emphasis.)
I concede (ruefully) that members of the sedevacantist camp have frequently adopted a rabid tone against others in the traditional movement. But sedevacantists aren’t the only ones guilty of this. Their opposite numbers in the movement -partisans of positions similar to those of Mr. Davies or *The Remnant or the St. Pius X Society - have in return consistently tried to demonize the sedevacantists.
All this poisons the atmosphere and makes impossible any rational discussion of a serious and complex issue.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Recently the Rev. Donald J. Sanborn *(Catholic Restoration, *1409 W. 14 Mile, Suite 100, Madison Heights MI 48071, December 1991 and May 1992) and the Most Rev. Richard Williamson (“Letter to Friends and Benefactors,” St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, RR1 Box 97 A-1, Winona MN 55987, April 1992) crossed swords (pens, actually) over the *sede vacante *thesis. While each strongly criticized the other’s position, they both managed to do so without resorting to the nasty and irrational polemics which usually characterize such exchanges. An enlightening debate resulted.
I’m announcing, therefore, the foundation of a new school of thought for traditional Catholics who wish to debate the pope issue: “sedevacationism.” The first part is from sede - as in “Sit down.” The second part is from vacation - as in “…and take a vacation from reading out of the Church those with whom you debate.”
Anyone care to join? In Christo,
The Rev. Anthony Cekada
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
mrS4ntA, not just a satanic cult but an international organization with members all over the world. I’m sure that if you look around, you’ll see their symbol everywhere including on street signs telling you when the local lodge is having it’s monthly meeting. I’ve even seen their symbol on the back of cars in our church parking lot.OMG!!
They have 33 different levels of membership. During the early levels, you are led to believe that you are worshipping God except Jesus Christ is never mentioned by name. As you SLOWLY move up through the ranks, more & more things are GRADUALLY reveiled to you. This is done slowly because if it was done all at once, most members would reject it and leave the organization.
By the time a member gets to the 18th degree, they have been completely turned against the Catholic faith with their goal to destroy our religion. Then by the late twenties or early thirties, it is revealed that it is actually Satan that they worship.
The real scary part is that even in the very early stages, the members are exposed to satanic symbols used to worship lucifer without even knowing it.
Here, check out this cartoon. I don’t agree with the source because they are also anti-catholic but they do a very good job of explaining what the freemasons are all about and how most members aren’t even aware of it.
Getting back to the original topic of this thread … if Cardinals are freemasons (as was stated as one of the reasons why sedevacantists do not accept the Pope), there is GREAT cause for concern!
- Status