tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post5149903932541588890..comments2024-03-14T06:43:39.590+00:00Comments on LMS Chairman: Some thoughts about the Buenos Aires letterLatin Mass Societyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17951084157414901564noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-13263130322883485762017-12-12T22:54:14.901+00:002017-12-12T22:54:14.901+00:00Should be "publicly".Should be "publicly".Albrecht von Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12996637489269911349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-32559501689772421072017-12-12T22:48:29.215+00:002017-12-12T22:48:29.215+00:00Sorry, but in this case, the undoubtedly great and...Sorry, but in this case, the undoubtedly great and saintly pope was wrong. Saints make mistakes, and false obedience is one, and one that contributed mightily to the present debacle. I'll let you in on a little secret: so long as trads keep perpetrating - as clerics - and underwriting - as lay-folk, such errors, Our Lord will NOT use them to restore the church. The former rector of the SSPX seminary in Germany, Dr Paul Natterer, had something to say about all this. No-one listened to him. Now he's no longer publically ministering as a priest, a d le turing at a secular university.Albrecht von Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12996637489269911349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-61610718097205044372017-12-11T00:11:06.218+00:002017-12-11T00:11:06.218+00:00Anyone who knows Anthony Cekada---as I did once lo...Anyone who knows Anthony Cekada---as I did once long ago---will know with total certainty that the likes of him cannot be who Our Blessed Savior wishes to use for the restoration of His Church.coradcorloquiturhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125381369456761748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-44699389968727142512017-12-09T21:43:37.513+00:002017-12-09T21:43:37.513+00:00It is a ‘solemnity’ in the reformed calendar. Unde...It is a ‘solemnity’ in the reformed calendar. Under the new Code that means the rules of abstinence are lifted. In the old Code this only happened on ‘days of precept’, not so now. <br /><br />“Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.“Joseph Shawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06587987442560784792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-67231545778294666802017-12-09T13:47:24.200+00:002017-12-09T13:47:24.200+00:00Opacus, thank you for proving my point that Sedeva...Opacus, thank you for proving my point that Sedevacantism is an absurd movement since everybody gets to choose which Pope was the last one:<br /><br /> "While Fr. Cekada is well able to defend himself, nobody who accepts (4) is thereby committed to accepting his contention that there have been no popes since Pius XII. That would take extensive further argumentation. Somebody, rather, who merely accepts the argument from (1), (2), (3) and (4) might well be a short-term Novus Ordo Sedevacantist or a very-long-term Orthodox Sedevacantist and be entirely untroubled by your straw man."Konstantinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13701303189143549671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-16902496309162061442017-12-09T08:09:48.836+00:002017-12-09T08:09:48.836+00:00Dr Shaw. Can I ask why you declared yesterday on T...Dr Shaw. Can I ask why you declared yesterday on Twitter: "No abstaining today"? This was correct for countries where the Feast of the Immaculate Conception is an Holy Day of Obligation, but not for England and Wales, where it is not. sedelondonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13282326776240751174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-53598965074580129502017-12-08T13:37:54.280+00:002017-12-08T13:37:54.280+00:00Pope Benedict XVI's resignation was NOT valid ...Pope Benedict XVI's resignation was NOT valid as it was obtained by coercion, per Canon Law. The Vatican ATM's had been turned off...and were turned back on the day after Pope Benedict's invalid resignation. The blackmail used against Pope Benedict XVI was not personal...it was blackmail against the Catholic Church. Either, way blackmail causes his resignation to be invalid. Furthermore, the St. Gallen Group practically admitted to ousting Pope Benedict and canvassing for votes for Bergoglio which is an excommunication offense...so Bergoglio's election was not valid, either. Francis' directive to allow public adulterers to receive Holy Communion is another anti-Catholic directive...more evidence that Francis is not Catholic. That evidence adds to the many non-Catholic statements Francis has promulgated, such as "Evangelisation is solemn nonsense" and his assertion that Jesus Christ sinned when he was in the Temple in Jerusalem for three days. And more. It is high time for Catholics to realize Francis is an anti-pope and the False Prophet of Revelations.Patsyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18364965068091100768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-37709763700838833712017-12-07T19:04:30.324+00:002017-12-07T19:04:30.324+00:00"I saw a great power rise up against the Chur...<i>"I saw a great power rise up against the Church. It plundered, devastated, and threw into confusion and disorder the vine of the Lord, having it trampled underfoot by the people and holding it up to ridicule by all nations. <b>Having vilified celibacy and oppressed the priesthood, it had the effrontery to confiscate the Church's property and to arrogate to itself the powers of the Holy Father, whose person and whose laws it held in contempt.</b>”</i><br /><br />- Jeanne le Royer (Sister of the Nativity), born in 1731 and became a nun in 1755. | Catholic Prophecy by Yves Dupontthewarourtime.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978929245986924620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-73960379099946900632017-12-07T19:00:37.116+00:002017-12-07T19:00:37.116+00:00If what everything a pope does [cf. past non-exemp...If what everything a pope does [cf. past non-exemplary popes] or says [cf. e.g. current pope], the faithful are to blindly follow, there would have been no need for the LORD to reply to St. Peter, the first Pope, as follows:<br /><br /><b>The Faithful or the Unfaithful Slave</b> - Lk 12:41-48 (RSVCE) - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12%3A41-48&version=RSVCE<br /><br /><i>41 Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” 42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. 44 Truly, I tell you, he will set him over all his possessions. 45 But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish[f] him, and put him with the unfaithful. 47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. 48 But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.</i><br /><br />***<br /><br />It is clear that not only is Pope Francis NOT feeding the faithful nor confirming his brethren in the Faith [his basic job description from the LORD], he is giving them poison. God have mercy on him.thewarourtime.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978929245986924620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-73888494890191410082017-12-07T17:33:34.181+00:002017-12-07T17:33:34.181+00:00By the way, the Rorate Caeli blog author commented...By the way, the Rorate Caeli blog author commented: "... the Pope summoned all the Church to understand what love for the Pope, any Pope, the one who holds the Keys, truly entails: a hard message that, exactly one century later, must be heard and obeyed by the clergy and by the lay faithful." Is Rorate Caeli an 'Ultramontanist' blog?<br />sedelondonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13282326776240751174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-43990890487600684912017-12-07T17:30:09.133+00:002017-12-07T17:30:09.133+00:00Here's an extremely apposite quote from a genu...Here's an extremely apposite quote from a genuine Pope and a genuine Saint, Pius X:"when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope." Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912 (Quoted on Rorate Caeli blog) So, Dr Shaw, was St Pius X guilty of spreading 'insane ultramontanism' or 'papolatry'?sedelondonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13282326776240751174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-41859443125730579052017-12-07T15:24:20.669+00:002017-12-07T15:24:20.669+00:00For those who think that AL is all hunky-dory and ...For those who think that AL is all hunky-dory and that it definitely and validly gives approval under certain circumstances, to those (etc, etc) to receive Communion do they claim any official guidance as to what exactly those circumstances are? Or are they claiming that their interpretation of the circumstances is the only one acceptable?Highland Cathedralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07519428794618769856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-76051279039278579932017-12-07T14:18:49.338+00:002017-12-07T14:18:49.338+00:00"Bergoglio not being Pope does not necessitat..."Bergoglio not being Pope does not necessitate that all the other bishops are not bishops."<br /><br />If you do not accept the new rites of ordination and episcopal consecration, it does.Athelstanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346012062816580296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-9178763554088714942017-12-07T09:38:12.526+00:002017-12-07T09:38:12.526+00:00One would think that authentic magisterium is exer...One would think that authentic magisterium is exercised when and only when a genuine authority genuinely invokes that authority. If that is so, then to deny that authentic magisterium has been exercised in the current case one will need to deny either that the purported authority is genuinely such or the invocation genuinely occurred. Yet unless one is prepared to establish that the reporting of 'Acta Apostolicae Sedis' is in some way 'fake news' the prospects for showing that the invocation did not genuinely occur seem pretty dim. The prospects for showing, on the other hand, that 'the Pope is not the Pope' seem much better when rephrased as the more accurate contention that the supposed pope is actually an antipope due to public heresy. The possibilities of antipopes and the loss of office due to public heresy are well established in Catholic theology and so should not be beyond the bounds of consideration despite the editorial policies of the likes of Church Militant or Fr. Hunwicke to the contrary! The difficulties derive from it never having been clearly spelled out exactly how public heresy is to be established in the case of a suspected antipope. Many who would otherwise embrace the possibility in the present case seem unable to do so in the absence of some kind of legal declaration with some sort of canonical authority. What legal authority may not be able to supply, however, logical authority may more than make up for. An antipope may be known to be such in the first instance by logical deduction rather than legal declaration. And if one cannot trust the laws of logical deduction then no other authority can be trusted either since to trust an authority involves being able to deduce that what he says is true merely from his having said it while invoking his authority to say it.Opacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11669937390170566846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-15233717408618476202017-12-07T04:00:40.437+00:002017-12-07T04:00:40.437+00:00PS I am not one of those who say the Pope is not t...PS I am not one of those who say the Pope is not the Pope. Nevertheless, to me, there is overwhelming evidence that the papacy has been usurped by the enemies of the Church. Cf. <i>The Pope is a Mason?</i> – https://goo.gl/fY85SZthewarourtime.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978929245986924620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-63318477980717465172017-12-07T03:48:29.345+00:002017-12-07T03:48:29.345+00:00@Joseph Shaw: claiming something doesn't make ...@Joseph Shaw: claiming something doesn't make it so. He has claimed it is <i>authentic magisterium</i>, labeled it as such, but is it? It is his magisterium [= teaching], but it is neither authentic nor the Church's.<br /><br />***<br /><br />Examples from <i>Amoris Laetitia</i>:<br /><br />1) How can it be authentic magisterium when it omits the <i>FC, 84</i>, the magisterium of Pope St. John Paul II<br /><br />2) How can it be authentic magisterium when it corrupts a Council document? <i><b>"Footnote 329 of AL also presents another surreptitious corruption. It cites a passage of Gaudium et Spes 51, concerning the intimacy of married life. But by an undetected sleight of hand it is placed in the mouth of the divorced and remarried instead. Such corruptions surely indicate that references and footnotes, which in this document are made to do some heavy lifting, need to be properly verified."</b></i> - Dr. Anna M. Silvas<br /><br />And finally, how can it be authentic when it contradicts the Teaching of the LORD himself and that of his Apostle to the Gentiles?thewarourtime.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978929245986924620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-84690865759944262452017-12-06T19:56:03.512+00:002017-12-06T19:56:03.512+00:00Canon 752: 'Can. 752 Although not an assent of...Canon 752: 'Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.'<br /><br />Well, that's just the question, isn't it? Is this an exercise of the authentic magisterium. What we all know, and is not denied by Pope Francis, is that the authentic magistrium has been exercised in the past in a certain way on the pertient matters. Since I am bound to beleive that, I can't be bound to believe something which contradicts it. <br /><br />In this situation it seems simpler to deny that this is an act of the authentic magisterium (at least, with the meaning such that it contradicts the earlier teaching), than to deny that the Pope is the Pope.Joseph Shawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06587987442560784792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-47079079975292761812017-12-06T19:51:38.137+00:002017-12-06T19:51:38.137+00:00Why is this so difficult to grasp? It is Pope Fran...Why is this so difficult to grasp? It is Pope Francis' magisterial act and NOT the Church's Magisterial act.<br /><br />***<br /><br />Cf. #AmorisLaetitia: Finally the Vatican Enters the Modern World into the Digital Age with a New Genre of Papal Documents - https://goo.gl/HVSriNthewarourtime.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978929245986924620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-84622286715309748852017-12-06T19:28:36.635+00:002017-12-06T19:28:36.635+00:00Konstantin, what Sedevacantism has to offer is tha...Konstantin, what Sedevacantism has to offer is that it correctly says that the following is a valid argument:<br /><br />(1) If anyone is a genuine pope and has invoked papal authority for a teaching then a Catholic is bound to submit to it,<br /><br />(2) No Catholic is obliged to submit to the teaching of Amoris Laetitia on admission to Holy Communion for those in a state of objective grave sin,<br /><br />(3) Jorge Bergoglio has invoked papal authority for that teaching of Amoris Laetitia,<br /><br />(4) So Jorge Bergoglio is not a genuine pope.<br /><br />One can only dissent from (4) by denying at least one of (1), (2) and (3). To his credit Dr. Shaw has gone for the jugular and denied (1). According to him a rational Catholic, given the choice of believing either that Jorge Bergoglio is a genuine pope or that we are bound to submit to papal teachings for which papal authority has been invoked, but not both, is bound to plump for the former and not the latter. What is more, he thinks that this is traditional Catholicism despite the tradition behind Canon 752 and various past papal statements to the same effect. Indeed, only an insane Ultramontanist would think otherwise! I must say that is news to me! Anyway, if you want to disagree with (4) you also have to say which of (1), (2) and (3) is or are wrong. You cannot avoid this issue by lumping together all the theological opinions of those various parties who describe themselves as 'Sedevacantists' and exclaiming 'how is it possible to believe all that?'. You have merely constructed a straw man. While Fr. Cekada is well able to defend himself, nobody who accepts (4) is thereby committed to accepting his contention that there have been no popes since Pius XII. That would take extensive further argumentation. Somebody, rather, who merely accepts the argument from (1), (2), (3) and (4) might well be a short-term Novus Ordo Sedevacantist or a very-long-term Orthodox Sedevacantist and be entirely untroubled by your straw man. So at the moment you are attempting merely to throw dust in everyone's eyes and ignore the point at issue. Please tell us instead, as Dr. Shaw has, which of (1), (2) and (3) you reject so that you can deny (4).Opacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11669937390170566846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-43725554058673807942017-12-06T18:08:00.252+00:002017-12-06T18:08:00.252+00:00Bergoglio not being Pope does not necessitate that...Bergoglio not being Pope does not necessitate that all the other bishops are not bishops. They retain their authority as long as they do not follow him into heresy. The problems that arise from classical (post-VII) sedevacantism are due to its ascribing formal heresy to VII itself, resulting in the apostasy not just of the Pope, but of all the cardinals and bishops with him. Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-17356587331897621242017-12-06T18:02:43.332+00:002017-12-06T18:02:43.332+00:00Sean W.,
Sorry I was using the term ex cathedra i...Sean W., <br />Sorry I was using the term <i>ex cathedra</i> in a loose sense to mean whatever the Pope teaches according to the authority of his office, as opposed to stating a private opinion of his. I just checked and it seems that the term <i>ex cathedra</i> is only used in reference to acts of the extraordinary (infallible & irreformable) magisterium; and I agree that Bergoglio has not invoked that level of authority and so, in that sense, has not spoken "ex cathedra"; sorry for the sloppiness on my part.<br /><br />coradcorloquitur,<br />Agreed. Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-72001542016529879632017-12-06T17:13:49.332+00:002017-12-06T17:13:49.332+00:00"The heretical interpretation of AL has now b..."The heretical interpretation of AL has now been promulgated ex cathedra by the purported Roman Pontiff as an act of the papal magisterium."<br /><br />It is emphatically not "ex cathedra."Sean W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10085184456489549231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-3079176294011907022017-12-06T16:56:50.269+00:002017-12-06T16:56:50.269+00:00Dear Sedes and Sede sympathizers, what exactly has...Dear Sedes and Sede sympathizers, what exactly has Sedevacantism to offer? Doesn't Fr. Cekada choose which liturgical laws of Pope Pius XII he would like to obey or rather disobey? Or Pius XII's teaching on episcopal jurisdiction? Where is the ordinary jurisdiction of the Church if Sedevacantism were true? According to Fr. Cekada's minory opinion this wouldn't be a problem, since each bishop receives jurisdiction directly from Jesus Christ. According to the teaching of Pope Pius XII, this doesn't work since each bishop receives his jurisdiction from the Pope. Where does this leave Thuc line bishops (which some Sedes do not acknowledge, btw)? Some Sedes don't even recognize St. Pius X, others like Richard Ibranyi believe there hasn't been a pope since the 12th century. Some are Feeneyists, others combat Feeneyism. Some elect popes, others don't. The list goes on and on. Will the true Sedevacantist please stand up?<br /><br />Just some food for thought for those who are about to fall or haven fallen into an error that creates more problems than it solves.Konstantinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13701303189143549671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-62545475153227353222017-12-06T15:28:43.659+00:002017-12-06T15:28:43.659+00:00BXVI is culpable in his resignation (that I believ...BXVI is culpable in his resignation (that I believe was brought about through blackmail, which, should that be the case, means he has something grave to hide). He has "done Francis" to the Church, to the immense harm to souls and dishonor to Christ the King. In the meantime, he plays with his cats, plays Mozart on the piano, and keeps a tight silence in the face of the destruction of souls and of the Church he once led. May God have mercy on his enigmatic soul.coradcorloquiturhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125381369456761748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30490922.post-73391198774161483962017-12-06T15:22:58.999+00:002017-12-06T15:22:58.999+00:00I am not a sedevacantist, but it must be admitted ...I am not a sedevacantist, but it must be admitted that those who are continually grasping at straws to show that Francis has not taught heresy formally are on very shaky grounds. Whatever the legal technicalities, we should be ashamed of a pope who is clearly malevolent and heretical (whether true pope or not); we should also be ashamed of belonging to a Church that turns the Vicar of Christ into a kind of untouchable idol and that feels totally free to contradict its formal teachings in devious, surreptitious ways that can only be described as evil subterfuge. That is not how Catholic Christians should be acting in an unprecedented crisis: the times and the horror Francis has created (NOT US) calls for clear, energetic denunciation and action to block his yes-men whoever they may be. Our protest should be loud and public and constant against these new Protestants. The act of legitimate protest does not make one a "Protestant," otherwise the holy English Martyrs at the time of the Elizabethan reign of terror would technically have been "protestants" and the Counter-Reformation would have been "protestant"---clearly ridiculous non-logic. It is time to stop playing games and start defending Our Mother, the Church, against the wolf that is Francis.coradcorloquiturhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125381369456761748noreply@blogger.com