On the Feast of the Immaculate Conception 2018, false pope Jorge Bergoglio announced the formation of "CHARIS," or "Catholic Charismatic Renewal International Service." This new body within the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life will replace the two existing services known as the International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Service and the Catholic Fraternity. (See http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/vatican-creates-new-office-to-serve-catholic-charismatic-renewal-movement). The so-called "Charismatic Movement" celebrated fifty years of its existence in 2017. The movement is heretical to the core, and has its origin in the Pentecostal Protestant sect of the 19th century. The Pentecostal sect revived what they believed to be glossolaly or "speaking in tongues." Such gifts, with rare exceptions, ended in early Apostolic times, as the True Church no longer needed them to show Her Divine origin.
The charismata or "special gifts" of the Holy Ghost such as prophecies, healings, miracles, etc., were given to prove the claims of the Church and to foster conversions. With the achievement of the Church’s moral universality, the need for such phenomena ceased because of the presence in the Church of people of every nationality and because of the Church’s proven record as the One True Religion. Likewise, speaking in tongues was given so that all could hear and understand the preaching of the Gospel. None of these gifts were given for the personal sanctification of the individuals who received them. St. Augustine, Tract. xxxii, states, "Whereas even now the Holy Ghost is received, yet no one speaks in the tongues of all nations, because the Church herself already speaks in the languages of all nations: since whoever is not in the Church, receives not the Holy Ghost."
In 1967, during the nascent Vatican II sect turmoil of ecumenical frenzy and near universal apostasy, students at Pittsburgh’s Duquesne University began exposing themselves to Pentecostal influences because of "spiritual aridity." They were envious of the "changed lives" among many Protestant friends and decided to pray for similar "graces." A weekend "retreat"gave them what they wanted. Various people approached Protestant ministers, laity, and prayer groups. All received "Baptism in the Spirit" after having heretical hands laid on them in prayer. The movement began to grow in leaps and bounds. Today, they even call themselves "Charismatics" instead of Catholics, showing their disdain for even the name of the sect posing as the True Church. They despise anything associated--even remotely--with the beliefs and practices of authentic Catholicism.
For the 50th anniversary of the Catholic (sic) Charismatic Movement in June 2017, Francis asked the Charismatics to organize the celebration at the Circus Maximus in Rome. On this occasion, Bergoglio quoted the late Belgian "Cardinal" Leo Suenens, the strongest episcopal promoter of the movement in its early days, who called it "a current of grace, a renewing breath of the Spirit for all the members of the Church." (Ibid) This post will focus on one of the Church's greatest enemies, the infamous Leo "Cardinal" Suenens, and the evil he unleashed in the world.
The Charismatic Cardinal
Leo Suenens was born in 1904 of a pious Belgian family. Belgium was one of the most Catholic countries in the world, with numerous vocations and large families. Suenens' family wanted him to go into economics and manage their large fortune, but he decided to become a priest. Ordained at age 23 in 1927, Suenens would obtain a Doctorate in Sacred Theology, and was consecrated auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Mechelen in 1945 by order of Pope Pius XII. He became the new Archbishop in 1961 under Roncalli, and the archdiocese was renamed Mechelen-Brussels. Suenens received the "cardinal's hat" from false pope John XXIII in 1962.
At Vatican II, he would reveal himself to be one of the most influential Modernists, hell-bent on destroying the One True Church. Suenens was a close friend of Masonic pervert Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI), and was one of the leaders of the Modernists with Cardinals Alfrink and Frings. It was Suenens who named the first heretical document of Vatican II Lumen Gentium, as he had crafted much of the language in the opening paragraphs, which contained the false ecclesiology of the newly spawned Vatican II sect he helped to create. Here is a very unflattering picture painted of Suenens from his autobiography Memories and Hopes, his work on collegiality Co-Responsibility in the Church, Vatican II Revisited--Reflections by One Who was There, by Bp. Aloysius Wycislo, and Twelve Council Fathers, by W. Abbot.
Suenens:
- Was inspired by Modernist theologian Edward Schillebeecxk, a Dominican priest who was suspect of Modernism prior to Vatican II. After the Council, Schillebeecxk denied Transubstantiation, and derided the bodily Resurrection of Our Lord as a "crude and naive realism" that has "nothing to do with a corpse."
- Was motivated by ecumenism in everything he did. He rejected the idea there was only One True Church of Jesus Christ
- Supported the heretical idea of a "democratic" collegial Church, which destroys both the hierarchical structure of the Church instituted by Christ, and denigrates the pope to an Eastern Schismatic status as "first among equals"
- Worked most closely at the Council with periti (theological experts) Fr. Karl Rahner and Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, the future "Pope" Benedict XVI--both arch-heretics
- Had a meeting with four Anglican "bishops." He knelt before them and asked for their "blessing"
- Gave the opening address at the second session of Vatican II, blasphemously comparing Roncalli to St. John the Baptist, with the speech entitled There Was a Man Sent by God Named John
- Asked Montini (Paul VI) to reject the traditional teaching condemning artificial contraception and was furious when his former friend didn't. Montini was told by Cardinal Ottaviani that he would lose all credibility if he did so, and he listened to him instead, issuing Humanae Vitae. Too bad Cardinal Ottaviani did not reject Montini's false "papacy"
- Did all he could to undermine Church teaching on contraception which earned him praise from Planned Parenthood
- Spoke in favor of a "new understanding of marriage" at Vatican II whereby the sexual union of the spouses could be considered legitimate without any reference to procreation
- Rejected unchanging Catholic moral standards when he said, "Morality is first and foremost alive, a dynamism of life, and therefore subject to interior growth that rejects any kind of fixity." (Emphasis mine)
- Trimuphantly proclaimed, "Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church..."
We see a despicable Judas, but why was he so intent on promoting the "Catholic" Charismatic Movement at every opportunity? In a word: ecumenism.
Leading the People into a One World Religion
There are four major problems with the Charismatic Movement:
1. It implicitly denies there is only One True Church.
If these "gifts" of the Holy Ghost (allegedly speaking in tongues, "healings," etc.) are true in the "Catholic" Church and they also happen in various Protestant denominations, then it stands to reason that there are "elements of truth and sanctification" outside the True Church by which people can achieve holiness and salvation. (Sound familiar?).
2. It replaces the hierarchy with an alleged direct contact with God, and denies the Indefectibility of the Church.
Priests are seen as "one of the guys." Being able to roll on the ground "speaking in tongues" is more important than the ability to offer the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Charismatics will also say things like, "God has put it on my heart that I should..." Or, "God told me..." If you have direct contact with God, why do we need the Church and Her hierarchy as intermediaries between God and people? If the Church teaches one thing, but God has supposedly told you something different, guess which one will be obeyed. The charismatics also deny Indefectibility by claiming that an integral part of the Church (charismata) was absent for centuries, so the Church was somehow deficient. This is impossible if the Church is Indefectible.
3. It denies traditional Catholic spirituality and leads to deception (and even possession) by evil spirits.
Say goodbye to the Rosary, novenas, and The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. St. John of the Cross, one of the greatest masters of the spiritual life had this to say:
- "And I greatly fear what is happening in these times of ours: If any soul whatever after a bit of meditation has in its recollection one of these locutions, it will immediately baptize all as coming from God and with such a supposition say, 'God told me,' 'God answered me.' Yet this is not so, but, as we pointed out, these persons themselves are more often the origin of their locution." (See St. John of the Cross: The Ascent of Mount Carmel. Book II Ch. 29)
- "Through the desire of accepting them one opens the door to the devil. The devil can then deceive one by other communications expertly feigned and disguised as genuine. In the words of the Apostle, he can transform himself into an 'angel of light' (II Cor. XI:14). (...) Regardless of the cause of these apprehensions, it is always good for a man to reject them with closed eyes. If he fails to do so, he will make room for those having a diabolical origin and empower the devil to impose his communications. Not only this, but the diabolical representations will multiply while those from God will gradually cease, so that eventually all will come from the devil and none at all from God. This has occurred with many incautious and uninstructed people." (See St. John of the Cross: The Ascent of Mount Carmel. Book II Ch. 11)
4. It has the same goal as Modernism and Masonry: A One World Church Without Catholicism
Charismaticism is pan-denominational, with an alien and non-Catholic theological idea of "baptism in the Holy Spirit" as if you come into direct contact with God. It vitiates the need for the Mass and Sacraments. It is also rooted in the Modernist ideal of experience over reason. Charismatics cannot give a reasoned theological explanation of how jumping, dancing, rolling on the floor, laughing uncontrollably, and (allegedly) speaking in tongues brings one closer to God or even why God would manifest Himself in behaviors usually associated with mental patients. Finally, your beliefs don't matter. As long as you profess belief in some vague form of "Christianity" (The Great Architect of the Universe, perhaps), you are all part of "the Church" and can have an "experience of God."
Conclusion
My spiritual father, the late, great canonist Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, showed me a picture taken at Vatican II with himself standing between Bishop Blaise Kurz and "Cardinal" Suenens. Father was one of the theological experts (a peritus) at Vatican II who helped Bp. Kurz and the other traditional prelates who fought the Modernists. Fr. DePauw was heartbroken that a fellow Belgian would work to destroy the very Church he loved so much and served so well. He and Bp. Kurz spoke in private with Cardinal Suenens in a long meeting during which they implored him to repent of his Modernism and return to the Catholic Faith. Suenens turned a deaf ear and showed them the door, asking that they never come back to talk to him.
Today, as a result of Vatican II and the Charismatic movement, the percentage of Belgians who claim to be Catholic (V2 sect) is less than 60%. Only 5% attend the Novus Bogus "mass" on Sundays, and nearly one-third of Belgians declare themselves atheists or agnostics. The ravages of the Charismatic movement are not limited to Belgium. What Suenens started and Bergoglio is promoting enthusiastically, is nothing less than the rejection of anything even remotely Catholic, and to be replaced by a One World Church of "direct experiences of God." They may profess Christianity, but they will be told by Our Lord:
"Not everyone that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the Will of My Father who is in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in Thy Name, and cast out devils in Thy Name, and done many miracles in Thy Name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, you that work iniquity." (St. Matthew 7:21-23).
Unless they repent and find the True Church, they will find out too late that they were deceived by the disciples of Suenens, who--like the serpent in the Garden of Eden--spoke with a forked tongue.
1: Suenens will be "canonized" by the novus ordo sect.
ReplyDelete2: There is no point on "speaking in tongues" if you do not love God. Reminds me of St. Paul, when he says that having a faith so great that he could move mountains is nothing if he does not have Charity.
3: It is blasphemous to say that the Holy Spirit could make you to do childish stuff like rolling on the floor and laughing like hyenas. Their alleged "speaking in tongues" is just as understandable as Eminem, who has contact with devilish "Slim shady"
4: It is blasphemous to say that God can send Popes and let His Church to promote this kind of blasphemies.
5: It is blasphemous to say that the Holy Spirit may inspire texts like the final document of the lgbt sinod, nostra ateate, the catechism of the conciliar cult, and more.
6: Finally, it is blasphemous to create "charismatical" organizations in the day of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady.
For Greater Glory if God,
Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe.
Poni,
DeleteVery true!
God Bless and Merry Christmas!
---Introibo
Happy Christmas everyone.
ReplyDeleteGod bless.
Andrew
Andrew,
DeleteTo you and all my dear readers:
Merry Christmas! Our Savior is born!
---Introibo
Wonderful, thank you. I was briefly lured into the "Baptism of the Spirit" nonsense. It is very creepy.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad by God's grace, you found your way out of that Charismatic trap!
DeleteGod Bless,
---Introibo
Veni, veni, Emmanuel
ReplyDeleteCaptivum solve Israel
Qui gemit in exilio
Privatus Dei Filio
Gaude, gaude, Emmanuel
Nascetur pro te, Israel
We know what the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit are and they don't include rolling on floors. Seems to be part of the whole Vat2 conspiracy. Just get rid of the Octave of Pentecost and the entire pentecostal season and you can fool the sheep into accepting this counterfeit spirit. But the real gifts remain the same, Wisdom,council,understanding and knowledge. And armed with the real gifts no one will be fooled by this deception.
ReplyDeleteWell said, Lynne!
DeleteGod Bless,
—-Introibo
Please be very careful in calling our divinely inspired and duly elected Popes as "false." You are the one causing the division in the true Church.
ReplyDeleteCan you please inform us as to where it has been taught that the election of a Pope is "divinely inspired?" Our Fath teaches us that a duly elected Pope enjoys Divine protection in order to defend the Faith. History is peppered with examples of times where confusion existed as to the true claimant to the Papacy. What history does not offer us is examples of Pope's being instruments of division due to a disunity if Faith. Even when three men claimed the Papal title, none of them were divided on matters of Faith. They were soley confused on the matter of the papal claim.
Delete@Tom,
DeleteThank you for answering so well! You’re like a “back-up” moderator when I can’t answer right away due to work or other obligations !
@Unknown,
The division was the Great Apostasy. As Bp. Sanborn once wrote:
For example, we assent, by faith, to the proposition that Christ is really present in the Holy Eucharist; at the same time, we dissent from the proposition that Christ is not really present in the Holy Eucharist. The dissent is as strong as the assent, and there is no faith without the dissent from what is opposed to the truths of the faith. Hence the Church not only proposes the truth, but condemns infallibly what is contrary to it.
But Vatican II and the post-Vatican II “universal ordinary magisterium” has contradicted the teaching of the Catholic Church on many points. Therefore the Catholic must give his dissent, if he is to remain faithful to his Baptism.
This dissent, in turn, gives rise, through a few simple logical steps, to a dogmatic fact that the perpetrator of the false teaching could not possibly be teaching with the authority of Christ. This would be blasphemous, and contrary to the promises of Christ.
Hence, the false teachings of Vatican II did not come from the Church, but from a false pope, who lost his office by profession of heresy as a private teacher—and the heretical bishops who followed the false pope.
—-Introibo
Unknown:
Delete1: Nothing that says "God made himself the devil" (sic) is divenely inspired. As St. Paul says: "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man, speaking by THE SPIRIT OF GOD, saith Anathema to Jesus. And no man can say the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost" (Corinthians 12:3)
2: Your novus ordo Church is invalid.. and divided. One goes to a parish and they believe that Christ is Really Present in the Host. Another parish, and they have transgender "Masses" and "consecrate" doritos. Please think about it.
3: Division between the Catholic Church and the Novus ordo sect is not wrong.
4: If the Holy Spirit can not possibly cause blasphemy, it is not possible that the Church can give null and void sacraments.
5: You may need ro research Church Teachings and why the novus ordo is invalid. Modernism is the sum of al heresies - St. Pius X.
6: Protestants do not have reasons to celebrate Christmas - for them, Salvation came in 1517 or after. However, i desire everyone a Happy and Holy Christmas.
For Greater Glory of God,
Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe.
Bishop Frances Slupski was kicked out of the Polish diocese he served faithfully since ordination (1961) because he refused to offer the novus ordo missal and refused to acknowledge the Novus Ordo sacraments.
DeleteHe wasn't asked nor given a choice and was forced to choose between man and God.
This division you speak of didn't start until the 1965 ecumenical Revolution.
It was forced upon us and like Bishop Slupski we were forced to choose between man and God.
Andrew
Your views are very Protestant!
ReplyDelete@Unknown
DeleteWrong. You make the mistake of thinking someone who denies the dogmas of Faith can be pope! According to Canonist Coronata:
“If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1950] 1:316.)
Furthermore, it is by DIVINE LAW the pope falls from office NOT Canon Law, although Canon Law embodies principles of Divine and Ecclesiastical Law.
“The First See (Pope) is judged by no one” is procedural. As canonist Cappello explains:
“Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. ‘The First See is judged by no one.’ (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity.” (Cappello, Summa Juris Canonici 3:19.) In civil law, I cannot convict an abortion “doctor.” I certainly can call him a murderer in the moral order even if I cannot in the civil courts!
Moreover, we can judge Bergoglio BEFORE he was “elected” for being a heretic. Pope Paul IV in Ex Cum Apostolatus Officio made it clear that heretics are also barred BY DIVINE LAW FROM ATTAINING TO THE PAPACY.
Again, from canonist Coronata:
“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.” ( Institutiones I.C. 1:312)
We can determine from common sense, and the Teaching Of The Church that Bergoglio is not (nor could he ever be) pope—that’s very Catholic!
—-Introibo
Nothing Divinely protected is protestant
DeleteThank you for this very succinct summary of the errors of the charismatic movement. I had this argument once with a charismatic Novus Ordo woman who claimed to have visions of John Paul II. When she told me the Charismatic Movement was a movement of the Holy Ghost that originated in the Protestant church, she seemed completely flabbergasted when I explained there cannot be any movement caused by the Holy Ghost in Protestant churches since the Holy Ghost was given to Christ’s One True Church. Poor woman. Anyhow, I’ve found Tanquerey’s book The Spiritual Life very helpful as well, in the chapter where he deals with estraordinary musical phenomena. Inter alia, he points out that genuine mystics don’t run around bragging about their experiences to others, which is exactly what the charismatics do.
ReplyDeleteYes, those with true spiritual gifts don’t show off. It has been said,”The one virtue the devil can’t imitate is humility.”
DeleteThank you for commenting Jeffery and sharing your experience with a Charismatic!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Why don't the Sedevacantists debate John Salza? They keep recycling the same old material and just ignore that it has been refuted. They won't even address John Salza's documents, they just call him a Mason and dimiss him. For example, he just published an article called "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio History and Status" but Sedes ignore it and continue to use this argument. His partner also published an article called "The Infallibility of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium" and the Sedes have not refuted that either. To his credit, John Salza goes directly after the Sede positions but the Sedes do not respond. Ignoring him is a sign of defeat.
ReplyDeleteI can’t speak for all Traditionalists, but both Mario Derksen Of Novus Ordo Watch, And Steven Speray Of Catholicism In A Nutshell have gone head to head with Siscoe and Salza numerous times.
DeleteI have also never run from a debate. If either of them wish to debate me, they may contact me via the comments here. We can pick a neutral forum such as Debate.org, or another forum acceptable to both of us. Your charge that we don’t or won’t debate Salza is false.
—-Introibo
True or False Pope was thoroughly refuted by Fr Cekada as well.
Delete1: For recognize´n´resistors, Frankie should resign like Benny and Salza shall be "Pope". Just saying.
Delete2: I have a Sedevacantist blog and i will refute Salza´s articles. Thanks for your comment, because many people stick at Salza and never question the reocgnize´n´resist position.
3: Instead of looking for Church Teaching, you look for Salza´s teachings. Awful.
4: I was like you a recognize´n´resistor and the reason i was is because i never revised the position of Sedevacantism. For me it was just heretical and i never looked about information. I sticked to 4 r&r websites for one year and did not even research about True Church Teaching. Instead, i made stupid conspiracy theories about the 27th club and the anime serie SAO. I hope you are not hyper conspiracy theorist but what i mean is that every R&R only thinks about personal preferences - including Theological Positions.
5: Have you ever been to Novus Ordo Watch or Catholicism In A Nutshell? Have you read articles that refute your position in this blog?
For Greater Glory of God,
Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe.
I am familiar with Novus Ordo Watch as well as John and Robert's numerous articles refuting sede positions. Sedes have not and cannot refute them. There are more than 40 unanswered articles to date and that doesn't even include their book. Sedes are blowing smoke. In fact, you guys won't even read their book.
DeletePoni, since you say you can refute them, here is the cum ex article: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/blog-page_19.html. Poni has the floor first. Let's see him refute just this.
Att. Anon @ 8:26
DeleteDear disciple in the Salza & Siscoe cult,
Your link doesn't work for me. It's saying that "the blog doesn't exist."
Listen, buddy, I know that S&S give you extra brownie points for Christmastide agitating on small sede websites - your dedication is exemplary! - but you'll need to post links correctly. Seriously, dude!
Psst...my advice to you, is to kick back, down a few brandy-laced eggnogs, have a Christmas cookie or two, chill out and quit obsessing over the fact that all the notables of sedelandia have *already* thoroughly discredited Messrs. Salza & Siscoe. What possessed them to take old, refuted R&R argumments and present them as *new material*? I guess they're into recycling...
Anonymous...Their imbecilic articles have actually been refuted by sedevacantists, quite satisfactorily, to anyone possessing a brain with which to comprehend. Pity anyone whose ability to think and comprehend is so broken. I will pray for you.
Delete1: Nope Ciscoenes Paullus I, Nope Salzines Paullus I, Nope Barnhardtines Paullus I, Nope Guimarines Paullus I, Nope Horvartines Paullus I, Nope Matteines Paullus I, all of them with more authority than "Pope" Benny or Franky or Bennsy.
Delete2: Notice that all of them are N.o 1.
3: If i was a recognize´n´resistor, i would make a "CONclave" to force Frankie to resign and ME would be the new "Nope". I´m so amazin´!
4: We can´t have a "come as you are" papacy. This is not a rock band.
5: If Salza was the Pope, ¿would you "resist" his heretical teachings?
6: I am wondering what could happen if Bishop Sanborn, for example, was elected Pope.
7: I didn´t know Salza has the same authority as Saint Robert Bellarmine, who helped me to leave your position.
8: I were joking in some comments above, but please think that i´m being serious. If the Church can give evil to their people, then i´m going to be in Ricky Ibranyil cult, or maybe make my own cult and adore a golden cow called Myself.
9: Visit Novus Ordo Watch or Catholicism in a Nutshell. Then you tell me why we can´t defeat Salza the Nope.
For Greater Glory of God,
Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe.
That's it? Two anonymous dudes, one who isn't smart enough to find an article online and this poni chump who claims he has a website but who can't make a coherent sentence? Is this the best sedevacantists have to offer in response to Salza's Cum Ex article?
Delete@anon12:50,
DeleteI was also unable to find the page you linked. It says, “no longer available.” I have offered to debate Salza. I went to law school with guys like him. Most got disbarred for some type of dishonesty. Fr Cekada, Mario Derksen, And Steve Speray have also tackled Sis & Sal numerous times.
Poni speaks Spanish and his blog is in his native tongue; his English is not as polished since it is a second language. Sis & Sal have a hard time with their native language since they cannot seem to comprehend the canonists, such as Buscaren, who tell us heretics are barred from obtaining the papacy by DIVINE LAW. “Ex Cum” merely gives papal ratification to this FACT. So what’s THEIR EXCUSE??
—-Introibo
Oh like you don't know what their website is or their tab "sedevacantist watch." Talk about dishonesty.
DeleteSalza and Siscoe argue that the problem can only be resolved by people who have authority and speak for the Church, not laymen. If laymen could declare who rightful popes are then you would have anarchy just like you Sedes already do. For example, some sedes would have no pope going all the back to the 12th century while others would have it going back to Pius IX, while your sect would say Pius XII. Who decides this? That is why sedevacantism is often equated with protestantism.
You have identified a heretical pope but it is not as simple as just declaring him a heretic and starting your own chapels. There is a method to this and that is what salza and siscoe have been arguing. That is what makes sense, not laymen making declarations at the highest levels of the church and then starting their own churches all over the world.
Salza's last article is like most of his others: he refutes "A" Sede argument. After reading it, sedes should avoid the cum ex argument.
ANONYMOUS @ 12:50 pm
DeleteIs an anonymous dude who isn't even smart enough to correctly post a link all that Salza & Siscoe have? Apparently so.
Introibo is absolutely right about John Salza's character. His gross dishonesty and rat cunning is legendary. His despicable tactics and behavior are almost what one would expect from a high ranking Freemason.
Let's be fair - Salza & Siscoe are not wrong about everything. Just horribly in error on the essentials which lead Catholics to reject heretics as true popes.
Salza & Siscoe embarked on a sycophantic quest to stop numbers departing the SSPX due to their bizarre and unCatholic teachings on the papacy. They were fuly endorsed by the SSPX hierarchy and other of their clergy and notable laity. (I suspect that SSPX are now bitterly regretting their endorsement of S & S's error-ridden tome.)
Where's Salza & Siscoe's much touted 2nd edition to ToFP? Will the SSPX be so bold and unintelligent as to renew their endorsement IF in fact a 2nd edition ever sees the light of day?
Salza & Siscoe aren't that smart - this is obvious. For if there were substantial grey matter between their ears, they'd have realized that their mission was doomed from the start. As long as Francis Bergoglio continues to cause scandals and outrage with his blatant heresy and blasphemies, there will be increased leakage from the Novus Ordo sect, FSSP, Resistance and SSPX to the sedevacantist position.
Thanks, John and Robert, for greatly helping to shine a light on just how terrible things are in the Novus Ordo Sect, which now even has many members of its own "clergy" continually pushing back against Frankie's heresies, blasphemies, cover ups of pedo scandals etc. Many of the sect's "clergy" are now suggesting he's not a real pope. That says it all, and should be a signal to S & S that their venture is a dismal failure.
@anon6:25
DeleteDishonesty is the hallmark of the R&R. I never said I didn't know their website; I correctly stated that your link didn't provide the article you claimed.
Second, who has authority to speak for the Church? James Martin and his "gay rosary"? How about "cardinal" Muller who denies Transubstantiation?
"In reality, “body and blood of Christ” do not mean the material components of the man Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporeality. Rather, body and blood here mean the presence of Christ in the sign of the medium of bread and wine, which [presence] is made communicable in the here and now of sense-bound human perception. Just as before Easter the disciples were perceptibly together with Jesus by hearing his words and perceiving him in his sensory figure in accordance with human nature, we now have fellowship with Jesus Christ, communicated through the eating and drinking of the bread and the wine."
(See Gerhard Ludwig Müller, "The Mass: Source of Christian Life," pp. 139-140)
Got that? Mr. Muller eats and drinks "bread and wine " at the Novus Bogus "mass." Ironically, he's right since he was invalidly ordained and the new "mass" is invalid even if he had valid orders. however, what you've got here is a denial of Transubstantiation. These are the guys who "have authority" to speak for the Church??? Heretics will denounce their fellow heretics? Please.
The slipery slope argument you deploy holds no water. Please see my post:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/08/pushing-back-time-of-vacancy.html
I specifically refute the "Vacancy Pushers" as I call them. This is the term I have coined for those who not only reject the "papacy" of Roncalli (John XXIII) up to Bergoglio (Francis), but "push back the date of the vacancy" by denying the authenticity of pre-Vatican II popes. They accomplish this by digging up some obscure quote from an encyclical or some other papal document of a prior pope, twist it out of context, and declare him an "antipope." There are three main groups; those who, like Michael Bizzaro, declare Pope St. Pius X (d. 1914) as the last pope; those who recognize Pope Pius IX (d. 1878) as the last pope; and the followers of cult leader Richard Ibranyi of New Mexico, who have the last pope as being Pope Honorius II (d. 1130 AD!).
I reject Vatican II and its so-called "popes" based on the complete irreconcilable ecclesiology taught pre- and post- Vatican II. Everyone realized something was seriously wrong (or at least very different) in the aftermath of Vatican II. No pope or theologian taught that non-Catholic sects are a "means of salvation" as did Vatican II. As a matter of fact, the exact opposite was taught. The errors were notorious and ubiquitous; there for all to see and the rejection of Roncalli to Bergoglio is based on the loss of papal office taught by the theologians. This is not the same as claiming, e.g. Pope Pius IX was the last pope because of some obscure quote pulled out of context written by Pope Leo XIII which allegedly makes him a "heretic." There was no huge movement claiming the Church had changed from Pope Pius IX to Pope Leo XIII, who kept Tradition intact, condemned Freemasonry, and declared Anglican orders invalid. To say otherwise is just plain false.
(continued below)
If we are without a pope, you would EXPECT confusion without a supreme authority to settle matters. When the Shepard is struck the sheep are scattered. What excuse do Sis, Sal and you have for the confusion in the Vatican II sect? You (allegedly) have a pope! Yet your sect is divided into three divisions like the Anglicans in past generations.
DeleteThe "high church" Vatican II sect, go to FSSP and wish Vatican II didn't happen. "Broad church" Vatican II sect members like Vatican II but decry "abuses" like "clown mass." Then you have the "low church" Vatican II sect, that want ultra-Modernism, e.g. women "priestesses" divorce and remarriage, abortion on demand, gay "marriage," etc.
Doctrine and practices differ not only from dioceses to dioceses, but from parish to parish in the same diocese and from "priest" to "priest" in the same parish. Where's your unity with your pope?
We do not set up our own chapels--Vatican II started it's own religion and stole our buildings!
You also stated "You have identified a heretical pope..." I guess YOU decided this since no one "in authority" has done so. You believe a man who says "atheists can go to heaven" "proselytism is solemn nonsense" and "there is no Catholic God" can still be pope. If he's pope then you must submit to him and there is no need of the SSPX. That's why the R&R is Protestant. The "pope" declares something then YOU (Or SISCOE OR SALZA OR Bp. FELLAY) decides to accept it or reject it. That simple is NOT CATHOLIC.
---Introibo
Why did Brother Sajo (Salza's Masonic handle) back out of a debate with Peter Dimond?
DeleteCardinal Suenens and several charismatic types attended a Mass of John Paul II some decades ago. After the Communion the charismatics began to "pray in tongues," their bizarre mumbling. After the Mass the Cardinal asked John Paul if the "praying in tongues" bothered him. He answered, "On the contrary, it helped me to pray more deeply."
ReplyDeleteFred,
DeleteI wouldn’t have expected anything less from “St” John Paul the Great Apostate!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
The Vatican II sect will accept and incorporate anything Protestant, even speaking in tongues. They, however, reject Traditional Catholicism. People need to realize that the Novus Ordo is nothing more than a Protestant service and not Catholic, How anyone can accept for “Popes” the ones which propagate the Protestatization of the Church since Vatican II is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteJoann,
DeleteThe R&R crowd seems to be fulfilling an emotional need to have a pope. They then perform mental gymnastics to convince themselves and placate this need.
Like you, almost 60 years into the Great Apostasy, I cannot see how anyone can accept Bergoglio unless it is fulfilling a psychological need.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
This is a topic of enormous interest to me. You see, I grew up in a Protestant charismatic church. My parents were hippies who joined the "Jesus Freak" movement in the 1970s. My parents were good people who did truly love God...
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER, I was terrified almost every moment that I spent in church when I was a child.I absolutely hated hearing "speaking in tongues." It was loud, chaotic and frightening, and you were frowned upon if you did not participate. Here's basically how it worked:
We started the service singing happy clappy songs, usually involving tambourines, maracas, and whatever other little instruments we could find. Then the music would change to slow, quiet "worship" songs. After some of those quieter songs, everyone would sort of start to hum and sway and quietly "speak in tongues." The "speaking in tongues" would get really loud, and then it would stop while everyone "prayed" quietly and waited for "the spirit to move." Suddenly one person would shout out a "prophecy" in "tongues" while everyone else (with closed eyes and raised arms) listened. Then everyone would wait until "God" spoke to someone else with the "translation" of that "prophecy." It usually started with something like, "I am the Lord your God..." then it often went on with something about persecution coming soon or something about the End Times.
It scared me to death. I always refused to be involved. Even as a little child, I was expected to at least raise my arms during worship! But I absolutely refused. I never felt close to God at all, and I knew that I wasn't really a Christian. I thought, however, that I was cleared for going to Heaven since my parents were believers! I always believed that at the age of 18 I would have to decide wether or not I would follow God. (I don't know where I got that idea.) And I always knew that I would choose not to follow Him! After high school when I moved out for college, I made my decision. I happily called myself an an anti-Christian agnostic. I did, however, become fascinated with nuns during a visit to Rome at the age of 20. But that's another story...
When I converted to Catholicism in the Novus Ordo, I couldn't figure out for the life of me why we sang those Protestant happy clappy songs. The exact same ones I sang as a child. And I had no idea why Catholics were following Protestantism regarding the charismatic movement.
My charismatic experience also gave me a very negative attitude towards the Holy Ghost! I was scared of what I thought was the Holy Spirit! It was such a relief to me of realize that traditional Catholicism taught against the Charismatic movement. And to discover the true Holy Spirit!
My dad eventually returned to the Catholic Faith a few years before he died. He was raised a devout Catholic. He was also the pastor of that little Charismatic Church! My mother was raised as a secular Jew in NYC, although her mother was a Catholic and her father a Jew. I thank God every day for calling me to His Church!
La gallina,
DeleteThank you for sharing your very interesting and moving story! I'm happy for you that God gave you the grace to find your way home to His One True Church--Deo gratias! Know that I will remember you every Sunday at the Holy Sacrifice. Thank you again for your comment!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you! I would appreciate that. (Your offering up a tiny prayer for me at Mass!)
DeleteI'd like to make one other comment in response to "Anonymous" who claimed that Salza and Siscoe have not and cannot be refuted. That is so ridiculous. I am one of the people who believed Salza and Siscoe at first. Then I heard both the Tradcast podcasts and the Father Cekada videos which really left the S & S arguments in the dust. I don't know if it's a pride issue or what the deal is with S & S and others who consider themselves traditional Catholics to continue to defend Francis as a true pope. I am still "officially" part of the their team, but I it is very clear to me that it is impossible for Francis to be pope. I have no doubt whatsoever about it. How dare anyone say that that evil man is Christ's vicar? He is a destroyer and a traitor to Jesus Christ. Why Salza and Siscoe would continue to defend this Judas is beyond my comprehension.
ReplyDeleteLa gallina,
DeleteIt’s beyond my comprehension too!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Wrong. Salza and Siscoe don't defend the man, they defend the process. Laymen don't have the power to depose popes and if they did there would be even more confusion because everyone would disagree on who the real popes are or were. This is already evident with the sedes who can't agree on the date of the vacancy, as well as other doctrinal issues such as baptism and salvation and una cum masses. The Dimond Brothers have the largest sede following in the world and they don't even believe in baptism of desire. Guess what, they think you are heretics on this blog! So don't tell me that sedevacantism is the answer because it is nothing but anarchy and chaos with absolutely no way to resolve anything.
ReplyDelete@anon6:53
DeleteSedevacantists don’t “depose” anyone. We regognize a FACT. In Manhattan, I got on a bus yesterday, but there was no bus driver present, just people sitting there impatiently. I didn’t depose the bus driver. I recognized the fact his seat was empty and the bus couldn’t take me to my destination so I left. Likewise, the Vatican II sect can’t take you to Heaven so get out! I discussed the vacancy date issue in my comment above, as well as the confusion.
The Dimond brothers have the most followers? Really? According to what statistics from a reliable source? They may get a lot of traffic on their website, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to followers or fellow Feeneyites. All sede groups such as SSPV and CMRI REJECT Feeneyite heresy.
Finally, what “process” deposes a pope? There isn’t any as any first year seminarian pre-Vatican II could have told you. Who would you put in charge of this process? James Martin with his “gay Rosary” and “Cardinal” Muller who denies Transubstantiation? Heretics will depose heretics?
You have anarchy in chaos in the V2 sect with an alleged “pope.” Why is that?
You don’t reject an actual state of affairs because you don’t like the consequences.
—-Introibo
I believe I read on Novus Ordo Watch recently, an apt quote: "Sedevacantism isn't an answer, it's a diagnosis." Your point about chaos and disunity has already been granted. Without a true pope there is disunity among sedevacantists. But it isn't *belief* in sedevacantism that causes the disunity, it's the *fact* of there not being a true pope, the principle of unity in the Church that causes it.
DeleteIn fact, the cause of disunity among sedes is also the exact same as the cause of the disunity that has already been pointed out among those who are part of what you call the "true Church" with a "true pope". If there were a true pope, the Church would be in union with him, but there isn't, and so chaos and disunity reign, even in the church he's supposedly the head of.
As for your assertion, "they don't defend the man, they defend the process," I have to call that out. Any process that results in a pope who teaches and states his belief in doctrines previously condemned by the Catholic Church, cannot be defended as "Catholic" no matter what the process was. And if you think that a true pope can do such things, or could promulgate teachings that are opposed to Catholic doctrine, then you yourself are guilty of denying the indefectibility of the Church and the Catholic teaching on the nature of the Divine Assistance that the Church has been promised, which keeps her free from error.
@anon10:36
DeleteWell stated!
---Introibo
(Obtuse) Anonymous @ 6:53 am.
ReplyDeleteWho said "sedevacantism" is the "answer"? That's you putting your own twist on matters. The See of Peter being currently empty is a fact (unhappy fact) recognized by knowledgable Catholics whom realize that purveyors and practicers of heresy, apostasy, invalidation of sacraments etc. CANNOT POSSIBLY BE POPES.
Salza & Siscoe's idea of the process has been shown to be w-r-o-n-g. They have been adequately refuted by several people. The fellow behind the pseudonym "Introibo" says he is a lawyer. He has offered to debate/prosecute a case against S&S on neutral ground. The ball is in their court. It'd be nice if you'd quit pestering Introibo on his blog with your gratuitous assertions insofar the correctness of SS's doctrines/spiel. Just get them out to debate or cease and desist. Thank you.
John S. Daly in his expose of Michael Davies, An Evaluation of Michael Davies, documented this tactic. They simply cannot let their intellect draw the proper logical conclusion in regards to the vacancy of the See. They therefore are forced to devise all manner of scenarios and justifications to maintain the narrative.
DeleteI have found it is a waste of time debating most "resistors." They like to throw out one premise and when you are able to refute one of their false premises, the jump ship and throw out another false premise. Then when you refute that one, they jump back to the one you just refuted or hop onto another false premise. This "anon" R&Rer, being refuted by the blog host on his first false notion that no sede has ever refuted Messrs Sisco and Salza, has now moved onto the "laity cannot depose a Pope" false premise. The host and the readers will comment and thoroughly refute Anon's claim at which point he will jump to another on such as "visibility" or perhaps back to his original false claim concerning Messrs Siscoe and Salza. Debating R&Rers is like a never ending game of Whack-a-Mole.
ReplyDeleteTom,
DeleteAs I stated to Joann elsewhere in these comments:
The R&R crowd seems to be fulfilling an emotional need to have a pope. They then perform mental gymnastics to convince themselves and placate this need. I cannot see how anyone can accept Bergoglio unless it is fulfilling a psychological need.
---Introibo
In typical protestant fashion, you misuse the quotes of pre-Vatican II theologians and canonists.
ReplyDeleteOnly the crime of heresy can cause a person to lose office not merely the sin (which we cannot judge). For the crime to occur the heresy must be obstinate so the putative heretic must be admonished twice (Titus 3:10) by a superior (or in the case of the pope his proper counsellors) before they may be deemed to have lost office.
Material heretics in good faith remain members of the Church and it is the denial of this that threatens the visibility of the Church not its assertion. An occult formal heretic remains a member of the Church juridically and may hold office. Again, it is the denial of this not its assertion which threatens the visibility of the Church. Certainly, Pius XII held that those who commit the crime of heresy also commit the sin but it is the crime that separates them from the visible body not the sin.
The pope has not been admonished twice by his proper counsellors for teaching heresy. He remains in post.
And now Anon has moved onto yet another false premise that there is some sort of canonical process that deposes a Pope. Time to whack another mole.
DeleteThis has been adequately refuted. You claim I misquote canonists and theologians. Let my readers decide:
DeleteThe following list was composed by Fr. Cekada:
Canonists state that the invalidating prohibition against electing a heretic is a matter divine law. When treating the requirements for election to the papal office, numerous pre-Vatican II commentaries on the Code of Canon Law lay down just this
principle. Thus:
MAROTO: “The Person Elected: … A) The validity of the election, as regards the person elected, depends only upon divine law — in other words, no other impediments except those laid down by divine law, render the election of a Roman Pontiff invalid… Therefore, for the valid election of a Roman Pontiff now it is required and suffices that the person elected be: … c) A member of the Church, for he who does not belong to the Church is considered incapable of possessing jurisdiction, especially ordinary jurisdiction, and cannot actually be the head of that Church. For this reason, infidels and the unbaptized can in no way be validly elected. So too, the divine law itself bars heretics and schismatics from the supreme Pontificate. For although divine law does not regard them as incapable of a type of participation in the Church’s jurisdiction (# 576, A [on supplied jurisdiction]), they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Institutiones I.C., 2:784)
WERNZ-VIDAL: “Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics…” (Jus Canonicum 1:415)
(continued below)
CORONATA: “III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded.” (Institutiones 1:312).
DeleteBADIUS: “c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points… Barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics…” (Institutiones, 160)
COCCHI: “For the validity of the election as regards the person elected, it suffices only that he not be barred from the office by divine law — that is, any male Christian, even a layman. The following are therefore excluded: women, those who lack the use of reason, infidels, and those who are at least public non-Catholics.” (Commentarium in C.J.C, 2:151)
SIPOS: “Any male who has the use of reason and who is a member of the Church may be elected. The following, therefore, are invalidly elected: women, children, those suffering from insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics.” (Enchiridion I.C., 153)
FERRERES: “Anyone who does not have an impediment of divine law can be validly elected… For this reason, only women, children lacking the use of reason, the insane, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics are excluded.” (Institutiones Canonici, 1:407)
NAZ: “Anyone may be elected who is not barred from the office by divine law or ecclesiastical law. Women, children, the insane, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics are barred.” (Traité de Droit Canonique, 1:365)
it is divine law that prevents a public heretic from being validly elected. This means that the sin of heresy suffices to prevent someone from becoming a true pope. There is no requirement that he first be convicted under ecclesiastical law of the canonical crime of heresy before the impediment applies.
In the case of heresy, warnings and the rest of the canonical rigmarole come into play only for the crime. These are not required as a condition for committing the sin of heresy against divine law. The canonist Michel draws the clear distinction for us:
“Pertinacity does not of necessity include long obstinacy by the heretic and warnings from the Church. A condition for the sin of heresy is one thing; a condition for the canonical crime of heresy, punishable by canon laws, is another.” (Michel, “Héresie,” in DTC 6:2222)
If meeting all the canonical criteria were a requirement, rest assured that Maroto, Wernz-Vidal, Coronata, Badius, Cocchi, Sipos and Ferreres would have explicitly told us so in the passages quoted above by qualifying the word “heretic” with the precise canonical terms employed for someone formally convicted of that canonical crime. Instead, they simply said heretic.
As Fr. Cekada has amply demonstrated, Jorge Bergoglio was a HERETIC PRIOR TO HIS "ELECTION." HE COULD NOT HAVE BECOME "POPE"
Fr. Cekada said it so well, I don't need to comment. It proves what I said prior, Sis & Sal and the whole R&R stand refuted by others. I will also accept a debate.
I see not one citation from you, except a Bible passage as alleged "proof" of your position.
The defense rests.
---Introibo
"And now Anon has moved onto yet another false premise that there is some sort of canonical process that deposes a Pope. Time to whack another mole."
DeleteThat is a false assumption.
The pope loses his office ipso facto upon manifest heresy, but only after he has been corrected twice by his counselors. There is a distinction between material and formal heresy.
@anon12:32
DeleteDid you not understand what I wrote above from Fr. Cekada??
As far as the distinction between material and formal heresy, it holds no water. What if the pope doesn't realize what he's saying is heresy, or if people take it the wrong way? Does that exempt him from loss of office? Contrary to the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), Siscoe and Salza, and the rest of the "recognize and resist" (R&R) crowd; the answer is a resounding "NO."
The Divine Law demands that the pope must, in the external forum (publicly), demonstrate that he knows and believes in the truths of the Catholic Faith. It is not required that he must have internal knowledge or intention to be heretical. If he denies even one dogma, he must be considered non-Catholic and a non-member of the Church, who can no longer be the head of the Church to which he does not belong. According to theologian MacKenzie, "The very commission of any act which signifies heresy...gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity...Excusing circumstances have to be proven in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action gave rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist." (See "The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution", CUA Press, [1932], pg. 35).
---Introibo
This would all mean Honorius I and John XXII lost the see and their acts were null and void from that moment but no one has ever held this.
Delete@anon4:26
DeleteWrong about both pontiffs. It doesn't surprise me in the least that the R&R use these arguments (long discredited) as they were once used BY PROTESTANTS to "prove" so-called "heretical popes." Since you pick and choose what "papal" pronouncements you will accept or reject, you already have the Protestant mentality,
As to the case of Pope Honorius I:
wrote several letters relating to the Monothelite heresy (which stated Christ had only one Will, the Divine Will), and he was accused of either (a) supporting the heresy or (b) being soft on the heresy.
Two points blow this out of the water. The great Doctor and theologian of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, tells us that there is good reason to believe his letters were "fabricated and inserted into the General Council by heretics...it is certain that in the Fifth Council heretics inserted fictitious epistles of the Roman Pope Vigilius...that was detected in the Sixth Council, while the acts of the Fifth were re-read...What wonder would it be if they carried out the same plans in the Sixth Council?" (See "Papal Error? A Defense of Popes said to have Erred in Faith" from the original of 1558 "De Controversiis Fidei Christianae" pg. 47).
Second, even IF Honorius was the author, theologian Hurter tells us: “the letters of Honorius were unknown until the death of the Pontiff and Sergius.” (See "Medulla Theologiae Dogmaticae", pg.360).
This means there was NO HERESY IN THE EXTERNAL (PUBLIC) FORUM that would be necessary for him to fall from office!
As to Pope John XXII, he denied in sermons that the souls of the Blessed departed receive the Beatific Vision. They would not see the essence of God until the Last Judgement.
First, Pope John made those declarations as a private theologian before he became pope. The fact that the Blessed immediately enter into the Beatific Vision at the particular judgement was not defined until after the death of Pope John, so its denial would not constitute heresy as it was still open for discussion among theologians. (See St. Bellarmine, op cit. pgs. 104-105).
Second, he prefaced his remarks by saying:
“I say with Augustine that, if I am deceived on this point, let someone who knows better correct me. For me it does not seem otherwise, unless the Church would so declare with a contrary statement or unless authorities on sacred scripture would express it
more clearly than what I have said above.” (See Le Bachelet,DTC 2:262). Since he expressed his opinion AS AN OPINION, and was ready to submit to the Church if he were wrong, he cannot be a heretic. His very reason for making this assertion was to show he didn't intend to speak heresy.
Your objection stands refuted.
---Introibo
Another wonderful R&R tactic is to pick up where the protestants and gallicans left off their attacks on the papacy.
DeleteSedes are so dishonest. Your lies are so pathetic and ridiculous that I can't let this go unchecked. Honorius was condemned by the 6th synod by name and for 700 years thereafter. No, there is nothing to debate here. I realize your sede schism needs all the help it can get but resurrecting Honorious through papal revisionism is really pathetic. Here are the facts about Honorius:
Delete1. His condemnation is found in the Acts in the xiiith Session, near the beginning.
2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session.
3. In the xvith Session the bishops exclaimed "Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc."
4. In the decree of faith published at the xviijth Session it is stated that "the originator of all evil ... found a fit tool for his will in ... Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc."
5. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that "Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome" they had "punished with exclusion and anathema" because he followed the monothelites.
6. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it "has slain with anathema Honorius."
7. The imperial decree speaks of the "unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed" and mentions among them "Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself." The Emperor goes on to anathematize "Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."
8. Pope Leo II. confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.(4)
9. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in the Trullan Canons (No. j.).
10. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts the same is said.
11. Honorius's name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius's life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)
12. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus(5) taken by each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II., "smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics."
13. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. Upon this we may well hear Bossuet: "They suppress as far as they can, the Liber Diurnus: they have erased this from the Roman Breviary. Rave they therefore hidden it? Truth breaks out from all sides, and these things become so much the more evident, as they are the more studiously put out of sight."(6)
With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
You Sedes might also notice that a council was called and an EMPEROR saw it within his authority to anathematize a pope. So much for "no one can judge or depose a pope" LOL!
@anon7:54
DeleteEVERY SINGLE OBJECTION YOU WROTE WAS RESPONDED TO AND REJECTED BY ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE. (I guess Sis & Sal & you know better than a DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH.
Before I quote the eminent St. Robert, the FACT that the letters of Honorius came out AFTER HIS DEATH, means he NEVER EXHIBITED HERESY IN THE PUBLIC FORUM. Had Pope Pius XII privately denied the Immaculate Conception, he would have been an occult (i.e. secret) heretic, which does NOT cause the loss of OFFICE. Your whole case collapses on just this one point. Notice the Emperor anathematized a DEAD POPE--not a living one!
Here's what St. Robert wrote:
"What if someone were brought in that could not believe that the Sixth Council would be corrupted; he could look to another solution, which is in John de Turrecremata. He teaches that the Fathers of the Sixth Council condemned Honorius but from false information, and hence erred in judgement. Although a legitimate General Council could not err in defining dogmas of faith (and the Sixth did not), still it could err in questions of fact. Therefore, we can safely say, those Fathers weredeceived by false rumors and did not understand the epistles of Honorius, and wrongly enumerated Honorius with the heretics. You will say: Therefore, you understand the epistles of Honorius better than so many Fathers? I respond: not me, but John IV, Martin I, Agatho, and Nicholas I, the Supreme Pontiffs, and by the Roman Council gathered under Pope Martin, these epistles were better understood than by the Greeks in the Sixth Council...The Fathers of the Seventh Council followed the Sixth, and only repeated what was read in it. Hence, they were deceived from the Sixth Council, which was either corrupted, or had condemned Honorius in error."
(See "Papal Error? A Defense of Popes said to have Erred in Faith" from the original of 1558 "De Controversiis Fidei Christianae" pgs. 61-62)
The ENTIRE fourth chapter of this theological treatise is on the topic of Honorius, and I won't be typing out the whole thing, but feel free to look it up and see each error addressed.
Remember, that Pope Pius XI declared St Robert Bellarmine a Doctor of the Church in 1931. This means his works of theology were most carefully examined to be free of heresy, and are to be noted for overall excellence in the exposition of the Catholic Faith.
The same cannot be said for "Johnny Salza's Little Masonic Book On How to Argue Like a Sophist" which is where you probably get your material.
---Introibo
LOL!!! Papal Revisionism at its best! Don't forget to revise the resistance passage so that Cephas was not Peter.
DeleteSt. Robert Bellarmine was a papal revisionist?
DeleteI’ll side with Doctor Bellarmine over Salza any day!
—-Introibo
1: Go to novus ordo watch article "The chair stills vacant".
ReplyDelete2: Introibo, thank you for defending me.
Poni,
DeleteYou are a good Traditionalist my friend, and I will always defend a brother in the One True Faith.
---Introibo
R&R anon @ 7:54 pm
ReplyDeleteHey, did you know that Jorgy boy just denied the Immaculate Conception? Another opprtunity to warn Frankie-Jorgy over his heresy has gone begging --- just like all the many others that Frankie-Jorgy continually presents.
I was just wondering... Do the SSPX regularly pray that the heretics in Rome will wake up and see the light then give the heretic-in-chief, Frankie-Jorgy boy, his requisite warnings so he can be deposed and all will be right once again in the Church? :-)
Sorry if that sounds ridiculous...
Modernists and R&Rers are two sides of the same coin. They both aim to destroy the Papacy from its Divine mission, to govern and sanctify with Divine assistance. The modernists destroy the Papacy by attacking its governing power. Through synods and bishops' conferences they aim to diminish the power of the office and make it into merely a figurehead. This is exactly what protestants and eastern schismatics desire. R&Rers on the flip side, attack the sanctifying power by promoting the notion of an heretical pope. Thus, like the modernists, protestants, and schismatics, making the office irrelevant.
DeleteTom, don't forget to include the Protestant sedevacantists who by schism and complete rejection of church governance attack and destroy the unity of the Church. According to canon law you already received latae sententiae excommunications. Looks like you'll need to elect your antipope to resolve that little problem. Good luck!
DeleteAnonymous@ 8:23 am
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment.
Since the first part of your comment was nonsense, that's the only part I'll bother to address.
You need to think about what you're saying in relation to objective reality.
Case:
Paul VI preached heresy and imposed an invalid Mass on the faithful.
Paul VI, by doing so, *separated* himself from the Catholic Church.
Conclusion: Paul VI is the *real* schismatic in this equation (and heretic).
Tom is a Catholic. He recognized what Paul VI did. He did not go along with it.
Conclusion: Tom has maintained unity and has remained a Catholic whom recognizes that Holy See ceased to be occupied by Paul VI.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI erased my other comment by mistake: The original:
Delete"Anon, please tell me what Church Authority call us (true Catholics) protestant. If there is one, remember we have the right to resist it, isn´t it?
Vatican II was the beginning of a false Catholic Church. Vatican II and it’s heretical documents are claiming that the Church was in erorr for 2,000 years. Paul VI signed those heretical documents, therefore, Paul VI was never a Pope as he promulgated heresy. Paul VI also imposed an invalid false Mass, Sacraments and Ordinations. I guess Paul VI knew better than a 2,000 year old Church as passed down by Jesus and the 12 Apostles.
ReplyDeleteJoAnn
Joann,
DeleteYou're spot on! Let's recap what we had here:
R&R claim that there is a "process" to depose a pope.
Reply: List of canonists proving the pope falls by DIVINE LAW and no "process" is necessary (or even possible)
R&R assert that we need to "warn" the pope and he must be aware of his heresy
Reply: The mere public manifestation of heresy is enough for the pope to fall from office according to theologian MacKenzie. He is presumed guilty unless proven innocent--the opposite of American civil law.
R&R assert "heresy" on the part of Pope Honorius I and Pope John XXII.
Reply: Thoroughly refuted Protestant arguments shown false by theologian and Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine.
Conclusion: The R&R position is untenable. It uses discredited and recycled PROTESTANT arguments and ideas to justify a "pope" whom THEY decide when and IF they will obey him. That's not Catholic.
Sedevacantism is the ONLY logical and theologically sound argument for Traditionalists to hold.
---Introibo
And lest we forget--the citations from ALL canonists agree Bergoglio--a heretic PRIOR TO HIS SO-CALLED ELECTION---could never ATTAIN TO THE OFFICE because heretics are barred by DIVINE LAW!!
DeleteThis renders all the R&R claptrap about "judging the pope" and having a "process" completely moot!
---Introibo
Hi Introibo, I am curious as to why you say Bergolio was a heretic prior to his election? Has that been documented? Thank you.
Delete@anon3:59
DeleteDocumented beyond doubt! First, he accepts all the heresies of Vatican II, including (but not limited to):
The false ecclesiology that the "Church of Christ" is not identical to the Roman Catholic Church
That false sects are a "means of salvation"
--and on and on.
In addition, he co-authored a book "Sobre el Cielo y la Tierra" with ultra-liberal Rabbi Abraham Skorka, who supports sodomite "civil unions" and blames Catholic theology for antisemitism! "Cardinal" Bergoglio honored Skorka with an honorary doctorate at the Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina (UCA) / Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina, on the 50th Anniversary of the opening of Vatican II. He has also participated in Jewish services (you can Google a picture of him lighting a menorah)and he had participated in ecumenical services with Protestants. There is even a picture of him kneeling to receive a "blessing" from a Protestant minister.
Here is a good link:
https://romancatholicworld.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/francis-jorge-mario-bergoglio-a-jesuit-from-the-end-of-the-world-may-end-up-taking-you-there/
Any cleric who does such things is presumed heretical--even if we bypass the heresies of Vatican II.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Saying the Novus Ordo makes one a suspect of heresy right from thr start.
DeleteTom,
DeleteAnd the Novus Bogus is an ecumenical bread and wine service that flows directly from the heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II.
---Introibo
Common sense tells me that there cannot be two Roman Catholic Churches. Pre-Vatican II and Vatican II. One is the True Church and the other a false Church. How can people accept both Churches? They contradict each other. The same with a Pope. Either the Pope is a true Pope or he is a false Pope. You cannot have it both ways.
ReplyDeleteJoAnn
Joann,
DeleteYou make one huge mistake---you think the R&R have common sense!! LOL
God Bless,
---Introibo
What do you think about the argument that Roman Rite liturgical law is not universally binding, in other words, it isn't universal ecclesiastical law.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who says that is ignorant.
DeleteAccording to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115).
The universality means it applies everywhere to a given rite and not just in a particular area, i.e., only in France, etc.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
So is the Tridentine Rite a "universal rite" or does it merely apply to the Latin Patriarchate?
DeleteIt’s universal.It applies to all members of the Latin Rite throughout the world.
Delete—-Introibo
Consider this argument:
ReplyDeleteRubrics of the Roman Rite are particular law of the Roman Patriarchate. There have been universal positive liturgical laws issued by Ecumenical Councils (e.g. the date of Easter) and Popes (the Gregorian Calendar) but rubrics for one rite are not universal positive liturgical laws.
If they only bind in the Diocese of Rome, I’d agree they’re not universal. However, that is not the case!
Delete—-Introibo
Yes... I know... I'm looking for an argument to support this position... Can you supply one?
DeleteAccording to the eminent canonist Buscaren, "A general law is one which is not limited to a particular territory; IT IS A UNIVERSAL LAW OF THE CHURCH. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS BINDING ON ALL CATHOLICS." (See "Canon Law: A Text and Commentary" [1951], pg. 27).
DeleteMajor premise: The Rubrics of the Roman Rite, unless specifically stated to the contrary, bind all priests and people of that Rite regardless of the territory in which they reside.
Minor premise: A general law is one which is not limited to a particular territory; IT IS A UNIVERSAL LAW OF THE CHURCH. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS BINDING ON ALL CATHOLICS.
Conclusion: The rubrics of the Roman Rite are a Universal positive liturgical law.
The mistake of your opponent's argument is the idea that to be "universal" a law must encompass/bind all Catholics. This is simply not true as canonist Buscaren teaches.
I hope this helps!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Consider this reply
Delete"Obviously laws concerning marriage apply generally but not to those persons who are not free to marry. That does not mean they do not apply across rites (for they often do). Rubrics of the Roman Rite however do not apply outside the Roman Patriarchate and thus they simply are not promulgated by the pope in his capacity as universal legislator but as Patriarch of Rome. If the rubrics of one rite because they apply to its members across the world were thereby universal laws and if (as you maintain) universal laws are infallible then all patriarchs are infallible and not just the pope."
By "patriarch" I assume he's referring to the Eastern Rites and not Schismatics. If that's the case, his reply is woefully misguided. The Eastern Rites have their own Codes which must be APPROVED BY THE POPE either directly, or through the Congregation of Oriental Rites. When a Patriarch of the Eastern Rites makes a rubric applicable to all members of the Rite regardless of territory (e.g., the Maronite Rite), it is a universal law not because of the bishop per se, but because he has the delegated authority to do so granted by law through the Holy Roman Pontiff. It is the pope's authority that makes it universal, not the Eastern Rite bishop (s).
Delete---Introibo
Consider
Delete"The Eastern Church issues liturgical laws for their Rites on their own authority not through papal delegation. These laws apply to their rites universally and so according to your position are infallible. As JP II teaches “the characteristic disciplinary autonomy, which the Eastern Churches enjoy … is not the result of privileges granted by the Church of Rome, but of the law itself which those Churches have possessed since Apostolic times.”
Apples and oranges. Wojtyla can teach nothing. He’s an apostate.
DeletePope Leo XIII taught:
“Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches. It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation. ” (See “Praeclara” Of Pope Leo XIII).
The rights and privileges CAN be diminished by the Apostolic See. Why would the Easterns be afraid of a diminution of their rights if those rights are autonomous and independent of Rome?
I don’t know where he gets the.citation from Wojtyla, but it’s as far off the mark as his ecclesiology. Pope Leo clearly speaks of privileges
—-Introibo
"No Pope approved the rites of the Maronite Church.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that the Pope has authority even over all the Eastern Churches, but restricts himself for honor and charity to allow the other churches to govern themselves fully.
Like the TLM before it, it would only be binding on the Latin Church. Neither the TLM nor the NO are binding on any of the 23 self governing Eastern Churches.
Neither the TLM nor the NO are binding on any of the 23 self governing Eastern Churches.
"It is the pope’s authority that makes it universal, not the Eastern Rite bishop (s)."
The Eastern Rite refers to their liturgy, they are properly churches. It is a common way of speaking but very imprecise. You don't say "eastern rite" bishop, but a Bishop of x Church.
But laws do not concern faith and morals and can't be infallible. The only thing that is said for the Church's laws is they cannot command one to do evil."
Go back to Theology 101:
DeleteAccording to Theologian Hermann:
“The Church is INFALLIBLE in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.
( Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)