tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post2568831942185331177..comments2024-03-29T04:51:09.098-07:00Comments on Introibo Ad Altare Dei: It's Black And White: There Is No "Pope In Red"Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-30542842500049328112021-08-12T08:26:36.074-07:002021-08-12T08:26:36.074-07:00it's a lie that Pope Liberius, listed as Saint...it's a lie that Pope Liberius, listed as Saint in the martyrologies and Denzinger, excommunicated St. Athanasius. In reality both were orthodox and therefore Athanasius didn't consecrate bishops "outside the official church", but he, in communion with Liberius and other good Bishops WAS the official Church. Liberius supplied jurisdiction for him. Don't fall for the lies of the Lefebvrists and subversive Newman. Mary's Vagabondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565086577503013635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-53193598048895515082019-05-29T09:32:46.936-07:002019-05-29T09:32:46.936-07:00Looking at the 1958 text, Ad Apostolorum Principis...Looking at the 1958 text, Ad Apostolorum Principis, even the content of the mandate as given by Pope Pius XII makes it clear that what he wrote cannot possibly be reasonably insisted upon today: note most especially the phrase "they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying." The "discipline which now [1958] prevails" is the discipline of the then living Pope Pius XII. In the absence of a Pope, NO discipline prevails at that level; there is nothing to "escape from." And it is clear that said law or mandate, of itself and as written, has deprived itself of any force for today, to say nothing of the principle that any law ceases to have force when application as written becomes impossible.ubipetrushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15200441309441851879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-64083363521756227172018-08-17T09:35:40.473-07:002018-08-17T09:35:40.473-07:00Where one can read Cardinal Leinart's OWN clea...Where one can read Cardinal Leinart's OWN clear statement, that he indeed was a Freemason (a date, a freemasonic name, lodge etc) whose internal intention was to destroy Catholic Priesthood by performing only external rite?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-65724786272890339762015-02-22T14:09:09.024-08:002015-02-22T14:09:09.024-08:00To my Readers:
For those of you who have been fol...To my Readers:<br /> For those of you who have been following my exchange with the individual above, I wanted you to know he responded. It is my usual policy to publish all comments as long as they are not inappropriate (bad language, mere name-calling, etc.)<br /><br /> However, I will not publish it because its going nowhere and getting there fast. All he/she did was:<br />1. Drag out more of the same Canon Law citations that he doesn't understand.<br />2. Continue to insist that the legislation of Pope Pius XII means something the canonist Regatillo proves it does NOT mean. <br />3. He does not even ATTEMPT to answer my questions regarding Sts. Ansgar and Athanasius, which proves from the practice of the Church that he is completely, totally, and utterly wrong.<br /><br /> Without using the term, he admits to being a "Home Aloner." For more info on these schismatic folks who refuse to be in communion with True Catholics (Traditionalists), and thereby deprive themselves of the sacraments, see Fr. Cekada's excellent article entitled "Home Alone" at traditional mass.org.<br /><br /> This deluded person thinks he can privately interpret the complexities of canon law without reference to all that has been written by the Church's approved canonists. I'm a lawyer, and an acquaintance of mine once wanted to go to small claims court and represent himself. He asked me to look over his work, which I did. I informed him his interpretation of the law didn't seem right, and after I did the research, it confirmed my suspicion. I showed him the research and told him not to argue the law the way he thought it read. This man (a non-lawyer) told me I was wrong, and rejected my legal advice. Result? He lost.<br /><br /> Likewise, this person who is not a canon lawyer and refuses to listen to the best of the best who are canon lawyers (Regatillo, among others I cited) is equally doomed to lose. Lose grace for himself, those foolish enough to listen to him, and--God forbid-- put them all in peril of damnation.<br /><br />I ask all of you to pray for his conversion, as I will be doing.<br />---Introibo Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-67523776895445661792015-02-21T22:23:28.772-08:002015-02-21T22:23:28.772-08:00You claim that papal approval for episcopal consec...You claim that papal approval for episcopal consecrations is of DIVINE LAW. Divine law does not and cannot change. Human ecclesiastical law can change.<br /><br />If your whacky "theological principle" were true please explain--as an astute reader of my blog commented----<br /><br />1. How is it possible that St Ansgar was consecrated a bishop without the knowledge or consent of the pope? True, the pope confirmed his consecration after the fact, but if what you're saying were true, St. Ansar was a schismatic, not a Catholic for doing so. Since it was a public act, he would need to publicly abjure his schism and be received back by the pope in the external forum. This never happened. The pope praised him and he is a saint of the Church. How could this be true, if your theological principle is true? Remember, the pope cannot decree something to be Divine law if it were not always such. Murder is a sin against the 5th Commandment. It was always wrong, and no pope can change it. Abstaining from meat on Friday is of human ecclesiastical law and is subject to change. If papal permission were of Divine Law, it would apply to St. Ansgar.<br /><br />2. St Athanasius ordained his own clergy against the will of the pope and died excommunicated. He was posthumously declared a saint. Wouldn't St Athanasius, his clergy, and those who followed them all be damned as schismatics? How did he become a saint too? <br /><br />As you don't understand citations to relevant canonists and theologians, perhaps these two examples that prove you wrong will wake you up. ( I'm not betting on it).<br /><br />A final note: If Traditionalists are all "schismatic," who are legitimate clergy?<br />Frankie? (Vatican 2 sect)<br />No one? ("Home Aloner")<br />The unknown "pope in red"? (Siri Thesis)<br />David Bawden (The "pope" who lives on a farm in Kansas?)<br /><br />I feel sorry for you.<br />--Introibo<br />Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-30213341917155490512015-02-21T22:20:21.385-08:002015-02-21T22:20:21.385-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-28425624536220568872015-02-21T20:28:39.638-08:002015-02-21T20:28:39.638-08:00On your repeated sophism "no pope has the aut...On your repeated sophism "no pope has the authority to nullify a sacrament." ... <br /><br />What good are sacraments from schismatics emanating from your ilk?<br /><br />“Once these conditions [intention of Orders] are present, the sacraments may be conferred by either the good or the wicked, the faithful or the heretical, within the Church or outside it: but within the Church, they are conferred both in fact and in effect, while outside it, although conferred in fact, they are not effective.” -St. Bonaventure from, The Beviloquium, Part VI, Chapter 5, Article 1<br /><br />In closing: <br /><br />Pius XII solemn proclamation in 1958 on the necessity of obtaining a papal mandate for any CATHOLIC episcopal consecration, certainly concerns divine law (i.e., the Hierarchical Divine Constitution of the Church).<br /><br />Lefebvre and Thuc knew this Petrine Teaching of Pius XII and proclaimed it publicly, yet both would fall from the Faith by violating it, and receiving ipso facto censures that they never had lifted.<br /><br />Your interpretation (?) of what Fr. Miaskiewicz wrote above was non sequitur... absurd.<br /><br />Deo gratias that it is impossible for you anarchal anti-papists to get past Pius XII's eternally binding decree that providently is so fiercely guarding Catholic unity!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-62056738597017529252015-02-21T16:53:44.812-08:002015-02-21T16:53:44.812-08:00Fr DePauw was the pioneer, trying to sort things o...Fr DePauw was the pioneer, trying to sort things out in this unprecedented time of near universal apostasy. <br /><br />Bp Kurz was the exiled bishop of the diocese of Yungchow, China, but was German, not Chinese. Kurz, did believe that Vatican 2 could be "made orthodox" as did Fr. DePauw in his early post-V2 days. Had the good bishop lived long enough he would have seen this error as did Father.<br /><br />I'm not a "disciple" of Father DePauw, but his proud spiritual son! I am a disciple of no one but Christ, Who alone is worthy to be followed. <br /><br />Now, above I have given you, with rock solid citations, the teaching of the Church, which is not the strange ideas you have regarding jurisdiction and supported by private apparitions( which no one must believe) and your proven erroneous interpretation of papal documents---not to mention citations to others that don't mean what you think they do either.<br /><br />There's an old aphorism, "When you don't know what your talking about don't speak" In your case, you'd be constrained to remain mute for life.Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-77021662630187217232015-02-21T16:33:02.528-08:002015-02-21T16:33:02.528-08:00Oh... the webmaster is a mere disciple of the schi...Oh... the webmaster is a mere disciple of the schismatic (enemy of papal jurisdiction advocate) Fr. Gommar A. De Pauw, who said:<br /><br />"NO CATHOLIC PRIEST, WHETHER ORDER PRIEST OR DIOCESAN PRIEST, NEEDS ANYBODY'S PERMISSION TO CONTINUE OFFERING THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS OF ST. PIUS V, ANYWHERE AND ANYTIME, WITH OR WITHOUT PEOPLE IN ATTENDANCE." (FATHER GOMMAR A. DE PAUW, FOUNDER-PRESIDENT OF <br />THE CATHOLIC TRADITIONALIST MOVEMENT, INC)<br /> <br />The well-known, who many have called a founder of the "Traditional Mass Movement" statement, "no Catholic priest... needs anybody's permission (not even a Bishop's) to (say the Latin Mass) anywhere anytime ...", is contrary to the Church's teaching that a priest to do anything, must work through the One True Hierarchy, established on St. Peter and His Successors. That is he must have Canonical Mission (permission) to offer any Sacraments. <br /><br />Hailed as the Initial Founder of Traditionalism in the U.S. .... <br /><br />"They insist this man (Fr. Gommar De Pauw) was entirely orthodox in his beliefs with no ties to the Novus Ordo church other than those that can be explained by the rampant confusion then existing. But while DePauw may have been the first “Traditionalist” in this country, he was a far cry from being truly Catholic, and none of the Traditionalist organizations that followed in his train were any better. In fact they all were far more sinister in their origins than is actually known, and it is high time Traditionalists faced up to this salient fact. <br /><br />In 1964 De Pauw separated himself from the Novus Ordo to begin the Catholic Traditionalist Movement (CTM). He operated under the displaced Chinese bishop Blaise S. Kurz, a Franciscan. But unfortunately Kurz wrote on De Pauw’s behalf: “The aim of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement is simply the FULL implementation of ALL decisions of the recent Ecumenical Council, including the one providing the people with a choice between the old Latin liturgy and the new vernacularized one,” (“Declaration,” para. 7 latinmass-...). <br /><br />At any rate it appears that in one way or another, all the founders of the early Traditionalist sects imbibed the pernicious spirit of change in the Church to varying degrees. This accounts for the adoption of their present views on Canon Law in general and jurisdiction, epikeia and other points of law in particular. In fact the non-Catholic philosophy they subscribed to existed before the false Vatican 2 council was ever convened; the council simply gave them the convenient “cover” needed to carry these false liberal and ecumenical ideas of Canon Law and Church teaching into the Traditionalist movement and communicate them to the faithful. But far from being born at the false Vatican Council, these ideas came from the lips of the Church’s avowed enemy, Freemasonry, which although it was inspired by Zionism was well frequented by those calling themselves Catholic, including members of the hierarchy." Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-44887984841533873982015-02-21T16:32:39.730-08:002015-02-21T16:32:39.730-08:00Read my reply part one above, part two below. No a...Read my reply part one above, part two below. No appeal to apparitions or private readings of Denziger and papal decrees which don't mean what you THINK they do! Just the teaching of the Church by Her approved theologians!<br />'Nuff saidIntroibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-71050256673299812162015-02-21T16:24:36.044-08:002015-02-21T16:24:36.044-08:00You're so off the mark, it's sad. First yo...You're so off the mark, it's sad. First you did not respond to the commenter about the case of St. Athanasius.<br /><br />Next, as to your #1 above no pope has the authority to nullify a sacrament. Jurisdiction yes, but not the sacrament. There is no question as to the validity of consecrations/ordinations where the traditional rite was used. Even the Greek Orthodox have valid sacraments. Canonist Regatillo makes it clear that Pope Pius' decree affects only diocesan bishops.<br /><br />As to question and response #2 above, why wouldn't Traditionalists be valid priests? The sacrament of Holy Orders cannot be made void by the pope. <br /><br />These principles apply as follows: After Vatican II nearly all bishops and priests with the cura animarum defected to the new religion. The few priests who resisted, on the other hand, were professors, outcasts in their religious orders or dioceses, retired, etc.<br /><br />These priests were then bound by divine law to provide sacraments for Catholics, who, since their pastors had apostasized, were now “obviously in serious need.” The priests were not obliged to “seek permission.” Rather, they were obliged, both in charity and in virtue of their ordination, to baptize, absolve, offer Mass, etc.<br /><br />Not only that, but the bishops among them — Abps. Lefebvre and Thuc — were obliged to confer Holy Orders on worthy candidates who would then continue to provide sacraments for faithful Catholics throughout the world.<br /><br />Their obligation arose from the sacred order of episcopacy they had both received. The one-sentence exhortation to the candidate in the Rite of Episcopal Consecration expresses this obligation succinctly: “It is the duty of a bishop to judge, to interpret, to consecrate, to ordain, to offer sacrifice, to baptize and to confirm.”<br /><br />Moreover, those priests who derive their orders from Abps. Lefebvre or Thuc obviously have no appointment to the cura animarum. But like all other priests, they are likewise obliged by divine law, in charity and in virtue of ordination, to provide sacraments to the faithful who remain in grave common need. <br /><br />Although certain canons in the Code expressly recall principles of the divine positive law (for examples, see Michels, Normae Generales Juris Canonici 1:210ff), the canons that prescribe how thelegitimate deputation to baptize, absolve, offer Mass, etc. is conferred or obtained are not themselves divine law, but only human law.<br /><br />According to general principles of law, a human law:<br /><br />A. Ceases automatically and positively when it becomes harmful (nociva) to observe. For this, see the works by moral theologians and canonists Abbo-Hannon, Aertnys-Damen, Badii, Beste, Cappello, Cicognani, Cocchi, Coronata, Maroto, McHugh-Callan, Merkelbach, Michels, Noldin, Regatillo-Zalba, Vermeersch, Wernz-Vidal, etc. (continued below)<br />Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-5791151532777774892015-02-21T16:18:34.993-08:002015-02-21T16:18:34.993-08:00
B. Ceases in “common need,” even if the la...<br /><br /> B. Ceases in “common need,” even if the law would otherwise render a sacrament invalid.Thus, for instance, an invalidating impediment to marriage normally requiring dispensation by a church official with ordinary jurisdiction would cease to bind “because of common need,” when access to someone with the requisite authority is impossible. (Merkelbach 1:353)<br /><br /> Such a common need would also occur, for instance, “during a time of persecution or upheaval in a particular country.” In this case, “if the purpose of the law would cease in a contrary way for the community — that is, if common harm would result from it — the law would not bind, because it would rightly be considered to be suspended, due to benign interpretation of the mind of the lawgiver.” (Cappello 5:199)<br /><br /> This includes Canons 953 and 2370, which would otherwise forbid the consecration of a bishop without an apostolic mandate (the papal document authorizing the consecration), because observing them would eventually deprive the faithful of sacraments whose conferral requires a minister in Holy Orders.<br /><br /> This also includes Canon 879.1, which governs jurisdiction for absolution: “To hear confessions validly jurisdiction must be granted expressly, either orally or in writing.” The moral theologian and canonist Prümmer specifically characterizes this canon as “ecclesiastical law.” (Manuale Theologiae Moralis 3:407: “A jure ecclesiastico statuitur, ut jurisdictionis concessio a) sit expressa sive verbis sive scripto…” Original emphasis).<br /><br /> Since the canon is human ecclesiastical law and not divine law, the requirement for an express grant of jurisdiction could therefore cease on grounds of “common need” because Catholics in mortal sin need absolution and because priests are obliged to provide it. Thanks to Fr Cekada for the citations. <br /><br />Therefore, you are wrong and the pope has shut down nothing. Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-68681659109429229302015-02-21T16:15:34.593-08:002015-02-21T16:15:34.593-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-11226371257859591002015-02-21T16:15:32.600-08:002015-02-21T16:15:32.600-08:00Yes the Holy Canons are being completely disregard...Yes the Holy Canons are being completely disregarded... <br /><br />“The pastors and faithful…are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…let him be anathema,” (DZ 1827, 1831). <br /><br />3308 Dz 1960 When the divine Founder decreed that the Church be one in faith, and in government, and in communion, He chose Peter and his successors in whom should be the principle and as it were the center of unity. . . . But, order of bishops, as Christ commanded, is to be regarded as joined with Peter, if it be subject to Peter and obey him; otherwise it necessarily descends into a confused and disorderly crowd. For the proper preservation of faith and the unity of mutual participation, it is not enough to hold higher offices for the sake of honor, nor to have general supervision, but there is absolute need of true authority and a supreme authority which the entire community should obey. . . . Hence those special expressions of the ancients regarding St. Peter, which brilliantly proclaim him as placed in the highest degree of dignity and authority. They everywhere called him prince of the assembly of disciples, prince of the holy apostles, leader of that choir, mouthpiece of all the apostles, head of that family, superintendent of the whole world, first among the apostles, pillar of the Church. . . . Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-31362078808621859752015-02-21T16:05:48.473-08:002015-02-21T16:05:48.473-08:00"The Holy Canons will be completely disregard..."The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded... they will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the axioms of the law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretation, modification, and delimitation by man." (Prophecy of Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser, 17th Century)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-43933848336303371982015-02-21T15:46:33.836-08:002015-02-21T15:46:33.836-08:00Q. Precisely what jurisdiction belongs to the pope...Q. Precisely what jurisdiction belongs to the pope?<br /><br />Well as stated above, only the pope can lift certain censures and dispense from certain impediments. Only the pope can grant the papal mandate necessary for episcopal consecration. So if a man is consecrated during an interregnum without this mandate, Pope Pius XII declares this act null and void. Therefore none of these "Traditionalists" ever became bishops. Some will argue Thuc had a special missionary faculties, but even if he had been granted this, Thuc incurred infamy of law afterward which invalidated all his actions and jurisdiction. In his "The Holy See at Work," canon lawyer Rev. Edward Heston, commenting on Pope Pius XII's 1945 election constitution, Vacantis Apostolica Sedis notes that during an interregnum, special faculties granted to the Sacred Rota during the Pope's lifetime are suspended: "Nor may they use during the interregnum any special faculties conferred on them by the deceased Pontiff." <br /><br />Q. Well there again that applies to bishops, but what about priests?<br /><br />"Traditionalist" priest claim that they possess jurisdiction supplied either by the law itself or directly from Christ. They need this jurisdiction to validly hear confessions, if, that is, we can consider them validly ordained. Yet history shows that no one ever supplied such jurisdiction except the Roman Pontiff; Rev, Francis Miaskiewicz in his work on jurisdiction tells us that the "Church" in Can 209 means the pope and Rev. John Bancroft tells us the same in his dissertation on relations with non-Catholics. Both wrote in the 1940's. So during an interregnum, there is no one to supply jurisdiction, and therefore no one can pretend top usurp this papal function.<br /><br />Q. So what this pope is saying basically shuts down "Traditionalist" operations, correct?<br /><br />Yes, because what Pius XII also teaches is that no one can correct, change, dispense from or modify papal law during an interregnum, and that if they do, it is null and void. Most importantly, he seals all of this with the following: "But if anything contrary to this prescript occurs or is by chance attempted, we declare it by Our Supreme authority to be null and void." So all the acts during an interregnum of even those who are validly ordained or consecrated, if such men dare presume to usurp papal jurisdiction, are though they never happened - Mass, Sacraments, blessings, everything. The Supreme Pontiff alone has the fullness of jurisdiction and can regulate the use of Holy Orders as he sees fit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-23155308123391713682015-02-21T13:34:52.245-08:002015-02-21T13:34:52.245-08:00Secondly I am not cursing you nor have you address...Secondly I am not cursing you nor have you addressed St.Anthanasius ordaining & appointing his own clergy during the Arian crisis.Nor have you addressed him being excommunicated by the Arian heretics yet being canonized after his death.A saint operated outside the official church,ordained his own clergy,was excommunicated,and then canonized! He is quoted saying 'They have the churches,we have the faith.'St.Ansgar was appointed bishop of a diocese that created without the pope's knowledge or apporoval.Yes he (pope) approved postumouthsly,Please address these issues, sir.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-13376349872034288022015-02-21T13:28:04.888-08:002015-02-21T13:28:04.888-08:00If my last comment seemed uncharitable, it was jus...If my last comment seemed uncharitable, it was just my exasperation when I have clearly, using objective facts, proven your contentions wrong. It is not my "last defense," rather it is my final word when someone refuses to go where the evidence leads. <br /><br />Rethink your errors. Keeping people away from the sacraments by declaring bishops "schismatic" who clearly and demonstrably are not, is not helping the cause of Christ and His One True Church.<br />Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-87414902725449120502015-02-21T12:59:01.464-08:002015-02-21T12:59:01.464-08:00Explain how catholics doing exactly what catholics...Explain how catholics doing exactly what catholics practiced before 1951 are schismatic?I ask this in sincere curiosity,not sarcasm.Thuc was consecrated with ability to ordain/consecrate out dioceses.This is a fact,I have read it many times.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-22694022218225887742015-02-21T11:27:06.527-08:002015-02-21T11:27:06.527-08:00"He is like the heretics 'whose last defe..."He is like the heretics 'whose last defense,' as Jerome says, 'is to start spewing out a serpent's venom with their tongue when they see that their causes are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished.' (Exsurge Domine, Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther, Pope Leo X, June 15, 1520)<br /><br />Yes, private revelation does not need to be believed by Catholics... still:<br /><br />"In all ages of men have been divinely instructed in matters expedient for the salvation of the elect...and in all ages there have been persons possessed of the spirit of prophesy, not for the purpose of announcing new doctrines, but to direct human actions." (St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa: 2:2:174: Res. et ad 3)<br /><br />Prophecy of St. Nicolas of Fluh: "The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the SUCCESSION OF PETER and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, SHE WILL BE VICTORIOUSLY EXALTED in the sight of ALL doubters."<br /><br />experientia docet stultos..."Qui mange le Pape, meurt!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-79856227807138867462015-02-21T10:45:15.324-08:002015-02-21T10:45:15.324-08:00It is not MY interpretation of Pope Pius XII, it i...It is not MY interpretation of Pope Pius XII, it is canonist Regatillo, with the solemn approbation of the Church! It is you who are dead wrong! <br /><br />In response to your last paragraph I will address it:<br />The so-called simple Catholic truths, are your misinterpretations of papal decrees (as demonstrated by the eminent Regatillo) and logical errors. In the absence of a pope, Catholics have a duty to keep the Church going until one is lawful back on the throne of St Peter. Miaskiewicz was not talking about bishops not consecrated for a diocese, as Regatillo clearly shows.<br /><br />Conclusion: No matter what the evidence you have your mind made up, so I won't confuse you with the facts. You can educate the ignorant, but when you're stupid, NOTHING can be done!Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-84287325016407286732015-02-21T10:29:56.925-08:002015-02-21T10:29:56.925-08:00Your private interpretation of Pius XII's &quo...Your private interpretation of Pius XII's "Ad Apostolorum Principis" easy to understand 1958 condemnation (penalty of ipso facto damning excommunication) of ALL non-papal mandated consecrations, whether a diocese has been usurped or not, is dead wrong.<br /><br />Pope Callistus II, Lateran I, Denz 363: "Let no one unless canonically elected extend his hand for consecration to the episcopacy."<br /><br />In 1976 An ecclesiastical crime was committed. <br /><br />The usurper Jew mafioso Antipope Paul VI had no say whatsoever with anything to do with the Catholic Church. Lefebvre and Thuc excommunicated themselves in 1976 by violating IMMUTABLE CATHOLIC LAW. <br /><br />Thuc publicly admitted that he committed this crime (and then went out in to do it again & again). And Lefebvre who advised him in 1976 to do it, in total criminal hypocrisy, condemned Thuc for his schismatic non-papal mandated "consecrationS" and then attempted a copycat crime in 1988! You laud this hell!<br /><br />Pope Pius VI, Errors of the Synod of Pistoia, 1794, Condemned propositions: “47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect,—false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.” (D. 1547)<br /><br />Also you have repeatedly not addressed this (I will re-post it):<br /><br />Even after re-relaying these simple to understand truths of the Catholic Faith, the blog owner will say that it is an ecclesiastical "emergency" so all is well (justified) - although the erudite Fr. Francis Sigismund Miaskiewicz (above) refutes that line of "reasoning" as alien to de fide.<br /><br />Conclusion: Schismatics are not Catholics!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-70477103444117223832015-02-21T08:53:33.160-08:002015-02-21T08:53:33.160-08:00Anyone who states Independent Clergy are invalid d...Anyone who states Independent Clergy are invalid does not remember that St.Anthanasius,ordained his own clergy outside the official church during the Arian crisis.Not only that but,he was excommunicated for holding to the true catholic faith.subsequently he was canonized for the same reason.The Vatican 2 religion is our Arian crisis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-60408526215429362482015-02-21T08:34:04.167-08:002015-02-21T08:34:04.167-08:00You make two serious errors. The first is an error...You make two serious errors. The first is an error of logic, the second is in interpretation of a the papal legislation you cite.<br /><br /> Archbishops Lefebvre and Thuc cannot incur excommunication from failing to follow a man they erroneously believed to be pope. It does show a schismatic MINDSET, to be certain, but not an actual act of schism.<br /><br /> Let me give you a simple illustration:<br />I'm a NY lawyer. In NYC, it is illegal to make a right hand turn with your car at a red light. It is, however, legal to do so on Long Island. Suppose someone drives here from New Jersey and has it mixed up. He thinks it's legal to make a right turn at a red light in NYC, but illegal on Long Island. Driving on Long Island, our driver from NJ comes to a red light. He gets a phone call from his wife to come home right away because there is an emergency. He thinks it's wrong to make a right on red, but because of the state of emergency, he does so anyway. He now thinks he broke the law and got away with it, but is this actually the case?<br />Obviously not. Had a police car watched him make the right turn at the red light no action would have been taken because (despite his subjective belief) HE DIDN'T OBJECTIVELY BREAK THE LAW BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LAW TO BREAK. Analogously, neither Abp. can be said to defy the pope when Montini (Paul VI) was not, in fact, pope.<br /><br /> Your second error regards the legislation of Pope Pius XII.<br />You confuse:<br /> 1. The mandatum: the papal document granting permission for the consecration of a bishop who will serve as a bishop in any capacity, including as an auxiliary or titular bishop, and<br /><br /> 2. The canonical appointment: a papal decree designating a bishop as Ordinary (or "residential bishop") of a duly constituted diocese, which appointment auxiliary and titular bishops did not receive.<br /><br /> The canonist Fr. Eduardo Regatillo, in his Institutiones Juris Canonici (Santander: Sal Terrae 1956), 2:600, states that the 1951 decree affects only bishops consecrated without papal appointment to be heads of dioceses.<br /><br /> "Anyone who is to be promoted to the episcopacy needs the canonical appointment by which he is constituted Bishop of a such a vacant diocese.<br /><br /> "In practice, it may be doubted whether only those who are to be consecrated residential Bishops are affected - that is, those who are consecrated for a diocese now in existence - or also titular bishops (who are created for an extinct see or diocese), or bishops who are consecrated for no diocese.<br /><br /> "From the purpose intended by the Holy Office, the decree appears to cover only those who are consecrated as residential bishops, for this is the actual case which the Holy See intends to condemn..<br /><br /> "This new type [of offense] differs from the one mentioned in canon 2370, where the canon refers to consecrations performed without apostolic mandate (described in canon 953). The new decree, on the other hand, punishes consecrations performed without pontifical appointment.<br /><br /> "An appointment designates the person and bestows the title [to an office]. A mandate grants the permission to confer the consecration."---Thank you to Fr. Cekada for this citation.<br /><br />Traditional Catholic bishops are consecrated for no diocese. One cannot claim, therefore, that the 1951 Decree applies to them.Introibo Ad Altare Deihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-28109158180244287592015-02-21T07:33:38.069-08:002015-02-21T07:33:38.069-08:00Schismatics are not Catholics
Pope Callistus II, ...Schismatics are not Catholics<br /><br />Pope Callistus II, Lateran I, Denz 363: "Let no one unless canonically elected extend his hand for consecration to the episcopacy."<br /><br />In 1976 Lefebvre and Thuc both recognized Paul VI as the pope. They both were involved in the objectively schismatic "consecrations" in Palmar de Troya, Spain. <br />It is false reasoning to argue in hindsight that Paul VI was an antipope [which indeed he was]; as both of these men de facto claimed Paul VI was Christ's Vicar in 1976. <br /><br />Hence both Lefebvre and Thuc violated Canon 953 thus by operation of law, incured ipso facto excommunication, reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See - which damning censure neither of them had lifted by the Holy See (which the gates of Hell will never prevail against).<br /><br />So Lefebvre and Thuc were schismatics and died that way. Schismatics are not Catholics. No one can partake in schismatic Sacraments [we are not talking last rites here] for any reason, without incurring excommunication themselves, which this blog's owner and multiple other of the unthinking masses ["traditionalists"] promote as the highest act of virtue!<br /><br />Ad Apostolorum Principis (June 29th, 1958)<br /><br />It follows from what We have said that no authority whatever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the Canonical Appointment granted to any Bishop; that no person or group, whether of Priests or of laymen, can lay claim to the right of nominating Bishops; that no one can lawfully confer Episcopal Consecration unless he has received the Mandate of the Apostolic See (Canon 953.).<br /><br />The Guilty Parties Are Excommunicated <br /><br />Consequently, if Consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the Unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunation reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by anyone who received consecration irresposibly conferred and by the actual consecrator (Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Apr. 9, 1951; "Acta Apostolicae Sedia," vol. 53, p. 217).<br /><br />Even after re-relaying these simple to understand truths of the Catholic Faith, the blog owner will say that it is an ecclesiastical "emergency" so all is well (justified) - although the erudite Fr. Francis Sigismund Miaskiewicz (above) refutes that line of "reasoning" as alien to de fide. <br /><br />"The Catholic Church will never compromise a doctrine; it will never allow two doctrines to be taught within its pale... The Catholic Church is bound by the Divine law to suffer martyrdom rather than compromise a doctrine." -Cardinal Manning, "The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested By Prophecy: Four Lectures", p. 73<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com