Posted on 09/30/2015 3:30:33 AM PDT by markomalley
The last true pope was Pope Pius XII of happy memory.
Jorge Bergoglio and those that support his claim to papacy need to repent and confess that they have stolen the buildings and the prestige from true Catholics, and pray for God’s forgiveness and healing. Then God and the faithful will establishes the next true pope who will (like great popes of long ago) be a man after God’s own heart and will not teach heresy and will not question or shed doubt on the doctrine which no valid pope has ever questioned or tried to twist or redefine.
Truth doesn’t change with the times.
Angelo Roncalli (or so-called “John XXIII”) was a heretic as he was a modernist who introduced the council that was to destroy the true worship in the form that it presented. He had been under scrutiny and discipline by Pope Pius XII if I recall clearly.
Paul VI rebelliously welcomed six schismatic protestants to be prominent advisers to the council in its efforts to change the Mass to be acceptable to schismatic protestants.
Such activities and the creation of the Novus Ordo were acts of insurrection against the licit authority of Holy Mother Church and unbecoming of a Catholic.
Thus the men who were elected by the masses of heretical and many invalid Cardinals were also heretics and not real popes.
Thank God that this has so cleared my mind so that I am not living in contradiction as millions of so-called Catholics are living in contradiction, claiming as popes men who are in reality wolves in sheep’s clothing.
If I understand you correctly, you recognize all popes up to and including Pius XII. Is this correct?
Do I recognize all popes up to and including Pius XII?
I recognize all who Pius XII recognized.
It would be impossible to recognize all under the loose definition of “pope”, for there can only be one at a time and at one time in history there were three thought by various groups to be a valid pope!
There is another time when Saint Bernard led the Church in invalidating all the works of an imposter who seemed to reign eight years due to illicit politics, and was of no service to the flock.
Other than that I am not possessing of omniscient powers to know all the details of all New Testament history. Anyone who met the qualifications consistent with those recognized by Pope Pius XII I would recognize, for valid popes recognize other valid popes, for that is why God even gave popes to us, to lead. Valid leaders are true shepherds (whose voice the sheep recognize).
I am learning more history nearly daily and if I read the life of a saintly man whose life and works were consistent with the written gospels and the consistent teaching of the Church, and that man appeared to be validly a reigning pope with the declared saints of his day recognizing him as such, and all presenting these facts appeared to be historically authentic sources, I hope that I would recognize that pope as valid, and would seek to learn from him as time would allow.
This sort of evaluation has taken place here with popes such as Saint Pope Gregory the Great, Saint Pope Leo XIII, Saint Pope Pius V, Saint Pope Pius X, Pope Pius IX, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII, for example.
How about you New Yorker? What is your criteria for belief and trust in Vicars of Christ on earth?
Can you please list them AND provide a link that documents Pope Pius XII so stating.
“I recognize all who Pius XII recognized.”
“Can you please list them AND provide a link that documents Pope Pius XII so stating.”
If you will please answer the question that I posed in my prior post as to what YOU believe, then I will be pleased to continue to declare my beliefs to YOU.
Or are you merely a lawyer? If so, please state the name of your client or clients first.
R & B: “I recognize all who Pius XII recognized.”
NYer: “Can you please list them AND provide a link that documents Pope Pius XII so stating.”
Why do you ask?
The problem wth believing this (and still desiring to call oneself Catholic) is that in order to elect a Pope, a college of Cardinals is required. And Cardinals are appointed by the Pope. These are simply facts every Catholic knows so don't ask me to "prove" them, because if you do you will expose yourself as not truly Catholic.
So the problem is, that since it takes a college of Cardinals to elect a Pope, and all the Cardinals since Pius XIIth was elected are dead, there is no (truly Catholic) way to elect another "true Pope".
So congratulations you've just made yourself a Protestsnt.
ROFL
You posited two concepts.
One that it is impossible to regain a pope when all Cardinals have apostacised.
Two that I am a protestant.
First of all it is not beyond God to provide what is needed to restore a pontif to the world in a situation that was in many ways unforeseen by man. He has done it before.
Secondly, I would suggest that those who follow the Novus Ordo have made themselves Protestants in so doing. So called Paul VI invited Protestants to the so-called Vatican II council in order to destroy the Mass and to Protestantize it. Only a true Catholic opposes the heresy of this anti-pope.
Sedavacantists have merely sought a more realistic ground for remaining true to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. We attend the same Mass celebrated for over a thousand years, and offered by priests ordained in Apastolic succession.
Ok that's an answer I guess. If it works for you great but I'd note if I were you that one of the primary tenents of the Faith is that God (the Holy Spirit) works with and through His Creation to effect real change in Man (his salvation).
The Sacraments for example. He chooses to work with physical realities to dispense His saving Grace.
So it is also with the Church Herself. He has chosen to use mere faulty men as instruments of this Grace. Indeed, specific to our "chat"'here, He has revealed that it is His will that a college of Cardinals elects Popes.
Now it's certainly possible, just as anything is possible, that God may change this method in the future but here's the rub: He will never contradict Himself and this means the only way this change in method (of electing or selecting Popes) will come is THROUGH the Church in the first place.
This means that since the Church has not definitively said that "we won't use Cardinals to elect Popes anymore", no Pope in the past (since at least Vatican I) no council has said that, then the method has NOT changed and cannot change until God changes it THROUGH the Church. This is the fundamental Catholic position. That God works through His Church, He doesn't work to subvert HIS OWN CHURCH! To believe that quite frankly is heresy.
The gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church you believe in. If I were you I'd take the advice of your own screen name.
“’The gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church you believe in.”
Christ Jesus’ words are applicable to the Church. The papacy is only a part of the Church.
Unlike the head of a human body, the body of Christ survives without the visible head on earth, and the gates of hell does not prevail against it.
There have been occasions of false popes and the church has survived both during and after those times.
And again I assert that just as numerous physical monuments have been built at the command of Mother Mary and the church has validated the visions, such as with the church in Guadalupe, so can God accomplish a new set of Cardinals and a new set of Popes as He desires, outside of the norm. Or if God chooses he may leave the church without a visible head for a time, or until the end of time.
That would not mean that the gates of hell prevailed against the church.
Just Protestantism repackaged. "The Body of Christ survives without the visible head on earth"="Invisible Church"=Protestantism.
Your embrace of the New Order anti-mass is just Protestantism repackaged.
“Communion” in the hand.
Mutated Christ’s own words of the consecration.
Focus on the presbyter with a pop-cultic personality of the pope, instead of devout focus on God with priest facing God with the people.
Loss of belief in the presence, which was one of the main agendas of the New Order.
Threw out the chapel veil.
Chased out the veiled nuns and consecrated sisters.
Scared away truly holy men from seminaries with heresy after heresy and intolerance of tradition.
Turned the altar around and call it a meal table instead of the sacrificial altar.
Who is the actual Protestant here?!!
The problem with your statement is that it is based on unspecified criteria, hence my questions. Which popes met the supposed criteria of Pope Pius XII and how was this criteria established.
In its 2000 year history, the Catholic Church has had more than 200 popes. Do you recognize Alexander VI, Stephen VI, Benedict IX or Leo X as valid popes? Do they appear on Pius XII's list? Following your established standard, any pope that followed Pius XII would be considered invalid since Pius XII is no longer here to adjudicate, right? All of this is predicated upon the idea that a hypothetically "calamitous pope" is currently reigning. Who decides that? Who judges that "the instructions of the Pope . . . [deviate] from the treasure of the Church"? Do we each become our own judge of what is part of the teaching magisterium of the Church? Or do we place our trust in bloggers on the Internet to tell us when it is time to withhold just obedience and support for the Church?
You asked: What is your criteria for belief and trust in Vicars of Christ on earth?
I think Traditionalist complaints with post Pius XII popes, boil down to disagreeing with a pope's non-infallible interpretations of Church doctrine and the moral law, with his prudential judgments, and with features of his personality (e.g., in John Paul's case, his showmanship; in Francis's case, his informality). And it is within legitimate bounds for Catholics to have issues with an individual pope's public remarks, with his actions on the world stage, or with his personality quirks. However, we have the assurance of Christ himself that the "gates of hell will not prevail" against his Church. In it's 2000 year history, there have been many good popes and some whose actions were calamitous, yet not one ever erred in his teachings on faith and morals ... not one! That is testimony to the work of the Holy Spirit. After all, "to whom shall we go" (John 6:67–69)?
NYer: “Which popes met the supposed criteria of Pope Pius XII and how was this criteria established. sic”
There you go, sounding just like a protestant, questioning a pope! Who are you to question Pope Pius XII’s criteria? Or in your own words, “Do we each become our own judge of what is part of the teaching magisterium of the Church?”
NYer: “You asked: What is your criteria for belief and trust in Vicars of Christ on earth?
Again you haven’t answered me your position but rather found fault with mine. Again, I will answer you when you have classified yourself with regard to the question that I already answered: What criteria do you use for which popes were valid and which were not?
Apparently you did not read my response, posted above.
R & B:
“Unlike the head of a human body, the body of Christ survives without the visible head on earth, and the gates of hell does not prevail against it.”
FourtySeven:
“Just Protestantism repackaged. “The Body of Christ survives without the visible head on earth”=”Invisible Church”=Protestantism.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please note that these concepts are not my own, nor are they to be confused with protestant position which recognizes zero popes after Peter. See information that follows, gained from a highly respected Cardinal.
Here is an English translation of that the decree on perpetual successors from Vatican I. This enables one to see the context of that sentence which is often quoted out of context.
It is clear that this decree is meant to condemn the Protestant error of saying that the *office* of the Primacy has not continued in the successors of Peter but ended with the death of Peter.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ODlsESuGJ8EC&pg=PA213#v=onepage&q&f=false
Also, below is the text of Cardinal Mazzella’s refutation of the objection that a vacancy would destroy the perpetual succession in the Primacy. Please note that a friend of mine put this translation together very hastily and has not taken the time to proof read it and smooth it out. Since that may never happen, here it is for what it is worth.
Also, here is a brief bio on Cardinal Mazzella: http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1886.htm
Lastly, I’ve attached a few other files excerpted from books which provide useful information on this subject.
*Cardinal Mazzella on Perpetual Succession During a Vacancy* *De religione et ecclesia: praelectiones scholastico-dogmaticae* Camillo Mazzella, S.J. Disp. V, Art. II, n. 940 Whole chapter:
https://books.google.com/books?id=yL8rAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA702
This section:
https://books.google.com/books?id=yL8rAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA730
940. You respond VII: Once you admit the succession in the Primacy to be of divine law, the indefectibility and visibility of the Church seems to be destroyed: for in that case the successor of St. Peter by the institution of Christ would be an essential part of the Church, as the Head is an essential part of the body; but the successor of St. Peter is lacking during a vacancy (in Sede vacante), and cannot be known with certainty in the case of a doubtful Pope; therefore the Church would then cease to exist, or would become invisible. I respond: The Church, as we have heard from the Apostle, ought indeed to be regarded as a body for which it is essential to have a Head (n. 420), and indeed, since it is a body formally visible as the mystical body of Christ, it ought to have a visible head; nevertheless, it is not a kind of physical body or physically one, but it is a moral body: thus it is not necessary that it always have a head, as in a physical body, but as in a moral body. Now the nature of a moral body, or society, does not require that there always be an actual head with no interruption; if indeed he who is the head (who is placed as the supreme authority), dies, after his death a successor is had: therefore in like manner it is to be admitted that there is always a visible head in the Church, which is a society. Just as a kingdom does not perish on account of the death of the king, if he ought to have a successor; so neither does the Church cease to exist upon the death of her supreme Ruler, whose successor is to be chosen. Nor does the Church become in any way invisible; for when she is lacking a Head, or there is doubt in the matter, there remains in the Church the necessity of having a certain Head; there remains the means, which can and ought to choose and designate that Head; there remains the common profession of faith concerning the necessity of such a Head, and a sincere disposition of souls to accept him who is legitimately designated; lastly, there remains the action both of those who seek and of those whose duty it is to designate that Head; in all this, therefore, the true Church of Christ remains visible with its visible Head, which is the successor of St. Peter. Cf. what was said in n. 672.
“Again you haven’t answered me your position but rather found fault with mine.”
“Apparently you did not read my response, posted above.”
So then your ability to know who is a true pontiff is found in your post 55?
If so, then let’s suppose that a charlatan appears on the scene and most people honor him as pope, as happened in Saint Bernard’s lifetime for a period of eight years. Let us say that the charlatan makes solemn decrees and canonizations.
How do you know that the charlatan was not a true pope?
Was there a true pope at that time?
Would you have been wrong to reject the wrong pope if you like Saint Bernard began to recognize that the man was not licit? Saint Bernard after the anti-pope’s death led the Church in nullifying all of the anti-pope’s works and he was declared an anti-pope.
Saint Bernard was a sedevacantist! (You better not tell “Francis” or this doctor of the Church might get excommunicated.)
Let’s take, another example, a case where you witness your neighbor break into another neighbor’s house, and kills the victim neighbor.
Would you be right to fear and avoid that neighbor and warn others against him even if the local law officials examined the case, didn’t believe your testimony, and assumed the murderer to be innocent of the heinous crime?
Sadly I’m afraid due to mankind’s lack of interest in God’s way and the devil’s intensifying fury, that this is the type of situation we face in these latter days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.