Yeah, they needed to loosen up and become entertainers:
Posted on 06/16/2004 8:33:58 PM PDT by gbcdoj
"In fact, none of these three men can write a word that's not a bash of the post-Vatican II Church."
That's because it's so bash-able. Let's face it: when the bishops and pope attempt to impose a new religion on people, it's not enough to claim it's Catholic just because they say so. It must conform to past Church teachings. The postconciliar Apostolic See doesn't bother with this. They simply demand blind obedience. No way, Jose. Catholic Tradition is the measure of what is truly Catholic--not what they claim.
He means EXACTL what he states:
"(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;"
Lighten up.
I haven't YET heard of a solution from you, AAA.
Fair and impartial trial, with capital punishment for abusers of juveniles.
You gotta problem with that?
Validity because of 'universal acceptance' is false as I have cited.
The argument you are pursuing is a complete dead end, as I posit to you the following case, a valid pope, legitimately elected, who would later become a heretic and defect from the Faith and hence the Papacy.
In this instance he would have been validly accepted when he WAS valid, later became a heretic, and hence the question of universal acceptance does not matter in the least.
In any event, in neither example is acceptance universal. There are certainly a number of Catholics, who do not accept the V2 era 'popes' as valid. These may seem to be a small minority, but if the universe is those who hold the Faith whole and entire, they are rapidly approaching a majority.
Although AAA doesn't like the concept, he produces no ideas of his own.
Frankly, I don't have a problem with capital punishment for child abusers, and I don't have a problem with capital punishment for their enablers/co-conspirators.
Sorry, but all you've stated there is that there are SOME who do not accept the Pope.
However, before those SOME's opinions can be admitted, those SOME's attachment/membership in the Church must be examined, critically. Get the hint? No schismatics need apply.
Excluding the schismatics, then, do you mean to define "universally" as "each and every Catholic of majority and mentally competent on the face of the Earth at the time of election"?
I could easily bash the Tridentine Mass, with its accoutrements, to say nothing of the dress of pre-Vatican II bishops, with their buskins, and gloves and other effeminacies.
And, the Papal Tiara...what a tempting target.
But, I don't, because I respect your sensitivities.
But you don't respect mine.
A strawman.
a valid pope, legitimately elected, who would later become a heretic and defect from the Faith and hence the Papacy
In this case he was valid until he defected from the Faith - the Church did not err in accepting him as a true Pontiff.
There are certainly a number of Catholics, who do not accept the V2 era 'popes' as valid.
Certainly moral unanimity is sufficient. All Catholic bishops accepted John Paul and his predecessors as Pope, as did over 99.999% of the members of the Catholic Church.
if the universe is those who hold the Faith whole and entire, they are rapidly approaching a majority
A few thousand sedevacantists a majority of the Church! The local Church of Rome is infallible in itself (Dz. 730) and accepted the Pope and his successors. If they were invalid, it erred in a dogmatic fact - something impossible according to Catholic dogma.
It can't acquire validity. No one disputes this.
Obedience accorded by all infallibly proves that the Pope-elect is NOT a heretic.
Yeah, they needed to loosen up and become entertainers:
YOU need to loosen up.
Why don't we start with defrocking them first? Or making even the allusion of being "gay" verbotten. I'd be happy if we started with that.
Exactly who is going to execute these canoodlers and under what system? To be honest I personally don't think death is a disproportionate response to someone who has sex on an innocent child -ruining their life in the process, but that's just not what we do anymore. Get real.
Then again you want to execute those who are disobedient to the pope, so I am extremely hesitant to agree with you on these matters.
The homosexuals are very much a problem, but they're more a result of other debilitating factors than the cause. Solving our gay problem would only be a drop in the bucket of the "solution" you refer to.
If we didn't provide a fertile ground for homosexuality (in addition to all the other sin, heresy and madness) to paradoxically thrive in the church that Christ founded, we wouldn't have to worry about what to do with them. It wouldn't be an issue.
You brought up a very good point in referring to solutions. In fact I'm going write an article and post it on angelqueen at my next available opportunity.
Tiny Tim's Geldings Clubhouse would burn Joan of Arc at the stake again, if they had a chance.
Read my post carefully--this is not true. The merely disobedient will be tortured, carefully, until they recant.
Under what system...we don't do that anymore...
We'll work on that little problem. There may be an island out there that's not claimed as 'territory,' allowing the TTGC to establish a government which would accomodate our needs. Glad you brought that up, you wizard of practicality.
Actually, as is usually the case, one or two carefully justified and well-publicized beheadings will have a REMARKABLE effect on other cannoodlers; maybe even repentance!
Perhaps Patrick, a native of Germany, wasted his time on certain Celt tribes. Your existence would prove the theory.
My blood is one quarter German. Maybe that's why I was spared.
How many people did St. Patrick torture and/or execute?
Well you really bring up many good statements. Now I do not adhere to the seda vecantist theory currently but it certainly was something posited by a great doctor of the Church so I think it is a possibility. I just believe that it is such a dire situation and it would be up to a future Pope to formerly declare that such were the case unless things were a real gross job.
Now, here is the problem with saying that a Pope could not defect. This takes away his FREE WILL. Now the Holy Spirit knows ahead of time which man could defect and which man would so you could make an argument that it seems Bellarmaine made that it is possible but not probable because the Holy Spirit would not want to allow it. We are dealing however with a ‘mystery of iniquity’ Could such a thing happen?
Now it is clear that the blessed Virgin could have said no to God she was given a choice. So I think that to say that a Pope could not say NO to God in terms of No I will not behave and believe as a Catholic in public is possible.
If a Pope were to declare publically that he thought Jesus was not God's son and he was Christ or an antichrist was Christ well then its obvious that he is not the Pope whether or not he was validly elected or not. The reason is that once he were to declare a false doctrine that was manifest and that he would not be corrected by those under him who made the attempt well then the church would have to step in and elect a new Pope. Now if he did not do this because of coercion or other Cardinals of the Church were following him in his heresy well then we would be in a mess wouldn't we? And this is precisely what the Seda vecantist state.
Its important to remember that Judas betrayed Christ for 30 pieces of silver and Peter denied he knew Christ to save his skin which was actually worse- however Peter repented and Judas hung himself. Both were used by devine providence to bring about the salvation of the world. (I mean in potential of cource. I do NOT believe everyone is saved. Jesus said just the opposite -"many are called and few are chosen. Wide is the path that leads to perdition and many travel it.)
Now Honorius was excommunicated for allowing heresy to flourish but he was not declared a non Pope ahead of time by anyone that I know of. Of course the seda vecantists claim that JP II has done the same thing only our situation is even worse than it has ever been. They also say that JP II has promoted Universal Salvation and performed communicatio in Sacris because he prayed with pagans at Assisi and so many other places. “The prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking. There I prayed for the first time with animists” L’Osservatore Romano, August 26, 1985, p. 9.and La Croix, a French Periodical. It is time to stop calling the traditional Catholics who adhere to this theory as “termites” and outside the Church when even the conciliar Popes themselves say the Orthodox are not excommunicated and that you can go to their liturgy to fulfill your Sunday obligation. If the Pope is going to rehabilitate Martin Luther, and pray with animists then maybe he ought to pray with the traditionalist Catholics who have been so scandalized by his pontificate- then maybe he would begin to understand how he ought to apologize for his pontificate and stop apologizing for the Popes of the past. Now even JP II admitted recently that, In excerpts printed by Il Giornale newspaper on Sunday ahead of the book's publication on May 18, the pope said church leaders had to admonish people as well as lead them in faith. "I think that in this aspect, maybe I have done too little. There is always this problem of how to balance authority and service. Perhaps I need to criticize myself for not having tried hard enough to lead," the pope wrote. See www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=24& art_id=qw1084714561570B211&set_id=1 - 42k
These traditional Catholics do have a point, however, I do not think that individual lay people or clergyman should make this theory a doctrine and start excommunicating the Pope and others who through no fault of there own lived under his “progressive” pontificate.
However if a Pope in the future were to say excommunicate a conciliar Pope then this would manifest itself then. I really don’t think you can compare say a Pope St. Pius V or X with a conciliar Pope. The past popes clarified and disciplined and restored and the conciliar Popes although they may have wanted to so call “reform” the Church have ended up doing the very opposite. Just read Kenneth Jones book Catholic Index of Indicators. Facts are facts. However, if a future Pope would excommunicate say St. Pius X well then whether he was validly elected or not he is a madman and not to be obeyed. These popes are Saints and any theologian who put them down should be castigated -whoever it may be. So is the Catholic Encyclopedia right on the indefectibility of a Pope who is accepted by the universal Church- yes of course. However, if such a man would try to legitimize say the antichrist or say that Jesus was not “properly speaking” God then he would cease to be a member of the Church and could not be the Pope. So I think that it is possible that this could happen. Of course at that point such a man would become an antiPope because he would not just be allowing heresy to spread but would be promoting it.
In the future things will be more clear as to what really happened in this confusing era which even confused and or disappointed (depending on how you want to look at it) the Conciliar Popes themselves were. Even Pope Paul VI said that the smoke of Satan had entered the sanctuary and Pope John Paul II at the beginning of his pontificate on the occasion of a Congress on missions to people: "There is need to admit realistically and with a deep and sober sensibility that Christians today, for the most part, are dismayed, confused, perplexed, and even frustrated, ideas conflicting with revealed and constantly taught Truth have been scattered by handfuls; true and real heresies in the sphere of dogma and morals have been spread, creating doubts, confusions, rebellions; the liturgy has been violated; immersed in intellectual and moral “relativism,” and therefore in permissiveness. Christians have been allured by atheism, by agnosticism, by a vaguely moralistic enlightenment, by socialistic Christianity, without defined dogma and without objective morals." See L'Osservatore Romano. Feb 7 1981. It is time for people to wake up and face reality- there will be no “new springtime”. We have to go about the work of restoration not reckovation which has been going on for the past 40 years in the “Conciliar Desert”. How do you do that in times of rampant heresy ? Study the past which is the key to the future- study the scripture and follow the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church as it has been known by all Catholic’s in all places at all times. Avoid novelty and adhere to the tradition of our Fathers who were martyred for their Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith!
Daniel 12:10 Many shall be chosen, and made white, and shall be tried as fire: and the wicked shall deal wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand, but the learned shall understand.
"I could easily bash the Tridentine Mass, with its accoutrements, to say nothing of the dress of pre-Vatican II bishops, with their buskins, and gloves and other effeminacies"
Be my guest. They are not, however, "effeminacies" so much as an attempt by a past age to give honor to God by an elaborate display of "nothing but the best." Nowadays it seems somewhat absurd--and should be updated.
The postconciliar Church is another matter. We're not talking about what the bishops wear on the outside, we're talking about doctrinal heterodoxy, corruption and apostasy, loss of faith--in other words, about what the bishops are wearing on the inside.
Big difference.
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.