SISTER LUCIA RIP

I believe in "blind obedience" only when I am commanded by God or his Vicar to do so.

So you equate the papacy with God. I now see your problem. You have a lot to learn about the limits of papal infallibility.

I asked a new set of questions with the goal of attacking the SSPX.

If that's your goal, start a new thread.

Well I will start a new threat sometime later, but not now because I think I will be outnumbered and need to learn more first.

I don't equate the Papacy with God. I was talking about things that I must believe in from the Pope, even if they are not infallible. As I mentioned earlier, St. Margaret Mary was commanded by her superiors to not do something which Christ Himself asked of her. She obeyed her superiors and was right in doing so.

correction.
things that I must obey not things that I must believe in

As I mentioned earlier, St. Margaret Mary was commanded by her superiors to not do something which Christ Himself asked of her. She obeyed her superiors and was right in doing so.

But you just said, "I believe in "blind obedience" only when I am commanded by God or his Vicar to do so."

Which is it?

All right. It's refreshing to hear from a cogent critic, instead of the garden variety belly acher. I can see your point, and I think I understand where you're coming from. That one I almost sent private msg but now I'm glad to have this chance to answer your disputation. I agree, that in general it is best to not criticize the Pope in public, especially if he has done nothing worth criticizing. But even if he does something worth criticizing, we should be circumspect in our comments. Normally that's the best approach. Are these normal conditions?

Maybe I missed out on something, but tell me which pope in the history of the Church has done ANY ONE of the things I have mentioned, that appear to be completely contrary to the faith that so many of his predecessors (Pope ___, martyr -- fill in the blank) have shed their blood rather than to do, or to even give their APPEARANCE of accord. I'm trying to be tactful here. I could use much stronger language.

It is rather a fact of Catholic tradition to "admonish the sinner," a spiritual work of mercy. If people who are as upset as I am about these things, and there are many, were to act on their feelings instead of being precise in their linguistic expression of their angst in a productive way, there would not be a safe place for this pontiff to travel in the world. But by exercising our Catholic charity to admonish him for his public offense of the Faith of Catholics, we turn our misery into a spiritual good. Would you prefer our bishops and priests (on a more local level) to be able to go about doing anything they want without any fear of public outcry? Do you know that Bishop Fulton J. Sheen once tried to close a church, but when he showed up in his limo, a crowd of angry parishoners stormed the car, pounding on it and yelling to him, "Give us back our church, you son of a bitch!" Was that a crime? I'll tell you this much. They got their church back.

The Faith is under attack. You may not think so. But I do, and if you want, I can prove it to you. Therefore, I am not going to meekly hide in the corner and suck my thumb. I am not going to just offer it up (which I do) and remain silent. I'm going to offer it up and keep the discussion going. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not going to boast about my penances. But I am certainly not going to pretend that this is not something worth fighting for, or something Catholics can ignore without grave danger to their eternal salvation. Keeping the Faith pure is a duty we all share, but it is a duty the ordained are especially called for; and it is a duty to which the ordained of the highest degreee are called to the highest degree!

Why do you think Cardinals wear red? It's to show that they promise to defend the Faith of Catholics with their own blood, if necessary. Can you think offhand of a single Cardinal today that would shed his blood for the Faith? Actually I think there is one in China who is doing so as we speak, but regarding those who frequent the halls of the Vatican, I would like to know your opinion.

This Pope has already done so, when he was shot. He put the bullet the doctors retrieved into the crown worn by Our Lady of Fatima's statue. Hey these are not simple times. I could go off for pages addressing each good thing he's done and line up questions on like topics. The bottom line is, why does he not only tolerate abuses but he actively promotes new corruption, which the modernist bishops like to point at and say there is a Papal precedent to show where they get the idea for their latest scourge to Holy Mother Church?

"The Faith is under attack. You may not think so. But I do, and if you want, I can prove it to you. "

http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/062bev02-03-2005.htm

Thank you for your post donbosco. I would like to have a civil discussion about this later on this forum although I need to read up more on the SSPX (from both sides). Would you two mind if I were to reply to your questions later, maybe in a few weeks.

I will only say this for now. I think that the present Pope is a very holy man but has not been a great Pope (but I'm not saying he's been terrible either). Pope St. Celestine V abdicated after only five months because he could not handle the responsibilities and was not a good Pope. While I do not think the present Pope should resign (partially because most of the alternatives are worse), I think there are some similarities between the present Pope and St. Celestine V. If you don't mind, I will debate with you later about the Pope's infalliblity and when we should obey him and when we don't have to. There are certain times when we should criticize the Church's leaders and certain times when we should not. I will try to see if I can find something on this written by one of the doctors of the Church or someone else of unquestioned knowledge and holiness.

To imply that the Mass of Paul VI is somehow less of a Mass in terms of its effects and graces than the Tridentine Mass is, frankly, heretical.

Fr. Echert, from the EWTN forum doesn't agree with you sinkspur.

"Since cause and effect cannot be seen with the naked eye, and there remains, therefore, conjecture on the matter of cause, I believe it legitimate for Catholics to be able to debate the nature of the cause(s), which have produced the effects in the Church of the present time--many of which are documented. If all aspects of a council are precluded from any such discussion, on the assumption that all aspects of all councils are somehow sacrosanct and divinely inspired, then we do a disservice to the pursuit of truth and a remedy, in my opinion. There are ambiguities and omissions in, and false translations of, documents of the recent council which have been used and misused by certain elements within the Church, with devastating results. Similarly, things never envisioned or commented upon by the council have been carried out, in the name of the council—the radical changes to the Sacred Liturgy, for instance. This has now gone on for four decades; one wonders if this will continue for centuries. It will, if we label those who raise the question as unfaithful, or those who object as dissenters."

Father Echert

SOURCE

While I do not think the present Pope should resign (partially because most of the alternatives are worse),...

What would be the alternatives if the Pope expires? Would they be any better?

No, probably not much better, although it does seems like the appointments of new Bishops are somewhat more conservative now than those a few years ago.

But the main reason is that on the whole, the current Pope is (in my view) more conservative than most of the Cardinals. He is at least slowing the spread of modernism (but not really fighting it head-on like St. Pius X).

Good link murphE, Father Echert is of course right......and as far as the "Real" third secret is concerned, Our Lady did not say the "Eucharistic liturgy".

That's a great link! The TIA site has lots of other links to check out, too, including this one:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/tiabk008.htm

It is our moral duty to know about these things, and to clearly show that deliberately ignoring them out of some artificial fear of being "opposed to the pope" is somehow offensive to God. It is a travesty linked with the modernism of Newchurch that so many Catholics have developed this irrational fear, which is actually a victory of satan, a kind of diabolical disorientation, which Our Lady warned us would come to pass if the commands of heaven were not obeyed. They were not, and now we have D2. We have D2 in the hearts of well meaning faithful, because one of the symptoms of Modernism is you don't know you are infected.

It is HIV of the Faith, D2.

The Pope has D2, and perhaps he doesn't know he's infected. That doesn't make him invalid. That doesn't mean he is no longer Pope. That doesn't mean he is not infallible. Pope John Paul II carries the power of papal infallibility. It's at his fingertips at all times. But has he exercised it? The last time any pope used this charisma and made it public for all to see was Pope Pius XII on All Souls Day, Nov 1st, 1950 A.D. I was not born yet, and I'm pushing 50. He defined the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary body and soul into heaven, which now every human creature must give their assent lest they automatically excommunicate themselves from the Catholic Church.

The link I provide, above, shows pictures of the present pope and his immediate predecessors egaging in various activities that their immediate predecessor, Pope Pius XII would have probably rather died than do, but I don't know for sure. He was not squeaky clean, either. He did some things that got the ball rolling, not the least of which was to appoint the barbarian Hannibal Bugnini to his post of influence from whence he would proceed after the death of Pius XII to usher in the "greatest catastrophe of History," the words of Professor Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, a great counter-revolutionary scholar and historian. Another one of his crimes against the Faith was to introduce changes to Holy Week and Good Friday, which until that time were the most ancient of the Church's liturgical texts.

It has been presented by several learned historians of the Church that these first rumblings of the revolution to come tested the resolve of the faithful. If Catholics the world over had spoken out in the 1950's and had vociferously rejected these first changes, we would never have come to the abominable state where today we have arrived. In fact, it was worldwide urging to make the Assumption a defined dogma that gave Pius XII the encouragement he needed to do it. He would have listened to that same voice, if it had spoken clearly in disapproval of the later changes.

But what do we have today? We have his successor who has been presented time and again with petitions of the faithful to make the Collegial Consecration as commanded by heaven; millions of people have cried out asking for this signal grace, and their cry falls on deaf ears. It is apparently more important to Pope John Paul II to entertain 160 rabbis commemorating the 160 years since the conversion of Alphonse Ratisbonne:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/SOD/j112sdOLMiracles_1-20.htm

Of course, the unprecedented meeting of rabbis in the Vatican does not publicly acknowledge the connection to Ratisbonne. That would be to "dangerous" (read: too honest).

You're welcome.

In regards to your statement:

"...about the Pope's infalliblity and when we should obey him and when we don't have to. There are certain times when we should criticize the Church's leaders and certain times when we should not. I will try to see if I can find something on this written by one of the doctors of the Church or someone else of unquestioned knowledge and holiness,"

I can save you some trouble. Go directly to the infallible Vatican I document that defined papal infallibility. You have to read it carefully, study it, and let it sink in. Do not trust someone's interpretation of it. It clearly enumerates the requirements of authentic infallibility, which are much more restrictive than we are led to believe of late. Modernists at the time hotly disputed it, in fact a whole group of men walked out of Vatican I at that time, and called themselves "Old Catholics," a schismatic sect that seems to endure even to today. They left the Church because they disagreed with the primacy of Peter, in regards to infallibility. Curiously, they had been in the Church their whole lives, under the then longstanding definition that it's necessary for "every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff." But they suddenly left when that topic was further refined at Vatican I. Incidentally, Vatican I was adjourned under social unrest at the time, with the clear understanding that it would one day be resumed, as it was incomplete. Vatican II was supposed to be the resumed work of the previous council, some 90 years later, but it was not. How can I say this? Simply because to be the continuation of Vatican I, Vatican II would have to have a document SAYING that it is a continuation, but there is none, and the topic was never addressd and incorporated into Vatican II. Therefore, after 140 years, Vatican I has not been completed.

It should come as an intellectual shock to you that contrary to the Modernists in 1860, the Modernists of today (or post-Modernists) are frequently found proclaiming loudly that the Pope is infallible in EVERYTHING HE SAYS OR DOES. They fulfill the Protestant criticism of Catholics which accuses us of making the pope a virtual false god.

I have a friend in Orange County who was in the seminary after the revolution, feeling a calling to the priesthood, but eventually left before ordination because he was too dismayed with the theological corruption all around him. Ken Fisher has lived like a monk ever since, encouraging the faithful to pray the Rosary and to resist modernism in the Church. His principal focus is the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the corruption promoted by Mahony. Mr. Fisher started a group called Concerned Roman Catholics of America with a newsletter and website. He likes to point out the more positive aspects of the current pontiff, and has been saying for years now that John Paul II has spoken infallibly in regards to the prohibition against women's ordinations. I can't find anyone to cogently disagree.

But here's the rub: when Pius XII defined the Assumption, there was no question about whether it was an infallible definition. Similarly, when Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854, there was no question, and likewise the definition of papal infallibility is clear for all to see. But here we have the modern ambiguity in action: the current pontiff speaks out against a modern error, and we Catholics are left to wonder whether or not it is infallible. We only hear little voices in the wilderness saying that it is. It's not declared as such by bishops or priests from the pulpit (or "ambo" which is all that's left of it in many "worship spaces").

Is His Holiness JPII afraid of something? Is he worried that making the prohibition against women's ordination clear would somehow be contrary to his other actions or something? Like I have said before here on FR, it is a mark of the postconciliar era in the Church to shun any kind of punitive definition. Ever since Vatican II, for a pope to dare proclaim that Catholics must believe (fill in the blank) or else suffer automatic self-excommunication, it has been virtually inconceivable. D2 again, a diametrical reversal of Apostolic tradition.

My heart goes out to the poor Sister Lucia of the Immaculate Heart, who saw the prophetic warning of this plague on the Church, and lived her sheltered life witnessing the prophesy come true. She suffered a dry martyrdom, and would rightly one day be proclaimed a virgin martyr. But we would have to ask, "if she was a martyr, who was her persecutor?" The answer to which, if St. Joan of Arc is any example, means the Church would need two or three hundred years, if ever, to come to the point of proclaiming her so.

I think that the present Pope is a very holy man but has not been a great Pope (but I'm not saying he's been terrible either). Pope St. Celestine V abdicated after only five months because he could not handle the responsibilities and was not a good Pope. While I do not think the present Pope should resign (partially because most of the alternatives are worse), I think there are some similarities between the present Pope and St. Celestine V.

With all due respect, there is absolutely no similarity between JPII and Celestine V. JPII has overseen the greatest growth in numbers in the history of the Catholic Church and was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union, one of the worst regimes in the history of the world.

Make sure, in your readings on the SSPX, you google up "The Letters of Richard Williamson." His discourses will turn your stomach.

He did not disagree with my statement.