Replies

NYer asked: Verdugo, we are still waiting for your response to Lorica’s question on another thread.

“... do you consider Pope Benedict to be a valid pope?”
We are not interested in whether or not you consider him to be validly elected.

Yes or No

Verdugo responded: I’ve answered that like 10 times. You don’t believe my clear words, and yet you swallow the ambiguities of the post Vatican II “newspeak”, hook line and sinker?

re: “Verdugo, do you consider Pope Benedict to be a valid pope?”

Yes, he is a validly elected pope. He is the pope of the Catholic Church, the 266th pope in the apostolic line of popes which started with St. Peter the Apostle.

Nyer responded: re:”Yes, he is a validly elected pope”.

That is not the question. Do you, Verdugo, consider Pope Benedict to be a valid pope?

Verdugo responds: What planet are you people from? You strain gnats, you don’t believe my clear words, and yet you swallow camels of the post Vatican II “newspeak”, hook line and sinker?

Yes, I consider him a validly elected pope. I consider him the pope of the Catholic Church, I consider him the 266th pope in the apostolic line of popes which started with St. Peter the Apostle.

How can any of you look the other way when the Vatican II popes disregard all of the Church teaching, and do what all the popes have condemned with regard to ecumenism. How can you ignore Mortalium Animos? I’ve posted it 100 times, how can any of you ignore all of tradition, just because the current hierarchy is doing it? That is pure papalotry!

• Ignorance is bliss:
Sedevacantes and Papaloters, two sides of the same coin.
The sedevacantes say the popes can’t teach errors, therefore, we have had no popes since Pius XII. The Papaloters say nothing that the popes do is an error, therefore, tradition can be ignored, or has been updated.
The Catholic that follows tradition/antiquity, does not fall into that conundrum.
“Those that have eyes to see, let them see”.

ECUMENISM CONDEMNED

Excerps from "Mortalium Animos", Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, On Religious Unity, January 6, 1928.

2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism andatheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians. 4. Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one"[1]. And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"[2]? All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a mostgrave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.

5. Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those schemes which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians.

8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.

9. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you"[18]. For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. 10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.