Saturday, 28 June 2014

Sedevacantism and the way of Our Lady



I received some sad news concerning good friends who apparently are in the process of becoming sedevacantists  -  the belief that we have no valid pope and, indeed, have not had one since the reign of Pope Piux XII.

It is always sad when a family member walks out.

The family left behind are hit hard by such a move, why?

Imagine your son or daughter saying that they no longer believe in the family structure and that, therefore, they will no longer be attending family events; birthdays, weddings, parties of any kind.

Of course, to walk out on Christ is a far more serious affair although, I doubt that they would see it from that point of view.

I guess that their case would be based on the fact that they wish to follow Christ more authentically (in their minds) and that leaving the 'family' is a sacrifice that they must make for the sake of Christ.

I don't know. The Church in England and Wales has lost some real beacons of light to sedevacantism.

Fr Oswald Baker RIP of Downham Market fame was probably our greatest loss.

Bishop Williamson of the SSPX, whom I presume is a 'vacant seater' is another, less mourned loss.

Some years ago our family were linked with a large family of French traditional Catholics. We visited one another, their children came to stay to improve their English over the 1990 'dry' period in Britain, when Latin Masses were as rare as hen's teeth.

Over the years we realised that they were SSPX, but, no matter.

Two of the sons went forward to become seminarians and, finally, one visited as a priest, keen to celebrate Mass in our home.
A warning bell began to ring in my brain and I made enquiries.

He was not a Catholic priest but a member of a 'sedevacantist' group who had appointed their own pope who now lives on the top floor of a Paris apartment.

I discovered that there are many such groups, all with their various nominated popes living in Paris or Milwaukee or Chipping Sodbury.

Needless to say, I quashed the celebration of the 'Mass' that he had planned.

I have never seen the logic of disregarding Rome in favour of some dodgy voting of 20 or 30 of the followers to determine the appointment of Pope X.

Michael Voris makes a good point regarding sedevacantism and that is, that Our Lady stayed by her Son on the cross; she did not walk away:-

"If someone believes that the Catholic Church has become a bad place to be, what is that person supposed to do? Join another Church? Break away from the visible, corrupt Catholic Church and form an alternative, more faithful version of the Catholic Church (see CMRI and SSPX)? Leave the Catholic Church entirely and join an allegedly more faithful Christian assembly? Give up on religion entirely and go the "I'm spiritual but not religious" crowd? Organize "Recognize and Resist" movements within the Catholic Church and relentlessly attack Her from the inside? Seek Church reform via some kind of coup d'etat and replace current leadership with ... what?

None of these responses is authentically Catholic. The only authentically Catholic response is the example of Our Lady who, throughout Her Son's Passion, stood by Him with full confidence, in spite of all appearances, that God's Will was and would be done. No matter how bloodied, beaten and defeated Our Lord appeared throughout His Passion and Death, He was still Our Lord, and neither the flight of the Apostles nor their fear is remembered as a positive example to follow.

We are called in the face of the Church's Passion to be faithful disciples close to Our Lady. To titillate ourselves with “ecclesiastical porn,” to feed our anxieties and worries with doubts about Our Lord's very promise to be with His Church until the end of time, to reject Our Lord's "Peace be to you" spoken to His very frightened followers after the Resurrection, is to abandon Our Lord Himself. The crisis in the Church today invites us to be Saints not cowards. No matter how it appears, we are always able to be "persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2:42) We can continue to be faithful to the duties of our state in life, to daily recitation of the Rosary, to the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, to the need for penance and mortification, to the need to grow in our knowledge and understanding of the Faith"

I think that, in our current crisis within the Church, many are hearing the false call of 'no Pope' and that many souls are in the process of becoming lost.

But we are bound to the Mystical Body and, to cut off part of that body is to cause immense pain and suffering, not least of all to Our Blessed Lord who sacrificed Himself for us so that we could grow as a family with Him, not in some Paris suburb but in the fullness and richness of His Church in Rome.

Please pray for my friends.


Fr Carota has an excellent post on sedevacantism HERE and Michael Voris takes a look through the history of disobedience in the Faith HERE

45 comments:

  1. Mr Hedgerow, you said the SV word! Watch out, the sky might fall! I think many are hearing the call, 'false-pope' or 'anti-pope'; frankly if the call was simply 'no-pope' we'd be in better shape 'cause we'd know what to do. When it comes to sedevacantists it seems to me they are in no way willing to say that the Chair of Peter belongs to a traitor to the faith, whereas many seem to say, yes, it can and it does; but this would mean the gates of hell have prevailed. Who could say, yes, the Holy Ghost proclaims in words and deeds that which leads souls to hell? or, yes, the Holy Ghost teaches religious indifference, and yes the Holy Ghost teaches sacrilege at Mass, and yes the Holy Ghost teaches freemasonic universalism, and yes, the Holy Ghost wants Catholics to become as uncatholic as possible so as not to be an affront to satan, and yes the Holy Ghost teaches Febronianism right from the Chair; clearly the Holy Ghost does not. Therefore if these things are not coming from the Chair of Peter which belongs to the Holy Ghost, where are they coming from? Plus, if sedevacantism is taking souls to hell, why isn't the 'true' Church heirarchy given us by VII, teaching that? As the Church taught against all manner of soul destroying errors in the past? It's up to lay people and sedevacantists with valid orders to argue this stuff because the Novus Ordo doesn't seem to care about the souls of sedevacantists supposedly slipping into hell. Mind you, if freemasonic universalism as taught, now by the 'no-popes' is true, we really don't have anything to worry about it, so long as we don't make weapons that don't blow up train tracks during the WWII or belong to the Calabrian Mafia. Or torture people.
    -
    Seriously, I don't believe for a second the Holy Ghost gave us VII, or that the Holy Ghost gave us the new rites. Do I believe that God permitted these things? Who can doubt it. God is in charge. Does God want us to support and endorse these things and laud them before one and all? St Paul cried anathema frequently and warned that if the highest seeming authority should teach contrary to 'what was given', don't follow.
    -
    "We are called in the face of the Church's Passion to be faithful disciples close to Our Lady."
    -
    Separating the fruits of VII from the tree is what is helping the gates of hell make headway, as far as I see, but the fruits are what they are. If it wasn't for pre-VII teachings that are out their for all to learn if they want, I wouldn't have a clue what it meant to be Catholic - I would have had that sense that comes with conversion (at least did for me) but it would have quickly been engulfed in the anti-Catholicism espoused by the promulgators of the New Council, the New ecumenism, the evolution of doctrine and the New Rites.
    -
    http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/sex-on-table.html
    -
    p.s. It's not the Authentic Church that is the bad place to be. By there fruits. John Vennari (not sv) once said he would in no way let Bergoglio catechize his children. Why, because they would not receive the authentic faith from him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. p.s. the Church used to teach that heresy cuts us off from the True Vine. But we have 'popes' who proclaim and act with open heresy and those who notice this are deemed 'lopped off'. I thought the Faith was supposed to be reasonable, not a superstition with regards to the person in the white cassock - we've had popes in the past who have lived bad lives, but not even Liberius openly taught heresy. In fact, as far as I can tell no pre-vii pope could be accused of open heresy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pope Honorius I however was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680).

      Delete
    2. Was he an alive and kicking 'follow me to hell while I'm pretending to be Peter', Pope. If he was, we have a precedent. It was my understanding that naughty wanna be popes have been declared heretical after their deaths by proper popes.

      Delete
    3. I thought I'd try and answer my own question: "It was now for the pope [Honorius] to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing. Honorius entirely agrees with the caution which Sergius recommends. He praises Sergius for eventually dropping the new expression "one operation", but he unfortunately also agrees with him that it will be well to avoid "two operations" also; for if the former sounds Eutychian, the latter may be judged to be Nestorian."

      http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Pope_Honorius_I

      Clearly once upon a time heresy was a way more subtle thing than praying with unbaptised anti-christers, saying good atheists have God's permission to the beatific vision and proclaiming saying there is 'no Catholic God'. Or saying Christ pretends, or that Blessed Mary ever Virgin was probably not immaculate.

      Delete
    4. There are two types of Heresy, one which openly proclaims that the Church is in error, and another which functions under an erroneous understanding of the error.
      -
      Honorius is used as an example as a Pope who has been condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council, an open accusation of heresy. There was no Ex Cathedra, the council condemned Honorius for approving Sergius and for "fomenting" the dogmas of Pyrrhus and Paul.
      -
      Was he pretending to be Peter? No, he was the Successor of Peter. But like Honorius, Francis is not openly proclaiming the Church being in error.

      Delete
    5. Appreciate the response. The contemporary promotion of religious indifference and the 'new ecumensim' would mean that the Church's very firm teaching against it in the past was in error. Likewise the not so subtle phone-line magisterium on marriage. Someone said that Luther is the prime example of a formal heretic by Church standards, but the post-concilliar popes are now rehabilitating Luther and even celebrating him. So which Church is in error? Which Church must one follow according the standards of the Church, which seem able to change?

      Delete
    6. 'So which Church is in error?'
      -
      The notion of two Churches is rather confusing. There is only One Apostolic and Catholic Church. Protestants, for example, are not Churches, and the Orthodox for example, are cut off from the Church. What is occurring is just the infestation of Heresy among the ranks of the clergy, just as Honorius I was deemed Heretical.
      -
      On the basis of Religious Indifference and the correct understanding, it can be summarised into two parts, either the past or the present is in error. However, if you look into the History of the Church, even from the very First Century, notions of Religious Indifference simply erroneous. Christ's command to baptise the nations, John 8:44 is the antithesis of Ecumenism and Religious Indifference (which both are heavily related to each other). There are constant Encyclicals that condemned Religious Liberty and Ecumenism. It is thus safe to say that given Christ's command, the Successors of Saint Peter's constant emphasising of 'No Salvation Outside The Church' and the condemnation of Religious Liberty that Vatican II's notion of Religious Liberty is merely a novelty which has no Dogmatic basis, or does it have any authority above a mere Pastoral approach.
      -
      To celebrate Luther for his Heresy is to celebrate his Heresy. Heresy is corruption of the Truth and to praise such Heresy is Blasphemous.
      -
      'Which Church must one follow according the standards of the Church, which seem able to change?'
      -
      A few problems with the question, again the notion of division. There is only One Church, if anyone acts contrary to the Church formally is cut off from the Church. Anyone who is material still acts contrary to the teachings of the Church. The Church does not change, Tradition, such as Infallibility, the Assumption of Mary, are all found in the past, Papal proclamation cannot proclaim anything that is not already in Tradition. There can be no new inventions, there can be no novelties, and if they run contrary to the Deposit of Faith, they are erroneous.
      -
      The SSPX website at sspx.org will be able to help you in understanding the issues that surround the Church at the current moment.

      Delete
    7. Thanks for the response and the link. I looked at it a while back but haven't for some time.


      I think the notion of two 'churches' is less confusing than having to convince oneself that the Church that used to try to convert the rabbi, is exactly the same Church that now celebrates the rabbinate as a gift of God; likewise lamas (not the cute 4-legged kind) and imams and all the rest of the falsehoods born of the father of lies.

      Generally speaking, I would like to know how many priests and bishops believe there is a such a thing as the father of lies? If they don't how can they possibly understand Christ's mission? But then, how can the father of lies even exist according to the Church of the New Ecumenism? The New Ecclesiology? I realise these questions will probably remain rhetorical because the 'living church' and its 'living magisterium' one is left to draw upon misdirects, ignores, obfuscates, re-invents, re-interprets pretty much all that calls a person into Christ's Church in the first place - all out of existence.

      'There are two types of Heresy, one which openly proclaims that the Church is in error.' Yet one is constantly being dialogued into having to accept that the Church of the New Mass, the New Ecumenism and the new religious indifference, not to mention the New Ecclesiology is the same as the Church that it contradicts. Which version of Church must one not act contrary to? the church of the new Ecclesiology or the 'old'. I guess the SSPX have answered this for themselves, but if the new is in error, how can it be THE Church, one would think that the SSPX is Church and Rome is in schism.

      It comes down to the 'fruits' - the New Ecclesiology-New Mass-New Ecumensims Church is a stucture that has instituted the surrender, and will continue the surrender, of Christ to His enemies - as far as I can see; all I know is that it is the old outdated now contradicted Church that caused me to wake up out of sin and change my life and it is the new church that's telling me to change it back cause I got it wrong.

      Lord, let me niether deceive nor be deceived.

      Delete
    8. (1)'two 'churches' is less confusing '
      -
      The problem with the notion however is to say that a 'New Church' has the possibility of being established, which only Christ has the authority to do so, and the Church itself being unique in the world. It would be less confusing to simply note that anyone who goes against the Church: Protestant, Orthodox, Cardinals, would simply be cut off from the Church. Historically, when Catharism for example was rampant, or when Honorius presented Heresy, or the scale of Heresy in the days of St. Athanasius, it was regarded only as Heresy, not a new Church.
      -
      (2)'If they don't how can they possibly understand Christ's mission? '
      -
      The interesting thing about your question is that it does not stop at the Father of All Lies. Why even accept the Angels and Archangels in Heaven? To deny the Fallen Angels unequivocally leaves no room to tolerate the Angels.
      -
      (3) 'Which version of Church must one not act contrary to? the church of the new Ecclesiology or the 'old'. I guess the SSPX have answered this for themselves, but if the new is in error, how can it be THE Church, one would think that the SSPX is Church and Rome is in schism.'
      -
      Do not forget that the Holy Spirit will be with the Church at all times. Do not forget that Pope Francis is the successor to Saint Peter. Do no forget that the SSPX are within the Church, and obey Pope Francis. Also do not forget that Christ is the Head of the Church, of which Pope Francis is the Holy Vicar. Any heresy that is formally proclaimed, means that he cuts himself from the Church. When it comes to the issue of the SSPX, the SSPX cannot commit the act of schism when itself proclaims the very Truth and stresses it's fidelity to the Successor of Saint Peter, Pope Francis.
      -
      'the old outdated now contradicted Church'
      -
      That supposed outdated Church is still the True Church, it is the heretics that are in contradiction, not the Church. The heretics have no Church.
      -
      'Lord, let me niether deceive nor be deceived. '
      -
      Amen.

      Delete
    9. There's the crux - if a preacher like Bergoglio is what God wants us to follow, then that would be saying God does contradict Himself - Bergoglio speaks and acts in contradiction to his 'predecessors' which means he's not true church. A good pastor is obvious and plain as day, just like a bad pastor. If I were to obey the 'living magisterium' of a bad pastor why have the faith or a brain? The old ecclesiology taught - the Roman Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are one and the same and subject to the Roman Pontiff. The new ecclesiology teaches that the mystical body of Christ also lies outside Roman Catholicism and need not be subject to the Roman Pontiff. So i guess I can become a sedevacantist either way. Old way - there's no way a true pope could teach this; new way, doesn't matter 'cause no one needs the Church to be part of the mystical body - except maybe in a defacto way - but I guess that's the new gospel. Everyone is somehow justified in some defacto way, inside or outside of Roman Catholicism.

      it's a mess, but then I guess that's the way Bergoglio wants - least he said he did - I guess he meant it.

      Delete
    10. 'There's the crux - if a preacher like Bergoglio is what God wants us to follow, then that would be saying God does contradict Himself - Bergoglio speaks and acts in contradiction to his 'predecessors' which means he's not true church.'

      A few objections, St. Peter was the first Pope to deny Christ three times to the on-Christians, that is the persecutors of Christ. By your line of argument, God immediately contradicted Himself by appointing St. Peter and likewise with Honorius I and Liberius I.

      The second objection is that you seem to think that a Pope cannot err, as if he is always infallible, the Pope is not always infallible:

      http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

      Popes can commit errors, and because they commit errors does not remove them from their Papal authority.

      'a sedevacantist either way. Old way - there's no way a true pope could teach this; new way, doesn't matter 'cause no one needs the Church to be part of the mystical body '

      The Roman Pontiff is also subject to God, and again, your asserting that the Pope must be 100% error free, which places Sedevacantists and Neo-Catholics as basically both sides of the same coin. Again, what of Honorius I and Liberius?

      Again, you present a division of old and new. There is nothing new for the Church, just Heresy among the clergy, just like the Arian Heresy.

      If you are a Sedevacantist, you are in error, please take the necessary time to read the SSPX's refutation of Sedevacantism:

      http://sspx.org/en/sedevacantism-catholic

      Delete
    11. It seems to me that for most Catholics there simply can never be a chair in Rome empty of a true Vicar of Christ (those periods between the death of popes not withstanding - even though the Church recognises 39 Anti-Popes including Anacletus (anti-pope for 8 years) and teaches that an anti-pope is a 'false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a Pontiff canonically elected - an anti-pope does not have the assistance of the Holy Ghost). And to put some history around this, anti-popes have tended to create their 'homemade' cardinalate so as to get elected.

      It seems that 'sedevacantism' is thought to be an impossibility because the physical presence a true pope in Rome is what constitues Church. As for St Peter, he denied Christ because he was afraid, not because he didn't love him or didn't believe, or because he had a modernist agenda at odds with the mission of the Church. Did he deny Christ after Pentecost - after the Church had been established? The division I talk about in terms of 'old' and 'new' 'Church' of course doesn't really exist (I'm using it to illustrate a point that is all too real however on the parish ground). There is simply Church and counterfeit church - this also has plenty of precident right back to St John's vision of the Churches worthy of being rejected by Christ in the Apocolypse because they were false - synagogues of satan. While they are still intermingled on many levels the Church is very efficiently being supplanted as we speak by counterchurch - the True Church won't ever fail but I think we've been led down the garden path in terms of what Church might look like at different times.

      Cardinal Pie made a few predictions which are in keeping with scripture and many many prophecies after that canon was sealed. He wrote: "The Church, while remaining always a visible society, will be reduced more and more to dimensions of the individual and the home. When she started out she said she was being shut in, and she called for more room to breathe, but as she approaches her end on earth, so she will have to fight a rearguard action every inch of the way, being surrounded and hemmed in on all sides. The more widely she spread out in previous ages, the greater the effort will now be made to cut her down to size. Finally the Church will undergo what looks like a veritable defeat, and the Beast will be given to make war on the Saints and to overwhelm them. The insolence of evil will be at its peak."

      Why the majority are convinced that visible faithlessness has been, can be and is the Vicar of Christ - who can say? A Vicar of Christ has the assitance of the Holy Ghost which is why he cannot create a counter-mission counter-dogma counter-church. Meanwhile there are a minority - including the Apostolic Body - who simply look at the words, actions and fruits and go, you have to be kidding? One would think these situations have never been forewarned or have never happened before. St Paul had no time for false shepherds; who can reconcile their teachings with the Popes Pius and the Popes Leo, or even scripture as understood by the Apostoles or the Desert and Latin Fathers? Would all of these not be roundly crying, 'anathema!' Would St Paul be impressed with how much blood sweat and tears we are prepared to spill over the false prophets these days in trying to reconcile their falsehood with Truth? I suspect that if more Bishops and priests simply went, 'anathema' like St. Paul, God would have given has some true shepherds by now, but then God lets us have what we want if we are so determined.

      “We have not here a lasting city, but we seek one that is to come” (Heb. XIII, 14)."

      Delete
    12. 'Why the majority are convinced that visible faithlessness has been, can be and is the Vicar of Christ - who can say? A Vicar of Christ has the assitance of the Holy Ghost which is why he cannot create a counter-mission counter-dogma counter-church.'

      And nothing which has been said has ever been Dogmatic. Recent Popes may have uttered erroneous things such as Pope Francis' notion of moral relativism in the interview with Scalfari(sp?), but he has never attempted infallibility. No Pope has ever been perfect, but the Holy Ghost has sure prevented anything new from being taught. Hence Vatican II in accordance with Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, and Cardinal Ratzinger all declaring Vatican II as pastoral, nothing new. Pope Paul's Mass was never promulgated, which means you have usurpers within the midst while the Pope himself, committing a few errors, still has Catholic teaching. Take Pope Francis' moral relativism within the interview with Scalfari, but he also condemns moral relativism as a tyranny. Are all Popes Saints which is what the Neo-Catholics and Sedevacantists seem to think? No, can Popes err? Yes. The problem with the Sedevacantist position is that one slight error and he's no longer Pope which is simply historically erroneous. Even Saint Peter erred and needed to be corrected by Saint Paul.

      Delete
    13. 'slight error' - redefining the mystcal body of Christ? In his first enclycal - in fact most his encyclicals - jpii taught universalism. Roncalli indifferentism, Bergoglio (and his immediate predecessors) that the old covenant has never been revoke, jxxiii, paulvi, jpii and bergoglio insist upon the religion of man. All this in glaring contradiction to their predecessors. What the above would teach me if I believed it would be that the Church doesn't have a claim be the source of truth in the world, that Christ's blood is fine for some but in no way a necessity and that if someone I cared about ran away and joined the Krishnas I should, to quote Bergoglio's latest interview, 'live and let live'.

      Delete
    14. 'redefining the mystcal body of Christ? In his first enclycal - in fact most his encyclicals - jpii taught universalism. Roncalli indifferentism, Bergoglio (and his immediate predecessors) that the old covenant has never been revoke, jxxiii, paulvi, jpii and bergoglio insist upon the religion of man.'
      -
      None of which are Ex Cathedra, which can be revoked without problem, slight error is an understatement.

      Delete
    15. it's starting to seem like popes have become superfluous because the Faith is so strong and well rooted in sound tradition - thank God the popes of Christmas past vouchsafed us ex cathedra teachings that defined the faith clearly. For me - i still can't see how it could please God to call such odd, to say the least, 'examples', of - well not even the Faith, the Vicar of Christ. It's like calling a crooked line straight - it just isn't.

      Delete
    16. A few observations:
      1) Is the Pope always infallible? No.

      2) Can a Pope err? When he's not infallible.

      3) Can any of Vatican II's teachings of any of the modern Popes teaching be in error? Only that which is not infallibly defined (as Vatican II was stressed as a Pastoral Council which defined nothing new.)

      4) Can the Popes Paul to Francis be accused as heretics? They have not formally declared the Church as wrong, which would make it material heresy at best which is not cut off.

      See Fr. Hesse Doctor of Thomistic Theology; Canon Lawyer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqwlKEEtiwU

      Delete
    17. The universal ordinary magisterium is infallible - Wojtyla's catechism would come under this 'infallibility', yet it promulgates the errors of VII. Fr Hesse recognises and yet resists, while sedevacantists say one must not 'resist' one whom they recgnise as the true Holy Ghost assisted Vicar of Christ - who cannot lead souls astray. If Fr Hesse had lived to see Bergoglio succeed Benedict via resignation, I wonder what he would have said? so much happening is unprecedented. Thank you to the postmaster for allowing a forum of discussion here - here's a priest who is labelled a sedevacantist - Fr Cekada who lived through the VII changes, knew Archbishop Lefebvre and remembers a time when conservative seminary professors could discuss the 'facts' of heretical popes without it being a thought crime - and who knew that 'sedevacantist' as a label only goes back to the 80s?

      http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/why-sedevacantism-cekada.htm

      Delete
    18. 'The universal ordinary magisterium is infallible'

      The Universal Ordinary Magisterium is also non-infallible. Which does not make Wojtyla's Catechism Infallible except where Infallibility is. http://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium

      'sedevacantists say one must not 'resist' one whom they recgnise as the true Holy Ghost assisted Vicar of Christ '

      And Neo-Catholics are exactly the same. The only difference is that Neo-Catholics don't see the Pope as committing error, and the Sedevacantists see the Pope as committing error. The Traditional position is that Popes can and have committed error. There have been Popes who have been condemned for Heresy.

      'and remembers a time when conservative seminary professors could discuss the 'facts' of heretical popes without it being a thought crime'

      Not sure if that is in reference to the SSPX expelling Sedevacantists from their ranks, simply put, Sedevacantistism is not Catholic.

      'Thank you to the postmaster for allowing a forum of discussion here'

      Indeed, thanks must be given to Richard Collins for being a gracious host in allowing a forum of discussion to occur.

      Delete
    19. Clarification: Sedevacantists see the Pope as committing error and that would be the end of the Pope.

      Delete
    20. No reference to sspx expelling sedevacantists; I just thought it interesting that Catholics did sometimes used to think, this fella is a heretic - therefore, no Vicar is he - at least not of Christ. In the Canon of the Mass we offer up the Holy Catholic Church to God asking for His protection and blessing upon Her, "together with Your servant [name], our Pope...and all true believers [some translations say 'orthodox in belief'] who profess the Catholic and Apostolic Faith." The words are a little different in the NO; but sticking with the old Mass, sedevacantists think it wrong to present to God as His 'own servant', one who is clearly not. Apparently there are SSPX priests who abstain from using Bergoglio's name in the Canon - this ommission can't happen during the out loud novus ordo mass. How many priests truly believe in good Catholic conscience that Bergoglio is a true believer and proclaimer of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith? Just saying it does not make it true, which is what the 'war of words against the Word', would like people to believe these days. Just saying that the man who comes out on the balcony is God's servant and professes the True Faith - period - doesn't make it true; the same man who called 'proselytizing/converting' people 'solemn nonsense', which is blatanly 100% against the mission of Christ's Church. Bergoglio calls protestants, 'brother bishops' - a denial of the Apostolic Body. At any rate, saying it doesn't make it true; but then I guess the majority of priests who declare Bergoglio a true proclaimer of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith and an orthodox servant of God Almighty must believe it. From what I have read, it would seem that insulting God by calling a heretic or apostate a 'true servant', at every Mass, is something that sedevacantists lament as one of the probable causes for the continued deterioration and bankrupcty of the church post Vatican II.

      Delete
    21. 'I just thought it interesting that Catholics did sometimes used to think, this fella is a heretic - therefore, no Vicar is he - at least not of Christ.'

      And they tended to be wrong.

      'sedevacantists think it wrong to present to God as His 'own servant''

      How do you know he is not his servant? By the argument when St. Paul had to correct St. Peter, St. Peter must have never been Pope. Again, it's making the statement that the Pope must be infallible every single second which is not Catholic.

      'Apparently there are SSPX priests who abstain from using Bergoglio's name in the Canon - this ommission can't happen during the out loud novus ordo mass.'

      Apparently suggests uncertainty, rumours are rumours. That being said it's not impossible given that sedevacantists were expelled from the ranks, and it's clear more need to be expelled if that were the case.

      'Just saying that the man who comes out on the balcony is God's servant and professes the True Faith - period - doesn't make it true; the same man who called 'proselytizing/converting' people 'solemn nonsense', which is blatanly 100% against the mission of Christ's Church. Bergoglio calls protestants, 'brother bishops' - a denial of the Apostolic Body.'

      The burden of proof is on part of the sedevacantists which has already been refuted because they use false axioms in the first place. As the SSPX have stated:

      'The hard-core sedevacantists reject the Church in the same manner that Lucifer (bishop) did during the time of Athanasius. They reject the pope and everyone but themselves. They reject the papacy by claiming it is vacant while misquoting infallibility and ignoring the visibility of the Church, and they lean on the teachings of Gallicanism to obtain bishoprics whose roots come from Old Catholic bishops and their seminaries. Indeed, may we all pray for the pope.'

      http://sspx.org/en/sedevacantism-catholic-4

      'From what I have read, it would seem that insulting God by calling a heretic or apostate a 'true servant''

      Pope Francis has uttered Catholic Teaching and Heresy. Pope Francis has not declared the Church to be in error. Thus if anything, Pope Francis would be in material heresy. For example Pope Francis had promoted moral relativism in the interview with Scalfari, and has yet condemned it to the Diplomats. What is to be made of that contradiction? See Fr. Hesse's objections again on Sedevacantism.

      Delete
    22. 'just thought it interesting that Catholics did sometimes used to think, this fella is a heretic'

      The SSPX article that was quoted demonstrated that they were wrong.

      'but sticking with the old Mass, sedevacantists think it wrong to present to God as His 'own servant', one who is clearly not.'

      How do you know he is not?

      'Apparently there are SSPX priests who abstain from using Bergoglio's name in the Canon - this ommission can't happen during the out loud novus ordo mass.'

      'Apparently' is the word. If so, the SSPX would expel them.

      'Just saying it does not make it true, which is what the 'war of words against the Word', would like people to believe these days. '

      Again the onus of proof is on the Sedevacantists, and their arguments simply do not hold water. Quoting the SSPX:

      'The hard-core sedevacantists are way over the line even though they may not be able to see it. The hard-core sedevacantists reject the Church in the same manner that Lucifer (bishop) did during the time of Athanasius. They reject the pope and everyone but themselves. They reject the papacy by claiming it is vacant while misquoting infallibility and ignoring the visibility of the Church, and they lean on the teachings of Gallicanism to obtain bishoprics whose roots come from Old Catholic bishops and their seminaries. Indeed, may we all pray for the pope.'

      http://sspx.org/en/sedevacantism-catholic-4

      'the same man who called 'proselytizing/converting' people 'solemn nonsense', which is blatanly 100% against the mission of Christ's Church. '

      Nor does that make it false either. Just remember St. Peter being rebuked by St. Paul.

      'From what I have read, it would seem that insulting God by calling a heretic or apostate a 'true servant', at every Mass'

      But you only quoted 'servant' above. Even servants can err, because they are not always infallible.

      ' one of the probable causes for the continued deterioration and bankrupcty of the church post Vatican II.'

      Which no way affects the Successor of Saint Peter as the Successor.

      Sedevacantism is Schismatic, it also suffers from the and as the SSPX states, Gallicanism.

      Delete
    23. Sorry for the double post.

      Delete
    24. I needed to seek validation from pre-vii popes for my conversion - the current lot think it's outdated like so many priests and catechists - does that mean God does? At any rate, for loopy catholics who think a bloke who teaches that the Most Precious Blood of Christ is only equal with the blood of beasts in the mosiac covenant and Islamic propitiation is...beyond words - your not alone.

      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T9G2mOvwhOg

      Delete
  3. Thanks for your post Richard. You are absolutely right in what you say, and St Peter's reply to Jesus, 'Lord where shall we go for Thou hast the words of eternal life', confirms the need to stay loyal to the Church, the Bride of Christ. Sadly there always has been and will be division in the Church, and there have been good and bad Popes, but the Church goes on. Catholic 'tradition' will prove to be the strength of the Church. The blood of the martyrs and the courage of the saints, and the millions of persecuted faithful since Christ founded His Church, are the proof of this. Today millions are suffering persecution for this same Church, this same faith. Take Vatican II out of the equation, it is almost an irrelevance, and still the persecution. The Church carries on, and will continue to do so until the end of time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Many cannot endure the contempt shown for God and the Deposit of Faith by the bishops, cardinals and popes. The destruction of the Church, of souls in an increasingly obvious and vicious way. Pray that we may endure the suffering of the offence against God and our particular persecution (casual or formal). Let us support one another in this trial where so many with responsibility and influence are silent while good faithful, lay and cleric are being persecuted by those without and within the Church. Persecution by the parents can lead to resentment on the part of the children. May all come back to the Church and find the graces and human help they need to endure this great trial. Blessed Michael, the Archangel protect us in battle . . .

    ReplyDelete
  5. Our Lady's Immaculate Heart is our refuge. In many ways, we must not follow all that is coming from Rome these day or what Cardinal endorses what departure from the faith, etc. WE know what we must do to live a holy life. It is hard to keep the focus because the news is upsetting but keep it we must in order to have peace. The world and the Church are in God's hands; He allows things in His permissive will but, in the end, will not be mocked. And we cannot stop praying for the Pope and others in places of great responsibility: remember what the floor of hell is lined with.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bishop Williamson is not a sedevacantist.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "...those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution - these men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God."--Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Custodi di Quella Fede, par. 15, Dec. 8, 1892

    This describes the popes of the UN pretty accurately - would that it didn't, but it does. Apparently when paul vi declared the UN everyone's last hope - I guess the Holy Trinity and the Bride of Christ slipped his mind that day - he was wearing the ephod of the Old Temple high priest - some bishop saw it as a sign of 'Caiaphas' revenge' - this 'revenge' seems to be alive and kicking from Rome out to the peripheries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That thing that Roncalli and Montini and Wojtyla and Bergoglio (for some reason Ratzinger told them a thing or two - maybe that's why they got rid of him) said was gonna save us all, otherwise know as the LGBTRABIMATHIPROTANTICHRIST thingy; or euphemistacally called the united nashuns.

      Delete
  8. Excellent, Richard. I'd never before thought of the analogy of Our Lady, standing at the Foot of the Cross and not abandoning Our Lord (the Church) in its hour of greatest need. It certainly fits, doesn't it? I have used the standing beneath the Cross with Both analogy, though, when writing of those defending their marriages against divorce and annulment from an abandoning spouse, where many times our only defender and solace is Our Lord and Our Lady. In either case, you don't abandon the Bride of Christ, any more than you abandon your marriage, when either appears to be afloat in stormy seas and apparently rudderless. You pray, stand and deliver, just as our Lord and Lady did, and like the Saints after them. And wait for the help that is assured to come, while you battle on-wards.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Regarding Michael Voris and the SSPX: The SSPX are within the Church and acknowledge Pope Francis as the successor to Saint Peter..

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry Viterbo but this UN acronym (united nashuns) is a bit childish and a tad uncharitable too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought I should, in charity, make the effort to explain the acronym above. The UN is the biggest promoter of the LGBT agenda (read another of satan's irons in the world-fire), the member states are made up mostly of islamic tyrannies; and religious indifference is its mainstay. The saturday people are using the friday people to effectively destroy the Sunday people via the UN.

      p.s. I find a little humour/childishness is always helpful when the gallows are so prevalent.

      Delete
    2. p.s. how funny [brilliant satire] is this:

      http://vimeo.com/99771527

      For a few seconds I had to make sure i wasn't at my Sunday local.

      Delete
  11. Replies
    1. Roncalli to Bergoglio have conceded the Faith repeatedly to the UN agenda. Benedict was the only one to, cautiously suggest that maybe men are not God.

      Delete
  12. This weeks headline in Catholic Herald makes my blood boil."Avoid 'extreme reactions' to gay marriage, Vatican tells Catholics"  This just proves its business as usual at the top of our homo friendly Church. Nothing has changed. The filth that Benedict spoke of has not been cleaned out. Where will it end? Catholics are being crucified and beheaded in Iraq and Syria. Without any leaders will such martydom come here eventualy?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Disgraceful. They have adopted the dishonest language and false arguments of the enemies of Our Lord and of truth.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This from PaulVI to the UN: The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace. We presume to present here, together with Our own, their tribute to honour and of hope. That is why this moment is a great one for you also. We know that you are fully aware of this. Now for the continuation of Our message. It looks entirely towards the future. The edifice which you have constructed must never collapse; it must be continually perfected and adapted to the needs which the history of the world will present. You mark a stage in the development of mankind; from now on retreat is impossible; you must go forward... Our thanks to you, glory to you, who for twenty years have labored for peace and who have even suffered the loss of illustrious men in this sacred cause.'

    http://www.holyseemission.org/about/paul-VI-speech-at-the-un.aspx

    Does the Vicar of Christ ascribe to an anti-church organisation 'thanks and glory', and look to it as a 'last hope'? What would St Peter say?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Few universities have a better reputation worldwide than Oxford. It is England’s oldest and bright youngsters aspire to either taking their undergraduate degrees there or to do post graduate study having graduated from elsewhere.
    www.autogas-scotland.com |

    www.autowhizal1.com |

    www.banditcustomauto.com |

    www.belfastphototours.com |

    www.bim-technologies.com |

    ReplyDelete