tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post841887692081531655..comments2024-03-27T11:26:55.051-04:00Comments on Vox Cantoris: Lift High the CrossUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-47492773865464548382016-09-17T21:44:41.787-04:002016-09-17T21:44:41.787-04:00Peter:
The contradictions in your posts are legio...Peter:<br /><br />The contradictions in your posts are legion.<br /><br />You stated: "The millions of good folk who fill NWO pews every Sunday are in the same position. They are working hard raising their families and attend mass in complete good faith."<br /><br />Really?<br /><br />They "attend Mass"? You believe they go to "Mass"?<br /><br />You also said: "They trust their priests, bishops and pope."<br /><br />Priests, bishops, and pope?<br /><br />Isn't your position that such people don't even <b>have </b> "priests, bishops, and a pope?"<br /><br />How can they trust something they don't even possess?<br /><br />Are you saying that "Novus Ordo Catholics" have true priests, bishops, and a pope?<br /><br />You are contradicting the very things you say you believe.<br /><br />Basically, what you're also doing is contradicting the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.<br /><br />What you are also saying is that the ignorant people who think they are going to a Catholic Church for a Catholic "Mass" are doing so in good faith and, because they are ignorant, they can still attend an invalid Mass without sin and can still be saved... <b> even though, in reality, they are outside the Catholic Church and they are, in reality, worshipping a piece of bread at an invalid "Mass" offered by invalid "priests" who were ordained by invalid "bishops."</b><br /><br />In other words, according to you, these people are non-Catholics because they don't belong to the Catholic Church. And these non-Catholics are actually idolaters because their "Mass" is invalid. <br /><br />You can't worship the Blessed Sacrament if all you have in front of you is a piece of bread.<br /><br />Please explain why that wouldn't apply to many Protestants as well.<br /><br />I know that the Dimond brothers, at least, don't believe such a thing.<br /><br />What you're also saying is that our own famous Vox Cantoris has unwittingly been committing idolatry for years because he used to go to the "Novus Ordo Missae" up until a short while ago. <br /><br />And because that "Mass" is invalid, Vox hasn't been receiving Holy Communion when he attended there; all he received was a piece of bread.<br /><br />And when he genuflected in church, he was genuflecting, not to God, but to a piece of bread.<br /><br />That's what you're saying, Peter, and you can't plausibly deny it.<br /><br />So, let's see you answer the questions: <br /><br />1. When Vox attended the New Mass (up until a few weeks ago), was he attending a valid Mass?<br /><br />2. If it was not valid, was he unwittingly committing idolatry by worshipping a piece of bread?<br /><br />3. If he went to confession to "priests" there, were his sins actually forgiven if the men were not really priests?DJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028761850444888285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-18308582048869318932016-09-17T21:04:09.591-04:002016-09-17T21:04:09.591-04:00Peter:
The reason you don't want to seriously...Peter:<br /><br />The reason you don't want to seriously discuss the issue is because you can see that your views cannot be defended.<br /><br />You say this: "Cardinal Bacci was legally designated..."<br /><br />Really?<br /><br />By whom?<br /><br />A Catholic?<br /><br />Do you not see the absurdity of what you contend?<br /><br />According to your view, Bacci was "legally designated" a cardinal by someone who did not even belong to the Catholic Church.<br /><br />Please explain, rationally, how a non-Catholic, not even a member of the Catholic Church, could "legally designate" Bacci as a Catholic cardinal.<br /><br />Do you believe Lutherans have the power to elevate someone to be a Catholic cardinal?<br /><br />If Lutherans can't, why do you believe some other non-Catholic can?<br /><br />It's absurd.<br /><br />You are the one who fills the comboxes with sedevacantist ideas, on a nonstop basis.<br /><br />Instead of attacking those who discuss the issue, you should be willing to at least bring reasonable analysis to the table.<br /><br />Now what you're stating is that Catholic bishops formed a council of a non-Catholic entity, because Vatican II is the work of an organization that was not the Catholic Church.<br /><br />And you're wrong about this: "Those Bishops who were ignorant of the masonic plot and who did not intentionally aid and abet it i.e. were not heretics, were just as Catholic when they left as when they arrived."<br /><br />If they were "just as Catholic when they left," then how could they promulgate the documents of Vatican II?<br /><br />Who do you think produced those documents? Angels?<br /><br />It was the very men you claim were "just as Catholic when they left as when they arrived" that actually comprised Vatican II.<br /><br />Vatican II is not a book; it's people.<br /><br />Are you now contending that there is no heresy in the documents of Vatican II?<br /><br />If there isn't, then why don't you adhere to those documents?<br /><br />If there is, then your statement is nonsense because those men were the ones who drafted, agreed with and signed, the heretical documents, and then promulgated those heretical documents.<br /><br />Your position is untenable, and anyone reading this combox can see that.<br /><br />Using the Dimond brothers as source material isn't too convincing. <br /><br />And, yes, you are skirting the questions.<br /><br />You never answered my question regarding the Mass of 1967.<br /><br />Was the revised missal of 1967 a Catholic missal promulgated by a Catholic pope to the Catholic Church?<br /><br />If you say yes, please explain how it is possible that a non-Catholic, someone who did not even belong to the Church, could promulgate a Catholic missal for the Catholic Church.<br /><br />If you say no, please explain how priests can be members of the Catholic Church while at the same time using non-Catholic rites, promulgated by non-Catholics who belong to "the Vatican II sect."DJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028761850444888285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-24060568793833086982016-09-17T18:04:33.828-04:002016-09-17T18:04:33.828-04:00Dear DJR, you are just being argumentative. You ar...Dear DJR, you are just being argumentative. You are developing Mark's technique to perfection.<br /><br />"Question for you: How could "the Vatican II sect" have come into being in 1958 when Vatican II was not even convened until four years later?"<br /><br />You are just trying to be smart. When the VII sect started is a matter of opinion, not Faith!!! In my opinion, it started when the Godfather walked into the room, i.e. when the masonic dream of the Alta Vendita was realized and Roncalli was elected "pope". The scene was set and he took the first step by calling the council. That is my opinion OK? Another might opine November 21, 1964, when "Lumen Gentium" was signed by Montini. Take your pick when, in your opinion, it started. It really doesn't matter to me.<br /><br />I'm not skirting the questions, you are refusing to recognize my answers. You have no intention of honestly analyzing my answers - you have not done so once. You just keep deflecting the conversation interminably. I'm tired and I find the conversation futile, so I'll wish you a good night. :)Peter Lambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17952041193215971470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-64053191483527904152016-09-17T17:21:13.102-04:002016-09-17T17:21:13.102-04:00Dear DJR, Ha ha (previously LOL), you don't gi...Dear DJR, Ha ha (previously LOL), you don't give up. :)<br /><br />No, VII was not a council of the Catholic Church, because it was convened by one who was not a formal Catholic Pope. It was attended by most of the world's Catholic Bishops in ignorance of the true facts. Masons don't go around advertising their strategies, or their allegiance. Attendance in good faith and ignorance of the circumstances does not imply complicity in evil. Those Bishops who were ignorant of the masonic plot and who did not intentionally aid and abet it i.e. were not heretics, were just as Catholic when they left as when they arrived.<br /><br />I did NOT deny that Cardinal Bacci was a cardinal! There is a real difference between the power to designate and the power to rule. Designation to be the Pope comes from men - the cardinals in the conclave. The authority of the Pope comes from God.<br />These two powers, therefore, can exist separately, that is, one can have the power to designate without having the power/authority to rule. For example, voters have the power to designate, but they have no power to rule. The object or purpose of the power to designate is the selection of a candidate to bear the authority. The object or purpose of the Pope's power to rule is to order the Church to its proper good, its proper ends, by means of his teaching, sanctifying and governance of it. Someone who is merely designated for an office cannot rule. The President-elect is not the President, and is powerless. <br /><br />There is a matter and form in authority. The matter of authority is the person who is legally and legitimately designated to receive the authority. The form of authority is the power, the jurisdiction to rule. So on the first Tuesday of November, the new President of the United States is legally and legitimately selected (designated), but he has no power. He is not the President. On January 20th, he becomes the President, since on that day he receives the power. From November to January, he is MATERIALLY the President, since he is officially<br />designated. In January, he is FORMALLY the President. All authority, even civil authority, comes from God. Cardinal Bacci was legally designated and if he was not a heretic, was formally a Cardinal. If he was a heretic, he was materially a cardinal. This might seem complicated, but it not. Please read the following to get a better understanding of sedevacantism:<br /><br />http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/Explanation%20of%20the%20Thesis.pdfPeter Lambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17952041193215971470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-62175236750200692612016-09-17T16:29:00.487-04:002016-09-17T16:29:00.487-04:00Peter, you should be willing to discuss your views...Peter, you should be willing to discuss your views on SVism and the ramifications that follow. That's why Vox allows them to be expressed in the combox. You've been posting on SVism for quite awhile.<br /><br />Why all of a sudden do you want to give it a rest?<br /><br />You're skirting all the questions, the answers to which could help others analyze your positions.<br /><br />Question for you: How could "the Vatican II sect" have come into being in 1958 when Vatican II was not even convened until four years later?<br /><br />What is your answer as to whether the Mass of 1967 was a Catholic Mass being offered by priests and bishops of "the Catholic Church"?DJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028761850444888285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-24146913463216865882016-09-17T15:19:26.473-04:002016-09-17T15:19:26.473-04:00Dear DJR,
"I realize you would consider spea...Dear DJR,<br /><br />"I realize you would consider speaking about V2 to be pointless because, as other readers can plainly see, a discussion of that event destroys your SV viewpoint."<br /><br />If Roncalli and Montini, who worshipped lucifer as judeo-masons, spawned a false, non-Catholic council, how on Earth does that destroy, or affect my Catholicism? You have my explanations, so let's give it a rest now. :)Peter Lambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17952041193215971470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-41299495873493325412016-09-17T15:07:09.806-04:002016-09-17T15:07:09.806-04:00Peter, sorry. I missed your comment above. I now...Peter, sorry. I missed your comment above. I now see that you conclude that the V2 sect began in 1958.<br /><br />If V2 was a false council, it could not have been a council of "the Catholic Church," which means the bishops who attended it were not "Catholic bishops," which means that, by 1962, the entire hierarchy had defected from the Catholic Faith and were then part of the "Vatican II sect."<br /><br />That's what your views entail... unless you want to make the claim that Catholic bishops can attend councils of some other church and promulgate the heretical decrees of that church while at the same time remaining "Catholic" bishops.<br /><br />Your views on SVism are untenable, just like mentioning "Cardinal" Bacci while at the same time denying that he could possibly be a cardinal.<br /><br />A senseless proposition.DJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028761850444888285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-48676054132052896852016-09-17T14:50:54.910-04:002016-09-17T14:50:54.910-04:00Peter Lamb said: By the way, your statement that:...<i>Peter Lamb said: By the way, your statement that: "if a bishop had repented, there was no ability to reinstate him" is erroneous. If the heretical pope, or bishop repented and renounced his heresy, he would be automatically re-instated without the assistance of any mortal. <br /><br />So, you will understand that your statement that "there can never be any ordinaries again." is mistaken. You ask for one bishop? I'll give you two Cardinals - Ottaviani and Bacci. :)</i><br /><br /><br />Peter:<br /><br />Your views are blatantly contradictory.<br /><br />First, when V2 began, Cardinal Ottaviani was not an ordinary, neither was Bacci.<br /><br />Second, who do you think made "Cardinal" Bacci a cardinal?<br /><br />In any event, <b>BOTH</b> those men accepted V2 (they were both present), thus <b>BOTH </b> became members of "the Vatican II sect" according to your views.<br /><br />I realize you would consider speaking about V2 to be pointless because, as other readers can plainly see, a discussion of that event destroys your SV viewpoint.<br /><br />Don't you see that the things which you claim disqualify the popes from being "Catholic" popes are the very same things that disqualify <b>all </b> bishops from being "Catholic" bishops?<br /><br />That would mean only one thing: <b>The entire Catholic hierarchy defected from the Catholic Church and became members of "the Vatican II sect."</b><br /><br />You do not take your views on SVism to their logical conclusions. You pigeon hole them with the papacy and stop there.<br /><br />But that's <b>not </b>a valid viewpoint because SVism has ramifications far beyond just the papacy.<br /><br />You should be willing to discuss the questions.<br /><br />1. <b>At what exact point </b> did "the V2 sect" come into existence?<br /><br />2. What was the status of Catholics who were alive October 11, 1962? Did they belong to the Catholic Church or "the V2 sect"?<br /><br />3. What was the status of the people mentioned in #2 on December 8, 1965?<br /><br />4. Is the 1967 Mass a Catholic Mass, or is it a Mass of "the V2 sect"?<br /><br />5. If it was a Catholic Mass, what Catholic promulgated that revised Mass? How is it possible, in your view, for the revised liturgy of 1967 to be part of "the Catholic Church"?<br /><br />6. If it is not a Catholic Mass, what "church" did that Mass belong to? Didn't it belong to "the V2 sect" you believe existed at that time? Didn't it originate from "the V2 sect"?<br /><br />7. If it was not a Catholic Mass (and your view is that it was not) but, rather, was a Mass of "the V2 sect," how is it possible that ostensibly Catholic bishops like Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Thuc offered such a Mass?<br /><br />8. Were they offering the Mass of "the Catholic Church" at that time, or were they offering the Mass of "the V2 sect"?<br /><br />9. If they were offering the Mass of the "V2 sect," how can they escape being classed as members of "the V2 sect"?<br /><br />10. Ditto for laity.<br /><br />11. For proof that Lefebvre offered the "1967 Mass," read his biography, by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais.<br /><br />http://angeluspress.org/Marcel-Lefebvre-Biography<br /><br />13. It's false to state that a bishop who repents of his heresy is automatically "reinstated" without the assistance of any mortal.<br /><br />That bishop would have to make a confession to a Catholic priest, and because he lost his office through heresy, he would have to have a superior that could reinstate him. If he does not do so, he is not forgiven of his heresy, much less "reinstated."DJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028761850444888285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-91162616909581572182016-09-17T14:41:38.959-04:002016-09-17T14:41:38.959-04:00Dear DJR, Please just remember that the Formosus a...Dear DJR, Please just remember that the Formosus affaire was one of law and not doctrine. No true Pope has ever contradicted the doctrinal teaching of a predecessor.<br />Our comments have crossed in the post and some of your most recent questions I have already answered. <br />I think you tend to over simplify things a bit. All the original skemas were summarily discarded, new ones introduced with masons presiding and using their usual tactics of ambiguity, deceit etc. How many succumbed to this ambiguity and signed whilst taking an orthodox interpretation from the document, as they were intended to do? How many immediately spotted the enormous difference between "subsists in" and "is"? The good country Bishops were being deceived by the devil's own!<br />To sin, to commit heresy, one must have full knowledge and consent. Those who signed in good faith, or in ignorance, were indeed material heretics, but a material heretic is ignorant of the fact that he commits heresy. He is guiltless of sin. The millions of good folk who fill NWO pews every Sunday are in the same position. They are working hard raising their families and attend mass in complete good faith. They trust their priests, bishops and pope. They have grown up in NWO land, know nothing else, are poorly catechised (if at all) and although we know that they are material heretics, they are completely ignorant of the fact and guiltless of sin. They think they attend the Catholic Church. Only those clergy, or laity who are informed and then intentionally remain in the sect are public heretics living in mortal sin.<br /><br />The NWO order mass is evil in intent and invalid. A non-Catholic "pope" had no authority to alter Catholic liturgy. No informed Catholic may participate in non-Catholic worship, under pain of sin.<br /><br />As I have previously explained, no Pope, or Bishop can nullify any valid sacrament, which includes valid ordinations, or episcopal consecrations. Sergius' annulments of Formosus' ordinations were void, if Formosus' ordinations were valid.<br />Popes can disagree on anything they like to, except Catholic doctrine, because that the Holy Ghost will not permit. THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN, NOR WILL THERE EVER BE, DOCTRINAL CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN TRUE POPES. (Emphasizing, not shouting. :) )Peter Lambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17952041193215971470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-37408738845500044152016-09-17T12:41:00.227-04:002016-09-17T12:41:00.227-04:00Dear DJR, you addressed your comment above to Bria...Dear DJR, you addressed your comment above to Brian and to me, so you won't mind me responding alongside Brian.<br />I'm a cradle born Catholic dating back to St. Patrick.<br />Let's start at the beginning and short circuit the whole VII fandangle. The VII sect started the day Roncalli was elected "pope". He was an active communist who had been suspect of heresy since 1925. He joined the judeo-masons on the same day as Montini, in the same lodge, in Paris.(Fr. Villa.) Both men were heretics, i.e. non-Catholics prior to their elections. Non-Catholics are not eligible for election to the Papacy. Both elections were therefore void and neither man was a true Pope, or even Catholic. Neither had authority to call, or promulgate a Council. Vatican II was therefore a false council and its documents are only good for emergencies on camping trips. If you can refute any of the above, please do so, otherwise further discussion of Vatican II is actually pointless.Peter Lambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17952041193215971470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-64511041280570561662016-09-17T12:16:56.608-04:002016-09-17T12:16:56.608-04:00Peter Lamb said:
1. The Catholic Church is INDEF...<i>Peter Lamb said: <br />1. The Catholic Church is INDEFECTIBLE.<br />2. A heretic CANNOT be a true formal Pope.<br />3. The Catholic Church CANNOT TEACH ERROR.</i><br /><br />But, Peter, regarding number 2, the same is true <b>for each and every bishop.</b><br /><br />A heretic cannot be a true formal Catholic bishop either, regardless of which see he possesses, whether Rome or some other.<br /><br />Thus, every bishop who became part of "the Vatican II sect" lost his office because that made that bishop part of a "church" that differed from the Catholic Church.<br /><br />A bishop cannot be part of the Catholic Church and part of a different sect at the same time.<br /><br /><b>How is that possible?</b><br /><br />Do you not see the problem with your views?<br /><br />Tell us at which point Catholic bishops stopped being Catholic bishops and became part of "the Vatican II sect."<br /><br /><b>On what precise date did that happen?</b><br /><br />On October 11, 1962, every ostensible Catholic bishop in the world accepted Vatican II as being a legitimate council of the Church. Ditto for December 8, 1965, when it closed.<br /><br /><b>Thus, if your views are correct, number 1, listed by you above, has been contradicted because the entire Church defected, at the latest, by December 8, 1965.<br /><br />If you were Catholic then, <i>that includes you </i>, unless you somehow formally renounced "the Vatican II sect" which existed on that date!</b><br /><br />Other questions.<br /><br />Is the "1967 Mass" a Catholic Mass?<br /><br />If it is not, how can a "Catholic" bishop offer a non-Catholic Mass?<br /><br />How can a "Catholic" attend such a Mass?<br /><br />Were you attending Mass in 1967? <br /><br />If you were, which "church" was offering the Mass you attended?<br /><br />Was it "the Catholic Church," or was it "the Vatican II sect"?<br /><br />The problems with SVism extend <b>far beyond </b> any limited discussion as to whether the last half dozen men who claim to be bishops of Rome are actually popes.<br /><br />SVism butts right up against number 1 above.<br /><br />Merely repeating truths regarding what the Catholic Church teaches does not address the myriad problems posed by your SV views.<br /><br />Regarding the Formosus episode, it wouldn't matter whether Stephen VI was "mad." <br /><br />Sergius III held the same views as Stephen. Sergius also pronounced Formosus to be an antipope and annulled all his priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations.<br /><br />My post in that regard was in response to St. Columba, who was discussing the various contradictions among popes and worrying about popes undoing what previous popes have done.<br /><br />It happens all the time; there's no problem in that regard.DJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028761850444888285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-43074631562890239512016-09-17T12:09:18.667-04:002016-09-17T12:09:18.667-04:00Dear DJR, Concerning your comment addressed to Bri...Dear DJR, Concerning your comment addressed to Brian and myself,<br />The Catholic Church is indefectible, which means that the Church will endure until the end of time without any essential variation of her constitutive elements, namely unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. Our Lord said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". St. Paul called the Church "the pillar and ground of truth" and truth cannot change, or defect. Our Lord promised: "Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" and to the Apostles that the Holy Ghost would remain with them forever. The <br />Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, is the one who enjoys the assistance from Christ, whereby the Church cannot err or defect. The Succession of Peter is guaranteed by Christ and Vatican I until the end of time - there will always be a Catholic hierarchy, as you say.<br /><br />Any Catholic who holds any office in the Church and who commits heresy, forfeits both his membership and his office, ipso facto, in terms of Divine law. The heretical pope loses his authority to teach, sanctify and govern the Church along with the protection of the Holy Ghost. The heretical bishop loses his authority likewise, but not the indelible mark of the fullness of the priesthood. A satanic, masonic bishop can still confect valid sacraments - a valid Eucharist for a black mass, or the valid consecration of a Bishop. The mark of the priesthood is permanent like those of baptism and confirmation. So, you will understand that your statement that "there can never be any ordinaries again." is mistaken. You ask for one bishop? I'll give you two Cardinals - Ottaviani and Bacci. :)<br /><br />By the way, your statement that: "if a bishop had repented, there was no ability to reinstate him" is erroneous. If the heretical pope, or bishop repented and renounced his heresy, he would be automatically re-instated without the assistance of any mortal.<br /><br />DJR you do not provide a single citation to back your statistics up. one must give citations so that they can be confirmed by the Reader. It is not fair to expect the Reader to do the homework. <br /><br />Peter Lambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17952041193215971470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-52221662053262244442016-09-17T11:45:56.650-04:002016-09-17T11:45:56.650-04:00Brian:
Just to clarify, I was not under the impre...Brian:<br /><br />Just to clarify, I was not under the impression that you are a sedevacantist. You had posted something earlier regarding Peter's views, and I merely wanted to bring up some points that you won't see addressed by SV believers.<br /><br />In December 1965, Vatican II ended. <br /><br />I was around; my understanding is that Peter was as well. I don't know whether Peter was Catholic at that time. I am a cradle Catholic, so I was Catholic at that time. <br /><br />Vox was around, too. Unfortunately, we're all getting up there.<br /><br />Addressing the problem: On December 8, 1965, the day Vatican II closed, the entire Church had accepted it. <br /><br />SVists claim that Vatican II contains heresy, that the "Vatican II sect" is not the Catholic Church, et cetera.<br /><br />But... then who <i>was</i> the Catholic Church on December 8, 1965?<br /><br />Can't be the "pope" at that time. Both John XXIII and Paul VI were heretics, and the See of Rome was vacant.<br /><br />Can't be any of the bishops who attended Vatican II. They signed its documents and promulgated its heretical decrees, thus also losing their sees.<br /><br />Can't be the laity who accepted the council on that date. In December 1965, they were members of "the Vatican II sect" and lost their membership in the Catholic Church.<br /><br />Vox and his family and probably most of his friends were part of "the Vatican II sect." Ditto for me. If Peter was part of the Church on December 8, 1965, ditto for him, unless he can somehow point out that during the Second Vatican Council he stood up and denounced it.<br /><br />Other people who were part of "the Vatican II sect" by December 1965: Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Ottaviani, Bishop Thuc, Padre Pio, Sister Lucia dos Santos, Cardinal Mindszenty, Cardinal Kung, Cardinal Slipyj, Father Cekada... you get the idea.<br /><br />Not a single one of those persons, neither at the time Vatican II began, nor on the date it ended, publicly denounced that council as being heretical and all its followers being heretics. Not one.<br /><br />Archbishop Lefebvre even offered the revised Mass, at least until 1967. <br /><br />Is the 1967 Mass a Catholic Mass, or is that revised Mass a Mass of "the Vatican II sect"? <br /><br />If SVers say it's a Catholic Mass, then they should have no problem attending it. But they do have a problem with it, and they wouldn't attend such a Mass.<br /><br />In fact, they contend that the Mass, as offered in 1967, is not a Catholic Mass. Well, that means Archbishop Lefebvre was not offering a Catholic Mass at that time.<br /><br />Bishop Thuc went even farther and accepted the New Mass, so he's in worse shape.<br /><br />See how SVism must be taken to its logical conclusions? Also see how SVers don't address those issues? (See Peter's post above.)<br /><br />If John XXIII was not a true pope of the Catholic Church due to heresy, then every single bishop who suffered from the same defects he did (which was 100% of the bishops) also was not a true Catholic bishop and therefore those bishops' sees was vacant as well.<br /><br />This is the discussion you will not get from SVers because they will not tell you the precise date that the Catholic Church suddenly became "the Vatican II sect," nor will they pinpoint for you who was actually a part of "the Vatican II sect" and who remained part of the Catholic Church on that date.<br /><br />The reason they do not do this is because a) it is not possible for them to do it and b) the adherents to the theory are themselves implicated and c) their theory results in the defection of the entire Catholic Church. <br /><br />Example: How did Father Anthony Cekada escape not being part of "the Vatican II sect" on October 11, 1962, the day it began, or December 8, 1965, the day it ended?DJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028761850444888285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-33736513041926477082016-09-17T09:32:38.948-04:002016-09-17T09:32:38.948-04:00DJR, The historical sequence of your first post is...DJR, The historical sequence of your first post is highly pertinent and fascinating. That has the ring of reality to it, and reflects the struggle against sin we all face on a personal level. <br /><br />No one is guaranteed a clear, perfect path to heaven, not even the Pope or members of the Apostolic line. We have to earn Heaven, and Church purity, by running the race to the end; fight the devil himself for our souls. It does not ring true to me to say the Pope cannot promote error from the Seat. There are too many examples of the opposite over time; too many examples of visceral struggles over Truth. To say such a thing is to open a gateway to widespread heresy, and the extreme poles of either Sedevecantism or Papolotry (whatever he says is true). <br /><br />As to your second, I am not remotely a sedevecantist. More importantly, neither was Arbp Levebvre. Nor is the SSPX. I, He, they do not reject V II. Just certain limited, but crucial elements of it, along with the NO Mass that was born from it (which came after the Council).<br /><br />They held, hold, and I agree, that V II is not De Fidei, and is only valid to the extent it aligns with eternal Church teaching. His contention (which I agree with) is that those elements of dispute are out of alignment with the eternal Teaching of the Church and are thus, non-binding. That seems to me the best application of facts to our present predicament. To hold ALL of V II as binding is to become disoriented by the inherent conflict with the edifice of Magisterium.<br /><br />The SSPX has had the Sedevecantist element, but that was not Lefebvre's vision, and they oppose that element and purge it. I am definitely aligned with FSSP, but see SSPX as even more intellectually honest about specific, limited evil elements in V II. So I am with them, I suppose.<br /><br />My observation of facts surrounding the Papacy is very much in line with the confusion enumerated under your ancient history surrounding the conflict between Formosus and Stephen VI. Something evil is again at the heart of our Church, with its roots in the aftermath of the death of Pope Pius XII.. Something unorthodox has also now occurred in the Papal succession of Benedict XVI. They are connected. Orthodoxy must be fought for, and it's going to be messy, over long periods of time.<br /><br />I do not believe the Seat is thus vacant. I believe sin has entered the heart of the Church and it must be purged and purified by all the Faithful in union with the Apostolic line. The Line is intact. But the Line is damaged by sin. Healing begins with honesty and peeling away the deception that keeps us from seeing disease in high places.Aquahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06691722006352014613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-64534741398889913922016-09-17T06:49:15.299-04:002016-09-17T06:49:15.299-04:00Dear DJR, we discussed the Pope Formosus part of y...Dear DJR, we discussed the Pope Formosus part of your response to St. Columba at:<br />http://voxcantor.blogspot.co.za/2016/05/little-by-little-rome-is-being-dragged.html on 20 and 22 May, 2016. I reproduce a relevant extract:<br /><br />Talk about mayhem, murder and medieval madness! It was a time of political chaos in Italy and the Formosus affaire was a matter of politics rather than of religion. <br />Each Pope is sovereign and supreme Head of the temporal Church and none has power greater than his predecessor, or his successor.<br />No Pope has power to change a ruling concerning Faith, or Morals made by his predecessors. His job is to preserve and pass on the Faith whole and intact, as he received it.<br />However, regarding discipline is another matter. Each Pope is equally the Supreme Legislator and has the same legislative authority as any other Pope. The reigning Pope can amend, rescind, or re-instate any legal decision by a prior Pope. For example, when Pope Pius XII rescinded the suppression of the Jesuits which Pope Clement XIV had ordered. The same authority that can give, can also take away. We are talking about canon law - not Faith and Morals.<br />The Church is infallible in her universal disciplinary laws, although universal disciplinary laws can be changed - from one good law to a different good law. For example, Holy Communion given under one, or under both species, rules of fasting etc.<br />It would take a canon lawyer to sort out which individual steps in the Formosus affair were valid and which weren't. There is an opinion that Pope Steven was mad. If that was true, he was not eligible for election in the first place. That this affair did cause chaos I have no doubt, but whatever was valid remained valid and none of it affected the DOCTRINE of the Church - it was LEGAL mayhem.<br />The sedevacantist understanding of the papacy is exactly what it has always been from the time of Christ until 1958. Sede changes NOTHING of the Catholic Faith as it has been believed always and everywhere. NO CHANGES! All that sedes do, is to cling faithfully to our traditional Faith and its doctrines:<br />1. The Catholic Church is INDEFECTIBLE.<br />2. A heretic CANNOT be a true formal Pope.<br />3. The Catholic Church CANNOT TEACH ERROR.<br /><br />Peter Lambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17952041193215971470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-481931874177456912016-09-17T00:08:53.373-04:002016-09-17T00:08:53.373-04:00Brian said: As a Catholic of less than 10 years f...<i>Brian said: As a Catholic of less than 10 years from a lifetime in Protestantism, I find Peter Lamb's facts HIGHLY important and useful. How you can look at Lamb's fact filled posts and see "endless, needless, useless, tedious and boring says more about you than him. Rock solid facts, I say.</i><br /><br />Brian (and Peter as well):<br /><br />A couple comments regarding SVism(for shorthand) from a pre VII Catholic. <br /><br />The reason why SVism cannot be true is due to the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the indefectibility of the Church. <br /><br />One of the aspects of indefectibility is that the Catholic Church cannot lose the entire hierarchy. There will always be a Catholic bishop somewhere until the end of the world.<br /><br />But, you see, Brian, SVism does not touch only on popes; rather, it touches all bishops.<br /><br />In other words, if an ostensible bishop suffers from the same defect as the ostensible Bishop of Rome, that means that that bishop's see is, like the pope's, also vacant.<br /><br />SVism isn't SVism only for the See of Rome.<br /><br />To proceed further, another aspect of SVism is that Vatican II is heretical. Thus, any bishop putting his signature onto its documents to promulgate them became a heretic by doing so.<br /><br />A man cannot promulgate heresy without thereby becoming a heretic.<br /><br />That would include men such as Archbishop Lefebvre, who even the SSPX admits signed every Vatican II document. His signature has been verified by his own congregation, and that signature is on every document of Vatican II.<br /><br />It also includes Archbishop Thuc, who also attended Vatican II and signed its documents.<br /><br />Every bishop who attended Vatican II (and lived to the end of each session) signed at least some of the allegedly heretical documents, which makes every bishop who did so a heretic (e.g., Lefebvre and Thuc), which means every bishop who signed those documents lost the Catholic Faith and, as a consequence, lost his see.<br /><br />Of course, there was a handful of bishops who were unable to attend the council (e.g., the Chinese), but the problem is that, later, those bishops kept communion with the bishops who were able to attend (example: Cardinal Kung, who kept communion with John Paul II).<br /><br />According to SVists, a Catholic cannot be in communion with a heretic without also being a heretic; thus, any of the bishops who were unable to attend Vatican II and yet kept communion with alleged heretics, such as Lefebvre and Thuc, would themselves be heretics.<br /><br />That would involve the entire episcopate of the Catholic Church, even including Eastern Rite Catholics.<br /><br />Hence, what SVism entails is that the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church lost the Faith, including Thuc (who used to offer the New Mass) and were deposed.<br /><br />And because no undeposed bishops remained, if a bishop had repented, there was no ability to reinstate him, as there was no one with the authority to do so.<br /><br />That is why SVism cannot be true.<br /><br />If there is one bishop who rejected the council on that date, I would be interested in knowing who that bishop was.<br /><br />If you promulgate heresy, that makes you a heretic. If you sign a heretical document, saying you agree with it, that makes you a heretic. That's what people like Thuc did.<br /><br />By doing so, they lost their sees, no less than the ostensible Bishop of Rome.<br /><br />And if they lost their sees, and no one is left to reinstate them (who?), then there can never be any ordinaries again.<br /><br />Who would reinstate them to their sees? Every single bishop had defected from the true Faith by December 1965, according to SVism. <br /><br />Peter, let's see you name a single bishop who, in December of 1965, had not promulgated Vatican II, who broke communion with the heretics who did promulgate it, and who had the power to reinstate anyone to an episcopal see if that bishop happened to repent of his Vatican II errors.<br /><br />Which bishop falls into that category? December 1965. Names, please.DJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028761850444888285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-42442203152885129312016-09-16T22:51:59.460-04:002016-09-16T22:51:59.460-04:00St. Columba said: Although I liked your post on m...<i>St. Columba said: Although I liked your post on most points, on this point I have some problem. We must be able to trust the Pope's teachings (encyclicals, exhortations, disciplines, canonizations, etc..) in the present, otherwise papal authority falls like a house of cards. Why? Say a future Pope condemned this Pope's teaching...then, who is to say a future future pope could not overturn the future pope's decision? We could thus never trust a current Pope's teaching, which flies in the face of what we believe about papal authority to begin with.</i><br /><br />St. Columba, what you stated above has already occurred in the history of the Catholic Church, and yet the Church has survived.<br /><br />Pope Formosus was a valid Catholic pope. He died in April 896 A.D. <br /><br />Formosus' successor, Boniface VI, lasted only a month, like John Paul I.<br /><br />The next pope, Stephen VI, was an enemy of Pope Formosus. Eight months after Stephen was elected, he held a synod where he had Pope Formosus' body dug up, put on trial, mutilated, and then thrown in the river.<br /><br />Pope Stephen VI then declared Pope Formosus to be an antipope and declared all of his acts null and void, including his ordinations and episcopal consecrations.<br /><br />After Stephen died (he was strangled in prison), his successor, Pope Romanus, lasted about 4 months, then died.<br /><br />The next pope was Theodore II. He lasted only three weeks and then died, but Theodore <i>reversed</i> the rulings of Stephen VI with regard to Pope Formosus and contradicted him. Theodore held Pope Formosus to be a valid pope, and his ordinations to be valid.<br /><br />After Theodore II comes John IX. John IX also contradicted Stephen VI and held that Pope Formosus was a valid pope, and his ordinations were valid.<br /><br />A few popes later, Pope Sergius III (elected 904 A.D.) <i>reversed</i> Theodore and John and, in agreement with Stephen VI, declared Formosus to be an antipope and annulled all his acts, ordinations, and episcopal consecrations.<br /><br />This nonsense went on for over a decade, with popes contradicting one another right and left, declaring popes, bishops, and priests to be invalid, et cetera.<br /><br />It was an absolute mess, but the Church survived.<br /><br />We are now living in similar times. This is a mess, but we will survive this.DJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028761850444888285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-83875782545816354932016-09-16T19:48:45.172-04:002016-09-16T19:48:45.172-04:00Thanks Vox. :)Thanks Vox. :)Peter Lambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17952041193215971470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-21391195437827838052016-09-16T19:46:06.457-04:002016-09-16T19:46:06.457-04:00Peter,
We "met" during Rosicagate. I de...Peter,<br /><br />We "met" during Rosicagate. I deeply appreciated your prayers for us at that time. You do not impose and you are not detrimental. <br /><br />We will not agree on sedevacantism.<br /><br />But, here is the rub, - I have more in common with you as a brother Catholic, you in South Africa, me here in Canada, than I have with the Catholics at my territorial parish a kilometre away. <br /><br />Express yourself freely.Vox Cantorishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16987049370515084083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-34316213858527033222016-09-16T19:01:26.210-04:002016-09-16T19:01:26.210-04:00Ladies and Gentlemen, I shall re-enter the fray sh...Ladies and Gentlemen, I shall re-enter the fray shortly! :) I have been occupied by the visit of His Excellency Bishop Jose Rodrigues from Mexico City. What a most wonderful, holy, pious man. What a privilege for me! The real thing sticks out a mile! My aging Catholic knees were put to the test. Serving at Mass on evening of arrival, then early this morning, followed by Stations of the Cross - all kneeling upright without any form of support.<br /><br />Sorry to be a bone of contention. I must admit, I got a bit agro being told by Ana that I had left the Catholic Church etc. I sincerely believe, with all my heart, that sedevacantism is the only proper Catholic response in our situation. I therefore feel it my duty, as a Catholic, to push it with all my might, to the extent I am able. Pre-Vatican II doctrine is authoritative, clear, immutable and undisputed and that is why I quote from it as often and as copiously as is, in my opinion, reasonable. So many Catholics today know so little of orthodox pre-VII Catholic doctrine. Who can blame them? They have grown up in NWO church and that is all they know.<br />Dear Eirene, I think you fail to distinguish between remark and comment. Remark is a terse observation. Comment has content to express an opinion, or point of view. It may be long, or short, depending upon circumstances. If you are not inclined to read long comments - then don't. :) I don't get an ego trip out of writing comments - I'm getting a bit old for that. I'm sure Vox doesn't get one from writing his blog, which must take lots of time and effort.<br />I do not wish to impose on Vox's hospitality, nor do I wish to be detrimental to his blog and he knows that I would leave with a smile and without rancour if he wanted me to, but it's pointless writing comments unless one may express oneself freely.Peter Lambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17952041193215971470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-86715038571192626572016-09-15T20:54:27.316-04:002016-09-15T20:54:27.316-04:00That's RIGHT Mark Thomas! The Trads were right...That's RIGHT Mark Thomas! The Trads were right and you, as usual are wrong. Well actually I don't believe you were wrong. You were LYING and attempting to deliberately SPIN things to be other than reality.<br /><br /><br /><br />-- Did Pope Francis "outlaw" the TLM as "trads" predicted? How did that attack against Pope Francis work out?<br /><br />He's doing worse! He's making sure the TLM goes away by destroying Trad orders! He insults TLM whenever he can, and believes it to be a fashion that will go away with the brave new world he's ushering in. He can't believe otherwise! TLM and Trads are just relics of the past who he's convinced will go away.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />-- Did he "hammer" the SSPX as trads insisted that he would? As late as September 2014 A.D., when Bishop Fellay was headed to Rome, "trads" predicted that Pope Francis would hammer the SSPX.<br /><br />He can't hammer the SSPX! Instead he hammers others like those of a certain Immaculate order, men & women. With the SSPX he always had to play nice. So I don't know what Trad blog you've been reading, but the ones I did suspected he'd try to play nice by them just about as well as he'd play nice with Lutherans or the Orthodox or the Chinese National Church. Not that I'd group the SSPX in with the likes of them, but where Francis is concerned, those he cannot directly control he will seek to collaborate with. As far as Francis is concerned the SSPX are just as much in unity with him as the Lutherans or the Muslims. It's all very ecumenical.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />---Here is Louie Verrecchio's "expert" analysis of that then-upcoming meeting. How did that trad attack against Pope Francis work out?<br /><br />Yeah, how has that worked out so far, Mark Thomas? Has it been settled yet? Or are we still playing the same game so far where each side exchanges a few pleasantries here and there? I still see no reconciliation signed Mark. Do you? Tell you what... Get back to me when it's confirmed, okay? Okay.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />-- Did he turn Papal Masses into "clown shows" as trads predicted?<br /><br />Did you not see him in a clown noses & placing beach balls on altars?<br /><br /><br /><br />-- Did he refuse to fight against abortion?<br /><br />I don't recall anyone saying he wouldn't be against abortion. Abortion is pretty much the only thing the Novus Ordo folks will at least verbally commit to. And that too Francis, according to Laudato Si, only because he equates destruction of human life as no different than harming the soul-less planet.<br /><br /><br /><br />-- Did he refuse to condemn Satanic forces who promote homosexual unions?<br /><br />Yes. Before the right audience he'll offer a token Church teaching or two against homosexuality, but he shut his mouth when Ireland and the U.S. voted for the homosexual deviances, and he parlays and has little get togethers with homo friends, appreciates and promotes homo-friendly bishops and even homosexuals themselves, like his good friend Msgr. Ricca who he always loves to hold hands with. After all, who is he to judge?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />---Let us begin with those attacks against Pope Francis. How did those attacks work out?<br /><br />Gold medals to the trads. Mark Thomas not even fit for the qualifying round. But at least Vox is nice enough to give you a participation trophy.Johnnonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-77277401854393432322016-09-15T17:45:30.740-04:002016-09-15T17:45:30.740-04:00Brian. Your are correct Peter Lamb. Sorry about ...Brian. Your are correct Peter Lamb. Sorry about slurring him. I take it back. He is a great contributor. However, I do wish he would do it in fewer words.Michael Dowdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16650782589323136700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-71649756894525036172016-09-15T16:21:13.651-04:002016-09-15T16:21:13.651-04:00Mark, you still ignored the point as usual. Franci...Mark, you still ignored the point as usual. Francis is admired and liked by those who want to be confirmed in their sin. That's why he's popular. The "people of God" do not admire him. As I just explained to you, the large majority of people in the Novus Ordo are material heretics and thus not Catholics. Therefore they are not part of the "people of God" you quote, and their numbers do not count towards your assertion that the vast majority of Catholics love Francis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-51301120214899197012016-09-15T15:39:21.229-04:002016-09-15T15:39:21.229-04:00I find it very amusing Fatima raises her beautiful...I find it very amusing Fatima raises her beautiful head again. Get one thing straight Bl Mary would never go against the doctrine and dogma of Her Son's Mystical Body' All the latter day thinkers who quote her are each and every one of them out to lunch, The Consecration of Fatima is not complete due to the frailties of mankind. If you look at it through the Church's teachings on Merits no way is it, the Consecration, perfectly fulfilled.It is incomplete, stop telling Bl Mary she is wrong. That is a heresy of gnosticism. This you recognize as you read. First every consecration is valid even if the Bishop is near to falling asleep in his bed when he make it. But there are other Bishops who have not and did never act on Bl Mary's instruction and never will now. That is the first of mankind's failings to comply with Mary of Fatima's plea. Secondly the Hubris in the latin church, of which I am one and have been for nearly eighty years, still astounds me in its bigotry. Tell me all you so very self important people who knows Bl Mary's mind how true your opinions are. Go read everyday for the rest of your lives Chapter 9 of the book of wisdom. Next who are the Bishops that Bl Mary recognizes. In your egotistical thoughts are they only Latin. Do not kid yourself with your truths. Bl Mary recognizes every Bishop who is of the Apostolic Tradition, many are not under the Pope. Do you think My Mother and Love would exclude Russian schismatics, Greek Schismatics or other byzantine prelates. How can any of you know Bl Mary's minds and after reading Chapter 9 can you claim to know Christ 's mind which in reality you claimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-36406865234279541772016-09-15T15:04:18.933-04:002016-09-15T15:04:18.933-04:00Michael Dowd, Eirene,
I completely, strongly disa...Michael Dowd, Eirene,<br /><br />I completely, strongly disagree.<br /><br />As a Catholic of less than 10 years from a lifetime in Protestantism, I find Peter Lamb's facts HIGHLY important and useful.<br /><br />I have many opinions, many of them just intuition and gleanings from late-in-life "cramming". My inexperience and relatively low knowledge base concerns me in a time of universal apostasy outside the Church; and now inside as well. How you can look at Lamb's fact filled posts and see "endless, needless, useless, tedious and boring says more about you than him. Rock solid facts, I say.<br /><br />I have to tell you, I really appreciate the time he puts in to Magisterium based facts; very little emotives, so I can decide things for myself. Obviously, the same for Vox. But his combox is really good too; a sure sign of a healthy blog. I'm trying to get my Catholic Faith right and grow from infant understanding to something more adult. And select orthodox blogs, and their commenters, are a hobby source of information for me.<br /><br />No. Brevity is not always a sure sign of wit. Sometimes brevity is just dull, worthless brevity. I actually skip most of the one or two liners as wastes of my time and much more enjoy unpacking those that required thought, time, wisdom and/or personal experience.<br /><br />Easy enough to skip one, go to the next if the length bothers you. <br /><br />To Peter Lamb: one vote from me and a thumb up, to keep it up ..... Within the rules of the Blog Master, of course!Aquahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06691722006352014613noreply@blogger.com