Papal trivia

This topic was continued by Papal trivia II.

TalkCatholic Tradition

Join LibraryThing to post.

Papal trivia

This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.

1John5918
Feb 5, 2011, 2:22 am

Pope John Paul II's beatification sees Rome hotels quadruple prices (Guardian)

Event in May expected to attract millions of pilgrims

Donor card or not, the pope's organs are going nowhere (Guardian)

He has carried an organ transplant card faithfully for years, but Joseph Ratzinger's election to the papacy has ruled him out as an organ donor, the Vatican has revealed.

Instead of providing a liver or kidney to a needy recipient, pope Benedict's body will belong to the church when he dies, said one Vatican official, who suggested that veneration of the pontiff's remains would be complicated if they were not all in the same place.

2MyopicBookworm
Feb 5, 2011, 7:32 pm

veneration of the pontiff's remains would be complicated if they were not all in the same place

It doesn't seem to trouble all those saints who are distributed around the world in implausible numbers of reliquaries. On the other hand, for an organ recipient to be followed around by a horde of venerating Catholics might be kind of annoying.

3timspalding
Feb 6, 2011, 2:04 am

Would the organs from a 84 year-old man who dies after a long sickness be of use to anyone?

implausible numbers of reliquaries

This is commonly said, but, like the pornography collection of the Vatican, something of an urban myth. I recall someone computing up all the fragments of the true cross and, while they may not be real, they don't add up to a more than one cross worth, as it were...

4timspalding
Feb 6, 2011, 2:05 am

Okay, HERE'S papal trivia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II

"He spoke the following languages: Italian, French, German, English, Spanish, Portuguese, Ukrainian, Russian, Croatian, Serbian, Esperanto, Ancient Greek and Latin as well as his native Polish."

Esperanto—really?

5timspalding
Feb 6, 2011, 2:20 am

Here's some good trivia:

Pope John Paul: Polish, Italian, French, German, English, Spanish, Portuguese, Ukrainian, Russian, Croatian, Serbian, Esperanto, Ancient Greek and Latin.

Pope Benedict: German, French, Italian, English, Spanish, Portuguese (some), Greek, Hebrew, Latin.

Patriarch Bartholomew: Modern Greek, Turkish, Italian, German, French, English, Ancient Greek and Latin.

Archbishop Rowan Williams: English, Welsh, Spanish, French, German, Russian, Biblical Hebrew, Syriac, Latin, Ancient and Modern Greek.

Which raises the question:

1. Religious people are stupid, right?
2. How many languages does Rick Warren speak?

6Joansknight
Feb 6, 2011, 6:19 am

Pope Leo XIII: “Miserable it is to live in a barbarous state and with savage manners: but more miserable to lack the knowledge of that which is highest, and to dwell in ignorance of the one true God.” (Quarto abeunte saeculo #4, July 16, 1892)

Now, doesn't that sound familiar....

Here's some papal trivia for you....St. Peter was the first pope of Christ's Church and Pius the XII was the last.

7John5918
Edited: Feb 6, 2011, 6:33 am

>3 timspalding: Wow, does the Vatican have a porn collection? How can we ordinary Catholics get granted access to it? Do you have to be a "faithful" Catholic or can "cafeteria" Catholics have a butcher's too?

8John5918
Edited: Feb 6, 2011, 7:00 am

>6 Joansknight: Joansknight, I'm still trying to understand how "Christ's Church" has been governed during the decades since Pius XII when there has been no pope, as you believe. Who is "acting pope"? How is the teaching magisterium of the Church exercised? Who is safeguarding doctrine? Or is it just anarchy?

9Joansknight
Feb 6, 2011, 10:01 am

Christ's Church is not any leader, it is Christ's followers. You don't get it do you? We as Christ's followers must safeguard the doctrines of the Church. Just because there is no pope does not mean the Church does not exist. Would the United States still exist if there is no president? The basic doctrines of this country were defined in its first fifty years of its existence and they are still alive today. True some of these have been redefined because of the changes in time, but the United States is not the Catholic Church and its doctrines can not change. Do you have any idea what the doctrines of the Catholic Church are or do you just accept the heresies of Vatican II?

It is sacrilege for you to mention pornography and the Church in a single breathe. You may think you are mocking me, but in reality you are mocking Christ.

10Joansknight
Feb 6, 2011, 10:02 am

All the world knows that this Divine promise ought to be understood to apply to the Universal Church and not to any part of the church taken in isolation, for individual segments may, and in fact, indeed have, been overcome by the forces of evil.

- Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903), Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896

11Joansknight
Feb 6, 2011, 10:31 am

>8 John5918:: St. Thomas More and St. Thomas Becket were just two men out of hundreds of thousands of martyrs who died safeguarding the doctrines of the Church....they were not popes. Maybe you'd like to mock all of them too.

12John5918
Edited: Feb 6, 2011, 11:15 am

>11 Joansknight: Actually I think you'll find that we are the ones respecting popes, including the last 5. You seem to be mocking them by claiming that they are anti-popes.

Some of my friends and colleagues are amongst those hundreds of thousands who have been tortured and killed for the Church. I don't tend to mock them. You do mock them by claiming that their Church is not the Church.

On the Vatican porn, most Catholics I know have a sense of humour.

13timspalding
Feb 6, 2011, 1:42 pm

The Vatican's Porn collection—"the biggest in the world!"—is a persistent urban myth. Like alligators in the sewers and worms in the Big Mac, it'll never die.

There's a good Snopes piece on it.
http://www.snopes.com/risque/porn/vatican.asp

14cjbanning
Feb 6, 2011, 2:14 pm

9: "Just because there is no pope does not mean the Church does not exist. Would the United States still exist if there is no president?"

I think that's a useful question to ask. If the President were to die today, the Vice President were to be sworn in as President. If they both died, it'd be the Speaker of the House, and so on.

So if there were no President, then either:

a) The Constitution would have been amended so as to no longer have a president, or
b) The country would no longer be following the Constitution, which is to say, no, the United States would no longer be in existence.

I don't think that's the conclusion you wanted us to come to, though.

15MyopicBookworm
Feb 6, 2011, 2:24 pm

Thomas Becket died safeguarding the doctrines of the Church? The right of Catholic priests to evade criminal trial by claiming "benefit of clergy"? Is that a "doctrine of the Church"?

16timspalding
Edited: Feb 6, 2011, 2:32 pm

>14 cjbanning:

Johnsknight does not propose an America without a president, because that's not really he imagines about the church. He imagines that an America with a president, but he and about 0.1% of the citizens of America think the president isn't really the president. All the mayors and governors and legislatures and so forth (deacons, bishops, archbishops, episcopal bodies, etc.) continue to function as if the president were the president and indeed most of them aren't even aware of the tiny minority who think it's all a sham.

Basically Latin-Mass anti-Vatican IIers are the Birthers of the Catholic church. You know, except about one-hundredth the size and with even less evidence on their side. Oh, and to deny Obama is the president is to be a nut. To deny popes and council is to be a heretic as well.

17timspalding
Feb 6, 2011, 3:08 pm

>15 MyopicBookworm:

Becket was assassinated. Perhaps you mean someone else.

18MyopicBookworm
Feb 6, 2011, 3:12 pm

>17 timspalding: (>11 Joansknight:) Well, his assassins thought they were acting on behalf of the king with whom he had a Church-centred political disagreement. No doubt there were multiple reasons why he then became the focus of a popular saint-cult.

The confusion between the doctrines of the Church and the temporal interests of the hierarchy is perhaps instructive.

19timspalding
Feb 6, 2011, 3:16 pm

This message has been deleted by its author.

21Joansknight
Edited: Feb 7, 2011, 10:27 am

This message has been deleted by its author.

22MyopicBookworm
Feb 6, 2011, 5:48 pm

>21 Joansknight: I have not yet 'blocked' any member of LT. This may be about to change.

23John5918
Feb 6, 2011, 11:57 pm

>21 Joansknight: their deaths were in vain

Last week I was with a priest who was tortured and almost killed a few years back. Next time I see him I'll tell him his suffering was in vain. Tomorrow I'm going to a place where there's a shrine at the mass grave of a priest and several hundred lay people who were massacred; I'll tell the bishop there that his shrine is invalid and his predecessor was murdered in vain. You know, we really believed these people were martyrs. Thanks for putting us right.

24Joansknight
Feb 7, 2011, 10:22 am

>23 John5918:: I am truly sorry you had friends and colleagues tortured and killed. I guess I do not realize or understand the situation you and others are in and I apologize. Please forgive me. I am well aware people suffer for their Christian beliefs. My remarks were unwarranted and inappropriate. John, once again please forgive me.

25Joansknight
Feb 7, 2011, 10:31 am

>17 timspalding:: I know Becket was assassinated, but many believed he was martyred. King Henry did want to control the Church and the clergy.

26John5918
Edited: Feb 7, 2011, 11:05 am

>24 Joansknight: Thanks, Joansknight; apology accepted. I think one of the things I try to do on LT is to introduce into the conversation the fact that there is a Church out here which doesn't necessarily fit the experience of Church which Europeans and north Americans have.

27Joansknight
Feb 7, 2011, 12:17 pm

>26 John5918:: Are you in Africa?

28cjbanning
Feb 7, 2011, 12:28 pm

Is this all simply about Petrine authority, or is the apostolic succession, and thus authority, of RCC bishops called into doubt as well?

(Accepting that this thread is well and truly derailed and that as long as the derailment is confined to this one thread that might not be too much of a problem.)

29timspalding
Feb 7, 2011, 12:32 pm

No, apostolic succession doesn't require the pope. The method—it requires at least one other bishop—was established very early--before papal primacy was asserted or, in this matter, remotely possible to assert. The Catholic church currently requires that the Pope approve bishops or the appointment is against canon law, but the appointment remains valid either. This is why the Catholic church recognizes that Orthodox and various other bishops are bishops.

30John5918
Feb 7, 2011, 12:37 pm

>27 Joansknight: Yes. And I have to declare a personal interest. My wife was nearly killed this weekend whilst supporting the Catholic Church in the southern Sudanese town of Malakal. Heavy fighting broke out between two factions in the army just metres from the parish house in which she was staying. Some of the fighting, with tanks, was inside the church compound, and armed soldiers came to the house at one point during the night but didn't enter. She was evacuated safely to Juba by the UN today, clutching a spent bullet.

Ironically I had a virtually identical experience two years ago in exactly the same place, with the added excitement of soldiers breaking into our house and looting us at gunpoint during the night after the fighting had officially finished. I probably saved the life of a young west African priest whom they wanted to kill, by doing some fast talking in a local language and persuading them to leave him.

So for us, the prospect of martyrdom is an everyday occurrence. As I said above, to some disbelief apparently, many of my friends and colleagues have been tortured and killed. You may believe that we're doing all this for a false anti-Church, but we don't, and we are prepared to put our lives on the line for it.

31John5918
Feb 7, 2011, 12:41 pm

>28 cjbanning:, 29 We're having a new auxiliary bishop ordained in a couple of weeks. The ordination will be done by our archbishop assisted by two other bishops. The papal nuncio will formally read the papal announcement.

322wonderY
Edited: Feb 7, 2011, 12:57 pm

This message has been deleted by its author.

33cjbanning
Feb 7, 2011, 6:00 pm

I suspect that, as an Anglo-Catholic, my inability to "get" the role of the Petrine authority in the RCC leaves me confused.

1.) If the apostolic authority of the members of the College of Cardinals isn't in question, then what undermines their ability to elect a Pope (regardless of his character, beliefs, or actions)?

2.) If the apostolic authority of the individual RCC bishops, who are acting in line with Vatican II, isn't in question, then why does it even matter that the Pope isn't the Pope? What changes, practically speaking? Everyone should still be required to obey their diocesan bishop.

34John5918
Feb 7, 2011, 11:53 pm

>33 cjbanning: I think that's a key question, cj. Catholic bishops are not just the pope's delegates (or "vicars", to quote Lumen Gentium, which sedevacantists would reject), they have authority in their own right in their dioceses. The pope is "first amongst equals", and universal teaching is supposed to be by the bishops together with the pope, apart from the very rare and relatively modern ex cathedra infallible teachings of the pope alone (which, as Tim points out somewhere, have so far only affirmed things which were already very well accepted, not introduced anything new or controversial). Add to that the sensus fidei and the concept of "reception" which Tim has also referred to elsewhere, and it becomes a very complex mix.

35Joansknight
Feb 9, 2011, 9:47 am

Here is something to think about....if one has an open mind and heart:

Pope Pius IX: “It has always been the custom of heretics and schismatics to call themselves Catholics and to proclaim their many excellences in order to lead peoples and princes into error.” (Quartus Supra #6, Jan. 6, 1873)

36timspalding
Feb 9, 2011, 10:34 am

Wait, so the schismatics are the 99.9% of people who call themselves Catholic, and the true church is the small bunch of conspiracy theorists, scattered in a few places (Michigan, California), with few priests and very few bishops--zero of whom were consecrated in conformity with canon law!

37cjbanning
Feb 9, 2011, 2:01 pm

But what would make them more true or more catholic (or more holy or more apostolic) than, say, the Orthodox churches whose apostolic succession is not in question? It would seem that the Orthodox churches, the sedevacantist churches, and the Vatican II RCC would all be left on the same footing as equal branches of the true catholic Church, because they all have equal apostolic authority and equal lack of Petrine authority (since the Chair of Peter is vacant).

38timspalding
Feb 9, 2011, 2:07 pm

Maybe so from a Sede Vacantist perspective. But the Orthodox—and for that matter the non-Chalcedonians—don't assert there is no bishop of Rome. They merely assert that his priority of honor does not give him the ability to unilaterally declare things for the universal church.

39Joansknight
Edited: Feb 10, 2011, 11:43 am

>36 timspalding:: The answer is yes. They were not ordained under the new form of consecration (which is invalid) and is by no means in conformity with anti-pope John Paul II's 1983 version of canon law.

Was Pius IX a conspiracy theorist? Even in his time people in the Church were heading in the wrong direction. But heaven forbid you read all he wrote or what any of the other popes wrote for that matter. Only Vatican II and beyond matters to people like you. It is better that man is happy, not Christ.

Better that only a few Catholics should be left, staunch and sincere in their religion, than that they should, remaining many, desire as it were, to be in collusion with the Church's enemies and in conformity with the open foes of our faith.

- St. Peter Canisius (1521-1597), one of the greatest Jesuit theologians, speaking of the Protestants, who were then introducing changes such as vernacular liturgies, the abolition of fasting laws, the removal of statues, and other diminutions of traditional Catholicism.

Wrong is wrong even if everybody is doing it, and right is right even if nobody is doing it.

- Saint Augustine (354-430)

I think today st. Augustine would NOT be in that 99.9%.

40timspalding
Feb 9, 2011, 2:13 pm

Went on a hunt to see whom the Anglicans in Italy look to as their bishop. There is apparently no Anglican bishop of Rome. I can't figure out if the Old Catholics do, but man, that's got to be a funny position to be in—Old Catholic in Rome. Does anyone know what, if any, congregations have another Bishop of Rome? (Apart from the Sede Vacantists who've elected their own pope.)

41MyopicBookworm
Feb 9, 2011, 2:14 pm

A nice point. And I'm puzzled by the logic: even if John XXIII was invalidly elected, weren't there enough validly appointed cardinals to ensure that the following conclave could validly appoint his successor? Or were the whole college of cardinals cast into irredeemable schism and heresy by giving their allegiance to John XXIII? But that implies that once an antipope has been elected with no "Catholic" rival, the Roman Church is finished, since no one is ever again going to be in a position to elect a Pope. Or should sedevacantists be obliged to choose between the various rival traditionalist papal claimants (papae vagantes?)?

42cjbanning
Edited: Feb 9, 2011, 2:17 pm

39: "They were not ordained under the new form of consecration (which is invalid) and is by no means in conformity with anti-pope John Paul II's 1983 version of canon law."

But Orthodox episcopacies would still be valid, no?

"I think today st. Augustine would be in that 99.9%."

Well, there's a certain sense of admirable intellectual honesty in admitting that a saintly doctor of the church would disagree with you.

>41 MyopicBookworm:

That's one of the things I can't figure out either.

43timspalding
Feb 9, 2011, 2:22 pm

>36 timspalding:

Right, but they were not ordained in conformity with canon law because they were not approved by the Pope (or by a Uniate patriarch allowed to do so). Anyone ordained without papal approval is automatically excommunicated (see 1382). If you were traditionalists indeed, you would stop consecrating new bishops until the seat of Peter is again filled, just as some of you have refused to consecrate one yourselves. It's going to happen any day now.

44timspalding
Feb 9, 2011, 2:23 pm

Well, there's a certain sense of admirable intellectual honesty in admitting that a saintly doctor of the church would disagree with you.

No, I think he merely misunderstood.

45MyopicBookworm
Edited: Feb 9, 2011, 2:28 pm

>40 timspalding: The Anglican church in Rome is under the care of the Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe. It used to be the Bishop of London, or his suffragan the Bishop of Fulham.

There cannot be an Anglican bishop of Rome, since the apostolic succession in that see is still validly held by the (Roman Catholic) Bishop of Rome, even though his theology is heretical. Similarly, the Anglican church in the Holy Land is headed by the Anglican Bishop in, not of, Jerusalem, since the Bishop of Jerusalem is generally held to be the (Constaninopolitan) Orthodox Patriarch.

46cjbanning
Edited: Feb 9, 2011, 2:50 pm

>40 timspalding:/41

Well, technically, if sedevacantists pick a new pope, they're not actually sedevacantists anymore.

A quick Google search seems to indicate there are a couple of Anglican churches in the city of Rome who operate under the jurisdiction of CoE's Diocese of Europe (in the case of All Saints Rome), or TEC's "Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe" (St. Paul's Within the Walls).

>44 timspalding:

Well, yes, I agree that's the most likely explanation, but I was being charitable.

47timspalding
Feb 9, 2011, 3:46 pm

>45 MyopicBookworm:

Well, there's an Anglican archbishop of Dublin, an Episcopal bishop of New York, a Catholic bishop of Athens, etc. The same-city problem was overcome a long time ago.

48Joansknight
Feb 10, 2011, 11:47 am

>42 cjbanning:: I forgot the NOT!

"I think today st. Augustine would NOT be in that 99.9%."

As the decay in belief in the Divinity of Jesus continues to increase, the tendency will be to model church organization according to the political theories in favor at the moment. The democratic form of society will be exalted and a "Reunion of Christendom," for example, will be aimed at, along the lines followed by the League of Nations.

- Father Denis Fahey

49Joansknight
Feb 10, 2011, 11:50 am

>44 timspalding:: I forgot the NOT! I am human I make mistakes.

"I think today st. Augustine would NOT be in that 99.9%."

50Joansknight
Feb 10, 2011, 11:52 am

Well, technically, if sedevacantists pick a new pope, they're not actually sedevacantists anymore.

There is NO valid pope!

51Joansknight
Feb 10, 2011, 11:55 am

If you read the Church Fathers, you would clearly see they don't agree with any of you.

52timspalding
Feb 10, 2011, 12:07 pm

>48 Joansknight:

How many black helicopters does the Pope have?

If you read the Church Fathers, you would clearly see they don't agree with any of you.

Therefore, 99.99% of all people who have read the church fathers—me included, often in the original Greek and Latin—didn't.

53Joansknight
Feb 10, 2011, 4:42 pm

Question 5:
"Why do you sometimes call Benedict XVI 'Rabbi Ratzinger'? Why do you call him a 'rabbi'?"

Answer: We sometimes refer to Benedict XVI, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, as "Rabbi Ratzinger" because when he visited the Jewish synagogue in Cologne on August 19, 2005, he said, "Whoever meets Jesus Christ meets Judaism" (quoting John Paul II). Since Benedict XVI claims to be the Vicar of Christ (one of the papal titles), we figure that it follows logically that he is thus also the Vicar of Judaism. But if he is the Vicar of Judaism, he must certainly be a rabbi. Therefore, we like to refer to him as "Rabbi Ratzinger" on occasion. We're just putting two and two together, letting things lead to their logical conclusions.

54Joansknight
Edited: Feb 11, 2011, 8:36 am

Question 7:
"You sound like Protestants. You disobey the Church, you find your own excuses for doing so, and you reject the Pope and his teachings. You're nothing but Protestants in reverse!"

Answer: This answer will have two parts. First, let us assume this were true. Let us assume that, yes, we are just Protestants in reverse, we're Martin Luther to the other extreme. So what? The Vatican II Church does not have a problem with that. In fact, Vatican II even says (see Vatican II's Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 3) that as Protestants, we at Novus Ordo Watch "are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church" and -- note well! -- we "have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation" because "the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using us as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church." There you have it! Lighten up already! We are very honored to be Protestants, since even God Himself makes use of us to save souls! In fact, when we baptize someone, we are using a liturgical action that "must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation," so stop complaining about us being Protestants. You should be proud that we are Protestants! We expect you to give us episcopal rings and pectoral crosses, sign theological agreements with us, hold joint vesper services with us, and, when one of us passes to eternity, we expect you to imitate Benedict XVI and declare him to have been a "faithful servant" and to have "attained eternal joy"!

Now to the second answer. Let's be serious here. Does Novus Ordo Watch assist at or promote an invalid Protestant-modernist worship service? No. Does Novus Ordo Watch sign theological agreements with Protestant heretics? No. Does Novus Ordo Watch say that the Holy Ghost uses Protestant sects as means of salvation? No. Does anyone at Novus Ordo Watch act as though Protestants had an apostolic mandate to preach the Gospel or make society a better place? No. Does Novus Ordo Watch give away Catholic symbols such as episcopal rings or pectoral crosses and hand them to Protestant laymen dressed up as clergy? No. Does Novus Ordo Watch invite Protestant clergy to have joint ecumenical worship services and even allow for the building of joint Catholic-Protestant churches, as John Paul II's Directory on Ecumenism says (nos. 137-140)? No. Does Novus Ordo Watch help any heretic celebrate his false worship "worthily" by lending him whatever may be necessary for it, as John Paul II said his bishops may do (no. 137)? No. Does Novus Ordo Watch deny, compromise, or equivocate on any doctrine, esp. as taught by the Council of Trent against the Protestants? No.

The Novus Ordo Church does all that. Novus Ordo Watch doesn't. And yet we are the Protestants? The Novus Ordo Church is a neo-Protestant church. It is not the Catholic Church, and that is why we have nothing to do with it.

http://www.novusordowatch.org/index.htm





55rolandperkins
Feb 11, 2011, 3:02 am

JoansKnight, scrolling up, I couldnʻt see from which Message(S) in this thread your quotes of
"Question 5" and "Question 7" come from. But, taking Question 7 as quoted --"....ʻyou reject the Pope and his teachings. Youʻre nothing but Protestants in reverse!ʻ "
Well, the first seven words of that are certainly true-- by my definition of "the Pope". You reject 5 papacies - those of John XXIII, Paul VI,
John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.
But the second half of the quote breaks down into mere playing with words. And that, I think, is often the cases with fabricated "Reverse ...."
designations. I was never impressed, for example with claims of "Reverse Discrimination"
in the field of civil rights which were forwarded beginning about in the 1980s. Thereʻs either discrimination going on, or there isnʻt. No adjective* (like "Reverse") is applicable to any case of real discrimination.
Well, excuse the tangent.
You present some pretty strong moral arguments (I suppose sarcastically) in part I of your answer, where you say, "okay, so we ARE Protestants, and whatʻs wrong with that?" --or so it can be argued from quotations that are FROM the Vatican.
Then you go on to say "We DONʻT do all these horrible conciliatory, appeasing things that
the post Vatican II pseudo-Papacy is doing."

To me, what is wrong with your general tendency doesnʻt appear much in this post, but in earlier ones is that you reject those 5 most recent papacies -- on NO Catholic-based grounds that I can see. I was 27 years old and a practicing Catholic when John XXIII became Pope, and i could see nothing wrong with the
procedure. It was perfectly in line with the established procedure for continuity of the papacy. And there must BE continuity, must there not? Or, can we just say "we need a NEW pope!" or "We can get along temporarily without a Pope!" every time we donʻt like the choice of pope that was made?
And I didnʻt question the authority of the new pope to convoke Vatican II and employ theologians --notably Hans Kung and Joseph Ratzinger later Benedict XVI} -- who would probably work out changes.

*Iʻm assuming that "Reverse" in this phrase IS an adjective, not a verb.

56Joansknight
Feb 12, 2011, 1:52 pm

Papal Trivia:

St. Pius I (140 - 155)
First real bishop of Rome. Prior to this the Christian community was governed by a council of elders or deacons. Pius was the first "bishop" who exercised sole authority.

57Joansknight
Feb 12, 2011, 1:55 pm

John XV (985 - 996)
First pope to canonize a saint (Ulrich of Augsburg, 993).

58rolandperkins
Feb 12, 2011, 2:27 pm

On 56, 57:

I would rate these two as higher than "trivia". Theyʻre important points in Church History.
I didnʻt know that Pius I was the first Bishop of Rome, and that there were no papal canonizations before the 10th century.
56, especially, is important, but I think your argument is weakened by your use of "real". Why not just say he was "the first Bishop of Rome"? Did you mean that there were fraudulent claimants to the title "Bishop of Rome" before Pius I?

59Joansknight
Feb 12, 2011, 3:28 pm

>58 rolandperkins:: No I didn't mean there were fraudulent claimants. I said "real' because of the ruling elders and deacons.

60Joansknight
Feb 12, 2011, 3:31 pm

I know they are important points in Church History, the thread is "papal trivia". If I wanted to trivialize, I would mention pope Joan.

61rolandperkins
Edited: Feb 12, 2011, 3:35 pm

On 59 (Re 56):

" ʻreal" because of the ruling elders and deacons"

Good. That clears it up.

62cjbanning
Edited: Feb 12, 2011, 3:39 pm

The first pope not currently canonized a full Saint in the RCC is Liberius, whose papacy lasted from 352 to 366 C.E. The second is Anastatius II (496 to 498 C.E.), and the third Boniface II (530 to 532 C.E.).

The most recent pope to be canonized was St. Pius X (1903 to 1914 C.E.).

63Joansknight
Feb 12, 2011, 3:36 pm

Pelagius I (556 - 561)
First pope not actually elected at all — he was simply appointed by emperor Justinian.

64Joansknight
Feb 12, 2011, 3:38 pm

Sylvester II (999 - 1003)
First French pope.

65cjbanning
Feb 12, 2011, 3:40 pm

>63 Joansknight:

Was St. Peter elected?

66rolandperkins
Edited: Feb 12, 2011, 3:53 pm

On 65:

"Was St Peter elected?"

No, not according to Catholic doctrine. He was
appointed by Jesus. "You are ʻPetrosʻ (Rock, Kephas in Aramaic), and upon this "rock" I will build my Church.
Albert Camus joked that the Roman Catholic is the only Church based on a pun, but that the pun works only in Greek and in French: "Pierre" is the regular French word meaning "rock" and also a well known forename, corresponding to "Peter" in English. (Curiously the pun doesnʻt "work" even in Latin, where PetER is not a
usual name but only the Latinization of "PetrOS", and "rock" is "saxum".

67cjbanning
Feb 12, 2011, 4:25 pm

>66 rolandperkins:

That was what I was thinking, but then it occurred to me that while Jesus appointed Peter the head of the church, I don't really know any of the history of the Bishop of Rome thing.

68rolandperkins
Feb 12, 2011, 4:33 pm

"I donʻt really know any of the history of the Bishop of Rome" thing. (67)

Me either. As a child, I first saw the phrase in our (I suppose greatly simplified) Baltimore Catechism. As I remember it, it was the FIRST title given to the Pope in the catechism. "Vicar of Christ on Earth" of course followed.

Thomas Mann --who didnʻt,. I think belong to any church, but had some Catholic ancestry, saus somewhere that itʻs easy enough to believe that
St. Peter was the first pope. After all we do
know something about him, and he can be called historical rather than legendary, although there are legends about him. On the other hand we
know almost nothing about the alleged SECOND pope, (Saint) Linus. He is strictly legendary. So, Mann says, anyone can believe in the Petrine papacy.
The Linus papacy is the one that it takes real faith to believe in!

69MyopicBookworm
Feb 12, 2011, 7:22 pm

Pope John II (533-535) was the first to change his name on taking office (as his birth name, Mercurius, was too pagan).

702wonderY
Feb 12, 2011, 8:29 pm

I recently came across the trivia fact that "canonization" originally meant included in the list of intercessors during the Mass - read into the canon. That practice presumably began just after the first martyrdoms, and eventually became more formalized.

71rolandperkins
Feb 12, 2011, 8:56 pm

"list of intercessors dring the Mass..." (70)

This sounds like a list which began with Lilnus or had Lilnus near the beginning, that I remember in the Latin (pre-1964) Mass.

I suppose eventually the whole list of Saints could not be included. Too many of them, whether their
canonization was papal (post 10th c.-- see #57) or not, so the list had to be limited to the early popes and other martyrs.

722wonderY
Feb 12, 2011, 9:14 pm

"In union with and venerating the memory of, in the first place, the glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God and our Lord Jesus Christ, but also blessed Joseph, spouse of the same Virgin, and your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, James and John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Thaddeus: Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian, and all your Saints by whose merits and prayers grant that we may in all things be fortified by the aid of your protection."

73timspalding
Feb 12, 2011, 11:08 pm

No, it works in Greek, French and Aramaic.(1)

It's a funny thing because, in English and most modern language, punning is a dreadful thing--"he who would pun would pick a pocket," as Johnson said. From an English perspective, there is something really funny about founding the universal church on a PUN! The Greeks did it very freely, however and, at least judging from the Old Testament, it seems to have been equally common in Hebrew and Aramaic.

1. It works in Greek, but I think we have to assume the name was changed to make it work. Peter himself would have answered to Cephas. It's an interesting question whether he himself used "Petros" in speaking to Greek audiences. By and large this wasn't the normal pattern--you didn't translate names between languages the way (for some reason) American Indian names are always done. The New Testament is always saying "so-and-so (which means X)" instead of changing the name to X. Anyway, I admit ignorance of just when the change took place--whether we have evidence of that too.

74rolandperkins
Edited: Feb 13, 2011, 2:53 am

ʻ...Greek, French AND Aramaic" (73)

Yes, you are probably right that it works in
Aramaic too. (I know little Hebrew and less Aramaic). Iʻm not sure that Camus brought in the Aramaic connection; Iʻve only heard about Camusʻs take on it at second hand, so I wouldnʻt be able to document it. I have read that Camus was quite an amateur Bible student, and that he did some biblical reading in the original languages: that would be
Hebrew and Greek (for all of the Bible, except a part of Daniel
"Cephas" may have been an adjective, one of the many that must have been used to distinguish one "Simon" -- and there were a lot of them! -- from another. But Peter would probably have usually referred to himself as "Shimon" or whatever was the current pronunciation of the name we have as "Simon".

75Joansknight
Feb 13, 2011, 10:06 am

St. Victor I (189 - 199)
First African pope.
First pope to attempt to exert authority outside Rome and neighboring communities. He threatened excommunication for anyone who refused to celebrate Easter on Sunday and was soundly rebuked for it — at this time, the bishop of Rome wasn't justified in telling others what to do like this.

76Joansknight
Feb 13, 2011, 10:07 am

St. Symmachus (498 - 514)
First pope to give a pallium to a bishop outside of Italy. The pallium is a woolen garment worn by bishops as a sign of their pastoral authority.

77Joansknight
Feb 13, 2011, 10:09 am

Pelagius I (556 - 561)
First pope not actually elected at all — he was simply appointed by emperor Justinian.

78Joansknight
Feb 13, 2011, 10:10 am

Benedict IX (1032 - 1045)
First and only person to be pope more than once (three times, to be specific).

79Joansknight
Feb 13, 2011, 10:11 am

Adrian IV (1154 - 1159)
First (and thus far only) pope from England.

80Joansknight
Edited: Feb 13, 2011, 10:16 am

Blessed Innocent V (1276)
First member of the Dominican order elected pope. Because he kept wearing the Domincans' white cassock, it became traditional papal garb.

81rolandperkins
Feb 13, 2011, 2:25 pm

Pius XI the only pope of the 20th-21st centuries who was also a librarian (rare books).
Probably the greatest intellectual pope of his century --if you can leave politics out of the evaluation.

Italyʻs modern status as a "Catholic country" dates from his tenure: the Vatican came to reconciliation with the secular Italian State in the 1920s by a "Lateran Pact" with Benito Mussoliniʻs Fascist regime, after decades of "cold war" with
the Fascists and the precedingr House of Savoy monarchy. Historians have considered Pius XIʻs
successor, Pius XII as the Fascist-leaning pope of the era, but Pius XII maintained a more fence-sitting position, XIth having been the really
effective shorer-up of fascism.

822wonderY
Feb 13, 2011, 3:52 pm

"Cephas"

So, was Jesus affectionately calling him "Rocky" or "Blockhead"?

83Joansknight
Feb 15, 2011, 8:55 am

The Pope has no authority from Christ in temporal matters, in questions of politics.... His authority is ecclesiastical authority; it goes no further than that of the Church herself. But even in religious matters, the Pope is bound, very considerably, by the divine constitution of the Church. There are any number of things that the pope cannot do in religion. He cannot modify, nor touch in any way, one single point of the revelation Christ gave to the Church; his business is only to guard this against attack and false interpretation. We believe that God will guide him that his decisions of this nature will be nothing more than a defense or unfolding of what Christ revealed. The pope can neither make nor unmake a sacrament; he cannot affect the essence of any sacrament in any way. He cannot touch the Bible; he can neither take away a text from the inspired Scriptures nor add one to them. He has no fresh inspiration nor revelation. His business is to believe the revelation of Christ, as all Catholics believe it, and to defend it against heresy.... The Pope is not, in the absolute sense, head of the Church; the head of the Church is Jesus Christ our Lord.... The Pope is the vicar of that head, and therefore visible head of the Church on earth, having authority delegate from Christ over the Church on earth only.... If the Pope is a monarch, he is a very constitutional monarch indeed, bound on all sides by the constitution of the Church, as this has been given to her by Christ. --Fr. Adrian Fortescue (England's greatest liturgical historian, 1874-1923), The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 (St. Austin Press, 1997), pp. 27-28

Put that in your pipe and smoke it....

84John5918
Feb 15, 2011, 9:34 am

I've recently read Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times, a series of recent interviews with Pope Benedict XVI. Not a book I would necessarily have chosen, but it was given to me by a bishop and I have to say I enjoyed it. The pope (sorry, Joansknight, I mean "anti-pope") comes over quite well.

85Joansknight
Feb 15, 2011, 11:25 am

ummm....What does he come over as? Forgive me John, but, I know he's not talking about the pope, THE Church or our times because he has no idea about any of these things. You know frosting doesn't just make a cake look good, it hides what's really underneath.

86MyopicBookworm
Feb 15, 2011, 11:46 am

You know, you really are starting to sound insane.
"Of course, President Obama doesn't know anything about the REAL United States of America, which persists in a small Mennonite community in southern Manitoba..."

The One True Church is, and always has been, in Etchmiadzin, long before the Christian Church in the West was subject to a hostile takeover by the Roman Empire.

872wonderY
Feb 15, 2011, 11:53 am

corrected link for 84
http://www.librarything.com/work/10669266
which for some reason doesn't show up on the touchstones list.

Elric?!

Joansknight, I thought that #83 had possibilities for you to give more exposition about your issues, but you are back to just dismissing any knowledge or wisdom that is not from your sources - and that pool which is beyond your experience has to be immense. I think you overstep yourself.

88John5918
Feb 15, 2011, 12:01 pm

>87 2wonderY: Thanks, 2wonderY. This is the second thread where I've mentioned that book and both times the touchstone has given "Elric: The Stealer of Souls". What does LT know that the rest of us don't?!

>85 Joansknight: He comes over as more human and humble than I expected.

89cjbanning
Edited: Feb 15, 2011, 3:10 pm

Once, when I and a few others were having lunch with George Weigel, he told us a story about his friend John Paul II.

Apparently, early in his papacy JP2 was writing something in Latin, and signed it "Jonnes Paulus II."

The house Latinist, who was an American, sent it back to the Pope with a note: "There is no J in Latin."

John Paul sent a return note, reading either "There is now" or (Weigel's prefered version) "Quod scripsi, scripsi" ("What I have written, I have written" - what Pilate says in reference to the INRI sign on the cross).

But, Weigel noted, the house Latinist had the last word, because if you visit the late Pope's body, it will say, engraved on the sarcophagus: "Ionnes Paulus II."

90rolandperkins
Feb 15, 2011, 4:53 pm

"Jonnes / ....Ionnes" (89)

I agree about the J vs. I part of it. But I would expect the third letter, in either spelling to be: a. (An a after the -o and before the -nn.) It don't
too often have occasion to see the Latin version of well-known contemporary names; in fact I don't even have a Latin Bible, though I do have at least the New Testament in the original Greek, and in 10 or 12 other languages, including, surprisingly, Hebrew and Yiddish.

91TedWitham
Feb 16, 2011, 1:57 am

I had always learned 'Iohannes' as the Latin for 'John': Greek is 'Ioannos' (as in the Gospel Writer Ἰωάννης ) or 'Ionnos'

92Joansknight
Feb 16, 2011, 6:52 am

“St. Paul says that Antichrist ‘sitteth in the temple of God’ (2 Thess. 2:4)… This is not the ancient Temple of Jerusalem, nor a temple like it built by Antichrist, as some have thought, for then it would be his own temple… this temple is shown to be a Catholic Church, possibly one of the churches in Jerusalem or St. Peter’s in Rome, which is the largest church in the world and is in the full sense ‘The Temple of God.’” (Fr. Herman Kramer, The Book of Destiny, p. 321)

93Joansknight
Edited: Feb 17, 2011, 12:59 pm

If anyone should say that the true Church is not one body in itself, but consists of varied and diverse societies of Christian name, and is spread out among them, or that various societies disagreeing among themselves in profession of faith and separated by communion, constitute, as members or parts, the one and universal Church of Christ, let him be anathema.

- Vatican Council, Canon IV

94Joansknight
Feb 17, 2011, 12:58 pm

Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema.

- Vatican Council

95MyopicBookworm
Feb 17, 2011, 3:48 pm

I am wholly in accord with your conviction that the documents of Vatican I are to be regarded as papal trivia.

:-)

96cjbanning
Feb 17, 2011, 4:06 pm

Okay, letting myself get pulled back into the sedevacantism tangent: as far as I can see, #93 undercuts the sedevacantist position, insofar as what Vatican I means by "one body in itself" more or less requires the Chair of Peter to be filled. (I mean, it's not like credal Protestants don't believe the catholic Church is one Body in itself. But Vatican I calls for something more robust, basically a single centralized governmental structure--which sedevacantists no longer have.)

So the only way #93 advances the sedevacantist position is if the RCC has abandoned the dogma in #93--but any Protestant who has read Dominus Iesus will tell you that isn't so.

Lumen Gentium taught the one Church subsisted in the capital-C Catholic Church (that thing which includes the Latin Rite of the RCC as well as other structures but not Anglicanism, Protestantism, or Eastern Orthododoxy, and retains an overarching governmental structure) the many elements of truth and sanctification which are found outside those structures are gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ which impel towards catholic unity under Petrine authority.

Now, insofar as the thread is populated by only one set of sedevacantist claims, that Vatican II didn't abandon its historical teaching is no surprise to anyone. But there's believing something that everyone else disagrees with, and then there's believing something which is patently false. . . .

97Joansknight
Feb 25, 2011, 5:51 am

Pope Pius IX: “He who deserts the Church will vainly believe that he is in the Church; whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.” (Amantissimus #3, April 8, 1862)

98MyopicBookworm
Feb 25, 2011, 8:34 am

Oh dear. That may mean that you have profaned, since you have deserted the Church.

100cjbanning
Feb 27, 2011, 2:36 pm

The last non-bishop to be elected pope was Gregory XVI in 1831.

101Joansknight
Feb 28, 2011, 1:50 pm

>98 MyopicBookworm:: I am not the one who has abandoned the Church....

When the Emperor Julian the Apostate “asked the aged and blind bishop Maris of Chalcedon whether he thought that his Galilean God Our Lord Jesus Christ would heal him of his infirmity, the man of God replied: ‘I thank God for having permitted me to become blind, so that I do not have to look upon the face of an apostate.’” (Laux, Church History, p. 102)

102Joansknight
Feb 28, 2011, 3:41 pm

Profession of Catholic Faith



Promulgated solemnly by Pope Pius IV and the Council of Trent



● I, N., with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the symbol of faith which the holy Roman Church uses; namely:

● I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in

● one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten not made, of one substance (consubstantial) with the Father, through whom all things were made;

● who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was made incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

● He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, died, and was buried; and

● He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven;

● He sits at the right hand of the Father, and He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and of His kingdom there will be no end.

● And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who equally with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified; who spoke through the prophets.

● And I believe that there is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.

● I confess one baptism for the remission of sins; and I hope for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

● I resolutely accept and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and the other practices and regulations of that same Church.

● In like manner I accept Sacred Scripture according to the meaning which has been held by holy Mother Church and which she now holds. It is Her prerogative to pass judgment on the true meaning and interpretation of Sacred Scripture. And I will never accept or interpret it in a manner different from the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.

● I also acknowledge that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and that they are necessary for the salvation of the human race, although it is not necessary for each individual to receive them all.

● I acknowledge that the seven sacraments are: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of the seven, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders cannot be repeated without committing a sacrilege.

● I also accept and acknowledge the customary and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of these sacraments.

● I embrace and accept each and every article on Original Sin and Justification declared and defined in the most holy Council of Trent.

● I likewise profess that in Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice is offered to God on behalf of the living and the dead, and that the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that there is a change of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood; and this change the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation.

● I also profess that the whole and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is received under each separate species.

● I firmly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful.

● I likewise hold that the saints reigning together with Christ should be honored and invoked, that they offer prayers to God on our behalf, and that their relics should be venerated.

● I firmly assert that images of Christ, of the Mother of God ever Virgin, and of the other saints should be owned and kept, and that due honor and veneration should be given to them.

● I affirm that the power of indulgences was left in the keeping of the Church by Christ, and that the use of indulgences is very beneficial to Christians.

● I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches; and…

● I unhesitatingly accept and profess all the doctrines (especially those concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching authority) handed down, defined, and explained by the sacred canons and ecumenical councils and especially those of this most holy Council of Trent (and by the ecumenical Vatican Council I). And at the same time:

● I condemn, reject, and anathematize everything that is contrary to those propositions, and all heresies without exception that have been condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the Church.

● I, N., promise, vow, and swear that, with God’s help, I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved and which I now freely profess and truly hold. With the help of God, I shall profess it whole and unblemished to my dying breath; and, to the best of my ability, I shall see to it that my subjects or those entrusted to me by virtue of my office hold it, teach it, and preach it. So help me God and His holy Gospel.
























103cjbanning
Feb 28, 2011, 5:12 pm

This message has been deleted by its author.

104MyopicBookworm
Edited: Mar 2, 2011, 9:29 am

From this I conclude that Pius IV was a heretic and an antipope, since he includes the Filioque, which was never accepted by a genuinely ecumenical council and which his predecessors rejected down to the time of (the presumably heretical) Benedict VIII in 1014. The Council of Trent did not assert the Immaculate Conception as a dogma, and there is no unanimity of the Church Fathers on the subject of the Assumption of the BVM, so I must conclude that Pius IX and Pius XII were also heretics.

So the See of Rome has perhaps been vacant or in heresy since the deposition by Emperor Henry II of Gregory VI in 1012.

105cjbanning
Mar 3, 2011, 4:19 pm

The Gregorian calendar is named after Gregory XIII, who reformed the calendar in 1582.

106rolandperkins
Edited: Mar 3, 2011, 4:28 pm

Prof. I. Bernard Cohen* said, in an unpublished lecture, that many British and continental Europeans thought that the Gregorian reform would cheat them out of 17 days of life-- that they would actually have lived 17 days longer under the old calendar.

*Physicist, expert on the History of Science one of the few outside of the Humanities on my "Favorite Authors" List.

107Joansknight
Mar 6, 2011, 11:45 am

The Cardinal Siri Elections in Brief–

relating to the Papal Conclaves and the Invalid Elections of John XXIII 1958 and Paul VI 1963



By Bro. Michael Dimond, O.S.B.

and Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.







WHITE SMOKE, BUT NO POPE



On October 26, 1958, white smoke was seen emerging from the Sistine Chapel. White smoke indicates that a new Pope has been elected. But no Pope emerged. This was reported by newspapers throughout the world and heard on radio. Cardinals were even seen from the windows of the apostolic palace waving to the crowd – something not permitted if the conclave is still in session. They, too, thought a Pope had been elected. Here is a newspaper report from Oct. 27, 1958:



"VATICAN CITY (AP) - Cardinals balloted Sunday without electing a pope. A mix-up in smoke signals made it appear for about half an hour that Pius XII's successor had been chosen. For a time 200,000 Romans and tourists in huge Saint Peter's Square were certain the church had a new pontiff. Millions of others who listened to radios throughout Italy and Europe also were certain. They were certain. They heard the Vatican speaker shout exultantly: 'A pope is elected..’

"The scene around the Vatican was one of incredible confusion. White smoke from a little chimney atop the Vatican is the traditional signal announcing the election of a new pope. Black smoke indicates failure. Twice during the day smoke billowed from the chimney. At noon the smoke at first came white but it quickly turned unquestionably black. This was the sign the cardinals had failed to elect on the first two ballots, at nightfall white smoke billowed from the slender chimney for a full five minutes. For all the outside world knew, a new pontiff had been chosen.

"Clouds of smoke were caught in search lights trained on the Sistine Chapel chimney. 'Bianco! Bianco!' roared many in the crowd. 'White, white.'

"The Vatican Radio announced the smoke was white. The announcer declared the cardinals at that moment probably were going through the rites of adoration for a new supreme pontiff. For a long time Vatican Radio stuck to its insistence the smoke was white.

“Even high Vatican officials were fooled. Callori di Vignale, governor of the conclave, and Sigismondo Chigi, the conclave Marshall, rushed to take up the positions assigned to them. The Palatine Guard was called from its barracks and ordered to prepare to go to St. Peter's Basilica for (the) announcement of the new pope's name. But the guard was ordered back to barracks before it reached the square. The Swiss Guard was also alerted.

"Chigi, in an interview with the Italian radio, said uncertainty reigned in the palace. He added that this confusion persisted even after the smoke had subsided and until assurances were received from within the conclave that black smoke was intended. He said he had been at three other conclaves and never before seen smoke as varied in color as Sunday's. He told newsmen later he would arrange to have the cardinals informed of Sunday's smoke confusion in the hope that something can be done to remedy the situation Monday.

"Priests and others working within the Vatican grounds saw the white smoke. They started to cheer. They waved kerchiefs enthusiastically, and figures of conclavists – cardinal's assistants – in the windows of the apostolic palace waved back. Possibly they, too, believed a pope had been elected.

"The crowd waited in agony of suspense. Any pope elected would ordinarily appear on the balcony within twenty minutes. The crowd waited a full half hour now wondering whether the smoke was meant to be black or white. Doubt set in swiftly. Many in the vast crowd began to drift away. But still there was confusion. News media had flashed around the world the word that a new pope had been chosen.

“Telephone calls poured into the Vatican, jamming its exchange. As time wore on and doubts increased, the callers all asked one question: "Black or white?"

"After a half hour, radios began to chatter excitedly that the answer was still uncertain. Only well after the time when a new pope should have appeared on the balcony above St. Peter's Square was it certain that the voting would have to resume Monday at 10 a.m. (3 a.m. CST). The crowd now aware of this, dissipated quickly. Grayish wisps of smoke still spiraled from the chapel chimney..." (Cardinals Fail To Elect Pope In 4 Ballots; Mix-up In Smoke Signals Causes 2 False Reports," The Houston Post, October 27, 1958, Section 1, pages 1 & 7.)



This white smoke clearly indicated the election of the new Pope; but something strange had occurred inside the Sistine Chapel which prevented the newly elected Pope from appearing, and which left the crowd – and the waiting world – confused and bewildered. It was only two days later that Angelo Roncalli John XXIII was elected, and after his election John XXIII held a mysterious multi-hour post-election meeting with all the participants in the conclave. Why did John XXIII have to hold this post-election meeting? Did it concern the first set of white smoke and the election of the real Pope?



“John XXIII asked the cardinals to remain in the conclave another night instead of leaving immediately as was customary…to caution them again against revealing the secrets of his election to outsiders...” (Alden Hatch, A Man Named John, NY, NY: Hawthorn Books Inc., 1963, p. 163.)



“After greeting and blessing the cheering throng in St. Peter's Square . . . John XXIII ordered the Cardinals not to disperse. He wished to meet with them in secret. This was a burden on several of the Cardinals who were in their nineties and in failing health, but in deference to the new Pope they all stayed. It must have been a very sensitive meeting, for when Secretary of State Tardini tried to enter, mistakenly believing the conclave was over, he was promptly excommunicated by France's Cardinal Tisserant. (Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, p. 154)



The mystery behind the white smoke and the secret post-election meeting of the 1958 Conclave may not have been uncovered if it were not for Mr. Scortesco. Scortesco was the cousin of two members of the Vatican’s Noble Guard, including the President of the Noble Guard, which was responsible for guarding the conclaves of 1958 and 1963 and making sure that no communication occurred with the outside. Scortesco revealed the following in a published letter:

Scortesco: “In the case of John XXIII (1958) and of Paul VI (1963), there were communications with the outside. It was thus known that there were several ballots in the first conclave 1958 which resulted in the election of Cardinal Tedeschini and in the second 1963, Cardinal Siri.” (Excerpt from the French Newsletter, Introibo, No. 61, July-August-September, 1988, Association Noel Pinot, Angers, France, p. 3.)

Scortesco obtained this shocking information from members of the Noble Guard. The letter was published in Introibo. And Scortesco was found burned alive in his bed shortly after the publication of this letter. So Scortesco, prior to being knocked off, revealed that Cardinal Tedeschini, not Antipope John XXIII, was actually elected first in 1958. And Cardinal Siri, not Antipope Paul VI, was elected first in 1963.



In the letter quoted above, Scortesco also mentioned communication with the “outside.” His later writings indicate that this communication involved the B’nai Brith (Jewish Freemasonry). If communications with the “outside” unlawfully influence a Papal election, this means that such an election is invalid. The “outside” communication with the Freemasons most probably prevented Tedeschini and Siri from having the free ability to accept their elections, probably by various threats, including death. The Communists and the Freemasons knew that neither Siri nor Tedeschini would go along with their evil attempts to destroy the Catholic Church; so they had to block their elections. If the “outside” communication mentioned by Scortesco did influence Tedeschini and Siri from having the free ability to accept their elections, then the subsequent elections of Roncalli John XXIII and Montini Paul VI were absolutely invalid for that fact alone.



"...A valid Abdication of the Pope must be a free act, hence a forced resignation of the papacy would be null and void, as more than one ecclesiastical decree has declared.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, v. 1, 1907, p. 32.)



"Resignation is invalid by law if it was made out of grave fear unjustly inflicted, fraud, substantial error, or simony" (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 185).



"It may be noted at once, with the canonist Wernz, that a papal election held outside of a properly organized conclave is canonically null and void" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04192a.htm).



Besides Scortesco’s admission that Cardinal Tedeschini was elected in 1958, and Cardinal Siri in 1963, there is evidence showing that Cardinal Siri was also elected before Cardinal Tedeschini and Angelo Roncalli John XXIII in 1958. In other words, Cardinal Siri wasn’t only elected in 1963, as Scortesco revealed, but also in 1958. Adding credence to this is the fact that the phenomenon of the false-smoke-signals occurred in both 1958 and 1963! According to The Sheboygan Press of June 20, 1963, the white-smoke/black-smoke phenomenon-of-confusion occurred for 8 minutes in the 1963 conclave. The false-smoke-signal-phenomenon occurred in both conclaves precisely because the same thing happened in both: a true Pope was elected only to be intimidated into not accepting the office so that the enemies of the Church could implant their own man.



According to a knowledgeable Italian priest who had conferred with Cardinal Siri, as well as U.S. intelligence documents (see below), a conservative bloc of Cardinals had been successful in electing Siri on the fourth ballot of the first day of the conclave, October 26, 1958. This election of Siri on the fourth ballot in 1958 was when the white smoke emerged.



Former FBI Consultant Acknowledges Siri’s Election

Former FBI consultant Paul L. Williams cites declassified U.S. intelligence documents showing that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope Gregory XVII at the conclave that, two days later, produced John XXIII. In 2003, Paul L. Williams published a book called The Vatican Exposed: Money, Murder, and the Mafia (Prometheus Books). Williams, who is not a Catholic, asserts:

“ In 1954 Count Della Torre, editor of the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, warned Pope Pius XII of Cardinal Angelo Roncalli's Communist sympathies. Other members of the ‘Black Nobility’ expressed similar concerns.5
“Nor did Roncalli later known as "Pope John XXIII" escape the attention of the FBI and CIA. The agencies began to accumulate thick files on him and the questionable activities of other ‘progressives’ within the Vatican, including Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini (the future Paul VI).
...
“Pius XII had appointed Cardinal Giuseppe Siri as his desired successor.7 Siri was rabidly anti-Communist, an intransigent traditionalist in matters of church doctrine, and a skilled bureaucrat. . . .
“In 1958 on October 26, when the cardinals were locked away in the Sistine Chapel to elect a new pope, mysterious events began to unfold. On the third ballot, Siri, according to FBI sources, obtained the necessary votes and was elected as Pope Gregory XVII.8 White smoke poured from the chimney of the chapel to inform the faithful that a new pope had been chosen. The news was announced with joy at 6 P.M. on Vatican radio. The announcer said, "The smoke is white. . . . There is absolutely no doubt. A pope has been elected."9 . . .
“But the new pope failed to appear. Question began to arise whether the smoke was white or gray. To quell such doubts, Monsignor Santaro, secretary of the Conclave of Cardinals, informed the press that the smoke, indeed, had been white and that a new pope had been elected. The waiting continued. By evening Vatican radio announced that the results remained uncertain. On October 27, 1958, the Houston Post headlined: ‘Cardinals Fail to elect pope in 4 Ballots: Mix-Up in Smoke Signals Cause False Reports.’10
But the reports had been valid. On the fourth ballot, according to FBI sources, Siri again obtained the necessary votes and was elected supreme pontiff. But the French cardinals annulled the results, claiming that the election would cause widespread riots and the assassination of several prominent bishops behind the Iron Curtain.11
“The cardinals opted to elect Cardinal Frederico Tedischini as a "transitional pope," but Tedischini was too ill to accept the position.
“Finally, on the third day of balloting, Roncalli received the necessary support to become Pope John XXIII. . . .” (Paul L. Williams, The Vatican Exposed,Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003, pp. 90-92.)

The footnotes that Williams' references are: 5 Department of State confidential biography, "John XXIII," issue date: no date, declassified: February 15, 1974; see also Avro Manhattan, Murder in the Vatican, p. 31. 7 John Cooney, The American Pope, p. 259. 8 Department of State secret dispatch, "John XXIII," issue date: November 20, 1958, declassified: November 11, 1974. 9 The announcer's words appeared in the London Tablet, November 1, 1958, p. 387. 10 Houston Post, October 27, 1958, pp. 1 and 7. 11 Department of State secret file, "Cardinal Siri," issue date: April 10, 1961, declassified: February 28, 1994.

The testimony of this former FBI consultant, based upon FBI intelligence, confirms that Cardinal Siri was elected and took the name “Gregory XVII.” It confirms what others have said: Cardinal Siri was prevented from feely assuming the office by the French pack of conspirators and threats. If this FBI intelligence is correct, then the subsequent “election” of Angelo Roncalli John XXIII was absolutely and totally invalid. It is worthy of note that Cardinal Siri’s election is not the subject of Mr. Williams’ book. He simply mentions it, almost in passing, and with no apparent motive for making this up – lending further credence to its veracity.



Thus Cardinal Siri, who was therefore the fifth Pope elected last century, is said to have promptly accepted the office and announced that he would take the name "Gregory XVII." Then, a strident outcry of protest was heard from some of the radical French Cardinals, some of whom were said to be Freemasons, who jumped to their feet to intimidate the new Pope with the threat that they would immediately establish an international schismatic church, if he emerged from the conclave as pope. Shaken badly, Siri is supposed to have replied: "if you do not want me, then elect someone else." By this one statement, which was taken as his abdication, would come the apocalyptic nightmare that has resulted with the Vatican II “Church.”



But again, Church law provides:



"...A valid Abdication of the Pope must be a free act, hence a forced resignation of the papacy would be null and void, as more than one ecclesiastical decree has declared.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, v. 1, 1907, p. 32.

This means that the subsequent election of John XXIII would not have been valid if Siri was forced to resign. Exactly when Cardinal Tedeschini was elected is not known, but it is clearly stated by Williams above, and in Scortesco's writings, that during one of the ballots he was elected. This must have been after Siri's third or fourth ballot election. Perhaps Tedeschini was elected after Siri in the confusion that reigned after the first election, but then Tedeschini was also set aside in a similar manner to Siri so that they could implant Angelo Roncalli John XXIII.

All of this explains why at 6:00 p.m. on October 26, 1958 white smoke billowed from the Sistine Chapel for a full five minutes; it explains why the Palatine and Swiss Guards were called to prepare to greet the new Pope. It explains why Cardinals in the Conclave were seen waving happily to the crowd, and why the governor and marshal of the conclave prepared to greet the new Pope.



Malachi Martin acknowledges Siri’s Election



Even Malachi Martin, a best-selling author, a Vatican insider, and a hero of many defenders of Antipopes John XXIII and Paul VI, blows this story wide open (at least concerning the 1963 election), by admitting in his book The Keys of This Blood (pages 607-609) that it’s well known that Cardinal Siri received the required number of votes to make him Pope in 1963, but that Siri’s election was “set aside” by what Martin calls “a little brutality.” Martin explicitly mentions that “communication” (interference) occurred between a member of the conclave and an “internationally based organization” concerning the Siri candidacy. He noted that this dealt with a “grave matter of Vatican state security.” (It is said that the Communists may have threatened to drop nuclear explosives on the Vatican if Siri accepted the election, as well as killing every bishop behind the Iron Curtain.) So even Malachi Martin, a defender of Antipopes John XXIII and Paul VI, admitted that Cardinal Siri received pressure not to accept the office to which Martin admits he was elected. This confirms what Scortesco revealed and demonstrates, again, that the election of Giovanni Montini Antipope Paul VI was fraudulent.



Cardinal Siri’s Own Testimony



But besides the testimony of Martin and Scortesco, an interview that Cardinal Siri gave before his death is worthy of note. In a published interview with the Marquis de Franquerey, Louis Remy and Francis Delay, Siri was asked questions on various topics, including what Scortesco revealed about his election. While denying other things in the interview, Siri would not deny that he was elected Pope. All he would say was that:



“I am bound by the secret. This secret is horrible. I would have books to write about the different conclaves, very serious things have taken place, but I can say nothing.”



The interviewers concluded that since Siri denied other things they asked him, but would not deny that he had been elected, what Scortesco said must be true. One should note that Siri was mistaken about being bound by the secret of the conclave. The secret of the conclave would not bind when the salvation of millions of souls are at stake – and when it had already been totally violated by the pack of French apostates and conspirators who had conferred with the B’nai Brith. And the horrible secrets of the conclave to which Siri alluded without a doubt refer to the unlawful intervention of outside forces which blocked his ability to accept the Chair of Peter.



It’s obvious from the evidence that the notorious set of white smoke that was seen by everyone on October 26, 1958 indicated the election of the true Pope, Cardinal Siri. Everyone, even the Cardinals, believed we had a new Pope. But then the Freemasons and the Communists got involved and prevented the new Pope from assuming the office. This was the outside communication which Scortesco revealed. Then the white smoke changed to black smoke and two days later the Freemasons and the Communists implanted their man, the Freemasonic agent, Angelo Roncalli Antipope John XXIII. The same interference occurred in the 1963 conclave, although, in this case, Cardinal Siri had his election illegally blocked in favor of the infiltrator Giovanni Montini – Antipope Paul VI.



30 Days Magazine, a magazine favorable to the Vatican II Antipopes, held an interview in 1994 with the head of Italian Freemasonry, the Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy.



The Grand Master stated: “As for that, it seems that John XXIII was initiated into a Masonic Lodge in Paris and participated in the work of the Istanbul workshops.” (Giovanni Cubeddu, 30 Days, Issue No. 2-1994, p. 25.)



So it’s obvious that Antipope John XXIII was a Freemasonic agent whose mission was to begin the attempted demolition of the Church of Christ by means of his false council. And, as our material shows, Paul VI was frequently seen wearing the breast-plate of a Jewish High-Priest, in addition to his attempt to demolish Catholic Tradition as soon as he assumed power.



Some ask: if Cardinal Siri was elected in 1958 and 1963 or either one, why didn’t he stand up for his office more vigorously? Our purpose here is not to examine this question (see note at the end of article). Our purpose is simply to establish that the evidence of his elections, as well as the communication with the outside, demonstrates that something uncanonical went on in the conclaves of 1958 and 1963, as Scortesco revealed. This makes perfect sense because we know, by divine faith, that Antipope Paul VI could not have possibly possessed the keys of Peter, since he solemnly bound his subjects to the heresies of Vatican II. Vatican II could not have been bound in heaven, so we know that Antipope Paul VI had no power to bind on earth, for he did try to bind Vatican II on earth. And Antipope John XXIII also could not have been a true Pope, since he set the table for the apostasy while being a heretic himself.

In the Sept. 2004 Issue of Inside the Vatican there is an interview with Fr. Charles-Roux. Fr. Charles-Roux says:

"There were certain irregularities about the election during that 1958 conclave, as Cardinal Tisserant has himself acknowledged. Some say Agagianian was elected, others Siri, others some other cardinal, and that the camerlengo =chamberlain then annulled the election. In any case, I'm quite sure John XXIII chose his name, the name of an antipope of the 15th century, quite consciously, to show he had been irregularly elected." – Fr. Charles-Roux, Inside the Vatican, 09/04, p. 41. Fr. Roux was a priest who said Mass on the set of The Passion of the Christ.



CONCLUSION



The information about the elections of Cardinal Siri in 1958 and 1963 is not necessary to prove that the apostates John XXIII and Paul VI were not valid Popes; nor is it necessary to prove that the Vatican II heretics who subsequently came from their line, John Paul I and John Paul II, were not valid Popes. But these facts show that the “elections” of John XXIII and Paul VI were uncanonical. This is extremely valuable and important because it explains how this false church of the Vatican II Antipopes got started, and why its official decrees and teachings are not protected by the Holy Ghost. It explains that it was an uncanonical election which started this entire schism of the Vatican II sect, which will probably go down in the Eternal Book of Judgment – with the Great Eastern and Great Western Schisms – as “The Final Schism.”



Prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi (d. 1226): “There will be an uncanonically elected Pope who will cause a great schism, there will be diverse thoughts preached which will cause many, even those in the different orders to doubt, yea, even agree with those heretics which will cause my Order to divide, then will there be such universal dissensions and persecutions that if those days were not shortened even the elect would be lost.” (Rev. Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, Tan Books, 1974, p. 130.)



We believe that St. Francis of Assisi was definitely predicting the invalid and uncanonical election of Antipope John XXIII. This uncanonical election started the apocalyptic nightmare of the Great Apostasy that is now upon us.



Bl. Joachim (d. 1202): “Towards the end of the world, Antichrist will overthrow the pope and usurp his see.” (Rev. Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, Tan Books, 1974, p. 130.)



Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487):

“The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”



The Cardinal Siri information should help people realize that those who accept the Vatican II “Popes” from John XXIII to John Paul II are not only accepting non-Catholic apostates who have implemented a counterfeit religion, but men who weren’t even canonically chosen by the College of Cardinals.



Those who want more proof that the elections of Antipopes John XXIII and Paul VI were invalid need only to examine the revolution they caused. One needs only to think of the desolation of the faith that ensued, and the millions of souls that have been lost. And one needs only to consider how they wasted no time in systematically trying to dismantle the Catholic Church. In this regard, see also the photo galleries on our website dealing with Antipopes John XXIII and Paul VI.



* Note: We believe that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope and unlawfully forced to resign - thus invalidating the “elections” of John XXIII and Paul VI. But his failure to oppose the apostasy, stand up for his office and denounce the Antipopes in the decades following those fateful days preclude Catholics from holding that he remained Pope in the decades following the 1958 and 1963 conclaves. Cardinal Siri may have been paralyzed by fear, uncertainty and confusion about his status and what to do about it; nevertheless one cannot recognize that he remained Pope in the years following his elections because, at least in the external forum, he did not stand up for his office or oppose the Antipopes.*







www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com




108John5918
Mar 7, 2011, 1:25 am

Joansknight, if we were to play the game and assume with you that the elections of John XXIII and Paul VI were invalid based on this long screed by two authors whom you quote regularly, how does that make the elections of John Paul I and II and Benedict XVI invalid? Do you have similar "evidence" of smoking chimneys and gossip by guards for these three elections as well?

109Joansknight
Edited: Mar 7, 2011, 10:28 am

They are invalid, because a manifest heretic can not be pope.

Why don't you check the sources they quote instead of making a hasty judgment.

110John5918
Mar 7, 2011, 12:56 pm

>109 Joansknight: But your argument for John XXIII and Paul VI appears to be explicitly that the elections were invalid, and you give evidence why you believe that to be the case. Yet with the next three popes you simply claim that they are manifest heretics. Don't you have any evidence that their elections were also invalid?

111Joansknight
Mar 7, 2011, 3:26 pm

Once again: They are invalid because a manifest heretic can not be pope even if their elections were proper. I wanted to say canonically correct.

112MyopicBookworm
Mar 7, 2011, 8:13 pm

But the only way to judge if the pope is heretical is to set his teachings against those of an ecumenical council. If John XXIII thought there was any doubt about his position as Pope, all he had to do was call a council, which is exactly what he did. In the absence of a Holy Roman Emperor, and with the Eastern Churches in schism, no one else was in a position to call one. Since he called it so early in his papacy, it could not be claimed that the council consisted entirely of bishops of his own appointment. Never mind any shenanigans in the College of Cardinals: the whole (Roman) Church Catholic ratified John XXIII's position at Vatican II.

113Joansknight
Mar 9, 2011, 12:49 pm

MHFM: John Paul II brought religious indifferentism, apostasy and sacrilege to millions on planet Earth.



John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 56), Dec. 7, 1990: “Other religions constitute a positive challenge for the Church: they stimulate her both to discover and acknowledge the signs of Christ’s presence and of the working of the Spirit.”



John Paul II states that other religions stimulate us to discover the presence and the working of the Spirit. This means that non-Christian religions are a work of the Spirit – the Holy Spirit – which again equates the Spirit of Truth with the spirit of lies: Satan.



Speaking of the face of Jesus, Antipope John Paul II actually taught that the face of each man is the face of God and Jesus.



Antipope John Paul II, Ecclesia in America (# 67): “… Jesus Christ, the human face of God and the divine face of man.”1



Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Feb. 26, 2000: “In revealing himself on the Mountain and giving his Law, God revealed man to man himself.”2



Here Antipope John Paul II says that by revealing Himself on Mt. Sinai, God revealed man to man himself!



SINCE YOU BROUGHT UP THE FACE OF CHRIST, HERE ARE SOME MORE QUOTES FROM ISSUE #5 OF OUR MAGAZINE, IN WHICH JOHN PAUL II EQUATES THE FACE OF EACH MAN WITH THE FACE OF JESUS CHRIST



This “divine face” that belongs to each man, according to Antipope John Paul II, is that of Jesus Christ Himself, because by virtue of the Incarnation every man became the Son of God.



Antipope John Paul II, 1st Homily, Oct. 18, 1986: "Christ gives man much more than he can ever hope for or desire. He alone reveals the true countenance of God and of man. He who has conquered sin and death is our hope and our salvation. He is the way, the truth and the life."



The word "countenance" means "face." If Christ reveals the true face of God and of man, then man's true face is that of Jesus Christ. Man is really Jesus Christ, in other words.



Antipope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis (# 72), March 25, 1992: "As one who shares in the prophetic mission of Jesus and is part of the mystery of the Church, the teacher of truth, the priest is called to reveal to others, in Jesus Christ, the true face of God, and as a result the true face of humanity."



Here Antipope John Paul II teaches that to reveal the face of God is therefore to reveal the face of man!



Antipope John Paul II, Speech to Pontificio Collegio Filipino, June 2, 2001: "Study is also an essential dimension of the priest's entire life. He shares in the prophetic mission of Christ, and he is called to reveal to others, in Jesus Christ, the true face of God and, as a result, the true face of man."



Once again Antipope John Paul II declares that revealing the face of God results in revealing the face of man.



Antipope John Paul II, Ecclesia in America (# 52): "The awareness of communion with Christ and with our brothers and sisters, for its part the fruit of conversion, leads to the service of our neighbors in all their needs, material and spiritual, since the face of Christ shines forth in every human being."



The face of Christ shines forth in every human being, he says, because to him every human being is Christ.



Antipope John Paul II, speech to the Pontifical Academy, Nov. 12, 1997: "While I confirm your generous commitment, I hope that, through the studies, publications and artistic works you produce and promote, people of all cultures may discover authentic humanism, the true mirror revealing the face of God and the face of man."



So when man looks in the mirror with a truly humanistic outlook, according to Antipope John Paul II, he sees the face of God and the face of man.



Antipope John Paul II, Address to Various Groups of Jubilee Pilgrims, Dec. 4, 2000: "In following the examples and teachings of the Camillian Fr. Primo Fiocchi and Mother Annunziata Montereali, your congregation is in fact committed to humbly living in the Church and for the Church, showing to the contemporary world the image of the Incarnate Word and discovering the face of Christ in the face of every human being."



Antipope John Paul II, Novo Millennio Ineunte, Jan. 6, 2001: "'Your face, O Lord, I seek' (Ps. 27:8). The ancient longing of the Psalmist could receive no fulfillment greater and more surprising than the contemplation of the face of Christ. God has truly blessed us in him and has made 'his face to shine upon us' (Ps. 67:1). At the same time, God and man that he is, he reveals to us also the true face of man, 'fully revealing man to himself' (Gaudium et Spes, 22)."



114timspalding
Mar 9, 2011, 2:53 pm

No, you're right. Catholics have rejected—stood apart (lit. apostasis)—from these ideas. We should see the face of Christ in our neighbor, the poor, our enemy—in all. To deny that is to deny a—even the—central moral message of Christianity.

115rolandperkins
Mar 9, 2011, 3:14 pm


On 113 (selectively):
Iʻm not a big fan of Pope John Paul II. I donʻt understand how he could be ranked with John XXIII, or even with Paul VI as a candidate for sainthood.
But as for some of the passages you quote: One could make a srong case that he really was teaching basic Christianity, not merely a form of it that had degenerated over the centuries.

It is very far-fetched to imply, as you do, Joan, that he is parlaying Christian doctrines and beliefs into Secular Humanism under a new name.

116MyopicBookworm
Edited: Mar 9, 2011, 7:49 pm

I am no fan of John Paul II either, and I think some of his theology is flawed (see homosexualism thread); but anyone who reads the extracts cited and thinks them heretical, or anything but a statement of long-established tradition in Christian orthodoxy, has clearly read neither the New Testament nor the Church Fathers with any degree of attention or understanding.

Other religions constitute a positive challenge for the Church: they stimulate her both to discover and acknowledge the signs of Christ’s presence and of the working of the Spirit

The divine Logos is the light of all people (John 1:4), not just Catholics. No heresy here.

Jesus Christ, the human face of God and the divine face of man

A restatement of the classic orthodox formulation: Jesus Christ, true God and true Man. No heresy here.

In revealing himself on the Mountain and giving his Law, God revealed man to man himself.

In giving the Law, God gave to humanity a greater understanding of human nature. No heresy here.

This “divine face” that belongs to each man, according to Antipope John Paul II, is that of Jesus Christ Himself, because by virtue of the Incarnation every man became the Son of God.

Indeed: we may become participants in the divine nature (II Peter 1:4), and so become children of God (John 1:12). The same doctrine was presented against the Arians by St Athanasius, champion of orthodoxy at the first ecumenical council. No heresy here.

JPII's "discovering the face of Christ in the face of every human being" is, again, a poetic-theological way of restating classic New Testament doctrines. Other human beings are as Chrst to you: Matthew 25:40 "just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me"; and you yourself must be as Christ too: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me" Galatians 2:20.

117Joansknight
Mar 12, 2011, 1:31 pm

Have any of you heard of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen?

"Satan will set up a counterchurch which will be the ape of the Catholic Church. . . . It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content."
--Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen, 1948

118Joansknight
Mar 12, 2011, 1:38 pm

This message has been deleted by its author.

119MyopicBookworm
Edited: Mar 12, 2011, 7:19 pm

Is that the one of which Wikipedia says:

On October 2, 1979, two months before Sheen's death, Pope John Paul II visited St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City and embraced Sheen, saying, "You have written and spoken well of the Lord Jesus Christ. You are a loyal son of the Church."

?

(PS I note you don't engage with my response on the Pope's orthodoxy, just dig out another "prophecy".)

120rolandperkins
Mar 12, 2011, 8:30 pm

As a child, I heard some of Bishop (then Monisgnor) SHeen's radioo broadcasts.

He made some good points. A lot of his substance, however, seemed like the greatest sophistry since 5th century Athens. His argument that Jesus could NOT have been nothing more and nothing less than a
great and very good human being: since He claimed to be God, he would have to be either God or the
biggest deceiver in history -- thus rulling out His being a "good man". This was in response to an depiction of Jesus that has been around since William Blake's time, or earlier.

He also once said that, with his "Irish temperament" he would have to be either a devout Catholic, or a militant atheist. -- No middle ground. I can see how he might well have been atteracted to such a group as you have described -- the ones believing in a (near-future) "ape of the CHurch" (set up by) "Satan".
I'm Irish, too, and. on "who was Jesus?" I agreed with his principle, but not with the cogency of his argument.

121timspalding
Edited: Mar 13, 2011, 12:26 am

It's perverse to associate Bishop Sheen with your ugly little schism. Sheen lived during and decades after Joan's "apostasy" and the Council never giving any indication he was anything but a faithful Catholic. There's no doubt on this question whatsoever, not least of which because Sheen is so well documented, including in an autobiography. He heartily endorsed Vatican II, and you can go point by point through the "heresies" Joan finds—the mass, other religions, etc.—and see Sheen on the other side, vigorously and publicly.

It takes real cheek to make him a prophet of apostasy. For if we--just regular people--are all apostate Catholics, he--in light of his official, apostolic role--was a arch apostate indeed.

122MyopicBookworm
Mar 13, 2011, 6:24 pm

>120 rolandperkins: C. S. Lewis also attempted the "mad, bad, or God" argument: Jesus was either insane (which seems at odds with his reported words and actions), or evil (ditto), or divine. Many (including me) remain unconvinced.

123rolandperkins
Edited: Mar 13, 2011, 7:30 pm

"...to associate Bishop Sheen with (an) ugly little schism; ...(heʻs) on the other side vigorously and publicly."

I didnʻt mean, in 120, to imply that it was PROBABLE Bishop Sheen would join a schism of the type discussed in this thread, only that it was PLAUSIBLE. (Basing that mainly on what he said about his own "temperament".) What he would have thought* of the major theologians of Vatican II, Father Hans Kung# and the later Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, belongs to the realm of speculation. A Kung or a Ratzinger he definitely wasnʻt, nor even a Bishop LeFebvre or any kind of conservative theologian. He was mainly concerned not with formulating a theology but accepting Catholic theology as given, an speaking on its applications to eveyday life.


# Met author, in Tonga of all places, 02/84.
*There may be some data on that, come to think of it, since he lived into the post-Vatican II period.

124cjbanning
Mar 13, 2011, 9:53 pm

>122 MyopicBookworm:

Well the main problem with the liar or lunatic argument is that Jesus' words and actions are transmitted to us by the evangelists, who weren't even themselves witnesses and who have pretty clear agendas and biases (God-inspired, perhaps, but agendas and biases nonetheless).

125timspalding
Edited: Mar 13, 2011, 10:58 pm

>123 rolandperkins:

Don't worry. I didn't mean you. I meant the first mention of him. There's a lot of evidence on the topic. He was at the council. He lived and spoke for more than a decade after.

>124 cjbanning:

Lewis' "trilemma" has a number of problems. There's definitely the source-critical problem. But it's equally apparent that lots of people have had religious experiences without (on a fair estimate) being either evil or insane, but which at the same time can't all be true—the religious experiences, for example, of every Christian, Muslim and Buddhist. We are, I think, made for religious experience.

On balance, however, and having recently re-listened to all of Mere Christianity at a sitting, I still think his argument holds the water it was actually intended to hold. Christianity is not a mathematical proposition, and if it is, Mere Christianity is not the demonstration of it. It's noteworthy that a piece of informal rough-and-ready persuasion from a radio talk should be elevated by his groupies into a tight philosophical argument.

126Joansknight
Mar 15, 2011, 3:16 pm

Liberal Catholics are the worst enemies of the Church.

- Pope Pius IX

127Joansknight
Edited: Mar 15, 2011, 3:38 pm

Christ made the blind see....He needs to work on you guys. You can't see what is occurring in the world and you surely can not see what is happening in what you believe to be the Catholic Church. You deny the Church Fathers, the true popes, the bible, holy men and women of the Church and even Church prophesies. Why do you deny all these truths? Because the counterfeit-Catholic church tells you to. You deny The Church....you deny Christ.

If you notice, the posts in this thread, I am the only one who invokes our Lord's name. The rest of you do not. You simply mock Him and His Church and His Church's doctrines.

And if you believe you have been Christian towards me....you are mistaken.

Go ahead, keep on believing in your false religion because it's all you want to know.

Jesus Christ is our saviour....no other man is or ever will be. Amen.

"Our LORD first served." St. Jeanne d'Arc

128Joansknight
Mar 15, 2011, 3:44 pm

St. Polycarp (135): “Everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an Antichrist; whoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whoever perverts the saying of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, such a one is the first-born of Satan.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 29)

129rolandperkins
Mar 15, 2011, 4:12 pm

This message has been deleted by its author.

130rolandperkins
Edited: Mar 15, 2011, 4:13 pm

" ʻLiberal Catholics are the worst enemy of the Churchʻ -- Pope Pius IX" (126)

May I be allowed some secular parallels. After all, I deduce from your posts, Joan, that
something POLITICAL (horrors!) was going on in the Vatican at the 1958 election of Pope John XXIII.

For Pius IX to express an opinion that
Liberal Catholics are the worst enemies of the Church is about as profound as Hitlerʻs characterization of "the Bolsheviks" (i.e. the Soviet Union) as the arch-foes of Western European and German civilization. Or we might compare it with Winston Churchillʻs opinion of Mohandas Gandhi ("a devil") or Eamon DeValera.
Pius IX, b t w, did NOT invoke the principle of papal infallibility (Vatican I) in expressing that
opinion.

131cjbanning
Edited: Mar 15, 2011, 8:37 pm

127: "Because the counterfeit-Catholic church tells you to. You deny The Church....you deny Christ."

As an Anglican, that is manifestly not the reason why I reject your proposition that Benedict XVI is not, in fact, the Bishop of Rome.

>128 Joansknight:

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that the RCC is teaching that Jesus Christ didn't come in the flesh, or that there won't be a resurrection or judgment? That goes beyond a difference in interpretation over Vatican II doctrine to straight-out false slander and calumny.

132timspalding
Edited: Mar 15, 2011, 9:38 pm

Liberal Catholics are the worst enemies of the Church.

You've certainly solved the problem there, by defining "the church" as a few hundred UFOlogists and anti-semites, mostly in New York (and Michigan?), leaving aside the 1.3 billion others, and everyone from Hans Kung to the SSPX as not part of the Catholic church.

St. Polycarp (135): “Everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an Antichrist; whoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whoever perverts the saying of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, such a one is the first-born of Satan.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 29)

As anyone should understand, the quote you provide is an attack on gnosticism, probably Marcionites specifically. None of us are gnostics, and there are no Marcionites today. And one of us knows a good deal more about Polycarp. It is fun, however, to see you again take refuge in a hostile source, for the volume of selections you quote from was produced by individuals and institutions that--you believe--are themselves apostates, Antichrists and Satans.

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that the RCC is teaching that Jesus Christ didn't come in the flesh, or that there won't be a resurrection or judgment? That goes beyond a difference in interpretation over Vatican II doctrine to straight-out false slander and calumny.

No. These quotes come at random. Or rather, they're in some sort of rotation at the site that Joan always quotes from. There's some sort of CGI-BIN script there that spits these things out, changing them up on a regular schedule. It's not there now, but here's a Google cache of the page with it: http://bit.ly/g7KiVU

The passage is identical. Of course, the data of Polycarp's letter is not 135. It's somewhere in the general neighborhood of 135. Needless to say, cut and paste, cut and paste. What would Jesus cut and paste? What would Jesus mindlessly quote out of context? The question answers itself.

133Joansknight
Mar 17, 2011, 6:41 pm

“In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.” (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 3.)

134MyopicBookworm
Mar 17, 2011, 8:02 pm

Why did Rome capitulate to popular sentiment and accept the Filioque, then?

135timspalding
Edited: Mar 18, 2011, 10:17 am

>133 Joansknight:

Right. If the worldwide Government starts fighting the Catholic church and appointing new bishops, we should all take notice. But that hasn't happened. There was no worldwide government oppression. There was no exodus of bishops. There was no hubbub. There was not worldwide counter-church. There was a few hundred mostly American UFO-ologists and anti-semities who decided they were the church.

136Joansknight
Mar 21, 2011, 6:48 am

>135 timspalding:: I do not believe in UFOs and I am not anti-Semitic, Tim, unless you know who I am and what I believe. Jews do not believe in Christ and I do. Does that make me anti-Semitic?

I feel sorry for those who follow the doctrine of man and live by society's imposed will.

“Many of the leaders of persecution, schism and heresy came to a bad end… Arius burst asunder during a triumphal procession. Voltaire died in despair. The Greek Schismatics (who denied the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son) fell under the Turkish yoke in 1453, on Pentecost, the feast of that Holy Ghost about whom they had expressed doubts.” (My Catholic Faith, p. 146)

137Joansknight
Mar 21, 2011, 6:50 am

The first remedy against spiritual temptations which the devil plants in the hearts of many persons in these unhappy times, is to have no desire to procure by prayer, meditation, or any other good work, what are called (private) revelations, or spiritual experiences, beyond what happens in the ordinary course of things; such a desire of things which surpass the common order can have no other root or foundation but pride, presumption, a vain curiosity in what regards the things of God, and in short, an exceedingly weak faith. It is to punish this evil desire that God abandons the soul, and permits it to fall into the illusions and temptations of the devil, who seduces it, and represents to it false visions and delusive revelations. Here we have the source of most of the spiritual temptations that prevail at the present time; temptations which the spirit of evil roots in the souls of those who may be called the precursors of Antichrist.

- St. Vincent Ferrer (1350-1419)

138John5918
Edited: Mar 21, 2011, 7:09 am

>137 Joansknight: Thanks for all of these random quotes. You know, most of them are accepted by the Church (what you call the anti-Church), as they are part of our tradition. We just interpret them differently to you.

139MyopicBookworm
Edited: Mar 21, 2011, 9:31 am

The Greek Schismatics (who denied the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son) fell under the Turkish yoke in 1453, on Pentecost

No, actually. The city fell on May 29th, 1453, which was a Tuesday.

140Joansknight
Mar 24, 2011, 4:22 pm

St. Francis De Sales (1602): “Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII… Now when he (the Pope) is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church…” (The Catholic Controversy, Tan Books, pp. 305-306)

141MyopicBookworm
Mar 24, 2011, 4:29 pm

But as I said, the Pope is only explicitly shown to be a heretic if he disagrees with a council, not if he disagreees with the opinions of previous popes. If Vatican II failed to anathematize Pope John XXIII as a heretic, then he isn't one.

142timspalding
Mar 24, 2011, 4:30 pm

I think we should stop responding to the daily quote from the Holy Family Monastery. Quotes drawn from a database and pasted into a site aren't an argument. They're very close to spam.

143Joansknight
Mar 26, 2011, 2:47 pm

>142 timspalding:: Why should I waste my time arguing when I can show you the truth. I am not quoting MHFM, I am quoting holy men of the Church, but you are too blind to see that.

Here is more spam about your immoral and heretical counter-Catholic religion.

Vatican letters give lie to its claims that it didn’t cover up child abuse

By Keith Porteous Wood

The present Pope and his predecessor were well aware of the scale of the priestly child sex abuse crisis. Despite claims to the contrary, there is strong evidence in two recently uncovered letters from the Vatican.

The letters make clear that the Vatican, and the Pope’s personal representatives, put protection of the Church before the protection of children. It instructed bishops in two different parts of the world not to report known abusers to the police or release files.

We reproduce these letters in their entirety below so that you can make up your own mind about them:

/www.secularism.org.uk/vatican-letters-expose-claims-it.html

Oh, and Bookworm....John XXIII was a manifest heretic....so he was not pope and could not call a valid council.

By the way Tim, if you can disprove anything MHFM states against the Vatican II sect....I'd like to see it, but I don't want your opinions. If you look above, even Bookworm disapproves of anti-pope JPII.

I have Church doctrine to back me up, Tim, you just have the doctrine of man and Vatican II sect lies.

I pray Christ forgives your hatred for me, Tim, and maybe someday you will love Christ more then you love yourself.

I need to go search the skies for UFOs now....

144MyopicBookworm
Mar 26, 2011, 6:28 pm

A council is not valid because of being called by a pope. All the most ancient councils were convened by the emperor. If it consists of rightfully consecrated bishops of the Church Catholic, then it is valid. Did John XXIII have enough time to consecrate enough new "heretical" bishops to rig Vatican II his way? I doubt it.

145timspalding
Edited: Mar 26, 2011, 6:53 pm

No matter how you approach the issue, Joan will have a "true Scottsman" defense—the result of the council was heresy, so it wasn't a true council, therefore it isn't the true church, the pope isn't the pope, etc. The usual true Scottsman, however, doesn't compare a billion residents of Scotland, eating haggis every day and singing Robert Burns songs to a few hundred Zulus with kilts and conclude the latter are the true Scotts!

I'm sorry you think I hate you, Joan. I merely hate your ideas. Nor do I impute to you the motives you impute to me. You are no doubt lead honestly to believe that 99.99% of Catholics are heretics, by honestly-acquired deficiencies in method to think that cutting and pasting quotes from Christian authors out of context shows anything, and by a certain sense of humor and taste to mock the Pope as "Rabbi Ratzinger." Unfortunately, not being false isn't the only thing.

146John5918
Mar 27, 2011, 12:29 am

>143 Joansknight: There's a whole thread (started by Tim, actually) on Catholic clergy sex abuse, with over 600 posts on it. The conversation on that thread goes a little deeper than quoting a secularist pressure group.

147Joansknight
Mar 27, 2011, 2:16 pm

>146 John5918:: I quoted that secular site, because most of you Vatican II followers believe what your clergy tells you and you are blind to the truth. Only the Vatican II "popes" have allowed such abominations to have occurred.

It amazes me that Tim believes the larger number of people the more Catholic you are. There are more Muslims, then there are Vatican II "catholics". Maybe Tim embraces that religion too....his Vatican II "popes" do. They embrace all the false religions that reject Christ.

The judgment of God may be compared to a mirror. It is not the mirror's fault if the face it reflects is hideous.

- Saint Jerome

148MyopicBookworm
Mar 27, 2011, 4:46 pm

Abuse in Irish Catholic schools and other institutions long predates Vatican II. There are reports of physical abuse from the 1930s, under Pope Pius XI.

149rolandperkins
Edited: Mar 27, 2011, 7:44 pm

". . .Vatican II ʻpopesʻ . . .embrace all the false religions that reject Christ." (147)

As I remember it -- I was in my 20s -- the new Pope John XXIII starting in 1958 had something of an outreach, first to Eastern Orthodox Christians, notably the Greek Orthodox, then to Protestants, and a little even to Buddhists and Muslims. This , of course didnʻt take the form of "Why donʻt you join us?", but more meeting as equals in a conference. The major conference was with Athenagoras, a major Greek Orthodox
patriarch--the closest the Orthodox had to a "pope".
The anathema that Catholics and Orthodox had declared against each other in the Middle Ages was rescinded. Other than that, the getting together took the form of "agreeing to disagree". Still less, of course, "getting together" with the non-Christians. Hence the "agreeing to disagree" must be the source of the "embracing" false religions that you refer to (147).

150John5918
Mar 28, 2011, 12:56 am

>147 Joansknight: most of you Vatican II followers believe what your clergy tells you

With all due respect, Joansknight, it appears that you believe what a couple of priests and brothers tell you on these websites which you keep quoting. You have rarely written anything substantial which is not a quote from them.

Or maybe you assiduously study what your clergy says, compare it with what others say to the contrary, discern prayerfully and sincerely, and come up with your result. If so, why not do us the courtesy of assuming that we have done the same?

I would add that it's ironic that one of the gripes of the more reactionary elements within the Catholic Church is precisely the opposite of your claim: they believe that "Vatican II Catholics" no longer listen to their clergy!

151Joansknight
Apr 15, 2011, 8:50 am

Pope St. Celestine I (431):“… pray that the faith may be granted to infidels; that idolaters may be delivered from the errors of their impiety; that the light of truth may be visible to the Jews, and the veil of their hearts may be removed; that heretics may come to their senses through a comprehension of the Catholic faith; that schismatics may receive the spirit of renewed charity…” (Denz. 139)

152Joansknight
Apr 20, 2011, 7:50 am

“Q. How does a Catholic sin against faith? A. A Catholic sins against faith by apostasy, heresy, indifferentism, and by taking part in non-Catholic worship.” (Catholic Catechism)

153timspalding
Apr 20, 2011, 9:15 am

Yup. That is the Most Holy Family Monastery's potted quote today.

154cjbanning
Edited: Apr 21, 2011, 10:02 am

Between 29 November 1268 and 1 September 1271, there was an almost 3 year period without a valid pope elected. This was due to a deadlock among cardinals voting for the pope. There were similar 2 year periods from 4 April 1292 through 5 July 1294, 20 April 1314 through 7 August 1316, and 4 July 1415 through 11 November 1417.

156cjbanning
Apr 21, 2011, 10:07 am

>155 John5918:

The linked page is certainly one of those rare times when the comments are more intelligent than the article, isn't it?

158Joansknight
Apr 29, 2011, 7:44 am

157: Anti-Pope Benedict appears in TV question-and-answer show (BBC)

159Joansknight
Apr 29, 2011, 11:58 am

The "sede" Position in Brief
A short, systematic outline of the history and doctrine supporting the "sede" thesis.

Heresy is defined as a pertinacious doubt or denial of something required to be held with divine and catholic faith.
"Vatican II" and its "popes" have taught, adhered to, acted in accordance with, or failed to condemn a plethora of heresies, including religious liberty, universal salvation, the efficacy of non-Catholics sects for salvation, the blasphemy that Jews & Muslims worship the One True God, the evolution of dogma, etc. They have also destroyed the faith of tens of millions, and Karol Wojtyla ("John Paul II") describes this whole process as a "new Pentecost." In other words, he thinks it is good, and wants the Holy Ghost to take the blame ("credit").
There are various undoubtedly genuine prophecies relating to our time (or a time like ours) which predict the loss of faith at Rome, the use of the See by Antichrist, the mass apostasy, the disappearance of the perpetual sacrifice, etc.
It is the constant tradition of Holy Church that manifest (i.e. "public") heresy results in the radical incapacity of a man to hold the papacy.
History provides a number of examples of popes (or "popes") who were claimed to have fallen into at least material heresy, and the reaction of good Catholics each time was to threaten to withdraw from communion with them, and in the more outstanding cases work towards convoking an imperfect council for the "deposition" of the apparent heretic. The significant examples include Liberius, Honorius (after his death), Pascal II, John XXII, Alexander VI, Paul VI, and John Paul II.
There is no case in history where a "pope" has apparently been a manifest heretic and did not produce this reaction in some portion of the clergy and laity (the faithful).
These members of the faithful have included many saints.
The theological basis for this reaction has been established perfectly by many theologians and canonists, with the outstanding example being St. Robert Bellarmine, who has harmonised or criticised all of the opinions to produce the locus classicus on the subject. Given that his works have received the highest possible approbation by the Church - he has been named a Doctor (i.e. "Teacher") of the Universal Church - it is perfectly legitimate, nay praiseworthy in the highest degree, for Catholics to be taught by him in all matters of sacred doctrine.
Furthermore, there are only three or four theologians known to have held that a heretic could become or remain pope, and none of those are Doctors of the Church.
Furthermore, there is the bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus, which legislates that if a heretic is elected pope the election is completely null and void, and cannot be convalidated in any way. Once again, this bull proves the radical incompatibility of the papacy and the person of a heretic. If this was not the case, the faulty election could be repaired by acclamation or subsequent "convalidation" by the Sacred College.
It is contrary to right reason to insist that individual members of the faithful have no right to draw the concrete conclusion of a vacant see through heresy, prior to a declaration by Holy Church. This is proved by a reductio ad absurdum - if this were the case, then no action could be legitimately taken to remove such a "papal" heretic and then replace him. This is because a pope cannot be judged by any man, since judging belongs by divine right only to superiors, and the pope has no superior. Hence any proceedings which were founded on any basis other than the evident vacancy of the Holy See would be contrary to divine law and thus null and void. This is also proved by the authority of Wernz and Vidal, cited elsewhere on this Web site, who maintain that those who dispute the legitimacy of a given pontiff are not to be counted schismatics.
This judgement of vacancy made by an individual is valid and sufficient in its sphere. It can be and should be a judgement of moral certainty, based on the relevant clear principles of theology and divine law, as embodied in the writings of the approved teachers of Holy Church, and also in her canon law. These principles include the nature of Holy Church as a visible society of those who, among other things, outwardly profess the true faith. Also relevant is the presumption under divine law (and hence canon law) of guilt for heresy (in the external forum) until and unless the contrary is proved. (This principle is no different in its fundamental nature from the presumption which provides perfectly sufficient support for the validity of all sacraments, including the Thuc and Lefebvre lines of Orders and all marriages). This principle is also clearly implied in St. Robert Bellarmine's assessment of the case of Liberius, in which he states that Liberius was actually innocent and yet rightly presumed guilty. It is also clearly enunciated in Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae, in which the Holy Father laid down that only God judges what remains internal, while men judge externals.
Given the above, it is the right and responsibility of all of the faithful, as it lies within their competence, to form a view on this question, and it is the additional responsibility of the clergy to act upon the conclusion reached.

Perhaps it may now be clear why it is an absolute outrage that so-called "sedevacantists" are treated as schismatics and denounced as enemies of Holy Church.

John Lane
November 4, 1998
Feast of St. Charles Borromeo
Amended May 16, 1999
Sunday within the Octave of the Ascension.

160John5918
Apr 29, 2011, 12:15 pm

>159 Joansknight: Given the above, it is the right and responsibility of all of the faithful, as it lies within their competence, to form a view on this question, and it is the additional responsibility of the clergy to act upon the conclusion reached.

And the faithful have done so and their clergy have acted accordingly. Habemus papam. A very small number, including you, disagree. So who decides which faithful and clergy are right and which are wrong?

161cjbanning
Apr 29, 2011, 12:35 pm

Saint Anacletus, ostensibly the third pope (following St. Peter and St. Linus), was once erroneously split into "Cletus" and "Anacletus."

162Joansknight
Apr 29, 2011, 12:36 pm

List of the Roman Pontiffs
Prepared by John S. Daly

Definite popes = black
Definite anti-popes = red
Status disputed among weighty authorities = blue
Pope who started illegitimate and later became legitimate = green

S Peter
S Linus, M
S Anacletus or Cletus1
S Clement, M
S Evaristus, M
S Alexander I, M
S Sixtus I, M
S Telesphorus, M
S Hyginus, M
S Pius I, M
S Anicetus, M
S Soter, M
S Eleutherius, M
S Victor I, M
S Zephyrinus, M
S Calistus I, M S Hippolytus
S Urban I, M
S Pontian, M
S Anterus, M
S Fabian, M
S Cornelius, M Novatian
S Lucius I, M
S Stephen I, M
S Sixtus II, M
S Dionysius
S Felix I, M
S Eutychian, M
S Caius, M
S Marcellinus M
S Marcellus I, M
S Eusebius, M
S Melchiades
S Silvester I
S Mark
S Julius I
Liberius S Felix II
Damasus Ursinus
S Siricius
S Anastasius I
S Innocent I
S Zozimus
S Boniface I Eulalius
S Celestine I
S Sixtus III
S Leo I (the Great)
S Hilary
S Simplicius
S Felix III/II
S Gelasius I
Anastasius II
S Symmachus Lawrence
S Hormisdas
S John I, M
S Felix IV/III
Boniface II Dioscorus
John II
S Agapitus I
S Silverius, M
Vigilius2
Pelagius I
John III
Benedict I
Pelagius II
S Gregory I (the Great)
Sabinian
Boniface III
Boniface IV
S Deusdedit/Adeodatus I
Boniface V
Honorius I
Severinus
John IV
Theodore I
S Martin I, M
S Eugene I3
S Vitalian
Deusdedit/Adeodatus II
Donus
S Agatho
S Leo II
S Benedict II
John V
Conon Theodore, Paschal
S Sergius I
John VI
John VII
Sisinnius
Constantine
S Gregory II
S Gregory III
S Zachary
Stephen4
Stephen II/III
S Paul I Constantine, Philip
Stephen III/IV
Adrian I
S Leo III
Stephen IV/V
S Paschal I
Eugene II
Valentine
Gregory IV John
Sergius II
S Leo IV
Benedict III Anastasius
S Nicholas I (the Great)
Adrian II
John VIII
Marinus I
S Adrian III
Stephen V/VI
Formosus
Boniface VI
Stephen VI/VII
Romanus
Theodore II
John IX
Benedict IV
Leo V Christopher
Sergius III
Anastasius III
Landon
John X
Leo VI
Stephen VII/VIII
John XI
Leo VII
Stephen VIII/IX
Marinus II
Agapitus II
John XII
Leo VIII
Benedict V5
John XIII
Benedict VI Boniface VII
Benedict VII
John XIV6
Boniface VII7
John XV
Gregory V John XVI
Silvester II
John XVII
John XVIII
Sergius IV
Benedict VIII Gregory
John XIX
Benedict IX
Sylvester III
Benedict IX (2nd term)
Gregory VI8
Clement II
Benedict IX (3rd term)
Damasus II
S Leo IX
Victor II
Stephen IX/X Benedict X
Nicholas II
Alexander II Honorius II
S Gregory VII Clement III
B Victor III
B Urban II
Paschal II Theoderic Albert Sylvester IV
Gelasius II Gregory VIII
Callistus II
Honorius II Celestine II
Innocent II Anacletus II, Victor IV
Celestine II
Lucius II
Eugene III
Anastasius
Adrian IV
Alexander III Victor IV, Paschal III, Callistus III, Innocent III
Lucius III
Urban III
Gregory VIII
Clement III
Celestine III
Innocent III
Honorius III
Gregory IX
Celestine IV
Innocent IV
Alexander IV
Urban IV
Clement IV
B Gregory X
B Innocent V
Adrian V
John XXI9
Nicholas III
Martin IV10
Honorius IV
Nicholas IV
S Celestine V
Boniface VIII
Benedict XI
Clement V
John XXII Nicholas V
Benedict XII
Clement VI
Innocent VI
B Urban V
Gregory XI
Urban VI
Boniface IX
Innocent VII
Gregory XII, Clement VII, Benedict XIII, Alexander V, John XXIII
Martin V
Eugene IV Felix V
Nicholas V
Callistus III
Pius II
PauI II
Sixtus IV
Innocent VIII
Alexander VI11
Pius III
Julius II
Leo X
Adrian VI
Clement VII
Paul III
Julius III
Marcellus II
Paul IV
Pius IV
S Pius V
Gregory XIII
Sixtus V
Urban VII
Gregory XIV
Innocent IX
Clement VIII
Leo XI
Paul V
Gregory XV
Urban VIII
Innocent X
Alexander VII
Clement IX
Clement X
B Innocent XI
Alexander VIII
Innocent XII
Clement XI
Innocent XIII
Benedict XIII
Clement XII
Benedict XIV
Clement XIII
Clement XIV
Pius VI
Pius VII
Leo XII
Pius VIII
Gregory XVI
Ven Pius IX
Leo XIII
S Pius X
Benedict XV
Pius XI
Pius XII

Numbering Anomalies12

John I-XI normal, + one unnumbered antipope, XII began as an antipope and became legitimate, XIII -XV normal, XVI antipope, XVII-XIX normal, then as a result of counting John XIV twice and including John XVI in the count, the next John was styled XXI, John XXII was normal and John XXIII is all but universally held to have been an antipope.
Victor two antipopes are assigned the number IV but there was no legitimate Pope Victor after Victor III.
Felix I was legitimate and II is commonly held to have been illegitimate as his reign occurred in the middle of that of Pope Liberius, but Bellarmine thinks him legitimate and all accord him the number II.
Paschal I and II were legitimate, but III illegitimate. A previous antipope was not numbered. Antipope Paschal III purportedly canonised Charlemagne - the cultus has been maintained in some parts.
Stephen. There were ten valid popes of this name, but the second having died before consecration was not numbered and hence the eight following ones are commonly numbered as if he had not existed.
Benedict. Number V is disputed, number IX had at least 2 and perhaps 3 distinct terms of office, number X was an antipope whose number was not re-used, number XIII was an antipope whose number was re-used.
Boniface. Number VII was an antipope whose number was re-used by another antipope who may have for a brief spell become true pope (though this is disputed). The number was not again re-used. Number IX is disputed.
Gregory. VI and XII are disputed but their numbers were not re-used. VIII was an antipope whose number was re-used.
Alexander V is disputed, being of the Pisan line in the Great Western Schism, but his illegitimacy seems practically certain. Nonetheless his number was not re-used. His brief putative pontificate occurred in the middle of that of Gregory XII, successor of Urban VI at Rome. Hence if by any chance Alexander V was pope, Gregory XII was not. Yet Gregory's number was not re-used either.

Footnotes

For a long time believed to be two separate popes, but this view is now commonly rejected
Illegitimately imposed in place of reigning pope Silverius, but became true pope when the Roman clergy consented to receive him as such after the death or free resignation of Silverius
Began his reign while St Martin was still alive though in exile
Unnumbered and often omitted from papal lists as he died before consecration, but he was a genuine pope
John XII was deposed for immorality and Leo VIII was elected in his place – but this was surely invalid Later, when John XII died, the Romans elected Benedict V in his place The latter was subsequently deposed too, but seems to have consented to his deposition If he did so, Leo's pontificate was valid from that point on. If he did not consent, Leo was never a valid pope
Confusion as to the dates of his reign led historians to count him twice Hence the lack of any John XX Strictly speaking John XXI should have been called John XIX to allow for the omission and the fact that John XVI was not a true pope
Another who started as an antipope but who seems to have received the consent of the Roman clergy during a vacancy and thus become for a brief period the true pope
Whether Gregory VI and Clement II were true popes depends on whether the second abdication of Benedict IX was valid, or null owing to force
This pope is said to have selected the number "XXI" for himself, but only 18 previous legitimate popes had been called "John" He must have counted John XIV twice and included antipope John XVI
The numeral was justified by counting "Marinus" and "Martinus" as the same name
The numeral selected counts as a pope the Pisan antipope Alexander V
Of course popes did not necessarily assign their own numbers.

163Joansknight
Apr 29, 2011, 12:45 pm

160: I would have to say not the ones who are heretics. You just don't get it John. I pray some day you do, but until then I am sure you will continue to blindly follow anyone and their doctrines that appeal to you.

It is the many that will follow anti-Christ, it is the few who will follow Christ and His Church. Read Revelations! Read your saints!

164John5918
Apr 29, 2011, 1:23 pm

>162 Joansknight: The colours seem to be missing (or is it just my computer)? They all appear in black - no red antipopes, nor blue nor green. A miracle?

>163 Joansknight: I would have to say not the ones who are heretics

But who defines the heretics, particularly when you have already rejected the leadership of the Church which is the normal channel for spotting heretics? You will no doubt quote something at me, but don't you realise that both "sides" are aware of the same documents that you quote and still sincere prayerful people are coming to different conclusions?

165Joansknight
Apr 29, 2011, 1:43 pm

164: If you do not know what any of the heresies against the Church are, then you surely need help! Example: Your church believes Jews and Muslims worship the true God. That is a total heresy, because Jews and Muslims do NOT believe in the Holy Trinity!

Your "pope" is a heretic, therefore he is NOT of the body of Christ's Church.

166Joansknight
Apr 29, 2011, 1:46 pm

Please forgive me for quoting Church doctrine and Church Fathers. Heaven forbid!

167Joansknight
Apr 29, 2011, 1:49 pm

162: I have no clue as to how to make my fonts coloured....

168John5918
Apr 29, 2011, 2:09 pm

>166 Joansknight: Please forgive me for quoting Church doctrine and Church Fathers.

All I'm saying is that we are all reading those same Church doctrines and Church Fathers. Presumably we are all praying and discerning sincerely. And yet we still come out with two different interpretations of the same doctrine and Church Fathers. You are obviously convinced that yours is correct and we are heretics; I suppose the rest of the Church is convinced that ours is correct, with the distinction that we probably don't label you as heretics, just misguided.

169cjbanning
Apr 29, 2011, 2:16 pm

Out of the first fifteen popes, seven were martyred.

170MyopicBookworm
Apr 29, 2011, 6:21 pm

This message has been deleted by its author.

171MyopicBookworm
Apr 29, 2011, 6:21 pm

Sorry, nearly fed a troll there.

172John5918
Apr 30, 2011, 9:05 am

>171 MyopicBookworm: I often wish I had as much self-restraint as you!

173Joansknight
Apr 30, 2011, 9:57 am

Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ… the Church will be in eclipse.”

Luke 18:8- “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on Earth?”

Let me see if I have this straight: I am the one that is misguided, I am a troll and death has been wished upon me? What a wonderful Christian attitude.

Look at all the sins of your so called "catholic" church (or are you blind to them), and if you can honestly tell me it is truly Christ's Church then you are the ones misguided. You follow a pied-piper playing tunes you want to hear, because the truth is too hard to listen to and too hard for you to swallow.

174Joansknight
Apr 30, 2011, 9:59 am

Matthew 24:15- “When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.”



Matthew 24:24-25- “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.”

175Joansknight
Apr 30, 2011, 10:05 am

Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is prophetic. Composed over 100 years ago, and then suppressed, Pope Leo XIII’s original Prayer to St. Michael is a very interesting and controversial prayer relating to the present situation in which the true Catholic Church finds itself. On September 25, 1888, following his morning Mass, Pope Leo XIII became traumatized to the point that he collapsed. Those in attendance thought that he was dead. After coming to consciousness, the pope described a frightful conversation that he had heard coming from near the tabernacle. The conversation consisted of two voices – voices which Pope Leo XIII clearly understood to be the voices of Jesus Christ and the Devil. The Devil boasted that he could destroy the Church, if he were granted 75 years to carry out his plan (or 100 years, according to some accounts). The Devil also asked permission for “a greater influence over those who will give themselves to my service.” To the Devil’s requests, Our Lord reportedly replied: “you will be given the time and the power.”
Shaken deeply by what he had heard, Pope Leo XIII composed the following Prayer to St. Michael (which is also a prophecy) and ordered it to be recited after all Low Masses as a protection for the Church against the attacks from Hell. What follows is the prayer (note especially the bolded portions), followed by some of our comments. The prayer was taken from The Raccolta, 1930, Benziger Bros., pp. 314-315. The Raccolta is an imprimatured collection of the official and indulgenced prayers of the Catholic Church.
The Prayer:
Pope Leo XIII’s prophecy about the future apostasy in Rome 7
O Glorious Archangel St. Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare which we carry on against principalities and Powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, spirits of evil. Come to the aid of man, whom God created immortal, made in his own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil.
Fight this day the battle of the Lord, together with the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in Heaven.
That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan, who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels. Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage. Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of his Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.
These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.
Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory. They venerate thee as their protector and Patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious power of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude. Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church. Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations. Amen.
Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered ye hostile powers.
The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered, the root of David.
Let thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.
As we have hoped in thee.
O Lord, hear my prayer.
And let my cry come unto thee.
Let us pray.
O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon thy holy name, and as suppliants we implore thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious Archangel St. Michael, thou wouldst deign to help us against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who wander about the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of souls. Amen.
Pope Leo XIII’s prophecy about the future apostasy in Rome 8
As one who reads the prayer (especially the bolded portion) can see, Pope Leo XIII seemed to foresee and predict the great apostasy; and he seemed to pinpoint that this apostasy would be led from Rome – Rome which alone is “the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world.” Pope Leo foresaw that this place (Vatican City in Rome), where had been set up the Chair of Peter by the first Pope, St. Peter himself, would become the throne of Satan’s abominable impiety, with the “iniquitous design that when the Pastor (the true Pope) has been struck, the sheep (the Catholic faithful) may be scattered.” These are Pope Leo XIII’s words.
Pope Leo XIII was not predicting the defection of the Catholic Church (which is impossible, as the gates of Hell can never prevail against the Church Mt. 16), nor the defection of the Chair of Peter (which is also impossible), but rather he was predicting the implementation of an apostate, counterfeit Catholic religion from Rome, in which “the pastor” (the true pope) is replaced by a usurping antipope (as has occurred at times in Church history), with the iniquitous design that “the sheep may be scattered.”
Pope Leo’s prayer also foresaw that Satan’s impure apostates would lay impious hands “on the Church’s most sacred possessions.” What are the Church’s most sacred possessions? The most sacred possessions of the Church are those things which Christ entrusted to Her: namely, the deposit of faith (with all of its dogmas) and the seven sacraments instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Therefore, Pope Leo’s prayer foretold the attempted destruction of the deposit of faith with Vatican II and the new sacramental rites of the Vatican II Church. Both of these will be covered in detail in this book. We will see that Paul VI’s laying of impious hands on the Church’s seven sacramental rites beginning in April of 1969, which produced an invalid New Mass, an invalid New Rite of Ordination, and gravely doubtful rites of Confirmation and Extreme Unction, fulfilled Pope Leo’s prediction to the letter.
In 1934, Pope Leo’s striking prayer (given above) was changed without explanation. The key phrase referring to the apostasy in Rome (the Holy Place, where the See of Peter has been set up for the light of the world) was removed. Around the same time, the use of Pope Leo XIII’s longer Prayer to St. Michael after each Low Mass was replaced by a shorter prayer, the now famous abbreviated Prayer to St. Michael. This prayer goes as follows:
“St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.”
There is nothing wrong with this prayer to St. Michael; in fact, it is very good and efficacious. However, the point is that it’s not the longer Prayer to St. Michael that Pope Leo XIII composed. The shorter prayer was, in the view of many, promoted as a substitute, so that the faithful would be unaware of the incredible content of the longer prayer, as described above. If the longer Prayer to St. Michael had been recited at the end of every Low Mass and not suppressed in 1934, how many millions more would have been stirred to a resistance when they encountered the attempted new post-Vatican II religion that we will cover in this book? How many would have seen through the systematic dismantling of the traditional Catholic Faith after Vatican II?
Pope Leo XIII’s longer Prayer to St. Michael also fits perfectly with Our Lady of La Salette’s famous appearance and prediction in 1846: “Rome will lose the faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist... the Church will be in eclipse.” Pope Leo’s words suggest that Antichrist himself, or at
Pope Leo XIII’s prophecy about the future apostasy in Rome 9
least the forces of Antichrist, would set up their seat in Rome: “In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter… they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety…”

176cjbanning
Edited: Apr 30, 2011, 10:19 am

"If the longer Prayer to St. Michael had been recited at the end of every Low Mass and not suppressed in 1934, how many millions more would have been stirred to a resistance when they encountered the attempted new post-Vatican II religion that we will cover in this book?"

Yeah, that's the problem. St. Michael didn't fight Satan hard enough because people weren't praying to him enough. (Rather petty and vainglorious for an angel, don't you think?)

178Joansknight
May 1, 2011, 9:48 am

>177 John5918:: I guess you don't care about Pope Leo XIII! Now there was a holy and very much Catholic pope.

It wont be Christ's Church that will be beatifying the anti-pope John Paul II....

"The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: 'Here is the wolf!' when it enters the flock or anywhere else.
--St. Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life, Part III, Chapter 29

"In the Third Secret of Fatima it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top."
--Mario L. Ciappi, Novus Ordo cardinal and household theologian to John Paul II; quoted in The Devil's Final Battle, p. 33

"The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters."
--St. Nicholas of Flue, in Catholic Prophecy, edited by Yves Dupont, p. 30

179Joansknight
May 1, 2011, 9:49 am

"The apostles and their successors are God's vicars in governing the Church which is built on faith and the sacraments of faith. Wherefore, just as they may not institute another Church, so neither may they deliver another faith, nor institute other sacraments."
--St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, 64, ad. 3

180Joansknight
May 1, 2011, 9:50 am

"I hear around me reformers who want to dismantle the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, to discard all her adornments, and smite her with remorse for her historic past."
--Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII, to Count Enrico P. Galeazzi

181Joansknight
May 1, 2011, 9:52 am

"It is impossible to approve in Catholic publications a style inspired by unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a new order of Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on new aspirations of the modern soul, on a new social vocation of the clergy, on a new Christian civilization, and many other things of the same kind."
--Pope Leo XIII, Instruction to the Sacred Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, January 27, 1902; quoted by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, par. 55, 1907

"...the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. ... Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists."
--Pope Saint Pius X, Letter "Our Apostolic Mandate" to the French Episcopate, 1910

182Joansknight
May 1, 2011, 9:54 am

"The Son of Man, when He cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth?"
--the Blessed Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 18:8)

Oh my....I quoted our Lord! They wont like that!

183MyopicBookworm
May 1, 2011, 5:03 pm

Our Lord will certainly find faith on earth, but it won't be in self-righteous little groups of ultra-conservative religious people.

184Joansknight
May 1, 2011, 5:26 pm

>183 MyopicBookworm:: Don't you mean trolls?

"Self-righteous little group of ultra-conservative religious people." That sounds exactly like something the Romans would have said. Isn't it funny how history repeats itself?

Matthew 24:15- “When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.”

Matthew 24:24-25- “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.”

St. Mathew must have been a troll too....I am not worthy of the honor, but I appreciate the compliment.

185Joansknight
May 2, 2011, 6:22 am

Only one offense is now vigorously punished, an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries and transported into the deserts. The people are in lamentation.... Joy and spiritual cheerfulness are no more; our feasts are turned into mourning; our houses of prayer are shut up; our altars are deprived of spiritual worship. No longer are there Christians assembling, teachers presiding, saving instructions, celebrations, hymns by night, or that blessed exultation of souls, which arises from communion and fellowship of spiritual gifts.... The ears of the simple are led astray, and have become accustomed to heretical profaneness. The infants of the Church are fed on the words of impiety. For what can they do? Baptisms are in Arian hands; the care of travelers, visitation of the sick, consolation of mourners, succors of the distressed.... Which all, being performed by them, become a bond to the people... so that in a little while, even though liberty be granted us, no hope will remain that they, who are encompassed by so lasting a deceit, should be brought back again to the acknowledgment of the truth.

- St. Basil the Great (troll) (ca. 330-ca. 379), Epistulae, in a letter to the bishops of Italy and Gaul (in 376)

186Joansknight
Edited: May 2, 2011, 7:48 am

The Vision Of Pope Leo XIII October 13, 1884 Exactly 33 years to the day prior to the great Miracle of the Sun in Fatima, that is, on October 13, 1884, Pope Leo XIII had a remarkable vision. When the aged Pontiff had finished celebrating Mass in his private Vatican Chapel, attended by a few Cardinals and members of the Vatican staff, he suddenly stopped at the foot of the altar. He stood there for about 10 minutes, as if in a trance, his face ashen white. Then, going immediately from the Chapel to his office, he composed the prayer to St. Michael, with instructions it be said after all Low Masses everywhere. When asked what had happened, he explained that, as he was about to leave the foot of the altar, he suddenly heard voices - two voices, one kind and gentle, the other guttural and harsh. They seemed to come from near the tabernacle. As he listened, he heard the following conversation:

The guttural voice, the voice of Satan in his pride, boasting to Our Lord: "I can destroy your Church"

The gentle voice of Our Lord: "You can? Then go ahead and do so."

Satan: "To do so, I need more time and more power."

Our Lord: "How much time? How much power?

Satan: "75 to 100 years, and a greater power over those who will give themselves over to my service."

Our Lord: "You have the time, you will have the power. Do with them what you will."


Let us think about this for a minute. This happened in 1884. The devil said he needed 75 to100 years. Well, 75 years from 1884 is 1959. Wow, what a coincidence that it was on January 25, 1959, that John XXIII publicly summoned the Second Vatican Council. Remember that after the vision, Pope Leo XIII immediately wrote the Prayer to St. Michael to help us overcome the devil in his quest. He instructed that it be said after every low Mass. One of the first changes to come from Vatican II, was the deletion of the Leonine Prayers which included the prayer to St. Michael. These prayers were eliminated in 1964, the 80th year of the devils 75 - 100 years needed to destroy the Catholic Church. It would seem that this would be the time to especially say that prayer, not to delete it. The 100th year would be 1984. By 1984 John Paul II had let the devil develop a church that is called Catholic, but is not. The devil has twisted and distorted church teachings so much that there truly is a brand new church, a new order (Novus Ordo) and the true church has been reduced in population to a mere shell of what it once was, but it will survive: "That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." Matt. 16:18 & 28:20

187Joansknight
May 3, 2011, 7:03 am

We declare that the greater part of those who are damned have brought the calamity on themselves by ignorance of the mysteries of the Faith, which they should have known and believed, in order to be united with the elect.

- Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758)

188Joansknight
May 4, 2011, 7:55 am

Magisterium – the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, exercised by a pope when
proclaiming a dogma with the authority of the Papacy. Not every pronouncement of a true pope
is a teaching of the Magisterium. A pope speaks magisterially when he meets certain conditions
(as defined by Vatican I). Those who are faithful to the Magisterium are those who are faithful to
what all the popes throughout history have dogmatically taught or set forth as what the Catholic
Church has always held.

189Joansknight
May 4, 2011, 8:00 am

Divine Revelation/Dogma – Jesus Christ’s truth is the teaching of Divine Revelation. The
Catholic Church teaches that the two sources of Divine Revelation are Sacred Scripture and
Sacred Tradition; their true content is set forth by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Dogma is unchangeable. When a
pope defines a dogma, he doesn’t make a dogma true from that point forward, but rather
solemnly declares without erring that which has always been true since the death of the last apostle.
Dogmas are to be believed as the Church has “once declared them,” without any recession from
that meaning to a “deeper understanding.”
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra:
“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained,
which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from
that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”2
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chap. 4, Canon 3:
"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of
knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be
anathema."

190Joansknight
May 4, 2011, 8:03 am

Apostate – a baptized person who doesn’t merely deny one or more truths of the Catholic
Faith, but gives up the Christian Faith altogether. Apostates also incur automatic
excommunication.
Antipope – a false claimant to be the pope (i.e. a false claimant to be the Bishop of Rome).
There have been over 40 antipopes in Church history, including some who reigned in Rome.
This book proves that the Vatican II revolution was brought in by men who are and were
antipopes falsely posing as true popes.

191MyopicBookworm
May 4, 2011, 8:29 am

Could you cut and paste all this stuff to somewhere else, please? You're just clogging up LT Talk with things which aren't your own comments. #190 even refers to "this book" without saying what it is (not that I'm interested), suggesting that not only are you not writing this stuff: you're not even reading it.

192cjbanning
May 4, 2011, 8:44 am

191: "#190 even refers to 'this book' without saying what it is (not that I'm interested), suggesting that not only are you not writing this stuff: you're not even reading it."

Ditto with #175.

193Joansknight
May 4, 2011, 10:03 am

>191 MyopicBookworm:: I am sorry that you find the Catholic Faith and its doctrines so offensive.

I never claimed to be writing "this stuff" and how can you assume I do not read "this stuff"?

Holy Bible
The Sources Of Catholic Dogma
The Catechism Of The Council Of Trent
The Raccolta
The Old Catholic Encyclopedia

This is just some of the "stuff" that I do not supposedly read. The only comment I can make about "this stuff" is that they are what strengthens my faith and guides me in the light of truth.

194John5918
May 4, 2011, 11:32 am

>191 MyopicBookworm: I have repeatedly suggested that Joansknight should open a thread entitled "Sedevacantism" (or "The One and Only True Catholic Church" or whatever) to avoid clogging other threads up with these quotes, but to no avail.

195Joansknight
May 4, 2011, 3:26 pm

I took your advice John. I am sorry if I offended you, Tim & Book Worm with the Catholic material I have presented and I am also sorry the Truth scares you. With that said it would also be a most grave sin if I don't let someone know when they are in grievous error. I would quote a saint, but you do not like when I do that. I would quote Christ our Lord, but to what avail?

196John5918
May 5, 2011, 12:04 pm

What About Montini? (NCR)

Personally I would prefer to ask, "What about Roncalli".

197MyopicBookworm
May 5, 2011, 12:19 pm

Me too: except that canonized popes are generally the ones I like the least.

198Joansknight
May 6, 2011, 7:09 am

Me too: except that canonized popes are generally the ones I like the least.

What an interesting statement. What is wrong with popes who are saints? And do you have a problem with popes who were martyred? Do these two traits make them less holy?

John, I sure you don't have this warped attitude.

199Joansknight
May 6, 2011, 7:19 am

The National Catholic Reporter sure is misguided....one day all the Novus Ordo anti-popes will be canonized. And the billion misguided souls will be bowing down and worshiping their images. No one will have faith in Christ anymore, except for us "trolls".

200John5918
May 26, 2011, 1:12 am

Pope ousts 'loose living' monks of Rome's Santa Croce monastery (Guardian)

Vatican acts after reports of monks staging concerts featuring a former lap dancer and running hotel service

201Joansknight
May 26, 2011, 7:35 am

>200 John5918:: That's the Novus Ordo church for you.

202John5918
May 26, 2011, 7:50 am

>201 Joansknight: I think you'll find that if you go back to the mediaeval Church there were far greater abuses going on, and not always dealt with as quickly as this one. It's no measure of whether the Church is "true" or not.

203cjbanning
May 26, 2011, 8:13 am

>200 John5918:

What, exactly, were the abuses? I don't have the Rule of Benedict memorized, but operating a hotel and/or holding a concert don't strike me as things which are somehow inherently unmonk-like.

204John5918
May 26, 2011, 9:52 am

>203 cjbanning: You're right that monks have always operated hostels; part of the rule of hospitality, which I have certainly benefited from at various monasteries and religious houses. I've never come across the lap dancing nun in my travels, though...

But the report also mentions that "An inquiry found evidence of liturgical and financial irregularities as well as lifestyles that were probably not in keeping with that of a monk,"... Reports saying the monks amassed large debts have also emerged and that their former abbot, sacked in 2009, was "flamboyant" and "built up a cult following". Doesn't sound like my kind of scene, but one would probably need more inside information to make a judgement.

205Joansknight
May 26, 2011, 12:12 pm

They are Novus Ordo monks, so just knowing that, is enough to know a judgement can be made of their immorality.

206John5918
May 26, 2011, 1:25 pm

207cjbanning
May 26, 2011, 1:46 pm

If anyone shall affirm, that since the fall of Adam {and of Eve}, {the} freewill {of human beings} is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church; let such an one be accursed.

- Council of Trent

208Joansknight
May 26, 2011, 2:39 pm

>207 cjbanning:: I did not offer a fiction in the Catholic Church. I offered a fact in the Novus Ordo church, which rejects the Council of Trent by the way. It rejects Trent, because, they replace its doctrines with the doctrines of Vatican II.

209John5918
May 27, 2011, 1:52 am

>208 Joansknight: Actually it doesn't reject Trent and it hasn't replaced Trent's doctrines. What it has done is to continue the development of doctrine, which has been developing ever since the Church was founded and will continue to do so as long as the Church exists.

I note that you still haven't referred to >202 John5918:

210Joansknight
May 27, 2011, 7:29 am

>209 John5918:: You make it sound like change and development are the same thing. Changing the form or parts of doctrine is NOT development. It is creating new doctrines, which Vatican II has done. In creating new doctrines and rejecting true doctrines of the Church it has created a new religion.

As for 202, Trent was also a response to abuses in the Church, not just a response to the Reformation.

211cjbanning
May 29, 2011, 8:20 am

Vatican II was as clear a reaffirmation of Tridentine doctrine as one can possibly imagine.

For example, the Second Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church affirmed the importance of the doctrine of free will thusly:
Only in freedom can {a person} direct {themself} toward goodness. Our contemporaries make much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly; and rightly to be sure. Often however they foster it perversely as a license for doing whatever pleases them, even if it is evil. For its part, authentic freedom is an exceptional sign of the divine image within {a human being}. For God has willed that {humans} remain "under the control of {their} own decisions," so that {they} can seek {their} Creator spontaneously, and come freely to utter and blissful perfection through loyalty to {God}.

Hence {a person's} dignity demands that {they} act according to a knowing and free choice that is personally motivated and prompted from within, not under blind internal impulse nor by mere external pressure. {A person} achieves such dignity when, emancipating {themself} from all captivity to passion, {they} pursue {their} goal in a spontaneous choice of what is good, and procures for themself through effective and skilful action, apt helps to that end. Since {humans'} freedom has been damaged by sin, only by the aid of God's grace can {one} bring such a relationship with God into full flower. Before the judgement seat of God each {person} must render an account of {their} own life, whether {they have} done good or evil.
This is simply a reaffirmation of the doctrine as articulated at the Council of Trent:
If any one shall affirm, that {the} freewill {of human beings}, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification; if moreover, anyone shall say, that the human will cannot refuse complying, if it pleases, but that it is inactive, and merely passive; let such a one be accursed.

If anyone shall affirm, that since the fall of Adam {and of Eve}, {the} freewill {of human beings} is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church; let such an one be accursed.

If any one saith, that it is not in {the} power {of a human being} to make {their} ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of {Godself}, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less {God's} own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let {them} be anathema.

212campusdan
May 31, 2011, 3:03 pm

Judasknight you just don't get it do you or you do and are actively trying to deceive.

Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, Vatican I, every avenue of catholic tradition rejects your interpretation of catholic tradition. Who has the correct or better interpretation?? Do you? Do I?...how do I tell, pray tell? Wait a second that's what protestants do, so you are a protestant in other words eh Judasknight? Very sad. Remove the plank in your own eye bud :)

Show me anywhere in authoritative Church teachings were is states that the visible head of the Church CAN NOT be the source of unity and authority for the Catholic Church and then show me where it states that the laity can apart from the hierarchy can be the source of unity for the Catholic Church...I don't remember that in Vatican I, but you read more of that than me so maybe you can teach me since you are so more well read than I.

So you like the Catechism of the Council of Trent EH?...maybe you should read the WHOLE THING instead of what Br. Diamond tells you to read from it, get a load of this!

VII. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part I: The Creed, Article IX:

The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body (Eph. 22, 23); the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair. IT IS THE UNANIMOUS TEACHING OF THE FATHERS THAT THIS VISIBLE HEAD IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH AND PRESERVE UNITY IN THE CHURCH!

213campusdan
May 31, 2011, 3:24 pm

I like how in post 10 Judasknight how you quote Pope Leo and then misinterpret his words.

You quote him saying that individual segments (of the Church) may have been overtaken by the forces of evil

What he means here is that laity (maybe such as yourself) can be overtaken by the forces of evil and even certain bishops too, we have seen this many times in Church history with bishops leading the way for certain heresies such as Arianism and others. But that the validly elected Roman Pontiff can be overtaken by evil doesn't match up with any Church teachings...for example in the same document you quote Satis Cognitum also states this:

k) Indeed no true and perfect human society can be conceived which is not governed by some supreme authority. Christ therefore must have given to His Church a supreme authority to which all Christians must render obedience… From this it is easy to see that men can fall away from the unity of the Church by SCHISM, as well as by heresy. "We think that this difference exists between heresy and schism" (writes St. Jerome): "heresy has no perfect dogmatic teaching, whereas schism, through some Episcopal dissent, also separates from the Church" (S. Hieronymus, Comment. in Epist. ad Titum, cap. iii., v. 10-11). In which judgment St. John Chrysostom concurs: "I say and protest (he writes) that it is as wrong to divide the Church as to fall into heresy" (Hom. xi., in Epist. ad Ephes., n. 5). Wherefore as no heresy can ever be justifiable, so in like manner THERE CAN BE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR SCHISM. "There is nothing more grievous than the sacrilege of schism....there can be no just necessity for destroying the unity of the Church" (S. Augustinus, Contra Epistolam Parmeniani, lib. ii., cap. ii., n. 25).

l) Jesus Christ, therefore, appointed Peter to be that head of the Church; and HE ALSO DETERMINED THAT THE AUTHORITY INSTITUTED IN PERPETUITY for the salvation of all should be inherited by His successors, in whom the same PERMANENT authority of Peter himself should continue.

m) From this text it is clear that by the will and command of God the Church rests upon St. Peter, just as a building rests on its foundation….REMOVE IT AND THE WHOLE BUILDING FALLS. It is consequently the office of St. Peter to support the Church, and to guard it in all its strength and indestructible unity… The words - and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it - proclaim and establish the authority of which we speak.

n) "For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built 'His house upon a rock,' cannot be conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be powerless against it"

Did you just miss this section or your other fellow schismatics omit this part from their research?

"DO NOT ALLOW YOURSELVES TO BE DECEIVED BY THE CUNNING STATEMENTS OF THOSE WHO PERSISTENTLY CLAIM TO WISH TO BE WITH THE CHURCH, TO LOVE THE CHURCH, TO FIGHT SO THAT PEOPLE DO NOT LEAVE HER...BUT JUDGE THEM BY THEIR WORKS. IF THEY DESPISE THE SHEPHERDS OF THE CHURCH AND EVEN THE POPE, IF THEY ATTEMPT ALL MEANS OF EVADING THEIR AUTHORITY IN ORDER TO ELUDE THEIR DIRECTIVES AND JUDGMENTS...,THEN ABOUT WHICH CHURCH DO THESE MEN MEAN TO SPEAK? CERTAINLY NOT ABOUT THE ONE "BUILT UPON THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, CHRIST JESUS HIMSELF BEING THE CORNERSTONE" (EPHESIANS 2:20). ~POPE PIUS X (MAY 10, 1909)

Come back to the true fold of Christ the Church governed by the true Roman Pontiff, Benedict XVI!

214campusdan
May 31, 2011, 3:29 pm

John reply to post 194...Judasknight is on a mission you will not be able to confine him at all...he loves trying to deceive whoever he can and will not stop. I wish he would stop too but chances are he won't, I will continue to try and bring to light his most grievous errors and foolish opinions. May the hammer of the heretics be with us.

215Joansknight
Jun 3, 2011, 6:21 am

But their profession of fidelity to the Vicar of Christ is vain in those who, in fact, do not cease to violate the authority of their Bishops. For "by far the most august part of the Church consists of the Bishops, (as Our Predecessor Leo XIII of holy memory wrote in his letter of December 17, 1888, to the Archbishop), inasmuch as this part by divine right teaches and rules men; hence, whoever resists them or pertinaciously refuses obedience to them puts himself apart from the Church...On the other hand, to pass judgment upon or to rebuke the acts of Bishops does not at all belong to private individuals - that comes within the province only of those higher than they in authority and especially of the Sovereign Pontiff, for to him Christ entrusted the charge of feeding not only His lambs, but His sheep throughout the world. At most, it is allowed in matters of grave complaint to refer the whole case to the Roman Pontiff, and this with prudence and moderation as zeal for the common good requires, not clamorously or abusively, for in this way dissensions and hostilities are bred, or certainly increased."

- Pope Saint Pius X (1903-1914), Encyclical Letter "Tribus Circiter," April 5, 1906

216John5918
Jun 3, 2011, 9:52 am

>215 Joansknight: those who, in fact, do not cease to violate the authority of their Bishops

Isn't that what sedevacantists are doing? Violating the authority of the bishops? As Pius X says, to pass judgment upon or to rebuke the acts of Bishops does not at all belong to private individuals.

217Joansknight
Jun 3, 2011, 12:09 pm

>216 John5918:: Bishops of the Novus Ordo church are Not bishops of the Catholic Church, just as Anglican bishops are NOT bishops of the Catholic Church.

218John5918
Jun 3, 2011, 2:49 pm

>217 Joansknight: But a few individuals have made that judgement; no authority within the Church has done so. This appears to violate the conditions laid down by Pius X.

219MyopicBookworm
Jun 3, 2011, 9:36 pm

And the authority of bishops appointed before the succession of John XXIII underlies Vatican II.

220Joansknight
Jun 4, 2011, 10:00 am

Latinis potius literis erudiantur, quam ut facultas concedatur, adhibendi in Missae celebratione vulgarem linguam.

- Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758), De Missa Sacrificio, 1.2, c. 2. n. 14

221Joansknight
Jun 4, 2011, 12:59 pm

>218 John5918:: Tell me this John, why do you think something is to be believed because a large number of people say it is so? A majority of the one billion people that say they are "catholic" do not even practice their faith (except going to mass on Christmas and Easter).

There are more Muslims then Christians, so is their religion right? Oh, I forgot the "popes" of the Novus Ordo church says Muslims worship the same God as they do....rejecting the Trinity.

If a billion people jumped of the Grand Canyon, would you join them John or would you think for yourself?

222John5918
Jun 4, 2011, 1:01 pm

>220 Joansknight: Very nice quote, but it doesn't explain how a few individuals made a judgement about validly and licitly ordained bishops, apparently in direct contravention of Pius X's instructions.

223cjbanning
Jun 4, 2011, 2:13 pm

>221 Joansknight:

Are the billion people jumping off the Grand Canyon (I didn't know the ledge was that large!) all members of the historic episcopate? That might affect how I answer the question.

224Joansknight
Jun 4, 2011, 7:12 pm

Benedict XVI’s March 27, 2011 Greeting to commemorate the 67th anniversary of the 1944 massacre of 335 Italians. Benedict XVI knelt and recited a prayer for the dead with Chief Rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni: “Dear Brothers and Sisters, I very gladly accepted the invitation of the National Association of the Italian Families of the Martyrs who died for the freedom of the Homeland to come on pilgrimage to this Sacrarium, dear to all Italians and in particular to the people of Rome. I greet the Cardinal Vicar, the Chief Rabbi… in this place, a sorrowful memorial of the most horrendous crime, the truest response is to take one another by the hand, as brothers and sisters, and to say: ‘Our Father, we believe in you and with the strength of your love we want to walk together, in peace, in Rome, in Italy, in Europe and throughout the world’. Amen” 1



This is amazing apostasy. Benedict XVI kneels with the Chief Rabbi and he recites a prayer for the dead with him! He even prays a form of the “Our Father” with the rabbi! By doing so, Benedict XVI mocks and denies Jesus Christ. Scripture is clear that those who deny Jesus (e.g., the rabbi with whom Benedict XVI prays) have not the Father. Yet, Benedict XVI addresses the Father with the rabbi as if He is the Father of them both. This is a direct blasphemy against God.



1 John 5:2-23- “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also.”



John 5:23- “That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, who hath sent him.”



On April 22, 2011, Benedict XVI was interviewed for a program entitled: “In his image – A Good Friday Special”:



Benedict XVI: “Naturally, all the institutions that truly have the possibility to do something in Iraq for you should do it. The Holy See is in permanent contact with the diverse communities, not only the Catholic community and the other Christian communities, but also with our Muslim brothers and sisters, Shi’tes and Sunni. We want to create reconciliation and understanding…



Question from Muslim woman to Benedict XVI: ‘The next question comes to you from a Muslim woman from the Ivory Coast, a country that has been at war for years. This lady’s name in Bintu and she greets you in Arabic, saying ‘May God be in all the words that we say to one another and may God be with you’…



Response from Benedict XVI: ‘I would like to respond to your greeting: May God also be with you and help you forever. I have to say that I have received heartbreaking letters from the Ivory Coast in which I see the sorrow, the depth of suffering, and I am saddened that I can do so little. We can do one thing always: remain in prayer with you and, as much as possible, we can offer works of charity.”2



Benedict XVI states that Muslims are our brothers and sisters. Benedict XVI then says to a Muslim woman “may God be with you forever” – even though the woman denies the Holy Trinity and the whole Catholic faith! This of course means that the Muslim woman can be saved as a Muslim. Benedict XVI then states he will always remain in prayer with the Muslim. He is a total heretic.



Benedict XVI’s May 22, 2011 Reflection to pilgrims from the pro-life movement: “Dear friends, I congratulate you in particular for the commitment with which you help women who face difficult pregnancies, engaged couples and married people who desire responsible procreation…”3



Benedict XVI doesn’t say married couples should procreate. He says that they should engage in “responsible procreation.”



Benedict XVI’s May 16, 2011 Address to “Latin-rite Indian bishops”: “The Christian life in such societies always demands honesty and sincerity about one’s own beliefs, and respect for those of one’s neighbor… as Indian Christians strive to live in peace and harmony with their neighbours of other beliefs, your prudent leadership will be crucial in the civil and moral task of working to safeguard the fundamental human rights of freedom of religion and freedom of worship. As you know, these rights are based upon the common dignity of all human beings and are recognized throughout the concert of nations. The Catholic Church strives to promote these rights for all religions throughout the world. I encourage you, therefore, to work patiently to establish the common ground necessary for the harmonious enjoyment of these basic rights in your communities. Even if he encounters opposition, the Christian’s own charity and forbearance should serve to convince others of the rightness of religious tolerance, from which the followers of all religions stand to gain.”4



Benedict XVI states that Christian life always demands respect for the beliefs of one’s neighbor. That’s apostasy. He also says that freedom of religion/worship is a fundamental human right. Freedom of religion and worship have been condemned by numerous popes. He then says the Catholic Church strives to promote those (condemned) ideas throughout the whole world. He is a heretic.



Benedict XVI’s April 29, 2011 Message to participants in the Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Social Services. Benedict XVI made a new appeal to all States for the “recognition of the fundamental right to religious freedom”: “As I have observed on various occasions, the roots of the West’s Christian culture remains deep; it was that culture which gave life and space to religious freedom and continues to nourish the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and freedom of worship that many peoples enjoy today. Due in no small part to their systematic denial by atheistic regimes of the 20th century, these freedoms were acknowledged and enshrined by the international community in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Today these basic human rights are again under threat from attitudes and ideologies which would impede free religious expression. Consequently, the challenge to defend and promote the right to freedom of religion and freedom of worship must be taken up once more in our days. For this reason, I am grateful to the Academy for its contribution to this debate… the right to religious freedom should be viewed as innate to the fundamental dignity of every human person, in keeping with the innate openness of the human heart to God. In fact, authentic freedom of religion will permit the human person to attain fulfillment and will thus contribute to the common good of society. Aware of the developments in culture and society, the Second Vatican Council proposed a renewed anthropological foundation to religious freedom… The Council was careful to clarify that this freedom is a right which each enjoys naturally and which therefore ought also to be protected and fostered by civil law… The Holy See continues to appeal for the recognition of the fundamental human right to religious freedom on the part of all states, and calls on them to respect, and if need be protect, religious minorities who, though bound by a different faith from the majority around them, aspire to live with their fellow citizens peacefully and to participate fully in the civil and political life of the nation, to the benefit of all.”5



Benedict XVI praises constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of religion and worship. As we have pointed out before, constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of religion/worship has been condemned numerous times by the Catholic Church. Pope Pius IX declared that those who obstinately maintain that freedom of worship and religion must be guaranteed in the laws of states are excommunicated from the Catholic Church. The heretic Benedict XVI also calls on states to respect and protect adherents of different false religions.



Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra: “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, WHEREBY THEY MAY BE ABLE OPENLY AND PUBLICLY TO MANIFEST AND DECLARE ANY OF THEIR IDEAS WHATEVER, EITHER BY WORD OF MOUTH, BY THE PRESS, OR IN ANY OTHER WAY.’ But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE SONS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.”



Pope Gregory XVI, Inter Praecipuas (# 14), May 8, 1844: “Experience shows that there is no more direct way of alienating the populace from fidelity and obedience to their leaders than through that indifference to religion propagated by the sect members under the name of religious liberty.”



Benedict XVI’s May 12, 2011 Greeting to a delegation of B’nai B’rith International: “Dear Friends, I am pleased to greet this delegation of B’nai B’rith International. I recall with pleasure my earlier meeting with a delegation of your organization some five years ago… That meeting marked the fortieth anniversary of the dialogue, which was jointly organized by the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the International Jewish Committee on International Consultations. What has happened in these forty years must be seen as a great gift from the Lord and a reason for heartfelt gratitude towards the One who guides our steps with his infinite and eternal wisdom. The Paris meeting affirmed the desire of Catholics and Jews to stand together in meeting the immense challenges facing our communities in a rapidly changing world and, significantly, our shared religious duty to combat poverty, injustice, discrimination and the denial of universal human rights. There are many ways in which Jews and Christians can cooperate for the betterment of the world in accordance with the will of the Almighty for the good of mankind… In a recent conversation between delegations of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, held in Jerusalem at the end of March, stress was laid on the need to promote a sound understanding of the role of religion in the life of our present-day societies as a corrective to a purely horizontal, and consequently truncated, vision of the human person and social coexistence. The life and work of all believers should bear constant witness to the transcendent, point to the invisible realities which lie beyond us, and embody the conviction that a loving, compassion Providence guides the final outcome of history, no matter how difficult and threating the journey along the way may sometimes appear. Through the prophet we have this assurance: “For I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope” (Jer 29:11) With these sentiments I invoke upon you and your families the divine blessings of wisdom, mercy and peace.” 6



Benedict XVI regards those who reject that Jesus is the Messiah as his “dear friends.” Benedict XVI says that infinite and eternal wisdom guides the steps of Jews. He says that Jews and Catholics “stand together” and have a “shared religious duty.” He states that Jews and Catholics “cooperate for the betterment of the world in accordance with the will of the Almighty for the good of mankind.” He then tells the Jews about “the need to promote a sound understanding of the role of religion in the life of our present-day societies as a corrective.” This is to say that Judaism and all the other false religions are the solution for society and lead us to God. He then closes off his heretical greeting by saying that Jews are “believers” in the true God, and that God’s promise through Jeremias apply to Jews who reject Christ.



Benedict XVI’s March 25, 2011 Message to young people in Paris: “At the heart of the ‘City of Light’, in front of the magnificent masterpiece of French religious culture which is Notre Dame de Paris, a great court has been created in order to give a fresh impetus to respectful and friendly encounter between people of differing convictions. You young people, believers and non-believers alike, have chosen to come together this evening, as you do in your daily lives, in order to meet one another and to discuss the great questions of human existence. Nowadays many people acknowledge that they do not belong to any religion, yet they long for a new world, a world that is freer, more just and united, more peaceful and happy. In speaking to you tonight, I think of all the things you have to say to each other. Those of you who are non-believers in particular, by demanding of them the witness of a life consistent with the faith they profess and by your rejection of any distortion of religion which would make it unworthy of man… Dear young people, it is up to you, in your countries and in Europe as a whole, to help believers and non-believers to rediscover the path of dialogue. Religions have nothing to fear from a just secularity, one that is open and allows individuals to live in accordance with what they believe according to their conscience. If we are to build a world of liberty, equality and fraternity, then believers and non-believers must feel free to be just that, equal in their right to live as individuals and in community in accordance with their convictions; and fraternal in their relations with one another.”7



Benedict XVI encourages respect for false convictions and religions, and encourages people to believe whatever their conscience desires. Benedict XVI then promotes the motto of the French Revolution – liberty, equality and fraternity.



Previous Heresies of the Week: Benedict XVI's recent heresies file

The Heresies of Benedict XVI file





Sitemap

www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com







1 L’ Osservatore Romano, March 30, 2011, p. 12.

2 L’ Osservatore Romano, April 27, 2011, pp. 3-4.

3 L’ Osservatore Romano, May 25, 2011, p. 2.

4 L’ Osservatore Romano, May 18, 2011, p. 5.

5 L’ Osservatore Romano, May 11, 2011, p. 3.

6 L’ Osservatore Romano, May 18, 2011, p. 11.

7 L’ Osservatore Romano, March 30, 2011, p. 6.

225John5918
Jun 5, 2011, 12:32 am

I'd still be interested in a response to >222 John5918: and related earlier posts.

226John5918
Jun 5, 2011, 8:11 am

Here's a real bit of papal trivia: Vatican City has a railway line. It is a standard gauge spur 860 metres long, officially opened on 2nd October 1934, running from a junction on the Rome-Viterbo line at San Pietro Station, with its own 143 metre long eight-arch viaduct ending up in the pope's private garden through a bridge fitted with two 35 ton sliding iron doors. Apparently it is very rarely used, but there was a steam special in May 2011.

Source: The Railway Magazine, June 2011, p 28, in an article entitled The world's smallest state railway

See also Vatican train station and railway line opens to the public (BBC) for some video and a photo here

227Joansknight
Jun 5, 2011, 9:34 am

>225 John5918:: "The Few", as you call them, made their judgements based upon Church doctrines, the Popes, Church Fathers and the Holy Scriptures. And it helped that their judgements weren't clouded and deluded by Satan.

You never answered my question....why do you think something is to be believed because a large number of people say it is so?

228Joansknight
Jun 5, 2011, 9:36 am

The fort is betrayed even of them that should have defended it.

- St. John Fisher, 16th-century English bishop

229John5918
Jun 5, 2011, 10:28 am

>227 Joansknight: But your answer totally contradicts the teaching of Pope Pius X which you quoted approvingly. Pius X says that these "few" individuals do not have the right to make a judgement on their bishops: to pass judgment upon or to rebuke the acts of Bishops does not at all belong to private individuals. What gives your "few" private individuals the authority to pass judgement on the bishops, based upon the individuals' interpretation of Church doctrines, the Popes, Church Fathers and the Holy Scriptures? What gives the "few" authority to make a judgement that the bishops were clouded and deluded by Satan? Can't you see the contradiction inherent in your position?

I don't think something is necessarily true because a lot of people believe in it, and the Church doesn't teach that. The Church teaches that there is a hierarchy which has authority. Sedevacantists appear to have abandoned that, based on the interpretation of a few individuals.

230Joansknight
Jun 5, 2011, 10:43 am

To those in the Vatican II "church":
"We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshiped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then."

231Joansknight
Jun 5, 2011, 10:47 am

Sacrorum Antistitum
Given by His Holiness St. Pius X

September 1, 1910



To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.

And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated.

Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time.

Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time.

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and Lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclicalPascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas.

I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion.

I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful.

Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.

Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God which I touch with my hand.

May God help us to keep this oath until death. Pray for the Restoration to come.

232Joansknight
Jun 5, 2011, 10:50 am

Read also:

PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X
ON THE DOCTRINES
OF THE MODERNISTS

233Joansknight
Jun 5, 2011, 10:52 am

Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII)- Roncalli called the Second Vatican Council in October 1962. The Second Vatican Council is one of the most damaging events to ever happen in the Roman Catholic Church. It brought about an invalid liturgy and the widespread abuse of false Ecumenism.

When it was announced that Protestant leaders would be invited to the council as observers, the conservative Cardinal Ottaviani was horrified. He said:

"But Your Holiness, Protestants are heretics!"

"Do not say, 'heretics,' my son. Say, 'separated brethren.'"

"They are in league with the devil!"

"Do not say, 'devil,' my son. Say, 'separated angel.'"

234John5918
Jun 5, 2011, 12:19 pm

Joansknight, these quotes do not answer my question. On what authority do a handful of individuals, even including one cardinal and a couple of rather dubious religious brothers, pass judgement on the entire college of bishops of the Catholic Church?

235Joansknight
Jun 5, 2011, 1:14 pm

>234 John5918:: They are NOT the college of bishops of the Catholic Church? They ARE bishops of the Novus Ordo church. You don't get it do you? The only thing "catholic" about the church you follow is its name. The church you belong to is an apostasy.

Do you not believe Satan is at work in the world? Do you not think him capable of deception? Since 1958 there has been so many lies told, and a number of scandals in the church you believe to be "catholic". Is it not possible that this is Satan's work?

You need to read Revelations and Catholic prophecies. Oh, wait, you wont do that though. These are the rantings and judgements of but a few.

I find it very sad that one billion people have put five ordinary men (Novus Ordo "popes") before Christ. Then again, the religion you follow, is the religion of man. You follow the doctrine of man....NOT the doctrines of Christ's Church.

“I am the way and the truth and the life (Jn. 14:6). Without the way there is no going; without the truth there is no knowing; without the life there is no living… I am the way inviolable, the truth infallible, and the life interminable.” (Imitation of Christ, p. 311)

236John5918
Jun 5, 2011, 4:34 pm

>235 Joansknight: They are NOT the college of bishops of the Catholic Church

No, the college of bishops which met at Vatican II had nothing to do with any of your five "anti-popes". Every single one of the bishops present there was appointed by popes whom you consider to be "true" popes. Once again I challenge you on what authority a few private individuals cast judgement on the legitimately ordained bishops of the (pre-Vatican II) Church in direct contravention of Pope Pius X, whom you clearly believe to be someone who should be obeyed.

237Joansknight
Jun 5, 2011, 5:11 pm

Christ's authority....there is no higher.

238John5918
Jun 5, 2011, 5:21 pm

But then how do your few private individuals know that they are in touch with Christ's authority, when they are out of touch with the whole of Christ's Church, and are at odds with the teaching authority of previous popes and councils and indeed the whole tradition of the magisterium? And don't tell me that it is not Christ's Church - all the bishops who took part in Vatican II and who elected John XXIII were part of the "old" Church.

239Joansknight
Jun 5, 2011, 6:50 pm

They didn't elect John XXIII....they elected Cardinal Siri. The pre-Vatican II bishops were fooled and deceived just like you. You are human aren't you? So were they and they had free choice....just like you.

Tell me John, who had John Paul I killed and why did the Novus Ordo church cover it up? Tell me why the church you believe in is so notorious for covering things up.

240John5918
Edited: Jun 6, 2011, 2:22 am

>239 Joansknight: Clearly they didn't elect Cardinal Siri otherwise he would have been pope. They elected John XXIII. The same bishops (virtually all of them bishops of the "old" Church) then participated in a Vatican Council and agreed on all sort of things. Were they all fooled and deceived during several years of meeting together? You obviously have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the bishops of the "old" pre-Vatican II Church, and yet you claim to be a supporter of that Church.

Edited to add:

Was John Paul I killed? Conspiracy theories sell books, I suppose. Why does it concern you, since you believe he was an anti-pope? Popular opinion suggests that he was going to be a reforming pope, so people on your wing of the Church had more incentive to dislike him than mine. Does Sedevacantism also have Jesuit assassins? In his stead we were saddled with a pope who, while he wrote well on social issues and was good at popularism, was very reactionary on centralised authority and sexual morality.

Cover ups are not the sole preserve of the modern Church; indeed currently the Church is making great strides in reducing opportunities for covering up. The Church has always been secretive, long before Vatican II and your five "anti-popes".

241Joansknight
Jun 6, 2011, 6:46 am

You made me smile John....thank you.

They did elect Cardinal Siri. Witnesses testified to it and so did Italian newspapers.

I guess it is far easier for people to believe what they want to believe....not what they should believe, like the Truth

242John5918
Jun 6, 2011, 7:25 am

>241 Joansknight: They didn't elect Cardinal Siri otherwise he would have been pope. Rather more witnesses (eg the majority of the cardinals) testified to that. If they hadn't done, John XXIII wouldn't have been pope. But I'm glad to hear that Italian newspapers are now the standard of truth in the world.

243MyopicBookworm
Jun 7, 2011, 12:12 am

>224 Joansknight: Scripture does not say that those who do not accept Christ cannot worship the same God. The God of Jesus (he said) is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) who knew nothing of the Trinity).

>241 Joansknight: Even if the Conclave that elected John XXIII was pressured by some supposed external influence, that hardly negated the appointment: such things were commmon in medieval times when some Catholic kings effectively promoted or vetoed candidates.

244Joansknight
Jun 7, 2011, 8:13 am

>243 MyopicBookworm:: No monarch had any influence on the conclave in 1958. It was the work of Satan.

Christ also said "you are either for me or against me". I don't think Jews or Muslims are for Christ. Besides, Christ is the NEW covenant that replaces the old. Do you reject the Blessed Trinity too?

Catholic Church dogma states: "outside the Catholic Church there is NO salvation". The Novus Ordo church even threw that out. That is total heresy.

245John5918
Jun 7, 2011, 8:27 am

>244 Joansknight: Actually the Church struggled with the issue, and invented Limbo as one way of dealing with the righteous who lived before Christianity or who had never come across Christianity, and for unbaptised babies (although I believe Limbo never actually became doctrine). It also recognised "baptism of desire" (ie those who never had the chance to join the Church but might have wanted to) and "baptism by blood" (ie unbaptised martyrs). Church doctrine is not simple sound-bites - it is a complex body of 2,000 years of teaching which is always subject to interpretation.

246Joansknight
Jun 7, 2011, 7:22 pm

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”

247campusdan
Jun 8, 2011, 4:48 am

>215 Joansknight:...Judasknight thank you for further making my point with this quote from Pius X...

Your quote from >215 Joansknight: with some of my own commentary:

But their profession of fidelity to the Vicar of Christ is vain in those who, in fact, do not cease to violate the authority of their Bishops. For "by far the most august part of

THE CHURCH CONSISTS OF THE BISHOPS (The Bishop of Rome is included in this by the way), (Did you get this part? Or No? How come you continue to say that YOUR "church" is only lay people?...That is because YOUR "church" is a schismatic "church")

(as Our Predecessor Leo XIII of holy memory wrote in his letter of December 17, 1888, to the Archbishop), inasmuch as this part by divine right teaches and rules men; hence,

WHOEVER RESISTS THEM (i.e. The Bishops) OR PERTINACIOUSLY REFUSES OBEDIENCE TO THEM PUTS HIMSELF APART FROM THE CHURCH

...On the other hand,

TO PASS JUDGMENT upon or to rebuke the acts of Bishops DOES NOT AT ALL BELONG TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS

- that comes within the province only of those higher than they in authority and especially of the Sovereign Pontiff, for to him Christ entrusted the charge of feeding not only His lambs, but His sheep throughout the world. At most, it is allowed in matters of grave complaint to refer the whole case to the Roman Pontiff, and this with prudence and moderation as zeal for the common good requires, not clamorously or abusively, for in this way dissensions and hostilities are bred, or certainly increased."

(By the way did you get this last part which is kind of a big deal that if you DO have problems with bishops or the Church in general you must defer to the ROMAN PONTIFF.)

- Pope Saint Pius X (1903-1914), Encyclical Letter "Tribus Circiter," April 5, 1906

This is a great quote and perfectly furthers my argument that you are a schismatic, yourself and MHFM are outside the Church.

248campusdan
Jun 8, 2011, 5:21 am

>237 Joansknight:...WOW! how Martin Luther of you Judasknight...Sola Christo in opposition to His (Christ's) own words in Matthew 16. And you say that "we" are the Protestants...are you even capable of any self reflection on your constant contradictions?...btw John great points here in your comments.

249campusdan
Edited: Jun 9, 2011, 1:27 am

>241 Joansknight:...Oh Judasknight you made me smile...if you think that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope and then the true Church was hijacked by a heretic Pope and got all the rest of the bishops to go along with it...Then YOU ARE CALLING JESUS CHRIST A LIAR SIR!

What about Matthew 16?...The Gates of Hell SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT!...This means that no matter what Satan does he CANNOT take over the Church of Christ!...Hello McFly??

You are saying that Satan DID prevail against the Church...what are you Mormon just at a later date? The Mormons believe in a great apostasy that happened around the 4th century, but yet there is no documentation for it anywhere, except in books they publish...hmmmm sounding a little familiar to you washed brain?

Wake Up and Smell the Schism

250campusdan
Jun 8, 2011, 5:38 am

>246 Joansknight:...So tell me Judasknight where does it say that those outside the Church have to be full MEMBERS of the Church to be saved? Or does all the Papal texts just state that outside the Church there is no salvation and then you misinterpret that too wanting it to mean what your immature theological mind wants it to mean?...I will pick up on this argument at a later time, after I feel that there are plausible responses to my other posts.

251Joansknight
Jun 8, 2011, 9:48 am

St. Alphonsus (c. 1760): “Worldlings are blind to the things of God; they do not comprehend the happiness of eternal glory, in comparison with which the pleasures of this world are but wretchedness and misery. If they had just notions, and a lively sense of the glory of paradise, they would assuredly abandon their possessions, even kings would abdicate their crowns – and, quitting the world… they would retire into the cloister to secure their eternal salvation.”

252Joansknight
Jun 8, 2011, 9:48 am

Let us unite in mind and heart, launching a counterattack on evil, that truth may at length triumph over error and virtue over vice, and this, through confident recourse to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and continual use of her heavenly weapons, the Holy Rosary and Brown Scapular. Victorious over Satan in the very first instant of Her Immaculate Conception, may she show forth her power over wicked movements which We clearly see to be animated with the spirit of revolt, and with the incorrigible perfidy and hypocrisy of Satan and his fellow demons. Let us implore the help of Saint Michael, Prince of the Heavenly Host, who hurled those rebels down to hell, and of St. Joseph the Spouse of the Most Holy Virgin and Patron of the Catholic Chruch. Under their protection and the persevering prayer of the faithful, may God mercifully come to the help of the human race, exposed to so many dangers.

- Pope Leo XIII (1884)

253John5918
Jun 8, 2011, 10:04 am

Joansknight, I think some of us would like to feel that we are having a conversation with you, rather than just being peppered with quotes. It would be nice if occasionally you could reply in your own words and try to explain things to us and answer our questions. The quotes are actually fairly irrelevant as they are part of the Church tradition which Tim, campusdan, myself and other Catholics accept anyway; we (and the rest of the Church, in communion with the bishops and popes) simply interpret them rather differently than your small group of individuals.

254campusdan
Jun 9, 2011, 1:25 am

>253 John5918:...Thank You John...very good point, I would also add peppered with insults too...Jknight it would be nice to hear your own thoughts on these issues. Instead of just copying and pasting docs from MHFM's website and the other one you like. Also I believe "we" were accused of not thinking for ourselves at some point in your (Jknight) rants, it would be nice for you to demonstrate that YOU are capable of thinking for yourself.

255cjbanning
Edited: Jun 9, 2011, 10:15 am

>244 Joansknight:

The Church of Rome continues to teach, as it has always taught, that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is Christ's Body. The Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation and is present to us in Christ's body which is the Church. After all, Christ explicitly asserted the necessity of pistis, faithfulness, and of Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which human beings enter through Baptism as through a door.

Heck, I'm an Anglican and even I believe that outside the Church there is no salvation.

>251 Joansknight:

What in the world is a a "worldling"?

256Joansknight
Jun 9, 2011, 12:22 pm

>255 cjbanning:: Heck, I'm an Anglican and even I believe that outside the Church there is no salvation.

Heresy!

257Joansknight
Jun 9, 2011, 4:49 pm

Pope Pius VIII (1829): “Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Traditi Humilitati # 4)

258John5918
Jun 10, 2011, 12:59 am

>257 Joansknight: Any response to my >253 John5918:?

259Joansknight
Jun 10, 2011, 7:35 am

>258 John5918:: You let Vatican II interpret them for you John. The Novus Ordo church is the one who incorrectly interprets Church doctrine. Besides, I didn't realize that Church doctrine was up for interpretation. The Novus Ordo church intertwines Church doctrines with their own to give the appearance of validity. Its deceptions and lies have worked quite well for them.

260John5918
Jun 10, 2011, 7:52 am

>259 Joansknight: But you still don't answer the basic questions which I have posed on this and the other thread. What makes your small group of individuals right and the bishops and popes of the Church, ie the official teaching authority of the Church, wrong? Don't just say because popes from John XXIII are anti-popes. On what authority do you declare them ant-popes when the cardinals of the world declared John XXIII to be pope? Even if it was a controversial election, nevertheless the cardinals came out with a pope on which the majority agreed. And why won't you accept Vatican II's authority? A Vatican Council is the most authoritative manifestation of the Church's teaching authority. The vast majority of the bishops who participated were from the "old" pre-1958 Church; they were not appointees of John XXIII. So why do you doubt their authority?

I'm repeating questions which have been asked again and again, and I suppose I don't really expect an answer, but I'll keep trying.

I didn't realize that Church doctrine was up for interpretation

Of course it's up for interpretation. Always has been and always will be. That's what popes, bishops and ecumenical councils do. Apart from anything else, doctrine has to be interpreted in order to answer questions which were not asked when it was formulated.

261Joansknight
Jun 10, 2011, 8:24 am

Of course it's up for interpretation.

So you are saying that people can decide for themselves if Christ is present in the Eucharist or not? If Mary was a virgin or not? If Christ is the son of God or not?

Catholic doctrine is straight forward: "Outside the Catholic Church there is NO salvation". You can not interpret that any other way. It is heresy to do so.

262John5918
Edited: Jun 10, 2011, 8:58 am

>261 Joansknight: No, that's what you are doing. You are deciding for yourself whether the Church is the Church, whether a pope is a pope, whether Vatican Councils are valid or not, etc. What I'm saying is that the Church decides things, and that is done primarily through the pope and bishops, an authority which you have decided for yourself not to accept. Can't you see the contradiction?

263John5918
Jun 27, 2011, 11:11 am

Vatican trivia rather than strictly papal, but a steam train ran into the Vatican on 21st May - see http://www.friendsoftherail.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=8391 for a few details, photo and video.

But what has just caught my eye was the headline in the (UK) Railway Magazine for July 2011 - White smoke from the Vatican! I immediately thought of Joansknight and the 1958 conclave...

264MyopicBookworm
Jun 27, 2011, 12:13 pm

:-)

265Joansknight
Jun 29, 2011, 7:20 am

I am thankful someone is thinking of me.

266John5918
Jun 29, 2011, 3:52 pm

267Joansknight
Jul 1, 2011, 6:37 pm

Anti-Pope Benedict sends first tweet (BBC)

268MyopicBookworm
Jul 2, 2011, 9:04 am

Surely an antipope can only be declared as such by a church council. Are you a church council?

269timspalding
Jul 2, 2011, 9:43 am

>267 Joansknight:

He's really the pope, but his tweet was an anti-tweet. The account doesn't follow a single person! :)

270timspalding
Jul 2, 2011, 9:48 am

I've just done some Twitter searching and can't find a SINGLE living anti-pope currently tweeting, not Pope Michael, Pope Linus II, Pope Pius XIII, Pope Leo XIV or Pope Alexander IX! You'd think that, when your papacy consisted of a half-dozen laymen's good opinion you'd be on Twitter like crazy.

271John5918
Jul 2, 2011, 11:54 am

>268 MyopicBookworm: Another shock headline: "Schismatic ex-Catholic convenes Church Council and declares last five popes to be anti-popes". You first heard it on LibraryThing...

272timspalding
Jul 2, 2011, 11:55 am

I wonder if cardinals have a group on Facebook.

273John5918
Jul 2, 2011, 12:03 pm

>272 timspalding: The Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference is on both Facebook and Twitter (so I'm told by their Communications Officer - I don't understand either so I haven't been able to check). I can say with confidence that the Sudan Catholic Bishops' Conference isn't.

And now back to genuine papal/Vatican trivia:

Vatican budget emerges from the red (BBC)

274lilithcat
Jul 2, 2011, 12:33 pm

> 272

I don't know about a group, but Francis Cardinal George is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/FrancisCardinalGeorgeOMI The Archdiocese is as well (http://www.facebook.com/archchicago). They're also on Twitter and YouTube.

275timspalding
Jul 2, 2011, 1:09 pm

I wonder if any of them actually tweet themselves. Then again, the Congressman famous for actually Twittering himself—rather than having staff do it—was, um, Anthony Weiner.

276John5918
Aug 22, 2011, 12:57 am

Storm cuts short pope's speech in Spain (Guardian)

Rain and lightning forces pope to skip bulk of speech to 1 million young pilgrims and disrupts Sunday's mass

Divine intervention?!

277John5918
Edited: Sep 26, 2011, 12:52 pm

A Papal Homecoming to a Combative Germany (NYT)

The Pope's Difficult Visit to His Homeland (Der Spiegel)

'A Putinization of the Catholic Church' (Der Spiegel - Theologian Hans Küng on Pope Benedict)

Küng: I didn't request an audience. I am fundamentally more interested in conversations than audiences...

Ratzinger's predecessor, John Paul II, launched a program of ecclesiastical and political restoration, which went against the intentions of the Second Vatican Council. He wanted a re-Christianization of Europe. And Ratzinger was his most loyal assistant, even at an early juncture. One could call it a period of restoration of the pre-council Roman regime...

In my view, the Catholic Church as a community of faith will be preserved, but only if it abandons the Roman system of rule. We managed to get by without this absolutist system for 1,000 years. The problems began in the 11th century, when the popes asserted their claim to absolute control over the Church, by applying a form of clericalism that deprived the laity of all power. The celibacy rule also stems from that era...

It's true that this absolutism is an essential element of the Roman system. But it was never an essential element of the Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council did everything to move away from it, but unfortunately it wasn't thorough enough. No one dared to criticize the pope directly, but there was an emphasis on the pope's collegial relationship with the bishops, which was designed to integrate him into the community again...

The shamelessness with which the Vatican's policy has simply hushed up and neglected the concept of collegiality since then is beyond compare. An unparalleled personality cult prevails once again today, which contradicts everything written in the New Testament.

278Joansknight
Nov 3, 2011, 11:26 am

>276 John5918:: Divine intervention I am sure....God was trying to tell the anti-pope something! Too bad his point doesn't get across! Oh, wait....the members of the counterfeit Church think the "pope" is God and his will is to be done! How stupid of me!

279Joansknight
Nov 3, 2011, 11:28 am

I see you like to post quotes too John....at least the quotes I post aren't heretical!

280Joansknight
Nov 3, 2011, 11:29 am

We found subtle ways of changing the words and dignifying these changes with decent, hopeful, positive expressions,

It was a revolution ... we were literally changing the faith of the Catholic Church because we were changing the way it prays.

Never in the history of the Catholic Church has there been such a revolutionary change in the Mass (and the rest of the Liturgy) as has occurred since the 1960s. Has it been a harmful revolution? Indeed it has! Millions of Catholics have stopped practising their faith in this period, tens of thousands of priests have quit the priesthood, religious orders are dying, and whole new currents of heretical opinion are flowing through the surviving Church.

- Fr. Stephen Somerville, a member of the original ICEL commission that created the English New Order Mass in the 1960's

281MyopicBookworm
Nov 3, 2011, 8:11 pm

Never in the history of the Catholic Church has there been such a revolutionary change in the Mass (and the rest of the Liturgy) as has occurred since the 1960s.

Rubbish! The Tridentine reforms rode roughshod over centuries of Catholic liturgy.

282timspalding
Nov 3, 2011, 11:41 pm

It's a little rich to blame everything on changes in the liturgy, and richer still from someone in a heretical and schismatic sect.

283John5918
Nov 4, 2011, 1:53 am

>280 Joansknight: There's no evidence that changes to the liturgy were a significant cause of any of these dynamics, whose seeds were sown long beforehand. Vatican II was a response to changes already taking place in Church and world.

I suspect that few of the millions of Catholics who have left are even aware that the liturgy changed - forty years ago is too long for most to remember. They left for a host of reasons. Most of the priests I know personally who have left the institutional priesthood, far from doing so because of changes to the liturgy or any other aspect of Church life, have done so because they felt that the deep reforms of Vatican II were not being implemented. Religious orders dying? Yes, some are. Others are thriving - Mother Theresa's sisters, for example - and in the growth of lay ministries God is giving us a gift to replace them. Heretical opinions? Yes, Sedevacantists, Lefebvrists, and a lot of self-labelled "traditionalists" who appear to think that "tradition" only started about 400 years ago.

>281 MyopicBookworm: Indeed. A mistake commonly made by people who decry Vatican II is that the Church was somehow static and unchanging for the previous millennium or two.

284timspalding
Edited: Nov 4, 2011, 2:45 am

>283 John5918:

We should, perhaps, start a thread about the basic topic: Why has Catholic adherence and/or practice declined in the US?

My feeling is this. Religion, at least religion in the US, has tended to prosper better recently when it's high tension--when it calls for a high level of commitment and identification. Mainline Protestantism is in a deep swoon for this reason—it just doesn't demand much of people in the way of commitment or identification. Evangelicals do.

My feeling is that the principle problem with Vatican II was that, in a variety of ways, it reduced Catholic "tension"—in "opening up" the church it also reduced somewhat the feeling of an institution under fire and separate from the world and, in America especially, from other Christians.

This effect was much magnified by larger trends largely apart from Vatican II, namely that Protestant America stopped hating and fearing us so much(1), and Catholics became richer and less ethnically grounded. "Total Catholic Culture" was no longer necessary to protect Catholics, and ethnic, neighborhood and class ties were weakening. And nothing was there to replace this.

I'm by no means in favor of "going back." (Though I wouldn't mind better music.) But the church will continue to shrink so long as it doesn't give people something both substantial and demanding. That doesn't need to be "conservative," and I despair that it will be brainless and rooted in anger, not love, but it must take the Christian message seriously as a call to action, personal and social, and the Catholic church as offering something consequent and nonsubstitutable to people's lives and the world.


1. To give you an example, as recently as 1923, the KKK held a rally in my city, Portland, Maine(!) to end the mayoralty and "rid the city government of Jews and Catholics." They succeeded!

285John5918
Nov 4, 2011, 4:00 am

>284 timspalding: Tim, I agree with much of that - and especially about the music! There was nothing wrong with a lot of the pre-Vatican II music, in Latin or in English - the Anglicans still make very good use of it, and it's a pity that English-speaking Catholics don't share more of the Anglican musical tradition. There is some good post-Vatican II music out there. I was a choirmaster in the late '70s and early '80s and some really good stuff was being written then, but very little of it filtered down into normal Catholic life. Instead we generally got poor quality camp fire songs, often with trite lyrics. Taize was an exception to the rule.

I can also agree that most institutions, Church included, thrive under pressure. Look at the Church in Communist Poland, for example - or the Church under war and Islamism in Sudan. In the UK Catholics were discriminated against legally, and often treated as outsiders - my dad, a protestant who ended up marrying a left-footer (1), remembers throwing stones at the Catholic boys in his childhood (he was born in 1913). Additionally most working class (as opposed to aristocratic) Catholics were Irish, or of Irish extraction, or perceived to be of Irish extraction, which brought its own political, cultural and emotional tensions. The Catholic identity served a defensive purpose in a siege mentality.

But the church will continue to shrink so long as it doesn't give people something both substantial and demanding

There again I agree, but I would say that Vatican II, if properly understood and implemented, did in fact give us something substantial and demanding, certainly not going back to the defensive siege mentality but rather a challenge to be active Christians in the Church and the world.

_______________________________________________________
1. One of the slang names for Catholics in the UK, particularly the north.

286cjbanning
Nov 4, 2011, 1:14 pm

>284 timspalding:, 285

I can't agree with both of you more (although I actually liked the music sung at my RCC high school and in the RCC community at my undergrad, and probably prefer it to the Anglican stuff I'm used to now, which always seems a little too--not somber, exactly, but off, somehow). And it's basically the thesis of Kenda Dean's book Almost Christian, too.

287timspalding
Edited: Nov 4, 2011, 2:08 pm

>285 John5918:

There's nothing wrong with guitar-strumming Protestant music either, per se, but Catholics currently too often have the worst of both worlds—a Protestant approach, but applied without taste and with parishioners who don't want to sing. I have no particular love for singing the mass in Latin on normal occasions. They do a fair amount of high-toned high-church music in Cambridge, MA and it's boring and does not, at least for me, do anything to pass the content through my head. If I had my way I'd just import a whole bunch of straight-up English hymns.

There again I agree, but I would say that Vatican II, if properly understood and implemented, did in fact give us something substantial and demanding, certainly not going back to the defensive siege mentality but rather a challenge to be active Christians in the Church and the world.

And just being Christians. Having people recite stuff in dead languages, having priests face away, maintaining a certain suspicion of private Bible reading, and so forth, distanced people from core elements of what being a Christian is all about—and that's demanding.

2882wonderY
Nov 4, 2011, 4:00 pm

I think it was Peggy Noonan who recently challenged American bishops to shed the trappings of wealth - the mansions and cars and retinues - which helped to define the glory of the Church in past centuries, but only appear as distancing and priviledged mis-uses of Church wealth now. She suggested they find housing in the same neighborhood as their housekeeper, for example, and use mass transportation.

All she got was blank looks. It might make their jobs harder to perform, but how inspirational would that ultimately be? I know my commitment would re-double, and might make those who have left take another look.

289MyopicBookworm
Nov 4, 2011, 8:02 pm

Having people recite stuff in dead languages, having priests face away

I was invited to a Latin mass a couple of years ago. (Mainstream, not schismatic, so modern Latin rite, and just a low mass.) It greatly increased my sympathy for the Reformation. It was like watching someone in fancy dress trying to tie fishing flies without letting anyone guess what he was doing, while murmuring imprecations under his breath. I know some Latin, so I'd have been happier if he had actually recited stuff in dead languages, but most of it was mumbled quite inaudibly while we admired the back of his chasuble. I got more out of an Armenian service in which I understood only two words (Amen and Alleluia).

290Joansknight
Nov 5, 2011, 6:59 am

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5), June 29, 1896: “It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off – a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic – the life of the Spirit follows not the amputated member.”

291MMcM
Nov 5, 2011, 8:00 am

Quoting Augustine, of course.

AFAIK, Anglicans didn't buy Papal authority as vetus et constans omnium saeculorum asserta fides and so perceived the whole thing as rather circular.

292timspalding
Edited: Nov 5, 2011, 9:56 pm

Mainstream, not schismatic, so modern Latin rite, and just a low mass

The key question is whether it was Novus Ordo or Tridentine. Presumably, since the priest faced away, and you didn't have much to say, it was Tridentine. The Novus Ordo mass is in Latin, but is otherwise the same as the vernacular mass said in English, French, etc. In particular, the congregation participates a good deal more.

I've been to a Novus Ordo Latin mass and still found it quite distancing—in particular, being one of the only people actually taking in what was being said! If I'm not mistaken, though, the only time anyone does the Novus Ordo mass in Latin now is at the Vatican itself, in mixed company. Elsewhere the Novus Ordo in Latin was what Latin-mass enthusiasts did when prohibited by their bishop from forming their own splinter congregations. Now that any priest can now bypass and overrule his bishop—Benedict's decision—I believe they all celebrate the Tridentine rite.

I have a certain sympathy with long-running liturgical celebrations—whether it's pre-Vatican II, the Armenian, the Greek, etc. It has the virtue of antiquity anyway. But the church gathered together in an ecumenical council and made its decision. More deeply, it's certainly strange that the very unselfconsciously street language of the mass in Greek and Latin has now become a cause for someone to trumpet the utterly anti-popular phenomenon of saying the mass in languages the street can't understand, or really anyone anymore. So too, the Bible and the mass led to an unprecedented explosion of scripts for previously unwritten or very obscurely-written languages—Armenian, Georgian, Coptic, Amharic, Gothic, etc. It just turns history on its ear.

293MyopicBookworm
Edited: Nov 6, 2011, 2:08 pm

Yes, I think it was Tridentine.

it's certainly strange that the very unselfconsciously street language of the mass in Greek and Latin has now become a cause for someone to trumpet the utterly anti-popular phenomenon of saying the mass in languages the street can't understand, or really anyone anymore

"It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have publick Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people."
(Articles of Religion No. XXIV, London Convocation of the Church of England, 1562).

294timspalding
Nov 6, 2011, 7:13 pm

>293 MyopicBookworm:

"Plainly repugnant" would, however, mean that Hebrew shouldn't have been used in synagogues in Jesus' time, which it clearly was. The common language of the day was Aramaic, which differed enough from the Hebrew that Aramaic translation (targums) were written and read aloud alongside the Hebrew. So I'd prefer a language that talks of better and worse and goals worthy of striving toward that straight-up condemnation.

295MyopicBookworm
Nov 6, 2011, 7:34 pm

Non sequitur. The writers of the Articles of Religion include the New Testament in the Word of God, which synagogues did and do not.

296timspalding
Nov 6, 2011, 7:51 pm

Non sequitur? The writers of the Article of Religion clearly understood the Old Testament to be the word of God too. Surely it matters that Jesus himself attended synagogues where these texts were read out in a language that wasn't that of the street! Now, Hebrew wasn't as dead as as foreign as Latin was in 16th century England, but the situation is hardly a non-sequitur!

297MyopicBookworm
Nov 6, 2011, 9:15 pm

They understood the Old Testament to be part of the Word of God, which must be interpreted in the light of the New Testament. Protestant Christianity looked to the primitive (mainly Hellenistic) Church, not to proto-rabbinical Judaism, for its sources, and did not lay any store by the customs of the synagogue, whether or not Jesus himself adhered to them. The cultural link between the Jewish faith and the original Hebrew text of their Scriptures was surely much more specific than anything which developed in Christianity -- though perhaps not so great as the Muslim insistence on the original Arabic of the Quran, or the value placed on the original text by Sikhs, given the creation of the Greek Septuagint, of which the Reformers no doubt approved in principle. Christians sat so lightly to the original text of their scriptures and liturgies that they readily translated them into barbarous languages such as Armenian, Coptic, and Latin.

298timspalding
Nov 6, 2011, 9:25 pm

I'm in basic agreement, but a Christian cannot condemn outright the use of liturgical languages, when Jesus himself had one, and—although critical of much Jewish religious practice at the time—didn't criticize them.

299MyopicBookworm
Nov 6, 2011, 9:40 pm

Hmmm.

A Christian cannot condemn outright the use of kosher food laws, when Jesus himself kept them, and—although critical of much Jewish religious practice at the time—didn't criticize them.

(OK, so he criticized them implicitly in Matthew 15:11.)

I remain to be convinced that Hebrew was as alien to most Aramaic speakers of Palestine as Latin was to most English speakers of Cranmer's day.

(Also I am aware that English as a liturgical language was, at least in some cases, imposed on non-English-speaking populations, though as a result of political rather than religious conviction.)

300timspalding
Nov 6, 2011, 11:04 pm

An interesting point, if something of a swerve.

However, the question of the Law and of dietary rules in general is a major theme of New Testament literature, from the passage in Matthew you cite through Peter's dream in Acts and Paul's description of dietary and other rules as "shadows," when the reality of Christ has come. No similar series of doctrinal steps applies here. We're rather in the category of condemning things that Jesus was unequivocally part of or at least didn't fight against. This is a hard boat to row, I think. Your argument might start with the assumption that it didn't need to be argued in NT literature because NT literature was almost exclusively Greek in context.

On Hebrew and Aramaic, I can't speak with authority. My strong sense is that they are far, far closer than that. Indirect evidence, like the reading of Hebrew multiple times, followed by reading a targum, goes to that. But fundamentally it's a question of Hebrew and Aramaic linguistics best answered by someone who knows both languages.

301Joansknight
Nov 7, 2011, 5:50 am

The danger is not confined to one Church.... This evil of heresy spreads itself. The doctrines of Godliness are overturned; the rules of the Church are in confusion; the ambition of the unprincipled seizes upon places of authority; and the chief seat is now openly proposed as a reward for impiety; so that he whose blasphemies are the more shocking, is more eligible for the oversight of the people. Priestly gravity has perished; there are none left to feed the Lord's flock with knowledge; ambitious men are ever spending, in purposes of self-indulgence and bribery, possessions which they hold in trust for the poor. The accurate observation of the canons are no more; there is no restraint upon sin. Unbelievers laugh at what they see, and the weak are unsettled; faith is doubtful, ignorance is poured over their souls, because the adulterators of the word in wickedness imitate the truth. Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship, as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven.

- St. Basil the Great (ca. 330-ca. 379), Epistlae 92 (in ca. 372)

303timspalding
Nov 7, 2011, 10:29 am

Could be a verse from an Arian "America the Beautiful."

304John5918
Nov 8, 2011, 3:06 am

>280 Joansknight: onwards, re priests leaving the institutional priesthood:

In February 2011, Cardinal Ivan Dias, the Prefect for the Evangelisation of Peoples in Rome, placed more discretionary power in the hands of bishops for discerning a dispensed cleric’s involvement with parish life. It is not immediately clear whether the policies apply only to mission territories under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for Evangelization or to the entire Church. This letter was cited in the UK Catholic Herald and the Catholic Information Service for Africa, but I don't have links. Some African countries, including Sudan, South Sudan and South Africa, already had a fairly relaxed and pragmatic attitude to making use of the talents of former priests and religious.

305timspalding
Nov 8, 2011, 8:47 am

What does that mean exactly? Does it affect you?

306John5918
Nov 8, 2011, 8:59 am

Not really, as I work for bishops' conferences that are already pretty relaxed about it all. But hopefully it will encourage other bishops' conferences to make better use of the resources available to them.

307timspalding
Nov 8, 2011, 9:40 am

So, were/are there general rules about not employing ex-priests in church work?

308John5918
Nov 8, 2011, 3:07 pm

>307 timspalding: I don't know whether there were rules (as in Canon Law) or whether it was just one of those things that happen.

309Joansknight
Nov 10, 2011, 10:23 am

Pope St. Pius X (1907): "Indeed Modernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true." (Pascendi Dominici Gregis # 14)

310MyopicBookworm
Nov 10, 2011, 1:28 pm

Pius X doesn't seem to have been much of an expert either on other religions or on what "Modernists" actually thought.

311timspalding
Nov 10, 2011, 2:45 pm

Indeed, his "syllabus of errors" reads like some internet screed, condemning views he's invented in order to condemn. One knows he's against all sort of modern ideas—democracy, the separation of church and state, biblical criticism, giving up the papal states, etc.—but much of what he condemns, nobody believed.

312John5918
Edited: Nov 17, 2011, 4:17 am

Benetton pulls pope-imam kiss ad after Vatican protests (BBC)

Italian clothing company Benetton has pulled an ad showing Pope Benedict XVI kissing a senior Egyptian imam after the Vatican launched a strong protest.

Benetton pulls ad featuring doctored photo of pope kissing imam (CNN)

313Joansknight
Nov 17, 2011, 4:14 pm

Pope St. Pius X (1910): “I reject the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, passing from one meaning to another, different from that which the Church first had.” (The Oath Against Modernism)

314John5918
Nov 18, 2011, 6:08 am

Pope Benedict XVI travels to Benin, 'home of voodoo' (BBC)

Pope Benedict XVI is travelling to Benin, widely seen as the home of voodoo, on his second visit to Africa which has the world's fastest-growing Roman Catholic population.

315Joansknight
Nov 19, 2011, 3:38 pm

John I suppose you can't see the heresy in that either!

Pope Leo XIII (1900): "But this supremacy of man, which openly rejects Christ, or at least ignores Him, is entirely founded upon selfishness, knowing neither charity nor self-devotion." (Tametsi Futura #7)

316timspalding
Nov 19, 2011, 5:00 pm

The heresy in going to Benin? I love that you assume he did something heretical without even reading the article.

317John5918
Nov 20, 2011, 12:35 am

>315 Joansknight: Seems to me that the Pope is encouraging Catholics in the continent which has the world's fastest-growing Catholic population. In one of your earlier posts, Joansknight, you bemoan the fact that the number of Catholics has dropped in some countries, so I'm surprised that you aren't ecstatic to hear that the number of Catholics is increasing dramatically in other countries.

318timspalding
Nov 20, 2011, 12:50 am

I believe he's afraid the pope is going to meet with masonic protestant jew-voodooers there.

319MyopicBookworm
Nov 20, 2011, 8:04 pm

I think the Pope said something to the effect that there might occasionally be something worth valuing in cultural traditions that are not explicitly Roman Catholic in inspiration or expression.

I guess this is heresy if you think Vatican II is heretical. But then so are the instructions of Pope Gregory I the Great to Augustine (AD 600 or so) to be culturally sensitive in his mission to the Anglo-Saxons. Later Catholic missionary tradition did not always follow his lead.

So Gregory I was an Antipope too. Wow!

320John5918
Nov 21, 2011, 12:06 am

That would also make Paul a heretic in Acts 17:22-28

321timspalding
Nov 21, 2011, 12:10 am

They were all heretics. Peter had a wife. Paul spoke of female apostles. Not a single one of them said mass in Latin.

322Joansknight
Dec 2, 2011, 6:41 am

Pope Leo XIII (1895): “… it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced.” (Longinqua #6)

323timspalding
Dec 2, 2011, 6:58 am

Ah, the heresy of Americanism!

324John5918
Edited: Dec 2, 2011, 7:36 am

>322 Joansknight:, 323 Well, it's nice to know that Leo XIII and I are in total agreement on the first part of that statement, as evidenced by my frequent attempts to introduce other "types" of the Church to LT conversations which are often dominated by north Americans!

325timspalding
Dec 2, 2011, 10:20 am

>324 John5918:

Yes, although I think Joansknight would prefer Franco's Spain over Africa :)

326John5918
Dec 2, 2011, 10:27 am

>325 timspalding: The word came from Maynooth, "support the Nazis"
The men of cloth failed again
When the Bishops blessed the Blueshirts in Dun Laoghaire
As they sailed beneath the swastika to Spain.


From Christy Moore's song about the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War, Viva la Quinta Brigada.

327rolandperkins
Dec 2, 2011, 1:13 pm

" ʻ(Irish) support (for) the Nazisʻ " (325-326)

Sean OCasey wrote somewhere that the Irish ( 1st half of the 20th Century) always hesitated to support a strong alliance with Germany, though Germany was ostensibly a potential ally against British rule in Ireland. This, he said, was because the Irish realized that, by an alliance with Germany, they would only be exchanging one master for another. Ironically, (the dramatist added), they might as well have made the alliance --because after World War II, Bonn
(the new West German government) and its economy began (economically) to dominate Ireland as much as London ever had.
Another literary connection is that Nobel Prize laureate Heinrich Boll was very interested in Ireland and wrote a short book on the topic. (Boll was at the time also a member of Irelandʻs majority religion, the Roman Catholic, but he later made a formal resignation from the denomination. OʻCasey, though unreligious, was,on the other hand, born into Irelandʻs small Protestant community.)

329Joansknight
Jan 9, 2012, 8:56 am

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”

330cjbanning
Jan 9, 2012, 9:31 am

>328 John5918:

Using Wikipedia " to compile cardinals' biographies" isn't particularly surprising in and of itself, of course. The fact that they failed to edit (or perhaps even read?) the biographies at all, however, is incredibly amusing. Although it probably made for more honest reporting at the end of the day.

331John5918
Jan 11, 2012, 7:11 am

Pope greets South Sudan

"I wish to greet South Sudan, which last July became a sovereign State. I am happy that this was achieved peacefully. Sadly, tensions and clashes have ensued in recent months, and I express my hope that all may unite their efforts to enable the people of Sudan and South Sudan to experience at last a period of peace, freedom and development".

332Joansknight
Jan 12, 2012, 11:44 am

To use the words of the fathers of the Council of Trent, it is certain that the Church "was instructed by Jesus Christ and His Apostles and that all truth was daily taught by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost." Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain "restoration and regeneration" for her as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune. Indeed these authors of novelties consider that a "foundation may be laid of a new human institution," and what St. Cyprian detested may come to pass, that what was a divine thing "may become a human church."

- Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846), Mirari Vos, "On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism," August 15, 1832

333John5918
Jan 12, 2012, 11:53 am

>332 Joansknight: And yet there were reform movements throughout the history of the Church (I mean your "real" Church, joansknight, centuries before 1958). Cluniac is one that comes to mind.

334rolandperkins
Edited: Jan 28, 2012, 4:16 pm

To joanskinight:

Your listing of the popes, followed by explication of some of the disputed reigns (162) is very impressive. I noticed that you precede Pius IX with "ven(erable)" I had thought that Pius XII (1939-1958) had also attained this designation, or even the next higher: "Blessed/Beatus". That may have been since the date of your post.
Iʻve also heard it rumored (I canʻt document this) that the current Vatican (in the time of John Paul II was going to propose John XXIII for canonization process, but only as part of a package deal in which Pius XII would attain the same ranks as John XXIII.

To me, John is obviously the more saintly and the less politicized of the two, but thatʻs beside the point of this post. Realizing that, of this pair, you consider only Pius as a legitimate pope, I still wonder if you have heard anything about this possible deal? The newspaper account on Pius XII made no mention of
John XXIII.

335campusdan
Jan 18, 2012, 1:57 am

Hey Jknight, what do you think of Canon Code 1556 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law which states:

"The First See is judged by no one."

And for those who are truly brain washed here the First See, as referred to in canon law, is the See of Rome or the Roman Pontiff. And since every Roman Pontiff since Leo XIII was validly elected NO ONE can judge him and be found to be justified by Church teaching or law. In other words Church Law which was in force before Vatican II condemns your schismatic beliefs Jknight.

You and MHFM do with Church Tradition as the Protestants do with Sacred Scripture, you both believe in justifying your own private interpretation in opposition to the only authentic interpreter of the Word of God the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (i.e. The Pope and the bishops in union with him), Jesus Christ established this as such as taught by Pope Leo XIII and Vatican I. In order for the SSPX or Sedevacantists to be correct it would mean that Jesus is a Liar when he states that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church in Matthew's Gospel. Jesus is not a liar, the devil is and he is sowing these schismatic doctrines among the faithful. I will pray for you Jknight and many others who are blinded by these schismatic "solutions" which are not solutions at all but merely weaken and divide the body of Christ.

Hope this quotation from the 1917 Code of Canon Law will help those here to see the contradiction in Jknights arguments.

336Joansknight
Edited: Feb 6, 2012, 6:40 am

335> Anti-pope JPII changed Canon Law....to conform with his apostasy! I do agree with the Canon Law of 1917....so what's your point?

334> I do not know anything about that....let me know please if you find out more! Remember though....John XXIII is an Anti-pope and an apostate!

Pope Leo XIII: “The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavor than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own.” (Satis Cognitum # 9, June 29, 1896)

337cjbanning
Jan 21, 2012, 11:25 am

336: "John XIII is an Anti-pope and an apostate!"

Wow, the RCC has been in apostasy for a very long time.

338rolandperkins
Edited: Jan 28, 2012, 4:20 pm

On 334, 336:
Thanks for answering 334.
I have corrected "John XIII" (334) to "John XXIII", so I suppose it is "XXIII" that you mean in 336. (My mistake, originally).

339campusdan
Feb 28, 2012, 1:54 am

My point is by the law of the 1917 code your beliefs are in contradiction with the 1917 code.
NOT You NOR anyone can judge the First See, and that is what you are doing, contradicting the Church's law in the 1917 code with your schismatic judgments.
This is a very grave offense against the Church.

340cjbanning
Mar 1, 2012, 6:32 pm

>339 campusdan:

Who are you talking to?

341MyopicBookworm
Edited: Mar 1, 2012, 7:38 pm

>340 cjbanning:

Joansknight (#336), I presume.

It's a bit like listening in on a conversation between two spaceships millions of miles apart: it takes a month for a message to travel the distance.

342campusdan
Mar 7, 2012, 1:00 pm

Yes Jknight, I am responding to #336 when i posted #339

345Joansknight
May 27, 2012, 7:27 am

Vatican detains 'Anti-Pope's butler' as suspect in leaks probe (BBC)

Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ… the Church will be in eclipse.”

Luke 18:8- “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on Earth?”

346timspalding
May 27, 2012, 7:14 pm

I'm pretty sure the BBC didn't call him the anti-pope.

Is your point that, because the Pope had a butler who swiped some letters to the Pope, that Our Lady of Salette and Luke have been fulfilled? Because that seems like a stretch. The letters are really interesting to students of Italian politics and petty intrigue. Most Catholics are not.

349Joansknight
Oct 22, 2012, 8:41 am

'Green' anti-pope presented with electric car (BBC)

350timspalding
Oct 29, 2012, 1:16 am

You should petition the BBC for the change.

351John5918
Nov 10, 2012, 12:05 am

Pope Benedict to guide followers with personal Twitter account (Guardian)

Fortunately he won't be able to guide me with a personal message as I don't do Twitter.

352Joansknight
Nov 10, 2012, 5:40 am

Nice to see the anti-pope is using social networks as a facilitator of deception....

354Joansknight
Nov 10, 2012, 10:53 am

"I vow ... to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein." --Coronation Oath of the Pope

VII anti-popes didn't keep this vow....apostates and manifest heretics all!

355John5918
Nov 10, 2012, 10:57 am

>354 Joansknight: How do you make VII? John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI - I thought there were only V anti-popes since 1958.

356Joansknight
Nov 10, 2012, 11:56 am

VII=Vatican II....

And if you honestly believe they kept this vow....well then....God help you!

By the way....the only traditions you know....are the traditions and doctrines of man....NOT the Catholic Church! How blind and ignorant can a person be!?!?

I see Tim hasn't suspended himself for slandering me....then again....he is NOT the only one who slanders me....

357sullijo
Edited: Nov 10, 2012, 3:46 pm

>355 John5918: Thanks -- that was the best laugh I've had all day!

358MyopicBookworm
Nov 11, 2012, 7:32 am

to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors

Well, there's the get-out. Some so-called "Tradition" was not in fact received, and some of the predecessors were not God-pleasing.

One does not, for example, have to insist that all Catholic bishops must wear lace petticoats because Pope Alexander VI did so.

359John5918
Nov 11, 2012, 12:31 pm

>358 MyopicBookworm: Mind you, I think some of them quite enjoy the lace petticoats. Then of course there's the infamous cappa magna. In the words of the Catholic Herald, a far from progressive UK Catholic newspaper:

Bishop Edward Slattery’s use of the cappa magna at a Pontifical High Mass in Washington, DC on April 26 2010 gave rise to considerably negative and indignant comments

361pontifex
Dec 3, 2012, 9:02 am

65,000 followers and no tweets.

I snapped up his LibraryThing name, in case he ever wants to use it… :)

http://www.librarything.com/profile/pontifex

362pontifex
Dec 3, 2012, 9:02 am

Oh, that's me, Tim.

363John5918
Dec 3, 2012, 9:06 am

Maybe he could catalogue the Vatican library on LT?

364timspalding
Dec 3, 2012, 9:09 am

Just the secret (and entirely bogus) pornographic collection.

365sullijo
Dec 3, 2012, 10:13 am

>363 John5918: What's the ISBN for the Donation of Constantine?

366John5918
Dec 27, 2012, 10:42 am

Duty-free shop in old Vatican railway station

There's a little-known open secret in the Vatican gardens, a few paces behind St. Peter's Basilica and tucked inside the Vatican's old train station: a sprawling, three-story tax-free department store that rivals any airport duty free or military PX...

Or should I have posted this in the LibraryThing Railroad group?

368timspalding
Edited: Jan 18, 2013, 7:24 am

>37 cjbanning:

I KNOW. I had previously tweeted how, if the Pope tweeted in seven languages and NOT in Latin, Latin was completely dead. But, now, well, it's alive again, right?

Oh, I've got a new response to Traditionalists, from "Mary is My Homegirl," a Tumblr blog by a female theology student:

http://maryhomegirl.tumblr.com/post/36894554127/when-i-meet-someone-who-is-still...

369John5918
Edited: Jan 18, 2013, 8:26 am

>368 timspalding: Funnily enough I wish I knew Latin. I studied it for only one year in grammar school. Maybe they thought that giving us a rather nice-looking young female teacher might encourage us in our Latin studies, but being a class full of lusty pre-pubescent Catholic boys we spent most of our time dropping our pencils on the floor so we could look up her miniskirt (it was the '60s) and trying to trick her into pronouncing vaguely rude-sounding Latin words, so the niceties of the language never really stuck in my brain. Maybe some time in the future I'll get a chance to study it again when I'm less caught up in Arabic and various African languages.

370John5918
Jan 20, 2013, 8:44 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21110045

In his first Latin tweet he asks his followers to pray always for the reunification of the Christian churches - "Orare semper, iustitiam factitare, amare probitatem, humiles Secum ambulare".

371timspalding
Jan 20, 2013, 4:47 pm

I was wondering how the heck that was about Christian unity. The complete Tweet is:

Unitati christifidelium integre studentes quid iubet Dominus? Orare semper, iustitiam factitare, amare probitatem, humiles Secum ambulare.

He's not doing special Latin Tweets, though. His English Tweet is—and this is a direct translation:

What does the Lord ask of us as we work for Christian unity? To pray constantly, do justice, love goodness, and walk humbly with Him.

I suppose he's composing them in German or Italian, but the Latin is just better—Unitati Christifidelium is the unity of the Christian believers, which is less abstract than "Christian unity."

I have no idea, however, what effect is supposed to be achieved by breaking the parallelism and not going "iustitiam factitare, probitatem amare, humiles Secum ambulare." It seems unnecessary and perhaps even un-Latin.

372MyopicBookworm
Jan 21, 2013, 6:10 am

I wouldn't have thought that simple chiasmus was un-Latin. With one insertion, the pattern is:

verb adverb, noun verb :: verb noun, adverb verb

with each half and the whole bracketed by verbs.

373timspalding
Jan 21, 2013, 7:28 am

Fair enough, and the point is to stress it—to make justice, to very much love goodness, …"?

374John5918
Edited: Jan 22, 2013, 12:35 am

How the Vatican built a secret property empire using Mussolini's millions (Guardian)

Papacy used offshore tax havens to create £500m international portfolio, featuring real estate in UK, France and Switzerland...

using cash originally handed over by Mussolini in return for papal recognition of the Italian fascist regime in 1929...

375rolandperkins
Edited: Jan 29, 2013, 12:31 am

"cash originally handed over by Mussolini in return for
papal recognition..."

Iʻve long had a cursory interest in the Lateran Pact
(ca. 1929) which you refer to in 374, John. Yet I never did realize that there was cash involved in the deal. (Do you know the approximate amount?)
I did know from
a fiction by Henry Morton Robinson, The Cardinal that
the Vatican and the Italian governments since Italian unification had been at odds. (Pius XI may, after all, have been the most intelligent pope of the 20th century. He was a scholar and a rare book librarian.)
Most historians regard the pact as
a pretty good deal for both sides with both of them gaining the recognition that they wanted -- Italy as the rightful owner of the former
Vatican lands, with the Popeʻs
archdiocese as his capital; and the Vatican as an independent state, surrounded by, but not officially part of, the Italian
Monarchy (or Republic, as it is now). Robinson, however,
depicts it as a clear victory for
the Vatican: He closes a chapter with Mussolini and
the king (equally anti-clerical)
kneeling before Pius XI.
(This presumably refers to their receiving Holy Communion at a celebratory mass celebrated by the Pope.)
If Mussolini did make a cash payment, then Robinsonʻs interpretation may not have been as far
off base as I had thought

376MMcM
Edited: Jan 27, 2013, 10:45 am

Convenzione Finanziaria.

From Exchange Rate Control in Italy and Bulgaria in the Interwar Period: History and Perspectives:
On 21 December 1927 the government officially pegged the lira to gold thereby adhering, similarly to most other European countries, to a gold exchange standard system. The “gold content” of the currency was put at 7.918 grams per 100 lira; this implied a nominal exchange rate at 90 lire per pound and at 19 lire per dollar.

377nathanielcampbell
Edited: Jan 28, 2013, 3:50 pm

This message has been deleted by its author.

378nathanielcampbell
Edited: Jan 28, 2013, 3:32 pm

>371 timspalding:: "I have no idea, however, what effect is supposed to be achieved by breaking the parallelism and not going "iustitiam factitare, probitatem amare, humiles Secum ambulare." It seems unnecessary and perhaps even un-Latin."

In addition to Myopic's point about the chiasmus, the key factor is actually the cursus of the clausulae (the cadence or pattern of stresses that fall at the end of each phrase). Your proposed alternative, probitátem amáre, is an example of cursus planus (trisyllabic paroxytone {accent on next-to-last-syllable} preceded by a paroxytone).

However, iustítiam factitáre, amáre probitátem and humiles Sécum ambuláre, are all modified forms of the cursus velox, which employs a quadrisyllabic paroxytone preceded by either a paroxytone or a proparoxytone (accent on third syllable from the end).

So, far from being un-Latin, this arrangement actually preserves a particular pattern of Latin cadence by having each clausula end with the quadrisyllabic paroxytone of a cursus velox.

379timspalding
Edited: Jan 28, 2013, 3:53 pm

I bow before your superior knowledge here! I admit this sort if thing always made my eyes glaze over for Latin.

Does anyone know who's doing it? Foster has, I gather, retired. It's too bad--he might have been the only dyed-in-the-wool Vatican-II Benedict had to work with...

380nathanielcampbell
Edited: Sep 14, 2013, 3:27 pm

>379 timspalding:: "I admit this sort if thing always made my eyes glaze over for Latin. "

Me, too, but I had it drilled into my head enough in grad school that it stuck. To be honest, this is the first time I've ever actually used my knowledge of clausulae! (Honesty further demands that I admit to needing to pull down a reference book to refresh my memory on the exact details of each pattern -- in this case, Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide, p. 115.)

"Does anyone know who's doing it? Foster has, I gather, retired."

No idea. Last time I heard (which was more than two years ago), Reggie was indeed retired and was recouping in Milwaukee after surgery. The 2000's were a bumpy road for him after the Vatican shut down his Latin camp because it wasn't bringing in enough fees (he would waive the fees for anyone who asked, which essentially meant nobody was paying).

381John5918
Jan 29, 2013, 12:25 am

>380 nathanielcampbell: he would waive the fees for anyone who asked

Reminds me of a Benedictine convent in Ohio where I stayed for a retreat about 20 years ago. When I was leaving I asked the mother superior how much I should pay. She said, "Whatever you can afford". I asked her to give me a clue, and she laughed and said, "We used to say, '20 dollars a day', and everybody gave us twenty. Now we say, 'whatever you can afford', a handful of people give us 5 or even nothing, but the majority give us far more than 20 and we make more money this way!" I thanked her for her honesty and gave her 20 per day.

382timspalding
Jan 29, 2013, 1:16 am

>381 John5918:

This is the LibraryThing way too. When you buy a lifetime membership you can pay what you want. The median is below the suggested price. The mean is above.

384John5918
Feb 22, 2013, 8:33 am

This topic was continued by Papal trivia II.

Join to post