|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 26, 2023 15:17:07 GMT -5
John Lewis wrote: This matter really deserves its own thread, as you are getting into a very important matter, and it is very important as I am certain that those denying these points on the Apostolic Succession (specifically those who are denying that there will at all times in the world until the end be successors of the Apostles, and secondly those who are redefining what an Apostolic Successor is into a new definition at odds with the Faith) are professing heresy against the Faith, and I do not believe this is contradiction with Fr. Vacant's explanation, which I will get into in detail in the new thread.
|
|
Iddigger
New Member
Just Sharing Truth And Learning
Posts: 33
|
Post by Iddigger on Oct 27, 2023 23:47:39 GMT -5
Because God loves all his creations, he sends us a messenger before he strikes, Mary most Holy has always tried to warn us many times in the past, our Lady of La Salette sends us a message and said her hands were tied, that doesn't include the miracles that were preformed though her by God, apparently God had mercy on us because she came again with more warnings, these videos are a waste of my time to watch, I have traditional books on this subject before the internet was born that prove the videos are wrong. I hope God to bless everyone here!
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Oct 28, 2023 18:50:21 GMT -5
Because God loves all his creations, he sends us a messenger before he strikes, Mary most Holy has always tried to warn us many times in the past, our Lady of La Salette sends us a message and said her hands were tied, that doesn't include the miracles that were preformed though her by God, apparently God had mercy on us because she came again with more warnings, these videos are a waste of my time to watch, I have traditional books on this subject before the internet was born that prove the videos are wrong. I hope God to bless everyone here. I'm not sure whether you read the article, but there are true messages from La Salette and false ones written later by the seer Melanie who had failed to become a religious and was despondent towards the Church authorities. It is the latter ones that were forbidden and later added to the index of forbidden books in the early 20th century. These are the ones we should avoid out of obedience to Holy Mother Church.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 30, 2023 9:34:25 GMT -5
John Lewis wrote: This matter really deserves its own thread, as you are getting into a very important matter, and it is very important as I am certain that those denying these points on the Apostolic Succession (specifically those who are denying that there will at all times in the world until the end be successors of the Apostles, and secondly those who are redefining what an Apostolic Successor is into a new definition at odds with the Faith) are professing heresy against the Faith, and I do not believe this is contradiction with Fr. Vacant's explanation, which I will get into in detail in the new thread. My apologies to any following this for the slow pace of this matter, but I've been unable to focus on this or much else at present, and hope to be back on track in the near future. I will be posting on the plenary indulgences available to all Catholics coming up, as that is timely and cannot be delayed, as these particular indulgences are only available at this time every year, and I don't want anyone who isn't knowledgeable about these to miss them.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Nov 7, 2023 5:55:56 GMT -5
Again I publish this video of this man, I do not pretend to give credit to his sayings but it seems to me that he touches some interesting topics and I would like to ask some questions because of this. This man mentions that previously the Church also referred to the Holy Sacrifice as a "memorial", and it seems to me that this is correct since in the Canon it appears "they will do this in memory of me" but here there is ambiguity and I would like to know if someone can deepen a little more all this. He says that this whole "memorial" thing has been a way to put a straw man on the Catholics in order to create a kind of "enemy" and that all this according to Bugnini refers to Good Friday etc. He also mentions the Encyclical of Paul VI where he binds everyone to the real presence at Mass and that he is not allowed to question this and the letter sent later by Cardinal Ottaviani that in the light of the clarifications to the New Missal he no longer had doubts and accepted the New Mass. And he tells the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, Bp Williamson that although they did not recommend going to the Novus Ordo they cannot forbid a person who found a Novus Ordo well celebrated not to attend there. After naming several authorities from the time of the CVII Fulton Sheen etc he concludes that in reality the only ones who speak about a Protestant or heretical Mass are the Sedevacantists and that none of the authorities of the Church took this position and all ended up accepting it and even the FSSPX nor Williamson speak of an invalid or heretical Mass but dangerous to the Faith and mentions "Francis Shaker" as the basis of Sedevacantism (I have no idea who he is) He then asks the audience some questions about whether all these bishops and cardinals were stupid and didn't know the whole problem and ended up accepting the novus ordo or Francis Shaker, who has no authority and was a layman. Should the faithful follow a layman or the authorities. etc.? (forgive my lack of precision, I try to transcribe what he says, I assume any error or misinterpretation) etc. He ends by speaking of what has become sedevacantism, hasty judgments, where only private thoughts and judgments are followed and not those of authority and the Catholic Church, etc. . I hear your opinions... Another question : if an elderly priest ordained before the changes of Paul VI but celebrates the Novus Ordo Missae but here he pronounces the correct words of consecration of the species in vernacular language, is there a valid consecration and transubstantiation ? Or if the elderly priest celebrates the Novus Ordo using the first editions of the Novus Ordo in were in Latin of Paul VI and says the words of consecration of this Missal of Paul VI in Latin is there consecration and transubstantiation? since an elderly priest told me that in the solemn masses to this day in the Vatican the consecration of the species is pronounced in Latin. I am not sure about this in Bergoglio's time, but supposing it is true, would it be enough just to say the correct formula for there to be transubstantiation? (Assuming the celebrant has secure and valid orders of course.) These photos appear to be from a Missal of the Tridentine Mass from 1962, but it was approved during the time of Paul VI in 1964. I saw it on a page about Catholic ceremonies. Would this Missal be free of errors? I hope I have explained myself well.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 7, 2023 7:54:30 GMT -5
Hi Didymus,
I will try to get to the other points later but here are some initial thoughts.
1. I agree with him that sedevacantism is not a part of the Catholic Faith. It is a response to the crisis, that's it's and it needs to be vigorously tested on every point. Every assumption and judgment made needs to be worked through and investigated to see if it is true.
2. It sounds to me that he was raised in a sedevacantist family that used bad arguments, and he inherited that without questioning them. In my opinion, he's beating a straw man now, by demonstrating the weak arguments that once convinced him, and now showing that they were false. I have no problem with him beating down these weak arguments as they should be debunked. My problem is that one cannot pounce on the weak arguments and then ignore or minimize the real arguments, and that seems to me to be what he is doing.
3. The man he is referring to as founding sedevacantism is Francis Schuckardt, who was the founder of CMRI. I don't disagree with anything he said in regards to him, except for the idea that he began sedevacantism. Sedevacantism is a response that developed over time, as Catholics tried to make sense of what they were witnessing and were observing the conflicts in theology with having a pope approve teaching that was at odds with the previous magisterium and sacramental rites and that included tolerated practices not found in the rite itself, that were novel, arguably incentives to impiety, and questionably valid.
Sedevacantism developed as a response through the 1970's and really picked up in the 1980's especially after the 1986 Assisi prayer meeting, in which the entire Catholic world witnessed John Paul II's public act of apostasy and began questioning his orthodoxy and furthermore whether this organization led by him is the Catholic Church at all, as it was now in a direct clash with revealed truth.
The group formed by Francis Schuckardt played no role in convincing anyone outside of that group of anything. The early CMRI group was not trusted by Catholics throughout the world and for the more part was either not known about or treated as a cult and a sect. There is no doubt in my mind that early CMRI was a personality cult with bizarre practices and dangerous.
4. I have no idea what he's talking about regarding Archbishop Sheen.
5. Regarding the Novus Ordo, the biggest problem wasn't even discussed.
When Our Lord instituted the mass, He taught the Apostles the form to be used as to the words said over the bread and wine to effect the sacrament. All rites (including those used by schismatics) used this form for the entire history of the Church. All agreed that the words taught by Our Lord must be used for validity, and there was never any disagreement on this. In the Rome-approved translations of the Novus Ordo into the vernacular, an essential word was mistranslated, and obviously deliberately at that, changing the form of the consecration of the wine. The term, "many," and "all" clearly do not mean the same thing. They mean very different things, and by changing this form, the meaning of what Our Lord instituted as the core form was different. This rite with an essentially defective form was used universally throughout the Roman rite for over four decades until Benedict XVI corrected the "translation."
This, in my opinion, was the greatest argument against the validity of the Novus Ordo, and is also by default an argument against the legitimacy of Paul VI, as it brings up the question as to whether the Catholic Church could approve an invalid rite, and we know it cannot. Yet this rite, with its authorized translations into the vernacular with its defective form was approved and imposed on Catholics throughout the world.
More later.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 8, 2023 9:34:53 GMT -5
Didymus wrote: In my opinion, if the correct form is used, then it resolves the biggest problem as to validity, but it is not the only problem. For myself, I would wait for a decision from Rome regarding it, even when said by a priest who is certainly validly ordained. Even though the correction to the form by Benedict XVI resolved the most obvious and in my opinion most significant issue, the fact is that there are other unresolved issues. For example, the words, "the mystery of Faith," were also omitted. The question would be this: even though we know those words are not essential in the East, are they needed in the Roman Rite irrespective of the fact that eastern forms do not use them? This doesn't even address whether it would be necessary in the Novus Ordo. Why does the Novus Ordo add these words back at the end of the form in a profession of a different truth, "Christ has died...." rather than profess the belief in the miracle that would have just occurred, namely the transubstantistion of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ? In the Roman Rite, the words, "the mystery of Faith," are clearly signifying that the mystery is Our Lord who is now present in the Communion species and the miracle that occurred to make that happen, while in the Novus Ordo, the mystery of Faith is a profession that Christ came and will come again. Clearly, they are not the same mystery being professed. The fact is that a Pope, (presuming Paul VI forward are doubtful), has not settled the matter of whether the essential words in the Roman Rite would include "Mysterium Fidei," and secondly, as the Novus Ordo is radically different than the traditional Roman Rite, that would have to be examined on its own merits. Patrick Omlor wrote a good study on this very point. I just posted it linked HERE.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Nov 30, 2023 17:52:19 GMT -5
Regarding a fake Sister Lucy, I am not sure. It sounds crazy, but who knows for sure. I haven't looked at the evidence in detail to make any clear judgment on it. Besides facial features, everyone has a unique voice, and unique habits, accents, and ways of saying and doing things, so a double wouldn't truly be able to imitate all of these perfectly. In convents the nuns do chores together and recreate together, so even though she was cut off from the world, her sisters in the convent, in my opinion, would notice if a fake was put in there. Pacelli, I think it would be worth your time visiting sisterlucytruth's website. There is solid evidence that Montini had her removed her agains her will from her Dorothean convent to a newly created Carmelite convent in Coimbra. This would've been the perfect time to replace her as she was removed from all her knew her. There is evidence that this new convent was established specifically for this purpose and may have just been a longstanding psy-op. The new Sr Lucy that emerged has been shown demonstrated to be very different in facial bone and dental structure as well as in manner, deportment and handwriting style by various forensic experts, some of whom are world-leaders in their field.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 1, 2023 7:06:33 GMT -5
Regarding a fake Sister Lucy, I am not sure. It sounds crazy, but who knows for sure. I haven't looked at the evidence in detail to make any clear judgment on it. Besides facial features, everyone has a unique voice, and unique habits, accents, and ways of saying and doing things, so a double wouldn't truly be able to imitate all of these perfectly. In convents the nuns do chores together and recreate together, so even though she was cut off from the world, her sisters in the convent, in my opinion, would notice if a fake was put in there. Pacelli, I think it would be worth your time visiting sisterlucytruth's website. There is solid evidence that Montini had her removed her agains her will from her Dorothean convent to a newly created Carmelite convent in Coimbra. This would've been the perfect time to replace her as she was removed from all her knew her. There is evidence that this new convent was established specifically for this purpose and may have just been a longstanding psy-op. The new Sr Lucy that emerged has been shown demonstrated to be very different in facial bone and dental structure as well as in manner, deportment and handwriting style by various forensic experts, some of whom are world-leaders in their field. I'll look at it when I have some time, but it really doesn't change anything one way or the other for me. The reasoning I use in drawing the conclusions I do to respond to the crisis are not based on this matter. I do appreciate the hard work being done on this though, as if this was a double, and was not Sr. Lucy, then the Catholic world was being deceived by this for a long time. The bigger issue to me in regards to Fatima would be the release of the remaining portion of the Third Secret which was supposed to be released in 1960 which may help us better understand what's been happening since that time, and perhaps more insight into God's plan regarding all of this.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Dec 1, 2023 20:32:00 GMT -5
Pacelli, I think it would be worth your time visiting sisterlucytruth's website. There is solid evidence that Montini had her removed her agains her will from her Dorothean convent to a newly created Carmelite convent in Coimbra. This would've been the perfect time to replace her as she was removed from all her knew her. There is evidence that this new convent was established specifically for this purpose and may have just been a longstanding psy-op. The new Sr Lucy that emerged has been shown demonstrated to be very different in facial bone and dental structure as well as in manner, deportment and handwriting style by various forensic experts, some of whom are world-leaders in their field. I'll look at it when I have some time, but it really doesn't change anything one way or the other for me. The reasoning I use in drawing the conclusions I do to respond to the crisis are not based on this matter. I do appreciate the hard work being done on this though, as if this was a double and was not Sr. Lucy, then the Catholic world was being deceived for a long time. The bigger issue to me in regards to Fatima would be the release of the remaining portion of the Third Secret which was supposed to be released in 1960 which may help us better understand what's been happening since that time, and perhaps more insight into God's plan regarding all of this. I appreciate that it doesn't change things either way. It does however add one more log to the bonfire of evidence against the new sect.
|
|