False Version of La Salette etc by mycatholicexperience8409

[Voxxkowalski]

Paul the 6 was no double....he looked exactly the same thru his accursed " pontificate"
"Lucy" looks completely different.

[Pacelli]

Sept 25, 2023 9:26:34 GMT -5 Voxxkowalski said:

Paul the 6 was no double....he looked exactly the same thru his accursed " pontificate"
"Lucy" looks completely different.

The idea that there was a double is possible, I just don't know.  For myself, I don't rule out anything that easily in our times.   Either way, regardless of whether there is a double or not changes nothing for me as far as my Faith or my response to the crisis, so it's an interesting question, but not really of any importance in the big picture of things.   

I remember one person who believed that there was a double of Paul VI, had before and after photos from the early 60's verse those in the late 60's and 70's that seemed to show differences in his face.   I wasn't ever convinced of this, but unless the photos were doctored, which was also possible, there did seem to be some differences.   

[Pacelli]

I will now comment on the last video that John Lewis asked me to comment on:
The Church has Authority


As with the previous videos, I do not find a single point that I disagree with this man on a matter of doctrine, so I will only focus on how he is applying the doctrine in forming his conclusions.

1.  He is in my opinion, conflating the sedevacantist position with the sedevacantist groups.   The sedevacantist groups, with their bishops and priests have nothing to do with whether or not Francis is Pope.  One can hold this position and never step foot in their chapels and have nothing to do with any of them.

2.  He states that the groups claim the apostolic succession, but I am not convinced that they all do this.   I think many ignorant laypeople assume this, but assumptions are not reliable in drawing conclusions.  

Regarding point #2, until last November, I never believed that CMRI held that traditional bishops were successors of the Apostles, but Bp. Pivarunas asserted this publicly in the seminary newsletter of that month, and myself and many other posted discussed this serious problem in THIS thread.   I was hoping that he would retract what he wrote, but it's been almost a year now, and still there is nothing.  I was hoping he would just admit that he made a mistake and make it known that he does not in fact believe that.   I don't know where CMRI is going right now.

Regarding some other sedevacantist groups, SSPV, the Roman Catholic Institute, and St. Gertrude the Great, I have never read any direct claim from their bishops to be successors of the Apostles.   I can say that in their exercise of binding the consciences of Catholics to their opinions and even denying Holy Communion to persons that will not obey them, on the matters of either attending mass of an undeclared antipope or with attending mass at a mass said by a priest ordained through the Thuc lines, is an act of jurisdiction and by doing that they are in practice doing something that only a successor of the Apostles could do.   

I am not sure about the many other sedevacantist bishops or groups throughout the world and whether they either explicitly claim the apostolic succession or whether they imply they have it, through their action of binding consciences and even denying Holy Communion for not obeying them.

So, I fully understand the point the man is making in the video, but I also believe that one must separate the position of sedevacantism from these groups of bishops and priests.   

3.  He connects the sedevacantists to the Old Catholics and draws a parallel between the two.   But, are they truly the same?   The Old Catholics denied a teaching that was not yet defined by the Church, until the Council but was hardly a novelty.  Catholic theologians understood that the infallibility of the Pope was certainly there, but what was not settled were the conditions that must be verified to be certain that a teaching of the pope was indeed infallible.   

The Second Vatican Council along with the line of "popes" following the Council taught Catholics to believe matters that were in conflict with the teaching of the previous magisterium.   I realize that the Council texts were written in such an ambiguous manner, that one could initially in good conscience say "I accept the Council in light of Tradition, and only in line with all previous Catholic teaching," but I believe that position, over time has become untenable, as more and more "papal" teaching since the Council has bound Catholics to accept the erroneous and heretical interpretation of the ambiguous documents.

The second problem is that laws have come from these "popes" which I believe are evil.   Has the Catholic Church ever allowed Catholics to actively participate in the rites of sects, including even receiving communion by non-Catholic priests?  Has the Catholic Church ever allowed members of sects to receive Holy Communion by Catholic priests?  Has the Catholic Church ever allowed unrepentant public sinners to receive Holy Communion?  The answer is no, but the "popes" have now bound Catholics with these new laws, that are certainly and directly at odds with the Catholic Faith.   

To conclude this point, the comparison between the Old Catholics and those that are rejecting the V2 Council fails.  In the first, the Old Catholics rejected something that was already Catholic teaching, but the parameters were not yet established, while we reject things that are clearly and obviously not of the Faith or morals, which leads to my next point.

4.  I agree with him that it is not for us to judge the doctrine, and it is for us, the learning Church to be taught by the Pope, the successors of the Apostles, and the priests commissioned by them.  That's the way the Church works.   But, we are also taught that we must not accept new teaching that is not of the Church.   Does he believe that?  Scripture specifically teaches this, and how can we do this if we cannot on our own spot a novel teaching that conflicts with the Catholic teaching?   What happens though if there is such a crisis in the Church that the ordinary way this works, no longer works, and no one, even the successors of the Apostles who remain are protecting the sheep from the wolves?  

When Luther was infecting Catholics all across Germany with his preaching and tracts, would a good Catholic just sit back and say, "even though I see the conflict between his teaching and the teaching of the Church, it is only for the successors of the Apostles to judge this and I will remain silent?"   Of course not, all Catholics have a duty to defend the Faith when it is attacked, and even though, we the laity lack authority, we can warn others and do what we can in our non-authoritative capacity to speak out against the spreader of heresy and warn those being deceived.  

Our second duty other than speaking out and warning others is to report the spreader of false doctrine to the Church, so the Church through the successors of the Apostles may take authoritative action.  Obviously, in our current situation, this second duty is right now not doing anything as at least in the Latin rite, most bishops apparently  either agree with the heresies or errors or even if they don't, they seem to do nothing to stop them.

5.  The man then correctly states that the Apostolic successors are composed only of those with the formal apostolic succession.   He is correct, and all Catholics must believe this.  

6.  Following point 5, he then asserts that the apostolic successors may never cease to exist on earth, or it would be an essential defect to the indefectible Church which is impossible.  Where he goes wrong with this, is that he seems to be concluding that if one holds that Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis were not popes, then by that one must deny that there are successors of the Apostles in the world today.  I would also say that because some who hold the sedevacantist position believe this does not mean that we all believe this.   It is clear that some sedevacantists are openly professing heretical propositions and it is a scandal, and it is a good reason for the rest of us who abhor heresy to speak out against this, which is what we have been doing on this forum for years.   

These new heretical opinions have been detected by Catholics, and on this forum we have been exposing and denouncing them:

New Heresy:  The Denial of Apostolic Succession linked HERE

New Heresy:  Changing the Meaning of Apostolic Successor, linked HERE

7.  Also, I wrote a couple of posts a while back, explaining my thoughts on where the the hierarchy of the Church is:

The term "Novus Ordo Hierarchy" and Where is the Hierarchy, linked HERE

and 

A Closer Look at the term, "Bishop in the Woods," linked HERE

8.   My last point is this, just because the successors of the Apostles must always exist and traditional bishops are not the successors  of Apostles, does not automatically mean that the Conciliar Popes and all bishops affiliated with them are the complete hierarchy of the Church.  This conclusion is unwarranted, and is where, in my opinion, this man goes wrong, not in his theology, but in his conclusion which is not supported by the evidence.   His conclusion also does not deal with the fact that doctrinal error up to and including heresy has been taught by these "popes," and his idea of just recognizing them to remain consistent with Apostolicity doesn't work, as it leaves other conflicts locked in place.  

There is a way to see all pieces of puzzle fit, not just most of them, as he is doing, if he is willing to look at it.  

[John Lewis]

Sept 25, 2023 7:24:32 GMT -5 Pacelli said:

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.  I remember in the 1990's there were many who were saying this about Paul VI, that he was being imprisoned in the Vatican, and it was really an imposter that looked like him that did these things to the Church.  I've never seen the proof of that either.   

I think in these double theories, there seems to me one thing missing, in my opinion, and that is for such a thing to be pulled off, then how can the people who know the person well be fooled?   In either case, of Paul VI or Sr. Lucy, they had family, wouldn't family spot it right away?  I know with Sr. Lucy, she wouldn't have had friends, as she was a nun, but wouldn't the other sisters who lived with her every day in the convent notice if she wasn't the same person?  

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.

I would recommend checking out Sr Lucy Truth as they have investigated this matter with professionals including plastic surgeons, dentists and super-recognizers. It seems she was moved from the Dorothean convent against her wishes to a Carmelite convent at Coimbira at the instigation of Montini before he was moved out of the Vatican and sent to Milan. The convent at Coimbria had a very short history prior to her arrival and it is thought that she was replaced during this transition. Whether the other nuns there were truly nuns is uncertain.

[John Lewis]

Sept 26, 2023 9:57:53 GMT -5 Pacelli said:

As with the previous videos, I do not find a single point that I disagree with this man on a matter of doctrine, so I will only focus on how he is applying the doctrine in forming his conclusions.... There is a way to see all pieces of puzzle fit, not just most of them, as he is doing, if he is willing to look at it.  

Thanks for doing analysing these videos. I might invite him to these forums.

[Didymus]

. What do you think about this?

[Voxxkowalski]

Oct 19, 2023 5:09:14 GMT -5 Didymus said:

. What do you think about this?

Yeah this is a conflation of Pope and Papacy...mmmkay? This is the typical R&R cope and seeth...very uninformed and emotional take on the current crisis...mmmkay?

[Pacelli]

Oct 19, 2023 6:07:32 GMT -5 Voxxkowalski said:

Oct 19, 2023 5:09:14 GMT -5 Didymus said:

. What do you think about this?

Yeah this is a conflation of Pope and Papacy...mmmkay? This is the typical R&R cope and seeth...very uninformed and emotional take on the current crisis...mmmkay?

Hi Didymus, 

Prior to this video, the man articulated very well the Catholic teaching on Apostolic succession, and my main disagreement with him was on his application of that teaching to our current situation.

Unfortunately, due to his unwarranted conclusion that to preserve the apostolic succession one must accept Francis' claim to the papacy, he is now in the position of trying to defend Francis from very legitimate charges, which he is apparently ignoring or minimizing.  

He brought up the problem of idols, but doesn't seem to take issue with it.   He minimized its importance.   Francis publicly supported, organized and even participated in the worship of a false god through its idol!   He wasn't doing it out of weakness as some did in the early Church as their lives were in danger for refusal.  No, in his case, the worship of a false god was organized under his direct authority.   He attended the pagan ceremony and took part in it.   His action clearly demonstrates that he does not believe the Catholic teaching that idol worship is not acceptable to God, and further clearly shows that he believes such worship is a good action, directly contrary to God's direct teaching, as revealed by Divine revelation and taught continuously by the Church throughout all ages.

He also says that we can trust the magisterium of Francis.  Is he joking?   Here are some problems off the top of my head:

1.  Francis taught in an official document published in his Acta that divorced and remarried Catholics may receive Holy Communion.  This directly contradicts Catholic teaching.   A pope cannot teach Catholics something that is a sin and will bring them to Hell.   

2.  Francis revised the universal catechism and published the belief that the death penalty is no longer admissible for states to use due to the inherent dignity of a human person.  This directly contradicts Catholic teaching which teaches that states may lawfully use the death penalty for grave crimes.

3.  Francis continues the law of John Paul II that binds priests to give Holy Communion to certain non-Catholics, and allows Catholics to attend and actively participate in the rites used by certain non-Catholic sects.

4.  There is much more, but for starters I have named three points in which Catholics cannot follow the teaching or law of this "pope."   For more reading, I urge any to read the accusation of heresy against Francis made by theologians under him: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1981/accusation-pope-francis-charge-heresy

I realize that as of yet, Francis has not yet embraced some other heresies named by the man in the video, such as allowing woman priests, or the blessing of unions that are sinful and evil, but so what?  That's not proof that his magisterium is safe for Catholics to believe or a defense that his words and actions do not support the accusation of heresy.   

He may or may not do these other things, but regardless of what he does, the things already taught by him, said by him, or done by him are proof against him.  

[Didymus]

I am no longer sure of this man's position, he has clearly become an anti-sedevacantist for reasons that we all know, but it seems to me that he now even takes Vigano, Marshall etc. as people who are trying to destroy the Church, in The bottom line is traditionalism, but I'm not sure since my English is not good and I may be misinterpreting something.

[Pacelli]

Oct 19, 2023 9:04:14 GMT -5 Didymus said:

I am no longer sure of this man's position, he has clearly become an anti-sedevacantist for reasons that we all know, but it seems to me that he now even takes Vigano, Marshall etc. as people who are trying to destroy the Church, in The bottom line is traditionalism, but I'm not sure since my English is not good and I may be misinterpreting something.

It seems to me that he is following a path that has its foundation in his conclusion that holding the sedevacantist position leads to a defect in the Church, as it would cause one to deny the Catholic teaching on the permanence of the Apostolic Succession.  

Since he has concluded that, the next logical step for him is to defend Francis' claim to the papacy, as he did in the video, the way to do that is to ignore or minimize the serious arguments against Francis and his claim to be pope.  

[Didymus]

Excellent response Pacelli, of course I don't agree with him, but I was interested in knowing his responses or what they would respond to these arguments.

I have realized that many of the people who realize the problem with the sedevacantist groups with apostolic succession end up recognizing that the people who are part of the sect are necessarily the hierarchy.

In my experience with all the people I have spoken about apostolic succession and the importance of a Bishop with Jurisdiction even in this dark crisis, they all end up asking me, but where is that hierarchy? It is really a very dark and difficult question to answer, even knowing that we must only have faith in that even if we do not see them, clarity is necessary on this matter.

[John Lewis]

This seems to be the sticking point with many: where is the Church that has the four marks. My friend who recently abandoned the sedevacantist position is also defending Francis now. It is a very strange thing to watch.

I recently read an article by Fr Vacant (appropriate name to be sure) on the WM Review talking about whether the Ordinary Magisterium can define new dogmas or obligations of belief. I understand from reading it that no doctrine can be declared of Catholic faith unless it is revealed and found in tradition.

This makes me wonder whether a lot of the commentary on Apostolic Succession can be defined as being de fide through declaration of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium alone or whether it needs to have been solemnly defined. I'm not sure whether we need to re-look at this matter, but as it is proving a stumbling block for many it would be worth considering whether we are pushing too far in this interpretation or not. Pacelli, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the article and whether it applies to the issues raised in regards to the thesis/totalism/etc.

[Pacelli]

Oct 24, 2023 0:57:25 GMT -5 John Lewis said:

This seems to be the sticking point with many: where is the Church that has the four marks. My friend who recently abandoned the sedevacantist position is also defending Francis now. It is a very strange thing to watch.

I recently read an article by Fr Vacant (appropriate name to be sure) on the WM Review talking about whether the Ordinary Magisterium can define new dogmas or obligations of belief. I understand from reading it that no doctrine can be declared of Catholic faith unless it is revealed and found in tradition.

This makes me wonder whether a lot of the commentary on Apostolic Succession can be defined as being de fide through declaration of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium alone or whether it needs to have been solemnly defined. I'm not sure whether we need to re-look at this matter, but as it is proving a stumbling block for many it would be worth considering whether we are pushing too far in this interpretation or not. Pacelli , I'd be interested in your thoughts on the article and whether it applies to the issues raised in regards to the thesis/totalism/etc.

I'll read the article later and discuss your other points as well.  But, for right now, I will say this:  These folks that were former sedevacantists and have drawn this conclusion based on their opinion, not doctrine, that sedevacantism is incompatible with the Faith, as they have, in my opinion, rashly concluded that it cannot fit with the Church teaching on the Apostolic succession. 

It seems to me that they are forming this view based on a straw man argument.  They see some sedevacantists believe in a novel and heretical idea on the apostolic succession and they see traditionalist bishops either directly claim the apostolic succession or imply they have it, along with their claim or implied assertion of a mission from the Church, and then conclude, that since all of this is wrong, sedevacantism leads to heresy.

I think a big part of the problem is the careless use of terms, which leads to incorrect ideas.   These same former  "sedevacantists" who have abandoned the position most likely formerly relied on terms such as "Novus Ordo Catholics," "Traditional Catholics," "Conciliar Church," etc., and as these terms are not tightly defined, they are used differently by Catholics leading to ideas that are not based on the teaching of the Church.

Terms matter very much, as their use frames our thinking.  The Church always understood this truth, and that's why painstaking work always went into making sure that correct terms that were tightly defined and understood to mean specific things would always be used to avoid ambiguity.  On the flip side, modernists along with every enemy of the Faith knows this, as terms are extremely powerful and at the same time dangerous.   That's why Catholics should always know better than to be careless in the use of terms, but that's the root of this problem.

When we say, "Novus Ordo Church," or "Conciliar Sect," for example, without qualifying what we mean, it can easily be understood that all of those who name Francis as pope are members of this sect.  But, the Church has not condemned Francis or other leaders of this sect and those who follow them, so the status of this sect remains an undeclared sect, which means that Catholics can be presumed to be in good Faith while thinking this sect is the Church.  Each and every Catholic, no matter what the rank, Cardinal, bishop, priest, layperson must be taken on an individual case by case basis, as to whether they are a Catholic.  

Also, on this point, each of these Catholics enjoys the presumption of innocence, not guilt, as they have never joined a known and condemned sect, and furthermore proof must be demonstrated by anyone accusing any of them of heresy that they publicly deny a de fide teaching and there is no innocent way of understanding their statements.  Let's now apply this to the bishops who accept Francis.   There has never been any case made against each and every one of them individually that they are heretics.  What we have by many sedevacantists are either a misunderstanding Catholic teaching on what constitutes membership in a sect or rash judgments against these men that they are either members of a condemned sect or are notorious public heretics.  Either way, it's grounded on serious error or sin.  

This type of thinking has in my opinion been around a long time, and it's rotten fruits have been showing themselves for a while, as it is part of the theological basis of the non-una cum (NUC) position, along with the novel propositions being put forth that the apostolic succession has either ended, or is being continued with bishops who are not successors of the Apostles, or that the definition of Apostolic successor has evolved and any man who is a bishop and is a Catholic with episcopal orders is an Apostolic successor.  

The newest development of this thinking is the reaction by some against these errors, as they see the grave  problems in doctrine being espoused by some sedevacantists and then rashly conclude that since they are wrong, we must then accept Francis' claim to be pope.  The problem is that this also does not fit, as that leads to another massive set of problems, which are beyond this post.

The only way out of this logical trap that these people have fallen into is this:

1.  Do not rashly judge Catholics who are under Francis as being part of a condemned sect.

2.  Do not conclude heresy against any Catholic without trying in every way to excuse them of it, trying your best to see if there is any way that the person in question's statements can be understood as not heretical.  Secondly on this point, do not accuse another of heresy unless you can prove he is denying a de fide teaching of the Church, not something of a lesser theological note.  Thirdly, do not accuse another of heresy for things that are grave and may lead to a lawful suspicion of heresy, but not heresy itself.   

3.  Do not confuse weakness, silence or even error less than heresy with heresy.  Only those who join a sect, along with those guilty of being public heretics, apostates, or schismatics lose their membership in the Church automatically!  All others must be judged by authority.  No bishop of the Catholic Church has ever been judged by the lawful authority, the Pope, so if anyone wants to accuse any or all of them of heresy, they must prove their charge against each and every one of them individually or they are rashly judging these men.  

4.  Agree with the fact that at no time since this crisis began that no one has ever made a case against each and every bishop for heresy.   Each and every bishop must be presumed innocent of this crime, unless and until compelling evidence is shown that that they are guilty, or until a Pope judges them as guilty.   

5.  The preservation of the Apostolic succession remains with these bishops who have not become public heretics, and therefore have not lost their office.  Anyone who says otherwise is, as I have said above, not understanding how one joins a sect, or is rashly judging these bishops of the crime of heresy without making an individual case against any of them.

We are more and more seeing the bitter fruits of using sloppy and undefined terms, and of relying on rash judgements and generalizations instead of using correct Catholic principles.

[Voxxkowalski]

Fr Kramer"

THE CHURCH SUPPLIES JURISDICTION TO ALL WHO REFUSE TO ACCEPT UNLAWFUL REFORMS

According to moral theology and canonical tradition, no authorization from the Novus Ordo establishment would be needed. The Novus Ordo establishment only grants permission to trads if they are willing to compromise their conscience by accepting the morally unacceptable conciliar reforms. It is unconditionally commanded by God that we observe the law of God regarding the purity of religious observance: and it is an absolute necessity of divine precept for the priests to provide the sacraments according to the traditional rites, for which reason, according to the principle of natural equity, the Church supplies all necessary jurisdiction and authorization when in a matter of necessity of precept they are wrongfully and unlawfully denied by the ordinary or the pope. The ecclesiastical authorities have no ecclesiastical power to suppress the correct observance of religion and penalize it by denying the faithful their right to legitimately requested authorizations. - "Everything must be done so that the church may be built up." 1 Cor. 14:26. "So even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than tearing you down, I will not be ashamed of it." - 2 Cor. 10:8."

Not sure if this germane to the discussion...but I think so

[Pacelli]

Oct 24, 2023 19:32:07 GMT -5 Voxxkowalski said:

Fr Kramer"

THE CHURCH SUPPLIES JURISDICTION TO ALL WHO REFUSE TO ACCEPT UNLAWFUL REFORMS

According to moral theology and canonical tradition, no authorization from the Novus Ordo establishment would be needed. The Novus Ordo establishment only grants permission to trads if they are willing to compromise their conscience by accepting the morally unacceptable conciliar reforms. It is unconditionally commanded by God that we observe the law of God regarding the purity of religious observance: and it is an absolute necessity of divine precept for the priests to provide the sacraments according to the traditional rites, for which reason, according to the principle of natural equity, the Church supplies all necessary jurisdiction and authorization when in a matter of necessity of precept they are wrongfully and unlawfully denied by the ordinary or the pope. The ecclesiastical authorities have no ecclesiastical power to suppress the correct observance of religion and penalize it by denying the faithful their right to legitimately requested authorizations. - "Everything must be done so that the church may be built up." 1 Cor. 14:26. "So even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than tearing you down, I will not be ashamed of it." - 2 Cor. 10:8."

Not sure if this germane to the discussion...but I think so

Hi Voxx,

Supplied jurisdiction is really its own topic, and not related to the matter of the Apostolic Succession except with one crossover point, which is the jurisdiction that would be supplied to the line of undeclared antipopes beginning with Paul VI, as they have been believed by almost all Catholics to be the reigning popes.   This is particularly relevant to their appointment power of Cardinals and bishops.  

Regarding Fr. Kramer's statement, he is asserting something, not proving it.  When Fr. Kramer sets out to prove something, he has a strong intellect and excellent researching skills, along with very good linguistic expertise to do the translations of Latin and many other languages himself, so I am always interested in what he has to say when he is proving an argument using sources.  This however, is an opinion, and in my opinion he is wrong, as what he is saying goes against what is expressly legislated in the Code, and he has no sources to back him up here, which is probably the reason why he didn't cite any canonists.  He is on his own with this idea, and it's a novelty.   

When the Church supplies jurisdiction, it's kind of like a dam, which can open the floodgates and let water through, but the dam can only open and let through what is has been permitted by the men in charge of it.  The dam cannot just be opened because someone wants it opened, it's only opened by the one is authority at the dam, and never opened unless he authorizes it.   Pope Benedict XV in authorizing the Code of Canon Law, specifically canon 209, gave only two reasons for when the Church would supply, which are common error and doubt of law, that's all.  Since those are the only two reasons the floodgates will open, they remain closed, unless those reasons are present.   Catholics cannot create new reasons on their own, and think they can force the Church to supply jurisdiction for reasons different than what has been authorized by the Pope, as they have no authority to do so.  Only the Pope has the authority to bind the Church on this matter, in determining when the Church will supply and when it will not, and that is already settled in the law.