Miss B. with some logic, to help prepare the faithful for the October sinnod in Rome, and its “results.” -nvp
Does this sound right? Does this sound logical?
“Either you assent to ‘Pope Francis’ schisming The Church, or you will be in schism!”
Stop.
Think.
Start with the fact that Jesus Christ is God and thus incapable of lying or deception or breaking His promises. He is perfect Good, perfect Truth, and infinite Love. Start there.
Now think about the statement above. Think about how it “appears” to be a catch-22. Do you think that God Almighty Who incarnated, suffered and died nailed to a Cross for your sins would put you in a catch-22 no-win position? Schismatic and damned if you do, schismatic and damned if you don’t?
Of course not.
So, what MUST be the problem here?
The problem is the false base premise that Bergoglio is now or ever has been the Pope. That is a falsehood. Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger was the one and only living Pope from his election in April of ARSH 2005 until his death on the morning of December 31, ARSH 2022, whether he liked it or not, because he never validly resigned. He clearly, obviously intended to retain “a part” of the Papacy, and if he intended to retain even the slightest nanoparticle of the Papacy in February ARSH 2013, which again, he clearly, obviously did, then his resignation was 100% invalid per the Substantial Error clause of Canon 188.
November ARSH 2022. One of the last pictures taken of him, weeks before his death. You can see by the massive edema in his ankles that he was already in renal failure. But there he was, still living in the Vatican, still called “His Holiness Pope Benedict”, still wearing the Papal white, still confirming the brethren. Still the one and only Vicar of Christ on Earth, whether he liked it or not.
Speak out, folks. Tell as many people as you can. Antipope Bergoglio has no authority. Satan is trying to trick even the remnant elect into believing themselves to be in schism when they are not, OR to voluntarily enter into schism by following an Antipope into his Antichurch, or by abandoning Holy Mother Church in favor of schismatic sects, or even atheism.
“OR to voluntarily enter into schism by following an Antipope into his Antichurch, or by abandoning Holy Mother Church in favor of schismatic sects, or even atheism.”
Is the NO Church under Jorge now the antiChurch? Or is it like half and half?
Does the V2 religion with its bastardized “Mass” come from heaven? Or from men?
Ratzinger’s heresies were known before he became a “bishop”. Can an unrepented, public heretic be validly consecrated bishop?
The mere existence of the SSPX points to a grave problem long before Jorge came on the scene.
Why, if V2 came from valid popes/clergy of the true Catholic Church, does it have to be condemned and put into the dumpster of history?
If the V2 religion is not the prophesied ape church, what else needs to happen to make it so? More apostasy? More ecumenism? More religious liberty? Another one or two Jorge’s?
The antiChurch has been in full view for six decades now, not six months. Believing B16 was the true pope does one thing, keeps Catholics attached to the ape church. Satan delights in this last push to keep Catholics from the truth of SVism and in a false religion.
Ann, Mark, SuperNerd, please refute sedevacantism before promoting your semi-sedevacantism theory.
I’d add Dr. Mazza to that list. I think a roundtable podcast on this topic would be the most important show they’ve ever done. If sedevacantism is false, it can be proven to be so with facts, logic, and doctrine. And while I haven’t fully accepted the ’58 sede position, I have yet to hear their points (including your questions above) effectively refuted. At the same time, the more I hear from the Recognize & Resist crowd, the more incoherent their position gets.
I’m torn between the resignationist position and sedevacantism… and it’s getting harder and harder for me to dismiss the 58ers (as much as I want to, given the seismic implications of them being correct).
I am just doing my part from keeping people from joining schismatic sects before the Warning. My argument is that paleovacantism contradicts what the Catholic Church teaches about indefectibility before VII. Thus if they’re right, Catholicism is false. Thus no Catholic should be a paleovacantist.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm:
“Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. ***The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men.*** The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.”
What is the source of the Church’s indefectibility?
“ The gift of indefectibility plainly does not guarantee each several part of the Church against heresy or apostasy. The promise is made to the corporate body. Individual Churches may become corrupt in morals, may fall into heresy, may even apostatize. Thus at the time of the Mohammedan conquests, whole populations renounced their faith; and the Church suffered similar losses in the sixteenth century. But the defection of isolated branches does not alter the character of the main stem. The society of Jesus Christ remains endowed with all the prerogatives bestowed on it by its Founder. ***Only to One particular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome. To Peter, and in him to all his successors in the chief pastorate, Christ committed the task of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Luke 22:32); and thus, to the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, “faithlessness cannot gain access” (Epistle 54).***
So the only way the Church of Rome can defect is if Peter is missing. Great, isn’t this what paleovacantists say also. Well, if we assume all popes since Vatican II are popes, we lost the apostolic hierarchy. To be a successor of the apostles merely tracing your lineage is not enough, but you must have lawful jurisdiction:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm:
“ This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession. The Apostles received it from Christ and gave it in turn to those legitimately appointed by them, and these again selected others to continue the work of the ministry. Any break in this succession destroys Apostolicity, because the break means the beginning of a new series which is not Apostolic.”
Notice how paleovacantists claim to follow traditions but have to invent novel theologies to explain how the Church did not defect if they are right.
Thus is paleovacantism is true, the Church lost apostolic succession. If the Church lost apostolic succession, it defected. If paleovacantism is true, the Catholic Church defected.
That is my reasoning.
It was only a matter of time until Kono came in with her Sede propaganda.
And you can go to Barnhardt’s site and easily find Barnhardt’s refutation of 58 sedevacantiam. Do a little work.
I don’t think so bud. The only argument I see from her is the wheat and tares parable. That’s been debunked decades ago. If she has something using theology and or ecclesiology, post the link here.
If you’re going to accuse me of spreading propaganda, post YOUR best argument or post a link.
I’ve been reading Ann since 2011. I’ve heard her speak against sedevacantism, but I can’t recall reading a point by point rebuttal.
If there’s a link to something I might have missed, I’d appreciate it.