Catholic reference guide Post:
Quick Catholic reference guide, please share:
Can a Pope be a heretic: Yes
Can he be deposed of by any subordinate based upon a teaching of a Saint or fathers as sedevacanists suggest? No
Was
Cardinal Siri the supposed Pope(Gregory XVII)to flee Rome? No, seems it
will be Benedict(Bishop in white) I have the consensus of all the Saints
prophecies and they tie in with an Infidel/Communist invasion of
Europe, Italy specifically. Yet another reason to avoid the sedes,
Cardinal Siri was more liberal than most trads think he supported the
New Mass and can be seen offering it.
Who can judge a Pope? Only a
Pope or council subsequent; those alive during a heretical pope must
and ought resist whatever is heretical or novel based upon
Tradition/Infallible Magesterium
Does a Pope who teaches heresy
still remain materially over the Church? Yes and history shows this
repeatedly. The Church was guaranteed infallibly papal successors until
Christs second coming. No Pope can be a formal heretic he has no judge
to judge him so while alive.
Does a Pope who teaches heresy
become an antipope? Antipopes are illegitmate successors to the Chair of
Peter not Popes validly elected who teach heresy. Antipopes are always
accompanied by true Popes which again was guaranteed infallibly and
bound upon by the faithful. There have been brief periods without a true
successor(due to politics) in history and shortly will happen again
Has
there been past Popes who have been anathematized and excommunicated
publicly therein after teaching heresy? Yes, Pope Honorius and there
were other heretical Popes who relinquished their heresies. Pope
Honorius was not and is not an antipope.
Was Vatican 2 infallible
and binding on the faithful? No it lacked the necessary marks to be
called a Dogmatic/Infallible Council and by own admission of the Council
and Conciliar Popes is only pastoral therefore nonbinding. There was no
new dogma issued nor any defense against heresies or errors of the day.
One must distinguish between the Infallible Extraordinary/Ordinary
Magesterium and the authentic "fallible" Magesterium when in such a
crisis where the upper hierarchy is teaching heresies.
Is Pope
Francis, Peter Romanus or Peter II? Absolutely not and in fact he might
be the imposter Pope/antipope if he is the one to make use of an invalid
excathedra to unite all religions and man under the quise of protecting
peace. Time will tell for now he is and ought be recognized as Pope.
Has the true consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart been performed?
NO! Pope John Paul II even admitted so ...our Lady still awaits..
Has
there been any councils that were invoked and later made null and void
by a current/subsequent Pope? Yes, there has been a handful, second
council of Ephesus is one 20 years later put down by subsequent Pope at
council of Chalcedon. Even a universal Council that is not local which
is not infallible can be revoked it does not just pertain to a local
Council.
Can I attend the novus ordo? No you ought not nor are
bound to. One would not attend a protestant lutheran church why would
you then attend a novus ordo parish(even with a latin mass) that teaches
and holds full communion with those teaching the tenants of masonry,
liberalism and modernism already condemned. You cannot be following
Vatican II and objectively call yourself a Catholic says the Church,
numerous preconciliar pontiffs including LEO XIII and Pope St Pius X
Are
traditionalists/SSPX schismatic? No, recognizing a validly elected Pope
while resisting his heresy is not schismatic.. Vatican II was a robber
heretical and schismatic council. Again, history reflects such, St
Athanisius who resisted the Arian heresy that was supported by Pope
Liberius was not only not a schismatic even though he was wrongfully
excommunicated and exiled many times, he is remembered as a Doctor and
Father of the Church while Pope Liberius was all but forgotten and whose
named was removed from the Roman Martyrology. Meaning he was wrong, St
Athanisius was right much like the present situation albeit we are in
worse times, of traditionalists resisting the Vatican 2 french
revolution. Likewise with those resisting Pope Honorius's monothelistic
heresy. If SSPX/traditionalists are schismatic then that means the
Church before Vatican 2 and all the Saints/Popes/Doctors are schismatic
as well. Of course it is not denouncing this absurd opinion.
Question: Why dont you work from inside the Church instead of outside the Church?
Answer:
True Traditionalists/SSPX are not outside of the "Church" while
objectively speaking the modernists of Vatican II are not "inside" the
Church. When one speaks on the Church this is always presupposed by the
Faith. If the Faith is not being maintained by our Pope and the "Church"
since Vatican 2 then how can one commune with heretics when our Faith
says we cant. And furthermore I actually have done this and you know
what I received in message dont ever teach/preach here anymore. So as St
Athanisius teaches you can not go into these churches until they are
corrected and being that starting form the top objectively speaking the
top isn't corrected then how can one go into these churches to do so? So
they can be treated as I was? Therefore when we say "Church" its those
objectively speaking who are really keeping the faith of which the
Conciliar Church is not. They have the building we have the Faith says
St Athanisius hope this clears up the fact that traditionalists are
catholics and in fact one cannot hold full communion with the tenants of
Masonry/liberalism and be called catholic even if a pope says so. The
CHURCH has already spoken on the matter that no Pope can change.
Can
I go to a Latin Mass community, FSSP, Institute of Christ King? What
about Michael Voris, Father Z are they not traditionalists? No, they are
modernists who teach/hold to a latin mass, they hold full communion
with Rome and those liberal/Masonic tenants coming from Vatican 2 Rome.
Cant be a liberal and be a Catholic. I designate objectively such souls
in the future as "pseudo trads". You must avoid.
Is the new
humanism that the Conciliar Church/Popes teach Catholic? No, in fact the
same philosophy/theology was condemned during the times of the french
revolution and the condemned council of Pistoia wherein the
liberals(bishops) at that time taught these same heresies and novelties
by and large and was condemned including a venacular Mass and emphasis
on Christs humanity. New Humanism is apart of the new religion of
Vatican 2, it runs contrary to Thomism/Scholasticism and cannot be
accepted to be/remain Catholic. From thence stems the heresies and
novelties of the New Mass, the new Sacrament of rites, right to
religious liberty, liberty of conscience, separation of church and
state, democracy(Masonic) over Social Kingship of Christ(Monarchy),
freedom of press, freedom of speech, masonic tolerance/coexistence in
false ecumenism. All taught by the Conciliar Church/Popes stemming form
Vatican 2.
Is Limbo a Doctrine binding on the Church? No, it is
not binding but has been taught since the early Church. Liberals try to
do away with this teaching as the Conciliar Church is even the present
Pope.
Does Baptism of desire/Blood a teaching of the Church
impede the One Baptism(of water)?No, and again like limbo it has been
taught since the early Church was taught at Council of trent, and by the
many Doctors including St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine. Few have
resisted here and there but it is a consistent teaching in the Church
which in no way violates the Church teaching on the One Baptism as
interpreted by the Church. The Church has always taught there will be
"implicit" Catholics to gain salvation through no fault of there own and
NOT rejecting any Catholic teaching, the Church, the Pope, etc... but
with a desire at least implicitly to be in the true Body of Christ.
Baptism of desire is binding (Trent) those who reject are outside the
Church and are heretics...
Is capital punishment Catholic
teaching? Yes, it is although not a binding doctrine has been
consistently taught throughout the Church again in the Council of Trent
and as recently as Pope Pius XII to reiterate this the liberals again in
the Conciliar Church including the present Pontiff and Bishops are
trying to remove it. Capital Punishment in no way impedes Catholic
teaching and actually is taught as a great mercy upon society to protect
the common good when reading the Church's interpretation.
What
is Papal Infallibility? Papal infallibility only extends to a Pope when
he makes use of excathedra and when what he teaches falls in line with
the Infallible Magesterium/Tradition. Thence a Pope can/could teach his
own opinion and teach heresies which of course history reflects. When a
Pope speaks in accordance and in the same sense and interpretation as
always taught we say yes to Peter and when he speaks on his own accord
contrary to the Infallible Magesterium/Tradition as always taught then
we say no to Simon. Even Peter denied our Lord three times. The Pope is
not God and not infallible when he utters any sentence as modernists
make it seem as well as sedevacanists fall into this error.
Do
heretical priests effect the fruit of the Sacraments? Baptism yes, the
sacraments of reconciliation and Eucharist NO says our faith St Thomas
Aquinas included. Although the Sacrament would be valid meaning it takes
place there is no fruit or GRACE from the Sacrament therefore another
reason in prudence to refrain form any novus ordo priest.
Question:
You say apostasy from or within the Church does that means the Popes
are Apostates and the Conciliar Church is Apostate?
No, when we say
apostasy from the faith, we mean a loosening from the faith; a sliding
from the faith in heresy and novelty. Sedes make the error in calling
the Conciliar Church the Apostate Church and even some trad's. It is not
yet Apostate that comes under a soon true antipope who will
"dogmatically" make excathedra declaration making all religions equal or
something quite similiar along those lines, thus making it an Apostate
Church. When we denote New Church it is in formation it is not yet
solidified as the Apostate Church yet. This is the proper context of
"Rome will lose the Faith"(LaSallette), that is, dogmatically will lose
it under an excathedra (via true antipope). Vatican 2 was a revolt
nonetheless. When one reads AA-1025 we even see there plans for Vatican 3
where they say they are going to do just what as I indicate above. The
"Church" can't teach heresy(indefectible/infallible) but churchmen in
the Church can teach heresy including the Pope see the difference.
Question: So, What are you telling me is the Endgame of this Apostasy within and of the upper ecclesiastics of the churchmen?
Answer:
The goal has been to change what would be called the Catholic Church
from a supernatural religion(Catholicism) to a NATURALIST religion
called Masonry. From a Religion based upon Faith/Dogma to a false faith
based upon man's "Reason". At Vatican 2, the Council was founded upon by
a CONDEMNED Pseudo Philosophy called "new humanism" which comes form
Masonry; it introduced Masonic principles into Catholicism thus
confusing everyone(CathloFreemasonry) and for fifty years further
principles have been added while at the same time further heretical
statements have disintegrated Catholicism for this new religion, such as
Jews and Muslims worship the SAME TRUE God as we Catholics. This ALL
starts with our Conciliar Popes! The next step our Lady has been warning
us is the next step down from humanism called SECULAR Humanism in this
progressivist movement in the Conciliar Church which is just as Pope St
Pius X warned the "human church" which will retain the title of being
called Catholic but its Apostate for it is free of true Catholic Dogma, a
Naturalist religion. So from Catholicism to Masonry while changing the
faith presented to the peoples while retaining the title still of
Catholic just as Pope St Pius X warned. This is the end goal to fit the
New Religion(Masonry) into the New World Order so that ALL men/religions
can be EQUAL this is what Masonry does. Part of the The Real THIRD
secret of Fatima of course is Vatican 2 and the soon Apostate Church
free of Dogma which ties into our Lady of LaSallette who said "Rome will
lose the Faith and become the Seat of Antichrist. The true Church to be
driven underground for awhile perhaps even for a few years until Peter
II comes, the Papacy will shift if we follow the third secret who says
the Dogma of Faith will be preserved in Portugal(implying NOT Rome). DO
NOT FALL FOR THE NEW RELIGION COMING THRU THE VATICAN 2 SECT!! FIND A
SSPX/SSPX-SO/INDEPENDENT CHAPEL AND BRACE FOR THE STORM
L. Cardinal Ciappi:
"In the Third Secret, it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top."
*Personal
communication to a Professor Baumgartner in Salzburg, Austria. Card.
Ciappi was the Papal Theologian of Pope John Paul II
Does this
mean the gates of hell have prevailed? How could it, we have had
heretical popes and schismatic councils before in the past and the
faith, true faith is still here is it not. Even if the true faithful are
reduced to a handful the gates of hell cannot prevail even with a
heretical pope and schismatic council.
Why did Jesus then
establish a hierarchy to follow? Christ established His Church thru
Peter based upon the Faith not on trust or obedience. Therefore Peter
and his successors, the upper ecclessiatics are meant to guard and
protect the Faith not make a new one which they have(Masonry). No
superior can force one to leave the Catholic faith under the guise of
false obedience. Vatican 1 was a Dogmatic and binding Council taught
this; it taught that the Popes and upper ecclesiastics must interpret in
the same sense, context and sense as the Church always has, the Vatican
2 Popes admit they do not and say there are NEW doctrines(Pope John
Paul II, Ecclesia Dei)
Are the Jews, Israel, (the State) Gods
Chosen people still? No absolutely and unequivocally NOT. Israel was a
foreshadowing of the Catholic Church. When Jesus came the Jews rejected
Christ and ceased to be chosen of any kind. Jesus himself accursed the
Jews(fig tree). This is true Catholic teaching referencing the Popes and
Saints of past previous to the diabolical Vatican 2 revolution. The Old
covenant is revoked and all those who want to obtain the Beatific
Vision MUST come thru the Catholic Church via Christ, not thru
freemasonry via the budding newchurch within the Church. The state of
Israel is a Zionist state bent on the new world order of their "new
jewish messiah". One cannot support the state of Israel and be called
Catholic and is a slap in the face to our Lord of whom are faith teaches
the Jews are accursed. Distinquish between Jews in heritage (for by
heritage they still could be a Catholic) and those practicing there
noncatholic "faith". The old law is dead swallowed up by the Sacred
Heart of Christ.
"For you, brethren, are become followers of the
churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have
suffered the same things from your own coutrymen, even as they have from
the Jews, [15] Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and
have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all
men;[16] Prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be
saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon
them to the end." 1 Thessalonians 2: 14-16
Do Jews and Muslims
worship the same true God? Absolutely not, they deny our Lord, the Holy
Ghost, the TRUE GOD WHO is the HOLY TRINITY. This is a masonic heresy
that comes form the top of the church. It is binding DOGMA to believe in
the Holy Trinity to get into heaven, Jews and Muslims are religions of
antichrist the Church truly teaches(not the last two popes of course).
"But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 10:33
"Who
is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is
Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. [23] Whosoever denieth
the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath
the Father also." 1 John 2: 22-23
What is the Triumph of the
Immaculate Heart and the period of peace? It is when the second Vatican
council the french revolution within the church is removed, the new mass
included and we return to Tradition. It is a victory through our Lady
over these heresies and novelties. It is also a victory over Islam and
Communism in a soon new crusade of the Church. It is a restoration of
Catholic monarchies. This period of peace will be more brief a
generation then Antichrist cometh. The revived Holy Roman Empire the
Fathers teach and interpret is the "restrainer" that holds back
antichrist.
When will Mary be proclaimed CoRedemptrix? In the
great Council of Peter II which will bind the Council Infallibly, as
well as I suggest make null and void of Vatican 2, the New Mass and all
the heresies and errors of the last 50 years or so.
Who is the
Great Monarch? A holy king/emperor who will arise to be Peter II's right
arm of justice in the world to restore holy Christendom. After Russia
is truly converted they will join the great Monarch and virtually the
whole world will be truly catholic, non vatican 2 style.
What is a
more general sequence of events? Reminding you our Lord said to watch
and pray meaning He wanted us to see these signs so you could know the
season. And without giving dates this was put under excommunication for
those who do I say more generally: Continued communist laws here in
America and abroad, revolutions all over, varying chastisements of
nature in earthquakes, storms revolt of the earth crying out in justice.
A world war between virtually all nations, epidemics, worldwide
economic collapse, a Pope who will undo the Revolution of Vatican 2 with
rise of the Great Monarch, the three days of darkness, then triumph of
Immaculate Heart with a Great Council that undoes Vatican 2.
Do
traditionalists(Catholics) speak there own "opinion" thus making
themselves protestants? No we/they reiterate what the Church has always
taught before the modernists and masons hijacked the Church by way of
the Infallible Magesterium with aide of the Saints/Fathers/Doctors
therefore the ones who are protestant are those not teaching in
accordance to Tradition/Infallible Magesterium. So it is not personal
interpretation but rather the interpretation that has been passed along
for nearly two milenia until the diabolical vatican 2. Because one holds
a position of authority does not guarantee he is keeping the Faith then
by logic one must know the Faith and know it very well, that is, what
was taught before Vatican 2.
Can I go to an orthodox church then or
Byzantine Rite? No you cannot the Oriental, Greek and Russian orthodox
are still schismatics theologically you cannot at all go there. And
although the Byzantine hold a valid rite they still follow Vatican 2
therefore you cannot go there as well. Brethren you cannot go where the
Faith is NOT. Due to the Vatican 2 Apostasy form the Faith here are very
few places(true traditionalists) holding the proper theological
position and Faith. Cannot commune with novus ordo heretics.
Does
papal succession which the Church was guaranteed infallibly mean there
would be "no" popes who claim to be Pope or antipopes in between without
a true Pope?.... No! The Church was guaranteed successive papal
successors infallibly. I had a sedevacanist tell me today successive
meant "essentially" one after 50 years. Pope Pius XII, no pope, no pope,
no pope, no pope, no pope, then now potentially a Pope. This by any
degree of education even elementary is NOT successive(one RIGHT after
another).
suc·ces·sive
adjective \sək-ˈse-siv\
Definition of SUCCESSIVE
: following in order : following each other without interruption
Question:
Please define what a true traditionalist is? A TRUE TRADITIONALIST is
one who recognizes a valdily elected Pope but is resisting the vatican 2
revolution these Popes have so sadly supported and taught. FSSP,
INSTITUTE of CHRIST the KING, Michale Voris, Father Z, your local
diocese Latin MASS ARE NOT TRADITIONALISTS. SSPX, SSPX-SO, SSPV (so long
as there not sedevacanist) Independent Chapels are acceptable.
Sedevacanists are ULTRA-Traditionalists so avoid its a schismatic
theological position. Therefore, do not read the mainstream Churchs
viewpoint on what a traditionalist is they cant even figure out there in
a new religion of man following the tenants of liberalism/masonry let
alone get this term correctly applied.
Should I be worried about
the times ahead? ABSOLUTELY not for this would be of the devil. Stay in
prayer, penances and reparations unto the Sacred heart thru the
Immaculate Heart, stay in a state of grace find/locate a true
traditionalist church not in full communion with Rome such as SSPX,
SSPX-so, independents those who recognize a validly elected pope but are
resisting this revolution.
If this Pope is the one who unites
all religions via an invalid excathedra can he still be Pope? Absolutely
not and it could be why Benedict retained the title of Pope Emeritus.
He would cease to be Pope and the Church would fall into Apostasy and
claim to be Catholic/Universal. And sill since we keep the faith the
gates of heel will not Triumph. The true Church/believers could be
underground so to speak for 2-3 years until after the chastisements
clear the table and Peter II can arrive.
Can a pope declare a Church council, such as Vatican II, null and void?
Indeed yes. Several Church councils in the past have been declared null and void by popes, among them:
-
The Council of Ephesus (449) was regularly called and attended by all
the Eastern bishops and by legates from Pope St. Leo the Great. That
pope nullified the decrees of that Council and branded it the
Latrocinium, or "Robber's Council," by which disparaging term it is
known to this day.
- The Qunisext Council (692) was declared a "reprobate synod." As authority for this verdict, we have St. Bede the Venerable.
-
The Council of Hieria (754) introduced and blessed heretical
Iconoclasm, with the well-known catastrophic consequences for the
Church. Pope Stephen II nullified the decrees of that Council in 769.
-
The Council of Pistoia (1794), involving the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph
II, the Gallican bishops of France, and some bishops of Italy, blessed
liturgical changes that resemble to an amazing extent the corrupt
innovations of the New Order after Vatican II. The Council prescribed
that there should be only one "table" in each church; condemned
processions in honor of the Blessed Virgin and of the Saints, the
Rosary, the Way of the Cross, and holy images; instituted a "simplified"
Mass said entirely out loud in the vernacular. Pope Pius VI nullified
the decrees of that Council in his Bull Auctorem fidei of the same year
as "rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to
the charges of heretics against [the traditional Latin Mass]."
Thus,
several Church councils in the past have been nullified by popes, so it
is not a problem to include in that number Vatican II, which was called
and promulgated not even as a dogmatic council, but as a merely
pastoral council. In the past, it has usually taken about a century for
these troubled periods in the Church to be resolved, and we are only
fifty years into the post Vatican II period. But the resolution of
troubled periods in the Church involved far more than just a pope.
There
is so much confusion now that we cannot look for a resolution soon.
That is why we must in the interim follow St. Paul's dictum: "State et
tenete traditiones, quas didicistis sive per sermonem sive per epistulam
nostram" [Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions that
you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle]. The example of
the Church in troubled times in the past teaches that we must find the
true Catholic Faith where it now exists, outside the Novus Ordo sect
**Modernists
will argue that Vatican 2 was a universal ecumenical council presided
over by a Pope and can not. This is false even a universal Council
lacking all the necessary requirements for a Council to be an act of the
solemn/Infallible Magagesterium can be made null and void later by a
Pope/Council. V2 did not proclaim any new Dogma binding Catholics
infallibly nor did it condemn/teach against any heresies of the day to
be considered such; it was by the Popes own admission a pastoral Council
only to interpret the Church according to the modern world and man.
http://www.romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment