St. Francis de Sales, Holy Bishop and Doctor of the Church : “Resist your impatience faithfully, practicing, not only with reason, but even against reason, holy courtesy and sweetness to all, but especially to those who weary you most.”
It feels unnatural and dishonest (like calling a transvestite by its assumed pronoun): By the mere fact of conceding this formality one is made to partake of the lie:
You don’t get to decide who is the Pope and who is not. The gates of hell are never to prevail. Christ would never allow the seat of Peter to be empty for over 60 years
Fr. Edmund O’Reilly, SJ in 1892 on the Great Western Schism:
“They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit…But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced…All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”
(Rev. Edmund J. O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society [London: John Hodges, 1892], pp. 287-288; underlining added. Available online here.)
That was when multiple people claimed to be Pope. Confusion for 30 years on who the true Pope could be is different than an absent office, which God would not allow. God of course would allow heresy. That is seen in scripture and throughout history. An empty office is unprecedented and outside God's character. That would also show the gates of hell prevailed if the seat remained empty for so many years. Christ said upon Peter he would build his church. If his seat be empty, hell has prevailed.
You have missed the point, which is a warning to those like you who confidently declare what God would or would not do: Before the GWS, theologians would have said that 40 years without a clearly ascertainable pope was impossible (against visibility, unity, etc), but it happened nonetheless.
God would not lie or commit murder. Is it wrong for me to say God would not do that? God cannot break any of His promises, and he promised to build His Church on Peter. That includes Peter’s seat. Is it crazy that I expect God to act in character and keep His promise? It is not erroneous to say that God would protect His Church by making sure there is not an absence in the office He promised to build His Church on.
People can be wrong on their perception. And if I am wrong, you can show me. But there is no reason I can think of where it would be out of God’s character for confusion to ever occur in the faithful over who the true Pope could be. God allows hard and confusing things to happen all the time. That is not out of character. Breaking His promise is out of character. So, we are on two completely different wave lengths when it comes to evidence. I base my assessment on what God would do on evidence, whereas the example you give is contrary to the evidence and is clearly based on feelings rather than assessing logically the data.
God said Peter’s faith would not fail. But it has failed in the conciliar claimants, via multiple heresies. Ergo, either God was wrong (impossible), or these claimants are not true popes.
He promised Peter’s faith would not fail. So how can there be heretic popes? You would force Christ to break His promise, which you just said He can’t do. Therefore Leo is no pope.
A lot could be said here...but if one believes there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and that Church excommunicates them, then where does the one find themselves in regard to salvation?
THIS is the faith. May God bless the Society and may Mary lead the Church out of darkness back into the light of Tradition. If anyone is truly intellectually curious, I recommend reading any biography about St Athansaius. He was excommunicated by Pope LIberius for holding to tradition while the Pope was signing Arian heresies. Athansaius was excommunicated five times. He ordained priests and bishops while excommunicated. See also the fact that excommunications are not infallible for many reasons, not least of which is that there have been so many that were obviously wrong.
Why won’t Pope Leo grant an audience to the SSPX to specifically have a conversation and discussion? He is supposed to be a loving , pastoral Pope. It’s like children fighting with each other. I do not see any urgency in the Pope’s actions on this at all. I would love to see the SSPX come into the fold. They seem to be a very holy group of prelates. Why does the Pope ignore them?
If they would really try to work to the Vatican hearing them, considering that they believe Pope Leo XIV IS the true pope, they wouldn't consecrate a bishop when told not to. Even when the church is in a bad situation, which compared to other times when it did worse things I think today is nothing like that, but even so, then you must be the shining example INSIDE the church. Inside, not outside. Maybe the society won't get more bishops and it slowly dies out, but it's legacy would still remain after all.
That's a lot of flakiness in one rambling, emoji bespackled ball of confusion Allen. Congrats and take your meds because you're incredibly confused. Thanks for posting and illustrating why freestyle fundamentalist cults are theologically bankrupt.
I wonder will SSPX be obedient to authority this time .. ? or return to being protestant
St. Francis de Sales, Holy Bishop and Doctor of the Church : “Resist your impatience faithfully, practicing, not only with reason, but even against reason, holy courtesy and sweetness to all, but especially to those who weary you most.”
St Francis of Sales, pray for us!
I wonder if he blushes calling Leo “Holy Father?”
It feels unnatural and dishonest (like calling a transvestite by its assumed pronoun): By the mere fact of conceding this formality one is made to partake of the lie:
These dudes ain’t popes.
You don’t get to decide who is the Pope and who is not. The gates of hell are never to prevail. Christ would never allow the seat of Peter to be empty for over 60 years
Fr. Edmund O’Reilly, SJ in 1892 on the Great Western Schism:
“They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit…But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced…All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”
(Rev. Edmund J. O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society [London: John Hodges, 1892], pp. 287-288; underlining added. Available online here.)
That was when multiple people claimed to be Pope. Confusion for 30 years on who the true Pope could be is different than an absent office, which God would not allow. God of course would allow heresy. That is seen in scripture and throughout history. An empty office is unprecedented and outside God's character. That would also show the gates of hell prevailed if the seat remained empty for so many years. Christ said upon Peter he would build his church. If his seat be empty, hell has prevailed.
You have missed the point, which is a warning to those like you who confidently declare what God would or would not do: Before the GWS, theologians would have said that 40 years without a clearly ascertainable pope was impossible (against visibility, unity, etc), but it happened nonetheless.
God would not lie or commit murder. Is it wrong for me to say God would not do that? God cannot break any of His promises, and he promised to build His Church on Peter. That includes Peter’s seat. Is it crazy that I expect God to act in character and keep His promise? It is not erroneous to say that God would protect His Church by making sure there is not an absence in the office He promised to build His Church on.
People can be wrong on their perception. And if I am wrong, you can show me. But there is no reason I can think of where it would be out of God’s character for confusion to ever occur in the faithful over who the true Pope could be. God allows hard and confusing things to happen all the time. That is not out of character. Breaking His promise is out of character. So, we are on two completely different wave lengths when it comes to evidence. I base my assessment on what God would do on evidence, whereas the example you give is contrary to the evidence and is clearly based on feelings rather than assessing logically the data.
God said Peter’s faith would not fail. But it has failed in the conciliar claimants, via multiple heresies. Ergo, either God was wrong (impossible), or these claimants are not true popes.
He promised Peter’s faith would not fail. So how can there be heretic popes? You would force Christ to break His promise, which you just said He can’t do. Therefore Leo is no pope.
We don't need vacuous bootlickers to tell us who popes are and aren't. Hope this helps.
A lot could be said here...but if one believes there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and that Church excommunicates them, then where does the one find themselves in regard to salvation?
THIS is the faith. May God bless the Society and may Mary lead the Church out of darkness back into the light of Tradition. If anyone is truly intellectually curious, I recommend reading any biography about St Athansaius. He was excommunicated by Pope LIberius for holding to tradition while the Pope was signing Arian heresies. Athansaius was excommunicated five times. He ordained priests and bishops while excommunicated. See also the fact that excommunications are not infallible for many reasons, not least of which is that there have been so many that were obviously wrong.
But there are valid excommunications, like Luther from the Catholic Church. Rebellion in faith and morals does constitute excommunication
They’re schismatics
Why won’t Pope Leo grant an audience to the SSPX to specifically have a conversation and discussion? He is supposed to be a loving , pastoral Pope. It’s like children fighting with each other. I do not see any urgency in the Pope’s actions on this at all. I would love to see the SSPX come into the fold. They seem to be a very holy group of prelates. Why does the Pope ignore them?
If they would really try to work to the Vatican hearing them, considering that they believe Pope Leo XIV IS the true pope, they wouldn't consecrate a bishop when told not to. Even when the church is in a bad situation, which compared to other times when it did worse things I think today is nothing like that, but even so, then you must be the shining example INSIDE the church. Inside, not outside. Maybe the society won't get more bishops and it slowly dies out, but it's legacy would still remain after all.
That's a lot of flakiness in one rambling, emoji bespackled ball of confusion Allen. Congrats and take your meds because you're incredibly confused. Thanks for posting and illustrating why freestyle fundamentalist cults are theologically bankrupt.