Recent posts

#1

General News and Discussion / Re: Russiagate Blown Open

Last post by james03 - Today at 07:11:28 PM

They are called midwits.  Same group who got the vax.

#2

The Sedevacantist Thesis / Re: On the Second Vatican Coun...

Last post by Heinrich - Today at 06:54:49 PM

Judas was still a priest when he betrayed our Lord. The betrayal of the modernists does not take their offices away de jure. Possibly de facto, but, again, that is not a layman's place to remit judgement.

["Peter" and "The Church Universal" are convertible synonyms for St. Thomas. Cajetan explains why: It is because the faith of St. Peter in person and in St. Peter's successors is the same faith by which the Church as a whole is bound.]

#3

The Sedevacantist Thesis / Re: Some questions for the R&R...

Last post by Michael Wilson - Today at 05:25:12 PM

I am only claiming what is reality Michael.

This is a repeat of your famous "this is the way it is" nonsensical argument.

Based on this reality you are insisting that two churches are one and the same,

No, based on your argument that the Conciliar Popes are also Catholic Popes and head of the Catholic Church. If they are the head of both Churches, and members of both; as your distorted and bizarre "reality" argument claims, then there is no difference between the two.

as if the pope is the Church, which is absurd - no pope would ever teach such a thing because popes teach that it is Christ and the Church Who are one and the same.

Yes, the Pope speaks for the Church and the Pope and the Church are interchangeable.

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
The Theological Virtues I Faith
pg. 211-212
Aquinas here states that individual bishops and doctors can go astray in the faith, without detriment to the sturdiness of the universal Church in its infallibility. "Peter" and "The Church Universal" are convertible synonyms for St. Thomas. Cajetan explains why: It is because the faith of St. Peter in person and in St. Peter's successors is the same faith by which the Church as a whole is bound. There is no doubt possible in any issue that may arise over personal historic defections. It is succession in the sovereign pontificate that identifies the transmission of infallibility. This tenet of faith is definitive. It must be believed-and is.

If you always remember that Christ and the Church are one, you will never elevate the position of the pope by saying that the conciliar church and Catholic Church are one.

You are the one that claims that the Conciliar Popes are head of the Catholic Church.

" ...the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing". - Pope Pius XII Humani Generis (27)

Of Course, but the Pope is the visible head of the Church here on Earth; there is no opposition between these two truths.
But you reject Pius XII in Mitici Corporis when he teaches that 'heresy, schism and apostasy" by their very nature separate a man from the Church.

Christ is the head, the head of the Church - not the pope. The pope is only His Vicar and His Vicar will answer to God at his particular judgement for everything he ever did and said, just exactly the same as the rest of us will.

The Pope is the head of the Church here on Earth.

#4

The Sedevacantist Thesis / Re: On the Second Vatican Coun...

Last post by Michael Wilson - Today at 05:17:07 PM

I simply see most of the modern human element of the V2 Church as morally compromised. I am not closed to the idea of vacancy, just the promulgation and of that sentence. It's not mine to promote. The mystical purity remains, and I am attempting to burn off Purgatory time and dodge darkness within our broken Faith family. The Eastern Church is clearly leaderless by essence and has disordered attachments to national politics and ethnic exclusivity, which leads to an insularity that rejects a basic tenant of Christianity. 

There has always been a human element in the Church; just think of Judas betraying our Lord; St. Peter denying Him thrice and the rest of the Apostles abandoning Him. Our Lord bestowed on Peter and his successors the gift of teaching the truth and of ruling the flock, despite all of their own personal failings. What has happened since Vatican II is the very men who claim to be Popes using the office to promote heresy and immorality as Catholic doctrines. This is impossible, as the Church cannot teach error or lead her children to sin and perdition. It is the wrongheaded attachment to the Conciliar Popes as true Popes, which either leads the faithful down the path of perdition or makes them despair of the truth of the Catholic faith.
I agree with you on the Eastern Church, it is a group of indedepent heretical national churches.

#5

General News and Discussion / Re: Russiagate Blown Open

Last post by aquinas138 - Today at 05:15:46 PM

It's fascinating that it seems only normie Democrats ever really believed Russiagate (and boy did they) - MAGA on the right and socialist-communists on the far left never believed it was real because so much of it was so completely ridiculous. There's probably enough actual dirt on a guy like Trump that I never really understood why they felt the need to make up such preposterous nonsense.

[which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught,]

#6

The Sedevacantist Thesis / Re: St. Joseph's Name in the C...

Last post by Michael Wilson - Today at 05:07:21 PM

[quot

Councils are and have always been as infallible as the pope makes them infallible. Both Pope John XXIII and Paul VI explicitly said there was no infallibility for V2.   

Neither one of them said any such thing.

The popes I quoted tells us that the Magisterium cannot err, so we either accept and believe this as Catholic truth, or we reject it as a lie.
If we accept it as truth, and we know that V2 erred, then we know that the errors V2 taught is not part of the Magisterium.

Your argument is fallacious: you say that "the magisterium of the Church cannote err" which is true, then you say that Vatican II erred so it is not magisterium. While it did err,  you make the magisterium of the Church "accidentally" infallible; i.e. The reason why Vatican II erred is because it it was not protected from teahing error by the Holy Ghost; for  the Holy Ghost protects if from teaching error.
Here is Leo XIII in "Satis Cogitum"

"Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own.

The Holy Ghost prevents the magisterium from teaching errors and its teachings should be received as if they were of Christ Himself;  if therefore Vatican II was not protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching error, it is because it was not the true magisterium because there was no Pope to confirm it in the truth.

 Again, as I have repeatedly told you, the Magisterium is not popes and bishops or councils. A simple definition of the Church's Magisterium is, the Church is the authority and is the means by which Catholic truths are revealed to the world. V1 tells us we are to believe all those things that are contained IN the magisterium. Not all those people who (can teach error) and are part of the magisterium.[/quote]
You also conceded once that you were wrong on this.
So here we go again:
From the same Traditional Catholic Dictionary definition:

Magisterium, n.; L. The authority of the Church, by divine appointment, to teach the truths of religious belief; the commission of the Church to teach; the teaching office of the Church; the teaching and interpreting of the doctrines of faith carried on by the Church through the Pope and bishops and those commissioned by them. It may be ordinary when a doctrine is proclaimed throughout the Church as part of divine revelation; or extraordinary when a general council defines a doctrine ratified by the Pope or when the Pope speaks as the official teacher of the Church (ex cathedra) proclaiming or defining a matter of faith or morals,

What part of that definition is unclear? "The authority of the Church to teach the truth of religious belief"
"The Commission of the Church to teach"; "The teaching office of the Church"; the Teaching and interpreting of the doctrines of faith carried on by the Church through the Pope and the bishops and those commissioned by them".

We know the true Gospel from all those things contained in the Magisterium.

Where does the (your definition) the Magisterium come from? Did it drop in from the sky? Were these teachings written in a series of books, that we can all consult? There are no 'teachings' without 'teachers'.

100% agree. The pope is not the Church.

The Pope speaks in the name of the whole Church as he is the Vicar of Christ on Earth and the visible head of the Church.
Here is Fr. Garigou La Grange

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
The Theological Virtues I Faith
pg. 211-212
Aquinas here states that individual bishops and doctors can go astray in the faith, without detriment to the sturdiness of the universal Church in its infallibility. "Peter" and "The Church Universal" are convertible synonyms for St. Thomas. Cajetan explains why: It is because the faith of St. Peter in person and in St. Peter's successors is the same faith by which the Church as a whole is bound. There is no doubt possible in any issue that may arise over personal historic defections. It is succession in the sovereign pontificate that identifies the transmission of infallibility. This tenet of faith is definitive. It must be believed-and is.

So according to St. Thomas, it is de fide that Peter (the Pope) and the Church universal are convertible synonyms. So the Pope is the Church.

#7

General News and Discussion / Russiagate Blown Open

Last post by james03 - Today at 02:59:06 PM

Red meat for MAGA.  I'm not complaining, let them all tear each other apart.

The Obama Administration knew that Russia did not interfere with the 2016 election, but they pushed the hoax through their friends in the fake news media.

"We assess that foreign adversaries did not use cyber attacks on election infrastructure to alter the US Presidential election outcome this year. We have no evidence of cyber manipulation of election infrastructure intended to alter results," the report said.

"We assess that Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure," the report said. ...

Tulsi called for prosecutions and sent the newly declassified documents to the Justice Department.

"These documents detail a treasonous conspiracy by officials at the highest levels of the Obama White House to subvert the will of the American people and try to usurp the President from fulfilling his mandate," Tulsi Gabbard said.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/07/treasonous-conspiracy-tulsi-gabbard-sends-newly-declassified-trump/

#8

General News and Discussion / Re: UNSUNG HERO’S (The Unvacci...

Last post by james03 - Today at 01:48:56 PM

She's using the appropriate term "pure bloods", so give her credit for that.

#9

General News and Discussion / Re: Epstein Cover-up

Last post by james03 - Today at 01:38:54 PM

...

edit: Comments are still up.

[Your idea that all councils are ipso facto infallible is proven wrong with V2.]

#10

The Sedevacantist Thesis / Re: St. Joseph's Name in the C...

Last post by Stubborn - Today at 01:14:30 PM

No Michael, I have said more than once, we know V2 was not infallible because of all the past councils. In knowing the truth is how we know the lies of V2. Your idea that all councils are ipso facto  infallible is proven wrong with V2. This is something you need to get straight in your own mind.

Stubb,
if Church Councils are not infallible, then we do not have any assurance that the previous Councils such as Vatican I, Trent, Nicea etc. etc. are infallible.

Councils are and have always been as infallible as the pope makes them infallible. Both Pope John XXIII and Paul VI explicitly said there was no infallibility for V2.   

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835: "... the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error."

Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium "could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching."

So either Church Councils are part of the Magisterium and are therefore infallible or they are not. If not then we do not have to receive their teachings, and therefore when a Council such as Trent or Vatican I teaches a doctrine or condemns an error, we cannot be certain that it is teaching the truth or not condemning a truth, se we are free to withhold our assent.

The popes I quoted tells us that the Magisterium cannot err, so we either accept and believe this as Catholic truth, or we reject it as a lie.
If we accept it as truth, and we know that V2 erred, then we know that the errors V2 taught is not part of the Magisterium.

 Again, as I have repeatedly told you, the Magisterium is not popes and bishops or councils. A simple definition of the Church's Magisterium is, the Church is the authority and is the means by which Catholic truths are revealed to the world. V1 tells us we are to believe all those things that are contained IN the magisterium. Not all those people who (can teach error) and are part of the magisterium.

If Vatican II is and act of the Magisterium, and the definition of  "Magisterium" of the Church is the following from the "Traditional Catholic Dictionary" online
http://laudatedominum.net//dictionary/M.php

Magisterium, n.; L. The authority of the Church, by divine appointment, to teach the truths of religious belief; the commission of the Church to teach; the teaching office of the Church; the teaching and interpreting of the doctrines of faith carried on by the Church through the Pope and bishops and those commissioned by them. It may be ordinary when a doctrine is proclaimed throughout the Church as part of divine revelation; or extraordinary when a general council defines a doctrine ratified by the Pope or when the Pope speaks as the official teacher of the Church (ex cathedra) proclaiming or defining a matter of faith or morals

The teaching authority of the Pope with the bishops united with him, which is what happened at Vatican II. The "Pope" and bishops of the world issues official documents on the teaching of the Church on various subjects.

Their teachings are new, and they contradict all the previous teachings of popes and bishops united with him. This serves to prove that the pope and bishops in a council are not automatically infallible - *that's* what it proves Michael. Add to that - both popes who oversaw it said V2 was not infallible. 

Of course both teacher and teaching are important, but as we see in the next verse, St. Paul was flagging out the Gospel, not the preacher.

How do we know what the true Gospel is if not by the means of the authority of the Pope and the bishops in union with him? This is the way that Our Lord set up His Church.

We know the true Gospel from all those things contained in the Magisterium.

"False teachers" are *all* those who preach a false Gospel i.e. heresies. Like St. Paul, Our Lord tells us to not be deceived into believing them, because they try to seduce us into their heresies by how they present themselves, how they look and the pleasing things they say. 
Mat. 7:15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
Mat.24:4 And Jesus answering, said to them: Take heed that no man seduce you 24:5 For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many.

Right, false teachers who pretend to be true shepherds, but are actually wolves in sheep's clothing. The Church teaches with infallible authority guaranteed by Christ, and the faithful are bound to "hear the Church" or be excluded.

100% agree. The pope is not the Church.