Cardinals have always had the right to refuse the accept election to the Papacy. Historically some Cardinals have in fact refused election. Where does this guy come up with this novelty that once you are elected Pope you are Pope forever? Even elected Popes can resign their office.
Let's state the obvious Sedevacantism is heresy pure & simple.
Even Hutton Gibson doesn't hold to the Siri Theory any more.
http://www.geocities.com/livrant/the-war-is-now-
no-66.html
Repent and return to the True Church or you will go to Hell.
Never let it be said that a guy doesn't know where he stands with you, Mr. Shea.
Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. Declaratio quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de necessitate salutis.
Yes, he, and the other schismatics should know better.
I know it will make no difference whatsoever to this guy, but there is a perfectly simple and clear reason why there would have been white, then black smoke. And that is that the whole white-black smoke thing just doesn't work properly. Apparently mixing damp straw with the ballots to produce black smoke is ineffective and hard to control.
The same thing happened in 1978 when Cardinal Luciani (John Paul I) was elected Pope. White smoke, then black smoke for a long time, so long that everyone gave up thinking that a Pope had been elected; they were all leaving St. Peter's square when Cardinal Felici came out to make the announcement. This time, to try to control things better, they had used different chemical preparations in little cylinders, but it evidently didn't help.
Of course, I'm sure Paddy has his own theory: Luciani was elected by the modernist cardinals, but Siri duked it out with him at the stove, and started throwing black-smoke chemicals on it, crying "Nooooooooooooooo! I'm the real Pope!" Then he was subdued and led away in chains. . .
A lot of people have it the other way around, actually. They say Luciani was elected by the traditionalists, but was killed in the Vatican a month later by the modernists /Freemasons. Huge numbers of people actually buy that.
By the way: Siri under house arrest for 32 years??!! Plenty of people saw him walking around on the streets during those years.
This Paddy has simply lost all contact with reality. I don't think anyone will be able to argue with him.
Mark,
Are you sure it's not a rather drawn-out joke? I mean.. seriously.. it's almost as bad as the tinfoil mitre popes out in Nebraska (or wherever..)
I think Chris Molter's got a point. I've looked through Paddy's blog and he comes across like a Protestant caricature of a Catholic. ("I believe in the pope," "The greatest events in the 2000 year history of the Church took place at Fatima in Portugal in 1917," referring to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as "the new Noah's Ark for these latter days and the Ark of the New Testament," etc.).
I could be wrong. I'm Orthodox, and the schismatics I've known are Old-Calendarists, etc. Perhaps I can't tell the difference between a Catholic schismatic and a Catholic caricature.
Another one:
"It can reasonably be said that Mary Immaculate is the personification of the Holy Spirit."
Really?
Lori,
In order to argue with someone about the Siri situation, the first thing you have to do is acknowledge the truth. It seems Siri was elected Pope, but refused to accept the honor. The Siri-vacantis will argue that he was pressured into not accepting, but the fact remains that a person is not the Pope until he accepts the position. This is the important point.
BTW, the vast majority of sedes despise the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and especially the definition of Boniface VIII. One of Pius XIII's first acts as Pope was to condemn the feeneyites. SSPV, SSPX, and the sedes around Bishop Dolan have also wasted alot of ink condemning the feeneyites.
Steven CC,
I believe he is referring to the controversial teaching of St. Maximillain Kolbe. However, I believe it was originally said with much more caution ie, Mary can in some sense be considered the personification of the Holy Spirit. Whenever, someone uses the words "in some sense" you can be sure that what he is about to say is an error if taken in the literal way. For example when the last Pope said that the Jews could be considered in some sense our elder brothers in the Faith. The very fact that he used the words in some sense, means that they are not really our elder brothers in the Faith. Unfortunately, many that are not familiar with theological writings do not know about the phrase "in some sense" and what it means.
Christopher,
Yes, I had heard the story that Siri was elected in 1958 and refused, but thought that was a rumor, or something impossible to confirm. It seems to me it couldn't be known for certain unless one of the cardinals broke the vow of secrecy. Do you have any proof? (It was not something I was actively trying to deny, in any case).
Of course, there is never any white smoke until someone has both been elected and accepted, so that more or less nullifies Paddy's claim about the smoke right of the bat. Though evidently all the Siri-vacantis don't agree with his theory.
Uh, scratch that last sentence - I don't think it makes much sense. Even if Paddy doesn't say so (I don't see any place where he did), he apparently believes that Siri actually accepted. Or does he?
And by the way, if the majority of the cardinals accepted him and wanted him Pope, who had enough power to dare to hog-tie him (or whatever)? Can any of these people come up with a theory that makes any sense at all?
Lori,
First I do not think the seal is really that strict. We know lots about the voting of the last conclave through legitimate reporters, who would not make stuff up. Cardinals can reveal alot, without technically breaking the seal. It does look like Paddy believes that Siri accepted, but again, as was pointed out above a Pope can and has resigned. But maybe sedes do not believe this and that is why they refuse to accept the definition of Boniface VIII. After all, he only became pope because St. Celestine V abdicated.
I have found through personal experience with these people, that if you go to the theology of the Papacy, ie how a pope becomes the pope, and show them examples throughout history, they are not all beyond reasoning with. Many of the ones I have met, are just simple Catholics confused by the chaos in the Church and duped by the writings of many sedes. When I quote Boniface VIII to them, and show them the dire consequences of rejecting the Pope, and also show the theological errors of the people they are reading, I often have success. But I have wasted hours on the phone with people like Br. Peter Diamond.
Christopher,
Yes, I believe many of these people can be reached, but in Paddy's case, there just seems to be some kind of a weird disconnect, where he thinks the stuff he says doesn't have to be logical, won't answer questions about it, etc. It's a little like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, though some of their nonsense is at least on the surface more logical.
OK, so who in the conclave did spill the beans about Siri? Or did anybody?
What was said and who said it? Or was there anything like that at all?
If I seem over-curious, it's probably because today was the first time I've ever heard this particular sedevacante theory, believe it or not, and I find it weirdly fascinating. (I know all about the double-substituted-for-Paul-VI one, and I'm sure there are others out there).
"OK, so who in the conclave did spill the beans about Siri?"
That's like asking who spilled the beans about the vote counts in the last papal conclave, you just do not know. The rumors of Siri's election were not uncommon at the time. Some priests have said that Siri told them he was elected (he did not claim he was Pope to them). There seems to be only one priest that claims Siri told him was the true Pope. He supposedly was told this a year before Siri died. There appears to be no doubt that he met with Siri, but I doubt his claims of what was said. If you google Siri pope, you will see all sorts of claims. They usually reference private revelations for the majority of there "hard" evidence, and then make implications from what Siri said publicly. He never publicly claimed to be the pope. There is also this in the book "The Vatican Exposed" by Paul Williams:
"In 1954 Count Della Torre, editor of the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, warned [Pope] Pius XII of [Cardinal Angelo] Roncalli's Communist sympathies. Other members of the "Black Nobility" expressed similar concerns.[5]
"Nor did Roncalli [later known as "Pope John XXIII"] escape the attention of the FBI and CIA. The agencies began to accumulate thick files on him and the questionable activities of other "progressives" within the Vatican, including Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini (the future Paul VI).
[...]
"Pius XII had appointed Cardinal Giuseppe Siri as his desired successor.[7] Siri was rabidly anti-Communist, an intransigent traditionalist in matters of church doctrine, and a skilled bureaucrat. . . .
"In 1958 [on October 26], when the cardinals were locked away in the Sistine Chapel to elect a new pope, mysterious events began to unfold. On the third ballot, Siri, according to FBI sources, obtained the necessary votes and was elected as Pope Gregory XVII.[8] White smoke poured from the chimney of the chapel to inform the faithful that a new pope had been chosen. The news was announced with joy at 6 P.M. on Vatican radio. The announcer said, "The smoke is white. . . . There is absolutely no doubt. A pope has been elected."[9] . . .
"But the new pope failed to appear. Question began to arise whether the smoke was white or gray. To quell such doubts, Monsignor Santaro, secretary of the Conclave of Cardinals, informed the press that the smoke, indeed, had been white and that a new pope had been elected. The waiting continued. By evening Vatican radio announced that the results remained uncertain. On October 27, 1958, the Houston Post headlined: "Cardinals Fail to elect pope in 4 Ballots: Mix-Up in Smoke Signals Cause False Reports."[10]
"But the reports had been valid. On the fourth ballot, according to FBI sources, Siri again obtained the necessary votes and was elected supreme pontiff. But the French cardinals annulled the results, claiming that the election would cause widespread riots and the assassination of several prominent bishops behind the Iron Curtain.[11]
"The cardinals opted to elect Cardinal Frederico Tedischini as a "transitional pope," but Tedischini was too ill to accept the position.
"Finally, on the third day of balloting, Roncalli received the necessary support to become Pope John XXIII. . . ."
--Paul L. Williams, The Vatican Exposed
(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003), pp. 90-92
[5] Department of State confidential biography, "John XXIII," issue date: no date, declassified: February 15, 1974; see also Avro Manhattan, Murder in the Vatican, p. 31.
[7] John Cooney, The American Pope, p. 259.
[8] Department of State secret dispatch, "John XXIII," issue date: November 20, 1958, declassified: November 11, 1974.
[9] The announcer's words appeared in the London Tablet, November 1, 1958, p. 387.
[10] Houston Post, October 27, 1958, pp. 1 and 7.
[11] Department of State secret file, "Cardinal Siri," issue date: April 10, 1961, declassified: February 28, 1994.
Now an important consideration with the above quotes is that the author is not a Catholic and therefore is going to use theologically imprecise language. So some sedes will make a big deal about the French cardinals annulling the election. Obviously, what he means is that the French cardinals persuaded the rest of conclave to re-think their vote, and Siri agreed to abdicate (assuming the rest is true).
Finally, I must say that as interesting as this stuff is it does not compare to some other incidents in Church history. Read the entry on Pope Vigilius in the Catholic Encyclopedia. He unjustly deposed Pope Silverius, and took over the papacy. Silverius died soon after due to maltreatment, and Vigilius becomes the legitimate pope. Why? because he was recognized as pope by all the Roman clergy. This is essential point of being the pope... he must be recognized as such by the clergy of Rome. Was Siri every recognized as such...? Sedes to put it nicely are historically challenged. If they were not, they would not come up with such ridiculous theories.
In order to argue with someone about the Siri situation, the first thing you have to do is acknowledge the truth.
It may be true that Siri was elected pope, but refused.
That doesn't explain why the sedevacantists go on about the smoke, which is indeed notoriously "inaccurate."
Louise,
Their point, which could very well be true, is that he was elected accepted, the white smoke flew, and then later a group of Cardinals convinced the rest to re-think the vote, and he went along with it. The book quoted above stated:
"To quell such doubts, Monsignor Santaro, secretary of the Conclave of Cardinals, informed the press that the smoke, indeed, had been white and that a new pope had been elected."
I really would like the reference for this, but no matter what happened Siri either did not accept, or accepted and later withdrew his acceptance. The smoke is a key point to the sedes so let them have it. It does not make him the pope, so it is irrelevant.
Wow, I've been missing a lot! At least, as far as wild theories go.
However, let me take on some of these statements, as someone who is a professional historian (Ph.D. from Fordham University), and does know a little of Church history. For instance, here's the one you were wondering about:
"To quell such doubts, Monsignor Santaro, secretary of the Conclave of Cardinals, informed the press that the smoke, indeed, had been white and that a new pope had been elected."
Interesting, but one problem: it seems that Msgr. Santoro (this is apparently the correct spelling) wasn't even secretary of the 1958 conclave; in fact, he wasn't even there; he was secretary in 1939 when Pope Pius XII was elected. Alberto di Jorio was the Secretary in 1958.
I've been perusing the article that Jen linked to, which does a really good job debunking this error:
http://www.geocities.com/livrant...the-war-is-now-
no-66.html
I recall Di Jorio being described as secretary of the conclave in a biography of John XXIII that I read -- it's certainly common knowledge. All the stuff that is mentioned about the smoke being white and confirmed from inside the conclave comes from 1939, not 1958 - even Hutton Gibson, as mentioned in a post above, is able to point out this tissue of mistakes and fallacies. The evidence presented there is actually quite clear.
Most of the detailed information presented comes from supposed FBI files; but there is no information about where the FBI got the information. From interviews? From a bunch of rumors flying around Rome? From bugging the conclave? (which I admit is possible).
Also, no actual quotes from the documents are provided. No way to know what they really say.
And I can't help thinking that just because the FBI supposedly thought both Roncalli and Montini had Communist leanings, doesn't necessarily mean they did! Didn't the FBI in those days think practically everyone a Communist - Martin Luther King included?
The rest of the passage from the book seems no more credible to me in any way, nor do the historians quoted.
The statements of the priests who said Siri told them he'd been elected do sound somewhat more likely, but without further details given, it would be hard to say for sure.
In short, I think it's a long way from a "fact" that Siri was elected. I would say at most he got the necessary votes on one ballot but refused. In essence, not a bit deal, though, for as you say, he clearly never was Pope.
I think the only sedes who accept EENS are the Dimond Brothers of Most Holy Family Monastery.
That raises an interesting situation.
There is no salvation outside the Church and there is no Church.
Good luck everyone!
Hi Judeo-Christians,
well according to Father Ratzinger you are Judeo-Christians.
Maybe some of you would like to tell me the third secret of Fatima according to the former "pope's Rottweiler".
Inform Mark that pugnacious I am not and never have been.
Find out why paddy the papist loves the bad popes
In regard to "The Vatican Exposed," I'm not sure how much stock I would put in anything published by Prometheus Books. They'll print anything anti-religious, with relatively little regard for the quality of the work. I'm not surprised they would publish something that traffics in rumors and documents no one can really verify.
Catholics who believe in baptism of desire and blood believe in "No Salvation Outside the Church" as well, it should be noted--the underlying idea, of course, being that anyone who dies in a state of grace via baptism of desire or blood has been incorporated into the Church through that mode of baptism.
See Jacob Michael's article "Outside the Church..." in his book "From Econe to Rome: Leaving the SSPX Without Saying 'Schism'" for what is, in my opinion, an extremely lucid explanation of this teaching and its relation to "subsists in" in LUMENGENTIUM
http://www.lulu.com/content/958783
And for what it's worth, Paddy the Papist's website does not breathe Roman Catholicism, but the hysteria of a sectarian mindset akin to protestantism.
"Repent and return to the True Church or you will go to Hell. You, of all people, know well that there is no salvation outside Her."
Well, Mr. Shea, I finally agree with you completely unreservedly on something. Good advice indeed.
Like the liberals, the church tries to use one example of something far out to paint all traditionals as wierd
Well if worshipping as the church has done for centuries, when worshipping with false faiths before V2 was grounds for excommunication, and so on, is wrong and "rad", then I guess the church was "rad" for centuries
The question is...what is it now that it changed everything, canon law, catechism, the mass, customs, etc etc???
Correction:
"Well if worshipping as the church has done for centuries, when worshipping with false faiths before V2 was grounds for excommunication, and so on, is wrong and "rad", then I guess the church was "rad" for centuries"
Should have read:
Well if worshipping with false faiths as is the norm today as the Popes do regularly, were grounds for being excommunicated before V2, then are these men excommunicated? And if worshipping as Catholics had for centuries as traditionals do is considered "rad", then what were catholics before V2-"rad"??
And then what do you call catholics today who under the guise of the church changed everything, like Protestants, new mass, customs, canon law, catechism-you name it. What are they to be called? Sure you cant call that Catholic
Ben Douglass has written a great article called "Thirteen Facts for Gerry Matatics to Face up to"--
http://www.pugiofidei.com/matatics.htm
One of the most interesting ones, I found, was Fact 12, in which he demonstrates that worship with non-Catholics is not intrinsically evil, and that the Church permitted communicatio in sacris in certain instances and situations before Vatican II.
Frank,
You're using a hammer on a problem that isn't a nail.
Correction: I meant to say, of course, that "one of the most interesting ones, I found, was Fact 12, in which he demonstrates that worship with non-Catholics is not intrinsically evil, and that the Church permitted communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics in certain instances and situations before Vatican II."
+J.M.J+
Sedevacantism contradicts the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor Aeternus":
Chapter 2.
On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs
1. That which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed Apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].
2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most Blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].
3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received.
4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church - that is to say the faithful throughout the world - to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].
5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. (emphasis mine)
Note the emphasis on St. Peter having perpetual successors forever. An interregnum is typically of very short duration; the longest in Church history was less than three years, but most are less than a month long. If the Sedes are right, how long has this interregnum been now? Fifty years (since 195
? Or possibly nineteen years, for proponents of the Siri theory (he died in 1989)? If St. Peter hasn't had a successor for so long, then Vatican I's insistence on there being perpetual successors forever is bunk.
OTOH, if Vatican I is right, then Sedes fall under an anathema for denying that blessed Peter has perpetual successors on his See.
Finally, Cardinal Siri signed the documents of the Second Vatican Council, remained in lifelong full communion with John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II, was submissive to their authority as legitimate popes, celebrated the Pauline Rite of Mass and other revised sacraments according to the 1970 Roman Missal and never supported the Traditionalist Movement. Hardly the kind of guy extremist traditionalists would like, let alone consider their Supreme Pontiff.
In Jesu et Maria,
Inform Mark that pugnacious I am not
Yoda?
Rosemarie and others have done a great job of pointing out some of the intellectual problems with sedevacantism...good work!
One thing that is disturbing about the sedevacantist position is the way in which it inevitably leads to a false vision of God as a sort of trickster--one who allowed the Church to continue faithfully up to a certain point, but then watched as the rug was pulled out from underneath it, allowing its mass of adherents to be utterly duped and spiritually ruined for simply doing what Christ asks of us--to place an unshakeable faith in it.
Think about that--souls ruined for eternity because they did not bother to go and study the historical inner workings (and pseudofacts asserted by Paddy) of a past conclave, the inner details of which are supposed to remain secret, if I'm not mistaken, from the public in the first place.
Such a vision is absurd, is naturally attractive to madmen with no humility whatsoever, and who, in reading x number of books on the Catholic faith mistake such a smattering of miniscule knowledge for the supreme knowledge of the Faith only possessed by the magisterium and Pope, and is utterly incompatible not just with the Catholic Faith, but with God as we know Him to be--a loving Father who keeps His word when He says we can trust His Church.
Paddy the Papist's site is satire, right!?!
John Henry - A silver band Paddy leads look you.
(From the same book: "I have found again and again since I have been in the Church that lay interest in ecclesiastical matters is often a short prelude to insanity.")
Mark - Very strong words at the end - and very badly needed ones as well. If Paddy does want to be taken seriously, he had best respond to and not ignore them.
Hi Judeo-Christians,
The chair of Saint Peter will never be empty. Remember that the pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, something that your Judeo-Christian theologians do not accept.
Although the visible head may indeed be shifted by the brute force of the world the invisible head cannot be toppled. Dogma prevails forever.
It is necessary for every human creature to be subject to the pope in order to enter the kingdom of heaven.
All the more reason why we must be very attentive to our popes.
If we are attached to the wrong head then we are part of the wrong body.
Your New World Order pope apparently thinks that the head of the Orthodox church somehow holds the keys to the kingdom also.
Don't forget that even a great saint such as Saint Vincent Ferrer was also fooled for a time regarding the legitimate claimant to the papacy.
Of course it was easier then because there were three people claiming to be pope.
Pope Gregory XVII remained under house arrest until he died.
Apart altogether from their illegitimacy your Judeo-Christian popes were all heretics and automatically disqualified from the papacy.
If other popes tell us that 2+2 = 4 then we must reject another "pope" who would have us believe differently.
The whole "Cardinal Siri is actually the Pope" reminds me very much of the "Paul is Dead" scandal after the release of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
Apparently, people started saying that Paul was dead because he is pictured with his back to the camera on the album cover. Within days the rumor spread like widfire. "Oh my gosh, have you heard? Paul's dead!" So for days, Beatles' fans everywhere were going crazy. Until someone decided the best way to find out for sure was to ask Paul. So, someone asked Paul, "Are you dead?" Paul said, "No" and millions of fans around the world breathed a sigh of relief.
No doubt, though, there are a few thousand hardcore rad trad Beatles' fans who, to this day insist that Paul was, and still is, dead.
conspiracy theorists = crackpots
Paddy,
If the Chair of Peter is not vacant, who sits upon it?
Who is the real Pope?
God bless!
*shakes herself* After visiting Paddy's site - pardon me while I go shower in holy water. There is no argument; no appeal to reason or to Truth that is going to work with our Irish friend - and when I give up on the idea of arguing, it's bad. 
Just prayer.
C'mon, would a Catholic likely call themselves "the Papist"? Every word out of his mouth screams "I'm a fundamentalist trying to get a rise out of Catholics." Don't give this guy the time of day.
That's my advise and opinion from an ex-protestant smelling a rather foul brand of protestant in Paddy.
Good to have an ex Prod. sniffing Papists and other foul brands of Protestantism. Glad to see that you admit there are foul brands. Who are you telling!
It must be hard keeping up with all those different "scents". After all there must be over thirty thousand varieties of Prod now. What kind of "nose" would one need?
If you became a Catholic in the past half century how do you know you are not a Roman Protestant.
Thanks for the New Protestant "mass". On second thoughts, no thanks. You and your "brethren" have managed to make the New Catholics mere "bread worshippers" something you always claimed they were.
Papists are not subject to Protestant whims.
"C'mon, would a Catholic likely call themselves "the Papist"?"
Well.. I do.. all the time. Of course, now I realize I'm just a "Roman Protestant".
I can think of two Catholic bloggers who refer to themselves in that fashion as well: Dr. Phil Blosser (Pertinacious Papist) and Thomas Peters (American Papist)
Mr. Shea:
RE: Bitter Old Men
I visited the home page for Paddy and found a long post dedicated to you that reads in part:
"I doubt if any of the saints of the Catholic Church would describe themselves as Catholic and enjoying it."
From what little I know of the lives of the Saints they were very grateful to be Catholic. They also lived lives full of tribulation but also of joy and peace.
I once had the honor of speaking with Mother Theresa's confessor. He seemed to spread an air of peace and joy around him.
My guess is that the key to peace and joy is love for God and love for neighbor.
Our friend Paddy does not seem to spread much peace and joy. Instead he appears to be a bitter old man intent on making as many other people as possible bitter also.
I think the test as to whether or not an old man has lived his life as a Catholic is if he spreads peace and joy like JPII and B16 or does he spread bitterness like our friend Paddy?
Bitterness and discouragement are tools of the Devil.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
+J.M.J+
>>>The chair of Saint Peter will never be empty.
The Chair of Saint Peter is empty during an interregnum.
>>>Remember that the pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, something that your Judeo-Christian theologians do not accept.
>>>Although the visible head may indeed be shifted by the brute force of the world the invisible head cannot be toppled. Dogma prevails forever.
The invisible Head of the Church is Christ, so granted He's always the Head of the Church. Nobody's debating that. However, the First Vatican Council wasn't talking about that. It said that there would be perpetual successors to St. Peter on his See, that is, popes.
>>>It is necessary for every human creature to be subject to the pope in order to enter the kingdom of heaven.
>>>All the more reason why we must be very attentive to our popes.
So what pope are you attentive to right now?
If you know who the correct pope is, why not let us in on your knowledge?
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
>>>Apart altogether from their illegitimacy your Judeo-Christian popes were all heretics and automatically disqualified from the papacy.
Tell me, would a heretical pope-elect suddenly ascend to the Papacy upon making a good confession?”
Also, if a pope loses the Papacy because of heresy, would he regain the Papacy if he makes a good confession?
In Jesu et Maria,
Dear Rosemarie,
thank you for invoking those two Holy Names. I am really tired being "pugnacious" to my fellow Catholics and I am sorry for my offences because those who offend the followers of Jesus Christ offend Jesus Christ Himself.
Better a millstone be tied around the neck of paddy the papist than lead astray one of his little ones.
After all I am a mere little one myself. I believe in the popes. If any one bothers to read my "blog" they will find that I say Pope Pius IX raised the faith bar for all Catholics.
Was it Saint Paul who said that if he or an angel of light were to come preaching a different gospel we must shun them as heretics?
Why did Jesus Christ warn us about wolves dressed as sheep?
Why did he warn us about the tying up the strongman (pope) and then the plundering of his goods?
How come we hear all this talk about re-building if the church is indestructible?
As for conspiracy theorists, all the popes were conspiracy theorists. The greatest conspiracy of all was that of the devil when he caused Adam and Eve to sin. We all still suffer the consequences and he conspires against us until we take our last breath.
The popes as successive holy father(s) of a large family anticipated future problems and made binding pronouncements on these theoretical situations.
Even if a cardinal were elected unanimously he could not become pope if he ever held heretical viewpoints.
He would have to confess in order to be received back into the church but would not be eligible for the papacy.
A validly elected pope loses his authority if he falls into heresy.
The pope is dead long live the pope.
And for the month that is in it when paddy's bedroom always featured an altar to Our Lady (before he became bitter) blessed be the great Mother of God Mary most Holy.Blessed be Her holy and Immaculate conception.
May she be a stumbling block to many and may God speed the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart.
All glory to the Most Holy Trinity through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Now, somebody please explain to me Benedict's new crib. It's on my "blog" Will somebody come up with a better word than "blog". It's soo Vatican Two. Oops, bitter Paddy reverts to type!
Barman, give me a Double Vatican and bitter.
+J.M.J+
The question of whether or not a pope holds an heretical viewpoint is not for us laity to judge. The judgment would have to be made by an ecumenical Council. We cannot apply private interpretation to the Church's teachings anymore than we can to the Bible.
>>>Even if a cardinal were elected unanimously he could not become pope if he ever held heretical viewpoints.
>>>He would have to confess in order to be received back into the church but would not be eligible for the papacy.
Where is the church document that teaches this?
>>>A validly elected pope loses his authority if he falls into heresy.
Why then didn't Pope Honorius I and Pope John XXII (not XXIII) lose the papacy? The former was a Monothelite who was was anathematized by name at the Third Council of Constantinople in A.D. 680, more than four decades after his death. Yet his papacy is still considered valid.
Also, Pope John XXII for most of his papacy believed and taught in sermons (though not official documents) that saints do not behold the Beatific Vision until after the Last Judgment. He changed his mind toward the end of his life, but for most of his pontificate he held this heterodox view. Yet his entire papacy is also considered valid.
I must ask again, though: Who sits on the Chair of St. Peter right now, if not Benedict XVI?
In Jesu et Maria,
And then there's the Pope who is the elephant in the room - or rather, that owned the elephant in the room. Not every papacy is a shining example of the light of Christ or anything like it - we've just been spoiled lately! The world's been so dark, we haven't had time to worry about the papacy too...at least, we haven't.
What did I say about the faith bar?
They still hate Pope Pius IX because he declared the infallibility of the pope. Learn your Catholic history.
Did I not say I was born into the infallible church which does not make me infallible but I am not so stupid that I cannot understand the clear teachings of the pope. Proclaimed dogma which is necessary for belief is remarkably easy to understand.
However, this is a matter of Divine Faith not human faith.
An ecumenical council is not necessary for a pope to anathematise anybody any more than a father has to consult the family before giving an errant child a good telling off.
Neither is a pope bound by an ecumenical council.
As for the pope having successors this means also that his successors must uphold the teachings of the previous incumbent.
I said the pope is dead, long live the pope. In computer-speak Pope Pius XII is the last known working model because he was the last visible head.
He is most likely in Heaven now where his dogmatic teachings are still binding on all Catholics including any succeeding popes.
The pope was always deemed infallible implicitly.
Thanks to Pope Pius IX it is now explicit that the pope is infallible.
The two councils which now bind the Church are the Council of Trent and the Council of the Vatican.
Vatican Two is null and void.
paddy the papist:
RE: Gnostic cowardice vs Catholic Courage
The good news of Jesus Christ has spread in no small measure due to the courage of its witnesses. This courage has inspired others to listen to and accept the good news of Christ.
Where is your courage? Who are you going to inspire? In an age that has given us the heroic example JPII, B16 Mother Theresa and Padre Pio you hide behind a silly moniker. You publicly attack the good names of Catholics living and dead. This is the act of a coward. Who is going to join your gnostic brand of Catholicism if its spokesman does not have the courage to reveal himself? I think only those who have already given into discouragement.
You are an old man. Death is approaching. Find some guts. Give up your despair and bitterness. Be a man. Amend your life.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
If you cannot realise that your own country is being destroyed before your eyes I cannot expect you to be any the wiser about the Catholic Church.
What is silly about being either a paddy or a papist?
Being "mere Catholic" is not enough. The papacy is key.
Your pope is very much at home among his real friends - the United Nations New World Order and the Universal Religion which is not Catholic.
New World Order and Novus Ordo Religion.
Wake up Richard.
Maybe you can explain Benedicts's new crib!!
I thought Catholic WAS the Universal religion...
Sorry.. sorry.. forgot.. I'm a protestant papist.
Back to your regularly scheduled blogbrawl.
I have two questions for you paddy. What kind of drugs are you taking & where can I score some?
Dear Chris,
I also believed that the Catholic Church was One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. I still do.
But according to your new popes it is not.
Have a look at the back of your dollar.
Your Catholic friend
Paddy the Papist
paddythepapist or who ever you are:
Thank you for your kind reply wherein you posted in part:
"Wake up Richard".
So let me choose. Who am I to believe? An anonymous old man and gnostic whiner who does not even posses the courage to whine under his own name? Or am I to believe the Vicars of Christ, Councils, Saints, Martyrs and faithful of the Church?
Boy, this is so hard to choose. What happens if the anonymous, whining old man turns out to be an embittered ex-priest who wants company in his despair? Would God grant such a creature some special unique insight into the Church that is denied to the rest of us?
Why did not God grant this special unique insight to people like Padre Pio and Mother Theresa? Or perhaps the bitter old man thinks they are in hell along with all the Pontiffs since Pius XII?
Well bitter old man? Are Mother Theresa and Padre Pio in hell because they did not share your gnostic beliefs in the Catholic Church?
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Dear Ben,
I don't do drugs and why would you want them?
Why would you want drugs if you are full of the joys of the New Springtime?
I promise to go away for a while if any of you will give me some guidance on your pope's new Christmas Crib?
Is that too much to ask? And think of the benefits -paddy the papist will go away for a while.
It comes between me and the third Joyful mystery of Our Lady's Rosary. And is not poor paddy the papist a joyless critter?
Go on then. Relieve some of my misery.
paddythepapist or whoever you are:
You posted in part:"It comes between me and the third Joyful mystery of Our Lady's Rosary."
You know if I was an embittered ex-priest who was trying to lure unwary souls into despair then I would boast too about purportedly praying the rosary.
But maybe I am wrong? Come on Paddy. Tell the truth. Why does someone with your unique gnostic insights into Catholicism, insights denied even to Mother Theresa and Padre Pio, need to pray?
I know!!! You are the real Pope!!!! Pope Paddy I. Your Holiness why did you not tell us? Can we kiss your ring?
And all this time I thought that you were just a bitter old man.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Dear Richard,
thank you very much for all that. You are a lovely American Christian and I am not I hope, coming across as patronising.
I am an Irishman brought up on lots of things like John Wayne, the Gallant Men, the Virginian, Tom and Jerry ( I hate itchy and scratchy) Popeye, the Beverley Hillbillies, the Marx Brothers, Lucille Ball, Combat, the Lone Ranger and Tonto and the Golden Silents.Check that one out. All those brilliant black and white American comedies.
My father loved Jim Reeves, Sonny Liston and loved boxing ( on the radio)and lots of other American stuff too.
He didn't like Cassius Clay.
His "pugnacious" son is a little averse to boxing.
If it is any consolation to you "THEY" (the all seeing ones) know exactly who I am. Why should I give myself up without a fight? Papist moniker will be useless.
My wife, family and relatives are all subjects of Benedict and even Ben Bernanke.
They do nothing wrong. So why should they be implicated in my Catholic perfidy?
Many of my fellow countrymen did and still do take advantage of Americans but their opportunities are dwindling.
Aran Jumpers anyone? Anam Cara Celtic "spirituality" anyone? Going cheap.
Did I not tell you that your country is being destroyed?
First they had to "destroy" (impossible) the Catholic Church. Nine Eleven for me, was the disappearance of the Twin Catholic Towers - the Papacy and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
God bless you and God (the Holy Trinity) bless America.
Pope Paddy I:
Your Holiness. You have not yet replied to my last post. Are you angry with me? Thank you for revealing yourself to us. I grovel at your feet. I kiss your funny red boots.
If I print out your posts may I treat them as first class RELICS? Can I have an indulgence too? (BTW how much do you charge? There is another Pope in Nebraska who has a sale this week.)
And to think before I met you I thought of JPII as Johe Paul the Great. What a fool I was! Is he burning in hell right now alongside Mother Theresa and Padre Pio? If only they had listened to you!
Thank you again for revealing yourself to us oh exalted one!
Richard W. Comerford
Pope Paddy I:
You did reply to my post!!!. What Joy!!!. I am being transported!!!
Can you please tell me who will be saved. (I do not want to end up in hell like JPII, Mother Theresa and Padre Pio because they did not listen to you.)
Will it only be you and your select followers? Is there a mark for the saved? Are we predestined so to speak because we believe in you and only you and reject Popes, Councils, Saints and Martyrs?
Tell us oh sacred one which one of us will be saved by your word?
Richard W. Comerford
I'm curious if Paddy believes in baptism of desire and blood?
kevin:
I do not know. But whatever Pope Paddy I believes in is infallible dogma. You would be wise to listen. Otherwise you risk your immortal soul.
Speak, your Holiness, we lowly ones listen.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Haha Richard...have you checked out the Society of St. Leo I (SSLI) "spoof" of the more extreme elements in radtradism that's made its rounds on the web? It's hilarious. If it was for real, they'd consider Paddy a "Neotrad"
I've become curious about the baptism of desire thing because, to some degree, I sense that if someone rejects the Church's teaching on baptism of desire and blood, or accepts it but is somewhat uncomfortable with thinking much about it, then this inevitably leads to giganto problems with the language Vatican II employs when speaking about other religions
Good Lord I am way out of me depth!
But God bless America
Pope Paddy I:
Your Holiness. Please come back to us. We are at a loss without you. Sheep without a shepherd. If you leave us we will fall back into the clutches of that dirty German Nazi B16. (Is he going to hell along with JPII?)
Please stay with us your Holiness. I beseech you.
Richard W. Comerford
kevin:
Thank you for your post. No I have not even heard of the Society of St. Leo I (SSLI). Thank you for the tip.
I think you are on to something about the baptism of desire. It does seem to be a flash point.
I was familiar with the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Fr. Feeney's movement). Wonderful people. But they may have placed themselves out of the Church over this issue. I hope they will come back and stay firmly in the Church - provided of course that His Holiness Pope Paddy I accepts them.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
"neotrad" shouldn't have been capitalized in my post and I meant to say "I've become curious about the baptism of desire and blood thing"
Thanks for your comments about the Feeneyites, Richard. The issue does indeed seem to be a "flashpoint" of sorts in relation to Vatican II statements about protestantism, etc. and is very much deserving of a lengthy article or essay sometime.
Hey lads, c'mere
head for www.rense.com
It is no worse than Mark Shea
read about what i have just been telling you.
Pope Paddy I:
Your Holiness. We tremble at your approach. We thank you for returning to us. Only you, your Holiness, can guide us to the truth. We prostrate ourselves at your sacred feet. The web site you direct us to your Holiness is a UFO site. Does this mean that your Holiness came to us from a flying saucer?
Richard W. Comerford
kevin:
You are right. I pray that it is a simple essay so I can understand it.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Vivian:
You are right Vivian. I shall solemnly petition His Holiness Pope Paddy I to excommunicate the miscreants forthwith - if not sooner.
Richard W. Comerford
God forgive paddy the papist even if there are only four sad individuals on Mark Shea line.
I think I will change my blog address to paddythepapistlovesourlady.
have to redeem myself somehow.
tell the Catholic world. Paddy the Papist loves Our Lady.
Not even the Almighty will take this love away from him.
Yes, Paddy the Papist loves Our Lady.
Join me in this love.
Nobody, not even the Almighty will take it away from us.
Promise you!
cheers
Pope Paddy I:
Thank you for returning to us Your Holiness. You Holiness taught us lowly ones that "Nobody, not even the Almighty will take it away from us."
Do you mean to say Your Holiness that you are even more powerful than the Almighty!!
Could it possibly be that in addition to being Pope that you are also God?!!!
Please clarify this Holy Mystery for us Your Holiness.
In obedient submission to your divine will.
Richard W. Comerford
Oh Richard,
you are too much.
Promise you that you will not wake up in a "paddy the papist sweat" around 3 to 4 in the morning.
Just believe in Our Lady.
Pope Paddy I:
I am humbled that you deigned to address me directly Your Holiness. I am not worthy. I shall print out your post to me and treasure it always as a first class relic. I visited the UFO site you recommended Your Holiness. Is it through the median of flying sauces that we are to communicate directly with the higher beings we cannot name?
In humble submission to your divine will.
Richard W. Comerford
Still wondering if Paddy believes in baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
?
Dear Kevin
Who were the Holy Innocents?
I remember one of our Christian doctrine books at school with pictures and there was a depiction of this massacre ordered by Herod. To my childish mind (is it still childish?) this seemed so unfair. I even thought that Jesus was a bit of a trouble-maker for being "responsible" for this slaughter.
They were not baptised, so where did they go? Straight to heaven is the answer.
That is baptism of blood as far as I know.
As for baptism of desire, I put a question to those so called traditionalists (the Dimonds) asking them to explain the difference between baptism of desire and the desire of baptism. Needless to say I got no reply.
I go with the teaching of the infallible Roman Catholic Church, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Saint Thomas Aquinas etc. It is very important that people understand that it is exceptional.
Dear Richard W. Comerford,
Dear Kevin,
Dear Ben Yachov,
Dear Chris Molter,
Dear Rosemarie,
Dear Margaret Catherine,
And everyone else who has bothered their heads over "paddy the papist" let me assure you all that you are much better Catholics than I am.
Is there any greater joy and comfort in life than to go into a darkened box and confess one's sins to a real Irish priest? No.
In this vein let me tell you that paddy the papist is no more. It is a horse that is much too high for me.
From now on I am "paddy the sinner". After all I might as well talk about something I am good at. If their is one thing I am good at it is sin.
I know and believe that I had the infinitely good fortune to receive the living bread from heaven in the past. I therefore, can take comfort from the words of Jesus Christ, that unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you.
I know that I received the same sacrament as my Irish ancestors - the papists who preferred death rather than be disloyal to the pope.
It did not just happen in Ireland but in England and nearly every other Catholic nation.
Anyway, I am sorry for offending and annoying you all.
I am starting a new blog - "paddy the sinner". I hope you will read it and join me there. I would appreciate your comments advice and admonitions.
God bless you all and keep the Catholic faith.
Pope Paddy I:
Please do not leave us. Please stay and tell us how evil JP II was and B 16 is. Please stay and share with us the special knowledge that only you have received from God.
Otherwise, without your wisdom, how will we know who is a true Pope (other than your Holiness of course) and who is an Anti Pope? How will we know which is a true Council and which is a work of the Devil (like the evil Vatican II)?
And now of course since you have revealed that you are more powerful than the Almighty and have directed us to a UFO site to obtain even more wisdom we have so many more questions.
And to think that I wasted my life listening to the likes of JP II, Mother Theresa and Padre Pio, reading the Catechism and the Documents of Vatican II before I was blessed to meet your Holiness!
I grovel at your sacred feet.
Richard W. Comerford
Good morning Richard,
did you not read the above comment?
Dear Richard,
learn something about the John Paul approved Neo-Catechumenal Way and it should be an eyeopener. This is one of the great movements in the church.
Do you think I believe everything I read on rense?
There is an excellent article there on the planned destruction of America.
I have not the slightest interest in UFO's and it is something to be avoided.
I would recommend to you
www.todayscatholicworld.com
novus ordo watch
daily catholic
christ or chaos.
We are not all looneys.
Padre Pio's greatest enemies were people within the church.
Never forget the Judas Factor. Twelve chosen yet one a devil.
How many out of the next twelve and the next twelve and so on.
The communists recruited thousand's of priests into the Catholic Church.
Why?
Pope Paddy I:
Thank you for deigning to return to us and authoritatively teach that "Padre Pio's greatest enemies were people within the church."
Woe is me. All this time, when I was deceived by the Anti Popes JP II, I thought that Padre Pio's greatest enemy was Satan. Thank you for enlightening me with your special gnostic wisdom Your Holiness.
To think that hidden within the Church our enemies more powerful than the devil himself!
I grovel at your sacred feet.
Richard W. Comerford
The Catechism of St. Pius X says:
17. Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in anyother way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
------
The Holy Office, with the approval of Pope Pius XII said:
"Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation...it is necessary that at least he be united to [the Church] by desire and longing...when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of woul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God" (Letter of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Suprema Haec Sacra, August 8, 1949)
In any case, you can find the Church's teaching on "Baptism of Desire" in many catechism books or books which teach the faith, including one of my favorites, the MY CATHOLIC FAITH book.
Yes, you're not going to get an answer from the Dimond Brothers because they don't believe in in the teaching (and unlike those who frequent Mark Shea's blog, the Dimond Brothers REALLY CAN'T read)--but all this raises a more important point, which is simply this: if two sedevacantists disagree on the interpretation of past church documents and councils, who decides which is the legitimate interpretation? They can probably agree on how, or what criteria should be used in order to interpret a document or council, but who decides that such criteria has been properly applied to the text?
typo in the Holy Office quote, should read: "so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God"
As for Christ or Chaos, Jacob Michael has amply demonstrated that Thomas Droleskey is utterly unreliable
The Hunt for Heresy: Dr. Droleskey vs. Cardinal Ratzinger:
http://www.lumengentleman.com/co...tent.asp?
id=231
The Heresy Hunter Strikes Back: Droleskey vs. Ratzinger (Again)
http://www.lumengentleman.com/co...tent.asp?
id=235
kevin:
Thank you for the instruction.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Dear Kevin, Richard, and all you good Catholics. I am not being "smart" when I call you good Catholics. I told you before that you are better Catholics than I am.
His unholiness Paddy has a theory that we are not just different by degree but different in kind and it is the fault of his unholiness paddy among many others.
Before I go to hell which is the place I deserve will you do me a great favour and let me know when you were born.
I am not looking for dates of birth - just pre 1960 or post 1960. Is that too much to ask?
Remember, I am a sinner. A useless servant. A nobody.
If you will not make any comments on the pictures on my mad paddy blog please let me know if you are pre or post 1960.
Surely that is not too much.
And may God bless you.
Blessed be our Lord Jesus Christ.
Pope Paddy I:
Your Holiness. Again you deign to address us. We are not worthy. But why do ask us this question? Is it to test us? Surely you know all things? You know that JPII and B16 are Anti Popes (and JPII is burning in hell). You know that Padre Pio had greater enemies than the devil inside the Vatican. Is this a trick question Your Holiness to test our faith in You?
I grovel at your feet.
Richard W. Comerford
Listen to me Richard,
stop this immediately. This is terrible stuff.
I take all responsibility for it. Hopefully, I will go to Purgatory and not hell which is what I deserve.
I will have even more time to do because of my bad effects on you.
I am sorry.
I am a well-meaning sad paddy.
Please stop this now.
Richard,
there is no greater enemy than the devil. What on earth do you mean greater enemies than the devil inside the Vatican.
His worst enemies were fellow Catholics who claimed that he used acid to make the stigmata. Padre Pio was the only Catholic priest to bear the stigmata.
This is a cause of great joy for paddy the papist.
Only half a century ago padre pio was attacked physically by devils.
What is the problem?
The only church is the Catholic Church and there is only One Priesthood, Padre Pio being a great example among many.
Please forgive me for all this.
God bless you and all your family.
Your Holiness:
This is very confusing. I thought that you taught that the Anti Pope JPII was burning in hell *along with all of the other evil Anti Popes after Pius XII) and that the Anti Pope B16 was going to hell? Now you teach me that Pope Paddy I is going to hell also!!!. Is hell big enough to hold all of the Popes going there?
I am afraid to grovel at your feet because there might be hot coals beneath them.
Richard W. Comerford
Dear Richard, Kevin, Ben, Chris, Rosemarie and Catholic others
please notice those great names you have been honoured with. A sentence should not end with a preposition.
Please notice with what great names you have been honoured.
God bless the Christian Brothers. God bless Edmund Ignatius Rice my hedge-schoolmaster.
Funny how Jesus Christ was born in a kind of ditch too. Not in a carpenter's shop in Nazareth please note.
I have moved down again.
I am paddy the sad.
please tell one or two others before i die off.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
I really am a sad son of a great mother.
Oh well.
Please tell Ben Yachov that paddy the papist is a conceited git.
Ben asked paddy what kind of drugs he was on and paddy the sad whatsit shot back "I do not do drugs" the lying git. Right then Paddy was doing alcohol, just like he is now.
So there you are now.
How sad is paddy the papist? Not half sad enough.
Will one of you or more join me in devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?
How unstable I am.
Have gone back to paddy the papist.
still unstable as ever; but the rock saint peter is the only port, storm or no storm
Here's the deal, Paddy: I am familiar with the sort of people who get all bothered about stuff they read on programs like Jeffrey Rense, Christ or Chaos, novus ordo watch, etc. Furthermore, I am familiar with the more prominent sedevacantists in the United States--Cekada, Dolan...I've spoken to these men in person before. I frequented sspx chapels exclusively for years--Bishop Williamson confirmed me. In other words, I've witnessed and been brought up intimately with the whole anti-Vatican II stance that's been taken by different shades of traditionalists.
You seem to have an obsessive interest, Paddy, in the enemies of Christ. This is spiritually and emotionally unhealthy. My advice to you on the spiritual level? Pray to God for more faith in Christ and His Church.
On the intellectual level, pour over the works of Jacob Michael (especially his "modernism" section)
http://www.lumengentleman.com/index.asp
and Ben Douglass
http://www.pugiofidei.com/
These are two wonderful and highly knowledgeable Catholics whose writings have done a great service for those who are trying to make their way through the crisis in the Church today.
If you want a nice, clear explanation of "Baptism of Desire" then get yourself a copy of "My Catholic Faith" and look up the section on it. Then again, Jacob Michael has written a marvelous essay ("Outside the Church...") on it in his book "From Econe to Rome: Leaving the SSPX Without Saying 'Schism'"
...and God Bless His Holiness Benedict XVI
I'm done commenting on this particular post.
typo: should read "programs like Jeffrey Rense's program, and websites like Christ or Chaos, novusordowatch, etc."
Dear Kevin ,
Loomenous and Looney Gentlemen
and anyone else who is interested I trust Our Lady of Fatima to the death and even the second death,
So let's sort ourselves out.
I will put enmities between you and the woman, between ...... well you know Genesis 3:15
It all comes down to faith in the end. I believe in Our Lady of Fatima.
Yes that sounds good to me.
I believe in Our Lady of Fatima, not just now but for all eternity.
I believe in Our Lady of Fatima. Cool or what?
I gladly "pour" over the works of Luminous Gentlemen. I think you mean "pore"
Vatican tooraloo
Vatican tooralay
The Catholic Church is True
But the Vatican Church is Gay
Have a gay day.
Pope Paddy I:
You have again deigned to instruct us with your special knowledge. Knowledge that is available only to you Your Holiness. But you speak in tongues. We cannot understand your holy meaning. Does this mean that your special knowledge is understandable to only a few or an elite or an elect? How can we unworthy one become members of your elect Your Holiness?
Also we notice your constant references to being gay. Is this Your Holy Will? Do you want all the members of your elect to be gay? Is there any way around this burden for your elect?
I grovel at your sacred red booted feet.
Richard W Comerford
Kevin:
You have had quite a trip. I enjoyed the links. Thank you.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
"I frequented sspx chapels exclusively for years--Bishop Williamson confirmed me"--I hope no one read that as if I was implying that the sspx and Bishop Williamson are sedevacantists. They're not, of course--just wanted to clear up any possible misinterpretation.
kevin:
I am hopelessly confused by the entire issue. Thank you for the clarification.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Oh no tis me again, paddy the papist
Sometimes I frighten even meself.
"My yoke is sweet and my burden light" promised Our Lord Jesus Christ. If He said that then we can be sure it is true. Believe me paddy the papist it is true.
The biggest burden paddy the papist has had to endure this nearly six decades is himself. His SINFUL self.
I should properly call myself Paddy the Wanker. Was a slave to this sin for what seems like an eternity. Not any more thanks to Our Lady.
Am still beset by many sins which proves the constancy of you know who.
Good night now and let us all be friends
Pope Paddy I:
Your Holiness. Are we also to be friends with the evil Anti Popes burning in hell and all the gay enemies of Padre Pio in the Vatican?
I grovel I your sacred feet.
Richard W. Comerford
Dear Kevin,
Why did Jesus Christ himself and the Apostles make it so clear to us about Judas?
Why did he say "Have I not chosen all twelve of you yet one of you is a devil"
Note well that he did not say - "one of you is not very nice" or "one of you is evil" He said "one of you is a devil"
Now from the very beginning it is clear that this pattern will be repeated.
If you read even a little of the church's history you will see that this is true. The worst enemies have always been the ones from within.
Read Saint Alphonsus Liguori's history of heresies.
Go and learn about the Arian heresy and the great Saint Athanasius.
There is only one True church as you well know and that is why the devil has always tried to destroy it.
Heresies and animosity towards Catholics is the sure sign that the Catholic faith is the only faith.
Stop calling me "pope" it is probably a sin and my feet are anything but sacred. I am a sinner first and foremost.
Learn something about the penal days in Ireland and other countries.
Who were the people responsible for destroying Catholic France? The very same people who set up the United States that's who.
Why were all the Catholic Churches closed in Russia just a matter of weeks after the miracle of the sun at Fatima?
Why were Catholic priests shot in the back while saying mass? Why did soldiers trample on communion hosts?
Why did they kill millions of Christians in Russia and elsewhere?
More importantly why did they stop?
Why did Cardinal Mindzentsy have such a hard time of it while the future JP2 had an easy passage?
Oh, and why only seventy years ago were they murdering priests in Sunny Spain. Why did that creep Ernest Hemmingway whom I used to read one time, go to Spain to fight on their side?
Questions. Questions. Wake up Richard we are fast approaching the last days of the world and most of the Catholics don't know that.
We are fifty years into the great apostasy and this is punishment for our sins. Only Our Lady can save us.
God bless and please do not call me the pope again.
Pope Paddy I:
Again you have deigned to address us. If we do not address you as Pope then who do we call Pope? Your Holiness has cast out and consigned to hell every Anti Pope since Pius XII. Who do we have if not your Holiness who knows all things?
I grovel at your sacred feet.
Richard W. Comerford
Paddy et al:
Please take this oxygen-sucking conversation to Paddy's blog.
This is your one and only warning, Paddy.
His blog seems to be kaput.
Kevin:
Thank you again for the links and comments. I learned an awful lot about things religious that I had not known or even dreamed existed.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Commenting by HaloScan
