/traditionalcatholics/ - Traditional Catholics

I was reading in "Sources of Catholic Dogma" about the Pope in the Systematic index.

Popes can be evil. Several times true Popes have said that it is an error to say that an evil Pope isn't Pope because he's evil. And there were five Popes who did wicked things: A Pope who kept a bunch of nuns as his sexual harem comes to mind.

The only sure "false Pope" is one that buys his way into the papacy, or one where the college of Cardinals is force to appoint a false Pope, which may have happened with Pope Francis.

I guess that's why even the SSPV is not officially sedes.

How these infallible teachings are logically reconciled with church teaching that those who say that the Mass can be said in the local vernacular are an anathema, and that those who say that the Holy Eucharist can be taken in the hand are an anathema, or that heretics are not Catholic, is beyond my understanding.

Perhaps it is because the set of evil, while it includes heretics is more inclusive. All the Papal encyclicals and bulls about evil popes are in decrees of error; e.g. and to paraphrase, "It is an error to say 'an evil Pope is no longer Pope'"

Is he evil if he is a sodomite or keeps nuns in sexual bondage and still Pope, but outside the Church if he is a heretic and thus not eligible to be Pope?

I don't know and way above my pay grade.

So I was reading about the Blessed Virgin yesterday in SCD (Sources of Catholic Dogma) Systematic Index.

Pretty sure that settled it, as she was born without original sin, she didn't die just as Adam and Eve didn't suffer death until they committed the original sin, but was taken body and soul together into heaven. She is the Saint that gives us the graces to resist sin, as she never committed any actual sin.

I was also thinking that this book contains (most of) the Catholic faith, what you have to believe to be Catholic. Which left me to contemplate all the "Catholic" lower case t traditions that aren't in there.

Having grown up in California I saw some things done by Mexican Catholics that seemed entirely strange to my understanding of the faith. Now that I reflect on this book, we Europeans have some equally strange beliefs, as do the Eastern Rite Catholics. SCD is an effort to define the core beliefs that the Holy Mother Church teaches to us all.

The English edition of "Sources" is a translation of the French, so the papal bulls and encyclicals are an English translation of the French translation of the Latin originals.

Which makes them confusing and befuddled at parts, e.g. the translation of the First Vatican Council.

Also, it's pretty clear that some Catholic teaches were omitted as having no content of faith and morality when they clearly did - they just offend modern ideas of morality e.g. the Council of Florence/Basel.

You have to go to the source

You have to remember Jesus gave the Keys to Heaven, which is the power to say what sins are held and what are not, and what you have to believe to be part of the Body of Christ, to Saint Peter. Only Saint Peter can define what faith and morals. "Peter" was the first papal name, given to Simon.

And when you go to the Ex Cathedra from the Chair of Saint Peter, the infallible and indefectable teachings of the Church, the sins are listed. Avoiding sin and the 9 ways to avoid taking part in someone else's sin, seems quite do-able.

Others catechisms include avoidable occasions of sin, both proximate and remote as sins. I'm looking at you Saint Thomas Aquinas. For example, Saint Aquinas says even a mere thought of sex is a mortal sin and that it is even possible to commit sin against no one but yourself! And Saints who are doctors of the Church are right, right? Not always! The Church teaches that Saints like Saint Aquinas are right unless the Pope says something else.

I'll see you a saint, and raise you a Pope

Saint Bellarmine's catechism says that a sin is against someone else; either GOD (first three commandments) or another person (the remaining commandments). Pope Saint Pius X echoes this and says that occasions of sin should be avoided. I think there is also a difference in how they describe an impure thought: e.g. King David plotting to kill Uriah so he could have sex with Bathsheba is an impure Thought. As the Lord said, "He that looks at a woman to lust after her commits adultery". IIRC, (debate me) Pope Saint Pius X also said that the kings who wanted to marry Sarah committed no sin because they didn't know she was Abraham's wife. Thus, wanting to have sex and raise kids with a woman is not, in and of itself a sin if you have good reason e.g. Abraham's lie, to believe she is not married. Saint Thomas Aquinas leaves me wondering how do people even get married since he seems to forbid thinking about it. I think I understand it now.

Father Cekada makes a reference cannon 151 of the 1917 Code of Cannon law, but it's in Latin.

Canon 151

(1983 CIC249 154)

An office that is vacant by law but that perchance is still held by another illegitimately can be conferred provided that, duly according to the

sacred canons, this possession is declared not to be legitimate and that mention of this declaration is made in the letter of conferral.

My personal comment is that you have to listen to each argument and rebuttal of these theologians and check their sources to see who is right. Each side says the other is in mortal sin (against Sedes: mortal sins of disobedience to a heretical pope and Vatican 1 telling is that those who say the seat is empty are an anathema to the church. Against backing Pope Francis the mortal sin of disobeying church dogma, the actual faith of the Church.)

Following the faith of the church is disobedience to Pope Francis, thus mortal sin.

Following Pope Francis is heresy, thus a mortal sin.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Which raises the possibility that we have become a wicked people undeserving of the promises of Christ, thus all damned.

The Chapter Christ Returned to Pilate is slanted against Pilate, tho. It fails to consider that Pilate condemned Jesus, who Pilate knew to be innocent and the Sanhedrin were bearing false witness, because if he didn't there would have been an insurrection and thousands of people would have died on both the Jewish and Roman side, and the Emperor would be very angry. Pilate's motive was that Christ would literally suffer and die for them all. And Pilate may not have been questioning Jesus out of fear, but for a clue to convince the Jews not to resort to violence if Jesus was allowed to go free. That is, something to get the Jews to repent of their sins.

Of course, the Jews believe they're meant to rule this world and can treat the rest of humanity as put there for their use and amusement. Which, interestingly enough, is what Satan used to tempt Jesus in the desert. Satan has that power.

What to you think was behind Pilate's decision to crucify Christ? .

One of the striking things is that as the Sanhedrin plotted to murder Jesus with by crafting their false witness, a clear disobedience to the the commandments against false witness and murder, they massaged their piety by standing outside the gate of Fort Antonia to tell their wicked lies to Pilate. Why? Because if they stepped inside, they'd be too unclean to eat the Passover meal!

Talk about those with planks in their eyes and splinters of others!

You see a lot of this false piety today. Protestants willingly and deliberately bear false witness about the Catholic faith, and then posture about their piety.

>>13

>What to you think was behind Pilate's decision to crucify Christ? .

I shall tell you what I think and you can tell me I'm wrong.

I disagree with Father Gorman that Pilate was weak.

John 19:10-11

10 Pilate therefore saith to him: Speakest thou not to me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power to release thee?

11 Jesus answered:Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above. Therefore, he that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin.

God the Father Almighty clearly gave the Lamb of God up for sacrifice for our sins. This was the supernatural act which in this world was the act of Pilate, knowing that Jesus was innocent, gave up Jesus as a sacrifice to avoid a civil war that would see many Jews and Romans killed. This had to happen, and God the Father Almighty gave Pilate this power and worked through him. It had to be a sacrifice for us, simple murder by the wicked Jews was not enough.

Feel free to say I'm wrong and tell me your reasoning.

Another option is the Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata series available from Hackett Publishing.

https://www.hackettpublishing.com/lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata-series

At the time of this post, the CD was replaced with the $39.95/year subscription for the course. You can choose between the classical reading and the Ecclesiastical reading of the text. You want Ecclesiastical reading but you knew that. The book itself will not teach pronunciation and if you want to follow the Mass you need to be able to understand spoken Ecclesiastical Latin.

Yes, I know that Stephen Heiner needed to wear a microphone (Father's voice booms and Mr. Heiner's voice is faint and echos), that I came to hear Father Cekada's teach, not Mr. Heiner, and Mr. Heiner shouldn't try and interrupt Father and talks over him.

At about minute 42, the get into Fatima.

Church teaching is clear that such apperations may be worthy of belief, but we're not required to believe them as they are private revelations. They are judged by the Church to be worthy of belief if they don't contradict Catholic dogma.

Regarding Fatima, I have to issues:

1) If it is the will of Jesus Christ to punish the world, then SO BE IT! God's will. Just as Christ accepted the will of the Father over His divine sacrifice on the cross, I accept the will of the Son whatever it may be. If I die, I die.

2) I find it hard to believe that all this hinges on the the failure of the concecration of Russia, which is returning to the Orthodox faith Yeah, many Orthodox are heretical, but the fact of Filioque and the Orthodox heresy of not admitting that the Bible clearly states that the Holy Ghost comes from both the Father and the Son just pales when considering dragging that Pachamama idol before the alter of God and denying that the Catholic Church is the one true faith!

Quick run down on Ecclesiastical Latin Pronunciation.