Rev. Shannon continues the Vatican 2 debate on “subsists”. Fri, Dec 30, 2011 11:07 AM
Believe me…I know the dangerous implications that can be drawn from the wrong meaning of the word subsists, especially regarding the defined dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I mean, which “Church” are we talking about here…the Church of Christ?…the Catholic Church? I thought they were one and the same thing? They are identical as Fr. Tromp stated on numerous occasions. Fr. Tromp was a peritus that was in the so-called conservative camp during the unfortunate council. As mentioned before, he was the primary author of Mystici Corporis where the Mystical Body of Christ was identified as the Catholic Church. The quotations in your last email are very familiar to me, especially the one by the infamous Dominican, Fr. Edward S., who, by the way, was censured because of his problematic….read heretical…statements. But the Dominican did make a proper observation, viz., that if the Church of Christ is a larger entity than the Catholic Church…and that it finds a place in various denominations, then there is no longer one Church but various groups participating in different degrees in Christ’s work. I totally reject that statement made by Cardinal Ratizinger in that German newspaper interview, which, by the way, was edited by the Vatican newspaper since it was over the top. Also, the statement that the Church of Christ is “present and operative” in other Christian groups is a problem, lest we conclude that the Church of Christ is present and operative in various Satanic masses where the Body and Blood of our Lord is truly present. Do some Christians have a valid baptism? Yes, because they stole the Catholic one. By way of analogy, if a foreign country stole some of our munitions and guns and started using them, we would not refer to America being present and operative in the use of these stolen goods. I admit and believe wholeheartedly that the present pope and the previous one as well, are and were a part of what you label the revolution. The new, so-called orientations that they took and still take are unfamiliar to true Catholicism. Yes, I have read some of Cardinal Ratzinger’s private works…his statements on Original Sin and the resurrection of the body are most disturbing. His movement towards the Jews…the anti-logos party…is also disturbing. Using that previous analogy, the moon is waning big time. I wait for the day that those in authority correct this problems and bring clarity to all their confusion. But knowing that the Church is visible…with visible shepherds…I have moral certainty…not absolute…but moral certainty…that the see is occupied. Our Lady never and I mean never warned us that the see would be empty for so many decades. Don’t you think that she might have mentioned this in one of her various apparitions to prepare the Catholic people?
Be good….Fr. SC
Steven Speray replies 12/31/2011
Dear Rev. Shannon,
You’re a brave man! I’m so glad to hear that you know the problems and reject them. However, I would like to answer your last few sentences.
You say that you have a moral certainty that the see is occupied. Are you saying then that a pope can be a heretic, and a revolutionary against the Church? I can give you over 20 quotes from popes, saints, and canonists that all teach that this is impossible! I also can provide you with Vatican I theologians that teach that the Church is visible without a pope for very long periods. I would love for you to read my history book on the popes Papal Anomalies and Their Implications. I give concrete examples for the foundations of sedevacantism.
You said, “Our Lady never and I mean never warned us that the see would be empty for so many decades. Don’t you think that she might have mentioned this in one of her various apparitions to prepare the Catholic people?”
We have better than an apparition. We have the teachings of the Church and the laws of the Church that spell out the applications for our position. As for apparitions, however, have you not seen the messages of Our Lady of Good Fortune (Good Success)? “…the Church will go through a dark night for lack of a Prelate and Father to watch over it…” THIS HAPPENS IN THE 20TH CENTURY ACCORDING TO THE APPARITION. Not only does Our Lady tell when it will happen, but she tells us how describing in detail the very events that we are witnessing. She is spot on with the specifics of the terrible catastrophe. As a side note, the seer, Mother Mariana is an incorruptible. Who else is the Prelate and Father but the pope?
We also have the unapproved part of the apparition of La Sallete: “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”
Fatima: Exact words of Sister Lucia (visionary at Fatima) in an interview with Father Augustin Fuentes on December 26, 1957: “Father, the Blessed Virgin is very sad because no one heeds her message; neither the good nor the bad. The good continue on with their life of virtue and apostolate, but they do not unite their lives to the message of Fatima. Sinners keep following the road of evil because they do not see the terrible chastisement about to befall them. Believe me, Father, God is going to punish the world and very soon. The chastisement of heaven is imminent. In less than two years, 1960 will be here and the chastisement of heaven will come and it will be very great. Tell souls to fear not only the material punishment that will befall us if we do not pray and do penance but most of all the souls who will go to hell.”
Sister Lucia clearly forewarned a chastisement would occur before 1960 and Our Lady is the one telling her this. What was it? I submit the death of Pope Pius XII and the uncanonically elected Roncalli to the papacy was it. What else could it have been?
And the 3rd Secret that Rome gave us was a lie. I’ve written about this. Fr. Malachi Martin read it in 1960, and it has been relayed to me. However, I will tell you that part of it was apostasy at the very top of the Church! Cardinal Ciappi actually tells us that it begins at the top.
Lastly, we many prophecies about the Church. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90:“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. …Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”
St. Antony of the Desert (251-356): “Men will surrender to the spirit of the age. They will say that if they had lived in our day, Faith would be simple and easy. But in their day, they will say, things are complex; the Church must be brought up to date and made meaningful to the day’s problems. When the Church and the World are one, then those days are at hand. Because our Divine Master placed a barrier between His things and the things of the world.” ([Disquisition CXIV] Quoted in Voice of Fatima, 23 January 1968)
St. Francis of Assisi: “Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.” (Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250)
St. Nicholas of Flue (1417-1487) stated: “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.” (Catholic Prophecy by Yves Dupont, p. 30)
Don’t you think it’s more absurd to have the Church run by the very Gates of Hell for the past 50 years? Why is sedevacantism so difficult to believe, if you already know that Rome is leading a revolt against the Catholic Faith?
Rev. Shannon responds Sun, Jan 01, 2012 07:44 PM
One of the reasons I have great sympathy for sedevacantists…and I am not belittling you or the movement here in anyway…but I do have sympathy because things have largely collapsed. The facade has come crumbling down. For all it’s worth, I do feel that we are near what is often called the minor chastisement which will be an echo of the major one towards the last days. If Rome will become the seat of the anti-Christ…which I would consider as near a de Fide statement as one can get considering what the Fathers have taught…then the minor chastisement or the echo of the major one will include a major loss of Faith on the part of most including the very pastors called to guide Holy Church. The reason I mention moral certitude is that it allows me to act. You may have received Holy Communion today being that it is the great octave day of Christmas, but did you hear the words? Do you know the priest’s intention? Exteriorly, things seemed fine and for all intensive purposes were fine. The externals were there, therefore you could act. If something external was a problem, i.e., misspoken form or improper matter or the priest treating the Mass as a joke, then you would have some evidence. You may have also gone to confession…who has granted Fr. Leonardi faculties to hear confessions since jurisdiction is included in the very validity of the Sacrament of Penance? Sedevacantists may point to some case of necessity somehow supplying for missing faculties. But since the externals aren’t there, I would strongly question the validity, i.e., I would not have moral certainty. You call me Rev. and not Father, yet you refer to the priest at Regina Pacis with the traditional paternal title. You may question my orders, but I have moral certitude that allows me to act an offer Mass. Granted the new Rite is greatly impoverished in all its Sacraments, it ultimately works…I can be morally certain about that. If I were simply playing with bread and wine at the altar, simulating a Sacrament and committing a great sacrilege, then I would stay as far away from me as possible and I would not deserve any title of reverence for I would be no more than a protestant “minister” / layman. I am morally certain that this pope is a successor of St. Peter which allows me to act. I am not sure how far you go back…you may go for the Siri thing, though he proved to go along with every revolutionary act of the council and the post-conciliar changes. You may accept Pope Pius XII, but then again his actions, especially in regards to the liturgy is quite suspect. Also, his very weak treatment of the great error of evolution has been plaguing us for decades. Pius XI basically dismissed Fatima and refused to consecrate Russia in 1929 even though heaven asked it of him thus allowing the Reds to fully take over Russia. Anyway, have a good New Year.
In Jesus and Mary,
Steven Speray replies 1/2/2012
Dear Rev. Shannon,
Why do you say the externals are missing with Fr. Leonardo? I submit that the externals are solidly there. I’m not sure what you mean when you say, “You call me Rev. and not Father, yet you refer to the priest at Regina Pacis with the traditional paternal title.” I have referred to Rickert as Rev. and when I have used the term father with him in the past, I first put it in quotations marks. I don’t recognize Rickert’s ordination anymore than I recognize yours. I hold that there is reasonable doubt about both of your orders, since the 1968 Form is so problematic, making appear to be irreconcilable to the teachings of both Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII. I’ve not seen anyone give an explanation that removes that doubt.
You may say that you have a moral certitude that the Holy See is occupied because it allows you to act, but that’s not what I asked. I asked, “Are you saying then that a pope can be a heretic, and a revolutionary against the Church?” Based on what you’ve stated, you appear to hold that the conciliar popes are heretics and revolutionaries. According to Divine law, this is not possible, but also according to Canon law. You must reject them as true popes if you indeed think they are heretics. To continue to hold that the Holy See is occupied by Benedict XVI is to reject the laws of God and Church.
You may say that your orders are valid, because the sacraments “ultimately work” and that you “can be morally certain about that”, but you must first answer why you can have a moral certainty that the Holy See is occupied. We can get into the orders issue later if you wish, but that’s another topic. By the way, I don’t accuse of you of believing that your sacraments are invalid. The Anglicans may also believe their sacraments are valid, but they’re not.
As far as the Siri election is concerned, I wrote about it. He was never pope, and even if he was, he would at best be seriously questionable/doubtful which means we couldn’t accept him.
I don’t think Pope Pius XII’s liturgy is suspect, and a weak treatment of evolution is not the same as erroneous treatment. Big difference! As for Pope Pius XI and Fatima, he may have not believed in it. He didn’t have to, right? But you said that there was no apparition of Our Lady to warn us of a popeless Church for so long, and I gave you examples that she may in fact have done so. That’s all. If you don’t believe in those apparitions, that’s up to you. I just provided them. However, if you do believe in Fatima:
What was it (great chastisement before 1960 foretold by Sr. Lucia)? You didn’t address this whopping claim by Fatima’s main seer. Either something happened or Sr. Lucia was wrong. You also have the “terrible catastrophe” Our Lady of Good Success (approved apparition) predicted when the Church will go through a dark night without a pope in the 20th century. I see a connection, do you?
Also, I noticed that you didn’t answer my other questions. Don’t you think it’s more absurd to have the Church run by the very Gates of Hell for the past 50 years? Why is sedevacantism so difficult to believe, if you already know that Rome is leading a revolt against the Catholic Faith?
Anyway, why don’t you get conditionally re-ordained and join the counter-revolution? You can’t be a counter-revolutionary and be in union with the revolutionaries at the same time. That would be like fighting for the British Loyalists while, at the same time, establishing and being in union with the Independent Patriots during the American Revolution. You have to take a side. You can’t have your church cake with a heretic pope, too.