This is schismatic…
…Whilst This is in “full communion”.
This is schismatic…
…Whilst This is in “full communion”.
“… if anyone were to…worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would surely be deemed an apostate.” –St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2.
“There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist…. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration. –St. John Damascene.
“Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend, or support heretics.” Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: “And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.” Heretics do not have the same God, the same Christ, as do Catholics. (Tertullian) He who is not with Me is against Me. (St. Matthew 12:30) Outside are dogs, and sorcerers, and the unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols, and every one who loves and makes a lie. (Apocalypse 22:15)” –Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.
“It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to christian princes where Saracens live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place, in the hearing of both Christians and Saracens and there make public declarations in his honour. There is a place, moreover, where once was buried a certain Saracen whom other Saracens venerate as a saint. A great number of Saracens flock there quite openly from far and near. This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated any further without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in christian lands. We enjoin on catholic princes, one and all, who hold sovereignty over the said Saracens and in whose territory these practices occur, and we lay on them a pressing obligation under the divine judgment that, as true Catholics and zealous for the christian faith, they give consideration to the disgrace heaped on both them and other Christians. They are to remove this offence altogether from their territories and take care that their subjects remove it, so that they may thereby attain the reward of eternal happiness. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet. They shall also forbid anyone in their dominions to attempt in future the said pilgrimage or in any way give countenance to it. Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness. –Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312.
I have seen a growing trend lately amongst SSPX’ers (Spixxies), wherein they spend all their time attempting to refute sedevacantism. A recent article published by The Remnant’s Robert Siscoe, who has proven himself time and time again to be a deceiver and a liar, is the epitome of the anti-sedevacantist propaganda movement. He, along with his cohorts over at the the SSPX flagship that is The Remnant, frequently opens his mouth about the sedevacantist position, though he seems to know very little about it. Not only that, but he has been unable to find a single quotation from reputable any Pre-Vatican II source that proves that a heretic can be the pope. In his latest article (no, I will not grace him with a link), he opens with two quotations.
“Indeed the Church has the right to separate herself from an heretical pope according to divine law. Consequently it has the right, by the same divine law, to use all means of themselves necessary for such separation…”
- John of St. Thomas
“The Church must render a judgment before the pope loses his office. Private judgment of the laity in this matter does not suffice.”
- Robert J. Siscoe
You see, Ladies and Gentlemen, this is why Robert Siscoe is deceptive and a liar. I’ll address the John of St. Thomas quotation in a moment, but I would like to take some time to discuss his second quotation, which you, my readers, if you are even half as astute as I think you are, will recognize that the second quotation was authored by Mr. Siscoe himself. Now Ladies and Gentlemen, let’s put our thinking caps on. Do you mean to tell me that there are not faithful Catholics, who, after reading this quotation, will go out and quote this as a ‘reputable quotation’ on a plethora of internet fora? Do you mean to tell me that Mr. Siscoe composed his article, and specifically the quotation, without the intention of people quoting him? Come on, ladies and gentlemen, we know better than that. This is not to say that Mr. Siscoe had malicious intentions, but rather that he is, deliberately or not, spreading falsehood. This quotation, which he created out of thin air, is based off of no Catholic teaching or law whatsoever. This brings me to the first quotation. St. John of Thomas did not say that a heretic could be pope, or that the Church must depose a heretical pope before he loses office. And if he did, Mr. Siscoe would surely have quoted that bit directly. Folks, this is the simple fact that the title of this pope references:
A heretic cannot be pope. And let me ask our Spixxies friends: Does it even make sense, logically, for the pope, who is charged with teaching and defending Church teaching, to be denying it? Does it make sense that a heretic (who is, by virtue of is heresy, outside the Church) to be the head of the Church? Furthermore, do you deny the unequivocal teaching of popes and saints that it is impossible for a public heretic to be the true Vicar of Christ? In case you need a memory jog, pay a visit this page here. I will not waste my time addressing the other points in his article, as it fails to show how a heretic can be pope. Instead, the remainder of his article consists of Mr. Siscoe insinuating that Alexander VI, Honorius I, and John XXII were heretics, which is calumny at its best, and then misconstruing the statements of St. Robert Bellarmine and others. Truly, this man makes me ill, and I will not waste my time on the likes of him.
And for all those Spixxies who are reading this with baited breath to make a comment, I leave you with this: Do not let your judgement be swayed by emotions. I was once in the same boat you are in. Rather, let your mind be swayed by the teachings and precepts of the Catholic Church.
God Bless you.
I apologise for the sporadic posting as of late. We will return to a normal schedule of posting this week.