Which to follow: Sedevacantist Propositions or Catholic Propositions

Discussion in 'Resistance Movement' started by Machabees, Jul 16, 2017.

  1. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Received an email the sedes are trying to knock down Catholic walls of protection God instituted to build walls of sede comfort in vain of an untenable argument trying to throw off a present legitimate pope to serve a sedation than a reality regardless if the legitimate pope is a saint or a sinner.

    It's understood it is hard to fathom a mystery and punishment God allows on His people giving us a pope in our time in likeness to the sinful and perverse masses -"You get the leaders you deserve." Anyone who loves reading the Old Testament sees the constant human drama of fidelity and infidelity offered to God; and the corresponding grace or punishment in proportion.

    The recent argument put forward from the sedes is trying to gain POST opinions from various catholic profiles to "justify" that pope Honorius was not anathematized as a "heretic", but for a "negligence" of office, to condemn the present pope of the same; so the argument goes. However and certain, there are multiple opinions and interpretations both at the time and numerous POST interpretations of the Honorius case, the Third Council of Constantinople in 680 has also tossed to and fro the works and acts of Pope Honorius, but concluded with a declaration in The Sixteenth Session:

    "To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I

    Not hard to read a condemnation any clearer.

    Here's more:

    Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines."

    As the debate tossed, there were other singular catholic profiles who contested that it was only a mere "imprudent economy of silence". They are entitled to their opinion, that's true, but what cannot be contested is the fact the Council spoke in behalf and weight of the entire Catholic Church (shown after this):

    However, Pope Leo II's letter of confirmation of the Council interprets the council as intending to criticize Honorius not for error of belief, but rather for "imprudent economy of silence".[7] Leo's letter states: "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, ... and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted."[8] The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes: "It is in this sense of guilty negligence that the papacy ratified the condemnation of Honorius." Persons such as Cesare Baronio and Bellarmine have challenged accusations that Pope Honorius I taught heresy.[9]
    Yet, the words of the Church pronounced the anathema of Pope Honorius is also all too clear:

    More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things".

    Now to the "elephant" also tossed around.

    What the sedevacantists of today do not tell you, is the present benefit they and we enjoy is because pope Honorius was already and officially anathematized by the authority of the Catholic Church who SPOKE through a legitimate council. Without which, that mess would still run amuck in debate and confusion to this day. The point, God so chose to punish the people in his Church at that time, and any other time, as he sees fit...; His way; not in way of a splintered sede revolt outside of His will. The manifest conclusion in our time will ONLY come through God's legitimate proclamation from His Church, as He always had done, as he designs, not through mere men to end a present and personal pain however perceived. We must endure the cross; God's glory is manifest in our good will.

    Thus the punishment must endure in our time and will continue until the effects of submission are gained back to the primacy of God. How long? Ask the Israelites who murmured in the desert...and see what it took to restore their heritage in the House of God.

    We are only 54 years into a punishment foretold by our Lady. Has the corresponding acts of humility and submission to the True God born out? Or are we still in punishment proposed to worship a golden calf from the very legitimate and bad prelates, exampled by Moses to still honor their appointments, recognized by the whole of the people, and confirmed through God's hand? Then why the murmuring not to follow the hand of God in this punishment and persevere to good than being apart of the problem in revolt?

    [King] David gave us lessons not to lash out and dethrone the legitimate King until God manifest it so first.

    First Book Of Kings, Chp. 24:
    After which David's heart struck him*, because he had cut off the hem of Saul's robe. And he said to his men: The Lord be merciful unto me, that I may do no such thing to my master the Lord's anointed, as to lay my hand upon him, because he is the Lord's anointed. And David stopped his men with his words, and suffered them not to rise against Saul. But Saul rising up out of the cave, went on his way. And David also rose up after him: and going out of the cave cried after Saul, saying: My lord the king. And Saul looked behind him: and David bowing himself down to the ground, worshipped, And said to Saul: Why dost thou hear the words of men that say David seeketh thy hurt?

    *["Heart struck him": Viz., with remorse, as fearing he had done amiss.]

    Behold this day thy eyes have seen, that the Lord hath delivered thee into my hand, in the cave, and I had a thought to kill thee, but my eye hath spared thee. For I said: I will not put out my hand against my lord, because he is the Lord's anointed.

    There are many lessons that God is the sole authority appointed and handed to his select visible anointed. It is not for us to go around His will less we be of the clan who perished in the open pit.

    Subversion does offer sedation, but only temporary, when in the end imagination clashes with reality.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017
    sarto likes this.