From: "Griff Ruby" <griff@thegrid.net>
>Pope John Paul II claims to the papacy are absolute.
On the contary, his claims to the papacy are far, far, from absolute, and even from convincing.
For one thing, Cardinals over the age of 75 were not allowed to vote in the "conclave" that elected him, which ruled out close to one half. This bizarre and unprecedented rule is enough by itself to cast grave doubt upon his election.
For another, the legal and logical (and spiritual and factual) implications of Vatican II include the fact that the leader of the Vatican institution lack universal jurisdiction, and shall continue to lack universal jurisdiction until Vatican II is revoked. To be a pope, one must be Infallible, and to be Infallible one must be able to speak to and for the entire Church, and that in turn requires universal jurisdiction which has been lacking in any one individual since Vatican II (which is the real reason that none of the other prospective "popes" around the world have done much better (and many clearly worse) than John Paul II).
Finally, we see his lack of having grasped the papacy in many factual details of his "leadership" tenure over the Vatican institution:
SSPX_One List: Digest 365, 18 Jan. 2000
- his refusal of the Papal Oath (not to be confused with the Anti-Modernist Oath which he necessarily took and subsequently broke)
- his refusal of the Papal tiara
- his lack of guidance by the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by all the scandals documented in "Peter, Lovest Thou Me?" (being the all-around basically nice guy that he is I don't believe it is a question of his resisting the guidance the Holy Spirit gives to Popes, rather that guidance is not being provided since it is exclusively reserved for Popes).
From: Jim Vogel <sspxcath@yahoo.com>
--- Griff Ruby <griff@thegrid.net> wrote:
>While I do not approve of the conclavist position, I would have to concede that Pius XIII's claims to the papacy are qualitatively superior to John Paul II's.
Griff,
You lose any credibility you have when you make statements like that. Fr. Pulvermacher's claim to the Papacy is not even equal to John Paul II's, let alone qualitatively superior. First of all, Vatican Council I decreed that only the Bishop of Rome can be Pope. John Paul II is Bishop of Rome. Fr. Pulvermacher is "Bishop" of a little group in Montana or wherever he is.
Furthermore the unbroken tradition of the Church has been that the Roman clergy, the cardinals, elect the Roman Bishop. John-Paul II was elected by the Roman clergy, the cardinals. Pulvermacher was not.
Lastly, Fr. Pulvermacher's justification for delcaring himself Pope was based on the presumption that there was no Pope anyways. So his whole reason for delcaring himself Pope is based on false principles. Only formal heresy excludes one from the Church, and since no power on earth can judge the Pope, the Popes reigning since the death of Pius XII cannot be outside the Church.
In conclusion, Fr. Pulvermacher has NO claim to the Papacy. His position is a consequence of the false principles of sedevacantism, and chances are most Catholic history books will not even record his name. This goes for all 20-some papal claimants throughout the world who have elected themselves Pope after deciding that John-Paul II was not Pope.
SSPX_One List: Digest 366, 19 Jan. 2000
From: "stijn calle" <stijn.calle@student.kuleuven.ac.be>
Griff Ruby wrote:
> For one thing, Cardinals over the age of 75 were not allowed to vote in the "conclave" that elected him, which ruled out close to one half. This bizarre and unprecedented rule is enough by itself to cast grave doubt upon his election.
The rules for papel election have been changed in the past. Even St. Pius X changed the rules drastically, taking out the veto of the catholic monarchs. The question is if the changes to the rules were legally made. The short answer to this is yes.
> For another, the legal and logical (and spiritual and factual) implications of Vatican II include the fact that the leader of the Vatican institution lack universal jurisdiction, and shall continue to lack universal jurisdiction until Vatican II is revoked. To be a pope, one must be Infallible, and to be Infallible one must be able to speak to and for the entire Church, and that in turn requires universal jurisdiction which has been lacking in any one individual since Vatican II (which is the real reason that none of the other prospective "popes" around the world have done much better (and many clearly worse) than John Paul II).
One occasion where the pope spoke as an infallible head of the universal church was with the proclamation of his letter 'Ordinatio Sacerdotalis'. Are you stating that this document is not legally binding, with its full implications. JPII could only have done this if he had the necesary power to do this, and was thus certainly not lacking universal jurisdiction or Infallibility.
> Finally, we see his lack of having grasped the papacy in many factual details of his "leadership" tenure over the Vatican institution:
You start your reasoning at the wrong end. You start with a man who you dislike for numerous reasons (some right, some wrong) and you reason to the point that his claims to the papacy are being portrayed as qualitatlively low. This is the wrong way about it. You must begin with the fact that there is a pope, and that because of this not wearing the tiary and not taking the oath is not fundamental to being legally pope. Do not take your wishes and dreams for being the law of the Church.
- his refusal of the Papal Oath (not to be confused with the Anti-Modernist Oath which he necessarily took and subsequently broke)
Did St. Peter take the Papal Oath, did the first popes take the Papal Oath. Did the fact that they did not make them in restrospect illegitematly pope. Surely not. It is not a necessary requirement for being pope. It is a good thing, but not fundamental. He is pope, from the moment that the chosen bishop accepts.- his refusal of the Papal tiara
Was St. Peter crowned with the papel tiara. Were the first popes crowned with the papal tiary. Did the fact that they did not make them illegitiamate popes? Surely not. This also is not a necessary requirement to be legaly pope. It is a very good thing, but not fundamental.
SSPX_One List: Digest 366, 20 Jan. 2000
From: "William Mitchell" <wmitchel@iafrica.com>
This really looks like sedevacantism to me! I must admit I find your site very interesting, informative and worthwhile, even though I cannot agree with the pan-traditionalist position your appear to hold (correct me if I'm wrong here).While I cannot claim to have the expertise to engage to discussions on the legitimacy of the current Holy Father, I stick to the SSPX position that accepts JP II as Pope and rejects uttterly these weird little anti-popes like "Pius XIII" et al. They are to be pitied and prayed for, never taken seriously.
No-one in his right mind says JP II has been perfect, even average, but that does not remove him has Pope. As for the conclave that elected him...well, I always assumed (maybe wrongly) that the election process was disciplinary and could be changed by the Pope, as it was, to exclude over-80s. Anyway, the subsequent acceptance of his election by the excluded cardinals and Roman clergy surely demolishes the illegal conclave argument.
SSPX_One List: Digest 366, 19 Jan. 2000
From: "Griff Ruby" <griff@thegrid.net>Pulvermacher (whatever his delusions of grandeur) is nevertheless materially a Catholic. Wojtyla is not. The same can be said regarding most of the electors of each, respectively.
SSPX_One List: Digest 367, 19 Jan. 2000
In classic ecclesiology, even a simple Roman Catholic layman, who is only "in good standing," has more ecclesiastical rank than a non-Catholic "cardinal."
Materially, Pulvermacher escapes the pontificate on only one ground: he is not a bishop.
From: "Griff Ruby" <griff@thegrid.net>
It is easy for amateur arrmchair theologians to make light of these serious omissions on the basis that the earliest popes did not do them either, but that will not stand.
SSPX_One List: Digest 367, 19 Jan. 2000
For that matter, neither did any of the first several popes recite the Nicean Creed (either with or without the filioque). Does that make them heretics? Obviously not. Why? Because the Creed is optional and need not ever be recited for whatever reason, even if a person simply does not feel like reciting it? Hardly! Because it did not exist as yet, as did neither exist the Papal Oath nor the tiara.
Once the Creed did exist, any Catholic refusing to recite it would be properly suspected of heresy. It is one thing not to use a good thing provided by the Church because the Church has not as yet provided it, but quite another to refuse to use that good thing which the Church has provided.
No one before the John Paul's had ever REFUSED the tiara (and Oath). Either they were not offered (or expected), as in the case of the early popes, or they were accepted (or performed) by EVERY man who obtained and accepted an election to the Pontificate, once they were in existance.
From: "Jack95RR" <Jack95RR&aol.com>
In a message dated 1/20/00 9:59:20 PM Central Standard Time, griff@thegrid.net writes:
>Fr. Lucien Pulvermacher (aka "Pope Pius XIII") is a brother of Fr. Carl Pulvermacher who did a lot of work to get the Angelus (and Angelus Press) started, and also wrote for it the "Ask Me" column for about ten years. I don't imagine that they get along terribly well...
But they do! Father Carl at one time even considered joining his brother in the rebellion, but after many talks with Father Daniel Cooper and others in the Society realized it would be a terrible mistake. But the two brothers still correspond and I pray that Father Carl will be able to make him see the errors of his ways...
SSPX_One List: Digest 369, 21 Jan. 2000
From: "Jim Vogel" <sspxcath@yahoo.com>
--- Griff Ruby <griff@thegrid.net> wrote:
>On the contary, his [JPII's] claims to the papacy are far, far, from absolute, and even from convincing.
As for being absolute, John Paul II's "claim" to the Papacy is indisputable. He was chosen by the College of Cardinals and accepted the election. If he isn't Pope, then no one is. As for being convincing, it's a different thing, but unless you can prove he's a formal heretic (which you can't, Griff), you must accept him as the Sovereign Pontiff.
Remember that all the great theologians/Saints that the sedevacantists quote taught that the Roman Pontiff COULD NOT become a formal heretic.
>For one thing, Cardinals over the age of 75 were not allowed to vote in the "conclave" that elected him, which ruled out close to one half. This bizarre and unprecedented rule is enough by itself to cast grave doubt upon his election.
"Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of age, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two conclaves render them invalid? Invalid, no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time, perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians." -- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Nov. 8, 1979
>To be a pope, one must be Infallible, and to be Infallible one must be able to speak to and for the entire Church, and that in turn requires universal jurisdiction which has been lacking in any one individual since Vatican II (which is the real reason that none of the other prospective "popes" around the world have done much better (and many clearly worse) than John Paul II).
You have it backwards, Griff. You are saying that one must be infallible in order to be a Pope. In actuality, infallibility is one of the charisms of being Pope, and universal jurisdiction is recieved on ascension to the Seat of Peter. Pope John Paul II is infallible (under certain conditions) even if he doesn't recognize it, and he has universal jurisdiction, even if he tries to pretend he doesn't.
>Finally, we see his lack of having grasped the papacy in many factual details of his "leadership" tenure over the Vatican institution:
- his refusal of the Papal Oath (not to be confused with the Anti-Modernist Oath which he necessarily took and subsequently broke)
- his refusal of the Papal tiara
Neither of which are necessary to be Pope in theology books or in Canon Law. They are accidentals, worthy as they are, but they are in no way essential to the Papacy.- his lack of guidance by the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by all the scandals documented in "Peter, Lovest Thou Me?"
Of course, you're assuming that he isn't being guided by the Holy Ghost, where in reality, John Paul II may just be refusing/ignoring the inspirations of the Holy Ghost on certain occasions.SSPX_One List: Digest 370, 21 Jan. 2000
From: "Jim Vogel" <sspxcath@yahoo.com>
--- Griff Ruby <griff@thegrid.net> wrote:
>Pulvermacher (whatever his delusions of grandeur) is nevertheless materially a Catholic. Wojtyla is not. The same can be said regarding most of the electors of each, respectively.
That John Paul II is manifestly unCatholic in many of his words and actions is undeniable. That he is so in the Internal Forum can be known only by God. The same for the electors. You are not their superior Griff, and you can't definitively say they are unCatholic in the internal forum, as unCatholic as they sometimes act.
>In classic ecclesiology, even a simple Roman Catholic layman, who is only "in good standing," has more ecclesiastical rank than a non-Catholic "cardinal."
True, but you have no way of knowing whether a Cardinal is unCatholic in the internal forum, and you don't have the authority to determine whether a Cardinal is or isn't in good standing.
>Materially, Pulvermacher escapes the pontificate on only one ground: he is not a bishop.
There are many more grounds than this that Pulvermacher escapes the pontificate. Remember that there is a currently reigning Pontiff, which makes it quite tough for Pulvermacher to become Pontiff himself. Secondly, Pulvermacher was not elected nor accepted by the Roman clergy, while Wotjyla was. Pulvermacher's claim to be Pope is as silly as the 20-other odd self-proclaimed "Popes" out there.
SSPX_One List: Digest 370, 21 Jan. 2000
From: "Griff Ruby" <griff@thegrid.net>
Authority is not the issue here! True, I have no ecclesiastical authority, else if I did I would promptly boot the villains out. What authority I do possess is simply that which God granted each and every sentient creature of His making: I have the right to call the shots as I see them.
>You are not their superior Griff, and you can't definitively say they are unCatholic in the internal forum, as unCatholic as they sometimes act.
Ecclesiastically, that is regrettably so. But it is even money that I most definately AM the intellectual, spiritual, and moral superior of anyone presently inhabiting Vatican City.
SSPX_One List: Digest 371, 22 Jan. 2000
That is no great claim; the same can be honsetly said regarding the vast majority of those on this list, including even yourself.
Rather, that is the sad but true commentary on those who are in that place.
From: "Griff Ruby" <griff@thegrid.net>
>But who is going to apply the canonical censure of "obstinate heretic" against John Paul II?
The next true Pope (by which I don't mean the Vatican institution's next leader after Wojtyla, most likely). There will be another one, one day. Count on it. Sedevacantists all do, since God Himself has promised it.
>Members of your local SSPV/CMRI chapel?
Meanwhile, although no one presently possesses the canonical authority to declare "yea verily, sedevacantism is true," such that everyone is bound to accept it under penalty of sin, the facts regarding the lack of any real and substantive Catholic leadership in the Vatican are readily observable to each and every person...
SSPX_One List: Digest 371, 22 Jan. 2000
From: "Griff Ruby" <griff@thegrid.net>
>Of course, you're assuming that he isn't being guided by the Holy Ghost, where in reality, John Paul II may just be refusing/ignoring the inspirations of the Holy Ghost on certain occasions.
Only the Antichrist would have the power to do that*. I for one prefer not to believe that John Paul II is the Antichrist.
SSPX_One List: Digest 371, 22 Jan. 2000
*That is, occupy Peter's Chair and teach error, even materially.
From: "Griff Ruby" <griff@thegrid.net>
>Bravo Stijn!!! I have always thought that this Rodney King form of traditional ecumenism is right from Lucifer. "Just accept the few false notions of other groups and we can all be strong!" Baloney! We will all go down in defeat.>
Lucifer must be Stijn's and that writer's God, since it is Lucifer's work to thus ridicule what GOD is doing; GOD (FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST) is the true Author of the current Trad-ecumenism. This is de fide!
SSPX_One List: Digest 379, 29 Jan. 2000
The Church is ONE! (de Fide) That is not merely Rodney King's opinion, though he does here have a point (even a stopped clock is right twice a day).
Those who oppose Trad-ecumenism believe that the Church should be nothing but many little feuding groups, and are only behaving in a truly SCHISMATIC way. People who oppose trad-ecumenism are either conscious and willing agents of the Novus Ordo in its fight against the Church, working to keep the Church divided and weak, or else selfish profiteers who think they stand to gain something by keeping the Church in little pieces. But their foolish and silly efforts are wasted. God Himself shall one day unite all true Catholics as He did after the First Great Western Schism.
Be a part of that Godly effort, or be left behind to rot.
Unite with Trad-ecumenists, or be schismatic...etc.
From: "stijn calle" <stijn.calle@student.kuleuven.ac.he>
Together we stand? - divisions revisited !> Lucifer must be Stijn's and that writer's God, since it is Lucifer's work to thus ridicule what GOD is doing; GOD (FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST) is the true Author of the current Trad-ecumenism. This is de fide!>
Huh? Have I understood this clearly? I do not think so.
> The Church is ONE! (de Fide)>
Yes, when did we state the opposite on this list?
>That is not merely Rodney King's opinion, though he does here have a point (even a stopped clock is right twice a day).>
The fact that the Church is ONE is often completely misunderstood and leads to a lot of simplicities allround. The Roman Catholic Church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. These qualities are the indication that we are dealing with the authentic Church. All these are present in the Roman Catholic Church, with its main seat in Rome, Italy.
How comes ecumenism into the picture? A certain number of people adhere to this Church and Faith. By logical deduction all other people, not belonging to this first group, do not adhre to this Church and Faith. Does this in the slightest affect the fact that the Chucht is ONE? No, no, no. Even if their would be ten catholics left alive you could speak of the True Church and True Faith. It is independent of numbers. It does not say something about the quantity of the Catholic Church, it says something about the quality of the Catholic Church.
It is stated that within the the traditionalist world, their is (socalled unsupportable) division. Strenght through unity is then offered for advice. Once again, totally false. Their is a difference between Strenght in Numbers, and True Faith. There is the SSPX which offers the true faith and sacraments. There are break-away societies who claim to offer the same service (FSSP, ...). Their are a number of independent incardinated priests who have the indult. There is a group of priests who operate alone, without indult, stubbornly in parishes or not. And their are sedesvacantist priest running around the country in search of a shoulder to cry on. Thus the simple mind concludes, their is division and disunity in the 'traditionalist' world, inside the Church.
Let us now look at the Church as a whole. There have always been seperated societies, which operated on their own, apart from their being in the Church, dependend on the papacy. Benedictins, Jesuits, Carmelites, ect. No one would have said their was division in the Church, because of these different societies. Apart from their one leader, the pope, they operated independently from one another. And this is what today is happening also. There is not one unified traditional structure with one hierarchical head, just like jesuits didn't take orders from benedictins and vice versa. It is false to claim the Church therefor lacks unity. And the same argument goes for the traditionalist world.
And here comes the latin adagium E pluribus unum to mind. There is a valid case for internal divirsity inside an order or a society. And it logically follows that there is no unified hierarchical structure. An SSPX bishop gives no orders to a FSSP priest. A local bishop does not instruct sedesvacantist priests. But therefor their is no lack of unity. Because unity in the Church is not about one hierarchical organisation (apart from the pope), it is about true Faith and true sacraments.
Until now we have only spoken of priests and bishops. Trad-ecumenist always concentrate on the hierarchy. Such deadly divisions are not present among the faithfull. A lot of faithfull do not determine theirselves in relation to groups or societies. They are roman-catholics. Basta. And they find their Faith and true sacraments in different circumstances. We cannot categorically state that someone who does not go to a SSPX chapel is not catholic. Therefor there is one big group of faithfull who do not participate in this structure-hierarchy debate. The flock is catholic and has always been catholic. Yesterday they found their Faith in their local parish, today they find their faith in an SSPX chapel, or even somewhere else. Continuing the whole time about artificial cooperation and merger of societies all for strength in unity is false. It only relates to priests and bishops. The faithfull are being helped anyway. The flock woul not follow to this unified body, because this woul begin to amount to a parallell church. They will look toward the best place where to receive the faith and sacraments. You cannot force the flock to go where some priests go. If is for this reason that after the ordination of the 4 bishops by Mgr Lefebvre in 88 the SSPX has hold on to to big majority of the faithfull. They are not fooled by all these structure debates above their heads. They have what they have and want to keep it. All the people, and certainly the priests talking about Trad-ecumenism should put more time in praying and helping out sacramentally then debating. Because this is what the 'conciliar' church is best at. Talk talk and Talk. We cannot decide above the heads of the faithfull where they should go to mass. They decide for themselves. And you see clairly where their preferences lay, with the SSPX. Therefor, if one wants to help bring this so-called unity about (as a priest or bishop), their is only one thing to do which will substantially help: join the SSPX, they won yesterday, they win today, and if everything continues as it does they will win the argument tomorrow. Nothing is stopping them if they want this so called unity so dearly, only their free will.
(Please forgive me if some sentences are formulated as they are. English is not my mothertongue and I felt difficulty formulating clearly what I wanted to say this time, because of this. It is sometimes difficult to find the right words and expressions.)
> Those who oppose Trad-ecumenism believe that the Church should be nothing but many little feuding groups, and are only behaving in a truly SCHISMATIC way. People who oppose trad-ecumenism are either conscious and willing agents of the Novus Ordo in its fight against the Church, working to keep the Church divided and weak, or else selfish profiteers who think they stand to gain something by keeping the Church in little pieces. But their foolish and silly efforts are wasted. God Himself shall one day unite all true Catholics as He did after the First Great Western Schism.>
Bla bla bla. All catholics are united. They would not be catholics otherwise.
> Be a part of that Godly effort, or be left behind to rot. Unite with Trad-ecumenists, or be schismatic.>
Trad-ecumenism is a highway to hell.
> All Catholics who practice their faith belong to the Church.>
Being catholic = belonging to the church.
> United in Christ we are united in each other. "Whoever does not unite with me shall scatter.">
SSPX_One List: Digest 379, 29 Jan. 2000
From: "Jim Vogel" <sspxcath@yahoo.com>
--- Griff Ruby <griff@thegrid.net> wrote:<< But who is going to apply the canonical censure of "obstinate heretic" against John Paul II?>>
< The next true Pope (by which I don't mean the Vatican institution's next leader after Wojtyla, most likely). There will be another one, one day. Count on it. Sedevacantists all do, since God Himself has promised it.>
Griff, I'm having a hard time determining whether or not you are actually a sedevacantist or not. Sometimes you seem like you aren't, and sometimes you seem to be slipping ever closer to one or another form of sedevacantism. Either way, it's pure speculation that the next Pope would declare John Paul II a heretic. I doubt that is true, and I doubt if John Paul II would ever be condemned as a formal heretic.
But you bring up another very interesting point: You say that sedevacantists count on there being another Pope one day. Ok, that's true, but at what point? When we get a Pontiff who restores the traditional Mass and the traditional doctrines? That would seem to be the most likely scenario for the sedevacantist to return, but since that Pontiff would have been elected by the "manifestly heretical" College of Cardinals, how would the sedevacantists get past that? By admitting they were wrong? Probably not.
>> Meanwhile, although no one presently possesses the canonical authority to declare "yea verily, sedevacantism is true," such that everyone is bound to accept it under penalty of sin, the facts regarding the lack of any real and substantive Catholic leadership in the Vatican are readily observable to each and every person.>
Exactly, Griff, the lack of any real and substantive Catholic leadership in the Vatican on some occasions is indeed readily observable to each and every person -- but this does not mean that they have lost all authority and have defected from the Church.
>> And oh yes, while Malachi Martin may never have been a sedevacantist in his lifetime, most assuradly he is one now.>
You do a lot of speculating, Griff. Your above statement is based on the presupposition that sedevacantism is true, which would indicate that you yourself are a sedevacantist. Surely you don't claim to know for a fact that Fr. Martin is now a sedevacantist, do you? Since we do know for a fact that Fr. Martin considered sedevacantism as un-Catholic while he was alive, and since we know that sedevacantism is not a theologically tenable position to hold, the conclusion would be the exact opposite of yours above, wouldn't it? I needn't remind you that Fr. Martin once made the statement that no sedevacantist would see the face of God.
SSPX_One List: Digest 381, 30 Jan. 2000
From: "Jim Vogel" <sspxcath@yahoo.com>
--- Griff Ruby <griff@thegrid.net> wrote:> Only the Antichrist would have the power to do that*. I for one prefer not to believe that John Paul II is the Antichrist.
Do you have a basis for this thesis, Griff, or is it more speculation? Please give a reference or a source for the belief that only the Antichrist could occupy Peter's Chair and teach error, even materially. Furthermore, your above comments lead to either two conclusions:
> *That is, occupy Peter's Chair and teach error, even materially.>
1.) The last 4 popes have not been Popes, since they have all taught error materially, thus Peter's Chair has been empty since 1958.
2.) The last 4 popes have all simultaneously been the Antichrist somehow, since they all occupied Peter's Chair and taught error materially.
Or you could, of course, take the Catholic position which would be to say that even though the Holy Ghost guarantees papal infallibility under certain circumstances, but He does not guarantee the Pope freedom from error in the Pope's government of the Church and in his private teaching.
SSPX_One List: Digest 381, 30 Jan. 2000
From: "Griff Ruby" <griff@thegrid.net>
The average sedevacantist has read somewhere between two and three orders of magnitude more about Church history than you have, and are fully aware (and can document) where the Catholic encyclopaedia (even the old one) sometimes oversimplifies its information to the point of distortion. About the time of Vatican I, many controversies were raised about what popes could be trusted for infallibly, and what was to be made of certain questionable popes such as Honorius. His case was explored in quite some detail then and the documents regarding the conclusions the Church has drawn about him, and most certainly show that 1) If a pope is privately a heretic (keeps all of his heresies to himself), then he retains his office. With only one exception Honorus did that. Nevertheless, the "himself" to which he confined his heresies included a few close friends, all clearly in the realm of private teaching, which still does not remove from office, nor even raise the question. 2) Honorius' one exception was in a letter sent to Sergius, who had inquired about the Monophysite heresy, to which Honorius' reply was ambiguous, open to both heretical (monophysite) and orthodox interpretation. Due to his own internal heresy, he failed to clamp down on a heresy in a part of the Church; he failed to provide Sergius with the clear condemnation of the Monophysite heresy which was explicitly called for, and the heresy raged on another century as a result of this one indiscretion 3) He never (nor did any other pope (excluding the recent claimants) teach as required doctrine an error, either in the supreme and extraordinary ex cathadra magisterium, nor in the (also infallible) ordinary magisterium. We must avoid the trend of some to restrict Papal Infallibility to some once or twice a century pronouncements.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Vogel <sspxcath@yahoo.com>
To: SSPX@onelist.com <SSPX@onelist.com>
Date: Sunday, January 30, 2000 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [SSPX] Antichrist?
>From: Jim Vogel <sspxcath@yahoo.com>
>
>--- Griff Ruby <griff@thegrid.net> wrote:
>
>>Pope Honorius never actually taught heresy; he merely wrote a document which was open to both orthodox and heretical views, so as to make it sound like he was giving an answer when he actually still sitting on the fence and leaving the matter criminally open.
>>
>
>Both the Dictionary of Catholic Theology and the Catholic Encyclopedia affirm that Pope Honorius I was a heretic. I quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:>
>
>"His [Honorius I's] chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a *heretic* by the sixth general council (680).">
>
>Now, Griff, we have the case of a valid Pope who taught heresy from the chair of Peter. A valid Pope who was condemned by two councils and three other Popes. None of these Church authorities ever declared Honorius as removed from office or invalidated his decrees and ordinations though. I maintain -- if our modern sedevacantists knew their Church History, they would never fall into this error. >
>
SSPX_One List: Digest 381, 30 Jan. 2000
From: "Griff Ruby" <griff@thegrid.net>
> even though the Holy Ghost guarantees papal infallibility under certain circumstances, but He does not guarantee the Pope freedom from error in the Pope's government of the Church and in his private teaching.>
Officially promulgating a "new mass" in 1969 which alters the meaning of many ancient texts upon which infallible teaching is based, and then making it obligatory all over the world (verbally) in 1971, and (formally published) in 1974, and even to this day regarding the use of the traditional Mass capable of being circumscribed by the rather flaky and whimsical Indult of 1984 and 1988, could hardly be considered mere matters of "government of the Church and ... private teaching."
SSPX_One List: Digest 382, 30 Jan. 2000
If Honorius can be so heavily castigated for his one lapse in a letter to one bishop, how much more a severe judgement must necessarily await Paul VI!
From: "Griff Ruby" <griff@thegrid.net>
>But you bring up another very interesting point: You say that sedevacantists count on there being another Pope one day. Ok, that's true, but at what point? When we get a Pontiff who restores the traditional Mass and the traditional doctrines? That would seem to be the most likely scenario for the sedevacantist to return, but since that Pontiff would have been elected by the "manifestly heretical" College of Cardinals, how would the sedevacantists get past that? By admitting they were wrong? Probably not.>
First of all, some significant proportion of sedevacantists are what is known as materialiter/formaliter, which means that they believe that the Cardinals are still (in some rudimentary material fashion) truly Cardinals of the Church, and therefore capable of lawfully electing a true pope. They have only to ascertain when and if this has happened before entering the Vatican institution.
SSPX_One List: Digest 382, 30 Jan. 2000
As to the remainder of the sedevacantist community, given Vatican internal politics and the overall lack of untainted Cardinals, the election of a real Catholic to their leadership position would be such a miracle as to be clear evidence of God's intervention, and would be regarded by nearly all as the Divine intervention promised for the restoration of the Papacy. There may be some period of time needed for the new Pope to prove himself and earn the loyalty of some sedevacantists, which in justice a true Pope truly ought to give, but this need not be more than a year, and probably a great deal less.
From: "P.J. <payaso67@hotmail.com>
WHY O WHY is this Griff Ruby allowed to continue to spread his lies and ignorance on this list? He defends 'father' Morrison, claims he himself has the power to taste whether or not hosts are consecrated properly, then slams the SSPX again and again with his defense of sedes and Indulters.
SSPX_One List: Digest 382, 30 Jan. 2000
From: "Rick Caggiano" <RSCage@aol.com>
In a message dated 2/2/00 11:00:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, griff@thegrid.net writes:
<<Not a single fact I have stated is denied by the Feeneyites themselves, except for what I say about the greater context of the Council of Florence. And that opinion is amply supported by official Church teaching.>>
Griff,
Actually I have addressed the above in my previous email, and yes they most certainly do deny much of what you wrote, an example being, The Good Thief, and your misinterpretation of the Council of Florence, your denial that Christ taught Water was Necessary for salvation, in favor of the metaphor desire, and on and on. As someone else has stated, get your facts straight.
SSPX_One List: Digest 389, 3 Feb. 2000
From: "Griff Ruby" <griff@thegrid.net>
"Rick Caggiano" <RSCage@aol.com> wrote:
>(((((You have revealed yourself to be completely incompetent to comment on the Feeneyites or Baptism of Desire, or on Scripture interpretation. Completely incompetent.)))))
So, he's taken to vacuous name calling and ad hominium attacks...
SSPX_One List: Digest 392, 4 Feb. 2000
The prosecution rests.
From: "Rick Caggiano" <RSCage@aol.com>
In a message dated 2/4/00 9:14:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, griff@thegrid.net writes:
So, he's taken to vacuous name calling and ad hominem attacks...
It's not an ad hominem attack if it's true, and in your case, it's true as demonstrated in your misrepresenting of the Good Thief.
SSPX_One List: Digest 394, 5 Feb. 2000
From: "Rick Caggiano" <RSCage@aol.com>
In a message dated 2/4/00 9:16:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, <griff@thegrid.net> writes:
<< I have represented them with absolute precision.
I have requested that you NAME the person who you spoke to at St. Benedict Center, and you have not. Now, will you name the person?
The Saint Benedict Center affirms this. >>
SSPX_One List: Digest 394, 5 Feb. 2000
From: "Rick Caggiano" <RSCage@aol.com>
In a message dated 2/5/00 7:49:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, DucdeSavioe writes:
<< << I have represented them with absolute precision. The Saint Benedict Center affirms this. >>
I think not. Please identify your source at St. Benedict Center, since what you say is at variance with my understanding and I would like to get it right.
>>
Now Griff,
You've been asked this twice by me, and once by Doug, are you going to answer it?
If you are not going to answer it, withdraw the statement.
SSPX_One List: Digest 394, 5 Feb. 2000
From: "Bud Savoie" <DucdeSavoie@aol.com>
In a message dated 2/6/00 12:20:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, <griff@thegrid.net> writes:
<< The organization Fr. Feeney left was the Church, thus placing him outside and in schism. From this schism intrinsically followed heresy; I don't blame the man for the heresy (denial of Baptsms of Blood & Desire), only the schism. >>
Griff, I still don't know where you are getting your revisionist history.
Perhaps from the same phantom member of St. Benedict Center? Still waiting for you to identify your source.
SSPX_One List: Digest 397, 6 Feb. 2000
From: "Bud Savoie" <Ducdeavoie@aol.com>
In a message dated 2/6/00 12:28:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, griff@thegrid.net writes:
<< I'm sorry. While the brother told me his name, I don't now remember it. However he was evidently the person responsible for answering their main phone number about a year ago when I had that conversation. Come to think of it, I may have been the one to volunteer such explanations as Baptism by rain or spittle, to which he assented, with the words "something like that, yes," when it came to explaining the unbaptized in water but canonized saints of the Roman Martyrs. >>
This is a typical answer to a direct question...it in reality is "I don't know, because I made it all up."
You have just revealed yourself to be of bad will as well as incompetent.
SSPX_One List: Digest 397, 6 Feb. 2000
There are many many more similar examples that I could cull from the records, but I will fly ahead a bit to Digests 434 and 435 of 20 and 21 Feb. 2000, where a lady and a gentleman on the forum complained of Griff "the grid"'s vulgar language. The gentleman also queried Griff's spelling ability. First of all:
From: "Mary M. Temple" <Mary107@juno.com> Digest 435, 21 Feb. 2000:
"Please keep vulgar language out of your future posts. Some of us lead sheltered lives and just can't handle it ....especially first thing in the morning. Ugh!" - and
From: "Paul" <PaulRol0@aol.com> Digest 435, 21 Feb. 2000:
"Mr. griff....That was poor taste...Is that the way you spell that word???"
The object of their disgust was a post on the previous day; in responding to a post from Todd Drain relative to Fr. M.E. Morrison, Griff included the following sentence in his reply:
Seeing a grown man, such as Todd, indulge in such idle malicious gossip (friendship to Fr. aside) is disgusting and repellant, very much on par with walking in on a man when he is masterbating...
SSPX_One List: Digest 434, 20 Feb. 2000. To view the two posts, click here: Drain v. Ruby on Morrison
While I do not agree with all of the statements expressed by the pro-SSPXers, I think that they do a good job in refuting Griff's outlandish and un-Catholic views. Furthermore, inasmuch as Griff appears to wish to be a "catalyst" for pan-traditionalism, he may yet consider changing "the-grid" to "the-bab"!!!
While the above is only a small selection from available data, I think that there is sufficient to demonstrated that one would be a brave person to purchase a motor vehicle from Griff "the grid" Ruby - much less than rely on his theological assessments of the Roman Catholic Church, whose Pontiff he denies being Catholic!!!
I am sure that we all will hope and pray that Griff is speedily cured from his ailments of "Having committed intellectual, moral, and spiritual suicide, and having taken leave of my senses..."
ADDENDUM July 12, 2001
I provide herewith a sequence of events which will explain a subsequent event:
"From: [Author of "the Gross Website"]
- On May 27, 2001 at 1:455:49 AM (Australian time) my site was "hit" - either by Grif Ruby or one of his familiars (that is to say, someone who had access to or was provided with the file URL that Griff Ruby now states is a "private" file, activated a link to my site from http://www.the-pope.com/cgi/makenem.pl?enemies.html ).
- All "hits" are recorded by my Bravenet counter, which records the date and time of the "hit" together with information on the relevant ISP and details of the "hitter".
- I diligently monitor all hits, recording the data in an Excel spreadsheet for easy retrieval and sorting.
- Naturally, one is able to activate the noted URL in order to see some details of the "hitter" and his site.
- When I saw the contents of the file URL - which was PROVIDED COURTESY OF GRIF RUBY OR HIS FAMILIAR - I naturally returned the "hit", and discovered the fact of "ENEMIES OF THE FAITH". The very nature of the INITIATION by Ruby/his "familiar" made the "hit" a public act.
- Therefore, on May 29, I advised the named "Enemies" (minus Frs. Gruner and Egregji).
- Bill Grossklas advised me (May 30) that he had e-mailed Ruby "thanking" him for the plug.
- On July 10 I copied the following from Ruby's http://www.the-pope.com/readcrit.html file:
Dear Griff:
Sean O'Lachtnain just informed me that I made your enemies list. I'm honored. Thanks for the plug.
All the best,
Bill
Answer: Thank you for pointing out the breach in my site security; that page was never meant to be available to the public, and has been deleted. It is horrifying to see anyone be proud to be counted with the 'fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all [other] liars' (Revelation 21:8)."
F.J.L. Comment:
- Any "breach", of course, was perpetrated by Ruby/his "familiar" himself - by leaving his "signature" or "fingerprints" on my web counter!!!
- Ruby prepares his web files by using the W3C HTML editor; his files are prefaced with:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Final//EN"->
This is made visible by using the browser's View/Source options.
Ruby's "left hand doesn't know what his right hand is doing"!
- Ruby lied when he said that the page "has been deleted"! - as will become clear in the following.
- Ruby omits "the" from "the abominable" and inserts "[other]" into the word of God - flaunting his protestant roots by declaring the passage to be from "Revelation" in lieu of the "traditional" Catholic description: "The Apocalypse". This may be of interest, for what does Ruby mean by "other liars"? Does he limit the fate to liars "other" than himself?!!! For, indeed, Grif Ruby IS a liar!
- Indeed, Grif Ruby seems to have missed the point, for Bill Grossklas (and the other named persons) would agree that they do possess a Faith which is different to that professed by Ruby. And they would caution Ruby that he should be wary of the fate that he has (admittedly erroneously) quoted from The Apocalypse. The fact is that we trust in the promises of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, in respect of the Papacy and the continuance of the Church He founded "until the end of time". Ruby does not have that trust.
Having noted my file of the matter, Ruby forwarded to me an e-mail dated June 16, 2001, as follows:
"Since you seem willing to point to my site (a daring venture) I should point out that my old link is dying and has been replaced with a new one...
http://thegrid.net/the-pope/exlinks.html
becomes http://www.the-pope.com/exlinks.html...etc.
...By the way, my 'Enemies of the Faith' page has also been deleted. It was never meant to be accessable to the public and existed only for me as a research tool....
F.J.L. Comment: Grif Ruby AGAIN lied. His "Enemies" file was NOT deleted. He simply changed the URL (or "name") of the file and left it on his site; see below.About June 8, the "Enemies" file appeared to have been withdrawen, and I commented: "Following Bill Grossklas' 'thanks for the plug' message, the "Enemies of the Faith" file was withdrawn from display on Ruby's website around June 8th. Of course, this may be co-incidental and there is no guarantee that it will not re-appear. In fact it was simply given a different name. Ruby and/or his "familiar" "hit" my site several times, using an altered URL (http://www.the-pope.com/cgi/makenem.pl?enemies ) once on July 9 and six times on July 10. Of course, the "signature" registered on my web counter, and it was no trouble to track it back to Ruby's web site.
Ruby tried another change on July 11, "hitting" my site four times, using a URL changed to: http://www.the-pope.com/cgi/makenem.pl?lacunaeThat too, registered on my counter, and I traced it back again to Ruby's site. While there, I tried again the old "enemies" URL; Griff had kept the file name, but changed the contents to:
Ah Hah! Caught you poking your nose into my private stuff, have I? How Dare You?
How dare I? Well, I dare by the direct invitation of Grif Ruby himself, who provided me with his signature on my web counter!!! Furthermore, I also claim the intellectual right of natural investigation of an anti-Catholic site. But, all this is again a simple demonstration of the fact that Ruby's left hand does not know what his right hand is doing - or the right hand side of his brain does not know what the left hand side is thinking.
For all said and done here, (and despite the fact that Griff Ruby classifies the pope, bishops and clergy, and laity in communion with them as being "Enemies" of the "Faith" that Griff Ruby professes, and that they are among the 'fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all [other] liars' (Revelation 21:8).' [sic.]), I wish to call upon the Divine Mercy to enlighten this poor possessed and tortured soul, that he may repent of his sins, be reconciled with Holy Mother Church and obtain the future that the good Lord intended for him. Amen.
Go to Todd Drain vs Griff Ruby Posts Private Interpretation And Fruitcake Nuts and Fruitcakes Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page