Seeking The Pope
Role of Private Revelation
Dear Hans-Georg,
In Determining the Identity of the Pope & Cetera
Yesterday, on the 17th of Feb., 2003, I received the Digest of your group Antimodernism. I am all appreciation for your consummate defence of Catholicism against Evolutionism et al, in the thread about 'The Church, the Inquisition and the Death Penalty,' 'Round Earth and the Bible,' "Age Dating,' etc.
I give thanks to God for your steadfastness in the Faith and for your pertinacity in the face of heresy, and I pray God that you prosper, arrive at the knowledge of the true Pope and submit to him. Your prayer, "I pray for whoever is Pope, if at present we have one" is a good beginning. Further, it is obvious that I will need to learn from you and your tactics in countering the lies against Holy Church.
But the greatest thing is that, in following both your battles with these heretics, and in my own battles with the like heretics here in India & Goa, I have penetrated to the fundamental understanding of the Why the roots of the West's Great Social Apostacy over the last half millenia or so, and which has culminated in the Great Apostacy of the larger part of what was the Catholic Church.
And that is that, in order to reinforce their seduction of the West from Christ, the subversive Jews have foisted upon the West this disillusionment with Christianity vide this fabricated mythologies of Evolutionism etc.
However, while both you and H.H. the Pope are Geocentricists, I do not have any position on this subject at the moment, for I am not at all well-versed on the matter. I would prefer to wait and learn.
However, I disagree about your positions re. the thread 'Seeking the pope... (originally sent to John Prakash, Bombay)'. I had thought that this discussion had been closed. However, since it is not, I make the following offerings;-)
I have submitted this message to His Holiness the Pope (Michael I) to seek out theological deficiencies and errors. The texts in sqare parentheses, prefixed with PM, were written by him.
I believe that a ruler, whether pope, king or whatever, ceases to hold office when he remits office, such as by death.
I believe that the concept that such deceased, once-rulers still nevertheless continue as rulers, and if they return will be recognized as such, as being entirely uncertain, and a proposition that is bound to bring disaster, for there will then always be imposters who will pretend, sometimes even with the help of the devils and diabolical miracles, to be one or the other such deceased once-rulers.
That the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle1 was written by Catholics, whether nominal or ardent, does not make it the basis of Catholic theology any more than any work of sæcular history or of fiction written by a Catholic, whether nominal or ardent. [Not that I am implying that the Chronicles are works of fiction!]
The Holy Scriptures are not entire, i.e. do not contain the entirety of truth.
[P.M.: See Catholic Church definition of Public Revelation, Tradition and the Holy Scriptures.]
Saints on entering heaven are rewarded with crowns and dominions and such like, but they certainly do NOT retain their former positions.
If former positions are retained, then a man being promoted upwards through the ranks of the Church would still retain the positions that he held previously, an idea that Canon Law explicitly excludes. Thus, the bishop of Milan or Venice made Pope, would still remain Bishop of his former see. But not only does Canon Law explicitly excludes this notion, it is also true that such an idea was never taught at any time in the history of the Church, even if we grant your idea of co-participation with latter rulers in that position.
The powers of coparticipating granted and permitted by God to the Saints and Angels does not justify your theory of the Saints retaining EVERY right that they had previously held during their earthly sojourn.
Peter received powers that were both personal and positional; he partially passed on the positional powers to his successor in the Papal Office and to the see of Antioch, while his personal power, as the custodian of the Gates of Heaven, he retains, and will retain forever. As an exception, he also continues to coparticipate, even as the major participitant, in the papal office alongwith the incidental pope of any time. So, at least, is MY belief.
I have already rejected the false and heretical notion that the Saints can entertain a Will in opposition to that of God, or that they would even entertain such a notion. There is Complete and Entire Happiness and Bliss in Heaven, which consists in the main in knowing and communing with God, our First Cause, but there is no more any Free Will.
I had said: "The Papal or Apostolic See cannot be moved from Rome: to aver otherwise is heresy (e.g., Unam Sanctam)," to which you had replied, "I have not read it (in Unam Sanctam)." I therefore refer you once again to Unam Sanctam - (My paraphrase from memory) "It is strictly and inescapably necessary for salvation to be subject to the ROMAN PONTIFF." Obviously, that excludes the possibility that the Papal See can migrate, since if this were true, then Unam Sanctam would no longer be true. Thus, if the Pope is now no longer the Bishop of Rome but of, say, Hamburg, we would be obliged to be subject to, not the Roman Pontiff, but the Hamburger Pontiff.
[P.M.: Basically the Pope becomes also Bishop of Rome, the two positions being inseparable, even if the Pope were never to set foot in Rome. He nonetheless is still Bishop of Rome.]
Furthermore, when the Popes were in exile for a long period in Avignon, there were still separate Ordinaries for Avignon - the Pope or Roman Pontiff was just the sovereign and not the Ordinary.
"Rome will lose the faith" (approved apparition of BVM) - The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1908 - 1913 clearly tells us that the latter messages put out by Melanie Calvet are false and not part of the authorized messages. (See article on La Salette.) Further, after the Encyclopedia was published, the Holy See put these latter Melanist messages, including this one, on the Index. And this was long before Pius XII (whose legitimacy you reject).
[P.M.: There has been much controversy over the La Salette Revelations. In any case, it could be true, in that Rome appears to lose the Faith in the person of the impostor antipopes.]
What I have not done is deny the role of Private Revelation in the sense you impute. If we are to accept that a man is pope purely and solely upon the basis that he was purportedly constituted pope in a private revelation, then we must necessarily accept this private revelation as being part of and additional to public revelation, for no one can credit his being pope unless they credit that revelation. And this procedure is excluded from Catholicism.
[P.M.: Popes are elected with the sole exception of Saint Peter, who was appointed personally by Jesus. It is probable Jesus instructed Peter on how to set up the succession. See also the Catholic Encyclopedia, articles on 'Election of the Popes', and 'Papal Elections', yes there are two such articles! ]
But in the case of St. Joan and the Dauphin, private revelation only told that she should urge the latter to put aside his doubts as to his claim to the throne and have himself crowned. There is no comparision, as far as I can see between the circumstances of this case and that of Senor Clemente Dominguez y Gomez of Palmar de Troya, Sevilha, Spain.
[P.M.: Clemente may have had a revelation, but he claims to be the successor of the antipope Paul VI. And no true Pope is the successor of an heretical antipope. ]
From the viewpoint of Catholicism, I accept that it is legitimate that it may be attributed to God via a purported private revelation that a particular person should be constituted pope. Such, I believe, happened in some cases... But that did not actually constitute the person pope, but they were then elected popes. Never has it happened that, as Clemente does, that a man claims to be already constituted pope, merely upon his so-called constitution as such in a purported revelation.
You said: "But the revelation of Palmar de Troya�does hardly claim to be binding on all the faithful of all times, does it?" It does claim to be universal in time, for it claims that all Catholics must submit to Senhor Clemente, both those alive today, and those to come, even when he himself has died and gone... For his 'successors,' even if only elected, will still depend upon him for their legitimacy...
[P.M.: Just as 'John-Paul II' depends on 'John XXIII-II' for his validity, and since Angelo Roncalli was not Pope, then Karol Wojtyla is not. (Of course, he was also a heretic prior to his apparent election.)]
You asked how Catholics are to differentiate between the scenarios of rival pseudo-mysticalist claimants, and the rival Conclavist claimants. The answer is easy: Take from the Catholic viewpoint that the first legitimate electee is validly and truely constituted pope, and I ask, Where is the difficulty?
You said, "I have not believed him to be Pope since I got hold of information about the Cathechism of El Palmar de Troya saying there are 8 dimensions. There are three, just to remind us of Holy Trinity." I have no particular knowledge as to the number of dimensions, but I stand by my position that Senhor Clemente papal claims are based upon false premises, as set out, and as I have set out again.
Further, I have been given reliable information that he is an inveterate Sodomite, from even before he commenced his claim. And that, in itself, excludes him, for a Sodomite2, as far as I know, is excommunicated and cannot hold any position in the Church...
[P.M.: Sodomites are considered irregular and thus may not be promoted to Holy Orders.]
Notes:
1: See the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles at Berkeley University for example, or check up Google.com Search for Anglo-Saxon Chronicles
2: Robert Nogacki's site, The Palmarian Sect