Monday, June 21, 2010

Anecdotal evidence against Leo XIII

Please also read:
Leo XIII was NEVER pope
Leo XIII taught heresy while fraudulently posing as pope
Leo XIII Bestowed the Supreme Order of Christ on a Heretic


The following information, serves to clearly condemn Leo XIII.  Not even the heretical Dimond brothers could argue against this.


2 St. John 1:10-11: "If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.  For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works."

Compare this with a true Pope, Pius IX and his manner of dealing with Jews:
Wikipedia, on Pope Pius IX: "After returning from exile in 1850, during which the Roman Republic issued sharp anti-Church measures, the Pope issued a series of anti-liberal measures, including re-instituting the Ghetto.

"In 1858, in a highly publicized case, a six-year-old Jewish boy, Edgardo Mortara, was taken from his parents by the police of the Papal States. He had reportedly been baptized by a Christian servant girl of the family while he was ill, because she feared that otherwise he would go to Hell if he died. At that time, the law did not permit Christians to be raised by Jews, even their own parents. Pius raised the boy in the papal household and the boy later was ordained a priest."

Combined with his three heresies, namely the separation of Church and State , God is the Father of all men and that there are sacraments among unbelievers, that he made a statement that the Church is not opposed to "real and lawful liberty" right before teaching that the Church does not condemn rulers who tolerate public expressions of false worship, then the above account of Leo XIII blessing Jews and proclaiming them to be his children is not surprising at all.

Certainly Jews are not children to the pope according to the flesh, but how could they be so according to the spirit unless they were also children of God?

For more about the above heresies of Leo XIII, please read "Leo XIII was NEVER pope".




14 comments:

  1. One might argue that one do not agree with his actions of blessing a non-Catholic. However, if viewed in light of charity, this action is not heretical. Granted, some might see it as scandalous (I would not since I know his intention is good), but it is not heretical.

    For the same reason that one can say "God bless" to non-Catholic, one can also bless them. But why? Answer: because one wishes them good and that God, in reality, shall bless them and lead them to Heaven, i.e., that they will be converted and attain the faith. But a true conversion is not possible, of course, without receiving God's grace and blessing. Hence, this too can be interpreted in an orthodox way and is a weak example of heresy.

    All your accusations against Leo XIII that I have read so far have been weak, and all you have chosen to do is to interpret them maliciously, even going so far as deposing him as an antipope.

    Yes, David, you are special and have found out the secret apostasy from Leo XIII onwards that no one else knew about! Pride goes before the fall...

    ReplyDelete
  2. "One might argue that one do not agree with his actions of blessing a non-Catholic."

    Apparently you would not argue that this provokes or encourages heresy. I disagree.

    "However, if viewed in light of charity, this action is not heretical. Granted, some might see it as scandalous (I would not since I know his intention is good), but it is not heretical."

    Blessing means favor. If God favors someone, then God approves of someone. Does God approve of heretics? You will find dogmatic definitions against you on this.

    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1442, ex cathedra: “…all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives.”

    Asking God to bless someone who rejects him is clearly provoking of heresy.

    "For the same reason that one can say "God bless" to non-Catholic...Hence, this too can be interpreted in an orthodox way and is a weak example of heresy."

    Nonsense. He did not say convert. If he meant convert, he would have said convert. Instead, he beat around the bush in a way that would lead one who is not Catholic to believe that he does not believe he needs to convert.

    "All your accusations against Leo XIII that I have read so far have been weak, and all you have chosen to do is to interpret them maliciously, even going so far as deposing him as an antipope."

    Malice is the opposite of charity, and charity is the love of God above all things and neighbour as yourself. If one truly love God, then the truth of His doctrine is of the greratest importance, and speaking this truth with an eye toward the edification and salvation of one's neighbour is charitable, wherease speaking falsehoods (like Jews are children of the Pope, of the Church, or God) which tend to the confusion of one's neighbour, and lead sinners and non-Catholics to believe conversion is not seen as of the greatest importance is malicious.

    "Yes, David, you are special and have found out the secret apostasy from Leo XIII onwards that no one else knew about! Pride goes before the fall..."

    Thank you for the persecution. Lord, lay not this sin to his charge!

    There is nothing secret about these heretical statements and provocations of Leo XIII. They are not hidden, though we know the truth is hidden from many by their own sins.

    Matthew 24:24: "For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect."

    Mark 13:6: "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am he; and they shall deceive many."

    2 Cor. 4:3-4: "And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them."

    2 Cor. 11:13: "For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Does it encourage heresy to say: "God bless you" to a non-Catholic? I say no. In fact, all it does may be to make him more disposed to accept the faith when preached to, or when giving him material, it might make him more disposed to receive it. It is all about intentions.

    You have chosen to interpret his action of blessing a non-Catholic as favoring heresy, yet there are many other ways of interpreting it, as I have shown.

    But even so, the furtherest you could go on this accusation is the accusation of "favoring heresy" or giving scandal. So you imply his actions is not heretical (which it isn't) but only could favor heresy or give scandal depending on how one interprets it.

    Tell me, did anyone else in the Church interpret this action of the Pope as favoring heresy or as being heretical or scandalous? Was there an uproar in the Church for any of his supposed heresies that you depose him for as an antipope? Of course not. So when I made the following statement about you, I really meant it: "Yes, David, you are special and have found out the secret apostasy from Leo XIII onwards that no one else knew about! Pride goes before the fall..."

    You claim to accept the ordinary and universal magisterium, yet reject the universal and ordinary magisterium which accept Pope Leo XIII as a true Pope. No one else in the Church, except for you David apparently, could see these "secret heresies". Yes I call them "secret", even though you call them "open", since they are secret to all but you since no one, except you and a few (yes very few) people like you, evidently could discover the "hidden" truth that Leo XIII was an antipope! There was no uproar of bishops or priests or of movements started in opposition to Pope Leo XIII for his supposed unorthodoxy as happened in the wake on Vatican II.

    This is the difference with your obscure heresy accusation of pre-Vatican II popes and the clear and obvious departure from tradition post-Vatican II popes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You wrote: "Blessing means favor. If God favors someone, then God approves of someone. Does God approve of heretics? You will find dogmatic definitions against you on this."

    Blessing can have different meanings depending on what the person thought when he wanted to bless someone else in God's name. When I say "God bless you" to non-Catholics, my intention is not to imply they are saved, but simply that God should bless them and lead them to Heaven.

    And no, it is not to provoke heresy to bless someone that rejects God. Can anyone be converted without God's grace or blessing? No. I already explained this, yet you ignored it. So in this sense, it is not to provoke heresy, but to provoke conversion by making the non-Catholic disposed to embrace the Catholic faith. (Showing love and charity is the best means to make people interested or embrace the faith, by the way.) Before understanding this issue, I can understand if some people (like you) might see it as scandalous or worse. But when understanding the situation and that intentions have their part (such as after having it explained to them)--and also considering the Pope's good intention when blessing this Jew--then one must interpret it orthodoxly and give it good meaning. Yes, one must be very careful before condemning others as heretics, or as mortal sinners, or even deposing them as antipopes.

    Pope Leo XIII do not have to say that he desired the Jew to convert. You already know this. The fact that he desires her conversion is implied from the fact that he blessed her and that he teaches in other places one must be Catholic to be saved. That is the orthodox interpretation. Yet you say that his actions give the impression that she did not need to convert! But according to whom? To you? Who else in the Church interpreted this action like you did - or in this way? Tell me. My guess is that no one did interpret it in this way, except for some self-taught sedevacantists in the 21st century!

    Yes malice is the opposite of charity, and you are malicious when you interpret Pope Leo XIII's words and actions in an uncharitable way, deposing him as an antipope, and declaring him as a heretic, i.e., you make him become damned and a non-Catholic. What could be more uncharitable than that? Even if for the sake of argument you perhaps do not consider Pope Leo XIII as damned? you still interpret all his actions uncharitably in order to depose him, which is opposed to charity. Malice is a strong word otherwise, yet I do not think it is entirely incorrect to use it in order to describe what you are doing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Does it encourage heresy to say: "God bless you" to a non-Catholic? I say no."

    I will defer not to your opinion on this, but to that of St. John.

    2 John 1:10-11: “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works."

    "In fact, all it does may be to make him more disposed to accept the faith when preached to, or when giving him material, it might make him more disposed to receive it. It is all about intentions."

    How interesting a comment. I have read and heard many atheists say that to hear "God bless you" infuriates them. So it is frivolous and presumptuous for you to say it makes someone more disposed to accept the faith, and you are using wishful thinking. Besides, there is more to communication than intentions. There is also perception of our words by the other party and the duty to be clear in our meaning in each communication.

    "You have chosen to interpret his action of blessing a non-Catholic as favoring heresy, yet there are many other ways of interpreting it, as I have shown."

    The incident, as recorded in the New York Times article I presented, is at least scandalous and implies thew Jew is in the family of the pope and thus in the family of God, which is heresy.

    http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.ca/2010/06/is-god-father-of-all-men.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. "But even so, the furtherest you could go on this accusation is the accusation of "favoring heresy" or giving scandal. So you imply his actions is not heretical (which it isn't) but only could favor heresy or give scandal depending on how one interprets it."

    Yes, it is favouring heresy, or provoking (excitasse) of heresy, which Pope Paul IV declared in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was sufficient grounds to withdraw with impunity from the one provoking!

    =>excitasse

    Syncope s => vis
    Syncopated perfect often drops the 'v' and contracts vowel
    excitav.isse V 1 1 PERF ACTIVE INF 0 X
    excito, excitare, excitavi, excitatus V (1st) [XXXBX]

    wake up, stir up; cause; raise, erect; incite; excite, arouse; - Whitaker's Words

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Tell me, did anyone else in the Church interpret this action of the Pope as favoring heresy or as being heretical or scandalous? Was there an uproar in the Church for any of his supposed heresies that you depose him for as an antipope? Of course not. So when I made the following statement about you, I really meant it: "Yes, David, you are special and have found out the secret apostasy from Leo XIII onwards that no one else knew about! Pride goes before the fall..."

    Jerome, you act as though the world could be expected, after the fall of the papal states, and widespread public and official rejection of the Catholic religion's rightful place as sovereign judge over temporal affairs, to be of sound judgment concerning Faith.

    The Masonic tendrils by this time had already firmly entrenched themselves into governments, and it is these tendrils which also push the “God the Father of All” doctrine. Your refusal to acknowledge this and its relevance is duly noted.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "You claim to accept the ordinary and universal magisterium, yet reject the universal and ordinary magisterium which accept Pope Leo XIII as a true Pope. No one else in the Church, except for you David apparently, could see these "secret heresies". Yes I call them "secret", even though you call them "open", since they are secret to all but you since no one, except you and a few (yes very few) people like you, evidently could discover the "hidden" truth that Leo XIII was an antipope! There was no uproar of bishops or priests or of movements started in opposition to Pope Leo XIII for his supposed unorthodoxy as happened in the wake on Vatican II."

    Your argument is backwards. If “God the Father of All” were not manifestly and clearly opposed to Divine Revelation and solemn definitions, then Leo XIII (if this were his only provocation of heresy) and his magisterium could be said to be Catholic. But the “God the Father of All” heresy is a word for word contradiction of an explicitly stated truth, that God is not the Father of those outside the Church. This is much more explicitly stated in all levels of Church teaching than anything that Feeneyites misuse for their rejection of Baptism of Desire.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "This is the difference with your obscure heresy accusation of pre-Vatican II popes and the clear and obvious departure from tradition post-Vatican II popes."

    I am glad you pointed out the obviousness of the departure of the Vatican II counterfeits, which you call popes. Have you ever heard of the “Hegelian dialectic”? I would suggest you and anyone reading this exchange look it up to understand why I believe Leo XIII was not only heretical, but even deliberately so. And if it is so obvious, with the V2 "popes", why then, did Christ say "For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect."

    "You wrote: "Blessing means favor. If God favors someone, then God approves of someone. Does God approve of heretics? You will find dogmatic definitions against you on this."

    "Blessing can have different meanings depending on what the person thought when he wanted to bless someone else in God's name. When I say "God bless you" to non-Catholics, my intention is not to imply they are saved, but simply that God should bless them and lead them to Heaven."

    As shown above, the Apostle John disagrees with you. He says that to say “God speed you”, which is functionally equivalent to “God bless you”, to anyone who has not “this doctrine”, “communicateth with his wicked works”.

    That is why communication should be explicit, in order to avoid giving scandal or leading others into the wrong impression. Hence it is evidently contrary to the words of the Apostle to say God bless you to one who has rejected God, when one can and ought to say “God give you grace to convert to Him”, which is explicit, and does not thereby communicate with his wicked works, but rather reproves them.

    But saying simply “God bless you” implies fellowship.

    Ephesians 5:11: "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."

    ReplyDelete
  10. "And no, it is not to provoke heresy to bless someone that rejects God. Can anyone be converted without God's grace or blessing? No. I already explained this, yet you ignored it."

    The Council of Trent is very explicit about the need for God's prevenient grace in order to convert. But here you have conflated the terms grace and blessing. They are not at all the same thing as claim.

    "So in this sense, it is not to provoke heresy, but to provoke conversion by making the non-Catholic disposed to embrace the Catholic faith. (Showing love and charity is the best means to make people interested or embrace the faith, by the way.)"

    Again, you have contradicted the words of the Apostle John, by equating “God bless you” with charity, when “God bless you” in fact communicates with the wicked works of the unbeliever. Charity is the love of God above all things, including human respect and the desire for others to feel good about us. As such, a feel good comment like “God bless you”, which implies love and fellowship ought to be reserved only for those who possess the true doctrine of Christ, or at least who have not manifested any rejection thereof.

    And for those who do not hold the true doctrine of Christ, we may say with Christ, the model of all charity: “ Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. But if I say the truth, you believe me not.”

    In this speech, Jesus admonished those who refused the truth, who did not have the true doctrine (that He is God made flesh), that they might humble themselves at His rebuke. Do we accuse Jesus Christ of speaking without charity here? Not I. He explicitly told them what is wanting in them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes, I do indeed believe we can wish grace to others who are not sound of Faith, because prevenient grace is needed for their conversion. And I believe if we do so, we should make it clear why we are doing so, namely that we believe without the true Faith they cannot be saved, nor are they children of God. It is true charity to speak the truth with gentleness and meekness, but openly and explicitly, for the good of our neighbour.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Before understanding this issue, I can understand if some people (like you) might see it as scandalous or worse. But when understanding the situation and that intentions have their part (such as after having it explained to them)--and also considering the Pope's good intention when blessing this Jew--then one must interpret it orthodoxly and give it good meaning. Yes, one must be very careful before condemning others as heretics, or as mortal sinners, or even deposing them as antipopes."

    Understanding what issue? The issue of ubiquitous Masonic control over governments, institutions and media? The continuous push for more and more extreme iterations of one world religion, and one world government? Both of which benefit from the teaching that God is the father of all.

    I have deposed no one. I am not an ecclesiastical judge with such a power. Pope Paul IV was, however, and he promulgated a law (Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio) that declared those shall become evident as having professed heresy or provoke it are, without need for any further declaration, to be considered as null and void of any authority in the Church. You are ignoring the law and defending heresy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Pope Leo XIII do not have to say that he desired the Jew to convert. You already know this. The fact that he desires her conversion is implied from the fact that he blessed her and that he teaches in other places one must be Catholic to be saved. That is the orthodox interpretation. Yet you say that his actions give the impression that she did not need to convert! But according to whom? To you? Who else in the Church interpreted this action like you did - or in this way? Tell me."

    So this is outdated and no longer applicable, then?

    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra: "Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes …whoever holds opposing or contrary views."

    "My guess is that no one did interpret it in this way, except for some self-taught sedevacantists in the 21st century!"

    It is just that. A guess. Besides which, you are making an argument that appeals to emotion, not to any reasonable criteria, such whether or not the words out of his mouth were word for word contradictions against a doctrine many times professed at all levels of authority in the Church, that those outside the Church are outside also of the family of God.

    It matters not that there was no widespread outcry as you imply. For: "And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.", and "they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water", and "yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?"

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Yes malice is the opposite of charity, and you are malicious when you interpret Pope Leo XIII's words and actions in an uncharitable way, deposing him as an antipope, and declaring him as a heretic, i.e., you make him become damned and a non-Catholic. What could be more uncharitable than that? Even if for the sake of argument you perhaps do not consider Pope Leo XIII as damned? you still interpret all his actions uncharitably in order to depose him, which is opposed to charity. Malice is a strong word otherwise, yet I do not think it is entirely incorrect to use it in order to describe what you are doing.


    As the Church teaches, Charity is the love of God above all things, and also as the Church teaches, to accept a Gospel contrary to that which was received destroys Charity, because it is a sin against Faith, without which there can be neither Charity, nor Hope.

    Psalm 140:4"Incline not my heart to evil words; to make excuses in sins. With men that work iniquity: and I will not communicate with the choicest of them."

    2 John 1:10-11: "If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works."

    Ephesians 5:11: "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."

    ReplyDelete