Fr. Nicholas Gregoris, S.T.D.

@GregorisFr

In the name of Tradition Bergoglio attacks Tradition. In the name of Unity Bergoglio foments Schism. This is the work of the Evil One not the Holy Spirit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42806670)

trads are the last to go to one of the protestant sects. they would go EO, the eastern rites, or sede chapels.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42815636)

at the most charitable, this was at least mean. at the least charitable, it was evil. either way, bad move. and it already looks to be backfiring. a lot of bishops are like "yeeeaaaaah, that's a cool paper you typed out, bro" and are going to functionally ignore it. francis started the concept of synodality and now he's stuck with it. this is particularly the case where personal parishes are the only ones growing. some will meekly obey hoping to rise in the hierarchy, but a lot view trads as "meh, they donate a lot and tend to leave us alone. if they yell at each other in an echo chamber it's not really a big deal."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42815664)

also, it is likely we get a worse pope than francis next. we're not getting sarah or arinze unfortunately.

but skinny pope, fat pope. we've had terrible popes before. we must carry the cross and suffer the burden. it could be worse.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42815707)

benedict was simply not suited to fix the curia and rome. you need someone to come in and clean house. i don't know any of them have that type of make up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42815730)

I still think it's worth being sad for benedict though for a moment. In a time of calm, overly-scholarly pontiff lost in his books would have been fine. He ascended in a particularly awful era for a man like him (although agreed, I'm not sure who would actually thrive). Worse, he helped to create the mess by not anticipating how far the "spirit" of VCII would get pushed. It's not directly harming your kids, but it's still a tragic story of a man that really did seem to mean well.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42815764)

"Judas was the first bishop to take a government grant."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42816020)

But under normal circumstances, the diocesan bishop “owns” everything and can do with it what he wants, regardless of who paid for it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42821134)

https://twitter.com/GregorisFr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42815701)

I'm not saying astrology has a place in that but I do love the way different orders practice their charisms. Maybe we all have a link back to worldliness that helps save the lost

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42816652)

My child, be not an observer of omens, since it leads the way to idolatry; neither an enchanter, nor an astrologer, nor a purifier, nor be willing to look at these things; for out of all these idolatry is engendered.

———

This is a complex topic but us you’re interested, there’s plenty for you to read online

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42816735)

https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/smith_cynthia_m_201105_ma.pdf

"In Revelation a primary motif is the myth of the end of the universe or the end of the age. There is a theory that the early Christians were astrologers or influenced by astrology in that they were living then and we are living now in the Age of Pisces on the Zodiac, and the next age will be the Age of Aquarius..."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42816734)

"The New Testament may refer to Aquarius (the Water Bearer) in two Gospels: Mark 14:13: "He sent two of his disciples and said to them, 'Go into the city and a man will meet you, carrying a jar of water. Follow him.'" and Luke 22:10-12: "And he answered them, 'When you go into the city, a man will meet you carrying a jar of water. Follow him into the house that he enters and say to the master of the house, "The teacher says to you, 'Where is the guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?'" He will show you a large upper room that is furnished. Make the preparations there.'""

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42816744)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42817475)

If y’all Christians can’t figure out we are living in the end times and that Jesus’ return has already taken place (albeit not in the fashion expected by the faithful (just as his first advent was in a fashion not expected by the Pharisees)) I don’t know what to tell you

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42815751)

https://youtu.be/vfdJ0g5dnho

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42817538)

https://youtu.be/XRLOQUnw-FY?t=6275

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42817557)

and, again, i advise reading siscoe and salza. it's a little more than a 20 minute video.

don't let your hate of the man (very valid btw) make you jump off the barque. would i love for him to fall into formal heresy? sure. cause a crisis, have him removed, but that's too easy and not how the evil one works. what he wants is for you to leave the church. then he has won.

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/little_catechism_on_sedevacantism.htm

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42817614)

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/sedemanifest.htm

as you can see, it is a far more complex issue than he states. and i think siscoe handles it well here and better in his text true or false pope. isbn 9781495181429 with a forward by his excellency bernard fellay.

but, let's address some of his proof texting. he starts by saying a manifest heretic exercising office loses his jurisdiction and, in the case of a pope, his universal jrx. this is true. but he references paul iv on the note that a manifest heretic loses his jrx prior to the elevation and nullifies his promotion. we simply do not know enough about francis' preaching prior to make this applicable here.

he uses nestorius and celestine as his prime example. it is comparing apples to oranges as nestorius was a bishop and celestine was a pope. the pope was exercising his jrx here on a subordinate. he wants to make that map onto a situation where the chief executive, as it were, were privy to the same process. that is simply not the case.

dimond appeals to various private correspondence both to confreres and to a congregation to strengthen his argument. but he loses sight of the fact that the development of papal authority that was explicitly made manifest in vatican i. these private correspondences do not bind. as we know now, not even motu proprios to the whole church are not binding upon successors occupying the same office because of the plenary power that the pope has with re: to disciplines. this is pivotal to understand w/r/t to distinctions. the pope's power over disciplines is plenary, not over dogma as the pope has a most limited power over that and has almost never been exercised. ultimately, private correspondences to people or congregations are not binding upon successors and while are persuasive, they are not authoritative.

he moves to quoting leo xiii in statis cognitum, 1896. 2 things come to mind. 1) preaching against a doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium results in heresy. 2) the historical milieu of leo xiii. as to 1), the problem that the church faces now is the dual issue of what happens when the authentic magisterium w/r/t to what can classed as disciplines/pastoral approach is in tension with the deposit of the faith? i think we would both agree that the deposit always wins, but the pastoral approach is meant to lead people TO the deposit for their full assent. it begs the question: is vatican ii (and vatican i ultimately) the authentic magisterium? and if francis is preaching the authentic magisterium of vatican ii THEN he is not a manifest heretic. 2) leo's papacy was on the backdrop of the ascent of modernism within the clergy. so, he was basically anticipating francis' of the world and could have weilded a far sharper cleaver, but did not. maybe this was because he was using a tool, a papal encyclical that is far higher in authority than a private correspondence so he exercised discretion limited to the facts before him. i am not here to question his judgment.

celestine's core complaint about nestorius, rightly so, was that he was preaching heresy in his office while concurrently exercising his office in a way to force conformity at the risk of excommunication for those who would not assent to his heresy. this is very different than what francis can be fairly accused of or even any of his predecessors. francis, maybe under the influence of satan (lets be honest), is very clever. he talks outside of mass settings about various issues that are controversial and think contradict the inherited deposit, but never in a preaching capacity (unless we want to argue--and one can reasonably do so--that his entire existence is preaching). to the parenthetical point, there is a great irony that i would defend his occupation of the office by saying "well, he is not preaching when he's being a fucking idiot" when i am sure in his mind he is likely to ascribe to concept of "always teach the faith and when that fails, talk about it" of the felt banner crowd. i see the tension.

around 4:30 he shows francis nodding at a koran. here is the problem: this is a natural extension of the document on ecumenism of vatican ii. the issue is then about whether or not that document and the natural consequences thereof are the authentic magisterium. i would say not, but that issue has not been put to bed yet as there is a GENERAL assent to it, but not a complete assent to bring the documents of vatican ii to the strength of authority to be called "an element of the sensus fidelium". that is obviously the case since we are here talking about these things right now and the institute, society, and fraternity (plus myriad lesser societies) exist. had vatican ii the power of the sensus fidelium all of this would be moot.

dimond is right on the divine law, but we still require a process. at 13:40. admittedly pachamama is strong evidence, 14:55. but you still need the process.

he moves to mackenzie's dissertation and this is where the analysis truly falls apart. there is no need to even discuss the authority of a dissertation that even he claims is full of modernism. it does not even register. but let's entertain it for completeness' sake. he draws the distinction between notorious in law and notorious in fact. he notes that the latter, where he places all post vatican ii popes, requires knowing intent to not teach the authentic magisterium. but we already know the document on ecumenism and its implementation is still a battlefield, Unitatis Redintegratio. francis does not act in subterfuge, but he openly on what he considers the full expression of this ultimately pastoral document. his reliance on mackenzie is the tool he uses to bridge the gulf to declaring francis, and his predecessors, manifest heretics. but it simply does not have the authority to provide the foundation for what he claims. even looking at it from a more removed 30,000 foot perspective, when one has to dig so deep in the vaults to find some otherwise unknown dissertation tells you that he cannot find the authority in any binding texts to support his leap.

ultimately, i understand what dimond is trying to do, but the crux of his argument relies on leaps that he cannot justify with authority. i can't stand francis, but he is the pope. and maybe he will be found to be a manifest heretic, i can't say. but his argument, though strong argument, rests on a foundation that is faulty in one strong respect.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42821050)

Couple things:

(1) The Dimonds would say Vatican 2 is not valid for myriad reasons, (see eg https://youtu.be/BWsgxCVYtAI) and can't be used in arguments to prove Francis is somehow a valid pope because his actions are consistent with it. The Dimonds argue that the papal chair in fact became vacant upon Vatican 2 IIRC

(2) if the church can't even depose a pope who you admit is under the influence of satan, what's the process worth then? When would the pope ever be declared heretical?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42821298)

the dimonds, to be frank, are the epitome of having just 2 or 3 too many IQ points to function properly. they're right in that sliver of a soft spot where you're smart enough to be fucking retards. 1) a shitty council does not nullify the church especially when it was not doctrinal and 2) the entire old testament to a large degree is the story of the people being chastised for bad priests. st. john eudes says the greatest chastisement god gives man is bad priests.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42822715)

the fssp is the fraternity of st. peter. it is an off shoot of the sspx and was formed by priests of the sspx who wanted a regular status with rome.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42821113)

think of them like orders IN the church that carry on a particular function. their function is to carry on the latin mass for those who have a preference for it. and this is really where a lot of the tension with the pope (and rome generally) lay. most priests of both orders, when pressed, would say yes the new mass is VALID, but it is not the full expression of the faith. so the issue of preference is invalid. when you have to choose between options and we are talking about worship, then in net effect you don't really HAVE a choice. you always render the worship befitting god unless you can't. herein lies the tension.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42821128)

then when you are done realize that a lot of what we are dealing with flows from marcel lefebvre's dissent. the fssp doesn't exist but for him. etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4881214&forum_id=2#42821156)