Roscoe,  sorry I am late, I didn't see this topic on my scan through the forum.



I think Francis is all probability the Pope.


So, I think Francis is the Pope.



And, it terrifies me.  


Thanks for asking.  

I'll be glad to discuss whatever else.  

So...why'd you ask?  surely my opinion about this is not very interesting.  

Quote from: Ladislaus

There's no such thing as a heliocentrist.   :smoke-pot:

There are some who believe in helio-centrism but i am not one. Why are u trying to derail this topic?-- start another one if that is what u want to discuss. Me thinks u are afraid that he will agree with U that it is the anti-pope Francis.

When someone shows that there is a Pope, Church Father, Doctor, Saint, etc who has used the term 'sede vacantism' or 'sede vacantist' ( note the absence of the term 'sede vacante') then i will accept that there is such a state of affairs or person so called.

This has never been shown BY ANYONE IN ALL MY TIME IN THIS FORUM.

Apparently i was correct--- both ladislaus and icterus recognise francis.  :scared2:

Roscoe,  sorry I am late, I didn't see this topic on my scan through the forum.



I think Francis is all probability the Pope.


So, I think Francis is the Pope.



And, it terrifies me.  


Thanks for asking.  

I'll be glad to discuss whatever else.  

Discuss how you reached your conclusion.  Was there ever a time that you doubted that Francis was the Pope?

Captain wrote:

Discuss how you reached your conclusion.  Was there ever a time that you doubted that Francis was the Pope?

Yes, I've had and continue to have my doubts.  However, looking into the matter of heresy, I do not think, starting with Pius XII (I have not looked into claims that any earlier Popes were in fact anti-Popes) I do not think the matter is clear enough for me to make a judgement.  I've read JPII and Benedict pretty extensively and read the sede claims about them.  In the end, I do not feel one can pin down actual, certain heresy.  Rather, it's a series of actions that smack of heresy (Kissing a Koran...that is the one that makes me a little ill.  Re-habilitating Teilhard's 'cosmic liturgy'.  Etc.  Lots of them.) but when you try to pin down the heresy, it's a slippery goose.  

Same with Francis.  There's a barely believable way out of every loophole.  

I do not feel that I can take the evidence in hand and declare any of these men to be heretics.  And, for myself, I think I would need to be able to do exactly that to become a sede.  

I'll continue to read sede arguments with interest.  

As for why Francis terrifies me:  I've lived under Hispanic Bishops several times.  I find that the current generation of Hispanic Bishops (Gomez, Florez, Barnes, Ochoa, Siller, etc.) hold a weird, weird version of the Catholic faith that comes from almost pure classical liberalism.  

They may (or may not) hold the Faith, but they're not going to insist that anyone else does.  

I once had a nasty fight with a priest about heresy when I worked in a parish, and he took it to Bishop Barnes, and he came back with the most bizarre mis-interpretation of 'in non-essentials, diversity' ever.  

So, yeah...I keep reading sede arguments.      

edit

Captain wrote:

Quote

Discuss how you reached your conclusion.  Was there ever a time that you doubted that Francis was the Pope?

Yes, I've had and continue to have my doubts.  However, looking into the matter of heresy, I do not think, starting with Pius XII (I have not looked into claims that any earlier Popes were in fact anti-Popes) I do not think the matter is clear enough for me to make a judgement.  I've read JPII and Benedict pretty extensively and read the sede claims about them.  In the end, I do not feel one can pin down actual, certain heresy.  Rather, it's a series of actions that smack of heresy (Kissing a Koran...that is the one that makes me a little ill.  Re-habilitating Teilhard's 'cosmic liturgy'.  Etc.  Lots of them.) but when you try to pin down the heresy, it's a slippery goose.  

Same with Francis.  There's a barely believable way out of every loophole.  

I do not feel that I can take the evidence in hand and declare any of these men to be heretics.  And, for myself, I think I would need to be able to do exactly that to become a sede.  

I'll continue to read sede arguments with interest.  

As for why Francis terrifies me:  I've lived under Hispanic Bishops several times.  I find that the current generation of Hispanic Bishops (Gomez, Florez, Barnes, Ochoa, Siller, etc.) hold a weird, weird version of the Catholic faith that comes from almost pure classical liberalism.  

They may (or may not) hold the Faith, but they're not going to insist that anyone else does.  

I once had a nasty fight with a priest about heresy when I worked in a parish, and he took it to Bishop Barnes, and he came back with the most bizarre mis-interpretation of 'in non-essentials, diversity' ever.  

So, yeah...I keep reading sede arguments.      

The election of Frank is a Fraud. That alone is enough to qualify him as an anti-pope.  

Frank would be a lot closer to bizzaro than a true Pope could ever be.

This has been discussed & all the sources noted  quite a few times in the past. Have u never seen any of the topics?