Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Cera on January 16, 2024, 04:31:58 PM
-
Pope Francis Should Be Arrested Over 'Perverted' Book, Archbishop Says
Jan 16, 2024 at 1:31 PM EST
https://www.newsweek.com/archbishop-calls-arrest-pope-cardinal-over-book-1861151
Pope Francis Slammed For Blessing Same-Sex Couples: 'Blasphemy'
By Chloe Mayer (https://www.newsweek.com/authors/chloe-mayer)
An archbishop has launched an attack against Pope Francis (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/pope-francis) over the controversy surrounding a book written by a cardinal in 1998.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, an Italian clergyman who has frequently found himself at odds with Pope Francis over the direction of the Catholic church, has taken to social media to blast a resurfaced book written 25 years ago by another cleric. The archbishop views the work as "pornographic" and a "perversion," and has now demanded the arrest of both the writer, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, and the Pope.
Newsweek has reached out to the Vatican by email seeking comment.
The archbishop previously served as a Vatican ambassador to the U.S. for five years; he was appointed as Apostolic Nuncio in 2011 and remained in post until his retirement in 2016. He has become an increasingly outspoken critic of the Pope and the church as it navigates the modern age and grapples with issues such as sɛҳuąƖity (https://www.newsweek.com/archbishop-accuses-pope-heresy-over-legitimization-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity-1521825), the COVID-19 pandemic (https://www.newsweek.com/archbishop-says-coronavirus-pandemic-has-led-satan-going-frenzy-calls-mass-exorcism-holy-1497381), and historic sɛҳuąƖ abuse scandals. His warnings of a globalist conspiracy saw him win the approving attention of then-President Donald Trump (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/donald-trump) in 2020, which elevated his status further.
(https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/2336471/archbishop-carlo-maria-vigano.jpg?w=1200&f=cd1cb0cd3ad8dc5d524458ead6a97cce)
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has called for the arrest of the Pope and a cardinal over a book on sɛҳuąƖity written by the latter. The archbishop is pictured here leading a service at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago, Illinois, in November 2014. Charles Rex Arbogast-Pool/Getty Images
The archbishop's campaign has escalated after he called for the arrest of the head of the Catholic church.
What Is the Controversy Over?
Archbishop Viganò was responding to a recently resurfaced book from 1998 called Mystical Passion: Spirituality and Sensuality, written by the then-priest Fernández. The book reportedly includes graphic descriptions of male and female orgasms in addition to discussing how sɛҳuąƖ partners could find God in climax. Newsweek has not accessed a copy of the book.
The clergyman suggested God could "make himself present when two human beings love each other and reach orgasm; and that orgasm, lived in the presence of God, can also be a sublime act of the presence of God," the Catholic Herald magazine wrote in a commentary, quoting Fernández's book.
The book resurfaced after the now-Cardinal Fernández, with the Pope's approval, allowed pastors to give non-liturgical blessings to couples in "irregular situations," such as gαy couples or cohabiting unmarried partners.
On January 8, Viganò took to social media site X (formerly Twitter (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/twitter)) and—referring to the Pope as "the Argentinean" and Fernandez as "Tucho"—wrote: "The blasphemous sewer regurgitations of Tucho's repulsive pamphlet show such a level of perversion and alienation to the Faith as to demand the expulsion manu militari of the Argentinean and his accomplices. The Swiss Guards have sworn to defend the See of Peter, not the one who is systematically demolishing it. Let them therefore be faithful to their oath and arrest these heretical perverts!"
On January 8, the Cardinal gave an interview to Catholic website Crux and said he had been young when he wrote the book, adding: "I certainly would not write [it] now."
He said: "Long after that book, I wrote much more serious ones like, The Healing Force of Mysticism... [and I] never allowed it to be reprinted." He said he tried to help couples "better understand the spiritual meaning of their relationships," but added that he had later tried to quash the book amid fears it "could be misinterpreted."
A few days later, Archbishop Viganò again took to X to share a link to his full statement on the issue, by directing readers to a Catholic website called Exsurge Domine.
Repeatedly calling the Pope "Bergoglio"—referencing the pontiff's birth name of Jorge Mario Bergoglio—he wrote: "Look at... Bergoglio's audiences with transsɛҳuąƖs, well-known ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, and cohabiting lovers: can anyone seriously believe that there is no coherence in this cesspool of vices and perversions with what Tucho wrote in 1998?"
The Vatican has not responded to the archbishop's criticisms over the years and has not addressed his calls for the Pope and the Cardinal to be arrested.
-
Newsweek getting on board. Interesting.
-
Yes, Bergoglio should be arrested. He should have been arrested in 2013 when he accepted the results of an unlawfully-held papal Conclave. The man is not and has never been a legitimate Pope.
Why? Because the Conclave was called before the Apostolic See was "lawfully vacant." The Apostolic See becomes "lawfully vacant" only upon "the death of the Pope." Pope Benedict XVI was not dead in 2013. Therefore, the Conclave was illegal and the results of the Conclave are "null and void."
If interested (I know...very few will be), you can read the details at www.antipope.com.
-
Yes, Bergoglio should be arrested. He should have been arrested in 2013 when he accepted the results of an unlawfully-held papal Conclave. The man is not and has never been a legitimate Pope.
Why? Because the Conclave was called before the Apostolic See was "lawfully vacant." The Apostolic See becomes "lawfully vacant" only upon "the death of the Pope." Pope Benedict XVI was not dead in 2013. Therefore, the Conclave was illegal and the results of the Conclave are "null and void."
If interested (I know...very few will be), you can read the details at www.antipope.com.
No, the reason he is not a pope is because he is not a member of the Catholic Church as are all those who are pertinacious heretics and thus do not profess the Catholic Faith. Incidentally, the arch heretic, Ratzinger, wasn’t a pope either as he too was a pertinacious heretic and did not profess the True Faith.
Let me make it easy. If you were to pertinaciously doubt or deny the dogma of the Holy Trinity, you would, by that fact alone, forfeit your membership to the Catholic Church. Period.
-
No, the reason he is not a pope is because he is not a member of the Catholic Church as are all those who are pertinacious heretics and thus do not profess the Catholic Faith. Incidentally, the arch heretic, Ratzinger, wasn’t a pope either as he too was a pertinacious heretic and did not profess the True Faith.
Let me make it easy. If you were to pertinaciously doubt or deny the dogma of the Holy Trinity, you would, by that fact alone, forfeit your membership to the Catholic Church. Period.
Agreed that Bergoglio is a pertinacious heretic as well as an unlawful usurper.
-
Yes, Bergoglio should be arrested. He should have been arrested in 2013 when he accepted the results of an unlawfully-held papal Conclave. The man is not and has never been a legitimate Pope.
Why? Because the Conclave was called before the Apostolic See was "lawfully vacant." The Apostolic See becomes "lawfully vacant" only upon "the death of the Pope." Pope Benedict XVI was not dead in 2013. Therefore, the Conclave was illegal and the results of the Conclave are "null and void."
If interested (I know...very few will be), you can read the details at www.antipope.com.
I was interested.
From what I could gather, just skimming through it, yes, a Pope may resign, but the resigned Pope must die before another one would be elected. That means, if I'm following the reasoning correctly, that the resignation of a Pope would trigger a period, possibly an extended one, of sede vacante. Am I right?
-
Agreed that Bergoglio is a pertinacious heretic as well as a unlawful usurper.
I appreciate that. I just don’t understand why you hold Ratzinger as a true pope when his doctrinal heresies may be even more numerous than Bergoglio’s?
-
I appreciate that. I just don’t understand why you hold Ratzinger as a true pope when his doctrinal heresies may be even more numerous than Bergoglio’s?
The reason is that I don't believe that Joseph Ratzinger professed "heresy" as it is defined in Canon 1325. I don't think he "denied or doubted something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith." We can move it to another thread, if you really want to discuss it.
I think right now we need to be united against Bergoglio, the "man of sin." I'm glad we are on the same page on that.
-
I was interested.
From what I could gather, just skimming through it, yes, a Pope may resign, but the resigned Pope must die before another one would be elected. That means, if I'm following the reasoning correctly, that the resignation of a Pope would trigger a period, possibly an extended one, of sede vacante. Am I right?
Correct. The key is that the resignation of the Roman Pontiff is the resignation from the See of Rome (the diocese of Rome). Upon the resignation of the Roman Pontiff, the See of Rome becomes "lawfully vacant" since he is the only member of that See.
But the Apostolic See is unique. It is canonically-defined as a multi-member entity (1917 Canon 7;1983 Canon 361) and it is not "lawfully vacant" until "the death of the Pope." That is why a "resignation of the Roman Pontiff" cannot, by itself, trigger a new papal election.
And this canonical requirement has been in place since, at least, Pius X. It is not a post VII novelty.
-
I was interested.
From what I could gather, just skimming through it, yes, a Pope may resign, but the resigned Pope must die before another one would be elected. That means, if I'm following the reasoning correctly, that the resignation of a Pope would trigger a period, possibly an extended one, of sede vacante. Am I right?
.
No, you are not right. This is a fairy tale dreamed up by Angelus, whereby he thinks it is in the law of the Church that when a pope resigns a valid conclave cannot take place until the former pope has died. Pure nonsense.
We have discussed this with him many times to no avail. It is even contrary to both history and common sense. Why would the Church have to remain without a head for years if a pope resigns? And popes have resigned in the past, and the Church always immediately proceeded to elect a new one.
-
.
No, you are not right. This is a fairy tale dreamed up by Angelus, whereby he thinks it is in the law of the Church that when a pope resigns a valid conclave cannot take place until the former pope has died. Pure nonsense.
We have discussed this with him many times to no avail. It is even contrary to both history and common sense. Why would the Church have to remain without a head for years if a pope resigns? And popes have resigned in the past, and the Church always immediately proceeded to elect a new one.
As I explained above, the Church continues to run under the authority of the Apostolic See, even after a Pope resigns. However, the Curial heads exercise limited powers in that case. They cannot do certain things reserved to the Roman Pontiff, while he is still alive. Then, after the Roman Pontiff dies, the Curial heads resign and a Conclave is called to elect a new Roman Pontiff.
All of this can be read in Canon Law and the special law governing papal elections. There is no need to take my word for it. Just look at the law.
-
Newsweek getting on board. Interesting.
Yes, it is. I wonder how they learned of it.
Newsweek has reached out to the Vatican by email seeking comment.
Let's see if "the Vatican" responds.
-
The pope is an untouchable. An imposter. The world likes that. That is why he is still there. Lawlessness, Godlessness that is the ways of the world.
-
Yes, Bergoglio should be arrested. He should have been arrested in 2013 when he accepted the results of an unlawfully-held papal Conclave. The man is not and has never been a legitimate Pope.
Why? Because the Conclave was called before the Apostolic See was "lawfully vacant." The Apostolic See becomes "lawfully vacant" only upon "the death of the Pope." Pope Benedict XVI was not dead in 2013. Therefore, the Conclave was illegal and the results of the Conclave are "null and void."
If interested (I know...very few will be), you can read the details at www.antipope.com.
Angelus, this is just plain wrong. What the docuмent (UDG) says is that the funeral rites of A deceased pope should be celebrated before the Conclave begins. As I pointed out, you misread it due to the fact that Latin has no article.
This is absurd and effectively precludes vacancy by resignation unless the pope dies first anyway and is given a burial. That's clearly not the intent of the docuмent, which explicitly states that the office could be vacated either by resignation or death.
Why don't you stick to arguments from, oh, the St. Gallen Mafia conspiracy, or the munus/ministerium-nonresignation argument, or vitium consensus, etc.? There's no other Bennyvacantist out there promoting this fallacious line of argument.
-
The reason is that I don't believe that Joseph Ratzinger professed "heresy" as it is defined in Canon 1325. I don't think he "denied or doubted something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith." We can move it to another thread, if you really want to discuss it.
I think right now we need to be united against Bergoglio, the "man of sin." I'm glad we are on the same page on that.
Dimond Brothers have made a 60-90 minute video regarding all the heresies of Ratzinger. Father Kramer, for example, uses Bergoglio's rejection of the dogma (from Florence) that the Old Covenant had been abrogated as evidence for manifest heresy ... except that Ratzinger and Wojtyla both also denied the same dogma (I provided the evidence) ... in addition to many others.
-
I don't care WHY Jorge is not the pope (or Ratzinger or Wojtyla). I only know that (barring some unlikely scenario where he may be blackmailed, and therefore not acting freely), Jorge isn't and cannot be the Pope, due to the indefectibility of the Church and the Holy Spirit's protection over the Magisterium, the Mass, Canon Law, and canonizations. I don't spin a lot of cycles on understanding the why or the how ... which will become clear some day, debating the "5 Opinions", Canon Law, cuм ex, etc.
These debates about the "5 Opinions" relate to PERSONAL heresy, the heresy of a papal claimant as a private person. None of them admits the possibility that a legitimate Pope could teach heresy to the Universal Church, promulgate a Protestantized bastard Rite of Mass that displeases God and harms souls, produce myriad bogus canonizations, etc.
If Vatican II, the subsequent Conciliar Magisterium, and the NOM had never happened and Bergoglio was spouting heresies on the papal plane or in interviews with Scalfari, it would be THAT type of scenario that's being discussed here. Would he ipso facto cease to be Pope, or would he require admonitions, etc. In any case, it wouldn't be my problem, since I would leave the Church on account of Jorge's personal ramblings ... but would leave it to the Cardinals and other Church authorities to deal with him. If I have left the Conciliar Church and refused submission to and communion with the V2 "hierarchy", it's because I have made the determination that it is not the Catholic Church, and that I do not hear the "Voice of the Shepherd" in Bergoglio's public/official teaching, and that I have determined that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks or notes of the Catholic Church, making it unrecognizable as such.
-
I don't care WHY Jorge is not the pope (or Ratzinger or Wojtyla). I only know that (barring some unlikely scenario where he may be blackmailed, and therefore not acting freely), Jorge isn't and cannot be the Pope, due to the indefectibility of the Church and the Holy Spirit's protection over the Magisterium, the Mass, Canon Law, and canonizations. I don't spin a lot of cycles on understanding the why or the how ... which will become clear some day, debating the "5 Opinions", Canon Law, cuм ex, etc.
These debates about the "5 Opinions" relate to PERSONAL heresy, the heresy of a papal claimant as a private person. None of them admits the possibility that a legitimate Pope could teach heresy to the Universal Church, promulgate a Protestantized bastard Rite of Mass that displeases God and harms souls, produce myriad bogus canonizations, etc.
Why would being blackmailed, for example, and therefore not acting freely not negatively compromise the indefectibility of the Church?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/xZTxWzq.png)
-
Angelus, this is just plain wrong. What the docuмent (UDG) says is that the funeral rites of A deceased pope should be celebrated before the Conclave begins. As I pointed out, you misread it due to the fact that Latin has no article.
This is absurd and effectively precludes vacancy by resignation unless the pope dies first anyway and is given a burial. That's clearly not the intent of the docuмent, which explicitly states that the office could be vacated either by resignation or death.
Why don't you stick to arguments from, oh, the St. Gallen Mafia conspiracy, or the munus/ministerium-nonresignation argument, or vitium consensus, etc.? There's no other Bennyvacantist out there promoting this fallacious line of argument.
UDG 49 (including the minor updates from Normas nonullas)
No. 49. "When the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated according to the prescribed ritual, and everything necessary for the regular functioning of the election has been prepared, on the day appointed in accordance with the provisions of No. 37 of the present Constitution for the opening of the Conclave, the Cardinal electors shall meet in the Basilica of Saint Peter's in the Vatican, or elsewhere, should circuмstances warrant it, in order to take part in a solemn Eucharistic celebration with the Votive Mass Pro Eligendo Papa. This celebration should preferably take place at a suitable hour in the morning, so that in the afternoon the prescriptions of the following Numbers of this Constitution can be carried out.
Do you think they just forgot to put in the option for "in case of a papal resignation" in that section authorizing "The Beginning of the Election?"
Here are some stats regarding the references to the "death," "funeral," and "burial" of the Pope in UDG.
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html
NOTES
1. The word "death" referring to the Pope, will be found 18 times, in the following locations: UDG No. 3; UDG No. 13(b); UDG No. 13(e); UDG No. 14; UDG No. 15; UDG No. 17 (4 mentions); UDG No. 19 (2 mentions); UDG No. 25 (2 mentions); UDG No. 27; UDG No. 30 (2 mentions); UDG No. 33; UDG No. 84. Please note, in the Apostolic Letter Normas Nonullas, (https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20130222_normas-nonnullas.html)Benedict XVI removed the mention of the "death of the Pope" from No. 49 of UDG, which eliminated an ambiguity in the text. The new version of UDG No. 49, along with the new version of No. 37 changed in the same docuмent, states unequivocally that ONLY AFTER "the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated" can a new papal election proceed.
2. The word "funeral," referring to the Pope, will be found 5 times, in the following locations: UDG No. 11; UDG No. 13(b); UDG No. 27; UDG No. 49; UDG No. 84
3. The word "burial," referring to the Pope, will be found, 6 times, in the following locations: UDG No. 13(b); UDG No. 17 (2 mentions); UDG No. 28 (2 mentions); UDG No. 31.
-
Dimond Brothers have made a 60-90 minute video regarding all the heresies of Ratzinger. Father Kramer, for example, uses Bergoglio's rejection of the dogma (from Florence) that the Old Covenant had been abrogated as evidence for manifest heresy ... except that Ratzinger and Wojtyla both also denied the same dogma (I provided the evidence) ... in addition to many others.
The sin of "communicatio in sacris" and the sin of heresy are completely different. The former is a sin against Charity. The latter is a sin against the Faith. One doesn't lose ecclesiastical office automatically for the sin of "communicatio in sacris." But one does lose ecclesiastical office automatically for the sin of heresy.
Please provide the dogma that was publicly denied. I am open to correction on this. But CiS doesn't do it.
-
The sin of "communicatio in sacris" and the sin of heresy are completely different. The former is a sin against Charity. The latter is a sin against the Faith. One doesn't lose ecclesiastical office automatically for the sin of "communicatio in sacris." But one does lose ecclesiastical office automatically for the sin of heresy.
Please provide the dogma that was publicly denied. I am open to correction on this. But CiS doesn't do it.
What in the world are you babbling about? There was no mention of communication in sacris in my post, but the heretical denial of the dogma that the Old Covenant has been abrogated, which Father Kramer used as a charge of manifest heresy on the part of Bergolgio, but which both Ratzinger and Wojtyla also held.
-
Why would being blackmailed, for example, and therefore not acting freely not negatively compromise the indefectibility of the Church?
Because the individual's actions would not be free human acts and would therefore be null and void.
-
UDG 49 (including the minor updates from Normas nonullas)
Do you think they just forgot to put in the option for "in case of a papal resignation" in that section authorizing "The Beginning of the Election?"
Here are some stats regarding the references to the "death," "funeral," and "burial" of the Pope in UDG.
Very bluntly, this is utterly idiotic, and you should pull that website, because it's an embarrassment.
-
Do you think they just forgot to put in the option for "in case of a papal resignation" in that section
:facepalm: Legal docuмents are meant to be read AS A WHOLE. They are written in sections for a reason, because different sections tie together, and must be applied TOGETHER.
If legal docuмents were written in the way you are wrongly reading them (expecting to find every single detail laid out in each section), then these docuмents would be 1,000s of pages long. That's neither practical nor smart.
-
Why would being blackmailed, for example, and therefore not acting freely not negatively compromise the indefectibility of the Church?
.
Of course it would. If you say that a pope's public teachings and magisterial acts can be invalid due to a secret blackmail, this calls into question all the teaching of the Church. Anyone could say that Pope Pius IV, for example, was being blackmailed, and therefore we don't have to accept the Council of Trent.
-
Because the individual's actions would not be free human acts and would therefore be null and void.
Do you apply this somehow in your defence of Cardinal Siri being pope?
-
What in the world are you babbling about? There was no mention of communication in sacris in my post, but the heretical denial of the dogma that the Old Covenant has been abrogated, which Father Kramer used as a charge of manifest heresy on the part of Bergolgio, but which both Ratzinger and Wojtyla also held.
For the record, Fr. Kramer called Bergoglio's statement heresy and what JPII/BXVI said not heresy:
Bergoglio's assertion is worse than the Wotyta/Ratzinger error: Bergoglio expressly stated that the Jєωιѕн covenant (i.e. the Sinai Covenant) was never revoked. That assertion is an unmistakable indicium of formal heresy. The statements on this point by Wotyta and Ratzinger are not properly assertions that explicitly, directly, and immediately deny or contradict the dogma of the revocation
of the Old Covenant.
https://ecclesiamilitans.com/2023/08/18/rewind-jorge-bergoglio-on-the-Jєωιѕн-covenant-fr-paul-kramer/
-
For the record, Fr. Kramer called Bergoglio's statement heresy and what JPII/BXVI said not heresy:
https://ecclesiamilitans.com/2023/08/18/rewind-jorge-bergoglio-on-the-Jєωιѕн-covenant-fr-paul-kramer/
Yes. I pointed this out to Ladislaus in the past, but he keeps singing the same old tune.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/xZTxWzq.png)
I don’t trust any of pope.
-
For the record, Fr. Kramer called Bergoglio's statement heresy and what JPII/BXVI said not heresy:
https://ecclesiamilitans.com/2023/08/18/rewind-jorge-bergoglio-on-the-Jєωιѕн-covenant-fr-paul-kramer/
Exactly. It's absurd contradiction that I've pointed out. It's self-serving because he wants Ratzinger to have been a pope.
-
Yes. I pointed this out to Ladislaus in the past, but he keeps singing the same old tune.
Uhm, I'm the one that pointed out Kramer's contradiction. You didn't point out anything.
-
Uhm, I'm the one that pointed out Kramer's contradiction. You didn't point out anything.
I pointed out to you via Fr. Kramer's own words that he is not contradicting himself.