Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: RomanCatholic1953 on May 27, 2021, 07:48:36 PM
-
Fear Is the Reason Why Francis Wants to Get Rid of Summorum Pontificuм
https://www.gloria.tv/post/dnHHvrLc88S229aCMT3Jws1M3
-
Bergolio has broken many church laws. Can’t we get a canon lawyer and get rid of him and his evil minions.
Who listens to a fool like bergolio who worships Mother Earth like his fellow luucifeerians? Begone satan!!
-
Bergolio has broken many church laws. Can’t we get a canon lawyer and get rid of him and his evil minions.
Who listens to a fool like bergolio who worships Mother Earth like his fellow luucifeerians? Begone satan!!
Do you realize that what you wrote is heretical? No person or council is above the pope, but fortunately Bergoglio is not the pope.
-
Fear? How so?
-
Fear? How so?
Bergy is going where no Pope has ever gone.
He’s trying to destroy the Catholic Church and literally wipe-out the Faithful by promoting the vaccine, ʝʊdɛօ-masonic genocide.
Bergy wants to improve his chances for total destruction by getting rid of the True Sacrifice and the graces it brings to the world.
In conclusion, the Destroyer Pope fears the Tridentine Mass. He know spiritually, that the highest form of worship that can undo him.
The happy ending is Bergy will fail.
-
Do you realize that what you wrote is heretical? No person or council is above the pope, but fortunately Bergoglio is not the pope.
As someone who's R&R, I actually agree here, the church can theoretically come to a judgment that he isn't a real pope and therefore elect a new Pope, in which caseI would submit, but as long as Frances is in fact the pope in the eyes of God the church can do nothing to touch him. I probably have a lower, more minimalistic view of papal supremacy than some here but I think that's really clear and Vatican one
-
Do you realize that what you wrote is heretical? No person or council is above the pope, but fortunately Bergoglio is not the pope.
So that's the sedevacantist take on the problem. Sounds simple enough, but how can the layman be absolutely sure that the current pope is not in fact pope?
Some quick research showed that in theory, a heretical pope would remove himself from office per canon law, which states that anyone who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church is removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself.
But there's no canon law to deal with this emergency situation in the Church (a pope becoming heretical), so what we can deduce from this is that the pope, be it a valid one or not, does not have any authority (the position of +ABL) and we have to wait for a council of bishops and cardinals to take action or simply, a divine intervention. Taking the example of Honorius, who "only" was guilty of promoting heresy in a letter of his, was excommunicated posthumously by a subsequent council, the question whether or not he was a valid pope was not formally answered anyhow.
-
So that's the sedevacantist take on the problem. Sounds simple enough, but how can the layman be absolutely sure that the current pope is not in fact pope?
Some quick research showed that in theory, a heretical pope would remove himself from office per canon law, which states that anyone who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church is removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself.
But there's no canon law to deal with this emergency situation in the Church (a pope becoming heretical), so what we can deduce from this is that the pope, be it a valid one or not, does not have any authority (the position of +ABL) and we have to wait for a council of bishops and cardinals to take action or simply, a divine intervention. Taking the example of Honorius, who "only" was guilty of promoting heresy in a letter of his, was excommunicated posthumously by a subsequent council, the question whether or not he was a valid pope was not formally answered anyhow.
You don't need absolute certainty. You only need positive doubt concerning if someone still or ever did hold a position of authority. Fortunately, the dogmatic fact that the Magisterium cannot teach error must be held with absolute certainty, by all baptized Catholics.
Here is another absolute certainty: baptized Catholics cannot be in communion with a manifest heretic, especially if it is formal heretic.
How often do we make decisions based on absolute certainty? Not often. Maybe the question should be, how can we discern positive doubt?
Wasn't Honorius cleared by a subsequent pope?
-
The laity cannot depose a pope, a fake pope, or an antipope. We all agree Francis is bad, no matter what we believe about his ecclesiastical status.
-
I don't think "fear" is the reason. Bergoglio wants to get rid of Summorum Pontificuм because he's absolutely faithful to his religion and the true Catholic Mass is simply incompatible with his religion.
-
Some of it IS fear. Ask an exorcist which rite the devil fears enough to depart, the traditional Latin or the V2 in the vernacular? Souls get converted by attending the Latin Mass. I’ve never known that to happen at the n.o. I’m not saying it isn’t possible. God can use anything to draw a soul to Himself. But generally, souls drawn to Catholicism end up at the Latin rite.
If you were a demon, which Mass would you fear, hate, loathe?
-
When the day comes that not one Tridentine Mass is celebrated, what will happen to the world :confused:
-
Y'all give Bergoglio way too much credit.
-
The laity cannot depose a pope, a fake pope, or an antipope. We all agree Francis is bad, no matter what we believe about his ecclesiastical status.
Your comment makes no sense. In order for a depose to take place, 2 things must exist: 1. Someone lawfully holding office (meets all requirements) and 2. the act of depose has to be done by someone of authority. Does Jorge meet all the requirements and who is actually claiming to have authority over him? He has judged himself.
Bad what? A bad leader? Bad as in weak? Bad is very subjective. You really think Jorge is only a bad Catholic. Pope Alexander the IV was a bad Catholic but he never used the magisterium to teach heresy. No, Jorge is much worse because he is using this charade to destroy the Catholic Church. I don't know about you but I will take "bad" pope over heretical teaching pope any day.
Oh by the way, if you believe someone is fake or antipope, you have an obligation not to hold communion with such individual. That is exactly what half of Nestorius' congregation did at the moment he spoke of heresy. They walked out and refused to be in communion with him. All of this, way before Nestorius was officially condemned by the Church. Did they depose their bishop or was it him who severed the superior-to-inferior relationship at the moment of his manifest formal heresy?
-
Please re-read my comment. Nowhere do I state or imply Francis is pope or even a Catholic, for that matter. I’m pointing out is that laity should not be praying parts of exorcisms against demons in regard to Bergoglio.
-
When the day comes that not one Tridentine Mass is celebrated, what will happen to the world :confused:
Our Lord comes back. :pray:
-
Do you realize that what you wrote is heretical? No person or council is above the pope, but fortunately Bergoglio is not the pope.
He is satans little helper.
-
Our Lord comes back. :pray:
Happily stole my very words.
-
So that's the sedevacantist take on the problem. Sounds simple enough, but how can the layman be absolutely sure that the current pope is not in fact pope?
Some quick research showed that in theory, a heretical pope would remove himself from office per canon law, which states that anyone who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church is removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself.
But there's no canon law to deal with this emergency situation in the Church (a pope becoming heretical), so what we can deduce from this is that the pope, be it a valid one or not, does not have any authority (the position of +ABL) and we have to wait for a council of bishops and cardinals to take action or simply, a divine intervention. Taking the example of Honorius, who "only" was guilty of promoting heresy in a letter of his, was excommunicated posthumously by a subsequent council, the question whether or not he was a valid pope was not formally answered anyhow.
That’s the Fr. Chazal sede-impoundist position ... which I do not find at all unreasonable. In fact, there’s a lot going for that position. I tend to not care about those details ... as they can be and have been disputed. I’m mostly concerned about not undermining the Church’s indefectibility. That is my chief issue with some articulations of R&R. I also have zero problem with +Lefebvre’s overall position, which I think in the final analysis resembled that of Fr. Chazal, even though the Archbishop didn’t articulate it with such theological precision.
-
Bergolio has broken many church laws. Can’t we get a canon lawyer and get rid of him and his evil minions.
Who listens to a fool like bergolio who worships Mother Earth like his fellow luucifeerians? Begone satan!!
If and if you believe that he is the Pope, then that's heresy. He is not some CEO (again if you believe he IS pope) who can be gotten rid of in a no-confidence vote.
-
It really isn't clear what is planned. Francis offered some words on Summorum Pontificuм, which Marco Tossati interpreted, that's it. Although there are some instances like the evisceration of the Franciscans of the Immaculate and various hostile actions towards smaller traditional bodies at the instance of hostile Conciliar bishops, Francis has been largely indifferent to the Mass of Ages. There have even gestures of recognition for the SSPX. Catholic tradition remains a very small part of the great numbers who count themselves Catholic.
-
That’s the Fr. Chazal sede-impoundist position ... which I do not find at all unreasonable. In fact, there’s a lot going for that position. I tend to not care about those details ... as they can be and have been disputed. I’m mostly concerned about not undermining the Church’s indefectibility. That is my chief issue with some articulations of R&R. I also have zero problem with +Lefebvre’s overall position, which I think in the final analysis resembled that of Fr. Chazal, even though the Archbishop didn’t articulate it with such theological precision.
Thanks for your insight, Ladislaus. I too think that this is a reasonable position as long as it doesn't reach dogmatic status among its advocates, which then poses yet another issue.
However I don't get how R&R positions undermine the Church's indefectibility? The recent popes that, by their own actions, have caused so much turmoil about their validity (mainly post Vatican II) interestingly enough didn't proclaim a single dogma, nor did they ever invoke the somewhat recent (1870) criteria of papal infallibilty if I'm not mistaken.
-
Thanks for your insight, Ladislaus. I too think that this is a reasonable position as long as it doesn't reach dogmatic status among its advocates, which then poses yet another issue.
However I don't get how R&R positions undermine the Church's indefectibility? The recent popes that, by their own actions, have caused so much turmoil about their validity (mainly post Vatican II) interestingly enough didn't proclaim a single dogma, nor did they ever invoke the somewhat recent (1870) criteria of papal infallibilty if I'm not mistaken.
That's because the overall inerrancy of the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline are not limited to the .1% of all Catholic teaching that has been dogmatically defined. Overall, the Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium, the papacy, the Mass, etc. To hold that these can become so corrupt that Catholics must refuse communion with and/or submission to the hierarchy, that's tantamount to a defection of the Church. If we were talking about an isolated aberrant position here or there, then the typical response is for Catholics to respectfully question these through the appropriate channels.