Author Topic: Is Francis Pope? (Read 2969 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** November 06, 2015, 11:05:24 AM »

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/is-francis-a-valid-pope.htm

I believe it matters whether Francis is Pope or not especially in regards to those who have come to a conclusion either way on the topic, and even more for anyone who tries to bind this on other people's consciences.

First because:

Quote

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (UNAM SANCTAM, Pope Boniface VIII)

If the v2 leader were/are valid Popes then we are obliged to submit to what they have bound and maintain on the Church such as:

The New Council

The New Sacraments

The New Liturgy

The New Canon Law

The New Catechism

The New "Saints"

It is common knowledge among those who know anything about the infallibility and indefectibility of the Papacy know that any of the above that is bound on the Church must be accepted and submitted to.

The New Council taught heresy.

The New Sacraments are some doubtful and some invalid with Baptism, Penance and Marriage (all things being equal) still valid (if performed by valid clergy in regards to Penance). Further those who attend indult/motto Masses whether the modernized 1961/2 Mass or not (think FSSP) are receiving invalid Sacraments and worshiping a wafer. Even the mere possibility of this fact, IMO, makes it matter very much whether or not the those who changed the ordination and consecration (of Bishops) rite. Will anyone dare to deny this?

The New Liturgy itself is invalid or at least doubtful and an incentive to impiety which the best of Catholics avoid like a plague. It should be agreed that a valid Pope would not give us a Liturgy that should be avoided like a plague.

The New Canon Law allows Heretics to receive the Eucharist. If valid Pope promulgated and maintain this in force then no one should have any problem with that. After all we are just the laity. We should invite our Protestant friends to Mass so they can receive the Eucharist.

The New Catechism teaches heresy but we should accept it as a sure rule of Faith.

The new Saints are a part of the secondary infallibility of the Church and therefore must be accepted by true Catholics if a valid Pope canonized them. Therefore on the feast of "JP2" we have the opportunity to pray to a likely damned soul in the prayer of that Mass. This should prove to be somewhat of a difficulty for the true Catholic who prefer the intercession of Saints who are in Heaven. Additionally if we imitate such Saints we to will be damned. So I guess here to it kinda matters whether Francis is valid or not.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #1 on:** November 06, 2015, 11:06:45 AM »

Quote

Now some priests ... say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the Pope is a heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church, it is the Pope. He is the center of the Church and has a great influence on all Catholics by his attitudes, his words and his acts.

(Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, “On the Sede Vacante Thesis”, Address to Seminarians, March 30 & April 18, 1986)

Who disagrees with His Excellency on this?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #2 on:** November 06, 2015, 11:12:39 AM »

If they are valid Popes we must accept the fact that the True Mass canonized in perpetuity by Pope Saint Pius V is merely and extraordinary form of the Mass. So here to it would seem that it would matter whether the v2 Popes are valid or not, to laypeople. Most certainly. I'm not sure how this could be disagreed with.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #3 on:** November 06, 2015, 11:18:04 AM »

Further, those possessed by the Devil ought to be concerned about whether JP2 and his successors are valid or not as the watered down exorcism (as an ecuмenical peace offering to Satan?) rite does not work. This should matter to the true Catholic, certainly if he or someone dear to him or anyone for that matter should get possessed.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #4 on:** November 06, 2015, 11:26:09 AM »

Additionally, since the v2 Popes have claimed to be the head of the Catholic Church all those who adhere to different magisteriums mainly whoever runs their particular parishes:

1. Themselves (home aloners)

2. Remnant writers

3. The Dimonds

4. Their Indult "Priests" (FSSP/Christ the King)

5. The SSPX

6. The "hard-line" SSPX

7. SSPV

8. CMRI

9. Independent non-SV Priests (Grunner was the Pope for many).

10. Independent SV Priests.

This is unprecedented in the history of the Church. Again these problems are solved if we know whether the V2 leaders were/are Pope or not. I think this matters very much.

MMagdala · « **Reply #5 on:** November 06, 2015, 01:50:24 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/is-francis-a-valid-pope.htm

I believe it matters whether Francis is Pope or not especially in regards to those who have come to a conclusion either way on the topic, and even more for anyone who tries to bind this on other people's consciences.

First because:
Quote

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (UNAM SANCTAM, Pope Boniface VIII)

I've explained this to you before. Boniface declared that all creatures must be subject to "the Roman Pontiff," but obviously that was only insofar as they were told who the Pontiff was and was not. No "human creature" has ever been expected to know absolute truth (the mind of God) in the way God knows it.

We are obligated to examine our consciences and confess our sins in the confessional whether or not we "know" for a fact that the man on the other side of the screen is indeed a valid and licit priest. We assume he is indeed a priest. If we find out later that we confessed our sins to an impostor, then we re-confess those sins to a man we know with greater certainty is a validly ordained priest. As you see, the absolute and minimum requirement is the moral law, and the requirements for the sacraments which no Pope is at liberty to change unilaterally, as I explained elsewhere on CI. The requirement is not inside knowledge of the canonical status of particular men.

Nowhere in Church writings or in the words of Jesus Christ will you find a demand on the laity to be a Vatican Insider (in modern times) or a Mediterranean insider (in ancient times).

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #6 on:** November 06, 2015, 02:07:36 PM »

Quote from: MMagdala

Quote from: Lover of Truth
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/is-francis-a-valid-pope.htm

I believe it matters whether Francis is Pope or not especially in regards to those who have come to a conclusion either way on the topic, and even more for anyone who tries to bind this on other people's consciences.

First because:
Quote

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (UNAM SANCTAM, Pope Boniface VIII)

I've explained this to you before. Boniface declared that all creatures must be subject to "the Roman Pontiff," but obviously that was only insofar as they were told who the Pontiff was and was not. No "human creature" has ever been expected to know absolute truth (the mind of God) in the way God knows it.

We are obligated to examine our consciences and confess our sins in the confessional whether or not we "know" for a fact that the man on the other side of the screen is indeed a valid and licit priest. We assume he is indeed a priest. If we find out later that we confessed our sins to an impostor, then we re-confess those sins to a man we know with greater certainty is a validly ordained priest. As you see, the absolute and minimum requirement is the moral law, and the requirements for the sacraments which no Pope is at liberty to change unilaterally, as I explained elsewhere on CI. The requirement is not inside knowledge of the canonical status of particular men.

Nowhere in Church writings or in the words of Jesus Christ will you find a demand on the laity to be a Vatican Insider (in modern times) or a Mediterranean insider (in ancient times).

Whether your Priests are valid or not can hinder your Confessions as an example. Can you address any of my examples? I have never read such sentiments in any authoritative writings. Can show anything that backs up your feelings on the topic?

2Vermont · « **Reply #7 on:** November 06, 2015, 03:17:12 PM »

During the Western Schism it seemed to be important enough to make a decision on which man is the pope. And all of those choices were actually Catholic.

Per the Catholic encyclopedia:

Everywhere the faithful faced the anxious problem: where is the true pope?

MMagdala · « **Reply #8 on:** November 06, 2015, 03:57:38 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

During the Western Schism it seemed to be important enough to make a decision on which man is the pope. And all of those choices were actually Catholic.

Per the Catholic encyclopedia:

Everywhere the faithful faced the anxious problem: where is the true pope?

Yes, of course, but when they didn't know it, other lay people were not given the authority to bind them to certain knowledge. Rather, like today, they were anxious as most normal Catholics are and should be anxious who the heck the man wearing a white robe and grinning ear to ear is.

Lay people have no authority to bind other people to certain knowledge or determination because God Himself does not require that. For a lay person to insist on the impossible is to pretend to be above God.

2Vermont · « **Reply #9 on:** November 06, 2015, 04:00:09 PM »

Quote from: MMagdala

Quote from: 2Vermont
During the Western Schism it seemed to be important enough to make a decision on which man is the pope. And all of those choices were actually Catholic.

Per the Catholic encyclopedia:

Everywhere the faithful faced the anxious problem: where is the true pope?
Yes, of course, but when they didn't know it, other lay people were not given the authority to bind them to certain knowledge. Rather, like today, they were anxious as most normal Catholics are and should be anxious who the heck the man wearing a white robe and grinning ear to ear is.

Lay people have no authority to bind other people to certain knowledge or determination because God Himself does not require that. For a lay person to insist on the impossible is to pretend to be above God.

And yet no one is binding others, now are they? We're talking about those who don't even want to bother with the issue.

MMagdala · « **Reply #10 on:** November 06, 2015, 04:06:53 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Whether your Priests are valid or not can hinder your Confessions as an example.

Indeed. But no culpability is legitimately laid to us by either clergy or laity regarding any absolute knowledge on our part. When we can reasonably assume that the man behind the screen is a validly ordained priest, we are permitted, without condition, to confess our sins to such a man. If those were mortal sins, and we afterward receive Holy Communion based on assumptive, genuine absolution, we will not be guilty of any conscious sacrilege if we later discover, after Mass, that the man is a fraud. The post-knowledge does not render our confession or our receipt of HC sacrilegious.

Rather, once we were to discover the truth, we would be required to re-confess those same sins to someone else, as I said earlier. But we need not confess sacrilege because the conditions for sacrilege were not there.

Quote

Can you address any of my examples? I have never read such sentiments in any authoritative writings. Can show anything that backs up your feelings on the topic?

Mine are not "sentiments," John. The onus is on you to produce authentic Catholic teachings which bind the laity to certain knowledge about the validity of a papal title.

MMagdala · « **Reply #11 on:** November 06, 2015, 04:09:22 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: MMagdala
Quote from: 2Vermont
During the Western Schism it seemed to be important enough to make a decision on which man is the pope. And all of those choices were actually Catholic.

Per the Catholic encyclopedia:

Everywhere the faithful faced the anxious problem: where is the true pope?
Yes, of course, but when they didn't know it, other lay people were not given the authority to bind them to certain knowledge. Rather, like today, they were anxious as most normal Catholics are and should be anxious who the heck the man wearing a white robe and grinning ear to ear is.

Lay people have no authority to bind other people to certain knowledge or determination because God Himself does not require that. For a lay person to insist on the impossible is to pretend to be above God.

And yet no one is binding others, now are they? We're talking about those who don't even want to bother with the issue.

Actually, there's a great deal of binding going on, on several Catholic discussion forums, including but not limited to this one.

As to "not bothering with the issue," what you may define as "not bothering," others may perceive, rather, as uncertainty. Uncertainty is not a sin, 2V.

2Vermont · « **Reply #12 on:** November 06, 2015, 04:13:09 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: MMagdala
Quote from: 2Vermont
During the Western Schism it seemed to be important enough to make a decision on which man is the pope. And all of those choices were actually Catholic.

Per the Catholic encyclopedia:

Everywhere the faithful faced the anxious problem: where is the true pope?
Yes, of course, but when they didn't know it, other lay people were not given the authority to bind them to certain knowledge. Rather, like today, they were anxious as most normal Catholics are and should be anxious who the heck the man wearing a white robe and grinning ear to ear is.

Lay people have no authority to bind other people to certain knowledge or determination because God Himself does not require that. For a lay person to insist on the impossible is to pretend to be above God.

And yet no one is binding others, now are they? We're talking about those who don't even want to bother with the issue.

This is another interesting point made in the CE however:

Bishops, princes, theologians, and canonists were in a state of perplexity from which they could not emerge in consequence of the conflicting, not disinterested, and perhaps insincere testimony of the cardinals. Thenceforth how were the faithful to dispel uncertainty and form a morally sure opinion? They relied on their natural leaders, and these, not knowing exactly what to hold, followed their interests or passions and attached themselves to probabilities. It was a terrible and distressing problem which lasted forty years and tormented two generations of Christians;

So it appears that during the Western Schism the laity did in fact attempt to form a morally sure opinion.

2Vermont · « **Reply #13 on:** November 06, 2015, 04:14:57 PM »

Quote from: MMagdala

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: MMagdala
Quote from: 2Vermont
During the Western Schism it seemed to be important enough to make a decision on which man is the pope. And all of those choices were actually Catholic.

Per the Catholic encyclopedia:

Everywhere the faithful faced the anxious problem: where is the true pope?
Yes, of course, but when they didn't know it, other lay people were not given the authority to bind them to certain knowledge. Rather, like today, they were anxious as most normal Catholics are and should be anxious who the heck the man wearing a white robe and grinning ear to ear is.

Lay people have no authority to bind other people to certain knowledge or determination because God Himself does not require that. For a lay person to insist on the impossible is to pretend to be above God.

And yet no one is binding others, now are they? We're talking about those who don't even want to bother with the issue.

Actually, there's a great deal of binding going on, on several Catholic discussion forums, including but not limited to this one.

As to "not bothering with the issue," what you may define as "not bothering," others may perceive, rather, as uncertainty. Uncertainty is not a sin, 2V.

I'm sorry, but you will have to point out where anyone has said that anyone sins because they are uncertain. Otherwise they are false accusations, "MMagdala".

MMagdala · « **Reply #14 on:** November 06, 2015, 04:19:59 PM »

To continue with obstructions to Confession, if, during the course of reciting our sins (this has happened to many a person on this board, I'm sure) the man on the other side of the screen erroneously told us that our mortal sins were venial, that would be the sign that he is not a faithful priest. We wouldn't need to wait for any confirmation that he is a fraud. That would tell us all we need to know. But we would have to be very sure what he was saying, and it would be our responsibility to directly question him and confirm what he was telling us before dismissing him as heterodox, etc., before making such a determination.