Author Topic: Let s Cut to the Chase (Read 6697 times)

Binechi · « **on:** September 30, 2015, 06:53:59 PM »

Lets cut to the Chase, and stop beating around the bush

How do you line up...
Is Francis the Pope,
Or is Francis not the Pope
If Francis is the Pope, We should be calling him "Pope Francis" and be subject to him.
If Francis (Pope ?) is not the Pope, who is head of the Catholic Church ?

If we have no Head, by what authority do we say he is not the Pope
Is the Chair of Peter empty at this time ?

Do we follow a Heretical Pope, an "Anti Pope", by what authority ?
If not , by what Authority ?

Are we in a "Sede" position ? ,,

These are some of the Questions I have , How do you line up,
Your comments....

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** September 30, 2015, 08:09:50 PM »

I'm wondering what you're talking about. Who's been beating around the bush? Most members are very open about their opinions on the matter.

I've been completely open on the issue. Bergoglio is not the pope because he is not a Catholic. He is a heretic and he teaches heresy.

Authority is not an issue. The only thing authority can be used for is to bind the consciences of others. I don't pretend to have the authority to tell you that you must agree with me. I will say that I do not understand anyone who thinks he's a Catholic. I especially do not understand those who say he's a heretic but is still the pope.

I really think that people who still say he's the pope and condemn sedevacantists would still say Bergoglio is the pope and would condemn sedevacantists if he announced tomorrow that "there is only one God and Muhammad is his prophet."

The problem with Bergoglio is that he doesn't even pretend to have the Catholic Faith and he barely presents the appearance of being a pope. Any Catholic who has studied the Baltimore Catechism ONE should see this. He is simply not a Catholic so he can't be the Catholic pope! The very term "Heretic pope" is an absurdity. It's like talking about dry water.

So, what is your opinion on the matter?

poche · « **Reply #2 on:** September 30, 2015, 11:27:14 PM »

When Pope Benedict offered his resignation there was a conclave of the cardinals at the Sistine Chapel. They closed the doors. Later on white smoke came out of the chimney. The Dean of the Cardinals came to the window and said, "Habemus papum..." Then out came the ex-Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis who greeted the people.

2Vermont · « **Reply #3 on:** October 01, 2015, 06:39:30 PM »

Quote from: poche

When Pope Benedict offered his resignation there was a conclave of the cardinals at the Sistine Chapel. They closed the doors. Later on white smoke came out of the chimney. The Dean of the Cardinals came to the window and said, "Habemus papum..." Then out came the ex-Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis who greeted the people.

tdrev123 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 01, 2015, 08:51:09 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: poche
When Pope Benedict offered his resignation there was a conclave of the cardinals at the Sistine Chapel. They closed the doors. Later on white smoke came out of the chimney. The Dean of the Cardinals came to the window and said, "Habemus papum..." Then out came the ex-Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis who greeted the people.

Lol.

First mistake, "Pope Benedict" - not even a Bishop

Second Mistake, "Conclave" - 95% aren't even priests

Third Mistake, "Dean of Cardinals"

I can also says Habemus Papem (Insert Name), doesn't make me the Dean of Cardinals...

MariaAngelaGrow · « **Reply #5 on:** October 01, 2015, 09:16:24 PM »

Personally, I consider that Francis is not pope because:

Firstly, there are defects in Benedict's letter of resignation according to some canonists. It appears that Francis is acting bishop of Rome sans supernatural papal inerrancy and grace of state of the pope

Secondly, it has been stated that Benedict was pressured to resign by threats, which would invalidate a forced resignation.

Thirdly, it has been publicly stated that there was canvassing for conclave votes and some behind the scenes pressure to elect Bergoglio. If Cardiinal Bergoglio was cognizant of this, that invalidates his election.

So I think that Benedict is probably still pope, albeit a bad one.

poche · « **Reply #6 on:** October 01, 2015, 10:55:59 PM »

Quote from: tdrev123

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: poche
When Pope Benedict offered his resignation there was a conclave of the cardinals at the Sistine Chapel. They closed the doors. Later on white smoke came out of the chimney. The Dean of the Cardinals came to the window and said, "Habemus papum..." Then out came the ex-Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis who greeted the people.

Lol.

First mistake, "Pope Benedict" - not even a Bishop

Second Mistake, "Conclave" - 95% aren't even priests

Third Mistake, "Dean of Cardinals"

I can also says Habemus Papem (Insert Name), doesn't make me the Dean of Cardinals...

You are not the Dean of the Cardinals.

tdrev123 · « **Reply #7 on:** October 01, 2015, 11:19:20 PM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: tdrev123
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: poche
When Pope Benedict offered his resignation there was a conclave of the cardinals at the Sistine Chapel. They closed the doors. Later on white smoke came out of the chimney. The Dean of the Cardinals came to the window and said, "Habemus papum..." Then out came the ex-Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis who greeted the people.

Lol.

First mistake, "Pope Benedict" - not even a Bishop

Second Mistake, "Conclave" - 95% aren't even priests

Third Mistake, "Dean of Cardinals"

I can also says Habemus Papem (Insert Name), doesn't make me the Dean of Cardinals...

You are not the Dean of the Cardinals.

No I'm not, neither is Angelo Sodano, apostates don't have a position within the Roman Catholic Church.

poche · « **Reply #8 on:** October 01, 2015, 11:59:52 PM »

Quote from: tdrev123

Quote from: poche
Quote from: tdrev123
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: poche
When Pope Benedict offered his resignation there was a conclave of the cardinals at the Sistine Chapel. They closed the doors. Later on white smoke came out of the chimney. The Dean of the Cardinals came to the window and said, "Habemus papum..." Then out came the ex-Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis who greeted the people.

Lol.

First mistake, "Pope Benedict" - not even a Bishop

Second Mistake, "Conclave" - 95% aren't even priests

Third Mistake, "Dean of Cardinals"

I can also says Habemus Papem (Insert Name), doesn't make me the Dean of Cardinals...

You are not the Dean of the Cardinals.

No I'm not, neither is Angelo Sodano, apostates don't have a position within the Roman Catholic Church.

People may disagree with some of the administrative decisions of the Holy See and the insubordination of those who should know better but who knows what goes through their minds, but the position of the sedevacantist is to say that Jesus is a liar.

13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

If Jesus says that teh gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church then how can the papacy be vacant for so long? Also in the end of the Twenty Eighth Gospel of Matthew Jesus said, "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

TKGS · « **Reply #9 on:** October 02, 2015, 06:18:47 AM »

Quote from: poche

People may disagree with some of the administrative decisions of the Holy See and the insubordination of those who should know better but who knows what goes through their minds, but the position of the sedevacantist is to say that Jesus is a liar.

This is willful blindness. To equate what is going on in the Conciliar church as simply a few less than stellar "administrative decisions" is simply insanity. To equate the recent changes in the laws governing marriage and divorce as being mere "administrative" action is not the act of a rational mind.

It is not the position of the sedevacantist that say Jesus is a liar, but the belief that the pope can make law for the whole Church that is contrary to the law of God.

How is it that poche's reputation score has reached the amazingly high score of 3?

Binechi · « **Reply #10 on:** October 02, 2015, 11:21:53 AM »

Quote

Most members are very open about their opinions on the matter.

I've been completely open on the issue. Bergoglio is not the pope because he is not a Catholic. He is a heretic and he teaches heresy.

I have to disagree with your statements of Most members being very "Open"
about their opinions on this matter".

I started this thread to get a quarry of hopefully a greater number of the formn s members to have noted what the general consensious is, and to how they formed their opinion, and if possible to back up their decision with Church Docuмentation, as to why or why not , Bergoglio is the Pope, or not the Pope of the Catholic Church, and if why , we are Subject or not Subject to him.

We all know of Unam Sanctam (Pope Boniface VIII, 1302)

Please do weigh in..

I expecially would like to hear from

Ladislus and Canterella

Peace

Cantarella · « **Reply #11 on:** October 02, 2015, 03:08:54 PM »

Binachi,

One of the components of the Catholic dogmas of salvation "Extra Eclesiam Nulla Salus" is the absolute necessity to be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation. This means to be in juridical union with the Pope of Rome; so unless one have a truly irrefutable proof that Pope Francis is not the real Pope, why taking such an unnecessary risk, jeopardizing the very salvation of one's soul?. It is just not worth the risk over what has been so far, nothing but speculation.

Given our current pathetic state of affairs, Catholics no longer profess EENS and therefore do not comprehend the magnanimous importance of this "unity" of the Church, the Body of Jesus Christ. The historical cohesiveness that it is only recognized through the Seat of Peter. Let's put it this way: Only Jesus go to Heaven. Being inserted into Him (through the boundaries of the visible Roman Catholic Church), is necessary for salvation.

As St. Cyprian teaches, there is only ONE Church, of which the Pope, in the person of Peter, is made the foundation of; only those who are in his communion are IN the Church.

From "On The Unity Of The Catholic Church" by St. Cyprian Of Carthage:

Quote from: St. Cyprian

If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (St. Matthew 16:18). And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep” (St. John 21:16). It is on him that He builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” (St. John 20:21, 22) yet, He founded a single Chair. That He might set forth unity, He established by His authority the origin of that unity, as having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he confidence that he is in the Church?

poche · « **Reply #12 on:** October 03, 2015, 12:09:49 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: poche
People may disagree with some of the administrative decisions of the Holy See and the insubordination of those who should know better but who knows what goes through their minds, but the position of the sedevacantist is to say that Jesus is a liar.

This is willful blindness. To equate what is going on in the Conciliar church as simply a few less than stellar "administrative decisions" is simply insanity. To equate the recent changes in the laws governing marriage and divorce as being mere "administrative" action is not the act of a rational mind.

It is not the position of the sedevacantist that say Jesus is a liar, but the belief that the pope can make law for the whole Church that is contrary to the law of God.

How is it that poche's reputation score has reached the amazingly high score of 3?

In reply to a question about his reform of annulment procedures, the Pope stated emphatically that “those who think this is 'Catholic divorce' are wrong.” An annulment, he reminded journalists, is issued when the Church reaches a determination that a sacramental marriage did not take place. “It is not divorce because marriage is indissoluble when it is a sacrament. And this the Church cannot change.”

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26247

TKGS · « **Reply #13 on:** October 03, 2015, 06:21:56 AM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: poche
People may disagree with some of the administrative decisions of the Holy See and the insubordination of those who should know better but who knows what goes through their minds, but the position of the sedevacantist is to say that Jesus is a liar.

This is willful blindness. To equate what is going on in the Conciliar church as simply a few less than stellar "administrative decisions" is simply insanity. To equate the recent changes in the laws governing marriage and divorce as being mere "administrative" action is not the act of a rational mind.

It is not the position of the sedevacantist that say Jesus is a liar, but the belief that the pope can make law for the whole Church that is contrary to the law of God.

How is it that poche's reputation score has reached the amazingly high score of 3?

In reply to a question about his reform of annulment procedures, the Pope stated emphatically that “those who think this is 'Catholic divorce' are wrong.” An annulment, he reminded journalists, is issued when the Church reaches a determination that a sacramental marriage did not take place. “It is not divorce because marriage is indissoluble when it is a sacrament. And this the Church cannot change.”

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26247

The problem is that you cannot simply take his words at face value. Liberals frequently tell us they are doing one thing while their actual actions are the exact opposite. Of course Bergoglio says this is not simply a Catholic divorce. And by saying that, he's able to convince the stupid among us, most of whom are willfully stupid, culpably ignorant. His actual action is Catholic divorce.

TKGS · « **Reply #14 on:** October 03, 2015, 06:26:25 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

...so unless one have a truly irrefutable proof that Pope Francis is not the real Pope, why taking such an unnecessary risk, jeopardizing the very salvation of one's soul?.

Of course Cantarella is absolutely right. It is much better to keep watch as your blind leader heads directly to the pit of hell and it is much better to follow him right into that pit since you certainly don't have irrefutable proof that, just because he is manifestly and pertinaciously a heretic, he isn't the pope.