I wonder what level of culpability the silent hierarchy shares for their grave failure to declare his heresy and deposition?
I wonder what level of culpability the silent hierarchy shares for their grave failure to declare his heresy and deposition?We can now say they lost all their Faith.
Why blame them for not doing something which you yourself are unwilling to do? In fact, you never fail to condemn those in the hierarchy who have declared the see vacant. With maybe the soul exception of Bishop de Castro Mayer. But that may be either because you deny he was a sede or you give him a pass because he was friends with Archbishop Lefebvre.How are any of those people part of "the hierarchy" properly speaking?
Why blame them for not doing something which you yourself are unwilling to do? In fact, you never fail to condemn those in the hierarchy who have declared the see vacant. With maybe the soul exception of Bishop de Castro Mayer. But that may be either because you deny he was a sede or you give him a pass because he was friends with Archbishop Lefebvre.What kind of idiotic response is that??
I wonder what level of culpability the silent hierarchy shares for their grave failure to declare his heresy and deposition?
What kind of idiotic response is that??Sean, quit the rhetorical, stupid, canned responses. You’re smarter than that. No one is deposing a pope! Period. We are recognizing REALITY! If a pope can do what this Filthy PIG does, then the papacy is superfluous.
You want me to personally depose the pope?
Only sedes do that!!
Ps: Who have I condemned in the hierarchy that has declared the see vacant?
Are you sniffing glue?
What kind of idiotic response is that??
You want me to personally depose the pope?
Only sedes do that!!
Ps: Who have I condemned in the hierarchy that has declared the see vacant?
Are you sniffing glue?
The Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology by Parente under the definition of "hierarchy" says the following, "Those members of the Church who belong to the twofold hierarchy are called clerics". So every Catholic cleric is a member of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Not to be confused with the Teaching Body which only includes those bishops who possess an office with ordinary jurisdiction.
Sean, quit the rhetorical, stupid, canned responses. No one is deposing a pope! Period. We are recognizing REALITY! If a pope can do what this Filthy PIG does, then the papacy is superfluous.
Either the man really is a manifest heretic or he isn't.
I don't even really care about Bergoglio that much. Either the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church or it is not. To claim that this abomination is the Catholic Church raises the same ire in me as someone who might call my mother a whore. That's really what this Conciliar Church is, the prophesied Whore of Babylon.
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-crisis-in-the-church-is-a-supernatural-mystery/msg665496/#msg665496Clemens-
Sean, you have serious reading comprehension problems. Not to mention a mental block when it comes to sede vacantism. ALL Catholic theologians without exception agree with the dogma that under no circuмstances whatsoever may anyone judge the pope. No layman, no priest, no bishop and no cardinal has the authority to judge and depose a pope. So when you ask the question, "You want me to personally depose the pope?", you are implying that only a member of the hierarchy could depose the pope (or a group of members of the hierarchy). But that is false. They can't depose the pope either. But in your previous post you asked why the hierarchy hadn't deposed the pope for heresy. The answer is that they can't depose the pope. You also asked why they hadn't declared him to be a manifest heretic. Well a declaration like that isn't a juridical act so anyone can do that. It doesn't matter if you are a cardinal, a priest or a layman, a declaration that a man is a manifest heretic has no juridical force whatsoever. But the manifest heresy itself has the effect of deposing a man from membership in the Catholic Church along with the loss of any and all ecclesiastical offices he might possess. Either the man really is a manifest heretic or he isn't. If he isn't a heretic then it doesn't matter what anyone declares (whether they be a cardinal or a layman makes no difference) because the man is still the pope. But if he is a manifest heretic then likewise it doesn't matter what anyone declares, the man is NOT THE POPE. So you won't make a declaration but you are faulting the hierarchy for not making a declaration. Meanwhile, many members of the hierarchy actually did declare him a heretic but you condemn and mock them for doing so. I guess they weren't the right members of the hierarchy for you. But that just makes you intellectually inconsistent (some would say dishonest). There is no doubt in my mind that if Vigano declared George Bergoglio to be a manifest heretic you would drop him like a hot potato.
Clemens-Q.E.D.
Your reading comprehension problems must exceed my own, as I do not appear to have made a post on the linked-to page you offer as proof of my alleged contradiction!
Q.E.D.Thanks for playing!
Nothing new. But those who say Francis isn't the pope minimize the damage he does as pope, and prevents the level of prayer needed to put a stop to his damage to the faithful.I don’t see how his being pope or not, impacts the damage he is doing. Those who follow his heretical teachings, are not Catholic. Anything he teaches that is against the Faith, is not binding. So the damage he is doing, ends up being the same, whether he holds the Keys or not. He certainly is confusing a lot of people, but how does his being pope or not, change the amount that he confuses? The Church does not change. The Faith does not change. The illusion of change that he creates, vanishes into nothing, as he has no authority to change the Faith, whether he was validly elected or not.
Perhaps it is overdue for a prayer crusade…
(http://judaism.is/images/pray%20for%20death%20of%20heresiarch.jpg?crc=3955200631)
Sean, quit the rhetorical, stupid, canned responses. You’re smarter than that. No one is deposing a pope! Period. We are recognizing REALITY! If a pope can do what this Filthy PIG does, then the papacy is superfluous.You do realize you are wasting your breath, right?
Yes, for anyone who has been listening, this is nothing new.You are so right. He has always promoted ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in Argentina. The papal visit was created to promote ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity even the stage meet and greet with his former gαy student was to push it through and The gαy lecturer in New York. The Catholic Church has been performing And recognizing gαy marriages in their churches for years. The movie was released to celebrate gαy history month and to serve as a distraction from Biden. Also, it helped to further persecute Amy Coney Barrett. This Poop hates President Trump.
Nothing new. But those who say Francis isn't the pope minimize the damage he does as pope, and prevents the level of prayer needed to put a stop to his damage to the faithful.......and diminishes the extent to which God's justice applies.
It's hard for them to do when they themselves are 99% heretical and deposed also. I bet that you have maybe a dozen bishops throughout the world who would find Bergoglio's promotion of sodomy to be heretical. We only had, what, FOUR of them, who had the courage to put their name to the critique of Amoris Laetitia. That's part of the issue with the Unviersal Acceptance argument. Accepted by whom ... this gaggle of Modernist heretics?And here's the crux of the issue. If the heretical pope won't defrock heretical bishops, and the heretical bishops won't acknowledge the heresies of the pope, then how is the heresy ever stopped?
He also is for gαy children when all children are to be virgins. The next step is to legalize adult sex with children so the pedophiles can avoid prison and losing their precious money.What does this sentence mean?
What does this sentence mean?
To tell the truth, when I got this news today, I had a sede vacante moment. But, as I have done so many times before, I talked myself out of it. "He was speaking as a private theologian"... "this does not constitute Church teaching"... "he is only advocating civil unions, not the sodomy that goes on in those households"... and so on.
Never in a thousand million years would any pope prior to John XXIII have spoken so recklessly. Does not the man realize the only thing the world is going to hear is --- "the Catholic Church is okay with gαy people living together as committed couples".
Even if a pope is only teaching as a private theologian, he cannot be a heretic. If he is a manifest heretic, he is not a member of the Catholic Church and therefore he is not the pope, period.I think a lot of people think he is a heretic, but that he has to be judged so by the Church. Not that it will ever happen, but there has to be a process. Either God will never allow a Pope to be a heretic, or if it happens, something has to be done about it by the Church. If you think he is not the pope, then PRODUCE A POPE. Elect one, or recognize one of the dozen or so who have been elected by other sedes, and no matter what course has been decided on, get off your high horse.
It's getting comical now. It's a game. How bad can it get before you finally realize he isn't Catholic? Does he have to sacrifice a child on live television? What does it take?
I think a lot of people think he is a heretic, but that he has to be judged so by the Church. Not that it will ever happen, but there has to be a process. Either God will never allow a Pope to be a heretic, or if it happens, something has to be done about it by the Church. If you think he is not the pope, then PRODUCE A POPE. Elect one, or recognize one of the dozen or so who have been elected by other sedes, and no matter what course has been decided on, get off your high horse.
None of the V2 popes (J23 and beyond) were elected legitimately. So they were never for one moment true popes. And no true pope has ever fallen from the faith.We have no substantial records of any of the popes before the nineteenth century so your statement that no true pope had ever fallen from the faith is just something you want to believe. How was John XXIII not elected legitimately? He was accepted by the whole Church. There were not any sedes until Paul VI. Are you a Siri thesis trad?
The Church does not change. The Faith does not change.The reason the Church and Faith can never be substantially altered as Christ founded it is because of the divine promises given to the Pope.
Mother Church, Catholic, Roman, which has remained faithful to the constitution received from her Divine Founder, which still stands firm today on the solidity of the rock on which his will erected her, possesses in the primacy of Peter and of his legitimate successors the assurance, guaranteed by the divine promises, of keeping and transmitting inviolate and in all its integrity through centuries and millennia to the very end of time, the entire sum of truth and grace contained in the redemptive mission of Christ.
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis
Never in a thousand million years would any pope prior to John XXIII have spoken so recklessly. Does not the man realize the only thing the world is going to hear is --- "the Catholic Church is okay with gαy people living together as committed couples".Yes, of course he realizes it. That’s exactly what he and his rainbow buddies want. Why would he say the things he does, allow the foulest of sacrileges on the the altar, fail to punish evil-doers, and persecute the few who dare to speak out?
Does he have to sacrifice a child on live television? What does it take?Did he sacrifice that child ex cathedra?
Did he sacrifice that child ex cathedra?OK I loled
Doesn’t count.
I don’t see how his being pope or not, impacts the damage he is doing. Those who follow his heretical teachings, are not Catholic. Anything he teaches that is against the Faith, is not binding. So the damage he is doing, ends up being the same, whether he holds the Keys or not. He certainly is confusing a lot of people, but how does his being pope or not, change the amount that he confuses? The Church does not change. The Faith does not change. The illusion of change that he creates, vanishes into nothing, as he has no authority to change the Faith, whether he was validly elected or not.The whole world, with the exception of a very few faithful, do not believe this. The false teachings of some theologians from the last few centuries have convinced nearly the whole Catholic world that it is a teaching of the Church that the pope is always infallible. Today, most people maintain that idea and escalate it to mean that the pope is supposedly something almost celestial, something more than a man who is incapable of ever doing what all men are capable of doing.
The claim that there is no hierarchy is false. Bishops and priests without jurisdiction are still members of the hierarchy.
Bergoglio's constant thumbing of his nose at Traditional Church teaching strongly suggests pertinacious formal heresy. At one point he bragged and joked about being a heretic, and said he didn't care. If that isn't a formal heretic, then I don't know what is.That does seem like formal heresy, honestly. Do you have a source for this?
That does seem like formal heresy, honestly. Do you have a source for this?Can't find it, but it's a quote from years and years along the lines of "it springs to mind to speak something foolish, or perhaps a heresy, I don't know," followed by some diatribe about how "we all are one". Basically admitting his ecuмenism talk was perhaps heretical, but then proceeding to say it anyway.
Bergoglio's constant thumbing of his nose at Traditional Church teaching strongly suggests pertinacious formal heresy. At one point he bragged and joked about being a heretic, and said he didn't care. If that isn't a formal heretic, then I don't know what is.Also joked to a young child about maybe seeing each other in Hell.
That does seem like formal heresy, honestly. Do you have a source for this?If I remember correctly, clerics do not receive the benefit of the doubt as to being ignorant in cases of heresy. They are presumed guilty because they are presumed to know what the Church teaches. I will try to find this reference later.
The claim that there is no hierarchy is false. Bishops and priests without jurisdiction are still members of the hierarchy.Valid ordination of consecration doesn't make someone a member of the hierarchy. The members of the hierarchy are those who possess the authority to teach, govern and sanctify in Christ's name. That requires jurisdiction which is received by canonical mission.
It's similar to how theologians describe normal sedevacantist periods. They say that during that time Our Lord supplies jurisdiction to the Church directly, vs. through an actual living pope. That is why priests continue to validly hear Confessions and Bishops continue to appoint pastors, etc. ... all legitimately during a sedevacantist period. In fact, there's precedent for bishops being consecrated and installed during sedevacantist periods.
Valid ordination of consecration doesn't make someone a member of the hierarchy. The members of the hierarchy are those who possess the authority to teach, govern and sanctify in Christ's name. That requires jurisdiction which is received by canonical mission.Coming form one who holds the sedevacantist position, this is correct.
Perhaps it is overdue for a prayer crusade…
(http://judaism.is/images/pray%20for%20death%20of%20heresiarch.jpg?crc=3955200631)
Valid ordination of consecration doesn't make someone a member of the hierarchy. The members of the hierarchy are those who possess the authority to teach, govern and sanctify in Christ's name. That requires jurisdiction which is received by canonical mission.
Valid ordination of consecration doesn't make someone a member of the hierarchy. The members of the hierarchy are those who possess the authority to teach, govern and sanctify in Christ's name. That requires jurisdiction which is received by canonical mission.
Bergoglio's constant thumbing of his nose at Traditional Church teaching strongly suggests pertinacious formal heresy. At one point he bragged and joked about being a heretic, and said he didn't care. If that isn't a formal heretic, then I don't know what is.Strictly speaking though, you know what a formal heretic is. It's when the Church tries and formally convicts someone of heresy, which also involves an excommunication. Like we saw with Martin Luther.
Formal heretic doesn't mean "actual heretic", "provable heretic", "heretic in reality", "heretic based on provable facts and air-tight logic" or any of those things. It is exclusively when the Church FORMALLY declares someone to be a heretic.
That's the problem.
Perhaps it is overdue for a prayer crusade…History records the account of St. Athanasius' prayers concerning Arius. The below is taken from one account of same seen at https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/why-did-arius-die-such-a-death-12255
(http://judaism.is/images/pray%20for%20death%20of%20heresiarch.jpg?crc=3955200631)
Formal heretic doesn't mean "actual heretic", "provable heretic", "heretic in reality", "heretic based on provable facts and air-tight logic" or any of those things. It is exclusively when the Church FORMALLY declares someone to be a heretic.
Since it is not only incongruous that one who has publicly defected from the faith should remain in an ecclesiastical office; but since such a condition might also be the source of serious spiritual harm when the care of souls is concerned, the Code prescribes that a cleric tacitly renounces his office by public defection from the faith. Prior to the Code the law imposed a privation of office and benefice on a cleric for such a crime. This penalty was certainly imposed upon those clerics who were publicly guilty of heresy and of apostasy, but because of two apparently contradictory laws it was disputed whether the penalty applied also to those who were publicly guilty of schism. The present law attaches a tacit renunciation instead of a privation of office to a public defection from the faith. Since canon 188, n. 4, uses a general terminology, it is necessary to determine the meaning of a defection from the faith and also to determine the extent of publicity that is required if the act of defection is to become the basis for a tacit renunciation of office.
Strictly speaking though, you know what a formal heretic is. It's when the Church tries and formally convicts someone of heresy, which also involves an excommunication. Like we saw with Martin Luther.https://romeward.com/articles/239752647/can-a-private-individual-recognize-an-uncondemned-heretic
Formal heretic doesn't mean "actual heretic", "provable heretic", "heretic in reality", "heretic based on provable facts and air-tight logic" or any of those things. It is exclusively when the Church FORMALLY declares someone to be a heretic.
That's the problem.
We have enough to go on to be Trad (aloof from this destroyer and his counterfeit church) but not enough to compel anyone's conscience. If it were simpler than that, then the Crisis in the Church wouldn't be in its 51st year (assuming a start date of April 1969, when the Novus Ordo was promulgated).
Strictly speaking though, you know what a formal heretic is. It's when the Church tries and formally convicts someone of heresy, which also involves an excommunication. Like we saw with Martin Luther.
Formal heretic doesn't mean "actual heretic", "provable heretic", "heretic in reality", "heretic based on provable facts and air-tight logic" or any of those things. It is exclusively when the Church FORMALLY declares someone to be a heretic.
That's the problem.
We have enough to go on to be Trad (aloof from this destroyer and his counterfeit church) but not enough to compel anyone's conscience. If it were simpler than that, then the Crisis in the Church wouldn't be in its 51st year (assuming a start date of April 1969, when the Novus Ordo was promulgated).
It's getting comical now. It's a game. How bad can it get before you finally realize he isn't Catholic? Does he have to sacrifice a child on live television? What does it take?Come now, Clemens Maria. Bergoglio has already participated in the formal worship of a pagan idol in the Vatican and then enshrined that idol (or another one) in a Catholic Church in Rome. If that doesn't do it, even if Bergoglio were to sacrifice a child on live television, people on this forum would say, "Well...We've had bad popes before!"
Come now, Clemens Maria. Bergoglio has already participated in the formal worship of a pagan idol in the Vatican and then enshrined that idol (or another one) in a Catholic Church in Rome. If that doesn't do it, even if Bergoglio were to sacrifice a child on live television, people on this forum would say, "Well...We've had bad popes before!"