Author Topic: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!! (Read 9953 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #30 on:** February 22, 2021, 05:53:02 AM »

Quote from: Walters on February 21, 2021, 04:09:16 PM

No, I'm simply trying to determine why he believes a Pope cannot err on matters of faith and morals when he is not defining a doctrine.

I don't know if he's sede or not, but in a nutshell, the reason he believes that, is because he believes the opinions of some of the theologians from the last few centuries who taught basically that "the pope is always infallibly safe to follow". Like many, he believes those theologians' erroneous (at best) teachings are indeed true and authentic teachings of the Church and that V1's ex cathedra definition is lacking.

They just won't accept the obligation that that teaching imposes upon them. Instead of realizing that teaching is false, they decide the pope is false. Anyway, that's pretty much why he believes a pope cannot err on matters of faith and morals when he is not defining a doctrine ex cathedra in a nutshell.

Stubborn · « **Reply #31 on:** February 22, 2021, 05:55:58 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on February 22, 2021, 03:08:52 AM

Reading anything from the Vatican II popes and Vatican II, should be forbidden to the laity, and kept behind lock and key at seminaries, and limited to rare use by clergy in the study of sophism/ambiguity/error/heresy.

I keep repeating it - "Rat poison is 99% nutritious food". It's that 1% dispersed in every molecule of the nutritious food that will kill you just the same, no matter how nutritious and good it tastes.

Totally agree. I would simply say; to be used by the clergy strictly as evidence.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #32 on:** February 22, 2021, 08:06:53 AM »

Quote from: Walters on February 22, 2021, 07:53:47 AM

Exactly!!!

Not only that, but they misunderstand Franzelin's teaching concerning infallible safety. He didn't mean anything a Pope says is necessarily infallibly safe. What he meant is if a Pope teaches that a doctrine is safe to follow, it is infallibly safe to follow.

Nonsense, Walters. Only some dogmatic sedevacantists hold that "anything a Pope says is necessarily infallibly safe." What infallible safety basically means, however, and this is corroborated by a lot of Papal Magisterium, is that overall and, as a whole, the Magisterium cannot go badly off the rails on a substantial issue. Here is Msgr. Fenton's articulation of infallible safety. When Traditional Catholics claim that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church are so badly mistaken that we are effectively forced to sever communion with the putative hierarchy, then it's crossed the line. You're setting up fake strawman and yourself misunderstanding infallible safety. Infallible safety follows necessarily from the notion that the Church is indefectible in her mission.

Msgr. Fenton:

Quote

To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** February 22, 2021, 08:22:57 AM »

Quote from: Walters on February 22, 2021, 12:50:02 AM

I agree that such a person should be ignored, and I'm not defending Francis. I am not defending Francis of playing sick mental games. What I am doing is investigating the accusations objectively in order to determine what is true.
Did Francis approve contraception, as is claimed? Did he intentionally and deceptively make two true statements that gave the impression contraception was permissible, without actually saying it is permissible, which is another possibility? Or did advocates of contraception take his words taken out of context to promote their agenda? I think we can rule out number 1.

You don't seem to understand Bergoglio's tactics. He has been excoriated even by some EWTN radio personalities for deliberately creating confusion. He bragged about causing chaos. He amused himself about the thought of being a heretic and said he didn't care. Bergoglio puts out a statement or allows a statement to be put out that CAN be interpreted in a completely non-Catholic or even heretical way. Then some conservatives criticize it, and ask that the Vatican issue a clarification. Bergoglio then REFUSES to make the necessary clarification to bring something in line with Traditional Catholic teaching. His obvious intent is to promote and to allow the non-Catholic interpretations. He did this most clearly with Amoris Laetitia. His clear intent was to allow those German (and other) bishops who had been agitating to give Communion to divorced fornicators to do exactly that. When that group of Cardinals intervened and objected to AL, asking for a clarification, he refused to respond, so they had to publish the letter.

We had the quasi-journalist Scalfari attribute several clearly-heretical opinions to Bergoglio. Had these been said of any orthodox Catholic, there would have been an immediate rejection of the claim: "That is nonsense. I believe no such thing." Instead Bergoglio probably enjoyed watching people squirm and wondering whether he's a heretic. He deliberately thumbs his nose at people who insist on doctrinal orthodoxy.

Bergoglio has ears itching for novelty ... which is the hallmark characteristic of a heretic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #34 on:** February 22, 2021, 08:27:52 AM »

Evidence for Bergoglio being a heretic is overwhelming:
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/anti-pope-francis-heresies/

[I do not endorse everything held by MHFM, but this is a very long list of Bergoglian heresy.]

Just imagine a St. Pius X's reaction to this stuff. He might personally come and beat Bergoglio with his own fists. At the very least he would have him arrested and revive the practice of burning at the stake.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!! (Read 9953 times)

Stubborn

Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!

Stubborn

Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!

Ladislaus

Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!

Ladislaus

Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!

Ladislaus

Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!