Author Topic: Francis, your pope (Read 10642 times)

andysloan · « **Reply #15 on:** April 07, 2014, 12:16:07 PM »

To Poche.

I'm afraid that your sound and simple reasoning is not complex enough for most these days!

St. Francis of Paola (1416-1507)

“During this unhappy period there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded and the clergy will not respect the laws of the Church. The Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will not remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modifications and delamination by man."

Most fail to make a distinction between the authority of the Seat of Peter and the character of the possessor.

But then that would diminish the fleshly pleasure in finding fault with others; especially those in authority.

2 Corinthians 11:3

"But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ."

God bless you!

crossbro · « **Reply #16 on:** April 07, 2014, 12:31:42 PM »

I believe frank is the pope I believe frank is a heretic

it may have something to do with separating the weeds from the wheat Our Lord always focused on the quality over the quantity. Being pope is not an automatic ticket to heaven as the Lord said many are called but few are chosen

andysloan · « **Reply #17 on:** April 07, 2014, 12:51:37 PM »

Clemens Maria said:

"So I think no matter what you decide on the status of Jorge Bergoglio's claim to the papacy."

That basically says it all; everyone to the races; but be sure to call him every Monday to see if he has changed his views!

We have no authority to declare any Pope invalid/heretical and neither can we depart from submission to his supreme prerogative as holder of the Keys.

"We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302).

The only exceptions are:

1) We are certain of uncanonical election

2) He declares from the Seat of Peter an uncatholic teaching.

Canon law does not provide for deposition.

And when the time of the Pope prophesied by St Francis of Assisi comes, we can be sure God's providence will trumpet this fact to all God wishes to know of it.

The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death. - St Francis of Assisi

But until such a time, Francis is the Pope!!

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #18 on:** April 07, 2014, 12:51:46 PM »

Quote from: poche

Shortly after Pope Benedict resigned, the cardinals met in the Sistine Chapel and closed the doors. Shortly thereafter, white smoke cane out through the chimney. One of the cardinals came to the window and said, "Habemus Papum..." Jorge came to the window and was introduced as the new pope. He says his new name is Francis. Everyone recognizes him as the pope. The news media recognizes him as the pope. Protestants, Orthodox, Muslims etc. all recognize him as the pope (they say that they disagree with him but they recognize him as the pope.) The Catholic Church recognizes him as the pope. His enemies recognize him as the pope. The press recognizes him as the pope. If all these people recognize that Francis is the pope then that is good enough for me. Francis I is the pope of the Catholic Church.

[I'm not actually responding to Poche, but to his argument]

This is a really goofy argument. It only makes sense if you don't actually think about it. What Poche is saying, or trying to say, is that since Francis is universally adhered to or "recognized" as pope, this is an infallible sign that he is pope.

In truth, it is an infallible sign that a man is pope if all the Catholic bishops along with the laity peacefully accept him.

So what the news media and the Jєωs and the Muslims and the Lutherans think has absolutely zero impact on this doctrine.

So, does the Catholic world peacefully accept and adhere to this man as pope? NOPE. Most Novus Ordites don't go to Church, don't tithe, don't follow the teachings of their pope, eat birth control, live together before marriage, etc.

And the traditionalists, even those who vainly say they "recognize" him don't. They don't submit to his liturgy, his canon law, his catechism, his calendar... there is no adherence at all, much less peaceful acceptance.

One cannot say that these men were peacefully accepted and adhered to, ergo they are popes.

andysloan · « **Reply #19 on:** April 07, 2014, 01:31:47 PM »

To Mithrandylan,

You should read the statement of St Francis de Paola again!

The requirements for his valid election are in Poche's statement:

"Shortly after Pope Benedict resigned, the cardinals met in the Sistine Chapel and closed the doors. Shortly thereafter, white smoke cane out through the chimney. One of the cardinals came to the window and said, "Habemus Papum..."

And his peaceful acceptance is not proof of the validity of election, rather the adherence to canonical rules.

The second part of the Poche's post is bells and whistles.

But such technical inexactitude is not so common these days, because it presents a chance for another to show their erudition/superiority and belittle the writer.

Thus, one would fear to go for breakfast with some on CI, because if you ordered sausage, bacon and eggs, you might to shown to have made a category error.

cassini · « **Reply #20 on:** April 07, 2014, 02:21:47 PM »

Quote from: andysloan

Clemens Maria said:

The only exceptions are:

1) We are certain of uncanonical election

2) He declares from the Seat of Peter an uncatholic teaching.

But until such a time, Francis is the Pope!!

Is elevating a man or woman to the sainthood an infallible act? Most I have read said it is.

If Pope Francis elevates Pope John XXXIII and Pope John Paul II to sainthood on 28th April next, and there is plenty of evidence to show neither could possibly be true saints of the Catholic Church, would that eliminate him as a true pope according to no 2 above?

andysloan · « **Reply #21 on:** April 07, 2014, 02:54:57 PM »

To Cassini:

Please see the following:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

God bless!

Marlelar · « **Reply #22 on:** April 07, 2014, 03:27:53 PM »

Quote from: andysloan

To Cassini:Please see the following:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
God bless!

From the New Advent articled referenced above:
" St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints, we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error."

Marsha

Elizabeth · « **Reply #23 on:** April 07, 2014, 03:47:26 PM »

Hi Cassini,

Hopefully we will get some clarity on the Catholic Saints.

The V2 (don't remember what the clerics who make such decisions are called) un-cannonised St. Christopher, St. Catherine of Alexandria, St. Philomena and I believe others. They also changed the feast days of too many saints to keep track of.

So, how can any body know if the saints are any more infallible?

JP2 "made" more saints than anybody ever had dreamed of, after a radical overhaul of the necessary requirements making it very, very, very easy to be called a saint.

So, people like me are liable to understand this as new saints for a new church.

I read Making Saints too many years ago the remember the details of the huge range of changes in making saints.

andysloan · « **Reply #24 on:** April 07, 2014, 03:55:44 PM »

Several saints were removed from the Universal Calendar of the Church,which was published about four years after the Council. in 1969. Christopher is one of them. What is overlooked, is several were added - such as Columban. In neither case is the status of the individual as a saint affected - the change is that some liturgical cultus which were formerly universal are now confined to particular parts of the Church such as dioceses, countries, or religious orders

The purpose of the change was this: to reform the calendar so that the principal feasts of the Christian liturgical year could be seen more clearly, and feasts and seasons, such as Advent or Lent, not be obscured by coinciding with, or being full of, feasts of saints. That is why there are fewer saints' days, and why so many are optional memoriae. Trent cleared the calendar in a similar way.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=98952

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #25 on:** April 07, 2014, 04:48:46 PM »

Quote from: andysloan

To Mithrandylan,

You should read the statement of St Francis de Paola again!

The requirements for his valid election are in Poche's statement:

"Shortly after Pope Benedict resigned, the cardinals met in the Sistine Chapel and closed the doors. Shortly thereafter, white smoke cane out through the chimney. One of the cardinals came to the window and said, "Habemus Papum..."

And his peaceful acceptance is not proof of the validity of election, rather the adherence to canonical rules.

The second part of the Poche's post is bells and whistles.

But such technical inexactitude is not so common these days, because it presents a chance for another to show their erudition/superiority and belittle the writer.

Thus, one would fear to go for breakfast with some on CI, because if you ordered sausage, bacon and eggs, you might to shown to have made a category error.

AndySloan,

This reaches further than a valid or invalid election. But without getting ahead of myself, I was/am merely pointing out that the argument Poche has posited, which is the argument of universal peaceful acceptance, does not work to prove that the post-conciliar popes are, in fact, popes. There has been no universal peaceful acceptance of them, so if you want to prove they're popes you'll have to use some other criteria (though what that would be, I don't know-- you certainly can't argue that they're Catholic!).

Also, if you wish to be involved in a discussion, you do better than to appeal to ignorance. If the subject of discussion or implications thereof are "above your head" then quietly and humbly withdraw; don't continue to make quick and weak arguments and then scurry away under the guise of being a simple soul who can't understand whatever nuances and "technicalities" involved in the discourse.

I would add that I think these concepts aren't as difficult to understand as many claim they are, and as with all things, God will enlighten our minds if we ask Him to, and truly desire that effect. But in any event, if they are too "lofty" then it is better to withdraw and protect your faith (if it is threatened) or withdraw to gain a better understanding.

andysloan · « **Reply #26 on:** April 07, 2014, 05:47:46 PM »

To Mithrandylan,

It has already been defined that they are licit popes because they were elected in accord with canonical law.

In addition, it has been defined that irrespective of personal character or defect, if they are licit Pontiffs, they are guaranteed by Christ to be infallible when promulgating from the Seat of Peter.

What you appear to be seeking for is some criteria by which we know them to be "catholic popes" as measured by their "catholicity" and you state no one can argue they are catholic popes. On the contrary:

"Before everything else, fidelity to the Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Jesus did not found several churches, but one single Church."

Pope John XXIII

"For all of us, the kingdom of Jesus Christ is in Heaven; to enter into it, we need the keys."

Pope John XXIII

"The entrance to salvation is open to no one outside the Church!"

Pope Paul VI

"As a sacrament of intimate union with God, the Church is in Christ, outside Whom there is no salvation."

Pope John Paul II

"The mystery of salvation is revealed to us and is continued and accomplished in the Church...and from this genuine and single source, like 'humble, useful, precious and chaste' water, it reaches the whole world. Dear young people and members of the faithful, like Brother Francis we have to be conscious and absorb this fundamental and revealed truth, consecrated by tradition: 'There is no salvation outside the Church.' From her alone there flows surely and fully the life-giving force destined in Christ and in His Spirit, to renew the whole of humanity, and therefore directing every human being to become a part of the Mystical Body of Christ."

Pope John Paul II, Radio Message for Franciscan Vigil in St. Peter's and Assisi, October 3, 1981.

Q. Is it true that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church?

A. Yes.

Benedict XV1 - interview with journalist Peter Seewald (Book - Light of the World)

“It’s an absurd dichotomy to think one can live with Jesus, but without the Church, to follow Jesus outside the Church, to love Jesus and not the Church”,

Pope Francis 1 (May 2013 - address to plenary assembly of the International Union of Superiors General.)

Incredible at first sight, I would suggest you research the idea that the V2 popes may have had very limited latitude to repair the post V2 damage:

‘Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ!’ ‘Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ has already made it into the loafers (shoes) of the Pope!’ - St Pio to Fr Luigi Villa 1963

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread576777/pg1

During an audience with Pope Benedict XV1, Bishop Fellay found himself alone with the Pope for a moment. His Excellency seized the opportunity to remind the Pope that he is the Vicar of Christ, possessed of the authority to take immediate measures to end the crisis in the Church on all fronts. The Pope replied thus: “My authority ends at that door.” (Castel Gondolfo August, 2005)

Don't believe the common opinion - research it yourself!

God bless!

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #27 on:** April 07, 2014, 06:25:08 PM »

Quote from: soulguard

@Clemens Maria

I am convinced that Pope Francis will be remembered as an antipope, but until the judgement of a future truly Catholic pope declares him to be such, all I can do is go with the flow. I made up my mind to just say that Francis was the pope whenever asked because I started going to the SSPX and I wanted to fit in with the other Catholics there. The alternative was to stay at home or go anyway but not talk about the papacy and pretend to be in communion with the priest who prays for Francis.

why can't you do what I do, just let it be known to the priest you don't consider him to be pope and leave it at that

cassini · « **Reply #28 on:** April 08, 2014, 03:00:39 PM »

Quote from: andysloan

To Cassini:

Please see the following:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

God bless!

Thanks Andy. Having read it though I am further convinced that Catholic theology is as complicated as a living cell. It is as though there is a way out of everything, if things go wrong or if someone is looking for a way out. It seems what one believes in one's heart as a traditional Catholic is never quite true. It seems Catholics are required always to give popes the benefit of the doubt, no matter what.

The article above, while fascinating as to the history of the different kinds of saints, suggests to me that Catholics are not bound to treat canonisations like a dogma in that it is not a heresy if - for example - we continue to have no interest in the soon to be St John XXIII or St John Paul II after St-to-be Francis canonises them.
Can you imagine if one's soul depended on accepting these men as saints.

Just for the record, all these to be saints-to-be (bar Francis as I understand) were responsible for passing one of Vatican II worst crimes, a crime that calls to heaven for vengence, not to be made saints. I refer to the rejection of the Kinship of Christ in the world, even to the extent that orders came from Rome to certain countries asking them to remove such a Kingship from their constitutions. I recall Christ being thrown out of the Irish constution for example, by way of referendum by 90+% Catholics, all following orders from their Pope in Rome.

How in God's name could anyone associated with this betrayal be canonised?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #29 on:** April 08, 2014, 03:13:20 PM »

Quote from: andysloan

To Mithrandylan,

It has already been defined that they are licit popes because they were elected in accord with canonical law.

In addition, it has been defined that irrespective of personal character or defect, if they are licit Pontiffs, they are guaranteed by Christ to be infallible when promulgating from the Seat of Peter.

What you appear to be seeking for is some criteria by which we know them to be "catholic popes" as measured by their "catholicity" and you state no one can argue they are catholic popes. On the contrary:

"Before everything else, fidelity to the Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Jesus did not found several churches, but one single Church."

Pope John XXIII

"For all of us, the kingdom of Jesus Christ is in Heaven; to enter into it, we need the keys."

Pope John XXIII

"The entrance to salvation is open to no one outside the Church!"

Pope Paul VI

"As a sacrament of intimate union with God, the Church is in Christ, outside Whom there is no salvation."

Pope John Paul II

"The mystery of salvation is revealed to us and is continued and accomplished in the Church...and from this genuine and single source, like 'humble, useful, precious and chaste' water, it reaches the whole world. Dear young people and members of the faithful, like Brother Francis we have to be conscious and absorb this fundamental and revealed truth, consecrated by tradition: 'There is no salvation outside the Church.' From her alone there flows surely and fully the life-giving force destined in Christ and in His Spirit, to renew the whole of humanity, and therefore directing every human being to become a part of the Mystical Body of Christ."

Pope John Paul II, Radio Message for Franciscan Vigil in St. Peter's and Assisi, October 3, 1981.

Q. Is it true that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church?

A. Yes.

Benedict XV1 - interview with journalist Peter Seewald (Book - Light of the World)

“It’s an absurd dichotomy to think one can live with Jesus, but without the Church, to follow Jesus outside the Church, to love Jesus and not the Church”,

Pope Francis 1 (May 2013 - address to plenary assembly of the International Union of Superiors General.)

Incredible at first sight, I would suggest you research the idea that the V2 popes may have had very limited latitude to repair the post V2 damage:

‘Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ!’ ‘Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ has already made it into the loafers (shoes) of the Pope!’ - St Pio to Fr Luigi Villa 1963

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread576777/pg1

During an audience with Pope Benedict XV1, Bishop Fellay found himself alone with the Pope for a moment. His Excellency seized the opportunity to remind the Pope that he is the Vicar of Christ, possessed of the authority to take immediate measures to end the crisis in the Church on all fronts. The Pope replied thus: “My authority ends at that door.” (Castel Gondolfo August, 2005)

Don't believe the common opinion - research it yourself!

God bless!

Oh, Andy...

Lawful electors are required for a lawful election. But again, the issue isn't whether or not the proper legal formulas were used to elect the post-conciliar popes; it's interesting to think about but even if the proper legal formula was used, that is not enough to posses, maintain and retain the papacy.

Only baptized Catholic males can be elected to the papacy.

Your quotes mean nothing when they can be matched by heretical quotes. Which they can. I can pull quotes from anyone (I mean that-- give me a name) that can be agreeable with the Catholic faith. Incidentally believing something within the deposit of faith does not a Catholic make; Catholics must be docile to the entire deposit of faith, and you cannot contend that about the Conciliar popes.

The common opinion is that these heretics are vicars of Christ. You're the one who believes the common opinion.