-
Archbishop Viganò suggests a cardinal has proof Francis’ election was corrupt, and his ‘pontificate’ null
With Archbishop Viganò, all Catholics should request from that cardinal that he make his knowledge public, since that particular papal election has affected the Catholic Church in a very grave manner, putting many souls at potential risk.
(https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Photo-2-scaled-e1680515757649-810x500.jpg)
Archbishop Carlo Maria ViganóAbp. Carlo Maria Viagnó
Maike
Hickson (https://www.lifesitenews.com/author/maike-hickson/)
(LifeSiteNews (https://www.lifesitenews.com/)) – There is a new development regarding the discussion as to whether or not Pope Francis’s papal election at the March 2013 Conclave was valid. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has claimed (https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2023/08/11/cfn-interviews-vigano-francis-trump-ukraine-child-trafficking-and-more/) that there exists a cardinal who participated in that Conclave and who told friends “that he has witnessed facts that render the election of Jorge Mario null and void.”
Speaking to Catholic Family News editor Matt Gaspers, the Italian prelate added that this particular cardinal does not reveal to make these facts “publicly so as not to break the Pontifical secret: the secret that he has already broken by talking about it with those who can do nothing, which forces His Eminence into silence before the Church.” In his view, these facts might render it possible that the Church’s “Pastors could perhaps settle the question” of the 2013 papal election.
This is a stunning report: so far, no cardinal who participated in the 2013 Conclave has come out making such a statement, namely that there were events at the Conclave that might render that particular papal election invalid.
Already in 2022, Viganò expressed (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abp-vigano-calls-for-investigation-into-manipulation-of-conclave-that-elected-pope-francis/) his doubts about the validity of the 2013 Conclave and requested an “investigation” of that Conclave.
With Archbishop Viganò, all Catholics should request from that cardinal that he make his knowledge public, since that particular papal election has affected the Catholic Church in a very grave manner, putting many souls at potential risk.
So far, multiple reports have given indications that there were schemes and organized meetings in order to promote Jorge Bergoglio’s election at the time.
Most prominently, a Vatican reporter close to Pope Francis, Gerard O’Connell, published in 2019 a book (https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/new-book-on-pope-francis-election-reveals-the-main-kingmakers/) about the 2013 Conclave, in which he reveals that there took place on March 11, 2013 – one day ahead of the first day of the Conclave – a meeting of progressivist cardinals discussing a possible candidate. Among these cardinals were Cardinals Godfried Danneels, Walter Kasper, Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, and Karl Lehmann, all members of the so-called “Sankt Gallen Group.”
Cardinal Kasper told (https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/cdl-kasper-denies-any-networking-to-elect-francis/) LifeSite at the time that he did, indeed participate at that meeting, but denied that there was anything unethical about that meeting.
He told LifeSite in 2019 that “it is really simply reasonable and normal – yes, it is even absolutely necessary for the forming of a personal judgment and conscience – that cardinals meet in order to reflect in a small circle (when all of them are together, there are 180-200, then everybody can only speak one time), and to weigh things and to receive information (not everybody knows each other) and then to form together a non-binding opinion.”
Speaking specifically about the March 11 meeting, Kasper added: “At our meeting, afterwards no one was bound and fixed; each could also continue his own reflection, and no one was later asked whether and how he voted.” But he implied that the results of that meeting were further shared with other cardinals when he expounded: “That one afterwards speaks with someone who was not present that evening [at the meeting] and informs him, cannot be forbidden either. That has nothing to do with solicitation. When additionally someone from that group afterwards thinks for himself privately and then speaks about how many [votes] there roughly would be, then that is his personal opinion which binds no one.”
Another important hint about somewhat irregular happenings in preparation for the 2013 Conclave came from another book, published in 2017. Catherine Pepinster, the former editor-in-chief of the British Catholic weekly, The Tablet, claims in The Keys and the Kingdom: The British and the Papacy from John Paul II to Francis (https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-keys-and-the-kingdom-9780567666314/) that the British Foreign Office may have played an important role in the 2013 papal election that resulted in Pope Francis’ election, especially by way of organizing another key meeting ahead of the Conclave that was to promote the name of Bergoglio.
Based on many interviews with key figures such as Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and the British Ambassador to the Holy See, Nigel Baker, she claims that the U.K. “played a crucial role in the election of the Argentinian destined to shake up the Catholic Church.”
Pepinster recounts in her book how the British government, through the person of the British ambassador to the Holy See, was instrumental in setting up a March 7 meeting at the ambassador’s residence at the Palazzo Pallavincini where key cardinals – especially Murphy-O’Connor – networked with lesser-known cardinals to promote Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio for pope.
Calling Bergoglio’s election a “very British coup,” Pepinster’s work suggests that a secular power was involved in the election of a pope. Here, she specifically mentions Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor.
“The British influence on the conclave was against all the odds, yet it happened,” Pepinster stated. “That was down to one of the most capable cardinals I’ve ever met – Cormac Murphy-O’Connor – playing the most powerful non-voting role in the choosing of a pope I’ve ever known.”
Pope Francis seemed to have been aware of this British cardinal’s role in his election. States The Guardian‘s obituary (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/01/cardinal-cormac-murphy-o-connor-obituary) of this prelate in 2017: “A few months after his election, the former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was apparently lightheartedly to credit Murphy-O’Connor, when the two met at a papal audience. The pope pointed to his old friend and said, ‘You’re to blame!’”
The now-disgraced former cardinal, Theodore McCarrick, also described how certain influencers tried to get Bergoglio elected. LifeSite’s contributor Liz Yore summed up (https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/predator-cardinal-mccarrick-was-bergoglios-dc-lobbyist/) his own testimony as he presented it in October of 2013, only months after Bergoglio’s election:
McCarrick told the audience (https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/they-gave-pope-francis-four-years-to-make-the-church-over-again.-heres-how) that before the cardinal electors “went into the general conversations,” he was approached by “a very interesting and influential Italian gentleman.” The influential Italian visited McCarrick at the seminary where McCarrick was staying in Rome. This “very brilliant man, very influential man in Rome” said, “What about Bergoglio? Does he have a chance?” McCarrick said he was surprised at the question, and replied, “I don’t think so because no one’s mentioned his name.” The man said, referring to Bergoglio, “He could do it, you know, reform the church.”
Although McCarrick was beyond the age to vote in the 2013 conclave, he spoke at the General Congregation proceedings before the conclave. As he explained in his Villanova talk, he seized the opportunity to lobby for a Latin American Pope, urging his fellow Cardinal electors that he hoped that whoever was elected pope would be someone who, if not himself a Latin American, would “have a very strong interest in Latin America because half the Church is there . . . that’s where the people are.”
None of these hints alone suffice to make a case in this very crucial matter, though.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who is very much respected among many faithful Catholics, holds that Pope Francis’s papacy is a valid one. Writing in 2020 (while Pope Benedict XVI was still alive), the Kazakh bishop of German descent insisted (https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/bishop-schneider-releases-essay-on-the-question-of-the-true-pope/):
Declaring Pope Francis to be an invalid pope, either because of his heresies or because of an invalid election (for reasons of alleged violations of the Conclave norms or for the reason that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope because of his invalid renunciation) are desperate and subjectively taken actions aimed at remedying the current unprecedented crisis of the papacy. They are purely human and betray a spiritual myopia. All such endeavors are ultimately a dead end, a cul-de-sac. Such solutions reveal an implicit Pelagian approach to resolving a problem with human means; a problem, indeed, which cannot be resolved by human efforts, but which requires a divine intervention.
One need only examine similar cases of the deposition of a pope or declaration of the invalidity of his election in Church history to see that they provoked rivaling and combatting claimants to the papal office.
So caution and care is requested – and a strong involvement on the part of the Church’s hierarchy. Lay people cannot come to conclusions just by themselves, as it seems.
That is where the testimony of that one cardinal who might be holding back his knowledge of facts should come out and reveal these facts to the Catholic faithful.
Archbishop Viganò himself regrets that this cardinal is not speaking up, out of a sense of obedience toward the law of secrecy. He sees a false legalism here at work: “we are not talking about the Seal of Confession,” the prelate writes in his new interview, “but rather about matters that have reason to be reserved until this is to the detriment of the institution that brought them into force; otherwise we find ourselves like the Pharisees of the Gospel, who asked Our Lord if it was lawful to pull a donkey out of the well on the Sabbath day.”
It seems that Archbishop Viganò, however, has not spoken directly to this cardinal. He told Matt Gaspers that “if these confidences are true, I dare not think of the moral travail of those who are preparing to take the secret to the grave, when they would have had the opportunity of unmasking the intrigues and plots of the Saint Gallen Mafia.”
“If they are not true,” he continues, “it would not make sense to talk about it even with the most trusted people (who, however, must have told others, since the news has leaked).”
LifeSite has reached out to Archbishop Viganò and to two respected cardinals for comment and shall update this report should we hear back from them.
-
The problem with the "corrupt Cardinal" angle is that the information is not objective.
Yes, Bergoglio's election was null and void. Yes, the Cardinals did all kinds of things that are explicitly illegal according to Universi Dominici Gregis. But, to prove that corruption will be very hard to do. The information is subjective.
However, that, in the same docuмent governing papal elections, anyone with eyes can read that the Pope must be dead, eulogized and buried BEFORE a new election can be held is an objective fact. Anyone can understand that Benedict was not dead on March 13, 2013 and that UDG requires that he be dead before a valid election can be held.
The problem is that no one wants to be the one to say that "the Emperor has no clothes." They are scared to ruin their reputation. Too much human respect. This fear is built into human nature, as Hans Christian Anderson explains:
https://americanliterature.com/author/hans-christian-andersen/short-story/the-emperors-new-clothes
-
However, that, in the same docuмent governing papal elections, anyone with eyes can read that the Pope must be dead, eulogized and buried BEFORE a new election can be held is an objective fact. Anyone can understand that Benedict was not dead on March 13, 2013 and that UDG requires that he be dead before a valid election can be held.
They don't seem too worried about that argument.
What they are going to try and rebut is this:
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2015/09/10/why-are-some-suggesting-that-francis-election-was-invalid/
-
They don't seem too worried about that argument.
What they are going to try and rebut is this:
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2015/09/10/why-are-some-suggesting-that-francis-election-was-invalid/
Yes, that is what everyone will start arguing about. It will be just like the "munus/ministerium" thing. An intentional distraction away for THE-ELEPHANT-IN-THE-ROOM. But it is a tried and true technique. It has been working perfectly for over 10 years. And it will continue to work deceiving the herd animals (i.e., sheep) who want someone else to tell them what to think.
-
However, that, in the same docuмent governing papal elections, anyone with eyes can read that the Pope must be dead, eulogized and buried BEFORE a new election can be held is an objective fact. Anyone can understand that Benedict was not dead on March 13, 2013 and that UDG requires that he be dead before a valid election can be held.
:facepalm: I can't believe that you're still pushing this nonsense.
-
... as if declaring Bergoglio illegitimate solves even 1% of the problem with the Conciliar Church as a whole. Sure, it would eliminate Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custodes ... but the rest of the V2 apostasy would remain.
-
Wake me up when Vigano reveals the name of this cardinal. :sleep:
-
... as if declaring Bergoglio illegitimate solves even 1% of the problem with the Conciliar Church as a whole. Sure, it would eliminate Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custodes ... but the rest of the V2 apostasy would remain.
There is no human solution to the problem in the Church, Ladislaus. But, on a personal level, recognizing that Bergoglio is the guy that the prophecies are talking about might get an individual to focus on preparing his soul for the Second Coming instead of being obsessed with "earthly matters." And if the person thinks he is already prepared, then he should help those around him to prepare their souls for Our Lord's Presence.
As St. Paul says, the "apostasy" is THE sign to look for. It is here. The bad fruit from the tree planted in the 1960s is completely ripe now. Great spiritual trials are immediately ahead, coming in the next few years. Many souls will be lost for lack of preparation, lack of seeing the true enemy for who he is and compromising with his agenda. And even "the elect" will be tempted to do this, if they are not aware of who the deceiver is. Bergoglio is that deceiver.
That is why we need to focus on him. The Bible tells us to focus on him.
-
... as if declaring Bergoglio illegitimate solves even 1% of the problem with the Conciliar Church as a whole. Sure, it would eliminate Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custodes ... but the rest of the V2 apostasy would remain.
Granted. But it might also cause a deeper/further look backwards (e.g., Vigano said the Francis matter put him in mind of the Siri/Roncalli issue of 1958).
-
... as if declaring Bergoglio illegitimate solves even 1% of the problem with the Conciliar Church as a whole. Sure, it would eliminate Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custodes ... but the rest of the V2 apostasy would remain.
.
Oh yeah, whoever thinks the problem is only with Bergoglio is completely missing the big picture.
-
.
Oh yeah, whoever thinks the problem is only with Bergoglio is completely missing the big picture.
Well said.
-
.
Oh yeah, whoever thinks the problem is only with Bergoglio is completely missing the big picture.
Note well: A particular man, that wicked one, is being referred to by St. Paul. Is St. Paul missing "the big picture," Yeti? Maybe you can explain the big picture to us?
3 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. 5 Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, 9 Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, 10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: 11 That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.
-
Granted. But it might also cause a deeper/further look backwards (e.g., Vigano said the Francis matter put him in mind of the Siri/Roncalli issue of 1958).
Possibly. There are some, though, who might become complacent thinking "problem solved" and then uphold Ratzinger as the new litmus test for orthodoxy.
-
Possibly. There are some, though, who might become complacent thinking "problem solved" and then uphold Ratzinger as the new litmus test for orthodoxy.
The (completely rash) thought occurred to me that that might even be a deliberate strategy of Francis’s handlers):
By getting rid of Francis, but going no further back, the suggestion is that there’s nothing to worry about in his predecessors (aren’t three of them “saints?!”), and the revolution is therefore strengthened and solidified.
-
The (completely rash) thought occurred to me that that might even be a deliberate strategy of Francis’s handlers):
By getting rid of Francis, but going no further back, the suggestion is that there’s nothing to worry about in his predecessors (aren’t three of them “saints?!”), and the revolution is therefore strengthened and solidified.
Yes, this has always rubbed me the wrong way about Bennyvacantism in general. They move the "bar" in terms of what orthodoxy means, resetting it to land on Ratzinger. That's actually kindof how the Hegelian dialectic is deigned to operate, where you push to the opposite extreme, and then you swing back toward the middle, the "synthesis" part. Thesis is Catholicism, Antithesis is Bergoglio, and the Synthesis is Ratzinger (who was undoubtedly a big fan of Hegel). In line with this, Ratzinger had been floating the idea of a Hybrid Rite of Mass, between the Tridentine Mass and the NOM.
-
I am always reminded of this ...
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_s6W6nHHq5gg/S42LWY2yHWI/AAAAAAAAANk/myQIg4VgVFo/s400/george-bush-miss-me-yet.jpg)
I doctored up a similar one years ago, a couple years into Bergoglio's term of "office", that showed Ratzinger doing the same "Miss me yet?" pose.
After Jorge, people yearn for the "good old days" of Ratzinger or view JP2 as the "pillar of orthodoxy".
-
There is no human solution to the problem in the Church, Ladislaus. But, on a personal level, recognizing that Bergoglio is the guy that the prophecies are talking about might get an individual to focus on preparing his soul for the Second Coming instead of being obsessed with "earthly matters." And if the person thinks he is already prepared, then he should help those around him to prepare their souls for Our Lord's Presence.
As St. Paul says, the "apostasy" is THE sign to look for. It is here. The bad fruit from the tree planted in the 1960s is completely ripe now. Great spiritual trials are immediately ahead, coming in the next few years. Many souls will be lost for lack of preparation, lack of seeing the true enemy for who he is and compromising with his agenda. And even "the elect" will be tempted to do this, if they are not aware of who the deceiver is. Bergoglio is that deceiver.
That is why we need to focus on him. The Bible tells us to focus on him.
A person should always be prepared regardless of the crisis. As our Lord said, paraphrasing, watch always.
-
There is no human solution to the problem in the Church, Ladislaus. But, on a personal level, recognizing that Bergoglio is the guy that the prophecies are talking about might get an individual to focus on preparing his soul for the Second Coming instead of being obsessed with "earthly matters."
2nd coming?? This is very protestant thinking, man.
And if the person thinks he is already prepared, then he should help those around him to prepare their souls for Our Lord's Presence.
Catholics prepare for Our Lord's presence, every time they go to Holy Mass, and receive Him in Holy Communion.
Even if this is the time of the antichrist (which it's not, though there are many parallels), after the antichrist is killed, there is a long period of peace, the social kingship of Christ on earth, where the Church has another rebirth. THEN, after all of this happens, some say there is a final time of revolt against God, and then Christ returns to end the world.
The point is, even if antichrist arrived on the scene tomorrow, it's a long, long time before Christ comes again at the end of the world. Those who live through antichrist probably won't be alive long enough to see the 2nd coming.
Your timeline is very protestant and very wrong.
-
2nd coming?? This is very protestant thinking, man.
Catholics prepare for Our Lord's presence, every time they go to Holy Mass, and receive Him in Holy Communion.
Even if this is the time of the antichrist (which it's not, though there are many parallels), after the antichrist is killed, there is a long period of peace, the social kingship of Christ on earth, where the Church has another rebirth. THEN, after all of this happens, some say there is a final time of revolt against God, and then Christ returns to end the world.
The point is, even if antichrist arrived on the scene tomorrow, it's a long, long time before Christ comes again at the end of the world. Those who live through antichrist probably won't be alive long enough to see the 2nd coming.
Your timeline is very protestant and very wrong.
Pax, the Second Coming is Catholic Dogma. It is mentioned in the Creed where we say, "he shall come to judge the living and the dead." His coming in the Eucharist is different. You might find this (https://epicpew.com/the-three-advents/) helpful:
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who upon reflecting on that passage from John, says:
“We have come to know a threefold coming of the Lord. The third coming takes place between the other two [adventus medius]… his first coming was in the flesh and in weakness, this intermediary coming is in the spirit and in power, the last coming will be in glory and majesty” (In Adventu Domini).
Your sequence of events is not wrong, IMO. The period of peace, however, is probably very short (a handful of weeks, not years). The Warning happens before this Period of Peace, then, after this short Period of Peace, Satan is let loose again for the final "revolt against God," as you say.
Exactly what all of that means is bound up in mystery. Watch and pray, Pax. You don't want to be caught off guard. The time is now. Bergoglio is the Man of Sin, plain and simple.
-
The time is now. Bergoglio is the Man of Sin, plain and simple.
You need to read more of the Church Fathers. The antichrist will undoubtedly be near 30 years old when he takes power, and reign for 3.5 years to mock Christ. He will also win military battles at a young age and be a prodigy. When did any of this happen? When did the 7 kings conquer the 3 moral kings and then give power to the antichrist, like the Apocalypse says? When was the 3rd Temple built, or did i miss that? When was the gospel preached over the whole world and when did every nation profess the Faith, which is infallibly to happen BEFORE antichrist comes? What about Ireland and the flooding 7 years before antichrist, which St Patrick foretold? Did I miss that?
Bergoglio is certainly a type of antichrist but not THE guy. You need to read more of the Church Fathers.
-
You need to read more of the Church Fathers. The antichrist will undoubtedly be near 30 years old when he takes power, and reign for 3.5 years to mock Christ. He will also win military battles at a young age and be a prodigy. When did any of this happen? When did the 7 kings conquer the 3 moral kings and then give power to the antichrist, like the Apocalypse says? When was the 3rd Temple built, or did i miss that? When was the gospel preached over the whole world and when did every nation profess the Faith, which is infallibly to happen BEFORE antichrist comes? What about Ireland and the flooding 7 years before antichrist, which St Patrick foretold? Did I miss that?
Bergoglio is certainly a type of antichrist but not THE guy. You need to read more of the Church Fathers.
You are reading prophecies too literally:
1. Bergoglio became a "bishop" in June 1992. He took over, uncontested, at BXVI's death in December 2022. 30 years.
2. The reign of 3.5 years has most likely already begun, starting at Benedict's death.
3. The "military" battles are against "the Church Militant." It is a spiritual war for souls.
4. The "worldlings" already think "Pope Francis" is a prodigy. More to come. Watch when he negotiates "world peace."
5. The 10 "kings" (horns) are the 9 Cardinals on the Council of Cardinal Advisors (C9) plus Bergoglio. 3 were dropped in 2018 (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/40127/three-cardinals-dropped-from-c9-as-reform-process-nears-end).
6. The 7 heads of the Beast (not to be confused with the "horns") are the legitimate Popes from Pius XI through BXVI. The "eighth who is of the seven but goes to perdition (Apoc. 17:11)" is Bergoglio.
7. Third temple is the Synodal Church, the perfect realization of the modernist-ecuмenist errors seeded back in the 1960s.
8. Gospel is preached over the whole world through the Internet. The Warning will fill in the gaps. Most who convert will not persevere.
9. Flooding is a figurative metaphor for "the sea" (the world) taking over "the land" (the Church) in Ireland, which has happened. Look at abortion and same sex marriage in Ireland.
I understand that you don't believe me. Just keep an open mind. Pray about it. Watch what he does. It will become more and more clear if you look for the right things. But if you are looking for a political world dictator who turns the world into a dystopia, that is not the Antichrist.
The Antichrist is the final antipope of the Counterfeit Catholic Church, deceiving people with counterfeit sacraments and leading them to hell by making them think they can commit mortal sins without concern.
-
But if you are looking for a political world dictator who turns the world into a dystopia, that is not the Antichrist.
:laugh1:
-
:laugh1:
Description of the Antichrist in St. Hildegard von Bingen (1173 AD)
The Antichrist will indeed be infused by the devil when he opens his mouth to teach perversity, as described above. He will destroy all that God established with the ancient and the new law, and he will assert that sɛҳuąƖ immorality and other like things are not sins at all. For he will claim that it is not a sin if flesh heats up flesh, just as it is not a sin if a person warms himself by the fire. He will also assert that all commandments concerning chastity were made in ignorance, for since one person may be hot but another cold, they ought to moderate one another with their heat and cold.
And again he will say to the faithful,
“Your law of sɛҳuąƖ restraint was established contrary to the way of nature. Is a person not supposed to be hot, when his very breath is a fire that kindles his whole body? How could he keep his cool when it’s against his nature? Conversely, what reason could a person have to refuse to offer warmth to another’s flesh? For that man who you say is your master gave you a law that goes beyond measure when he bid you to live in such a way. But I say, embrace these two paths of hot and cold, and keep each other in your warm embrace? Consider that the man just mentioned gave you unjust commands, for despite his order that people not embrace one another with such warmth, they still maintained the nature of their flesh. So see here and do not be misled any longer by an unjust teaching, for with me you get to do whatever you want or not. Your master did not set before you correct propositions; he wanted you to be like a spirit that is unbound by the flesh and cannot physically do anything. But that’s not how naturally-born human flesh was created; rather its flooded and formed by fire, because if human children weren’t created in that way, they wouldn’t be capable of physical action. So know then what you really are! For your first teacher deceived you and didn’t help you in anything. But I inspire you really to learn about yourselves and to know what you are, for I created you, and I am completely in all things. In assigning all his works to another, meanwhile, that one spoke nothing on his own because he couldn’t do anything on his own. But I speak for myself, and I can do all things by myself.”
With these words and others like them, that wretched son of perdition will mislead people, teaching them to live according to the flesh’s fiery appetite and to achieve their flesh’s every want--despite the fact that both the old and the new law encourage humans to chastity in such a way that chastity does not surpass its proper measure.
The Fathers of the Church, Mediaeval Continuation, Volume 18. St. Hildegard Von Bingen, The Book of Divine Works. Pages 466-467, Part III, Vision 5, Chapter 30 (in part).
-
The (completely rash) thought occurred to me that that might even be a deliberate strategy of Francis’s handlers):
By getting rid of Francis, but going no further back, the suggestion is that there’s nothing to worry about in his predecessors (aren’t three of them “saints?!”), and the revolution is therefore strengthened and solidified.
This is where my mind went as well although I'm not convinced it is "Francis' handlers". It could be a cardinal who privately believes in Bennyvacantism (and is completely on board with Vatican II) who wants to promote that idea.
-
Description of the Antichrist in St. Hildegard von Bingen (1173 AD)
The Antichrist will indeed be infused by the devil when he opens his mouth to teach perversity, as described above. He will destroy all that God established with the ancient and the new law, and he will assert that sɛҳuąƖ immorality and other like things are not sins at all. For he will claim that it is not a sin if flesh heats up flesh, just as it is not a sin if a person warms himself by the fire. He will also assert that all commandments concerning chastity were made in ignorance, for since one person may be hot but another cold, they ought to moderate one another with their heat and cold.
And again he will say to the faithful,
“Your law of sɛҳuąƖ restraint was established contrary to the way of nature. Is a person not supposed to be hot, when his very breath is a fire that kindles his whole body? How could he keep his cool when it’s against his nature? Conversely, what reason could a person have to refuse to offer warmth to another’s flesh? For that man who you say is your master gave you a law that goes beyond measure when he bid you to live in such a way. But I say, embrace these two paths of hot and cold, and keep each other in your warm embrace? Consider that the man just mentioned gave you unjust commands, for despite his order that people not embrace one another with such warmth, they still maintained the nature of their flesh. So see here and do not be misled any longer by an unjust teaching, for with me you get to do whatever you want or not. Your master did not set before you correct propositions; he wanted you to be like a spirit that is unbound by the flesh and cannot physically do anything. But that’s not how naturally-born human flesh was created; rather its flooded and formed by fire, because if human children weren’t created in that way, they wouldn’t be capable of physical action. So know then what you really are! For your first teacher deceived you and didn’t help you in anything. But I inspire you really to learn about yourselves and to know what you are, for I created you, and I am completely in all things. In assigning all his works to another, meanwhile, that one spoke nothing on his own because he couldn’t do anything on his own. But I speak for myself, and I can do all things by myself.”
With these words and others like them, that wretched son of perdition will mislead people, teaching them to live according to the flesh’s fiery appetite and to achieve their flesh’s every want--despite the fact that both the old and the new law encourage humans to chastity in such a way that chastity does not surpass its proper measure.
The Fathers of the Church, Mediaeval Continuation, Volume 18. St. Hildegard Von Bingen, The Book of Divine Works. Pages 466-467, Part III, Vision 5, Chapter 30 (in part).
I don't see anywhere in the quote above which says that THE antichrist will be a pope.
All of the conciliar Popes have led people astray, not just Francis. Otherwise, Archbishop Lefebvre (and others) would not have taken the course of action that he (they) did.
They have all been infused by Modernist ideals. Francis is more upfront and bold about it, of course. It's likely going to get worse than it is. There still are not women ordained as priests or deacons in the conciliar church, but that may be coming. Nor is it yet the norm for married men to be ordained. I don't think that these will happen under Francis, but I could be wrong.
-
I don't see anywhere in the quote above which says that THE antichrist will be a pope.
Right, this is a protestant lie. The antichrist will create a one-world, man-made, humanistic religion (i.e. an anti-church). His one-world govt and one-world anti-church will work together to spread evil, lies and abominations across the globe. But...the Catholic Church will still remain, and, as St Malachy's prophecies tell us, there will be a pope in the last days to nurture the faithful. God will also send the world Enoch and Elias to work miracles, preach the gospel and rebuke the evils of the day.
-
I don't see anywhere in the quote above which says that THE antichrist will be a pope.
All of the conciliar Popes have led people astray, not just Francis. Otherwise, Archbishop Lefebvre (and others) would not have taken the course of action that he (they) did.
They have all been infused by Modernist ideals. Francis is more upfront and bold about it, of course. It's likely going to get worse than it is. There still are not women ordained as priests or deacons in the conciliar church, but that may be coming. Nor is it yet the norm for married men to be ordained. I don't think that these will happen under Francis, but I could be wrong.
He (Bergoglio) is not a true Pope. He is an antipope, as I have explained over and over. A true Pope cannot be the Antichrist. That is a Protestant mistake/lie.
But a person who has deceived "the faithful" into believing he is the Pope, when he really isn't, and therefore leads "the faithful" astray is exactly the method of the False Prophet/Antichrist/Man of Sin/Son of Perdition/Little Horn.
Note that St. Hildegard prefaces the quote from the Antichrist with these words:
"And again he will say to the faithful,..."
According to St. Hildegard, he is speaking to "the faithful." And "the faithful" will be listening to him as their teacher. These "faithful" for St. Hildegard can be none other than "faithful" Catholics, the "elect."
Now, I ask you who do "faithful" Catholics accept as their infallible teacher on this earth? Only the person that they think is the Pope, right? But in this case (with the Antichrist) he will not be a legitimate Pope with infallible teaching authority. He will be an Antipope and God will allow him to teach error.
2 Thessalonians 2 explains all of this. God allows them to be deceived because they loved sinning more than the Truth. And the Antipope/Antichrist told them exactly what they wanted to hear, specifically that they could sin without remorse.
-
Right, this is a protestant lie. The antichrist will create a one-world, man-made, humanistic religion (i.e. an anti-church). His one-world govt and one-world anti-church will work together to spread evil, lies and abominations across the globe. But...the Catholic Church will still remain, and, as St Malachy's prophecies tell us, there will be a pope in the last days to nurture the faithful. God will also send the world Enoch and Elias to work miracles, preach the gospel and rebuke the evils of the day.
Yes, the one-world, man-made, humanistic religion (i.e., the anti-church) is the Synodal Church that you will see come out of the Synod on Synodality. It will be said to be based on the proper interpretation of Vatican II, what BXVI called "the hermeneutic of rupture."
This Anti-church is already existing in its false doctrine and false sacraments. It has existed in a lesser to greater degree since VII. But up to now, this false strand has existed alongside the remnant of the true Church. Both have been acknowledged to be inside the Catholic church since VII. But very soon, the true Church, the part carrying on the true doctrine and true sacraments will be unwelcome in the Synodal Church. At that point the break will be complete. We are likely months (not years) away from this.
-
He (Bergoglio) is not a true Pope. He is an antipope, as I have explained over and over. A true Pope cannot be the Antichrist. That is a Protestant mistake/lie.
But a person who has deceived "the faithful" into believing he is the Pope, when he really isn't, and therefore leads "the faithful" astray is exactly the method of the False Prophet/Antichrist/Man of Sin/Son of Perdition/Little Horn.
Note that St. Hildegard prefaces the quote from the Antichrist with these words:
"And again he will say to the faithful,..."
According to St. Hildegard, he is speaking to "the faithful." And "the faithful" will be listening to him as their teacher. These "faithful" for St. Hildegard can be none other than "faithful" Catholics, the "elect."
Now, I ask you who do "faithful" Catholics accept as their infallible teacher on this earth? Only the person that they think is the Pope, right? But in this case (with the Antichrist) he will not be a legitimate Pope with infallible teaching authority. He will be an Antipope and God will allow him to teach error.
2 Thessalonians 2 explains all of this. God allows them to be deceived because they loved sinning more than the Truth. And the Antipope/Antichrist told them exactly what they wanted to hear, specifically that they could sin without remorse.
Where in Catholic teachings does it specifically state say that a fake pope of a fake church will be THE antichrist?
Also, where in Catholic doctrine does it say anything about "Little Horn" in relation to the antichrist? I looked up "Little Horn" and could only find protestant references to the "evil" Catholic Church.
-
Where in Catholic teachings does it specifically state say that a fake pope of the a fake church will be THE antichrist?
Also, where in Catholic doctrine does it say anything about "Little Horn" in relation to the antichrist? I looked up "Little Horn" and could only find protestant references to the "evil" Catholic Church.
The prophecies speak in riddles. The riddles need to be unravelled. You must read between the lines. You must 2 and 2 together yourself. You will not be given the answer. It is a test.
There is no doubt that "the Little Horn," described in Daniel 7 and 8, is considered by the Church Fathers to be "the Antichrist." Just open your Douay-Rheims to Daniel 7. Look at the footnote on Ver. 8 which says:
"Another little horn. This is commonly understood of Antichrist. It may also be applied to that great persecutor Antiochus Epiphanes, a as a figure of Antichrist."
-
The prophecies speak in riddles. The riddles need to be unravelled. You must read between the lines. You must 2 and 2 together yourself. You will not be given the answer. It is a test.
Are you serious?
-
There is no doubt that "the Little Horn," described in Daniel 7 and 8, is considered by the Church Fathers to be "the Antichrist." Just open your Douay-Rheims to Daniel 7. Look at the footnote on Ver. 8 which says:
"Another little horn. This is commonly understood of Antichrist. It may also be applied to that great persecutor Antiochus Epiphanes, a as a figure of Antichrist."
Okay, I'll look it up.
So I looked it up. It does say what you said it did. But this is still not proof of your assertions - that the current fake Pope (fake in your opinion), Francis, is THE antichrist as foretold in Scripture.
-
Are you serious?
Dead serious, Meg. You are expected to apply yourself and pray for guidance of the Holy Spirit. If you ask with humble heart, your prayer will certainly be answered.
-
Dead serious, Meg. You are expected to apply yourself and pray for guidance of the Holy Spirit. If you ask with humble heart, your prayer will certainly be answered.
So you are some sort of prophet? Does the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity speak to you directly?
-
So you are some sort of prophet? Does the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity speak to you directly?
You crack me up, Meg. You seem to obsessed with who I am. I don't matter.
I refer you to the Bible. I refer you to the Church Fathers. I refer you to St. Hildegard. I tell you my interpretation of those writings.
The writings that I refer to are the important part, not my interpretation. You might agree or disagree with my interpretation. We can have a discussion about that disagreement. I am not infallible.
But yes, I believe in truth and the Holy Spirit as the one and only guide to finding it. Why do I believe this? Because Jesus said it in John 14:
22 Judas saith to him, not the Iscariot: Lord, how is it, that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world? 23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words. And the word which you have heard, is not mine; but the Father's who sent me. 25 These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you. 26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.
Do you believe those words, Meg?
-
You crack me up, Meg. You seem to obsessed with who I am. I don't matter.
I refer you to the Bible. I refer you to the Church Fathers. I refer you to St. Hildegard. I tell you my interpretation of those writings.
The writings that I refer to are the important part, not my interpretation. You might agree or disagree with my interpretation. We can have a discussion about that disagreement. I am not infallible.
But yes, I believe in truth and the Holy Spirit as the one and only guide to finding it. Why do I believe this? Because Jesus said it in John 14:
22 Judas saith to him, not the Iscariot: Lord, how is it, that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world? 23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words. And the word which you have heard, is not mine; but the Father's who sent me. 25 These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you. 26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.
Do you believe those words, Meg?
I'm just trying to find out why you insist that we accept your beliefs. I'm glad to see that you are okay with us disagreeing with your interpretations, and that you don't believe that you are infallible, because you sure seemed to think that we must accept your interpretations.
The Holy Ghost is the Sanctifier. He's not there to provide us with predictions of the future, like the goofball charismatics seem to think.
-
I'm just trying to find out why you insist that we accept your beliefs. I'm glad to see that you are okay with us disagreeing with your interpretations, and that you don't believe that you are infallible, because you sure seemed to think that we must accept your interpretations.
The Holy Ghost is the Sanctifier. He's not there to provide us with predictions for the future, like the goofball charismatics seem to think.
Meg, I am not a relativist. I do believe there is one Truth, not just a bunch of opinions. So when I speak passionately about something, I believe that I am speaking the Truth, not my truth.
Since you like personal questions, can I ask you one? Have you ever taken a philosophy class? Or at least read some Plato? Reading just one of his dialogues will help you understand the difference that I am making in the paragraph above. I don't ask the question to belittle you. I am sincerely trying to understand why you seem so hostile to my approach.
Jesus is the Logos. The Word. The Truth incarnate. We Catholics are his missionaries to uphold and spread the Truth in the world. We must be passionate about that as he was, even if it has a high social cost.
-
there ae many anti-Christs. Martin Luther was one.
-
Meg, I am not a relativist. I do believe there is one Truth, not just a bunch of opinions. So when I speak passionately about something, I believe that I am speaking the Truth, not my truth.
Since you like personal questions, can I ask you one? Have you ever taken a philosophy class? Or at least read some Plato? Reading just one of his dialogues will help you understand the difference that I am making in the paragraph above. I don't ask the question to belittle you. I am sincerely trying to understand why you seem so hostile to my approach.
Jesus is the Logos. The Word. The Truth incarnate. We Catholics are his missionaries to uphold and spread the Truth in the world. We must be passionate about that as he was, even if it has a high social cost.
No, I've never taken a philosophy class - and I don't mind that you ask. I've not read Plato, but I've read Aristotle, because he's more in line with Catholic teaching (per the Angelic Doctor). I'm just a simple Catholic housewife, but that doesn't mean that I'm obligated to accept your belief that Francis is THE antichrist. I think that there are others on the forum here who disagree with you, and they are far better educated than I.
I don't believe that I'm hostile to your views, I just don't agree with them. Is there another way to voice my disagreement, that you would find more charitable and acceptable?
-
No, I've never taken a philosophy class - and I don't mind that you ask. I've not read Plato, but I've read Aristotle, because he's more in line with Catholic teaching (per the Angelic Doctor) I'm just a simple Catholic housewife, but that doesn't mean that I'm obligated to accept your belief that Francis is THE antichrist. I think that there are others on the forum here who disagree with you, and they are far better educated than I.
I don't believe that I'm hostile to your views, I just don't agree with them. Is there another way to voice my disagreement, that you would find more charitable and acceptable?
That's fine. No philosophy background. May I suggest reading Plato's Gorgias? It deals with the question of the search for Truth as opposed to engaging in rhetoric. It was the first philosophy book that I read. It is a dialogue. Not hard to read.
Meg, as a Catholic, you are obligated to seek and follow the Truth. Sometimes it takes a lot of work to find the Truth. But work we must.
When you say that you disagree with my views, that is not really a discussion. You are just making a statement. A better approach would be to pick a specific point of disagreement and explain why you disagree, ideally using authoritative Catholic sources to bolster your position. Then you might be able to help me see where I am going wrong.
-
Meg, as a Catholic, you are obligated to seek and follow the Truth. Sometimes it takes a lot of work to find the Truth. But work we must.
I'm a traditional Catholic. I don't have to "seek" after anything. I have already found the Truth, and that's the Truth of the Catholic Faith.
If the Catholic Faith, as it was taught before Vatican ll, isn't enough for you, I understand that. But I have what I need, though the Church, to save my soul, though it takes a lot of work. I don't need access to predictions of the future in order to do that. As Catholics, we must always be watchful. That doesn't change with the times.
-
I'm a traditional Catholic. I don't have to "seek" after anything. I have already found the Truth, and that's the Truth of the Catholic Faith.
If the Catholic Faith, as it was taught before Vatican ll, isn't enough for you, I understand that. But I have what I need, though the Church, to save my soul, though it takes a lot of work. I don't need access to predictions of the future in order to do that. As Catholics, we must always be watchful. That doesn't change with the times.
Meg, you seem to be more a lover of rhetoric than a lover of Truth. Yes, the traditional Catholic Faith is the Truth. But you act in ways that contradict the traditional Catholic Faith.
1. You make comments belittling prophecy, when most of Sacred Scripture is prophetical.
2. You think you don't need to worry about "predictions of the future," when Scripture tells you "don't despise prophecy."
3. You think if a prophecy is not immediately obvious to Meg, then its content is impossible for anyone to understand.
4. You think if a Catholic layman offers an interpretation of a prophecy, he has done something Protestant-like.
5. You make uncharitable comments to fellow Catholics who have don't nothing to you.
Those things are not consistent with the Catholic Faith. In fact, those things "contradict" the Truth taught by the Catholic Faith. But, for some reason, you cannot see that "contradiction."
-
One interesting implication of Francis not being pope would be that the sees of a large number of the world’s dioceses would also be vacant (the bishops having been appointed being invalid).
-
Meg, you seem to be more a lover of rhetoric than a lover of Truth. Yes, the traditional Catholic Faith is the Truth. But you act in ways that contradict the traditional Catholic Faith.
1. You make comments belittling prophecy, when most of Sacred Scripture is prophetical.
2. You think you don't need to worry about "predictions of the future," when Scripture tells you "don't despise prophecy."
3. You think if a prophecy is not immediately obvious to Meg, then its content is impossible for anyone to understand.
4. You think if a Catholic layman offers an interpretation of a prophecy, he has done something Protestant-like.
5. You make uncharitable comments to fellow Catholics who have don't nothing to you.
Those things are not consistent with the Catholic Faith. In fact, those things "contradict" the Truth taught by the Catholic Faith. But, for some reason, you cannot see that "contradiction."
I used to debate with the few charismatics on the old Catholic Answers forum. They used some of the same arguments that you do (and no, I'm not saying that you're a charismatic). They too were overly sensitive, as if disagreeing with them was the same as disagreeing with the Holy Ghost.
If you can show specific Church teaching, or specific citations from the Church Fathers which show CLEARLY that a fake pope of a fake church in Rome that was previously Catholic would become the seat of the antichrist, then I will pay more attention to your claims. They key here, IMO, is clear references to your claims, not inferences.
-
I used to debate with the few charismatics on the old Catholic Answers forum. They used some of the same arguments that you do (and no, I'm not saying that you're a charismatic). They too were overly sensitive, as if disagreeing with them was the same as disagreeing with the Holy Ghost.
If you can show specific Church teaching, or specific citations from the Church Fathers which show CLEARLY that a fake pope of a fake church in Rome that was previously Catholic would become the seat of the antichrist, then I will pay more attention to your claims. They key here, IMO, is clear references to your claims, not inferences.
Read carefully Meg:
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~2Thess.C2.L1.n40
40. When he says so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God, he gives the sign of this wrongdoing. For the Antichrist’s pride is greater than the pride of all who came before him. So as it is written of Gaius Caesar that he wanted to be worshiped while he was still alive, and put statues of himself in every temple, and as Ezekiel says of the king of Tyre, I have said that I am God (Ezek 28:2), so it is quite believable that the Antichrist will act as they did, saying that he is both God and man. And as a sign of this he will sit in the temple.
But in what temple? Was it not destroyed by the Romans? This is why some say that the Antichrist is from the tribe of Dan, whose tribe is not named among the other twelve in Revelation (Rev 7:5). Because of this, the Jews will accept him at first, and will rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, and thus Daniel will be fulfilled: an abomination and an idol will be in the temple (Dan 9:27). But when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place, let him who reads understand (Matt 24:15).
But some say that neither Jerusalem nor the temple will ever be rebuilt, but that their desolation will last until the final consummation. And even some Jews believe this. So this text is explained to mean in the temple of God, i.e., in the Church, since many from the church will accept him. Or according to Augustine, he sits in the temple of God, i.e., he rules and governs as though he himself with his messengers were the temple of God, as Christ is the temple with his adherents.
-
Read carefully Meg:
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~2Thess.C2.L1.n40
40. When he says so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God, he gives the sign of this wrongdoing. For the Antichrist’s pride is greater than the pride of all who came before him. So as it is written of Gaius Caesar that he wanted to be worshiped while he was still alive, and put statues of himself in every temple, and as Ezekiel says of the king of Tyre, I have said that I am God (Ezek 28:2), so it is quite believable that the Antichrist will act as they did, saying that he is both God and man. And as a sign of this he will sit in the temple.
But in what temple? Was it not destroyed by the Romans? This is why some say that the Antichrist is from the tribe of Dan, whose tribe is not named among the other twelve in Revelation (Rev 7:5). Because of this, the Jєωs will accept him at first, and will rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, and thus Daniel will be fulfilled: an abomination and an idol will be in the temple (Dan 9:27). But when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place, let him who reads understand (Matt 24:15).
But some say that neither Jerusalem nor the temple will ever be rebuilt, but that their desolation will last until the final consummation. And even some Jєωs believe this. So this text is explained to mean in the temple of God, i.e., in the Church, since many from the church will accept him. Or according to Augustine, he sits in the temple of God, i.e., he rules and governs as though he himself with his messengers were the temple of God, as Christ is the temple with his adherents.
I asked for clear references to your claims. So far, you have not provided that.
-
I asked for clear references to your claims. So far, you have not provided that.
Meg, here is exactly what you asked for:
If you can show specific Church teaching, or specific citations from the Church Fathers which show CLEARLY that a fake pope of a fake church in Rome that was previously Catholic would become the seat of the antichrist, then I will pay more attention to your claims. They key here, IMO, is clear references to your claims, not inferences.
I have shown you in my previous post that St. Thomas is quoting "some" of the Church Fathers as saying that the Antichrist will "sit" [sedeat] in the "Temple of God" which is explained that he will have his seat "in the Church, since many from the church will accept him."
Now, Meg, what do we call the person who has his "seat" [See] in Rome and governs "the Church." Is this not the person who claims to be "the Pope?" How can this be any more "clear?"
And what will the Antichrist do according to St. Thomas? He will "put statues [statua] of himself in every temple." That is a reference to Daniel 2:31, as St. Thomas says in section 34. Did you know that "statua" can mean images or portraits, in Latin. Have you noticed that all the chapels/churches you go into have a "portrait" of Bergoglio in the vestibule and if you ask them to remove it they will look at you like you are crazy?
What other living person do you know of that has his portrait displayed in every Catholic Church?
-
Meg, here is exactly what you asked for:
I have shown you in my previous post that St. Thomas is quoting "some" of the Church Fathers as saying that the Antichrist will "sit" [sedeat] in the "Temple of God" which is explained that he will have his seat "in the Church, since many from the church will accept him."
Now, Meg, what do we call the person who has his "seat" [See] in Rome and governs "the Church." Is this not the person who claims to be "the Pope?" How can this be any more "clear?"
And what will the Antichrist do according to St. Thomas? He will "put statues [statua] of himself in every temple." That is a reference to Daniel 2:31, as St. Thomas says in section 34. Did you know that "statua" can mean images or portraits, in Latin. Have you noticed that all the chapels/churches you go into have a "portrait" of Bergoglio in the vestibule and if you ask them to remove it they will look at you like you are crazy?
What other living person do you know of that has his portrait displayed in every Catholic Church?
Are you not aware that it is a common practice for Catholic churches to display a portrait of the Pope? Even SSPX chapels have a photo of Francis displayed. They've always done this, even though the Popes have been Modernists.
Also, if you look at St. Thomas' number 40 in the link you provided, you'll see that St. Thomas says that the antichrist will say that he is "both God and man." When has Francis ever said that he is "both God and man"?
-
Are you not aware that it is a common practice for Catholic churches to display a portrait of the Pope? Even SSPX chapels have a photo of Francis displayed. They've always done this, even though the Popes have been Modernists.
Yes, Meg. The person that everyone thinks is "the Pope" is displayed in every "temple" (i.e., Church). The Antichrist will not be special in that respect. Because he is presumed to be the Pope (but actually an Antipope), his portrait will also be displayed in every church. What is special about the Antichrist is that he is actually an Antipope and apostate. He is not a true Pope. He is a destroyer of the Church. He will try to destroy it from within.
St. Thomas says, "many from the church will accept him." Accept him as what? As the leader of the Church. Who is the leader of the Church? The presumed Pope. But in Bergoglio's case, he is a non-canonically-elected Antipope. It's just that "many from the Church" [i.e., the Roman Catholic Church] haven't figured that out yet.
The reason they haven't figured this out is that there is a great "religious deception" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 675). The reason that Catholics fall for this deception is explained in 2 Thessalonians 2. It is because those deceived love sinning more than the Truth. They do not keep the Commandments of God, and so, their understanding is darkened, and they cannot not see the obvious. The simple fix for this is to sincerely repent of all sins and receive the Sacrament of Penance.
-
+Carol Wojtyla was consecrated a bishop in 1958, and he consecrated +Vigano in 1992. Does anyone on CI know what form was used for the consecration of +Vigano, new or old rite?
-
Yes, Meg. The person that everyone thinks is "the Pope" is displayed in every "temple" (i.e., Church). The Antichrist will not be special in that respect. Because he is presumed to be the Pope (but actually an Antipope), his portrait will also be displayed in every church. What is special about the Antichrist is that he is actually an Antipope and apostate. He is not a true Pope. He is a destroyer of the Church. He will try to destroy it from within.
St. Thomas says, "many from the church will accept him." Accept him as what? As the leader of the Church. Who is the leader of the Church? The presumed Pope. But in Bergoglio's case, he is a non-canonically-elected Antipope. It's just that "many from the Church" [i.e., the Roman Catholic Church] haven't figured that out yet.
The reason they haven't figured this out is that there is a great "religious deception" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 675). The reason that Catholics fall for this deception is explained in 2 Thessalonians 2. It is because those deceived love sinning more than the Truth. They do not keep the Commandments of God, and so, their understanding is darkened, and they cannot not see the obvious. The simple fix for this is to sincerely repent of all sins and receive the Sacrament of Penance.
Why do you refer to churches [conciliar churches] as "temples"?
-
Also, if you look at St. Thomas' number 40 in the link you provided, you'll see that St. Thomas says that the antichrist will say that he is "both God and man." When has Francis ever said that he is "both God and man"?
Meg, St. Thomas says "And as a sign of this he will sit in the temple." In other words, the mere fact that the Antichrist (the apostate) is SEATED in the Temple is "a sign" that this man thinks he is God. The Antichrist does not submit himself to God's Law. He has his own law. He thinks he is above God. One who thinks his doctrine is superior to God's doctrine, acts "as if he is God."
Now, let's look at what Bergoglio has actually done and said. In the Footnote 351 from Amoris Laetitia (https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/docuмents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf), Bergoglio holds that divorced and remarried Catholics (without annulment) may receive Holy Communion. His position amounts to moral relativism. The Church has always taught, following Our Lord, that divorce and remarriage is a mortal sin. The Church has also taught, following St. Paul, that those in a state of mortal sin cannot receive Holy Communion.
Bergoglio contradicts Our Lord and Sacred Scripture and the perennial teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. He thinks his doctrine is superior to God's doctrine. That, Meg, is "showing himself as if he is God," while he "sits in the Temple of God."
-
Why do you refer to churches [conciliar churches] as "temples"?
St. Thomas, following "some" of the Church Fathers interpretation, identified "the Church" with "the temple of God," Meg. St. Thomas says in the paragraph above that that the Antichrist will erect his image/statue/portrait in "every temple" (aka "every church"):
"So as it is written of Gaius Caesar that he wanted to be worshiped while he was still alive, and put statues of himself in every temple, and as Ezekiel says of the king of Tyre, I have said that I am God (Ezek 28:2), so it is quite believable that the Antichrist will act as they did..."
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~2Thess.C2.L1.n40
-
Meg, St. Thomas says "And as a sign of this he will sit in the temple." In other words, the mere fact that the Antichrist (the apostate) is SEATED in the Temple is "a sign" that this man thinks he is God. The Antichrist does not submit himself to God's Law. He has his own law. He thinks he is above God. One who thinks his doctrine is superior to God's doctrine, acts "as if he is God."
Now, let's look at what Bergoglio has actually done and said. In the Footnote 351 from Amoris Laetitia (https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/docuмents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf), Bergoglio holds that divorced and remarried Catholics (without annulment) may receive Holy Communion. His position amounts to moral relativism. The Church has always taught, following Our Lord, that divorce and remarriage is a mortal sin. The Church has also taught, following St. Paul, that those in a state of mortal sin cannot receive Holy Communion.
Bergoglio contradicts Our Lord and Sacred Scripture and the perennial teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. He thinks his doctrine is superior to God's doctrine. That, Meg, is "showing himself as if he is God," while he "sits in the Temple of God."
Except that Francis has not said that he is both God and Man, as St. Thomas said the Antichrist would say. Angelus, Francis is a dufus Modernist, and not a particularly bright one. You give him too much credit by thinking that he is THE Antichrist.
All of the Modernist popes have wanted to change the Church into a relativistic church, and they have worked tirelessly to this end, Angelus. All of the Modernist popes have contradicted the True teachings of the Church. It's what they do.
-
St. Thomas, following "some" of the Church Fathers interpretation, identified "the Church" with "the temple of God," Meg. St. Thomas says in the paragraph above that that the Antichrist will erect his image/statue/portrait in "every temple" (aka "every church"):
"So as it is written of Gaius Caesar that he wanted to be worshiped while he was still alive, and put statues of himself in every temple, and as Ezekiel says of the king of Tyre, I have said that I am God (Ezek 28:2), so it is quite believable that the Antichrist will act as they did..."
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~2Thess.C2.L1.n40
Angelus, it is common to put a photo or portrait of the Pope in Catholic churches, and even the conciliar church does this. This in itself does not demonstrate that the Pope is the Antichrist, Angelus.
Angelus, I still think that it is odd that you keep referring to conciliar churches as "Temples."
-
Except that Francis has not said that he is both God and Man, as St. Thomas said the Antichrist would say. Angelus, Francis is a dufus Modernist, and not a particularly bright one. You give him too much credit by thinking that he is THE Antichrist.
All of the Modernist popes have wanted to change the Church into a relativistic church, and they have worked tirelessly to this end, Angelus. All of the Modernist popes have contradicted the True teachings of the Church. It's what they do.
Meg, your reading of St. Thomas is slavishly literal. St. Paul said the Antichrist will show/reveal "himself as if he were God." Do you see those words "as if he were?" They mean something other than simply saying he will declare that he is God. You are not reading these quotes from St. Thomas carefully and properly.
Now, you make some strong statements without any references to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Please prove what you mean when you say, "Francis is a dufus Modernist, and not a particularly bright one." And tell me how you, a mere layperson, has the right to say such things.
You are calling the guy, who you think is "the Pope" of the Roman Catholic Church, a "Modernist." Do you even know what that word means? Please explain to me how you are not a blasphemer (Second Commandment) or failing to honor the highest authority in the Church, the Holy Father (Fourth Commandment). Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. You are calling the person you believe to be "the Holy Father," the "Vicar of Christ," a horrible heretic, and a "dufus."
Are you really Catholic, Meg? Please explain the apparent contradiction.
P.S. I'll give you some help. https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.II-II.Q33.A4
-
You are calling the guy, who you think is "the Pope" of the Roman Catholic Church, a "Modernist." Do you even know what that word means? Please explain to me how you are not a blasphemer (Second Commandment) or failing to honor the highest authority in the Church, the Holy Father (Fourth Commandment). Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. You are calling the person you believe to be "the Holy Father," the "Vicar of Christ," a horrible heretic, and a "dufus."
Are you really Catholic, Meg? Please explain the apparent contradiction.
P.S. I'll give you some help. https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.II-II.Q33.A4
Is it "dufus" or "Modernist" that you have trouble with? Or both? So we are not allowed to refer to a Modernist pope as a Modernist or a dufus. Huh.
Angelus, if you want to disagree with the "dufus" designation, alright. But Archbishop Lefebvre referred to the Modernist Popes as Modernists. I think I'm in good company there. And, in case you were wondering, Archbishop Lefebvre was a Catholic. Have you ever heard of Archbishop Lefebvre?
The point being, do you really think that someone like Francis is the Son of Satan? Don't you think that Francis would be a little more intelligent, if that were the case?
-
Meg, your reading of St. Thomas is slavishly literal. St. Paul said the Antichrist will show/reveal "himself as if he were God." Do you see those words "as if he were?" They mean something other than simply saying he will declare that he is God. You are not reading these quotes from St. Thomas carefully and properly.
P.S. I'll give you some help. https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.II-II.Q33.A4
Have you looked at number 40 on the site that you linked to? Number 40 states, partly:
"so that when he sits in the Temple of God, showing himself as if he were God, he gives a sign of this wrongdoing" [...] "so it is quite believable that the Antichrist will act as they did, saying that he is both God and Man."
-
Is it "dufus" or "Modernist" that you have trouble with? Or both? So we are not allowed to refer to a Modernist pope as a Modernist or a dufus. Huh.
Angelus, if you want to disagree with the "dufus" designation, alright. But Archbishop Lefebvre referred to the Modernist Popes as Modernists. I think I'm in good company there. And, in case you were wondering, Archbishop Lefebvre was a Catholic. Have you ever heard of Archbishop Lefebvre?
The point being, do you really think that someone like Francis is the Son of Satan? Don't you think that Francis would be a little more intelligent, if that were the case?
Meg, sorry, no. If Archbishop Lefebvre said that a circle is really a square, would you believe him? And would you think you can say the same thing?
You can call a person who deceptively calls himself "the Pope," a "Modernist," but a Modernist cannot be the true, authoritative Pope. Just like a circle cannot be a square. This is Catholic 101, Meg.
Bergoglio is, without a doubt, not a real Pope, and he is possessed by Satan. He is extremely intelligent, capable and powerful. In fact, a number of billionaires and most of the world's leaders visit him and want his approval. He is invited to give speeches to the UN. Whenever he speaks, the news media covers it in all languages. His Synod is about to completely invert Church teaching and you call him a "dufus."
-
Meg, sorry, no. If Archbishop Lefebvre said that a circle is really a square, would you believe him? And would you think you can say the same thing?
This isn't about a circle really being a square. I believe the same as Archbishop Lefebvre, who was treated very badly by the Modernist Popes, specifically JP2. He called them Modernists. And I'll take his word over yours.
Traditionalists aren't treated any better by the Modernist pope now, than they were when Archbishop Lefebvre was alive. The Modernists still hate the Old Mass and Tradition. It's been that way for awhile now.
-
This isn't about a circle really being a square. I believe the same as Archbishop Lefebvre, who was treated very badly by the Modernist Popes, specifically JP2. He called them Modernists. And I'll take his word over yours.
Traditionalists aren't treated any better by the Modernist pope now, than they were when Archbishop Lefebvre was alive. The Modernists still hate the Old Mass and Tradition. It's been that way for awhile now.
You dodged my question about your disrespectful attitude for "the Pope" and how that would be a sin according to Catholic teaching.
If you think Bergoglio is truly "the Pope," you do not act like a Catholic must act towards "the Pope." Here is the relevant teaching from the Catechism of Pius X:
Question 62
Q. How should every Catholic act towards the Pope?
A. Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart.
Do you consider yourself to be "united with [Bergoglio] in mind and heart?" Do you consider Bergoglio your "Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher?" That is what the Catholic Faith requires of you, Meg.
Or do you think that the Catechism of Pius X is not Catholic teaching.
-
You dodged my question about your disrespectful attitude for "the Pope" and how that would be a sin according to Catholic teaching.
If you think Bergoglio is truly "the Pope," you do not act like a Catholic must act towards "the Pope." Here is the relevant teaching from the Catechism of Pius X:
Question 62
Q. How should every Catholic act towards the Pope?
A. Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart.
Do you consider yourself to be "united with [Bergoglio] in mind and heart?" Do you consider Bergoglio your "Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher?" That is what the Catholic Faith requires of you, Meg.
Or do you think that the Catechism of Pius X is not Catholic teaching.
I would have thought it was obvious, given my mentioning of Archbishop Lefebvre, that the popes since Vll have been Modernists. No, I'm not united with Francis in mind and heart. We obey God before men. The Pope is not God.
-
I would have thought it was obvious, given my mentioning of Archbishop Lefebvre, that the popes since Vll have been Modernists. No, I'm not united with Francis in mind and heart. We obey God before men. The Pope is not God.
Okay Meg. Now let's do some logic.
Pius X said: "Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart."
Meg said: "I'm not united with Francis in mind and heart."
Therefore, we must conclude, logically:
EITHER "Meg does not think Francis is the Pope, and Meg might be Catholic."
OR "Meg does think Francis is the Pope, and Meg is definitely not Catholic."
Which is it Meg? Is Francis the Pope, defined as "the Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher" by Pius X?
-
Okay Meg. Now let's do some logic.
Pius X said: "Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart."
Meg said: "I'm not united with Francis in mind and heart."
Therefore, we must conclude, logically:
EITHER "Meg does not think 'Francis' is the Pope, and Meg might be Catholic."
OR "Meg does think Francis is the Pope, and Meg is definitely not Catholic."
Which is it Meg? Is Francis "the Pope, defined as "the Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher" by Pius X?
Perhaps you aren't aware of it, but there's a serious Crisis in the Church. The Church is currently occupied by a Modernist sect. I could refer you to some resources about what Modernism is, if you would like, since you appear to not understand this problem.
I would love to be united with the Pope in heart and mind. Unfortunately, I'm prevented from doing that. The Pope is the visible head of the Church, but he is not the actual head. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the actual head of the Catholic Church, and I obey Him.
-
+Carol Wojtyla was consecrated a bishop in 1958, and he consecrated +Vigano in 1992. Does anyone on CI know what form was used for the consecration of +Vigano, new or old rite?
Why would JPII-we-love-you use the Old, Traditional Rite....in 1992!?
-
Perhaps you aren't aware of it, but there's a serious Crisis in the Church. The Church is currently occupied by a Modernist sect. I could refer you to some resources about what Modernism is, if you would like, since you appear to not understand this problem.
I would love to be united with the Pope in heart and mind. Unfortunately, I'm prevented from doing that. The Pope is the visible head of the Church, but he is not the actual head. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the actual head, and I obey Him.
Let's try again.
MAJOR PREMISE:
Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart.
MINOR PREMISE:
Meg is not united with Pope Francis in mind and heart
CONCLUSION:
Meg is not Catholic.
Do you see how nifty that is? God gave us that so we can detect lies. It's called a Syllogism and it uses the principle of non-contradiction to discover the Truth.
Now Meg, will you admit that your position that a real, authoritative Pope can be a Modernist is not rationally defensible, or will you be obstinate in your refusal to submit to Catholic teaching that an authoritative Pope cannot be a heretic?
-
Let's try again.
MAJOR PREMISE:
Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart.
MINOR PREMISE:
Meg is not united with Pope Francis in mind and heart
CONCLUSION:
Meg is not Catholic.
Do you see how nifty that is? God gave us that so we can detect lies. It's called a Syllogism and it uses the principle of non-contradiction to discover the Truth.
Now Meg, will you admit that your position that a real, authoritative Pope can be a Modernist is not rationally defensible, or will you be obstinate in your refusal to submit to Catholic teaching that an authoritative Pope cannot be a heretic?
Your approach to the Crisis in the Church is different from mine and that of Archbishop Lefebvre. I can't really address your approach, since it completely differs from mine.
Archbishop Lefebvre said that the Crisis is a mystery. Why would God allow such a thing? And yet He has. Like the Archbishop, I don't take the most drastic approach to the Crisis. You have chosen differently.
-
Your approach to the Crisis in the Church is different from mine and that of Archbishop Lefebvre. I can't really address your approach, since it completely differs from mine.
Archbishop Lefebvre said that the Crisis is a mystery. Why would God allow such a thing? And yet He has. Like the Archbishop, I don't take the most drastic approach to the Crisis. You have chosen differently.
Meg, the Truth is one. There are not multiple truths. A round thing is not a square. A square thing is not a circle. We don't get to just make up stuff. Reality is reality.
If you are not willing to say that you are "united to Bergoglio in mind and heart," good for you! The Holy Spirit is guiding you. Follow your conscience on that.
The next part about your response to "the Crisis in the Church" is secondary to following your conscience. You correctly believe that Bergoglio is a Modernist heretic and you are not "united" with him. This means you probably are Catholic. But you are just confused about how to respond to the question of "who's the Pope."
But, as I have shown you, you cannot BOTH withhold your "unity" with Bergoglio AND believe that Bergoglio is the authoritative Pope. To hold that position contradicts the Catholic Faith.
So the easy answer is to acknowledge that Bergoglio is simply not the Pope. He is an Antipope. That argument would go something like this:
MAJOR PREMISE:
No person can be both a Modernist heretic and an authoritative Pope at the same time.
MINOR PREMISE:
Bergoglio is a Modernist heretic.
CONCLUSION:
Bergoglio cannot be the authoritative Pope.
Where does this leave you? You will accept that currently the Roman See is vacant, as many others do. You may decide not to go any farther than that. You may decide that the question on the status on previous Popes is a mystery to you. But, one thing is certain, you cannot believe BOTH that Bergoglio is a Modernist heretic AND that he is also the authoritative Pope.
Does that make sense?
-
Meg, the Truth is one. There are not multiple truths. A round thing is not a square. A square thing is not a circle. We don't get to just make up stuff. Reality is reality.
If you are not willing to say that you are "united to Bergoglio in mind and heart," good for you! The Holy Spirit is guiding you. Follow your conscience on that.
The next part about your response to "the Crisis in the Church" is secondary to following your conscience. You correctly believe that Bergoglio is a Modernist heretic and you are not "united" with him. This means you probably are Catholic. But you are just confused about how to respond to the question of "who's the Pope."
But, as I have shown you, you cannot BOTH withhold your "unity" with Bergoglio AND believe that Bergoglio is the authoritative Pope. To hold that position contradicts the Catholic Faith.
So the easy answer is to acknowledge that Bergoglio is simply not the Pope. He is an Antipope. That argument would go something like this:
MAJOR PREMISE:
No person can be both a Modernist heretic and an authoritative Pope at the same time.
MINOR PREMISE:
Bergoglio is a Modernist heretic.
CONCLUSION:
Bergoglio cannot be the authoritative Pope.
Where does this leave you? You will accept that currently the Roman See is vacant, as many others do. You may decide not to go any farther than that. You may decide that the question on the status on previous Popes is a mystery to you. But, one thing is certain, you cannot believe BOTH that Bergoglio is a Modernist heretic AND that he is also the authoritative Pope.
Does that make sense?
Sedevacantism is one approach to the Crisis. I can understand why a Traditional Catholic would take this approach, given the heresies and errors of the conciliar popes, but it's not for me. Like the Archbishop, I don't think it prudent to take the most drastic approach to the Crisis.
As Bp. Williamson has stated in the past, sedevacantists generally see the situation of the Crisis in black-and-white terms, or rather they need to see it this way. It has to be clear and cut and dry. No grey areas. Well, I think that we should allow for grey areas, and that there are things about the Crisis that we just aren't going to understand. God will sort it out eventually. Meantime, we do what we have to do to save our souls, and that of our family.
-
Sedevacantism is one approach to the Crisis. I can understand why a Traditional Catholic would take this approach, given the heresies and errors of the conciliar popes, but it's not for me. Like the Archbishop, I don't think it prudent to take the most drastic approach to the Crisis.
As Bp. Williamson has stated in the past, sedevacantists generally see the situation of the Crisis in black-and-white terms, or rather they need to see it this way. It has to be clear and cut and dry. No grey areas. Well, I think that we should allow for grey areas, and that there are things about the Crisis that we just aren't going to understand. God will sort it out eventually. Meantime, we do what we have to do to save our souls, and that of our family.
Meg, some things are easy to discern. Some things are harder to discern. Bergoglio is easy to discern. He is the only current person who claims to be the Pope. But your conscience tells you that he can't be the true "Holy Father." So the Chair of Peter doesn't have a legitimate, authoritative person sitting in it at the moment. We are living in a "papal interregnum." If the word "sedevacantism" scares you, don't use that word. Just say that Bergoglio is not the Pope and act accordingly.
There are different flavors of "sedevacantism." Concerning the Popes from John XXIII-BXVI, you don't have to decide that those men were not Popes, if you are not sure. After all, they are dead. Ignore them. None of them claimed to dogmatically teach anything new anyway. If you want to believe that they were real Popes but made bad decisions, like ABL said, that's fine. Why not just leave it at that?
-
Meg, some things are easy to discern. Some things are harder to discern. Bergoglio is easy to discern. He is the only current person who claims to be the Pope. But your conscience tells you that he can't be the true "Holy Father." So the Chair of Peter doesn't have a legitimate, authoritative person sitting in it at the moment. We are living in a "papal interregnum." If the word "sedevacantism" scares you, don't use that word. Just say that Bergoglio is not the Pope and act accordingly.
There are different flavors of "sedevacantism." Concerning the Popes from John XXIII-BXVI, you don't have to decide that those men were not Popes, if you are not sure. After all, they are dead. Ignore them. None of them claimed to dogmatically teach anything new anyway. If you want to believe that they were real Popes but made bad decisions, like ABL said, that's fine. Why not just leave it at that?
I agree that there exists many flavors of sedevacantism. They've been discussed for many years here. It's not like any of us here are new to the subject of sedevacantism.
However, your particular flavor is quite extreme. You believe that Francis is THE Antichrist, son of satan. How much success have you had in converting others to this view?
-
I agree that there exist many flavors of sedevacantism. They've been discussed for many years here. It's not like any of us here are new to the subject of sedevacantism.
However, your particular flavor is quite extreme. You believe that Francis is THE Antichrist, son of satan. How much success have you had in converting others to this view?
Many good Catholics will fail to recognize the infallible sign discussed by St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2, if they cannot understand that Bergoglio is an Antipope. They will try to explain away what is obviously happening before their eyes because they don't want to believe that a real Pope can be the Antichrist. To be clear, a real Pope cannot be the Antichrist. But a deceiver, pretending to be the Pope, can be and is the Antichrist. His name is Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
If they accept that Bergoglio is an Antipope, then everything they are seeing will make sense. The Biblical prophecies will come alive for them, and they can prepare spiritually for what is about to happen. This preparation is absolutely necessary to avoid the worst that will come over the next few years.
It may surprise you, but I have seen some success converting the people that I care about most in my life. But I have to give the credit to Our Lord and Our Lady for that. But sadly most people don't want to listen. As Jesus said, it's like "the days of Noah."
-
... and they can prepare spiritually for what is about to happen. This preparation is absolutely necessary to avoid the worst that will come over the next few years.
...
I shouldn't, but I'm curious to know what, precisely, this spiritual preparation consists of.
pre·cise·ly
(https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=557612269&q=how+to+pronounce+precisely&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRozS3w8sc9YSmjSWtOXmPU4eINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLlYglJLcoV4pXi5uIsKEpNzixOzam0YlFiSs3jWcQqlZFfrlCSr1AA1JQP1JWqAFcDAEiAd4FdAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR-r2NsOKAAxXxNX0KHWFSB9wQ3eEDegQIDhAI)
adverb
adverb: precisely
- in exact terms; without vagueness (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=557612269&q=vagueness&si=ACFMAn8hzZSJQsgXIYlkGc-z1vmpUI5XSxkDtigZ5itoH1P1VRyDoEotrDNHpMcTUR0QFmGvle6MKZ4u27ccYZogsxj4SCkBLA%3D%3D&expnd=1).
-
Many good Catholics will fail to recognize the infallible sign discussed by St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2, if they cannot understand that Bergoglio is an Antipope. They will try to explain away what is obviously happening before their eyes because they don't want to believe that a real Pope can be the Antichrist. To be clear, a real Pope cannot be the Antichrist. But a deceiver, pretending to be the Pope, can be and is the Antichrist. His name is Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
Dude...
Most Trads recognize that "Francis" is either a) a horrible pope, or b) an antipope, or c) no pope at all.
You are preaching to the choir. I'm glad that is approach has awoken your friends/family, but for most on this site...we're not going to be surprised at ANYTHING that comes out of Francis' mouth (or any future "pope") of new-rome. I'm waiting for the day when Francis/future anti-pope proclaims that "all religions are one". The signs are all there.
You don't have to spend time "converting us" to the fact that new-rome has lost the Faith; Meg is well aware.
-
I shouldn't, but I'm curious to know what, precisely, this spiritual preparation consists of.
pre·cise·ly
(https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=557612269&q=how+to+pronounce+precisely&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRozS3w8sc9YSmjSWtOXmPU4eINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLlYglJLcoV4pXi5uIsKEpNzixOzam0YlFiSs3jWcQqlZFfrlCSr1AA1JQP1JWqAFcDAEiAd4FdAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR-r2NsOKAAxXxNX0KHWFSB9wQ3eEDegQIDhAI)
adverb
adverb: precisely
- in exact terms; without vagueness (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=557612269&q=vagueness&si=ACFMAn8hzZSJQsgXIYlkGc-z1vmpUI5XSxkDtigZ5itoH1P1VRyDoEotrDNHpMcTUR0QFmGvle6MKZ4u27ccYZogsxj4SCkBLA%3D%3D&expnd=1).
For you, put down the dictionary. You can't take it with you.
-
For you, put down the dictionary. You can't take it with you.
Still upset that I did what you asked, read your source, and then dared to notice that it didn't say what you claimed?
You're not a very convincing prophet.
-
Dude...
Most Trads recognize that "Francis" is either a) a horrible pope, or b) an antipope, or c) no pope at all.
You are preaching to the choir. I'm glad that is approach has awoken your friends/family, but for most on this site...we're not going to be surprised at ANYTHING that comes out of Francis' mouth (or any future "pope") of new-rome. I'm waiting for the day when Francis/future anti-pope proclaims that "all religions are one". The signs are all there.
You don't have to spend time "converting us" to the fact that new-rome has lost the Faith; Meg is well aware.
Most Trads attend chapels where Bergoglio is acknowledged to be the Pope, the "Holy Father." Just a pinch of incense on the wall of the vestibule, ya know. At some of the chapels, the Trads even sing paeans to Bergoglio...Tu es Petrus, anyone? Or was that just at my former SSPX chapel? Sung by the whole congregation on First Saturdays. Got to get those kiddos used to singing the name Francisco, right? Very Trad-like.
So if they recognize your a, b, or c, then they are failing miserably in being witnesses to the Truth. Most Trads that I have run into couldn't care less who the current Pope is. They talk work or politics. If they talk about a "Pope" at all, it will be to trash a man who died decades ago.
-
Most Trads that I have run into couldn't care less who the current Pope is.
You just proved my point. The "danger" of Francis leading Trads into some new-age, antichrist abyss is not as likely as you make it seem.
-
You just proved my point. The "danger" of Francis leading Trads into some new-age, antichrist abyss is not as likely as you make it seem.
The Trads should be the one's helping those other confused Catholics avoid falling into that abyss. But they don't care about anyone outside of their Fiftyist, pinch-of-incense-burning Trad bubble. You made my point.
-
:confused: I tell novus ordo Catholics and indulters all the time that new-rome is lying to them. Trads have been saying this since 1970. What else do you want us to do?
Sheep will be sheep. Some sheep won’t recognize the wolf until he’s biting their neck. Can’t change human nature.
-
So if they recognize your a, b, or c, then they are failing miserably in being witnesses to the Truth. Most Trads that I have run into couldn't care less who the current Pope is. They talk work or politics. If they talk about a "Pope" at all, it will be to trash a man who died decades ago.
What good would it do for them to talk about the Pope with you, when you would just tell them, as you told me, that they must obey and be one in heart and mind with the Pope? I'm pretty sure that that wouldn't go over very well at most trad chapels, even SSPX.
It's true that some (maybe a lot?) of SSPX priests don't tell the truth about what is really happening in the Church, since the leadership of the SSPX doesn't really say much about Modernism or the Council anymore, and this indifference has trickled down to the priests and laity. But, I don't think that telling trads at SSPX chapels that Francis is THE Antichrist is going to wake them up.
-
What good would it do for them to talk about the Pope with you, when you would just tell them, as you told me, that they must obey and be one in heart and mind with the Pope? I'm pretty sure that that wouldn't go over very well at most trad chapels, even SSPX.
It's true that some (maybe a lot?) of SSPX priests don't tell the truth about what is really happening in the Church, since the leadership of the SSPX doesn't really say much about Modernism or the Council anymore, and this indifference has trickled down to the priests and laity. But, I don't think that telling trads at SSPX chapels that Francis is THE Antichrist is going to wake them up.
Meg, I simply told you what the Catechism of Pope Pius X said, which was:
IF the person is actually "the Pope," THEN a Catholic needs to be "one in heart and mind" with that person.
On the other hand,
IF the person is an Antipope," THEN a Catholic should not be "one in heart and mind" with that person.
Bergoglio is an Antipope, Meg. So any real Catholic should not be "one in heart and mind" with Bergoglio.
Also, being "one in heart and mind" does not mean you must obey, even a real Pope, if he told you to sin. Clearly Pope Pius X did not mean that. It means that you treat the real Pope with respect and consider with docility what he teaches, and do what he commands you to do (except if what he commands would cause you to sin).
-
:confused: I tell novus ordo Catholics and indulters all the time that new-rome is lying to them. Trads have been saying this since 1970. What else do you want us to do?
Sheep will be sheep. Some sheep won’t recognize the wolf until he’s biting their neck. Can’t change human nature.
Good for you. Do you tell SSPXers all the time that the SSPX is lying to them? If not, that's what you need to do.
Lying about what specifically, you might ask? About the validity of the Novus Ordo Episcopal Ordinations, Novus Ordo Priestly Ordinations, Novus Ordo Consecration of the Wine. And the elephant-in-the-room, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is "the Holy Father" and that the SSPX faithful should sing praises to him ("Francisco") on First Saturdays.
Lies, lies, and lies. And as we know, all lies comes from Satan.
-
Good for you. Do you tell SSPXers all the time that the SSPX is lying to them? If not, that's what you need to do.
Lying about what specifically, you might ask? About the validity of the Novus Ordo Episcopal Ordinations, Novus Ordo Priestly Ordinations, Novus Ordo Consecration of the Wine. And the elephant-in-the-room, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is "the Holy Father" and that the SSPX faithful should sing praises to him ("Francisco") on First Saturdays.
Lies, lies, and lies. And as we know, all lies comes from Satan.
You make no mention above about the Crisis in the Church, or about Modernism. As if they are not a factor. That's fairly typical of hardline sedevacantists.
-
You make no mention above about the Crisis in the Church, or about Modernism. As if they are not a factor. That's fairly typical of hardline sedevacantists.
Meg, could you define "hardline sedevacantists?" If you are labelling me as such, I'd like to know what it means. Thanks.
-
Meg, could you define "hardline sedevacantists?" If you are labelling me as such, I'd like to know what it means. Thanks.
You expect traditional Catholics at SSPX chapels to accept sedevacantist positions, as you stated in your post #82 on this thread. The SSPX has never been sedevacantist, and shouldn't be expected to be. Just as it wouldn't be proper for a dogmatic R&R to go to a sedevacantist chapel and tell them that they must believe that Francis is the Pope.
When the SSPX chapel that you attended began singing praises to pope Francis (which I agree is dreadful) did you complain to the priest? You probably did. But do you really believe that this practice is done at all SSPX chapels? I've never seen it done. Do you to think that the SSPX has believe that Francis is THE Antichrist in order to counter that situation?
-
You expect traditional Catholics at SSPX chapels to accept sedevacantist positions, as you stated in your post #82 on this thread. The SSPX has never been sedevacantist, and shouldn't be expected to be. Just as it wouldn't be proper for a dogmatic R&R to go to a sedevacantist chapel and tell them that they must believe that Francis is the Pope.
When the SSPX chapel that you attended began singing praises to pope Francis (which I agree is dreadful) did you complain to the priest? You probably did. But do you really believe that this practice is done at all SSPX chapels? I've never seen it done. Do you to think that the SSPX has believe that Francis is THE Antichrist in order to counter that situation?
Meg, I expect all Catholics to examine the law and the facts concerning who the legitimate Pope is. It is the duty of Catholics to be in communion with the real Pope (except when the See is vacant) and reject Antipopes.
The SSPX has a duty to tell the Truth. If they are not certain who the Pope is, then they should say that, rather than call Bergoglio the "the Holy Father" and "Peter." But we both know why the do it, don't we? Just a pinch of incense, eh?
-
Meg, I expect all Catholics to examine the law and the facts concerning who the legitimate Pope is. It is the duty of Catholics to be in communion with the real Pope (except when the See is vacant) and reject Antipopes.
The SSPX has a duty to tell the Truth. If they are not certain who the Pope is, then they should say that, rather than call Bergoglio, the "the Holy Father" and "Peter." But we both know why the do it, don't we? Just a pinch of incense, eh?
What you "expect" is not actually required from those of us who have been trads for quite awhile. As has already been pointed out on this thread, we are not new to the Crisis in the Church. Some here believe as you do, and some of us do not. If you insist that others should be expected to believe as you do, then you are dogmatic.
I'm pretty sure that the SSPX is certain who the Pope is. They've not ever said anything else. Unfortunately, the neo-SSPX doesn't explain the issues with the Crisis or Modernism or jurisdiction. They seem to think that all they need to do is provide the faithful with the Traditional mass, sacraments, and pre-Vll doctrine without actually saying much about the Crisis or Modernism. But they still provide the Traditional sacraments. Otherwise, what are we left with? Going to the Novus Ordo for the sacraments?
-
I am so confused. What exactly is Angelus' position? Sometimes he seems sedevacantist; other times not.
-
I am so confused. What exactly is Angelus' position? Sometimes he seems sedevacantist; other times not.
As I have stated elsewhere, I am certain that Bergoglio is an Antipope for two reasons: 1) he was not canonically-elected and 2) he is a manifest, obstinate heretic. My first position is that he was never Pope. He did not lose an office that he never had. However, some people cannot understand the canonical argument, so the fall-back is that he is a manifest, obstinate heretic. In either case, he is an Antipope. And he is the only papal claimant who is currently alive. He is the only one that really matters from the perspective of me being obedient to legitimate Catholic authority.
Moving now to papal history, which "sedevacantists" are obsessed with. I believe (because I have not seen convincing evidence to the contrary) that John XXIII through Benedict XVI were all canonically-elected. I am open to further evidence that those elections did not follow the law in place at the time. But I have not seen convincing evidence yet. And I haven't seen convincing evidence that any of those Popes automatically lost their office because of manifest, obstinate heresy. I agree with Fr. Paul Kramer on this.
At the very least, counterfeit doctrines and counterfeit sacraments have been promoted by the infiltrators in the Vatican since VII. I just don't take a position that the Pope was the cause of this. I think it is more likely that the Popes were either unwilling or unable to rein in the ecclesiastical Freemasons who were actually in control of the Vatican. I do not want to rashly judge men when I don't know the full story. Therefore, I accept those men as valid Popes until proven otherwise. To me it is a historical question with a lot of unknowns.
However, even if those men were authoritative Popes, I don't believe that they authoritatively commanded that we believe any new false teachings. I don't believe that they authoritatively commanded that we use the new counterfeit sacraments. And if they had authoritatively commanded that I would disobey because I believe that I would be sinning to believe or do hold false beliefs and receive false sacraments.
Many of the Catholics who have accepted those new counterfeit beliefs and new counterfeit sacraments did not have a gun to their head. They voluntarily chose to take that counterfeit path. They chose this out of human respect in some cases. Out of spiritual sloth in some cases. Out of a desire to sin in some cases. And therein lies their culpability. God allowed this whole "Crisis in the Church" precisely to allow a self-separation of the Wheat from the Chaff.
-
As I have stated elsewhere, I am certain that Bergoglio is an Antipope for two reasons: 1) he was not canonically-elected and 2) he is a manifest, obstinate heretic. My first position is that he was never Pope. He did not lose an office that he never had. However, some people cannot understand the canonical argument, so the fall-back is that he is a manifest, obstinate heretic. In either case, he is an Antipope. And he is the only papal claimant who is currently alive. He is the only one that really matters from the perspective of me being obedient to legitimate Catholic authority.
Moving now to papal history, which "sedevacantists" are obsessed with. I believe (because I have not seen convincing evidence to the contrary) that John XXIII through Benedict XVI were all canonically-elected. I am open to further evidence that those elections did not follow the law in place at the time. But I have not seen convincing evidence yet. And I haven't seen convincing evidence that any of those Popes automatically lost their office because of manifest, obstinate heresy. I agree with Fr. Paul Kramer on this.
At the very least, counterfeit doctrines and counterfeit sacraments have been promoted by the infiltrators in the Vatican since VII. I just don't take a position that the Pope was the cause of this. I think it is more likely that the Popes were either unwilling or unable to rein in the ecclesiastical Freemasons who were actually in control of the Vatican. I do not want to rashly judge men when I don't know the full story. Therefore, I accept those men as valid Popes until proven otherwise. To me it is a historical question with a lot of unknowns.
However, even if those men were authoritative Popes, I don't believe that they authoritatively commanded that we believe any new false teachings. I don't believe that they authoritatively commanded that we use the new counterfeit sacraments. And if they had authoritatively commanded that I would disobey because I believe that I would be sinning to believe or do hold false beliefs and receive false sacraments.
Many of the Catholics who have accepted those new counterfeit beliefs and new counterfeit sacraments did not have a gun to their head. They voluntarily chose to take that counterfeit path. They chose this out of human respect in some cases. Out of spiritual sloth in some cases. Out of a desire to sin in some cases. And therein lies their culpability. God allowed this whole "Crisis in the Church" precisely to allow a self-separation of the Wheat from the Chaff.
In your previous posts, it seemed that you accept that Pope Benedict was a valid pope (even after his abdication), but that Francis is not. Would that be accurate?
-
In your previous posts, it seemed that you accept that Pope Benedict was a valid pope (even after his abdication), but that Francis is not. Would that be accurate?
Yes, you are correct. BXVI was Pope until his natural death. Why? Because Universi Dominici Gregis (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html) does not allow a new papal election to begin until AFTER the death of the Pope:
CHAPTER III
THE BEGINNING OF THE ELECTION
49. When the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated according to the prescribed ritual, and everything necessary for the regular functioning of the election has been prepared, on the appointed day — and thus on the fifteenth day after the death of the Pope or, in conformity with the provisions of No. 37 of the present Constitution, not later than the twentieth — the Cardinal electors shall meet in the Basilica of Saint Peter's in the Vatican, or elsewhere, should circuмstances warrant it, in order to take part in a solemn Eucharistic celebration with the Votive Mass Pro Eligendo Papa.19 This celebration should preferably take place at a suitable hour in the morning, so that in the afternoon the prescriptions of the following Numbers of this Constitution can be carried out.
You will note that there is no mention of a "resignation." The Pope who promulgated UDG could have inserted the words "or resignation" to make the phrase say something like
"on the appointed day -- and thus on the fifteenth day after the death or resignation of the Pope..."
But "resignation" is not mentioned at all in the section 49, which appoints EXACTLY when the DAY of the election must take place. Why would they leave that out do you think? The reason is because the election cannot take place until AFTER the Pope is dead.
Therefore, BXVI was an inactive Pope after February 2013. But he was still the Pope until his death. BXVI acted as the "katechon," the "restrainer" mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7, until his death.
-
Yes, you are correct. BXVI was Pope until his natural death. Why? Because Universi Dominici Gregis (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html) does not allow a new papal election to begin until AFTER the death of the Pope:
CHAPTER III
THE BEGINNING OF THE ELECTION
49. When the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated according to the prescribed ritual, and everything necessary for the regular functioning of the election has been prepared, on the appointed day — and thus on the fifteenth day after the death of the Pope or, in conformity with the provisions of No. 37 of the present Constitution, not later than the twentieth — the Cardinal electors shall meet in the Basilica of Saint Peter's in the Vatican, or elsewhere, should circuмstances warrant it, in order to take part in a solemn Eucharistic celebration with the Votive Mass Pro Eligendo Papa.19 This celebration should preferably take place at a suitable hour in the morning, so that in the afternoon the prescriptions of the following Numbers of this Constitution can be carried out.
You will note that there is no mention of a "resignation." The Pope who promulgated UDG could have inserted the words "or resignation" to make the phrase say something like
"on the appointed day -- and thus on the fifteenth day after the death or resignation of the Pope..."
But "resignation" is not mentioned at all in the section 49, which appoints EXACTLY when the DAY of the election must take place. Why would they leave that out do you think? The reason is because the election cannot take place until AFTER the Pope is dead.
Therefore, BXVI was an inactive Pope after February 2013. But he was still the Pope until his death. BXVI acted as the "katechon," the "restrainer" mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7, until his death.
I appreciate the explanation. You mention that Benedict was an inactive pope after Feb. 2013. This makes sense, since he still wore papal garb. He was like a retired pope devoted to prayer. But, if there's a retired pope, shouldn't there still be an active pope? I seem to recall that Benedict said himself that he was abdicating and that we should accept his successor, Francis, or do I have that wrong?
-
I appreciate the explanation. You mention that Benedict was an inactive pope after Feb. 2013. This makes sense, since he still wore papal garb. He was like a retired pope devoted to prayer. But, if there's a retired pope, shouldn't there still be an active pope? I seem to recall that Benedict said himself that he was abdicating and that we should accept his successor, Francis, or do I have that wrong?
Much was said in the media about what BXVI said after the "resignation." I look at what the law requires. The Pope can change the law, but he cannot ignore a law that is still in force.
According to the law, there cannot be an active Pope until a new papal election occurs. So you might ask, who is suppose to run the Church during that period after a resignation but before a death of a Pope? That is explained in detail in Universi Dominici Gregis and Pastor Bonus. The remaining constituents of the Apostolic See. You can see how that entity, the Apostolic See, works by reading the two Canons:
THE ROMAN CURIA
Can. 360 The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the affairs of the universal Church through the Roman Curia which performs its function in his name and by his authority for the good and service of the churches. The Roman Curia consists of the Secretariat of State or the Papal Secretariat, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, congregations, tribunals, and other institutes; the constitution and competence of all these are defined in special law.
Can. 361 In this Code, the term Apostolic See or Holy See refers not only to the Roman Pontiff but also to the Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, and other institutes of the Roman Curia, unless it is otherwise apparent from the nature of the matter or the context of the words.
-
Much was said in the media about what BXVI said after the "resignation." I look at what the law requires. The Pope can change the law, but he cannot ignore a law that is still in force.
...
CIC 1983
331
§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/docuмents/cic_lib2-cann330-367_en.html#SECTION_I.
APOSTOLIC LETTER
ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO
NORMAS NONNULLAS
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
BENEDICT XVI
ON CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS TO THE NORMS
GOVERNING THE ELECTION OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF
No. 37. "I furthermore decree that, from the moment when the Apostolic See is lawfully vacant, fifteen full days must elapse before the Conclave begins, in order to await those who are absent; nonetheless, the College of Cardinals is granted the faculty to move forward the start of the Conclave if it is clear that all the Cardinal electors are present; they can also defer, for serious reasons, the beginning of the election for a few days more. But when a maximum of twenty days have elapsed from the beginning of the vacancy of the See, all the Cardinal electors present are obliged to proceed to the election."
Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on 22 February in the year 2013, the eighth of my Pontificate.
(11 days after announcing his forthcoming resignation)
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20130222_normas-nonnullas.html
No mention of death being necessary.
What next, claim that a Pope can resign, a conclave can take place, but the elected can't assume the office or the "he didn't really resign even though he said he did" or the "he didn't resign freely" bandwagon?
:popcorn:
-
No mention of death being necessary.
What next, claim that a Pope can resign, a conclave can take place, but the elected can't assume the office or the "he didn't really resign even though he said he did" or the "he didn't resign freely" bandwagon?
:popcorn:
You referenced up Section 37, which is under Chapter I, entitled "The Electors of the Roman Pontiff." So that section is not primarily concerned with the details of the timing of the election but, rather, with those Cardinals who will take an active role in the event. Specifically, it allows a time delay of five days if some Cardinals cannot make it to Rome within 15 days after See is lawfully vacant, which is a reference to the provision of Pastor Bonus (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19880628_pastor-bonus.html), Article 6, which states that the Apostolic See is not lawfully vacant until "the death of the Pope":
Art. 6 — On the death of the Supreme Pontiff, all moderators and members of the dicasteries cease from their office. The camerlengo of the Roman Church and the major penitentiary are excepted, who expedite ordinary business and refer to the College of Cardinals those things which would have been referred to the Supreme Pontiff.
Which is referenced in UDG 14:
14. According to the provisions of Article 6 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, at the death of the Pope all the heads of the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia — the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Cardinal Prefects, the Archbishop Presidents, together with the members of those Dicasteries — cease to exercise their office. An exception is made for the Camerlengo of Holy Roman Church and the Major Penitentiary, who continue to exercise their ordinary functions, submitting to the College of Cardinals matters that would have had to be referred to the Supreme Pontiff.
In my previous post, I referenced UDG Section 49, which is in Chapter III, entitled "The Beginning of the Election." That section appoints the exact time that the election must begin. The exact time specified is, you guessed it, "after the death of the Pope" and after "the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated." No optional "resignation" is mentioned at all.
Why would you suggest those scenarios that you posit in your last paragraph? As I have shown, a conclave/election cannot take place until AFTER the death of the Pope, according to the law. There is no other option in Universi Dominici Gregis.
-
You referenced up Section 37, which is under Chapter I, entitled "The Electors of the Roman Pontiff." So that section is not primarily concerned with the details of the timing of the election but, rather, with those Cardinals who will take an active role in the event. Specifically, it allows a time delay of five days if some Cardinals cannot make it to Rome within 15 days after See is lawfully vacant, which is a reference to the provision of Pastor Bonus (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19880628_pastor-bonus.html), Article 6, which states that the Apostolic See is not lawfully vacant until "the death of the Pope":
Art. 6 — On the death of the Supreme Pontiff, all moderators and members of the dicasteries cease from their office. The camerlengo of the Roman Church and the major penitentiary are excepted, who expedite ordinary business and refer to the College of Cardinals those things which would have been referred to the Supreme Pontiff.
Which is referenced in UDG 14:
14. According to the provisions of Article 6 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, at the death of the Pope all the heads of the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia — the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Cardinal Prefects, the Archbishop Presidents, together with the members of those Dicasteries — cease to exercise their office. An exception is made for the Camerlengo of Holy Roman Church and the Major Penitentiary, who continue to exercise their ordinary functions, submitting to the College of Cardinals matters that would have had to be referred to the Supreme Pontiff.
In my previous post, I referenced UDG Section 49, which is in Chapter III, entitled "The Beginning of the Election." That section appoints the exact time that the election must begin. The exact time specified is, you guessed it, "after the death of the Pope" and after "the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated." No optional "resignation" is mentioned at all.
Why would you suggest those scenarios that you posit in your last paragraph? As I have shown, a conclave/election cannot take place until AFTER the death of the Pope, according to the law. There is no other option in Universi Dominici Gregis.
I know that you won't listen because your mind is fixated on this very strange and novel interpretation of law, but here it is again:
UDG
77. I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html
The laws come into full effect upon the vacancy of the Apostolic See. Said vacancy occurs either at the death or the valid resignation of a Pope. I know that you have obsessed about this enough to even create a website and have made umpteen posts on CI about it, but it really isn't that complicated.
-
I know that you won't listen but here it is again:
UDG
77. I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html
You seem to think the underlined clause means: that an election can be held EITHER 1) when the Pope dies OR 2) when there is a vacancy as a result of a resignation. This is incorrect.
To read it your way, we must assume that, when there is a "resignation," it would be possible to "observe in full" all of the pre-election requirements of UDG. As I have repeatedly shown, UDG 49 requires that the Pope die, have a funeral, and be buried at least 15 days prior to the election. There is no exception to that requirement in the sections of UDG that precede Section 77.
In every place that UDG categorically states that the "death of the Pope" must occur before X, Y, and Z happens, you will find no alternative option in the case of a resignation. How do you explain that fact? Did they just forget to add that option?
If you will just read UDG from beginning to end with an open mind, you will understand what I'm saying.
-
Angelus, please clarify what kind of legal background you have. Because this election law is legal language. And your reading of it is wacked out.
-
Angelus, if you want to address Antichrist Jorge, there are a half dozen better ways to question his election, whether due to collusion from the St. Gallen mafia (which according to the Wojtyla / Ratzinger docs would invalidate the election) or +Vigano's assertions, or even the (weak) argument that Ratzinger didn't properly resign.
But this nonsense about how a conclave cannot proceed unless the pope has received funeral rites (when no pope has died) is ridiculous, and I can't believe that you continue to cling to it.
I've already pointed out that there's no "article" in Latin, and the reference to funeral rites of the deceased pope mean the funeral rites of A deceased pope, i.e. "in the event that the See is vacant due as a result of a deceased pope, his funeral rites should be carried out before the conclave begins". You don't understand Latin. It is utterly absurd that if a Pope were to resign, he must be given a funeral and buried before the conclave could begin. You need to stop, since you're just making a fool of yourself and are discrediting anything of value you might have to offer.
-
Angelus, if you want to address Antichrist Jorge, there are a half dozen better ways to question his election, whether due to collusion from the St. Gallen mafia (which according to the Wojtyla / Ratzinger docs would invalidate the election) or +Vigano's assertions, or even the (weak) argument that Ratzinger didn't properly resign.
You are wrong that the argument that Joseph Ratzinger did not validly resign is a weak argument. That argument, from a purely canonical perspective, is the strongest argument that Jorge Berogoglio was invalidly elected.
-
Angelus, please clarify what kind of legal background you have. Because this election law is legal language. And your reading of it is wacked out.
No one should listen to me because of my academic background. You should examine the evidence and the logic that I provide. If you are not persuaded, c'est la vie.
-
You are wrong that the argument that Joseph Ratzinger did not validly resign is a weak argument. That argument, from a purely canonical perspective, is the strongest argument that Jorge Berogoglio was invalidly elected.
No, it's rooted in the same kind of sophistry that Angelus' argument is. It's clear that Ratzinger intended to resign.
What's actually quite compelling is the admitted collusion by St. Gallen mafia. One of the conspirators basically admitted it. One could also try to make the case that he was "forced" to resign, but I've seen no concrete evidence of that, and Ratzinger has repeatedly denied it. And of course he's dead now.
But it's all a theater of the absurd, as getting rid of Jorge does not by itself even takes us 1% of the way toward resolving the problem of Vatican II and the Conciliar Church.
-
Angelus, if you want to address Antichrist Jorge, there are a half dozen better ways to question his election, whether due to collusion from the St. Gallen mafia (which according to the Wojtyla / Ratzinger docs would invalidate the election) or +Vigano's assertions, or even the (weak) argument that Ratzinger didn't properly resign.
But this nonsense about how a conclave cannot proceed unless the pope has received funeral rites (when no pope has died) is ridiculous, and I can't believe that you continue to cling to it.
I've already pointed out that there's no "article" in Latin, and the reference to funeral rites of the deceased pope mean the funeral rites of A deceased pope, i.e. "in the event that the See is vacant due as a result of a deceased pope, his funeral rites should be carried out before the conclave begins". You don't understand Latin. It is utterly absurd that if a Pope were to resign, he must be given a funeral and buried before the conclave could begin. You need to stop, since you're just making a fool of yourself and are discrediting anything of value you might have to offer.
Again, your disagreement seems to be with the promulgator of Universi Dominici Gregis, not me. Here it is again.
STEP 1
CHAPTER III - THE BEGINNING OF THE ELECTION
49. When the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated according to the prescribed ritual, and everything necessary for the regular functioning of the election has been prepared, on the appointed day — and thus on the fifteenth day after the death of the Pope or, in conformity with the provisions of No. 37 of the present Constitution, not later than the twentieth — the Cardinal electors shall meet in the Basilica of Saint Peter's in the Vatican, or elsewhere, should circuмstances warrant it, in order to take part in a solemn Eucharistic celebration with the Votive Mass Pro Eligendo Papa.19 This celebration should preferably take place at a suitable hour in the morning, so that in the afternoon the prescriptions of the following Numbers of this Constitution can be carried out.
MAJOR PREMISE
Universi Dominici Gregis requires that any papal election may begin only AFTER the death of the Pope. (UDG 49)
MINOR PREMISE
The 2013 papal election began BEFORE the death of the Pope.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, the 2013 papal election did not conform to the requirements of Universi Dominici Gregis.
STEP 2
CHAPTER V - THE ELECTION PROCEDURE
76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.
MAJOR PREMISE
Any papal election that takes place in a way other than prescribed in Universi Dominici Gregis is null and void. (UDG 76)
MINOR PREMISE
The 2013 papal election did not take place as prescribed in Universi Dominici Gregis. (see STEP 1 above)
CONCLUSION
Therefore, the 2013 papal election was null and void.
-
:facepalm: Angelus, just stop. You have to read legal docuмents in full context of ALL sections, amendments, and provisions.
-
:facepalm: Angelus, just stop. You have to read legal docuмents in full context of ALL sections, amendments, and provisions.
Provide a logical argument based on evidence to make your point, Pax. Otherwise, you are not contributing anything worthwhile.
Since you seem to imply that you have read Universi Dominici Gregis "in full context of ALL sections, amendments, and provisions," show me using evidence and a syllogism something that clearly contradicts what I have stated.
-
No, it's rooted in the same kind of sophistry that Angelus' argument is. It's clear that Ratzinger intended to resign.
Please do your homework and read the Declaratio closely. Joseph Ratzinger indicated what he was renouncing, and it was not his office (munus). He renounced the active ministry, which follows from the munus. He clearly showed his intent to retain some aspect of the papacy. That was sufficient to retain the whole thing. Even if he hypothetically claimed to renounce 99% of the munus and to retain 1% of it, he would remain pope.
-
Please do your homework and read the Declaratio closely. Joseph Ratzinger indicated what he was renouncing, and it was not his office (munus). He renounced the active ministry, which follows from the munus. He clearly showed his intent to retain some aspect of the papacy. That was sufficient to retain the whole thing. Even if he hypothetically claimed to renounce 99% of the munus and to retain 1% of it, he would remain pope.
I've read it multiple times, including in Latin, and commented on why that's nonsense. Canon Law doesn't require any specific term for renunciation of the munus. It uses the term munus but then states that the Pope needs to make it sufficiently clear that he intends to resign. There need be no formal docuмent. He could walk out the door and say, "Seeya. I've had enough of this pope business. And then head out somewhere." That would suffice. In fact, most theologians hold that there could even be situations of "tacit resignation" if the pope acts as if he doesn't intend to function as pope, such as, for instance, a priest were elected to the papacy but then didn't bother to get consecrated a bishop. Nor is there any indication anywhere that ministerium does not adequately describe the papal office and isn't synonymous for it. This is based solely on the fact that Canon Law uses the term munus; it could just as easily have chosen ministerium. There's no significant or relevant difference between the two terms that has ever been demonstrated. Ratzinger made it abundantly clear in the docuмent with his long-winded circuмlocution where he stated, that as a consequence of his action, the See would be empty and conclave would be needed to elect a successor. He couldn't have made it more clear. And then in ceasing to function as pope, he confirmed the resignation. Finally, it matters absolutely nothing, as it doesn't even address 1% of the problem of Vatican II. You folks are acting on an emotional aversion to Bergoglio, but Wojtyla and Ratzinger were as much heretics as Jorge was, and they were MORE dangerous precisely because they played the part of being conservative / Traditional, to sucker people back into the Conciliar Church. You Bennyvacantist types are playing into the notion that Ratzinger was some great paragon of Traditionalism, playing into the Hegelian dialect where the perception of "Traditionalism" shifts (by contrast with the Bergoglian extreme) far to the left of where it should be. Listening to some Bennyvcantists talk, you'd think that Ratzinger was "Pope St. Pius X the New" (to paraphrase Moran, "Josaphat the New"). Cardinal Kasper, the friendly ecuмenist, who rejected the "ecuмenism of return" (i.e. the notion that non-Catholics had to convert), whose language was also cited by Ratzinger when "Pope", who knew both Ratzinger and Jorge very well, stated publicly that there's no difference between the theology of the two men, just in the manner in which they tried to present it. So you guys need to wake up already and snap out of this nonsense.
-
Provide a logical argument based on evidence to make your point, Pax. Otherwise, you are not contributing anything worthwhile.
Since you seem to imply that you have read Universi Dominici Gregis "in full context of ALL sections, amendments, and provisions," show me using evidence and a syllogism something that clearly contradicts what I have stated.
You're just embarrassing yourself, man, and discrediting anything else you have to say with this stuff.
-
Again, your disagreement seems to be with the promulgator of Universi Dominici Gregis, not me. Here it is again.
STEP 1
CHAPTER III - THE BEGINNING OF THE ELECTION
49. When the funeral rites for the deceased Pope ...
I've already gone through the Latin of the docuмent. Have you? There's no article in Latin, so the translation is just as easily, "When the funeral rites for a deceased Pope ..."
In other words, if the Pope is deceased, the funeral rites should be completed before the conclave begins.
It's really not that hard.
You blabber about reading the full context, but then ignore the early part of the docuмent where Wojtyla clear states the see can be vacated either by the death or the resignation of a Pontiff. Within that actual context, this clearly means that in the event that the See is vacant due to the death of the pope, the funeral rites should be completed before the conclave begins. Otherwise, his statement that the See can be vacated by resignation would be entirely moot. Among other things, you completely defy all common sense by clinging to what you perceive to be some technicality, but which you completely distort. But, to some it up, the statement above should be translated, "When the funeral rites for A deceased Pope have been completed ..." i.e., IF there's a deceased pope.
You've demanded arguments. I've made them. But you simply ignore them and spam in the text of UDG again.
-
If you want to be Bennyvacantists, why don't you just stick to the St. Gallen mafia problem ... certainly the most damning piece of evidence that would invalidate the election of Jorge Bergoglio, as Danneels pretty much admitted it in public.
-
Please do your homework and read the Declaratio closely. Joseph Ratzinger indicated what he was renouncing, and it was not his office (munus). He renounced the active ministry, which follows from the munus. He clearly showed his intent to retain some aspect of the papacy. That was sufficient to retain the whole thing. Even if he hypothetically claimed to renounce 99% of the munus and to retain 1% of it, he would remain pope.
CK, I believe, as you do, that the Declaratio was an invalid form of a canon 332 §2 "resignation." Benedict could have invoked canon 332 in that docuмent, but he didn't. Clearly he was doing something different.
But having said that, it doesn't even matter if Benedict would have "resigned" in a perfectly valid manner or not. A mere act of "resignation" does not, by itself, trigger a new papal election, according to Universi Dominici Gregis. As UDG says over and over, only the death of the Pope will trigger a new papal election.
If you disagree with me, please show me how my interpretation of UDG is incorrect.
-
If you disagree with me, please show me how my interpretation of UDG is incorrect.
... already demonstrated above, and repeatedly before then.
-
CK, I believe, as you do, that the Declaratio was an invalid form of a canon 332 §2 "resignation." Benedict could have invoked canon 332 in that docuмent, but he didn't. Clearly he was doing something different.
You're not even bright enough to realize that this renders your argument completely moot. If Ratzinger didn't resign, then your discussion of resignation requiring a funeral doesn't even factor in here.
-
I've already gone through the Latin of the docuмent. Have you? There's no article in Latin, so the translation is just as easily, "When the funeral rites for a deceased Pope ..."
In other words, if the Pope is deceased, the funeral rites should be completed before the conclave begins.
It's really not that hard.
You blabber about reading the full context, but then ignore the early part of the docuмent where Wojtyla clear states the see can be vacated either by the death or the resignation of a Pontiff. Within that actual context, this clearly means that in the event that the See is vacant due to the death of the pope, the funeral rites should be completed before the conclave begins. Otherwise, his statement that the See can be vacated by resignation would be entirely moot. Among other things, you completely defy all common sense by clinging to what you perceive to be some technicality, but which you completely distort. But, to some it up, the statement above should be translated, "When the funeral rites for A deceased Pope have been completed ..." i.e., IF there's a deceased pope.
You've demanded arguments. I've made them. But you simply ignore them and spam in the text of UDG again.
You haven't made a clear argument. Address my exact two syllogisms above. Tell me where the problem is exactly in that argument.
1. Your "funeral rites" point (which I do not concede) is irrelevant to my major premise in Step 1.
2. Your point that "the see can be vacated either by the death or the resignation of a Pontiff" is not relevant. The Apostolic See becomes "lawfully vacant" only upon the death of the Pope (Pastor Bonus (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19880628_pastor-bonus.html) Article 6; UDG (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html) 14). This is because, as I have already shown, there are other officials that make up the Apostolic See according to Canon Law:
Can. 360 The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the affairs of the universal Church through the Roman Curia which performs its function in his name and by his authority for the good and service of the churches. The Roman Curia consists of the Secretariat of State or the Papal Secretariat, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, congregations, tribunals, and other institutes; the constitution and competence of all these are defined in special law.
Can. 361 In this Code, the term Apostolic See or Holy See refers not only to the Roman Pontiff but also to the Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, and other institutes of the Roman Curia, unless it is otherwise apparent from the nature of the matter or the context of the words.
These other officials of the Roman Curia, which make up the remainder of the Apostolic See, only "cease to exercise their office" upon the death of the Pope (Pastor Bonus (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19880628_pastor-bonus.html), Article 6; UDG (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html) 14). So the See is not lawfully vacant until the Pope dies.
-
Provide a logical argument based on evidence to make your point, Pax.
That's not how law works. You have to interpret law, and regulations, in the context of the ENTIRE docuмent. Section A refers to Section B, which refers to Section C, etc.
You can't use "logic" to make arguments about legal docuмents. :facepalm: It's why people go to law school...it's a unique language.
And i've already posted, legally, why your interpretation is wrong. It was on another thread.
-
That's not how law works. You have to interpret law, and regulations, in the context of the ENTIRE docuмent. Section A refers to Section B, which refers to Section C, etc.
You can't use "logic" to make arguments about legal docuмents. :facepalm: It's why people go to law school...it's a unique language.
And i've already posted, legally, why your interpretation is wrong. It was on another thread.
Wrong again. As St. Thomas makes clear, any true law must be reasonable. Otherwise, it is no law at all and should be ignored.
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q90.A1
-
Wrong again. As St. Thomas makes clear, any true law must be reasonable. Otherwise, it is no law at all and should be ignored.
What???? :confused: I'm not even sure what you're talking about.
-
What???? :confused: I'm not even sure what you're talking about.
That's okay, Pax. It's clear that you don't understand these things because you stated that one "can't use 'logic' to make arguments about legal docuмents." That is absolutely false.
The use of logic is, in fact, necessary to meet the first requirement of a true or just law, which is whether or not the law is "reasonable." This requirement is explained by St. Thomas in the Summa Theologica.
For example, if the papal election law were to contradict divine law or the natural law, then that papal election law would be unreasonable. Similarly, if the papal election law contained internally-contradictory statements, then one would need to eliminate the ambiguity by looking to a higher law, such as Canon Law, to resolve that ambiguity.
Logic reveals the presence of such contradictions and is absolutely necessary if one is to interpret legal docuмents properly.
-
Similarly, if the papal election law contained internally-contradictory statements,
:confused:
-
Wrong again. As St. Thomas makes clear, any true law must be reasonable. Otherwise, it is no law at all and should be ignored.
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q90.A1
"it sufficiently clear that he intends to resign. There need be no formal docuмent. He could walk out the door and say, "Seeya."
This is correct. To put this in simple and practical terms, since there is no superior above the pope he can dispense from all canonical laws, even if he or a previous pope enacted them.
-
"it sufficiently clear that he intends to resign. There need be no formal docuмent. He could walk out the door and say, "Seeya."
This is correct. To put this in simple and practical terms, since there is no superior above the pope he can dispense from all canonical laws, even if he or a previous pope enacted them.
The Pope is not above the Law. Yes, he can make new laws. But in those new laws, he can never contradict Divine Law or Natural Law. And if he changes ecclesiastical laws, such as those found in Canon Law (which he can do), he must follow the proper procedure for doing that. Those procedures are found in Canon Law. He cannot break an ecclesiastical law that is currently on the books. He would first need to promulgate a new ecclesiastical law. Then, and only then, can he act as the new law allows.
If you think I am incorrect, please show evidence to the contrary from the Magisterium or Canon Law.
-
When I read the Bennyvacantist posts, I am confirmed in my thinking that the whole resignation was a ruse (by Ratzinger and the rest of the Modernists) to create exactly what we're seeing: Catholics busy focusing on Ratzinger (and choosing between him and Bergoglio, good cop vs bad cop) rather than paying attention to the bigger picture of the last 60 + years.
-
As UDG says over and over, only the death of the Pope will trigger a new papal election.
If you disagree with me, please show me how my interpretation of UDG is incorrect.
Your interpretation of UDG is now moot. Pope Benedict XVI passed away. We now need a new papal election as Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope.
-
Your interpretation of UDG is now moot. Pope Benedict XVI passed away. We now need a new papal election as Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope.
We've needed a new papal election since Pope Gregory XVII passed away in 1989. Ratzinger was no more pope than Jorge is.
-
The Pope is not above the Law. Yes, he can make new laws. But in those new laws, he can never contradict Divine Law or Natural Law. And if he changes ecclesiastical laws, such as those found in Canon Law (which he can do), he must follow the proper procedure for doing that. Those procedures are found in Canon Law. He cannot break an ecclesiastical law that is currently on the books. He would first need to promulgate a new ecclesiastical law. Then, and only then, can he act as the new law allows.
If you think I am incorrect, please show evidence to the contrary from the Magisterium or Canon Law.
Pope is in fact above anything short of Divine Law (that includes natural law), and he can dispense with it or ignore it on a whim.
-
"it sufficiently clear that he intends to resign. There need be no formal docuмent. He could walk out the door and say, "Seeya."
This is correct. To put this in simple and practical terms, since there is no superior above the pope he can dispense from all canonical laws, even if he or a previous pope enacted them.
But even if he just did as I caricatured above, he would actually be in compliance with the law, since if you actually read the law, it simply states that he needs to make his intention to resign sufficiently clear. It does not stipulate that he has to issue any kind of formal docuмent, or even any docuмent at all (as it could be verbal), much less that he needs to use the word "munus".
-
This is all that Canon Law (the New Code, since Bennyvacantists accept the 1983 Code):
§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.
His intention to resign just needs to be "properly manifested". There need be no formal docuмent, no docuмent at all, much less does it state that he has to use the word munus. He just has to manifest his intention to resign (and has to do it freely). Canon Lawyers typically interpret this as meaning that any reasonable person would construe this manifestation as an intention to resign.
That's why I said, partly tongue-in-cheek but partly in all seriousness, if the Pope just walked out the door saying, "I'm done being pope. See you guys later.", this would qualify as a valid resignation under Canon Law.
-
Your interpretation of UDG is now moot. Pope Benedict XVI passed away. We now need a new papal election as Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope.
Please explain what you mean that my "interpretation of UDG is now moot." The point of my "interpretation" is that Bergoglio is not now nor has he ever been "the Pope." He is an Antipope.
Bergoglio is the focus. 99% of "Catholics" act as if he is "the Pope." This deception that he is the Pope is relevant. He has called the Synod on Synodality. He is leading the 99% into "apostasy" precisely because they think that he is "the Pope." And they believe that they must do whatever "the Pope" says.
Finally, his status as Antipope reveals that he is the Antichrist described inn 2 Thessalonians 2, which is the infallible sign of the final trial of the Church. The sooner Catholics understand this, the more likely they will be to escape the worst that is to come.
Those who are ready for the Warning will have a much better experience of that event than those who are taken by surprise. Those found "watching" will be blessed, not "warned."
-
We've needed a new papal election since Pope Gregory XVII passed away in 1989. Ratzinger was no more pope than Jorge is.
Why did Cardinal Siri, if he was pope, go along with the Conciliar Church?
-
Pope is in fact above anything short of Divine Law (that includes natural law), and he can dispense with it or ignore it on a whim.
1. Concerning Natural Law, St. Thomas Aquinas explains (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q94.A5):
I answer that, A change in the natural law may be understood in two ways. First, by way of addition. In this sense nothing hinders the natural law from being changed: since many things for the benefit of human life have been added over and above the natural law, both by the Divine law and by human laws.
Second, a change in the natural law may be understood by way of subtraction, so that what previously was according to the natural law, ceases to be so. In this sense, the natural law is altogether unchangeable in its first principles: but in its secondary principles, which, as we have said (A4), are certain detailed proximate conclusions drawn from the first principles, the natural law is not changed so that what it prescribes be not right in most cases. But it may be changed in some particular cases of rare occurrence, through some special causes hindering the observance of such precepts, as stated above (A4).
2. Benedict XVI was the Pope at the time prior to the 2013 papal election. Benedict XVI did not "dispense with" the law of papal elections (UDG). In fact, just weeks before he took his leave of absence, he publicly re-confirmed UDG and made minor modifications to it in his Apostolic Letter Normas non nullas (https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20130222_normas-nonnullas.html).
Bergoglio was not the Pope when the 2013 election began, so he was not in the position to "dispense with" anything in an Apostolic Constitution like UDG. Only a Pope could dispense with something like that.
Here is Aquinas on Dispensations from Natural law and Human Laws (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q97.A4):
Reply Obj. 3: Natural law, so far as it contains general precepts, which never fail, does not allow of dispensations. In other precepts, however, which are as conclusions of the general precepts, man sometimes grants a dispensation: for instance, that a loan should not be paid back to the betrayer of his country, or something similar. But to the Divine law each man stands as a private person to the public law to which he is subject. Wherefore just as none can dispense from public human law, except the man from whom the law derives its authority, or his delegate; so, in the precepts of the Divine law, which are from God, none can dispense but God, or the man to whom He may give special power for that purpose.
-
Please explain what you mean that my "interpretation of UDG is now moot." The point of my "interpretation" is that Bergoglio is not now nor has he ever been "the Pope." He is an Antipope.
Bergoglio is the focus. 99% of "Catholics" act as if he is "the Pope." This deception that he is the Pope is relevant. He has called the Synod on Synodality. He is leading the 99% into "apostasy" precisely because they think that he is "the Pope." And they believe that they must do whatever "the Pope" says.
Finally, his status as Antipope reveals that he is the Antichrist described inn 2 Thessalonians 2, which is the infallible sign of the final trial of the Church. The sooner Catholics understand this, the more likely they will be to escape the worst that is to come.
Those who are ready for the Warning will have a much better experience of that event than those who are taken by surprise. Those found "watching" will be blessed, not "warned."
So now Francis is the antipope (in your opinion) not because he was not canonically elected, but because of his policies?
-
So now Francis is the antipope (in your opinion) not because he was not canonically elected, but because of his policies?
I have explained this before, Meg. He is an Antipope because he was not canonically-elected.
For those who cannot understand the canonical election issues, they should be able to see that he is an Antipope because a public, obstinate heretic is not even Catholic. You cannot be a non-Catholic and still be "the Pope."
Take your pick. He is the "bad guy." Have nothing to do with him. Avoid those who call him their "Holy Father."
-
I have explained this before, Meg. He is an Antipope because he was not canonically-elected.
For those who cannot understand the canonical election issues, they should be able to see that he is an Antipope because a public, obstinate heretic is not even Catholic. You cannot be a non-Catholic and still be "the Pope."
Take your pick. He is the "bad guy." Have nothing to do with him. Avoid those who call him their "Holy Father."
If Francis is a not a pope and not even a Catholic, then why would it matter what his policies are? He's just a private person with some grandiose ideas, right?
-
I have explained this before, Meg. He is an Antipope because he was not canonically-elected.
For those who cannot understand the canonical election issues, they should be able to see that he is an Antipope because a public, obstinate heretic automatically loses his office.
Take your pick. He is the "bad guy." Have nothing to do with him. Avoid those who call him their "Holy Father."
That Jorge Bergoglio is a public manifest formal heretic is post factum evidence that he was not canonically elected because a true pope cannot be a formal heretic. That a true pope cannot be a formal heretic is the First Opinion of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine. It was the opinion he held and the common opinion of theologians during the first half of the 20th century. Unfortunately, many, if not most, within the so-called Resistance have been negatively influenced by the likes of Robert Siscoe and John Salza to adopt the Fourth Opinion, that is, that a true pope can be a public heretic and yet retain his office until judged by the Church. Furthermore, they erroneously use Archbishop Lefebvre to defend this position in regards to Jorge Bergoglio.
-
That Jorge Bergoglio is a public manifest formal heretic is post factum evidence that he was not canonically elected because a true pope cannot be a formal heretic. That a true pope cannot be a formal heretic is the First Opinion of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine. It was the opinion he held and the common opinion of theologians during the first half of the 20th century. Unfortunately, many, if not most, within the so-called Resistance have been negatively influenced by the likes of Robert Siscoe and John Salza to adopt the Fourth Opinion, that is, that a true pope can be a public heretic and yet retain his office until judged by the Church. Furthermore, they erroneously use Archbishop Lefebvre to defend this position in regards to Jorge Bergoglio.
Archbshop Lefebvre didn't think the status of the Pope was a big deal. Unlike some who obsess on it, as if it were a matter of dogma.
Archbishop Lefebvre was defending the Catholic faith long before Sisco and Salza were around, and probably before you yourself ever thought about traditional Catholicism. He was defending the Faith long before I ever thought about traditional Catholicism, that's for sure. And yet you and the other sedevacantists and benevacantists hold that +Lefebvre was very wrong. A few of us here aren't buying it.
-
Archbshop Lefebvre didn't think the status of the Pope was a big deal. Unlike some who obsess on it, as if it were a matter of dogma.
Archbishop Lefebvre was defending the Catholic faith long before Sisco and Salza were around, and probably before you yourself ever thought about traditional Catholicism. He was defending the Faith long before I ever thought about traditional Catholicism, that's for sure. And yet you and the other sedevacantists and benevacantists hold that +Lefebvre was very wrong. A few of us here aren't buying it.
Did I write that Archbishop Lefebvre held the Fourth Opinion as you seem to imply above?
-
Did I write that Archbishop Lefebvre held the Fourth Opinion as you seem to imply above?
No, you didn't. I hadn't meant to infer that you did. Apologies.
I don't believe that the Archbishop ever discussed the 'opinions' that you are discussing. He didn't view the situation in the same way, as far as I know. He had more important things to think about.
-
No, you didn't. I hadn't meant to infer that you did. Apologies.
I don't believe that the Archbishop ever discussed the 'opinions' that you are discussing. He didn't view the situation in the same way, as far as I know. He had more important things to think about.
Then why did you write, "And yet you and the other sedevacantists and benevacantists hold that +Lefebvre was very wrong."
-
Then why did you write, "And yet you and the other sedevacantists and benevacantists hold that +Lefebvre was very wrong."
Don't you believe that a public formal heretic cannot be a pope? Or do I have that wrong?
What about JP2? Wasn't he a public formal heretic, in your view? Or is it just Pope Francis that's a public formal heretic?
-
Don't you believe that a public formal heretic cannot be a pope? Or do I have that wrong?
What about JP2? Wasn't he a public formal heretic, in your view? Or is it just Pope Francis that's a public formal heretic?
I believe John Paul II was a true pope.
-
If Francis is a not a pope and not even a Catholic, then why would it matter what his policies are? He's just a private person with some grandiose ideas, right?
Read up on "the operation of error" (2 Thessalonians 2:10).
When one knowingly consents to a lie (e.g. by acting as if an Antipope is the actual Pope), the "operation of error" will be the punishment for that person. The punishment fits the offense. The person does not respect "the truth" and, so, their intellect will be darkened such that they won't be able to distinguish truth from lie.
St. Paul says that those who "receive the love of the truth" will "be saved." Those who don't "receive the love of the truth" will "be judged" because they, in God's eyes, "consented to iniquity" (2 Thessalonians 2:11).
-
I believe John Paul II was a true pope.
:confused: He probably wasn't even a valid bishop. He promoted all kinds of heresies, namely ecuмenism. He worshiped openly with non-catholics of every sect (many of whom were near-naked). And he wasn't a heretic? :laugh2:
-
:confused: He probably wasn't even a valid bishop. He promoted all kinds of heresies, namely ecuмenism. He worshiped openly with non-catholics of every sect (many of whom were near-naked). And he wasn't a heretic? :laugh2:
Yes, he was fine with worshiping with non-Catholics. There was even a procession after the debacle at Assisi, where the Catholic clergy processed alongside the members of the various false religions, from the cathedral. And remember the scandal of the pagan skull-ticklers, who were also invited to Assisi, who proceeded to sacrifice a chicken at the altar of St. Clare (though they didn't have permission). How is that even possible? The false-ecuмenism of JP2 allowed it. It's easy to forget the scandals that happened back then; Francis is hardly the first Modernist Pope to cause great scandal.
Here's +ABL's and +de Castro Mayer's joint declaration of 1986, just as a reminder, to show the horrors of the Assisi scandal. It's good that the SSPX still has this on their website:
1986 joint-declaration against Assisi - District of the USA (sspx.org) (https://sspx.org/en/1986-joint-declaration-against-assisi)
-
Yes, he was fine with worshiping with non-Catholics. There was even a procession after the debacle at Assisi, where the Catholic clergy processed alongside the members of the various false religions, from the cathedral. And remember the scandal of the pagan skull-ticklers, who were also invited to Assisi, who proceeded to sacrifice a chicken at the altar of St. Clare (though they didn't have permission). How is that even possible? The false-ecuмenism of JP2 allowed it. It's easy to forget the scandals that happened back then; Francis is hardly the first Modernist to cause great scandal.
Here's +ABL's and +de Castro Mayer's joint declaration, just as a reminder, written by he and +De Castro Mayer, to show the horrors of the Assisi scandal. It's good that the SSPX still has this on their website:
1986 joint-declaration against Assisi - District of the USA (sspx.org) (https://sspx.org/en/1986-joint-declaration-against-assisi)
Meg, "worshiping with non-Catholics" is called communicatio in sacris. It can be a sin, even a mortal sin in some cases. Such sins can be dispensed by a bishop if there is a good reason for the "communicatio." Presumably, the Pope would have provided himself a "dispensation" in this case, no?
Regardless, "Communicatio in sacris" is not the same thing as "apostasy, heresy or schism." A Pope who participates in a imprudent (even sinful) prayer meeting has not "defected from the Church." He has, at worst, committed a dispensable sin.
This was written in the 1920s with Imprimatur (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/35354/35354-h/35354-h.html):
884. Religious communication is sinful on account of danger in the following cases:
(a) If it is a proximate and voluntary occasion of sin against faith. Examples: Sempronius goes to a non-Catholic church to hear a minister who attacks the divinity of Christ and other articles of the Creed. The purpose of Sempronius is to benefit himself as a public speaker, but he knows that his faith suffers, because he admires the orator. Balbus chooses to listen over the radio to attacks on religion and Christianity, which cause serious temptations to him.
(b) If it is a necessary occasion of sin and one does not employ sufficient precautions against it, religious communication becomes sinful. Example: Titus, a prisoner, has to listen at times to a jail chaplain, who teaches that there are errors in the Bible, that man evolved from the ape, etc. Titus feels himself drawn sympathetically to these teachings, but makes no effort to strengthen his faith.
885. Communication with unbelievers that is a remote occasion of sin, is not sinful, for “otherwise one must needs go out of this world” (I Cor., v. 9). On the contrary, reasons of justice or charity frequently make it necessary and commendable to have friendly dealings with those of other or no religious conviction. (a) Reasons of justice. It is necessary to cooperate with non-Catholic fellow-citizens in what pertains to the welfare of our common country, state, city, and neighborhood; to be just and fair in business relations with those outside the Church, etc. (b) Reasons of charity. Catholics should be courteous and kind to all (Heb., xii. 14), and be willing to assist, temporarily and spiritually, those outside the Church. Thus, St. Paul, without sacrificing principle or doctrine, made himself all things to all men, in order to gain all (I Cor., ix. 19). Indeed, the mission of the Church would suffer, if Catholics today kept aloof from all that goes on about them. The Church must teach, by example as well as precept, must be a salt, a light, a leaven, an example of the Gospel in practice; and surely this ministry will be weakened if her children aim at complete isolation and exclusivism.
-
Meg, "worshiping with non-Catholics" is called communicatio in sacris. It can be a sin, even a mortal sin in some cases. Such sins can be dispensed by a bishop if there is a good reason for the "communicatio." Presumably, the Pope would have provided himself a "dispensation" in this case, no?
Regardless, "Communicatio in sacris" is not the same thing as "apostasy, heresy or schism." A Pope who participates in a imprudent (even sinful) prayer meeting has not "defected from the Church." He has, at worst, committed a dispensable sin.
This was written in the 1920s with Imprimatur (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/35354/35354-h/35354-h.html):
Well, since you believe that there was a dispensation given in the case of Assisi, then you don't have a problem with it. No big deal.
But many Catholics, especially Traditional Catholics believed it to be a great scandal. Did you read the link I posted, regarding +ABL and +de Castro Mayer's complaint about Assisi?
-
Well, since you believe that there was a dispensation given in the case of Assisi, then you don't have a problem with it. No big deal.
But many Catholics, especially Traditional Catholics believed it to be a great scandal. Did you read the link I posted, regarding +ABL and +de Castro Mayer's complaint about Assisi?
Meg, are you "judging" the Pope? Are you saying that he, the Pope, can't dispense in that case? Are you "judging" that he committed "horrors" at Assisi? Horrors is a pretty strong word.
That seems like it might contradict what St. Robert Bellarmine says in your signature:
"It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."
~St. Robert Bellarmine
De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29
-
Meg, are you "judging" the Pope? Are you saying that he, the Pope, can't dispense in that case? Are you "judging" that he committed "horrors" at Assisi? Horrors is a pretty strong word.
That seems like it might contradict what St. Robert Bellarmine says in your signature:
So you are fine with the Assisi prayer meetings?
-
So you are fine with the Assisi prayer meetings?
Why do you respond to my question with a question, Meg? Why don't you answer me. When you say that JPII committed "horrors" at Assisi, are you "judging" his actions?
-
Why do you respond to my question with a question, Meg? Why don't you answer me. When you say that JPII committed "horrors" at Assisi, are you "judging" his actions?
You already know what I think of Assisi. I want to know what you think. Given what you've already posted, I have to assume that you are fine with what happened at Assisi.
Do you support Vatican ll's docuмent on Religious Liberty? It would seem that you do. I can't figure out then, why you would have a problem with Francis, since he and JP2 aren't all that different.
Dignitatis humanae (vatican.va) (https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html)
-
You already know what I think of Assisi. I want to know what you think. Given what you've already posted, I have to assume that you are fine with what happened at Assisi.
Do you support Vatican ll's docuмent on Religious Liberty? It would seem that you do. I can't figure out then, why you would have a problem with Francis, since he and JP2 aren't all that different.
Please slow down Meg. We are talking about your position on a "heretical" Pope losing his office. The evidence you provided (Assisi) is not evidence of JPII committing "heresy, apostasy or schism." Lefebvre/Mayer called Assisi a sin of scandal. Committing a sin of that nature does not cause a Pope to lose his office. And you, Meg, cannot "judge" the Pope. So, why do you concern yourself with something that happened almost 40 years ago.
You seem to not understand the canonical meaning of some of the words that you use.
When I say that Bergoglio is a public and obstinate heretic, I mean that in a canonical way. His public words directly contradict settled Catholic teaching, and when asked to clarify those words, he refuses to comment. The Dubia situation of 2016 (https://www.ncregister.com/blog/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-of-cardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia#:~:text=Dubia (from the Latin%3A “,issues concerning doctrine or practice.) is objective proof of his obstinacy in manifest heresy.
-
Please slow down Meg. We are talking about your position on a "heretical" Pope losing his office. The evidence you provided (Assisi) is not evidence of JPII committing "heresy, apostasy or schism." Lefebvre/Mayer called Assisi a sin of scandal. Committing a sin of that nature does not cause a Pope to lose his office. And you, Meg, cannot "judge" the Pope. So, why do you concern yourself with something that happened almost 40 years ago.
You seem to not understand the canonical meaning of some of the words that you use.
When I say that Bergoglio is a public and obstinate heretic, I mean that in a canonical way. His public words directly contradict settled Catholic teaching, and when asked to clarify those words, he refuses to comment. The Dubia situation of 2016 (https://www.ncregister.com/blog/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-of-cardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia#:~:text=Dubia (from the Latin%3A “,issues concerning doctrine or practice.) is objective proof of his obstinacy in manifest heresy.
What happened at Assisi, which was the idea of JP2, absolutely goes against what the Church has always taught, before Vatican ll. You have indicated that you don't have a problem with Assisi, and that I'm not allowed to judge JP2 for such an action.
And yet you judge Francis and consider him the Antichrist.
-
What happened at Assisi, which was the idea of JP2, absolutely goes against what the Church has always taught, before Vatican ll. You have indicated that you don't have a problem with Assisi, and that I'm not allowed to judge JP2 for such an action.
And yet you judge Francis and consider him the Antichrist.
Meg, I don't think Assisi was a great thing. But it was not an act of "defection from the Church." Many Popes have done things that were sinful, imprudent, and not traditional. That didn't make them not Popes. Most Popes were not canonized Saints. Ever wondered why?
Bergoglio is not and never was a canonically-elected Pope. His election was unlawful and, therefore, null and void.
But, even if you incorrectly think he was lawfully elected, he would have lost the papal office for public, obstinate heresy, of which he is objectively guilty.
Why do you spend so much time defending Bergoglio? Are you not concerned that you have a duty to defend Jesus and his Church against His enemies, the living ones, I mean?
-
Meg, I don't think Assisi was a great thing. But it was not an act of "defection from the Church." Many Popes have done things that were sinful, imprudent, and not traditional. That didn't make them not Popes. Most Popes were not canonized Saints. Ever wondered why?
Bergoglio is not and never was a canonically-elected Pope. His election was unlawful and, therefore, null and void.
But, even if you incorrectly think he was lawfully elected, he would have lost the papal office for public, obstinate heresy, of which he is objectively guilty.
Why do you spend so much time defending Bergoglio? Are you not concerned that you have a duty to defend Jesus and his Church against his enemies, the living ones, I mean?
Why do you spend so much time trying to get Catholics here to believe that Francis is the Antichrist? You mention that many Popes have been canonized as saints. Would you include JP2 in that category?
What is the difference between JP2 and Francis? What heresy is Francis guilty of that JP2 wasn't also guilty of?
-
Why do you spend so much time trying to get Catholics here to believe that Francis is the Antichrist? You mention that many Popes have been canonized as saints. Would you include JP2 in that category?
What is the difference between JP2 and Francis? What heresy is Francis guilty of that JP2 wasn't also guilty of?
Meg, I tried to explain the difference in this post. Did you read about the Dubia?
Please slow down Meg. We are talking about your position on a "heretical" Pope losing his office. The evidence you provided (Assisi) is not evidence of JPII committing "heresy, apostasy or schism." Lefebvre/Mayer called Assisi a sin of scandal. Committing a sin of that nature does not cause a Pope to lose his office. And you, Meg, cannot "judge" the Pope. So, why do you concern yourself with something that happened almost 40 years ago.
You seem to not understand the canonical meaning of some of the words that you use.
When I say that Bergoglio is a public and obstinate heretic, I mean that in a canonical way. His public words directly contradict settled Catholic teaching, and when asked to clarify those words, he refuses to comment. The Dubia situation of 2016 (https://www.ncregister.com/blog/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-of-cardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia#:~:text=Dubia (from the Latin%3A “,issues concerning doctrine or practice.) is objective proof of his obstinacy in manifest heresy.
In a nutshell. JPII was not guilty of what traditional Catholicism calls public, obstinate "heresy." Bergoglio is guilty of public, obstinate "heresy." Bergoglio tacitly admits his guilt by refusing to respond to the 2016 Dubia questions.
-
Why did Cardinal Siri, if he was pope, go along with the Conciliar Church?
Absolutely irrelevant. Why did your hero-pope Ratzinger go along with it?
-
Meg, I tried to explain the difference in this post. Did you read about the Dubia?
In a nutshell. JPII was not guilty of what traditional Catholicism calls public, obstinate "heresy." Bergoglio is guilty of public, obstinate "heresy." Bergoglio tacitly admits his guilt by refusing to respond to the 2016 Dubia questions.
I don't disagree that Francis is a heretic. And yes, that Dubia of 2016 does outline heresy in regards to marriage and family. Francis did go farther than JP2 did, in that sense. So, yes, Francis' heresies are a bit different, so I was wrong.
JP2's heresies were more in line with religious liberty and ecuмenism, but his views did contradict previous popes, before Vll. You may disagree.
Perhaps you have the idea that a true pope cannot EVER be guilty of any kind of heresy, and therefore JP2 and B16 cannot be guilty of heresy. A lot of sedevacantists here would agree that a true pope cannot be guilty of any heresy, but a few of us would not. We are just a small minority here.
And regarding that Dubia, did you notice that the four Cardinals who wrote it (+Brandmuller, +Caffarra, +Burke, +Meisner) did not condemn Francis as an Antichrist because he did not respond to the questions? I would like to see a Council called in order to address Francis heresies, and all of the heresies of all of the conciliar popes. But if he's not a Pope, he doesn't really have to answer for anything. He's just a guy in Rome who wears a white outfit, and he gets away with his heresy. He doesn't have to be held responsible.
-
I don't disagree that Francis is a heretic. And yes, that Dubia of 2016 does outline heresy in regards to marriage and family. Francis did go farther than JP2 did, in that sense. So, yes, Francis' heresies are a bit different, so I was wrong.
JP2's heresies were more in line with religious liberty and ecuмenism, but his views did contradict previous popes, before Vll. You may disagree.
Perhaps you have the idea that a true pope cannot EVER be guilty of any kind of heresy, and therefore JP2 and B16 cannot be guilty of heresy. A lot of sedevacantists here would agree that a true pope cannot be guilty of any heresy, but a few of us would not. We are just a small minority here.
And regarding that Dubia, did you notice that the four Cardinals who wrote it (+Brandmuller, +Caffarra, +Burke, +Meisner) did not condemn Francis as an Antichrist because he did not respond to the questions? I would like to see a Council called in order to address Francis heresies, and all of the heresies of all of the conciliar popes. But if he's not a Pope, he doesn't really have to answer for anything. He's just a guy in Rome who wears a white outfit, and he gets away with his heresy. He doesn't have to be held responsible.
Thank you for your honesty, Meg. So we both agree that Francis, as of 2016, was already recognized as different by certain "authorities" in the Church. Francis has officially promulgated a heretical teaching. He was asked to clarify. He has refused to do so.
JPII is a topic for historians. He is not leading the Church right now. He is the 5th King of Apocalypse 17:9-11. Bergoglio is "the eighth who is "of the seven and goeth into destruction."
The Dubia Cardinals have been very quiet (two of them are dead). But what they did stands as an objective witness to the truth.
Stay tuned on "a Council called in order to address Francis heresies." It will not be a human-institutional thing. Jesus will take care of it in his own way.
Finally, again, please don't underestimate Bergoglio. He is the "Man of Sin." The world and the majority of "Catholics" will treat him as their savior. He will not force them to follow him. They will beg him to lead them astray. This will play out very soon.
-
Thank you for your honesty, Meg. So we both agree that Francis, as of 2016, was already recognized as different by certain "authorities" in the Church. Francis has officially promulgated a heretical teaching. He was asked to clarify. He has refused to do so.
JPII is a topic for historians. He is not leading the Church right now. He is the 5th King of Apocalypse 17:9-11. Bergoglio is "the eighth who is "of the seven and goeth into destruction."
The Dubia Cardinals have been very quiet (two of them are dead). But what they did stands as an objective witness to the truth.
Stay tuned on "a Council called in order to address Francis heresies." It will not be a human-institutional thing. Jesus will take care of it in his own way.
Finally, again, please don't underestimate Bergoglio. He is the "Man of Sin." The world and the majority of "Catholics" will treat him as their savior. He will not force them to follow him. They will beg him to lead them astray. This will play out very soon.
Sorry about the typo. I meant to say JPII is the 6th King. BXVI is the 7th. Bergoglio is the 8th.
-
Thank you for your honesty, Meg. So we both agree that Francis, as of 2016, was already recognized as different by certain "authorities" in the Church. Francis has officially promulgated a heretical teaching. He was asked to clarify. He has refused to do so.
JPII is a topic for historians. He is not leading the Church right now. He is the 5th King of Apocalypse 17:9-11. Bergoglio is "the eighth who is "of the seven and goeth into destruction."
The Dubia Cardinals have been very quiet (two of them are dead). But what they did stands as an objective witness to the truth.
Stay tuned on "a Council called in order to address Francis heresies." It will not be a human-institutional thing. Jesus will take care of it in his own way.
Finally, again, please don't underestimate Bergoglio. He is the "Man of Sin." The world and the majority of "Catholics" will treat him as their savior. He will not force them to follow him. They will beg him to lead them astray. This will play out very soon.
What is he saving us from? Most modern Catholics are already led astray, they think graves sins are no big deal....
-
Absolutely irrelevant. Why did your hero-pope Ratzinger go along with it?
Hold on. Your pope publicly adopted a false religion and yet he remained pope. How do you justify this position?
-
Hold on. Your pope publicly adopted a false religion and yet he remained pope. How do you justify this position?
You show yourself more of an idiot and a hypocrite with every post. Your buddy Ratzinger is a promoter in chief of a false religion. I have never held that someone is ipso facto outside the Church to simply belong materially to the Conciliar Church. There's no evidence whatsoever that Siri adhered to any heresies.
-
Meg, I don't think Assisi was a great thing. But it was not an act of "defection from the Church."
Talk about revisionist history. Were you even alive in 1986?
-
Talk about revisionist history. Were you even alive in 1986?
Agreed. Assisi put the entire new religion on display, concretized the doctrinal principles of Vatican II.
-
I have never held that someone is ipso facto outside the Church to simply belong materially to the Conciliar Church. There's no evidence whatsoever that Siri adhered to any heresies.
Okay.
-
Talk about revisionist history. Were you even alive in 1986?
I stated that the sin of "communicatio in sacris" (which was the "sin of scandal" at Assisi, according to Lefebvre) cannot be interpreted, by itself, as an act of "defection from the Church." Those concepts have definitions in moral theology and Canon Law.
"Defection from the Church" can take only three forms: apostasy, heresy or schism. If the act of defection is formal, then the person is no longer Catholic.
"Communicatio in sacris" can take a multitude of forms. By itself, that sin, even when formal, does not separate a Catholic from the Church. It can be a grave matter or light matter. It can be formal or material participation. And it can be dispensed by the proper authority for a valid reason.
If you think otherwise, please show evidence to back up your claim. You seem to imply that JPII "defected from the Church" at Assisi. Is that what you are saying, Pax?
-
What is he saving us from? Most modern Catholics are already led astray, they think graves sins are no big deal....
He will claim that he is saving us from these things:
1. Terrorism, war and hatred related to religious differences. See Fratelli Tutti.
2. The destruction of "our common home." See Laudato Si.
-
He will claim that he is saving us from these things:
1. Terrorism, war and hatred related to religious differences. See Fratelli Tutti.
2. The destruction of "our common home." See Laudato Si.
When is pope Francis going to claim that he is saving us from these things?
-
When is pope Francis going to claim that he is saving us from these things?
Meg, I specifically referenced Bergoglio's "encyclicals" on those matters, Fratelli Tutti and Laudato Si. Have you read them?
-
Meg, I specifically referenced Bergoglio's "encyclicals" on those matters, Fratelli Tutti and Laudato Si. Have you read them?
I have read them.
So when is Francis going to claim that only HE [Francis] can save us from these things, as you have stated?
-
I have read them.
So when is Francis going to claim that only HE [Francis] can save us from these things, as you have stated?
Meg, Bergoglio's counterfeit theology is explained in those docuмents. As all things Satan, his conception is inverted. We must save ourselves, he says.
He provides an analysis of the problems and a description of the solutions. His "solutions," and only his solutions, will save us. But we must put his instructions into action.
If we don't follow his recommendations, "our common home" (the earth) and "the whole of humanity" (society) we be destroyed.
Just as Jesus explained that we must "repent and believe the Gospel" (Mark 1:15) in order to be saved by God. Bergoglio says that we must care for the planet and accompany our neighbor in order to save ourselves.
-
Meg, Bergoglio's counterfeit theology is explained in those docuмents. As all things Satan, his conception is inverted. We must save ourselves, he says.
He provides an analysis of the problems and a description of the solutions. His "solutions," and only his solutions, will save us. But we must put his instructions into action.
If we don't follow his recommendations, "our common home" (the earth) and "the whole of humanity" (society) we be destroyed.
Just as Jesus explained that we must "repent and believe the Gospel" (Mark 1:15) in order to be saved by God. Bergoglio says that we must care for the planet and accompany our neighbor in order to save ourselves.
Okay, so how many Catholics are clamoring after Francis' claim that only his solutions can save us? I mean, really?
-
Okay, so how many Catholics are clamoring after Francis' claim that only his solutions can save us? I mean, really?
That specific question has not been asked, as far as I know. But a good proxy is looking at how many Catholics have a favorable opinion of Bergoglio:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/06/25/americans-including-catholics-continue-to-have-favorable-views-of-pope-francis/
(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ft_2021.06.25_popefrancisviews_02.png)
(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ft_2021.06.25_popefrancisviews_01.png)
-
That specific question has not been asked, as far as I know. But a good proxy is looking at how many Catholics have a favorable opinion of Bergoglio:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/06/25/americans-including-catholics-continue-to-have-favorable-views-of-pope-francis/
(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ft_2021.06.25_popefrancisviews_02.png)
(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ft_2021.06.25_popefrancisviews_01.png)
Even the Novus Ordo Catholics aren't stupid enough to pay attention to Francis' claim that only his solutions to the 'environment' can save us.
For an Antichrist [your claim], Francis seems rather inept.
Modernist Popes do make strange claims. It's nothing new.
-
Even the Novus Ordo Catholics aren't stupid enough to pay attention to Francis' claim that only his solutions to the 'environment' can save us.
For an Antichrist [your claim], Francis seems rather inept.
Modernist Popes do make strange claims. It's nothing new.
A majority of US Catholics think (as of earlier this year) that "Climate Change" is a serious problem. This number will grow as "the-powers-that-be" continue to manipulate the weather patterns using HAARP technology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program).
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/09/the-pope-is-concerned-about-climate-change-how-do-u-s-catholics-feel-about-it/
(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ft_2023.02.09_catholics-climate-change_01.png)
-
A majority of US Catholics think (as of earlier this year) that "Climate Change" is a serious problem. This number will grow as "the-powers-that-be" continue to manipulate the weather patterns using HAARP technology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program).
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/09/the-pope-is-concerned-about-climate-change-how-do-u-s-catholics-feel-about-it/
(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ft_2023.02.09_catholics-climate-change_01.png)
57% of those Catholics who participated in the survey say that climate change is a serious problem. That's only a slight majority. And there's nothing to indicate that they believe that only Francis' solutions will save us. The mainstream media is mainly responsible for causing climate change fear, since it's frequently mentioned in the mainstream news.
-
57% of those Catholics who participated in the survey say that climate change is a serious problem. That's only a slight majority. And there's nothing to indicate that they believe that only Francis' solutions will save us. The mainstream media is mainly responsible for causing climate change fear, since it's frequently mentioned in the mainstream news.
"Francis" and the mainstream media are one, Meg.
Covid proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that when "the Church," and the gubmint, and the media are all singing the same tune, people will go so far as to inject a poison into their bodies to prevent a cold.
Climate change is a much smaller sell. All they need to do is provide some examples (like maybe wildfires?) and talk about it non-stop on "the news." And then people will finally realize that they need to listen to good old, "Pope Francis" after all. A huge majority of people will VOLUNTARILY sign up to "save the earth." After all, they are doing it, sacrificing themselves, "for the kids," for "the future of humanity."
Just you watch, Meg.
-
"Francis" and the mainstream media are one, Meg.
Covid proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that when "the Church," and the gubmint, and the media are all singing the same tune, people will go so far as to inject a poison into their bodies to prevent a cold.
Climate change is a much smaller sell. All they need to do is provide some examples (like maybe wildfires?) and talk about it non-stop on "the news." And then people will finally realize that they need to listen to good old, "Pope Francis" after all. A huge majority of people will VOLUNTARILY sign up to "save the earth." After all, they are doing it, sacrificing themselves, "for the kids," for "the future of humanity."
Just you watch, Meg.
I'll watch and wait.
But I think it's unlikely that the world is waiting with baited breath for Francis to make a profound announcement about the environment which will cause them to worship him. I just don't see it happening. Catholics are too independent for that, even the Novus Ordo folks. It's not like they take religion seriously.