Yes, the lady who can probably claim to have done more than anyone to ensure that Italy has the lowest birth rate in the EU. Were it not for all those migrants flooding in from war torn regions, Italy's ageing demographic would be a major crisis. I suppose, from an Italian businessman's point of view, that the Pope should be grateful to Trump for wanting to build that wall because those South Americans might come to Europe if they can't get into the US. Cheap labour is not to be sneezed at and it wouldn't get good press to remind the Italians that, thanks to following Bonino's advice, they brought their troubles on themselves. I think Bonino's other claim to fame was that she gave food parcels to African women while teaching them how to copy anti-life Italians. Doesn't she also have some connection with Soros? I'm so looking forward to in depth reports from websites like Where Peter Is explaining Bonino's greatness. None of that changes the fact that Francis is Pope and has sole authority to appoint or remove Bishops. From time to time I watch videos on the Intellectual Catholicism Youtube channel. Much of it is over my head but there's a video by Erick Ybarra that's worth watching. I like Erick Ybarra for the way he communicates and for his thorough research. He doesn't do sensationalism or self-congratulations. The video is about three Popes in the past who made a mess when dealing with doctrinal issues. Just as well the public didn't have the internet back then. Watching that video strengthened my belief that God really does protect the Church despite man's shortcomings. Trust in God. All manner of things will be well.
Profound thoughts - Abraham our father in faith was prepared to sacrifice his son, as a prefigurement of calvary. By and through Christ's atonement we become through baptismal regeneration adopted children of God, that is why we can cry, Abba Father. Truly Christ is our saviour and our brother. About those predestined to the life of grace, Saint Paul wrote, “For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he [Christ] might be the firstborn amongst many brethren” (Rom. 8:29).
Yes, they have the authority to appoint and remove bishops, but in the case of Bishop Strickland, this seems to be equivalent to the unjust excommunication of Saint Athanasius. The very fact that we have clerics openly questioning the Church's doctrine on homosexuality without suffering any punishment reveals this. I just wanted to emphasize that I still fully trust the promise that Christ will come to the aid of the church. In my opinion, Fátima created a "blessed paradox" that even if the crisis in the church deepens, this only proves more and more that the apparition is true and that Catholicism is the true religion.
Previous popes have made mistakes in leading the Church, but the case of a pope who refuses to clarify the confusion of an interview that casts doubt on the foundations of the apostolic creed is unprecedented. A few months after the death of Benedict XVI, Pope Francis gave an interview to the Argentine newspaper "Perfil". I transcribed an excerpt where he practically repeated what Scalfari attributed to him about the existence of hell.
If there is no Hell, it removes the purpose of our earthly existence and Christ's Incarnation and Sacrifice would be unnecessary. Without the possibility of Hell, only a fool would choose to be good. Do whatever you like here, have a great time, whatever the consequences, and have a laugh at those who choose not to while you get to Heaven, too.
When it comes to confusion, Pope Vigilius could have given Pope Francis a run for his money. Not quite the same as Pope Francis in that Vigilius's problem was in clarifying and then issuing a re-clarification contrary to the clarification. I've come to the conclusion that it's best to let the hierarchy fight it out and concentrate on my own soul. Jesus will protect the Church from teaching error. Clerics who contradict the teaching in word or pastoral practice will be judged by God. Here's the Erick Ybarra video:
No, because Pope Liberius did not bring the "complete package" of this pontificate, which includes allegations of irregularities in his election, denial of the Church's moral doctrine (saying that the least serious sins are those that occur below the belt), and using the Holy See to host conferences for those who defend “women’s reproductive rights." In addition to many other sinister things about this pontificate that would make Pope Liberius “a good pope” when compared to the current one.
It's one thing to argue that there are parallels between the current crisis and other pontificates (not at the same level of severity). It's another thing to say that Pope Francis could very well be a saint and justify the dismissal of his opponents or compare his critics to Protestants.
So, are you saying that previous Popes' misdeeds didn't make them anti-Popes but that Pope Francis is or could be an anti-Pope because during his papacy he has committed the misdeeds of a number of previous Popes who weren't anti-Popes? So, how many misdeeds does it take to make an anti-Pope? Is there a set number? If so, why doesn't it include the Borgia scandals? Or what about the Pope who dug up his predecessor and put the skeleton on trial? Had there been mass media in the Past we would have a long list of anti-Popes according to your criteria. Francis is the Pope and the first See is judged by no-one. That's the way it is. We don't have to like it but we do have to accept it. Other than that Iveragh guy who isn't worth a second thought, I don't know of anyone who would have us believe that Francis is a saint. Then again, I'm sure we all will be surprised some day when we see who actually ended up in Heaven or Hell. Enough from me on this topic. I'll leave you to it.
There will certainly be people in hell who insulted the divinity of our lord; because Saint John warned us that they represent the antichrist; and there will also be people in hell who died under the illusion that sodomy is less serious under certain circumstances (as suggested by the current pope). As for the criteria to define him as an Antipope; This will definitely be proclaimed by the authority of the Church in the future, however this does not equate those who discuss this possibility with Protestant reformers as you did in this same topic. And finally I need to remember that Pope Borgia was a notoriously immoral man but he did not transgress the teaching of Catholic doctrine.
Because our beautiful, merciful God has allowed those wolves in sheep's clothing to show themselves, becoming more and more obvious in thier attacks against the constant teachings of the Church, and fundamental morality... When the great Warning comes those who were confused or lukewarm will be able to see more clearly where laxity and compromise with evil leads. God allows evil to flourish only to bring about a greater good....Evil is always defeated. He wants a truely magnificent Triumph of the Immaculate Heart which we can only attribute to God's hand through the intercession of the Blessed Mother. The wolves have shown thier teeth. The shepherd's staff will strike.
However the current occupant of the see of Peter stacks up against historic awful popes each day we are seeing signs of a grave problem in the church, starting at the top. I had forgotten about Eccles, he is a genius. Thanks Brian! Sometimes only satire will hit the spot.
I believe this. I refuse to be scandalized. I cling hard to my faith and Jesus and His one true Church. I trust God is at work and He will act in His Own time and it will be exactly right. In the mean time I pray for these poor souls in the Vatican. " It is a terrible thing to fall into the Hands of the Living God" scripture tells us. We wouldn't want that for even our worst enemies. Constant prayets for their salvation.
Unless PBXVI’s resignation wasn’t valid either due to error or coercion, or the conclave itself was invalid due to well documented violations of the laws governing conclaves promulgated by PJPII incurring automatic excommunication, in which case Bergoglio was never validly elected in the first place, and therefore is not now nor ever was a pope. In which case all the arguments about universal acceptance and not judging a pope simply do not and will never apply to this papal claimant. And not to make too fine of a point, but in these situations the negation of the conclave is ipso facto. No one needs “judge” anything, it just has to be declared.
And there is NOTHING wrong or sinful for a faithful Catholic to raise these questions, recent posts suggesting otherwise notwithstanding. On the contrary, to stay silent or urge silence in the face of the obvious may be. Eternal souls are at stake and some risk eternal perdition if they follow the grave errors of this claimant to the papacy.
It is an excruciating dilemma. If anyone said to me "the Pope says its okay" then I would calmly explain why it is not okay. But honestly I am just not called to make any kind of public statement about his errors or his legitimacy. . That is not to say that others have not been given that call and therefore they must respond. God bless them for stepping up. I have a soul to save and I must "stay in my lane" and pray for his soul and for the Church. It has been made clear to me that anything else is way above my pay grade. I am simply not qualified to decide for myself if he is only a claimant. That for me is a dangerous thing to assert. As I said, I have my own soul to save and I simply can't endanger it.
