Exactly! This is where the Remnant needs to head spiritually now. Humility and prayer. It is not up to us to crawl through canon law and the Catechism to proclaim those in charge heretics or apostates. It is the job of the Church to sort that out and if the Church is delinquent in it's duties then God will sort it out. When Our Lady appears she says prayer and penance. She doesn't say study canon law. If the devil can't get us to ascibe to his Modernist heresies he will try to get us through tricking us into attacking legitimate authority. Even if that authority is wrong, we should not verbally attack them. In charity we can correct their errors, but in charity, not in anger and pride.
I maintain that this should be adhered to, because God Himself, through Scripture, has told us that such a one should be accursed. I am sticking to the teachings of the faith as handed down from Jesus through the ages.
The matter of the validity of the 2013 conclave is another issue; somewhat separate from the accursing of anyone who preaches another gospel to us. The rules set by JPII clearly say that there is no need for any declaration on the matter - lobbying for a candidate in the conclave makes the election null and void.
But this is exactly what I mean we should be doing. We know that PF and his like-minded clergy are preaching another gospel to us. Our instinct (Holy Spirit in us) is to ignore these teachings and 'keep on believing what the Church has always taught'. To me it sounds rather schizophrenic to say that we should obey PF in all things but sin, when he has been preaching another gospel to us so relentlessly. To sift through his teachings and determine which are true and faithful and which are errors is dangerous for any Catholic, because the Modernists add a drop of poison into everything, and we may be caught. That is why God through St Paul told us that such people should be accursed. In his encyclical, Pope Vigilius told us: "As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned. It was in the spirit of this text that Cyril of holy memory, in the books which he wrote against Theodore, declared as follows: “Whether or not they are alive, we ought to keep clear of those who are in the grip of such dreadful errors. It is necessary always to avoid what is harmful, and not to be worried about public opinion but rather to consider what is pleasing to God”. We seem to shy away from saying that PF is a great danger to our faith. He has behaved like an enemy of God.
Here are a few more articles and tweets related to the Rome Life Forum. All of the LifeSite articles related to the forum can be found here https://www.lifesitenews.com/tags/tag/rome+life+forum+2019 . Fri May 17, 2019 - 7:35 pm EST Eminent clergy, laymen conclude Rome conference on ‘One World Order vs. Christendom’ By Stephen Kokx Fri May 17, 2019 - 7:21 pm EST Two powerhouse cardinals answer questions on Muslim migration, patriotism, contraception By Dorothy Cummings McLean Fri May 17, 2019 - 12:39 pm EST Cdl. Burke: It’s ‘responsible’ for Christian nations to resist ‘large-scale Muslim immigration’ By Dorothy Cummings McLean Fri May 17, 2019 - 11:19 am EST Why idea of ‘neutral’ state is really a ‘lie’ to turn Christians away from city of God: historian By Dorothy Cummings McLean Fri May 17, 2019 - 10:30 am EST Cdl. Burke: God doesn’t make one-world government ‘just and legitimate’ By Dorothy Cummings McLean Fri May 17, 2019 - 10:15 am EST Contraception has led to ‘diabolical’ experiments on human life: cardinal By Lianne Laurence Fri May 17, 2019 - 7:37 am EST Cardinal blasts gay ‘marriage,’ abortion as Satan’s tools to rob the Church By Dorothy Cummings McLean
Our Lady also warned us of the infiltration of Satan into the church, right to the very top. Why did she do that, if not for us to know and recognise the enemy within the Church when it happens, as is happening now? As Laurence England has put it in his recent post, the promise of Christ to us about Peter as the Rock upon which he built His Church can only be understood, and can only be true in the present time, if PF doesn't hold the charism accorded to popes through the ages simply because he is not truly the pope. Benedict XVI is still known as pope and signs himself as pope, wears the papal white, gives papal blessings, and lives on Vatican grounds. The See is not vacant.
"Obey in all things but sin": I take that to mean that his ambiguous documents and statements should be understood strictly in line with what has been taught by previous Popes and to take any other meaning from them is using his ambiguity as an excuse to sin. If he intended to use ambiguous language as a means to permit sin, then both he and the person obeying him are committing sin. Considering what Bishop Schneider said about the Pope's approval of the Argentinian guidelines for Amoris Laetitia, I'm grateful that I'm not a priest in Argentina. I'm not sure, either, how the Bishop could say that the Pope's approval was specific to Argentina when the Pope himself said that there can be no other interpretation which means that he intended that interpretation for the universal Church. "Let them be accursed" doesn't give us the right to curse anyone. That's God's department. "Have nothing more to do with him" will be my approach. In Arian times, the faithful of Rome resorted to going to Mass in the swamps to avoid a bad Pope. Plenty of people are saying that Pope Francis is a danger to the faith. Not enough, unfortunately, to get the Bishops to step up to the plate and call him out on it. If those German women really intend to attach their demands to the doors of churches, nobody can blame them for that particular act considering the Pope's enthusiastic and disgraceful celebration of Luther's revolt - a betrayal of all the Catholics who suffered at the hands of the Reformers and a betrayal of his predecessors' refusal to endorse Luther's heresies.
How about Pope Emeritus Benedict also told us he is no longer Pope. I guess we will just ignore that inconvenient little fact?
Other than what Cardinal McCarrick said, there's no proof of lobbying for the 2013 Conclave. The St. Gallen crowd boasted about lobbying prior to the Conclave which elected Pope Benedict but they claim that the group disbanded once Benedict was elected. Hard to believe but impossible to prove false without an admission of guilt from at least one of them or some kind of statement from Cardinal electors that they were lobbied prior to the 2013 Conclave.
What you are mixing up SG are a collection of possible facts and the authority to sift through those facts and make a legal determination. Think of it this way. A man commits a murder. You heard him confess it to someone else. You even saw him leaving the murder scene with blood on his hands. That does not give you the right to take him to jail and put him in prison. You can tell the authorities what you know, but it is up to them to make the arrest and have a trial. They have the authority to put people in prison, not us. Charging someone with heresy is a legal procedure in the Church, as are conclaves. We laity have absolutely no authority to pass a legal judgment upon someone, whether he is the Pope, a bishop, priest or layman.
A lay person has no authority to accuse a pope of formal heresy. Only the Church and her bishops can make that call. However, a lay person can and should recognize material heresy by a pope, and it’s a work of mercy to warn him and others who would otherwise be deceived by his heresy that what he is saying or doing is heterodox. We might not be able to levy a charge of formal heresy against a pope. But we can in charity, and we must, point out material heresy by a pope. We are not required to be silent in this regard. Again, the difference in employing the terms "material heresy" and "formal heresy"
Precisely the danger he poses to us. In some versions of the bible, Gal 1:8 uses the word 'anathema', and in others 'accursed'. The practical effect is the same for us - have nothing more to do with him. Obey God and not man. Yes.
We have reports that in 2011, Pope Benedict was threatened with death within a year. PBXVI spoke at his inauguration, to ask that we pray he will not flee for fear of the wolves. On the day he announced his resignation, lightning struck St Peter's Basilica twice. There is controversy over the exact words he used to announce his resignation; he said he was resigning his ministry, and not the office. He emphasised that once a pope, one is always pope. He gave a ridiculous excuse for continuing to wear the papal white. He wants to be known as Pope Emeritus and addressed as Your Holiness. He continues to live on Vatican grounds. He continues to sign off as Benedict XVI PP. He continues to give papal blessings. So, no, I am not ignoring an 'inconvenient little fact'. I am taking all the above into account and know that he obviously cannot say outright that he is still the Pope, when he has been forced to step aside, and had a threat made on his life.
I think that if you take another look at it you will find that Iveragh and Daneels were referring to the previous conclave where then Cardinal Bergoglio was the runner-up in the election of Pope Benedict. What we learned from the book and the McCarrick talk is that all the Cardinals and probably most of the Bishops along with the self-styled "In the know" journalists weren't exactly truthful when they waxed lyrical about the Holy Spirit surprising everyone by choosing an unknown Cardinal out of the blue. Turns out that the "unknown" was only unknown to faithful Catholics whereas he was well known to the Catholic Spring crowd, Soros and all their associated activist groups, not to mention the St. Gallen Mafia and all the Cardinals who had participated in the previous conclave and likely the majority of Bishops, just about every Jesuit and their modernist cliques including all the "In the know" Catholic journalists. That "Holy Spirit" God of surprises keeps on "surprising" us every time another item from the St. Gallen/Catholic Spring agenda is enabled via ambiguous teaching which doesn't quite meet the narrow definition of "Formal Heresy". And the charade goes on.
Austen Ivereigh was referring to the 2013 conclave in his book about PF The great reformer. I will take a look at the Danneels video again. Have to rush out now.
From what I've read of Luther, and that's admittedly not very much, he was a deeply-disturbed person before he started to raise objections. He seemingly had grave fears about his chances of salvation, raising questions of a lack of trust in Christ's Mercy. In reaction, he seems to have decided to distort this Mercy to dependence on one condition, 'faith alone'. It seems difficult to exclude the influence of Luther's supreme scrupulosity from his subsequent theology. His Protestantism is ultimately a faith founded on a lack of faith. The recent attempts to rehabilitate Luther's reputation might only be a retrospective attempt to rewrite history in order to sneak his beliefs in the back door. We need to step here with great caution. Beware those who, in effect, reduce the ideas of their predecessors to error, or, at the very least, over-reaction. While many of Luther's current followers are very Christian, though certainly many are not, the reality remains of the immeasurable harm done to Christendom by Luther's heresies, harm which has had a direct line to the secular progressivism and official state atheism of the present. It was only a small step from religion being a private matter to depriving it of any status in the public square of a society which has godless atheism as its religion.
