I think it is possible that the 2022 synod will give approval to these ruptures because the theme will be about the synodality of the Church. I am convinced that it may be the synod that precedes the Warning, what do you think?
We've had this discussion many times SG. I'm not ignoring any "facts" about Pope Benedict. I know what the arguments are as well as you. We simply have a disagreement about authority in the Church. I believe if a valid conclave tells the faithful that Pope x, y, or z is Pope then we are bound to accept that the Church has the definitive say in the matter. You feel however that if you can gather enough "evidence" that something might have been wrong with the election then you have the right to disobey. That's it. You will never convince me otherwise. The Church rests upon order and authority. Christ will not let His Church be overtaken. If there is a problem He will right it in His good time through the Church hierarchy. Not through the laity shouting "non serviam". I will listen to people like Bishop Schneider, you can follow Ann Barnhardt if you want to. I know you are a good person and I truly wish you no ill will. We simply disagree strongly on this point. God Bless.
Let's not play word games. You are not calling Pope Francis "Begoglio" because you feel that is what he prefers to be called.
perhaps an ecumenical council is needed to clarify everything, I think that this pontificate puts us in a difficult situation to try not to follow Pope Francis' theological errors and at the same time not to commit the sin of disobedience and schism.
Charity is always due to the Pope to honor the position he holds regardless of what he does with it. This has always been the case, hence the example of prelates like Burke, Sarah and Schneider. Disagree at times, yes. Make problems known, yes. But do so with deference and without demeaning the office. You are right it is better to be orthodox, but vulgar than heterodox and vulgar. Even better though to be orthodox without the vulgarity in my opinion
My argument has never been that it is not possible that Benedict retained the papacy through some sort of error in the resignation. Indeed I think there is enough to look into at this point that it should and probably will be looked into in the future. My point is that it is not within the authority of the laity to base their faith on who is Pope according to a theory about what Pope Benedict might have done. If indeed, as you say, he reveals in his will a "Ha! Fooled you all I was just kidding with that whole resignation thing!" then I will indeed champion him as the true Pope. Honestly, I don't think that is going to happen, and to be frank I think that would be a cowardly thing to do. If he indeed retained the papacy and is aware of this fact then I think he has the duty to make it definitively clear now while he is still living. I think it much more likely that he might be in error thinking that the papacy creates an indelible mark on the soul like priestly ordination and the raising to the episcopate. In this case, he might think once a Pope always a Pope. This might be a substantial error which would possibly invalidate his resignation. I am however not a canon lawyer and have no idea how to rule on something like that. It is beyond my competency and authority to do anything but wonder.
I am no expert on Vatican II or the various problems with a few of the documents in it that seem to be the main ones causing the controversies. A good bellwether to use though is that Archbishop Lefebvre signed them. He was an arch traditionalist and someone meticulous about orthodoxy. I can't believe he would have signed them if they contained heresy or something of that gravity. It seems to me they were written ambiguously on purpose and the Modernists then used that vagueness afterward to push an agenda of turning the Church upside down. I don't think in 1965 any of the good prelates could envision the Church as it would be ten years later.
[QUOT This is a very enlightened post. I believe it is the Truth. It answers many questions and it makes so many arguments totally unnecessary. Thank you, Praetorian.
I see the reverence in the Tridentine Mass. I would love to attend but my immediate family does not so what am I to do? Too long and the Latin are their reasons. See this yet to be approved private revelation. People’s opinion, some will say this message excerpt is from a false prophet, I take comfort in it because of my situation. And, makes one wonder, what will be the form of Mass in the prophesied Era of Peace? God Speaks Will You Listen To Cletus Schefers and Verne Dagenais 7/25/07 My son, ponder these words. Ask my Holy Spirit to interpret the meaning for you. Isaias 55:8,9,11. For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. So shall my word be, which shall go forth from my mouth. It shall not return to me void, but it shall do whatsoever I please and shall prosper in the things for which I sent it. Matthew 16:19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. My people, who were these words addressed to? Peter, my apostle and to his successors. These words were not addressed to lay people, religious, or even individual priests. Today in my church, many factions are questioning the authority of the Holy Father. I ask you: do you have the power to loose and bind? These words do not apply to you. If you are in rebellion, calumniating, or causing others to question the authority of my vicar, you are in rebellion against me. You will be held responsible for those you lead astray, if you do not repent. By your words and actions, you are persecuting me. You are led by your own pride, not by my Holy Spirit. For I am meek and humble of heart. Are your actions, thoughts, and words leading my people to me or away from me? Beware, the serpent is sly and can lead you astray. If my pope was truly teaching false doctrine, my spirit would lead and purify my church. This schism over the validity of the mass must stop. It is a stumbling block and a serious offence to my sacred heart, my Mother’s Immaculate heart, and to the Holy Trinity. For it is only my sacrifice which appeases my Father’s justice. My sacrifice of the mass is a renewal daily of my atonement on Calvary. Who are you to stifle my spirit? If a validly ordained priest, speaks the words of consecration established by my church, I AM PRESENT. It is a valid consecration. If you question the validity of my masses, after the Holy Father has explicitly guided you, are you any different than Martin Luther or any of the protestant reformers? Remember, Satan wants to destroy belief in my mass. He does not care which method he uses. By questioning the validity of the Novo Ordo Mass, you are causing people to leave my church and deny my presence in the Eucharist. You will be held responsible for all the souls, which you have caused to be led astray. I am a God of humility. It is my humility which has brought about your salvation. My desire is for all to be saved. I will go to whatever lengths, to save a soul. The loss of one soul to hell, causes much sorrow and grief in my sacred heart. For I told you, there is much joy over one sinner who repents. Who are you to judge the workings of my spirit? My people, the Tridentine Mass brings great honor and glory to my Father, myself, and the Holy Spirit. Please Ponder on this: There is much evil in your world. How do you know the Novo Order Mass, was not inspired by my spirit? I knew there would be sacrilegious communions, lack of reverence in my churches, and lack of belief in my presence in the Eucharist. But I will do anything for the salvation of souls. I will humiliate myself to great extremes to save my people. I will sacrifice my honor and glory to save my people and bring my presence to my people. What will you do for the salvation of souls? Since the introduction of the Novo Ordo Mass, many protestants and others have entered my church, who otherwise would not have. Many conversions and Eucharistic miracles have occurred with both rites of my mass. For the most important thing to me, is to share my presence and to save the souls of my people. With the mass said in the vernacular languages, many souls have learned to love me and have come back to the shepherd of their souls. If you continue to fight over the validity of the mass, do you even care about souls? For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. I receive honor and glory, not from the praise of men, but through the salvation of souls. For truly I say to you, my divine purpose, is to deliver my people from sin and death and bring them to my Father in heaven. What is your purpose, you who call on my name? Follow the visible head of my church, your Holy Father and you follow me. Follow not your Holy Father and you do not follow me, but you persecute me. These are the words of the Lord. https://www.scribd.com/doc/22505473/God-Speaks-Will-You-Listen
It is our duty to honour the office, but I wonder if this applies to the man that holds it if his practice of the office is inappropriate or even wicked? It is arguable that a great problem for The Church in the recent past, and one that has brought virtual ruin upon her, was the excessive deference given to wicked men on account of the offices they held. I think of parents who were afraid to accuse priests of abuse of their sons because they were in awe of the man rather than the office he so grievously besmirched. Or bishops who got off scot-free from the secular legal authorities for many years from protecting the actions of perverted priests. True, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction now, but an office to which respect is rightfully due should not consequently become a shield for an occupant's wickedness. Judas was an Apostle, but although we rightfully venerate Apostles, we also rightfully despise Judas. I know it is hard to know where to draw the line, and I'd be a lot more sensitive than Mundabor in that respect, but I don't think his vulgarity negates the truth in much of what he says.
I hope I am not coming off as condoning all of the novelties coking out of the Vatican. That is not my intent at all. One can disagree, even vehemently so, while still being humble and honoring the Pope. St. Catherine of Sienna is an example. For example, Pope Francis said a few years ago during the Zika outbreak that the use of condoms was okay because of the circumstances. People were so confused about this that the Vatican press office had to clear it up in the ensuing days and say that the Pope was not confused, he meant to say what he did. Well that is just wrong. Any artificial birth control is an intrinsic evil and the Church teaches that clearly. So in this case the Pope was wrong in what he said. I think that it is clear I disagree with what he said and that the Church teaching is the opposite of what he said. That is a world of difference from peppering my statement with words like "Bergoglio", "Clown", "Fool". These sorts of words have no place in writing about the Pope. Any Pope. Demeaning one man demeans the office and future office holders. It is just human nature. Once people get used to talking that way about Pope Francis it becomes easier to do with the next Pope and the one after that. The Pope is the very Vicar of Christ on Earth. The Episcopate used to kiss his foot. Not because of who he was personally, but because of the office he held. We have lost all sense of that today.
The progressives are so predictable. Married priests and priestesses. Their agenda hasn't 'progressed' in decades. I wonder if, in this permission of open rebellion, Pope Francis realises he is negating his own authority. Wherefore all his aeroplane pronouncements, Laudato si, Amoris laetitia and so on if his authority carries so little weight that the German apostates and heretics get their way?
Exactly. Respect for the OFFICE. I have been guilty of posting “Ratzinger” without a title because I was unsure if he spoke as a Bishop or as Pope when I was referring to him. Mea culpa
If a faithful disciple hypothetically ran into Judas when the latter was on his way to his own tree, would you condemn that disciple for not showing the deference due to one who held the rank of an apostle, a bishop personally appointed by Christ Himself? Our present pope might not be guilty of a crime as monstrous as Judas, but his cumulative errors are arguably not all that far behind. It is very laudable to kiss a pope's foot-it honours his office, but I would be interested in knowing the Canon Law of how one ought to treat a human being that, in word and deed, grievously dishonours this office. St. Catherine of Sienna dealt with popes who, despite any disagreements she might have had with them, honoured the office they held and were worthy of respect both as pope and man. I find it hard to believe she had to face a pope who opposed and confused Catholic teaching to anything like the degree perpetrated by Pope Francis, if at all. And Pope Francis is engaging in this behaviour at probably the moment in history, thus far, that Catholicism and humanity can least afford a pope to do it. Those words of abuse you quote above are not directed against the papacy per se, but against one particular holder of it, one whom the person deploying these words considers is doing untold damage and insult to an office he actually holds dear. It is precisely because this individual inhabits an office that he venerates that leads the person to anger. One suspects that, like the crime of Judas, he feels betrayed. Not criticising Pope Francis seems to me more likely to demean the papacy, because it signifies that obedience takes priority over issues such as sacriligious communion, idolatry, adultery, contraception, errant doctrines of Hell and damnation and so on. It is no different than expecting parents to excuse abusive priests because they should be obedient to the office of priest. Such excessive deference to Church offices has greatly demeaned these offices in the eyes of the world, to put it mildly. Not calling out a pope responsible for the above-mentioned abuses, and a lot more, is going to cause untold damage to the papacy. Far more than the damage caused by the behaviour of the Borgia popes. The Pope is certainly the Vicar of Christ on Earth, which makes it all the more scandalous that he should do what he does. Never before, in the history of The Papacy, has there been such a contrast between the office and the man. We are in uncharted territory, God help us all. Here be dragons (another word for serpent).
I doubt you mean any disrespect. It is his surname, after all. There is considerable confusion between his roles as Cardinal, Pope and ex-Pope. His surname actually seems the most practical.
Thanks HH. I don't think I'm very enlightened lol. I'm just as confused as everybody else, but that is my unschooled opinion. I have listened to a lot of talks on the subject from a variety of viewpoints. I think outright rejecting the entire council is dangerous. I have heard very orthodox thinkers say that the council need not be jettisoned it total just because of the problems that sprang from it's aftermath. Here is an interesting show for anyone interested in the subject:
I think you are accusing me here of something I am not espousing. I never said one can't criticize Pope Francis. In fact, in the very post you were responding to (#16275) I did criticize him regarding what he said about contraception. What I am saying is that one can validly critique without demeaning. The two do not need to go hand in hand. I said Pope Francis was wrong and contradicted the Catholic Catechism when he suggested that condoms could be used during the Zika outbreak. Should I have peppered that with expletives to make my point better understood? Should have thrown in some derogatory language? Would that have made my point clearer? This is not a criticism of you, but I am honestly asking anyone on the forum, do I not speak clearly? Perhaps I don't. It seems I am often reiterating my positions and to me they seem plain and easily understood, but various people often seem to have a lot of trouble with understanding what I say for some reason.
