Francis denies Immaculate Conception, says Virgin Mary Not a Saint from the Beginning!

Jesus, I trust in you.

 

Open to marrying? Mary was a consecrated virgin no? Which meant she was consecrated to remaining a virgin. If 'I' know this, how can PF not know this???

 

Moro viejo nunca será buen cristiano.

 

Had to look that one up:

Translation: The old Moor will never be a good Christian.

Meaning: Old habits die hard; you can’t change someone from who they really are.​

 

EXCUSE ME?!?!

 

Yes, I would also love to believe he has been grossly influenced by the Freemasons who surround him....This is just going TOO FAR. Last year, going to Mass for the Immaculate Conception, I was startled and taken aback when the only references made were of Christ Himself being conceived. I KNEW that was not right.

I felt so much better this year.

 

She identified herself as such to St Bernadette at Lourdes. Wasn't that just prior to the Papal declaration! How the hang could any Pope deny this?!?!

 

Although much of what the Pope said isn't how we would speak about the Blessed Mother, I don't see how he denied the Immaculate Conception.

Eve was the only other woman born without original sin. Our Lady's immaculate conception didn't remove her free will. That she was "full of grace" at the Annunciation shows that Mary grew in holiness in contrast to Eve who succumbed to temptation.

Although many believe that Our Lady was a consecrated virgin and more or less raised in the Temple, it isn't something Catholics are obliged to believe.

P.S. to Joan J: I think the Papal declaration happened before the apparitions at Lourdes.

 

It did happen before Lourdes.

 

By the way, the site that the original article is linked from is a sedevacantist site. Just sayin'

I haven't read the whole article, but I wouldn't encourage people to go snooping around the rest of the website.

 

This is not what I understand. The following article explains it quite well:


MARY CONSECRATED HER LIFE TO GOD BY A VOW OF VIRGINITY
https://catholicstrength.com/2018/04/29/mary-consecrated-her-life-to-god-by-a-vow-of-virginity/
April 29, 2018


“Mary asked the angel, ‘But how can this happen? I am a virgin’.” (Luke 1:34, NLT)
Saint Pope John Paul II explains in Redemptoris Mater that the Virgin Mary consecrated her life to God through a vow of virginity:

Mary accepted her election as Mother of the Son of God, guided by spousal love, the love which totally “consecrates” a human being to God. By virtue of this love, Mary wished to be always and in all things “given to God,” living in virginity. The words “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord” express the fact that from the outset she accepted and understood her own motherhood as a total gift of self, a gift of her person to the service of the saving plans of the Most High. And to the very end she lived her entire maternal sharing in the life of Jesus Christ, her Son, in a way that matched her vocation to virginity (The Mother of the Redeemer, no. 39).

That Mary remained a virgin her entire life is thus a De Fide doctrine of the Catholic Church (see, for example, Documents of Vatican II, LG57, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 499, and Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pages 203-206). But is this doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity contained in Scriptue? An analysis of Luke 1:34 demonstrates that Mary had made a vow of virginity to God.

The relevant verse, Luke 1:34, states: “How shall this be, seeing I do not know man.”These words of Mary to the Angel Gabriel at the Annunciation show that Mary did not intend to have conjugal relations with a man; otherwise, Mary surely would have known that conjugal relations with Joseph, her husband, could cause a pregnancy. Catholic theologian Stefano Manelli explains Mary’s strange response to the angel this way:


Confronted by this [the angel Gabriel’s] wondrous announcement, however, the virgin finds herself embarrassed; not because of the sublime greatness of the majesty announced to her, but rather for the way in which such a maternity might be realized. The embarrassment would seem inexplicable because, on any reasonable grounds, she is precisely a woman in ideal conditions to conceive a son. She is the young spouse of Joseph – What young spouse would not be inclined to desire a beautiful son? It is obvious, therefore, and must be acknowledged that Mary’s difficulty stems from a precise commitment — vow or promise — “not to know man,” that is, to be and remain a virgin. St. Augustine rightly says, that ‘Mary certainly would not have spoken those words If she had not vowed her virginity to God.” In fact, only by admitting Mary’s virginal consecration to God, can it be understood why she found herself facing an unsolvable dilemma: How to reconcile her virginal offering to God with the request of maternity on the part of God? How could she become a mother without betraying a promise of virginal consecration to God (Stefano Manelli, All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed, pages 137-140).

Warren H. Carroll adds:
“[The] Greek present tense used for Mary’s words in Luke 1:34 corresponds…to the Hebrew and Aramaic active participle indicating a permanent condition. Mary’s words in Aramaic were ki enneni yodaat ish, the yodaat indicating a permanent condition of virginity” (Warren Carroll summarizing and quoting from Manuel Miguen’s “indispensable” work, The Virgin Birth: an Evaluation of Scriptural Evidence (p.81) in The Founding of Christendom, Vol. I, p.310).

CONCLUSION: Mary consecrated her life to God through a vow of virginity. Mary’s words to the angel in Luke 1:34 would hardly make sense unless she had made a vow of virginity.

Thomas L. Mulcahy, M.A.

 

Precisely!
This to me is a strong indicator that he is not really pope.
The laity should not have to sift a pope's words to see which ones are to be accepted and which to be discarded. Thus, to say that 'we must obey PF in all things but sin' does not make any sense whatsoever to me.
If God expects the laity to do that, he wouldn't have given the keys of the kingdom to Peter.

 

There have been bap Popes before, just as, I am sure there will be bad Popes again. Just as, of course there are and will be gain bad Cardinals, Bishops and priests. But that does not make them not Cardinals, Bishops and priests.

No more than, say, bad policemen , teachers, Doctors, Judges and lawyers cease their professions because they are bad people.

No Cardinal has proclaimed Pope Francis invalid and to the best of my knowledge only one single Bishop in the entire Church has done so.

 

And from the mystical side of things, there is the Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires and the blood of Saint Januarius which partially liquified when Pope Francis visited the Church. To me, these are also signs from God that he is indeed a valid Pope.

 

Pope Francis is such an interesting and confusing phenomenon in and of himself. He reminds me so much of the Irish weather. You never know what it is going to do. You can get the entire four seasons in a single hour. One moment he can come out with something wonderful , in actions and in words and , the very next minute he can say or do something that makes you gasp with horror.

He is for instance very,very good as regards the poor and marginalised. He did very well over Christmas opening the Vatican to the homeless.

But the bottom line; the huge confusion he has created in the Church is a catastrophe. I have no doubt he is the worst Pope in history. Though who knows we'll probably get a worse one some day. Though I hope I never live to see it.

Generally speaking though I have found great peace in just leaving him too it. Trying to forget about him. Well as far as I can.

 

I think this has been discussed before.
The many bad popes were bad in their personal lives and sins, but not in leading the laity into confusion and heresy.
I can only recall that there was one pope who sort of proclaimed or held on to a heretical view about one aspect of the faith, but recanted before his death (I think). (edited: this was Pope John XXII)

Ahh... I found this list of popes and the explanation:

No one can dispute the facts, which prove that certain Popes have in fact shown themselves confused in questions of faith and even condemned the upholders of orthodoxy. We must remember, however, that such cases can be counted on the fingers of one hand, that they were mere short-lived episodes and that there were extenuating circumstances in the form of persecution, ill-health or old age. The list of all such cases is so short that it serves only to provoke our admiration at the orderliness marking the long succession of the Papacy. The exceptions only enhance the general impression.

Liberius is famous for having signed, in December 359, when he was under pressure at the hands of the Emperor who was holding him prisoner at Byzantium, a semi-Arian formula which had already, been accepted by all the Eastern bishops, 160 in number, meeting at Seleucia, and by 400 Western bishops, at Rimini – by all of them except Hilary, Athanasius, and a tiny handful of others, whom Liberius went so far as to condemn. But the wretched man came to his senses before long and stood up to the Emperor, thereafter being firm in his support of orthodoxy right up to the time of his death.

Vigilius became to all appearances a supporter of heresy when, in 553, he refused to uphold firmly the Church’s teaching that Christ had two Wills, against “ Monothelism ”, though the issue had, admittedly, been confused by the Byzantines. He did not condemn either this or the older, Monophysite heresy. The Roman deacon Pelagius attacked Vigilius on this account and charged him with heresy, for which he was excommunicated by Vigilius. It was Pelagius, however, who succeeded him on the See of Peter – only to fall into similar habits of temporising and diplomatic duplicity as his predecessor  !

Boniface IV adopted a similarly ambiguous – or prudent  ? – attitude on the same question which had become even more entangled, and for this he was reproached by St Columba in a vehement letter, several entire pages of which might well have been incorporated into our Liber Accusationis in Paulum VI  !

Honorius is, among all the Popes in any way guilty of heresy, both the best known and the most culpable – even though this concerned only a single episode in an otherwise great Pontificate. The phrase he used when justifying his compromise with the heretics has a surprisingly up-to-date ring about it, for all that it was spoken in 634  : “ We must be careful not to rekindle ancient quarrels. ” On the strength of this argument, he allowed error to spread freely, with the result that truth and orthodoxy were effectively banished. St Sophronius of Jerusalem was almost alone in standing up to Honorius, and accusing him of heresy. Eventually the Pope came to his senses, but he died without having repaired the immense damage caused to the Church by his lack of decision. For this reason the Sixth Council of Constantinople cast its anathema upon him, and this was confirmed by Pope Leo II. All the great Ecumenical Councils since then have endorsed this verdict  ; even while proclaiming the dogma of Papal Infallibility, the Church of Rome upheld the anathema cast many centuries ago upon one of her Pontiffs on account of heresy

John XXII said at Avignon, on the Feast of All Saints, 1331, that the soul does not enter the Beatific Vision until the resurrection of the body, at the last day. Protests followed, and a rebuke from the University of Paris whose theologians were consulted. John XXII died in 1334, admitting and recanting his error.

Should we include also Alexander VI, of whom Savonarola said that, coming from a line of Jews whose conversion was only a sham – the notorious Borgias – he had never had the Faith at all  ? Savonarola did not manage to prove his contention – but Italy has always looked upon him as a saint  !

So here we have five Popes who, for one brief moment in their Pontificate, failed in their duty to uphold the purity and integrity of the Faith, or – perhaps one should say – failed to maintain the necessary firmness in doing so. They were acting from motives of diplomacy or the desire to keep the peace rather than from those of formal heresy. What are five cases in almost twenty centuries, among 263 Popes  ? Insignificant – but for the fact that they show that such a thing can happen.

Moreover, when these few cases are carefully reviewed, as was done prior to the proclamation of Papal Infallibility in 1870, plenty of extenuating circumstances were found for all of them. The question had been confused by the Byzantines, or else it concerned a matter of “ secondary importance ”, as in the case of Vigilius. Or else they were old and sick, like Liberius, and threatened with death and deserted by all the bishops, yielding but for a moment under pressure. Honorius was acting out of sheer weakness when he allowed heresy to win the field, and there has never been general agreement on the extent of his guilt. In the case of John XXII, it was a matter of fanciful speculation on a question of “ lesser importance ”. The worst case would have been that of Alexander VI, if it could have been proven that he really did not have the Christian Faith – did not, perhaps, believe in God at all. All we can say is that the evidence for this is not convincing.

This historical digression will help us to see why a number of theologians consider, if somewhat illogically, that it is impossible in practice for a pope to be in heresy. It would be more correct to say that the odds against it are very great. It is statistically more likely that the Pope is being kept prisoner in his room, that he is not allowed to know what is going on, that he is being drugged, that he is being represented by a double… or anything else you can think of, rather than the one hypothesis which so many people will not face up to and which they consider to be a counsel of despair. Nevertheless, it is the only answer that fits the facts of the present Pontificate, and it need not shake our faith or hope, nor detract from our charity, if we maintain that our Pope is a heretic.

I admit that due to a lack of time, I have only skimmed through the long article where the above is taken from.
http://crc-internet.org/our-doctrine/catholic-counter-reformation/papal-heresy/

 

The point is SG, if you cannot say unequivocally with 100% surety that Pope Francis is not Pope then you are obliged to accept him as Pope. It's that simple.

And there is no one on Earth at this point that can say with 100% surety that Pope Francis is not a valid pontiff. The surety of a Pope's validity comes to the laity from the Church hierarchy itself and the Church hierarchy is not only saying he is Pope, but they are also united on that fact.

 

I don't agree with this statement, of course, because I believe that Benedict, and not Francis, is the true pope.

 

Strange, I understand what he is saying. I also understand why some of you are saying its heresy.

Sainthood needs to be accepted. Sainthood needs to be a spiritual journey. Sainthood entails suffering with joy. Total contradiction. Was Mary always a Saint? I think she actually becomes a Saint when she accepts God. She might have been Holy and Blessed before...but it was her fiat that started her journey. As for always being happy and full of joy...not sure any Saint has ever been. I think the roller coaster of emotions are more extreme when you grow spiritually. I think Saints have the same emotions as you and me. Except they might show exterior joy...but inside the yoke of Sainthood is large.

Let Gods Will be Done.