Discussion in 'Positive Critique' started by SgCatholic, May 7, 2020.
curious, who do you think is the Bishop dressed in white?
I mentioned it in an earlier post:
(SgCatholic, post: 287056)
Fr Gruner explained this: the bishop dressed in white (of whom Sr Lucy said they had the impression it was the holy father) is just that - a bishop dressed in white. The way she described him indicates that he is not actually the Holy Father.
In the part of the vision that follows, the one she calls the Holy Father is actually the Pope.
At minute 4:00 onwards.
PF has publicly referred to himself as the 'Bishop dressed in white'.
(in the official missal of his visit to Fatima in 2017, in the Prayer specially written for that day, Francis identifies himself as the "bishop dressed in white":
[Hail Mother of Mercy, Lady of the white robe! At this place where one hundred years ago you showed all the designs of our God's mercy, I look upon your robe of light and, as bishop dressed in white [como bispo vestido de branco], I remember all those who, robed in baptismal white, want to live in God and pray the mysteries of Christ to attain peace.]
I have often thought that he stepped down in such a way as to secretly scuttle their master plan. I could be wrong and I dont say he is still pope because I just dont know but I do know coercion is not free choice and he was terribly persecuted by the enemies of God.
On the other hand, the Pope is also the Bishop of Rome.
And since Benedict resigned, he is now a Bishop and he dresses in white.
Nothing is confirmed here. You are right, AED, we just don’t know. We have to take Benedict at his word, though. He did not still want to be Pope or I would say he would not have resigned. Anything else is just a feeling and feelings aren’t facts.
Persecution is one noun, coercion is another. I don’t think they necessarily follow each other.
Someone can resist coercion even when persecuted. That’s why I said it’s above my pay grade and not up to me to know or decide.
We may never know this side of heaven. That is something we must offer up and live with.
Exactly. That was a teaching from Msgr Charles Pope.
I think the video is not working
Hmm..it still works for me. Let me try to get the link to the blog post for you to try again.
Here it is:
Thank you SgCatholic!
Wow, "not actually the Holy Father"! This makes Pope Emeritus Benedict even more believable, because he is no long the Holy Father, but still "dressed in white"! The Fatima seers said, "whom they believed to the the Holy Father".
Oh, we will all know soon enough!! Its all coming to fruition now.
Persecution and Coercion. But there is also the concept of "substantial error" which is part of the Canon law. Brother Bugnolo summed up the heart of the problem when he wrote:
"As it has been amply proven that Pope John Paul II held that a papal renunciation could be invalid, we should use the intellects God gave us to use and think about what that means. We should not let the gas-lighting false apostles, out there, stop us from thinking.
First, if a papal renunciation could be invalid. That means that objectively speaking it could be invalid. That means that it can be recognized by men who are capable of knowing objective reality. That means that men should recognize it if it be, and should NOT harken to any propaganda to ignore the problem. Because, obviously, if Pope John Paul II wanted us to listen to propagandists who do not want us to see that a resignation was invalid when it was invalid, he would never have mentioned that there could be an invalid resignation.
Second, that means that the Church has the duty to recognize an invalid resignation is invalid, since the Code of Canon Law binds everyone in the Church. The Papal Law on Conclaves binds the Cardinals, and so they are also obligated to recognize an invalid resignation is invalid.
Third. Now how is anyone to do that? Pope John Paul II shows us how in canons 40 and 41, where everyone in the Church who has an office is obliged to examine the administrative act of his superior to see if it is effective and authentic. Though canon 41 speaks only of acts which are null or inopportune, clearly an invalid resignation is both.
That means it was the duty of all the Cardinals as of 11:45 AM, February 11, 2013, when the Consistory ended (approximately, as I do not know the precise minute of termination) until today to examine the act. If the act was invalid, they were obliged to omit the Conclave, and if they find now that it is invalid, they are obliged to say the conclave was invalid.
So you see, now, how wrong Cardinal Burke was, when he condemned a whole category of Catholics as “extremists” if they doubted that Bergoglio was the pope. Because if that doubt arises from an invalid resignation, then they are not only NOT extremists, they are the most faithful Catholics in the Church, and they are doing what all Cardinals should have done and still refuse to do!
No, your Eminence, there are No Extremists here, but there are a lot of Presumptuous Princes!
Now almost no one in the Church is a canon lawyer, but a good number of the Cardinals are. And if you have studied canon law or civil law, then you know a general principle of law which is applicable in this case:
A cessation of power is never to be presumed!
As I mentioned previously, this general principle of law is enshrined in Canon 21 (and implied in many other canons, such as canon 40). It is really a summation of common sense. Because if one presumed the cessation of power, then the rule of law would break down, because presumption has a way of inclining to disorder and chaos, in particular, to the kind of disorder and chaos we have seen in the Church for nearly 7 years.
Now a papal renunciation pertains to a cessation of power, as the learned and eminent Canonist I spoke with recently admitted. Therefore, we cannot presume a pope has validly resigned. The presumption, rather, is that he has not resigned. Presumption here refers to the inclination of our judgement prior to seeing the facts and evidence.
Now Canon 332 §2 says that a pope resigns when he resigns his munus.
But Pope Benedict in his act of Feb. 11, 2013, renounces the ministerium he received.
Therefore, at this point, before any further study, each and every Cardinal had the duty to presume that the renunciation was invalid. He had to presume this, because, the presumption of law requires that he hold that there has been no cessation of power, when a pope renounces ministerium instead of the required munus.
Canon 17 then requires the Cardinals to examine the Code of Canon Law (as I did here) to understand the proper sense of terms, or the canonical tradition (as I did here), or the mind of the Legislator (as was done by Father Walter Covens here). But all of these conclude the renunciation of ministry does not effect a renunciation of the papacy.
So who is the extremist now? The Catholic who holds, as he should, to what the law presumes? Or the Cardinal who did not do his duty nor his homework but rails at Catholics who have done what he neglected to do? Presuming against the very presumption of the law.
It almost seems as if the Cardinals were already inclined to rid themselves of Pope Benedict, and so, whether he was in error or not, whether he wanted to bifurcate the papacy or not, whether the renunciation was valid or not, they did not bother one iota to due their due diligence before convening in Conclave. — If there ever was a reason to doubt the validity of the Conclave of 2013, this is the first and prime of them all!
Third, Action Item:
Ask your favorite priest, Bishop or Cardinal, when did he apply canons 40 and 41 to the Papal renunciation?
Because in those 2 canons, all who hold an office in the Church — even the simple priest who is no longer mentioning Benedict in the Canon of the Mass, where the name of the Roman Pontiff is named — all, I say, had the duty to examine the Latin text of the Renunciation and determine whether it fulfilled the requirements of the Latin text of Canon 332 §2. So ask them, “On what day and hour, in what place and with what books and references did you do your duty specified in canons 40 and 41 as regards the declaration of Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013, called, “Non solum propter”?” — You have every right to ask this question, before listening to anything they say about the renunciation, because obviously, if they never did their duty, they have no moral right to tell you anything about what the Act of Renunciation means, let alone, to regard anyone else as the Pope, other than Benedict.
(For more information about Canons 21, 40 and 41 and what should have been done on Feb. 11, 2013, after Pope Benedict XVI read his Act of renunciation, see here)."
Brother Bugnolo is no longer a member of an order and has irregular credentials, as I understand it. That’s all I need to know about him.
Don, My daughter makes sourdough bread also, she makes it look easy. I haven't tried making it yet but now that you mention this I am thinking about it. There is nothing like fresh made bread and I do like sourdough bread. Yummy.
HH, I found a video about him that I started watching yesterday. Here it is:
I agree Ann.
Wow. What a coincidence. We were on zoom yesterday with some old peace corps friends and one of them made her first loaf from her own starter. She says there's lots of info on line how to do it. I'd love to try. I'm a veteran bread maker but never made my own sourdough.
Don--sourdough is actually easier on the stomach. I just heard that!
Someone here knew Cardinal Bergoglio even before he became Pope, I remember when he was elected although he was from the continent where liberation theology was born he seemed to be very conservative (the media described him like that) and already in the first week of he pontificate in an interview with journalists, did not give the blessing in the traditional way out of respect for the non-Catholic journalists who were there, this generated an attitude of astonishment in me for someone who hopes to see a Pope who would continue Benedict XVI's legacy
You can get a bit of her starter and grow it as well if you don't want to start from scratch Carol. The neat thing about the process though is that it doesn't require any yeast at all. It will grow it's own yeast from the air if you start it from scratch.
Yes, this and all the other things happening right now should certainly be a wake up to any Catholic remotely paying attention to have their house in order and to be at peace.
I don't know how many here have read about Jewish prophecy of the messianic age but I think short of divine intervention it will not be much longer and we will see a moshiach (Jewish messiah) appear as well. Actually the Fatima secret falls in line with the belief of the Jews regarding this. Some rabbi's are already saying things such as that the virus has been so bad in Italy because it is the home of the Catholic church etc. There are also Rabbi's who believe that the church is representative of Esau and blame it for persecuting the Jews. Many also believe that Esau will be destroyed when the moshiach arrives.
Of course in America we have the most Jews outside Israel but for the last 40 years we have had law after law being written to protect the Jews and this looking back throughout history is exactly what happened repeatedly before Jews both secular and religious were driven out of a land or kingdom via pogroms. Where would they go? Now as well in America we have the war drums beating for China in the media and blame being cast upon them for the virus that has swept across the land.
Separate names with a comma.