This is so important, the priest was correct. The Catechism that we studied before making our First Communion is the foundation that forms our faith. There was a very good reason why the nuns who taught me insisted that our class memorize and understand every page. They knew that without this knowledge our foundation would crack. If you know your Catechism, you can protect yourself from the terrible storms that threaten our Church.
I am afraid we may not be able to continue fence-sitting on the Pope question, as radical changes are being made to the Holy Catholic Church and her magisterium of faith. We will be forced to take a position, one way or the other. In the below video posted by BrianK, Ann Barnhardt says as much. She says, we are called to act, even as laity. And she underscores her position with quotes from canon law, etc. Her presentation is lengthy and contains a bit of waffling, but she uses PowerPoint slides, so you can skip through much of the talking and simply read. The substance of what she says is absolutely worth listening to: [/QUOTE] I think "Pope Francis" may go to go down in history as one who caused a schism. He himself said that a few years ago. We will have a choice to stay with the true church, or partake in the construction of the false church ("After-Church" in Anna K. Emmerich's words). But we have to know where the true church is! So fence-sitting may not cut it anymore. God bless!
I’m very familiar with Ann Barnhardt and I choose not to follow her. But everyone has an opinion. I’m not fence sitting, btw.
I dismissed Ann completely when she started pontificating that PXVI was still pope and Bergoglio was not validly elected. I thought she was a shrill spinster of a convert who was full of herself. Subsequently others who I trust more started looking into her claims, and quietly agreed with some of her conclusions. Some people who would surprise us. Later when I took a second look at someone else’s behest, I realized her theories aren’t so out-there-hair-on-fire off-the-barque as I had concluded earlier. They had logic and reason behind them that were hard to dismiss. In fact, her argument is the only thing that can fully explain the constellation of problems with Pope Francis and put my own mind and heart at ease. If PF is not, AND NEVER WAS, the pope, that answers all the questions that disturb us and threaten our faith in the promises of Christ regarding the papacy. (I do not know her personally, but one of my honey dippers is on her kitchen counter lol!)
Yes, this first reading and Jesus' rebuke of the Jewish leaders of his day in Matthew's Gospel spell a clear warning for Catholic clergy in our own day. The key is what should our response be. The humility of Paul and his companions as mentioned in the Epistle reading is crucial! Paul did not lord it over the Thessalonians, expecting them to financially support the apostle and his companions. Rather, Paul humbly took up his career as tent-maker once more so as not to be a burden, a wonderful example for the new converts! In a real sense he worked day and night on behalf of the flock! And this theme is topped off by the simplicity and humble posture of the Psalm of the day! Ps 131: O Lord, my heart is not lifted up, my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me. 2 But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a child quieted at its mother’s breast; like a child that is quieted is my soul. 3 O Israel, hope in the Lord from this time forth and for evermore. So many times I witnessed such quiet peacefulness as each of our six children nursed at Geralyn's breast! Dear Lady, share with us the glory of your humility!
Yes, I thought as much. If you are not fence-sitting, I suppose you consider "Pope Francis" to be a validly elected Supreme Pontiff. This will have consequences, with regard to the changes that are being made to the teachings and procedures of the Holy Catholic Church, and what position we will each take. I think what we are facing is the spiritual chastisement of the Third Secret of Fatima. According to Fr. Malachi Martin, there is a physical and a spiritual chastisement. The physical chastisement may have been the "vaccination"-campaign, the war in Ukraine (which was started when excess mortality began to surface) and the war in the Holy Land, which was started when the Ukraine war went awry. The physical chastisement may perhaps expand to a war in Europe, according to prophecy. The spiritual chastisement may be the goings-on around "Pope Francis". During the "vaccinations", we kept each other updated via this beloved forum, shared information, did our own research, and then prayerfully made a decision each. I was heavily supported by forum members when I was sitting in front of the hospital waiting to meet an unknown doctor, to ask for an exemption certificate. This was issued, without delay! I am so grateful to you. Now, as we are facing the spiritual chastisement, we can take a similar approach: Keep each other updated here, discuss things, discern prayerfully, and make a decision. The outcome of the spiritual chastisement for the Holy Catholic Church and for the world may be similar to the physical chastisement: excess mortality, but this time regarding eternal life/death! I hope we will be among the survivors and see each other one day in heaven. God bless!
This is kind of a " you gotta walk that lonesome valley...you gotta walk it by yourself...ain't nobody else gonna walk it for you..."( old American folk song) Each person must pray through this and try to stay faithful according to the light and grace we are given. A very individual thing. I understand what Brian means about Christ's promise about the papacy. This has worried me too. But it is a fearful thing to call out a Pope who was chosen in a conclave and recognized by all the Cardinals and bishops. Ann Barnhart is very bold. I am not. I am not a fence sitter. At this point I am a faithful Catholic trying to stay faithful one foot in front of another.keeping my eyes on Christ. As I heard Him tell me once years ago during adoration. " Keep your eyes on Me. Do not look to the left do not look to the right. Keep your eyes on Me."
Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the Validity of Pope There is no authority to declare or consider an elected and generally accepted Pope as an invalid Pope. The constant practice of the Church makes it evident that even in the case of an invalid election this invalid election will be de facto healed through the general acceptance of the new elected by the overwhelming majority of the cardinals and bishops. Even in the case of a heretical pope he will not lose his office automatically and there is no body within the Church to declare him deposed because of heresy. Such actions would come close to a kind of a heresy of conciliarism or episcopalism. The heresy of conciliarism or episcopalism says basically that there is a body within the Church (Ecumenical Council, Synod, College of Cardinals, College of Bishops), which can issue a legally binding judgment over the Pope. https://onepeterfive.com/bishop-athanasius-schneider-on-the-validity-of-pope-francis/
(Continue) The theory of the automatic loss of the papacy due to heresy remains only an opinion, and even St. Robert Bellarmine noticed this and did not present it as a teaching of the Magisterium itself. The perennial papal Magisterium never taught such an opinion. In 1917, when the Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici) came into force, the Magisterium of the Church eliminated from the new legislation the remark of the Decretum Gratiani in the old Corpus Iuris Canonici, which stated that a Pope, who deviates from right doctrine, can be deposed.
Continued... Never in history did the Magisterium of the Church admit any canonical procedures of deposition of a heretical pope. The Church has no power over the pope formally or judicially. The surer Catholic tradition says, that in the case of a heretical pope, the members of the Church can avoid him, resist him, refuse to obey him, all of which can be done without requiring a theory or opinion that says that a heretical pope automatically loses his office or can be deposed consequently.
Continued... Therefore, we must follow the surer way (via tutior) and abstain from defending the mere opinion of theologians (even they be Saints like St. Robert Bellarmine), which says that a heretical pope automatically loses his office or can be deposed by the Church therefore.
All well and good. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument whether PBXVI validly resigned. Or whether the subsequent conclave itself violated the law promulgated by St. PJPII regarding conclaves. Violation of such involves automatic excommunication. The violation of these laws was openly admitted and Bergoglio’s involvement in accepting canvassing for conclave votes, a clear violation and therefore an automatic excommunication, was also openly admitted. Anyone excommunicated cannot be pope. So regardless of whether the world “accepts” him, according to this thesis, he was never validly elected in the first place, so none of what the good bishop states applies here.
So who is more qualified to judge this? This Anne person or Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Burke and indeed every active Bishop and Cardinal in the world who disagree with her?
Apparently the good Bishop answered this above...here it is again... The constant practice of the Church makes it evident that even in the case of an invalid election this invalid election will be de facto healed through the general acceptance of the new elected by the overwhelming majority of the cardinals and bishops.
I’ve studied both thoroughly. In my opinion these Churchmen have never considered the analysis of whether the resignation was valid nor whether the automatic excommunications incurred invalidated the conclave. Once the Churchmen have actually done their due diligence, I can compare their conclusions to that of Ann et Al.
