In normal circumstances, it would be dangerous to reject a sitting pope, but we are definitely not in normal times. I really cannot believe that Bergoglio is a true pope, with all the damage he has done and continues to do to our faith ( there are just too many things to mention!) and because of the St Gallen mafia's openly boasted conspiracy to elect him. Benedict wanting to be called pope emeritus, retaining his papal name, dressing like a pope and living on Vatican grounds doesn't help one bit in accepting that his resignation was valid. Add to that the strange stuff like Abp Ganswein talking about an expanded Petrine ministry, Benedict saying that the 'always is also a forever', Benedict signing off with his Apostolic blessing, the Vatican ATM machines not working until he announced his resignation, the lightning strikes on St Peter's the day Benedict announced his resignation, and other stuff which I can't recall offhand now, it just makes it impossible for me to just quietly accept that Bergoglio is pope and Benedict is not. I know that you are concerned for souls who believe this, but I, too, am concerned for the souls who will follow the errors that Bergoglio as PF is perpetuating.
There is something that Fr Z wrote some time back, which I forget if it has been posted here before. It is interesting. (highlights in blue are mine) Benedict XVI: last Pope of old era or first of the next? Posted on 15 September 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf I’m reading the Italian edition of Pope Benedict’s book-long interview with German journalist Peter Seewald. I’m jumping around a bit and I ran across an interesting section. Here is my on the fly translation from the Italian (not from the German original): SEEWALD: Do you see yourself as the last Pope of the old world or the first of the new? BENEDICT: I would say both. SEEWALD: As a bridge, a kind of connecting element between the two worlds? BENEDICT: I don’t belong to the old world anymore, but the new one in reality hasn’t yet begun. SEEWALD: The election of Pope Francis is perhaps an exterior sign of a epochal turning point? With his does a new era begin definitively? BENEDICT: The temporal divisions were always decisive a posteriori: only in a second time is it established that here began the Middle Ages or there began the modern era. Only a posteriori is it seen how movements developed. For this reason I won’t hazard a like affirmation now. Nevertheless, it is evident that the Church has been abandoning more and more the old traditional structures of European life and, hence, changes appearance and lives new forms. It’s clear above all that the dechristianization of Europe progresses, that the Christian element is vanishing more and more from the fabric of society. Consequently, the Church must find a new form of presence, must change its way of presenting itself. There are epochal upheavals underway, but one doesn’t yet know to what point it can be said with precision that one or the other begins. SEEWALD: You know the prophecy of Malachy, that in the Middle Ages compiled a list of future pontiffs, foreseeing also the end of the world, or at least the end of the Church. According to such a list the papacy would terminate with your pontificate. And if you were effectively the last to represent the figure of the Pope as we have known up to now? BENEDICT: Anything is possible. This prophecy was probably born in circles around Philip Neri. In that time Protestants sustained that the papacy was finished, and he wanted only to demonstrate, with a very long list of Popes, that, instead, that was not the case. It is not for this reason, however, that one must conclude that it will in fact end. Rather, that his list wasn’t long enough! Seewald deftly worked up to the Malachy question, didn’t he? In any event, I found Benedict’s answer quite interesting. He wouldn’t be pinned down, but he suspects that he a kind of liminal figure, if not a bridge. Bridge has additional connotations, of course, when talking about the papacy. (read the rest at http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/09/benedict-xvi-last-pope-of-one-era-or-first-of-the-next/)
Correction: In any time it is dangerous to reject a sitting pope. Canon Law makes no provision for "difficult times".
Is he really this out of touch with the world's reality? Pope Francis Urges Christians to Overcome Fear of Migrants Pope Francis focused his homily on Friday on urging the faithful to resist “the wickedness and ugliness of our time” by not giving in to fears of migrants and refugees. In these difficult times, we are tempted to “close ourselves in ourselves, in our fragile human security, in the circle of our loved ones, in our reassuring routine,” the pope said. But this withdrawal into ourselves is a “sign of defeat” that “increases our fear of others — strangers, the marginalized, foreigners — who are also the Lord’s privileged ones.” “This is particularly evident today, in the face of the arrival of migrants and refugees who knock on our door in search of protection, security, and a better future,” Francis said. The pope spoke these words at a Mass at the Fraterna Domus center outside Rome “in order to highlight his constant attention to the welcome of migrants,” Vatican News stated. Francis celebrated the Mass to kick off a three-day meeting titled “Free from Fear,” organized by the Migrantes Foundation, Italian Caritas, and the Jesuit-run Astalli Center for Refugees, to discuss reception structures for migrants. Throughout his six-year pontificate, Pope Francis has insisted that immigration and the care of migrants are primary concerns for Christians and should not be considered a second-tier issue. In his 2018 apostolic exhortation bearing the Latin title Gaudete et Exsultate (“Rejoice and Be Glad”), for instance, the pope said Christians have no right to treat the plight of migrants as a minor moral issue because Jesus commanded his followers to welcome the stranger. “We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue,” Francis wrote. “Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the ‘grave’ bioethical questions.” [huh?] “That a politician [hmmm!] looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian, for whom the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children,” he continued. “Can we not realize that this is exactly what Jesus demands of us, when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we welcome him?” he asked. The pontiff defended his continual insistence on the issue of migration by saying it was not just his pet cause, but a central teaching of the Bible. “This is not a notion invented by some Pope, or a momentary fad. In today’s world too, we are called to follow the path of spiritual wisdom proposed by the prophet Isaiah to show what is pleasing to God,” he said. Quoting from the Old Testament books of Exodus and Leviticus, Francis said that oppressing strangers is contrary to God’s will. Last month, the Vatican’s department for migrants and refugees published the collected teachings of Pope Francis on the issue of immigration, reiterating the pontiff’s appeal for a greater openness to migrants. The 488-page tome, titled Lights on the Ways of Hope: Pope Francis Teaching on Migrants, Refugees and Human Trafficking, gathers together the pope’s addresses on immigration, underscoring how central this topic has been to his pontificate. https://www.breitbart.com/immigrati...ncis-urges-christians-overcome-fear-migrants/
The Words of Our Lord: "The day is coming, and it is not far off, when I will intervene to show My Face in a priesthood completely renewed and sanctified; when I will intervene to triumph in My Eucharistic Heart by the conquering power of sacrificial love alone; when I will intervene to defend the poor and vindicate the innocents who blood has marked this nation (footnote: the USA) and so many others as did the blood of Abel in the beginning. Now kneel and adore Me in silence." (In Sinu Jesu, pg. 91, Nov. 12, 2008) We must remember that God must weed His garden (ponder how many times a "garden" mentioned in Scripture and the meaning of each of them) - He is permitting all that is happening in our Church in order to purify it. We must pray much!
In The Times today there is an article by the author of the book 'In the Closet of the Vatican, Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy'. The author is a homosexual and a campaigner for their rights. He claims that the conservative 'homophobes' are conflicted about their own sexuality and should be ignored (that's you and me, folks), he also claims that there is no direct connection between the high incidence of homosexuality in the priesthood and those of sexual assaults on children and young adults (over 70% of cases involve males so unsure how he, and most of the hierarchy reach this conclusion). However, he does seem to have useful information about the current state of the hierarchy and priesthood within the Vatican. One of his informants is named and is a laicised (at his own request), homosexual former priest who worked in the Vatican for several years. He estimates that around 80% of the ordained working in the Vatican are homosexual and that the great majority are 'active'. He denies that there is a 'gay lobby' that acts in concert since, he claims, the homosexual prelates often despise each other and compete for posts and for promotion for their young priest 'companions'. He says that they are vicious about each other, that they call each other 'she' and give female nicknames to each other! (Forgive the 'eye roll'). He also reports that the lunchtime conversations in the Casa Santa Marta often consists of lewd and 'catty' gossip about cardinals and the young men/boys seen entering/leaving their apartments. There is worse about the abuse of Romany boys at the Rome rail terminal etc. etc. etc. The Swiss guards report frequent 'approaches' by high Vatican officials and having to 'fend them off'. The laicised priest also says that no-one in the Vatican cares much about what you do as long as you are reasonably discreet about it and he says that drugs are widely available within the precincts. I don't intend to put money into the author's pocket. He does decry the hypocrisy (which is laudable) but sees the solution as the Church officially permitting openly 'gay' relationships among priests and laity which, of course, is never going to happen and it doesn't need to so long as everyone, including the boss, just turns a blind eye. It's bad, folks, they are running the show and have done for years.
The homosexuals are so narcissistic that they are unable to contemplate that someone might not share their disordered attraction. To deny the connection between the incidence of homosexuality and the constant rate of abuse in every situation where it arises is to fly in the face of reality. God help us, this thread seems well-named.
Very, very true. In fact, it is so true that in my experience it is virtually impossible to even remain civil with one who has set their sights on you personally and been rebuffed. They love to think that you simply do not know that you are really disordered also and love the conquest of dragging innocents into their abhorrent world. A very twisted lot. They rely on the inherent innocence of people to cover up for their own perversion. So, Christians in particular are prone to being blind to their manipulation IMO because we strive to think the best of people. This is why the idea of accepting it as just another "different" orientation is so laughably absurd.
But my point is: Ann B doesn't have authority, I don't have authority, none of the laity has authority; but we can surely come to a reasonable conclusion based on the past 6 years of this disastrous 'papacy'. Like I said before, having 'mental reservations' about Bergoglio (as PF) doesn't sound reasonable to me. To have to sift through a pope's words and decide which are in keeping with our faith and which go against, is simply unacceptable. A pope should have enormous graces given by the Holy Spirit. This is glaringly absent in the man who is known as PF.
It is very likely that there are members of the Curia and Episcopacy who suffer from same sex attraction but are living chaste lives. It is also likely that some of them may have fallen to temptation in the past but don't equate sinful desires with God's will. For all we know, the book could be aimed at those men who do have ssa but aren't on board the lavender train - a kind of threat that if they resist the lavender lobby they will be "outed" in a follow-up by this author or another. On the World Over programme, they said that one of the author's sources was the priest about whom Pope Francis said "who am I to judge". Given his track record, I wouldn't expect anything but sleaze and a justification of sin in that book. Wasn't he moved from the Vatican's diplomatic corps to running the guest house (Sta. Marta?) after his scandalous behaviour came to light? Pope Francis made the "who am I to judge" comment after promoting the same man to a role where he had responsibility in either the Vatican bank or the department overseeing the Vatican's real estate holdings. I suppose that if you want someone to keep shtum about the sexual goings on of people you are about to appoint as advisors, it's best to be sweet to the man who would know more than most about their nocturnal visitors during their visits to Rome. The saddest part of all this is that nobody is surprised any more about what we hear of the behaviour of influential clerics. Sad, too, that many are no longer shocked. Disgusted but not shocked.
Just because a Pope is given Graces doesn't mean he has to use or accept them. You are right it is glaringly obvious something is horribly wrong, that much it true. And no we shouldn't have to sift through what a Pope says and compare it to the Truth to see if they match, but that is where we are at. It is called Chastisement. This is our punishment. It also doesn't make any difference if you think Pope Francis is the true Pope or not. That isn't an excuse to reject him. He is the person the conclave presented to us and he was accepted by the laity. That's it.
That's it in a nutshell. We don't get to say who is or isn't the Pope, nor should we because the papacy would turn into a popularity contest. We have to accept the man the Conclave presents to us as Pope. That said, baptism doesn't wash away our use of reason, and I have yet to read anything from any apologist which convinces me that Pope Francis doesn't hold heretical beliefs. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the Pope to be a believing Catholic, and some learned people have said that while nobody can judge the Pope, a Pope who is a material heretic ceases to be Pope. Despite having reservations about whether or not he had already been automatically excommunicated for his involvement with the St. Gallen Mafia, I can accept that Pope Francis was elected Pope. I have serious reservations, however, about whether he remains Pope in view of what appear to be his beliefs regarding marriage, conscience, and a plurality of religions being willed by God. I remain convinced that Pope Francis should, and most likely will, be condemned in the future for the harm he has done to the Church by fostering heretical beliefs and practices. But I won't be consulted when that happens and will probably be dead anyway, so I accept that Francis is the visible head of the Church now. It seems to be a fairly recent belief in the Church that a Pope is protected from teaching error via his ordinary magisterium, and I'm not sure how well founded is that belief because "ordinary magisterium" seems to be flexible depending on who defines it. Did it come from Vatican 2? This piece by JD Flynn of the Vatican News Agency is an interesting read. It was written before the US Bishops held their special conference last November. We know now that nothing came of the conference, and that the Pope is throwing his weight behind McCarrick's men, making sure that Cardinal Cupich has a role at the upcoming conference on sexual abuse. McCarrick might be laicised but his influence continues. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...buse-crisis-as-a-referendum-on-the-pope-69624 Reading this (also from JD Flynn of CNA), there's no point holding out hope of anything good coming from the conference: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...-confidence-during-vatican-abuse-summit-90163 Of course, the Vatican's spin doctors will be in overdrive telling us that the sow's ear we're seeing is really a silk purse because the Holy Spirit said so via their own interpretation of papal infallibility. Meanwhile, back atop St. Peter's grave, Pope Francis the humble welcomed the no doubt equally humble Brad Smith, President of Microsoft. Smith tweeted: "I spent the afternoon at the Vatican discussing the teachings of the church, AI ethics, and why we must always put humanity first" There's a few Catholics (myself included) who wouldn't mind spending an entire afternoon with Pope Francis discussing the teachings of the Church, but the likes of us aren't rich enough, aren't gay enough, aren't into abortion enough, aren't famous or powerful enough, and are probably too old school Catholic to warrant an invite to the Vatican. The result of the Pope's meeting with Smith is that the Pontifical Academy for Life will co-sponsor with Microsoft a prize for the best doctoral dissertation in 2019 on the theme of “artificial intelligence at the service of human life". At least that's what was published. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...telligence-with-microsoft-chief-idUSKCN1Q22B0
Yes. I have many, many friends, even folks who I used to look up to, who have left the Church by massively over-thinking the current crisis with Pope Francis. They over-think and dig through crazy amounts of documents from every century, trying to prove or disprove stuff. The become bitter, defensive, angry, go nuts. And apostate. It is sad. It is not that complicated. Pope Francis is Pope. Until and unless the Church judges otherwise. Until then, we just follow Christ and ignore the council of a Pope who seems to be trying to invert right and wrong. I am not a canon lawyer. I am not educated. I am just a schlub who works at Walmart. If I were to try to puzzle this out, I'd go nuts, too. It's too freaking big. Until then, follow Christ. That's all I got, follow Christ, pray for the Pope, do what the Church has always done, and stand up quietly, with dignity, and charity, for what is and always has been right.
There was a priest I listened to when I first came back to the Church a few years ago. His name was Canon Hesse. He passed away in the early 2000's. He was a friend of Fr. Kramer and a very learned man. Somewhat controversial and a bit of a showman, but ultra-Trad through and through. I think it was a Q and A session and one of the questions asked of him was how can we tell if the post-conciliar Popes are valid or not. I think specifically they may have been talking about Pope John Paul II, possibly in relation to the Assisi event. I can't quote him exactly but Fr. Hesse essentially said always accept the Popes presented to us as legitimate. It is not up to us to discern that. If on the day of judgement a Pope who we accepted as true turns out to be an anti-Pope then we did nothing wrong since it is not our job to decide such things. It is always safer to accept the Popes presented as legitimate and simply disregard anything they say or do that contradicts the faith. This is not an exact quote but it is the jist of what he was saying. I think it is good advice for these confusing times. Our job is simply to keep our heads down and to pray and sacrifice for those men wearing the purple, scarlet and white. We do not need to hold canonical trials on Catholic forums to decide Papal validity.
Well said. We're not God. We may have figured out a lot of stuff, which is good, but we can't puzzle out everything. If we try too hard, we risk losing the Faith we're trying to protect.
The ultimate destination of the absurd notion that sexual attraction is a variable set upon a spectrum is the legitimisation of paedophilia.
Wise words. Saint Pope JPII might have blundered in Assisi, but mistakes are not formal heresy. If people could find cause to dismiss John Paul II as not being a worthy pope, allowing the 'people' to be the arbiters would, in practice, imply the rejection of all popes. He might not have been 'perfect' (and it is papalotry-and heretical blasphemy-to assume that any pope is some kind of walking, talking Holy Spirit, incapable of error), but we surely now know he deserves the accolade 'Great'.
