The Vatican Has Fallen

Discussion in 'Church Critique' started by padraig, Dec 31, 2016.

  1. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    Let's not play word games. You are not calling Pope Francis "Begoglio" because you feel that is what he prefers to be called.
     
    Julia, Jo M and HeavenlyHosts like this.
  2. Luan Ribeiro

    Luan Ribeiro Archangels

    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.
     
    Suzanne, Mary's child, Byron and 4 others like this.
  3. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    very well said, Luan.
     
  4. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    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 ;)
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2020
    josephite, DeGaulle, Sam and 3 others like this.
  5. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    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.
     
    Sam, Clare A and HeavenlyHosts like this.
  6. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2020
    josephite, DeGaulle, maryrose and 5 others like this.
  7. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    [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.
     
    josephite and Praetorian like this.
  8. Jackie

    Jackie Archangels

    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
     
    Byron likes this.
  9. Could very well be.
     
    Luan Ribeiro likes this.
  10. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    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.
     
    josephite, Suzanne, Tanker and 4 others like this.
  11. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2020
    josephite, DeGaulle, Tanker and 3 others like this.
  12. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    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?
     
    josephite, Mary's child and AED like this.
  13. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    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
     
    josephite, Mary's child, AED and 3 others like this.
  14. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    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).
     
  15. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    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.
     
  16. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    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:
     
    DeGaulle and josephite like this.
  17. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2020
    josephite, Sam and DeGaulle like this.
  18. josephite

    josephite Powers

    SgC I can agree with so much of what has been written by these very venerable person's because I have witnessed the differences in graces received by the faithful according to the reverence in which the Mass is celebrated, the holiness of the priest and even the general holiness of the Church in its members at a given time. I agree that these external factors can affect the amount of grace a person receives, if that person is only going to Mass to fulfil an obligation and of course there has always been many of those types, even when the TLM was universally celebrated before the new rite was instituted.

    How great it is to be at the Mass of a holy priest, the internal graces are almost tangible and everyone would agree that going to the Mass said by Padre Pio would have been beyond a privilege because of the graces one would have received.

    After the new rite was instituted in the 60's (at my parents parish and throughout Australia) we did not have the luxury of attending a TLM and so we attended the NO Mass, that has been pretty well the norm for the life of all Catholics including my life since then. So we attended the NO Mass as it was the only Mass available.

    When raising my children I was blessed by God to have a parish priest for many years who was a very holy priest may he rest in peace. People travelled many miles to attend his Masses. I witnessed innumerable graces within our parish, and when he retired the next appointed priest was near a complete opposite, going to mass would nearly make you cry, with the changes he wrought within the first month and Mass attendance dropped off remarkably.

    There is a story of a little Chinese girl who witnessed the desecration of the The Most Blessed Sacrament which was thrown from the ciborium on to the floor and trampled by soldiers, (a much greater desecration than the NO Mass, I would say). This little girl came and prayed each day on her knees before the desecrated Eucharist and then bent over and with her tongue received Jesus, she did this each day until there remained one host left on the floor. On that final day she was discovered by the soldiers and as she received the last host she was shot dead. This was witnessed by the priest that the soldiers had imprisoned in a small room attached to the church.

    So I ask.....is the individual really any poorer in grace when they reverently and wholeheartedly attend the valid NO Mass? The sincere individual is there to Love and Adore the Lord, maybe the priest is not a holy priest, maybe the Mass is not reverently said and maybe they have reduced the Mass to where Jesus is called to carry His cross again, in abject humiliation; would Jesus not look out for a Veronica, for a Simon of Cyrene or a little saintly girl to Love him?
    Would Jesus not deserve this?
    And wouldn't the graces for these individuals be astronomical!
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2020
    Dolours, Sam, Rosalia66 and 8 others like this.
  19. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    God sees in our hearts the desire to offer up and make reparations to Him in the least desirable circumstances. He is there and we join with Him. He calls us. None of us can go there unless we are called. I have learned much from you, Josephite. I have felt this way lately, that we have been called to stand in the gap for Him.
     
    Dolours, Sam, Rosalia66 and 5 others like this.
  20. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Guest

    Yes, all the above mentioned points are definitive teachings of the Church which are non-negotiable.
    And yet, we have this man confusing the flock.
    Why does he not have the charism granted to a true Vicar of Christ?

    Below are excerpts from the website wherepeteris. This article was actually written to defend Bergoglio, but ironically it provides many points to show that Bergoglio cannot be a true Pope.


    '........even if the scope of infallibility is very narrow, the scope of divine assistance that the Pope receives from the Holy Spirit is very wide. The Holy Father is helped in his task by the Holy Spirit throughout all of his magisterial acts, even in matters of discipline.
    [.....]

    Scarcely a week goes by without a new scandal breaking out involving something Francis says or does. Nothing he does is immune: from his decisions on how to deal with the abuse scandal to his signing of the Abu Dhabi Declaration or the Vatican-China deal. His decisions about the Synod of Bishops are pilloried, whether it’s the main topic for the assembly or his choices on which bishops are invited to attend. His choices on to who to elevate as bishop or cardinal are criticized, his decisions on who he demotes or transfers are attacked. Negative assumptions about his motives are made whenever he accepts a resignation or elects not to renew a curial official’s mandate. He’s accused of plotting against the Church’s doctrine when he decides to reorganize a papal institute. Francis is disparaged when he gives relics to brethren from separated churches. He is accused for every public gesture he makes, from his setting up a Nativity scene in the Vatican representing the corporal works of mercy, to blessing a carved wooden image that the critics are certain is pagan (official denials notwithstanding). Even his choice to wear more humble papal garments is mocked, and his choice to not allow pilgrims to kiss the papal ring is viewed with suspicion.

    Everything he does is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    [....]

    But let us not just focus on papal actions. Let’s consider his magisterial teachings. What do papal critics say about Francis’ Magisterium?

    According to them, Francis was wrong in Laudato ‘Si: it is liberal claptrap.

    Francis was wrong on the sacramental discipline he laid out in Amoris Laetitia: it is heretical.

    Francis was wrong in his revision to the Catechism on the death penalty: he cannot do that, it’s just his personal opinion (which happens to be heretical).

    Francis was wrong when he decided to add “ecological sin” to the Catechism: there is no such thing.

    Francis was wrong in his homilies about the multiplication of the loaves. Francis was wrong in asking Christians to evangelize, not proselytize. Francis was wrong in his addresses comparing the Holy Family to immigrants. In fact, Francis was wrong whenever he taught anything about immigration. Francis was wrong whenever he taught something about social justice, about helping the poor or anything that could be construed as politically liberal.

    Francis was wrong every time he opened his mouth to teach something on faith and morals that wasn’t related to abortion, homosexual behavior, or any of the topics preapproved by his critics. In fact, even when he teaches on those topics, he is still wrong because what he says can be misinterpreted. He is wrong for not condemning those ills more forcefully. He is wrong for not talking about them more.

    Francis is always considered wrong, period.

    This got me thinking. Doesn’t the Church teach, as I said at the beginning of this article, that the Holy Spirit gives His divine assistance to the Pope when he teaches, even non-infallibly, and even in matters of discipline?

    How can a Pope, who is granted divine assistance of the Holy Spirit in his Ordinary Magisterium, promulgate error in his teachings–not once, not twice, not thrice, but almost every single time?

    How can a man have so much protection from the Holy Spirit, yet manage to get everything so consistently wrong all the time? This can be described as nothing short of a miracle in itself. This is something unheard of throughout the entire history of the Church.

    Granted, a person can reject the inspirations of the Holy Spirit. Still, it does not cease to be remarkable that someone with so much assistance from the Holy Spirit could reject it so many times! Even the Borgia popes, as evil as they were, did not teach heresy! And who would be more impervious to the action of the Holy Spirit than they? Even the supposedly heretical popes that Francis’ critics (and Protestants) use as talking points against papal primacy are typically alleged to have committed only one heresy in each of their papacies, and never in magisterial documents that were binding on the whole faithful. But here comes Francis, remarkably soiling Peter’s record almost anytime he opens his mouth or wields a pen. If it would come to pass that a Pope could and would do this so consistently, maybe God really should not have given us so many assurances on the reliability of Peter.

    (From this point, the writer goes on to say that it can't be Bergoglio who is in the wrong, but those who criticise him.)

    Or maybe… maybe (this is a crazy thought, but hear me out)… it is those who tar and feather the Pope, day and night, who are wrong… possibly? I mean, isn’t it more likely–given the divine assistance promised to the Pope–that what we are witnessing is the work of an unhinged media cabal deliberately working to undermine Francis’ papacy whenever possible, by whatever means possible? Maybe the way that those outlets criticize Francis whenever he lifts his pinky finger is a sign–not of how Francis is unreliable, but of how unreliable those outlets are when reporting on Francis? Maybe?

    [...]

    https://wherepeteris.com/the-infallibly-erring-pope/

    (edited to add that the emphasis in red is mine -SgC)

    Bergoglio has dropped the title of Vicar of Christ in this year's Annuario Potificio, and relegated it to a historical title.
    And, right from the word go in March 2013, he has emphasised that he is the Bishop of Rome.
    It just further convinces me that he is not the Pope.

    +
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2020
    josephite and Don_D like this.

Share This Page