As I write, it has been just about ten weeks since Archbishop Ganswein confirmed Benedict’s intent to “expand” and “transform” the Petrine office in such way as to give it a “collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi-shared ministry;” with Benedict desiring to relinquish only the “active ministry” while deliberately retaining the “contemplative ministry.”
According to Ganswein, Benedict’s longtime personal secretary and daily companion, “Since February 2013 the papal ministry is therefore no longer what it was before.”
These are the conditions by which the See of Peter was allegedly rendered vacant; creating the need for the conclave that elected the blasphemous Argentinian heretic in white otherwise known as Francis.
Given the utter lack of resolution in the matter – either by way of the Holy See’s firm refutation of Ganswein’s confirmation, or an attempt to reconcile Benedict’s intent with the Church’s immutable understanding of the nature of the Petrine office – one would think that the controversy would still be dominating both individual Catholic thought and the attention of Catholic media, but such is not the case.
As far as individuals are concerned, while many are either clueless or ambivalent, I’ve been seeing an awful lot of commentary lately from otherwise clear-thinking Catholics – some traditional, others not so much – who assert with utter confidence (and often no small amount of indignation), Francis was validly elected pope; end of story! – as if those who harbor grave doubts in the matter are little more than nut jobs and conspiracy theorists.
I’m not entirely sure what leads one to draw such a firm conclusion in the face of Ganswein’s revelations, but I suspect that at least for some it’s a defense mechanism of sorts; a manifestation of weakness whereby one prefers the illusion of assurance to the prospect of uncertainty in matters of supreme importance.
This brings me to those in Catholic media, from far-left progressives to bona fide “traditionalists” so-called; a group that after initially reporting on Ganswein’s presentation has been practically silent on the matter for some two months now.
For the progressives in Catholic media, it makes sense to avoid addressing the controversy. I mean, why poke the hornet’s nest at a time when the destruction of the Church is going so well?
Denial has long been a hallmark of the neo-conservatives, and so it likewise makes sense that precious little attention is being paid to the matter by those who fall into this particular category.
On this note, let’s give George Weigel credit for addressing Ganswein’s speech head-on. Sure, he made an ass of himself by suggesting that he knows the intent of Benedict better from the confines of the Washington, D.C. suburbs than the Holy Father’s right hand man does, but hey, at least he took a stand.
Then there are my colleagues in “traditionalist” (aka Catholic) media, among whom I count no small number of persons that I highly respect and others I consider valued friends, whose practical silence in the matter is most unnerving of all.
Since when is silence in the face of controversy, or perhaps deferring to the judgment of future generations, the stuff of the defenders of tradition?
The answer is that it’s not and never has been; in fact, a willingness to look to the Devil square in the eye is what defines, or at least should define each and every one of us.
For instance, while the progressives celebrate the Council as a moment of liberation, and the neo-cons defend it as an expression of continuity, traditionalists measure it against the immutable faith and condemn it for the revolution that it most certainly is. The same holds true with respect to the Novus Ordo Missae.
In the present case, we’re talking about a matter of similar gravity – the papacy and the very real possibility that the Holy Catholic Church is being dismantled by an anti-pope!
Look, all of us have grown numb to the assaults against truth that have come to define Catholic life over the last five decades, and even more so over the last three years. I get it, but for the life of me I cannot make sense of the fact that the Ganswein confirmation (and that is precisely what it was) seems no longer to be even a blip on anyone’s radar screen.
I am entirely certain that there isn’t one among my confreres in traditional Catholic media who, if presented with Ganswein’s description of Benedict’s designs for the Petrine office at any time prior to February 2013, would have concluded anything other than that’s simply not possible – not even the pope has the authority to do that!
Furthermore, there can be no doubt whatsoever that each and every one would likely have insisted that if such a conditioned “resignation” was ever tendered on the part of a reigning pope, the act would clearly be invalid, and any “conclave” that assembled under such circumstances would likewise be invalid; making the man that was thereby “elected” an anti-pope.
Edmond Burke is widely quoted as saying, though some question the attribution:
All that is needed for the forces of evil to succeed is for enough good men to remain silent.
Whether or not Burke actually said this matters not; the point that it makes is entirely valid – silence in the face of evil on the part of those who know better only serves to aid and abet the enemy.
My sense is that most in traditional Catholic media are deliberately choosing to kick the can down the road in this case, not because they fail to appreciate the gravity of the situation, but because doing otherwise necessarily means one of two things; either rejecting Ganswein’s presentation as an erroneous opinion (as Weigel did), or taking the only other logical position that remains – namely, the “resignation” of February 2013 was invalid, as was the “conclave” that followed.
I’ll readily admit that it’s not much of a choice: The former makes one look like an ass, and the latter invites being dismissed as a nut job and a conspiracy theorist.
Be that as it may, taking either one is more befitting a defender of tradition than silence.
Place me in the nut job category…Benedict XVI is still our Pontiff…..whether he’s aware of this fact or not is anyone’s guess. The Vatican intrigues are beyond my comprehension. We cannot dismiss that our world has spun out of control and we cannot underestimate the 100th anniversary of the Fatima Apparition. It goes without saying that some very evil individuals are in control at this time and I get the distinct feeling that preparations amongst the devout clergy are going on covertly and it’s not just the SSPX.
The resignation could be still be invalid and Francis could still become Pope. For instance, there have been Popes who have bought the papacy and had invalid elections. But because the Church accepted them as Popes they became Pope.
So this is what I propose to those who think Benidict’s resignation was invalid: Christ cut the bond of Benedict with the office of the papacy either when the Church accepted his resignation as an actual resignation or when the Church accepted Francis as Pope.
If a moral unanimity of the Church accepts someone as Pope then it is an infallible Dogmatic Fact that he is Pope. This is the unanimous teaching of the theologians. So, did the entire Church accept Francis as Pole or not?
i would argue the Church was morally unanimous in accepting him as Pope.
The point is that the moral unanimity in accepting Francis as Pope is not moral. There was deception and an ignorance of subsequently revealed facts. Things need to be addressed. We can’t have one Pope being forced out and then another guy trotted out onto the balcony. Of course, once he is seen on tv he’s in with the masses.
ABS thinks the resignation was neither forced or invalid as Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger clearly told his closest friends in advance that he was going to resign and he has clearly said publicly – at least twice as I recall – that his resignation was freely made.
s to the Bishop Emeritus and his idea about expanding or enlarging the papacy, that is immaterial to the matter under consideration.
When what’s his face (Edward? I’m drawing a blank) abdicated as King of England to marry an American, his abdication would have still been an accomplished fact even if he, personally ,had the idea that he maintained part of his Kingship.
Benedict abdicated and he retained not the slightest part of the Papacy he abandoned for one can not semi-abdicate the Papacy anymore than one can be semi-pregnant.
John. Moral unanimity has to do with numbers
Go here! Some creative scholarship by a faithful Catholic man.
https://sarmaticusblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/ockhams-razor-finds-benedict-still-pope-francis-is-false-pope-universal-church-in-state-of-necesity-since-24-april-2015/
Other significant anniversaries in 2017:
– 31 October 1517 – start of the Protestant Reformation – 500th anniversary
– 1717 – First Masonic Grand Lodge established – 300th anniversary
– 25 October 1917 – start of the Russian Revolution – 100th anniversary
And so does tv ratings.
One cannot create a new mass. And yet they did. One cannot deny (effectively and implicitly) catholic teaching and divine law on salvation, the sacraments, marriage, and the priesthood, and yet they do. What’s next, the papacy? Are you getting it? It doesn’t matter to them i.e. modernists, if Benedict retained any part of the papacy or not. What matters is how and why they want to change it. Changing religion and tradition is the game. And they always implement. In due time it is enforced.
If Benedict’s true intention was to resign, he would have taken off the white Papal garb, changed his name and left the Vatican. He dresses like the Pope, he identifies himself as Pope Benedict and he lives in the Vatican. The word, “Emeritus” is added and everyone suddenly goes brain dead.
If bergoglio was currently acting as ratzinger had acted while he falsely occupied the chair, then this entire matter, I feel, would not even be much of a discussion. The reason it is a discussion is because bergoglio is so blatant a heretic. If he was a quiet heretic like ratzinger, the traditional populace would be assuaged and there would be no gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. It took the current psycho heretic to get people talking….the past heretics werent quite heretical enough.
So you really think he is under some sort of “house arrest” and is being forced to keep his mouth shut?
Are you also known as I Am Not Spartacus? Just curious.
It seems we need to arrive at the conclusion that Francis is somehow not the Pope, so we can explain his manifest heresies as coming from a man not protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching error. Otherwise, we have to admit that the Holy Ghost has authorised Francis’ heresies. That cannot be admitted. So far, so good.
But how do we explain the manifest heresies of Paul VI, JPII and Benedict XVI?
The Church can not give Her children poison, be it through Councils, ordinary magisterium, liturgy, laws or discipline. It can’t happen. The Holy Ghost protects the Church in these matters.
The simple explanation, which shall remain unnamed, seems to fit best, without compromising the Indefectibility of the Church.
Until Amoris, I was just on my guard, but since Amoris, I do not see how Francis could possibly be Pope, and it doesn’t matter now whether he ever was Pope or not.
Once I opened that can of worms, it lead to the same question being asked of his post conciliar predecessors. Pre Vatican II theology regarding the nature of the Church is fascinating, and puts the pieces of the puzzle together. It’s no wonder why no one but a tiny minority ever refer to it.
Wojtyla and Ratzinger may have had some modernist tendencies, but they NEVER promoted heresy as Bergoglio has done in AL. That’s the difference.
The Church could create a new rite of Mass if they so wished, but She would not.
She can not create a non-catholic rite of Mass, but *they* did. Therefore, those responsible for the Novus Ordo were not Catholic, and as soon as we start regarding them as non Catholics, and our enemies, it simplifies everything.
Everyone talks so casually about the Modernists in the Church, but this is completely contrary to the nature of the Church. Modernism is the synthesis of all heresy. Public heretics are not Catholics. Heretics are not members of the Catholic Church, not even a little bit. Do the math.
“May have had tendencies”. I invite you to look up for yourself their manifest heresies. There are too many to mention here.
The so-called “prayer meetings” at Assisi were absolute heresy because the message was ALL “religions” have value and are put on par with Christ’s true Church. Who started it? Who continued it??? JP2 & B16–Guilty in the First Degree!!!! And that’s only the beginning!!!!
I would rather have Benedict as Pope but that does not matter. Facts matter and I think it is a Dogmatic Fact that he is Pope.
I would say that the Church cannot make a new rite of mass, even if it were Catholic and reverent. Trent anathematized that opinion and theologians such as Suarez applied that even to a Pope.
Surprisingly, I agree with you, rich.
I would suggest buying True or False Pope? It is a great, scholarly book that deals with this question.
When a knowledgeable person agrees with me, even if not for the exact reasons that I intended, then its a good day.
“The Jews still have their own covenant with God.” Is that heresy or not?
I was going to have a look at that book.
Have you read it?
It seems like it may be a waste of time reading 700 pages explaining why a heretic can be:
1. A public heretic; and
2. A valid Pope.
Am I missing something?
Sorry, 1. should be: A member of the Church.
Well if you want to know the truth, go ask Mikey V over at CMTV. According to him he’s the only true apologist on the net and everyone else that has ever attended an SSPX Mass is sure to burn….
Yeah – go ask Kiko and Carmen…they actually have their own rite just for them…I’m contemplating making my own rite too – based on the Blues Brothers in the church if you saw the movie…Frankie Baby will love it…
OK, let me say this first. I am a convert, having been received into the Church in 2013. I did not come to the Church exactly a blank slate, as I had a Masters in Theology and Philosophy from a Protestant seminary and 40+ years of studying the Scriptures. And since then I have spent every single day in study of the perennial Magesterium.
Immediately upon my reception into the Church, it became apparent to me that something was greatly amiss. What I studied in the doctrines of the faith, what I read in the pre-Vatican 2 Magesterial documents simply did not appear to easily dovetail into what I heard from current bishops and read in their writings. Not to mention Popes. One glaring example, the most glaring of all in my opinion, is the utter and complete void of administration of Church discipline. Anything appears to go. As I like to put it, we have the doctrines on paper but we have lousy “fathers” {capitalize it if you wish} who care nothing for the disciplining of their children, children who now run amuck.
And THEN…enter Pope Francis…
Something just doesn’t fit. Look, so we are told it is possible for a Pope to resign. I get that. But where ANYWHERE in history is there the faintest hint that there can be something like a Pope Emeritus. Does that right there not clearly indicate a Pope who remains in some capacity…Pope?
And that simply doesn’t sit right.
I would not at all be surprised to find out that in 50 or a hundred years the Church condemns the writings of Pope Francis and declares him to be a heretic or alternatively neither would I be surprised to find that within the same time he is declared to be an anti-pope.
Maybe cradle Catholics are just numb to all the half century of carnival antics of the leadership, but seriously, for a guy like me to wander into the Church {bringing my wife and entire family of adult children, too, as a matter of fact} and see what I see and hear what I hear, well, it leads me to wonder…
What the heck is going on?
God Save the Catholic Church.
Indeed…
Disappearance of Hell, equality of all religions, “abandonment” of EENS {Pope B16’s word}, “Catholic divorce” {the heavy industry of mass production annulments}, Protestantization of the liturgy, refusal to turn faggot priests over to the authorities, Koran kissing to the current fawming all over Islam, etc, etc, all are shocking for the faith that never changes its doctrines.
I see it this way; We are in a spiritual war. In any war, at any given time, the situation can look grim. Battles can be lost. Lands can be vacated. Forces can surrender. Leaders can act treasonously.
Look at the British at Dunkirk. Look at the US during the first 6 months after Pearl Harbor. Look at the Soviet Union for the first year and a half after the German invasion. And even when the immediate crisis was past, the road to victory was fraught with extreme strain and loss.
Yeah, it’s like that.
Thanks 😉
One more thing.
Like I mentioned in my piece, everyone is concentrating on that part of the Gänswein passage that dealt with the duel papacy (the proverbial “showing the tackler a leg”), but only a few focused on the “state of exception” part. This is where the dog is buried, in the humble opinion of yours truly. Below is the Magister piece with the Canele text below. Please read carefully:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351344?eng=y
Those of us close to the SSPX should understand this intuitively since we are well aware of what a “State of Necessity” constitutes. 😉
Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. Were ALL our postconciliar popes modernists????
Have your heard of Assisi, 1986? Blasphemy and sacrilege that was off the charts, and because it was a first, the horror of it will likely never be topped. Whatever Francis has done so far, he looks like a rank amateur compared to JPII and B16.
Dear The Papal Subject, The point, as explained by Messrs Salza and Siscoe, and many others, citing authority, is that a person can be a heretic and not a member of the Church (and therefore not pope in the spiritual realm) but still be pope in the external (institutional) forum until due process has been done and he is duly found to be be, as a matter of fact, by the proper authorities, a formal heretic, and therefore, by necessity no longer in the Office. Or he declares himself to be a formal heretic, with the requisite intention incontrovertibly demonstrated, as well as the material heresy. This issue was discussed many many times on Mr Verrechio’s site from 2013 to 2015.
One, in a very long list of material (objective) heresies.
Dear Rod, All true Catholics are suffering severe trauma from the Great Apostasy in the Church. Our bishops and priests, for the most part, have abandoned us. We cry out to God and offer up our suffering in reparation. We pray for all the souls in danger of eternal damnation. Let us console and support each other. I am so very sorry for the evil that you and your family is suffering – may your faith grow and bring the graces to help other souls return to God and the UNCHANGEABLE Holy Faith and moral law.
“God Save the Catholic Church.”
There should be doubts in this regard as God always keeps a promise. It is evident that God preserved the link with Tradition using Bishop Lefebvre and the SSPX in 1988. 1988 was the critical year in which God kept His promise to save the Church from the Modernists.
To counter the SSPX, JPII created the FSSP. The FSSP says a Latin Mass, but they accept VII and the New Mass without reservations. In that sense the FSSP is a Modernist tool, and a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I doubt that the Modernists anticipated that the FSSP would become so popular among Catholics that craved a traditional liturgy. Most Catholics don’t see the contradiction between the FSSP and the SSPX in the true sense. The FSSP continues to maintain that there are problems with the SSPX. Most Catholics don’t realize that the opposite is true.
The idea that BXVI did not in fact resign is simply absurd. He left no loophole in his resignation. Common sense alone suggests the absurdity of the theory. It is beyond improbable that BXVI would make himself complicit in the reign of an anti-pope through his own continued silence and smiling photo ops with Francis, whereby hundreds of millions of souls might be led astray. His (BXVI’s) imagined ‘cure’ from such an act of ‘necessity’ would be as bad as the disease itself. It is ridiculous on its face. If – and I am speaking hypothetically – Pope Francis is in reality an anti-pope, there seem to be two separate paths of investigation. The first regards the nature of the activities of the St. Gallen ‘mafia’ on behalf of Bergoglio’s papal aspirations and Bergoglio’s knowledge and consent to these activities on his behalf prior to the conclave. The second path of investigation would require demonstrating that Bergoglio was in fact a formal heretic prior to the conclave that elected him. For example, if Bergoglio, as archbishop of Buenos Aires, knowingly and willfully violated the canons, catechism, etc., with regard to communion for adulterers – might this constitute formal heresy and disqualify him from election per Cum Ex Apostolatus? I don’t know. I cannot say. I am not a canonist. But, IF canonists were to say such a case could be made, it seems to me the College of Cardinals could hear the case and judge whether Bergoglio as archbishop was a formal heretic – and in the event of an affirmative judgment by them, his election, and all his acts as ‘pope’ would be ipso facto null and void. I am of the opinion – which I believe was Bellarmine’s as well – that a valid pope cannot fall into formal heresy or ‘authoritatively’ teach it. I certainly think this is suggested by the Lord’s words to Peter, the Formula of Hormisdas, and Pope St. Agatho’s letter to the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Thus, if a ‘pope’ were to seemingly bind the Church to a heresy, that in itself would be a sign such a ‘pope’ had never been a valid pope to begin with – even if the cause and nature of the invalidity be hidden from us.
I meant to say that there should be NO doubts as God always keeps a promise.
+Lefebvre
“Leaving minds in error and souls in sin is not being charitable. It is one thing to have an understanding of souls and of how they come to be led into error and sin; it is quite another to give error the appearance of truth, and sin the semblance of virtue, and so utterly to mislead them ourselves. Of course, there are nuances involved here, but true charity, wholly made up of faith in Jesus Christ, does not make mistakes, and will not hide the Light under a bushel. It is certainly easier never to contradict, to approve of everything and to create for oneself an easy popularity at the expense of truth, which means at the expense of Our Lord Himself; but that is self-seeking and no exercise of true charity.”
I have read it and it is a very good book. It also helps clear up other ecclesiastical issues.
Why did he say that he wanted to keep the spiritual/passive part of the papacy?
He didn’t say he was ‘keeping’ any part of the ministry. In his resignation, BXVI explicitly spoke of a conclave and the election of a “new supreme pontiff.” His clear and explicit intent was to render the See of Peter vacant by his act. He says this EXPLICITLY. He attributed his resignation to his personal incapacity, in his opinion, to continue. He makes no mention of a ‘state of necessity.’ To say, to the contrary, that his intent was not to resign – or that he created a state of necessity, is to call him a liar; and one who makes himself complicit in the reign of an anti-pope and bringing confusion upon the Church and the potential ruin of hundreds of millions of souls IF he really did not intend to resign. Absolutely absurd. He resigned freely. He said this (from the English provided at Vatican website):
Dear Brothers,
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
From the Vatican, 10 February 2013
If – again speaking hypothetically as I did before – there is to be a theory that Francis is not a true pope…it cannot reasonably begin with the demonstrably false premise that BXVI is still pope..
Louie, I don’t think your fellow warriors are being deliberately silent. Many have been in this war for a long time and are battle weary. That is not to say that they have given up in any way, shape, or form. At this point, considering the daily bombardment of outrageous behavior coming from the Vatican, they may be picking their battles, so to speak. Right now, what is needed is unity. The war will be won, but the battles will continue.
Have you had a look at the various responses that have been put out by those people the book takes to task? It’s always good to know both sides.
Yes, there’s room over there in that lifeboat labeled SSPX. I’m surprised at how often people say someone must be pope or a “change” in dogma must be legitimate because the Holy Ghost can’t be wrong in willing it so. The Holy Ghost is God Almighty and has perfect will–active AND permissive. I have believed that He has permitted so many to go so wrong for so long because they just plain lack faith, the faith required for salvation. Can you imagine just about any of this crop of popes, cardinals, bishops and priests approaching the Pearly Gates after their brief existence on earth? What awaits them for putting so many millions of souls at risk by just not doing the only job they had–giving people the knowledge and tools necessary for salvation? And they DARE question the validity of the SSPX? Thank You, Lord, for Archbishop Lefebvre all those years ago. That’s one of the best examples of the Holy Ghost offering a sliver of hope through His active will in decades.
Hi Lynda, I think you are confusing the interior Virtue of Faith with the external bond of Faith.
If I said to you that “Luther was right”, and made a reference to the Council of Trent at the same time, I’d automatically leave the visible Church. I would be publicly breaking the external bond of Faith, and thereby sever myself from Her. I would no longer be a Catholic, not even a little bit.
It would be an objective fact, even if the authorities never declared me as such, because it is of Divine law.
According to your assessment, if the Pope ever said such an outrageous thing (God forbid!) then we would have to wait for the “proper authorities” to declare him a formal heretic, and not a moment before.
The Pope has no earthly superior, so the only “proper authority” is God himself. It is of Divine law that heretics put themselves outside the Church.
St Robert Bellarmine and St Alphonsus are not on board with your position.
“A Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church.” – St Robert Bellarmine
“If God permitted a pope to be notoriously heretical and contumacious, he would then cease to be pope, and the Apostolic Chair would be vacant.” – St Alphonsus de Liguori
If SSPX Bishop Tissier is right due to defective form both Benedict XVI and Francis’ Consecration were invalid. And Francis’ ordination was invalid. So according to the rules of the Conclave neither should be allowed to participate.
Let’s say that one concludes that the 2013 resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is invalid (we won’t dwell on how this conclusion has been derived, for the sake of argument).
What then? What can one do? What should one do?
Even if you hold the view that the resignation was invalid, how do you propose to convince the Curia that the resignation was invalid? What then?
Alas, they did. It’s sufficient, though unnecessary, to cite the Assisi debacles.
I had high hopes for that book until I watched this:
Dead on Arrival: True or False Pope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmjb5xw72C0
The Pope is still the Pope even if he is a heretic. The President of the United States is still the President even when he hates America. What is the freaking difference between having a heretic Pope or no Pope at all? In either case, a true Catholic is going to follow Catholic Tradition and continue to receive the Sacraments.
But the Sacraments would be valid if the Holy Order is not valid.
Salza and Siscoe do not have a monopoly on the subject. Fr Paul Kramer, who is apparently on their side, is publicly taking them to task for their shoddy theology regarding the the Papacy and the nature of heresy in their “irrefutable” book.
Consider this excerpt of pre-Vatican II theology regarding Formal and Material Heresy:
“Manifest heretics and schismatics are excluded from membership in the Church.
Heretics separate themselves from the unity of faith and worship; schismatics from the unity of government, and both reject the authority of the Church.
So far as exclusion from the Church is concerned, it matters not whether the heresy or schism be formal or material.
Those born and reared in heresy or schism may be sincere in their belief and practice yet they publicly and willingly reject the Church and attach themselves to sects opposed to her.
They are not guilty of sin in the matter, but they are not members of the Church.
For this reason, the Church makes no distinction between formal and material heresy when receiving converts into her fold.”
– Fr Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ
Go to an SSPX Chapel and receive 100% valid Sacraments. If the SSPX are not in your area then go to FSSP or ICKSP. Above all stop with all of the paranoia. God is not filling the world with traps to damn souls. God just wants you to use some common sense.
Dear The Papal Subject
This is the critical issue that has been debated almost ad nauseam here and elsewhere for the past three years. I simply pointed out the rationale of Salza and Siscoe, and others – probably not very well. The Austrian priest and canon lawyer who died a couple of years ago (may he rest in peace) has explained it in video talks and articles available on the Internet. I can’t think of his name now (my memory is poor due to my illness) but you probably know him. He was based in the USA and I think a member of the SSPV.
Many of us believe that Francis is a formal heretic given the overwhelming evidence pointing thereto. If Francis is a formal heretic, he’s not a member of the Church nor Pope in the spiritual realm. However, many argue citing the authorities, that for the loss of the Office within the external visible institutions of the Church, the bishops must convene an imperfect Council and make the finding of fact and recognise the necessary result of that fact (loss of Office) in order for him to lose the Office in the temporal realm of the Church and for a new papal election to take place. This would not be a judicial ruling which the bishops wouldn’t have the power to make but a tribunal and finding of fact and recognition of the necessary consequences thereof.
If you look at previous discussions about Francis’s status on the site, you’ll see it’s been gone over many many times, especially up to about a year ago. One of the authors of True or False Pope? also latterly contributed after Mr Verrechio wrote an article on that book’s publication.
Forgive me if I haven’t explained Salza and Siscoe’s rationale very well. I have a debilitating chronic illness and am not as a result able to express things as well as I used to. And I stopped repetitively going over the issue again and again, last year, as did many others. We are all suffering terribly in this Great Apostasy and from the evil dominating in the Church. We must support and console each other.
As for someone entering the Church for the first time, he must be baptised according to the rite and subscribe (or guardian on his behalf, if below the age of reason) to the objective unchangeable content of the Holy Faith.
God bless. Your sister in Christ, Lynda
God is not causing this. It is people denying the Faith publicly by their own free will, whether they be lay or cleric, and this has consequences.
I believe that it is quite probable that Father Paul Kramer is correct in his position – that Benedict XVI is still the true Pope and that Francis is the antipope of many prophecies. I say this for the following reasons:
1. The circumstances of the so-called resignation. No one, not even the Pope, has the authority or the power to change the nature of the papacy, which is part of the essance of the Church. If Benedict’s novel notion of the papacy is at the heart of this act one has good reason to be suspicious of its validity.
2. The pressure brought to bear upon Benedict since his election. It is now public record that there was an organised plot to oust Benedict and install a candidate acceptable to the modernist/freemasonic cabal (see St Gallen’s mafia and Cardinal Danneels). Originally they wanted Martini in 2005 but moved to Bergoglio when Martini was too old. (2013)
3. The acceptance and applause of the world for Francis. The Church, like her spouse Jesus Christ Our Lord, is supposed to be in opposition to the world and it’s false maxims. The fact that Francis has their approval is one of the most positive proofs that he is a force that is alien to all things Catholic, but rather is a perfect instrument of the freemasonic agenda to bring the institutional church in line with the “One World Church” of apostasy (Pius X)
4. 1963 and the alleged enthronement of Lucifer in the Vatican (Malachi Martin). Fast forward precisely 50 years to 2013 and we have the most extraordinary deformation of the papacy with a supposed resignation and the novalty of “two popes” at the same time. Malachi devoted much of his writing to the subject of the pressue the enemies of the Church have been bring to bear on the papacy and their attempts to capture and subvert it.
5. The harmony of current events with particular prophecies. This is by no means an exhausive list but here are a few that I think are significant:
La Salette – “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist”. This implies a “total collapse at the centre” (Malachi Martin). The papacy is the centrepiece of Catholic teaching. If this were to be captured, subverted or expelled in any way, this would go a long way to fulfilling this prophecy.
Fatima – We know that the 3rd Secret concerns apostasy in the Church and in particular mentions the papacy (“that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top” Cardinal Ciappi). The late Fr Malachi Martin confirmed that the 3rd secret (which he read under oath) contains something about a “pope” “under the control of satan” (see last interview with Art Bell). Fr Kramer theories that this is actually the antipope spoken of by St Francis of Assisi who will formalize the apostasy that already exists in many who call themselves Catholic. This exact scenario is spoken of by Malachi Martin (interview with Bernard Janzen) when he talked of the possibliity of an apostate being elected by a future conclave. In this scenario he forsaw the true Church going underground for a time. This would be in harmony with the interpretation of Yves Dupont in his book “Catholic Prophecy” when he comments upon Blessed Catherine Emmerich and others. Yves Dupont speculates that the true Pope will flee Rome (prophecy of St Pius X) and will die in exile (implied by the Fatima vision). During this time the Church will be without a Pope for some time and an antipope will rule.
Blessed Catherine Emmerich – she speaks of “two popes” and their relationship, and the rise of a “church of darkness”. For “two popes” to exist at the same time imples one of them to be false since there can only be one true pope at a time. The false one will be integral to the progress of the “church of darkness” which has been in motion since the Second Vatican Council.
The serpent Ratzinger/Benedict paved the way for a Francis.
http://traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f069_Guardini.htm
Akita and the secret of Fatima. https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_3099874645&feature=iv&src_vid=lAAkEp0BV9Q&v=H6isd20OPYY