FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Benevacantism, Etc.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Interesting. 

Bergoglio signed his condolence letter to The Holy Father Pope Benedict, “Filially and fraternally”.

Doesn't 'Filial' mean “son” in this context?

If so, how exactly can the Vicar of Christ on Earth be the “spiritual son” of… anyone on earth?

[Image: img_2476.jpg]
Does the Pope not have to go to confession if he sins?  Does he no longer need spiritual counsel?  In those moments, he has a father, even if he is the Pope.
(07-03-2020, 03:15 PM)Bonaventure Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting. 

Bergoglio signed his condolence letter to The Holy Father Pope Benedict, “Filially and fraternally”.

Doesn't 'Filial' mean “son” in this context?

If so, how exactly can the Vicar of Christ on Earth be the “spiritual son” of… anyone on earth?

[Image: img_2476.jpg]

I don't have the original, but before we start textual analysis, it's pretty important to have that and work in the original language to understand the thoughts of the writer, or at the very least to ensure we have a translation which is not only literally correct, but also communicates the ideas in the original language.

This translation does not do this, and one thing clearly gives it away.

Benedict XVI's brother was not a bishop. He was granted an honorary title of Monsignor and so was a "minor prelate" but was not consecrated a bishop. Plenty of such Monsignors get to wear special cassocks and get titles and honors, but are merely priests and are never referred to as "bishops". They care referred to sometimes as "prelates". 

The text probably used the title "Monsignore" which is used also for bishops, and the person translating simply could not be bothered checking if the translation actually matched what was clearly meant.

So, yes, interesting, but more that someone would do such a poor translations of this, and then people would hang on a single word that without the original we have no way of guaranteeing is a faithful expression of what Francis meant.
(07-02-2020, 04:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]I have no issue with the theoretical discussion of these various theories, because in airing them, we find out the weaknesses of each, and why certain ones fail. We end up learning a great deal about the Catholic Faith as a result, especially ecclesiology. 

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on Sedeprivationism, such as its weaknesses and why it might, or might not, be one of the theories that fails.
Any readers here of 'The Corbinian Bear'? He's a retired criminal defense attorney (fewer conflicts of interest, perhaps) and willing to entertain.

What do I appreciate about this essay? The Bear reminds us that an attempt to split the duties of the Papacy brings about its dissolution. There can be no functioning 'halfsies'. It's truly Benedict v. Bergolio, and the verdict is not yet in.

For your reading enjoyment, the 'Seriously?' argument:

*               *               *

By now you have heard many argue Jorge Bergoglio is not the Pope. The idea that Benedict never effectively resigned has built up some steam. Recently, Dr. Edmund Mazza has caused a stir with his theory that the office of Bishop of Rome and Pope can be split--and was--upon the resignation of Pope Benedict.

The Bear was a criminal defense lawyer. He isn't a canon lawyer, can't think like they think, doesn't know the rules, and respects his ignorance of legal specialties. So he just won't get into the legal arguments, any more than he would expect to see Dr. Ed Peters as first chair in a death penalty case.

However:

There are two mixed questions of fact and law: (1) Pope Benedict was coerced, or (2) had a misunderstanding about the scope of his resignation. For the sake of argument, let's say either of these would invalidate his resignation of February 28, 2013. (Has it really only been that long ago?)

The first involves speculation: Benedict may have been coerced, but, if so, the evidence hasn't surfaced. 

The second argument does not require speculation, since we can draw reasonable inferences of fact from his behavior. If this would make the resignation invalid, then the Bear thinks it likely Benedict did not have the requisite intent to fully resign, did not resign and Jorge Bergoglio is not Pope. (The Bear will assume a resignation must be without reservation or some novel theological secret or technicality.)

And there’s the rub. Benedict was an intelligent theologian, who mistrusted novelty in the latter part of his life. He was dismayed at “the hermeneutic of rupture” by which V2 was implemented. And yet, here we are.

The Bear Has Two Papas. Or a nice papa that ran off and left his poor cubs with a spiritually abusive interloper. Frankly, neither one inspires confidence.

Worse, while Francis may be a very bad Pope, as a practical matter he enjoys an almost invincible presumption of legitimacy by now. The whole of the Church hierarchy accepts him, as does the world. 

It is the nature and purpose of all law to reduce uncertainty. “Possession is nine points of the law” is an old rule that captures this idea in property law. And, sorry to say, it works in Bergoglio’s favor.

There’s no law against being a bad Pope. The Bear cannot recall a reliably-sourced, unambiguous, formal declaration of heresy. Scandal and error and the whiff of heresy, yes. But, that is way Modernists operate. See Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907) on Modernists and their doublespeak.

St. Augustine said the world awoke one day to find itself Arian. The Bear would love to wake up to find that the world was not snared by Bergoglioism. There is another, more common sense, more ursine way of processing this mess.

The following argument is not legal, or even logical. Maybe rhetorical. The Bear calls it the "Seriously?" argument.

It is certain there will be another conclave in 2020. Or 2021. Soon, anyway. The Bear hopes the Church--including the Cardinals--have been given this glimpse of a Full Metal Modernist Bishop of Rome as a warning. If they continue by electing another, they have no excuse.

The Historic Resignation

Pope Benedict XVI has conducted himself in a manner he knows can only confuse the faithful. He still wears white, has a papal ring, confers the Apostolic Blessing, and even calls himself Pope. (Yes, he adds "Emeritus" to that, a title that did not exist before he invented it.) This is just bizarre.

While the exact number may be debatable, it's generally held that only four of what we'll call 266 popes have resigned, the last Celestine V in 1294. Benedict would be the first in 700 years. 

Let that sink in.

And Benedict would be the only one to stick around dressed up like a pope, exercising some sort of co-papacy of contemplation and prayer. 

In the Navy, a change of command is one of the most solemn and traditional ceremonies in the most traditional branch of service. The old skipper doesn't remain on the ship as "Captain Emeritus." That would be unsettling, to say the least. There can only be one final decision maker to whom the crew must look without any confusion whatsoever. This is the norm for the papacy.

Celestine V fled Rome after his resignation, but was captured and imprisoned by his successor. He did not stay on as "Pope Emeritus." None of the other popes who resigned did. It is unprecedented.

The stated reasons were age and health, ("Resigned for health reasons" is usually code for something else, but let's take him at his word.) Yet he was close to his predecessor, John Paul II, who allowed neither age nor health to cause him to abandon his post. It seems odd for Benedict to flout such an example. Or maybe he saw the downside and decided accordingly.

It would be a wonder in Church history if Pope Benedict did resign. To stay on as "Pope Emeritus" to the confusion of the faithful would be unprecedented. To do so under a cloud of scandal, just after receiving the findings of an investigation he ordered makes it suspicious. The more you think about it, the more you realize just what a jaw-dropper it is.

This resignation--all by itself--is an unprecedented event in Church history. Unique, even.

Francis the Terrible

Jorge Bergoglio, stupor mundi, arrives on the stage of history at the same time Benedict resigned, amidst signs and portents. From his first appearance, he confused the faithful by referring to himself as "Bishop of Rome." Was the Bear alone in wondering, "Okay, so when do we get to see the Pope?"

He still has an aversion to titles, as the 2020 Vatican Yearbook shows, listing himself as Jorge Mario Bergoglio and putting "Vicar of Christ" and other historical titles in a footnote at the bottom. Isn’t that strange? Moreover, strangely honest? All it needs is an asterisk, like Barry Bond's dubious home-run record-breaking ball.

[Image: 2020_Pontifical_Yearbook_1000_630_75_s_c1.jpg]

Comparison: in 2020, on the right, it's Jorge Bergoglio; the titles Vicar of Christ, etc., below. Might as well put an asterisk on it.

[Image: B182%2B2008%2BBonds%252C%2BBarry%2Basterisk%2Bball.jpg]

Barry Bonds' 756th home run record-breaking ball in Baseball Hall of Fame, with asterisk.

He has been the Pope most destructive of the faith in 2000 years of Church history. From coprophagic insults, to Amorous Laetitia, to the Abu Dubia Three Great Abrahamic Religions Worship Center and Waterpark, and Pachamama because God wills diversity in religion, and on goes the breathless list. It would take a book to contain all his scandals. In fact several have been written.

Francis--all by himself--is an unprecedented event in Church history. Unique, even.

Seriously?

The resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, under a cloud, then hanging around as "Pope Emeritus," is staggering enough, but the Bear could accept one major, unprecedented historical event. After all, weird things do happen.

But then there is Francis, too. 

Now the Bear’s sense of coincidence is tested. The words "unprecedented," and "major historical event," and "unique" mean things that rarely happen, or have never happened before. 

Example: Francis the Terrible, the Indifferentist, the Globalist, the Mocker. The Modernist who, like a squid, hides heresy with a cloud of orthodox ink when necessary. 

When two such events happen together, what are we supposed to say?

The Bear can only say, "seriously?" You seriously want us to just put aside all the weirdness going on in different quarters and whistle a happy tune? The Bear passes over the destruction of Catholic statues, the worldwide pandemic that has closed all the churches and denied the sacraments to all the faithful for the first time in history, the urban madness  and violence—you know what the Bear is saying.

It is as if the gates of Hell have cracked open.

We just happen to have the worst Pope in 2000 years in Francis, but also a second "Pope Emeritus” whose resignation is sufficiently dubious so as to cast doubt on whether we ever had a Pope Francis in the first place. 

Pope Francis.

Seriously?

Maybe with an asterisk.


https://stcorbiniansbear.blogspot.com/20...-pope.html
(03-09-2019, 10:07 AM)josh9876543 Wrote: [ -> ]Just heard today the murderer Nancy Pelosi wore ashes on her forehead for ash Wednesday
 
To be fair to Nancy Pelosi, she probably does need to do some public penance.
A good video this.

I have begun to sympathize with Benevacantism, but I don't claim to really know.
Is this thread really worth continuing for 16 pages? Pope Francis is the valid Pope. He said so, Pope Benedict XVI said so. It's a settled matter. Why there exists so many different theories that amount to little more than what ifs/wishful thinking, is beyond me? Wouldn't our time be better suited to working to support Pope Francis' return to orthodoxy? And maybe get involved in diocesan novus ordo parishes (like RCIA, bible studies, etc) to start teaching the novus ordites (who are the VAST majority of the Roman Church) of all the errors the Church has adopted since the Second Vatican Council?
(09-01-2020, 01:48 PM)SimplyCatholic333 Wrote: [ -> ]Is this thread really worth continuing for 16 pages?  Pope Francis is the valid Pope.  He said so, Pope Benedict XVI said so.  It's a settled matter.  Why there exists so many different theories that amount to little more than what ifs/wishful thinking, is beyond me?  Wouldn't our time be better suited to working to support Pope Francis' return to orthodoxy?  And maybe get involved in diocesan novus ordo parishes (like RCIA, bible studies, etc) to start teaching the novus ordites (who are the VAST majority of the Roman Church) of all the errors the Church has adopted since the Second Vatican Council?

If Orthodoxy is true, then the Catholic Church has been wrong since before 1054.  That means She was wrong about Mary, wrong about Christ's two natures, wrong about the Eucharist, etc. etc.