FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Pope Francis: Is he the Pope or the False Prophet?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Profound! I pray for Francis every day, in my daily prayers, in my Rosaries, and at every Holy Mass I hear. I pray for his conversion to Catholicism.


From Toronto Catholic Witness 

By Barona

Over the past few months there are those who are claiming the Pope is not the Pope. These voices have become more hysterical as the crisis deepens (this is obviously the work of Lucifer to induce Catholics to abandon the Faith due to Francis' "apostasy"). 

Let us ask ourselves:
Who would declare the Pope has lost his "office", and by what authority?

Who would decide what "manifest heresy" is, and by what authority? 


I refer readers to an article written a number of years ago by Br. Andre Marie, in which he wrote the following: 

Quote:
Quote:
Regarding the possibility of an heretical pope and his consequent loss of office, I would like to present another argument. Supposing we were to follow the opinions of certain authors that if a pope were to fall into heresy, he would then lose his office. Then suppose that we were to apply that opinion to a certain pope. At best, what we have accomplished is to establish, based upon theological speculation, the possibility that the See of Peter could be vacant. That is all we could do, given the uncertain nature of this situation. At this point, the individual Catholic is at a moral juncture: Either accept a man as the Roman Pontiff whom he thinks might not be pope, or reject him. If he realizes that the claimant to the Apostolic See might be the pope — and he has to admit that he might be — then rejecting the claimant constitutes a schismatic act.  
Quote:
Quote:Let me explain. This is what is known in moral theology as a “practical doubt.” About this “practical doubt” the Jesuit moralist, Father Slater, says the following. “If I eat meat with a practical doubt as to whether it is not forbidden on that day by the Church, I commit a sin of the same kind and malice as if I ate meat knowingly on a day of abstinence.” Apply this to the pontificate. If I refuse my subjection to the Roman Pontiff with a practical doubt as to whether or not he is the pope, I commit an act of schism. It’s a form of spiritual Russian Roulette. 

Let those who have already fallen into sedevacantism consider Br.Andre Marie again:


Quote:
Quote:
“Yes, and we all know what our Lord did. He deposed the high priest and declared the Seat of Moses vacant! Didn’t He?” The point is simply this: If the Man-God himself had enough respect for the sovereign pontiff of the law of types and figures as to say of the heretical Jew who was soon to murder Him, that he sat “in the seat of Moses,” how does anyone in the present law, the more perfect law, dare to do the opposite? Let me spell this out. Our Lord was not a sedevacantist. The evil deicide heretic who had authority over the “church” of Israel, was still the head of the true Religion. The religious society of the Old Law was still intact. 
Quote:
Quote:
Anyone wishing to save his soul could look to this office for leadership. Its sacrifices were accepted by God, and despite the abusive use to which it was put, the prophetical office was even maintained by this man. What did St. John say about Caiphas’ prophesy of our Lord’s death? “And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.” No matter how you view it, the present Pope’s actions come nowhere near the iniquity of Caiphas.


Friends, the temptation to schism (and heresy) will increase as Rome darkens. DO NOT abandon the Faith for some Synagogue of Satan. The Church is ONE and She is visible. 

We have a lot of spiritual work before us. Are we ready and willing to take on this task? If we are, then we can delay the coming of Antichrist and his False Prophet. 

At the coming of Antichrist there will be an imposter on the Throne of Peter, a bishop, but not the Pope: he is known in Sacred Scripture as the False Prophet, and he will serve Antichrist. 

However, we have yet to see the manifestation of Antichrist, a Jew who will be the agent of Lucifer and a monstrous parody of Our Lord Jesus Christ. However, we do see definite spiritual and geopolitical signs that the stage is being set for the manifestation of the Man of Perdition. 

It is our duty, as Catholics, to pray for the Pope, as it was the duty of Jews to pray for Caiphas, the "pope" of the then, true Old Testament Church. The Jews failed in their duty, and Caiphas committed the greatest spiritual crime in history: Deicide.

With the Crucifixion of the Messiah, the Jews fell into mass apostasy and the faithful remnant of Israel entered the Church, the New and only Israel. Let us pray for the Pope, so that he does not commit the second gravest crime in history: becoming the False Prophet, and serving Antichrist.

Pray for the Pope, pray for the conversion of the Jews. 

(06-29-2019, 04:06 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Profound! I pray for Francis every day, in my daily prayers, in my Rosaries, and at every Holy Mass I hear. I pray for his conversion to Catholicism.


From Toronto Catholic Witness 

By Barona

Over the past few months there are those who are claiming the Pope is not the Pope. These voices have become more hysterical as the crisis deepens (this is obviously the work of Lucifer to induce Catholics to abandon the Faith due to Francis' "apostasy"). 

Let us ask ourselves:
Who would declare the Pope has lost his "office", and by what authority?

Who would decide what "manifest heresy" is, and by what authority? 


I refer readers to an article written a number of years ago by Br. Andre Marie, in which he wrote the following: 

Quote:
Quote:
Regarding the possibility of an heretical pope and his consequent loss of office, I would like to present another argument. Supposing we were to follow the opinions of certain authors that if a pope were to fall into heresy, he would then lose his office. Then suppose that we were to apply that opinion to a certain pope. At best, what we have accomplished is to establish, based upon theological speculation, the possibility that the See of Peter could be vacant. That is all we could do, given the uncertain nature of this situation. At this point, the individual Catholic is at a moral juncture: Either accept a man as the Roman Pontiff whom he thinks might not be pope, or reject him. If he realizes that the claimant to the Apostolic See might be the pope — and he has to admit that he might be — then rejecting the claimant constitutes a schismatic act.  
Quote:
Quote:Let me explain. This is what is known in moral theology as a “practical doubt.” About this “practical doubt” the Jesuit moralist, Father Slater, says the following. “If I eat meat with a practical doubt as to whether it is not forbidden on that day by the Church, I commit a sin of the same kind and malice as if I ate meat knowingly on a day of abstinence.” Apply this to the pontificate. If I refuse my subjection to the Roman Pontiff with a practical doubt as to whether or not he is the pope, I commit an act of schism. It’s a form of spiritual Russian Roulette. 

Not sure about that. Theologians have taught otherwise.
  
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943) 

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948) 

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
(06-29-2019, 08:34 PM)BC Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-29-2019, 04:06 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Profound! I pray for Francis every day, in my daily prayers, in my Rosaries, and at every Holy Mass I hear. I pray for his conversion to Catholicism.


From Toronto Catholic Witness 

By Barona

Over the past few months there are those who are claiming the Pope is not the Pope. These voices have become more hysterical as the crisis deepens (this is obviously the work of Lucifer to induce Catholics to abandon the Faith due to Francis' "apostasy"). 

Let us ask ourselves:
Who would declare the Pope has lost his "office", and by what authority?

Who would decide what "manifest heresy" is, and by what authority? 


I refer readers to an article written a number of years ago by Br. Andre Marie, in which he wrote the following: 

Quote:
Quote:
Regarding the possibility of an heretical pope and his consequent loss of office, I would like to present another argument. Supposing we were to follow the opinions of certain authors that if a pope were to fall into heresy, he would then lose his office. Then suppose that we were to apply that opinion to a certain pope. At best, what we have accomplished is to establish, based upon theological speculation, the possibility that the See of Peter could be vacant. That is all we could do, given the uncertain nature of this situation. At this point, the individual Catholic is at a moral juncture: Either accept a man as the Roman Pontiff whom he thinks might not be pope, or reject him. If he realizes that the claimant to the Apostolic See might be the pope — and he has to admit that he might be — then rejecting the claimant constitutes a schismatic act.  
Quote:
Quote:Let me explain. This is what is known in moral theology as a “practical doubt.” About this “practical doubt” the Jesuit moralist, Father Slater, says the following. “If I eat meat with a practical doubt as to whether it is not forbidden on that day by the Church, I commit a sin of the same kind and malice as if I ate meat knowingly on a day of abstinence.” Apply this to the pontificate. If I refuse my subjection to the Roman Pontiff with a practical doubt as to whether or not he is the pope, I commit an act of schism. It’s a form of spiritual Russian Roulette. 

Not sure about that. Theologians have taught otherwise.
  
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943) 

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948) 

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
Yet the SSPX are taken as schismatics because they cannot obey in light of Tradition.
(06-29-2019, 04:06 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Profound! I pray for Francis every day, in my daily prayers, in my Rosaries, and at every Holy Mass I hear. I pray for his conversion to Catholicism.


From Toronto Catholic Witness 




Friends, the temptation to schism (and heresy) will increase as Rome darkens. DO NOT abandon the Faith for some Synagogue of Satan. The Church is ONE and She is visible. 

We have a lot of spiritual work before us. Are we ready and willing to take on this task? If we are, then we can delay the coming of Antichrist and his False Prophet. 

At the coming of Antichrist there will be an imposter on the Throne of Peter, a bishop, but not the Pope: he is known in Sacred Scripture as the False Prophet, and he will serve Antichrist. 

However, we have yet to see the manifestation of Antichrist, a Jew who will be the agent of Lucifer and a monstrous parody of Our Lord Jesus Christ. However, we do see definite spiritual and geopolitical signs that the stage is being set for the manifestation of the Man of Perdition. 

I am not sure what the author is implying about the synagogue of Satan, but it would not apply to any traditionalists.

The present Vatican, with its Judaizing tendencies would be a closer candidate..

https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTop...ue1986.htm

His position is that of course Francis is the pope, so he can't be an imposter.

However, the whole point of being in an imposter is to deceive.

What danger would true Catholics be in, if an imposter antipope in the time of Antichrist, would be recognized as such?

“...St. Bernard speaks in the passage of the Antipope [as the Beast of the Apocalypse].” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, “Antichrist,” Robert Appleton Co. 1907, p. 561. 

Bl. Joachim (d. 1202): “Towards the end of the world, Antichrist will overthrow the pope and usurp his see.”  Rev. Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, Tan Books, 1974, p. 130.
(06-29-2019, 04:06 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:
Quote:

Let those who have already fallen into sedevacantism consider Br.Andre Marie again:


Quote:
Quote:
“Yes, and we all know what our Lord did. He deposed the high priest and declared the Seat of Moses vacant! Didn’t He?” The point is simply this: If the Man-God himself had enough respect for the sovereign pontiff of the law of types and figures as to say of the heretical Jew who was soon to murder Him, that he sat “in the seat of Moses,” how does anyone in the present law, the more perfect law, dare to do the opposite? Let me spell this out. Our Lord was not a sedevacantist. The evil deicide heretic who had authority over the “church” of Israel, was still the head of the true Religion. The religious society of the Old Law was still intact. 

Brother Andre is referring to 

Matthew 23:2-4 “Then Jesus spoke The scribes and Pharisees have sitten on the Chair of Moses.  All things whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.”

Unfortunately, this seems to undermine his own argument, as all traditionalists, sedes and non sedes alike, cannot observe and do the novelties that the concilliar popes of the new covenant Chair of Moses have said to us.

 Paul VI, Papal Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:

At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.

Given in Rome at St. Peter's, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.
(06-29-2019, 04:06 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Profound! I pray for Francis every day, in my daily prayers, in my Rosaries, and at every Holy Mass I hear. I pray for his conversion to Catholicism.

I get that, was once there myself. It's a bit different now, while I could and try to pray more, I pray that these wolves in sheep's clothing who have infiltrated the Church get exposed and removed.

(06-29-2019, 04:06 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Over the past few months there are those who are claiming the Pope is not the Pope. These voices have become more hysterical as the crisis deepens (this is obviously the work of Lucifer to induce Catholics to abandon the Faith due to Francis' "apostasy"). 

lol obviously the work of Lucifer hey?

John 16:2
2 They will put you out of the synagogues; indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.

(06-29-2019, 04:06 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Who would declare the Pope has lost his "office", and by what authority?

Never said this, can't lose it if he never legitimately acquired it in the first place.

(06-29-2019, 04:06 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Let me explain. This is what is known in moral theology as a “practical doubt.” About this “practical doubt” the Jesuit moralist, Father Slater, says the following. “If I eat meat with a practical doubt as to whether it is not forbidden on that day by the Church, I commit a sin of the same kind and malice as if I ate meat knowingly on a day of abstinence.” Apply this to the pontificate. If I refuse my subjection to the Roman Pontiff with a practical doubt as to whether or not he is the pope, I commit an act of schism. It’s a form of spiritual Russian Roulette.

This is wrong, we judge mortal sin by 'full knowledge' so the knowledge does matter in regards to the sin, the one who does so unknowingly is less guilty and of course, on the other side of the coin, if you are wrong, if Francis did usurp the Throne of Peter through a rigged election (Highly likely) and you give him the benefit of the doubt you too could lead countless souls to the abyss. Either path is a risk, I feel safer on this path though, because I know Francis is promoting heresy in a way unlike any other before him.

(06-29-2019, 04:06 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Friends, the temptation to schism (and heresy) will increase as Rome darkens. DO NOT abandon the Faith for some Synagogue of Satan. The Church is ONE and She is visible.

There is already a schism, those who defend Francis defend his heresies. There is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Francis was 'elected' under highly dubious circumstances and is promoting and surrounding himself with every kind of heretic. Francis is not the Pope or at the very least he and his heresies are to be ignored and resisted which then throws into question the teaching that the gates of hell will never prevail.

(06-29-2019, 04:06 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]We have a lot of spiritual work before us. Are we ready and willing to take on this task? If we are, then we can delay the coming of Antichrist and his False Prophet. 

Unless of course they are already here.

Do you know St Faustina prophesied about St Pope John Paul II who would prepare the world for His final coming?

(06-29-2019, 04:06 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]At the coming of Antichrist there will be an imposter on the Throne of Peter, a bishop, but not the Pope: he is known in Sacred Scripture as the False Prophet, and he will serve Antichrist. 

lol, but we are working for Lucifer if we resist him right? causing schism? because he sits on the Throne of Peter?

(06-29-2019, 04:06 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Pray for the Pope, pray for the conversion of the Jews.

Will do.... Pope Benedict. (Although we just say 'the Pope' until it can be corrected).

"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."

God Bless You
I do not know or care if Francis is a pope. He acts with the authority of a pope, and bishops obey. He causes problems whether or not he has the authority to do so. Whether or not he is a true pope is irrelevant to me. I believe very firmly that Francis is evil. A false prophet?  Perhaps. I think so, firmly enough that if pressed I would say fairly openly that I think so. Fr. Thomas Rosica called him a prince of peace. The Catholic world should have exploded with denunciations of such an idolatrous and blasphemous statement. We got crickets. We need our shepherds to be lions, and we get kittens. Only someone truly and deeply evil could so effectively silence the righteous...though only for a time.
(06-30-2019, 12:08 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: [ -> ]I do not know or care if Francis is a pope. He acts with the authority of a pope, and bishops obey.

(06-30-2019, 12:08 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: [ -> ]Whether or not he is a true pope is irrelevant to me.


The problem for me, is that I think it matters tremendously whether he is the Pope or not, because if he is legitimately the Pope, then what I do now would be akin to ignoring and working directly against St Pope John Paul II's efforts against communism, If he is Pope, then I'm either wrong and need to correct myself (supporting gay marriage and voting democrat if I were in the US for starters) or the gates of hell have prevailed IMO.

If it doesn't matter who sits on the Throne of Peter nor what they teach and do then the Throne of Peter itself becomes completely irrelevant.

Obama's administration knew that Catholicism affects election outcomes, that's why both times they had supposedly 'Catholic' (Judas') vice Presidents, Wikileaks also shows that they have infiltrated the Catholic Church with fake Catholic Groups that speak exactly the same as Francis and his cohort do.

God Bless You
(06-30-2019, 12:08 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: [ -> ]I do not know or care if Francis is a pope. He acts with the authority of a pope, and bishops obey. He causes problems whether or not he has the authority to do so. Whether or not he is a true pope is irrelevant to me.

This.

I of course would make the argument that theologically Francis must be Pope, but ultimately, I find the whole concern about who to be a diabolical distraction.

It does not really matter to the man on the street who is Pope in any concrete way.

If Francis is Pope, the crisis is clearly bad. If Benedict or some other is Pope, the crisis is clearly bad.

And what is that "man on the street" going to do either way. He does not have the duty or role to judge these things. He has the duty and role to pray and sacrifice and be the best Catholic man he can be. Rarely will that involve wasting such time as worrying about Latin words when one has never studied Latin or theology or Canon Law.

Pray for the guy the apparently has the office. Christ wants his salvation, too. Then get to the work of saving your soul. That's hard enough (as St Peter reminds us in the Epistle for the 3rd Sunday after Pentecost) and we don't need any distractions.
(06-30-2019, 01:33 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]I of course would make the argument that theologically Francis must be Pope, but ultimately, I find the whole concern about who to be a diabolical distraction.

Shocked

(06-30-2019, 01:33 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]It does not really matter to the man on the street who is Pope in any concrete way.

What? If we're talking about the average bloke on the street then it doesn't even matter what the Church teaches. If we're talking about fellow Catholics then it absolutely matters who the Pope is and what they teach... highest authority and all that.

(06-30-2019, 01:33 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]And what is that "man on the street" going to do either way. He does not have the duty or role to judge these things. He has the duty and role to pray and sacrifice and be the best Catholic man he can be. Rarely will that involve wasting such time as worrying about Latin words when one has never studied Latin or theology or Canon Law.

Pray for the guy the apparently has the office. Christ wants his salvation, too. Then get to the work of saving your soul. That's hard enough (as St Peter reminds us in the Epistle for the 3rd Sunday after Pentecost) and we don't need any distractions.

Francis is the distraction! worse he is the one leading so many into heresy along with his cohort and this cohort are silencing the dissenters. The peace of the world depends on the sanctity of Christ's Church. Until that election is investigated and Francis exposed, we are pushing shit up hill and are undermined and shut down at every turn from the very top. Absolutely matters who the Pope is IMO.

It's up to the laity people say (And that is true to a certain extent), but then when it comes time to vote on gay marriage, the heretic Frank Brennan can appear on national TV right before the vote and tell all Catholics to vote 'yes' to it citing Francis' "Who am I to Judge" with absolutely no repercussions from the hierarchy what so ever, and there are countless examples of this, "He who builds walls is not Christian" but abortion, euthanasia, Islam, paganism, atheism etc etc is all cool. I could go on and on there are that many examples.

"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."

God Bless You
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5