Pope Francis stacks deck at Congregation of Divine Worship, a massacre
#21
(10-30-2016, 10:19 AM)Eric F Wrote: St. Robert Bellarmine: “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” -

St. Alphonsus Liguori: “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”

Archbishop Fulton Sheen (1895-1979)
"He [Satan] will set up a counter church which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. . . .But the twentieth century will join the counter church because it claims to be infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra." (Fulton J. Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1948, pp. 24-25)

Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943
“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”

                                                                                      Are we there yet ? Maybe not, but we're rapidly heading in that direction.

This is why I pray no one is scandalized into leaving Catholicism because of Francis or any other "Nope."  There is a reason Satan aimed to compromise the Papacy or "Papacy" to deceive even the Elect.

No matter if we take John of St. Thomas's position where we must wait for a council to remove a heretical pope or take the position of the above cited theologians, clearly we have a purported "Bishop(valid?) of Rome" heretically contradicting Catholic doctrine left and right like it's going out of style.

I have little doubt Francis's bubble is going to pop sooner or later.

The Church is being punished in "an unprecedented manner" per Fatima and the "Apostasy started at the top."  It's been going on an excruciatingly long time (at least since 1958 or '63) but Our Lady is going to come and throw these bums out.

100 years since Fatima 1917 coming up. Hopefully we will have a reckoning soon , as this confusion can not be permitted to remain interminably.
Reply
#22
If I ever find myself in a situation where there is not a good traditional Catholic community,  I'll attend an SSPX chapel.
Reply
#23
(10-30-2016, 01:35 PM)BC Wrote:
(10-30-2016, 10:19 AM)Eric F Wrote: St. Robert Bellarmine: “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” -

St. Alphonsus Liguori: “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”

Archbishop Fulton Sheen (1895-1979)
"He [Satan] will set up a counter church which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. . . .But the twentieth century will join the counter church because it claims to be infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra." (Fulton J. Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1948, pp. 24-25)

Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943
“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”

                                                                                      Are we there yet ? Maybe not, but we're rapidly heading in that direction.

This is why I pray no one is scandalized into leaving Catholicism because of Francis or any other "Nope."  There is a reason Satan aimed to compromise the Papacy or "Papacy" to deceive even the Elect.

No matter if we take John of St. Thomas's position where we must wait for a council to remove a heretical pope or take the position of the above cited theologians, clearly we have a purported "Bishop(valid?) of Rome" heretically contradicting Catholic doctrine left and right like it's going out of style.

I have little doubt Francis's bubble is going to pop sooner or later.

The Church is being punished in "an unprecedented manner" per Fatima and the "Apostasy started at the top."  It's been going on an excruciatingly long time (at least since 1958 or '63) but Our Lady is going to come and throw these bums out.

100 years since Fatima 1917 coming up. Hopefully we will have a reckoning soon , as this confusion can not be permitted to remain interminably.

I'm just trying to get my head around this thing. If a pope falls into heresy, and therefore has apostized, the See will be vacant. But the Church continues, even if essentially an imposter is on the throne?

This "counter church" that Archbishop Sheen speaks of, does it exist within the walls of the actual Church? Say, for example, the Pontiff and the upper hierarchy become the de facto head of the counter church, where does that leave the actual Church?
Reply
#24
(10-30-2016, 10:19 AM)Eric F Wrote: St. Robert Bellarmine: “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” -

St. Alphonsus Liguori: “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”

Archbishop Fulton Sheen (1895-1979)
"He [Satan] will set up a counter church which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. . . .But the twentieth century will join the counter church because it claims to be infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra." (Fulton J. Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1948, pp. 24-25)

Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943
“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”

                                                                                      Are we there yet ? Maybe not, but we're rapidly heading in that direction.

And who decides?

Quote:Code of Canon Law, 1917: Can. 1556. Prim Sedes a nemine iudicatur.

Identical to
Quote:Code of Canon Law, 1983: Can. 1404 - Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur.

Translation of both:
Quote: The First See is judged by no one.
Reply
#25
(10-30-2016, 10:49 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: I'm just trying to get my head around this thing. If a pope falls into heresy, and therefore has apostized, the See will be vacant. But the Church continues, even if essentially an imposter is on the throne?

This "counter church" that Archbishop Sheen speaks of, does it exist within the walls of the actual Church? Say, for example, the Pontiff and the upper hierarchy become the de facto head of the counter church, where does that leave the actual Church?

IMO, you have to think Platonically when thinking about "the Church." The Church is a Platonic Idea with an earthly manifestation. She is one, holy, Catholic, apostolic, and eternal, an entity against which the gates of Hell will never prevail. She is the Bride of Christ, made One with Him, in the Flesh, through the Eucharist. Where will the earthly manifestation of this Church be? Where the Faith is kept, and where the Eucharist is validly offered.

Because the Church is a Platonic Idea, I am really picky about people talking about "the Church" doing anything negative. For ex., during the clerical sexual abuse scandal, which was awful but also not anything like the media made it out to be, it realllly rankled me to hear even Catholics talking about "'the Church' not doing enough" or "'the Church' allowing this or that";  the Church cannot do such things. Her human element can, but She cannot. Even if the Pope were to apostasize in a clear and obvious way, and even if 99% of self-professed Catholics were to follow him in his apostasy, the Church Herself would still be the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic, spotless Bride of Christ.

All that is another reason why I loathe the phrase "NewChurch," which intimates that there is more than one Church. But there isn't. There's the Church -- and there's Her human element, which has always had its problems, and always will until we all die and are purified.

My two cents...

All  that said, this Pope is a menace. His actions are scandalous in the true sense of the word -- and I'm someone who really hates how the word "scandal" is thrown around and used to mean "why, I just nevah!" That sort of attitude realllllly grates on me. But this pontificate is truly scandalous. I think, too, that there are a lot of liberal types who damned-well know better, but who treat his off-the-cuff remarks as authoritative when they know full well they aren't. That's another set of problems. But this Pope gives them fodder big time. And then he does what he's described as having done in the OP of this thread. Just about every day that passes makes it more and more difficult for me to refrain from really going OFF on him on this forum, by tweet, by letter, etc. It's as if he's doing his best to destroy the human element of the Church and turn it into just another organ of the NWO.

(A total aside: on a personal note, I HATE that he's Italian ethnically. And so was Gramsci. Embarrassing.)
Reply
#26
(10-29-2016, 09:23 AM)BC Wrote: That fact that everyone is not shocked and cannot see the immensity of this is a frightening indication of how accustomed and desensitized to apostasy people have become.

I saw a Facebook conversation once between a priest of my diocese and a lay person I know.  It went like this: Priest: " I agree with Pope Francis." Lay person: "On what?" Priest: "You name it."  Later, he "clarified" by saying that whatever the pope says, that's his position as well and that there was no need to clarify further. That kind of papolatry is inappropriate, no matter who the pope happens to be at the time. It is especially inappropriate when the pope's statements and actions appear don't seem right. That doesn't seem "humble" or an appropriate way to live out one's fidelity to the Church. I would suggest reading Denzinger-Bergoglio, a site which compares Pope Francis' statements. I agree with the Church. If someone, including the pope, does not agree with the Church, then I don't agree with them.

The Catholic Faith is too important to let one's understanding of it be dictated by one person alone. Pope Francis is, at best, very confusing and careless. Still, his papacy may finally unhinge some of the neocons from their senseless ultramontanism.  At this point, pretty much everyone who is willing to actually think knows that there is something about Pope Francis that is not right.
Reply
#27
(10-31-2016, 01:06 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: I would suggest reading Denzinger-Bergoglio, a site which compares Pope Francis' statements.

And here is a link to it:

https://en.denzingerbergoglio.com/
Reply
#28
(10-30-2016, 10:19 AM)Eric F Wrote: St. Robert Bellarmine: “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” -

St. Alphonsus Liguori: “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”

Archbishop Fulton Sheen (1895-1979)
"He [Satan] will set up a counter church which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. . . .But the twentieth century will join the counter church because it claims to be infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra." (Fulton J. Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1948, pp. 24-25)

Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943
“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”

                                                                                      Are we there yet ? Maybe not, but we're rapidly heading in that direction.
Say we take these quotes and apply them. Can't we apply something similar to these quotes all the way back to John XXIII? In which case the sedes would be right? Or do we give those popes a pass because they never actually countered doctrine (which one can argue either way)? You get into a dodgy place. How about if we say that Francis is the only heretic out of the group, then what? Are we currently in a sede position without the world knowing? Or is it that the bishops have to come together and actually declare such a thing? It's a mess that I'd rather not entertain unless the Church fully declares it even if I believe Francis to be a heretic at this point.
Reply
#29
(10-31-2016, 09:12 AM)GangGreen Wrote:
(10-30-2016, 10:19 AM)Eric F Wrote: St. Robert Bellarmine: “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” -

St. Alphonsus Liguori: “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”

Archbishop Fulton Sheen (1895-1979)
"He [Satan] will set up a counter church which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. . . .But the twentieth century will join the counter church because it claims to be infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra." (Fulton J. Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1948, pp. 24-25)

Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943
“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”

                                                                                      Are we there yet ? Maybe not, but we're rapidly heading in that direction.
Say we take these quotes and apply them. Can't we apply something similar to these quotes all the way back to John XXIII? In which case the sedes would be right? Or do we give those popes a pass because they never actually countered doctrine (which one can argue either way)? You get into a dodgy place. How about if we say that Francis is the only heretic out of the group, then what? Are we currently in a sede position without the world knowing? Or is it that the bishops have to come together and actually declare such a thing? It's a mess that I'd rather not entertain unless the Church fully declares it even if I believe Francis to be a heretic at this point.

I think what we have is an impossible situation, one in which all of our human explanations and attempts to apply theologians' conclusions to it  seem to be inadequate.  The Sede question really applies more than just to the Pope.  It could be applied across the board to almost all Bishoprics; in effect it is more like Ecclesia-Vacantism. The Church though must still exist.  The Teaching Church.

And yet we know by Faith the Church can neither deceive nor be deceived. 

The Resist yet Recognize, the Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism, Sede-impedism theories all are problematic. But so is the whole Novus Ordo Ecumenical dis-orientation that does not even attempt to be in harmony with pre council Vatican II Catholicism.  It just ignores everything before the Council and pretends like everything it promotes now was not already condemned in advance. This is a profound mystery, as Archbishop Lefebvre once stated.

I am not sure the Divine Will is for us laymen to have it all figured out exactly, but maybe I am wrong.  In the meantime, what we have before us is bishops , priests and ostensible popes (operating under new ordination rites that were unjustifiably and suspiciously altered to remove the power to forgive sins and offer sacrifice) directly contradicting the Magisterium.  What to make of it? Either way it is right there staring us in the face.

Whatever course of action or position we take we must make sure we are not led by the nose out of the Church into heresy and apostasy by what appears to be false shepherds through embracing falsity.

As mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich saw of this time, which should make our hair stand on end:

I see many excommunicated ecclesiastics who do not seem to be concerned about it, nor even aware of it. Yet, they are (ipso factor) excommunicated whenever they cooperated to [sic] enterprises, enter into associations, and embrace opinions on which an anathema has been cast. It can be seen thereby that God ratifies the decrees, orders, and interdictions issued by the Head of the Church, and that He keeps them in force even though men show no concern for them, reject them, or laugh them to scorn.”

“They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock. There was to be a Pope, a salaried Pope, without possessions. All was made ready, many things finished; but, in place of an altar, were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be, and it was for it that he had set fire to the old one; but God designed otherwise….”

“I saw a strange church being built against every rule…No angels were supervising the building operations. In that church, nothing came from high above…There was only division and chaos. It is probably a church of human creation, following the latest fashion, as well as the new heterodox Church of Rome, which seems of the same kind…”

“I saw again the strange big church that was being built there (in Rome). There was nothing holy in it. I saw this just as I saw a movement led by Ecclesiastics to which contributed angels, saints and other Christians. But there (in the strange big church) all the work was being done mechanically (i.e., according to set rules and formulae). Everything was being done, according to human reason. I saw all sorts of people, things, doctrines, and opinions. There was something proud, presumptuous, and violent about it, and they seemed to be very successful. I did not see a single Angel nor a single saint helping in the work. But far away in the background, I saw the seat of a cruel people armed with spears, and I saw a laughing figure which said: 'Do build it as solid as you can; we will put it to the ground’.”

...I saw what I believe to be nearly all the bishops of the world, but only a small number were perfectly sound.

“Then I saw that everything pertaining to Protestantism was gradually gaining the upper hand, and the Catholic religion fell into complete decadence.

..The Protestant doctrine and that of the schismatic Greeks are to spread everywhere. I now see that in this place (Rome) the (Catholic) Church is being so cleverly undermined, that there hardly remain a hundred or so priests who have not been deceived. They all work for destruction, even the clergy. A great devastation is now near at hand.”

“In those days Faith will fall very low and it will be preserved in some places only”

..The people must pray earnestly for the extirpation (rooting out) of the dark church.”-( Very Rev Carl E. Schmoeger, CSSR The Life of Anne Catherine Emmerich Volume 1 and 2, 1976 Edition (Tan Books and Publishers)
Reply
#30
What really bothers me is that the Church is supposed to sanctify the world; instead we have the world infiltrating the Church. Can Pope Francis please retire now????
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)