Benevacantism, Etc.
#11
(03-09-2019, 06:59 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote: I'm curious about all this -- but in the end, it doesn't affect my faith at all. No matter who's Pope, we all know what we're supposed to be doing: love God, love neighbor, obey the precepts of the Church. 
 

Amen to that!
"The Eucharist is the Sacrament of Love; it signifies love, It produces love. The Eucharist is the consummation of the whole spiritual life." -St. Thomas Aquinas

“To be tempted is a sign that the soul is very pleasing to the Lord.” St. Padre Pio
Reply
#12
(03-09-2019, 06:59 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote: but in the end, it doesn't affect my faith at all. No matter who's Pope, we all know what we're supposed to be doing: love God, love neighbor, obey the precepts of the Church.

Isn't one of the precepts of the Church to obey the Holy Father appointed by God here on Earth to lead His Church? If it doesn't matter who sits on the Chair Of Peter or what they do, then the Chair Of Peter itself no longer matters IMO and then we descend into a kind of Protestantism where only those who agree with the Pope listen to him and those who don't go about their merry way until they can get a Pope they agree with, just like a modern day Democracy, infiltrate and then lobby for those you want irrespective of truth.

If Pope Benedict dies without a successor, then maybe I could concede Francis as a very bad Pope, but until then, Pope Benedict is still our Pope IMO and I pray Christ will restore His Church without us being bound by this heretic running a kind of Anti Christ agenda. Two encyclicals, one undermines the indissolubility of marriage, and the other advocates for man made climate change with the pagans. While I disagree with Vatican II (And I never lived before Vatican II, all I've known is Novus Ordo, but I know because of the situation we are in today and the reverence it took away from the Holy Eucharist), I certainly hold those such as St Pope John Paul II as legitimate Successors and I do believe Pope John Paul II is a saint, ironically, if anyone had justification to 'retire' from the Papacy, it was St Pope John Paul II, but he went to the very end.

God Bless You
Reply
#13
Quote:St Faustina's Diary -

https://liturgicalyear.files.wordpress.c...y-soul.pdf

As I was praying for Poland, I heard the words:  I bear a special love for Poland, and if she will be obedient to My will, I will exalt her in might and holiness.  From her will come forth the spark that will prepare the world for My final coming. (Diary, 1732)

This is in reference to the coming of St Pope John Paul II, who is that spark to prepare the world for the final coming.

100 years is up since we received the St Michael the Archangel prayer to save the Church (Which was conveniently also removed at Vatican II).

I think much has been mitigated with election of Trump in the USA, since if Clinton had won, with Francis in the Vatican it would have been the perfect storm (That's why Francis says nothing about abortion, euthanasia or gay marriage but walls are anathema), how much it's been mitigated I have no idea, but we are in the thick of it still IMO as it all depends on the sanctity of the Church.

God Bless You
Reply
#14
(03-09-2019, 06:37 PM)josh987654321 Wrote: Isn't one of the precepts of the Church to obey the Holy Father appointed by God here on Earth to lead His Church?

https://www.fisheaters.com/lists.html#13:

The 6 Precepts of the Church (The Duties of a Catholic) 
To go to Mass and refrain from servile work on Sundays and holy days
To go to Confession at least once a year (traditionally done during Lent)
To receive the Eucharist at least once a year, during the Easter Season (known as the "Easter duty") 
To observe the days of fasting and abstinence 
To help to provide for the needs of the Church according to one's abilities and station in life
To obey the marriage laws of the Church
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 1 user Likes VoxClamantis's post:
  • JacafamalaRedux
Reply
#15
Well then instead of 'precepts' then 'duty' or whatever, it's part of being a Catholic right? One can't be a faithful Catholic and just ignore and disregard the head of Christs Church on Earth. After all, the Church is Christ's bride and He promised the gates of hell would never prevail, he also gave St Peter and his successors the keys. If Francis really is the Pope and not Pope Benedict, then I am in schism.

Like I said, I'm convinced Francis is not just making mistakes, he's driving a kind of Anti Christ agenda.

God Bless You
Reply
#16
Also if people want to just believe that Francis is a bad Pope and that we must ride him out, what happens when the next successor speaks on such matters (Like abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia etc)? Heretics in the Church will just follow the same precedent and lobby for another Francis.

God Bless You
Reply
#17
(03-09-2019, 10:32 PM)josh987654321 Wrote: Well then instead of 'precepts' then 'duty' or whatever, it's part of being a Catholic right? One can't be a faithful Catholic and just ignore and disregard the head of Christs Church on Earth. After all, the Church is Christ's bride and He promised the gates of hell would never prevail, he also gave St Peter and his successors the keys. If Francis really is the Pope and not Pope Benedict, then I am in schism. (snip)
 
But no one said that "it doesn't matter who sits on the Chair Of Peter or what they do." It obviously matters. And quite a bit (if it didn't, no one would be wondering about it). But we've had antipopes in the past, with different Saints choosing different men as the true Pope, and with none of those Saints being "in schism." 

The Pope is Christ's vicar, but isn't "the Church". If that were the case, every time a Pope died, the Church would disappear. 

Christ said the gates of Hell will never prevail (and they won't), but we've had antipopes in the past and the gates of Hell didn't prevail.

Me, I don't know what the deal is with re. to Francis and Benedict. It's way above my pay grade to figure it out, but I think people can have different opinions or mere hunches about it (though I think it'd be wise to not feign "excommunicating" or call "schismatic" those who disagree). Figuring this stuff out is not my job; I'm not a theologian, expert in ecclesiology, canon lawyer, etc., but I think people can talk about it, and I'm interested in hearing what they say. My job is to love God, love neighbor, and obey the Church's precepts. Those things go no matter who's Pope.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 3 users Like VoxClamantis's post:
  • dahveed, MiserereMeiDeus, SeeTheLight
Reply
#18
Pope Francis is the Pope.

Benedict himself has made this abundantly clear. In 2014 he wrote to Andrea Tornielli to confirm his resignation and wrote : "The only condition for the validity is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations about the invalidity of my resignation are simply absurd."

In a leaked private letter to Cardinal Bradmuller, he rebuked him and defended his resignation. Archbishop Gänswein affirmed it (and would certainly be in the know on that. Cardinal Burke (formerly the chief Canonist in the Church under Benedict) also confirmed it.

It is quite odd to me that people would ignore Benedict himself, who has repeatedly confirmed and never once suggested anything but his intended resignation, and tell him that in fact he's still the Pope. If they think him that mentally disturbed that he was totally without free will in 2013, and has been so deranged in the meantime to think he actually did resign, then why would we want him back?

People like Br Alexis are not only ignoring the facts, but getting caught up on legal terminology. Were they right, clearly someone like Cardinal Burke would entertain such a theory. He does not. 

They also forget that while present Canon Law does mention the resignation of the Pope, in fact the Pope is not subject to Canon Law. He could decide to do something outside the scope of Canon Law or even against it, since he is the sole legislator and can make the law. Like a teacher saying that the class policy is that he will grade homework within three days, and deciding because of sickness to hand it back a week later, he is free to change (even without explicit statement to that end) the rules, if they are within his capacity to do so (they are not rules from Natural or Civil Law or administrative policies, etc.)

So the Pope is free to act against Canon Law provided that what he does is not against the Natural, Moral, or Divine Law. Resignations will have to follow moral and natural law to some degree, and the use of free will is part of this, but according to all moral theologians, for one to lack enough free will to invalidate a resignation (or other action) would require one to completely lack free will, and most would hold that this makes the resignation (or other action) voidable, and not invalid. Thus the person could take back their action, if that were possible, but could also confirm their action when compos mentis.

Think contract law here. A 16 year old signs up for a credit card and charges some things, but pay those things off well and responsibly until he is in his 20. Since he was not capable of giving legal consent to the contract until 18, he could have voided the contract before 18. Once he started using the card after 18, though, he confirmed the contract as an 18 year old. If in deep debt at 25, he cannot go back and say that the card agreement is not binding.

Even if Pope Benedict's resignation were lacking free will enough to be voidable, then the very fact that another was elected (making his reneging impossible) and his confirmation of what he intended to do several times, along with meeting Pope Francis and acting towards him as if were Pope, and not trying to exercise any Papal power, would clearly have re-validated the act.

I think the whole matter of Benevacantism is just silly, and out of touch with reality. It comes from a mentality that wants the Church to be a neat and clean entity and ignore that the Church has never been so, and even in her good days had plenty of bad people and even very bad Popes. It comes from a utopian idealism about the reality of the human dimension of the Church that is based on fantastical ideas about reasonably good popes like Pius XII and "fiftiesism".

Reality is a lot messier than this.
[-] The following 4 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • HailGilbert, In His Love, jovan66102, piscis
Reply
#19
(03-10-2019, 03:17 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Pope Francis is the Pope.

Benedict himself has made this abundantly clear. In 2014 he wrote to Andrea Tornielli to confirm his resignation and wrote : "The only condition for the validity is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations about the invalidity of my resignation are simply absurd."

I agree with you, but does that make those who believe otherwise schismatic? They don't reject papal authority altogether; they only disagree on whether Pope Benedict XVI's resignation was valid and who the true Pope is. And that - along with sedevacantism - seems different than the Orthodox position that the Pope has no more power than any other bishop, or the Protestant one who denies any sort of earthly head of the Church.

Of course, the fact that the previous Pope calls himself "pope emeritus" and continues to wear the white cassock doesn't help clarify matters.
Reply
#20
(03-10-2019, 03:50 PM)Paul Wrote:
(03-10-2019, 03:17 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Pope Francis is the Pope.

Benedict himself has made this abundantly clear. In 2014 he wrote to Andrea Tornielli to confirm his resignation and wrote : "The only condition for the validity is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations about the invalidity of my resignation are simply absurd."

I agree with you, but does that make those who believe otherwise schismatic? They don't reject papal authority altogether; they only disagree on whether Pope Benedict XVI's resignation was valid and who the true Pope is. And that - along with sedevacantism - seems different than the Orthodox position that the Pope has no more power than any other bishop, or the Protestant one who denies any sort of earthly head of the Church.

Agreed. They are not schismatic any more than those who out of good will accept an Antipope (and saints have done that).

That also is the same argument I would use for traddies (like the SSPX) who do disobey the Pope in certain areas, not because of his authority, but because they perceive the authority being abused.

(03-10-2019, 03:50 PM)Paul Wrote: Of course, the fact that the previous Pope calls himself "pope emeritus" and continues to wear the white cassock doesn't help clarify matters.

Agreed. I think that was a really stupid idea.

Pope Celestine V became known as Peter Celestine afterward when he went back to religious life and today is known as St Peter Celestine.

Benedict should have just reverted to Joseph Ratzinger, Peter Benedict Ratzinger or something like that and perhaps the title "Bishop Emeritus of Rome" not "Pope Emeritus" and stayed out of public view entirely including photos, etc.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)