Pope Francis meets with Fortune-Time Global Forum

Vatican Radio ^ | December 3, 2016 | N/A

[Repent and Believe]

“... i’d like to know chapter and verse from an insider view, exactly why the previous pope quit ...”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Referring to what I replied to Mrs. Don O earlier, false popes who have approved and have promulgated the Novus Ordo and the destruction of the traditional Mass are therefore formal heretics if Catholics. (See Snippet below.)

Thus, once that is realized, that the pot is known to be poisoned, further analysis of the soup would be pointless.

The deeds of all recent heretics otherwise popularly known as “popes” but in reality “false popes” and those supporting their supposed reign are invalid by the acts of heresy they embrace and promote. Thus all their official deeds are invalid. They are without authority as false popes and false clerics who’ve elected and who embrace them. They have no more authority than you or I.

Thus, even if they declare something as TRUE that the church has the right and duty to declare as true, it is meaningless except by the fact of the truth but not by an invalid pope’s authority, for such a man hasn’t the authority to do so, whereas a valid pope does.

For example a certain man may be in heaven and worthy of imitation, but I am not free as a Catholic to give that man full honor as a saint without the true Church’s approval. That is to say, because Pope Pius XI declared a man a saint, I must agree due to the Pope’s authority.

If, however, Ratzinger (so-called Benedict XVI) declared a similar man a saint, the faithful would not be free to treat that man in the same manner until such time that a VALID Pope declares the man a saint - even if the man really is a saint.

Snippet:

But the “New Mass” or Novus Ordo Missae, as it is called, is merely one visible symptom of the fundamental problem, which is that the religion you see today as “Roman Catholicism” is not the Catholic religion of ages past but is basically the religion of the Second Vatican Council, usually abbreviated as “Vatican II” (the First Vatican Council, or Vatican I, had taken place from 1869-70 under Pope Pius IX). A great many ideas today promoted as Roman Catholicism, are actually rooted only in Vatican II and were not known or accepted before — and that’s a pretty long “before” — around 1,900 years. Things like ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, interfaith prayer services, opposition to the death penalty, religious freedom as an ideal for every society, the notion of “human rights”, declaring all war to be evil (even the just kind) — all these are examples of Vatican II ideas, not Catholic ideas.

Now here’s the rub: According to perennial Catholic teaching, it is not possible for the Catholic Church to undergo a substantial change. Her teachings cannot change in essence; she cannot contradict or abandon what she taught before; she cannot offer a “new religion” to her followers.

In response to the phenomenon of the Vatican II revolution, there are three essential lines of thought that have been proposed as “solutions” to understanding the situation. This is not now the place or time to critique or justify any of them. For now, we want to just describe them: (1) despite appearances, nothing has really substantially changed, and any interpretation of Vatican II that arrives at the conclusion that there has been a substantial change must be incorrect; (2) we must oppose (resist) these substantial changes and stick to the traditional, age-old teaching instead and ignore the Vatican II novelties while recognizing, however, that the authorities in the Vatican are legitimate and genuine Roman Catholic authorities — we just cannot agree with them on these points; (3) because it is impossible for the Catholic Church to change substantially, and because Vatican II constitutes such an impossible substantial change, it is necessary to conclude that the authority which gave us Vatican II is not in fact the legitimate Catholic authority; that is to say, the “Popes” which gave us Vatican II are not true Popes, nor are their successors, who have implemented and expanded this new religion that has its roots in the council. In fact, the entire religion that now occupies the Vatican and the official structures of the Catholic Church throughout the world is false — it is not the Catholic religion at all, and its putative authorities are not Catholics but heretical usurpers.

Continued at http://novusordowatch.org/start-here/

[Mrs. Don-o]

Pope Benedict's abdication was certainly weird. Some of the reasons he gave (such as, "I didn't have the stamina to go to the World Youth Day in Rio") seemed to me obviously bogus: Benedict of all people knows that World Youth Day is ephemera, certainly not one of the central obligations of the Successor of St. Peter.

And since then, his oddly cloying references to Francis ("He's been so kind to me. so kind...") it almost sounds like Syndrome: what did they do that man??

So, yeah, that would be good to know. Though we may never know, this side of Eternity.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Sounds like "Stockholm Syndrome."

My computer is a little weird. We won't say anything about the gal at the keyboard...