“...He has expressed his errors by allusion, insinuation,ambiguity, ... This is obviously not binding doctrine, since one does not “define” doctrine -— which necessarily means clarifying it...Francis has not fully, clearly and formally promulgated heresy.”
“We have had bad popes before”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh, but those excuses for Bergoglio are wrong on two counts.
The first, in brief, is that sinful popes of the past who were not false popes are not on record of actually teaching heresy.
The second, demonstrated in the snippet below, is that the false popes who have approved and have promulgated the Novus Ordo and the destruction of the traditional Mass are therefore formal heretics if Catholics.
Incidentally, under the leadership of Saint Bernard a false pope of Bernard’s time who had wrongly assumed the role for several years (with election), after the usuper’s death his (false) pontificate was revealed as false and all his official deeds were deemed null and void.
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/
I mean that in an ironic sense.
Here's what I mean: neither you nor Pope Francis recognize the legitimacy of the papal magisterium, at least for the stretch from the last 50-or-so until now.
You reject that, for instance, that the papal teachings in Humanae Vitae, Veritatis Splendor, and Familiaris Consortio, are authentic aspects of the Papal Magisterium.
So, can you provide a list the --- in your estimation --- "real" Catholic popes from 1958 until now?
`
Thanks in advance.