Posted on 05/22/2019 7:24:48 PM PDT by Repent and Believe
(snip)
We know we ought to obey the pope and the magisterium because if we don’t we will place ourselves outside the faith and become heretics.
We also know that if a prelate or the Pope himself was a heretic before/after election we know that they, ipso facto, ain’t no more the head so what does all of this mean?
It means francis isn’t francis is what it means.
(snip)
Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. explains:
“The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’….” (The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927)
The Conclusion is very simple
If you accept Francis is the pope then you must accept communion for adulterers, you must accept allowing communion for protestants, you must accept LGBT novelties, you must accept the novus ordo mass, the new rites, the “cult of man”, Ecumenism, that the Roman Catholic Church is just one of many that lead to heaven, That error has rights, and all of the other profanations you see around you because it is from the pope and the magisterium and Vatican II……
If the above is abhorrent to you…
If you would rather die a thousand deaths than to give your consent to such abdominal practices…
Then welcome to Sedevacantism….
(Excerpt) Read more at traditionalcatholicpriest.com ...
Soon people within the Church argue that the “resignation” of Pope Benedict was coerced and not valid. The election of Bergoglio was illegitimate and his reign was a usurpation during which Benedict was the sole legitimate successor to Peter. If Benedict outlives Bergoglio, this proposition may be formally adopted by the Curiae.
What has me worried are the “abdominal practices” alleged to be current and ongoing within Church precincts, as per the concluding lines in the posted excerpt, in addition to all the abominable practices listed.
The mention of protestants negates the Caucus protection.
I’m not saying the Francis is the worst Pope ever, but someone has to be the worst Pope ever.
Of course one would be sorely tempted to doubt by the worst Pope ever.
In general, the article and argument proves a point demonstrated repeatedly: for the most part, Jesuits should not be let near moral theology.
Disclaimer: I am Oratorian trained, ant the Oratorians, along with the Carmelites, are traditionally fellow-travelers with the Domincans.
Apparently you do not take issue with the assertion that Francis is in fact teaching schism or heresy in his (presumed) official capacity as Pope.
Can you, therefor, demonstrate where in official Church teaching it may be found that it is possible for a true Pope to do so (that is, tempt believers to doubt)?!
Or is it, rather, an un-Catholic position to state that the present Pope, from his teaching authority, is tempting the faithful to sin?
He is not using the fullness of his authority. If he had a very clearly articulated position in the main part of an encyclical presented as something to be held by all Catholics everywhere from hence forth, I, as a theologian, would have a serious problem.
As it stands, I know kind of how Chelsea Clinton might have felt when she was told that God wants her to honour her father.
He should quit trying to impress reporters on airlines and anyone who will give weight to whatever he happens to throw out of his mouth even when it clearly hasn’t been thought out.
The Pope is tempting the faithful to sin in many ways. Often when processing what he is saying as he muddles his way through teaching without employing the fullness of his authority or many portions of revelation and tradition, I personally am tempted to break the second (or perhaps by your counting the third) commandment. I may have done so once or twice—I am nearly certain that I have used the term racca, or its equivalent.
I do think there is adequate precedent for telling the Pope “Get behind me Satan,” so maybe I should stick with that. If it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Texas. (credit to the theological acumen of Gov. Hogg).
That said, I now understand Henry II with more sympathy, though in the end, unless one in is an appropriate position of authority to do so, I must advise that the Medici solution is morally out of bounds, however tempting it might seem. In God’s good time—in the mean time better the devil you know (or Satan, to use Our Lord’s term) than the devil you don’t.
He who runs away from one cross will be sure to find a bigger one on the road (St. Philip Neri—that quote, albeit in translation, is dead on)
God always gives us shepherds at least as good as we collectively deserve. Sometimes the shepherds are bad because the sheep are awful (less a quote and more a paraphrase pf either St. Augustine or Gregory the Great—they say fairly similar things on the subject as does Ezekiel—I could track them down if I thought that spending more time on this post wouldn’t constitute sloth).
BTW—my tag line is from Newman.
Did you read the OP?
Yes, he has!
Well that escalated quickly! Haha
I was wondering when someone would make that claim. Anyway, good luck R&B. The anti-Catholic horde will be upon the thread soon enough.
Before it does, just wanted to add, I doubt anything will change; it’s not like he can be impeached or anything like that.
Guess we have another generation of sede’s then. Oh well.
I trust, given your screen name, that you would know that “The OP” refers to St. Thomas Aquinas. I have not read all that he has written, but have read much, albeit the majority in translation.
I would be inclined to trust whatever from St. Thomas is relevant to the subject if applied by a reputable theologian with the letters O.P., O.Carm., or C.O. after his name, though in the end the argument itself must be given more weight. Still, a level of trust is necessary before investing time.
An article that relies heavily on someone with an S.J. after the name, which relies heavily on a person referred to as the B*****d Bellarmine, S.J. does not seem worth too much time in my books.
It is time to recognize the wisdom of Dominus ac Redemptor and elevate Clement XIV to the glories of the altar.
Your fellow Roman Catholics are doing a good enough job of trashing your denomination and pope.
I would contend that the Pope is trashing himself, and some of us are attempting to point that out with some combination of clarity, charity, and wit, for the edification of all.
I believe it dubious to post sede stuff in a Catholic Caucus. I think that the proper label would be Sede Vacantist-Catholic Caucus.
I am dubious about the practice of treating the mention of the word Protestant of itself breaking Caucus when used in a way that is meant to be theologically descriptive, but in the end the RM folks needs to figure out how the rules apply.
In the mean time, crank up your popcorn, and you may be amused—and perhaps learn a thing or two. Maybe even something edifying.
Except the rules don’t call for a distinction between sede and Catholic. As for your other post i have no idea what you are trying to say.
Many years ago, in a land far, far away, when a Freeper by the screen name of NYer figured prominently on the religion forum, there was something of a war between the Sedes and the non-Sedes. In the midst of this, a working definition of Catholic was hammered out for purposes of the FR religion forum.
Years ago, I saw this working definition, and IIRC some sort of allegiance to the Pope is required to fall within the FR working definition of Catholic.
There is a big difference between calling Francis the worst Pope ever and saying that he is not the Pope.
The line is a very fine one, but FR has to have some basis for allowing rational discussion on at least some religion threads.
It may be that the caucus lines are worth revisiting given the present pontiff. The present pontiff is certainly causing many reflections and headaches.
As far as things that I am saying that you don’t understand, I’ll take a stab at explaining:
Clement XIV suppressed the Jesuits. Theologically, there has been an intellectual war going on within the Church since at least the 16th century, though I’d take it back to the 13th to some degree, with the Dominicans and allies on one side and non-Dominicans on the other. The Jesuits have been the leading “other” group since the 16th century. Bellarmine did a good job, for a Jesuit, of combining holiness and learning—and if everybody gets to have a doctor of the church or two, I guess that makes him and Peter Canisius worthy of being Doctor’s of the Church—though being the Jesuit representative is sort of like winning the hockey title for South America or Africa. I think that Bonaventure is by far the best of the affirmative action Doctors of the Church, though his immaterial matter theory arguably gave us Scotus, who gave us Ockham, who gave us Luther and Descartes. I kind of prefer St. Anthony, who has some good homilies, got fish to listen and donkeys to kneel, and can actually find stuff. Of course, St. Anthony was trained and ordained as an Augustinian, not a Franciscan.
I think St. Francis was right in teaching that members of his order should stay out of universities, and I think that St. Ignatius was right in holding that the size of his order should be capped in double digits. I think neither should be blamed for the various follies perpetrated by their followers.
And I’ll happily acknowledge that the Dominicans etc. have not always been perfect either, but the tradition that they put forward seems to me more solid, so here I stand.
(ealgeone I hope you have lots of popcorn)
Allegiance to the pope? There is not one Catholic here who professes true allegiance to Francis, the man they “call” pope.
Where does the article rely “heavily” on a man with SJ after his name? You only read the snippets. The whole article at the link was laden with quotes from popes in addition to others.
You’re right. A very long article. Reminiscent of Fidelity only without documented documentation for a lot of the references.
There were a couple of quotes that caught my eye, and a quick search revealed a lot of copying from various websites with no quick references.
There was an interesting quote from St. Alphonsus. If you can dig up a real reference, I’d be happy to pursue further. I don’t think St. Alphonsus wrote as much as Augustine or Albert, but he wrote a good deal, and referencing a quote to him personally with no additional information doesn’t carry much weight with me—it is a starting point, that is all.
I am happy to see that you are at least open to learning more about what Catholics teach on this matter. I find it odd, however, that you have focused mostly on one quote from one saint rather than the numerous quotes from popes and councils.
Anti-CatholicISM is allowed.
Anti-Catholic is not as it is personal.
Please do not continue to attempt to spark a flame war on the Religion Forum.
I would encourage you and everyone on this thread to click on my name at the bottom of this post to read the guidelines for the RF.
The last part was changed in the last year or so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.