Posted on 10/15/2013 7:07:57 AM PDT by markomalley
I read at Rorate about a strong speech given by SSPX Bp. Bernard Fellay which is effectively a denunciation of Pope Francis and Pope Benedict and – yawn – you know the rest.
Here is a sample:
-----
“The situation of the Church is a real disaster, and the present Pope is making it 10,000 times worse.”
[Bp. Bernard Fellay] said this in an address at the Angelus Press Conference, the weekend of Oct 11-13 in Kansas City. ...
Bishop Fellay alluded to the SSPX/Vatican drama of 2012: “When we see what is happening now we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God. It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics, of course we want to be Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized as Catholics. But we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that. Of course not.” He continued, “To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove [what] they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”
As for the discussions with Rome: “Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the document to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.”
“The same for the Mass. The want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.
He continues, “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”.
Imagine! Some people will dictate to the Supreme Pontiff the terms by which they will be Catholic.
I’m sure we will hear more about this.
Wouldn’t it be news if they liked the Pope?
CC
In one form or another, we hear “I will not serve,” everyday.
One can expand this statement into a number of directions, but the catalyst is the same. Pride
Read Pope St. Pius X’s Encyclical “Pascendi Dominici Gregis,” which was published in 1907. It condemned Modernism as a heresy and describes Modernism found in every facet of thought, from theology to philosophy. When you do, you will realize that Pope Francis is a walking, talking demonstration of Modernism and as such he is spouting heresy. Pope Paul IV’s Encyclical “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio” makes it clear that any prelate - including the Pope - who promotes heresy has no authority because he does not teach what the Church teaches, and therefore everything he says is null and void.
Catholics would do well to actually read the Encyclicals of the Church before forming opinions.
I find it hilarious how Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said - and this pope said in the beginning, go out into the streets, create a mess, bringing Jesus’ message of love and mercy to sinners of all types and degrees.
What needs to be written by popes has been written - now it needs to be taken out to the worst sinners in even less formal english than vernacular church english.
Hard hearts hate that he eats with sinners. They’re ready to crucify him.
Even Fellay doesn’t want to see the obvious in what he is saying in context, but wants to be prideful and disobedient - the two worst things a priest and faithful catholic can be.
Thank you for your ex cathedra teaching, Pope nanetteclaret.
Modernism is heresy, not doubt. But you don’t have the authority to declare either heresy or heretic.
You would be wise to remember Jesus told Peter: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Whether you like or dislike the Popes from Bl. John XXIII to the present is irrelevant. They have been duly elected by the Cardinal Electors, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as Supreme Pontiff. They have received the negative power of infallibility, which neither you, nor I have.
Popes are not impeccable, rather, they are human. However, God has placed them, according to His plan, as Supreme Pontiff. You must choose either to accept this or not, and the consequences that follow.
May God grant you peace.
Yes, you're right. And say it pretty often, too.
You are absolutely right. Thank God for Confession and His oceans of Mercy.
Amen to that!
All I’m saying is read the Encyclicals and use your brain to process them and then make comparisons to Pope Francis, his statements and the teachings of VII. Pope Francis does not have infallibility unless he speaks Ex Cathedra. His ramblings and interviews on airplanes are not infallible, but they do show his thought processes. As a Jesuit, he is supposed to be highly educated, but he has said nothing which indicates that he has even read any of the Encyclicals of previous Popes - or if he has, he has disregarded them all.
I do believe that Popes CAN be elected under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but many times the Cardinals do not allow themselves to be so inspired. It’s called Free Will. If they are all Modernists, too, it is highly likely that they would elect a Modernist Pope. And, by the way, it was Pope Paul VI (who foisted the Novus Ordo on the Church) who did away with Pope St. Pius X’s requirement that everyone in positions of authority in the Church take the “Oath Against Modernism.” What this leads one to believe is that Pope Paul VI a) did not care that the Church was becoming infected with the heresy of Modernism and b) he probably crossed his fingers when he signed the Oath himself.
Read also all the material on Our Lady’s appearances at Fatima. Many people believe that the Third Secret, which has not been revealed (contrary to propaganda otherwise), contains warnings about apostosy in the Vatican.
It is very possible this is no longer true.
It is very possible the true derivation of the Church rests in SSPX, other independent groups, and certain orthodox elements within the Church proper, but not including the pope.
Modernism is heresy, not doubt. But you don’t have the authority to declare either heresy or heretic...Whether you like or dislike the Popes from Bl. John XXIII to the present is irrelevant. They have been duly elected by the Cardinal Electors, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as Supreme Pontiff. They have received the negative power of infallibility, which neither you, nor I have.
Meaning the Holy Spirit inspired even the election of men who morally were more akin to Judas (such as Alexander VI ) than Peter, those who sanction torture and death of theological dissidents (sure it was the way the world was, but the church is not sppsd to be like it), as well as the present pope. And since they cannot be deposed RCs must submit to them.
Likewise they must count as brethren those whom Rome treats as brethren in life and in death, whether it be cruel inquisitors (even without the exaggerations) or the Ted Kennedy types who would have been their subjects of torture (if necessary for "true confession").
Meanwhile, Catholicism is promoted as unified, and conservative evangelicals here are told they need to join it despite its contrasts with Scripture and liberals who make up the majority .
Thank you for your ex cathedra teaching, Pope nanetteclaret.Modernism is heresy, not doubt. But you don’t have the authority to declare either heresy or heretic.
I am always interested in hearing this kind of thing. A Catholic does exactly what we are taught to do, e.g. admonish sinners and instruct the ignorant, and they are mockingly called "Pope so-and-so." Why? Because, in today's modernist Church only a pope has the authority to express the spiritual works of mercy. Only a pope can say that something is wrong or heresy. No, I am sorry, and I mean no disrespect to those who think this, but you are wrong. It does not take a pope, when hearing a person say that atheists are saved because they are atheists, and that it is the role of Catholics not to correct them or instruct them but rather to actually confirm and encourage them in their error because they believe it (which is to teach Catholics to participate in the sins of others, a frankly diabolical concept), to condemn that statement as both error and heresy. If that isn't heresy then there is none, and it doesn't take a pope to see this and point it out.
I am terribly sorry, but I see that I quoted a reference to nanetteclaret in the post immediately above, and failed to ping that person. I am posting this to direct that person’s attention to that comment of my own relating to their post. My apologies for the mistake.
Last time I checked, Judas himself was selected by Christ.
Thank you for your reply. The Error you describe falls under Indifferentism and False Ecumenism (that all beliefs are the same), “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true,” and “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” These are Errors number 15 and 16 condemned in the “Syllabus of Errors.”
All I am saying to everyone is to read the Encylicals and see what previous Popes have taught and how that corresponds (or doesn’t) to the teachings of the Church since VII. It isn’t difficult!
God also commanded Abraham to kill Issac, but assuming a Divine prerogative is not for men to do. Judas was elected by the omniscient Lord who knowingly choose him as a man who would be possessed by the devil to betray Christ in fulfillment of prophecy.
In contrast, popes are elected as successors to Peter and to build the church, as men possessed by the Holy Spirit and conditionally infallible, with rejection of such being called sinful rebellion. And who cannot be deposed while they live.
Justifying election of devils based on the Lord choosing Judas is like Christ choosing Judas to fill the role of Peter, supposing he was a faithful man, and invalidating rejection of him or his successors.
Unlike the omniscient and assuredly infallible Lord, pastors are to follow Scriptural requirements for leadership, but Rome has elected men who were not even worthy to be church members. (1Cor. 5:9-13) And we are not under the type of O.T. theocracy, but one in which authenticity is not based on formal decent, but conformity of faith based on Scriptural substantiation.
Certainly God can work even with sons of Belial being in leadership, but that does not validate men knowingly electing manifestly immoral impenitent men as succeeding Peter, but invalidates them as being so while validating dissent from such presumption.
And so, evil men are selected by the Holy Spirit as instruments of God's just chastisement. What is your point?
In contrast, popes are elected as successors to Peter and to build the church
And Jesus himself warned that bad ones would be selected. (Lk 12:41-48). Again, what's your point?
Some people prefer to believe that the Church began in 1969.
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.