New Bergoglian Document - Dignitas Infinita

[Bonaventure]

Some selections:

"The glorious Christ will judge by the love of neighbor that consists in ministering to the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick, and the imprisoned, with whom he identifies (cf. Mt. 25:34-36). For Jesus, the good done to every human being, regardless of the ties of blood or religion, is the single criterion of judgment."—DI #12

"Similarly, freedom is frequently obscured by a variety of psychological, historical, social, educational, and cultural influences. Real and historical freedom always needs to be 'liberated.' One must, moreover, reaffirm the fundamental right to religious freedom."—DI #31

"In this regard, we must recognize that the firm rejection of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she has a place in this universe."—DI #34 quoting Frutti Tutti #269.

[Bonaventure]

My reaction:

I tend to lean sedevacantist but I do not belong to a particular brand or "branch" of SV groups.

I have found a lot of charity and good in all trad groups, but a lot of weird, even cult like behavior. As such I tend to be "Kung Fu" a lá @Greg , and I follow what Bishop Williamson said in New York: Do whatever you need to nourish your faith.

Basically I am living out my own trad Pascal's Wager.

If I am right, my family and I have not done anything wrong as we are following the perennial Catholic Faith.

If I am wrong, per the entire Novus Ordo "magisterium," including this Document, repeated statements by all the Conciliar "Popes," (including "Saint" John Paul II), and most importantly, Dignitatis Humanae, considering I have a fundamental right to religious freedom, and only the corporal works of Mercy matter.

We are good either way.

[crossingtherubicon]

Single criterion for judgement?  Woah that is pretty challenging.  Who is more hungry and thirsty than those without access to the sacraments and deep spiritual traditions of the Catholics.  Who is more sick than those with unrepentant grave sins.

[crossingtherubicon]

Jesus rebuked Judas for his concern over the poor, probably in part because it was fake concern, but also because salvation of someone is by far the most important, but at the same time if you arent clear of grave sin and following your obligations to the Church you yourself are under darkness and cannot help others get out of their darkness.  In other words, get out of the darkness yourself so you can help others through prayer and sacrifice and other methods.  And in doing so your attachment to the world shall also fall away.  Thats how I interpret that whole statement from Jesus about what his message will be at the General Judgement.

[josh987654321]

I haven't read it and don't plan to, I believe Bergoglio is a usurper anyway so even if I do agree with some of it, the point would be moot IMO, I've also not bothered since the heretical and poisonous document of Fiducia Supplicans, not only blessing sodomy, but even laying the groundwork for a 'gender neutral god' with 'he is mother' slipped in there in paragraph 27.

God Bless

[LausTibiChriste]

Popesplainers are all giddy on Twitter saying this shows Frank's orthodoxy, commitment to the Faith etc.

They are being played like fools

[Bonaventure]

Popesplainers are all giddy on Twitter saying this shows Frank's orthodoxy, commitment to the Faith etc.

They are being played like fools

Neo Cons and Neo Trads have an obsession and fetish, so to speak, with Sexual Morality and Abortion.

I saw Dr. Edward Feser tweet:

A pope can teach error when not speaking ex cathedra.

This is a mockery. For these people, Bergoglio would have to go and say, I declare ex cathedra that abortion is good, and even then, they'd say, "well he didn't use this or that word." They've turned the papacy and the teaching authority of the Church into something so small and limited, something boxed up that is hardly used. We then have to wait for a Pope Sifter or Pope splainer to "clear" whatever Bergoglio, or Ratzinger, or "St." JP2, had to say.

Basically, everything is now on the table. According to basically all conservatives other than Sedes.

This is the same thing modernists and others say about:

Priestly celibacy
Baptism of Blood and Desire
Male priesthood
Contraception
Anglican Orders

It makes a joke of the universal and ordinary magisterium.

If what Feser says is true, it gives credence to supposed "branch theory."

Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans were right. He's saying essentially the same thing. It's Gallicanism.

If Bergoglio and his conciliar predecessors are "popes," and this is not an eclipse and a sede vacante, we have an apostate, defective church.

[Maximilian]

It's Gallicanism.

Nothing wrong with Gallicanism.

[Bonaventure]

It's Gallicanism.

Nothing wrong with Gallicanism.

Utrecht Succession, then!

As I've said, branch theory.

Or you could flat out go and state your opposition to Vatican I.

[james03]

is the single criterion of judgment.

Heresy

Real and historical freedom always needs to be 'liberated.

Marxism, among other things.

[Antoninus]

Tucho is clearly a sodomite. The fact that he put in charge of whatever they are calling that office these days makes any document that come out worth nothing.