A bishop who has a concubine and children to be made Cardinal by Pope Francis

Started by Antoninus, May 28, 2018, 01:39:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Miriam_M

Quote from: lauermar on May 29, 2018, 03:28:12 AM

My indult parish is walking a fine line, still practicing the traditional faith as much as Cupich allows. Whenever Bergoglio pulls a stunt, like saying hell doesn't exist, our priests say a sermon to refute it without calling him out. They know he is teaching heresy. On some level they may suspect he's illegitimate but they don't touch that 3rd rail. Because if they did, the parish would cease to exist. God bless them for their perseverance.

(See bolded.)

So are we all walking a fine line, so why are you asking more of lay people on a Catholic discussion forum than you ask of your own priests?

It is not our station in life to make private or public judgments about whether PF is truly in heresy, merely because he so often suggests that he believes differently from the Church he represents, and does himself walk a scandalously fine line between open heresy and distortion.  And as you've seen, it is also not the station of the parish priest to make such a definitive judgment.  It is our station, and the priests' station, not to embrace heretical beliefs (which would be sins against the First Commandment and also sins against the theological virtue of faith), and certainly not to mistake casual comments, however shocking and however possibly intended to provoke, as new dogma. 

Our very first personal moral obligation is to our State in Life:  single, married, consecrated religious, priest.  Within those categories are included the requirements and limitations of our authority, relative to that state.  To fail to exercise our explicit authority is to sin; to assume authority not ours is also sin.  They are sins against justice.

Archer

^True.

Probably won't make a difference; her post reads like she's just looking for attention.
"All the good works in the world are not equal to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because they are the works of men; but the Mass is the work of God. Martyrdom is nothing in comparison for it is but the sacrifice of man to God; but the Mass is the sacrifice of God for man." - St. John Vianney

Older Salt

Quote from: lauermar on May 28, 2018, 03:31:13 PM
This is par for the course. No surprises here. What is surprising is that with all these stunts Bergoglio pulls, most of you people still regard him as a legitimate pope, as a Catholic, who is leading a genuine Catholic church and not a false one.

One day he could declare gay marriage a sacrament. And you would still think he's a real pope. There's no limit.
Who is Pope?
Benedict XVI?
Stay away from the near occasion of sin

Unless one is deeply attached to the Blessed Virgin Mary, now in time, it impossible to attain salvation.

Gerard

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 29, 2018, 02:25:09 PM
Gerard stated:
QuoteWho knows what he's really talking about?  They are just opinions anyway

Vs. Francis:
QuoteYet I really say that I saw so much fidelity in these cohabitations, so much loyalty; and I am sure that this is a true marriage, they have the grace of marriage, precisely because of the loyalty they have.
"fidelity in cohabitations" (maybe they aren't cheating on one another while some valid marriages are suffering though a problem of adultery)
"I am sure that this is a true marriage" ("I am sure.."  Not, "I bind the universal Church through my ministry of confirming the brethren..." )
"They have the grace of marriage" ( Actual or sanctifying grace?)
Cohabitations are a mortal sin, and not a true marriage; they cannot have the grace of marriage while at the same time living in mortal sin. (Is he talking about the actual graces present in a natural marriage?  Such as having the children baptized? He's certainly not talking about sanctifying grace because he points out they don't have the sacrament nor the understanding of sacraments) 

re. "Just opinions"; so were Luther's, Calvin's, Ariuses' etc.


Luther, Calvin and Arius had superiors to declare them heretics.  Pope Martin Luther wasn't dethroned by inferiors because he had a potty mouth.  And none of them were slippery and ambiguous in their statements.  They all stood clearly in opposition to clear doctrine.   

The problem with Modernism is its "indefinition"  It's so malleable and so intertwined with genuine doctrine and error and shifting language, you can't convict someone of it because it lacks conviction in itself.  After the excommunications of Loisy and Tyrell, modernism went underground and you can't get any of them to admit their errors or stand up for what they believe clearly  because they verbally agree with everything the Church teaches but interiorly and exteriorly make claims about the definitions of words in order to reduce them to semantic arguments. 

Gerard

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on May 30, 2018, 01:57:28 AM

But my point here is that there's a big difference between giving an evil command and speaking heresy. Your original post didn't acknowledge this.

You seem to be equating any ambiguity or even honest error as heresy.  The word "heresy" is derived from the word, "choice" which means a person knows they are opposing the Church and they have chosen to deny a truth of the Church. 

QuoteAs for insisting that a Pope can be a formal manifest heretic and that Catholics have no choice but to put up with this - that's an entirely novel opinion.

No, I'm saying that you can't declare a Pope to be a formal manifest heretic.  That's a juridical ruling. A Pope can be a material heretic, not a formal one.  And what constitutes "manifest" seems to be a completely subjective opinion based on the likes and dislikes of the self-appointed superiors instead of a clear unequivocal denial of the doctrine of the Church.  Francis and his recent predecessors have been the ultimate equivocators. There is no history in the Church of a Pope ever being a formal, manifest heretic, some have come close and been accused or even  temporarily believed to be, but no Pope has validly and universally bound the Church to an error in faith and morals. 

QuoteI wonder if any other group of Catholics, besides R&R Trads, have held it.

I'm sure you know this quote: "Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior."

Was St. Robert Bellarmine describing "R&R Catholics" when he said it is licit to resist a Pope?  He didn't say "Anti-Pope."  The unmistakable  inference is that you can recognize a Pope and resist him. 

Furthermore, Bellarmine believes a valid Pope can actually "attempt..to destroy the Church."disturb civll order and agress souls and still be a valid Pope, albeit a resistible one. 

Francis is nothing more than what St. Robert describes in his (too often ) quoted statement. 





jovan66102

Gerard, can you give me a cite on the St Robert B. quote? I want to bookmark it. Thanks!
Jovan-Marya Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
"Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)" St Bernard of Clairvaux
https://musingsofanoldcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/

Gerard

Quote from: Arvinger on May 30, 2018, 02:14:46 AM


As many R&R supporters, you fail to distinguish between epistemology and ontology.


Yes, you are correct in a sense that in terms of epistemology we cannot know whether Bergoglio is an anti-Pope or not, because we don't have such authority and we cannot prove with absolute certainty that he is a formal (as opposed to material) heretic.

However, our epistemological limitations have no influence on ontological state of the matter.

If Bergoglio is a formal heretic, then he is not a Catholic, not a member of the Church and not a Pope (a non-Catholic is outside the Church and thus cannot be a Pope). If that is the case, it is objectively true and he is in fact an anti-Pope regardless whether we can know it or not.

Here's your problem.  You're describing a situation that is impossible to be manifested due to the ecclesiology of the Church.  There is no "If Bergoglio is a formal heretic..."  because Formal heresy doesn't allow "If."

Unless  a person has been formally and individually condemned for heresy by the Church, they can't be a formal heretic,  that's the ontological reality. 

Because he is Pope, he CAN'T be a formal heretic, ever...unless he first resigns and stands before the judgement of his successor.  Because unless that happens he has no superior to lay the charge in front of him and give him the option to FORMALLY  "choose" to hold his error (i.e.. heresy) or submit to the teaching of the Church.  But in that unlikely scenario, he's no longer the Pope as it is because he resigned.

Formal heresy means an informed and deliberate choice against the Church's teaching despite the Church's warning. 

A position that is not deliberately against Church teaching is an error, not necessarily even a material heresy because the error might be a new one which hasn't been condemned as heresy.

A non-deliberate adoption of a previously condemned position is material (not formal) heresy. 

This legalistic shell game of how a Pope is suddenly seen as a heretic and is therefore no longer a Catholic and outside the Church can't lead the Church is simply poppycock.  A Pope in mortal sin is "outside the Church" ontologically, but practically he is still the Pope and still carries the authority of the Pope. 

The Pope is not the head of the Church.  He's the "visible" head of the Church standing in place of Christ who is the head of the Church. 

Gerard

Quote from: jovan66102 on May 31, 2018, 12:00:53 AM
Gerard, can you give me a cite on the St Robert B. quote? I want to bookmark it. Thanks!


It's from St. Robert Bellarmine's De Romano Pontifice.   It's only recently been translated into English by Ryan Grant. 

That quote is literally all over trad pages on the Internet.  People have been arguing with it for years. 

This is a fairly substantial article dealing with it and it fleshes it out with a lot of context. 

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/respondnig-to-fr.html

Michael Wilson

Gerard,
what if Francis stated in an interview: "I don't believe that Jesus Christ is God; a good man, a prophet, but not God." Would you still consider him a Catholic or the Pope?
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Arvinger

Quote from: Gerard on May 30, 2018, 11:48:02 PM
Was St. Robert Bellarmine describing "R&R Catholics" when he said it is licit to resist a Pope?  He didn't say "Anti-Pope."  The unmistakable  inference is that you can recognize a Pope and resist him. 

Furthermore, Bellarmine believes a valid Pope can actually "attempt..to destroy the Church."disturb civll order and agress souls and still be a valid Pope, albeit a resistible one. 

Francis is nothing more than what St. Robert describes in his (too often ) quoted statement.

St. Robert also says that a non-Catholic cannot in any way be Pope. Therefore, when you say "Francis is for sure a Pope", you are ipso facto saying "Francis is for sure a Catholic", a proposition which is doubtful at least, given massive evidence for heretical beliefs of Bergoglio. A non-Catholic is not a member of the Church and thus cannot be a Pope - it is simple as that. Therefore, if Francis is a formal heretic, he is not a Pope, because as a non-Catholic he is outside the Church. If that is in fact the case, this is ontological reality regardless of our epistemological limitations in determining whether or not he is a Pope.

"Destroying civil order" and "trying to destroy a Church" are different categories than heresy. In that famous R&R quote St. Robert was not refering to the question of a heretical Pope at all (the quote comes from completely different section of De Romano Pontifice), rather a Pope who is commiting evil deeds and issuing evil commands.

Elizabeth

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 31, 2018, 10:45:15 AM
Gerard,
what if Francis stated in an interview: "I don't believe that Jesus Christ is God; a good man, a prophet, but not God." Would you still consider him a Catholic or the Pope?
We probably won't have to wait long before this happens, if it has not already.

Michael Wilson

Gerard stated:
QuoteUnless  a person has been formally and individually condemned for heresy by the Church, they can't be a formal heretic,  that's the ontological reality. 

Because he is Pope, he CAN'T be a formal heretic, ever...unless he first resigns and stands before the judgement of his successor.  Because unless that happens he has no superior to lay the charge in front of him and give him the option to FORMALLY  "choose" to hold his error (i.e.. heresy) or submit to the teaching of the Church.  But in that unlikely scenario, he's no longer the Pope as it is because he resigned.

Formal heresy means an informed and deliberate choice against the Church's teaching despite the Church's warning.
The above is incorrect. A person can become a formal heretic without any official warnings at all; warnings are only necessary it is presumed that they are ignorant of the Catholic teaching. https://romeward.com/articles/239752519/cardinal-de-lugo-on-heresy
QuoteCardinal De Lugo On Heresy

5. Whether pertinacity is required for someone to be a heretic, and if so, of what kind.

So the common and most true judgement of theologians teaches that there is no need for this warning, or for length of time or delay, for someone to become a heretic and incur the penalties of heretics, but that it is sufficient for him to embrace error with full deliberation and express what he sees to be at odds with the understanding and definition of the Church This is taught by Suarez [reference given], Cajetan, Vasquez, Valentia and countless others quoted and followed by Sanchez [reference given] and Diana [reference given] who, on the authority of others whom he quotes, well remarks against Alciatus and others that not even in the external forum is a warning and preceding correction always required for someone to be punished as pertinacious and that this is not observed in the practice of the Holy Office. For if it be certain by some other means – for example, if the doctrine in question be well known, or if it be obvious from the kind of person and other circumstances involved – that the accused person could not have been ignorant of the opposition of his doctrine to that of the Church, he will automatically be judged a heretic. The reason he is asked in his trial whether he knew that his view was contrary to the doctrine of the Church, is that, if he admits that he did, he will already be thought sufficiently to have confessed heresy and pertinacity.
The reason for this is clear: the external warning can serve only to ensure that the erring party become aware of the opposition between his error and the doctrine of the Church. So if he knows the whole subject much better himself from books and conciliar definitions than he could from the words of anyone admonishing him, there is no reason for a warning to be necessary for him to be pertinacious against the Church. Neither is any length of time necessary for this, because the authority and mind of the Church can be known very quickly and no less quickly deliberately rejected, as takes place in the case of other sins.
Also on the "impossibility of a Pope becoming a formal heretic"
St. Bellarmine did consider the possibility in his treatise De Romano Pontifice:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=25&catname=10
QuoteII.   Bellarmine teaches that a heretical pope automatically loses his office.
      In the chapter which immediately follows the passage cited, St. Robert Bellarmine treats the following question: "Whether a heretical pope can be deposed." Note first, by the way, that his question assumes a pope can in fact become a heretic.
      After a lengthy discussion of various opinions theologians have given on this issue, Bellarmine says:
The fifth opinion therefore is the true one. A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. (De Romano Pontifice. II.30. My emphasis)
Note on the Book TOFP by Messers Sysco and Salza: we had various threads in the Sedevacante section on the contents of said book, and I believe that it was demonstrated that they used Bellarmine's "Third opinion" to arrive at their conclusion (no Pope could ever be deposed before a formal warning and trial) to contradict Bellarmine's fith opinion, which states the contrary.

"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

mikemac

Like John Vennari (RIP) said "Why not just do it?  What would it hurt?"
Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (PETITION)
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/consecrate-russia-to-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary-petition

"We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete." Benedict XVI May 13, 2010

"Tell people that God gives graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Tell them also to pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for peace, since God has entrusted it to Her." Saint Jacinta Marto

The real nature of hope is "despair, overcome."
Source

bigbadtrad

We're all practical or theoretical sedevacantists at this point.

Would you let Francis teach your children?
Would you ask him how to live your life spiritually or morally?
If he commanded you to do something which he could argue is not intrinsic to faith or morals would you believe him if you disagreed?

We all know the answer.

When the best argument is "how heretical does he have to be to be a heretic?" then we've lost all practical sense of even understanding our faith. Our faith is then unknowable without a little angel on our shoulder giving us explicit instructions of how to think or believe for fear of epistemological paradoxes against obvious facts.

If you can't apply common sense to something than you've made a paradigm that is unintelligible to the masses. If the argument for Catholicism is to believe in a Pope you know doesn't believe or couldn't teach the faith to children, to a liturgy that doesn't represent your faith, and paragons of virtue called "saints" who protected child rapists and Buddhists in Assisi than that religion is farcical and far less epistemological certain. When the "pope" is no longer a rule of faith but a rule of disbelief, it's silliness masquerading as epistemology.

Which is easier to explain: the pope is a heretic who either does not retain his title or minimally has lost his jurisdiction to command (except through supplied jurisdiction) OR to believe you can know nothing with certainty about his heresy while knowing for certain you don't listen to that same Pope morally, liturgically, or theologically but believe people in camp #1 are epistemologically incorrect?
"God has proved his love to us by laying down his life for our sakes; we too must be ready to lay down our lives for the sake of our brethren." 1 John 3:16

Greg

Quote from: mikemac on May 31, 2018, 06:43:15 PM
Pope's cardinal nominee denies fathering children with concubine, sworn testimony says otherwise
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/popes-cardinal-nominee-denies-fathering-children-with-concubine-sworn-testi

There's absolutely no doubt that Francis was entirely unaware of these accusations.

He would never willingly give a heterosexual a red hat.



Think positively here.  There are some grounds for optimism.

1.  The bishop is in a monogamous relationship.

2.  He is in a relationship with a woman.

3.  Francis is going to give him the cardinal's hat (and not his wife).

It's almost like going back in time to the 1950s
Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.