Mission of Divine Mercy rebuked by their Bishop

[josh987654321]

If the Code of Canon Law can be wrong, why be Catholic?

Because it's the one true Church established by Jesus Christ Himself placing St Peter as it's head just as Aaron was the first in a single line of succession of High Priests and Jesus is a new Moses in terms of typology establishing the New Covenant modelled on the Old Covenant.

In the Old Covenant they made quite the mess of it also, with Annas being usurped by Caiaphas.

Bergoglio commemorating Luther, or your dear Benedict praying next to heretics and schismatics and a layman posing as clergy, are surely sinful, but not official acts of magisterium.

First, nobody has really clearly defined when this 'line' is crossed, it's as if he has to turn around touch the ground and pat his head three times in some special manner before it's considered ex-cathedra and officially beyond the pale... so we will see. We have so far had several heretical encyclicals, which are official teaching documents?

In terms of Pope Benedict XVI and others, Aaron made the golden calf and St Peter denied Our Lord 3 times, it's a difficult thing to stomach, but if it's part of the Divine plan then one can work with that, but not with a usurper.     

Are you opining then that these can have error? Is infallibility limited to only the extraordinary magisterium?

I don't know.

I just know that Pope Benedict XVI was not appointed by his own authority, he was not given the keys by his own authority, it was not under his own authority to bind and loose, to teach and guide the faithful, it was given to him by Our Lord Jesus Christ who first gave it to St Peter and by extension his successors, therefore he cannot use his own authority to renounce it, it's not his to renounce.

Where does 'Papal Infallibility' even come from? Is it not Our Lord Jesus Christ in his promise to St Peter? They have no authority to renounce it because it's not theirs to give and renounce at will. On one hand we expect the assistance of the Holy Spirit to reside with the Pope, the valid successor to St Peter, yet we say he can take it up and renounce it at will for any reason? Who is really in control here?

One says that a prerequisite for being Pope is not wanting it, but then adds a clause to ensure only the ambitious will ever hold it. One says that the protection of the Holy Spirit in Christ's promise to St Peter resides with the Pope, but then says that they can just renounce this at will for any reason by their own authority?

Last I checked Christ gave the keys to St Peter and his successors, Pope Benedict XVI was the current successor to St Peter, Bergoglio had no right to be elected, we cannot have two Popes. Pope Benedict XVI is not immune from erring, and he erred, which ought to have been corrected, same with Pope Celestine V.

"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."

God Bless     

[josh987654321]

The material on the adjoining thread re St. Vincent Ferrer points out that Gregory XII, who is officially considered the "true pope," abdicated in favor of the Council of Constance. At the same time, Clement XIII was deposed for the offense of refusing to abdicate when requested by the Council. So there is at least 1 example between Celestine and Benedict.

I'll have to look into that, it was my understanding that he was another Antipope, but they sure created one heck of a mess of things after Pope Celestine V's error and usurpation by Boniface VIII.

We are heading down the exact same track unless things are corrected IMO.

God Bless 

[josh987654321]

St. Ambrose:

Where Peter is, there is the Church; where the Church is, there is no death, but eternal life.

St. Cyprian of Carthage:

If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?

Amen, Amen.

Peter is then deposed and another man elected in his place, with Pope Celestine V being imprisoned and killed by his so called 'successor' who drafted the dubious clause in the first place.

So I am holding fast to St Peter and his successors. Bergoglio is not St Peter's successor because Pope Benedict XVI was elected as his successor and held it until death, just as St Peter held it until death.

God Bless

[josh987654321]

Why be Western Rite when the Eastern Rite is objectively better?

A few reasons, but the main one, is that Aaron was appointed High Priest in a single line of succession in the Old Covenant, when Christ established the New Covenant, it was modelled after the Old Covenant, with St Peter the 'Rock' upon which His Church would be built, Christ appointing him with Christ Himself being a New Moses, just as Aaron spoke on behalf of Moses, the Vicar of Moses if you will.

Aaron made the golden calf, St Peter denied Him 3 times... typology of old and new. 

A New Commandment, Blood in the New Covenant, A New Passover, A New Creation, A New Ark... all not doing away with the old but perfectly fulfilling it, infinitely greater than the Old. 

Aaron was the vicar of Moses not Moses himself, therefore Aaron could never renounce it by his own authority just as St Peter and his successors cannot.

Asking for a friend 

Haha

God Bless

[Maximilian]

Where does 'Papal Infallibility' even come from?

The question that is on everyone's mind.

[josh987654321]

Also just a side note, we the faithful are expected to stick with the Vicar of Christ through the ups and downs, yet they themselves can supposedly just renounce it at will? Talk about double standards.

The Vicar of Christ is not God, his authority comes from God therefore he cannot use this authority to renounce such authority because it's not his to renounce.

10 Moses said: I beseech thee, Lord. I am not eloquent from yesterday and the day before: and since thou hast spoken to thy servant, I have more impediment and slowness of tongue. 11 The Lord said to him: Who made man's mouth? or who made the dumb and the deaf, the seeing and the blind? did not I? 12 Go therefore and I will be in thy mouth: and I will teach thee what thou shalt speak.

God Bless 

[Miriam_M]

josh,

I've read your other posts on this page, but I'm not clear on what you mean by "renouncing" in this case. Which popes are renouncing what or whom?

[josh987654321]

I've read your other posts on this page, but I'm not clear on what you mean by "renouncing" in this case. Which popes are renouncing what or whom?

Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Celestine V renounced their positions, which is a Divine Institution, thus not for them to reject once appointed as valid successor and given the keys and authority.

The whole 'resignation' clause was drafted by Boniface VIII who 'succeeded' (usurped) Pope Celestine V, then immediately imprisoned Pope Celestine V where he died, then Boniface VIII formalized this falsehood.

Aaron spoke for Moses and Aaron's rod budded and Christ called St Peter the 'Rock' upon which He would build the Church, both Aaron and St Peter had a line of successors, but it was not in their power to 'resign' or 'reject' that office which was given to them by God. Moses may have chosen Aaron to speak for him just as the College of Cardinals chooses St Peter's successor, but God put His Divine seal on it so to speak and when God is involved, it is out of their hands. 

When the College of Cardinals come together and elect a valid successor to St Peter after the previous one has died, then we have the protection of the Holy Spirit by virtue of Christ's words to St Peter, but there is no such protection for 'resignations'.

Did Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Celestine V receive some kind of 'sign' to renounce their authority and office as successor to St Peter? They either never were the successor to St Peter or they were the successor to St Peter until death and therefore good or bad, nobody has the right to supplant them.

God Bless 

[Miriam_M]

Oh, it's about popes renouncing their own authority.

[josh987654321]

Oh, it's about popes renouncing their own authority.

Exactly, because it's not their own authority, they didn't make themselves Pope, they don't make themselves infallible etc it was given to them by God by virtue of Christ's promise to St Peter and his successors, it's not theirs to renounce.

10 Moses said: I beseech thee, Lord. I am not eloquent from yesterday and the day before: and since thou hast spoken to thy servant, I have more impediment and slowness of tongue. 11 The Lord said to him: Who made man's mouth? or who made the dumb and the deaf, the seeing and the blind? did not I? 12 Go therefore and I will be in thy mouth: and I will teach thee what thou shalt speak.

We cannot have two Popes, I know the seat was vacant and Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected as St Peter's successor, thus receiving the keys and authority promised, I know of no such thing when it comes to Bergoglio, nobody came down from Heaven to remove the keys from Pope Benedict XVI and thus call another conclave and Pope Benedict XVI, being a Divine Institution, not originating from himself, does not have that authority. The keys are not his to give and renounce at will, they belong to God who gives them to St Peters successors. 

God Bless

[Bonaventure]

Frankly, the BennyVacante stuff I find even more ridiculous than the Siri Thesis.

I could buy into it and buy into you buying into it, in say 2015, but Ratzinger has been dead for how long now?

His MC, Monsignor Marini, received consecration from Bergoglio himself.

There are photos of Ganswein shaking Bergoglio's hand, and smiling.

In this video, at 55:32 to be precise, Archbishop Ganswein himself names Bergoglio, "una cum fámulo tuo Papa nostro Francesco."



The spiritual son of Ratzinger has no problem accepting Bergoglio, and says he is one with him in the Canon of the Mass, as he enters the most sacred part of the Sacrifice of Calvary before Almighty God and the entire world, but I am supposed to toss that all aside in favor of your musings?

As Benedict XIV said:

It suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for [the pope] during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter

[josh987654321]

I could buy into it and buy into you buying into it, in say 2015, but Ratzinger has been dead for how long now?

I don't see how that makes any difference. They no longer have their hostage to hide behind the way I see it.   

There are photos of Ganswein shaking Bergoglio's hand, and smiling.

I know. I know about Gänswein.

In order to pull something like this off, someone needs to be very close to Pope Benedict XVI to keep him in line and not say or do anything that could undermine or embarrass Bergoglio. You could never pull anything like this off without someone precisely in the position and influence over Pope Benedict XVI that Gänswein was in.     

The spiritual son of Ratzinger has no problem accepting Bergoglio, and says he is one with him in the Canon of the Mass, as he enters the most sacred part of the Sacrifice of Calvary before Almighty God and the entire world, but I am supposed to toss that all aside in favor of your musings?

Realizing his lack of authority and personal incompatibility with papal duties, he consulted with Cardinal Benedetto Caetani (his eventual successor Boniface VIII) about the possibility of resignation. This resulted in one final decree declaring the right of resignation. He promptly exercised this right, resigning on 13 December 1294, after five months and eight days as pope...

Having divested himself of every outward symbol of papal dignity, he slipped away from Naples and attempted to retire to his old life of solitude...

The former Celestine, now reverted to Pietro Angelerio, was not allowed to become a hermit once again. Various parties had opposed his resignation and the new Pope Boniface VIII had reason to worry that one of them might install him as an antipope. To prevent this he ordered Pietro to accompany him to Rome. Pietro escaped and hid in the woods before attempting to return to Sulmona to resume monastic life. This proved impossible, and Pietro was captured after an attempt to flee to Dalmatia was thwarted when a tempest forced his ship to return to port. Boniface imprisoned him in the castle of Fumone near Ferentino in Lazio, attended by two monks of his order, where Pietro died after 10 months at about the age of 81.

Do you really believe Pope Benedict XVI was totally ignorant of Pope Celestine V and what happened to him? Pope Benedict XVI did not try to return to his previous life or name or titles and Gänswein was always there to keep close tabs on him. 

"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."

God Bless

[Bonaventure]

So now, Ganswein is the puppet master behind it all.

I'll just leave you to it. This theory all rests behind the fantasy of Ratzinger as an "arch-conservative," or even traditionalist.

As even Bishop Fellay said of Ratzinger:

And now, we have a perfectly liberal Pope, my very dear brothers. As he goes to this country [the United States] which is founded upon Masonic principles, that is, of a revolution, of a rebellion against God. And, well, he expressed his admiration, his fascination before this country which has decided to grant liberty to all religions. He goes so far as to condemn the confessional State. And he is called traditional! And this is true, this is true: he is perfectly liberal, perfectly contradictory. He has some good sides, the sides which we hail, for which we rejoice, such as what he has done for the Traditional liturgy.

What a mystery, my very dear brothers, what a mystery!

Original in French:

Et maintenant, nous avons un Pape, mes bien chers frères, parfaitement libéral. Lorsqu'il va dans ce pays qui est fondé sur les principes maçonniques, c'est à dire d'une révolution, d'une rébellion contre Dieu. Eh bien il exprime son admiration, sa  fascination devant ce pays qui a décidé de donner la liberté à toutes les religions. Il va même jusqu'à condamner l'état confessionnel ! Et on le dit traditionnel ! Et c'est vrai, c'est vrai. Il est parfaitement libéral, parfaitement partagé. Il y a des bons côtés, des bons côtés que nous saluons, dont nous nous réjouissons, comme ce qu'il fait pour la liturgie traditionnelle.

Quel mystère mes bien chers frères, quel mystère !

If this is what you need to help you cope, oh well. I feel like I am speaking to a Siri Thesis adherent. Might as well be. It reduces Catholicism to the whims of a grand conspiracy theory to save a conservative modernist, and prop him up as a hero. Save the Council, save JP2, if only our poor German shepherd had not been forced out!

I feel like I've been transported to 2007 and everyone is fawning over this man and his motu proprio.

[josh987654321]

So now, Ganswein is the puppet master behind it all.

Not the puppet master, but certainly a significant part of it. He got the worst job though, like Judas, despised by both the Pharisee's and the Disciples, after all, why would anyone trust a man that could betray those closest to him.

I'll just leave you to it. This theory all rests behind the fantasy of Ratzinger as an "arch-conservative," or even traditionalist.

Not at all, the Church had been going downhill ever since Vatican II IMO, the French Revolution and wave of secularism before that, the Protestant Reformation before that etc etc.

It doesn't matter what I think of Pope Benedict XVI, what matters is whether he holds the keys or not, whether he is the valid successor to St Peter or not, I mean, Aaron made the golden calf and St Peter denied Him 3 times, these are not easy things to stomach, but if it's part of the Divine plan and they are legitimate successors, then one can work with that, but not with a usurper.

If this is what you need to help you cope, oh well.

It's not about that.

It reduces Catholicism to the whims of a grand conspiracy theory to save a conservative modernist,

It's not about saving some 'status quo' of modernists, it's about the fact that a usurpation has taken place, I do not want to return to the 'status quo' under Pope Benedict XVI, but the correcting of this error leads to the correction of other errors leads to the restoration of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, when people reach rock bottom they can start climbing out to reach greater heights. Nobody wants to rock the boat when everything is still working.

and prop him up as a hero. Save the Council, save JP2, if only our poor German shepherd had not been forced out!

I didn't prop him up as a hero, neither do I want to save the Council. One problem at a time and this is the most immediate.

How do you eat an elephant... one mouthful at a time.

"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."

God Bless

[josh987654321]

As even Bishop Fellay said of Ratzinger:

Also in terms of this, yes one cannot condemn the Confessional State, but at the same time, there have been some problems with the Confessional State, because when it comes to the education of society, this should be the Confessional State IMO (With Catholic Schools we should have this, but most of these have been deeply corrupted and captured, to the point where some shouldn't even have the name at all), but in terms of adults, the faith must be voluntary otherwise it will not work, Judas thought Christ would be a political or military leader, as did the Pharisee's, they sought power, authority, wealth etc, thus Judas for example was a false disciple and it ended as we know.

So the Confessional State has produced wolfs in sheep's clothing when gone too far, as the minute one ties things like authority, power and wealth to the faith, then you immediately attract people to it for all the wrong reasons. At the same time, secularism is not the answer either and trying to drive it out of the Culture, the Institutions, Schools, the Education of the Youth etc is also very bad.

God Bless