Skip to main content

Are Francis Catholics like the Leashed Dog in the Foghorn Leghorn Cartoon?

 

https://youtu.be/ocJ1GTnmO-w

Last year, the Catholic Monitor did a post called "Formal Correction: Why are Cd. Burke & Francis Trads like the Leashed Dog in the Foghorn Leghorn Cartoon?" which showed that the loyalty of many Catholics to Francis appears to be analogous to the old Warner Brothers cartoon rooster Foghorn Leghorn's archenemy George P. Dog's behavior.

The dog after getting hit hard with a two by four in the rear end by the rooster would chase him, but being on a leash meant he could only go as far as the length of the rope leash and had to stop while never thinking of freeing himself from the leash.

In that post, this question was asked:

Why are Cardinal Raymond Burke and Francis traditionalists such the Remnant's Michael Matt and Taylor Marshall as well as other Catholic media like Leghorn's archenemy George P. Dog not allowed to go passed the line with the sign that reads "Rope Limit"?

Yesterday, Catholic Monitor commenter Aqua implicitly expressed that question about "debates" he says he has had with Catholic pundit Steven O'Reilly from Roma Locuta Est. Below is his take on his "debates" with O'Reilly. 

Steven, after this piece was originally posted, emailed the following, "I saw your article, and Aqua's presentation of a 'debate.' I'd appreciate it if you would make it clearer that the conversation presented never took place, i.e., it is a fiction made up by Aqua. It would have been far more interesting, and fairer to the reader, if the imaginary debate addressed things I have actually said on BiP." So, I do want to make clear that the piece by Aqua is his "take" and according to Mr. O'Reilly not what he "actually said":

Aqua said… 
 
A typical “debate” with Steven O’Reilly (I have had many of these things):

Me: Pope Benedict is still Pope because he did not properly resign his Office. He only resigned his Ministry, not his office. It is clearly stated that way in his original Latin resignation text. He resigned Ministry. He specifically retained Munus. It’s right there ... on paper ... everyone can see it. That is substantial error. Canon 188. He remains Pope if he did not properly manifest a renunciation.

Steven: No, that would be substantial error. The Pope cannot separate his Office and Ministry. That is an error, substantial error and he can’t do it. Ontologically, that is not possible. Resignation valid. Not Pope.

Me: Right, I agree. He is in error, he can’t do it that way and that is why he objectively failed to properly resign according to Canon Law, Divine Law and he is still Pope.

Steven: No, he can’t do it like that, so it didn’t happen and he is not Pope.

Me: But he did do it and that is why he committed substantial error, failed to resign properly and is still Pope.

Steven: He didn’t do it because he can’t do it. If he did do it it would be substantial error and he can’t commit that error for the resignation to be valid. He resigned both because he has to and he is not Pope.

Me: Right, it is a major error. That is the whole point. He committed error and that rendered his resignation invalid. Still Pope.

Steven: No, he can’t do that. It is error. Substantial,error. You can’t divide the ministry and munus. Resigned completely. Even though he said he didn’t, he did. Because he has to. Not Pope.

Me: But that is what he clearly said in his resignation. That is impossible to resigns partially, as you say, so his resignation is not valid and so he retains his prior state as Pope.

Steven: He can’t have said that because that would be substantial error. Please see my web site to understand my further explanations on how this is all substantial error and is not possible according to Canon Law. Not Pope.

Me: But we already agree it is an error. Textbook definition of Canon 188 substantial error. So he is still Pope.

Steven: Yes, that error is not possible, which means he didn’t make an error, because it can never be. So his resignation was valid which is why he is no longer Pope.

13: Aarrrggghh!

Debate ... pointless.

Francis Notes:

- Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)


Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

 -  LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

-  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."

- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes:  

- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html

- Tucker Carlson's Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written" according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1
 
- A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God's Will and to do it.
 
Pray an Our Father now for America.
 
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

 

Comments

Aqua said…
In ref to my “typical debate” with Steven O’Reilly. As I said ... “typical”. Not verbatim. Typical.

This “typical debate” centers on his central premise - it is not possible to separate the Papal Munus from the Papal Ministerium.

On that we agree. What next?

For me it clearly renders the resignation invalid as in substantial error. A Papal resignation (renunciation) must be perfect before God for it to be accepted by the Church and ontologically by God, whom the Pope serves chief among us.

For Steven it means it never happened because it can’t happen because no one can separate the Munus from the Ministerium. So, even though he said it in one of the most important pieces of paper in the history of Holy Mother Church he didn’t mean it as he carefully crafted it in his statement before God, the Angels, Saints and for all eternity. So Steven corrects the statement the Pope made to make it fit and not be in error; to make it mean what Pope Benedict XVI SURELY must have meant.

Back and forth we go ... round and round ... in our “typical debate” *agreeing on the facts* but reaching PROFOUNDLY *different conclusions* drawn from them. I really think our small scale difference represents the fundamental problem in the Church today. Everyone *corrected the Pope’s letter* to make it mean what he surely must have meant instead of what he wrote.

That’s what my typical debate was meant to show. It doesn’t matter how many times you say the same thing over and over. Most people are not willing to challenge their own premises. Which, when the premise is wrong, is the leash that prevents the dog from ever crossing the line and catching his Foghorn Leghorn prize. Probably, the dog doesn’t actually want to catch the chicken. Wouldn’t know what to do with it if he ever did.
Aqua said…
And the practical evidence of the error, that it happened and is happening, us the Pope that is actively governing in the Vatican and the Pope who remains, contemplative, in the Vatican.

Unprecedented in Church history and unsupported by Church Dogma. But there they are. Steven and much of the Church has NO answer for how and why that is.

How now “Emeritus”, Steven? Never seen one for 2,013 Church years. They planted one in our midst at the birth of the Apostasy. Answers from Tradition required.
Debbie said…
Thank you Aqua for explaining Steven O'Reilly to me. I've tried reading his long-winded reasons and couldn't make heads or tails of it. For this newbie, it's simple, FiP destoys the papacy....that is what finely put me over to firmly believe BiP and have the courage to pray for Benedict and not just "the pope".

Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk

"The same Globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime... [&] those who did not volunteer for this are Literal Human Shields for the Zelensky/Soros government... [if] Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war"

Above: Ukrainian President Zelensky (2nd from left) and three other men perform a homoerotic skit on Ukrainian television.    What is the Real Agenda of the corrupt Joe & Hunter Biden's Russiagate backing of the Trudeau-like Obama corrupt Ukraine Operatives in their Warmongering Posturing? "If President Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war (because he respects Russia’s legitimate security interests and wants to disband NATO)." - Scott Lively Constitutional lawyer Scott Lively thinks that the "same globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime in Ukraine... [and] those who did not volunteer for this are literal human shields for the Zelensky/Soros government": The use of human shields in warfare of any kind is a horrifying satanic tactic, and, ironically, it is most effective against people who are truly humane. The tactic uses our humanity against us, because we don’t want the innocent t