Aqua: The "Synod of Popes" & "Those, like O'Reilly, Skojec and Mundabor (etc) who insist on Bergoglio as Pope at the same time they condemn him as a rank Heretic Apostate do grave damage to their own Faith"
Heretical popes & Limitation of Catholic Authority #sspx #catholic | Charles Carroll Society
The well known commenter Aqua had this to say to all Francis Catholics:
"Those, like O'Reilly, Skojec and Mundabor (etc) who insist on Bergoglio as Pope at the same time they condemn him as a rank heretic Apostate do grave damage to their own faith, but also to that of others."
Below is also an interesting discussion on the above and the "Synod of Popes" in The Catholic Monitor comment section:
Comments
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)
Here is what Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book "Magisterial Authority" says to Lewis who it appears is "proximate to heresy":
"[T]reat[ing] ALL papal statements as if they are infallible... is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in by Vatican I... by essentially saying that the pope is infallible regardless of conditions."
"... Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused."
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14)
"[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)
Here is what Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book "Magisterial Authority" says to Lewis who it appears is "proximate to heresy":
"[T]reat[ing] ALL papal statements as if they are infallible... is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in by Vatican I... by essentially saying that the pope is infallible regardless of conditions."
"... Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused."
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14)
Fred,
Theoretically, you are correct. St. Francis De Sales was speaking theoretically, because it has never happened.
Those who committed the sin of heresy, immediately repented once their sin against the Faith was demonstrated to them.
Bergoglio is not Pope. Bergoglio is no minor heretic. He is Apostate. Everything he does is heretical and designed to lead the Faitnful away from the Faith. There has never been a Pope remotely like him.
Steven O'Reilly, on another thread here, and on his own blog, speaks for those who speculate about the heresy of this "Pope". That is a very, very dangerous road to go down, because it strikes at the heart of the Catholic Faith - the entire doctrine of Papal Infallibility which goes far beyond mere "Ex Cathedra". It was defined in Vatican I, but, like all dogmas, it precedes Vatican I which sources its own conclusions on Sacred Tradition.
Those, like O'Reilly, Skojec and Mundabor (etc) who insist on Bergoglio as Pope at the same time they condemn him as a rank heretic Apostate do grave damage to their own faith, but also to that of others. If a Pope can be allowed by God to do this - there is *no such thing as Divine protection* any more. It's done. Cooked. Over. O'Reilly is chasing impossible to prove theories. Skojec is no longer practicing the Faith. Mundabor is continuing to call the "Holy Father" evil clown and the most terrible of names and invectives. All such will never tolerate discussion of the base error: you can't have two visible Popes. The Office is Christ's. It is sacreligious to take what is His and play with it.
It has always been strange to me - this willingness to point out all the errors and heresy and apostasy from the Pope, but under no circumstances will they ever accept the base, precedent heretical error that underlies the false Pope leading the Church into all error.
Again de Sales is undoubtedly right from a theoretical perspective. Where in history can we see that theory proved? Bergoglio is,proof of antipope ... not heretical Pope.
Theoretically, you are correct. St. Francis De Sales was speaking theoretically, because it has never happened.
Those who committed the sin of heresy, immediately repented once their sin against the Faith was demonstrated to them.
Bergoglio is not Pope. Bergoglio is no minor heretic. He is Apostate. Everything he does is heretical and designed to lead the Faitnful away from the Faith. There has never been a Pope remotely like him.
Steven O'Reilly, on another thread here, and on his own blog, speaks for those who speculate about the heresy of this "Pope". That is a very, very dangerous road to go down, because it strikes at the heart of the Catholic Faith - the entire doctrine of Papal Infallibility which goes far beyond mere "Ex Cathedra". It was defined in Vatican I, but, like all dogmas, it precedes Vatican I which sources its own conclusions on Sacred Tradition.
Those, like O'Reilly, Skojec and Mundabor (etc) who insist on Bergoglio as Pope at the same time they condemn him as a rank heretic Apostate do grave damage to their own faith, but also to that of others. If a Pope can be allowed by God to do this - there is *no such thing as Divine protection* any more. It's done. Cooked. Over. O'Reilly is chasing impossible to prove theories. Skojec is no longer practicing the Faith. Mundabor is continuing to call the "Holy Father" evil clown and the most terrible of names and invectives. All such will never tolerate discussion of the base error: you can't have two visible Popes. The Office is Christ's. It is sacreligious to take what is His and play with it.
It has always been strange to me - this willingness to point out all the errors and heresy and apostasy from the Pope, but under no circumstances will they ever accept the base, precedent heretical error that underlies the false Pope leading the Church into all error.
Again de Sales is undoubtedly right from a theoretical perspective. Where in history can we see that theory proved? Bergoglio is,proof of antipope ... not heretical Pope.
Here is Archbishop Nichols receiving the Hindu "Tilak" from his Hindu pal.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/images/uploads/news_feature/hindu.jpeg
What is a tilak?
"Tilak (“mark” in Sanskrit) is a paste made of ash, sandalwood, vermillion, clay, or turmeric, typically worn on the forehead, and sometimes other parts of the body — like the torso, arms, or neck — signifying which spiritual lineage a devotee adheres to within Hinduism. The shape of the tilak and the substance it’s made from generally corresponds to the God or Goddess that lineage worships (Shiva, Vishnu, Devi for example) ... It’s important to remember that tilak is not only sacred, but when you wear it, you’re representing an entire spiritual lineage. It’s thus best one understands the symbolism and profound meaning behind a particular tilak before donning it in public."
Who is this lost little boy Vincent Gerard Nichols, taking the mark of Satan and his false gods on his forehead? Merely an English cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, Archbishop of Westminster and President of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.
I did not sign up for a church that worships the devil. I didn't. I found SSPX, and for that I am thankful. This other thing, whose "Pope" encourages apostasy and sin; whose "Cardinals" persecute Tradition, but smile beatifically before a Hindu Pajari giving them "profound sacred (satanic) symbol" on his forehead where only the Cross of Christ should ever be. This thing (a civil war, Steven O'Reilly likes to call it ... he finds it humorous, his words) is visceral. Souls are being lost while we dither and dather about whether this rank heretic apostate is or is not .... Holy Father. Give me a break. I want no part of it.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/images/uploads/news_feature/hindu.jpeg
What is a tilak?
"Tilak (“mark” in Sanskrit) is a paste made of ash, sandalwood, vermillion, clay, or turmeric, typically worn on the forehead, and sometimes other parts of the body — like the torso, arms, or neck — signifying which spiritual lineage a devotee adheres to within Hinduism. The shape of the tilak and the substance it’s made from generally corresponds to the God or Goddess that lineage worships (Shiva, Vishnu, Devi for example) ... It’s important to remember that tilak is not only sacred, but when you wear it, you’re representing an entire spiritual lineage. It’s thus best one understands the symbolism and profound meaning behind a particular tilak before donning it in public."
Who is this lost little boy Vincent Gerard Nichols, taking the mark of Satan and his false gods on his forehead? Merely an English cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, Archbishop of Westminster and President of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.
I did not sign up for a church that worships the devil. I didn't. I found SSPX, and for that I am thankful. This other thing, whose "Pope" encourages apostasy and sin; whose "Cardinals" persecute Tradition, but smile beatifically before a Hindu Pajari giving them "profound sacred (satanic) symbol" on his forehead where only the Cross of Christ should ever be. This thing (a civil war, Steven O'Reilly likes to call it ... he finds it humorous, his words) is visceral. Souls are being lost while we dither and dather about whether this rank heretic apostate is or is not .... Holy Father. Give me a break. I want no part of it.
Canon Law says that any heretic loses the papacy ipso facto. The
declaration would just make it clear to everyone, it wouldn’t be an
efficient cause as to why he lost the papacy.
So we have different possible explanation to why this guy teaches heresy:
- He fell into heresy after being lawfully elected
- His election was invalid because he adhered to formal heresy prior to the conclave
- His election was invalid because the seat is occupied.
- His election was invalid because his conclave had irregularities.
There is evidence for all 4.
So we have different possible explanation to why this guy teaches heresy:
- He fell into heresy after being lawfully elected
- His election was invalid because he adhered to formal heresy prior to the conclave
- His election was invalid because the seat is occupied.
- His election was invalid because his conclave had irregularities.
There is evidence for all 4.
T
I have to go with option 3. And only 3.
Bergoglio and his heresies are a red herring. The irregularities, also red herrings. Option 1, 2 and 4 all assume that a Conclave was authorized and a second occupant legitimate to sit and visibly appear side by side.
THAT is the precedent heresy and the only one that matters. Everything else that has and ever will go wrong flows from that. Heresy is as natural as air in such a deformation at the cornerstone.
How heretical he is (or is not) is not the issue. They could have elected Pope Pius X himself who ruled with equivalent orthodoxy. He still would have been an antipope and equally intolerable.
We have two visible Popes for the first time in 2,000 years. Oh, sure there have been two (+) Popes before ... in competition for the claim of the *sole* occupant of St. Peter's Throne. This is different. By mutual acclaim and acceptance we have two visible Popes, the first of whom failed to resign in accordance with the clear, simple language of Canon Law. There is no legal basis for any of this within Sacred Tradition or Canon Law.
This really has less to do with Bergoglio. More to do with the damaged Papacy itself. They are turning it into a "Synod" before our eyes, and getting us to cooperate with and agree to the transformation.
The heresy that emanates from such a thing? It is a natural byproduct of the infernal attack on the Office itself. We are focused in the heresy. They are building something new. They are going to win, unless we reject this Synodal multi-Pope thing they are creating.
I have to go with option 3. And only 3.
Bergoglio and his heresies are a red herring. The irregularities, also red herrings. Option 1, 2 and 4 all assume that a Conclave was authorized and a second occupant legitimate to sit and visibly appear side by side.
THAT is the precedent heresy and the only one that matters. Everything else that has and ever will go wrong flows from that. Heresy is as natural as air in such a deformation at the cornerstone.
How heretical he is (or is not) is not the issue. They could have elected Pope Pius X himself who ruled with equivalent orthodoxy. He still would have been an antipope and equally intolerable.
We have two visible Popes for the first time in 2,000 years. Oh, sure there have been two (+) Popes before ... in competition for the claim of the *sole* occupant of St. Peter's Throne. This is different. By mutual acclaim and acceptance we have two visible Popes, the first of whom failed to resign in accordance with the clear, simple language of Canon Law. There is no legal basis for any of this within Sacred Tradition or Canon Law.
This really has less to do with Bergoglio. More to do with the damaged Papacy itself. They are turning it into a "Synod" before our eyes, and getting us to cooperate with and agree to the transformation.
The heresy that emanates from such a thing? It is a natural byproduct of the infernal attack on the Office itself. We are focused in the heresy. They are building something new. They are going to win, unless we reject this Synodal multi-Pope thing they are creating.
In support of my comments above, I have read speculation that ill health
will render Bergoglio unable to serve (with his usual flair) and that
he might "retire". "Trads" are hopeful in this and speculate on who
might replace him.
That will give us three visible Popes in the "enclosure of St. Peter" - a contemplative Pope, a merciful Pope and an active Pope.
IOW: a synodal Papacy.
That is a core violation of the Faith; fundamental; fatal.
That will give us three visible Popes in the "enclosure of St. Peter" - a contemplative Pope, a merciful Pope and an active Pope.
IOW: a synodal Papacy.
That is a core violation of the Faith; fundamental; fatal.
From Constantinople II:
“These matters having been treated with thorough-going exactness, we bear in mind what was promised about the holy church and him who said that the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics); we also bear in mind what was prophesied about the church by Hosea when he said, I shall betroth you to me in faithfulness and you shall know the Lord; and we count along with the devil, the father of lies, the uncontrolled tongues of heretics and their heretical writings, together with the heretics themselves who have persisted in their heresy even to death.”
Heresy from the alleged pope is not a red herring. This passage tells us how to understand the promise of Christ. There is a clear opposition between Peter and the death-dealing tongues of heretics. Can the rock on which His Church is built be a heretic?
That someone is a formal heretic prove he can’t be pope, according to dogma. The reason is just investigating why he isn’t the pope.
Canon Law teaches that the superior cannot be judged by the inferior. The reason why authority in the Church can judge that the putative pope fell into heresy is because he already fell outside the Church and hence is nobody’s superior anymore. Pope have to be members of the Church.
“These matters having been treated with thorough-going exactness, we bear in mind what was promised about the holy church and him who said that the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics); we also bear in mind what was prophesied about the church by Hosea when he said, I shall betroth you to me in faithfulness and you shall know the Lord; and we count along with the devil, the father of lies, the uncontrolled tongues of heretics and their heretical writings, together with the heretics themselves who have persisted in their heresy even to death.”
Heresy from the alleged pope is not a red herring. This passage tells us how to understand the promise of Christ. There is a clear opposition between Peter and the death-dealing tongues of heretics. Can the rock on which His Church is built be a heretic?
That someone is a formal heretic prove he can’t be pope, according to dogma. The reason is just investigating why he isn’t the pope.
Canon Law teaches that the superior cannot be judged by the inferior. The reason why authority in the Church can judge that the putative pope fell into heresy is because he already fell outside the Church and hence is nobody’s superior anymore. Pope have to be members of the Church.
T:
Canon Law teaches that you can't have a new Pope until the old Pope has vacated his Office.
We have two Popes.
We are supposed to have but one Pope.
The heresy of the new "Pope" is not relevant as "Papal heresy" because the new "Pope" is no Pope at all.
We have to go back to the beginning, retrace our steps. Benedict is Pope. Bergoglio's heresy is that he has placed himself on St Peter's Throne which is already occupied by another.
The "red herring" is when we judge the heresy of a Pope, as if he had the honor and Divine Office of actually being a Pope. He is as much Pope as I am.
There.Was.No.Conclave - it was illegal since the Seat was and still remains occupied.
Canon Law teaches that you can't have a new Pope until the old Pope has vacated his Office.
We have two Popes.
We are supposed to have but one Pope.
The heresy of the new "Pope" is not relevant as "Papal heresy" because the new "Pope" is no Pope at all.
We have to go back to the beginning, retrace our steps. Benedict is Pope. Bergoglio's heresy is that he has placed himself on St Peter's Throne which is already occupied by another.
The "red herring" is when we judge the heresy of a Pope, as if he had the honor and Divine Office of actually being a Pope. He is as much Pope as I am.
There.Was.No.Conclave - it was illegal since the Seat was and still remains occupied.
T:
And the reason this is important is that everyone seems to be strangely comfortable with this deformation that suggests we can have a stable of Popes, "safely and forever within the enclosure of St. Peter" (Benedict/Ganswein's words). A synodal Papacy.
Put Bergoglio into that stable of retired Popes and most "Trads" would be happy. But it would be even more disastrous than present, because it locks in the "synodal nature" of the Papacy that is a mortal threat to the cornerstone - every Pope in the "stable" offers something new and important to the "Synod of Popes". We have to return to Christ's choice of *one* Monarch in the RCC Monarchy.
The "ontological" reality is that Bergoglio is no Pope. We have to retrace our steps, and start from reality.
And the reason this is important is that everyone seems to be strangely comfortable with this deformation that suggests we can have a stable of Popes, "safely and forever within the enclosure of St. Peter" (Benedict/Ganswein's words). A synodal Papacy.
Put Bergoglio into that stable of retired Popes and most "Trads" would be happy. But it would be even more disastrous than present, because it locks in the "synodal nature" of the Papacy that is a mortal threat to the cornerstone - every Pope in the "stable" offers something new and important to the "Synod of Popes". We have to return to Christ's choice of *one* Monarch in the RCC Monarchy.
The "ontological" reality is that Bergoglio is no Pope. We have to retrace our steps, and start from reality.
T:
As I was thinking about this, another way to say it is like this …
We don’t have a bad Pope that has introduced heresy into the Church.
We have a heretical Papacy (itself) that has opened the gates of the Church to heresy - from the Seat on down.
The original Papal deformation is the crack through which heresy is spreading like cancer.
We have to mend the “crack” introducing pathogens at the source, before we can treat and stop the heresy introduced through it.
The Papal Monarchy has Divine protections, guaranteed by the Church. That is what we have lost, since 2013. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/05/what-can-be-done-if-francis-is-antipope.html]
As I was thinking about this, another way to say it is like this …
We don’t have a bad Pope that has introduced heresy into the Church.
We have a heretical Papacy (itself) that has opened the gates of the Church to heresy - from the Seat on down.
The original Papal deformation is the crack through which heresy is spreading like cancer.
We have to mend the “crack” introducing pathogens at the source, before we can treat and stop the heresy introduced through it.
The Papal Monarchy has Divine protections, guaranteed by the Church. That is what we have lost, since 2013. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/05/what-can-be-done-if-francis-is-antipope.html]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.
This is long before the definition of papal infallibility. The whole “we can’t know unless he teaches ex cathedra” thing is a red herring.