"Steven O'Reilly said… Fred, Are you that desperate for blog content that you must continually resort to the combox for it?" vs. "Catholic Monitor said… Steve, That's amusing because I find that Aqua is a better writer in terms of clarity and coming to the point of the argument than you"
Steve,
That's amusing because I find that Aqua is a better writer in terms of clarity and coming to the point of the argument than you. Every now and then you have interesting ideas ("content"), but your writing style reminds me of the sometimes almost unreadable postmodernist's dense prose.
As long time Catholic Monitor readers know many times I post comment section writers because their stuff is just better than what I could write on that particular subject.
By the way, I was a paid journalist for the San Francisco Faith and wrote for NewsMax during the first Sex Abuse Scandal.
Best,
Fred Martinez- The Catholic Monitor comment section [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/aqua-synod-of-popes-those-like-oreilly.html]
That's amusing because I find that Aqua is a better writer in terms of clarity and coming to the point of the argument than you. Every now and then you have interesting ideas ("content"), but your writing style reminds me of the sometimes almost unreadable postmodernist's dense prose.
As long time Catholic Monitor readers know many times I post comment section writers because their stuff is just better than what I could write on that particular subject.
By the way, I was a paid journalist for the San Francisco Faith and wrote for NewsMax during the first Sex Abuse Scandal.
Best,
Fred Martinez- The Catholic Monitor comment section [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/aqua-synod-of-popes-those-like-oreilly.html]
The Catholic Monitor (CM) was honored to have the publisher of .RomaLocutaEst, Steven O’Reilly, who is a former intelligence officer, visit its comment section in which he and the publisher of CM had a back and forth.
I have found O'Reilly's comments interesting and at times amusing, but in the following exchange I needed to explain to him a CM time honored practice "As long time Catholic Monitor readers know many times I post comment section writers because their stuff is just better than what I could write on that particular subject... [by] the way, I was a paid journalist for the San Francisco Faith and wrote for NewsMax during the first Sex Abuse Scandal:
Comments
Fred,
Are you that desperate for blog content that you must continually resort to the combox for it? Really? If you are going to publish such comments as article content, don't you then assume responsibility and liability for that content, and errors in it?
I speak for no one but myself. Mundabor and others can speak for themselves.
Catholic Monitor posts:
"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."
I reply:
Where have I ever "condemned" Bergoglio as a "rank heretic Apostate"? Source please?
My position has been consistent: In my opinion, many valid questions have been raised about Francis, such as in the Open Letter. These should be, and need to be examined by competent Church authorities. I'd like to see an imperfect council look into such questions. Given an imperfect council is a practical improbability, a future pope will need to examine this pontificate, and judge it. That is not my place or anyone else's to judge. Only competent Church authorities can declare the final decision on the question. How does that damage my faith? It is essentially the position Bellarmine's position, i.e., one in which there is no place private judgment in place of the Church's on such a question. I leave it to the Church.
Contrary to this approach, the leading Benepapists have proclaimed a final judgment aside from competent Church authority: "Benedict is definitely still pope" and "Francis is definitely an anti-pope". The leading Benepapists who have already declared a judgment on a question only pope can decide, i.e., rule on the validity of a papal act. On top of that, they try to convince others to accept their judgment as a fact that should be acted upon. For example, there are leading Benepapists who have issued a declaration and petition pledging their fidelity to Benedict as the still reigning pope, and declaring they won't accept a future conclave that fails certain conditions they(!) have set.
Catholic Monitor Posts:
"...All such will never tolerate discussion of the base error: you can't have two visible Popes."
I reply:
This is nonsense. Obviously, one cannot have two REAL popes at the same time. Who is arguing that is possible? Who is arguing one can have "two visible popes" if by this you mean "two real popes"?
Certainly on Roma Locuta Est I have posted a number of articles rejecting the premise that we even have the appearance of "two visible popes." Apparently, you see two guys wearing white and declare 'we can't have two visible pope.' The truth is, Benedict wears a simple white cassock. He no longer wears the mozzetta, or red shoes -- all symbols of papal authority. He does not wear the Fisherman's ring, a symbol of the papal office. The Benepapists don't address these contrary questions with regard to the change in Benedict's attire post resignation.
Benedict is an ex-pope, who decided to continue to wear a simple white cassock -- but without the mozzeta and red shoes to exhibit a distinction to show he is no longer pope. Regarding the honorific, "emeritus" (e.g., see canon 185), i.e., it applies to an office which is 'lost due to resignation.' While c. 185 was not written with the papacy in mind; it seems rather clear Benedict intended "emeritus" in the same sense as c. 185 -- i.e., an honorific for an office LOST DUE TO RESIGNATION. Thus, the very title "emeritus" itself proves Benedict recognizes he lost his office due to his resignation.
So...there is no confusion here...except for those who cannot get beyond the color "white" as trumping all other evidence against their position.
Regards,
Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
Are you that desperate for blog content that you must continually resort to the combox for it? Really? If you are going to publish such comments as article content, don't you then assume responsibility and liability for that content, and errors in it?
I speak for no one but myself. Mundabor and others can speak for themselves.
Catholic Monitor posts:
"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."
I reply:
Where have I ever "condemned" Bergoglio as a "rank heretic Apostate"? Source please?
My position has been consistent: In my opinion, many valid questions have been raised about Francis, such as in the Open Letter. These should be, and need to be examined by competent Church authorities. I'd like to see an imperfect council look into such questions. Given an imperfect council is a practical improbability, a future pope will need to examine this pontificate, and judge it. That is not my place or anyone else's to judge. Only competent Church authorities can declare the final decision on the question. How does that damage my faith? It is essentially the position Bellarmine's position, i.e., one in which there is no place private judgment in place of the Church's on such a question. I leave it to the Church.
Contrary to this approach, the leading Benepapists have proclaimed a final judgment aside from competent Church authority: "Benedict is definitely still pope" and "Francis is definitely an anti-pope". The leading Benepapists who have already declared a judgment on a question only pope can decide, i.e., rule on the validity of a papal act. On top of that, they try to convince others to accept their judgment as a fact that should be acted upon. For example, there are leading Benepapists who have issued a declaration and petition pledging their fidelity to Benedict as the still reigning pope, and declaring they won't accept a future conclave that fails certain conditions they(!) have set.
Catholic Monitor Posts:
"...All such will never tolerate discussion of the base error: you can't have two visible Popes."
I reply:
This is nonsense. Obviously, one cannot have two REAL popes at the same time. Who is arguing that is possible? Who is arguing one can have "two visible popes" if by this you mean "two real popes"?
Certainly on Roma Locuta Est I have posted a number of articles rejecting the premise that we even have the appearance of "two visible popes." Apparently, you see two guys wearing white and declare 'we can't have two visible pope.' The truth is, Benedict wears a simple white cassock. He no longer wears the mozzetta, or red shoes -- all symbols of papal authority. He does not wear the Fisherman's ring, a symbol of the papal office. The Benepapists don't address these contrary questions with regard to the change in Benedict's attire post resignation.
Benedict is an ex-pope, who decided to continue to wear a simple white cassock -- but without the mozzeta and red shoes to exhibit a distinction to show he is no longer pope. Regarding the honorific, "emeritus" (e.g., see canon 185), i.e., it applies to an office which is 'lost due to resignation.' While c. 185 was not written with the papacy in mind; it seems rather clear Benedict intended "emeritus" in the same sense as c. 185 -- i.e., an honorific for an office LOST DUE TO RESIGNATION. Thus, the very title "emeritus" itself proves Benedict recognizes he lost his office due to his resignation.
So...there is no confusion here...except for those who cannot get beyond the color "white" as trumping all other evidence against their position.
Regards,
Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
Steve,
That's amusing because I find that Aqua is a better writer in terms of clarity and coming to the point of the argument than you. Every now and then you have interesting ideas ("content"), but your writing style reminds me of the sometimes almost unreadable postmodernist's dense prose.
As long time Catholic Monitor readers know many times I post comment section writers because their stuff is just better than what I could write on that particular subject.
By the way, I was a paid journalist for the San Francisco Faith and wrote for NewsMax during the first Sex Abuse Scandal.
Best,
Fred Martinez
That's amusing because I find that Aqua is a better writer in terms of clarity and coming to the point of the argument than you. Every now and then you have interesting ideas ("content"), but your writing style reminds me of the sometimes almost unreadable postmodernist's dense prose.
As long time Catholic Monitor readers know many times I post comment section writers because their stuff is just better than what I could write on that particular subject.
By the way, I was a paid journalist for the San Francisco Faith and wrote for NewsMax during the first Sex Abuse Scandal.
Best,
Fred Martinez
" .... except for those who cannot get beyond the color "white" as trumping all other evidence against their position."
Ah, yes. That troublesome white color. Worn by the man who still calls himself Pope. Who poses for Papal photos with the other guy while receiving new Cardinals.
No, I can't get beyond the color.
Nor can I get beyond that little word Munus, curiously absent from his resignation sentence.
Catholics don't do innovation. Innovation is not compatible with the Faith.
Ah, yes. That troublesome white color. Worn by the man who still calls himself Pope. Who poses for Papal photos with the other guy while receiving new Cardinals.
No, I can't get beyond the color.
Nor can I get beyond that little word Munus, curiously absent from his resignation sentence.
Catholics don't do innovation. Innovation is not compatible with the Faith.
PS: One man (only) on earth gets to wear white. It has always been thus.
Fred,
I have never suggested my writing is better than anyone else's, yours or Aqua's or whomever! In terms of writing and reader's opinions, my view on the quality of writing has been the reader's opinion is always right. So, I bow to your opinion of my many, manifest faults.
That said, not sure why you are focused now on writing quality. The point of my comments was neither your writing quality nor your resume, but your propensity to resort to comboxes for content. You continually post from your and other comboxes, using the words of others as your articles. If you want to attack my opinions -- as you seem to want to do, just come out and use your own words, Fred. Don't hide behind Aqua, or Acosta and her ad hominems -- as you did. Say it, man. Have the courage of your convictions. Say it, man. Put your name on it.
But...either way...if you are going to publish it...take the responsibility and liability for what you publish as an article. So, for example, I want to know where I used the term "rank heretic apostate" on my blog, as you published. Link, please?
Also, please...finally respond to the first two of the dubia I submitted on your site. You said you would respond. They are on your site. You know where they are, and what they are. I am certainly not a fan of Skojec nowadays...but I do remember how you harassed him on your site for not answering your dubia. Well, I answered them the same day you asked me to. Please answer mine. Now. Or...admit to a bit of hypocrisy.
Regards,
Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
I have never suggested my writing is better than anyone else's, yours or Aqua's or whomever! In terms of writing and reader's opinions, my view on the quality of writing has been the reader's opinion is always right. So, I bow to your opinion of my many, manifest faults.
That said, not sure why you are focused now on writing quality. The point of my comments was neither your writing quality nor your resume, but your propensity to resort to comboxes for content. You continually post from your and other comboxes, using the words of others as your articles. If you want to attack my opinions -- as you seem to want to do, just come out and use your own words, Fred. Don't hide behind Aqua, or Acosta and her ad hominems -- as you did. Say it, man. Have the courage of your convictions. Say it, man. Put your name on it.
But...either way...if you are going to publish it...take the responsibility and liability for what you publish as an article. So, for example, I want to know where I used the term "rank heretic apostate" on my blog, as you published. Link, please?
Also, please...finally respond to the first two of the dubia I submitted on your site. You said you would respond. They are on your site. You know where they are, and what they are. I am certainly not a fan of Skojec nowadays...but I do remember how you harassed him on your site for not answering your dubia. Well, I answered them the same day you asked me to. Please answer mine. Now. Or...admit to a bit of hypocrisy.
Regards,
Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
Aqua,
He wears white...but he no longer wears the mozetta, or red shoes, or the Fisherman's ring. No answer on that?
Regarding the "munus" that has been answer before:
""ministerium"...can be used for 'office.' That is clear in the latin dictionaries. Secondly, canon 332.2 does not require the word "munus" be used at all. Even Estefania Acosta **admits** this much in her book -- and she is a full blow Benepapist. The ONLY two requirements EXPLICITLY SPECIFIED in canon 332.2 is that the resignation be "Free" and "properly manifested." That is it. Basta cosi. Full stop. The point isn't even debatable. The canon literally says that. Third, Celestine V and Boniface VIII, whence we have the definitive teaching a pope can resign, do not say the word "munus" must be used. Essentially, the teaching is a pope can resign the 'papacy' (see the Liber Sextus). So, any number of words might be used. It is not for you or anyone else to declare what can't be used.
So, contrary to your assertions, there is no set formula, either one necessary word, or necessary phrase. Common sense suggests, it should be obvious that a pope intends to resign the papacy. In that regard, it is impossible to read the Declaratio's key phrase without understanding Benedict is renouncing the papacy. He said he renounced the 'ministry' of the bishop of Rome "in such a way" that the "See of Rome, the See of Peter" would be vacant and a new conclave must be called. What else can be resigned in such a way that the See of Rome, the See of Peter is vacant? Nothing, except the papacy itself. It is clear. It is plain. It is obvious.
However, even *if* we were to entertain the question about the use of 'ministry' it is not for you or I to act on that doubt to affirm the resignation is definitely invalid. Papal acts are not subject to review or appeal, except by a future pope."
God bless,
Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomalocutaEst.com)
He wears white...but he no longer wears the mozetta, or red shoes, or the Fisherman's ring. No answer on that?
Regarding the "munus" that has been answer before:
""ministerium"...can be used for 'office.' That is clear in the latin dictionaries. Secondly, canon 332.2 does not require the word "munus" be used at all. Even Estefania Acosta **admits** this much in her book -- and she is a full blow Benepapist. The ONLY two requirements EXPLICITLY SPECIFIED in canon 332.2 is that the resignation be "Free" and "properly manifested." That is it. Basta cosi. Full stop. The point isn't even debatable. The canon literally says that. Third, Celestine V and Boniface VIII, whence we have the definitive teaching a pope can resign, do not say the word "munus" must be used. Essentially, the teaching is a pope can resign the 'papacy' (see the Liber Sextus). So, any number of words might be used. It is not for you or anyone else to declare what can't be used.
So, contrary to your assertions, there is no set formula, either one necessary word, or necessary phrase. Common sense suggests, it should be obvious that a pope intends to resign the papacy. In that regard, it is impossible to read the Declaratio's key phrase without understanding Benedict is renouncing the papacy. He said he renounced the 'ministry' of the bishop of Rome "in such a way" that the "See of Rome, the See of Peter" would be vacant and a new conclave must be called. What else can be resigned in such a way that the See of Rome, the See of Peter is vacant? Nothing, except the papacy itself. It is clear. It is plain. It is obvious.
However, even *if* we were to entertain the question about the use of 'ministry' it is not for you or I to act on that doubt to affirm the resignation is definitely invalid. Papal acts are not subject to review or appeal, except by a future pope."
God bless,
Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomalocutaEst.com)
All I’m satins is that the formal heresy shows that whoever Bergoglio
is, he’s not the pope. We can argue about why he’s not the pope, but
that fact alone shows he isn't, the denial of which calls Christ a liar.
Unless you say that Christ meant that no one with legal authority would
ever judge the pope to be a heretic.
Steven:
332.2 is a logical progression of "If" and "Then".
*IF* it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his *office* ...
*THEN* ...
Everything hangs on the word Munus.
Munus is who the Pope is.
Ministerium is what the Pope does.
Ministerium is not used interchangeably with Munus in Canon Law. Every sentence in every Canon that describes the nature and facets of Papal authority use Munus. Never Ministerium.
You want them to be =, because your thesis hangs on it. They are not =.
And your thesis is proved false, dangerously false, because the result is an apostate Pope leading the visible Church to commit every possible error starting with the worship of false gods and Idols, and proceeding on to desecrate the Eucharist, admit sodomy into the Priesthood and marriage and officially violate every one of the Ten Commandments.
It is a dumpster fire. THAT is proof that your thesis of Munus = Ministerium is false.
But once again, if you truly believe Bergoglio is valid Holy Father until proven otherwise ... as a Catholic you are required to venerate him and follow where he leads. And IF he is Pope, that should be as easy and natural as taking a breath of air.
It is not. So you won't.
332.2 is a logical progression of "If" and "Then".
*IF* it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his *office* ...
*THEN* ...
Everything hangs on the word Munus.
Munus is who the Pope is.
Ministerium is what the Pope does.
Ministerium is not used interchangeably with Munus in Canon Law. Every sentence in every Canon that describes the nature and facets of Papal authority use Munus. Never Ministerium.
You want them to be =, because your thesis hangs on it. They are not =.
And your thesis is proved false, dangerously false, because the result is an apostate Pope leading the visible Church to commit every possible error starting with the worship of false gods and Idols, and proceeding on to desecrate the Eucharist, admit sodomy into the Priesthood and marriage and officially violate every one of the Ten Commandments.
It is a dumpster fire. THAT is proof that your thesis of Munus = Ministerium is false.
But once again, if you truly believe Bergoglio is valid Holy Father until proven otherwise ... as a Catholic you are required to venerate him and follow where he leads. And IF he is Pope, that should be as easy and natural as taking a breath of air.
It is not. So you won't.
In addition, in reference to Ministerium ...
It doesn't talk about Ministerium in Canon Law because Canon Law does not restrict what a Pope must do in his Munus, Office.
Once in Office, the Pope acts in any variety of ways, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Canon Law does not speak to this relationship of activity. It sets *boundries*, laws that must not be broken, but it does not specify how a Pope will rule, act in his Ministerium to the Church for God.
Canon Law does speak to how a Pope can enter and leave his Office. That law was violated when a simple declarative sentence that could have resigned him from Office, instead just took him out of its administration of "ministry".
One sentence. One word. And now ... the dumpster fire that is consuming our Church shows the result of a choice that led the Church into error under a Pope without Divine Protection of an Office connected to God, its author - an antipope.
And of you think what we see under Bergoglio has any precedent in all recorded Catholic history ... I have no words for that. His is a constant stream of heresy and error and outright Apostasy from God, demanded by the titular but false Vicar of Christ ...
https://www.forhumanfraternity.org/abrahamic-family-house/
It doesn't talk about Ministerium in Canon Law because Canon Law does not restrict what a Pope must do in his Munus, Office.
Once in Office, the Pope acts in any variety of ways, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Canon Law does not speak to this relationship of activity. It sets *boundries*, laws that must not be broken, but it does not specify how a Pope will rule, act in his Ministerium to the Church for God.
Canon Law does speak to how a Pope can enter and leave his Office. That law was violated when a simple declarative sentence that could have resigned him from Office, instead just took him out of its administration of "ministry".
One sentence. One word. And now ... the dumpster fire that is consuming our Church shows the result of a choice that led the Church into error under a Pope without Divine Protection of an Office connected to God, its author - an antipope.
And of you think what we see under Bergoglio has any precedent in all recorded Catholic history ... I have no words for that. His is a constant stream of heresy and error and outright Apostasy from God, demanded by the titular but false Vicar of Christ ...
https://www.forhumanfraternity.org/abrahamic-family-house/
In regards to the Divine protections, codified by Vatican Council I,
reading that you see the same thing - every word of it rests in the
Office of Peter. Line after line after line reference is to Office,
Office, Office. His authority and the Divine connection that renders
protection - for the sake of the Faithful - is in the Office.
Since our souls hang in the balance, under the spiritual leadership of the Pope, it is our Divine *right* to know who the Pope is and whether we are required to folllow one in total submission to ultimate and lawful authority.
And that is why, the only question that should matter: Who.Is.Pope?
I have answered that question for myself, in conscience, after years of prayer, conversations, Confessions etc. And I am now fully comfortable, in conscience, in ignoring every word that comes from the mouth of Bergoglio.
The solution is simple and understandable to any Catholic with a brain and in possession of his senses. The solution doesn't even require the ability to read. The simplest among us can know, MUST KNOW, who is Pope and act in accord with that knowledge.
And that is how I would expect it to go under a just and merciful God who demands obedience to all Truth, but also provides a path to find it ... if we search for it with all our heart.
Since our souls hang in the balance, under the spiritual leadership of the Pope, it is our Divine *right* to know who the Pope is and whether we are required to folllow one in total submission to ultimate and lawful authority.
And that is why, the only question that should matter: Who.Is.Pope?
I have answered that question for myself, in conscience, after years of prayer, conversations, Confessions etc. And I am now fully comfortable, in conscience, in ignoring every word that comes from the mouth of Bergoglio.
The solution is simple and understandable to any Catholic with a brain and in possession of his senses. The solution doesn't even require the ability to read. The simplest among us can know, MUST KNOW, who is Pope and act in accord with that knowledge.
And that is how I would expect it to go under a just and merciful God who demands obedience to all Truth, but also provides a path to find it ... if we search for it with all our heart.
Given all the evidence, especially the pachademon worship and the almost
immediate effects on the entire planet thereafter, aren't enough
"proof" that Bergoglio is NOT the pope....then I don't suppose anything
said to the likes of Mr. O'Reilly will convince them.
As it stands today, a future "pope" from a Bergoglio "pontificate" will only give us Francis II. Something needs to be said and done now, as there seems to be exactly zero Cardinals or bishops willing to act. Heck, Cd. Burke still hasn't done the promised formal correction.
No, Mr. O'Reilly, the people need a Saint right now to help us and that often comes from the laity.
As it stands today, a future "pope" from a Bergoglio "pontificate" will only give us Francis II. Something needs to be said and done now, as there seems to be exactly zero Cardinals or bishops willing to act. Heck, Cd. Burke still hasn't done the promised formal correction.
No, Mr. O'Reilly, the people need a Saint right now to help us and that often comes from the laity.
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-true-meaning-of-bellarmines-ipso.html
-Fred & Aqua need to read this.
-Fred & Aqua need to read this.
@Fred
Your blog is a mess...it needs a major do over. I've had other big name Catholic bloggers personally say to me that your site is a "joke". I don't see a porblem with you as a journalist but it needs a better theme or format.
Your blog is a mess...it needs a major do over. I've had other big name Catholic bloggers personally say to me that your site is a "joke". I don't see a porblem with you as a journalist but it needs a better theme or format.
That is a scuzzy comment. Def: "dirty, shabby, or foul in condition or character." You left a stinky on the carpet. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/aqua-synod-of-popes-those-like-oreilly.html]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.