It appears to me that O'Reilly is Francis-like in saying he opposes Francis, but almost always opposes those who oppose Francis
It appears to me that O'Reilly is Francis-like in saying he opposes Francis, but almost always opposes those who oppose Francis
Pope Francis' new cardinal pick has a horrifying record on ...standby.lifesitenews.com
About - Roma Locuta Estromalocutaest.com
Fred Martinez said...
Steve,
Why are you so obsessed with Francis being
infallibly definitely the pope to the point you are a afraid of
cardinals and bishops correcting your definitively non-heretical Francis
on "communion for adulterers" which apparently may be the opposite of
your position maybe if Aqua is reading you right and now you are
apparently defending his "communion for adulterers" new cardinals? Would
you love Pope Mcelroy as much as you love Francis? Would you be against
correcting a future Pope Mcelroy? Would you be against correcting a
future Pope James Martin? Would you love Pope James Martin as much as
you love Francis?
LifeSiteNew: "But the Pope’s most radical
[cardinal] pick is Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego, known to faithful
Catholics as arguably the most pro-homosexual, left-wing prelate in the
United States.
In recent years, McElroy has sparked outrage for
celebrating “LGBT Masses,” rebuking the Church’s position on homosexual
acts, urging Catholic funeral rites for active homosexuals, and throwing
his support behind dissident Jesuit Fr. James Martin while blasting
conservatives’ “destructive” attitudes on sexuality... And on clerical
sex abuse, even liberal activists are raising the alarm about his
history."
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/pope-francis-newest-us-cardinal-has-a-horrifying-record-on-homosexuality-and-abortion/]
Aqua said it best on your never ending positions and questions:
Steve said: "there is nothing ambiguous about my position on communion for adulterers."
There is nothing ambiguous in Bishop of Rome Bergoglio's position, either.
Unfortunately for your position, you and and your Pope are on opposite sides ... as you are on almost every issue that matters.
Great,
that you believe Communion for adulterers is a grave sin. The Pope who
you follow wants you to change that view; HAS ALREADY, in fact, changed
that view in his parallel church. So, that's a dilemma for you, as it is
for everyone similarly deceived.
Aqua said…
Steven said:
"Further, your question about the Ten Commandments is insane. These are
God's commandments. They are absolutely true, and apply in all
circumstances."
Again, as I pointed out above, the Bishop you
accept as Pope disagrees with you and has struck at the heart of every
single Commandment in quantifiable ways.
Wonderful, that you
accept the Commandments. As you infer, it's inconceivable that anyone
could even ask such a question of another Catholic. However ..... The
Pope" is, in fact, leading the Church to reject these Commandments -
every single one.
In this way, the standard of unity has become
the vector of schism which is one of many proofs the second man in the
two-headed Papacy is no Pope.
What is insane is insisting on the
Divinely binding nature of the 10 Commandments while also insisting on a
"Vicar of Christ", a "Pope", who insists on violating the 10
Commandments.
Schizophrenia def: "a long-term mental disorder of a
type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion,
and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and
feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into
fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation." ... I think
it fits. There is a disconnect between what you SAY, and what IS ... a
very common malady these days.
Best,
Fred - The Catholic Monitor comment section
The Catholic Monitor has had a very interesting conversation over the past few days with blogger and former intelligence officer
Steven O'Reilly on if Francis is infallibly definitely the pope and on both his as well as Francis's position on Communion for adulterers. Here is the comment section threat for the post The Catholic Monitor asks Steven O'Reilly: "Is Communion for Adulterers 'Explicitly a Here[sy]'? Answer: Yes or No" & "Are the Ten Commandments Infallible Catholic Dogma?:
- T said...
Ah, the cognitive dissonance of finding yourself in the end times and finding out those ridiculed as conspiracy theorists were right.
-
Anonymous said...
@Fred
O'Reilly has never said that Amoris Letitia is a good encyclical...
Of course communion should not be given out to adulterers...this is the resist part of recognizing and resisting teachings that clearly do not align with past teachings of the church. It's not a "gotacha!' moment against O'Reilly because O'Reilly is not a cheerleader for Francis, like Tim Staples is...
-
Aqua said...
Anonymous 4:26
How can you *not* be a "cheerleader" for the Pope, if you are a Roman Catholic? That seems fundamental.
If he's the Pope, why not ... work for his success, glean nuggets of spiritual wisdom from his sayings, find ways to apply his Encyclicals in your personal and Parish life, study his writings, make pilgrimages to see him in person, purchase and display an Amazon Pachamama on uyour mantle, eliminate all divisive elements of Tradition from your home and family life, help to make sure his Pontificate is a roaring success?
"Not a cheerleader".
"Clearly don't align".
"Recognize and resist".
"Of course you don't do what the Pope clearly said we should do".
Strange Pope you have there. Strange relationship, also, between the Shepherd and Flock.
"Not a cheerleader": one of the many inconsistencies of the Frannypapist (hat tip SO'R).
-
Aqua said...
Heavy emphasis on *if*.
-
Debbie said...
Please forgive me, I've just returned from an evening out which included adult beverages...but I cannot reconcile the push for ecumenism by all the post conciliar popes,most especially with JPII and Benedict. Obviously "Francis" is beyond anything the others have done, but why is the modernist errors of the last two valid popes overlooked? I, as an Apostolic Catholic am forbidden from worshipping in and with non-Catholic churches (at least traditionally it's been forbidden)....and yet the last two popes did just that. What am I missing?
-
Anonymous said...
As a Catholic, I tolerate Francis out of obedience to the validly elected pontiff until he's a declared heretic...I'm not getting a pachamama statue, I'd toss it in the local river if one ever got gifted to me...his conclave didn't get challenged by a single Cardinal.
It's like when you have an awful President like Biden, you just endure the tough years and hope the next successor is better...
-
Catholic Monitor said...
Debbie,
Buy the book "The Great Facade" by the historian Thomas Woods and Ferrara for an in-depth answer to your some of your questions.
-
T said...
I just know that to be say sedevacantism is true you have to say the Church lost the mark of apostolocity. None of those bishops were sent by the pope, but they just took the office. They could rectify this situation by calling a conclave, but it clarify they don’t have true. So if neither recognize and resist or sedevacantism are compatible with Catholicism, there must be a third option to explain Francis.
I now think evil penetrated the Church in the 1960s and most popes have been practical prisoners surrounded by evil men. Benedict tried to flee, and Francis was “elected” to finish the job of destroying the Church.
To put tha capstone on the counter church they are trying to scare away serious Catholics, who are at loss to explain what’s going, or make them become sedevaacsntists, which has the appearance of being the true traditional position, but contradicts things like apostolocity.
-
Aqua said...
Debbie
I agree with T.
The 2nd edition of Fred’s book recommendation has six additional chapters and includes the latest on Bergoglio. It does seem to address your (legitimate) concerns. It’s expensive, but I’m getting a copy, I think.
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Façade-Novelty-Catholic-Vatican/dp/1621381498/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=278T7ZOOAJTVR&keywords=the+great+facade+ferrara&qid=1654344977&sprefix=the+great+faca%2Caps%2C103&sr=8-1
-
Debbie said...
Fred and Aqua, I looked up The Great Facade and did see the second edition has the extra chapters. Right now I am being very cautious with money. And seeing as I am not a fan of Francis is definitely pope, Ferrara, not overly enthused in his spin on things. Fatima.org has scrubbed all mention of Fr. Gruner's belief in BiP (which I'm sure you're aware). I'd be more interested in the first edition to ensure the 2nd hasn't any "revisions" to the 1st. Just my thoughts.
I know I am waffling back and forth, and do not like it....but boy, it's getting really difficult. Just when I believe the sedes are correct, something happens to make me doubt. Today's incident was at Mass. My favorite canon offered a High Mass for First Saturday. As he was processing to the Altar it struck me how humble and good a priest he is, so much so it made me tear up....the sedes, I believe would say he's not a valid priest and I reject that. Yet, all the "errors" from ALL the post conciliar popes up to and including BXVI scream NOT Catholic.
This is why I've repeatedly asked that the likes of Ann, Mark, Super Nerd and another (who is sympathetic to the sede position) to do the round table as mentioned on Ann's last podcast. Basically, I want a good solid argument on why the sedevacantist position is wrong.
-
Aqua said...
Debbie,
What is the Sede position, as you understand it? What is it that you find compelling?
-
Debbie said...
Aqua, All the post conciliar popes were (still are?) modernists, including Benedict. How does this square with the Petrine Promise? I, like you did the Protestant thing and find the ecumenism from especially JPII, but Benedict too very problematic. How do we convince a prot the need to convert while our highest authority (the number two reason for most converts after Eucharist) demonstrate otherwise? Other than point them to tradition and pretty much ignore all post VII teaching....it's nearly impossible. Show them the need for authority, yet ignore said authority? How does that work?
-
Aqua said...
Debbie,
In regards to the Sede being Vacante, I need solid proof as to when, where and how. That's a big claim. I don't reject it out of hand - I just need solid proof that an invalid election gave us an antipope; and/or a valid Pope committed heresy such that he was ontologically deprived of Office. And then .... we're no valid elections accomplished since then, after the deprived Pope died? Is the Apostolic Line broken. If so, how and through whom will it ever be re-established?
IOW, in my understanding of the Sede position it is *extremely* hopeless. It can't explain how we got in, how we survive now (Sacraments please?) how we recover and emerge.
SSPX position is that tremendous deviations have occurred, and they remain faithful to the Church that transcends the moment. They accept my position, "I am not required to name the Pope, but only to submit to the 'Papacy'". And they allow me to receive the Sacraments. So I return the favor with tolerance for their position - not essential to agree on the name of the Pope to be a Catholic in good standing.
The alternative is ... what? "Where else would I go? She (Holy Mother Church) has the words of eternal life".
-
Aqua said...
I wrote my response prior to reading yours. It is not directly related - indirectly. In answer to your base question, there really is no satisfactory answer. We are being chastised - what else can we expect, right? I will stay as close to Jesus, Mary, the RCC as I possibly can. I will not Sede and separate, absent firm convincing proof. God gave us a "way out" of our trial when Arbp LeFebvre chose white martyrdom for the sake of the Faitnful *to come* (me, you). I choose his path. I will do what he did. I will follow his Society's Priests of Tradition.
-
Anonymous said...
Steve O'Reilly asks Catholic Monitor to answer the first of two Dubia directed at Fred Martinez...
...weeks later...
Fred Martinez still hasn't responded...
Regards,
Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaest.com)
-
Fred Martinez said...
https://www.thefredmartinezreport.com/2022/06/fred-martinezs-answers-to-steven-oreilly.html
-
Fred Martinez said...
Fred Martinez, again, asks O'Reilly:
"Is Communion for adulterers 'explicitly a here[sy]'? Answer: yes or no"
The Catholic Monitor, also, asks O'Reilly a question it asked Ed Condon, Phil Lawler, and Jimmy Akin on May 03, 2019 :
"Are the Ten Commandments infallible Catholic dogma?
Best,
Fred
-
Anonymous said...
@aqua
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-ordinary-mission-of-sspx-john.html
As far as sedevacantism goes...Lefebvre never said it's impossible, just hadn't been proven.
Fr. VF said...Well, ackshually, the Ten Commandments aren't "infallible dogma," or any kind of dogma. They are mandates and prohibitions. A "dogma" is a proposition stating a fact.
The Ten Commandments and other mandates and prohibitions are authoritative, and the Magisterium infallibly defines them as authoritative or binding on the conscience. Thus, the denial that they are authoritative is heretical.
The moral mandate to deny Holy Communion to obstinate, manifest doers of grave sin goes back to St. Paul. It is the constant practice of the Church, and it is expressed explicitly in Canon 915. It was mandated in the 1917 Code and previous canon law. Calling for the violation of Canon 915 is heretical.
Bergoglio has refused, for more than 2000 days, to respond to the dubia. He is overtly, obstinately promoting bishops who have vociferously advocated the violation of Canon 915. It is clear that Bergoglio is a heretic.
Thus, it is clear, whether or not he ever was pope, that he is not pope now.
-
Steven O'Reilly said...
Fred,
You didn't answer my questions. You dodged them.
Yes or no.
You answered the first..." I can't answer that until I clearly see what Dr. Mazza's answer is to your above statements and check if they are accurate or inaccurate."
That is insufficient, and actually baloney. It is clear from Coffin's interview of Dr. Mazza what he said, and I've quoted Ratzinger at length. It is clear Dr. Mazza misread Ratzinger.
So...give us a clear answer. You don't need to go running to Dr. Mazza.
Further...I have asked you 2 dubia thus far. As I noted a few weeks ago...I had at that point answered six questions of yours. So...I have four more to go.
Questions #3: Is Benedict still pope? Yes or no.
Regards,
Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
-
Steven O'Reilly said...
Fred,
oh...though I do not owe you any answers...there is nothing ambiguous about my position on communion for adulterers. Not sure why you are trying to play a "gotcha" game here. I've provided an answer already, and further more, it is clear in my critique of Stephen Walford's book in three parts:
https://romalocutaest.com/2018/10/08/the-errors-of-mr-walfords-pope-francis-the-family-and-divorce/
https://romalocutaest.com/2018/10/19/part-ii-the-development-of-mr-walfords-errors/
https://romalocutaest.com/2018/11/13/part-iii-mr-walford-and-the-magisterium/
Further, your question about the Ten Commandments is insane. These are God's commandments. They are absolutely true, and apply in all circumstances. I have no where cast any doubt upon them. Do you even take the time to read the views of those you seem to want to criticize? Again, what craziness possesses you to even ask such bizarre questions? Are you simply argumentative?
So...you've dodged on two of the six Dubia you owe me.
Here is Dubia #3: Is Benedict definitely, 100% still pope? Yes or no.
Regards,
Steven O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
-
Steven O'Reilly said...
Fred,
again...regarding Dr. Mazza's representations of Ratzinger. He knows I've rebutted him. He has not provided a rebuttal. I think we know why.
Regardless...I am asking YOUR view of Dr. Mazza's citation of Ratzinger. Did he accurately and fairly quote Ratzinger in both places? Yes or no. You don't need to run to Dr. Mazza. I am interested you to apply some critical thinking of your own to this question. So you cannot duck the question. It is straightforward. Yes or no, Fred?
Regards,
Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
-
Steven O'Reilly said...
Fred,
I also have to ask. Why are you posting your answers to my questions for you on a different site..."TheFredMartinezReport"? The debate is on this site. Here is where I posted my questions for you...and you continue to post question to me here. So, why you switching only now that you are being asked questions? Seems kinda weird, Fred. Explain.
Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
-
Aqua said...
Steve said: "there is nothing ambiguous about my position on communion for adulterers."
There is nothing ambiguous in Bishop of Rome Bergoglio's position, either.
Unfortunately for your position, you and and your Pope are on opposite sides ... as you are on almost every issue that matters.
Great, that you believe Communion for adulterers is a grave sin. The Pope who you follow wants you to change that view; HAS ALREADY, in fact, changed that view in his parallel church. So, that's a dilemma for you, as it is for everyone similarly deceived.
-
Aqua said...
Steven said: "Further, your question about the Ten Commandments is insane. These are God's commandments. They are absolutely true, and apply in all circumstances."
Again, as I pointed out above, the Bishop you accept as Pope disagrees with you and has struck at the heart of every single Commandment in quantifiable ways.
Wonderful, that you accept the Commandments. As you infer, it's inconceivable that anyone could even ask such a question of another Catholic. However ..... The Pope" is, in fact, leading the Church to reject these Commandments - every single one.
In this way, the standard of unity has become the vector of schism which is one of many proofs the second man in the two-headed Papacy is no Pope.
What is insane is insisting on the Divinely binding nature of the 10 Commandments while also insisting on a "Vicar of Christ", a "Pope", who insists on violating the 10 Commandments.
Schizophrenia def: "a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation." ... I think it fits. There is a disconnect between what you SAY, and what IS ... a very common malady these days.
-
Aqua said...
Fr. VF said: "... the Ten Commandments aren't "infallible dogma," or any kind of dogma. They are mandates and prohibitions. A "dogma" is a proposition stating a fact."
"Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation. All dogmas, therefore, are formally revealed truths and promulgated as such by the Church. they are revealed either in Scripture or tradition, either explicitly (as the Incarnation) or implicitly (as the Assumption). Moreover, their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation. They may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner, as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception, or in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life. (Etym. Latin dogma; from Greek dogma, declaration, decree.)" (Fr. John Hardon def)
Based on the above definition, I see the 10 Commandments as *both*.
Mandates and prohibitions.
- Also -
"Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation ... formally revealed truth .... revealed in Scripture or tradition, explicitly (as the Incarnation) ...".
-
Fred Martinez said...
Steve,
Thanks for the laugh.
"Steven O'Reilly [the dodger who didn't answer my questions with a yes or no] said…
Fred,
You didn't answer my questions. You dodged them.Yes or no."
Best,
Fred
-
Aqua said...
Affixing a name or label to a thing (such as "Pope", as one of many current examples - there are legion these days), does not always make the thing that name, that label. It does if the name or label is ontologically true. But true requires more than merely wishful thinking.
Our Judge will give each of us a name on that dreadful day of final judgement - and there is no hiding from THAT Truth. It will precisely define who.we.are.
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/108/166/699/original/fd64f81151f55fee.jpeg
-
Fred Martinez said...
Steve,
A writer friend of mine who has written for a Catholic newspaper and was a conservative talk radio co-host said the following:
"As I mentioned before, I always considered O'Reilly a reasonable man, even when I disagreed with him."
"If he persists in advancing the groundless notion that he himself has effectively rebutted the Mazza Thesis, in toto or even in any of its significant aspects, I will be obliged to revise my opinion of O'Reilly accordingly."
Best,
Fred
-
Aqua said...
Anonymous 7:37 said: "Francis teaching error, you and I are not obliged to adhere to anything that he teaches that is contradicting the deposit of faith."
You are correct - I am not obliged to adhere to anything that contradicts the Deposit of Faith - do you see *Pope Emeritus* anywhere within the Deposit of Faith? Because ... I do not.
I don't see Popes Emeritus there, "remaining firmly and forever within the enclosure of St. Peter" with others. And so, as you suggest I ignore it.
Pope Benedict XVI reigns.
I will continue to monitor the dumpster fire of Bergoglio's anti-church, and those unfortunates who follow him. It is quite a sight, the destruction under this man, and the ignorance of those who choose to follow him into the chaos of the burning.
-
Aqua said...
Funny ... the comment at 7:37 was there when I started writing and it was gone by the time I was done.
Methinks the author of this blog, Mr. Martinez, has had enough of the gaslighting.
Kudos to you, sir, for your blog and continued efforts in support of the Catholic Faith. A very, very interesting conversation over the past few days (at least to me).
-
Steven O'Reilly said...
Fred,
Hearsay, Fred. Like I am really quaking in my boots that an unnamed friend of yours actually agrees with you. Surprise. Surprise. Does that really sound like a convincing argument, Fred? Shall I quote what my friends think about you? What does that prove?
The reality is...neither you...nor your conservative 'friend'...have provided an analysis and defense of Dr. Mazza's citation of Ratzinger versus what Ratzinger *actually* said. My article provides precise details.
https://romalocutaest.com/2022/04/22/a-closer-look-at-mr-coffins-evidence-dr-mazzas-thesis-3-0/
That is what is missing. Perhaps you and your conservative 'friend' can get together and actually look at the evidence and provide an answer. In fact...why don't you ask your readers to help you? The link is above. Dr. Mazza made his comments publicly. I provide a full citation of Ratzinger. Let's see if anyone steps up and actually attempts to address the question at hand. Your silence is deafening, Fred. If your friends wants to join in...please invite him.
If not, I will have to assume you and your conservative 'friend' don't know what they are talking about. Sounds like bloviating.
Regards,
Steven O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
-
Aqua said...
Steven said: "My article provides precise details."
Your articles actually provide your opinions about details.
Munus = Ministerium is not an example of precision. "We know what he meant to say" - not an example of precision. Those are interpretations that fit your premise. Opinions, IOW.
-
Steven O'Reilly said...
Fred,
I don't think you answered my third Dubia to you (I expanded it).
Questions #3: Is Benedict still pope, and if so, should Catholic rejects the results of any conclave in which cardinals appointed by Francis participate? Yes or no.
Regards,
Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
-
Fred Martinez said...
Steve,
Why are you so obsessed with Francis being infallibly definitely the pope to the point you are a afraid of cardinals and bishops correcting your definitively non-heretical Francis on "communion for adulterers" which apparently may be the opposite of your position maybe if Aqua is reading you right and now you are apparently defending his "communion for adulterers" new cardinals? Would you love Pope Mcelroy as much as you love Francis? Would you be against correcting a future Pope Mcelroy? Would you be against correcting a future Pope James Martin? Would you love Pope James Martin as much as you love Francis?
LifeSiteNew: "But the Pope’s most radical [cardinal] pick is Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego, known to faithful Catholics as arguably the most pro-homosexual, left-wing prelate in the United States.
In recent years, McElroy has sparked outrage for celebrating “LGBT Masses,” rebuking the Church’s position on homosexual acts, urging Catholic funeral rites for active homosexuals, and throwing his support behind dissident Jesuit Fr. James Martin while blasting conservatives’ “destructive” attitudes on sexuality... And on clerical sex abuse, even liberal activists are raising the alarm about his history." [https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/pope-francis-newest-us-cardinal-has-a-horrifying-record-on-homosexuality-and-abortion/]
Aqua said it best on your never ending positions and questions:
Steve said: "there is nothing ambiguous about my position on communion for adulterers."
There is nothing ambiguous in Bishop of Rome Bergoglio's position, either.
Unfortunately for your position, you and and your Pope are on opposite sides ... as you are on almost every issue that matters.
Great, that you believe Communion for adulterers is a grave sin. The Pope who you follow wants you to change that view; HAS ALREADY, in fact, changed that view in his parallel church. So, that's a dilemma for you, as it is for everyone similarly deceived.
Aqua said…
Steven said: "Further, your question about the Ten Commandments is insane. These are God's commandments. They are absolutely true, and apply in all circumstances."
Again, as I pointed out above, the Bishop you accept as Pope disagrees with you and has struck at the heart of every single Commandment in quantifiable ways.
Wonderful, that you accept the Commandments. As you infer, it's inconceivable that anyone could even ask such a question of another Catholic. However ..... The Pope" is, in fact, leading the Church to reject these Commandments - every single one.
In this way, the standard of unity has become the vector of schism which is one of many proofs the second man in the two-headed Papacy is no Pope.
What is insane is insisting on the Divinely binding nature of the 10 Commandments while also insisting on a "Vicar of Christ", a "Pope", who insists on violating the 10 Commandments.
Schizophrenia def: "a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation." ... I think it fits. There is a disconnect between what you SAY, and what IS ... a very common malady these days.
Best,
Fred [https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=22704303&postID=9153504351151037182&page=1&token=1654525590368]Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.
Fred,
you've admitted you know I have supported both a correction of Francis regarding Amoris Laetitia, as well as an imperfect council to examine various Francis-related issues.
Consequently, you've essentially admitted your headline is a lie.
Regards.
Steven O'Reilly