Skip to main content

Ironic: [Francis is definitely the pope] Kennedy Hall @kennedyhall Popesplainers prey on the ignorance of Catholics (and I don't mean intentional or willful ignorance)...

Post

Conversation

Kennedy Hall
@kennedyhall
Popesplainers prey on the ignorance of Catholics (and I don't mean intentional or willful ignorance) For example, they will go after a trad by appealing to some canon from a council, but even councils have context and are directed toward certain realities. In addition, they perform leaps of logic that the average person can't grasp without study. Example, so and so says "that pachamama thing was bad," and the splainer replies "well, that is a heresy to say that because the first see is judged by no one!" See what happened there? No one "judged" the pope in any way that relates to a particular definition, but instead judged an action of the pope as being -- at least in the external -- clearly egregious. Ultimately, the splainers put the pope in a category of man who cannot be judged by reason, as it is an irrational and cultish mindset.
Last edited
4,451
Views

Kennedy Hall
@kennedyhall
This guy masquerades as a traditionalist but he’s just a popesplaining theological nitwit. What an obtuse and ignorant statement. He doesn’t even understand what the word undermine means.
Quote
Catholic Orca🇻🇦
@CatholicOrca
You can’t be catholic and hold to this position. A valid Pope cannot undermine the deposit of the faith
Image
22.3K
Views

Comments

Anonymous said…
All prelates were to recite a mea culpa. All this begins with the expulsion of Benedict XVI from the Chair of St. Peter. Bergoglio assumed the Petrine throne without Petrine munus. He took over alongside a still-living pope who abdicated only the ministry. But that wasn't a substantial mistake. This is where discernment comes in. If there can be no separation of the office from the Petrine ministry, then logic says that there has been a total impediment to the Petrine office against Ratzinger. This is the only way that one understands and makes sense of what Benedict XVI did, because the Code of Canon Law also speaks about this possibility. That is why Universo Dominici Gregis speaks of the necessity of the abdication of canon 332.2. This apostolic constitution is an antidote to usurpation. The legitimate cardinals must recognize the error and analyze it. One should not be taken for excuses and thus cling to the past. They must act today.

Renato
7:30 AM
Anonymous said…
I still don't understand how this is not fideism: the idea that we can only be certain somebody is an antipope if authority says so. I don't understand how such an idea is "traditional": traditional treatises on dogmatic theology do not support it. If they did St Bernard would not be a saint.

People like Father Kramer are in the minority and it just makes you ask if traditional Catholics even know the faith.
7:51 AM
Anonymous said…
The Apostolic Tradition comes from the testimony of the first apostles entrusted by Jesus Christ himself. Today this apostasy has led to another tradition in the Church that is not Christian. It is the same way as exchanging divine commandments for human precepts. Jesus fought Kabbalah, which means tradition. This mentality is Gnostic. It all comes from a pessimistic mentality that says matter is a bad thing. So the other gospel that is occult says that the papacy is evil and so is the divine institution. We must free ourselves from this by seeking a thesis, an antithesis until we arrive at a liberating synthesis. Christ revealed the Gospel through the logos, that is, in the logical way of understanding the truth. It is the opposite of those who seek the irrational path, even though they say they are Catholics. Today there are only two paths in these times. Either the way of good or evil.
8:52 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
3 comments
Read more