Look at the he bright side. No more hiding . No more guessing. Evil , total evil way out in the open. They head one way. We head the other. Sheep and goats. Bye bye Frankie. It's only a very short matter of time till the plug gets pulled on him. Himself , the Germans , many of the Europeans , thes of Cupich , Tobin and the rest will head of with him to hell. The sheep will still be following the Good Shepherd. Bye, bye Frankie.
'Pope' Francis ' knows this. He knows good Catholics would never go along with such total evil. He and his demonicpals have arranged this. They want schism. They want to go ahead openly with the False Church. They want to dump us.
Brian - https://apnews.com/article/vatican-conservatives-synod-lgbtq-5c6e33d4d45aea1b0b5553d3acc799e1
Down the plug hole.One way or another. I am sure God does not need me to shove him in it. The evil old ..well I'll not use foul language about the ****
I just wishuI could get my hands on him, just for a minute. He'd find out the. what rigid really meant. Just two minutes on my own with him.
I know the Church must ultimately make this determination, but even Vigano just implied his election was invalid, in which case no “judgement” on a “pope” is even necessary: “…this criminal intention emerges from the cunning by which the cardinals who were accomplices to the plot collaborated in deceiving the cardinals who voted in good faith. I wonder, then: are we not in the presence of a defect of consent that affects the validity of the election? Without saying that the very co-presence of a renouncing pope and a reigning pope is already in itself an element that leads us to believe that they had a false concept of the essence of the papacy, considered to be a role that can be shared with others. Let us not forget that the distinction between munus and ministerium is arbitrary and that there cannot be a Pope who dedicates himself to the “ministry of prayer” and another one who governs.”
If that were the case it would explain a lot. I’m still not sure. What if he is a legitimately elected Pope, but an infiltrated communist ?
Clearly a, 'Pope',who teaches arrant heresy and such an abomination is no longer Pope, if in fact he ever was. The See of Peter is clearly vacant. I do not need to be a Cardinal to state this. He has condemned himself. He is abominable. He cannot be Pope. A true shepherd would not lead God's people to hell. He is aneathma. Self condemned by his own words and actions.
It’s not possible to be both. A pope MUST be Catholic. An infiltrated communist is NOT Catholic. Therefore Bergoglio’s election would be null and void. My own mental reservation for years has been that eventually he will be declared by the Church to have been an antipope. It’s increasingly apparent that he was not validly elected, for several reasons, and thus was never a pope in the first place. In which case we don’t need canonical proceedings against him; he just needs to be thrown out on his ear. And this Sinnod is null and void.
History will show it was vacant, period. Even if right this minute, we cannot say so with absolute certainty. Yet I’m morally certain in time he is going to be declared an antipope.
Ok this makes sense to me now. But we are dealing with the present. We have a huge problem. This Pope was elected legitimately, but he’s not Catholic, so it makes him an antipope. We can’t determine this or do anything at all without the Cardinals and Bishops agreeing to oust him. Is that possible? Do we have enough of them to do this?
Unofficial translation of Pope Francis' response to Q2 of Dubia re. Blessings -- a. The Church has a very clear conception of marriage: an exclusive, stable and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the begetting of children. Only this union is called “marriage”. Other forms of union are realized only “in a partial and analogous way” (Amoris laetitia 292), which is why they cannot strictly be called “marriage”. b) It is not a mere question of names, but the reality that we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that demands an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal”. c) For this reason the Church avoids any kind of rite or sacramental that could contradict this conviction and give the impression that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage. d) In dealing with people, however, pastoral charity, which must permeate all our decisions and attitudes, must not be lost. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot become judges who only deny, reject, exclude. e) For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage. Because when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea to be able to Live better, a trust in a Father who can help us to Live better. f) On the other hand, although there are situations that from the objective point of view are not morally acceptable, pastoral charity itself requires us not to treat as “sinners” other people whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors that influence subjective imputability (cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17). g) Decisions which, in certain circumstances, can form part of pastoral prudence, should not necessarily become a norm. That is to say, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and in an official way enable procedures or rites for all kinds of matters, since everything “that which is part of a practical discernment in a particular situation cannot be elevated to the category of a norm”, because this “would give rise to an unbearable casuistry” (Amoris laetitia 304). Canon Law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should the Episcopal Conferences claim to do so with their various documents and protocols, because the life of the Church runs through many channels in addition to the normative ones. Note - Amoris Laetitia bring used to justify thede blessings. I suspect the Pope's response was written by the Pope's right hand man Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández
What is, is. He is not Pope , he is an anti Pope. When this started is a matter for history. I suspect Brian is right and he was never actually Pope in the first place. In either case it is up to the Cardinals and Bishops to set things straight and give us a real Pope.
"In this speech I will not try to give answers, but to pose a question that can no longer be postponed..." —Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, in an address scheduled to be delivered by video link to a Catholic conference meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania yesterday, October 1. However, on his website, Archbishop Viganò writes (link): "This address was prepared in order to be given at the Catholic Identity Conference [October 1, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA]. However, at the last minute, it was 'deleted' from the roster. It is unfortunate that, in the current climate of fear within the Church, the free exchange of ideas and viewpoints is no longer tolerated. Let us pray for the unity of the Church, that unity which can only be grounded in the Truth, who is Jesus Christ." "We must ask ourselves if the 2013 (papal) election was in some way invalidated by a lack of consent; that is, if the one elected wanted to become Pope of the Catholic Church or rather head of what he calls 'our synodal church' – which has nothing to do with the Church of Christ precisely because it stands as something other than it." —Ibid. "I believe... that his (Pope Francis's) acceptance of the papacy is invalidated, because he considers the papacy something other than what it is, like a spouse who gets married in church but excludes the specific purposes of marriage from his intention, thus making the marriage null and void precisely due to his lack of consent." —Ibid. "I would like us to take seriously, very seriously, the possibility that Bergoglio intended to obtain the election by means (of) fraud, and that he intended to abuse the authority of the Roman Pontiff in order to do the exact opposite of what Jesus Christ gave a mandate to Saint Peterand his Successors to do: confirm the faithful in the Catholic Faith, feeding and governing the Flock of the Lord, preaching the Gospel to the nations." —Ibid. "This situation is humanly irremediable, because the forces at play are immense and because the corruption of Authority cannot be healed by those who are subject to it. We must take note that the metastasis of this 'pontificate' originates from the conciliar cancer, from that Vatican II which created the ideological, doctrinal, and disciplinary bases that inevitably had to lead to this point. But how many of my confreres, who also recognize the gravity of the current crisis, have the ability to recognize this causal link between the conciliar revolution and its extreme consequences with Bergoglio?" —Ibid. Letter #132, 2023, Monday, October 2: Viganò For several years, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 82 -- who has come to believe that many of Pope Francis' actions and decisions have been harmful to orthodox Church life and doctrine -- has been seeking an argument to propose to the Church by which the legitimacy of Pope Francis's authority to lead the Church (because it is uncontested Church teaching that the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter, does in fact haveunchallenged and universal authority over the Church) might be brought into question. Now Viganò has set forth, for the first time, a new argument that seems to be the product of some five years of reflection on the complex present situation of the Church, in a world which itself is in rapid transition in so many areas of human life, a world in which various very powerful elites wish the Church to lend her own full support to a complex and in some areas questionable secular agenda called the "great reset." (link) In this context, Viganò prepared and videotaped a talk not only highly critical of Pope Francis (Viganò has been highly critical of Francis for five years now, since his first Testimony dated August 22, 2018, link, in which he called on Francis to resign his office) but which goes beyond his previous critiques to argue that Pope Francis's 2013 acceptance of his election may have been invalid due to a defect in the consent Jorge Mario Bergoglio gave to the College of Cardinals at the moment he was elected as the successor to Pope Benedict XVI on the evening of March 13, 2013. Viganò was to deliver this new talk to a conference of conservative Catholics in the United States: the Catholic Identity Conference, sponsored by The Remant newspaper, meeting in Pittsburg this past weekend (September 30 and October 1st, 2023, link), but his delivery of the talk was canceled at the last minute, he writes on his web site (link). In his prepared talk, Viganò made a series of assertions about the actions and decisions of Pope Francis which Viganò judges to be arbitrary, objectionable and in stark contrast with the lofty duty of the papal office to protect the orthodox teaching of the faith. Viganò then critiqued an argument made by Bishop Athanasius Schneider that the acceptance of Bergoglio's election by the universal Church means that there is no way to challenge the validity of his election. He writes: "Bishop Athanasius Schneidermaintains that any irregularities that may have occurred in the 2013 Conclave have in any case been healed in radice by the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been recognized as Pope by the Cardinal Electors, by the Episcopate, and by the majority of the faithful. Practically speaking, the argument is that, regardless of the events that may have led to the election of a pope – with or without external meddling in it – the Church, practically speaking, places a time limit beyond which it is not possible to challenge an election if the person elected is accepted by the Christian people." It is at this point that Viganò develops his new argument: that when Francis accepted his election on March 123, 2013, he did so (Viganò argues) not to carry out the papal mandate to preserve and protect Church teaching, but to change that teaching in a radical way. He says: "We must ask ourselves if the 2013 election was in some way invalidated by a lack of consent; that is, if the one elected wanted to become Pope of the Catholic Church or rather head of what he calls 'our synodal church' – which has nothing to do with the Church of Christ precisely because it stands as something other than it." And this is Viganò's conclusion: "So here I am, throwing the proverbial stone into the pond. I would like us to take seriously, very seriously, the possibility that Bergoglio intended to obtain the election by means (of) fraud, and that he intended to abuse the authority of the Roman Pontiff in order to do the exact opposite of what Jesus Christ gave a mandate to Saint Peter and his Successors to do: confirm the faithful in the Catholic Faith, feeding and governing the Flock of the Lord, preaching the Gospel to the nations."
