Here is the Catholic way of looking at this before StR Bellarmine and after: if a pope openly teaches and espouses heresy he ceases to be pope. If this report is true. May God give us truth and the strength to follow it. And may God bless and protect Pope Benedixt XVI.
I think we should allow discussion of whether Francis is truly the pope. That view has been mightily suppressed on this forum with people being kicked off for stating a contrary belief. How does that help us understand the truth? Canon law based arguments have been made by people like Ann Barnhardt, Mark Dougherty, and Professor Mazza that Benedict is still pope and was forced to resign under duress which, according to canon law, makes his resignation invalid. Prof. Mazza's thesis is that God may have wanted Benedict to separate the two roles of the office of Peter from the Bishop of Rome. Maybe we're getting very close to Rome being destroyed. Francis himself said he might very well be the guy to split the Church. Why would he say that?? At least explain how we can have a real pope support gay civil unions? Is it just his private opinion on faith and morals? Yesterday I listened to Tim Staples on Catholic Radio extolling Francis' encylical (Laudato Si??) for stating that these sexual aberrations go against God's natural law and are demonic. This is one more example of Francis talking out of both sides of his mouth. That's something evil -- it's just plain lying.
Please everyone, we need to have level heads and a lot of prayer here. I'd like to suggest two things: 1) Refrain from posting hot takes on this news today and instead pray the rosary and if at all possible hit mass today/tomorrow 2) Do not post anything that would be offensive to the office of the papacy. Regardless of whether we agree with the opinions that come from that chair - we will be judged on our reactions. Honestly, this isn't new and the tactic is the same. Personal opinions that do not change Church teaching. Yes it is appalling, but we all knew that the storm was coming - let's not abandon ship from fear of the waves.
To be charitable,maybe he thinks that espousing gay civil unions protects the sacrament and institution of marriage. Anyway, to suggest that he may not validly be Pope smacks of sedevacantism and there I will not go. The forum is right to suppress talk of sedevacantism. St Ambrose said "..... Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesiam" where Peter is, there be the Church. If there is no Pope then there is no Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church
Here is the apparent context of the Pope's latest remarks: The pope, who early in his papacy made the now-famous "Who am I to judge?" remark about homosexuals trying to live a Christian life, spoke in a section of the film about Andrea Rubera, a gay man who with his partner adopted three children. Mr Rubera said in the film that he went to a morning mass the pope said in his Vatican residence and gave him a letter explaining his situation. He told Francis that he and his partner wanted to bring the children up as Catholics in the local parish but did not want to cause any trauma for the children. It was not clear in which country Mr Rubera lives. He said the pope telephoned him several days later, telling him he thought the letter was "beautiful" and urging the couple to introduce their children to the parish but to be ready for opposition. "His message and his advice was really useful because we did exactly what he told us. It's the third year that they (the children) are on a spiritual path in the parish," Mr Rubera said in the film. "He didn't mention what was his opinion about my family so (I think) he is following the doctrine on this point but the attitude towards people has massively changed," Mr Rubera added.
Pachamama, miss demonic mother earth, is an anti-Blessed Virgin Mary, Most Holy Mother of God. I bet we're very, very close to anti-Christ.
My thoughts too. God's winnowing fan is in his hand. Testing heart and soul. We must never ever say "we choose Barabbas" or worse yet "we have no king but caesar". (Recall these traitorous blasphemous words were shouted by the head of the Church in Christ's time)
This is true Aiden. Let's hope this doesn't rise to the bar of espoused heresy. Way above my pay grade. But sedevacantism is a particular heresy that says we have had no valid pope since Pius XII. There are many times in history when the seat of Peter has been vacant. They are two separate things.
Yes. The equivalent to the Vicar of Christ before Christ established His Church. Saints and theologians have written on this. I am not making something up.
He didn't do a good job in Amoris Laetitia of supporting the Catholic sacrament of marriage. There is no such thing as a 'gay' union. That is an oxymoron. There is neither unitive or procreative aspects to sodomy.
We're not talking sedevacantism if Pope Benedict retains the Petrine ministry. Explain to me how gay civil unions protect the sacrament of marriage one little iota. Maybe it protects it for a few months but Satan's objective is to destroy the Catholic Church and all of its sacraments. An evil compromise won't protect it. By his statements Francis is supporting active homosexuals ,who are extremely perverted, to be legal guardians and parents. THAT IS EVIL.
Jesuits take a vow at ordination never to accept preferment to any position outside the Society unless under obedience to do so. No-one is forced to accept the office of Pope and it is no sin against obedience not to do so. So, is Francis Pope when he took an oath that appears to preclude him from accepting the office? Or is it still Benedict?
You really gotta wonder at this stage. Benedict still hanging on, a worldwide unprecedented coordinated shit show, and of course Francis and his mouth.
We don’t know that. Yet. Only the Church can decide his status, and that will likely be in hindsight, not during his pontificate.
https://onepeterfive.com/pope-francis-comes-out-in-support-of-civil-unions-for-homosexual-couples Pope Francis Comes Out in Support of Civil Unions for Homosexual Couples Steve Skojec October 21, 2020 0 Comments In a new documentary about Pope Francis that premiered in Rome this week, the pope offers new comments, on camera, in support of civil unions for homosexuals. As reported by CNA: “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it,” Pope Francis said in the film, of his approach to pastoral care. After those remarks, and in comments likely to spark controversy among Catholics, Pope Francis weighed in directly on the issue of civil unions for same-sex couples. “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered,” the pope said. “I stood up for that.” […] The film addresses the pastoral outreach of Pope Francis to those who identify as LGBT, including a story of the pontiff encouraging two Italian men in a same-sex relationship to raise their children in their parish church, which, one of the men said, was greatly beneficial to his children. “He didn’t mention what was his opinion on my family. Probably he’s following the doctrine on this point,” the man said, while praising the pope for a disposition and attitude of welcome and encouragement. In a 2003 instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the question of homosexual civil unions, signed by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as prefect and approved of by Pope John Paul II, a view incompatible with that now espoused by Pope Francis is presented: There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”. Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition. […] Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization 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. In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection. [emphasis added] The instruction goes on to assert that even “civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.” It continues: Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good. The CDF further agues that such unions are “are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition,” and that the “inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage”. “By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family,” the instruction states, “the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.” The CDF also asserts that there is a positive duty of opposition to the legalization of homosexual unions, particularly for politicians: If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favor of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications. When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral. Contrast this, again, with the statement of Pope Francis: “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that.” The CDF’s conclusion is nevertheless unequivocal: The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself. Once again, we find Francis promoting error in faith and morals, directly contradicting existing teaching from the Church, and deepening the confusion and chaos suffered by the faithful.
Therefore the question whether he has forfeited the papacy due to persistent manifest heresy is a valid question worthy of deliberation. Sedevacantism is NOT an issue worthy of debate. Whether Pope Francis was ever a validly elected pope is beyond our ability to discern; only the Church is competent to make that declaration. By extension, only the Church is competent to declare Benedict was the “real” pope during the reign of an antipope. We are in NO position to make that declaration ourselves at this point.
