Thursday, June 06, 2019

5 Dubia Questions for 1P5's Steve Skojec

Here are five really short and easy to answer dubia questions which hopefully aren't too complicated for Steve Skojec, publisher of the One Peter Five website, to answer.

To make it really easy for the publisher of One Peter Five it has been formatted so that he only has to answer: yes or no.

1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said "The Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See." Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.

2. "Universal Acceptance" theologian John of St. Thomas said "This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff." Was John of St. Thomas for saying "the supreme pontiff" must be BOTH "lawfully elected and accepted by the Church" a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.

3. Do you think that a "supreme pontiff" if "universally accepted" is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on "dubious election[s]", that he is "a woman... a child... a demented person... a heretic... a apostate... [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law"? Answer: yes or no.

4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:

"But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses... A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."

Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or Benevacantists? Answer: yes or no.

5. Is Bishop Gracida really only a pawn of the legendary and notorious "Sedevacantist and Benevacantist" mastermind Ann Barnhardt for convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II's conclave constitution "Universi Dominici Gregis" which "prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)" was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no.

Please feel free to answer these dubia questions in any manner you decide, Mr. Skojec, except for the following ways:

1. Do not answer the dubia questions by posting a comment in the Catholic Monitor comment section because you are banned until you allow a free forum for debate on these dubia questions on the One Peter Five comment section.

If you attempt to post on the Catholic Monitor comment section before you allow a free forum at your website your post will be deleted.

2. Do not answer the dubia questions by emailing the publisher of the Catholic Monitor until you allow a free forum for debate on these dubia questions on the One Peter Five comment section.

If you attempt to email me before allowing a free forum at your website your email will be deleted and unread.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

94 comments:

  1. Excellent proposal to mandate that Skojec stop banning legitimate arguments to his patchwork of concocted half-baked excuses on his 1P5 threads. We all know that he's afraid of the "marketing" damage that will cause to the credibility of his "brand name"

    Thank you Fred.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I used to enjoy 1P5, but SK went off the deep end, and now I recommend folks in my circle to avoid him. If 1P5 goes under, the decent writers who post on his site will find other venues for their articles.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am banned at 1P5, apparently because of my comments on one of their hatchet jobs on Ann Barnhardt. No one, not Skojec, not Marshall, no one, has dealt with the evidence Barnhardt has presented that Ratzinger comes from an intellectual current that holds that the papacy is a ministry that could and should be exercised by multiple persons. I.e., It makes perfect sense that Ratzinger never resigned the office of the papacy.

    We live in a time when only about ten American bishops are not routinely committing the mortal sin of giving out Communion in violation of Canon 915. The moral and intellectual putrefaction is unfathomable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Skojec couldn't ban me, because I quit.

      Delete
  4. Fred: Your attempt to engage the Holy Skojec of God is both commendable and brave, but my guess is you'll get no answer at all, which is a win-win for Skojec. Silence will send the message that your "silly antics" are beneath him while hiding the truth that he has no answers, just smartass smack talk. If you do get an answer from the Delphic Oracle, it will probably take the form of some Barbara Streisand about how clever you must think you are "stacking the deck" by offering him a choice of only yes or no answers, thereby setting up a "false dichotomy" that he is far to clever to fall for. Then he'll tell you he doesn't bother to engage in pointless arguments about implausible hypotheticals. Yadda yadda yadda.

    Skojec is a disappointingly ordinary caricature of himself who's gotten his internet tit caught in a ringer backing the wrong horse (Bergoglio) and now has no choice but to triple down on ad hominem vituperations that divert attention away from his lack of probity. I stopped bothering with 1P5 months ago when he started tossing his toys out of the pram over those who wished to opine over the Barnhardt Thesis in his combox. It was clear to me then that he was more interested in fostering a cult of personality centered on him than he was in providing a venue for respectable debate over serious issues affecting the Church. Anyway, I will be interested to see what actually happens, and kudos for trying.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Paul Muessig said "It was clear to me then that he was more interested in fostering a cult of personality centered on him than he was in providing a venue for respectable debate over serious issues affecting the Church."

    Bingo! And that is the real problem with Skojec: His entire Catholic "marketing" platform is really all about him. Skojec is fascinated with Skojec. He has a very high opinion of himself. And if you read his convoluted bio - you would be forgiven if you came away thinking he was the most fascinating talented Renaissance man in the whole world. Why, he's done it all! And he was a master at all of it!

    But the cold reality is - Skojec's never had a real job. His main "talent" is to talk endlessly and with absolute confidence in every assertion that pops into his self-absorbed mind. And of course - none of this would be worth it for him if he didn't have the endless praises of his little tongue-bathing sycophant lackeys in his com-boxes. Of course, after he ban-hammers all of the serious opposition to his endless bullshit - those are the only category of commenters who are left.

    And yes, Ann Barnhardt's thesis did a real number on Know-it-all-Stevie. And Skojec's real fear - is that Ann got it right - while he missed it all - and THAT hurts the credibility of his "brand name" - which is exactly why he has nothing to offer but snarky-ass ad-hominem punk-talk for anyone who attempts to seriously broach the topic with him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not only his fear of the Barnhardt thesis which drives him, but the out and out lies his good friend Hilary White feeds him about Ann.

      Everything Hilary said about Ann in Steve's infamous FB post last December was clearly projection.

      Steve and Hilary need our prayers.....desperately.

      Delete
    2. Yes, yes and yes, Debbie.

      Delete
  6. I was banned yesterday from making any further comments, under the name Johannes Rambonus, on the IP5 site under “The Hemlock Self-Prescribed” article for getting too real about the perfidious Jews. They've since deleted my first comment, but not the ensuing back and forth with several sadly Judaized readers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. emeritus (adj.)
    c. 1600, from Latin emeritus "veteran soldier who has served his time," noun use of adjective meaning literally "that has finished work, past service," past participle of emerere "serve out, complete one's service," from assimilated form of ex "out" (see ex-) + merere "to serve, earn," from PIE root *(s)mer- (2) "to get a share of something." First used of retired professors 1794 in American English.


    So, yes, Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger has finished his reign/vocation/job/duties etc as Pope. He is no longer Pope but Bullets seizes on Emeritus as though it substantiates her claim rather then rendering it absurd.

    But, the Bishop of Rome is Pope. Bullets seems blithely unaware that it is the Bishop of Rome who has Jurisdiction - That is Francis - and there is No Ministry without Jurisdiction.

    Bullets Barnhardt is not a Canon Lawyer but her private judgment opinion that Francis isn't Pope but Benedict XVI is still Pope because substantial error is a popular, and insane, position especially when one considers that is not the position of Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, a Canon Law expert and the former Prefect of The Supreme Tribunal of The Apostolic Signature) and one of the Cardinals who submitted The Dubia to Pope Francis.

    Hmmm, Bullets Barnhardt or Cardinal Burke, one wonders whom to trust on this spurious claim?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BVII still gives papal blessings, still meets with the Cardinals along with Franky, still writes papal letters, still resides in Vatican City, still refers to himself as Pope - now explain how that is NOT actively performing the ministry of the papal office, and then cite for me any other example of such a novelty in Church history.

      Delete
    2. @ABS: Some of us in the ranks of the Church Militant prefer to call her General B, but 'Bullets' could be her nickname. Have you read Br. Bugnolo's manuscript? I might have missed it, but I have yet to see Gen B. speak of the three Latin scholars that he mentions in his first two pages. Those scholars included Prof Enrico Radaelli who published his misgivings about the implications of the errors (he doesn't call them substantial) on Feb 18, 2013. I find it most revealing that each of these scholars' public statements came out before February 2013 had ended that is before the Cardinals' "retreat" in March of 2013. In other words, there was public recognition of error in BXVI's Non solum propter before there was Fauxp Francis.

      Delete
    3. ABS....not exactly. Feb 2019 Lifesite interview of Cardinal Burke regarding the validity of BXVI resignation reads thusly: "I believe it would be difficult to say it’s not valid.”

      Delete
  8. Thank you, Mr. Martinez. Your "Dubia Five" cleared up a couple of points about U and PA that were cloudy. As a Catholic who accepts "ALL the truths that the Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou hast revealed them Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived", I have thought that the "U and PA" argument kinda left me in the dust--like "voluntarily" having to pay my taxes. It seems like the "best and brightest" keep on insisting that I have to peacefully accept the unreasonable and unacceptable simply because my "betters" have done so. Based on the clear and present evidence of General Barnhardt (Was St Joan of Arc ever elevated to that rank?) and Br. Bugnolo, I cannot twist my brain into the necessary pretzel. I just can't do it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. has dealt with the evidence Barnhardt has presented that Ratzinger comes from an intellectual current that holds that the papacy is a ministry that could and should be exercised by multiple persons. I.e., It makes perfect sense that Ratzinger never resigned the office of the papacy.


    Yes, it has been dealt with which is prolly why Bullets is not writing about it anymore.

    Roma Locuta Eat Causa finita est made the sensible observation that Cardinal Ratzinger was not writing his personal approval of those claims but rather he was just presenting the claims of others.

    There has been no evidence - zilch - that was/is a position held by Cardinal Ratzinger

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mr. O'Reilly has answered all of the accusations advanced by Bullets Barnhardt in this post which has several internal links addressing all of her, and Brother B's claims

    https://romalocutaest.com/2019/05/03/the-testimony-of-a-former-benevacantist/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ABS: I have conversed with Mr. O'Reilly in his combox. As the author of the letter at the link you gave attests, he is indeed a gentleman. However, neither the author of the letter nor Mr. O'Reilly address the facts that Br. Bugnolo has investigated regarding the mistranslation of Canon 332.2 in the German section at the Vatican's Canon Law archives, Prof Radaelli's supplication to BXVI's and the other Latin scholars' public statements regarding the ministerium vs munus error as well as other textual errors, OR the fact that (whatever the Oxford Latin Dictionary states) within the text of Canon Law itself, ministerium and munus are never interchanged. These are points that Br. Bugnolo covers in detail at FromRome blog. Perhaps you were unaware of his investigations and explications. https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/04/11/investigating-the-causes-of-pope-benedicts-invalid-abdication/

      Delete
  11. Regarding Fr. F's comment above...I do not believe it fair to say Ratzinger -- as a theologian or as anything else -- "comes from an intellectual current" that suggests the papacy can be bifurcated, etc. That is beyond a stretch, in my opinion. I think it unfair to Ratzinger to suggest it. https://romalocutaest.com/2019/01/15/benedict-is-still-not-pope-and-other-errors/

    I have yet to see any evidence produced by anyone thus far that suggests that Ratzinger ever wrote, edited or actually supported any theological opinion that suggests anything of the sort he is alleged by BiP-ers to have done in his resignation, namely bifurcate the papacy.

    What's more, even if one such opinion should ever be produced from some dusty German theological magazine of the 60s or 70s, that still does not solve the problem for the BiP theorist. Before Celestine V resigned he taught such a thing (i.e, a papal resignation is possible). Benedict XVI, as is known, looked to Celestine's example for his own resignation before doing it. Does anyone really think that BXVI -- a great theologian, a former Prefect of the CDF -- would have resigned in an unprecedented way (i.e., bifurcated), confronting the Church with a multi-headed hydra without first formally teaching a bifurcated papacy to even be possible? (Note: aside from that, what is the motive for doing so, when the precedent of a straightforward resignation was before him. It doesn't make any sense).

    I think the suggestion he would or could do so is improbable on its face. On top of that, we have his BXVI's rejection of the notion in his own words ("absurd"), and we have his uncontested letters to Brandmuller calling himself a "former pope".

    If Pope Francis is not a valid pope--and I am open to evidence--the cause is not to be found in Benedict's resignation.

    Regards,

    SO'R

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Mr. O'Reilly: What is your opinion of Prof Radaelli's Feb 28th supplication to Pope Benedict in which he "beg[ged] him to withdraw the resignation, because, inasmuch as it was done in a secular fashion, it would result in the consequent election of an Anti-Pope. His article was entitled: Perché Papa Ratzinger-Benedetto XVI dovrebbe ritirare le sue dimissioni: non è ancora tempo per un nuovo papa, perché sarebbe quello di un Anti-Papa" (from page one of Br. Bugnolo's manuscript)? On the same page, Br. Bugnolo notes that "Flavien Blanchon, a French journalist working at Rome, writing only 2 days afterwards [Feb 13, 2013], cited an eminent Latin scholar who pointed out errors in the text of abdication, and who noted that the presence of any error, according to canonical tradition, was held to be a sign of lack of deliberation, rendering the act null and void. These errors in the Latin were also reported by Luciano Canfora, Corriere della Serra, Feb. 12, 2013, p. 17."

      It is clear that these errors have to do with the "juridical validity" of which Msgr Bux called for an examination. These errors do not call into account a possible split papacy as theorized about in "some dusty German theological magazine of the 60s or 70s." These errors were publicly noted within days of BXVI's announcement and had nought to do with the fundamental transformation of the Divinely instituted papal monarchy but rather discovering from what exactly--munus or ministerium--Pope Benedict said he was resigning.

      I apologize if you have already addressed these facts of the Latin scholars' public statements at your blog or elsewhere. If so, please direct me to your previous comments. Thank you.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  12. Dear Islam... Yeah, ABS read it when he ws still a subscriber of his blog.

    Other than trying to avoid taxes, just try to unsubscribe from his blog

    About ten different attempts were made - and not just in one week - before ABS was liberated :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ABS: Oh, that was you in the combox. I remember it well.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  13. Amateur Brain Surgeon said "Roma Locuta Eat Causa finita est made the sensible observation that Cardinal Ratzinger was not writing his personal approval of those claims but rather he was just presenting the claims of others."

    Allow me to inject some simple commonsense into that assertion:

    Did Ratzinger offer a critique of those claims? Did he in any way state that they were invalid? If not, then the most logical explanation for him to take the time and trouble of presenting them was to give his tacit approval of the claims. Yes?

    Or would you seriously have us all believe that the always scholarly, always pointed, always purposeful Ratzinger just simply took the time and trouble to present such a controversial novelty - nay - heresy - with no opinion or implied point whatsoever, to simply "present" them for the sheer sake of...presenting them?

    And that squares in your mind with Ratzinger's character?

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ Steven O'Reilly do you agree with Skojec that a future Council could find Francis guilty of heresy?

    ReplyDelete
  15. @ Steven O'Reilly

    The former Celestine V reverted back to his birth name of Pietro Angelerio. To my knowledge he never again referred to himself as Pope or Celestine in any capacity. Is this correct? And did he ever reside in Vatican City after his resignation? Or give papal blessings? Of sit in papal garb alongside Pope Boniface while receiving new cardinals? Or issue new "papal" writings?

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Lazarus...I think I've stated on my blog (and twitter) that I think it a certainty that a future pope (and possibly w/ a council) will need - at least - to declare Francis guilty of favoring heresy, as was the case with Honorius with regard to the 6th Ecumenical Council and Pope St. Leo II. The case against Francis will be a slam dunk. If not, someone needs to apologize to Honorius.

    Regarding formal heresy, the problem is he expresses himself (intentionally, I believe) in ambiguous terms - as we all know, probably to evade an outright charge of formal heresy from a prelate. He did approve the Buenos Aires guidelines, but even 'supporters' of Francis and AL have different opinions of what that even means (see https://romalocutaest.com/2019/03/01/confusion-at-vatican-insider/). So, oddly enough, I would not be surprised if Francis might evade "formal heresy" while some of his supporters don't -- as some of them have climbed further out on the proverbial limb than he has, and been much more explicit about it than he.

    That said, I think the Open Letter make a strong case for formal heresy, which if not taken up now, will be by a future Pope and council. Can't say how they'd rule...but..."favoring heresy", at a minimum, seems to me to be a slam dunk.

    As an aside, a future pope could also take up the question of any irregularities in PF's election, e.g., UDG violations. Who knows what else may come to light between now and then.

    Regards,

    SO'R

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where negative precepts of the natural moral law are concerned, ambiguity is heresy.

      If a teaching is clear, in other words, contradiction consists precisely in muddying the waters.

      Let's say a woman asks her philandering husband: "Have you been unfaithful to me?" and he answers, "Of course not! I haven't slept with every other woman on the face of the Earth!"

      This answer of his would be ridiculous, because in order to be unfaithful, all he has to do is sleep with one other woman. An exception suffices.

      In the same way, for Jorge Bergoglio to qualify as a formal heretic, he doesn't have to affirm that EVERY divorced-and-remarried-without-benefit-of-an-annulmemt Catholic can receive Holy Communion. It is heretical enough to hold that any one of them (without a commitment to living as brother and sister) could. That is something he has affirmed not only in AL Chapter 8 but ubiquitously.

      The opposite of NEVER isn't necessarily ALWAYS. The opposite of NEVER,in this case, is EVER. Bergoglio needs to be held accountable for his ambiguity, not excused on the basis of it.

      That Communion for the improperly disposed is possible rather than impossible constitutes an intolerable assertion in and of itself.

      Delete
  17. Why can't we simply say at this stage of the game that the status of Pope Francis is uncertain. Accordingly, all of his actions of any sort should be disregarded until proven otherwise. Accordingly, Pope Francis should be designated as Pope (?) Francis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Micheal Dowd: I doubt that this can be solved in the way that you suggest. My doubt comes from St. Ambrose' statement, "Where Peter is, there is the Church." Our question in this regard is WHO is Peter? My gut tells me that "to BiP or not to BiP" is THE "Operation of Error": "And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity." (2 Thess 10:11) Just putting a question mark regarding Francis does not suffice. The error must be recognized and dealt with or the lying will continue.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  18. @lazarus,

    regarding the name, title, clothing choices, etc., of Benedict post-resignation, I don't defend him. It's true. It is confusing. His reasoning behind doing it is beyond weak. It really makes no sense. But, even adding that all up, it doesn't make the case he is still pope.

    My theory is, after seeing JPII's decline up close, and the danger of a debilitated papacy, he wanted to set an example and make it "easier" for future popes after him to resign -- because he thought they should instead of lingering like JP II. So, he wanted to show life won't be 'all that bad,' e.g., not having to live in a small cell in some mountaintop monastery, receive guests, etc. IDK...just a guess. I can certainly be dead wrong.

    But, regardless, he said in his resignation the See of Peter would be vacant. A vacant see does not have anyone in it. No person. No person with a munus. No person with a ministerium. Vuota. Empty.

    Regards,

    SO'R


    ReplyDelete
  19. @ABS: I have looked for Br. Bugnolo's manuscript at FromRome and I do not find it there. The only place online that I have founds it is here. https://www.ppbxvi.org/quaestio-English.pdf Did you read this?

    ReplyDelete
  20. @islam_is_islam,

    I'd have to read the articles in question to express an opinion on them. With regard to the presence of an "any error" invalidating the whole thing, I leave that to the canonists. As an aside, most documents written by men, I'd venture, have errors of varying degrees in them, of one kind or another, grammatical to substantive. So, if the canon rule is as you say, I'd want to know in what sense is it meant and applied.

    That aside though, the canon dealing with papal resignation does not require a specific formula, so I don't see that there is a ruler against which BXVI's resignation can be applied to detect a substantive error. I am going by memory now, but I think the papal resignation canon basically only says it must be "sufficiently" clear. At its core, it seems quite evident to me that it is "sufficiently" clear. BXVI said the See of Peter would be vacant. A vacant See of Peter means no pope. So, I don't think we even need to get into the munus vs. ministerium...but I believe I've seen Benedict cited (I believe by Steve Skojec on twitter) where he uses munus and ministerium in a similar fashion. I'd have to check for the citation.

    The point is though -- it is "sufficiently" clear. If you don't think it is sufficiently clear he wanted to resign, what do you think Benedict XVI was trying to do?

    BiP doesn't add up, IMHO.

    Regards,

    SO'R




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. O'Reilly: Thank you for your reply, as always I respect your input. You and others have made it clear that BiP doesn't add up in your opinions. Perhaps it is over the top but it seems to me that this opinion you all cling to may be THE "operation of error" that is described by St Paul in 2 Thess 2:10-11.

      You would agree that opinions while based on facts are just that--opinions. Your opinion that "the canon dealing with papal resignation (332.2) does not require a specific formula" is factually shown to be incorrect not only by Br. Bugnolo but also by Fr. Stefano Violi and at least one other of whom I am aware at this time. The footnotes in Br. Bugnolo's manuscript include citations/links for the Latin scholars' articles/statements in question which you have not yet read as well as Fr. Violi's canonical discussion of the renunciation, The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI Between History, Law and Conscience which you may have read.

      This is the point then: In all, because the resignation is a matter of juridical validity based on a juridical formula, it is sufficiently clear that according to the law itself--WHATEVER Pope Benedict's intention--according to his own words, it is a black-and-white fact that he resigned from the ministerium not the munus. It is indeed this juridical semantic "meat" that is at the heart of the juridical matter because the See of Peter--the office--was not empty and thus could not be filled.

      And the situation is a mess with only one way forward (as General B has explained): "declare Bergoglio antipope, forcibly remove him, and then WAIT FOR POPE BENEDICT XVI TO DIE. If a conclave were to be called after the removal of Bergoglio, but before the death of Pope Benedict, the man “elected” at that conclave would be every bit as much an antipope as Bergoglio, no matter how orthodox he might be. The only way to be certain that this mess is cleared up is to wait for Pope Benedict XVI to die. This was what The Church did after the resignation of Pope Gregory XII, and this was how the Great Western Schism was ended." (Answer to Question 25: What is the path forward barring supernatural intervention?)

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  21. Steven O'Reilly said... "regarding the name, title, clothing choices, etc., of Benedict post-resignation, I don't defend him. It's true. It is confusing. His reasoning behind doing it is beyond weak. It really makes no sense. But, even adding that all up, it doesn't make the case he is still pope."

    On the contrary - all of those actions (either separately - but even more so as a collective paradigm) ARE in fact, a defacto execution of the *ministry* of the Papal Office - yes?

    And if not - then feel free to cite for me any pope who has omitted those actions from his papal duties.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Steven O'Reilly said... "That said, I think the Open Letter make a strong case for formal heresy, which if not taken up now, will be by a future Pope and council. Can't say how they'd rule...but..."favoring heresy", at a minimum, seems to me to be a slam dunk."

    Then in that case, a future Pope or Council will decree that Bergoglio had either lost the Petrine Office - OR never licitly occupied it

    - which effectively means that he currently (in our real time at this moment in history) is NOT the pope. And since you are adamant that BXVI is no longer the pope - then the Chair is by all definitions - Vacant - according to your own thesis yes?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Steven O'Reilly said "My theory is, after seeing JPII's decline up close, and the danger of a debilitated papacy, he wanted to set an example and make it "easier" for future popes after him to resign -- because he thought they should instead of lingering like JP II."

    Danger of a debilitated papacy? But the Petrine Office is supposed to be Divinely protected - yes? So exactly what is this "danger"?

    And how in the world is it supposed to be a significant improvement to elect an 80 some year old?

    BTW - BXVI is still lucid - even Bergoglio recently stated that fact - so in what way exactly was he (or IS he) unable to fulfill his pontifical duties?

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I is I. --

    Thanks for responding. I see the uncertainty idea as an established fact. Who, after all that has happened, can be certain PF is actually a legitimate Pope. Anyway this is my rationale for rejecting all that comes from the Vatican, and has come, since PF usurped the office of Pope.

    Beyond that I reject the entire College of Cardinals Papal electoral process as corrupt. It would be as if a President was elected by the Senate and he got to dismiss and appoint all the electors. The governance process needs to be changed. perhaps all the Bishops should vote and have impeachment rights over the Pope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Michael Dowd: You are welcome. It seems to me that your choice to reject corruption in all its forms is in line with the instruction to us all to choose LIFE. I wonder if you might consider a different question than, "Who, after all that has happened, can be certain PF is actually a legitimate Pope?" since that question seems to justify "fence sitters" AND doesn't address what initiated PF.

      Perhaps the more precise two-part question to ask is the one that can be and has been answered with juridical certainty; namely, According to his own freely given words, from what did Pope Benedict resign AND how do those words which are plain for all to see and judge measure up to the juridical formula given in Canon 332.2?

      It is clear and certain that the answer to this two-part question allows for no fence sitting because it addresses "ground zero"--the choice where "all that has happened" started.

      Delete
  26. @ Steven O’Reilly: “”If you don’t think it is sufficiently clear he wanted to resign ... then what do you think Benedict XVI was trying to do?”

    He *is* trying to alter the intrinsic nature of the Cornerstone of the Church itself. Nothing less than that.

    It is clear he did *not* properly manifest resignation (Canon 332.2) ... Manifest = Clear or obvious to the eye or mind. I see it. I hear it. Clearly.

    It is also clear the resignation *was* made in substantial error (Canon 188) ... Substantial Error = Expanded, shared “Petrine Ministry”.

    Neither of these Canons depend upon Conclaves or votes from Cardinals to be triggered: “... but not that it be accepted by anyone”; “... invalid by the law itself”. It is, as they say, what it is.

    It is obvious he is still there. It is obvious they have expanded the “Petrine Ministry” (previously known as the Papacy) to include more than one participant. No Catholic is bound to accept such an arrangement regardless of whether faithless Cardinals rule or not. We are bound by Dogma and Sacred Tradition, not the words and actions of living heretics. And that means one visible Pope.

    The resignation was invalid. The Seat remains occupied by Benedict XVI. He cannot share it. He cannot remain in prayer and contemplation while another performs the active duties of Office and governance. A future Pope cannot delegate *additional* duties (!) to additional Emeritus Popes. One Pope. A Monarchy. A King cannot retire and share the Throne. He is deposed or he abdicates in shame or he reigns til death.

    This is the gravest error in the history of the Church. It is imposed upon the Faithful by an obviously perverted Hierarchy to our spiritual doom. We must stand firm in Christ and the long line of Saints with Him and insist the Papacy still is as Christ established just prior to His Ascension. No Emeritus. No shared Ministry. No prayer and contemplation reserved and separate. No multiple visible Popes living in the Vatican.

    We live in a time of spiritual crisis. It is what we have been given. We must act, decide, and will be judged on whether we participate in this madness or resist in the name of Dogmatic Truth.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Looks like our friend Steven O'Reilly has taken a timely exit from this thread after some rather simple, pointed, common sense questions based upon observable reality were presented in contrast to his unstable thesis. And yet, he seems to have spent the rest of the evening over on Twitter echoing his faulty premise like a passionate mantra while carefully avoiding any of the salient contradictions that were presented to him here. And yet, somehow, WE'RE the crazy ones who are avoiding reality? Mr O'Reilly sees no "evidence" for a very good reason - he knows how to selectively focus his myopic thesis from fallacy to blindness. And THIS sort of disingenuous intellectual dishonesty is precisely why the self-appointed experts are only as relevant as their personal pride allows them to be. Objective reality is not impressed with scholarly achievements and academic prizes. And neither is Our Lord. "By their fruits you WILL know them"

    ReplyDelete
  28. ABS....not exactly. Feb 2019 Lifesite interview of Cardinal Burke regarding the validity of BXVI resignation reads thusly: "I believe it would be difficult to say it’s not valid.”

    The use of the passive voice by this prelate is intended to pour rhetorical oil on the roiling schismatic seas

    ReplyDelete
  29. IF BISP, then why, in addition to wearing white, calling himself Pope Emeritus, giving apostolic blessings (if all of that is true) then that is active ministry so why doesn't he pen and promulgate encyclicals , create new Cardinals etc?

    The idea of an Old Popes Home in Rome is amusing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you mean "if" that is true? Do you live in some alternate universe of reality? Are you suggesting that those well documented *facts* are somehow a matter of opinion and not objective reality? We can all see the evidence that he IS doing these things - yes? So the burden of explanation is on you to explain how these things *AREN'T" a de facto execution of his papal ministry. And if you're really this perplexed about the disconnect between his words and his actions - then why not entertain the probable (nay definite) possibility that someone in authority is simply.... LYING?

      Delete
  30. I am continually amazed that anyone in the English speaking world pays any attention to opinions of those who neither read Latin nor have studied Canon Law, but are very willing to blog about their own ignorance and insist anyone who disagrees with them is crazy. In my book, its such men who are loons. I think the doctors of the Church and the Fathers of the Church would agree with me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Br. Bugnolo: What a blessing to have you chime in! I hope you are healing from your recent altercation with Customs. I pray for you daily. Thank you again for your diligence and sacrifices.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  31. Amateur Brain Surgeon said..."then that is active ministry so why doesn't he pen and promulgate encyclicals , create new Cardinals etc?"

    It looks like an intellectual goalpost has been not-so-subtly moved here:

    So now we've gone from an obvious de facto execution of papal ministries - to an all-or-nothing standard that somehow validates or denies this objective reality?

    Tell me - what part of "bifurcated" seems to be eluding you?

    ReplyDelete
  32. @Alexis Bugnolo:

    Are you saying that only the learned theologians with credentials can have and state opinions about their faith; defend their faith to the best of each of our own abilities?

    If so, I disagree. Strongly.

    That does not match the tenor or nature of Christ’s life on earth in which the learned and credentialed tried to kill Jesus and succeeded. Christ gave the Keys of His Church to fishermen and the foolish; unwashed outcasts they were. Not a credential among them.

    The learned and theologians are the ones who gave us unwashed simpletons a bifurcated Papacy and who now allow sodomites into communion. They all have their learned reasons. They do not have Faith.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Alexis Bugnolo said...

    "I am continually amazed that anyone in the English speaking world pays any attention to opinions of those who neither read Latin nor have studied Canon Law, but are very willing to blog about their own ignorance and insist anyone who disagrees with them is crazy. In my book, its such men who are loons. I think the doctors of the Church and the Fathers of the Church would agree with me."



    Ah yes - only the Catholic pharisees are qualified to discern Truth. LOL

    Actually - Our Lord clearly indicated that the lowly faithful (in their humility) would possess the intellect of their humility to plainly recognize False Teachers. And Our Lord stressed ACTIONS - not endless piles of words and endless rationalizations that allow these arrogant blind guides to strain at a gnat as they gladly swallow the camel of Hell's minions infesting the Bride of Christ at the highest levels:

    "By their fruits you WILL know them" ~ Matthew 7:16

    BTW - show me in Canon Law (or better yet - Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition) where a pope can "retire" - retain his Papal Name, papal garb, reside in Vatican City , give papal blessings, meet with new Cardinals as "pope", and construct papal writings. Because thus far I've yet to find any such novelty.

    Oh and also - since post Vacuum II - cite for me the individuals who have actually been charged with heresy according to *modern* Canon Law. Because it is obvious that current Canon Law exists only to make sure its own ambiguity makes it virtually impossible that anyone should ever be identified as an actual heretic unless we are able to read the heart (ie mind) of the heretic.

    Oh and this same Modernist Canon Law has also allowed the Pharisees to once again parse out new and evermore lenient divorce decrees in direct contradiction of Our Lord's blunt commands in the Gospels when He last confronted these Pharisaic hirelings.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ad hominems are easy, when you take part of what is said and insist it's all that it is said. It's easy to argue like that, but its childish. A statement with a subordinate condition is meant only with that condition.

    ReplyDelete
  35. ell me - what part of "bifurcated" seems to be eluding you?

    The part that constitutes the whole.

    He clearly resigned the papacy and the entire church accepted both the abdication of Benedict XVI and the election of Francis.

    Now, well after a year (remember Fr Z had changed his Brick By Brick Bund title to "Reading Benedict through Francis before he changed it back to Fr Z's Blog?) some folks became upset (rightly so) at the praxis and prose of the Pope and so ways began to be explored to claim Francis wasn't Pope.

    Now, one supposes that despite his repeated public claims he freely resigned and is no longer Pope or part-Pope, Benedict really has been running a double secret pretend scam on everyone that includes a flight from the Vatican on a helicopter, publicly congratulating Francis on his election as Pope etc etc etc but such a scenario seems more fitting for a Lifetime Movie Network Special than real life.

    The situation reminds ABS of "The Point" in which one character observes; You see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear.

    One reads The New Testament and discovers that when men have disagreements over this and that, they bring it to the Church to decide (Matt 18) because it has the authority to decide just what is what because (John 10) there is aught but one church and one shepherd

    Now, to the Benevacantists and Schismatics, ABS says Good luck with getting The Church to agree with your claims because, long ago, The Barque sailed on that situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He clearly resigned the papacy and the entire church accepted both the abdication of Benedict XVI and the election of Francis."

      If Benedict truly holds to the erroneous bifurcated-expanded papacy thesis, or even if he only held it at the time of his resignation and has since abandoned it, then in fact Benedict himself does not accept his own resignation or the election of Bergoglio, because he himself denies that he has fully resigned the papacy and denies that Bergoglio has been fully elected to the papacy, at least in the Catholic and orthodox sense. Therefore, your "universal acceptance" objection would be rendered entirely moot, since the Pope himself does not accept it!

      Delete
  36. @ Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

    (tell me - what part of "bifurcated" seems to be eluding you?)

    "The part that constitutes the whole.

    He clearly resigned the papacy and the entire church accepted both the abdication of Benedict XVI and the election of Francis."



    "The part that constitutes the whole"? What does that even mean?

    And if BXVI "clearly resigned" - then why is he still referring to himself as "pope", and still performing papal ministries, still dressing in papal garb, still wearing the papal ring, still living in Vatican City, still giving papal blessings, still meeting with new Cardinals, and still crafting papal writings?

    And I'll ask you this again - HOW exactly is that NOT performing papal ministries?

    And how can that by any stretch of the imagination constitute "resigning" the office completely and in full?

    Or are you seriously suggesting that his mere words can alter the reality of those actions into some magical alternate "reality"....?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Amateur Brain Surgeon said.. "Now, to the Benevacantists and Schismatics, ABS says Good luck with getting The Church to agree with your claims because, long ago, The Barque sailed on that situation."

    Oh, you mean the same Church that foisted the current Heretic from Hell to the Chair of Peter - as your own thesis asserts? That Church?

    The same Homo-Sodomite infested Perv-Church that is currently involved in an unprecedented world wide criminal investigation of pederasty, blackmail, money laundering, criminal framing, career coercion, possible murders, and the endless promtotion of the LGBTXWZ agenda?

    Is that the pristine scandal-free conspiracy-free on-the-level above board "Church" you're referring to?

    Because yeah - it would be just "cwazy" to suggest that that rotten institution would ever hatch a diabolical plot like a bifurcated papacy. Right?

    Tell me again about the Clerics who openly campaigned for Bergoglio. Tell me about Jorge's ruthless persecution of anyone who dares to cross him. Tell me again how BXVI and Bergoglio BOTH DIDN'T KNOW about McCarrick's long entrenched boy raping industry.

    And then I have a bridge to sell you.

    ReplyDelete
  38. @ Alexis Bugnolo:

    “Pay no attention to those who do not read Latin or have studied Canon Law. They are ignorant. They are loons. Doctors and Fathers of the Church all agree with me.”

    Well, as I said before, what matters more than brains is faith; grace.

    I just want an answer for why I must accept Emeritus Popes. That’s all. I don’t claim to be as smart as you. I do know in my simplicity that this is new and without support. Catholics don’t really do innovation and revolution in my understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  39. We are wasting time with Skojec. Let him hold to his opinion.

    Instead, dubia should be presented to Benedict to answer.

    Nobody is doing this. Nobody is asking Benedict.

    Just present this to Benedict, openly, in a forum he cannot ignore and must come out to our faces in the public and answer in a press conference once and for all.

    Dubia to Benedict

    1 - Can only one man possess the office of the Pope?
    Answer: yes or no.

    2 - Can the Papacy be an office shared by more than 1 member?
    Answer: yes or no.

    3 - Can the munus of the Papacy be split into active and inactive components?
    Answer: yes or no.

    4 - Do you believe an inactive or contemplative or retired member therefore still possesses any function or part or portion of the office of the Papacy?
    Answer: yes or no.

    5 - Do you deny (insert various infallible council definitions of the nature of the Papal office) that state all of the above are impossible and formally heretical?
    Answer: yes or no.

    Probably Benedict should have his butt dragged out before a public inquisition and drilled by lawyers and reporters in more detail, allowed no room to escape. Heck, I'm sure even Steve Skojec will be delighted to be there to get the truth out of him if Skojec is so sure.

    And no, we don't want any bogus press releases from the Vatican. Those morons can't be trusted. And for any idiot claiming that Benedict called doubting his resignation "absurd", all we have is a bloody selective quotation, much like his denial of ever having revealed the 3rd Secret of Fatima concerning Vatican II to his friend, whom Skojec reported on, and was then sent an unsigned press release denial. Heck, even if we take the "absurd" statement at face value, it still doesn't answer the question. Nobody denies that Benedict thinks himself 'retired', we want to know what all that funny business regarding retaining the munus and remaining in the enclave of Peter in some new way is all about. Because regardless of what Fatima-cover-upper Benedict feels, if he thinks he can retire based on erroneous grounds, then we have a very big heresy to define in the future to which we'll gladly attach his name to his everlasting shame for eternity. So he needs to clarify and stop playing dress-up. There is no reason whatsoever to trust Benedict given his cover-up of Fatima and his numerous contradictions regarding the 3rd Secret that give Francis a run for his Vigano.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dear Lazaruss. There is only one church and it is the one you clearly despise.

    That leaves you where?

    ReplyDelete
  41. @ Aqua, you are correct. Benedict him called it a novelty his is last General Audience 27 Feb 2013: “I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty.” Ganswein stated that Benedict’s action was nothing like previous papal resignations, and even compared his decision to the Immaculate Conception. I’m not even kidding. https://nonvenipacem.com/2018/12/09/was-the-immaculate-conception-a-proxy-for-the-expanded-petrine-ministryarchbishop-ganswein-thinks-so/

    ReplyDelete
  42. Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

    Dear Lazaruss. There is only one church and it is the one you clearly despise.

    That leaves you where?"


    Uhm - aren't you the same guy who openly despises Bergoglio the heretic whom you claim is the real Pope?

    And don't you also adhere to the inane self-defeating thesis of the other FrankyPapists (Skojec,O'Reilly, etc) that some future pope or Council could declare Bergoglio to be a heretic - which would effectively mean he has *currently* LOST the Chair -IF he ever had it licitly?

    And wouldn't that also mean that the Chair is ipso facto VACANT RIGHT NOW since you also hold that BXVI has completely retired his entire Papal Office?

    And are you seriously denying the accuracy of all of the documented corruption in the Church that I cited?

    Tell me ABS - HOW exactly (in what way) are you fully submitting yourself to your Antipope Franky as the true and Supreme pontiff of your faith?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Mark Docherty said...

    ".....Ganswein stated that Benedict’s action was nothing like previous papal resignations, and even compared his decision to the Immaculate Conception. I’m not even kidding." https://nonvenipacem.com/2018/12/09/was-the-immaculate-conception-a-proxy-for-the-expanded-petrine-ministryarchbishop-ganswein-thinks-so/


    Good God - how many heresies are packed into THAT little farcical gem of a statement by Gorgeous Georg Ganswein?

    ReplyDelete
  44. @ABS:

    Every legitimate Pope is, by definition, in union with every other Pope who ever lived - in time; and with Jesus Christ who never changes - outside of time. Bergoglio is manifestly *not* that.

    There have been Popes who were more or less public sinners. There have been Popes who have held (minor) wrong or even heretical views (always corrected and repented). There has never been a Pope like this whose defining feature is heresy and sodomite programs; who advocates for Muslims and ignores Christian martyrs; who gives an entire Nation’s Church over to the Communists who oppress them and allows their Order of Bishops to be chosen by Atheists; who places all religion on par with the One True Faith; who can easily be seen as more Wiccan than Christian; who is likely a Freemason.

    Every word and deed from Bergoglio is *against*, not with, the line of Popes, Saints, Jesus Christ.

    And behind Bergoglio ... is this bifurcation. Next to Bergoglio is ... this Emeritus. Innovations. Catholics don’t do innovation. We have perfection. Innovation s departure from perfection.

    Therefor those who innovate, or accept such innovation, have by definition, left the “One Church”.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dear Lazarus. ABS is in communion with his local Bishop and His Pope.

    That is, at a bare minimum, what it means to be catholic for one can not cite Tradition that gives any man - and by man ABS means Bullets Barnhardt - the liberty to sever one of the Bonds of Worship, Doctrine, Authority.

    Even if Francis was an arm of the Devil he still would have authoriry over you.

    Pope Francis has never ordered ABS to commit any sin nor has he issued any binding decisions ABS is constrained to obey

    Now, the private judgment of Bullets Barnhardt and her Brave Band of Benevacantists that Francis ain't Pope amounts to zilch as she has no authority - unless she is operating on her private judgment protestant past.

    The Church has the authority and one, if he is to be faithful to the Commandments of Jesus Christ, must never abandon the Church Jesus Christ establshed.

    ReplyDelete
  46. ABS has never written he despises Francis. He is Our Pope and Our Cross and a Christian Catholic can not despise the Cross he must bear if he is to be a faithful disciple.

    Yes, Francis is Pope and it is a sure sign of diabolical delusion when men start defending the indefensible private judgment praxis of a female convert rather that hearing the Church.

    In refusing to hear the Church, Bullets Barnhardt and her Band of Brothers are not publicans because....?

    ReplyDelete
  47. there have been Popes who have held (minor) wrong or even heretical views (always corrected and repented)..

    Not Honorius

    Saint Vincent of Lerins (Commonitory) teaches us Catholics to hold to Tradition in times of chaos and those times of chaos are a time when God is testing us to see if we love Him.

    How is believing the private judgment of Bullets Barnhardt not failing that test?

    Read and Reread Commonitory and be at peace.

    Jesus is, has always been, and always will be the Head of His Church.

    All of this panic reveals men who are weak, weary, and weird.

    Man-up fellas - and by fellas ABS means Bullets :)

    OK, ABS wants to make certain that those who read his comments know he is just having fun with Bullets. ABS has read some of her pieces of hate and there is no doubt that many men have decided to walk the plank off of The Braque of Peter and to board her protestant praxis Privateer - sailing under the Rebarbative Roger Flag - but ABS does not understand such action, unless, of course, Bullets supplies the masculinity they lack.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Amateur Brain Surgeon said..."Dear Lazarus. ABS is in communion with his local Bishop and His Pope."

    Oh really? In what way specifically are you "in communion" with your pope?

    Especially when you have openly stated in comboxs across the Catholic intertubes that "your pope" is obviously guilty of heresy and fracturing himself from the Deposit of Faith?

    How *precisely* does that make you "in communion" with your pope?

    And HOW exactly are you "in communion" with "your pope" when you cling to the hope that a future pope or council will find "your pope" guilty of formal heresy?

    And since that would mean that "your pope" has CURRENTLY (ALREADY) LOST THE CHAIR - and you believe BXVI has already VACATED THE CHAIR - how does that make you anything other than an ipso facto SEDEVACANIST by theory - and by desire?

    And how exactly does that NOT make you currently "in communion" with an ANTIPOPE Of The AntiChrist?

    Riddle out these incoherent mysteries of yours - Oh Amateur Brain Surrogate of The Third Person References.

    Perhaps you can disconnect objective reality from your contradictory thesis as consistently as you seem to disconnect yourself from yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Amateur Brain Surgeon said "ABS has never written he despises Francis. He is Our Pope and Our Cross and a Christian Catholic can not despise the Cross he must bear if he is to be a faithful disciple."

    Behold how Amateur Brain Surgeon DOESN'T despise his heretical antipope. Behold how ABS is "in communion" with his HERETICAL antipope:

    Amateur Brain Surgeon
    May 4, 2019 at 1:45 pm

    (….who contend that Amoris can and should be read in continuity with Catholic teaching on marriage, sexuality and the family.)

    "The heretical claims of Francis are directly opposed to the truths taught in encyclical of Pope Saint John Paul II, Familaris Comnsortio, and so it is literally impossible to read A.L. as being in continuity with what came before his heresies unless the definition of continuity is so elastic it can mean rupture."


    Source: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/05/02/analysis-serious-and-unserious-allegations-of-papal-heresy/

    ReplyDelete
  50. The Brain Surgeon of Amateurishness further displays his "communion" with his heretical Antipope of the AntiChrist.... because - Amateur Brain Reasons of concocted surgical insanity:

    Amateur Brain Surgeon on December 9, 2017 at 4:59 pm said:

    "Dear Frank. ABS and Thee both know we have been long abandoned by the Cardinals (they should wear sack cloth festooned with white flags) and Bishops (pink vestments seem a natural here) and so we have the Francis.

    The laity, like during the Arian crisis, is the one part of the church with the courage to all a spade a spade.

    There can be no doubt that Francis is a heretic and now he says he is gonna change the Lord’s Prayer; such a desire manifests his massive ego.

    The Francis has left the Faith but he is not going to get ABS to leave the Church. ABS is faithful; he is not.

    Stay vigilant, brother.

    Pax tecum"


    https://stumblingblock.org/?p=11461

    ReplyDelete
  51. Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

    "ABS has never written he despises Francis. He is Our Pope and Our Cross and a Christian Catholic can not despise the Cross he must bear if he is to be a faithful disciple.

    Yes, Francis is Pope and it is a sure sign of diabolical delusion when men start defending the indefensible private judgment praxis of a female convert rather that hearing the Church."



    See how the Amateur Brainless Sturgeon "loves" his heretical antipope - whom he totally DOESN'T despise? Behold:


    Friday, January 12, AD 2018
    Amateur Brain Surgeon

    "The once estimable Barque Of Saint Peter is now the great garbage scow piloted by the execrable Francis"


    Source: https://www.the-american-catholic.com/2018/01/11/popewatch-heresy-has-come-to-eden/


    Because Amateur Bull Shitter is in total communion with his heretical antipope who has lost (or never held) the Chair. Even by Adolescent Brain Seizure's own self-defeating thesis of inanity the Chair is now effectively Vacant.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @ ABS:

    If you are in union with Bergoglio as Pope, you are also in union with where he is taking you. You don’t get to pick and choose; reject some, most all. You can’t say you are in union if you are not going where he is going.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Dear Lazarus. While ABS never tires of reading his own quotes, he does sometimes forget what he has written on days when he was so irked he prolly ought not have written.

    In his defense, ABS writes that he didn't mean those things in a bad way :)

    O, and because a guy writes that a Pope has committed heresy, that does not mean that Francis has lost his office for if that were true any time some soi disant trad, Tom and Dick Verbo, for instance, said a Pope committed heresy then they too would have lost their office

    While there is no doubt ABS has employed rebarbative rhetoric you still have failed to produce any words written by ABS that shows he despises Francis.

    P.S. ABS forgot the garbage scow remark...thanks for the reminder, that was pretty good

    O, and of course ABS loves Francis but you seem to think love is an emotion.

    ABS was at Mass today and, as he always does, he prayed for Pope Francis and the bishops

    O, one last thing, ABS rarely remembers what he has written because once he has expressed an idea about a particular current event, ABS moves on to the next event and, owing to that habit, ABS has even gone back to places where he has been banned having totally forgotten the banning - Why are you back here, you were banned?

    Jawboning about the Church is too much fun for ABS to take it so seriously - which is why he was having fun with Bullets Barnhardt. You prolly think ABS hates her, although he doesn't.

    C'est la vie.

    ABS thinks writing about what is happening in the church is a lot of fun and many times when he is writing about the current events in the Church, ABS is writing as much for his own amusement as addressing the person or controversy. ABS is of the opinion that talking and writing about the current situation in the church is much more fun that doing the same about politics, the arts and sports and because it is so serious, ABS often yields to the temptation to add a shot of wry to whatever is being consumed.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Dear Aqua Mystici Coproris:

    The Bonds of Unity

    22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

    23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior's infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet.[20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.

    24. Let every one then abhor sin, which defiles the mystical members of our Redeemer; but if anyone unhappily falls and his obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful, let him be received with great love, and let eager charity see in him a weak member of Jesus Christ. For, as the Bishop of Hippo remarks, it is better "to be cured within the Church's community than to be cut off from its body as incurable members."[21] "As long as a member still forms part of the body there is no reason to despair of its cure; once it has been cut off, it can be neither cured nor healed." [22]

    ReplyDelete
  55. 40. But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden [59] or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. You know, Venerable Brethren, that after He had ruled the "little flock" [60] Himself during His mortal pilgrimage, Christ our Lord, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, entrusted to the Chief of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in view of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into Heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; [61] and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.

    41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.

    +++++++++++++ end quotes +++++++++++

    No Scripture, no saint, No encyclical, no ecumenical council, no Dr of the Church, no Mass Proper has ever claimed that a Catholic could remain Catholic were he to sever even one Bond of Unity

    ReplyDelete
  56. Amateur Brain Surgeon said...


    "In his defense, ABS writes that he didn't mean those things in a bad way :)"


    Oh yes of course, constantly calling the pope a heretic, referring to his office as "the great garbage scow", declaring that he is "no doubt.... a heretic" Oh AND stating that his papal encyclical is "impossible" to be "in continuity with what came before his heresies unless the definition of continuity is so elastic it can mean rupture" - are all signs of your enduring love, respect, and "communion" with your heretic ANTIPOPE. Just like rape is the ultimate form of "love making".

    BTW - you've cited the FORMAL heresies of your Antipope. Which means he has in fact - LOST HIS CHAIR - IF he ever truly held it.

    And if you think that that is NOT the case - then the Gates of Hell currently occupy the Chair itself. And you're in communion with that.

    And on a more salient personal note: your pretentious habit of referring to yourself in the third person - AND - your compulsive habit of blatantly lying about the obvious meaning of your own contradictory words and clear motives - combined with your braggadocios self-aggrandizement of your own forgot hypocritical blather - all reveal that you are truly cut of the same unhinged narcissistic screwball cloth that the FrankyPapist all seem to attract.

    Birdbrains of a delusional feather - flock together - in their own sad asylum

    ReplyDelete
  57. The Ninth Article of the Creed

    The Church in General

    1 Q. What does the Ninth article: The Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, teach us?
    A. The Ninth Article of the Creed teaches us that Jesus Christ founded a visible society on earth called the Catholic Church, and that all those who belong to this Church are in communion with one another.

    2 Q. Why immediately after the article that treats of the Holy Ghost is mention made of the Catholic Church?
    A. Immediately after the article that treats of the Holy Ghost mention is made of the Catholic Church to indicate that the Church's holiness comes from the Holy Ghost, who is the Author of all holiness.

    3 Q. What does the word Church mean?
    A. The word Church means a calling forth or assembly of many.

    4 Q. Who has convoked or called us into the Church of Jesus Christ?
    A. We have been called into the Church of Jesus Christ by a special grace of God, to the end, that by the light of faith and the observance of the divine law, we may render Him the worship due to Him, and attain eternal life.

    5 Q. Where are the members of the Church to be found?
    A. The members of the Church are found partly in heaven, forming the Church Triumphant; partly in purgatory, forming the Church Suffering; partly on earth, forming the Church Militant.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Bonds of Unity

    6 Q. Do these various parts of the Church constitute one sole Church?

    A. Yes, these various parts of the Church constitute one sole Church and one sole body for they have the same Head, Jesus Christ, the same Spirit animating and uniting them, and the same end, eternal happiness, which some already enjoy and the rest hope for.

    7 Q. To which part of the Church does this Ninth Article principally refer?

    A. This Ninth Article of the Creed principally refers to the Church Militant, which is the Church we actually belong to.

    The Church in Particular

    8 Q. What is the Catholic Church?

    A. The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptised who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.

    9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?

    A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.

    10 Q. Who are the lawful pastors of the Church?

    A. The lawful pastors of the Church are the Roman Pontiff, that is, the Pope, who is Supreme Pastor, and the Bishops. Other priests, also, and especially Parish Priests, have a share in the pastoral office, subject to the Bishop and the Pope.

    11 Q. Why do you say that the Roman Pontiff is supreme Pastor of the Church?

    A. Because Jesus Christ said to St. Peter, the first Pope: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven." And again: "Feed My lambs, feed My sheep."

    12 Q. The many societies of persons who are baptised but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?

    A. No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.

    13 Q. How can the Church of Jesus Christ be distinguished from the numerous societies or sects founded by men, and calling themselves Christian?

    A. From the numerous societies or sects founded by men and calling themselves Christian, the Church of Jesus Christ is easily distinguished by four marks: She is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

    14 Q. Why is the Church called One?

    A. The true Church is called One, because her children of all ages and places are united together in the same faith, in the same worship, in the same law; and in participation of the same Sacraments, under the same visible Head, the Roman Pontiff.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ end of quotes ++++++++++++++

    If those who have never taken a degree in Canon Law and are yet are dogmatic about Benedict still being Pope but are ignorant of The Bonds of Unity, then how much weight is one expected to give to their private options about Benevacantism and Sedevacantism?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Amateur Brain Surgeon said... "They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth."

    So I'll ask you again, screwball - HOW exactly are YOU "adhering loyally" to your heretical "Vicar" whom you have repeatedly stated is IN RUPTURE with the Deposit of Faith?

    How? In what way does your "adhering loyalty" manifest itself?

    How are you "in communion" with a formal heretic?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Amateur Brain Surgeon said... "O, and because a guy writes that a Pope has committed heresy, that does not mean that Francis has lost his office for if that were true any time some soi disant trad, Tom and Dick Verbo, for instance, said a Pope committed heresy then they too would have lost their office"

    LOL some guy? That some guy was YOU - screwball.

    So now you're actually countering (arguing against) your own premise. LOL

    You obviously believe that Bergoglio IS guilty of heresy - FORMAL heresy actually. And he is because we can all read it for ourselves. That is objective reality. And yes - that means Bergoglio has lost his Chair - as some future pope or council will surely declare. IF the world doesn't end before then.

    And yet you ALSO believe you are in communion with - adhering in loyalty with - a clown whom you fully believe IS a heretic. LOL



    It doe

    ReplyDelete
  61. Rough housing is fine. Boys will be boys, but cut out the name calling such as "Benevacantism and Sedevacantism" and "screwball" unless those terms are defined and incorporated into a reasoned and logical part of the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  62. ABS does not believe Francis is a formal heretic.

    It is not the judgement of the Church that Francis is a material or formal heretic.

    He is Pope and ABS is loyally in union with him.

    As to your other assertions/conclusions/questions, ABS has no response as the three simple declarative sentences represent what ABS believes.

    ReplyDelete
  63. The Council of Florence condemned this claim of Wycliffe.


    If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a limb of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by the emperor.

    Our Pope and Our Cross is Francis.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

    "ABS does not believe Francis is a formal heretic."


    On the contrary, you've already stated that he is in rupture from the Truths that came before him - THAT - by definition IS formal heresy.

    And again - HOW exactly are you in union with him - unless you're ALSO in union with his heresies that YOU claim he is guilty of?

    Amateur Brain Surgeon said..."If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a limb of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by the emperor."

    LOL now see? Right there^^^ you openly hold that this heretical antipope has NO AUTHORITY over you.

    So again I ask - IN WHAT WAY are you

    "in union with"

    "in communion with"

    "in full submission to"

    "adhering loyally to"

    this antipope whom you openly acknowledge is a heretic and as such has no authority over you?

    Until you can give a lucid explanation of that contradiction of yours - all you're doing is spewing the empty word-salad of sophistry.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Fred Martinez said...

    "Rough housing is fine. Boys will be boys, but cut out the name calling such as "Benevacantism and Sedevacantism" and "screwball" unless those terms are defined and incorporated into a reasoned and logical part of the debate."



    My apologies Fred. I'll watch it from here on out.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Dear Lazarus. Amateur Brain Surgeon said..."If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a limb of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by the emperor."

    LOL now see? Right there^^^ you openly hold that this heretical antipope has NO AUTHORITY over you.

    ++++++++++ end of quote ++++++++

    The bolded words were those of Wycliffe and they were condemned by an Ecumenical Council. They are not the words of ABS.

    Your reading comprehension is such that it precludes any dialogue.

    Adios

    ReplyDelete
  67. Amateur Brain Surgeon said... "The bolded words were those of Wycliffe and they were condemned by an Ecumenical Council. They are not the words of ABS.

    Your reading comprehension is such that it precludes any dialogue.

    Adios"


    Oh, I'm dreadfully sorry for my mistake. Good to know.

    SO - in THAT case, since Francis has authority over you - why are you calling him out for heresy?

    Why are you claiming he is in rupture with the Truths of the Bride of Christ?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Amateur Brain Surgeon said... "Your reading comprehension is such that it precludes any dialogue."


    Says the guy who claims he's "loyal" and in "complete union" to the authority of the same "pope" he calls a complete heretic. LOL

    Yes - let's discuss your reading comprehension and the meaning of words and phrases.

    ReplyDelete
  69. The Wycliffe quote comes from the Council of Constance, not Florence. A legitimate pope who is "damned and is evil" (not all popes go to Heaven, what a surprise), is a separate issue altogether from a blaspheming, heretical non-Catholic fauxp such as Bergoglio the Destroyer.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Dear Charmaine . Thanks for the correction. Over the decades, ABS has used that quote so many times he thought he had it memorised accurately but owing to the fact he is the same age as Israel, ABS ought be less trusting of memory.

    No, it really isn't different if one is referencing Jurisdiction and the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis, does have universal jurisdiction while he who abdicated, Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger, has no Jurisdiction and, thus, no ministry.

    ReplyDelete
  71. @Amateur Brain Surgeon

    Good to know - now explain how you're submitting to full communion and loyalty to the authority of your antipope by calling him a heretic, a scourge, and in complete rupture with The Deposit of Faith of The Bride Of Christ.

    Because if THAT is your inane self-defeating definition - then I AM completely in loyal communion with him every time I openly identify him as an antipope who never licitly held The Chair of Peter, a False Teacher of the AntiChrist, and a demonically possessed agent from Hell.

    Prove me wrong.

    ReplyDelete