I wish more Catholics would seek the truth of what's going on. If you could give your reasons why you think Francis is the most authentic pope then we could discuss your facts and viewpoint in charity hopefully. But I doubt you're willing to do that. You really should read Ralph Martin's new book.
Yes, Dr. Mazza has the courage to confront the elephant in the room regarding Benedict's renunciation. The fact that Benedict still calls himself "Pope", still wears Papal white, still is addressed in the Papal style, still gives Apostolic blessings, and still lives in the Vatican, are signs to me that this issue is not yet settled. Mazza's entire analysis of the resignation can be found here; it is a must read: https://fromrome.info/2020/03/08/resigned-to-the-papacy-does-benedict-still-claim-he-is-pope/ Brother Alexis also has some good analysis of the failure of Cardinal Sodano to certify Pope Benedict's resignation: "First, as Canon 40 states, Cardinal Sodano’s first duty was to ask Pope Benedict XVI for a written copy of the Act of Renunciation. This is because, as read out-loud, anyone fluent in Latin, as Cardinal Sodano is reputed to be, would have noticed multiple errors in the Latin, most grievous of which was the enunciation of commisum not commiso by the Holy Father. This touched upon the integrity of the act. Second, in receiving the Act of Renunciation in the authentic Latin Text, and finding that it was as it was intended to be read, he was obliged to examine if the act was in conformity with Canon 332 §2, which reads: Canon 332 § 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur. My translation: Canon 332 §2. If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his office (muneri suo), for validity there is required that the renunciation be done freely and duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever. And thus, in this examination, the Cardinal had to confront the very Distinction between munus and ministerium that was founded in the Act of Renunciation, which contains the terms munus and ministerium, but renounces only the ministerium! Clearly anyone reading Canon 40, would see that munus means office or charge! And in reading canon 41 that ministerium means execution of the duties of the office. Clearly he would as Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals realize that it is one thing to have a munus to do something, quite another to put into motion his ministerium to execute it. — He was acting on the very basis of that distinction, because before he acted, he held the munus to act, and in acting he executed the ministerium to act! For this reason, Cardinal Sodano must be questioned if not publicly accused of having closed his eyes! That is, of having ignored the distinction and his own grave duty and invalidly executed his office, by declaring the act a valid act of renunciation of the papal office! This is especially true, because Canon 41 forbids (“let him omit the execution“) and Canon 40 invalidates the action of the executor to proceed to any action, not only because the core act of renunciation was invalid, as per canon 188 (for substantial error), to effect the loss of papal office, but also because, being invalid, the Cardinal Dean could NOT recognize that the command to call a conclave was opportune. There are other anomalies in the Act of Renunciation which also should have caused the Cardinal to stop and refer to Pope Benedict, namely: The Act of Renunciation is not an act of renunciation, but the declaration of an act of renunciation. As such it lacks the formal quality of a canonical act per se, since it is one thing to announce, another to enact! The Act of Renunciation contains what appears to be a command to call a conclave. But this command is NOT a command, because it is a declaration not a command, and it is made in the First Person singular, which signifies the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man, NOT the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the pope. But the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man, whether he has renounced or not cannot call a Conclave, since he has no authority to do so! The Act of Renunciation contains no derogation of any terms of canon law which it violates as is required by canon 38. The errors in the Latin demonstrated clearly that the Holy Father had prepared the Act in secret without the counsel of canon lawyers and Latinists, and that therefore, it may lack formal interior consent or be based on other errors of fact or law or comprehension of Latin. Thus, for Cardinal Sodano to proceed to act as if the renunciation were valid, violated the general principle of law, that the validity of the renunciation of power or right is NOT to be presumed. This is a general principle of jurisprudence and is even found in Canon Law, in an applied form, in Canon 21: Can. 21 — In dubio revocatio legis praeexistentis non praesumitur, sed leges posteriores ad priores trahendae sunt et his, quantum fieri potest, conciliandae. Canon 21 — In doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws are to be compared with prior ones, as much as can be done, be reconciled to them. In a word, Cardinal Sodano by acting was claiming a munus to act (Canon 40) and using that authority to exercise a ministry (Canon 41) to deny that the Pope had a munus which had to be renounced (Canon 332 §2)! Thus the Act of Renunciation appeared to be null from MANY manifest aspects of the terminology and grammatical structure. Canon 41 therefore required that he confer with the Pope to have them corrected! Canon 40 invalidated any action he took prior to recognizing the act as authentic and integral, that is, not canonically invalid, irritus or null. — And in Canon Law, as per canon 17, to recognize something as valid, does NOT mean insisting it is valid, when it is not! That is fraud. By omitting the honest fulfillment of his duties, he acted with reckless disregard for his own office as Dean. He exploited the canonical defects in the Act to perpetrate a horrible crime of misrepresentation. This was tantamount to robbing the Roman Pontiff of his office by exploiting his authority, so as to declare valid what was invalid to produce a papal resignation! Thus, according to the terms of Canon 40 and 41, Cardinal Sodano should have acted differently. The act of renunciation was of ministry, not of munus, and therefore was NOT an act of resignation. Therefore the declaration of a resignation, which had to have emanated from Cardinal Sodano’s desk, was a canonical lie and fraud! And since, ignorance of the law in those who should know the law is not presumed, Cardinal Sodano cannot be excused from an abuse of his office (munus). What Cardinal Sodano should have done! Upon receiving the document of Renunciation, and noticing that the renunciation of ministerium was not the act specified by Canon 332 §2, he should have spoken with Pope Benedict in the presence of 2 credible witnesses and brought this to his attention, as Canon 41 requires. Then he should have asked whether it was his intention to renounce the Petrine munus or simply to renounce the Petrine Ministerium. In the latter case, he should have (1) asked the Holy Father to issue a Motu Proprio naming someone to be his Vicar extraordinaire who would have the potestas executionis but not the office of the Pope, during the remainder of his life, OR, (2) in the case that he indicated that it was his intention to resign the papal office, he then should have asked him to sign a corrected copy of the act, containing the word muneri instead of ministerio and correcting all the other errors, whether of form, of Latin, or grammatical structure etc.. To have done anything less would be a grave sin of disrespect for the Office of the Successor of St. Peter, to which the Cardinal was bound by solemn vow to protect and defend. Simple. Easy. Legal, Legit. By failing to do that, he convened an illicit, illegal and invalid Conclave, and made Bergoglio an Antipope, not the Pope!" https://fromrome.info/2019/10/11/how-cardinal-sodano-robbed-the-papacy-from-pope-benedict/
The mind boggles at why 50 years ago that the holy sacrifice of The Mass of almost two millennia was no longer a perfect form of worship?
Sorry Joe. Wrong again. There is no such thing as sexual orientation. That is a secular way of thinking. There is same sex attraction. It is a disorder. And when acted out the perversion leads to the darkening of the intellect and to mortal sin the death of the soul.
The problems relating to the recognition of Francis' validity as Pope are, to me at least: 1. JPII laid down strict rule regarding the process for the election of his successors. These included a ban on 'lobbying', and specifically discussions or meetings of electors outside the conclave. Such meetings and 'lobbying' seem to have been widespread and admitted and the St. Gallen group were doing so for a considerable period as far as I can establish. 2. A Jesuit promises at ordination not to accept any preferment outside the order unless under obedience. Francis is a Jesuit and the acceptance of the Papacy does not involve obedience, anyone elected is entitled to decline the office. Is this breaking of a promise (apparently) something that invalidates his papacy? 3. The Pope has (?) or intends to contradict the teachings of earlier Popes by amending the Catechism to say that the death penalty is never acceptable. So, either earlier Popes taught error or he is doing so. (Ironically, his friends in the Chinese Communist Party execute more people than any other country in the world.) 4. Then we have the problematic partial(?) resignation by Benedict who appears to have been under some sort of pressure to leave office.
Indeed. I'm happy enough with Mass being in the vernacular but I think all the other changes were unnecessary. Now, it looks like tinkering with the Mass could become a regular occurrence. It won't pose much of a problem for me when the lockdown is lifted and I can get back to my old routine but Mass online can be a mixed experience. There was something in the pandemic Mass about going out to the peripheries. I had to restrain myself from laughing out loud at that. The periphery here is 5km during the lockdown and social interaction is limited to bubbles of a handful of people!
Thank you, Josephite! This is the most fascinating of videos concerning our Papal dilemma! It actually gives me hope! However, the recent uproar concerning Pope Francis has unusual consequences. This past Wednesday, Upstate Hospital stated that family visitation to patients would be discontinued, effective Thursday. Why? Due to an surge in covid-19 cases in Onondaga County. In the afternoon, a request for a male, non-Catholic chaplain came into the Spiritual Care Office. There was a male patient whose wife was present. She feared that she would not see her husband again before he died. They were members of a fundamentalist church that believed strongly in male headship; hence the unusual request highlighted above. Well, I was the only available male chaplain, so off I went. As I entered the room and introduced myself as a chaplain, the wife was standing bedside, obviously emotionally distraught. The husband was not conscious, but intubated and sedated. His wife introduced herself, mentioning that her husband was a former Catholic, but they belong to a Christian Church now. Then she stated that, "The crazy things the Pope's been saying has only convinced us how right our choice was." (Definitely not the time to continue that discussion). Then she asked, "You aren't Catholic, are you?" "I'm Christian, Madam. Jesus means everything to me!" That sufficed. We then prayed and read Scriptures. I spoke to her husband as though he could hear. His wife weeping at bedside. She expressed her deep appreciation. I have since visited the husband last Friday, asking Our Lady's intercession. He has not regained consciousness. Next week I shall send her a card, saying I've continued to visit and pray for the two of them, letting her also know that I'm a deacon in the Catholic Church. Safe in the Barque of Peter!
At this stage I'd settle for an assurance that Pope has some supernatural faith. Trouble is that there's no procedure to remove him. That will be down to a future Pope and Council. It took 40 years for the Church to settle on the posthumous anathema against Pope Honorius 1. Given the way he has stacked the episcopate and the likelihood that the Vatican will be awash with money from his billionaire atheist friends, it could be a lot longer before the Church comes to terms with what Pope Francis has visited upon the Faith and faithful. According to Timothy Gordon, women deacons are back on the agenda. I hope Joe doesn't read this post or he'll need to go to Confession again now that he has taken to confessing our sins as well as his own. I wonder did the priest give us absolution.
Joe Crozier asked me to delete his membership and his posts so I have. I am sorry he is gone, I liked Joe. I admired him for standing his ground when he is pretty well a lone voice now. Somehow I often think about him and pray for him. I hope if he reads this he will come back again some day.
I correspond with a lady on face book whom I admire. She feels that all the critque of the Holy Father is either very malicious or due to misunderstanding. I know she is an exemplary Catholic and very much into Prophesy and Mysticism. I feel sometimes as though I am talking to people who beleive the World is Flat. But I respect the fact that she honestly beleives as she does, though I cannot understand how this could be. There of course many, many , many millions just like her.
Joseph Gregory said: ↑ Our Catechism is clear on homosexual issues and how we are to treat those with that sexual attraction. Pope Francis is reminding us of the commandment that is like the first and greatest of the commandments and on which the the others are founded - Love Your Neighbour. He makes this reminder in the light of the Catechism. He shows us how this should be done : do as you would be done by. No other pope has taught so clearly said that all human beings regardless of sexual orientation deserve the protection of the civil law equally with those who already enjoy it. This is true Catholic charity. He does not equate homosexual union with Catholic marriage and neither do I. Over and out. No other pope has taught so clearly said that all human beings regardless of sexual orientation deserve the protection of the civil law equally with those who already enjoy it. Joe, I as well as many other Catholics believe we do not condemn the sinner but the sin. Here lies the difference. Mother Theresa was one of the first people to provide nursing facilities and homes for the dying, for the male victims of aids back in the early 1980's , however she had strict rules regarding the chaste behaviour of her patients and their visitors. We know that one of the four sins that cry out to God for vengeance is the sin of sodomy. In fact this perverted act is abhorrent to God and when mankind has elevated this sin with equal protection of the civil law, we see Gods wrath enacted. In Fatima and Akita Our Dearest Mother warns us of what awaits mankind if we again give this perverted act, civil protection! Please read the following; Let us consider three basic elements of the miracle at Fatima, Portugal on October 13, 1917. Most Catholics know the story well. Throughout the night of October 12 and all during the morning of October 13, a cold, heavy rain fell, saturating the ground and the 70,000 pilgrims who had come to see the foretold miracle. Once the sun had reached its zenith, and after Our Lady appeared to the children, the rain suddenly stopped, and the clouds parted without even a breeze. At that moment, many witnesses described seeing a world of colors around them, as if they were inside a rainbow. Then, the sun appeared to fall to earth as if it was going to destroy the world, only to return to its own position, leaving everyone, including the ground and their clothes, perfectly dry. Eyewitness accounts of this give us an idea of what they saw: “The sun turned everything to different colours—yellow, blue and white. Then it shook and trembled. It looked like a wheel of fire that was going to fall on the people. They began to cry out, ‘We shall all be killed!’ Others called to Our Lady to save them. They recited acts of contrition. One woman began to confess her sins aloud, advertising that she had done this and that… When at last the sun stopped leaping and moving, we all breathed our relief.” – Maria Carreira “During those long moments of the solar prodigy, objects around us turned all the colors of the rainbow. We saw ourselves blue, yellow, red, etc. All the strange phenomena increased the fears of the people.” – Father Ignacio Lorenco “Suddenly the rain ceased, the clouds separated and I saw a large sun, brighter than the sun, yet I could look at it without hurting my eyes, as if it were only the moon.” “This sun began to get larger and larger, brighter and brighter until the whole heavens seemed more brilliantly lighted than I have ever seen it. Then the sun started spinning and shooting streams of light, which changed it to all colors of the rainbow… At the same time, it started getting bigger and bigger in the sky as though it were headed directly for us, as though it were falling on the earth. Everyone was frightened. We all thought it was the end of the world.” – Mary Allen In a more succinct way, the Miracle of Fatima can be described like this: Intense rain, followed by a rainbow, the sun falling to the earth as if to burn it up, only to have the sun return to its proper place, leaving the witnesses and the ground perfectly dry. This sequence should sound familiar.
Continued: This sequence should sound familiar. In the book of Genesis, we read that God sent a flood to wipe out all mankind save for Noah and his family. Then came a rainbow, as a covenant that He would never again destroy the world by a flood. But what of the sun descending upon the earth as if to destroy it? In the 17th chapter of Luke’s Gospel, Jesus explains to His disciples: “In the days when the Son of Man comes, all will be as it was in the days of Noe; they ate, they drank, they married and were given in marriage, until the day when Noe went into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. So it was, too, in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought and sold, they planted and built; but on the day when Lot went out of Sodom, a rain of fire and brimstone came from heaven and destroyed them all. And so it will be, in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.” Luke 17:26-30 It’s rather curious that Jesus would tie in the flood of Noah with the destruction of Sodom. Even more curious is that He would mention marriage. St. Matthew gives a similar account, and while some of the details are different, he also mentions what Jesus said about marriage in relation to the flood of Noah and the return of the Son of Man: “When the Son of Man comes, all will be as it was in the days of Noe; in those days before the flood, they went on eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the time when Noe entered the ark, and they were taken unawares, when the flood came and drowned them all; so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.” Matthew 24:37-39 On the face of it, it seems that Jesus is simply saying that people will just be carrying on about their business as usual when disaster strikes. But the connection of the destruction of the world by flood to the destruction of Sodom by fire is a theme repeated by the Miracle at Fatima, and again (as you will see) at Akita, Japan. Because of this theme, Our Blessed Lord’s mention of “marrying and giving in marriage” seems to be more euphemistic, and the understanding of the ancient Jews with regard to the Flood of Noah may provide a clue. The Jewish commentary on Genesis known as the Midrash says that God sent the flood to destroy the world because perverse marriages (male to male and man to beast) had been legalized. “The generation of the Flood were not blotted out from the world until they composed nuptial songs (until they wrote marriage deeds for males and beasts — i.e. they fully legalized such practices) in honor of pederasty and bestiality.” – Midrash, GENESIS (BERESHITH) [XXVI. 4-5] p. 213 In addition to the Midrash is the apocryphal Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch is believed to have been composed sometime between the second and first century BC, and was regarded as authentic by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and St. Augustine. While the text is not considered to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is worth noting that the Book of Enoch also affirms the idea that the reason God sent a flood to wipe out the earth for wide-spread practice of sodomy: “For I know the wickedness of mankind, how [they have rejected my commandments and] they will not carry the yoke which I have placed on them. But they will cast off my yoke, and they will accept a different yoke. And they will sow worthless seed, not fearing God and not worshiping me, but they began to worship vain gods, and they renounced my uniqueness. And all the world will be reduced to confusion by iniquities and wicked- nesses and [abominable] fornications that is, friend with friend in the anus, and every other kind of wicked uncleanness which it is disgusting to report, and the worship of (the) evil (one). And that is why I shall bring down the flood onto the earth, and I shall destroy everything, and the earth itself will collapse in great darkness.” It should also be noted that Emperor Nero, largely regarded by the Church Fathers as a prefigurement of the Anti-Christ, is the first ruler of the Western World to have legitimized same-sex ‘marriages,’ participating in at least two himself. In light of this, it would appear that the cause of the Flood may have been the legalization of perverse marriages. So when Our Lord recalls “the days of Noah,” mentions “marriage and giving in marriage”, and then also recalls the destruction of Sodom, it would appear that the punishments for such crimes against nature are quite severe. It is also interesting that the miracle of Fatima appears to recall the deluge with heavy rains dissipated by a brilliant display of the colours of the rainbow, followed by the sun threatening to burn up the world. But it doesn’t end there. In 1973, Our Lady spoke to a deaf nun in Akita Japan. On the anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun, October 13, 1973, Our Lady said: “My dear daughter, listen well to what I have to say to you. You will inform your superior. As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests.” “The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. “The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them” “With courage, speak to your superior. He will know how to encourage each one of you to pray and to accomplish works of reparation.” These are incredibly sobering words if we take them in the context presented above. Again, our Lady recalls the deluge, and then speaks of fire falling from the sky, which harkens to the destruction of Sodom. If homosexual acts were the spiritual cause of both cataclysms, then the recollection of them in regard to our time bears a striking significance. Even more disturbing is what Our Lady said at Akita about bishops opposing bishops and cardinals opposing cardinals. Can it be a coincidence that the Synod on the Family, which opened the door to discussion on “irregular” relationships and homosexuality, held in October 2015 , can it be a coincidence that the symbol that self-professed homosexuals have claimed for themselves, recalling the great deluge, is the rainbow? The book of Genesis tells us that 100 years transpired from the time that God told Noah to build an Ark to the day of the Deluge. We also know that Pope Leo XIII in 1884 witnessed (via an apparition) the evil one ask God for 100 years to destroy the church, and additionally we have the apparitions of Fatima and Akita warning us of what is ahead, if mankind continues to violate Gods laws by again legitimatising perverse civil unions. Maybe all of our dear Popes need to be made aware of the above! Lord grant all of our prelates wisdom and understanding of what is at stake, if they endorse civil unions of homosexuals. Amen
