Padraig posted the following on Christmas Day: The time of Advent gave me plenty time to reflect on the goings on of Jorge Bergoglio and his chums in the Vatican. I am now convinced that he automatically excommunicated himself through material heresy and hence is now no longer Pope. I believe now that the Seat of Peter is therefore vacant , Sede Vacante and I pray and urge the Cardinals still Faithful to Faith of our Fathers to move forward with great prayerful urgency to move forward to appoint a Real Pope to replace him. Pasted from <http://motheofgod.com/threads/in-petri-sede-vacante.10034/> I think it best to repeat the obvious at the very start. That this is Padraigs's forum, He can write what he wants. I think that he has done wrong to write what he has. A few posters in that thread (which current runs to 25 pages) have made that point. In particular the point made by Richard67 on page 25 particularly resonated with me: ...I think all Catholics should reaffirm that Pope Francis is indeed the Pope; it is certainly not up to the laity to determine who is a legitimate Pope or who is an anti-Pope.... Pasted from <http://motheofgod.com/threads/in-petri-sede-vacante.10034/page-25> I have created this poll to allow the forum members to easy register and guage the current feeling on this point. The choices are: Padraig is correct, i agree with what he has written. Padraig has not done wrong to write what he has, but i affirm Pope Francis is still the Pope. I fear Pope Francis may already be in material heresy. Padraig has done wrong to write what he has . I affirm Pope Francis remains Pope. I fear Pope Francis may already be in material heresy. Padraig has done wrong to write what he has . I affirm Pope Francis remains Pope. Pope Francis is not in material heresy.
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2016/12/30/honorius-2-0/ Honorius 2.0 As we all wait for the issuance of the correction, let me state once again how I think things will progress. 1. Correction of the Pope's errors contained in Amoris Laetitia, firstly in camera caritatis. 2. Public correction after Francis has refused to retract. Declaration that some teachings in AL are of heretical nature. Intimation (or supplication, which is the same) to Francis to acknowledge the heresy of his opinions and retract them. 3. Warning to the Pope (again, in a strictly private way) that he will be declared a heretic unless he publicly retracts/answers the Dubia in the only possible way. 4. Public declaration of the Pope as heretic after he obstinately refuses to condemn his heresies. It seems to me that all four steps follow from the very rationale of the presentation of the Dubia to the Pope. I do not see a way how any of the Cardinals can do anything differently. Please consider that the warnings to the Pope are the necessary premise of his being declared in obstinacy, and the private nature of the first warning is both wise and charitable. Let no one say Francis has been “surprised” by the events, or no one wanted to talk to him. What happens next is, I think, either a new imperfect Council to declare the Pope deposed as heretic and proceed to a new conclave (if enough Bishops and Cardinals are found for it; I can't imagine four Cardinals and a handful of bishops would be sufficient, and I therefore think this hypothesis remote) or what I call Honorius 2.0. Pope Honorius was heretic to such an extent, that after his death it was felt an ecumenical concil (a vastly expensive exercise) was needed to rid the Church of the stench emanating from his papacy. But that was, as we all know, after his death. There was, therefore, a time when Honorius was in charge, public heresy and all, as the only legitimate Pope, and no one was publicly convening a council to have him declared heretic and self-deposed. The questions spontaneously arise: what was happening during the rest of his Pontificate? Was the See vacant? Of course not. Not even with a heretical Pope? Not even then, as the See was not declared vacant afterwards; not even retroactively. Did he appoint bishops in the meantime? Very probably yes. Did some or all of these bishops take part in the election of the next Pope (no Cardinals or Conclaves then….)? Ask a Church historian, but my take is: very possibly. How was, then, the election of his successor valid? You would have to ask a theologian here. My take is that the election was valid because clearly happened in accordance with the thinking of the Church. The same Church, mind, which went through unbelievably chaotic times around the years of the Synodus Horrenda and still emerged with a succession of validly elected Popes. The same church who elected Popes, for several centuries, simply by gathering those Bishops around Rome who could be gathered for the task within a reasonable time, without a rigid “instructions manual” as to the exact proceedings, required participation, causes of invalidity of the election, and the like. You trust that the Church will keep being the Church, and the Lord will protect her in such a way that the faithful will always know who is the pope and which is the true church, no matter how bad the times. And so we come to the most logical step forward: if the first four points all happen and no revolt against the Pope materialises, where are we? We are, I think, at Honorius 2.0, and we should act in the same way as I think faithful and informed Catholic acted when Honorius kept being Pope after having publicly supported heretical positions: the Pope is still Pope, but he is a heretical one. As long as he is not declared self-deposed as heretic, he is – unworthy as he is – still the chap in charge. He will be refused obedience, but we will have to leave it to Divine Providence to find a way to sort the mess out. It happened brilliantly after Honorius' death, but this was an outcome no one could foresee with certainly in the time we are, basically, living now: heretical pope goes on spreading heresy and appointing cardinals and is not stopped. Let's say Francis dies ten months after being officially branded a heretic, having appointed (say) 30 cardinal electors before and 12 after the official declaration concerning his heresy. Will we all become Sedevacantists if these 42 Cardinals are allowed to participate to the next Conclave, or even only the 30? I can't imagine that. I will always keep seeing the Church in that organisation that is reasonable for a thinking man, supported by orthodox Catholic organisations, to see as the Church. When the SSPX tells me “twelve Cardinals and 50 Bishops are enough to declare a Pope self-deposed and elect a new one” I will believe it, but until that point I will keep seeing the Church, however polluted by heresy, as exclusively the official and apparent one. And if – and when – the SSPX were to declare the the Pope is deposed and a new Pope is elected, then the new Pope would have the support of the strongest, most orthodox Catholic body in existence, with around 500 of the best priests you could find, people whose orthodoxy puts Cardinal Burke himself to shame. But I will not condone, on this little effort of mine, claims of papacy supported by a handful of V II bishops or cardinals without the support of clear beacons of orthodoxy like the SSPX; an event, this “four cardinals and a few bishops meet and elect a Pope” thingy, that I consider extremely improbable in the first place. We must do like the faithful in the times of the heretical, but still living Pope Honorius: pray for the Church, avoid taking refuge in splinter-MiniMe church fantasies, and trust the Lord that, in His own time, he will allow the Church to emerge from this mess with a strong orthodox Pope and an uninterrupted succession of validly elected Popes. Unless Francis dies very fast or retracts, there is no way we can avoid posing ourselves extremely strange questions, as at this point even the refusal of the Cardinals to issue the correction would factually make of the Pope a heretic, by the mere fact of his obstinate silence when requested to uphold the truth of the doctrine. Therefore, we must prepare for a time of great trouble knowing that the Lord will never fail to clearly show to us where the Church – however corrupted – is. What we must not do is to decide for ourselves who is Pope and who isn't, lest we degrade ourselves to the level of those funny guys thinking that some chap has been made pope by, I don't know, ten people. Pray, hope and, if possible, don't worry. Oportet ut scandala eveniant. The Church will survive this madness, too.
I don't know "What the Deal Is" with PF nor does anyone else here! I think that we can all agree that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church ... all Christians!! I also believe, as St Faustina wrote, that Jesus reaches out to ALL souls at their moment of death ... Christian or others or no faith. It is our job to follow Jesus and reach out and pray for ALL souls ... living and dead. Sooooo ..."These Days" .... I don't worry much about what PF is up to or that Bishop or ..... 'cause those Guys ain't gonna help put food on my table, keep the electricity on or protect me from the criminals or drug addled zombies "Out-There" that are hiding under that very thin, & getting thinner, veneer of civilization! I worry about, pray, plan and prepare for that which I do have some small control over. I would suggest in the New Year that all here do likewise!! Merry 7th Day of Christmas! GOD SAVE ALL HERE!! View attachment 5921
Brian, Are you saying that it is possible that the SSPX and/or others among the orthodox wing of the church could declare him a heretic and depose him, without the support of the mainstream cardinals? So in that case, we could possibly have Pope Francis refusing to leave on one hand, and a new Pope elected by the orthodox cardinals on the other? That would be a mess!
I would like to say that I think the Poll Question above may be a SERIOUS dangerous to people's souls. Posting a Poll Question tempting people to state publicly that the Pope is not the Pope is not an act of charity either towards the Pope or towards the people being lead into doing it. Publicly denying the authority of the Pope may incur an automatic excommunication. I am not sure that it does, I don't know enough about it, but it may. This was brought up by our visiting forum member of the last few days. Only a bishop or a Pope can lift an excommunication. This is not a light matter to be thrown around in casual conversation. I think it is a mistake to have posted the Poll Question portion of this thread. Please everyone know that the laity have no power whatsoever to decide this matter. We are Catholic. We work through a hierarchy. Please for the salvation of your souls wait for the Cardinals to do their job and decide these matters.
I think Padraig's Christmas day thread is a SERIOUS danger to the soul of this forum. Since Padraig has publicly denied the authority of the pope, has he excommunicated himself? I don't know, but I do believe to be a Catholic in good standing, you do need to accept the authority of the pope. Padraig, if you have not done so, please talk to a priest about your feelings on the pope and what you have publicly stated. I would do this especially before taking the Euchrist. I am praying for you.
Brian has copied here a page from the blog of a "very conservative Catholic". The blog writer thinks the first 4 points will occur. So much for the blog writer. But I really find it hard to believe that Brian really thinks points 2, 3 and 4 stand any chance of taking place.
I agree Padraig's post was a very serious one indeed. I am not stating that Padraig has excommunicated himself. I honestly don't know enough about it and would not ever proclaim that on anyone. A priest or someone else more knowledgeable that I would have to be consulted. Padraig is a good man. We are all confused at this time. I am just advising extreme caution to people in stating publicly they do not accept the authority of the Pope. There is nothing to be gained and our souls are at stake. I think everyone should just wait for the 4 Cardinals and Pope Francis to work out the current confusion. I know many here are chomping at the bit for this to be resolved, yet we must wait patiently. If God wanted us to be in charge of these matters He would have made us Cardinals or the Pope. Since He did not give us that station we should do what our station calls for. We are to pray for these men. Be humble and small.
I would vote for myself but that might be a bit self serving. There are three things I note from scripture, the truth and those who tell it are always unpopular and that putting up and shutting up are never an option. If the whole world and everyone in it told me I was wrong and my conscience told me I was right, I would stick by my conscience. Voting on a matter like this is leading people down a meaningless cul de sac. If only the truth could be arrived at by a majority consensus. If only it were that simple.
PS You forgot to put up , 'Padraig should be stoned to death for telling it like it is ' ..as yet another negative option. For your ancestors stoned the prophets.
Padraig, Is there anyone on this earth you feel you need to be obedient to? Have you spoken to a priest about your feelings on the pope and what you have publically stated on the forum?
I am sorry but I share Padraig's opinion about Pope Francis without any doubt but this is my opinion only and known for years. An important announcement will be made on Aviso News, Garabandal News and on my blog probably tonight for this New Year 2017, this should my last message online, thank you.
Jerry, I have never seen such a divisive post. Choosing a poll to register your opinion about one member (the founder and one who obviously feels great love for the Catholic Church) and trying to rally support against him is such a secular move on your part. We all have different opinions on very serious matters and are waiting for the "smoke of satan" to be revealed and removed from our beloved church. If you don't believe it exists, watch "A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" to see how Communism made its way into the highest offices of the Vatican. This is an old story (Freemasons) that is nicely discussed in that documentary.
By the way nowhere is it written in Scripture, in the Teachings of the Church or in the writings of the saints that someone should be condemned or excommunicated for telling the simple, clear truth. The very clear subtext to Canon Law on the matter is that anyone who says a (real) Pope is not Pope is automatically excommunicated. Fair enough. But since Senor Bergolio is no longer Pope how could he excommunicate me or anyone else since he has not the power to do so? Canon Law was not referring to someone stating the simple truth that someone who was no longer Pope was no longer Pope because they never envisioned such a calamity. So Canon Law does not apply. These arguments are quite specious. On the other hand if Senor Bergolgio is still Pope I accept that according to Canon Law I am indeed excommunicated. But this is does not trouble me in the least. For I know what I stated is the simple truth. So Canon Law does not apply here. Senor Bergoglio is no longer Pope.Why? Because Senor Bergoglio is not a Catholic. That's why. I have no idea what he is, but he most certainly is not a Catholic. ..and by the way all the Bishops and all the priests and all the Cardinals in all the world can try to excommunicate a Pope as much as they like. None of them have the power to do so, because none of them are above the Pope. That's why we call him, 'Supreme Pontiff' The Pope is the only one who can excommunicate a Pope and he has done so. All anyone else can do , Cardinal or whoever is to recognise something that is already a fact. As I have.
The irony is that you are not accepting the Pope because you disagree that conscience can diminish responsibility meaning mortal sin is not present(for remarried) and yet you are using that very thing to go against the way popes are legitimately accepted. You have inadvertently backed up the truth that erroneous conscience can render moral sin less severe. Also you may want to ponder the fact you can no longer gain plenary indulgences for yourself or holy souls as prayers for the pope's intentions is not possible because you dont believe we have a pope. Obeidence to the Church's canon law and governance is above your conscience
There will be lot more souls going to hell if and deep in purgatory if we go down the road Senor Bergoglio and his heretic pals are taking us if someone does not get up on his hind legs and speak out. Papal Indulgences are the least of my worries at the moment. How could Bergoglio grant Indulgences if he has left the Church?
