The Pope Francis Thread

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Faithful Catholics, by definition, never resolve to cease being faithful to the Pope.

Anything less — far from being Chestertonian Paradox — is nothing but flat, confused contradiction.

Tell that to St. Catherine of Sienna. Or St. Paul.
===============================
Do you really believe that Catholics have to fall in line with every stupid thing a Pope says? That I don't have to be faithful in my marriage, just because Francis is giving away free passes?

[…]

Here's an excerpt from a very "traditional" prayer: An "Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus" …

The more Thy Vicar on earth is persecuted, the more we will honor him as the infallible head of Thy Holy Church, show our fidelity and pray for him, O kingly Heart of Jesus!

Link: reginacoeliparish DOT org/first-fridays-first-saturdays

NOTE: Fidelity = Faithfulness.

So, according to this prayer of estimable pedigree, either one has to deny Francis is the Pope or one owes a him a certain minimum deference.

Now, I think it fair to say that part of being faithful is accurately characterizing the Pope's teachings. In that light, it seems hard to characterize Francis' magisterial promulgation of the Buenos Aires Protocols (i.e. the pastoral option of prudentially judging the moral dispositions of communicants in irregular marital situations) as being "giving free passes". Cuz, since by your own words, you already seem to know better than to step-out on the missus, the Protocols indicate that you wouldn't be morally disposed for any such "temporary forbearance" anyways.

The Pope can, indeed, "say stupid things". But since the Buenos Aires Protocols are authentic Magisterium, these can't be included among such "stupid things". They may well be provisionally imprudent — and as such, these Protocols are indeed rescindable by a future Pope who could reassert a more customary "command & control" centralization. But because these Protocols are authentic Magisterium, they remain always reinstatable by yet-another future Pope.

Until they find a way to integrate Papal Magisterium within their own understanding, Faithful Catholics may very well wrestle with uncomfortable teachings, even to the point of keeping a prudential silence. But keeping a provisional silence is not the same as resolving to keep silent as a matter of principle: a principled opposition to a "bad pope".

[Del]

authentic Magisterium

I've never heard anyone in the world use these words except you, and you use them a lot.

I feel like quoting Inigo Montoya.

"Magisterium" is a Catholic word to represent the teaching authority of the Church. As in "normal and usual magisterium": when all of the world's bishops teach the same doctrine, it becomes dogma.

But there might be an etymological root to the word "magisterium" as well, suggesting that any duly promulgated regulation has the force of canonical law. Or in plain English: These are the rules now. Most Catholics do not speak of magisterium this way, so it feels like you are equivocating.

I think you are trying to say that the Buenos Aires Protocol has been properly legislated, even though it is still very unclear as to how it should be applied. [We are all familiar with this situation -- it's like the IRS Tax Code. Impenetrable, but still law.]

Do better, Francis. Be a good pope. Answer the dubia, promptly and clearly, so that no one is confused.

As for Bishop Strickland, there are a lot of good and faithful questions regarding what canonical crimes were committed to merit his removal. The Pope's failure to disclose these -- even to Bishop Strickland -- is causing scandal in the Church. This appears to be a violation, not only of canon law, but contrary to the principles of Church governance promulgated in the Documents of Vatican II. The pope is not empowered to be a tyrant.

For now, the suffering Church must endure in faithful quiet and silence. We've had worse.... just not so much in the last 500 years. In a generation, this blip will be forgotten.

Or it will get worse, the Great Apostasy will come to fruition, and Christ will come again.

Either way, it works out for the best. As prophesied.

[Wosbald]

+M+

[…]

"Magisterium" is a Catholic word to represent the teaching authority of the Church. As in "normal and usual magisterium": when all of the world's bishops teach the same doctrine, it becomes dogma.

But there might be an etymological root to the word "magisterium" as well, suggesting that any duly promulgated regulation has the force of canonical law. Or in plain English: These are the rules now. Most Catholics do not speak of magisterium this way, so it feels like you are equivocating.

[…]

No (or kinda).

I'm saying that there are doctrinal elements in the Buenos Aires Protocols (BAPs) in addition to the regulative or legislative elements — e.g. there's a doctrinal element affirming that it is not inimical to Catholicity for pastors to "prudentially judge the moral dispositions of communicants in irregular marital situations" and to temporarily forbear their full Eucharistic participation accordingly. IOW, it's saying that this "Pastor's Privilege" is, indeed, a valid part of the Tradition.

The doctrinal elements of Amoris and the BAPs are authentic Magisterium which endure forever, even if the regulative-force of the Protocols were ever to be prudentially rescinded. As such, the selfsame doctrinal elements ensure that the regulative-force of the Protocols remain forever — instantly-reinstatable by a future Pope without any principled pushback from Faithful Catholics.¹

It's really just that simple.






¹Faithful Catholics may, of course, always prudentially judge that the regulative-force of the BAPs are in need of either reinstating or rescinding as the case may be.

[Hovannes]

Did I miss something here?
Didn't Pope Francis say "Who am I to judge?"
Or did he say "Who am I to judge except for you, Bishop Strickland"
A paradox indeed.

[Jocose]

I'm not sure that there's much reason left to publicly complain about Francis anymore.

He has shown his colors clearly this year. He has run out of defenders among the faithful Catholics.

Good priests and bishops just need to lay low and keep quiet until nature takes its course.

And let's not ever make another Jesuit pope.

https://x.com/ProtecttheFaith/status/17 ... 81513?s=20

As a successor of the apostles who is fighting the Bergoglian wolves Archbishop Vigano knows his duty to protect the flock, no matter the cost
@CarloMVigano


"Our task as Pastors is to protect the Lord’s flock from mercenaries and rapacious wolves: not to retreat as soon as we are attacked, abandoning it or allowing it to be looked after by others. Being Successors of the Apostles implies a personal responsibility, from which no one can ever exempt us, for that would constitute a betrayal of Christ’s example."

.
@BishStrickland
please stand and fight for your flock, entrusted to you by our Lord

[Jocose]

https://x.com/CarloMVigano/status/17255 ... 16085?s=20

In theory, a Pontiff's governing action remains valid and effective even where a single act may be questionable; but in practice, an unbroken and consistent series of acts blatantly contrary to the purpose for which the Papacy exists demonstrates - not the Pope's human fallibility in governing decisions (in which he is not infallibly assisted by the Holy Spirit and can therefore err) - but rather the determination to use papal authority and the power that comes with it for subversive purposes: this invalidates the authority itself not only in individual acts, but in their entirety, because it reveals Bergoglio's mens rea and his incompatibility with the function he holds. This uninterrupted series of acts, contrary to the purpose of the Munus petrinum, which began from his first appearance on the balcony of the Vatican, confirms his defect of consent in the assumption of the Papacy, which Bergoglio intended to use-and still uses-to destroy the Church and damn souls.

Bishop Schneider's arguments in defense of the thesis that it is preferable to leave the Argentine Jesuit on the Throne rather than recognize the invalidity of his election due to a defect of consent, on the grounds that this would create division in the Church (rectius: the ecclesial body, since the Church is one and indivisible) are completely untenable, because the unity of the Mystical Body - that is, of its members with the Head - is a unity of Charity in Truth, so whoever is not in Truth cannot be in Charity either.

The external evaluation of Bergoglio's governing action cannot be limited to the critique of individual acts as if each were stand-alone, for the same reason that a sinful action has a different moral weight depending on its episodicity (occasional sin) or conversely on its habit (acquired vice as habitus operativus). The sin of a husband who cheats once on his wife does not have the same gravity as a frequent and habitual uninterrupted repetition of sins of adultery.

The cancer that has spread in the Church since the conciliar revolution and gradually spread in metastasis during the postconciliar years, has now with the Argentine Jesuit completely conquered the highest level. It is precisely this devastating revolutionary process with its fatal outcome in Bergoglio that conservatives like Bishop Schneider do not want to admit, also because it would make responsible for the present situation all the recent Popes who encouraged and determined it in its premises.

This should not be taken to mean that I share the opinions of the Sedevacantists.

[Jocose]

https://x.com/MLJHaynes/status/1726181545415991584?s=20


@APNews reports that #PopeFrancis has invited a local group of "trans women" to his lunch for World Day of the Poor today.

The group comprises many working as prostitutes: they're already regular special guests at weekly #Vatican audience.

[Hovannes]

https://x.com/MLJHaynes/status/1726181545415991584?s=20


@APNews reports that #PopeFrancis has invited a local group of "trans women" to his lunch for World Day of the Poor today.

The group comprises many working as prostitutes: they're already regular special guests at weekly #Vatican audience.

How are working prostitutes "trans?"
This sounds more like Fraud scandal than Freudian scandal

[Biff]

https://x.com/MLJHaynes/status/1726181545415991584?s=20


@APNews reports that #PopeFrancis has invited a local group of "trans women" to his lunch for World Day of the Poor today.

The group comprises many working as prostitutes: they're already regular special guests at weekly #Vatican audience.

How are working prostitutes "trans?"
This sounds more like Fraud scandal than Freudian scandal

Dude. Male prostitutes dressing up & behaving like women.

[Hovannes]

https://x.com/MLJHaynes/status/1726181545415991584?s=20


@APNews reports that #PopeFrancis has invited a local group of "trans women" to his lunch for World Day of the Poor today.

The group comprises many working as prostitutes: they're already regular special guests at weekly #Vatican audience.

How are working prostitutes "trans?"
This sounds more like Fraud scandal than Freudian scandal

Dude. Male prostitutes dressing up & behaving like women.

They do that?