Is Pope Francis an Antipope?
Pints With Aquinas | 5 Dec. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9LJ-S0Rens
0:36 Bottom line.
Calling Bergoglio non-Pope is schismatic if he is Pope.
Calling him Pope is schismatic if someone else is, and if he's heterodox to the point of not being Catholic, materially schismatic, potential trap of heterodoxy for those accepting him.
You cannot redefine schism so it means "it's always wrong to question the papacy of someone having some appearance of being Pope" because that would mean in 1399 one would have had to accept BOTH Popes.
1:51 "you are not in a position to make those judgements" and "it's not your job"
Distinguo.
a) ex officio, no, it's not. I am not the Caesar who convened the Synod of Sutri, and possibly part of the Orthodox schism dates back to them rejecting the then elected Pope as uncanonically "imposed by a layman", and I am also not a cardinal or bishop convened at a general council to judge him, and even further, considering what "Paul VI" could have done about the accusation act laid before him, I am also not a judge named by an apparent Pope to judge him for such accusations;
b) prudentially, that is too much. I did a prudential judgement in 1984--1988 when deciding to convert, despite it not "being my job" to see for all Swedish Lutherans whether we should join Rome or not. This prudential judgement was not prohibited, but also not explicitly encouraged by my previous superiors in the Swedish church. I was making a prudential judgement for myself to submit to Popes and bishops, later reemphasised when I returned from the Orthodox in 2009, not just bishops, but actually papacy too, and am making a prudential judgement to submit to the right and not to the wrong Pope.
Ban prudential judgements taken by individuals not in position of responsibility, you ban conversions too, that might be what you want, certainly not what I want, and you would shoot yourself in the foot.
My duty to save my soul involves a duty to make prudential judgements about who is my superior. In certain societies, civil authorities were making them for you, and were even killing people for disagreeing with the state, which happened here and there in Sweden after it went into schism and heresy, right, St. Zachris Anthelius, mayor of Södertelge? Right, St. George Bäär?
Since civil society is not imposing that way, it is for citizens to actually make their own choices, and no one can make them pay that price, legally. Including for Sedevacantism.
2:09 With ten thousands of Sedevacantists and with the "parallel papacies" (of which I am submitting to Pope Michael II), one cannot take me as the sole individual considering Bergoglio is an Antipope.
It is simply a lie to say all else or at least all other churchmen (clergy) are accepting him as Pope. You can say very few Catholics aren't, but very few does not equal none at all. Even 5 persons do not equal none at all (considering the six persons who combined rejection of Wojtyla with the conclusion, "then we should hold a conclave" or more properly speaking papal election).
2:18 And if you are wrong, you are leading souls out of the Church, which is a grave sin.
There is also a question of proportions. I have 10 919 posts on my blogger account, plus the ones I made after last of June this year, very few are dealing with who is the Pope, OK.
Every very grave mistake deserves correction, but it's not proportional correction to bait a Sede time after time until he has perhaps 100 statements of Bergoglio not being Pope + those of Ratzinger not being Pope, in order to use those to discredit (among those sharing your view on the matter) absolutely everything else he has written on the other 10 000 plus posts.
A man who has made a huge mistake by being publically Anglican (which is a grave sin, outside the Church) can be endorsed not only after correcting that, but I suppose you (not necessarily yourself, Matt Fradd, but people like you) were forwarding messages you liked from Gavin Ashenden while he was Anglican "bishop" ... but somehow, a Sede, with whom you share so much more theologically than with him back then, is "beyond the Pale"?
If you never endorsed or saw anyone endorse Gavin Ashenden while he was an Anglican, some Catholics were very clearly endorsing Anthony Bloom, while he was Orthodox bishop or metropolitan or archbishop (uncanonically elevated, but validly consecrated). I bought his
1970 – School for Prayer
or
1970 – Beginning to Pray (re-publishing of School for Prayer)
in the Swedish translation from 1972.
I am thankful for that, thanks to him I know, the Orthodox do believe in Mediatrix Omnium Gratiarum, whatever other Marian titles they disbelieve in (he explicitly stated, if Mary did not forgive you for killing Her Son, Jesus would not forgive you for killing him, by your sins).
That book was on how to pray, a matter much more intricately and inextricably even united with some kind of pastoral authority than for instance standing up for Young Earth Creationism as Catholic doctrine and closer to dogma than you'd like to imagine, while giving answers on the scientific front. I am on my blogs not professing to teach my readers how to pray, OK?
1980's "Anthony Bloom is cool, we'll be united with the Orthodox some day"
2020's "Hans Georg Lundahl is not cool, he's a Sede, they just have to repent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
2:36 If someone thinks we have a very bad pope who can only be selectively obeyed and someone else is doing the selection of what we can and can't obey, that's not just schismatic, but in pretty blatant denial of the dogmas of Vatican Council 1869--70, and pretty blatant offense of the principle "prima sedes a nemine judicatur" ...
I used to be able to find a version in Denzinger or whereever it was where Innocent III had said that, with the addition "nisi deprehenditur" (or "deprehendatur"?) "a fide devia" ... for some reason I can't find that any more.
Are some guys on your front that desperate?
3:25 How I "get around that?"
I don't if you are right and he's the real pope.
I do if he isn't, because that's not the situation St. Thomas was speaking of.
4:17 In times with lots of error, we cannot afford to have a Pope who is promoting error.
CCC § 283 is error. Your "pope" and his people may not be enforcing that against Robert Sungenis, but they are against me.
That's why Robert Sungenis can pretty easily speak freely on Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism without getting involved with "is Francis the Pope or Bergoglio an Antipope" but this is not the case with me in the archdiocese of Paris, dating to even before I rejected the "papacy" of Ratzinger.
Evolution and Scientism are errors that breed lots of other errors, very hideous ones. Bergoglio made that famous Theistic Evolutionist comment "not a Demiurge with an omnipotent magic wand" back in 2014, nine years ago. He came out on the side of error, and to my best knowledge, he has not withdrawn that.
4:59 So far, he has very much not invited me to make my voice heard.
He seems to be asking committees of clergy and very faithful to himself laymen to read my blogs and then make as much hush hush about them as possible.
He has never actually condemned me publically, but his men, i e you guys, have never treated my material as licit either. Very rationally grounded statements from City of God or from the mathematics of carbon dating or from the Geography of Mesopotamia, have been treated basically as if they were the latest "private revelations of Maria Valtorta" which, much as I value her, the very little I know, they are not. The perfect excuse for hushing them down.
5:15 I'm only very charitably saying that your time of confusion involves promising a Pascal's wager type of argument, while not giving one.
Pascal's wager (the original) goes:
- if the God [we believe in] exists and you don't believe in Him, you even go to Hell
- if you do believe in Him and He doesn't exist, that doesn't make your life worse
Your wager goes:
- If Francis is the Pope, and you don't believe in him, you are schismatics
-
If Bergoglio is not Pope and you do accept himoops, nothing stated at all ...
No comments:
Post a Comment