After there has now come to us a sort of denial concerning the recent words attributed to Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto about the Four Cardinals – namely, that he did not say that the pope would remove the red hats of these Cardinals – the German Catholic website Katholisch.de has published its own interview with Msgr. Pinto where he now redoubles his critique of the four prelates. In this interview, Pinto again uses very harsh language against these Four Cardinals who have expressed their serious concern that Amoris Laetitia could teach the faithful doctrines that go against the traditional Catholic teaching.
Pinto now says about the Four Cardinals:
They have written to the pope and that is correct and legitimate. But, after there did not come [from the pope] an answer after a few weeks, they published the case. That is a slap in the face. The pope can choose to take counsel with his cardinals; but that is something different from imposing upon him a counsel.
When the journalist then says in response that the Four Cardinals would answer that they had no other choice, the Italian prelate further responds:
They are not a council with any kind of competences. On the contrary, they as cardinals are bound in a higher degree to be loyal to the pope. He stands for the gift of unity, the charisma of Peter. That is where the cardinals have to support him, and not hinder him. By what authority do the authors of the letter act? On the fact that they are cardinals? That is not sufficient. Please. Of course they can write to the pope and send him their questions, but to oblige him to answer and to publish the case is another matter.
As others have done before him (and in spite of the facts), Pinto insists that the pope’s family document is based on the work of two Roman synods of bishops – as well as the world-wide questionnaires circulated and received back. He explains:
The absolute majority of the first synod and a two-thirds majority in the second, in which the members of the bishops’ conferences were present, have exactly approved these theses that now the four cardinals contest.
Pinto insists that the pope “does not force, much less does he condemn.” Thus, “some bishops are putatively having difficulties, others pretend to be deaf.” To the claim that Monsignor Pinto himself said that the pope might remove the red hats of these four cardinals he then responds:
I am not the type who can threaten [people]. To write something like this is quite a journalistic license and is not serious. What I have said is, rather: Francis is a lighthouse of mercy and has infinite patience. For him, it is about agreeing, not about forcing. It was a serious act that these four have published their letter. But to think that he would remove their cardinalate – no. I do not believe that he will do that. […] In itself, as pope, he could do such a thing. The way I know Francis, he will not do it.
When asked about Cardinal Burke’s words that he would present a formal correction of the pope if necessary, Pinto responds once more with vehemence:
This is crazy. Such a council of cardinals does not exist that could hold the pope accountable. The task of the cardinals is to help the pope in the exercise of his office – and not to obstruct him or to give him precepts. And this is a fact: Francis is not only in full accordance with the teaching, but also with all of his predecessors in the 20th century, and that was a Golden Age with excellent popes – starting with Pius X. [my emphasis]
The Dean of the Roman Rota then also proceeds explicitly to criticize Cardinal Joachim Meisner for his own participation in the publication of the Dubia. When asked as to whether he is disappointed about the four authors of the letter, he explains:
I am shocked, especially about the gesture of Meisner. Meisner was a great bishop of an important diocese [Cologne] – how sad that he now with this action puts a shadow upon his history. Meisner, a great spiritual leader! That he would arrive at that, I did not expect. He was very close to John Paul II and Benedict, and he knows that Benedict XVI and Francis are in full agreement about the analysis and the conclusions when it comes to the question of marriage. And Burke – we have worked together. He seemed to me to be an amiable person. Now I would ask him: Your Eminence, why did you do that? [my emphasis]
Pinto closes this interview with some seemingly flippant, if not superficial, words when he answers the question as to what should now be done: “Pray a little more, stay calm, basta. Officially, this action has no value. The Church needs unity, not walls, says the pope. We know how Francis is. He believes that people can convert. I know that he is praying for them.”
To sum up this interview: Pinto claims that the supreme principle of the Church is unity. He does not mention, much less affirm, that the basis of unity is truth. However, he claims that Pope Francis’s own teaching on marriage is in complete accord with the teaching of the previous 20th-century popes, and especially with Pope Benedict XVI.
However, such claims show forth the very issues upon which faithful Catholics disagree! For Pope Francis has indeed now encouraged a change in the Church’s teaching on marriage, and he is not in agreement with the previous teaching. Nor is he in agreement with the teaching of Jesus Christ himself! Thus, there comes a point where our loyalty to the Truth of Christ urges us respectfully to speak up, even at the cost of an ostensible unity that is not anymore itself based on the truth.
As Dr. Markus Büning, a German theologian and book author, said firmly yesterday concerning the “Pinto affair”:
Much less helpful are the repeatedly presented calls to obey the pope unconditionally. I beg your pardon? We are, after all, not in a dictatorship here. That goes too far. For me, kairos [the ripe and fitting moment] has come; and, fully so in the sense of Blessed John Henry Newman, we should now question this papalism that we have all-too-often practiced in our own circles. Additionally, we have at times the duty to oppose ecclesial authorities. Let us hear what St. Thomas Aquinas tells us about this matter: ‘Where, however, the Faith is in danger, one has to correct the superiors publicly, just as St. Paul did it; and as Augustine wrote on this matter: ‘Peter himself has given to the superiors the model that they – if they ever stray from the right path – shall accept not unwillingly when their own inferiors correct them.” (Summa theol., II-II q. 33, 4c)
Correction: the article originally gave Pinto the title of Archbishop, as several other outlets had reported. He is in fact not a bishop, but a priest. We have updated the story accordingly.
Correction 2: Pio Vito Pinto is not a priest simplex, but has the full title of: His Excellency, the Most Reverend Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto. He is not an Archbishop, nor even a bishop, but he is a Monsignor. The Dean of the Roman Rota is styled “His Excellency” and “Most Reverend” by ancient custom and express grant of such treatment by Pope Pius XI. The story has been modified to reflect his proper title.
I am a son of the church.
My church.
I can say this because it is my church.
Get on the mercy train.
Oh wait, I told it to leave the station.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/61c7d998b2b240bd49ce55476d2a192e4933a292ab0ed1b51bc7e13cbcf1eedf.jpg
Well there in lies the problem. He begot himself 🙂
To The Errant Clergy Who Is Attacking The Faithful Cardinals and Bishops https://cardinalallennephew.wordpress.com/2016/11/30/__trashed/
This individual reveals himself to be possibly impaired.
One is reminded of the infamous Cardinal Kasper “not saying” of the African episcopate “they should not tell us too much what we have to do…”
We are regarded by these men as ignoramuses. Simpletons. Groundlings.
The ability to grab off the shelf whatever notion crosses his mind in an attempt to fortress the plain aberrance in a wall of fraudulent orthodox submission to papal authority is ludicrous. It appears the pope himself has abandoned the teaching of his predecessors. If he has not, simply answer the “dubia.” What reason could there be for not answering the dubia but to conceal his personal perspective and the agenda he wishes to force upon the church.
The pope calculated poorly. He is now on the spot. He expects all good Roman Catholics to protect him from the consequences of his miscalculation. The only ones he can count on are the
uncatechized, the low-info, those in a personal wish fulfillment zone and the clerics from whom he can withdraw his favor.
These clerics leave little doubt that they have all reached their expiration date and that in fact
they mistakenly slipped through quality control. Sour and dangerous to your health.
“The only ones he can count on are the uncatechized, the low-info,”…
The real tragedy here is that this applies to probably 8 out of every 10 Catholics.
It is staggering, really. And when you look back upon the aftermath of the
Second Vatican Council and its ENDURING legacy (no, we weren’t enduring a bump in the road), it becomes perfectly apparent that this was either the intended result engineered by a precursor of the Sankt Gallen Group or the consequence of a bunch of the misguided who simply did not know what they were doing. The dismemberment of catechesis was essential for the fraudulence to roll on and accomplish the metamorphosis the Church, rendering it into a shadow presence in the world.
The current situation is a clarion call that all need drop the rose colored glasses and engage with an evasive maneuver. The Barque is fast approaching the ice berg, the captain is hanging out on the lido deck and the crew thinks they are in the Caribbean.
This is absolutely correct. I left, of my own accord, a supposedly Catholic High School, because the parents did not like hearing things that the Church taught, particularly on marriage and the family. The very worst part was that the School Administrators, even though they took an oath to uphold the teachings of the Church, time and time again failed to do so. This was quite some time ago, but I am certain it has only gotten worse. The military personnel that I have dealt with over the years are also, sadly, very ignorant about about what HMC actually teaches.
Had the same experience in the late ’70’s. I’m sure it has only gotten worse.
A blight on the LORD’s Church … and … those eyes! …
Positively Orwellian
So… Now Pope Francis believes in conversion?
Good – I am sure we will all be delighted if he converts to the Catholic Faith.
What a blowhard.
Look at his eyes, must be demon possessed!
He wouldn’t get that angry with immorality in the Church, but ohhhhhhh if you dare insult his master with questions, he’ll give you the evil eyes!
“For him, it is about agreeing, not about forcing.”
REALLY? What a LIAR!
“Dr. Joseph Shaw (one of the 45 theologians and signatory), who is well known internationally, has lost his position as a director of academic affairs at a Pontifical university for his critique of Amoris Laetitia [a.k.a. The Joy of Sexual Adultery].” – Lifesitenews
Yeah…when I opened the website, I was quite startled to be greeted by this picture and a bit unsettled
That’s exactly what I thought, as well. Seriously creepy photo.
Where there is sodomy there is satanism [so says scripture and others also make the connection]. Read recently that one physical sign of sodomites is puffy eyes. Just to be clear I know nothing about Msgr.
ArchbishopPio Vito Pinto and his life.In fairness to the man, I have a friend who can look at a menu as if he wishes its eternal destruction! But he’s the mildest chap you could meet and very shy. It might just be his face
Your friend must be very hungry!
Funny! ?
Hah! It’s actually just the shape of his face. You couldn’t meet a nicer fellow
Please could you cut Fr. Pinto some slack. He only looks like that when he’s awake.
No Slack for Pinto….No Soup for him….NEXT! LOL!
You are on a roll!
So are we thinking that the Archbishop is 1) talking outta his @$$ in regards to the views of the Pope Emeritus 2) simply mistaken on Pope Emeritus Benedict being in agreement on the question of communion for those divorced and remarried without benefit of an annulment or 3) that Pope Emeritus Benedict is actually in agreement with Francis, and thus possibly complicit in heresy?
Pope Emeritus ought to say something.
I feel like that might only make the situation worse
We accuse Francis of being silent which we take to mean that he still stands by what he wrote – so Benedict’s silence means the same thing.
Benedict is in a significantly different position than Francis. Francis is unencumbered from saying something and indeed by virtue of his office he is required to. Meanwhile, Benedict is no longer the Pope, and may believe that his saying anything would further add to the confusion and may be seen as asserting papal perogatives he has since foregone.
Or he could be in complete agreement with Francis…though if that was the case, it raises the important question of why he did not implement such measures when he was pontiff
If Benedict hadn’t quit, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. He bears a fair amount of responsibility.
I agree with you there
With his wisdom, I guess he has his reasons.
He left us. He is no longer pope.
Unfortunately, we have had holy men who were weak popes.
History to eventually judge.
Ah yes…..you are correct.
At times, I feel so abandoned.
Asking the Pope for clarification is certainly the right of the Catholic people, especially and including the Cardinals of the Church!
And if the Holy Father refuses to provide those answers in private as requested, it is not only the right of the cardinals but even their duty to ask those questions publicly. St. Paul certainly made the case when he confronted St. Peter to his face over the adherence to the Jewish law question.
God bless Cardinal Burke and the others!
A true spiritual father would not treat his children thus.
This is getting amazing. These guys don’t even bat an eye anymore when they tell us 2 + 2 = 5.
I fully support the positions of Cardinal Burke And the brave prelates positions. The Pope clearly teaches heresy. What troubles me is that before this Pope, common desecration of the Eucharist was widespread for decades with communion given to public supporters of baby murder and sodomy. There was no organized public outcry on this (not that it would have helped). The few who refused were punished. Is not baby murder and sodomy at least as sinfull. The latest from the mostly heretics in Rome is more of the neomodernist positions. Should more not have been demanded back then? Also, most of these heretics were placed where that could do damage by Benedict and John Paul. Difficult to reconcile and understand.
Exactly. The American bishops, in “Catholics in Political Life,” gave themselves permission to commit the mortal sin of giving Communion to pro-aborts. They have been doing so for decades. It is no accident that McElroy, who became famous for an article in America mag promoting Communion for pro-aborts, is now commanding his priests to give Communion to adulterers, and getting ready to command them to give Communion to sodomites.
Yes, of course. Sometimes though, there is a tipping point when the people mentally and collectively reach this conclusion: Thus far and no farther. Shall we not rejoice that we have been blessed to see the Tower of Babel come crashing down in this age?
It’s tipping but not crashing down yet. We may be in for long, long battles.
Agreed. Church Militant…
Yes, more should have been done. Yes, there should have been an outcry and disciplining of those who allowed the desecration. Yes, one could probably say that allowing someone responsible for abortion to receive the Blessed Sacrament would appear worse than allowing someone who has committed adultery.
However, the outcry in the case of Amoris Laetitia is not only against the scandal of desecration of the Blessed Sacrament but a fear of preaching of heresy. If heresy is preached and moral relativism is accepted as Catholic teaching, Communion for those who support abortion and sodomy, and for the divorced and remarried will be just a small number of the problems to come. They won’t be scandalous exceptions they will be institutionalized. More importantly if heresy is formally preached, mass apostasy will eventually result. The popes have been defenders of Truth. At least one knows the Truth even with a pope who may be lax in discipline. That some fail to live up to the Truth that is bad, but if one does not even know the Truth. What then? Also, Pope Francis is saying in this document that the Lord does not give enough grace through the sacraments to keep us from sin. He is suggesting that living up to God’s laws is impractical or impossible for some. In this way in Amoris Laetitia he seems to almost reject the divinity of Christ. He certainly ignores His law and the power of His sacraments.
Major point here. The whole idea that we cannot comply with Divine law because “it’s too hard” is a staple of both Lutheran/Calvinist heresy and the Modernist philosophy (if it can be called a philosophy.) While I expect most (many?) Lutheran/Calvinist scholars would insist they still believe in the divinity of Christ, that position is ultimately inconsistent with their rejection of the efficacy of the Sacraments (or at least that of Baptism, since they pretend that most of the Sacraments were never really instituted by Christ in the first place.)
All of this is of a piece with the faithless approach of “historical-critical” interpretation of Scripture, which Bergoglio also has advanced in some well publicized statements which his PR flacks later tried to spin or deny. And many have noted that he never genuflects at the Consecration; is this because of physical limitations, as his apologists claim, or because he doesn’t really believe in the Real Presence, which would also be consistent with a thoroughly Modernist viewpoint?
The Pope has to answer the questions or let Mueller do itI He should answer. Not answering is a total insult and I have washed my hands of Francis. He ignored liturgical law and washed the feet of non Christians and females during a ceremony meant to reenact what Christ did to the Apostles. He then forced a change of that liturgical law on us. He refuses to genuflect at the consecration at Mass although physically able. He persecutes the Friars of the Immaculate. He appoints his Argentinian friend to the archbishopric and gets others to write his encyclicals. He does not listen to the synod majority. He says its a sin to seek to convert others to Christianity. He demotes those who stand in his way. He promoted that Bugnini creature Piero Marini. He persecutes the Friars of the Immaculate. He promotes men like Cupich to the cardinalate. Francis goes to praises Luther and mix with that lesbian bishop in Lund. He attacks the traditional Mass and those that go to it. He is about to make the Catholic Church in China a puppet of the Communist government. I like the bit about a golden age of popes starting with Pius X. Bugnini worked on Pius XII while he was sick. Paul VI destroyed continuity in the liturgy and allowed men like Bugnini full range to produce so many falsifications in the Sacraments and Mass. Rather like the Synod of the Family it seems what bishops and cardinals voted for and voted against is ignored by the pope who then enforces the agenda he always wanted before hand. Bugnini was sent into exile after Paul VI woke up… after the damage had been done and then was too weak to review all Bugnini had done. We need a kind but clear man Burke as Pope. Someone who is not formed and living in the noxious Modernism of the 20th century.
“Not answering is a total insult and I have washed my hands of Francis”. Crumbs! It took you long enough! (No disrespect intended. I’m sure you’ve been on board a long time)
Mueller has done it. See:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-vaticans-doctrine-chief-responds-to-four-cardinals-dubia
“He persecutes the Friars of the Immaculate”
You said that twice
It can’t be said enough times – lest we forget this is an ongoing persecution – with more to come I fear.
And so…..your point?
Wow, I did not know the Pope has INFINITE PATIENCE!
I thought only our Lord does. Silly me, shows what I know.
I recall an incident documented on footage, whereby PF was shaking hands in a crowd ( Mexico trip), and he accidentally stumbled due to mass crowds wanting to shake his hands. ( no one injured), just a slight stumble.
Oh…..the look on his face and his angry words to the crowd were chilling, admonishing them for being selfish.
Good leaders of any kind (if they are GOOD) are those who set the BEST example. But then not all leaders are Good!
Rather than just asserting consistency with the magisterial teaching, could someone ask Abp Pinto to explain how this is the case – in simple terms we sheep can understand.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3bd099b8cfe49716c5cb96e5e40a690f32c192b1b652b65cd77fc0223362c702.jpg
Thank you for the posting of the video.
I just relayed the same thing here, before seeing your posting as well.
It is not a simple question for the pope, but an implicit accusation of error (maybe heresy) in a grave doctrinal matter. In this case the pope is obliged to answer like any other Catholic. The silence is by itself an answer. But it is becoming more and more obvious that the theology behind many statements of Pope Francis and his followers is NOT Catholic. To reject – even implicitly – the absolute value of some teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ (like Matthew 5, 32: “Whosoever shall put away his wife (…) maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery”) is a heretical attitude. The doctrine about grey tones (instead of clear, “black” and “white” moral values) promoted by Pope Francis IS NOT Catholic. Maybe it is a good time for the Cardinals and Bishops to take the final step: the explicit accusation of heresy with all the consequences. Due to the nature of the teachings in discussion this is unavoidable.
Here in the UK we are mourning the death of the actor who played Manuel in Fawlty Towers and seeing extracts from the series. Watching these wonderfully farcical extracts I wonder whether there should not be a new series entitled Fawlty Church Towers staring Mgr Pinto in the role of Manuel as an idotic latin lackey.
Andrew Sachs.
Although in this case of course, there would have to be idiotic latin boss too.
I do not believe Msgr. Pio Vito Pinto is an archbishop/bishop.
Yes, we took the lead from other outlets reporting that title, but it appears you are right. We’ve corrected the story.
Msgr. Father Pio Vito Pinto, Dean of the Roman Rota – http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpintop.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Rota
“They have written to the pope and that is correct and legitimate. But, after there did not come [from the pope] an answer after a few weeks, they published the case. That is a slap in the face.”
What a joke. Dubia were submitted immediately after the document was issued, from all quarters of the Church, lay and cleric alike. How many recieved an answer? Zero.
Really? I did not know this. How do you know this?
I think she may be referring to the letter questioning A.L. submitted to the Pope by about 40 or so clerics and laity alike (some theologians etc) which of course went unanswered. There was also a petition of sorts by the laity alone asking the Pope to clarify. This said, I have just read lately that there have been MANY asking the Pope to clarify, some of them in person. He has of course ignored all of the inquiries.
“that Henry VIII and Francis are in full agreement about the
analysis and the conclusions when it comes to the question of marriage.” ?
That man does not look too good! And how dare anyone ask for clarification from the pope of ‘unity’!
You know what? Let’s all play Francis’ game.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ac8ee29379136d68d4781f6604f6e56ed5e7f43649cb3aeebee74e57b300d1f4.jpg
TWO CAN PLAY THAT GAME!
IF this statement is true (and I’m not saying it is): “They have written to the pope and that is correct and legitimate. But,
after there did not come [from the pope] an answer after a few weeks,
they published the case. That is a slap in the face. The pope can choose
to take counsel with his cardinals; but that is something different
from imposing upon him a counsel…”
…then the four Cardinals have committed a serious—probably fatal—blunder that will sink their cause. Everyone (especially any Bishop!) knows that the Vatican often moves at the pace of a lethargic snail—responses to anything can take months or even years. Or sometimes the Vatican chooses not to respond at all. That’s not unusual.
People have to be extremely naive to think that the Pope doesn’t have a strategy to reach his intermediate goal, which is Holy Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried, and his ultimate goal, which is to change the Church’s teaching on marriage. The Four Cardinals can now (predictably) be simply written off by underlings as bullies and media hounds—along with anyone who sides with them.
All is according to plan.
Good grief.
This Pope in agreement with all the Popes INCLUDING PIUS X???
The only thing I can see him agreeing with Pius X in is his stellar modelling of the Modernism PX condemned.
Pope St. Pius X wouldn’t have issued AL in the first place and he would have placed it on the Index if it had been published in his day.
Wow, Francis is embarrassed by the publication of questions he refused to answer?
Imagine how Jesus must feel by the publication of a document contradicting his Gospel.
This ‘mason’ should go away and build his own church. The others masons should do the same.
If a Third Order Nun can keep a Pope accountable for his actions, (i.e. St. Catherine of Sienna) I am sure four Cardinals have more authority. St. Athanasius almost exclusively on his own stood up to the Arian Heresy, when the pope accepted such an error. History of and in, the Church, is full of moments when a pope, or magisterial religious was in error. So why is there any difference now. If the pope is in error, and it looks like he is, then the TRUTH must be made public.
Please do your homework on Pope Liberius before accusing him of accepting heresy. It simply isnt an historical fact.
NO you do your homework.
The point is those who opposed his signature in support of Arian, had an effect on Liberious’ decisions. You said heresy, as if you know that Francis is about to, or even has done so. These four Cardinals are in opposition to a heresy that Francis may have to admit, unless he changes his way, not unlike Liberious did.
It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formulæ in exile, he did it freely; so that no question of his infallibility is involved. It is admitted on all sides that his noble attitude of resistance before his exile and during his exile was not belied by any act of his after his return, that he was in no way sullied when so many failed at the Council of Rimini, and that he acted vigorously for the healing of orthodoxy throughout the West from the grievous wound. If he really consorted with heretics, condemned Athanasius, or even denied the Son of God, it was a momentary human weakness which no more compromises the papacy than does that of St. Peter. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
I seriously doubt that Francis is about to return to orthodoxy in any form that existed prior to VII.
All I said is that issue of Liberius accepting heresy is not an historical fact.
Please read St. Athanasius Defender of the Faith by the late Michael Davies (Angelus Press – 1-800-96-ORDER).
Please read John S. Daly’s “An Evaluation.” It is a critique of all of Michael Davies works. I have read many of Davies book and was very impressed until I read Daly. In an effort to establish an historical precident for resisting a Pope, much of history has been cherry picked for the facts that bolster the case. I personally think the resist camp of the trad wing should stick to a Divine Law argument and stop trying to rewrite history to justify disobedience. There is plenty of justification to resist Francis without sullying the reputation of a past Pope who may or may not have succumbed to tremendous secular pressure.
Is he a sedevacantist author?
Yes
In that case, no thank you. I’m reading True or False Pope? A Refutation of Sedevacantism and Other Errors by John Salza and Robert Siscoe http://www.trueorfalsepope.com.
If you really want to understand an issue you should investigate and research all opinions on that issue. Yes Daly has an agenda, but so does Siscoe and Salza and so did Davies. Once you understand the authors agenda then you can see how they frame their arguments and present their facts. Who or who is not Pope is an unsettled theological opinion. The theologians of the past did not agree and the auhoritative papal declarations of the past are not definitive. Both sides love to cherry pick the facts to say their case is airtight. Well, its not and the lack of definitve church teaching allows one to disagee on the matter.
This is the way I see it (you may not agree but please bear with me here): If a person believes in the full Message of Fatima, then he or she can’t be a sedevacantist. Reason: There MUST be a valid, legitimate Pope on the Chair of Peter to finally order and make in union with all the bishops of the world the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Every Pope from Pius XI to Francis has either a) consecrated the world or b) in the case of Pius XII, consecrated Russia WITHOUT ALL the bishops.
Eventually, the Pope WILL reveal the Third Secret of Fatima (I.e. the exact words of Our Lady NOT the Vision) and order the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
That’s my 2¢.
I dont think the sedevacantists are saying there will never be a valid pope to fulfill Fatima. Sedevacantists, like resisters and other trads long for the day we have a Pope who returns to the true faith and again denounces modernism. All the trad factions need to put aside theological opinions and unite and resist whoever preaches a false gospel.
Most sedevacantists believe that there has not been a valid, legitimate Pope on the throne of Peter since the death of Pope Pius XII. Since there must be valid, legitimate Cardinals in order to elect a valid, legitimate Pope, then how would we know who is the true Pope? Various sedevacantist factions have their own “Pope”. None of them is the true Pope. So if they don’t believe that Francis is the Pope, then where would the Pope come from?
Yes, in my opinion that is the weakest part of the sedevacantist arguement. They don’t seem to be able to answer that question. But the resisters have their weaknesses too. Its time in this great crisis to end the inter trad warfare and concentrate on the modernists. Thank you for the respectful discussion.
Your reference to St. Catherine is inspirational. And our crew is able to ignore not only the four Cardinals, but a petition of forty-five reputable theologians and 800,000 signatories on another petition.
What does that say about the attitude of the ecclesiastics running roughshod?
Maybe we should call him Fr. Pinto, reminiscent of the disastrous Ford Pinto.
St. Padre Pio! Pray for us and pray God save us from Fr. Pio Pinto.
If all the Bishops in the Church announce they are atheists, is it still the Church founded by Christ. The point being, how much heresy can be embraced by the Pope and Bishops and it still be Christ Church and not that of Judas. Could it be that a certain point, Christ Church, which will always be, is found elsewhere and these are no longer enabled to mislead the average person because of their titles and offices. Where will we find this Church if so. They destroy the little ones, I fear. Where will we find the Catholic Faith preserved, instead of the God of surprises who is nothing more than their heresy attributed to their false theology. Just asking.
The problem: Ratzinger, only several months before his elevation to the bishopric, wrote his so called, “scientific paper” on the sacramentally married and civilly “divorced” and then again civilly “remarried”, having a path to the Sacraments, including the Blessed Sacrament and Penance. His diabolically contrived logic was that it was not practical for the “civilly wed” couple to live as “brother and sister”, as it somehow put the children of the perpetually adulterous, “second union”, in jeopardy because if their “parents” did not participate in the conjugal act, they would likely adulterate yet again with someone else. The Luciferian, Ratzinger, has NEVER retracted this paper and condemned it as utter heresy. He is the architect of the Synods of 2014 and 2015 but no one speaks of him this way. Ratzinger is a minion of Lucifer and he paved the way for his kindred spirit, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is the executioner, as a surrogate of Lucifer, in praxis. In caritas.
“Francis is not only in full accordance with the teaching, but also with all of his predecessors in the 20th century, and that was a Golden Age with excellent popes – starting with Pius X.”
He’s kidding, right? Bergoglio is in contradiction not only with Pius X, but also with the entire Magisterium of the Catholic Church and Her teachings. He said this so he can see how much nonsense he can pass through the radar and determine if people will notice. How very sad that a priest will deliberately lie like that, thinking people wouldn’t notice.
Pius X was a restorer(not a reformer) of the Holy Catholic Faith. Bergoglio is a destroyer of it.
No, he is not kidding. Let’s all face it squarely, he is not kidding, he is lying.
Lying… harder to admit than I would have thought.
“Francis is not only in full accordance with the teaching, but also
with all of his predecessors in the 20th century, and that was a Golden
Age with excellent popes – starting with Pius X.”
He’s kidding, right? Bergoglio is in contradiction not only with Pius X, but also
with the entire Magisterium of the Catholic Church and Her teachings.
He said this so he can see how much nonsense he can pass through the
radar and determine if people will notice. How very sad that a priest
will deliberately lie like that, thinking people wouldn’t notice.
Pius X was a restorer(not a reformer) of the Holy Catholic Faith. Bergoglio is a destroyer of it.
SSPX. Thank you Archbishop Lefebvre.
Okay, I have a question. Maybe I should know the answer but I don’t. If all of this heads south in a very bad way and if faithful priests are kicked out of their parishes because they don’t agree to follow directives from the Pope that they believe are against Catholic teaching and against their own consciences ….
Where does that put the laity? If the priests that remain to celebrate mass and administer sacraments are following directives that other priests (and probably bishops too) believe are sinful/ wrong/ against Catholic teaching ….. are there any valid masses or sacraments remaining?
How would one continue to attend mass and receive the sacraments without confirming and encouraging the sin of the (unfaithful) clergy and of the church itself? Or does one “adopt a faithful priest” and put him up in the guest bedroom and then begin to hold mass in the homes of those who are loyal to the Catholic faith?
Yes find or house a faithful priest when you cannot find valid masses in local parishes. Once the schism erupts fully there will be no choice. Know that you can attend Eastern Catholic or even Orthodox masses in dire circumstances.
With his silence Pope Bergoglio has “pleaded the fifth.” What more need be said?
All the implications that holds are true. Everyone knows that.
What really makes it significant is that there is no threat to him if he were to plainly speak his opinion. Just admit what he holds to be true, absent himself from his position, and let us get on with the task at hand. He isn’t going to be jailed or executed. He would go back to Argentina, live securely with his Jesuit comrades, and give history, the world, the Church a chance to correct this
horror show – I do not hyperbolize – and maybe allow his memory some redemption. A little, anyway.
But no, that is not to be. And that is the real indictment. It is all about him, his buddies, their agenda, and the Church be damned. We be damned.
This exhibition which is recognized silently (with the wink and the nod) or otherwise by all — its proponents and opponents — stands as it is. Neither history nor Eternity will judge this well. That they don’t care is actually the ultimate indictment – and that is the real problem here, isn’t it?
Is this whole conundrum about pastoral practice, doctrine and dogma, or is it essentially about assent to faith in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ? Does this cadre even hold to religious faith at all, or just their notion of it?
Tactical silence speaks louder than words, and the whole range of behavior and responses this
tactical silence is engendering only unveils, magnifies and amplifies Pope Bergoglio’s scandalous “pastoral” leadership and heterodoxy.
The emperor – and his enablers – are naked as jay birds.
Good evening, James,
“The emperor” has told us from early on in his pontificate and even recently (if I recall correctly) again, the import of Fr. Hugh Benson’s 1907 novel, “The Lord of the World”. He described it early on as one of his favorite books and has read it several times. He has suggested that it is a book everyone should read, in part because of its “prophetic” import. Pope Ratzinger also spoke of the novel as “prophetic”.
With that in mind as the background, we are led to believe that Pope Bergoglio chose his papal name of “Francis” because of a particular fondness of or a desire to be like, or perhaps to be viewed similarly to, Saint Francis, who was the saint of the humble (the poor in spirit), loved God’s nature as a beautiful reflection of Him, and lived a very materially simple life, stoically rejecting his prior life of privilege from his wealthy father. That, I posit as the superficial and/or readily intellectively accessible aspect of Bergoglio’s choice of the pontifical name of “Francis”. The deeper understanding of his choice of the name, “Francis”, lies beneath in the understanding of the double entendre’. There is a protagonist in the novel, “The Lord of the World”. A protagonist for the formation of the understanding of a new, one world religion, and he is an apostate priest. His name was none other than, “Father Francis”. May Almighty God have mercy on Pope Francis and on this world. In caritas.
Is there no one who has the fortitude to tell this masonic intruder to go straight to Hades i/n/o truth and charity
Birds of a freemasonic feather flock together.
Is the new Pro-Dean of the Rota a deputy to Pinto,or a replacement?