Archbishops Don’t Make Doctrine In Press Conferences

Submitted by LocutusOP on Sat, 12/01/2018 - 23:42
Author: 

Kate R. ,Mundabor , Aqua, Steven Cass, John Seiler (@writejohnseiler), Lazarus Gethsemane,  maggycast           

Date: 
Saturday, December 1, 2018 - 23:45
Article link: 
Archbishops Don’t Make Doctrine In Press Conferences

 

Kate R. | November 21, 2018 at 2:38 pm

Thank you. This is good information, a question I have had for a long time.

I did not realize there was any doubt PB may not have said what Gaenswein attributed to him. If he did not, that makes all the difference. I believed it to be accepted that he did say those things about the papacy.

Thank you for the information about the numbers. It has to start somewhere, but either way, yes, the Lord is in charge and will raise up faithful Cardinals from the stones if He must. We seem to be very far indeed from a response similar to what we would need to right this ship.
I’m grateful for your blog, and all the excellent commentary and information.
Especially appreciated are the Francis photos.

Reply

 

Mundabor | November 22, 2018 at 6:34 am

 

Ha! Thanks!!

...

 

Aqua | November 21, 2018 at 8:04 pm

The fact of His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI (not Joseph Ratzinger) carrying out his chosen Papal munus “within the enclosure of St. Peter always and forever”, mitigates against your “no one thinks he still has the job”.

Many people actually think that. A growing number, perhaps. The retired Bishop of Corpus Christi for one. He makes a compelling case. We can’t help seeing what we see, two Popes within the Vatican walls. Haven’t seen it before. We do see it now. It all begins with that.

Mundabor | November 22, 2018 at 6:36 am

You, and others, have misunderstood my text.
I have not said that no one doubts that Francis is Pope. I have said that no one doubts that a Professor Emeritus is not in charge and, buy the same token, no one one should think that Benedict is.
That many are wrong and are senselesslt flogging this dead horse I can see very clearly. This is why I write against it.

...

 

Steven Cass | November 22, 2018 at 12:24 am

Thanks for this. Whenever I read someone arguing that Benedict’s resignation was invalid because of substantial error, your post here is exactly what pops into my mind. I don’t remember Benedict every saying that he intended to hold on to any aspect of the papacy, just that the honor of the position stays with him forever. It’s nice to have some backup, as it were.

I see that Ann Barnhardt has a long presentation that she made available on her blog. I haven’t watched it so I can’t fully comment on it, but based on her time stamps it doesn’t seem she tries to answer any of the points you make here.

Anyway, thanks again.

Mundabor | November 22, 2018 at 6:38 am

And no one answers to the question of what the heck will they do when Benedict dies. The only logical answer is: they will become Sedevacantists.

...

 

John Seiler (@writejohnseiler) | November 22, 2018 at 12:25 am

I believe Francis is pope, but: If we go by your reading, Pope Benedict either is 1) not clever enough or 2) too clever by half. If 1), when I first heard he had abdicated, I thought it was another “great refusal.” I don’t know Italian. But like many college-educated Americans, at least until recently, I read the Inferno in school. I also have read the whole Divine Comedy since. If 2, then Benedict maybe figures English has become a global language, so most people, being unaware of Dante, will hear Pope Emeritus Benedict as “Pope…Benedict,” causing a desired confusion. The confusion then will flush all the heretics into the open, including Pope Francis. Or maybe not.

Mundabor | November 22, 2018 at 6:40 am

Too clever by half.
Too complicated and convoluted.
A cerebral man creating a problem in people way more intelligent than him, because he does not understand how simple people can be.
Most of all, a man too worried with his legacy and not worried enough about his lack of action against the homomafia.

...

 

Aqua | November 22, 2018 at 4:03 pm

But you have *not* refuted the charge.

Benedict XVI did not fully renounce the Papacy. That is clear by the physical evidence.

They say they didn’t change doctrine on who may receive the Eucharist. True. The words remain, as ever. Yet sodomites and re-married are allowed to receive.

They say Benedict fully and freely abdicated. Yet he remains there, as before: His Holiness, Pope (Emeritus) Benedict XVI, in white, in the Vatican, with the contemplative munus of the Papacy, (the prayerful connection between God and Peter).

If Pope Benedict XVI had left Rome in his clerical collar to Bavaria as Fr. (Cardinal) Ratzinger, I would agree with you. He did not. I do not accept this thing that has never been seen before in the history of the Church. I do not accept “Emeritus” Popes. It is not part of Sacred Tradition. It is a departure.

Mundabor | November 23, 2018 at 5:44 am

He does not remained there *as before*. He has said he is not i charge anymore. You can’t simply ignore the facts on the table because they seem to agree with an absurd fantasy.
The day Benedict comes out and officially challenges Francis, stating that he either freely resigns (which he can only do if he is the Pope) or he is an Antipope, you will at least have the argument that there are two competing claims. But there aren’t any.
Benedict.Does.Not.Say.That.Francis.Is.Not.Pope.
Sheesh.
Stop dreaming.

...

 

Lazarus Gethsemane | November 22, 2018 at 11:24 pm

When has it ever been licit for a Pope to “retire” from their duties?

When you’re elected Pope – you are Pope not just in title – but also in the official duty of holding the office for the rest of your life.

When exactly did it become orthodox for popes to walk away from their papal duties? And when did it become sound canon law for another pope to be elected in their place?

Mundabor | November 23, 2018 at 5:45 am

A Pope has always been allowed to retire from his duties.
It has always been this way.
Several Popes have abdicated. Other Popes have been elected in their place.

...

 

maggycast | November 25, 2018 at 10:09 pm

Of course BXVI is not going to renounce PF…it was his modernist idea to bifurcate the papacy:+) Honestly, I don’t know what to think of this bat crazy anymore other than to pray that Heaven cleans up this unholy mess as soon as possible. God bless~

Mundabor | November 27, 2018 at 6:56 am

Benedict wanted to make way for a new Pope, without being remember as a new Celestine. No one doubted this five years ago. You can’t make the validity of a papal election dependant of whether you like the Pope.

Own comment: 

In all honesty, Mundabor is chasing a red herring here. His main point seems to be that in Italy nobody considers an emeritus to still be in power.

Benedict XVI, however, purporsefully resigned not in Italian, but in Latin, and furthermore, not from the Church in Italy, but from the global seat of power. Whatever point he wanted to make, we cannot reference Italian custom to explain it, given that he was not Italian, and his base and target audience was only in a small percentage Italian.

One would have to read too many suppositions into Pope Benedict XVI's resignation to get Mundabor's point to be credible.

If the resignation is not valid then Benedict XVI is still pope. That is the issue we have to lear up, and I do not see his piece aiding the truth-seeking. A pope is not a professor, and when the pope's primary aide comes out and speaks of a divided papacy, then one cannot simply dismiss it as the mad ravings of a lunatic, especially when they do not go contradicted, and especially when the Latin used in the resignation was cryptic, and not when he still considers to wear white, and not when we have prophecies which seem to fit this situation perfectly. Furthermore, it is not truthful to claim that nobody doubted this 5 years ago, as there were still many doubts as to what exactly was going on. While many people would have been willing to let this situation pass, the scandals of Bergoglio have made resolving the issue far more acute than would have been the case had Bergoglio been Catholic, or decent, when resolving it would have been the cause of fringe meticulous canonists and theologians.

In practical terms, it changes nothing: Bergoglio is a raving perverted heretic who must be opposed to our last breath, whether is is a true pope or a pseudo-pope.