It is a relief to know from Trad Inc. that only infallible statements can be heretical. Since we common people lack the charism of infallibility, we never have to worry about speaking heresy. But since Bergoglio is not nor ever has been a valid Pope, he is just common like us. So he cannot speak heresy because what he said is not infallible.
Behold the mental knots required to uphold the Bergoglian Anti-Papacy!
They’re wasting time arguing about what a pope could or could not do, diverting the issue from what a pope would and would not do. Why do we have a pope and papal primacy if he were not protected by divine grace?
People are reasoning as though the Catholic Church is a purely human institution.
They’re saying that a pope has no authority to do some things (even if he wanted to). But the question is if any pope would ever want to do those things. The latter would show that he lacks the graces of a pope.
If the pope lacks any such special grace (that his faith not fail) in what way would the Church built on Peter be anymore indefectible than the temple of Jerusalem? Would papal primacy not instead be a suicidal doctrine, since all the devil would have to do is deceive the pope?
Granted. But trad inc insists he is “Pope Francis” and insisting on a a cultish recognize and resist, as though a true pope would even want to do the things they keep saying that no pope has the authority to.
That pretty much sums it up. And the fact that it’s blatantly obvious to the rest of us really says something about.
Gregory XVI said in Mirari Vos that (and I paraphrase) a church that needs reforming or restoring is NOT the Catholic Church, because the Church is protected by the Holy Ghost. The church that can be redefined (as JPII said in 1975), or that can reneg on defined doctrines (Ratzinger, talking about papal infallibility and ecumenism) is purely human and not the Catholic Church.
V2 was the creation of the anti-church: a purely human institution that worships man.
There have been several valid councils that taught error that had to be corrected later. The Church at one time condemned the Filioque, only to reverse course. Sedes seem to think the post-Trent Church is the way the Church always was, while the thousand years before Trent was littered in controversy.
Is this the synod where Catholics are going to wake the hell up, or will people convince the Church everything is okay and we have to wait more long and arduous years of normalcy bias?
Great tweet
I still many people argue that because this wasn’t an infallible statement, it’s not heresy and everything is legit. Wow.
It is a relief to know from Trad Inc. that only infallible statements can be heretical. Since we common people lack the charism of infallibility, we never have to worry about speaking heresy. But since Bergoglio is not nor ever has been a valid Pope, he is just common like us. So he cannot speak heresy because what he said is not infallible.
Behold the mental knots required to uphold the Bergoglian Anti-Papacy!
They’re wasting time arguing about what a pope could or could not do, diverting the issue from what a pope would and would not do. Why do we have a pope and papal primacy if he were not protected by divine grace?
People are reasoning as though the Catholic Church is a purely human institution.
Bergoglio is not the pope.
They’re saying that a pope has no authority to do some things (even if he wanted to). But the question is if any pope would ever want to do those things. The latter would show that he lacks the graces of a pope.
If the pope lacks any such special grace (that his faith not fail) in what way would the Church built on Peter be anymore indefectible than the temple of Jerusalem? Would papal primacy not instead be a suicidal doctrine, since all the devil would have to do is deceive the pope?
I don’t care about what people say, what I am saying is that any talk in regards to Bergoglio is moot. He’s not the pope.
Granted. But trad inc insists he is “Pope Francis” and insisting on a a cultish recognize and resist, as though a true pope would even want to do the things they keep saying that no pope has the authority to.
That pretty much sums it up. And the fact that it’s blatantly obvious to the rest of us really says something about.
Gregory XVI said in Mirari Vos that (and I paraphrase) a church that needs reforming or restoring is NOT the Catholic Church, because the Church is protected by the Holy Ghost. The church that can be redefined (as JPII said in 1975), or that can reneg on defined doctrines (Ratzinger, talking about papal infallibility and ecumenism) is purely human and not the Catholic Church.
V2 was the creation of the anti-church: a purely human institution that worships man.
There have been several valid councils that taught error that had to be corrected later. The Church at one time condemned the Filioque, only to reverse course. Sedes seem to think the post-Trent Church is the way the Church always was, while the thousand years before Trent was littered in controversy.
Ironically there would’ve been sedes that rejected Trent.
Is this the synod where Catholics are going to wake the hell up, or will people convince the Church everything is okay and we have to wait more long and arduous years of normalcy bias?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-pope-francis-diversity-of-religious-identities-is-a-gift-of-god/