Translate

Wednesday, July 22, 2020

THE POPE IS THE POPE, PERIOD.......

I agree with Cardinal Scola. It is true, too, that the one who is the cause of polarization should do an examination of conscience to help neutralize it:





29 comments:

Pierre said...

Would Cardinal Scola condemn St. Catherine of Siena? She was kind of tough on the Pope

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

No comparison be a saint and Vigano.

Pierre said...

Father McDonald,

One never knows! I recall many saints who were in trouble much of their lives but turned things around!

Pierre said...

Father McDonald,

You are a fair man and a scholar. Even though we do not see eye to eye on Archbishop Vigano, I am with you 99% of the time. I think Vigano started off on the right track, exposing the McCarrick evil, but he has gotten a bit extreme in some of his statements as of late. I am stunned the Vatican still has not released its report on McCarrick. If I missed it, please let us know.

ByzRus said...

Indeed he is and, like the rest, a temporary occupant of the chair. May he be both inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit while there.

Separately, that photo is totally cool. He looks like a boss there.

christykimsey said...

Father, I highly recommend reading Anne Barnhardt’s analysis. I believe it would be highly beneficial to read it. Pax. https://www.barnhardt.biz/the-bergoglian-antipapcy/

Vatican Zero said...

Pierre,

We are not ever going to SEE a report on McCarrick, (except, perhaps, a Bowdlerized version) because too many people in power now would be exposed. While I do not deny that there are many good bishops, I tend to give more creedence to the premise that there is a powerful homosexualized underground of financial corruption and compromised "men" holding the reigns of episcopal authority in the Church, especially in the U.S.. This is the very same reason I don't believe we will get to see the complete Third Secret of Fatima. It would expose the very demonic thing that has been foisted upon us for the last 50 years--you know, that great "renewal".

John said...

Clericalism. Any one who idolizes Pachamama does not credibly serve Jesus Christ. Would Jesus advocate the release of the McCarric report? Would He tolerate homosexualists in the Temple? More and more fewer and fewer care about what people like Cardinal Scola advocates.

Vatican Zero said...

"reins". Excuse me.

As much as I complain about "bad bishops", I think some of the good ones also deserve mention:

Samuel Aquila, Denver
Thomas Olmsted, Phoenix
David Kagan, Bismarck
Salvatore Cordileone, San Francisco
Robert Vasa, Santa Rosa
Joseph Strickland, Tyler
John Folda, Fargo
Thomas Wenski (sometimes) Miami

There's probably a few others...but not enough to break the deadlock that will keep the McCarrick report forever buried.

Anonymous said...

We haven't seen it, we will never see it, but, by golly by gosh, we know what is in it!

I know there are homosexual bishops, but I won't put their names in writing and sign my name to the post.

The "Third Secret of Fatima" is not of any concern for a faithful Catholic It is not Revelation, it is not Dogma nor Doctrine.

Zero, you create your own angst.

Anonymous said...

Re: Barnhardt

I'll save you the time. The opening shot of this "espose'" is "Antipapacy: The Freemasonic / Teutonic Final Attack on the Petrine See"

By all means, waste your time on that.

Pierre said...

Speaking of McCarrick, this showed up in the Daily News today. If true, this will cause extreme damage to the current higher ups in the Vatican and the US:

"Former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick ran a depraved sex ring of underage boys at a beach house on the Jersey Shore, a disturbing new lawsuit claims.

The suit, filed by a man using the pseudonym Doe 14, claims that in 1982 and 1983, when he was as young as 14 years old, he and other victims were taken on weekend overnight trips to a Sea Girt beach house."

DJR said...

Pope Formosus thought he was a pope, too... until a future pope (actually, two) said he was never a pope.

Likewise, John IX, Benedict IV, Leo V, and Christopher considered themselves popes. Sergius III declared them to be antipopes.

Vatican Zero said...

Anon:

I would agree with you about Fatima, except it IS a revelation, albeit a private one. The problem is, it's not entirely a private revelation either. More than 70,000 people witnessed the Miracle of the Sun in 1917 and that tipped it into a quasi-public realm. If what Sister Lucia Dos Santos said was true, the third secret is of GREAT CONCERN to Catholics, especially when one looks at the "success story" of how the Church turned since 1960 when she said the secret was to be revealed. And I welcome your scoffing...it goes with the territory. Angst? Probably not. Concern...definitely.

Anonymous said...

I would be happy to name names, but Fr.McDonald would never allow such a post to be published here. It doesn't take a genius to see and read the connections. Especially in light of the recent "map" of bishops' sphere of influence: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2007.06606.pdf

Read that--it DOES name names.

Anonymous said...

Happy to name names, BUT....

There it is.

Paul McCarthy said...

Funny wasn’t Cardinal Scola elected during this invalid conclave. And why would I ever read a Marxist God hating rag like America.

Vatican Zero God Bless and protect you.

Christy don’t bother recommending Ann or any other traditionalist on this blog.

And don’t worry about what Our Blessed Mother has warned us all this pass 150 years or so from LaSallete to Akita

V for Victory

John Nolan said...

DJR

Formosus, John IX, Benedict IV and Leo V are recognized as popes in the Annuario Pontificio. Sergius III murdered his predecessor (Leo V) but could not deligitimize him or any of his predecessors.

For there to be an antipope there must be a legitimate pope reigning at the same time. Calling Francis an antipope makes no sense. There are a few people who do not accept the legitimacy of any pope from John XXIII onwards, but they hold that the See of Rome has been vacant since 1958.

Pierre said...

The sedevacantists are a sad lot. I think it better if we just view a particular pope objectively, rather than attack the legitimacy of his election. The current pope is not winning any awards for clarity or improving the spiritual well being of the Church. Let's just leave it at that. He will be gone and hopefully a better spiritual leader will emerge at the next conclave.

Mark Thomas said...

I wonder as to whether Rome's report on then-Cardinal McCarrick will note
that Archbishop Viganò had covered-up for then-Cardinal McCarrick's sins/crimes of a sexual predatory nature?

EXAMPLE: On May 2, 2012 A.D., at the Pierre Hotel in Manhattan, Archbishop Viganò attended, as well as had spoken glowingly of then-Cardinal McCarrick, at a gala dinner that honored then-Cardinal McCarrick.

Here is a photograph of Archbishop Viganò having greeted warmly then-Cardinal McCarrick at said gala.

https://www.scross.co.za/2018/09/is-there-truth-in-archbishop-viganos-text-and-how-are-catholics-to-know/

Archbishop Viganò had stated that by 2012 A.D., he had known for years that then-Cardinal McCarrick had trafficked in sexual molestation.

Nevertheless, at said gala dinner, Archbishop Viganò heaped praise upon then-Cardinal McCarrick.

Archbishop Viganò portrayed then-Cardinal McCarrick as a man of holy, exemplary character.

Archbishop Viganò covered for then-Cardinal McCarrick.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

DJR said...

John Nolan said... "DJR, Formosus, John IX, Benedict IV and Leo V are recognized as popes in the Annuario Pontificio. Sergius III murdered his predecessor (Leo V) but could not deligitimize him or any of his predecessors. For there to be an antipope there must be a legitimate pope reigning at the same time."

John:

The 1942 Annuario Pontificio lists Alexander V as the 206th pope and lists John XXIII as the 207th pope. The 1963 edition lists both of those men as antipopes.

In addition, under the heading "Antipope" in the online Catholic Encyclopedia, you will find an article that lists 30 antipopes. Neither Alexander V nor the first John XXIII are on that list, which was compiled in the 19th century.

Also in the online CE, Sylvester III is listed as the 146th pope but with the following line: "Considered by some to be an antipope."

Sylvester was enthroned while Benedict IX was still living, and yet he is listed as a pope by some.

So, the takeaway from that is that the AP carries no weight whatsoever with regard to the issue of who is/was, or is/was not, a legitimate pope (nor does the Catholic Encyclopedia of course).

An antipope is a man who claims to be pope while not actually being a pope. There does not need to be a legitimate pope in office for there to exist an antipope.

There have been several antipopes who outlasted their opponents and who lived during the succeeding papacies. They did not cease being antipopes during the time the see was vacant. For just one example: Felix V.

Both Stephen VI and Sergius III ruled that Formosus was an antipope (other popes ruled the opposite). Was he an antipope? The church has never definitively stated one way or the other (the AP is meaningless in that regard).

In the case of Sergius III, he was installed as pope after the death of Theodore II and was in the Lateran for several weeks before he was deposed by his political opponents. There is no reason to believe he wasn't a legitimate pope at the time of his deposition.

If he was pope, then all the purported popes between his election and the time he retook the papacy by force were antipopes. Sergius certainly held that opinion.

For the record, I assume Pope Francis is the pope, although I don't much care about who is the pope at any particular time.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas,

Here's a little inconvenient fact you should consider before slobbering over PF:

"In spite of knowing about former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick's sexual assaults, Pope Francis lifted sanctions from him that had been imposed by Pope Benedict."

I have lived through 7 popes and PF, in my opinion, is the least gifted intellectually and bereft of Catholic spirituality. I would love it if you would slobber over the following popes:

Pius XII
John XXIII
Paul VI
John Paul I
John Paul II
Benedict the XVI

Then you might have some credibility here

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous at July 23, 2020 at 6:45 PM:

Is your response related to my post in this thread? If so, then I don't understand as to why you've veered off course.

Anyway, for the moment, I am focused upon the fact that Archbishop Viganò provided cover for then-Cardinal McCarrick.

Archbishop Viganò knew then-Cardinal McCarrick's true character. But Archbishop Viganò decided to lie as he deceived people about then-Cardinal McCarrick.

Archbishop Viganò IS among Churchmen who for years had covered-up for then-Cardinal McCarrick — a sexual predator.

Anonymous, for now, on this thread, the above is my focus.

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous said..."Mark Thomas, Here's a little inconvenient fact you should consider before slobbering over PF:

"In spite of knowing about former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick's sexual assaults, Pope Francis lifted sanctions from him that had been imposed by Pope Benedict."

Anonymous, are you unaware that Archbishop Viganò acknowledged that Pope Benedict XVI had not imposed sanctions upon then-Cardinal McCarrick?

I wish to introduce you to the facts.

1. Archbishop Viganò claimed initially that Pope Benedict XVI had applied "canonical sanctions" to then-Cardinal McCarrick.

2. Archbishop Viganò then changed his story to: Pope Benedict had applied sanctions, but canonical sanctions to then-Cardinal McCarrick.

3. Archbishop Viganò then changed his story to: Pope Benedict XVI had not applied sanctions, canonical or otherwise, to then-Cardinal McCarrick.

Anonymous, please explain as to how Pope Francis "lifted" non-existent "sanctions"?

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

John Nolan said...

DJR

Of the thirty-five antipopes listed in the annuario pontificio, from Hippolytus (217-c235) to Felix V (1439-1449) only two, Constantine (767-768) and Philip (768) possibly coincided with a lengthy interregnum (28 June 767 to 7 August 768). The brief period of 'sede vacante' between the death of one pope and the appointment/election of his successor does not disrupt the legitimate succession.

To infer that the AP carries 'no weight whatsoever' because there are a few discrepancies ignores the fact that it remains the sole official and therefore authoritative source. Antipopes were set up as 'rival' popes by certain factions. Felix V was elevated in 1439 by the dubious council of Basel in opposition to Eugenius IV (1431-1447) and in 1449 was reconciled to Eugenius's successor Nicholas V (1447-1455), who made him a cardinal. He died in 1451.

The fact that he was antipope to two successive legitimate popes is neither here nor there.

DJR said...

John Nolan said..."DJR, the brief period of 'sede vacante' between the death of one pope and the appointment/election of his successor does not disrupt the legitimate succession.
To infer that the AP carries 'no weight whatsoever' because there are a few discrepancies ignores the fact that it remains the sole official and therefore authoritative source."


No one was making the point that a period of sede vacante disrupts the legitimate succession. My point was that there does not have to be a reigning pope for there to exist an antipope.

Felix V was an antipope after the death of the legitimate pope and before the election of the next pope. There was no reigning pope during the interregnum, but Felix was still an antipope during that time. Ditto regarding the other antipopes who claimed the see of Rome when there was no actual pope.

The AP carries no dogmatic weight. If it did, we'd have a problem, as it has been changed.

The current version directly contradicts the 1942 version. That's not merely a "discrepancy." The two versions cannot both be correct, and what that tells a person is that the AP cannot therefore possibly be the determining factor on this issue, as it can be changed to say the exact opposite of a prior edition.

We have two popes who ruled that Formosus was an antipope. They are either correct or they are not. If they are, then he was an antipope. If they are not, then he was a true pope.
However, the AP is not, and cannot be, the arbiter in the matter.

John Nolan said...

An antipope is by definition one who opposes the legitimately elected pope. Only the Church is qualified to decide which popes over the past 2000 years were legitimately elected and which were not, and history is often a messy business not always subject to strict forensic interpretation. The change in the 1963 AP was deemed necessary because Roncalli had assumed the regnal number XXIII, as had Baldassare Cossa in 1410 during the uniquely confused period known as the Great Schism.

Since there was no Pope John XX, there was the possible option of renumbering the Johns from XXI onwards, but a neater solution was to regard Gregory XII (1406-1415) as canonically elected and not subsequently deposed. The Council of Constance allowed him to abdicate whereas Benedict XIII and John XXIII were both deposed.

Historians of the papacy such as Eamon Duffy accept the official list, since it is not within their competence to decide otherwise.

DJR said...

John Nolan said... "An antipope is by definition one who opposes the legitimately elected pope. Only the Church is qualified to decide which popes over the past 2000 years were legitimately elected and which were not, and history is often a messy business not always subject to strict forensic interpretation."

John, as far as the above definition of "antipope," either the statement is incorrect (not broad enough) OR your understanding of how many antipopes there have been is incorrect.

There does not need to be a reigning pope in order for there to be an antipope. The men who claimed to be popes during a time when there were no legitimate popes were still antipopes.

From what you have stated, that would have to be your position with regard to Sergius III when he first claimed the papacy.

Sergius III claimed the See of Rome in December AD 897. He was later deposed. Then John IX was elected and installed in January AD 898.

If Sergius III was the true pope when he first claimed the See of Rome, then he is correct when he held that John IX, Benedict IV, Leo V, and Christopher were all antipopes, as legitimate popes cannot properly be deposed.

However, if he wasn't a true pope at the time he first claimed Rome, that means he was an antipope at the time he claimed to be pope. In other words, he was an antipope from day 1, and without there being a reigning pope.

When you say, "Only the Church is qualified to decide which popes over the past 2000 years were legitimately elected and which were not...," what do you mean by "the Church"?

"The Church," in the persons of Pope Stephen VI and Sergius III, has ruled that Formosus was an antipope.

And "the Church," in the persons of Theodore II and John IX, has ruled the opposite.

"The Church," in the 1942 Annuario Pontificio, held that Alexander V was the 206th pope and the first John XXIII was the 207th pope.

Then "the Church," in the 1963 edition, held that both of those men were antipopes.

Which is it?

John Nolan said...

DJR

The Church in this sense is the Pontifical Committee of Historical Sciences, which is responsible for the official list of popes. It admits that there are cases where the legitimate succession cannot be established with certainty, but understands that there needs to be a continuous succession. Since the papacy is an elective and not a hereditary monarchy, long-dead disputes over legitimacy are not that important. If Formosus' bulls and episcopal appointments were invalid, as Stephen and Sergius claimed, it has no significance outside its own time and context.

The fact that a plausible continuous succession can be maintained over 2000 years is in itself remarkable. But no-one is arguing that it is historically definitive, since it depends on judgements which are not in themselves historical.

Antipopes have been compared with pretenders to royal thrones. As the Jacobites used to say:

God bless the King - I mean, the Faith's defender.
God bless (no harm in blessing) the Pretender.
But who Pretender is, and who is King,
God bless us all! That's quite another thing.