The Church is indefectible, therefore, any Pope accepted by the body of Bishops is de facto a valid Pope, even if his election were invalid. For the body cannot go astray following a false head.
However, the fathers and doctors of the Church all agree that IF a Pope ever were a manifest heretic, he would cease to be a valid Pope, for one cannot be the head of a Church of which one is not a member, and heretics are automatically excommunicated.
So how is it that most papal accusers claim Francis is valid, and that he has committed heresy? Both those claims cannot be true.
Why won’t the papal accusers answer this simple question: If Francis is guilty of heresy, apostasy, and idolatry, as you claim, how can he be the valid Pope? They won’t answer because they don’t want people to know that they are schismatics who reject the Pope.
Bellarmine: “a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon lose all jurisdiction….”
And that includes Bishops as well. Any Bishop who is a manifest heretic “ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church”. Bishop Carlo Vigano and Bishop Athanasius Schneider are both manifest heretics, they both have lost all jurisdiction, they both have ceased to be Christians, in the fullest sense, and ceased to be full members of the body of the Church. There is some sense in which heretics and schismatics might be members implicitly, or in the sense of having the indelible characters of the three Sacraments. But they no longer have the authority of Bishops.
Therefore, Vigano and Schneider cannot propose to correct the Roman Pontiffs based on their role as Bishops. They have lost that role, that authority, and so they cannot appeal to what they have lost as a way to rebuke a Pope or a Council.
At least the Sedevacantists are honest enough to call Popes they disagree with “Antipopes”.
There is no new assertion by the Pope here. The quote is in a new movie, which covers the time when Pope Francis was an Archbishop. The legislature of his country was considering two proposals, same-sex marriage or civil unions. One or the other was going to pass. The Bishops chose to oppose both. Bishop Bergoglio at the time chose to support civil unions, as a way to obtain rights and protections from the law for gay persons, and also as a way to prevent same-sex marriage from passing.
Ronald, what do you say of today’s news about LGBTQ unions approved by the Pope? What are faithful Catholics to believe when the Pope speaks so clearly against the prior teaching of the Church? Must we accept this teaching? Should we? Can we? I’m so confused!
Nothing was said contrary to Church teaching. The proposal was for civil unions in secular society, so as to provide right and protections under the law for gay persons. This does not change Church teaching against same-sex marriage or sexual acts. And the Pope did not issue any new teaching, it is a movie referencing a situation when he was Bishop, and he was commenting on legislation in his country.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/declaration-abp-vigano-on-the-documentary-film-francesco letter of Vigano in responce.
It cannot be commented just a little. Therefore I’d rather not. Maybe more bishops will speak in the coming days.
We ultimately go to Fatima, to the faked secret, and to the second Sr Lucia.
Either Vigano is right, or pope Francis. There isn’t a “middle way”. There isn’t half truth. So I wonder, when ultra conservative sites ask very reasonable questions of the authenticity of Lucia’s later handwriting, Lucia’s facial bio-metrics etc, and conclude that maybe there are two Lucias,…would now those same ultraconservative groups readily accept the later Lucia contrary to their own previous statements, because the later Lucia sent a private letter that was kept DECADES in secret, where she said that the ultimate battle will be for defending the family? And in that way the ultraconservatives will build up their ONLY ISSUE that matters? (Now adding the homosexual unions to the well defined evil of abortions).
OR all of that (incl Sr Lucia’s alleged letter) is the COVER STORY intended to divert our attention to important but not the most important issues in the last months we have before the unknown cataclysm that John Paul II spoke of in Fulda Germany? Reading the two versions of the 3rd secret, it seems we are already double crossed as continuation of our human lives in the coming mass sacrifice that the perpetrators of Fatima scam want to push us into by denying the only important information of our RESCUE that apparently they posses and that apparently has to do with a not so godly power. All of that done in the name of God, traditional family values and “pro life”…Actually “pro death”. Very much so.
Excuse me I see things black and white but I cannot see them purple and red.
There’s no hidden Fatima secret. The full text was revealed in 2000 by Cardinal Ratzinger under JP2. Sister Lucia at the time confirmed that was the full secret. The Catholic faith is not based on conspiracy theories. So Vigano is wrong.
I would respectfully disagree that the full Fatima secret was revealed. A vision of Lucia was revealed, not the literal text given by Our Lady.
However, I fully agree that Vigano is wrong and the Catholic faith is not a conspiracy based theory. Fanatics, lunatics and below average educated persons should never be given authority to speak on behalf of the Church, something we witness far not only with Vigano alone.
St John Paul II in Fulda Germany 1980 about the Third Secret:
“Given the seriousness of the contents, my predecessors in the Petrine office diplomatically preferred to postpone publication so as not to encourage the world power of Communism to make certain moves.
On the other hand, it should be sufficient for all Christians to know this: if there is a message in which it is written that the oceans will flood whole areas of the earth, and that from one moment to the next millions of people will perish, truly the publication of such a message is no longer something to be so much desired.”
Ron I see the FBI have accused the Russians and Iranians of electoral interference today I was just wondering why Iran would try to influence the election in Trumps favour they have been accused of sending fake e mails to democrat voters threatening them to vote for Trump or they will be attacked by Right wing mobs my question is wouldn’t Iran want Trump out of office?.is it not in theyre interest to have him out of power.
I don’t really follow those kinds of news stories. I don’t know why Iran would prefer one candidate over another.