Bishop calls for pope francis to convert or step down

[mea kulpa]

I have to say i totally agree with the bishop francis is a fundamental danger to the faith and the souls he is supposed to care for

Bishop Schneider: “Convert” or “renounce the papacy”

 

[CrystalDragon]

Question: the Popes are supposed to be chosen by God, right? It must be that way if he (God) is all knowing, all powerful, and determines everything. Even discounting that though, why would God put a Pope in power who could change the faith unless He wanted it that way?

Plus, if the Pope is supposedly infallible on matters of faith, then must what he officially says in terms of faith-matters be seen as God-given fact? If not, how can we tell? Are we cherry-picking? If Popes aren't infallible in matters of faith, how can we know what is true of our faith if God doesn't give signs and messages like he used to?

 

[Tomm]

Question: the Popes are supposed to be chosen by God, right? It must be that way if he's all knowing, all powerful, and determines everything. Even discounting that though, why would God put a Pope in power who could change the faith unless He wanted it that way?

Disagree, don't forget men have free will, my friend.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Disagree, don't remember men have free will, my friend.

But it's said that God determines even the roll of a die. God knows and predetermines everything that happens, we just claim we have free will because we feel we do, and the alternative would be too uncomfortable.

 

[Tomm]

But it's said that God determines even the roll of a die. God knows and predetermines everything that happens, we just claim we have free will because we feel we do, and the alternative would be too uncomfortable.

That's heresy if you say men don't have free will; God doesn't control everything, if He does, there'd be no original sin.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Question: the Popes are supposed to be chosen by God, right?

Popes are chosen by a vote of the cardinals. The Holy Spirit influences the vote, not controls it. There are other influences as well. So, no, not every pope is God's pick. Cardinal Ratzinger noted exactly that before he was made pope.

It must be that way if he's all knowing, all powerful, and determines everything.

A pope is not all knowing, all powerful, determining everything. A pope is a human being, capable of all sorts of mistakes. Infallibility only refers to a limited ability not to teach error regarding faith and morals. God is omniscient and omnipotent, but even so God allows all of us to make mistakes, to sin, to fail to do His will. So too with popes, except for the limit of infallibility, which restrains the worst of the damage a pope could do. God does not treat us as puppets on a string. With infallibility God prohibits a pope from doing a few things, but otherwise a pope is free to do good (with God's help) or evil.

Even discounting that though, why would God put a Pope in power who could change the faith unless He wanted it that way?

Maybe He wants us to wake up and take the faith seriously. Maybe He wants to remind us how limited infallibility really is. We had two great popes in John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Absolutely great. Before that Paul VI was a good man who tried hard but was not very effective. John XXIII was a holy man. Pius XII was another great pope who saved tens of thousands of Jews from the Fascists. We have been on a role with better than average popes for a long time. Many of us just presumed that the next pope would be another great pope. But not all popes are great or even good. This one seems at best to be confused and a bit in over his head. Infallibility does not mean a pope will not say stupid things from time to time, does not mean a pope will be a good administrator, does not mean he will pick only the best for bishops. It only means, when pressed, he will not declare some heresy as true and binding on Catholics.

 

[mea kulpa]

The holy spirit will guide a conclave if the cardinal electors are open to his insperation. But even before the conclave a certain group of modernist cardinals were conspiring behind closed doors to over throw pope benedict and elect bergoglio and incured automatic excommunication upon themselves and bergoglio who was complicit in the plot.

 

[Strivax]

Can't say I can see the substance of the argument; it's all examples, allusions, innuendos. Far too subtle for me. What is the problem with this Pope? He seems to be doing as well as can be expected, given the binding nature of the previous teachings of the denomination that confine him. What is it that makes him a 'fundamental danger to the faith'?

Best wishes, Strivax

PS. By the way, if a bishop has a problem with a Pope, maybe it is the bishop who should consider his position. S.

 

[Strivax]

...But even before the conclave a certain group of modernist cardinals were conspiring behind closed doors to over throw pope benedict and elect bergoglio and incured automatic excommunication upon themselves and bergoglio who was complicit in the plot.

And your evidence for that would be....?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[chevyontheriver]

But even before the conclave a certain group of modernist cardinals were conspiring behind closed doors to over throw pope benedict and elect bergoglio and incured automatic excommunication upon themselves and bergoglio who was complicit in the plot.

Please name names.

And how is that different from those who are trying to remove pope Francis?

 

[mea kulpa]

And your evidence would be....?

Best wishes, Strivax.

The cardinals who were involved admit it and a document known as U.D.G 81 that specifically prohibits this kind of thing... incuring automatic excommunication..these things are widely known in Catholic circles... i can provide links in you require them but....are you that interested in if the pope is validily elected?

 

[mea kulpa]

Please name names.

And how is that different from those who are trying to remove pope Francis?

1 is a validly elected pope the other is not

Daneels, kasper, murphy o'conner,martini
Lehmann among others

Cardinal Danneels Admits: “Mafia Club” Opposed to Benedict XVI Plotted Pope Francis Election

 

[SolomonVII]

Popes are chosen by a vote of the cardinals. The Holy Spirit influences the vote, not controls it. There are other influences as well. So, no, not every pope is God's pick. Cardinal Ratzinger noted exactly that before he was made pope.A pope is not all knowing, all powerful, determining everything. A pope is a human being, capable of all sorts of mistakes. Infallibility only refers to a limited ability not to teach error regarding faith and morals. God is omniscient and omnipotent, but even so God allows all of us to make mistakes, to sin, to fail to do His will. So too with popes, except for the limit of infallibility, which restrains the worst of the damage a pope could do. God does not treat us as puppets on a string. With infallibility God prohibits a pope from doing a few things, but otherwise a pope is free to do good (with God's help) or evil.

Maybe He wants us to wake up and take the faith seriously. Maybe He wants to remind us how limited infallibility really is. We had two great popes in John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Absolutely great. Before that Paul VI was a good man who tried hard but was not very effective. John XXIII was a holy man. Pius XII was another great pope who saved tens of thousands of Jews from the Fascists. We have been on a role with better than average popes for a long time. Many of us just presumed that the next pope would be another great pope. But not all popes are great or even good. This one seems at best to be confused and a bit in over his head. Infallibility does not mean a pope will not say stupid things from time to time, does not mean a pope will be a good administrator, does not mean he will pick only the best for bishops. It only means, when pressed, he will not declare some heresy as true and binding on Catholics.

This pope does serve as a good reminder that any pope is just a man. Catholics have historically been very prone to authoritarianism, and this pope serves as a wake up call to conservative Catholics that the role of any shepherd is to guide, and not to dictate.

 

[chevyontheriver]

1 is a validly elected pope the other is not

You made a leap there without laying the foundation. I asked about how those plotting to remove Francis are any different from those plotting to remove Benedict. You seem to have a hermetically sealed belief that Francis isn't the pope because some cardinals of like mind wanted him to be pope. Universi Domini Gregis does not say what you seem to wish it to say. A series of private discussions about who might be pope can easily be done without violating the protocol. The text is available here: Universi Dominici Gregis (February 22, 1996) | John Paul II

Daneels, kasper, murphy o'conner,martini
Lehmann among others

Cardinal Danneels Admits: “Mafia Club” Opposed to Benedict XVI Plotted Pope Francis Election

Yes, the Mafia Club, aka the Sankt-Gallen Group. Danneels sure is a work of art. He should have resigned in disgrace. Failing that, he should have been forcefully retired. But he headed a liberal faction and they pulled off the election of cardinal Bergolio.

I think we simply have to face that Benedict freely resigned, Francis is the pope, and he's not a good pope. I think bishop Schneider put it correctly. Francis should resign if he will not uphold the faith. The alternative is for God to strike him dead or mute.

 

[mea kulpa]

You made a leap there without laying the foundation. I asked about how those plotting to remove Francis are any different from those plotting to remove Benedict. You seem to have a hermetically sealed belief that Francis isn't the pope because some cardinals of like mind wanted him to be pope. Universi Domini Gregis does not say what you seem to wish it to say. A series of private discussions about who might be pope can easily be done without violating the protocol. The text is available here: Universi Dominici Gregis (February 22, 1996) | John Paul II

Yes, the Mafia Club, aka the Sankt-Gallen Group. Danneels sure is a work of art. He should have resigned in disgrace. Failing that, he should have been forcefully retired. But he headed a liberal faction and they pulled off the election of cardinal Bergolio.

I think we simply have to face that Benedict freely resigned, Francis is the pope, and he's not a good pope. I think bishop Schneider put it correctly. Francis should resign if he will not uphold the faith. The alternative is for God to strike him dead or mute.

Well i have done a lot of research ino this but its a laborious task to dredge it all up and go over and over and over and over and over it with every single person who challenges my beleif that pope benedict is still pope

 

[Strivax]

Well, conspiracy theories aside, I still want to know why you think Francis is not a good Pope. Why, indeed, he is a 'fundamental threat to the faith'. Or is this just dark mutterings amongst the conservative wing of catholicism?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[mea kulpa]

Well, conspiracy theories aside, I still want to know why you think Francis is not a good Pope. Why, indeed, he is a 'fundamental threat to the faith'. Or is this just dark mutterings amongst the conservative wing of catholicism?

Best wishes, Strivax.

You know it really agravates me when people mock my beliefs as "conspiracy theory" and dismiss them without even considering the evidence

The reason bergoglio is a bad pope is because he is lending himself to the enemies of the church even helpping to kill children. His words are intentionally ambigious to maintain plausable deniability as he teaches false doctrines contray to the sacred tradition of the church and even contary to sacred scripture itself

 

[Strivax]

I asked before, I'll ask again. What evidence would that be, then?

As for false doctrines, you mean like using contraception is sinful, or that gays are destined for hell?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well i have done a lot of research ino this but its a laborious task to dredge it all up and go over and over and over and over and over it with every single person who challenges my beleif that pope benedict is still pope

All sorts of people say they have done a lot of research into their position that there is no pope. Protestants, for example. Or those who think St Pius X was the last pope. Or those who think St Pius V was the last pope. Plenty of people 'have done a lot of research' to come up with a whole lot of different opinions. You are free to believe in your own 'research', but the simple reality is that pope Benedict says he freely resigned and that pope Francis is the elected pope. That might not be the pleasing conclusion for people like me who really miss pope Benedict, but it's among the few sane options. Varieties of sedevacantism are, IMHO, flights of fantasy. The real issue is what to do about a bad pope. Claiming he isn't pope doesn't fix the problem. Francis is still there in the Vatican saying crazy things.

Bishop Schneider made his statement. So too cardinal Burke. Neither have said Francis is not pope.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well, conspiracy theories aside, I still want to know why you think Francis is not a good Pope. Why, indeed, he is a 'fundamental threat to the faith'. Or is this just dark mutterings amongst the conservative wing of catholicism?

Best wishes, Strivax.

He says some crazy things in impromptu interviews. That does not make him a threat to the faith. He engineered the synods on the family towards a particular view on marriage that breaks tradition and is opposed to the words of Jesus. That is serious. His teaching on this is ambiguous and some bishops conferences have run with that ambiguity to allow things which have never been allowed. Some cardinals have asked for a clarification and have been stonewalled. He is creating a schism between those who think it just fine to allow married people to marry another person while still considered married by the Church and then march up to communion. He has appointed bishops of that view.

We have always had dark mutterers in the conservative wings of the Church. Some who didn't accept pope John Paul II because he was too flaming liberal for them. Vatican II deniers. Others of that sort. But this is different. Lots of us are thinking that the apple cart has been tipped over, people who would have never given the time of day to those old mutterers. Something is up. On the other side, there are people jubilant about how now we will embrace homosexual marriage, contraception, abortion, women priests, and what have you. I think they are premature, but with Francis I couldn't place any sure bets any more. I know things have been crazy in the Church before, but this is a crazy time for an ordinary Catholic.