Bishop calls for pope francis to convert or step down

[mea kulpa]

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.

Your absolutly correct saying benedict xvi is still pope is not going to solve the situation but we need to know the real situation in order to take the appropriate measures and also if you think about it....

If B16 is the true pope and not francis then all those who accept francis is pope are in schism with the true pope... and of course vice versa. If your not in uinon with the vicar of christ your a schismatic and outside the true church thus the doctrine "nulla ecclasia nulla salis" (sorry latin is poor) no salvation outside the church takes a on new importance and i do not take my position lightly... i am wagering my eternal life on this and if i am wrong i am going to hell.

I will reluctantly if your truely interested post the reasons for my position... if you are truely interested and truely open to the possibility..you are free of course to reject why i believe as i do after but please dont waste my time in asking me to go through it all AGAIN (I know not with you but with many) without being open to the possibility that it may even just may be correct.

What is more i actually believe a francis pontificate is neccisary... but at the same time should be disobayed while warning other catholics about who is the true pope

 

[chevyontheriver]

If B16 is the true pope and not francis then all those who accept francis is pope are in schism with the true pope... and of course vice versa. If your not in uinon with the vicar of christ your a schismatic and outside the true church thus the doctrine "nulla ecclasia nulla salis" (sorry latin is poor) no salvation outside the church takes a on new importance and i do not take my position lightly... i am wagering my eternal life on this and if i am wrong i am going to hell.

Wager very carefully. Benedict says he resigned freely, not under any duress. I take that at face value. If someone is holding a gun to his head, well, I don't know about it. So Benedict is no longer pope. Period. Unless you can show the gun being held to his head. The cardinals met and elected Francis. So who should I say is pope? Benedict? At simple face value, Francis is the pope. I'm not in schism. Not yet anyway. I don't have to go through any mental gymnastics or parsing of words to not be in schism. On the other hand you have to presume that private meetings incurred automatic excommunications and that Francis was thus invalidly elected. Just not much real evidence there to wager my soul.

I will reluctantly if your truely interested post the reasons for my position... if you are truely interested and truely open to the possibility..you are free of course to reject why i believe as i do after but please dont waste my time in asking me to go through it all AGAIN (I know not with you but with many) without being open to the possibility that it may even just may be correct.

I think you should go through it all again but for yourself, applying a dose of skepticism. For your position doesn't really differ from Martin Luther's position. We have a pope and bishops over us. Luther tossed all of that aside in favor of his own understanding, his own 'research'.

What is more i actually believe a francis pontificate is neccisary... but at the same time should be disobayed while warning other catholics about who is the true pope

I don't get what you mean. I think it's all to easy to say Francis isn't the real pope. Harder to say he is the real pope but a bad pope. In any event, he has brought us all to the point of schism and heresy. What a mess. A mess he could end by responding to the four cardinals dubia. That and thinking before speaking.

 

[mea kulpa]

Wager very carefully. Benedict says he resigned freely, not under any duress. I take that at face value. If someone is holding a gun to his head, well, I don't know about it. So Benedict is no longer pope. Period. Unless you can show the gun being held to his head. The cardinals met and elected Francis. So who should I say is pope? Benedict? At simple face value, Francis is the pope. I'm not in schism. Not yet anyway. I don't have to go through any mental gymnastics or parsing of words to not be in schism. On the other hand you have to presume that private meetings incurred automatic excommunications and that Francis was thus invalidly elected. Just not much real evidence there to wager my soul.

I think you should go through it all again but for yourself, applying a dose of skepticism. For your position doesn't really differ from Martin Luther's position. We have a pope and bishops over us. Luther tossed all of that aside in favor of his own understanding, his own 'research'.
I don't get what you mean. I think it's all to easy to say Francis isn't the real pope. Harder to say he is the real pope but a bad pope. In any event, he has brought us all to the point of schism and heresy. What a mess. A mess he could end by responding to the four cardinals dubia. That and thinking before speaking.

You are weary and upset by this pontificate your heart is filled with sadness and at times anger your mind with confusion... is it not?

But let the lord comfort you it is happening as it is written.

In 2005 Cardinal Ratzinger became pope in his first homily said

"One of the basic characteristics of a shepherd must be to love the people entrusted to him, even as he loves Christ whom he serves. “Feed my sheep”, says Christ to Peter, and now, at this moment, he says it to me as well. Feeding means loving, and loving also means being ready to suffer. Loving means giving the sheep what is truly good, the nourishment of God’s truth, of God’s word, the nourishment of his presence, which he gives us in the Blessed Sacrament. My dear friends – at this moment I can only say: pray for me, that I may learn to love the Lord more and more. Pray for me, that I may learn to love his flock more and more – in other words, you, the holy Church, each one of you and all of you together. Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves. "

24 April 2005: Mass for the inauguration of the Pontificate | BENEDICT XVI

Jn 10: 12-13

12The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.30Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

The pope said these thing to be a prophecy of his pontificate so that you may know the hour when the wolves have come.

Yet did the hired hand in this instance really run away and leave the sheep?

In his last address pope benedict had this to say

"Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. (His election as popr that 4 days later he would warn that wolves would come for him) The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord.

Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him."

The "always" is also a "for ever" – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. "

Last General Audience of Pope Benedict XVI, 27 February 2013 | BENEDICT XVI

The address led to a close confidant of pope benedict xvi none other than to this day his own personal secratary to say


"Drawing on the Latin words “munus petrinum” — “Petrine ministry” — Gänswein (archbishop) pointed out the word “munus” has many meanings such as “service, duty, guide or gift”. He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’.

“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something "quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“

Archbishop Gänswein: Benedict XVI Sees Resignation as Expanding Petrine Ministry

Notice pope benedict xvi very own personal secratary is clarifying his last address... he is saying pope benedict NEVER abandond the petrine ministry.... that is quite a bombshell!!! This if from pope benedict xvi own personal secratary...

But wait there is more.

Francis has rejected all the papal titles except for bishop of Rome that includes pope, supreme pontiff and Vicar of Christ

While Benedict has kept all the titles except he is now "Emeritus" however Pope John Paul II said

“A Pope Emeritus is impossible.”

However there are many many bishops who are Emeritus... and this is the only title francis took Bishop of Rome

Pope Francis officially de-emphasizes papal titles

Also from the same article we read

"The signature under Francis' official portrait is given in Italian and not Latin. While Benedict previously signed his name in Latin as "Benedictus" (and not the Italian "Benedetto"), Francis has signed his in the Italian "Francesco" (and not the Latin "Franciscus"). Additionally, Benedict's signature appeared with the initials PP following his name, standing for "pope," while Francis' does not."

Also bergoglio travels the world on an argentinan passport as jorge bergoglio anf not the holy see passport as pope francis vicar of christ head of vatican state.

Pope Benedict "had" to be there to open the door of mercy
The new francis cardinals had to go meet with benedict xvi!!!... to get his blessing???

Pope Francis gets passport to show he is a pope of the people

In short everything has been done by francis to distance himself from the papacy while benedict has done everything to remain connected to it.

So the question is why???

I will address why next time

 

[Greyy]

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

The article presents nothing to suggests the Cardinals did anything wrong.

 

[mea kulpa]

The article presents nothing to suggests the Cardinals did anything wrong.

81. The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.


Universi Dominici Gregis (February 22, 1996) | John Paul II

"A key fact alleged in the book, namely, that Cardinal Bergoglio expressly consented to the work of Team Bergoglio

The version of events reportedly asserted in Ivereigh’s book, presents the opportunity of a grave canonical challenge to the valdity of Pope Francis’ election to the office of Roman Pontiff."

Ivereigh + UDG 81 = A Radical Problem for the Pope

 

[fide]

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.

I agree with most everything you've written here. Many "ordinary" faithful Catholics are confused, and uneasy, because of the lack of clarity and even possible lack of fidelity to past Catholic doctrine - concerning right reception of Holy Eucharist, divorce/remarriage without Church declaration of nullity, Catholic teachings on sexual morality to list some of the more significant ones.

You may be interested in a new editorial just published on HPR (Homiletic & Pastoral Review), written by the editor, Fr. David Meconi, S.J. concerning the pope. HPR has been offered by Jesuits for a long time - faithful Jesuits! - and so this assessment is an especially relevant one, I think. The Article is Munus Docendi. (the Duty/Service/Office of Teaching).

 

[Armoured]

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”

The Pope's the Pope. If you don't like the Pope, feel free to leave the club.

 

[fide]

The Pope's the Pope. If you don't like the Pope, feel free to leave the club.

The lay faithful have more than the freedom to leave their Church! They also have a sacred duty to live their own personal life in Christ, gained in Baptism: their share in His call as priest, prophet and king. This three-fold vocation of the laity is not easy, nor always accepted by other laity or clergy! But we have a call in Christ, and to Him we are accountable.

The Catechism discusses each office in turn, but to focus on the share in Christ's prophetic ministry, the Catechism includes what I have copied below. I've added bold/underline/italics for particular emphasis:

Participation in Christ’s prophetic office

904 “Christ . . . fulfills this prophetic office, not only by the hierarchy . . . but also by the laity. He accordingly both establishes them as witnesses and provides them with the sense of the faith [sensus fidei] and the grace of the word” [LG 35]

To teach in order to lead others to faith is the task of every preacher and of each believer. [St. Thomas Aquinas, STh. III, 71, 4 ad 3] ​

905 Lay people also fulfill their prophetic mission by evangelization, “that is, the proclamation of Christ by word and the testimony of life.” For lay people, “this evangelization . . . acquires a specific property and peculiar efficacy because it is accomplished in the ordinary circumstances of the world.” [LG 35 # 1, # 2]
This witness of life, however, is not the sole element in the apostolate; the true apostle is on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful. [AA 6 # 3; cf. AG 15]

906 Lay people who are capable and trained may also collaborate in catechetical formation, in teaching the sacred sciences, and in use of the communications media. [Cf. CIC, cann. 229; 774; 776; 780; 823 # 1]

907 “In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.” [CIC, can. 212 # 3]​

 

[Greyy]

81. The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.


Universi Dominici Gregis (February 22, 1996) | John Paul II

"A key fact alleged in the book, namely, that Cardinal Bergoglio expressly consented to the work of Team Bergoglio

The version of events reportedly asserted in Ivereigh’s book, presents the opportunity of a grave canonical challenge to the valdity of Pope Francis’ election to the office of Roman Pontiff."

Ivereigh + UDG 81 = A Radical Problem for the Pope

You are pointing out an issue of wrong doing without showing the cardinals actually engaged in it. The fact that a group of like minded cardinals exists doesn't mean they make a pact to elect a particular cardinal as pope.

 

[John Hyperspace]

It seems to me that, for a Catholic this line of resistance would be supremely dangerous. If it were me, I would refrain from any kind of resistance unless I knew for fact that my understanding was right, and the Pope's was wrong. "I don't agree" wouldn't be remotely good enough. "My priest says otherwise" but the Pope is clearly in a seat of authority far above your priest. I just feel that resistance is something that should be considered with the gravest and most serious consideration. Because if you're wrong if you're wrong; what is the consequence, exactly who(Who?) are you resisting?

Someone earlier said, if God puts the Pope there, He must want Him there, and He must want what is being done by this man He has appointed. I understand the idea "Maybe God wants us to resist this man He had appointed" I understand it - but I would seriously advise, make sure you are 100% factually certain that God is wanting you to oppose whom has been clearly appointed; because, at what risk? If you're wrong?

 

[fide]

It seems to me that, for a Catholic this line of resistance would be supremely dangerous. If it were me, I would refrain from any kind of resistance unless I knew for fact that my understanding was right, and the Pope's was wrong. "I don't agree" wouldn't be remotely good enough. "My priest says otherwise" but the Pope is clearly in a seat of authority far above your priest. I just feel that resistance is something that should be considered with the gravest and most serious consideration. Because if you're wrong if you're wrong; what is the consequence, exactly who(Who?) are you resisting?

Someone earlier said, if God puts the Pope there, He must want Him there, and He must want what is being done by this man He has appointed. I understand the idea "Maybe God wants us to resist this man He had appointed" I understand it - but I would seriously advise, make sure you are 100% factually certain that God is wanting you to oppose whom has been clearly appointed; because, at what risk? If you're wrong?

This is the case with every decision having grave moral weight. A quick guess, or "Maybe I'm right..." is not prudent justification. A wise friend used to counsel me, "If you don't know what to do, sit down." But if you do know what to do - Fear not!

Another proverb with some wisdom: "Silence is golden! But... then again, sometimes it's just plain yellow."

 

[Gordon Southgate]

What has the Pope got to do with Christianity? Convert to what?

 

[chevyontheriver]

It seems to me that, for a Catholic this line of resistance would be supremely dangerous. If it were me, I would refrain from any kind of resistance unless I knew for fact that my understanding was right, and the Pope's was wrong. "I don't agree" wouldn't be remotely good enough. "My priest says otherwise" but the Pope is clearly in a seat of authority far above your priest. I just feel that resistance is something that should be considered with the gravest and most serious consideration. Because if you're wrong if you're wrong; what is the consequence, exactly who(Who?) are you resisting?

For myself I am resisting putting myself into schism. The pope is the pope and for as long as possible I will remain under the authority of priest, bishop, pope, and God. If it comes to the point where I must sever my connection with one of the lower levels of authority over me it is going to be a cautious and measured step recognizing the gravity of it all. It will be something where I put my immortal soul at risk. I hope and pray it does not come to that. If needed, I will.

Someone earlier said, if God puts the Pope there, He must want Him there, and He must want what is being done by this man He has appointed. I understand the idea "Maybe God wants us to resist this man He had appointed" I understand it - but I would seriously advise, make sure you are 100% factually certain that God is wanting you to oppose whom has been clearly appointed; because, at what risk? If you're wrong?

It's a great risk. At present it is premature. I am hoping for a resolution before it gets that far. Bishop Schneider has made a call for the pope to convert or resign. I hope for Francis to finally realize what he is doing and answer the dubia. We shall see. We should pray.

 

[Korean-American Christian]

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?

Pope Francis, one or two days ago, stated that he is fallible.

News article here Pope Francis: “I Also Know the Empty Moments…”

 

[SnowyMacie]

Pope Francis, one or two days ago, stated that he is fallible.

News article here Pope Francis: “I Also Know the Empty Moments…”
View attachment 191381

One of the most common misunderstandings about Papal Infallibility is that actually according to the Catechism, the Pope is only infallible when speaking "ex-cathedra", something that's only happened 5 or 6 times in all of church history.

 

[SnowyMacie]

The Pope's the Pope. If you don't like the Pope, feel free to leave the club.

What if I like the Pope, but I'm not in the club?

 

[SnowyMacie]

For myself I am resisting putting myself into schism. The pope is the pope and for as long as possible I will remain under the authority of priest, bishop, pope, and God. If it comes to the point where I must sever my connection with one of the lower levels of authority over me it is going to be a cautious and measured step recognizing the gravity of it all. It will be something where I put my immortal soul at risk. I hope and pray it does not come to that. If needed, I will.

I'm not sure if it's because I've become recently aware of it or not, but it seems that Sedevacantism is a growing phenomenon within the Roman Catholic Church, especially since Vatican II. Has the Vatican made a statement regarding the modern movement of sedevacatism or not?

 

[Korean-American Christian]

the Pope is only infallible when speaking "ex-cathedra", something that's only happened 5 or 6 times in all of church history.

Thank you for that information. I did not know that

 

[CrystalDragon]

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.

By "he is infaliable", I meant God, not the Pope. I thought that was clear from the context, but I guess it was because I didn't capitalize "He".

 

[Rajni]

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.

Yeah, I just have to say that threads like this are actually encouraging. I had this impression that Catholics had to march lock-step with whatever the Pope at the time said, like it was some sort of Hive Mind thing. So to see some questioning certain things indicates a healthy approach, imo. Catholicism is pretty awesome in many ways, and this is one of them.