Posting this link not to stir pots, but to just honestly ask a question: Is this a Jesuitical way of admitting what many are already thinking? Or was it said simply for that reason alone ~ to stir pots? Either way, not a very Christian thing, imho. "In the passages released on Thursday, the Pope clarified that were he to resign, he would not choose to be called “Pope Emeritus” but simply “Bishop Emeritus of Rome."" https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/...s-autobiography-excerpts-marchese-ragona.html
Towards the end of the American Civil War General Robert E. Lee was approached by one of his senior officers and asked two simple questions. The first was if he would agree that the South had lost the War? Robert E. Lee responded that of course he knew this, it was obvious. The Officer then asked that since this was so and he knew it to be so why he did not simply surrender at once and save countless lives and suffering on both sides. To this the wise General replied, 'It is not enough that I know this to be true and accept it, the men I lead have to know and accept this truth before I lead them to it'. I thought of this story when Papa Frankie recently informed the entire planet that Ukraine was beaten and needed to surrender. This is the simply truth but was it a truth that should have been said, or that needed to be said? In other words in saying this would it accomplish good or harm? Most of us in early adulthood learn that to be right is not enough. That the people to whom we are speaking have to shows signs of accepting the truth otherwise we are simply stirring pots and blowing out hot air. We learn this lesson so quickly because we see how often we annoy people to no good achieved. This is a lesson in simple Wisdom, that getting peoples backs up for the sake of doing so is utter foolishness, that most people learn quite early, but one Papa Frankie never seems to have grasped.
I wonder if General Longstreet was not the better General? He warned Lee strongly not to fight at Gettysburg. But I suppose that sounds like heresy. Its so interesting with General Grant. Before the war he was considered to be a drunk failure, but then with the war, it kind of made him. It reminds me how the times we live in can make us what we are. Pretty well all these gentleman on both sides were strongly religious; what a different world!!
well Sun Tzu's Art of War advised not to attack an enemy in control of the high ground, so I have to agree with the assessment of Gen. Longstreet, who became Catholic a decade later...
I never knew General Longstreet became a Catholic , that makes me like him even better. Yes Sun Tzu's would have advised against Gettysburg. Sun Tzu was a duck and dive kinda guy. He would have advised Lee to engage in more hit and run tactics. To seek and look for the right occasions for battle. to do the unexpected. But I think Lee just got tired of it all.. But even so..Grant was a superb General.
My uncle and father were both Civil War buffs having read extensively. My father maintained Longstreet was the better general and my uncle would go into attack mode with all his reasons against that assessment.. It would get heated. I learned a lot listening to them.
When the church goes underground, I am wondering if many will also view this as disobedience to authority?
I think hunger for the true Mass will drive us underground. We will by then be way past worrying about obedience to Church authority because there won't be any legitimate authority. Only faithful priests who will still offer Mass.
I got a shock one time talking to an Orthodox Jewish friend who called Jesus a , 'Blasphemer', because He claimed to be God. It was the first time I ever heard a Jew say this outside of Scripture and the history books and it threw me. So I mention this because from the perspective of the False Church we will be the bad guys. They would really, really have to believe we would be evil to want to kill us just as the Religious authorities wanted to kill Jesus. Just as the Secular Roman powers aided the Jews so the Secular Powers will aid the False Church in killing us. They will all have the same agenda in wanting a One World Government and a one World Religion. Just as the Ancient Romans killed the early Christians because they considered them as traitors to the State and atheists.
I think maybe Robert E Lee just got tired and placed all his money on the one hand at Gettysburg. He was just tired of it all.
https://nonvenipacem.org/2024/03/13...s-not-now-nor-ever-was-nor-ever-will-be-pope/ Eleven Years Later: Quick summation of all the reasons Bergoglio is not now, nor ever was, nor ever will be Pope Mark DochertyJanuary 13, 2023 Eleven years ago today, nothing happened. An invalid conclave held an invalid election. That is all. -nvp Originally posted January 13, 2023 Let’s review: Canon 188: A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself. Notes: Substantial Error renders a resignation invalid by the law itself If Pope Benedict thought he could remain in any way “papal” AFTER his resignation, that would certainly rise to the level of Substantial Error (either you are pope, or you aren’t pope) Visual evidence of “papal” feels: Retained white cassock, retained Fisherman’s Ring, retained residence in the Vatican, retained papal name, retained form of address “His Holiness,” retained the Apostolic Blessing. Written evidence of the “impossibility” of truly stepping down: Last General Audience on 27 Feb 2013, and Abp. Ganswein’s speech at the Gregorian on 20 May 2016. HERE and HERE Do you think he intended to remain papal IN ANY WAY? YES OR NO? Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely. Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately. §2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone. Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care. §2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office. Notes: The papacy is an OFFICE (the Latin text of these canons has it as muneri/munere) If the Roman Ponitiff resigns his OFFICE… but wait, he resigned the Ministry instead (ministerio…renuntiare “I renounce the ministry”) It must be properly manifested, but it wasn’t, neither in formula HERE nor in practice It must be made freely… jury is out on that one, but at least the ATMs and credit cards started working again inside the Vatican the following day Who accepts the resignation means nothing, acceptance has no bearing on validity Do you think that Pope Benedict didn’t know Canon Law? That he didn’t know, in particular Canon 332.2, the canon which specifically governs Papal resignations? Now that we are in an Interregnum, could Bergoglio be confirmed as true pope? Well, if only he were Catholic, yes. It has happened before where the true pope dies, and then the antipope of the time is “grandfathered in,” so to speak. But Bergoglio isn’t Catholic, because he is a public heretic, and public heretics are outside the Church. There is no way for him to hold any ecclesiastical office, let alone pope. We don’t need anyone in authority to tells us this, we have a duty to recognize it on our own, and call it out. Not only is he a manifest heretic on his own accord, he has also inserted heresy into the official magisterium of the Church, something which is entirely impossible for a true Vicar of Christ to do. All of this stands as a robust secondary dataset pointing back to the root cause of failed partial resignation of Pope Benedict. The faux conclave that “elected” Bergoglio was invalid, because the true Roman Pontiff yet lived. But like putting a cherry on top, the conclave was doubly invalid, because the dirty dealings behind the scenes violated every rule in the book, making the election illegal anyway! The number of different ways Bergoglio isn’t pope, and never has been, is truly astounding. As is the number of people who claim there is nothing to see here. The fruit of the third sorrowful mystery (Crowning with Thorns) is Moral Courage. It wouldn’t take much. Stay Confessed. “The “always” is also a “forever” – 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 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.” HERE Sent from my iPhone
https://catholicvote.org/pope-francis-says-homosexuals-should-be-allowed-to-live-the-gift-of-love-legally/ Pope Francis Says Homosexuals Should be Allowed to ‘Live the Gift of Love’ Legally CV News FeedMarch 15, 2024 CV NEWS FEED // In a controversial passage of his upcoming autobiography, “Life: My Story Through History,” Pope Francis says that homosexual couples, even if they should not have access to legal marriage, should still be able to “live the gift of love” with legal support. In excerpts published on Thursday, March 14 by the Italian daily “Corriere della Sera” under the subtitle “homosexual,” the article quote the Pontiff writing in his book coming out on March 19, anniversary of his installation: It is right that these people who live the gift of love can have legal coverage like everyone else. Jesus often went out to meet people who lived on the margins, and that is what the Church should do today with people from the LGBTQ+ community, who are often marginalized within the Church: make them feel at home, especially those who have received baptism and they are, to all intents and purposes, part of the people of God. And whoever has not received baptism and wishes to receive it, or who wishes to be a godfather or godmother, please be welcomed. “I imagine a Church that is a mother, which embraces and welcomes everyone, even those who feel to be wrong and those who have been judged by us in the past. I think of homosexual or transsexual people who seek the Lord and who have instead been rejected or chased away,” the Pope also writes in his upcoming book. Pope Francis also says about the blessings to irregular couples: “I just want to say that God loves everyone, especially sinners. And if brother bishops decide not to follow this path, it does not mean that this is the antechamber of a schism, because the doctrine of the Church is not called into question.” Sent from my iPhone
More heresy. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html CONCLUSION 11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself. The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003
