“I am the light of the world. He that followeth me, walketh not in darkness” (Jn.VIII, 12)
Various forms of sedevacantism only raise more problems than are solved. 1. Given that Cardinal Burke (arguably the world's greatest living canon lawyer) believes that Francis is Pope opens up the charge that he is a deceiver (along with e.g., Bishop Schneider), actively misleading Catholics in following an Antipope. 2. Only the Church can judge. Just as I may have - seemingly a very logical and rational argument regarding Mr. X's guilt or non-guilt in a crime - I am not a legally constituted judge, designated by the proper authority to preside over Mr. X's court case. As such, my opinion is irrelevant, not to mention my "authority" to pass judgement. As such, those who claim Francis has lost the Papacy due to "heresy" are in error. They are especially in error following the Decrees of Vatican One, which overrides private positions held by various church theologians throughout the centuries. There is a huge difference between a material and formal heretic. This desire to take on private judgment is straight out of protestantism. It is seen amongst well meaning but over zealous Catholics in the United States precisely because these same Catholics are living in a State that was founded on protestant-masonic ideals. America was never Catholic, and this is proving to be a serious problem as the country continues its ever increasing moral collapse. 3. Probability. Since only the Church can judge; individual hierarchs (e.g. a bishop) can be in error, as with any individual in the Church down to the layman or woman. Thus, in making a decision there always exists the probability that the individual person may be wrong. Therefore, moral theology teaches that it is gravely sinful to make a decision in favour of a doubt where one's salvation is at stake. denying the Pope is pope objectively is a grave mortal sin. Doubt exists on all the various arguments against Francis not being Pope. In other words, outside of a formal judgment by the Church, a Catholic must admit that they may be wrong. As such, Francis AT MINIMUM - may be Pope. NOw, Joseph Ratzinger has not come forward to say he is the Pope. If he did, we would hear about it from Cardinal Burke, Archbishop Vigano, Bishop Schneider etc. Unless (and this would be logical) they too are part of a vast conspiracy and are evil men, leading Catholics into error. There is NO evidence to suggest this. On the contrary. 4. NOnetheless for individuals who for whatever reason believe in their private conscience that Francis is not Pope they are confronted with yet another grave dilemma. The Sacraments and Mass. Obviously, a person who believes Francis is not Pope cannot attend Mass where Francis' name is mentioned in the Canon. It would be a grave mortal sin to do so. Likewise, this same person cannot Confess to a schismatic priest (unless in danger of death)who is following an Antipope. 5. The various arguments against Francis' papacy are fundamentally protestant, as they are a rejection of Hierarchical Authority willed by Christ. During the great Western Schism Catholics followed a Pope. They always followed one of the claimants to the Throne. Today, we do not have two claimants. It is Francis who appoints bishops, it is Francis who is acclaimed by the priests of Rome as Pope etc. The papacy was bought with simony, crime etc., during other dark times. For example, ALexander VI was not declared an Antipope though his election was irregular and accompanied by skulduggery. The problem is, we live in a protestant-masonic environment that loves "liberty". This liberalism is so pervasive, so penetrates the very air we breath, that even "traditional" Catholics are usually, to some degree, infected with liberalism. Until Bishop Ratzinger publicly professes otherwise, Francis is the Pope. Anything else is sheer protestantism.
Post a Comment