**Fr. Spadaro is a Francis spokesman, editor, not Secretary of State**
SO IF YOU THINK THIS NEW EVIL, OLD CATHOLIC CO-POPE SITUATION IS SORT OF ODD AND FAITHLESS, YOU’RE NUTS!-
FRANCIS’ SOCIAL JUSTICE UTOPIA: ‘SINICIZATION’ OF RELIGION ACCELERATES
DISAPPEARING HOUSE CHURCHES OF DAQING CITY
‘MARY WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY TAKEN JESUS TO THIS DISPENSARY’: FAITHLESS, CO-OPTING FRANCIS ASSUMES THAT YOUNG JESUS GOT SICK AND THAT MARY WOULD HAVE TAKEN HIM TO A FREE CLINIC SINCE SHE WAS ‘THE POOR’
HOW SCHOOL DISTRICTS WEAPONIZE CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES AGAINST UNCOOPERATIVE PARENTS
MEDIA BLACKOUT: SINCE WHEN DO FRENCH PEOPLE MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE AT CHRISTMAS MARKETS?
WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE MISSIONARIES OF MERCY? FLUSH WITH DIRTY FRANCISCASH, THEY’RE BUYING EVERYONE’S LUNCH SOMEPLACE AND TOPPING OFF THEIR GAS TANKS.
CHICOM FRANCISCHURCH: “I FOR ONE DO NOT BELIEVE FOR A SECOND THAT THE POPE IS SIMPLY BEING NAIVE ABOUT THE NATURE OF COMMUNISTS”
UNFORTUNATELY, TODAY OVER FIFTY YEARS AFTER VATICAN II, SOME CHURCHES ARE STILL USING ALTARS THAT WHILE MEETING THE BARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE STILL THE RESULT OF WOODWORKING PROJECT OF THE PASTOR AND HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW
FLAMBOYANT PRIEST INITIATES CHILDREN IN RASTAFARIAN CULT
THE SCANDAL OF ST. BRIGID’S OTTAWA
ADVENT PENANCE SERVICE IDIOCY
Here you go, Frank. I think it is worth a look;
This from the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding the Great Western Schism. The concrete and moral parallels should be obvious. Pay especial attention to the emboldened lines.
As then, truly, only the two parties involved in today’s odd situation KNOW the full details of the abdication. NONE of us do.
To draw conclusions about faith and tie salvific faith in Christ to an assertion of who a Pope is under strained circumstances such as we are experiencing today seems morally unconscionable to me for exactly the same reasons we see this exact same attitude and assertions avoided by the writers of the Catholic Encyclopedia in their treatment of the GWS.
Now, no doubt some will chime in that none of the GWS contenders were as rotten as PF appears to be, nor did they apparently affirm any heterodox opinions as many agree PF has, or that he has at the very least encouraged immorality and heterodox teaching through his off-the-cuff statements and actions.
To that I would add merely this;
What could possibly be a more horrifically heterodox and scandalizing assertion than falsely claiming one’s own person to BE the Vicar of Christ?
And yet no similar condemnations are forthcoming in the treatment by the Catholic Encyclopedia of the players involved, remembering as we should that only one WAS the Pope. That means the others were NOT.
Well, here it is:
(2) From this brief summary it will be readily concluded that this schism did not at all resemble that of the East, that it was something unique, and that it has remained so in history. It was not a schism properly so called, being in reality a deplorable misunderstanding concerning a question of fact, an historical complication which lasted forty years. In the West there was no revolt against papal authority in general, no scorn of the sovereign power of which St. Peter was the representative. Faith in the necessary unity never wavered a particle; no one wished voluntarily to separate from the head of the Church. Now this intention alone is the characteristic mark of the schismatic spirit (Summa, II-II, Q. xxxix, a. 1). On the contrary everyone desired that unity, materially overshadowed and temporarily compromised, should speedily shine forth with new splendour. The theologians, canonists, princes, and faithful of the fourteenth century felt so intensely and maintained so vigorously that this character of unity was essential to the true Church of Jesus Christ, that at Constance solicitude for unity took precedence of that for reform. The benefit of unity had never been adequately appreciated till it had been lost, till the Church had become bicephalous of tricephalous, and there seemed to be no head precisely because there were too many. Indeed the first mark of the true Church consists above all in unity under one head, the Divinely appointed guardian of the unity of faith and of worship. Now in practice there was then no wilful error regarding the necessity of this character of the true Church, much less was there any culpable revolt against the known head. There was simply ignorance, and among the greater number invincible ignorance regarding the person of the true pope, regarding him who was at that time the visible depositary of the promises of the invisible Head. How indeed was this ignorance to be dispelled? The only witnesses of the facts, the authors of the double election, were the same persons.
…Bishops, princes, theologians, and canonists were in a state of perplexity from which they could not emerge in consequence of the conflicting, not disinterested, and perhaps insincere testimony of the cardinals. Thenceforth how were the faithful to dispel uncertainty and form a morally sure opinion? They relied on their natural leaders, and these, not knowing exactly what to hold, followed their interests or passions and attached themselves to probabilities. It was a terrible and distressing problem which lasted forty years and tormented two generations of Christians; a schism in the course of which there was no schismatic intention, unless exception perhaps be made of some exalted persons who should have considered the interests of the Church before all else. Exception should also be made of some doctors of the period whose extraordinary opinions show what was the general disorder of minds during the schism (N. Valois, I, 351; IV, 501). Apart from these exceptions no one had the intention of dividing the seamless robe, no one formally desired schism; those concerned were ignorant or misled, but not culpable. In behalf of the great majority of clergy and people must be pleaded the good faith which excludes all errors and the wellnigh impossibility for the simple faithful to reach the truth. This is the conclusion reached by a study of the facts and contemporary documents.
The following are the words of Bouix, so competent in all these questions. Speaking of the events of this sad period he says: “This dissension was called schism, but incorrectly. No one withdrew from the true Roman pontiff considered as such, but each obeyed the one he regarded as the true pope. They submitted to him, not absolutely, but on condition that he was the true pope. Although there were several obediences, nevertheless there was no schism properly so-called” (De Papa, I, 461).
Finally:
“A temporal kingdom would have succumbed thereto; but the organization of the spiritual kingdom was so wonderful, the ideal of the papacy so indestructible, that this, the most serious of schisms, served only to demonstrate its indivisibility” (Gesch. der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter, VI, 620). From a widely different standpoint de Maistre holds the same view: “This scourge of contemporaries is for us an historical treasure. It serves to prove how immovable is the throne of St. Peter. What human organization would have withstood this trial?” (Du Pape, IV, conclusion).
Personally, I have trust in Jesus Christ to order his affairs through even the worst of Popes. And I have faith in the papacy enough to believe the office, while it may be occupied by someone worth no more than a placeholder, will receive one worthy of it at some time in the future. In the meantime, I await the judicial review of authorities who may decide to investigate the issue at hand, and I will damn no one for being confused as to how such a grave set of events could transpire in the Catholic Church.
PS: I agree an investigation is a good idea, and am glad Msgr Nicola Bux alluded to it. I hope one occurs, and I will wait for those who in offices of authority to order it.
Whether Bergoglio (The Evil Clown of Marxism) is a valid pope, or merely an anti-pope, is really irrelevant at this point. Because either way he is an anti-Christ who should never be followed much less be united with the faithful. And none of the simple faithful in the pews need any canonical experts to confirm this objective realty for them. And why? Because Our Lord said we could discern these reprobates by their actions. And anti-Christ Bergoglio has repeatedly given us more than enough evidence by now:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them.” ~ Matthew 7:15-16
Those Trad-conservative sites insistenting that Francis is pope have such a major problem I just don’t see how they can be blind to it. The major problem is infallibility. The trad-conservative position is that the pope cannot teach errors on faith and morals….he cannot, period. But what has Francis been doing for 5 years but teaching errors that contradict previous popes. Now he has declared the whole lot of them wrong, therefore not error free on the death penalty. All the previous popes are wrong and he is right. But lets just consider the far out chance that Mr Meglomaniac is wrong….if you Francis adherents can bear the thought…then Francis has clearly displayed the fact that he does not have the gift of infallibility, a defining characteristic of a pope….therefore he is not the pope. Papal infallibility and Francis is a pope. You can have one or the other but you can’t have both.
Lynn, you have a point: “perception is reality.” Much of the current debate about what Francis teaches usually comes down to, “well, he didn’t make an infallible statement,” or “well, he didn’t actually put it in writing,” or “well, the Pope can err in personal opinion on such and such matters,” etc.
Just about every time the man speaks to a general audience or an airplane interview, immediate PR damage control must be done to correct what he said. You can forgive someone a couple times for making a mistake, or stating something unclear, but after almost 6 years the preponderance of the evidence suggests that all of the “confusion” is actually intentional hatred of Catholic teaching and subversion of nearly 2000 years of tradition.
The Pope humble? The death penalty change shows that he is the opposite, because Francis puts his own liberal opinion on the death penalty over God Himself. Only the Francis can be right!
The 2013 conclave could have elected a freshman from UC Berkeley as pope and we would have had the same result as this disaster.
Amen!
Frank he has gone off the charts with this death penalty thing. These are the pronouncements of a man who would be God. All you cowering prelates and catholics GET UP. This man is evil and insane. From this point forward no one who claims Francis is christian or pope deserves an ounce of respect.
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/12/17/antipope-bergoglio-declares-himself-to-be-more-merciful-than-god-and-tees-up-the-coup-de-grace-the-ratification-of-sodomy/
I see that nearly one thousand people have posted comments over on One Peter Five. Well, I just got banned for a second time for disagreeing with Mr. Skojec and his inept moderators. They just cannot handle the truth. Ann Barnhardt is correct and airtight in her video (as far as I can see). Now, the “Steve Skojecs” of the Catholic Church have judged all of us who disagree with his “Francis is pope” conclusions schismatics. Great. Just great. Keep up the good work, Frank! I greatly enjoy reading your website and comments.
Thanks, Al.
“No More One Peter Five”…
You might find it mildly amusing that Steve Skojec’s moderators continue banning many of their faithful reader from their comment sections. It appears that anyone now disagreeing with Steve and his moderators on the current occupant of the Chair of Peter is now labeled a schismatic- and, henceforth, banned.
No problem. I will continue to visit your website daily for the unvarnished truth.