Cardinal Sarah: Widespread Communion in the hand is part of Satan’s attack on the Eucharist

The Field Marshal

PI Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
4,554
Likes
3,878
I'm not sure you are correct.
I believe I am.
Neither Ferrara or Matt have publicly stated they think that Francis 1st is an antipope or that the think they resignation of Benedect xvi was canonically defective sufficient to render the act void.
Indeed even Mr Voris accepts the antipope despite his fulminations.

None of these laddies want to think the thing through logically.
I dont blame them either.
 

Ted

PI Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
1,765
Likes
2,541
Afaik yes he does.
I think his big pal Chris Ferrara also does.
They were both among the first to analyse the problems of the alleged pontificate of Francis 1st.
Yet neither has managed to arrive at the conclusion that Benedicts resignation was and remains canonically flawed.
Evidence?
Oh, right.. your opinion.:taptap:
 

Son_of_Tuathal

Donator
PI Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
2,332
Likes
3,729
Location
Ar fud na háite
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #77
I believe I am.
Neither Ferrara or Matt have publicly stated they think that Francis 1st is an antipope
Ah, I see. You have conflated two entirely different ideas. You think that calling out Francis's heresy, while acknowledging his holding the office (for now) is somehow 'support'.

No, it isn't. Two distinct and separate matters mixed up here by you.
 

The Field Marshal

PI Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
4,554
Likes
3,878
Ah, I see. You have conflated two entirely different ideas. You think that calling out Francis's heresy, while acknowledging his holding the office (for now) is somehow 'support'.

No, it isn't. Two distinct and separate matters mixed up here by you.
Francis is a material heretic.
As such he can no longer be deemed to hold the office of the papacy [assuming he ever held it in the first place].
Matt, Ferrara and Voris all support what is in effect a total antipope whether canonically elected or not.

The simplest least painful solution to the problem is to take the canonical defects committed by Benedict with canon 188 and Canon 332 [no2]
and conclude that his resignation never actually occurred, even though he himself thinks it did.
Canon 188 is a resignation made in substantial error.
Benedict thought he could bifurcate the papacy with a semi resignation.
That is substantial error.
A pope either resigns fully or does not resign at all.

Canon law is the only protection catholics have against popes who are not above that law in the matter of how a papal resignation is to be carried out.
 
Last edited:

The Field Marshal

PI Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
4,554
Likes
3,878
None of this supports your claim that Matt or the Remnant 'support' Francis.
I said it was my belief.
If Matt , Voris or Ferrara have stated that they definitely think Francis is an antipope where are these statements to be found?

Au contraire, all these aforesaid laddies give out sox day after day about how awful things are in the catholic church yet not a peep from them concerning the canonical invalidity of Benedicts resignation.
Benedict remains the true pope.
A very strange pope in many respects but the only real one.
 
Last edited:

Ted

PI Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
1,765
Likes
2,541
Evidence for what?
If you are going to ask a question do so properly.
I'll keep it simple.
You base your tiresome opinion that Benedict's resignation and Francis' election are invalid on ..eh.. your opinion.

You reject, insult and deride the Chair of Peter in what must rate as the most childish piece of "reasoning" ever to blight these pages.

As you approach your twilight the pity is that you cannot see how laughable you've become.
 

mikeo

PI Member
Joined
May 24, 2017
Messages
1,423
Likes
1,843
Location
U.S.A.
Very well said. We are unworthy of the Eucharist so taking it in the hand or on the tongue is not important to me. People should get off their high horses on this one.

Also, I was visiting London last month and was recommended to visit the Brompton Oratory. I did the next day and as luck would have it walked in on the Latin Mass with the famous choir. It was an amazing experience and I hope you get to visit there sometime old bean.


Very nice website!!............: http://www.bromptonoratory.co.uk
 

The Field Marshal

PI Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
4,554
Likes
3,878
I'll keep it simple.
You base your tiresome opinion that Benedict's resignation and Francis' election are invalid on ..eh.. your opinion.

You reject, insult and deride the Chair of Peter in what must rate as the most childish piece of "reasoning" ever to blight these pages.

As you approach your twilight the pity is that you cannot see how laughable you've become.
I have always in the past respected the chair of Saint Peter [I notice how you seek to de-sanctify him in the manner of all followers of antipopes] and i continue to respect that chair as currently occupied by the only lawfully elected living pope Benedict xvi.

You were informed of the manner in which pope Benedict has erred in thinking he could bifurcate the papacy .

All Benedicts statements indicate he resigned the ministry but not the office of the papacy .

A resignation made in grave error is invalid per canon law 188.
Benedict has not manifested properly the supposed resignation as per canon 332 [no 2]
Benedict has for decades been considering this bizzare and thoroughly mistaken concept of active/passive papacy. He sprung it unannounced on the world and the dullard cardinals then held an invalid conclave without properly examining what Benedict was at.

All this is obvious to anybody who cares to look objectively at the matter.
But you are not objective and allow yourself to be completely deceived by the very idea of papacy itself as something incapable of error.
 
Last edited:

Ted

PI Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
1,765
Likes
2,541
I have always in the past respected the chair of Saint Peter [I notice how you seek to de-sanctify him in the manner of all followers of antipopes] and i continue to respect that chair as currently occupied by the only lawfully elected living pope Benedict xvi.

You were informed of the manner in which pope Benedict has erred in thinking he could bifurcate the papacy .

All Benedicts statements indicate he resigned the ministry but not the office of the papacy .

A resignation made in grave error is invalid per canon law 188.
Benedict has not manifested properly the supposed resignation as per canon 332 [no 2]
Benedict has for decades been considering this bizzare and thoroughly mistaken concept of active/passive papacy. He sprung it unannounced on the world and the dullard cardinals then held an invalid conclave without properly examining what Benedict was at.

All this is obvious to anybody who cares to look objectively at the matter.
But you are not objective and allow yourself to be completely deceived by the very idea of papacy itself as something incapable of error.
You're a disgrace and would be laughed at in any open debate.
Luckily, nobody with a brain cell will take you seriously.
 
Top Bottom