And the Problem Is…

“The (Dubia) Cardinals begin their letter to the Pope by renewing their “absolute dedication and our unconditional love for the Chair of Peter and for Your august person, in whom we recognize the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus: the ‘sweet Christ on earth.’”

You see, my friends that this treatment of Jorge Bergoglio has accomplished nothing. So, where do they go from here?

Now I know that his manner of closing is customary in correspondence with the Papacy and I do not criticize its intent in that regard. But I wonder what it accomplishes, if anything, but to embolden His Humbleness to make even more dramatic and dangerous moves towards Modernism and away from Absolute Truth. To compare Jorge Bergoglio with “Jesus: the sweet Christ on earth” is tantamount IMO of utter blasphemy. Would it not be better to close their request with a simple: “We await your response for the hour is late and the clock is ticking.”

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2017/06/24/and-the-problem-is/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

6 comments on “And the Problem Is…

  1. “To love the Pope, it is sufficient to reflect who he is. The Pope is the guardian of dogma and morals; he is the depository of the principles which ensure. the integrity of the family, the grandeur of nations, the sanctity of souls. He is the councilor of princes and peoples; he is the chief under whose sway none feels tyrannized, because he represents God Himself. He is par excellence the father who unites in himself all that is loving, tender and divine. It seems incredible, and yet it is a sad fact, that there are priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but We are nonetheless in Our times under the hard, the unhappy necessity to say to priests: Love the Pope!

    “And how must the Pope be loved? Not in word alone, but in deed and truth. When we love someone, we seek to conform ourselves in everything to his thoughts, to execute his will, to interpret his desires. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself said, ‘If anyone love me, he will keep my word,’ to show our love for the Pope we must obey him.

    “And this is why, when we love the Pope, we do not dispute whether he commands or requires a thing, or seek to know where the strict obligation of obedience lies, or in what matter we must obey; when we love the Pope we do not say that he has not yet spoken clearly – as if he were required to speak his will in every man’s ear, and to utter it not only by word of mouth but in letters and other public documents as well. Nor do we cast doubt on his orders, alleging the pretext which comes easily to the man who does not want to obey, that it is not the Pope who is commanding, but some one in his entourage. We do not limit the field in which he can and ought to exercise his authority; we do not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of other persons -no matter how learned – who differ from the Pope. For whatever may be their learning, they are not holy, for where there is holiness there cannot be disagreement with the Pope.”

    Guess who?

    • Pope St. Pius X in an address to the members of the Apostolic Union of Secular Priests on November 18, 1912 – cited on pages 38-39 in War Against the Papacy, by James Larson (Cruachan Hill Press, 2015) and elsewhere.

  2. I agree: Cut the crap and come to the point. The cardinal(s) can say it in “plain English” (or whatever is used: Italian, Spanish or Latin – Church Latin can be very concise and precise) as phaley does above without all that obsequious language.

  3. So, as Tom was too tactful to say, Pius X was invoking blind obedience under the assumption that the pope was actually an orthodox pope, doing the job, as Christ’s Vicar, that Christ appointed him to do. Pius X was railing against all those disobedient *Modernists*, who were kicking against the goad of Pascendi, and other rulings that Pius made.
    *Now* we have a Modernist *pope*, so the tables are totally turned, because this pope (and his recent predecessors), are exactly among the rebellious dissidents that St. Pius X was castigating. It is these Modern popes who are disobeying the pope; they are disobeying all their predecessors, not to mention the other fonts of Tradition, not to mention Scripture itself.

    “for where there is holiness there cannot be disagreement with the Pope.”
    Guess what that means?
    I’d better spell it out. It means that these anti-papal Modern popes are not holy. It means that anyone who chooses to obey these anti-papal Modern popes whenever these Modern popes contradict previous popes, is not holy.
    It hardly makes sense, does it, to appeal to previous popes as recommending blind obedience to the current popes? For the Modernist popes themselves disobey their predecessors. Logically then the Moderns recommend by deeds louder than words that *only* the current reigning pontiff be obeyed, so arguments to previous authority are useless.
    (Of course, again logically, the current reigning pontiff’s authority is also useless, since the whole Tradition of papal authority upon which the current pope’s authority rests is erased).
    THE MODERNIST POPES ARE TOTALLY CATCH 22ed. Their is absolutely NO WAY they can justify obedience to their mandates when they go contrary to Tradition. Those who choose to obey them in such case are, at best, just blind beasts acting at total random. At worst, they obey them because they wish to be justified in their own unholy rebellion against Tradition.

    Universal Papal Infallibilism, or hyperinfallibilism, is a heresy, condemned dogmatically by Vatican I (Dz 1839). Even assuming that St. Pius X would have agreed that one should blindly obey even a heretical pope (which is unthinkable), he would have been most definitely wrong to say so.
    Already defined dogma trumps any and every other argument, even if it comes from a pope.

  4. The “blind leading the blind” is a good way of describing the adherents of the “new religion” who accept such “blasphemies” as the current claimant of the Chair of Peter claiming in an allocation on June 7, 2017 that “God could not be God without man” and their hero, John Paul II, kissing the Qur’an – a book responsible for the killing and massacre of millions of Christians even up to this day. And these adherents of the new religion have the audacity to sit in judgment of us who hold fast to the traditions handed down from the apostles? Incredible!

Leave a Reply