Friday, 19 August 2016

The delusional papacy

"The Church is not falling to pieces. It has never been better. This is a wonderful moment for the Church, you just need to look at its history. 
Meeting with the priests of the Diocese of Rome in Saint John Lateran, September 16, 2013


And things have gotten just so much better since he uttered this delusion.

Full Definition of delusion
  1. the act of deluding :  the state of being deluded
  2. something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
  3. a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; 
  4. the abnormal state marked by such beliefs


Dan said...

Fabulous choice of picture to go along with the post!

Peter Lamb said...

Definition of delusion:
A persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self, or persons, or objects outside the self, that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.

Jolly good definition. It struck a chord with me, because it pertains to so many who fear sedevacantism:
Holy Scripture teaches us that when Almighty God created man, He created him in His own image and likeness. By “image and likeness” are meant our intellect and will, the possession of which distinguishes us from brute animals (cf. Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Exeunte Iam Anno, n. 14). Our intellect and will belong to our rational soul, which God infuses into our bodies. Our intellect was given us to know what is true, and our will was given us to love what is good.

All arguments, by their very nature, pertain to the intellect, inasmuch as they belong to the operation of the intellect called discursive reasoning. The purpose of debate is to enlighten the intellect, which can then move the will — but only if we do not place an obstacle against the will.

The intellects of many have long been enlightened by sufficient evidence that the conciliar popes are anti-popes, but they refuse to concede the fact. All debate is useless, because their obstacle is not found in the intellect, but in their will.

“I will never be a sedevacantist”! “You will never convince me that Sedevacantism is true”! People who say such things are demonstrating that their intransigence is not ruled by evidence, but rather by their desire to cling to their status quo - truth be damned, if need be. Such people cannot be convinced in rational debate; their minds are a priori made up. Nothing - neither fact, nor debate, will change their position. Their will can only be moved by grace.

Peter Lamb said...

Numerous motives may move the will and they may be good, or bad: love of truth, passion, fear, anger, pleasure, cowardice, human respect, money, etc. Many simply do not want sedevacantism to be true! Sedevacantism isn’t fun! It is difficult not having a Pope and oftentimes not even a Priest, or church available. But, Catholics do not hold a position because they find it appealing (will) - we hold it because it is convincing according to our Catholic Faith (intellect). I am a sedevacantist, not because I like the position, but because my Faith and my reason tell me that it is the only correct Catholic position to hold - no matter the consequences!

Why this irrational fear of Sedevacantism? Is it preposterous to consider that perhaps a manifest blaspheming apostate, who slyly undermines Catholic doctrine on every occasion, just might not be the Pope of the Catholic Church? Is this a most damnable and dangerous error?

Many people refuse to embrace, or even consider Sedevacantism, not because they are convinced, in good faith, that the evidence for it is lacking (most people have not nearly studied the issue sufficiently), but because they do not want it to be true. It would require them to admit that they have been wrong - (pride); or because they are afraid of what others might say, or think -(human respect); or because it might have undesirable consequences in their family; or work life; or because it would cause them grave inconvenience, or displeasure -(cowardice/effeminacy); or because they do not really care about the matter - (tepidity/sloth).

Sedevacantism is not dangerous - it is safe. Why? Because by adhering to it, one cannot be led into heresy, or schism, if one is faithful to Catholic teaching. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that sedevacantism were false, where would be the danger? What could one be accused of? The worst that could be said of me is that I was wrong about who the Pope was. I believed, in good faith, that there was no Pope when in fact there was one — but I acted consistently and in accordance with Catholic teaching, to the best of my ability and in peace with my conscience. I could be accused of having made a sincere mistake, nothing more; a mistake regarding the identity of the true Pope - as many others have before in Church history. I could not be accused of adhering to false doctrine - heresy, nor of refusing to be subject to the man I acknowledged to be the Pope - schism.

Maudie N Mandeville said...

I don't know which is worse, looking at a picture of Obama or of Jorge. Both make me ill.

Anonymous said...

I love Pope Francis and pray for him everyday, in his capacity as our pastor.

Ana Milan said...

Not only dilusional but verbal terrorism.

Mark Thomas said...

Vox, I have read the context of Pope Francis comments. I don't find his statement delusional. Pope Francis is on record as to the major problems that have fallen upon Holy Mother Church. He doesn't harbor any illusions as to the Church's condition.

The report stated that "Pope Francis spoke with the parish priests and answered a wide range of questions, addressing the serious problems affecting the Church clearly but without pessimism."

That is the context to the Pope's comment. He has never hesitated to note the grave problems that have beset the Church. But he preached to the priests a message of hope, rather than gloom and doom.

Pope Francis said:

"The Church is not falling to pieces. It has never been better. This is a wonderful moment for the Church, you just need to look at its history. There are saints that are recognized by non-Catholics as well as Catholics – I’m thinking of Mother Theresa – but many men and women perform acts of holiness every day and this gives us hope."

On the Denzinger-Bergoglio site, where this "controversy" was concocted, we find the following from Pope Pius XI, which echoes clearly the hopeful point about the Church that Pope Francis made:

Pope Pius XI: "The Church comes forth from the most violent storms adorned with new triumphs."

Pope Francis noted to the priests that today, there are Saints and holy people within the Church who give us hope..."I’m thinking of Mother Theresa – but many men and women perform acts of holiness every day and this gives us hope."

Again, on Denzinger-Bergoglio, here is the exact point that Pope Francis made above:

II – In times of great crisis God sends true saints to confront and defeat heresy. The world despises them but the faith triumphs through them

Benedict XVI – Saints guided by God’s light are the authentic reformers of the Church; born in every -generation they constantly accompany the Church in the midst of sorrows – God sent Saint Athanasius, important and tenacious adversary of the heresy threatening faith in Christ

– Opposing the heretical trends of the Cathars, Saint Hildegard promotes Church reform

– Pope Innocent III recognized, in Francis, the religious brother he had dreamt of, who supported collapsing church on his shoulders

– In the most difficult times, the Lord brings forth Saints who give a jolt to minds and hearts, provoking conversion and renewal

– In the face of the Protestant Reformation, Saint Robert Bellarmine’s action reinforces and confirms the identity of the Catholic Church

Oh, well. Another concocted "controversy" that I just don't get...

Pope Francis made clear that his remarks in question were in context to the Church's history..."This is a wonderful moment for the Church, you just need to look at its history."

We are sitting pretty today compared to when Saint Peter denied Jesus Christ three when Saint Peter abandoned the flock at Rome...

...compared to the lengthy and grave Arian crisis...

...compared to the horrific destruction that the Church encountered when the Protestant Revolt began...

...compared to the Great Western Schism.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Sedevacantism is running away from the Cross.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Anonymous @ 6:25pm, That's a typical non-specific, unsubstantiated, vague, generalised comment. I would be very grateful, if you would explain, in detail and with reference sources, how what you say is true of sedevacantists, according to Catholic doctrine.

Antony said...

"The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. "

Lynda said...

I hope that you hate the evil Francis is doing every day in his attacks on God, the Holy Faith, God's Law and the souls baptised and not-yet baptised. One cannot love God and the Devil. We must hate evil and all opposition to Our Lord God and His Holy Faith and moral law.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

The Church has never been better ,or less Catholic ,young priests coming from seminaries ,telling children the miracles of Christ are figurative,only God knows what some of them believe .

Anonymous said...

Not doing so well in China.

Anonymous said...

“SilentMOD” Light & Music Show inside Historic Cathedral as Part of Local Video Game Trade Fair.

Johnno said...

Mark Thomas as usual spinning away.

Yes the Church does raise up many holy saints IN TIMES OF CRISIS! Note the word -CRISIS? Mark Thomas didn't; or he reinterprets it according to modernist means as Francis does where the traditional understanding of what constitutes a crisis - APOSTASY and HERESY and WAR - is instead only that Christians aren't spreading the wealth or helping the poor or showing 'mercy' to adulterers and sodomites. Given all the outreach programs in our day and the complete capitulation towards Americanism, Sodomy, Protestant errors and Liberalism, then one could be inclined to agree with Francis that things are looking up!

So if you go by Pope Francis' worldview where the Church is merely a socialist institution helping the poor and doing social good. Then there's plenty of help available.

Saving souls from going to Hell? Who cares? All are saved! And those who aren't are annihilated!

Note how the only saint Pope Francis can come up with is the uncanonized Mother Theresa? Fits in well with Pope Francis's #1 mission. Which ain't about Christ or repentance.

Why not mention the many saints and martyrs who've fought and died against Islam, Communism, and mention the many who are being persecuted today by Islam and Western Democracies and the perverted sex lobbies?

The Church has lost priests, lost members, is ravaged by homosexuals sodomizing boys and getting the Archdioceses sued, and church's torn down and even the scant few who remain are a liberal majority, who we are told by Pope Francis are so stupid that they don't know what they're doing when they come to get married for life! But Mark Thomas praises this era beside Pope Francis!

The Church has never been better? Both Mark Thomas and Pope Francis are delusional. It's as if the Mother of God never came down here to warn us about anything! And she's got an outstanding track record of predictions!

The Church is in terrible shape under either a delusional or evil Pope supported by socialist-friendly rose-visioned members like Mark Thomas. That Mark tries to compare Francis' quote to those of Benedict XVI or Innocent just because a few words sound the same is so hilariously obtuse that one has to feel sorry for him!

Mark's shoddy attempt to divorce Vox's post from the overall context of the catastrophe that befalls the Church and everything Vox has blogged about here just shows his intellectual dishonesty! One truly has to wonder if he seriously believes what he's saying here.

Anil Wang said...

Peter Lamb said... "Many simply do not want sedevacantism to be true! "

Or it could be turned around. Sedevacantists do not want to admit that God would allow a Pope like Francis to be elected, since that has some unsettling consequences.

But getting back to your objection, people are not sedevacantist because it is illogical. If the seat could be vacant now, who is to say that it wasn't vacant at Vatican I, or at the Reformation, or at the Orthodox schism, or at the Coptic schism or Arian Crisis? And because the Church refused to accept that Pope could be wrong, the Church was lead into error and the side we call heretics are actually the "True Church". If I ever thought the seat were vacant, I would never subscribe to the illogical position of sedevacantism. I'd go Orthodox or hedge my bets and go Eastern Catholic, since Popes tend to leave the Eastern Catholic Churches to run themselves and they tend to be more Orthodox in doctrine and liturgy than most modern western Catholic parishes.

So what do we make of Pope Francis? He's just another Pope Honorius and will be remembered as one of the Bad Pope who tried to tear down the Church and fill it with worldly supporters of perversions. He's trying harder, and his attempts have gotten bolder with time.

But he will fail, even if the damage done will take a century or two to recover from, because Christ promised to uphold his Church. In the mean time, we have to fast, pray, and fight to uphold truth even when it costs.

Peter Lamb said...

Saint Francis of Assisi:

" At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error and death...Then scandals will be multiplied...There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error...Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days JESUS CHRIST WILL SEND THEM NOT A TRUE PASTOR, BUT A DESTROYER.”

Unknown said...

I agree that no amount of evidence will convince Catholics of sedevacantism. The reason, however, is not a blind impediment of asinine will but simply that sedevacantism is a heresy.

To be clear, there are many troubling actions taken by Paul VI and beyond, but that by no means plies that they are not legitimate Pontiffs any more than the false notion promulgated by John XXII made him an Antipope.

A more accurate term for these popes might be "Counter-Pope" because to whatever extent they spread error and confusion they act against the charism of the Petrine Office.

Michael Dowd said...

Good job Vox. Both true and blessedly succinct. For me most of the comments fell into the category of 'Too Long Didn't Read category'. I measure before reading.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Anil Wang, Thanks for responding. It is important to distinguish between a "bad" pope and an heretical pope. The former sins against Morals and the latter against Faith. The former remains a member of the Church and maintains his Office; the latter severs himself from the Church, is no longer a Catholic and forfeits his Office. Huge difference! I have recently quoted many Popes, Saints, theologians who are one in confirming this point. If you'd like me to, I'll quote them for you again.

Pope Honorius was not a heretic. Both St. Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I have categorically stated that, up to their times (1870), there has never been an heretical Pope, in the history of the Church. There have been a number of bad Popes, for sure, but the point is that "bad" Popes remain true Popes - heretical popes do not. A heretic cannot become Pope and IF, IF, IF, a true Pope could become an heretic, he would not remain a true Pope.

Would God allow a "pope" like Bergoglio to be elected? Yes He would and He has. Why? To punish us for our sins. This chastisement has been long foretold by many, from Our Lady down. From the time of St. Paul, we have been told of the "operation of error" to come. We are told that God would send it to separate the believers from the unbelievers.

One can't go Orthodox, because one would then be a schismatic. That would be a wrong and sinful choice.

To claim that a true Pope can be a heretic, is to deny the dogmas of the Indefectibility and Infallibility of the Catholic Church - so becoming a heretic oneself.

The Catholic Church is infallible. By the assistance of Christ, the Church is infallible in the preservation and exposition of the deposit of revelation. This quality of the Church is expressed in the words of Christ, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" and in the words of St. Paul, who called the Church "the pillar and ground of truth." Neither of these things could be true if the Church could err in her official teaching. Therefore the Church is infallible. If the Church taught error in matters of faith and morals, it would be leading souls to hell, not to heaven.

Peter Lamb said...

The Catholic Church is indefectible. This means that the Church will endure until the end of time without any essential variation of her constitutive elements of unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. This doctrine is based on the same texts and reasoning as the infallibility of the Church. To these we add, "Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world," and Our Lord’s promise to the Apostles that the Holy Ghost would remain with them forever. The Vatican Council of 1870 declared: "Moreover what the Chief of pastors and the Great Pastor of sheep, the Lord Jesus, established in the blessed Apostle Peter for the perpetual salvation and perennial good of the Church, this by the same Author must endure always in the Church which was founded upon a rock and will endure firm until the end of the ages."

It is impossible that the Roman Pontiff could officially teach doctrines contrary to Catholic faith and morals, or that he could approve, or even permit a false liturgy, or evil disciplines for the whole Church. This doctrine is merely a conclusion of the two foregoing doctrines. The Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, is the one who enjoys the assistance from Christ, whereby the Church cannot err or defect. Pope Gregory XVI declared: "Is it possible that the Church, which is the pillar and ground of truth and which is continually receiving from the Holy Spirit the teaching of all truth, could ordain, grant, permit what would turn to the detriment of the soul’s salvation, to the contempt and harm of a sacrament instituted by Christ?" No, dear Anil, it is not possible.

Have the conciliar popes spoken heresies? Yes! Do they teach new doctrines? Yes! What did St. Paul tell you? If even an Angel brings you a new doctrine, let him be anathema!

The very fact that Bergoglio and his minions teach heresies and new and false doctrines, is the ultimate proof that the conciliar church is a false non-Catholic church and that the conciliar "popes" are anti-popes! To deny this, is to deny Catholic Dogma! The Catholic Church CANNOT teach error harmful to the salvation of souls! The Holy Ghost WILL NOT permit it!!!

Dan said...

Yay Johnno!

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Steven, Pleeease show me the heresy in sedevacantism. :)

Anonymous said...