Holy Name of Mary

Thursday, 3 January 2019

Pope Francis says you are better to be an "atheist"


Image result for pope francis angry

In his first address of 2019, George Bergoglio, Bishop of Rome said :

“How many times do we see the scandal of those people who go to church and stay there all day or go every day and then live hating others or talking badly about people? This is a scandal – it is better not to go to church: better to live as an atheist.”

Of course, this is simply not true. If someone does become hateful or a gossiper, there is no better place for that person to be than in Church, starting at the confessional, if one can find a priest prepared to hear it. 

The real question is, “what sick mind does this Bergoglio have to utter such a statement? What rotten childhood did he have that shaped him to say and think such theological drivel.

Atheists will not gain heaven. For the Vicar of Jesus Christ to ever say that one is “better to live” as one is a crime against humanity.

The man is a disgrace to the faith, a walking, breathing scandal.

May the Lord, in His mercy, deliver us from this pompous hypocritical pervert-protector.

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

Moreover he said that "the Gospel makes us revolutionaries" or something like that. On the 60th anniversary of Cuban Revolution.

Never been a fan of Red Scare, but at this point I think he's a communist. Not a liberal, a modernist or whatever, these are only consequences. He's a true, unreformed Marxist-Leninist in his heart, and with old age ramblings he can hide it less and less.

Peter Lamb said...

Such is the nature of the Gospel: it splits the world into two camps, the believers and the unbelievers. “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mk 16:16). The Gospel will forever be a sign of contradiction; it will forever separate the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats (cf. Mt 13:30; 25:32-33). If Francis and his gang don’t like that, they should at least have the decency to cease calling themselves Catholic. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal 1:8).

On the one side we have Vatican I, Pope Paul IV, Pope Innocent III, St. Francis de Sales, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Antonius, Cardinal Billot, Wernz-Vidal, Matthaeus Conte a Coronata, A. Vermeersch, Edward Regatillo, Marato, All of these pillars of the Church teach that a heretic cannot be Pope.

On the other side we have Salza, Siscoe and Bishop Fellay and various assorted semi-traditionalists who say an heretic can be the Vicar of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Who do you believe?

Vatican I declared: “For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession:

"The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ …for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32)
So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.”

The topic of a pope becoming a heretic was addressed at the First Vatican Council by Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio: “The question was also raised by a Cardinal, ‘What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?’ It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself."

Jim Norwood said...

What does this say about the Cardinals who elected him. What a bunch of quislings who sit around and say nothing while he impunes the Church.

Anonymous said...

Amen to that, look at C Dolan based on the O'Malley letter Dolan is toast. So a lot of good his I hate the TLM and TV clown act did him. God will not be mocked.

Anonymous said...

I thought Jesus said to "all of us sinners", Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Truly i totally missed the part where Jesus said be atheist,your better off.

Anonymous said...

Wonder if he has gossiped about Vigano, Burke, Muller, Sarah,or any rigid Catholic... Na,na he wouldn't eva do that!

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Mr. Lamb. Hav you ever read the book by ABP. Purcell or are you just, as usual, copying and pasting the work of Mario Derksen, the sede who runs the NOWS - Novus Ordo Watch Sectarians?

ABS has a friend, Eliott Bougis who has been in a Twitter battle over the text of the book which sedes have been misquoting from. He has the advantage over you because he owns the book and reads it

Bet you are not even aware that AFTER the Council the App publicly was both for and then against the Dogmatic Definition of Infallibility.

How is it that you have had SO much time and experience in these sedes vs Church battles and still have not yet learned you can't trust Mario Derksen at all?

You prolly think you are doing a bang-up job as ambassador for Sedeville but you are far more destructive of sedevacantism than you realise...

Anonymous said...

The gentleman increasing appears to be a raving maniac. He works out of a reservoir of self-contempt and hatred for the Church which one would believe more likely to be found in a rebellious adolescent female.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

True or false Pope Blog expose the routine errors of Mario Derksen at Novus Ordo Watch.

And why does Derksen quote Abs Purcell rather than the relator of the Pope at the first Vatican Council?

As for Mario the malign or Mr. Lamb judging the Pope, that is a sick joke.

At the True or False Pope Blog we can read the experts citing the matter of Pope Honorius, who was condemned for heresy anathematized for heresy------


++++++ begun quotes ++++++++

JUDGING THE POPE

That the Church is permitted to render a judgment concerning a Pope in the case of heresy (the exception to the rule), is found in the famous canon Si Papa, Dist 40, Ch. 6[6], and the teaching of Pope Innocent III, who said: “For faith is so necessary for me that, while for other sins I have only God as my judge, only for that sin which is committed against faith could I be judged by the Church;”[7] and other authorities. Bellarmine cited both of these authorities when teaching that the Church can judge a heretical Pope:

"That a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors. Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic … we still cannot deny that [Pope] Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, that it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd.”[8]

In defending the Dominican Opinion, John of St. Thomas taught the same:

"Concerning the case of heresy, theologians and jurists dispute over many things, and our work does not permit us to discuss all of them in great detail; but all the doctors agree that the Pope can be deposed for heresy, and we shall cite them when we treat of the difficulties. We have an explicit text in the chapter Si Papa, distinction 40, where it is said: “No mortal man presumes to rebuke the Pope for his faults, because he who is to judge all men is judged by no one, unless he be found to have deviated from the faith.” This exception manifestly signifies that a judicial sentence should be passed against the Pope in the case of heresy. The same is confirmed by the letter of [Pope] Adrian II, related in the eighth general Synod, session VII, in which he says that the Roman Pontiff is judged by no one; but, [he adds,] an anathema was pronounced against [Pope] Honorius by the [bishops of] the East because he had been accused of heresy, which alone makes it licit for inferiors to resist the doings of their superiors. Similarly, even Pope St. Clement says in his first epistle that St. Peter taught that a heretical Pope should be deposed."[9]

++++ end quotes ++++++++=

Those who treat the malign machinations of Mario as Gospel are lost souls

Osusanna said...

Scary picture. Looks like he'd like to have us all sleeping with da fishes.

Andrew Dunn said...

Of course he thinks it's better to be an atheist because he despises the Catholic Church, is determined to destroy it from within, and in his arrogance and pride, actually thinks that he can destroy it. (Never mind that chapter in the Gospels about the gates of hell never prevailing - it's not like he believes any of that anyway). This man is without question one of the most evil men history has ever known. No, he's not literally killing people ala. Stalin and Hitler but he is obviously determined to kill as many souls as possible. Every "hater" needs to be in Church, in that confessional and striving daily to improve as much as he/she can. How dare this POS contradict Our Lord's teachings! Add this latest blasphemy on top of the one he said over Christmas that Our Lady was not born a saint and all the dozens if not hundreds of blasphemies that have uttered out of his filthy mouth since day one of his anti-papacy. As hard as it is, pray very much that Bergoglio repents. Can you imagine the fires of hell that await him and his stooges if they don't swallow their pride, admit their errors and spend the rest of their days in hardcore penance?

Kathleen1031 said...

Has a pope ever made a face like that one, pure anger and venom.
His papacy is a farce. An ugly caricature of a true papacy. God deliver us from it soon.
He cannot prevent himself from uttering nonsense and blasphemies. There is no way for this man to conceal what is in his heart. His heart is black.
And I have long believed he is a Communist, which explains the rest.

Anonymous said...

"How many times do we see the scandal of those people who go to church and stay there all day or go every day and then live hating others or talking badly about people?"

This sounds like a fitting description of Jorge Bergoglio.

He KNOWS that HE IS A SCANDAL but keeps SCANDALIZING.

Where are our Bishops?

This man must be expunged.


Karl

Ana Milan said...

So the Hypocrite of all hypocrites has spoken. The Marxist imposter of the Papal Office who hates the OHC&A Church's Founder, first Pope & Bishops & those of their successors who faithfully preached the Word of God for the past 2K years pronounces that it is better to live as an Atheist than attend Holy Mass while giving scandal by talking badly about people. This abject Gossiper has the audacity to infer that Catholics who attend Holy Mass daily & recite Our Lady's Rosary are all malingers whilst he continues to cover-up for a pernicious Mafia of sodomitic prelates, allowing the persecution of faithful priests, nuns & laity to continue at a pace. His utter betrayal of the Chinese Catholics (their Bishops & priests) & his outright refusal to accommodate Asia Bibi & her family while bringing a Muslim family to Vatican City leaving behind a Christian one underlines his pertinacious hatred for Our Lord & Our Lady whom he suggested wasn't born perfect.

Two years ago ++Burke said a formal correction would be made & it wasn't a matter of numbers but of the Truth. As a result of inaction we now have +Vigano in hiding (with the Chief of the Swiss Guard looking for him) as well as Fr. Kalchik & countless suspensions on priests who refused to give HC to unrepentant sinners & non-Catholics plus two excommunications orders (Fr. Minutella & José Galat), interdicts on Infovaticano & Raymond Arroyo & Faculties withdrawn from Fr. Nix who has been living out of his car since. In the meantime the SSPX are still talking to this utterly dishonourable imposter while keeping exceedingly quiet about the scandals, sacrileges, heresies, blasphemies he is perpetuating throughout the Church of Christ worldwide.

When will enough be enough & silent Cardinals find their collective voice. Are none of them concerned they are putting their own salvation at risk for this puppet of Satan? Thank God & Our Blessed Mother for those Catholics who can & do attend daily Mass, Holy Hours & say their rosaries as we have been encouraged to do. PF's exhortation to live as Atheists might just be the spur needed to inject mediocre Catholics into action against the malignancy infesting the CC for decades, put there by Bella Dodd & Associates on Communist Party orders (her own admission). Those who live to see the day of reckoning will not easily forget how Christendom was let down by those who knew what was happening but did nothing to stop it.

Johnno said...

I see that Francis is reflecting on himself once again, and now projecting that onto us.

We're not all like you Frankie. No one is talking about you in any Church. We do it outside and on-line.

We don't dare to interrupt the Mass and pull a priest off the altar for our personal petty vendettas like you do.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear ABS, Your ramblings aside, I'm not always sure that you understand what you write. If possible, stick to one point and then try to back it up with Catholic Doctrine. In that way we might be able to have a meaningful conversation. Go easy on maligning people - it achieves nothing.

Tom A. said...

ABS, you and Siscoe and Salza are arguing the wrong point. The issue is much simpler. What good is a Pope or even the need of the Papacy if he can teach heresy and the faithful have to sift what he teaches? If the Pope does fail, it makes Christ a liar. If imposters occupy the Church but the Faith still survives then Christ's promise is sustained. A true Pope teaching a false doctrine violates the dogma of an indefectible Church. This is the heretical position you propose when you insist that the conciliar popes are true popes.

Tom A. said...

PS ABS, Honorius was already dead when a council condemned him so he wasnt deposed. Plus the pope would not sign off on Honorius as a heretic and changed the charge. All of this is available to those who consult true catholic sources instead of relying on protestant and gallican historical sources. Yes there was some confusion at the time as to the heretical status of Honorius among Catholics but Leo II settled the issue by removing the condemnation of heresy. The fact that the R&Rers continue to adhere to their own position instead of a popes edict is not at all surprising given the protestant gallican heritage of R&Rers.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

The Catholic Faith was finally restored by the III Council of Constantinople, VI Ecumenical Council of the Church, which convened on November 7th 680 in the presence of the Emperor, Constantine IV and the representatives of the new Pope, Agatho, (678-681). The Council condemned Monothelitism and launched an anathema against all those who had promoted or favoured this heresy and included Pope Honorius in this condemnation.

In the XIII session, held on March 28th 681, the Council Fathers after having proclaimed the will to excommunicate Sergius, Cyrus of Alexandria, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, all the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Bishop Theodore of Pharan, affirm: “And in addition to these, we decide that Honorius also, who was Pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the Holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas” (Mansi, XI, col. 556).

On August 9th 681, at the end of the XVI session, the anathema against all the heretics and supporters of the heresy, including Honorius were renewed: Sergio haeretico anathema, Cyro haeretico anathema, Honorio haeretico anathema, Pyrro, haeretico anathema» (Mansi, XI, col. 622). In the dogmatic decree of the XVIII session, on September 16th, it is said that: “since he who never rests and who from the very beginning was the inventor of malice, that by making use of the serpent, introduced poisonous death to human nature, as then, even now, has found the instruments suited to his will: we allude to Theodore, who was Bishop of Pharan; Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who were prelates of this imperial city; and also to Honorius, who was Pope of elder Rome; […]; therefore the suited instruments being found, he did not cease, through these, to provoke scandals and errors in the Body of the Church; and with unheard of expressions disseminated amidst the faithful people the heresy of the one will and one operation in two natures of a (Person) of the Holy Trinity, of Christ, our true God, in agreement with the insane false doctrine of the impious Apollinaire, Severus and Themistius” (Mansi, XI, coll. 636-637).

The authentic copies of the Council Acts, signed by 174 Fathers and the Emperor, were sent to the five Patriarchal Sees, with particular regard to the Roman See. However, since St. Agatho died on January 10th 681, the Council Acts, after more than 19 months of a “sede vacante”, were ratified by his successor Leo II (682 -683). In the letter sent May 7th 683 to the Emperor Constantine IV, the Pope wrote: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted” (Mansi, XI, col. 733).

The same year Pope Leo ordered the Acts translated in Latin, to be signed by all the Bishops in the West and that the signatures be conserved at the tomb of St. Peter. As the eminent Jesuit historian, Hartmann Grisar highlights: “in this way the universal acceptance of the Sixth Council in the West was desired, and this, as far as is known, took place without any difficulty” (Analecta romana, Desclée, Rome 1899, pp. 406-407).

The condemnation of Honorius was confirmed by Leo II’s successors, as attests the Liber diurnus romanorum pontificum and from the seventh (789) and eighth (867 -870) Ecumenical Councils of the Church
(C. J. Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, Letouzey et Ané, Paris 1909, vol. III, pp. 520-521).


One can adhere to the truth or one can throw-in with the Disciples of Derksen and Novus Ordo Watch.

Tom A. said...

Thank you for making my case ABS, some sessions of a council did indeed call Honorius a heretic but Leo II would not agree to those condemnations and changed it to read as your citation above reads. So Honorius was NEVER condemned as a heretic by a Pope.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear ABS, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church and foremost authority on the Papacy, studied the matter in detail; Vatican I studied 40 cases and declared that there has never been an heretical Pope in the history of the Church. You refute both St. Robert and an infallible Council, doggedly and persistently. Why? What are you trying to prove? Are you trying to convince Catholocs that although bergoglio is a public heretic, he is still a true Pope? Are you an abettor of heretics? You defy Catholic logic, the words of Christ and the dogma of Indefectibility of the Church. You refute a Council - that is not an option for Catholics. The Catholic Faith is defined - there is no room for personal opinions. The Church is a Monarchy - not a democracy. Protestants have freedom of conscience - we do not.
Examine your motives in this matter very carefully. You are becoming a novus ordite protestant. Strictly speaking you are not a Catholic. Emerge from your little novus ordite bush; speak your name like a man, (or lady). Why hide behind a pseudonym?

Tom A. said...

It seems R&Rers want and desire a Papacy that can fail. Personally, I went right from Novus Ordo/Indult to Sede because I knew from the time I was a child that a Catholic must submit and assent to the Pope. That has always been the Catholic teaching. While I sympathized with the SSPX for years, I could never accept their justification for disobedience. It was only when I finally concluded that Vatican 2 and the NO were not Catholic that I reached the sede conclusion by necessity. Ironically, it was the writings of Abp Lefebrve and Michael Davies that convinced me that Vatican 2 and the NO are not Catholic.

Kathleen1031 said...

Tom A., question on that. No one of course can know the mind of God, and I'd be willing to put all that in the "possible" column, but one thing sticks. Does it seem likely God would leave us in darkness for 50, 60, 100 years.
It makes more sense to me to have bad popes but retain the faith, but bad popes and dismantling of the faith, so many led astray, that's harder to sort out.
Of course I do not have the mind of God, but we use discernment, as we must. I do tend to agree with you, and think the church went off the rails earlier than VII. Given our now fully entrenched homosexual church, it is almost humorous to say, by their fruits you will know them. Sadly ironic, in the vernacular. It is impossible to say now the Catholic faith is practiced or taught by these worldlings and apostates.

Tom A. said...

Does it really matter if we had real or false popes these last 60 years or not? Either real popes destroyed the Church these last 60 years or false popes destroyed the Church. I find it easier to believe that false popes destroyed the Church. I dont think the Holy Ghost would allow a real pope to destroy His Church. Remember, God allowed Israel to suffer for many generations for their sins. So, yes, it is highly likely that the punishment being dealt to modern man may last much longer and get much worse.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

An infallible council found him heretical. Take it up with that council not the personal opinion of and Dr of the Church for that is a genetic fallacy

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

If there has been no legit Pope since Pius XII, there are no longer any living Cardinals and so the Sede Orcs must gather around the pile of burning papal effigies - From John 23rd to Francis - and decide who among the heretics will now become Pope.

Pope Sperry, Pope Cekada, Pope Lane, Pope Lamb, Pope Tom, or, better yet, the true authority whom sede men endlessly echo, Pope Mario Derksen.

Yes, y'all due have the answers don't you :)

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Vatican I studied 40 cases and declared that there has never been an heretical Pope in the history of the Church.

Good Lord, Lamb. You echo that because Pope Derksen has that on his crummy Novus Ordo Watch Blog - and it is putatively from an American Abp. but not for the relator at the council vis a vis Infallibility.

Post for us the declaration of the Council that "....there has never been..."

Your argumentation, such as it is , makes it quite clear you have a very poor idea of what it is councils do.

You think the intervention of one Prelate made during the course of one session of that Council means that is what a council declared but you can not find one single word about that intervention in the acts of that Council.

Derkse's disciples are a pathetic example of the putative "knowledge" of sedes.

Y'all deserve each other

Peter Lamb said...

Dear ABs, Ever heard of the Cassiciacum Thesis? Ever heard of the Siri Thesis? Ever considered that we simply don't know, but that Our Lord does know and His solution will become known one day? Ever thought we should excercise faith and patience until Our Lord brings His plan to fruition?

Vatican I declared: “For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession:

"The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ …for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32)
So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.”

Read this Declaration of an infallible Council again and see if you get its meaning this time. :)

PS. Pleeese change your pseudonym ol' chap. You havn't a snowball's chance of getting into medical school anywhere. :)

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Good Lord, Lamb. You think that Popes are not only infallible but impeccable. What Has Francis taught and claimed that you are bound by it? When has he fulfilled the requirements of promulgating an infallible teaching?

No wonder you have pitched your tent among the Sede Orcs.

Y'all are similar to the eastern schismatics who also see no need for a Pope but do embrace heresies and you are similar to the protestants who also have no need of a Pope but swallowing heresies. But the Sede Orcs are as unique as they are bizarre - putative Catholics who have no need of either a Pope or a visible Church.

You are a silly man

Ta-ta

Tom A. said...

How utterly ironic ABS, it is you who has made the case here and in other forums for no need of a Pope. According to you the man is irrelevant unless he puts on his ex cathedra hat and issues forth binding definitions on faith and morals. Even then you will resist if you think they are not in accordance with Tradition.

Lynda said...

There certainly wouldn't be any need for a pope if he didn't have to defend and uphold the doctrine of the Faith.

Lynda said...

Dear Dr Lamb, thank you for your continuimg to give those always apt and edifying quotations. God bless and protect you and your family.

Lynda said...

He hates God and he hates those who love God, most especially those who are pious. He hates piety.

Lynda said...

He shows himself, objectively, to be an intransigent heretic.

Lynda said...

It would certainly be better to be a misled non-intransigent atheist than the enemy of the Faith apparently on the See of Peter as far as final judgment goes. Lord, have mercy.

Lynda said...

Only if the "revolution" is from disorder to order!

Peter Lamb said...

Thanks Lynda. :)

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

How utterly ironic ABS, it is you who has made the case here and in other forums for no need of a Pope. According to you the man is irrelevant unless he puts on his ex cathedra hat and issues forth binding definitions on faith and morals. Even then you will resist if you think they are not in accordance with Tradition.

You too are a silly man- in addition to being a liar.

ABS has never, at any time or on any forum, averred that Catholics do not need a Pope.

Tom A. said...

The whole R&R position is based on the fact that you personally can disagree with a Pope if you think he is contradicting Tradition. So you in fact become the judge of last resort. If that is the case then the Papacy as we knew it is no longer necessary except for some administrative purposes. My sede position is if I think the man who is Pope is contradicting Traditon then he must be ineligible to be Pope since a Catholic does not hold and teach heresy.

Anonymous said...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/vatican-theologian-pope-contradicts-his-mercy-saying-its-better-to-be-athei

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

The Sedes have a Pope and his name is Mario Derksen and he occupies the Chair of Sedevacantism as Novus Ordo Watch and what he proclaims is believed as Gospel truth by his devotees.

The problem is, what he claims is not Catholic, and so his followers, who are also not Catholic, are forever being led deeper into error.

Yes, Virginia, Recognize and Resist is Catholic...

http://traditionalcatholicanswers.com/can-we-recognize-and-resist

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Chapter 4.
On faith and reason


13. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding [36].

36 Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium (Notebook), 28 (PL 50, 668).

+++++++++++++++=

The Fathers of the Catholic Church recognised the possibility the Church could be burdened with a Pope who was unsound and so they sourced St Vincent of Lerins, who taught in his Commonitorium, that the Faithful were to cling to Tradition and resist the novelties of wayward Popes.

He even explained why prelates were allowed by God to try and teach novel doctrines - as a way to test His Faithful.

But sedes have failed the test by relying on their Sedevacantust Pope Mario Derksen, a non-Catholic nut who does not know or hold the Faith once delivered but who holds the protestant heterodox idea that Catholics are unthinking automatons who do whatever any old Pope tells them to do even if he is preaching heterodox ideas.

Why do you think Vatican 1 sourced St Vincent's Traditional teach here?

Please quit Novus Ordo Watch - it makes you sound uninformed and foolish

Peter Lamb said...

Dear ABS, I find it very interesting that you truly often don't understand what you quote. Take it slowly and think about what you write. I'll ask a psychiatrist friend about it. Loose your animus and hatred. It does you no good, is unpleasant for Readers of this blog and lowers the tone of the blog itself. Courteous discussion is what blogs are for. Catholics will find each other if they stick to Catholic doctrine. God bless you.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Mr. Lamb. You were unable to respond to the facts and so you will now bang on about my putative personal shortcomings

and all of that after you have posted uncountable numbers of comments saying there have been no Popes since 1958 and that Francis is a heretic etc etc

You and your ilk have no self awareness.

You roar when you attack and mewl when you factually rebutted

As Trump likes to tweet, "Sad."

In any event, the facts have been posted for those who have faithful and open catholics minds.

The Schismatic Orcs are another matter

Ta-ta ABS is going to follow the teaching of the New Testament by marking you and you ilk as heretics and stop responding to y'all