Cardinal Müller: "There Is No Doubt That Francis Is a Legitimate Pope" - So?
Francis is the elected Pope and there is no opposition from the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Gerhard Müller told Father Serafino Lanzetta on YouTube.com (14 July).
Therefore: "There is no doubt that Francis is a legitimate Pope."
Müller's distraction from the heresies in Francis' Vatican: "Jesus didn't give us the guarantee that bishops and popes always do the best. Only in the case of the dogma ex cathedra is the Pope infallible".
This position virtually reduces papal infallibility to nothing, implying that there was no papal infallibility before its formal declaration in July 1870, and that there is no infallibility outside the very rare cases in which infallibility is formally invoked.
The Cardinal adds that it is a misunderstanding of a Pope's authority "to make him the Oracle of Delphi", which is true, but neither should the Pope be an oracle of nonsense.
Referring to the disputes between Peter and Paul [over whether pagans had to observe Old Testament customs and laws such as …More
Herr Mueller should read Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, and Pope Pius XI on the authority of the pope. All agree that that the legitimate Magisterium of the pope is, at the very least, safe to believe and beneficial to the souls of the faithful...hence the adage of St. Augustine: "Roma locuta est, causa finita est." The pope is the "proximate rule of faith", and the faithful thus owe religious assent to all a true pope teaches.
Recognition of a pope means that one recognizes them as "proximate rule of faith", and assents to all they teach because they have confidence they will not be led astray. Remove that confidence, start questioning what the dude in white is saying, and you have ceased recognizing him as pope.
At no time was Bergoglio ever seen as the proximate rule of Faith. This is because none of the claimants after Pius XII were seen as the proximate rule of Faith. This does not mean they weren't true popes, only that there was never "universal peaceful acceptance".
What he is and what he isn't doesn't matter when you are bound to disobey all his evil commands!
Yes, what he is or isn't does matter.....for if you believe a pope can be a manifest heretic, blasphemer & idol worshipper, your understanding of what a pope is becomes totally destroyed. Whereas for those who see that it is impossible for a heretic to be a valid Pope....their understanding of what a True and authentic Pope is, remains intact. A false understanding of what a valid Pope is.....is very likely.....of itself.....to be a heresy.
At the end of the day, the choice is clear: if you believe Francis isn’t the pope then you have to embrace Sedevacantism.
Did any catholic who believe all 31 antipopes of the past were actually antipopes and resisted, did they embraced sedevacantism? No, It is easy... we MUST remain faithful while resisting this destroyer of the faith, he will destroy but not our faith.
@yuca2111 First, when you understand the theology behind the sedevacantist position, you realize that it is entirely consistent with Catholic theology and Dogma. Sedevacantism is not a heresy (but tell that to those who insist a manifest, pertinatious heretic is a Catholic, let alone pope).
Second, if one rejects Bergoglio in 2024, they are necessarily sedevacantist, as if Jorge isn't pope (he's not), then the "sede" is "vacante". Now, when Anacletus II claimed the throne, and you rejected his claim, then you supported Innocent II, and thus could not be sedevacantist. This also doesn't explain St. Vincent Ferrer, who argued, at the end of the Western Schism, that the See was vacant because the claimants became schismatics by refusing to heal the split by resigning for the good of the Church.
Seeing as the Church has declared St. Vincent Ferrer a saint and doctor, I don't really think you can argue that "sedevacantism" is an impossibility.
My impression is that in intellect, understanding & clarity of thought, along with heroic, spiritual courage.....Archbishop Vigano soars above most others in the hierarchy, including C Muller.
So, Archbishop Vigano is the obvious one to trust and look up to as a spiritual leader!!!
My impression is there is a lot of murkiness of thought surrounding this question of whether Bergoglio is the Pope or no, and the people who have looked into it seem to have the clarity of thought these ones seem to lack.
Well said @Maria delos Angeles. When any perceived orthodox Catholic clergyman or layperson tries to explain that a serial, manifest, pertinaceous heretic....is validly a Catholic & also the Pope.....no clear thinking in relation to that position is possible.....so, yes, the reasoning gets quite murky, fuzzy, cloudy and outright spurious.....and ultimately makes no logical sense.
When our pastors are so afraid or compromised, we should be the ones telling them: "race of vipers!" He is a pope alright, by his fruits we know... antipope that is.
The Cardinal had no alternative since Francis appointed him to the Episcopacy. For him to declare otherwise would effectively mean his own election to be also invalid.
What a mess!
Pray for the return of The Holy Virgin of Mount Carmel to come soon.
True , this traitor is protecting himself.
22 Feb 2014
66.1
Appointed
Cardinal-Deacon of Sant’Agnese in Agone.
Thank God the legitimate pope Benedict XVI claimed the right to the Throne of Peter when this Argentine Usurper, Destroyer of the Mother Church and false Prophet was elected. Therefore neither the "Cardinals" nor presidents or garbagemen and traitors have no power to change the pope's decision. Bergoglio "anathema sit!"
Muller would have been more accurate had he just said, “I refuse to consider the possibility that Francis’s legitimacy is open to question.”
Vigano has elevated the conversation, and the very fact that cardinals like Burke and Muller feel compelled to comment on Francis’s legitimacy evinces the fact that the matter is in fact being questioned my many.
I even know Novus Ordo Catholics who doubt he’s a real pope (try and wrap your head around that one)!
The question of whether or not he is the pope is as settled as the question on whether evolution is true or not. I've never seen so much division in Catholics ever. I wish the cardinals will not continue to be afraid to debate and look at the evidence piling up, which the lay people have been pondering for 11 years.
jobina the fact card. Bergoglio in accordance with Church Constitution is not the pope is more obvious than evolution not being true...
First pre-requisite is that he must believe in all the dogmas of the Catholic Faith. Does he meet this requirement? No. Second, does he believe in the infallible teaching and sacred traditions of the Church prior to VII? No. I know there is this idea floating around from indult priests that the Novus Ordo and TLM are the same, and that Bergoglio should be obeyed. None sense!
The position of 90% of orthodox prelates is defending the Faith while affirming the legitimacy of the false prophet Bergoglio. Basically sitting on two chairs. In the long run this is unsustainable they will either have to choose sheep or the goat camp. You can't serve two masters Our Lord teaches.
Bergoglio's election was null and void because the 2013 Conclave was in direct violation of the requirements of the papal election law, Universi Dominici Gregis. That law requires that the prior Pope be dead and buried before a new Conclave can even be called. You can read the argument and evidence at Home | Antipope Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
Catholic Encyclopedia 1914 (Vol. 11, p. 456):
“It is very clear that the election [as Pope] of a heretic, schismatic or woman would be null and void.”
“Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics…” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum 1:415)
Let us remember that the anti-Catholic apostate Jorge Bergoglio, who promotes false gods and believes that neither Christ nor the Church is necessary for salvation, eliminated the title of Vicar of Christ.
Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943: “A doubtful pope is no pope.” Bergoglio was disqualified from became a pope due to his heretical, apostate and schismatic past in … – Gloria.tv
What need have we of Rome, or the cardinals, or the Church for that matter? The commenters here on Gloria.TV.com have settled it for us. Now we can rest comfortably tonight.
Mary,
Pre-Vatican II theologians are weighty authorities and cannot be dismissed. They represent the official interpretation of matters in the mind of the Church. No, they are not infallible, but because they carry the weight of (Pre-Vatican II) papal approval, they cannot be ignored as mere "opinion".
Prior to the creation of the Conciliar anti-church, the idea that a man like Jorge Bergoglio would be considered Catholic, let alone pope would have been laughed at. At least Rahner and Kung had the piece of mind to hide their heresy until a Modernist like Paul VI or John XXIII assumed the Chair. Jorge has been a manifest, pertinatious heretic for years. He was so bad that the Jesuit superior argued against JPII making him a Conciliar bishop.
The ordinary Magisterium of the Church is quite clear: heresy, not a declaration, separates oneself from the Church. To say a declaration is needed is to say the Church, Her saints, and Her doctors don't know what they are saying...