Society of St Pius X: April Letter Accusing Francis of Heresy Is "Waste of Time"

In an unsigned, in no way brilliant May 17 statement the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) slammed the April Letter which accuses Pope Francis of heresy and was signed until now by 85 priests and scholars…
The Vigano stuff has also been washed away, down the memory hole
foward
So, FSSPX goes to Francis help. Yes.
Let's just do nothing and just all go into hell. Wake up people. Many clergy are spitting on our Holy Mother the Church. The Spiritual Work of Mercy is to CORRECT a sinner....or heretic as the case may be.
Ultraviolet and one more user like this.
Ultraviolet likes this.
Libor Halik likes this.
All confusion about Francis is rooted in the false base premise which is that pope Benedict XVI resigned as such and Francis is pope. Its main advocates are secular theologians Robert Siscoe and John Salza. Based on their opinion FSSPX and other remnants ignore pope Benedict XVI and protect Francis as valid & licit pope. Although they identify Francis' material heresies they logically conclude …More
All confusion about Francis is rooted in the false base premise which is that pope Benedict XVI resigned as such and Francis is pope. Its main advocates are secular theologians Robert Siscoe and John Salza. Based on their opinion FSSPX and other remnants ignore pope Benedict XVI and protect Francis as valid & licit pope. Although they identify Francis' material heresies they logically conclude not to depose him "pro bono Ecclesiae". Since in canonic history no pope has ever been declared and deposed from Petrine Office for his material heresies while administering of Office and peaceful universal acceptance. Moreover, Francis' remnant surrogates all realize that public declaration of munus to Benedict XVI will automatically lead to schism, a small Church with BXVI as Head. Such reality would also undermine their narrative of Francis victim being the continuity of heretical JPII instead of BXVI being the more traditional right hand of Saint JPII, real victim forced -out to abdicate by Saint Gallen mafia. Finally, in order for Society to declare loyalty to another pope they would greatly risk compromise of their own authority as the infallible champion of Catholic tradition. Consequentially, admitting to error of adherence to the anti-pope is difficult and overwhelming.

p.s. advanced readers in theology can read on the position of FSSPX affirming Francis to be pope in which there are logical contradictions www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/is-francis-or-b… and challenge nonvenipacem.com/…/guest-post-a-fr…
Libor Halik and one more user like this.
Libor Halik likes this.
Fischl likes this.
I've lost count how many times I've taken advoluntas@aol.com good advice and corrected Rafal's heretical claims that Benedict XVI's resignation was invalid.

Rafal, no matter how many times you repeat a falsehood, it doesn't become true.

The "main advocate" that Pope Benedict XVI "resigned as such" is Benedict himself! He resigned, he's publicly defended and justified his resignation. Why? …More
I've lost count how many times I've taken advoluntas@aol.com good advice and corrected Rafal's heretical claims that Benedict XVI's resignation was invalid.

Rafal, no matter how many times you repeat a falsehood, it doesn't become true.

The "main advocate" that Pope Benedict XVI "resigned as such" is Benedict himself! He resigned, he's publicly defended and justified his resignation. Why? All of that because he knew there were people who conflate what they like with what is true. They don't like Francis, ergo he isn't the true Pope.

Wrong. He is..

Guess what? I'm not a fan of the current Pontiff, either. But unlike you, I have the good sense to recognize there's nothing new about a "bad pope" They've happened before and, God help us all, if Francis manages to pick is successor you ain't seen nothing yet. The next Pope will make Francis look normal by comparison.

But that's beside the point. Benedict XVI resigned. He said so. Repeatedly.

All the rest of your badly-translated word-porridge simply can't refute that fact. If you spent half as much time learning English as you do repeating your falsehoods about invalid resignations, you'd be a second Shakespeare by now.
Stuart, please learn basic mathematics and heresy definition, material & formal distinction. Your false judgements are based on profonud ignorance of the subject matter. I am very proud you read my comments and joyful you come back here. However, please think (you may find plenty of facts on my account) before you write. Otherwise, you'll not only contradict pope Benedict XVI but also Francis...
This is so typical of you, Rafal. "Basic mathematics"??? Nobody is discussing maths, including you! Idiot. Oh, I -know- what the definition of heresy is. I see it routinely in your posts and not only here. You haven't posted any "facts" here. All you have done is repeat your same old falsehoods. You seem to believe, as many stupid people do, that repeating a lie makes it true.

Let us discuss …More
This is so typical of you, Rafal. "Basic mathematics"??? Nobody is discussing maths, including you! Idiot. Oh, I -know- what the definition of heresy is. I see it routinely in your posts and not only here. You haven't posted any "facts" here. All you have done is repeat your same old falsehoods. You seem to believe, as many stupid people do, that repeating a lie makes it true.

Let us discuss some facts right now.
a.) It is a fact, Benedict XVI publicly resigned.
b.) It is a fact Benedict XVI filed all the papers necessary for this to be valid.
c.) It is a fact Benedict XVI's resignation is on record and publicly available.
d.) It is a fact Benedict XVI has defended his resignation in media interviews
e.) It is a fact Benedict XVI doing d.) supports a.) and the fact he did so voluntarily.
f.) It is a fact Benedict XVI is still giving public interviews similar to d.) so he is not being held captive or incommunicado..

These are facts. I defy you to disprove them with something other than your own tortured logic and opinions.

"Your false judgements are based on profonud ignorance..."

...said the man who can't even spell "profound" without making a mistake.
Mind Boggling!!! But, according to what I've seen, the SSPX hates John Paul II, because of the excommunications, but loves Frankie, that has given them even some concessions... So, they say JP-II was a horrible heretic and Frank only "the fruit" of a larger process. Well, that's a lie or a pack of lies, rather. JP-II was no heretic and Frank is the worst in history, a fanatical (lurianic) …More
Mind Boggling!!! But, according to what I've seen, the SSPX hates John Paul II, because of the excommunications, but loves Frankie, that has given them even some concessions... So, they say JP-II was a horrible heretic and Frank only "the fruit" of a larger process. Well, that's a lie or a pack of lies, rather. JP-II was no heretic and Frank is the worst in history, a fanatical (lurianic) kabbalistic communist jewish magician, whose life is devoted to destroying the Church. No "logical conclusion" of no linear process. An anomaly...
eticacasanova Originally was ‘to curry favel’, which may sound puzzling, because Favel was the name of a chestnut horse in a 14th-century French tale. The horse was renowned for his cunning and duplicity. ‘To curry Favel’ meant to stroke him or groom him with a special comb. Later the expression came to have the extended meaning ‘to act deceitfully or hypocritically’.

FSSPX should protect Cathol…More
eticacasanova Originally was ‘to curry favel’, which may sound puzzling, because Favel was the name of a chestnut horse in a 14th-century French tale. The horse was renowned for his cunning and duplicity. ‘To curry Favel’ meant to stroke him or groom him with a special comb. Later the expression came to have the extended meaning ‘to act deceitfully or hypocritically’.

FSSPX should protect Catholic deposit of Faith and Mass, not to curry favour with present Vatican liberation theologists. Eschatologically speaking , "11 for there is no respect-of-persons with God", and any elect may be deceived.

mattsixteen24 Siscoe in article linked in my above comment includes the fact of Francis attacking natural law. Whilst John Paul II has not.
eticacasanova likes this.
@Rafał_Ovile Heresy is heresy regardless of natural law. All counciliar popes were/are awful modernist popes.

While Siscoe and Salza make good arguments, they are not canon lawyers. I wouldn't put too much weight on what they say. As far as Benedict XVI is concerned, read the link I posted. Towards the end, it talks about his writings.

Also, here's another good article on Benedict from Marian …More
@Rafał_Ovile Heresy is heresy regardless of natural law. All counciliar popes were/are awful modernist popes.

While Siscoe and Salza make good arguments, they are not canon lawyers. I wouldn't put too much weight on what they say. As far as Benedict XVI is concerned, read the link I posted. Towards the end, it talks about his writings.

Also, here's another good article on Benedict from Marian Horvat
www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m007rpRatzinger…
Libor Halik likes this.
mattsixteen24 1. what is the connection between natural law and heresy (i.e. main heresy in Amoris Laetitia officially declared in AAS by Argentinean heretical guidelines)?

Definition: The natural law (Aquinas) is "the rational creature's participation in the type and order of the universe (kosmos) pre-existing in the mind of God (Logos) as the will of God revealed first in the Old Scriptures -…More
mattsixteen24 1. what is the connection between natural law and heresy (i.e. main heresy in Amoris Laetitia officially declared in AAS by Argentinean heretical guidelines)?

Definition: The natural law (Aquinas) is "the rational creature's participation in the type and order of the universe (kosmos) pre-existing in the mind of God (Logos) as the will of God revealed first in the Old Scriptures - Decalogue and finally in New Testament - doctrine of God Jesus Himself.

Connection: The Dogma of Indissolubility of Marriage declared at Trent Council as law and dogma (Cardinal Muller) is codified from VI Commandment (divine law applicable in nature) and in Gospel ( Mt 5:32). Therefore, heretical teaching allowing civil adulterous unions to receive Holy Communion is not only against Church law and dogma but natural order pre-existing in the mind of God since adulterous union (bigamy and polygamy) violates all laws.

2. Please read the whole context about Siscoe & Salza in my above comment which I opinion as contradictory in their artcile and adopting the false base premise...

3. The mark of infallibility is not attached to opinions of dr Horvat. You may want to read one of my comments on the theory of impostor sister Lucy based on evidence which has no attributes of certainty in its conclusions. Thereby the widely spread false theory produced by www.traditioninaction.org greatly undermined the Fatima Message by i.e. focusing on Fatima conspiracy instead of Fatima Message through which Our Lady asks to fulfill in practice First Saturday Devotion.
@Rafał_Ovile But your opinions don't have the mark of infallibility either. I'm not going to argue over the obvious facts about Benedict.

How does the impostor Sr. Lucia undermine the Fatima message? The impostor didn't come on the scene until the 60s. The woman looks nothing like the real Sr. Lucia. Doesn't act like her. Has different handwriting. Doesn't even act like a nun. Why were photos …More
@Rafał_Ovile But your opinions don't have the mark of infallibility either. I'm not going to argue over the obvious facts about Benedict.

How does the impostor Sr. Lucia undermine the Fatima message? The impostor didn't come on the scene until the 60s. The woman looks nothing like the real Sr. Lucia. Doesn't act like her. Has different handwriting. Doesn't even act like a nun. Why were photos doctored with her in pictures with Paul VI? Check out the evidence yourself: sisterlucyimposter.org
mattsixteen24 1. you have not replied to major arguments and narrowed your comment to the s. Lucy impostor idea. Nevertheless, truth can be established to make distinction between Benedict and Francis, in regards to which pontificate is the continuity of JPII. 2. Which scientific report concludes with absolute certainty that there are two sister Lucys? (Please provide citation)
@Rafał_Ovile What major argument? I already posted the link in my last reply to evidence of the impostor Lucia. I'll post it again. sisterlucyimposter.org
mattsixteen24 if you are a Catholic gentleman then answer my question in the textual form for public to see, not abstractive linking
@Rafał_Ovile Please... anyone can go to the link. It's pretty simple. That's what the whole point of the website is about. Presenting evidence. There's nothing abstract about clicking on a link. Does it make sense to paste all the evidence that the website presents in a comment box? No, it doesn't. That's not even possible. That's a ridiculous request.
mattsixteen24 there is no evidence in these reports and this principle still applies "semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit". If there was hard evidence many antivaticanists would spread it at light speed and you would have citations copy / paste ready... I would advise you to sacrifice your time for First Saturday Devotion and spread its idea.
@Rafał_Ovile There's no way you read and studied all those reports in that short of time. I think you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. You can have your opinion, I don't care.
mattsixteen24 ...and there is no way you can exclude I have not read them earlier, if you can read in between the lines of my comments.
@Rafał_Ovile So you admit you're dishonest. Good job. Conclusive evidence can only come from supporting the search for the truth about Sister Lucia. All you're doing is flat out denying the evidence that has been gathered. And again, how does investigating the Sister Lucia impostor harm the Fatima message? If anything, it strengthens the Fatima message. It's a red herring you're pushing. What …More
@Rafał_Ovile So you admit you're dishonest. Good job. Conclusive evidence can only come from supporting the search for the truth about Sister Lucia. All you're doing is flat out denying the evidence that has been gathered. And again, how does investigating the Sister Lucia impostor harm the Fatima message? If anything, it strengthens the Fatima message. It's a red herring you're pushing. What you're doing is no different than what the SSPX is doing in the post above.
eticacasanova likes this.
Fischl
again a case of timewasting
No wonder Remnant Michael Matt said the same thing.