What People Are Commenting
Order of Malta & False Shepherds
I predict that the LAST book in your catalog will be titled something like this: AT LAST, THE LAST POPE: FRANCIS THE UNDOER;
I joke not! “The Roman in the seat of Peter” – that’s him.
Pope St. Sylvester
I just read
on Pope St. Sylvester. it was such a wonderful article, but something I noticed is that you did not tell us in your article who was the Pope who canonized Pope Sylvester a Saint now of the Church? Could you please tell me who made him a saint?
Most probably St. Sylvester, who lived in the 4th century and was a contemporary of Emperor Constantine, was made a saint by fame of sanctity rather than by a process of canonization like those that we had
until Vatican II
, when they started to be modified, and the
New Code of Canon Law
, where they completely changed.
We research on several sources of the lives of saints and did not find a Pope who made him saint.
TIA correspondence desk
I just finished reading about
. What an inspiring story of a truly noble and admirable saint! I pray that we might gain more bishops like him.
May he rest in peace, and may his spirit live on!
Order of Malta
Thank you for the notification of the answer to my question on the Order of Malta.
As always, Mr. Guimaraes has done a thorough job of explaining the background and history of the
Knights of Malta
, and has answered my question definitively.
My appreciation for his hard work in helping us through the roiling waters of the Roman Catholic Church and those associated with her.
May God continue to bless your work.
In His Holy Will,
Catholic Family News
- CFN published, some months ago, an article defending Pope Paul VI as a legitimately elected Roman Pontiff. Hardly any Catholic would have given it a second thought; nevertheless, the editor found it was a good topic of discussion.
According to the article, God would not allow the whole Church to accept as Pontiff one who was not legitimately so, and the consent of almost every Catholic in accepting a Pope as legitimately elected "gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact." If this is so, then I have to ask why some Catholic writers feel it's necessary to discuss such a topic, except to raise more questions?
We are living through a great apostasy. The conciliar Popes have undermined the Faith and practically destroyed God's Church. Are we expected to find comfort in the "practically unanimous" consent of Catholics that false shepherds are considered true Popes?
Independent of whether this or that argument used by
Catholic Family News
was opportune, the fact is that either the Catholic Church is a visible society relying upon known and precise norms of succession and government or she is an invisible or pneumatic society relying not on external rules but only on the virtues and orthodoxy of her members.
The Catholic Church, as taught by 2,000 years of Magisterium, is a visible society and, therefore, the succession of a Pope, that is, the election of a new Pope by the College of Cardinals following the rules the Church established, generates the new head of the Church. Once this man is duly elected by this College, accepted by the ensemble of the Bishops, by the enormous majority of the faithful and by the world, he is the Pope. If we deny it, we deny that the Church is a visible society.
The question that a heretic Pope is unable to exert the ministry of Peter is quite logical and was discussed by various theologians, without reaching a decisive sentence that could be endorsed by the Church as hers. Thus, the Church does not have the means to prevent a heretic Pope from being elected, especially when the College of Cardinals is also a heretical body.
The fact that Pope Paul IV wrote the Bull
Cum ex apostolatus officio
affirming that a heretic cannot be elected Pope was very well oriented and inspired an oath that the Cardinals take before the election saying that they will vote only for an orthodox person. However, neither Paul IV nor any other Pope pointed out the means for the Church to depose a possible heretic Pope in the case he would be elected. So, his Bull is a dead law. For more on this topic, please read
One might say that a Council could depose a heretic Pope. However, both the Councils of Constance and Basel pretended to have this power and were condemned precisely for this pretension. Later, this error was considered a heresy: Conciliarism.
Thus, the Catholic Church has no human means to depose a heretic who becomes Pope unless she denies her visible character. We should await a divine intervention since only Our Lord can judge and depose an elected heretic Pope.
Now then, from John XXIII to Francis, all the conciliar Popes have publicly professed and promoted the heresy of universal salvation. They are, therefore, heretics.
What should the faithful do in face of this situation?
Should they declare that they are not Popes and,
, that the Church is no longer a visible society with her own laws, or should they accept that they were properly elected, declare that they are heretics, resist their heresy and wait for a divine intervention?
We believe the first hypothesis is not valid because to avoid one heresy we would be embracing another one, which is to presuppose the Catholic Church is invisible.
We defend that the only possibility available for the faithful is to resist the papal heresy and to spread this resistance as much as possible. Supposing that the errors of the heretic Pope were widely spread and his authority were questioned everywhere, then he would lose the means to govern, would be oblige to retire and a new Pope would be elected.
This is the humble position we must take, waiting for the real Judge to judge. It is exactly the opposite of the arrogant position of those who pretend they have the authority to judge who is or is not Pope according to their own criteria.
TIA correspondence desk
Posted November 11, 2014
The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA
Related Topics of Interest
Prophecy of the Popes
The Canonization of Karol Wojtyla
Are the Knights of Malta Members of Freemasonry?
Looking at Some Basics of Sede-Vacantism
A Church without a Head?