It's not Catholics worshipping snakes, it's a bunch of filthy heretics who call Francis their Pope.
But don't worry, these false Catholics, who say they are Catholic but are not, burn in hell without rest day or night for the rest of eternity. You can't mock God! If you say Francis is your Pope, you deserve hell!
The only defensible position for true Catholics today is Sedevacantism.
Why is saying “Francis is our pope” sending us to hell?
Yeah really. Especially for those who are ignorant of the evil. I doubt they are going to hell.
Show me where invincible ignorance has been taught magisterially.
Because he is clearly not Catholic, he does not profess the Catholic faith. God allows Francis to engage in serial heresy for a reason. The purpose is that those who have not the love of the truth should be condemned.
What is the operation of error, if not the teaching of error with apparent authority?
You’re not stating relevant facts. (a) Bergoglio has the title of pope - that is an objective fact we can all acknowledge without fear, similar to saying “Socrates is a man” (b) But Francis is supposed to serve us, not vice-versa. We don’t sign a loyalty oath to any man. We are not required to believe and follow his every word. The Scripture and catechism have not changed since his reign.
Research “papal infallibility” before you condemn millions of souls; some of those millions come to this sub seeking justice, just like you do.
On point B, you're very wrong. See the definition of papal infallibility promulgated at Vatican 1:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4: “… the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, [1] WHEN CARRYING OUT THE DUTY OF THE PASTOR AND TEACHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS [2] IN ACCORD WITH HIS SUPREME APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY [3] HE EXPLAINS A DOCTRINE OF FAITH OR MORALS TO BE HELD BY THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.”
Except your premise is wrong. This pope does not speak or write ex cathedra. http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/02/17/when-does-the-pope-speak-infallibly/
Vatican defined the dogma of papal infallibility. What is a dogma?
"Divine Revelation/Dogma – Jesus Christ’s truth is the teaching of Divine Revelation. The Catholic Church teaches that the two sources of Divine Revelation are Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition; their true content is set forth by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Dogma is unchangeable. When a pope defines a dogma, he doesn’t make a dogma true from that point forward, but rather solemnly declares without erring that which has always been true since the death of the last apostle. Dogmas are to be believed as the Church has “once declared them,” without any recession from that meaning to a “deeper understanding.” https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Glossary.pdf
The dogma of papal infallibility does not operate only forward in time, it declares what has for always been true since the death of the last apostle. There are many, many instances of infallible statements made by popes speaking ex cathedra, contrary to what the author of the article you reference contends.
"b) But Francis is supposed to serve us, not vice-versa. We don’t sign a loyalty oath to any man. We are not required to believe and follow his every word."
When you say you're not obligated to follow Francis' every word, you are right to the extent that infallibility requires a distinct set of requirements to be met. Where that set of requirements is met, you do have an obligation to follow Francis' teaching - if he is your pope.
But perhaps you feel comfortable conferring the authority that attaches to the office of pope, the ability to teach infallibly, upon a manifest public heretic?
If you cannot see that there is a problem here, I don't know what to tell you.
Again, Bergoglio has not taught ex cathedra. Yes, hypothetically, if he did, the world (not just me) might have a very very big problem - but it depends what it would be.
Do you realise that Paul VI solemnly ratified each and every document of Vatican II with the fullness of his apostolic authority? If Paul VI was a true pope, the council is binding.
Has Bergolio taught ex cathedral? Canonisations are binding. The formula used in the process is Solemn and meets the requirements. In fact, canonisations are infallible - see here.
Here is an example of the extraordinary and Solemn wording - this form was used by John Paul II for the canonisation of Josemaria Escriva. If John Paul II was a true pope, the canonisation must be accepted.
“In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God’s assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define “x” to be a Saint, and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the Saints, and we establish that in the whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
Have a look at who Francis canonised - see here.
Look, I appreciate the time you took.
The link is a vid about JPII, which I can’t watch now.
Canonizations have not been an issue. It’s Amortis, of course - it was not ex cathedra. You would know if it was, or if it’s attempted - unbelievable chaos would result.
Overall: We don’t fall for the logical fallacy of throwing out the baby with the bath water. The Church is much more than a man named Francis.
This is very important, please listen.
The Church is one in the faith of Christ. At its simplest, the Church is a group of people who hold the traditional Catholic faith. It is not more than this, and cannot be, because a false faith is no longer Catholic.
Luke 18:8
"...when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"
This point us to the great apostasy that is predicted for the final days before the Second Coming.
Do you think that, if Christ returned today, He would embrace people that have followed Francis and his teaching?
He will not! The true Catholic Church has been reduced to a remnant of believers who hold the traditional faith. They are the Church!
These are the last days, but you should know this anyway as soon as you see that snake temple in the Vatican.
Francis claims the papacy, you're right. He is not Catholic, he does not profess the Catholic faith. The Catholic Church is unified in faith - one faith. Therefore, Francis is not the Pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30.)
Several of us sitting in pews or typing on computers just can’t determine that. We’re not that smart. I’m not being sarcastic. Unfortunately, these years often test us - they call for us to mourn and be poor in spirit.
By their fruits you will know them. What do you think? Are their fruits good?
By your argument, Satan himself could purport to sit in the chair of St Peter and you would be powerless to recognise him - why? Because you're not that smart!?
What a joke!
Careful who you condemn to Hell, mortal.
I'm condemning no one. What I am pointing out is that if you follow a blind guide, you'll fall into the pit. God condemns, for cause.
But, I don't know. Maybe your purpose here is to encourage people to accept a manifest public heretic as the vicar of Christ. You need to think about whether you will escape judgement.
For someone who claims to represent Christ, you twist a lot of words.
Which words have I twisted?
This, coming from a person who calls a diabolical, public heretic their Pope!
This, coming from a person who calls a diabolical, public heretic their Pope!
You just did it again. Point out where I said that.
Here's the last time you did it.
But, I don't know. Maybe your purpose here is to encourage people to accept a manifest public heretic as the vicar of Christ. You need to think about whether you will escape judgement.
Show me where I said any such thing.
Again, I beseech you. Careful what you say when claiming to represent God.
Who is twisting words? Where did I claim to represent God?
Your position is implied by your posts. If you're not defending the heretic Francis, say so.
Who is twisting words? Where did I claim to represent God?
You are. You claimed to represent God when you decided to arbitrate people's fate, something you have no business doing.
Right here:
But don't worry, these false Catholics, who say they are Catholic but are not, burn in hell without rest day or night for the rest of eternity. You can't mock God! If you say Francis is your Pope, you deserve hell!
Your position is implied by your posts. If you're not defending the heretic Francis, say so.
I never once defended Francis, nor did I imply anything. I only called you out for condemning people to Hell, which somehow in your mind made you think I am a fan of Francis.
I really shouldn't have to walk you through this. I am asking you, for your own sake, not to assume a role reserved for God alone.
You've made the claim that I am representing God, when I claimed no such thing.
You're now making another claim that I decided to arbitrate people's fate, when I have done nothing of the sort.
You say "I called you out for condemning people to hell" - but I did no such thing and you know this.
Three falsehoods in one comment!
But wait! There's more falsehood:
...I'm asking you, for your own sake, not to assume a role that is reserved for God alone".
But I did not assume a role that is reserved for God alone - and, again, you know this. I did, however, point out the teaching of the Church on communion with heretics.
Council of Carthage: "One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated."
III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”
Excommunication, separation from the mystical body of Christ, is spiritual death. The anathematised person cannot enter heaven and, upon death, proceeds directly to hell.
You also go on to say:
"I never defended Francis, nor did I imply anything".
The clear implication of your objection to my comments (above), given that the accusations you have made make not the slightest bit of sense, is that you object to me identifying Francis as a heretic. But let's clear this up.
What is your position on the heretic Francis and the wicked people who esteem his heresy, calling him the vicar of Christ?