WM Review is running a series on what the Doctors of the Church say about resisting "bad popes". Funny thing is, for great theologians like Bellarmine and Cajetan, a Pope who used his office to teach and promote heresy and/or harmful universal laws was not a bad Pope...BUT NO POPE AT ALL, as such things are not possible for a true pontiff.
Honestly Mr RF, I don't know what to say if you think that digging up a corpse and judging it is worse than what Francis and his recent predecessors have been doing. Certainly more gross, but not anywhere near as evil or damaging to souls.
That's because these guys are NOT bad popes. They are heretics; which means that they are not popes.
And while we are on this subject; you mentioned discussing the pitfalls of sedevacantism. Have you considered then pitfalls of sedeplenism and the novel doctrine of recognise and resist?
Regarding bad popes, you might find this interesting:
I regret that it came across that I was saying the previous "bad popes" were worse than Pope Francis, but I do understand why that perception has now been created.
I agree that the gravity of what Pope Francis is doing, changing Church teaching in a seeming systematic attempt to destroy the Church, is far greater than the "mere" immorality and debauchery of these previous "bad popes".
Regarding sedevecantism - By no means did I mean to disrespect the position. Currently it is probably the most sane position to hold, but I still have my fears. (Hence, me being a great fan of WM Review!).
I apologise to my sedevacantist friends if I offended.
“But we’ve had bad Popes before…” What a red herring if there ever was one! Popes are not impeccable. They are INFALLIBLE. Infallibility is a gift of the Holy Ghost granted to EVERY Pope. Of all the “Bad Popes” you’ve listed, NONE OF THEM PUBLICLY MANIFESTED AND TAUGHT HERESY TO THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS.
The Church’s “Bad Popes” NEVER taught a false Religion like the Papal claimants from 1958 onward have universally taught.
To believe John XXIII-Francis are true Popes is to damage the History and Theology of the Papacy. It literally causes faithful Catholics brain damage to accept these imposters as true Popes.
As bad as all these popes from distant centuries were, it seems they were guided by highly disordered human passions and appetites rather than an unwavering disdain for Catholic tradition which defines the current occupant of the papal office. I submit the latter is more nefarious.
WM Review is running a series on what the Doctors of the Church say about resisting "bad popes". Funny thing is, for great theologians like Bellarmine and Cajetan, a Pope who used his office to teach and promote heresy and/or harmful universal laws was not a bad Pope...BUT NO POPE AT ALL, as such things are not possible for a true pontiff.
Honestly Mr RF, I don't know what to say if you think that digging up a corpse and judging it is worse than what Francis and his recent predecessors have been doing. Certainly more gross, but not anywhere near as evil or damaging to souls.
That's because these guys are NOT bad popes. They are heretics; which means that they are not popes.
And while we are on this subject; you mentioned discussing the pitfalls of sedevacantism. Have you considered then pitfalls of sedeplenism and the novel doctrine of recognise and resist?
Regarding bad popes, you might find this interesting:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/torquemada
Greetings!
I regret that it came across that I was saying the previous "bad popes" were worse than Pope Francis, but I do understand why that perception has now been created.
I agree that the gravity of what Pope Francis is doing, changing Church teaching in a seeming systematic attempt to destroy the Church, is far greater than the "mere" immorality and debauchery of these previous "bad popes".
Regarding sedevecantism - By no means did I mean to disrespect the position. Currently it is probably the most sane position to hold, but I still have my fears. (Hence, me being a great fan of WM Review!).
I apologise to my sedevacantist friends if I offended.
“But we’ve had bad Popes before…” What a red herring if there ever was one! Popes are not impeccable. They are INFALLIBLE. Infallibility is a gift of the Holy Ghost granted to EVERY Pope. Of all the “Bad Popes” you’ve listed, NONE OF THEM PUBLICLY MANIFESTED AND TAUGHT HERESY TO THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS.
The Church’s “Bad Popes” NEVER taught a false Religion like the Papal claimants from 1958 onward have universally taught.
To believe John XXIII-Francis are true Popes is to damage the History and Theology of the Papacy. It literally causes faithful Catholics brain damage to accept these imposters as true Popes.
As bad as all these popes from distant centuries were, it seems they were guided by highly disordered human passions and appetites rather than an unwavering disdain for Catholic tradition which defines the current occupant of the papal office. I submit the latter is more nefarious.
Yes, I agree with all the comments: immorality is not on the same plain as heterodoxy. It is a red herring if ever there was one.