On Certain Catholics Considering Pope Michael or myself as Protestants

Paul J Martin

Admin ·

There seems to be a lot of controversy over Pope Francis, ranging from rumours, accusations, hearsay, sensational tabloids or expectations on what a pope is supposed to be and do. I would value your feedback so I can better understand how you feel about the pontiff.

• Pope Francis is a great pope doing a great job. +30
  
  
• Pope Francis is a bad pope leading the one true church. +6
  
  
• Pope Francis is a highly flawed individual trying his best to lead the church. +6
  
  
• Pope Francis is a Communist because he comes from Latin America, and is in cahoots with the banks and the Illuminati.
  
  
• Pope Francis is the Antichrist or an apostate and I’m a Sedevacantist/Protestant.

Steve Wall

Pope Francis is THE Pope and Catholics should show him the proper respect. No Catholic should publicly castigate the Holy Father based on unproven accusations. Wait for the investigations to be completed, otherwise it is slander.

Paul J Martin

Then cast your vote 🙂

Steve Wall

There was not an appropriate choice.

Skipping

some other comments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look here, "sedevacantist" and "protestant" are not exhaustive for Bergoglio being apostate.

What about "orthopapist" (recognising someone else as pope; my case) and certain more stringent of the Orthodox?

Steve Wall

There is only one Holy Father. Catholics call him Pope Francis.

Even before he became the Vicar of Christ, calling him by his last name without using his title would have been disrespectful . . . unacceptable behavior from a Catholic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholics call him Pope Michael.

Oh, there is a certain point to Bergoglio. Even clearer if you write in Upper Case BERGOGLIO. Try the sum in ASCII (A=65 to Z=90, that name has no accented letters).

Steve Wall

Who is Michael and why would you, a protestant, believe him to be the Vicar of Christ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Will you take back "you, a protestant"?

Steve Wall

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Absolutely not! You are as protestant as Martin Luther! Perhaps more so!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As Martin Luther in what year?

1515? He was basically Catholic.
1517? He was Jansenist.
1520? He was Protestant.
and so on ... one minute more Protestant than Erasmus, one minute less Protestant than Zwingli (good for him, btw).

Now, if you do not believe ANY of the heresies condemned at Trent, you cannot qualify as Protestant.

I believe in Seven Sacraments, Mass being a True Sacrifice, Mary being Co-Redemptrix (a Prot just called me blasphemous for the quote from Challoner on Genesis 3:15) ... you could call me schismatic or heretic, from your point of view, but calling me a Protestant is as inaccurate as calling Luther a Nestorian.

Btw, before calling me a heretic, you might want to check the exact definition on which you would call me so.

Steve Wall

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not call you a heretic. Please do not lie in an attempt to strengthen your position.

I would say you are as protestant as Martin Luther in 1522 when he published his perversion of the New Testament. In it, he corrupted Sacred Scripture in an attempt to strengthen his position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not say you had already called me a heretic.

The technical term for publishing an own Bible translation which is not the Church's is schismatic.

I said you could from your p o v call me schismatic. However, Protestant refers to a very specific group of heresies, with close kins, the original ones condemned at Trent being Luther's, Zwingli's, Calvin's, Bucer's, Cranmer's, the Anabaptists' and the two Sozzini's more or less contemporaneous heresies.

If someone's position doesn't fit these, you cannot call him a Protestant.

Btw, I was quoting a fully Catholic Douay Rheims.

Steve Wall

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I didn't call you a Protestant, I called you a protestant.

Say what you want, but the one thing you are not is Catholic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I didn't call you a Protestant, I called you a protestant."

Oh, sorry, missed that shade of meaning.

A "protestant" - lower case - has no canonical meaning whatsoever.

In that sense, St. Thomas More could have been called "a protestant" bc of protesting against the majority of the English bishops (against all but one, in fact).

As for the last, you are not my bishop or pope.

Steve Wall

Well, you've told us who you chose to be you pope, who have you chosen to be your bishop?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For the moment, His Holiness seems to be the only bishop in the world.

(Only bishop with jurisdiction, those who consecrated him seem to have retired)

Steve Wall

It's a shame you've rejected the Catholic Church. We have a lot of bishops and each one of them has a proven line of Apostolic succession all the way back to Jesus Christ.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You know, there are some of them whose most recent in the line consecrations are after a new rite (1970 or 1969 or sth).

Steve Wall

So? They are still valid and licit lines of Apostolic succession.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is disputed.

The Anglican lines are invalid, due to a change in rite.

The Novus Ordusian ones could be so too.

His Holiness has a line reaching back to Duarte Costa.

Steve Wall

Wow!

ALMOST a full century of succession???

You do realize that Duarte Costa was excommunicated BEFORE he founded his own Church.

What's that question we always like to ask of protestants???

WHO FOUNDED YOUR CHURCH?

The answer to that question for you would be:

The excommunicated Duarte Costa in 1945.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You do realize that Duarte Costa was excommunicated BEFORE he founded his own Church."

Do you realise this does not make his line of succession invalid, any more than that of the patriarch of Antioch?

A schismatic bishop is still a bishop.

The Anglican non-bishops (except very recent through Antioch and very few) are not non-bishops due to schism, they are non-bishops due to change of rites.

An illicit consecration is not the same as an invalid one.

The consecrating bishops were juridically reconciled with the Catholic Church (insofar as Bawden was validly elected) before ordaining and consecrating him in 2011, Gaudete weekend.

Some background to the election, the emergency conclave.

• 1) 1986 Wojtyla had visited a synagogue in Rome and convoked a prayer meeting involving non-Catholic and non-Christians, every religious tradition except atheists and radical evangelicals;
• 2) 1988 Monseigneur Lefebvre had consecrated four bishops, on the theory that Wojtyla was not fit to decide on what bishops to consecrate;
• 3) 1990 a conclave took place on the theory that if so, Wojtyla was not Pope and since the Church has a right to elect a valid Pope, even laymen could go ahead, should higher clergy and lower clergy fail to take on the duty which normally would have fallen on cardinals.

Steve Wall

You do realize that a schismatic bishop does not have the authority to ordain anyone as bishop.

When Duarte Costa rebelled against Christ's Church, he ended his line of succession.

Your church is just one more in the tens of thousands of protestant religions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are dreaming. The Church has decided otherwise, that is the only reason why Orthodox bishops are considered as HAVING valid, though gravely illicit, Apostolic Succession.

Steve Wall

Duarte Costa was not an Orthodox Bishop, he was an excommunicated bishop. His Apostolic succession ended when he was excommunicated. He had no authority to ordain anyone to carry on his line.

Your pathetic claims that Michael is the Pope are without merit. He is a false pope, a false bishop, in a false church with no link to Christ or His Apostles. Just one more protestant sect among the tens of thousands.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Orthodox bishops have been excommunicated since 1053.

"His Apostolic succession ended when he was excommunicated."

If so, Orthodox would have as little valid bishops as Anglicans.

"He had no authority to ordain anyone to carry on his line."

He had no jurisdiction to do so licitly, but he did have the powers to do so validly.

"authority" is a buzz word fuzzying out the distinction between jurisdiction and episcopal powers.