Topic: The Dictator Pope

[Sharbel]

Pope Francis has carefully cultivated an image in public as the apostle of mercy, kindness, and openness; in private, he’s authoritarian, given to profanity-laced outbursts of anger, and manipulative in pursuing his agenda.

https://is.gd/uq4QGy

[Antonis]

I might buy this. I wouldn’t be too surprised if the picture were true, at least from my experience with those who try to paint similar pictures of themselves in our own Church. Thankfully, they don’t have quite the level of power than the pontiff does.

[Mor Ephrem]

Pope Francis has carefully cultivated an image in public as the apostle of mercy, kindness, and openness; in private, he’s authoritarian, given to profanity-laced outbursts of anger, and manipulative in pursuing his agenda.

And to think there are still Orthodox people who believe RCs are graceless. 

[Asteriktos]

I love gossip, but could this live up to Procopius? Probably not! I would get it from the library to check it out, but it seems to be available only as a self-published digital version?

[Porter ODoran]

Christians don't accept the witness of one, but of at least two or three. And certainly not the witness of an anonymous writer published by an outlet of polemic and attack.

[Mor Ephrem]

Christians don't accept the witness of one, but of at least two or three. And certainly not the witness of an anonymous writer published by an outlet of polemic and attack.

There are more than two or three, so you'll have to repudiate the account in the OP on some other "Christian" basis. 

[jwinch2]

Christians don't accept the witness of one, but of at least two or three. And certainly not the witness of an anonymous writer published by an outlet of polemic and attack.

There are more than two or three, so you'll have to repudiate the account in the OP on some other "Christian" basis.

Indeed, sadly.  The book is very well sourced, and contains citations throughout, which, in a good many cases, are verifiable in the public record.  I would not go so far as to call it "scholarly" but rather something like "journalistic" (as in, back when journalists actually did verification rather than just trying to beat each other to the headline). 

[Agabus]

Christians don't accept the witness of one, but of at least two or three. And certainly not the witness of an anonymous writer published by an outlet of polemic and attack.

There are more than two or three, so you'll have to repudiate the account in the OP on some other "Christian" basis.

Indeed, sadly.  The book is very well sourced, and contains citations throughout, which, in a good many cases, are verifiable in the public record.  I would not go so far as to call it "scholarly" but rather something like "journalistic" (as in, back when journalists actually did verification rather than just trying to beat each other to the headline).

Even people who admit to wanting to believe it have said that some of the accounts in it are problematic if not outright false (e.g. a report that the Pope gave Vatican money to the Clinton campaign). Poisons the product.

But hey, I like the cursing Jesuit pope, so I'm willing to ignore all sorts of stuff.

[Sharbel]

But hey, I like the cursing Jesuit pope, so I'm willing to ignore all sorts of stuff.

The Pope Francis Insult Generator

[IXOYE]

I might buy this. I wouldn’t be too surprised if the picture were true, at least from my experience with those who try to paint similar pictures of themselves in our own Church. Thankfully, they don’t have quite the level of power than the pontiff does.

Ditto.

[Porter ODoran]

Christians don't accept the witness of one, but of at least two or three. And certainly not the witness of an anonymous writer published by an outlet of polemic and attack.

There are more than two or three, so you'll have to repudiate the account in the OP on some other "Christian" basis.

Indeed, sadly.  The book is very well sourced, and contains citations throughout, which, in a good many cases, are verifiable in the public record.  I would not go so far as to call it "scholarly" but rather something like "journalistic" (as in, back when journalists actually did verification rather than just trying to beat each other to the headline).

Are we talking about the same book? This is an anonymous "tell all." If the anonymous author is quoting the public record somewhere, it's certainly not of Pope Francis abusing someone with profanity.

Read the link before you leap.

[Porter ODoran]

I might buy this. I wouldn’t be too surprised if the picture were true, at least from my experience with those who try to paint similar pictures of themselves in our own Church. Thankfully, they don’t have quite the level of power than the pontiff does.

Ditto.

You two are precious.

[Porter ODoran]

But hey, I like the cursing Jesuit pope, so I'm willing to ignore all sorts of stuff.

The Pope Francis Insult Generator

Excellent.

[Iconodule]

The supreme universal bishop acting like a dictator? Incredible. I kind of bet a lot of these same people were begging Pope Benedict to be less collegial, or at least would have cheered him on if he were.

[Porter ODoran]

The supreme universal bishop acting like a dictator? Incredible. I kind of bet a lot of these same people were begging Pope Benedict to be less collegial, or at least would have cheered him on if he were.

Yes I think this is a very good point. What's more remarkable, a report that the Pope swears or the fact there is such a thing as a Pope?

[Agabus]

I kind of bet a lot of these same people were begging Pope Benedict to be less collegial, or at least would have cheered him on if he were.

I know people who wanted Benedict to live up to the Panzer Pope moniker.

[ErmyCath]

The supreme universal bishop acting like a dictator? Incredible. I kind of bet a lot of these same people were begging Pope Benedict to be less collegial, or at least would have cheered him on if he were.

Yes I think this is a very good point. What's more remarkable, a report that the Pope swears or the fact there is such a thing as a Pope?

This is a clever point and it actually made me chuckle aloud to myself. 

[Asteriktos]

Reading this, but kinda still waiting for the good stuff. So far it's been mostly:

- Connect-the-dots style conspiracy theorizing
- Treating disciplinary practices in Catholicism as though they're fundamental dogmas, and then decrying how "the libz1!" want to discuss changes
- Making contradictory claims within pages of each other, but that's ok, cause it's libs who are being criticized, and you just know there's some progressivist skullduggery going on either way

[Wandile]

The supreme universal bishop acting like a dictator? Incredible. I kind of bet a lot of these same people were begging Pope Benedict to be less collegial, or at least would have cheered him on if he were.

The point they are trying to make is that the pope is not a dictator. He does have limits to his power. There are procedures and processes in place to help the church run as to avoid a dictator state that has now taken over Rome. This has been done because Pope Francis bypasses all rules, regulations and precedure and just does what he wants. The church is in a mess right now because of this.

Once when Pope Pius XII wanted to enact a new practice, he first consulted with some cardinals and canononists to determine if he even had the authority to do so. This is because the pope really does have limits to his power. Even under the pontificate of Blessed Pius IX (in whose pontificate Vatican I was held) when persistently asked by priests and clergy to change the canon of the mass to include St Joseph the spouse of Mary our mother, he remarked saying

”I am only the pope.  What power have I to touch the Canon?”

Even though he did have this authority to do so, it underscored the fact that he knew that papal authority has limits as he later said :

”The opinion according to which the pope, in virtue of his
infallibility, is an unlimited and absolute Sovereign, supposes a totally
erroneous conception of the dogma of papal infallibility.”

In fact Bishop Athanasius Schneider openly taught on this issue of the limits of papal authority recently. He is not an absolute monarch. Although through abuse of power he can set himself up as such.


Dear Wandile, you have described Catholic Church as "The Church" suggesting that it is the right faith on the Orthodox website, so that is an overuse of the hospitality - moreover, you have done it in a non-polemical section. I am giving you 20% warning.

Dominika, Global Moderator

[Mor Ephrem]

The supreme universal bishop acting like a dictator? Incredible. I kind of bet a lot of these same people were begging Pope Benedict to be less collegial, or at least would have cheered him on if he were.

The point they are trying to make is that the pope is not a dictator. He does have limits to his power. There are procedures and processes in place to help the church run as to avoid a dictator state that has now taken over Rome. This has been done because Pope Francis bypasses all rules, regulations and precedure and just does what he wants. The church is in a mess right now because of this.

If it's really so "illegal", why doesn't anyone put a stop to it?

[Sinful Hypocrite]

Pope Francis has carefully cultivated an image in public as the apostle of mercy, kindness, and openness; in private, he’s authoritarian, given to profanity-laced outbursts of anger, and manipulative in pursuing his agenda.

https://is.gd/uq4QGy

Did you expect to find God among us humans?

Look to God for comfort and truth, do not expect it from any human. The scriptures are clear that there is no one who does good in this world.

 And not to fear men, But Love God with all our hearts.

Love those who do you harm, your enemies.

Love the Pope, as your neighbor.

[Asteriktos]

The supreme universal bishop acting like a dictator? Incredible. I kind of bet a lot of these same people were begging Pope Benedict to be less collegial, or at least would have cheered him on if he were.

The point they are trying to make is that the pope is not a dictator. He does have limits to his power. There are procedures and processes in place to help the church run as to avoid a dictator state that has now taken over Rome. This has been done because Pope Francis bypasses all rules, regulations and precedure and just does what he wants. The church is in a mess right now because of this.

Right, lol, the author of the book just hates this kind of thing... oh, except when he happens to agree with what a former Pope is doing, in which case it's merely a situation that the poor ole Pope was forced into, the poor ole Pope has no choice because he has to defend the faith and the unchanging morals of the Church, etc. All dictators are bad, except the ones who aren't

"Since John Paul could often not rely on the hierarchy he had been bequeathed, he followed a policy of papal control, and he had little option in his drive to restore blah blah blah..."

[Wandile]

The supreme universal bishop acting like a dictator? Incredible. I kind of bet a lot of these same people were begging Pope Benedict to be less collegial, or at least would have cheered him on if he were.

The point they are trying to make is that the pope is not a dictator. He does have limits to his power. There are procedures and processes in place to help the church run as to avoid a dictator state that has now taken over Rome. This has been done because Pope Francis bypasses all rules, regulations and precedure and just does what he wants. The church is in a mess right now because of this.

If it's really so "illegal", why doesn't anyone put a stop to it?

Because many of the clergy in Rome are in league with the pope. The worst of modernists are in Rome. Orthodox clerics are beings purged. The last one of prominence is Cardinal Sarah as prefect of the congreagtion of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. Even his congreagtion has been subverted by papal appointees who are modernists. In fact his deputy effectively runs the congregation in order to subvert the orthodox Cardinal Sarah.

Those in Rome have no reason to put a stop to it as they are in agreement with the direction of the current pontificate. In fact it’s the very reason they elected Pope Francis. The modernists got their man. The St Gallen group openly boasted about this.

Then there is the issue of other bishops who are orthodox being too scared to speak up for fear of being fired. Many simply lack the faith needed to openly oppose the pope and those around him.

So in short, those nearest to the pope do not want to put a stop to this and those that should speak up are too scared to. The case of Father Weinandy, Gallat, Cardinal Muller and the priests of the Congregation for the Dovtrine of Faith and other clergy are testament to what happens to those who speak up against the pope. You get fired or excommunicated or both.

Father Weinandy accurately claimed the main reason why God would permit this is to expose the lack of faith amongst the Episcopate and clergy in the church. Very few are brave enough to speak up. Secondarily I would say is to expose the uncatholic papal adulation present amongst many in the church. The fathers and Vatican I would watch in horror at some of the excesses of ultramontanism present amongst some laity and clergy. In fact Cardinal Newman warned about such a situation due to the proclamation of Papal Infalibility as he was worried many would incorrectly understand the dogma, which has happened.

[Wandile]

The supreme universal bishop acting like a dictator? Incredible. I kind of bet a lot of these same people were begging Pope Benedict to be less collegial, or at least would have cheered him on if he were.

The point they are trying to make is that the pope is not a dictator. He does have limits to his power. There are procedures and processes in place to help the church run as to avoid a dictator state that has now taken over Rome. This has been done because Pope Francis bypasses all rules, regulations and precedure and just does what he wants. The church is in a mess right now because of this.

Right, lol, the author of the book just hates this kind of thing... oh, except when he happens to agree with what a former Pope is doing, in which case it's merely a situation that the poor ole Pope was forced into, the poor ole Pope has no choice because he has to defend the faith and the unchanging morals of the Church, etc. All dictators are bad, except the ones who aren't

Pope St John Paul II was far from a dictator. Heck he appointed some of the men like cardinal Kasper other men who are the worst of modernists as bishops and cardinals because of pressure from the German Bishops and other modernists. Compared to the current pontificate Pope St John Paul II was as dictatorial as the queen of England.

You can choose to keep believing false caricatures of the papacy in order to continue your delightful assault on the church. If the words from the very pope who proclaimed papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction are not enough for you to show that papal power has limits , nothing will ever be enough

[Porter ODoran]

The supreme universal bishop acting like a dictator? Incredible. I kind of bet a lot of these same people were begging Pope Benedict to be less collegial, or at least would have cheered him on if he were.

The point they are trying to make is that the pope is not a dictator. He does have limits to his power. There are procedures and processes in place to help the church run as to avoid a dictator state that has now taken over Rome. This has been done because Pope Francis bypasses all rules, regulations and precedure and just does what he wants. The church is in a mess right now because of this.

Right, lol, the author of the book just hates this kind of thing... oh, except when he happens to agree with what a former Pope is doing, in which case it's merely a situation that the poor ole Pope was forced into, the poor ole Pope has no choice because he has to defend the faith and the unchanging morals of the Church, etc. All dictators are bad, except the ones who aren't

Pope St John Paul II was far from a dictator. Heck he appointed some of the men like cardinal Kasper other men who are the worst of modernists as bishops and cardinals because of pressure from the German Bishops and other modernists. Compared to the current pontificate Pope St John Paul II was as dictatorial as the queen of England.

You can choose to keep believing false caricatures of the papacy in order to continue your delightful assault on the church. If the words from the very pope who proclaimed papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction are not enough for you to show that papal power has limits , nothing will ever be enough

Wow this was a pathetic little dodge. He's alluding to the fetish for Pope Benedict, for the most part, and you know it. The point is the rank hypocrisy from Pope Francis's  conservative enemies. Altho I don't know that even John Paul II was such a saint -- wait.

[Wandile]

The supreme universal bishop acting like a dictator? Incredible. I kind of bet a lot of these same people were begging Pope Benedict to be less collegial, or at least would have cheered him on if he were.

The point they are trying to make is that the pope is not a dictator. He does have limits to his power. There are procedures and processes in place to help the church run as to avoid a dictator state that has now taken over Rome. This has been done because Pope Francis bypasses all rules, regulations and precedure and just does what he wants. The church is in a mess right now because of this.

Right, lol, the author of the book just hates this kind of thing... oh, except when he happens to agree with what a former Pope is doing, in which case it's merely a situation that the poor ole Pope was forced into, the poor ole Pope has no choice because he has to defend the faith and the unchanging morals of the Church, etc. All dictators are bad, except the ones who aren't

Pope St John Paul II was far from a dictator. Heck he appointed some of the men like cardinal Kasper other men who are the worst of modernists as bishops and cardinals because of pressure from the German Bishops and other modernists. Compared to the current pontificate Pope St John Paul II was as dictatorial as the queen of England.

You can choose to keep believing false caricatures of the papacy in order to continue your delightful assault on the church. If the words from the very pope who proclaimed papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction are not enough for you to show that papal power has limits , nothing will ever be enough

Wow this was a pathetic little dodge. He's alluding to the fetish for Pope Benedict, for the most part, and you know it. The point is the rank hypocrisy from Pope Francis's  conservative enemies. Altho I don't know that even John Paul II was such a saint -- wait.

People wanted Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI to exercise his authority (That is within canonical grounds) but not anything like what Pope Francis is doing (which is ruling with no regard to canons or procedure, it anything goes). There is no hypocrisy. Pope Benedict XVI barely ever used any of his legitImage authority. Understandably he was blaickmailed and opposed in almost every direction to the point that the modernists forced him into abdication.

Authority is legitimately excercised in the defence of the faith and even then with respect to the canons. People wanted Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI to deal with all the modernists which is a legitimate exercise of apostolic authority as that is the job of the bishop, to safeguard the faith. It becomes an abuse when a Pope or any other bishop excommunicates, defrocks or fires people without just cause. That is at best, abuse of power. What people wanted of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was the former. Pope Francis is giving us the latter. The two are not even comparable.

Pope St John Paul II has miracles accompanied by his intercession. Heaven has spoken. You’re free to disagree of course but the church has spoken on his sanctity.

[Mor Ephrem]

Pope Benedict XVI barely ever used any of his legitImage authority. Understandably he was blaickmailed and opposed in almost every direction to the point that the modernists forced him into abdication.

Do you really believe this?

[Wandile]

Pope Benedict XVI barely ever used any of his legitImage authority. Understandably he was blaickmailed and opposed in almost every direction to the point that the modernists forced him into abdication.

Do you really believe this?

It’s a matter of fact.

In fact a cleric once mentioned an encounter with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI about how he asked the pope in a private audience why he didn’t ever exercise his authority. Pope Emeitus Benedict XVI replied with “you see that door, my authority ends over there” alluding to the fact that the modernists subverted him at almost every turn even in the imposition of his Moti Proprio on the Tridentine mass.

[Mor Ephrem]

Pope Benedict XVI barely ever used any of his legitImage authority. Understandably he was blaickmailed and opposed in almost every direction to the point that the modernists forced him into abdication.

Do you really believe this?

It’s a matter of fact.

Then Pope Benedict never legitimately abdicated.  Pope Francis is an antipope, and Pope Benedict XVI is a liar.

[Wandile]

Pope Benedict XVI barely ever used any of his legitImage authority. Understandably he was blaickmailed and opposed in almost every direction to the point that the modernists forced him into abdication.

Do you really believe this?

It’s a matter of fact.

Then Pope Benedict never legitimately abdicated.  Pope Francis is an antipope, and Pope Benedict XVI is a liar.

Canonical law is a little more nuanced than that. In fact this has been discussed ad nauseum in Catholic circles. The matter has been put to rest about the legitimacy of his abdication. Pope Benedict still abdicated of his own will. It has to be to a point where he did not even have a choice in the act of abdication.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has himself, on a few occasions, reaffirmed the legitimacy of his abdication in response to questions of canonical irregularity in his abdication.

[Mor Ephrem]

Pope Benedict XVI barely ever used any of his legitImage authority. Understandably he was blaickmailed and opposed in almost every direction to the point that the modernists forced him into abdication.

Do you really believe this?

It’s a matter of fact.

Then Pope Benedict never legitimately abdicated.  Pope Francis is an antipope, and Pope Benedict XVI is a liar.

Canonical law is a little more nuanced than that. In fact this has been discussed ad nauseum in Catholic circles. The matter has been put to rest about the legitimacy of his abdication. Pope Benedict still abdicated of his own will. It has to be to a point where he did not even have a choice in the act of abdication.

If being "forced" to abdicate still allows you to abdicate of your own will, then what would "did not even have a choice" entail?

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has himself, on a few occasions, reaffirmed the legitimacy of his abdication in response to questions of canonical irregularity in his abdication.

I'm sure, in order to avoid making a bad situation worse, whether for himself or the church.  But if he chose to put up a fight, I'm sure the same Catholic circles affirming the legitimacy of his abdication would easily be able to affirm its illegitimacy. 

[Sharbel]

The point they are trying to make is that the pope is not a dictator. He does have limits to his power...

Not according to Canon Law:

By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Not according to Pastor Aeternus:

... this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church.

Now ask yourself if this is the office that St. Peter was assigned by Our Lord, as we glean it from the Gospels and from Acts.

[Porter ODoran]

Evil, black canons.

[Agabus]

Pope Benedict XVI barely ever used any of his legitImage authority. Understandably he was blaickmailed and opposed in almost every direction to the point that the modernists forced him into abdication.

Do you really believe this?

It’s a matter of fact.

Since the facts are so abundantly clear, how was he blackmailed?

[Wandile]

The point they are trying to make is that the pope is not a dictator. He does have limits to his power...

Not according to Canon Law:

By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Not according to Pastor Aeternus:

... this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church.

Now ask yourself if this is the office that St. Peter was assigned by Our Lord, as we glean it from the Gospels and from Acts.

lol that does not describe unlimited power but the powers he does have. Again the same pope who promulgated these teachings in Vatican I openly stated the pope does not have unlimited power.

[Wandile]

Pope Benedict XVI barely ever used any of his legitImage authority. Understandably he was blaickmailed and opposed in almost every direction to the point that the modernists forced him into abdication.

Do you really believe this?

It’s a matter of fact.

Then Pope Benedict never legitimately abdicated.  Pope Francis is an antipope, and Pope Benedict XVI is a liar.

Canonical law is a little more nuanced than that. In fact this has been discussed ad nauseum in Catholic circles. The matter has been put to rest about the legitimacy of his abdication. Pope Benedict still abdicated of his own will. It has to be to a point where he did not even have a choice in the act of abdication.

If being "forced" to abdicate still allows you to abdicate of your own will, then what would "did not even have a choice" entail?

It’s colloquial speak. I just meant that he was under so much pressure that the logical (but not only decision) was to abdicate.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has himself, on a few occasions, reaffirmed the legitimacy of his abdication in response to questions of canonical irregularity in his abdication.

I'm sure, in order to avoid making a bad situation worse, whether for himself or the church.  But if he chose to put up a fight, I'm sure the same Catholic circles affirming the legitimacy of his abdication would easily be able to affirm its illegitimacy.

If he chose to put up a fight now he would have to prove how it was illegitimate.

[Wandile]

Pope Benedict XVI barely ever used any of his legitImage authority. Understandably he was blaickmailed and opposed in almost every direction to the point that the modernists forced him into abdication.

Do you really believe this?

It’s a matter of fact.

Since the facts are so abundantly clear, how was he blackmailed?

One of the major things the modernists did to make him abdicate was , working together with liberal organizations outside the church, that international monetary transactions with the Vatican suspended during the last few days prior to the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. They were subsequently resumed on February 12, 2013, just one day after Benedict XVI announced his resignation.

[Iconodule]

The point they are trying to make is that the pope is not a dictator. He does have limits to his power...

Not according to Canon Law:

By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Not according to Pastor Aeternus:

... this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church.

Now ask yourself if this is the office that St. Peter was assigned by Our Lord, as we glean it from the Gospels and from Acts.

lol that does not describe unlimited power but the powers he does have. Again the same pope who promulgated these teachings in Vatican I openly stated the pope does not have unlimited power.

And exactly where were these statements declared as irreformable dogma? Or even canon law? Because unless they were, they are nothing more than suggestions and the limits you allude to are just nice little rules of etiquette.

[MariaJLM]

Just seems like a bunch of gossip imo. I wouldn't put much stock in it.

[Porter ODoran]

Pope Benedict XVI barely ever used any of his legitImage authority. Understandably he was blaickmailed and opposed in almost every direction to the point that the modernists forced him into abdication.

Do you really believe this?

It’s a matter of fact.

Since the facts are so abundantly clear, how was he blackmailed?

One of the major things the modernists did to make him abdicate was , working together with liberal organizations outside the church, that international monetary transactions with the Vatican suspended during the last few days prior to the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. They were subsequently resumed on February 12, 2013, just one day after Benedict XVI announced his resignation.

I'm secular circles, this is described as being a conspiracy nut.

[Wandile]

The point they are trying to make is that the pope is not a dictator. He does have limits to his power...

Not according to Canon Law:

By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Not according to Pastor Aeternus:

... this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church.

Now ask yourself if this is the office that St. Peter was assigned by Our Lord, as we glean it from the Gospels and from Acts.

lol that does not describe unlimited power but the powers he does have. Again the same pope who promulgated these teachings in Vatican I openly stated the pope does not have unlimited power.

And exactly where were these statements declared as irreformable dogma? Or even canon law? Because unless they were, they are nothing more than suggestions and the limits you allude to are just nice little rules of etiquette.

You’re grasping at straws now

Not every act of truth is a dogmatic definition. Reaffirmations of tradition are the same weight which this was as it reaffirmed Vatican I and Bishop Vincent Gasser’s relatio. It reaffirmed the traditional understanding of papal power against some who had excessive views of it after Vatican I. Pope Blessed Pius IX understood the dogma he defined with those present the council. This was eloquently explained by Bishop Vincent Gasser who gave the official relatio of the dogma to the Council.  Heck Cardinal Newman wrote to the pope about fears of the promulgating papal Infallibility as it would create the incorrect impression that the Pope has unchecked power which Pope Blessed Pius IX cleared up that it did not.

[Wandile]

Pope Benedict XVI barely ever used any of his legitImage authority. Understandably he was blaickmailed and opposed in almost every direction to the point that the modernists forced him into abdication.

Do you really believe this?

It’s a matter of fact.

Since the facts are so abundantly clear, how was he blackmailed?

One of the major things the modernists did to make him abdicate was , working together with liberal organizations outside the church, that international monetary transactions with the Vatican suspended during the last few days prior to the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. They were subsequently resumed on February 12, 2013, just one day after Benedict XVI announced his resignation.

I'm secular circles, this is described as being a conspiracy nut.

It’s a matter of fact as the evidence of this is overwhelmingly abudndant.

[Iconodule]

The point they are trying to make is that the pope is not a dictator. He does have limits to his power...

Not according to Canon Law:

By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Not according to Pastor Aeternus:

... this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church.

Now ask yourself if this is the office that St. Peter was assigned by Our Lord, as we glean it from the Gospels and from Acts.

lol that does not describe unlimited power but the powers he does have. Again the same pope who promulgated these teachings in Vatican I openly stated the pope does not have unlimited power.

And exactly where were these statements declared as irreformable dogma? Or even canon law? Because unless they were, they are nothing more than suggestions and the limits you allude to are just nice little rules of etiquette.

You’re grasping at straws now

Not every act of truth is a dogmatic definition. Reaffirmations of tradition are the same weight which this was as it reaffirmed Vatican I and Bishop Vincent Gasser’s relatio. It reaffirmed the traditional understanding of papal power against some who had excessive views of it after Vatican I. Pope Blessed Pius IX understood the dogma he defined with those present the council. This was eloquently explained by Bishop Vincent Gasser who gave the official relatio of the dogma to the Council.  Heck Cardinal Newman wrote to the pope about fears of the promulgating papal Infallibility as it would create the incorrect impression that the Pope has unchecked power which Pope Blessed Pius IX cleared up that it did not.

It seems to me that, when someone presents you with canons and dogmatic definitions, and your response is, "But some bishops also said some stuff on the side which also needs to be borne in mind" , you would be the one grasping at straws.

After all, what is supposed to be the great advantage of Rome apart from having a clear, unerring magisterium? If the officially promulgated doctrine cannot be easily understood without recourse to a range of secondary literature, what good is your magisterium? You keep mentioning these alleged limitations placed on the Pope's power and yet refrain from even specifying or citing them.

[Mor Ephrem]

Pope Benedict XVI barely ever used any of his legitImage authority. Understandably he was blaickmailed and opposed in almost every direction to the point that the modernists forced him into abdication.

Do you really believe this?

It’s a matter of fact.

Then Pope Benedict never legitimately abdicated.  Pope Francis is an antipope, and Pope Benedict XVI is a liar.

Canonical law is a little more nuanced than that. In fact this has been discussed ad nauseum in Catholic circles. The matter has been put to rest about the legitimacy of his abdication. Pope Benedict still abdicated of his own will. It has to be to a point where he did not even have a choice in the act of abdication.

If being "forced" to abdicate still allows you to abdicate of your own will, then what would "did not even have a choice" entail?

It’s colloquial speak. I just meant that he was under so much pressure that the logical (but not only decision) was to abdicate.

"If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."  (CIC 332 §2)

"Logical (but not only decision)" is just sophistry.  Even at gunpoint, you could choose not to resign and just settle for a bullet to the head. 

Obviously you can be forced to do something in a way that violates your freedom without such violent measures. 

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has himself, on a few occasions, reaffirmed the legitimacy of his abdication in response to questions of canonical irregularity in his abdication.

I'm sure, in order to avoid making a bad situation worse, whether for himself or the church.  But if he chose to put up a fight, I'm sure the same Catholic circles affirming the legitimacy of his abdication would easily be able to affirm its illegitimacy.

If he chose to put up a fight now he would have to prove how it was illegitimate.

He could always call you as a witness. 

[Wandile]

Pope Benedict XVI barely ever used any of his legitImage authority. Understandably he was blaickmailed and opposed in almost every direction to the point that the modernists forced him into abdication.

Do you really believe this?

It’s a matter of fact.

Then Pope Benedict never legitimately abdicated.  Pope Francis is an antipope, and Pope Benedict XVI is a liar.

Canonical law is a little more nuanced than that. In fact this has been discussed ad nauseum in Catholic circles. The matter has been put to rest about the legitimacy of his abdication. Pope Benedict still abdicated of his own will. It has to be to a point where he did not even have a choice in the act of abdication.

If being "forced" to abdicate still allows you to abdicate of your own will, then what would "did not even have a choice" entail?

It’s colloquial speak. I just meant that he was under so much pressure that the logical (but not only decision) was to abdicate.

"If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."  (CIC 332 §2)

"Logical (but not only decision)" is just sophistry.  Even at gunpoint, you could choose not to resign and just settle for a bullet to the head. 

Obviously you can be forced to do something in a way that violates your freedom without such violent measures.

Yes but it’s not sophistry for what was done to the pope properly amounted to pressure but not real and utter force depriving him of his free will. He could easily have chosen to stay on but that just would have been (at least as it seems to him) something he would not be willing to put the church through. The first pope who did resign before pope Benedict XVI was equally pressured still abdicated legitimately which gave precedent to the fact that pressure does not amount to violation of free wil.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has himself, on a few occasions, reaffirmed the legitimacy of his abdication in response to questions of canonical irregularity in his abdication.

I'm sure, in order to avoid making a bad situation worse, whether for himself or the church.  But if he chose to put up a fight, I'm sure the same Catholic circles affirming the legitimacy of his abdication would easily be able to affirm its illegitimacy.

If he chose to put up a fight now he would have to prove how it was illegitimate.

He could always call you as a witness.

I would be honored.