LEGAL VERSUS MORAL POPES

Some traditionalist Catholics undermine service to the pope in the name of tradition.

The view of some that the pope can be a heretic and have no moral authority but have legal authority is illogical and contrary to the implications of Catholic teaching.
 
Could a pope who sends you a heretical bishop to corrupt you have any meaningful legal authority? In the view, you ignore the heretical pope’s teaching if it smacks of heresy or if it could be dangerous. You check out his teaching before you accept it. The pope might not even be a member of the Church but they say he is still head of the Church in the sense that he is to be obeyed for the sake of order. He is a pope by law and nothing else. It would be schism to ordain bishops without his consent so his canonical authority is to be respected. This is absurd for the legal decrees are less important than religious ones. When the pope cannot be trusted religiously he cannot be trusted legally and could be trying to put heretics in top leadership positions in the Church to subvert the Church or a section of it from within. It would be heresy and blasphemy to respect his regulations and his choice of bishops.
 
Jesus said that a man who breaks the law in big things cannot be trusted in matters of lesser importance so if the pope is a heretic he is not to be recognised as a pope in any sense at all, religious or legal.
 
The pope would have to be protected against error all the time and not just when he is giving the world a new infallible dogma to be pope when a heretic cannot be a Catholic or trusted. Even Catholics hold that the popes have erred in matters of doctrine and morals. John Paul II will admit to disagreeing on many things with say Pius X. Both men cannot be right.
 
Many today say that Paul VI was drugged and many more believe that John Paul II was senile and manipulated by the Vatican. These claims show how far off the mark it is to believe in the papacy as a divine institution. A senile man could not be a real pope and many popes have been senile. Old people are allowed to be eccentric. The pope could make a doctrine not because it is true but because he is partly senile and the Church could accept this thinking he is just eccentric but knows what he is doing. You would need infallible doctors to be able to believe in infallible popes or even in an infallible Church which is largely led by old men.
 
“POPE” RATZINGER

Pope Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratzinger authorised a Mass without a consecration as valid (The Anaphora of Addi and Mari). Catholic dogma states that Masses must have at least this is my body and my blood to be valid.
 
Ratzinger was the first bishop of Rome ordained under the invalid Vatican II rite of consecration. It is invalid under the rules of Pope Leo XIII which state that the Anglican orders are invalid for not being clear on what kind of priest and bishop is ordained, namely one to offer Mass and forgive sins. This is the same problem with the new rite in the Catholic Church.
 
Many say that that if there could be some doubt that the other Vatican II popes were false popes there can be none in his case. The man now on the throne of Peter is an antipope.
 
The authorisation of the heretical Mass went on the Vatican’s official website. Some argue that John Paul II had little to do with this. But whatever the case as Benedict didn’t correct his heresy he is definitely not pope. The heresy is very serious for the Mass is at the heart of the Christian faith. It’s a heresy that a pope can’t teach without destroying the faith. If a heretic can become pope, a heretic of that magnitude cannot for it is Catholic doctrine that the pope cannot lead the Church astray in a big way for the Lord promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail over the Church.

 
Read www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com
Read www.novusordowatch.org
Read www.the-pope.com/library.html
Read www.sedevacantist.com
Read www.trosch.org
Read http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/michaeline.html
Read http://www.sedevacantist.com/pontiffs.html This page shows how unsure the Catholic Church is of exactly how many popes it has
Read http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2003_March/errors_of_vatican_II.htm
Read http://www.sxws.com/charis/pope-20.htm for proof that the Church has no idea how many real or false popes it has see also http://www.trosch.org/for/popes-ca.htm
http://www.catholicrestoration.org/
www.tracts.ukgo.com/loraine_boettner.htm
http://www.catholicism.org/pages/sedevac.htm
http://www.christorchaos.com/PrayforthePopeTheLastOneandtheNextOne.html Condemns the heresy and blasphemies of John Paul II
Read www.catholictreasures.com – Proves Modern Vatican is anti-Catholic
Website of “Pope Peter II” http://custodi.club.fr/Indexangl.htm
Website on “Pope Linus II” http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Unknwn_ bp's_Consecrations.html
Page that supports view that new mass is a novelty http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20031027.html
Heresies of Pope Benedict XVI http://holywar.org/Ratzinger.htm
http://www.traditioninaction.org pictures showing the outrageous defiance of Catholic teaching by the recent popes