I can’t generate, or fake, enough interest in what Bergoglio has published in the Pachamamexhortation to read it or care what it says. Parsing that man’s words is a waste of time. Good luck with your effort if your conscience directs otherwise.
Merry Christmas, dear readers, and prayers for a blessed feast of St. John. I brought seasonal party wine to Mass today for the traditional wine blessing on the feast of the Evangelist. May the blessings flow as freely as the wine this Christmas season!
I just wanted to write a little piece today covering three blog posts about Jorge Mario Bergoglio, two by Ann Barnhardt and one by Louie Verrecchio. Miss Barnhardt and Mr. Verrecchio are known to be a little crunchy at times, but they do make you think.
The first post over at Ann Barnhardt’s site rightly calls out the apostasy of Bergoglio’s Franciscardinals in participating in a “catechesis” of the demonic idol Pachamama. Don’t look for any decrees of excommunication being issued against them; we all know the Pachamamization of the hierarchy and the poor souls they are paid to delude is a positive agenda item for Team Bergoglio.
Which leads pretty naturally to the other Barnhardt post, this one canvassing a news item that a community of hermits in Scotland has been excommunicated for severing communion with the Holy See. Ann does a terrific job dissecting the problem with this community’s announcement of all the real issues surrounding the Bergoglio regime. Which leads me to my one point of departure from her.
Miss Barnhardt takes the position that Pope Benedict’s attempted abdication was invalid due to substantial error. Namely, that the attempt to bifurcate the papacy into an “active” and “passive” ministry– resigning the one and keeping the other, based upon Benedict’s mistaken belief he could resign part of the papacy, rendered the abdication void ab initio. I won’t go into her entire argument, she lays it out well enough and in detail on her site. But if she’s right then Benedict was and still is the Pope. I don’t agree with her rationale– it doesn’t seem to me to fit with the Pope Benedict I know, neither his decency nor his intellect. But am inclined to agree with her conclusion.
To me, the most likely (that is, to my mind, I don’t know with certainty and you are all free to disagree) reason the abdication is almost certainly invalid is because Pope Benedict intentionally refrained from resigning the office (munus) of the Papacy in order to protect the office and the magisterium from the very monsters who took over the apparatus. I have opined on this before, so won’t belabor the point. The reason for stating this here is that, assuming arguendo that Pope Benedict XVI is still in fact Pope, her analysis of the defects of the hermit community’s public statement is dead-on accurate. You should read it in full.
Never, never, sever yourself from communion with the Holy See, with Peter, with the Vicar of Christ. That way lies damnation. You can resist an evil pope. You can resist, ignore, block, punish or lots of other things an antipope. This is why the questions about the putative abdication need to be IMMEDIATELY addressed by the College of Cardinals. The cardinals named by Benedict and earlier, obviously. The repugnance of this community of hermits at the crimes of Bergoglio is understandable. But we have brains we must use, and tools of canon law, philosophy, theology and Church teaching to help us use them.
Finally, Louie Verrecchio has a very interesting point about the latest writings of the brave Cardinal Vigano. He points out all of the ways that Vigano seems to be coming closer to moving beyond merely (and correctly, and courageously) identifying and condemning evil actions of Bergoglio, to proceeding to drawing some necessary conclusions about them and what caused them. He also gives a bit of criticism of some of Vigano’s thinking, but in my book Vigano gets a HUUUUUUUUUGGE benefit of the doubt on nearly everything he says. That’s how important his witness has been.
Enjoy, be back anon.
This time, at the Curia. The Feast of the Nativity of this man’s Saviour arrives in two days. And this is his message?
I’d say a new low, but idol worship is on the resume.
The guy living at Casa Santa Marta took time on the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe to disrespect the Mother of God. (apologies for the cruxmag link)
Pope St. Pius X used the title “Co-Redemptrix”, as have other popes, prelates and faithful for five centuries or more. But Bergoglio says the title is “foolishness”.
The oracle has spoken.
Our Lady, Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces, pray for us
This piece at Rorate Caeli states the problem accurately:
Here we are before a situation that is so horrendous that it makes us tremble.
The ancient cardinals, since the 16th century, had always refused to elect a Jesuit to the throne of Peter. The 2013 conclave broke this taboo: the Pachamama-worshippers must be aware that in non-Christian traditional religions breaking a taboo always leads to calamities.
The organizers of this Pachamama-Synod had forewarned us: nothing will be like before after this event. Indeed, after the destruction of the biblical ethics by the Sodom-defenders, a profession of semi-Arianism, and the worship of idols, all in a context filled with financial scandals of all sorts and the promotion of the sexual predation of minors and adults, there is nothing left to demolish.
When compared to the current Second Pornocracy, 1968 looks like a Thomist conference…
Let us redouble our prayers to the fiery Archangel Saint Michael so that the justice of God may speak through him. Let us beg the mercy of God for the millions of souls drowing in the mud of this “Amazon”.
But never forget: Christ is King! He is victorious! He will slay His enemies with the breath of His mouth. We need to stay with Him, and on His side.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
Holy Mother of God, though we don’t deserve it, I beg you to prevent this sacrilege— by any means necessary!
Folks, if this is true, if this happens, how can we not expect the All Holy God not to strike us?
Posted at Rorate Caeli, Roberto de Mattei rightly and with appropriate indignation demands from the man called Francis a public profession of faith.
We have reached the point of having to ask the Pope for a public profession of the Catholic Faith. May he do it clearly with no duplicity.
We need to know with absolute certainty whether the Pope believes or not that Jesus Christ is True God and True Man.
But of course, the Vatican heresy machine will continue to foul the waters of faith until the very serious and unexplained doubts about the validity of Pope Benedict’s putative abdication are investigated and publicly resolved by Churchmen of credibility, few though the number may be.
Is Benedict still pope– that is the primary question that must be answered. Once done, we will know precisely how to deal with the monster squatting on the throne of Peter.
I hold His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke in the highest esteem. I am blessed to have known him, even in the small acquaintance we have had personally. I have been blessed to be His Eminence’s subject in St. Louis for many years. As a lawyer, I respect his excellent legal mind. As a Catholic, I respect his love of truth, of the faith, and of souls. He is no coward; I have witnessed this man stand up for the faith, the truth, the Church, many, many times at cost to himself. He does not curry the favor of the world.
So I do not join in the criticisms of His Eminence as somehow too afraid to act boldly against the outrages of our current pontifical mess. I understand the frustrations of some who have done so, but my knowledge of Cardinal Burke informs my opinion and prevents me from joining them. He obviously has his own chosen tactics to counter the heresies and odiousness of the putative Francis pontificate. I am frustrated, too. But I would never accuse the Cardinal of failing to do what is required through fear. He is acting differently than I might, based on what I think I know; but it never escapes me that he has information I cannot have that might make this all clear, and would certainly explain his own actions well enough.
So, while I still beg the Cardinal, beg him, to weigh in with a systematic analysis of whether or not the putative abdication of Pope Benedict XVI was canonically valid, I think I owe it to Cardinal Burke to publish, in full, His and Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s letter regarding their position vis-a-vis Bergolio, published today. It merits reading, and God bless anyone, and particularly these prelates, who do anything to stand for the faith today.
And finally, it bears repeating that despite my serious and persistent doubts about the identity of the currently reigning, one-and-only pope, I willingly submit to him, whomever he may prove to be, in all things necessary to salvation. I hope to publish one day a statement from these bishops and others, seriously addressing the abdication issue (and no, I don’t think Cardinal Burke’s brief asides on the matter constitute this). Time is running out.
A clarification about the meaning of fidelity to the Supreme Pontiff
No honest person can anymore deny the almost general doctrinal confusion which is reigning in the life of the Church in our days. This is particularly due to ambiguities regarding the indissolubility of marriage, which is being relativized through the practice of the admittance of persons cohabitating in irregular unions to Holy Communion, due to the increasing approval of homosexual acts, which are intrinsically contrary to nature and contrary to the revealed will of God, due to errors regarding the uniqueness of the Our Lord Jesus Christ and His redemptive work, which is being relativized through erroneous affirmations on the diversity of religions, and especially due to the recognition of diverse forms of paganism and their ritual practices through the Instrumentum Laboris for the coming Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon.
In view of this reality, our conscience does not allow us to be silent. We, as brothers in the College of Bishops, speak with respect and love, so that the Holy Father may unequivocally reject the evident doctrinal errors of the Instrumentum Laboris for the coming Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon and not consent to the practical abolition of priestly celibacy in the Latin Church through the approval of the ordination of so-called “viri probati”.
With our intervention, we, as shepherds of the flock, express our great love for souls, for the person of Pope Francis himself and for the divine gift of the Petrine Office. If we would not do this, we would commit a great sin of omission and of selfishness. For if we were silent, we would have a quieter life, and perhaps we would even receive honors and acknowledgments. However, if we would be silent, we would violate our conscience. In this context we think of the well-known words of the future Saint Cardinal John Henry Newman (who will be canonized on October 13, 2019): “I shall drink — to the Pope, if you please, — still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards” (A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone’s Recent Expostulation). We think of these memorable and germane words of Melchior Cano, one of the most learned bishops during the Council of Trent: “Peter does not need our adulation. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are those who most undermine the authority of the Holy See: they destroy, instead of strengthening its foundations”.
In recent times, there has been created an atmosphere of an almost total infallibilization of the statements of the Roman Pontiff, that is to say, of every word of the Pope, of every pronouncement, and of merely pastoral documents of the Holy See. There is, in practice, no more the observance of the traditional rule of distinguishing the different levels of the pronouncements of the Pope and of his offices with their theological notes and with the corresponding obligation of adherence on the part of the faithful.
In spite of the fact that dialogue and theological debates were encouraged and promoted in the life of the Church during the past decades after the Second Vatican Council, in our days, there seems to be no more possibility of an honest intellectual and theological debate and of the expression of doubts regarding affirmations and practices which seriously obfuscate and harm the integrity of the Deposit of the Faith and of the Apostolic Tradition. Such a situation leads to the disregard for reason and, therefore, for the truth.
Those who criticize our expressions of concern employ substantially only sentimental arguments or arguments from power. They seemingly do not want to engage in a serious theological discussion of the subject. In this respect, it seems that oftentimes reason is simply ignored and reasoning suppressed.
A sincere and respectful expression of concern regarding matters of great theological and pastoral importance in the life of the Church today, addressed also to the Supreme Pontiff, is immediately squelched and cast in a negative light with defamatory reproaches of “sowing doubts”, of being “against the Pope”, or even of being “schismatic”.
The Word of God teaches us, through the Apostles, to be certain, firm, and uncompromising regarding the universal and unchanging truths of our Faith and to keep and protect the Faith in the face of errors, as St. Peter, the first Pope, wrote: “Take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the iniquitous, you fall from your own steadfastness” (2 Pt. 3:17). St. Paul also wrote: “We may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:14-15).
One must keep in mind the fact that the Apostle Paul publicly reproached the first Pope at Antioch in a matter of a lesser gravity, compared to the errors which in our days are spread in the life of the Church. St. Paul publicly admonished the first Pope because of his hypocritical behavior and of the consequent danger of questioning the truth that says that the prescriptions of the Mosaic law are no longer binding for Christians. How would the Apostle Paul react today, if he would read the sentence of the Abu Dhabi document which says that God wants in his wisdom equally the diversity of sexes, nations and religions (among which there are religions which practice idolatry and blaspheme Jesus Christ)! Such an affirmation effects, indeed, a relativization of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and of his redemptive work! What would St. Paul, St. Athanasius and the other great figures of Christianity say, when reading such a phrase and the errors expressed in the Instrumentum Laboris for the coming Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon? It is impossible to think that these figures would remain silent, or would let themselves be intimidated with reproaches and accusations of speaking “against the Pope”.
When Pope Honorius I in the seventh century showed an ambiguous and dangerous attitude regarding the spread of the heresy of monothelitism, which denied that Christ had a human will, St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, sent a bishop from Palestine to Rome, asking him to speak, pray and not remain silent until the Pope condemned heresy. If St. Sophronius lived today, he certainly would be accused of speaking “against the Pope”.
The affirmation on the diversity of religions in the Abu Dhabi document and especially the errors in the Instrumentum Laboris for the coming Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon contribute to a betrayal of the incomparable uniqueness of the Person of Jesus Christ and of the integrity of the Catholic Faith. And this occurs before the eyes of the whole Church and of the world. A similar situation existed in the fourth century, when with the silence of almost the entire episcopate, the consubstantiality of the Son of God was betrayed in favor of ambiguous doctrinal affirmations of semi-Arianism, a betrayal in which even Pope Liberius participated for a short time. St. Athanasius never tired of publicly denouncing such ambiguity. Pope Liberius excommunicated him in the year 357 “pro bono pacis”, i.e. “for the sake of peace”, to have peace with Emperor Constantius and the semi-Arian bishops of the East. St. Hilary of Poitiers reported this fact and rebuked Pope Liberius for his ambiguous attitude. It is significant that Pope Liberius, unlike all his predecessors, was the first pope whose name was not included in the Roman Martyrology.
Our public statement corresponds with the following words of Our Holy Father Pope Francis: “One general and basic condition is this: speaking honestly. Let no one say: ‘I cannot say this, they will think this or this of me…’. It is necessary to say with parrhesia all that one feels. … A Cardinal wrote to me, saying: what a shame that several Cardinals did not have the courage to say certain things out of respect for the Pope, perhaps believing that the Pope might think something else. This is not good, this is not synodality, because it is necessary to say all that, in the Lord, one feels the need to say: without polite deference, without hesitation.” (Greeting to the Synod Fathers during the First General Congregation of the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, October 6, 2014).
We affirm in the presence of God who will judge us: we are true friends of Pope Francis. We have a supernatural esteem of his person and of the supreme pastoral office of the Successor of Peter. We pray very much for Pope Francis and encourage the faithful to do the same. With the grace of God, we are ready to give our lives for the truth of the Catholic faith about the Primacy of Saint Peter and his successors, should persecutors of the Church ask us to deny this truth. We look to the great examples of fidelity to the Catholic truth of Petrine Primacy, such as it St. John Fisher, a bishop and cardinal of the Church, and St. Thomas More, a layman, and many other Saints and Confessors, and we invoke their intercession.
The more lay faithful, priests and bishops hold to and defend the integrity of the deposit of faith, the more they, in fact, support the Pope in his Petrine ministry. For the Pope is the first in the Church to whom applies this admonition of the Holy Scripture: “Hold the form of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you” (2 Tim. 1:13-14).
Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke
Bishop Athanasius Schneider
September 24, 2019
Feast of Our Lady of Ransom
Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider call for prayer and fasting to prevent six “serious” theological errors and heresies contained in the Amazon synod working document from being approved.
Prayer is powerful, more powerful than most understand.
Can we not turn this power to something way more important? What’s that, you ask?
Well, there are two men wearing white, styled as pope.
There can only be one pope.
One we know was canonically elected; he’s still alive. He still wears papal attire, without seriously explaining why that is. Still wears a ring, which the new guy has been photographed kissing. Still calls himself pope, allows others to do so as well. He lives in the Vatican. Imparts his papal blessing. Has been quoted saying he has retained some portion of the Petrine ministry, remaining in the “enclosure of Peter”.
The other was elected after the first one supposedly abdicated after considerable outside pressure. You’ve never read this blog if you haven’t heard that there are serious concerns about whether this putative abdication was effective. The new one goes about promoting heresies, claiming to alter constant Church teaching and mollycoddling sodomites, perverts, criminals, apostates, and heretics. Also likes to condemn Catholics who still believe in the Church’s doctrines and who love the Rosary and the ancient Mass.
Now we have the latest outrage (about which we can muster so little outrage): a synodal working document that contains six “serious” theological errors and heresies, according to faithful prelates. And there is no one who does not believe that Francis is capable, if not eager, of approving them.
So, the question where it all starts and ends remains: which of these two men is actually the pope?
To state it another way, in the end who really cares if an antipope approves of heresy?
So, I ask: can we pray and fast to end the confusion and learn just whether the man called Francis is or is not an antipope?
Do we care?
‘Let’s not wait for the theologians,’ says Pope Francis about sharing the Eucharist
How long before somebody does something?