Blog arhiva

Francis-Bergoglio Is Now Accelerating the Number of Auxiliary Newbishops In Order to Pack the College of Newbishops for the Indefinite Future

From: Petrus, the TRADITIO Network’s Roman Correspondent

Newchurch Bishops

There Are Now Twice as Many Newbishops, over 5,000
Than Sat at the Vatican II Anti-council in 1962-1965
Francis-Bergoglio Is Packing the College of Newbishops
With His Protestant-Masonic-Pagan Appointees
So His Successor Couldn’t Do Anything
To Raise Newchurch out of Heresy and Immorality —
Even if He Wanted To!

Francis-Bergoglio is now accelerating his appointment of auxiliary bishops in order to pack the College of Newbishops. In the last fifty days he has appointed or installed nineteen of them. That’s almost one every other day! He is filling Newchurch with colonels as the number of his corporals (his presbyters) continues to decline precipitously. It’s all chiefs and no Indians in the new, new top-heavy Newchurch. Such action is a classic sign of decline and fall in organizations.

Francis-Bergoglio does not just add auxiliaries where one might expect to find them under the last three Newpopes. He has appointed them to Bilbao, Spain; Elblag, Poland; El Alto, Bolivia; Rottenburg-Stuttgart, Germany; Montpelier, France; San Juan de Cuyo, Argentina; Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany; Riga, Lativa (a country having few Newchurchers to begin with); Lingayen-Dagupan, Philippines; Cartagena, Spain; Port Harcourt, Nigeria; and Cuenca, Ecuador.

Anybody can be a Newbishop in Francis-Bergoglio’s corrupt Newchurch. Why be a presbyter when you can be a Newbishop? As auxiliary bishops need to be maintained in order to support their “dignity,” there is pressure to promote auxiliaries to the office of Newdiocesan bishop. Hence Bergoglio is really appointing auxiliaries as a means of controlling the Newchurch hierarchy of the future. He is trying to rule the future of Newchurch to ensure that it continues in its pagan direction. Moreover, should even a Neocon Newchurcher be elected Newpope, he will soon discover that all of his regional managers just happen to be pagan Bergoglians, as a result of which he will not be able to make effective his conservative Protestant, but not traditional Catholic, commands.

Pope St. Pius V would allow auxiliaries only for cardinals and major archbishops where they had been well established. Most countries had none until recently, and even countries like France had them only in three or four major sees. Now every Presbyter Tom, Dick and Harry is a Newbishop Tom, Dick, and Harry!

Oglasi

Newchurch’s False Oecumenism Has Been Thwarted By a Major New Schism within the Eastern Orthodox Church

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Francis-Bergoglio & Bartholomew

Francis-Bergoglio Bows in Obeisance
To the Schismatic “Oecumenical” Patriarch Bartholomew
Bergoglio Has Said that He Doesn’t Like the Papacy
And Wants to Be “Oecumenical” with All the Other Patriarchs
However, the Worst Schism in the Eastern Orthodox Church
Since the Catholic-Orthodox Split of 1054
Has Caused a Shutdown of “Theological Dialogue”
Between the Orthodox and Francis-Bergoglio’s Newchurch

The so-called Oecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, Bartholomew of Constantinople, has provoked a schism within the Eastern Orthodox Church by recognizing the independent Orthodox Church of the Ukraine in January 2019. The Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, Kirill of Moscow, has excommunicated Bartholomew and his followers because the Russian Orthodox Church considers the Ukraine part of its own territory. This new schism has been described as the most significant fracture since the original break between the Catholics and Orthodox in 1054.

As of May 17, 2019, delegates from the Russian Orthodox Church, which is the largest Orthodox Christian body, have withdrawn from common projects. The schism has caused a shutdown of “theological dialogue” between the Orthodox and Francis-Bergoglio’s Newchurch of the New Order. This dialogue has been working to redefine the Roman papacy so that the Orthodox can accept the pope not as supreme, but as merely a primus inter pares, as Patriarch of Rome, on a level with all the Orthodox Patriarchs. Ex-Newpope Benedict-Ratzinger and current Newpope Francis-Bergoglio have been hot to trot in this heretical direction. [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by Catholic World News.]

True Catholics, Bartholomew is not an “oecumenical” patriarch, recognized by all the other patriarchs. As time has gone along, more and more of the Eastern Orthodox are going into schism from him because the consider him a Leftist. The same is happening with respect to Francis-Bergoglio, whom more and more Catholics are considering a Leftist and a heretic, even calling for his deposition. As these leaders continue to depart from Scripture and Tradition, they are losing more and more of the once faithful, who do not regard them as legitimate.

Newchurch, Awash in Mortal Sins against the Sixth Commandment of God Has Now Been Caught in Mortal Sins against the Third Commandment of God

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Francis-Bergoglio

Francis-Bergoglio Desecrates the Altar
Of St. Mary Major Archbasilica in Rome
By Placing a Profane Soccer Ball on Its Historic Altar
Now It Has Been Revealed that Newdioceses Have Been Scheduling
Mandatory Sports Practices for Its Newparochial Students on Sundays
Even the Protestants and the Jews Do Not Permit
School Sports Practices on Their Holydays
Newchurch Has Been Exposed as Now Even Worse
Than Protestantism

It probably will come as a surprise to many that the Newchurch of the New Order has been scheduling mandatory sports practices on Sunday morning, contrary to God’s Third Commandment: “Thou shalt keep holy the Lord’s Day.” Newarchbishop Allen Vigneron, Newarchbishop of Detroit, Michigan, admitted on May 15, 2019, that he has been scheduling required sports practices for his Newparochial grammar and high schools on Sundays. He acknowledged that “Sunday has slowly lost its pride of place in the [New]archdiocese of Detroit.” Vigneron, when Newbishop of Oakland, California, caused scandal by proudly displaying in his Newcathedral’s “sanctuary” a large crucifix with the Crucified’s hair parted like a fop and without His crown of thorns.

Attendance at the Novus Ordo Mess in Detroit has been sinking like a rock, just as it has in other cities throughout the world. It doesn’t seem that Al Vigneron is “getting religion.” More likely, he was terrified by the lack of Mess attendance, which means lack of collection monies coming to him and his Marxist/Modernist crony, Francis-Bergoglio. Therefore, Vigneron has canceled the mandatory sports practices on Sunday starting with the 2019-2020 school year. [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by the National Catholic Register.]

True Catholics, showing up Newchurch as now even worse than Protestantism, several Protestant schools, including Calvinist schools, prohibit sports practices on Sundays. Even Detroit’s Jewish Academy does not permit sports practices from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. So far has the New Order sect’s morality fallen that it has even officially encouraged its members to violate the Third Commandment of God, not to speak of the Sixth.

The Open Letter accusing Francis of Heresy: A Sedevacantist Analysis

What to do with a “heretical Pope”?

The Open Letter accusing Francis of Heresy:
A Sedevacantist Analysis

More than a week has now passed since the publication of the “Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church” released on Apr. 30 by nineteen Novus Ordo clergymen and academics accusing “Pope” Francis of being a pertinacious heretic and asking the addressees to declare him such and thereby remove him from office. Since then, many more academics and clerics have added their names to the Open Letter, and at the time of this writing, the total is up to 81 (see updates here).

While countless Novus Ordo web sites have covered the fallout from this so far and will continue to do so in the days to come, it is time for some sedevacantist analysis and commentary — the kind of assessment that you won’t get from most other sources, since Sedevacantism is the ugly duckling, the enfant terrible for those in the Vatican II Sect who consider themselves traditional Catholics. So far, only Fr. Anthony Cekada has weighed in briefly on the matter.

Before we begin, a clarifying reminder may be in order: We sedevacantists do not believe that Francis has lost the Papacy, either due to heresy or for any other reason. Rather, we believe that he never attained the Papacy in the first place, for the simple reason that, as a public heretic even before the 2013 conclave, he was simply not eligible for the Papacy or for any other office in the Catholic Church. That’s it in a nutshell.

There is another important point of which our readers should be aware: There are (at least) twoways to demonstrate that Francis is not a valid Pope: (a) by demonstrating he is not a Catholic and therefore cannot be the head of the Catholic Church — this is the argument from the cause(personal heresy); (b) by demonstrating that in his capacity as “Pope”, he has done things which, by divine law, are impossible for a Pope to do (for example, canonize notorious sinners as saints, establish disciplinary laws for the whole Church that are in themselves evil, heretical, impious, immoral, or otherwise harmful) — this is the argument from the effect (impossible actions).

Between these two different lines of argumentation, the argument from the effect is by far the more compelling, as it totally avoids the thorny issue of having to “judge” that someone claiming to be Pope is guilty of the personal sin of pertinacious (=willful) heresy, which a lot of people are uncomfortable doing because they mistakenly fear that this would necessarily mean they are engaging in “private judgment” or that they would be usurping authority they do not have (this too is inaccurate because no one is asking them to make a legal judgment, which would bind other consciences, but only a cognitive judgment concerning a manifest state of affairs; cf. 1 Cor 2:15).

Introductory Comments

But now on to the Open Letter. Perhaps one can characterize it, first and foremost, as a sincere but desperate attempt by a number of conservative Novus Ordos who are at their wits’ end with Francis to do something — anything — about the pink elephant in St. Peter’s Basilica. However flawed or insufficient the document and the approach may be, there is at least this one thing one can definitely give them credit for: At least they’re trying to do something! They can see that the situation is intolerable and is threatening to gradually destroy even every bit of what they believe Catholicism to be (namely, the Vatican II religion with a conservative spin); and so, as a drowning man tries to hold on to anything within reach, they are trying in their anguish to do whatever appears to be within their means to get the ball rolling in order to put an end to this disaster.

As regards the evidence for heresy and pertinacity on Francis’ part that is presented in the Open Letter, it will not be evaluated or discussed in this post. In the last 6+ years, Jorge Bergoglio has proved himself a public pertinacious heretic in so many ways and on so many occasions, that one might as well ask for proof that McDonald’s sells French fries. Francis is not a Catholic and is guilty as sin of public heresy and apostasy, and this is objectively manifest. Readers who are not familiar with the evidence may wish to take a look at this page:

We will now proceed to analyze and comment on the salient points of the Apr. 30 letter accusing Bergoglio of being a pertinacious heretic.

Addressed to the Wrong People

The Open Letter is addressed to the “bishops of the Catholic Church”, in other words, to the world’s Novus Ordo bishops. This is puzzling already because it’s not like that college of Modernist pretend-bishops has recently distinguished itself as being particularly concerned about orthodoxy. In fact, only a handful of names come to mind when one thinks of who among “Catholic bishops” in the Vatican II religion shows any genuine concern for the importance of Catholic Faith and the purity of doctrine — even the Novus Ordo version thereof.

On the other hand, it does not take long to think of a whole list of pseudo-episcopal scoundrels who are infamous for working to undermine Catholic Faith or morals, or what’s left of either in the Vatican II Church. Names like Mahony, Tobin, Cupich, Maradiaga, Baldisseri, Woelki, Stowe, Paglia, Muller, Farrell, Schonborn, Tagle, Wuerl, Kasper, Gumbleton, Lynch, Nichols, Ravasi, Kohlgraf, Marx, and Favalora may be known for a lot of things, but concern for orthodoxy is not one of them. In fact, with very rare exceptions these people cannot even so much as refuse “Holy Communion” to scandalous politicians, which they are required to do by their own canon law; much less do they penalize them with an excommunication. Are these people now going to excommunicate, as it were, the man they believe to be the Pope? Fat chance!

Already at the outset, then, the authors’ endeavor is doomed to failure: They’re simply addressing the wrong people. Heretics don’t generally care much for orthodoxy. Then again, to whom were they going to appeal instead? Who else is there? And that is the crux of the matter: What recourse can be had concerning the problem of a “heretical Pope”, if such a thing can exist? Who can be appealed to? Thankfully, the question simply does not present itself, for a heretical Pope — that is, someone who is at the same time a public non-Catholic and also the head of the Catholic Church — is an impossibility. One might as well ask what to do about a four-sided triangle or how to cope with a married bachelor. But more on that later.

Heresy as Canonical Delict

In their first paragraph, the signatories of the Open Letter say they are writing “to accuse Pope Francis of the canonical delict of heresy”. Notice they are not accusing him simply of heresy but of “the canonical delict.” Heresy can be looked at from the moral point of view (as a sin against God, dealt with by moral theology), and it can be looked at from the canonical point of view (as a crime or delict against Church law, dealt with by canon law). Clearly, the authors are accusing Francis of the canonical crime, which, however, presumes the personal sin as well, according to the defintion given in canon law: “By the term delict in ecclesiastical law is understood an external and morally imputable violation of a law to which a canonical sanction, at least an indeterminate one, is attached” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2195 §1; underlining added).

By accusing Francis of the canonical delict rather than simply of the public sin, the authors have shot themselves in the foot. Canon law is absolutely clear — and this is really just a restatement of Catholic dogma — that the Pope cannot be judged by any mortal: “The First See is judged by no one” (Canon 1556).

Nor, in fact, can he incur any canonical penalty, for Canon 2227 states:

§1. A penalty cannot be imposed or declared against those mentioned in Canon 1557 §1, except by the Roman Pontiff.

§2. Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H. R. C. [Holy Roman Church] are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.

The people “mentioned in Canon 1557 §1” include all heads of state (n. 1), all cardinals (n. 2), all legates of the Holy See, and, “in criminal cases, Bishops, even titular ones” (n. 3). Since, then, even cardinals are exempt from the penalties of canon law and are judged by the Roman Pontiff directly, what were the authors of the Open Letter thinking in asking the “Pope’s” inferiors to apply canonical penalties against him who “is judged by no one”? (All this, by the way, is also contained in the Novus Ordo 1983 Code of Canon Law; see Canons 1321; 1404-1405.)

A Heresy Trial for the Pope?

After listing copious documentation to support their accusation that Francis denies Catholic dogma and does so pertinaciously, the accusers state: “Despite the evidence that we have put forward in this letter, we recognise that it does not belong to us to declare the pope guilty of the delict of heresy in a way that would have canonical consequences for Catholics” (p. 15).

This is an interesting admission. If Francis is Pope, then indeed they do not have the power to “declare the pope guilty of heresy” — because they are his inferiors, and an accused person can only be declared guilty in a legally valid and binding way by a superior whose subject he is:

The Supreme Pontiff has the highest legislative, administrative and judicial power in the Church. The Code [of Canon Law] states that the Roman Pontiff cannot be brought to trial by anyone. The very idea of the trial of a person supposes that the court conducting the trial has jurisdiction over the person, but the Pope has no superior, wherefore no court has power to subject him to judicial trial.

(Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, rev. by Rev. Callistus Smith [New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1952], n. 1549, p. 225; underlining added.)

The Roman Pontiff has received from Christ supreme authority over the whole Church, and it follows from this very fact that he, in the direction of the faithful to eternal salvation, possesses full jurisdiction and all its attributes. He alone, or together with a Council called by him, can make laws for the universal Church, abrogate them or derogate from them, grant privileges, appoint, depose, judge or punish Bishops. He is the supreme judge by whom all causes are to be tried; he is the supreme judge whom no one may try.

…It is not becoming that the supreme legislator should be subject to other laws, except to those which emanate from the Sovereign Pontificate; it is not becoming that he who constitutes the tribunal of appeal for all men, rulers as well as subjects, should be judged by his inferiors.

…The reason why the Pope can be judged by no one is evident. No one can be judged by another unless he is subject to that person, at least with respect to the subject matter of the trial. Now, the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, who is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, and to him has been entrusted the commission to feed His lambs and His sheep. In no way, therefore, can he be subjected to any man or to any forum, but is entirely immune from any human judgment. This principle, whether taken juridically or dogmatically suffers no exception.

(Rev. Thomas Joseph Burke, Competence in Ecclesiastical Tribunals [Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1922], pp. 85-87; underlining added.)

Strangely enough, however, although they recognize their own powerlessness to legally judge, convict, punish, or depose the “Pope” for heresy, the signatories have nevertheless decided that somehow the “bishops” they are addressing are competent to do these things, when they too, of course, are but Francis’ inferiors:

We therefore appeal to you as our spiritual fathers, vicars of Christ within your own jurisdictions and not vicars of the Roman pontiff, publicly to admonish Pope Francis to abjure the heresies that he has professed. Even prescinding from the question of his personal adherence to these heretical beliefs, the Pope’s behaviour in regard to the seven propositions contradicting divinely revealed truth, mentioned at the beginning of this Letter, justifies the accusation of the delict of heresy. It is beyond a doubt that he promotes and spreads heretical views on these points. Promoting and spreading heresy provides sufficient grounds in itself for an accusation of the delict of heresy. There is, therefore, superabundant reason for the bishops to take the accusation of heresy seriously and to try to remedy the situation.

(“Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church”, Easter Week, 2019, p. 15)

Here the authors state that they want the Novus Ordo bishops they are addressing to “admonish Pope Francis to abjure the heresies that he has professed.” In the very next paragraph, they elaborate:

Since Pope Francis has manifested heresy by his actions as well as by his words, any abjuration must involve repudiating and reversing these actions, including his nomination of bishops and cardinals who have supported these heresies by their words or actions. Such an admonition is a duty of fraternal charity to the Pope, as well as a duty to the Church. If – which God forbid! – Pope Francis does not bear the fruit of true repentance in response to these admonitions, we request that you carry out your duty of office to declare that he has committed the canonical delict of heresy and that he must suffer the canonical consequences of this crime.

(“Open Letter”, p. 15)

This passage is fraught with problems.

First, by what authority do the signatories think they can specify what the “bishops” must do, and even more so, how Francis must react, in order for him not to lose the pontificate they believe him to be holding? Second, what kind of theology underlies this demand? If the Pope has no superior and therefore cannot be tried or judged by anyone, then no one can threaten him with canonical consequences if he should fail to act in a certain way.

The only way bishops could declare that a Pope has lost his office is if he is already not Pope and this is manifest. What is impossible is that he should remain Pope until such time as a declaration should come. For if he is Pope before the declaration, then the declaration cannot be made, for it would amount to judging the Pope, which is impossible. But if a declaration can be issued, then it must be manifest that he is already not Pope even before the declaration, for which reasons the bishops can issue it.

Given these considerations, it simply makes no sense for the authors of the Letter to give Francis a chance to recant (abjure) in order for him not to cease to be Pope. The accusers have been very clear that Francis is already a manifest pertinacious heretic, on account of which they have taken the liberty of asking the Novus Ordo bishops to declare him to have forfeited his office. Their accusation is precisely that he professes heresy and is pertinacious in it, and that this is manifest.

What, then, would repentance accomplish as far as the papal office he supposedly holds is concerned? All it could do is make a heretical pseudo-Pope into a repentant and formerly heretical pseudo-Pope, nothing more. It could not prevent him from having committed pertinacious heresy already, nor could it keep him from losing the pontificate they believe him to hold, since that is lost by public pertinacious heresy alone, as we will see, and not by public-pertinacious-heresy-if-he-doesn’t-do-what-his-inferiors-tell-him-to.

A ‘Faithful Minority’ can depose a Pope?

The Open Letter gets more problematic still:

These actions do not need to be taken by all the bishops of the Catholic Church, or even by a majority of them. A substantial and representative part of the faithful bishops of the Church would have the power to take these actions. Given the open, comprehensive and devastating nature of the heresy of Pope Francis, willingness publicly to admonish Pope Francis for heresy appears now to be a necessary condition for being a faithful bishop of the Catholic Church.

(“Open Letter”, pp. 15-16)

This is just indefensible. If the actions the authors believe their addressees must take need not be taken “by a majority of them”, much less all of them, then how is this supposed to work? What criterion will suffice then as having established that the “Pope” is a heretic and no longer holds his office? A minority of bishops? Then what about the majority that disagrees?

The authors offer a handy standard, though without any justification: The deed is to be done by a “substantial and representative part of the faithful bishops of the Church.” Note well — it’s not just a substantial and representative part of the bishops but of the faithful bishops! And you can probably guess who has already determined who counts as a faithful bishop — precisely, the authors of the Open Letter! And so in the same breath they offer yet another gratuitous criterion for identifying just who is faithful: why, those who are willing to do what they’re being told in the Letter, of course! By that definition, it looks like the verdict will be unanimous after all….

An Attempt at Theological Justification

On p. 16 of the document, the accusers maintain that their “course of action is supported and required by canon law and the tradition of the Church”, and they append an attempt at theological justification for it, entitled “Canon law and Catholic theology concerning the situation of a heretical pope”.

Of course the appendix begins by mentioning the seventh-century Pope Honorius I, a case concerning which enough has been written in the past so that there is no need to repeat it here. We simply ask our readers to review the following links:

Regarding the possibility of a “heretical Pope” (Papa haereticus), that is, the possibility of a true Pope becoming a heretic in his private capacity (as a private person and not as part the exercise of his magisterium, as will be explained later; cf. Denz. 1837) and what would have to be done in such a case, theologians are divided and the Church has never made a definitive pronouncement either way. Theologians have therefore addressed the question at least hypothetically.

After the First Vatican Council (1870), whose dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus contains copious teaching about the Papacy, we find theologians treating of the Papa haereticus scenario only minimally. The canonist Fr. Charles Augustine Bachofen, for example, considered it a “purely academical question”, that is, the question “whether a Pope coud be deposed if he became a heretic or a schismatic.” His response: “Nego suppositum“, meaning, “I deny the supposition” (Rev. Chas. Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, vol. II [London: B. Herder Book Co., 1918], p. 211).

The renowned canonist Fr. Matthaeus Conte a Coronata summarizes the state of the question thus:

…it cannot be proved that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher [!], cannot become a heretic, for example, if he contumaciously denies a dogma previously defined; this impeccability was nowhere promised to him by God. On the contrary, [Pope] Innocent III expressly admits that the case can be conceded. But if the case should take place, he falls from office by divine law, without any sentence, not even a declaratory one. For he who openly professes heresy places his very self outside the Church, and it is not probable that Christ preserves the Primacy of His Church with such an unworthy individual. Consequently, if the Roman Pontiff professes heresy, he is deprived of his authority before any whatsoever sentence, which [sentence] is impossible.

(Rev. Matthaeus Conte a Coronata, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, vol. I, 4th ed. [Rome: Marietti, 1950], n. 316c; our translation; underlining added.)

Fr. Joachim Salaverri, in his comprehensive treatise on the Church of Christ, devotes only one short paragraph to the question of the heretical Pope:

Whether or not the Pope as a private person [!] can fall into heresy?Theologians dispute about this question. It seems to us “more pious and probable” to hold that God in his providence will see to it “that the Pope will never be a heretic.” For, this opinion, which was held by Bellarmine and Suarez, also was praised at Vatican Council I by Bishop Zinelli, Secretary for the Faith, when he said: “Because we rely on supernatural Providence, we think it is sufficiently probably that this will never happen. For God is not lacking in essentials, and therefore, if He were to permit such an evil, there would not be lacking the means to provide for it.”

(Rev. Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB: On the Church of Christ, trans. by Rev. Kenneth Baker [original Latin published by BAC, 1955; English published by Keep the Faith, 2015], n. 657; italics in original.)

The celebrated Cardinal Louis Billot treats of the question of the Papa haereticus more elaborately in Question XIV, Thesis XXIX of his Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi (“Treatise on the Church of Christ”), which is well worth a read. He concludes, similary to Fr. Augustine, that “although there is justification for the hypothesis of a Pontiff who might become notoriously heretical, God would never allow it even to be a-priori believable for the Church to land in so many troubles of such kind”.

The canonist Fr. Matthew Ramstein, too, does not have too much to say on the topic of a heretical Pope. His only paragraph dealing with the topic ends with the words: “How the fact of heresy and of consequent vacancy of the papal chair would be determined is difficult to understand” (A Manual of Canon Law [Hoboken, NJ: Terminal Printing & Publishing Co., 1948], p. 193).

Far from there being some “course of action [that] is supported and required by canon law and the tradition of the Church”, as the authors of the Open Letter would have it, the fact is that the consensus of theologians after Vatican I is that, since the Pope cannot be brought to trial by anyone, nor judged or deposed by anyone, if he ever should become a public heretic in his private capacity, he would immediately and by that fact alone cease to be Pope, having, as it were, removed himself from the Papacy. A declaratory sentence is neither required nor possiblefor such self-deposition to occur.

This is echoed by the Novus Ordo theologian “Abp.” John Michael Miller, who, after giving the historical background to the debate over the Papa haereticus, writes:

At present, the Church has no canonical norms for dealing with a heretical pope. On the one hand, the pope is obviously in the Church, belonging to the community of faith. Like any Catholic who publicly professes heresy, a pope would place himself outside her communion and by that very fact loses his ministry….

It is difficult to imagine what specific juridical procedures could be drawn up to deal with the situation should it arise…. Because it concerns a question of fact rather than law, there can be no set legal procedure for this process.

(J. Michael Miller, The Shepherd and the Rock [Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1995], p. 293)

Thus everyone can see that the position of the automatic and immediate self-deposition of a Pope who becomes a heretic is not some idea crazy sedevacantists have cooked up but is thoroughly grounded in Catholic theology as informed by the teachings of the First Vatican Council, and it is retained even in Novus Ordo theology.

Speaking of Vatican I, the question of what ought to be done with a Pope who defects into heresy actually came up during the proceedings of that council. Abp. John Purcell of Cincinnati, United States, relates how it was answered by the doctrinal commission:

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.

(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago; underlining added.)

More information on this historical tidbit can be found here.

The Pope is judged by No One — except in case of Heresy?

The authors of the Open Letter are quite aware, of course, that a true Pope cannot be judged or removed from office by anyone, even for heresy, and they state as much: “It is agreed that the Church does not have jurisdiction over the pope, and hence that the Church cannot remove a pope from office by an exercise of superior authority, even for the crime of heresy” (p. 17). And yet, they attempt to relativize this principle on the next page with specious argumentation:

The first canon to give explicit consideration to the possibility of papal heresy is found in the Decretum of Gratian. Distinctio XL, canon 6 of the Decretum states that the pope can be judged by no-one, unless he is found to have deviated from the faith…

The canonical assertion that the pope can be judged for heresy came into being as an explication of the canonical principle that the pope is judged by no-one. The statement in this canon is an enunciation of a privilege; its object is to assert that the pope has the widest possible exemption from judgement by others.

This canon was included, along with the rest of the Decretum of Gratian, in the Corpus iuris canonici, which formed the basis of canon law in the Latin Church until 1917. Its authority is supported by papal authority itself, since the canon law of the Church is upheld by papal authority. It was taught by Pope Innocent III, who asserted in his sermon on the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff that “God was his sole judge for other sins, and that he could be judged by the Church only for sins committed against the faith”…. Rejection of the canon in the Decretum would undermine the canonical foundation for papal primacy itself, since this canon forms part of the legal basis for the principle that the Pope is judged by no-one.

(“Open Letter”, pp. 18-19)

The signatories of the Open Letter seem to think that the expression that a Pope can be judged when it comes to heresy expresses a qualification, restriction, relativization, or exception to the general rule that the Pope cannot be judged by anyone, but this is not so. Rather, the simple truth is that the only reason why a Pope — so to speak — can be judged for heresy is that he is no longer Pope if he is a heretic. This fact alone explains why judgment is licit in that case.

This position was first enunciated, it seems, by Cardinal Juan de Torquemada and later adopted by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church:

In the Summa de Ecclesia, one of the earliest and most influential ecclesiological treatises of the late Middle Ages, John of Torquemada (+1468), for example, admitted that a heretical pope could, in a certain sense, be “judged” by a council. Even so, the council would not be judging a true pope. Precisely because he was heretical, he would already have ceased, by that very fact, to hold the papal office. Jesus’ words, “He who does not believe is condemned already” (Jn 3:18), provided a bilical proof text which justified the automatic loss of office if a pope fell into heresy.

After the Council of Trent, Robert Bellarmine (+1621) and others took up the theory of John of Torquemada: a pope who falls into heresy forfeits his office. No formal deposition is required since divine law already put the pope outside the Church. A kind of direct divine deposition took place, stripping the pope of his primacy. Whatever juridical body “judged” the pope would simply declare the fact of the pope’s heresy, making public that he was no longer in communion with the Church. Theologians frequently compared such a declaration to a death certificate, which publicly makes the death known but does not cause it. With regard to heresy, this judgment would, however, have legal consequences. The Church would be free to elect a new pope. Because these theologians did not give an ecumenical council the right to depose a pope, their theory avoids the pitfalls of [the heresy of] conciliarism.

(Miller, The Shepherd and the Rock, p. 292; underlining added.)

Thus, to say that the Pope cannot be judged “except in the case of heresy” is not to say that there is an exception to the impossibility of judging a Pope — rather, it is to say that a public heretic is already not Pope and therefore can be judged. This is the only way to understand this qualification in accordance with Church teaching.

In his treatise on the Church, Cardinal Billot addressed these very objections made by the signers of the Open Letter, as follows:

The authorities who object on the opposite side of the question do not prove anything. First they cite the statement of Innocent III, in his Sermon 2 on the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff, where, speaking about himself, he says: “Faith is necessary to me to such a degree that, although I have God alone as judge of [my] other sins, I could be judged by the Church only by reason of a sin that is committed in the faith.” But surely Innocent does not affirm the case as simply possible, but, praising the necessity of faith, he says that it is so great that if, whether or not it is in the realm of possibility, a Pontiff should be found deviant from the faith, he would already be subject to the judgment of the Church by the reason that was stated above. And indeed it is a manner of speaking similar to that which the Apostle uses when wishing to show the unalterable truth of the Gospel: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.For Innocent had said earlier: “If I were not made firm in the faith, how could I strengthen others in the faith? That is what is recognized as pertaining especially to my office, as the Lord witnesses: I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith not fail; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. He prayed and He brought it to pass, since He was heard in all things out of reverence for Him. And therefore the faith of the apostolic see has never failed in any disturbance, but has always remained whole and unimpaired in order that the privilege of Peter should persist unshaken.” Consequently, that statement is rather in opposition to adversaries, unless they should say that by it Innocent actually means he can sometimes lack that which the Lord procured for Peter as necessary for the office to which he appointed him.

They also cite the statement of Hadrian II in the third address read in Ecumenical Council VIII, Action 7: “We read that the Roman Pontiff has judged the bishops of all the churches; but we do not read of anyone who has judged him. For although after his death the Eastern churches anathematized Honorius, nevertheless it must be recognized that he had been accused of heresy, by reason of which alone inferiors may resist the initiatives of their superiors or freely reject the wicked senses. Although even in that case it would not have been ever so much lawful for any of the patriarchs or other bishops to carry out the sentence against him unless the approval of the concurrence of the Pontiff of the same first see had preceded.” But what does this matter, since it is well known that Honorius by no means fell into heresy, but only negatively favored the same by not using the supreme authority to root out the incipient error, and in this sense he is said to have been accused in the matter of heresy?Accordingly, in the same Ecumenical Council VIII, Action 1, a formula sent by the same Hadrian had been appended, in which, with no restriction attached, one reads the following: “In view of the fact that the Catholic religion has always been preserved in the apostolic see, and holy doctrine has been proclaimed.” If on the other hand the sense of Hadrian is not that Honorius fell into heresy, those who use that statement to argue that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic have no ground to stand upon.

Lastly they advance a point of canon law, Distinction 40, canon 6 Si papa: “No mortal on earth presumes to prove the (pope) guilty of faults, since he who is to judge all men must not be judged by any man, unless he be discovered to be deviant from the faith.” But, above all else, one must bear in mind that this citation is taken from the Decretum of Gratian, in which there is no authority except the intrinsic authority of the documents that are found collected in it. Moreover, there is no one at all who would deny that those documents, some indeed authentic and others apocryphal, are of unequal value. Finally, it is more than highly likely that the previously cited canon under the name of the martyr Boniface must be considered to be included among the apocryphal documents. However, Bellarmine in this case also replies: “Those canons do not mean to say that the Pontiff as a private person can err (heretically), but only that the Pontiff cannot be judged. Nevertheless since it is not wholly certain whether a Pontiff can or cannot be a heretic, for this reason they add out of an abundance of caution [the following] condition: unless he become a heretic” [Bellarmine, Book 4, De Romano Pontifice, chapter 7].

(Cardinal Louis Billot, Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi, 5th ed., q. XIV, th. XXIX [Rome: Gregorian Pontifical University, 1927], pp. 633-635; italics given; underlining added; our translation.)

It is unfortunate that the signatories of the Open Letter spent so much time worrying about theological opinions on these questions expressed before the First Vatican Council but not afterwards.

Canonical Warnings needed to prevent Chaos?

All the examples the signatories of the Open Letter give with regard to warnings having to be issued to the “heretical Pope” are irrelevant because, unlike what theological positions may have been permitted in “the early canonical tradition”, the Church has long clarified that the Pope cannot be brought to trial or judged by anyone, and warnings — if they are to be canonically significant — can only be issued by a human superior, of which the Pope has none.

The idea that inferiors could issue warnings that bind a Pope’s conscience is downright silly. How do the authors envision this in the case of Francis? Shall “Cardinals” Burke and Sarah together with “Bishops” Schneider and Gracida send a letter to Francis warning him that they will “remove the papacy” from him? Do they not think that Francis would respond by removing something from them? In any case, what will they do if “Cardinals” Maradiaga, Cupich, and Marx then join “Archbishops” Paglia and Wester in support of Bergoglio, denouncing his opponents? Which of these putative bishops would a Catholic then be obliged — or even permitted — to follow?

Alas, the Open Letter gets stranger still as it goes on. After pointing out that they disagree with “Sedevacantist authors” concerning this matter, the signatories declare that if it were true that “a pope automatically loses the papal office as the result of public heresy, with no intervention by the Church being required or permissible”, then this “would throw the Church into chaos in the event of a pope embracing heresy….”

Now this is just rich. Ladies and gentlemen, which creates the greater chaos? The idea that Francis is Pope or that he isn’t Pope? To ask the question is to answer it. It cannot and need not be denied that of course a Pope becoming a heretic and immediately/automatically ceasing to be Pope would create a chaotic scene and be a grave hardship for the Church — Cardinal Billot referred to “so many troubles of such kind” this would bring about — but by no means would it lead to more or even as much chaos as what the Novus Ordo Sect currently has on display. After all, Francis is able to do so much damage to souls precisely because he is accepted as Pope by practically the whole world.

Let’s have a look at how the canonist Fr. Gerald McDevitt assesses the issue of spiritual harm with regard to loss of office:

Since it is not only incongruous that one who has publicly defected from the faith should remain in an ecclesiastical office, but since such a condition might also be the source of serious spiritual harm when the care of souls in concerned, the Code [of Canon Law] prescribes [in Canon 188 n. 4] that a cleric tacitly renounces his office by public defection from the faith.

(Rev. Gerald V. McDevitt, The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1946], p. 136; underlining added.)

In other words, the immediate and automatic loss of office for heresy is precisely what prevents or at least lessens serious spiritual harm.

The idea that any bishop — not just the Pope — forfeits his office as soon as it becomes public that he is a pertinacious heretic, is easily confirmed just by consulting the pertinent literature on the question. Instead of digging up theories held by some in the early Church or in the eleventh century, the authors of the Open Letter should have simply looked more closely at the past century:

This crime [public heresy or apostasy] presupposes not an internal, or even external but occult act, but a public defection from the faith through formal heresy, or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society…. The public character of this crime must be understood in the light of canon 2197 n. 1. Hence, if a bishop were guilty of this violation and the fact were divulged to the greater part of the town or community, the crime would be public and the see ipso facto [by that very fact] becomes vacant.

(Rev. Leo Arnold Jaeger, The Administration of Vacant and Quasi-Vacant Dioceses in the United States [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1932], p. 82; underlining added.)

Note well: Even in the case of a simple bishop, who has a clear superior in the Pope and can easily be judged by him, the bishop loses his office for heresy as soon as that heresy and its pertinacity are public (defined in canon 2197 n. 1 as “already known or [committed] in such circumstances that it can be and must be prudently judged that it will easily become known”) — even before the judgment by the Holy See. This is confirmed even more explicitly by the same author a few pages later:

…when a bishop tacitly resigns, as in the case of apostacy [sic], heresy, etc., the see becomes fully vacant the moment the crime becomes public. According to a strict interpretation of the law, the jurisdiction of the bishop passes at that moment to the Board [of Diocesan Consultors], who may validly and licitly begin to exercise its power, as long as there is certainty that the crime has become public. In practice, however, it would probably be more prudent on the part of the Board, instead of assuming the governance of the see immediately, to notify the Holy See without delay, and await for such provisions which the Supreme Authority might choose to make.

(Jaeger, Administration, p. 98; underlining added.)

It is simply a matter of practical prudence that, ordinarily, it will probably be better to wait for the Apostolic See to issue a judgment against a manifestly heretical bishop — but this is not necessary, strictly speaking. And if this be so with the case of a mere bishop, who can easily be brought to trial and to whom warnings can be issued, etc. — how much more does this have to be true for the Pope himself, who has no superior and cannot be judged by any man?

Although the authors of the Open Letter go out of their way to assert that “the pope cannot fall from office without action by the bishops of the Church” (p. 19) — while at the same time maintaining, of course, that “the Church does not have jurisdiction over the pope, and hence … the Church cannot remove a pope from office by an exercise of superior authority, even for the crime of heresy” (p. 17) — they also add a little footnote to hedge their bet: “We do not reject the possibility that a pope who publicly rejected the Catholic faith and publicly converted to a non-Catholic religion could thereby lose the papal office.” But this disclaimer overturns their entire thesis because it admits in principle that the Pope does lose his pontificate automatically as soon as his rejection of the Catholic Faith is sufficiently manifest. The only question that remains, then, is one of degree — how manifest is manifest enough? — and not of kind.

When a Pope can — and cannot — become a Heretic

Another critical point to note — one that the Open Letter does not address at all — is that it is utterly impossible for a Pope to defect into heresy in his capacity as Pope, that is, in the exercise of his magisterium. All the controversy concerning the Papa haereticus that theologians even consider as a possiblity is that of a Pope becoming a public heretic in his private capacity, not as the head of the Church, as we have already seen in some of the quotes above. On this point, Fr. Ramstein is emphatic:

If the Pope should happen to fall into heresy, he is no longer a member of the Church, much less its head. It is understood that the Pope cannot be guilty of heresy when he speaks infallibly ex cathedra. The supposition is only possible should the Pope teach heretical doctrine in a private capacity.

(Ramstein, A Manual of Canon Law, p. 193; underlining added.)

But this distinction is not only not drawn by the signatories of the Open Letter; on the contrary, they maintain precisely that Francis has taught heresy in his magisterium, especially as found in the exhortation Amoris Laetitia but also in other Novus Ordo magisterial sources from which they draw data as evidence for his heretical depravity. Thus they have themselves violated Catholic dogma:

…in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted, and holy doctrine celebrated…. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren” [Luke 22:32].

(Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4; Denz. 1833, 1836; underlining added.)

…it can never be that the church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail. “For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built ‘His house upon a rock,’ cannot be conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be powerless against it”. Therefore God confided His Church to Peter so that he might safely guard it with his unconquerable power.

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 12)

Many more quotes on God’s guarantees for the Papacy can be found here.

The authors might respond to this argument by quoting from p. 1 of their Open Letter: “We do not claim that [Francis] has denied truths of the faith in pronouncements that satisfy the conditions for an infallible papal teaching. We assert that this would be impossible, since it would be incompatible with the guidance given to the Church by the Holy Spirit.”

But here the authors have misunderstood something: The Pope cannot be a heretic at all, not only not in his ex cathedra statements. Heresy is more than simple error — it is the denial of dogma, and willful public adherence to it makes one a non-Catholic, not just a bad Catholic. If the Pope could teach heresy in his non-infallible teachings, then he simply would and could not be the rock against which the gates of hell cannot prevail (cf. Mt 16:18).

Not always Infallible, but always Safe

A Pope’s non-infallible teaching, by definition, does not come with the guarantee of infallible truth, but it does come with the guarantee of infallible safety:

The Holy Apostolic See, to which the safeguarding of the deposit of faith and the attendant duty and office of feeding the universal Church for the salvation of souls have been divinely entrusted, can prescribe theological pronouncements — or even pronouncements to the extent they are connected with ones that are theological — as teachings to be followed, or it can censure them as teachings not to be followed, not solely with the intention of infallibly determining truth by a definitive pronouncement, but also necessarily and designedly apart from that aim, either without qualification or by way of limited supplements, to provide for the safety of Catholic doctrine (cf. Zaccaria, Antifebronius vindicatus, vol. II, diss. V, chap. 2, no. 1). Although infallible truth of doctrine may not be present in declarations of this kind (because, presumably, the intention of determining infallible truth is not present), nevertheless, infallible safety is present. I speak of both the objective safety of declared doctrine (either without qualification or by way of limited supplements, as mentioned) and the subjective safety of declared doctrine, insofar as it is safe for everyone to adopt it, and it is unsafe and impossible for anyone to refuse to adopt it without a violation of due submission towards the divinely established magisterium.

(Cardinal John Baptist Franzelin, Tractatus de Divina Traditione et Scriptura, 2nd ed. [Rome: Ex Typ. S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1875], Thesis XII, Principle VII; our translation; italics removed; underlining added. The entire work is available in English, translated by Ryan Grant, as On Divine Tradition [Sensus Traditionis Press, 2016].)

This explains why the Church requires us to submit to all papal teaching, not just to that which is infallible. If it were not guaranteed to be safe, then submission would be downright dangerous — even if it were merely optional! Yes, Catholicism demands Faith (cf. 2 Cor 5:7), and here we can see who really believes in the Papacy — it is us sedevacantists!

That papal teaching is always perfectly safe also agrees with common sense: It is one thing for a non-infallible teaching to contain an innocuous error but quite another still for it to contain heresy, which is a very denial of the Faith, poison for souls! A simple analogy from daily life helps to illustrate that: It is one thing for the doctor not to be able to guarantee that the patient is in perfect health; but this does not imply that therefore the patient might be suffering from stage IV brain cancer.

For further details on this issue, please see the following links:

Quite simply, a Pope (or Church) who can teach heresy at any point except in rare ex cathedrapronouncements is not credible as a divinely instituted authority, one God Himself calls “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and against which He guarantees that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” (Mt 16:18).

Concluding Observations

Reading the Open Letter and the different reactions to it from the authors’ co-religionists — those that are sympathetic, those that are hostile, and those who fall in between — one will discover that each side makes some good points, and yet each side also says things that are unacceptable. There is one simple reason for that: It’s because each side is partially correct — and partically in error.

Those who denounce Francis as a manifest heretic are right in doing so; those who point out that a Pope cannot be judged or deposed, are correct as well; and so are those who say each believer has an obligation to assent even to a Pope’s non-infallible teaching. All this is true — but if you put it all together, you get the sedevacantist conclusion: There is no way Bergoglio could possibly be Pope. But because all sides are hell-bent on avoiding that very inference, they necessarily all err in some respect or another.

One thing is always important to keep in mind: The only — or at least the ultimate — reason why the signatories of the Open Letter take the luxury of still considering Francis to be a true Pope until the “bishops” — at least the faithful ones; wink, wink — declare otherwise, is that they reserve the right to simply refuse him submission in the meantime. It’s a kind of best-of-both-worlds scenario for them: It has all the advantages of Sedevacantism — the refusal of Bergoglian garbage — and none of the disadvantages. The only problem is: It runs afoul of Catholic teaching on the Papacy.

Interestingly enough, however, this aspect of their position is never much dwelt upon or justified — it is always tacitly assumed that of course a heretical Pope need not or cannot be submitted to. After all, we are not permitted to submit to heresy. But then, by the same token, we are required to submit to any valid Pope — not just the “non-heretical” ones. How is this possible? It is possible because, at worst, the Pope can become a heretic in his capacity as a private individual — it is totally impossible that any such privately held heresy could infect his Magisterium (regardless of whether we’re talking about the infallible or fallible kind). We challenge the Novus Ordo scholars and clergy in question to produce even one approved Catholic theologian after the First Vatican Council who taught that a Pope can teach heresy in any of his magisterial acts. Good luck.

While we wait, all readers of this blog who have not done so already, are invited to take the Francis Papacy Test to verify for themselves the intrinsic impossibility of Francis being a true Pope, regardless of whether he is personally guilty of the sin or delict of heresy.

To sum up our assessment of the Open Letter in a single sentence: The signatories are using heretical theology to ask heretics to accuse their “Pope” of heresy.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to predict: This isn’t going to work, fellows.

 

in Novus Ordo Wire    

“We Are The World” and other Blasphemies at Francis’ Interreligious Peace Meeting in Bulgaria

The Francis Show in Bulgaria…

“We Are The World” and other Blasphemies at Francis’ Interreligious Peace Meeting in Sofia

[UPDATE 07-MAY-2019: Prelates of the Orthodox religion refused to attend the meeting.]

On Apr. 10, 2015, we told you that Jorge Bergoglio’s religion is basically a theological version of the famous song We Are The World, although the word “theological” was perhaps too generous.

The Jesuit pretend-pope is currently in the middle of a blather tour “Apostolic journey” to Bulgaria and North Macedonia. Today, May 6, he participated in an interreligious prayer meeting for peace in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia, together with Orthodox, Armenians, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims (see photos here). At the beginning of the event, as he and his entourage entered the stage, a children’s choir began singing the 1985 USA for Africa hit We Are The World.

For those not familiar with it, let’s review the original for a minute.

Written by American pop icons Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie, We Are The World was an immensely successful song featuring a choir of roughly three dozen famous musicians, many of whom chimed in for a quick solo performance of a line or two of text. The lyrics of We Are The World are problematic throughout, but one line in particular takes the cake. The text is entirely Naturalist — it pretends that natural life is the greatest good and that human happiness can be procured by merely natural means. This alone makes the song highly unfit to be used for any occasion, but especially in a supposedly Catholic setting.

In the first verse, Paul Simon and Kenny Rogers proclaim that “life [is] the greatest gift of all” before Billy Joel and Tina Turner inform us that “love is all we need.” Filled with all sorts of sentimental platitudes, this kind of song is right up Francis’ alley.

But then it gets more serious. Generously granting God a cameo appearance for the second verse, Willie Nelson sings: “As God has shown us, by turning stone to bread”, and Al Jarreau finishes the sentence with: “and so we all must lend a helping hand” (at 2:00 min mark here).

Yeah, that’s a great example: God turned stones into bread. Remember? Wait, how did that go again? Let’s see:

And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the desert, for the space of forty days; and was tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing in those days; and when they were ended, he was hungry. And the devil said to him: If thou be the Son of God, say to this stone that it be made bread. And Jesus answered him: It is written, that Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word of God. …And all the temptation being ended, the devil departed from him for a time.

(Luke 4:1-4,13)

We have news for the singers of We Are The World: God did not turn stone into bread, either to feed Himself or to feed others. He once turned water into wine and fed thousands of people with only a few loaves, but never did He turn rocks into bread. It was Satan’s temptation of Christ that He should do so, but our Lord refused and would rather go hungry, for man does not live by bread alone. The popular hit, then, contains a frightful blasphemy: It proclaims that God listened to the counsel of the devil, gave in to his temptation, and turned stone to bread.

Further on in the song, two singers express one of the main errors of Naturalism, namely, that our success depends on our own natural strength: Michael Jackson warns that “when you’re down and out, there seems no hope at all” before Huey Lewis exhorts: “But if you just believe, there’s no way we can fall.” Yes, man believes in himself, tries to fix the mess he’s made all by himself, and is presumptuous enough to think that he cannot fail if he just tries hard enough. At the same time, he refuses to accept Christ the King, whose “yoke is sweet” and “burden light” (Mt 11:30), and in Whom we can do all things (see Phil 4:13; Mt 21:22). The result is precisely the world we live in today. Congratulations.

So, what is a song like that doing at a “papal” event that supposedly asks God for peace?

Alas, the choir at the event in Sofia used the exact English lyrics of the original, and you can hear the blasphemous line being sung at the 2:18 min mark:

Obviously, the children are not to blame here — they are victims in all of this, more than anyone else.

We Are The World is one of those schmaltzy “let’s all hold hands and make this world a better place” hymns that the rotten music industry manufactures every so many years, where artists worth untold millions express their sadness at how bad humanity has become before they go back to their blasphemies, their drugs, their impurities, their greed, their divorces, and their abortions. Similar such tunes include Band Aid’s Do They Know It’s Christmas? (1984), Koreana’s Hand In Hand (1988), and Michael Jackson’s Heal the World (1992).

That was then, and this is now. And guess what: The world still hasn’t become a better place. Why not? Because merely natural means — singing songs, holding hands, dialoguing, playing soccer, lighting candles, and practicing “encounter” with “open hearts” — cannot possibly work. They cannot work because real and lasting peace requires grace, which is a supernatural created gift from God. Divine grace can move souls, who are affected by concupiscence as a result of original sin, to practice love of God and neighbor. Loving God and our fellow-men means obeying the Divine Law and obeying all legitimate human laws, as well as forgiving one another for wrongs committed.

Only Jesus Christ can give this supernatural means of obtaining peace, and therefore only the peace of Christ is true and lasting: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as theworld giveth, do I give unto you” (Jn 14:27). We have explained this at length before, showing the true Catholic position directly from the Church’s own magisterial documents, so we will not repeat it here:

Some will object that Francis has not used merely natural means — after all, he prayed for peace today in Sofia, and surely prayer is a supernatural means. Indeed it is, but it goes without saying — or should, anyway — that if our prayer is odious to God, as joint prayer with people who do not even believe in Jesus Christ or the Trinity certainly is, then obviously the intention prayed for will certainly not be granted (see Mich 3:4; Jn 9:31; Jas 4:3). Besides, what Francis is seeking divine assistance for is not the supernatural peace of Jesus Christ but rather the Naturalist multi-religious “peace” and “human fraternity” of Freemasonry, precisely “as the world giveth”.

The interfaith meeting for peace today consisted of a mix of songs, invocations, and prayers, from each of the six different religions represented on stage. The Muslim imam, pictured above, chanted “Allah is great” and “There is no other god besides Allah” and “Mohammed is his servant and envoy”, thus explicitly attacking the Most Holy Trinity. Needless to say, no “Catholic” on stage was fazed, least of all Francis, who worships the same god as the imam anyway:

Three Jewish children sang the 1995 Liora song Amen, which, although focused on the natural, at least appears to contain no blasphemy.

Francis himself recited the Prayer of St. Francis and afterwards made some brief remarks in which he proclaimed his belief that for peace it is necessary “that we adopt dialogue as our path, mutual [collaboration] as our code of conduct, and reciprocal understanding as our method and standard”. In other words, whoever refuses to dialogue with other religions, collaborate with them, or understand them, is an enemy of peace.

We sum up: All religions are put on the same level and thus tacitly declared to be fundamentally equal. In the words of Pope Pius VII, “truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself” (Apostolic Letter Post Tam Diuturnas). The Christ-denying chant of the Muslim imam, which asserted there to be no god but Allah, was set next to Handel’s glorious Hallelujah chorus, in which Jesus Christ is rightly acknowledged to be “King of kings and Lord of lords”, who “shall reign forever and ever.” What an absurd and blasphemous spectacle!

This abominable event was perfectly in line with Bergoglian “theology”: Each group gets to do its thing, and then we all sing We Are The World.

Peace can’t be far now!

Francis-Bergoglio Preaches Pseudo-science and Totalitarian Tyranny In His Latest Speech, Which Runs Entirely Counter to Catholic Theology

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Jorge Bergoglio

Before He Became Newpope of the New Order Sect
Young Jorge Bergoglio Worked as a Bar Bouncer and a Janitor
Then for a Short Time as a Chemist’s Technician
This Work History Hardly Gives Him Any Standing to Pontificate
On Scientifically-disputed “Global Warming”
And “Sustainable Development Goals”
Which Include Artificial Contraception and Abortion
Francis-Bergoglio’s Anti-Catholic Approach
Runs Directly Counter to Catholic Theology

The Marxist/Modernist Francis-Bergoglio went secularist again in a speech delivered on May 2, 2019, in Newrome. He went full-bore totalitarian, calling for a new “supranational body” to enforce United Nations goals for “global warming” policies. The bar bouncer and janitor who worked a short time as a chemist’s technician in the food industry presumed to lecture to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (not even Physical Sciences) preached the controverted gospel of “global warming,” whose alleged anthropogenic cause is still hotly disputed in the scientific community. His predecessor, Bergoglio’s Marxist/Modernist stance jibes with that of his Newpope predecessor, Benedict-Ratzinger, a former member of the Nazi Hitlerjugend, also preached this “supranational” authoritarianism.

Francis-Bergoglio is deathly afraid of free nations, who are increasingly turning toward the national liberty founded in Catholic theology, as brilliantly articulated by the Principal Theologian of the Catholic Church, St. Thomas Aquinas. His own Italy, as well as France, Germany, the United States, and many other nations are among those moving in the Catholic theological direction. Bergoglio, to the contrary, preaches open borders, with illegal aliens and terrorists (whom he euphemistically calls “migrants”) having free access to any country they please — except his own Vatican City State, which has had a wall around it against invaders for over a millennium and a half. [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by LS News.]

True Catholics, the Marxist/Modernist Francis-Bergoglio in his speech also threw his hat in with the forces that want to cut population growth under the guise of “Sustainable Development Goals.” These goals include Reproductive Health Services, which includes artificial contraception and abortion. Bergoglio’s anti-Catholic approach runs directly counter to those of Pope Pius XI, who looked askance at the League of Nations, formed after World War I, the “supranational” organization that gradually dissolved a little more than a decade thereafter.

Is Francis-Bergoglio Now an International Criminal? He Has Been Exposed as an Embezzler of Charity Monies to Fund International Crimes

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Francis-Bergoglio

Francis-Bergolio Is Heavily Weighed down by His Crimes
He Has Recently Been Charged with Heresy
Before the College of Newchurch Bishops
Now He Has Been Exposed as an Embezzler
Who Robbed the Peter’s Pence Charity Fund
To Support His Marxist/Modernist Political Causes
And International Crime in Central America

To his complicity in paedophile crimes of his Newchurch officials both high and low, Francis-Bergoglio has now added the crime of embezzling monies donated to Newchurch’s Peter’s Pence charity to fund illegal border invasions. Mexico is desperately trying to stop illegal invaders from Central America’s Northern Triangle, i.e., Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, flooding into Mexico. Bergoglio, who doesn’t seem to recognize national borders, except his own that is, has embezzled half a million U.S. dollars from Newchurch’s Peter’s Pence “charity” to fund the invaders’ crimes to crash the Mexican border, and then the United States border.

The Peter’s Pence fund, now exposed as yet another Newchurch scam, is contributed to, sometimes unbeknownst to the Newchurchers themselves, in “special collections” at New Order parishes worldwide. The contributors are clueless to the fact that their donations, which are supposed to go to charitable purposes, are actually being spent by Bergoglio on Marxist/Modernist political causes and criminal operations.

Francis-Bergoglio, a Marxist globalist, who wants to see what he calls “supranational” organizations, like the failing European Union and the United Nations, take control of secular nations, doesn’t like the idea of national borders, which are enshrined in Catholic theology and confirmed in many Encyclical Letters written by true Catholic popes. Nevertheless, Bergoglio retreats to safe cover behind his own wall, the Aurelian Wall, which surrounds the Vatican City State, fabricated in the Lateran Treaty of 1929 between the Vatican and Fascist Dictator Benito Mussolini. U.S. President Donald Trump has in the past called Bergoglio out on his immoral duplicity. [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by BBC News.]

True Catholics, we thought that Francis-Bergoglio couldn’t sink any lower than to collude with his paedophile Newclergy and cover up their crimes. But now he has turned Peter’s Pence charity into a criminal fraud. Like the historical High Priest Caiphas, whose corruption is documented by the Greek historian Flavius Josephus, Bergoglio is embezzling Church money to support his Marxist/Modernist political causes and crimes related thereto. Newchurchers unquestionably under the provisions of Catholic theology have a moral obligation immediately to leave the heretical, sacrilegious, and immoral Newchurch and completely shun its criminal paedophile Newpope, now turned embezzler of charitable funds.

Francis Accused: Open Letter to World’s Novus Ordo Bishops seeks Remedy to ‘Heretical Pope’

Bergoglio accused of heresy and pertinacity…

Francis Accused: Open Letter to World’s Novus Ordo Bishops seeks Remedy to ‘Heretical Pope’

The internet is abuzz again after the latest attempt by conservative Novus Ordos to do something about the pink elephant in St. Peter’s Basilica: Their “Pope” is a blatant pertinacious heretic.

Yesterday, April 30, the feast of St. Catherine of Siena (in the traditional Roman calendar), a document entitled “Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church” was released simultaneously in six different languages:

The English version was introduced by Maike Hickson at LifeSite, and its release is accompanied by a one-and-a-half-page summary and a select bibliography for further reading. In addition, an online petition has been started that seeks public support for the letter.

The contents of the letter can be outlined as follows:

  • Introductory comments
  • Listing of seven heretical propositions Francis is accused of holding, and their condemnation by the Magisterium
  • Evidence that Francis holds these heresies
    • Listing of public heretical statements
    • Listing of public heretical actions
  • Evidence that Francis is pertinacious (=aware of and obstinate) in these heresies
  • Specific request made of “bishops”
  • Appendix: theological justification for request

In her piece for Life Site, Hickson refers to the 19 signatories as “prominent clergymen and scholars”, though just how prominent each one of them is, may be disputed. Most of the names will not be familiar to even the average conservative Novus Ordo who is interested in theology. Here is a list of the names together with each person’s academic credentials, in alphabetical order:

  • Georges Buscemi, President of Campagne Québec-Vie, member of the John-Paul II Academy for Human Life and Family
  • Robert Cassidy, STL
  • Fr Thomas Crean, OP
  • Matteo d’Amico, Professor of History and Philosophy, Senior High School of Ancona
  • Deacon Nick Donnelly, MA
  • Maria Guarini STB, Pontificia Università Seraphicum, Rome; editor of the website Chiesa e postconcilio
  • Prof. Robert Hickson, PhD, Retired Professor of Literature and of Strategic-Cultural Studies
  • Fr John Hunwicke, former Senior Research Fellow, Pusey House, Oxford
  • Peter Kwasniewski, PhD
  • John Lamont, DPhil (Oxon.)
  • Brian M. McCall, Orpha and Maurice Merrill Professor in Law; Editor-in-Chief of Catholic Family News
  • Fr Cor Mennen, JCL, diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands), canon of the cathedral Chapter. lecturer at de diocesan Seminary of ‘s-Hertogenbosch
  • Stéphane Mercier, STB, PhD, Former Lecturer at the Catholic University of Louvain
  • Fr Aidan Nichols, OP
  • Paolo Pasqualucci, Professor of Philosophy (retired), University of Perugia
  • Dr. Claudio Pierantoni, Professor of Medieval Philosophy, University of Chile; former Professor of Church History and Patrology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile
  • Professor John Rist
  • Dr. Anna Silvas, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Faculty of Humanities, Arts, Social Sciences and Education, University of New England
  • Prof. dr. W.J. Witteman, physicist, emeritus professor, University of Twente

The only names that will jump out at most people are probably those of Nick Donnelly, John Hunwicke, Peter Kwasniewski, John Lamont, Brian McCall, and perhaps Aidan Nichols. We note the complete absence of any Novus Ordo clergy of higher rank than priest, and even the ubiquitous Prof. Roberto de Mattei did not sign this letter. How “Fr.” John Hunwicke‘s academic claim to fame — having once been, in his Anglican days, a researcher at a heretical house of studies — is helpful in lending credible support to accusing the “Pope” of heresy, is not immediately clear.

In any case, the seven specific heresies the authors are accusing Francis of are very well researched, well argued, and well presented, and there is no question that he is guilty as sin of pertinaciously holding and spreading these denials of dogma. That part of the Open Letter is commendable. As far as the theological justification for “bishops” declaring the “Pope” a heretic so he will lose his office, and related issues — that is an absolute disaster. However, our commentary on that will have to wait for a separate post.

Meanwhile, you can get our initial reaction to the letter in a brief podcast we put together last night:

What will this latest effort, this “measure [taken] as a last resort to respond to the accumulating harm caused by Pope Francis’s words and actions over several years” accomplish? We predict that it will accomplish absolutley nothing in terms of real, long-term effect. It will simply generate headlines for the next few days, keep journalists and bloggers busy, (re-)trigger theological discussions, and ultimately have no effect whatsoever on Francis or his pseudo-Catholic hierarchy.

We’ve seen this all before, and more than once. Remember?

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

Francis-Bergoglio’s Newchurch Leaders Denounce Him as a “Heretic” And Call for Him to Be Deposed

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Francis-Bergoglio

Francis-Bergoglio Has a Good Laugh
With a Group of Lutheran Ministresses
Now a Number of Newchurch Leaders Have Issued an Open Letter
Denouncing Him as “Public Adherent to Heresy”
And Called for the College of Newbishops to Depose Him
All This Is Much Too Little and Much Too Late
Because the Newchurch Leaders Themselves Are Heretics
Of the Anti-Catholic New Order Sect

A group of 1,500 Newchurchers, including 19 presbyters and academics from around the world have sent a demand in a 20-page open letter to the College of Newchurch Bishops to denounce Francis-Bergoglio for his crime (delictum) of “public adherence to heresy.” It demands that the Newchurch bishops “publicly to admonish [Bergoglio] to abjure the heresies that he has professed.” The letter lists “Evidence for Pope Francis Being Guilty of the Crime of Heresy,” enumerating a number of public heresies preached by Bergoglio, i.e., Catholic teachings revealed by God, which he “knowingly and persistently denies”:

 

  • Bergoglio has preached the admission of “divorced” persons to the Novus Ordo cookie in his March 2016 document Amoris laetitia.
  • Bergoglio has preached that the intentions of the Arch-heretic of the Protestant Revolution, Martin Luther, “were not mistaken.”
  • Bergoglio has preached a permissive stance toward the crime of abortion.
  • Bergoglio has preached a permissive stance toward homosexuality and sodomy.
  • Bergoglio signed a joint statement with Lutheran heretics in 2016 in which he stated that Newchurchers should be grateful for the “theological gifts” of the Protestant Revolution.
  • Bergoglio signed a joint statement with a prominent Muslim leader in February 2019 that preached that “God not only permits, but positively wills, the pluralism and diversity of religions.”
  • Bergoglio has preached that persons can intentionally break Divine law in a serious matter without committing mortal sin.
  • Bergoglio has preached that sexual acts between divorced and remarried people “can sometimes be morally right.”

 

The open letter demands that the College of Newbishops publicly admonish Francis to “abjure” these heresies, including “repudiating and reversing” actions that have manifested heresy such as the “appointment of bishops and cardinals who have supported these heresies by their words and actions.” If Bergoglio refuses to recant his heresies, the letter demands that the College of Newchurch Bishops depose him from office. Bergoglio has remained mute about the letter, which includes dozens of footnotes, Biblical citations, pronouncements by popes, and a separate bibliography. [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by Reuters.]

True Catholics, of course, all this is much too little and much too late on the part of Newchurchers. And the signers are themselves heretics of the anti-Catholic New Order sect. Truly, the Newchurch of the New Order is in a deplorable state, at this point irredeemable; now it can only be purged, like the Protestants who are its guiding light. One could apply the canonic principle, “Qui tacet consentire videtur,” and interpret Bergoglio’s silence as consent to the charge that he is a heretic.

Francis-Bergoglio Harps on the Fake Sin of “Gossip” Again Apparently, Legitimate Criticism of His Heresies and Crimes Is Getting to Him

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Francis-Bergoglio

Francis-Bergoglio Is Lashing out Again
This Time against His Own Newvatican Barbers and Hairdressers
Who He Charges Are “Gossiping” about Him
Thus, He Has Created a Fake Sin of “Gossip” for Them
Ignoring the Fact that Jesus Christ and His Apostles
Are Recorded in the Gospels as Engaging
In the Same Kind of “Gossip”
Bergoglio, with His Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)
Just Doesn’t Want to Be Legitimately Criticized
For His Public Heresies and Criminal Complicity in Paedophilia

Given the heresies and moral crimes rampant in his Newchurch, you’d think that Francis-Bergoglio would address these serious matters. But, no. Bergoglio suffers from Narcissistic Personality Syndrome (NPD). He thinks first and mostly about himself. His April 29, 2019, audience “homily” attacked Newvatican’s own barbers and hairdressers about “gossip.”

Francis-Bergoglio, who is personally so awash in Newchurch’s Great Sex & Embezzlement Holocaust, that he has had to concoct this fake sin of “gossip.” Now he is denouncing the hardworking barbers and hairdressers in his own Newvatican, who cut his own hair, because, as he in his paranoia suspects, they “gossip” about him while plying their ancient trade. [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by Agence France-Presse.]

Now, there is nothing sinful in “gossip,” depending upon how you define it. It is only human to exchange news about what is going on with friends and the community. Christ did it. His Apostles did it. St. Paul did it. You can find episodes of such “gossip” throughout the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament.

We are not talking here about real sins of word: slander and calumny, i.e., telling lies about other people. Or even detraction, i.e., telling the truth about the occult sins of others to those who have no need to know (however, sometimes they do have a need to know, as about a neighbor who drinks and then drives dangerously in the neighborhood). Bergoglio likes “community,” but only if it is, as he recently said, controlled by a supra-governmental organization like the sinking European Union. You see, with Bergoglio and with Newchurch as a whole, it is always ultimately a question of control.

Note too that vigorous public discussion about politicians are not “gossip,” except in the case of deliberate lies about them. Citizens, at least in democracies, must have the freedom to debate and criticize openly, and at times even harshly, to keep the authorities within the legitimate scope of their office. And that certainly includes popes. St. Thomas More the Martyr did that. Venerable Erasmus of Rotterdam did that in his famed Moriae encomium, published in 1511, shortly after the death of the “Bad Pope” Alexander VI-Borgia, in which the saintly priest attacked in biting satire the failings of the Catholic Church of his time. Dante Alighieri, highly praised by many popes for his theology, called the pope of his time “cloaca del sangue et della puzza” (a sewer of filth and blood).

Our Lord Himself established the principle of accountability, as reported in St. Matthew’s Gospel. Such open debate and criticism must also take place to hold organizations and their leaders to account for their corruption, for example, Newchurch and even a religious organization such as the corrupted Neo-SSPX. Moreover, Our Lord certainly railed against the Church of His time, i.e., the synagogue, whose priests, right on up to the High Priest, were corrupt.

True Catholics, let’s face it: Francis-Bergoglio doesn’t want to be denounced for his very public sins of cooperation in paedophile crimes, heresy, and idolatry, some would even say apostasy. Nor do, for example. Bernie Fellay and David Pagliarani, the leaders of the corrupted Neo-SSPX after the death of the traditional Archbishop Lefebvre. Thus, they try to make up a sin of “gossip” in an effort to protect themselves from legitimate criticism of their public roles in working against the true Faith. Yet, their efforts to silence legitimate criticism of their public conduct have failed, and they are all sinking into the morass that they have created for themselves.

The Passion of Man: Francis’ Anthropocentric Stations of the Cross

A Bergoglian Good Friday…

The Passion of Man:
Francis’ Anthropocentric Stations of the Cross

On Good Friday, Catholics commemorate the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ, the only Way by which salvation can be obtained (see Jn 3:16-18; Jn 14:6; Acts 4:12).

One of the most salutary and beautiful acts of devotion in which to engage on Good Friday is the richly-indulgenced Stations of the Cross (also called the Way of the Cross, Via Crucis, or Via Dolorosa), which consists of prayers and meditations on each of the fourteen stations of Christ’s holy Passion, beginning with the unjust sentence of death rendered by Pontius Pilate and concluding with the placing of the Body of Jesus in the sepulcher.

Unlike the Holy Rosary, for example, there are no particular prayers that must be prayed as one meditates on each station (whether in a church or at home); however, the method of St. Francis of Assisi and the method of St. Alphonsus Liguori are among the most popular ways to pray the Stations. The following video is a full presentation of the St. Francis method:

In the Vatican II Sect, it has long been Good Friday practice to have the Stations of the Cross with the “Pope” at the Colosseum in Rome. So too this year. Alternating cross and torch bearers led a procession inside and outside the ancient amphitheatre as presider Francis made himself comfortable on a throne placed on a raised platform with canopy, putting on a somber face of profound meditation throughout.

The heart of the Way of the Cross is the meditations, and since it wouldn’t be “cool” enough to use the traditional, tried-and-true methods by canonized saints, the custom in the Vatican II Church has been to have new meditations drawn up every year by someone chosen by the “Pope”.

This year Jorge Bergoglio picked Sister Eugenia Bonetti (pictured right), an 80-year-old missionary from Italy who works to combat prostitution and human trafficking, to write the prayers for the Way of the Cross at the Colosseum. The result can be found here:

The very introductory paragraph of her contribution makes clear in what direction her meditations are headed: “We want to walk this via dolorosa in union with the poor, the outcast of our societies and all those who even now are enduring crucifixion as victims of our narrowmindedness, our institutions and our laws, our blindness and selfishness, but especially our indifference and hardness of heart.”

In other words, we’re going to use the sufferings of Christ as an excuse to focus on the sufferings of our fellow men. But then that is business as usual for the Bergoglian sect. And this is just the beginning.

Let’s briefly review Sr. Bonetti’s “Stations”, each of which consists of a meditation and then a prayer.

First Station: Jesus is condemned to Death

After a brief meditation on how the Blessed Mother accompanied Christ throughout His life, Sister uses the opportunity to focus on all other mothers who “weep for the fate of their daughters and sons” who “die from disease, malnutrition and lack of water, medical care and hope for the future.” The “cry of the poor” also makes an appearance, as does “the indifference born of selfish and discriminatory political policies.” A petition for 0% unemployment is included as well.

Second Station: Jesus takes up His Cross

A quick reference to the Christian crucifix is immediately followed by mention of “today’s newly crucified: the homeless; the young deprived of hope, without work, and without prospects; the immigrants relegated to slums at the fringe of our societies after having endured untold suffering.” The “marginalized, exploited and forgotten” then also get a mention, and discrimination is denounced. Thus far the meditation. The prayer that follows mentions Christ as our model for living and ends with the petition “that we may put our lives always at the service of others.”

Third Station: Jesus falls the First Time

Sister does not say a single word about what this Third Station actually commemorates: Christ falling to the ground with the Cross for the first time. Our suffering Savior gets a single mention in a brief sentence that immediately connects Him to man: “Lord Jesus, on the steep path leading to Calvary, you chose to experience our human frailty and weakness.” That’s it. The rest is about “the presence and generosity of so many volunteers, the new Samaritans of the third millennium”, a terrible crime committed against three African women, “the terror of darkness, loneliness, and indifference”, the “last in line”, and the ever-present “encounter Jesus in the suffering” theme. What this has to do with Christ falling on His way to Calvary, is anyone’s guess.

Fourth Station: Jesus meets His Sorrowful Mother

The Blessed Mother at least gets as many as two unobjectionable sentences concerning her meeting her Son on His Via Dolorosa, but this quick reflection is then used to launch into a prop for migrants, specifically “mothers who have allowed their young children to depart for Europe in the hope of helping their poverty-stricken families, only to meet with humiliation, contempt and at times even death.” The indigenous Europeans who have been raped and killed in Europe as a result of the uncontrolled influx of illegal immigration, on the other hand, do not get a mention from Sister Solicitous.

Fifth Station: Simon of Cyrene helps Jesus to carry His Cross

This station is described accurately at first, but once again the thought quickly turns to where Sister’s attention really is (cf. Lk 6:45): “Where are the new Cyreneans of the third millennium? Where do we find them today? I think of the experience of a group of religious women of different nationalities, places of origin and communities with whom, for more than seventeen years, every Saturday, we visit a center for undocumented immigrant women.” Got it. The subsequent prayer regurgitates the fundamental dogma this liberation theology is grounded in: “For all the Cyreneans of our history, that they may never falter in their desire to welcome you in the least of our brothers and sisters, in the knowledge that in welcoming the poorest members of our society, we welcome you.” Yes, it is true that Christ is presented, as He said, in “these my least brethren” (Mt 25:40), but the liberation theology of “Pope” Francis and his ilk grossly distorts and exaggerates the meaning of this passage and places one-sided emphasis on it, as explained here.

Sixth Station: Veronica wipes the Face of Jesus

For the Sixth Station, Sr. Eugenia doesn’t even pretend. She wastes no word on Veronica wiping the Holy Face of our Blessed Lord with her veil, and instead begins her meditation by thinking of “all those children in various parts of the world who cannot go to school but are instead exploited in mines, fields, and fisheries, bought and sold by human traffickers for organ harvesting, used and abused on our streets by many, including Christians, who have lost the sense of their own and others’ sacredness.” Of course it is right and necessary to deplore such horrific crimes and to work to put an end to them, but this simply has no place in the Via Crucis. What will we get next year? Hijacking the Sixth Station to deplore the use of paper napkins? In the prayer that follows, Sister does finally mention the Holy Face, but only, of course, as It is encountered in man: “Lord Jesus, cleanse our eyes so that we can see your face in our brothers and sisters, especially in all those children who, in many parts of the world, are living in poverty and squalor.”

Seventh Station: Jesus falls the Second Time

Again we are not told at all about Jesus’ fall to the ground, a second time. Instead, Sister focuses on forgiveness as a remedy to vengeance and mentions that Christ offers “forgiveness, love and hope to those who today, like [Him], walk the same path of ridicule, contempt, mockery, abandonment, betrayal, and loneliness.” Once more we see man being made the victim, when in actual fact man is the perpetrator with regard to Christ’s Passion.

Eighth Station: The Women of Jerusalem weep over Jesus

“The social, economic and political situation of migrants and the victims of human trafficking challenges and disturbs us”, Sister opens her meditation, and the remainder continues accordingly. In the prayer, she asks God to “teach us to see with [His] eyes” so that we would “imitate [Him] in how we regard different ideas, behaviors, and points of view.” And by that she means, of course, not God’s hatred for, and rejection of, false ideas and doctrines (see Mk 7:7; 1 Tim 4:1; Heb 13:9; 2 Jn 1:9-11), but rather “accepting diversity.” Pathetic.

Ninth Station: Jesus falls the Third Time

Finally, Sister deigns to mention that our Blessed Lord fell to the ground carrying His heavy Cross. But she adds right away: “Like all those girls forced onto the streets by groups of traffickers in human slavery. Like you, they cannot hold up under the exhaustion and humiliation of seeing their young bodies manipulated, abused and ruined, together with their hope and dreams.” No further thought is given to Christ — He is merely addressed one more time in the subsequent prayer, where she asks Him to “[h]elp us to share the sufferings of all those treated as refuse.”

Tenth Station: Jesus is stripped of His Garments

For the Tenth Station, Sister starts out with the mention of three nouns: “Money, comfort, power. These are the idols of every age.” Here it apparently does not occur to her that perhaps she too must “regard different ideas, behaviors, and points of view”, but logic tends to work rather selectively with Novus Ordos. Spending absolutely no thought on Christ and His Sacred Passion in this meditation, she reflects: “We have forgotten the centrality of the human being, the dignity, beauty, and strength of each man and woman. Even as the world is building walls and barriers, we want to recognize and thank all those who in various ways during these past months have risked their own lives, especially in the Mediterranean, to save the lives of so many families in search of safety and opportunity. Human beings fleeing poverty, dictatorships, corruption, and slavery.” Sr. Eugenia knows how to make Bergoglio’s heart beat faster. For the prayer that follows, Christ is invoked only as justification to focus on man: “Lord, help us to rediscover the beauty and richness present in every person and people as your unique gift, to be placed at the service of society as a whole and not used for our personal profit or gain.”

Eleventh Station: Jesus is nailed to the Cross

We know not to expect from Sister any reflection on the particular station in Christ’s Sacred Passion anymore, and so her redirection to other topics does not come as a surprise: “Our society proclaims equal rights and dignity for all human beings. Yet it practices and tolerates inequality” — and then she talks about human trafficking again. Further on, as though she had suddenly remembered what the Eleventh Station is about, she prays: “Lord, how many men and women even today are nailed to a cross, victims of brutal exploitation, stripped of dignity, freedom, and hope for the future!” Once again the Suffering Christ is not meditated upon for His own sake, but only insofar as He can be used as an incentive to talk about man.

Twelfth Station: Jesus is raised upon the Cross and Dies

Even for the station that commemorates Christ’s last three agonizing hours, culminating in His redemptive Death, Sister will not change her pattern. Yes, she acknowledges that Christ “bore the weight of scorn, mockery, insults, violence, abandonment, and indifference”, but she does not say why He did so, and she notes that Christ did so “too”, as though He were merely One of many who suffer, One who simply shared in our suffering. Thus she blasphemously speaks of “all those dying today on Calvaries throughout the world: in transit camps, on boats denied entry to safe ports, in shelters, hot spots, and camps for seasonal workers”! What incredible blasphemy! What an insult to the Cross of Christ, which has redeemed mankind (see Rom 3:24; Eph 1:7; 1 Tim 2:6; Heb 9:12)! What more proof is needed that these people believe man is God?! Migrants are now held up as quasi-divine martyrs “dying … on Calvaries throughout the world”! Words fail at such despicable blasphemy!

Thirteenth Station: Jesus is taken down from the Cross

Sister Eugenia continues in the same vein. For the Thireenth Station, she talks about “twenty-six young Nigerian women who drowned”, whose “Calvary was lengthy and difficult.” But, she assures us, “their death, like that of Jesus taken down from the Cross, was not in vain.” And there we have it: Anyone’s death, at least if caused unjustly, is another instance of the Death of Christ! Man is Christ, and his deathbed, too, is Calvary. It is a blasphemy too frightful to contemplate! In the prayer that follows, Sister asks: “Has anyone wept?” before migrants who have died, as she forgets to weep over the death of Jesus, who was taken down from the Cross in this station so that she might live.

Fourteenth Station: Jesus is laid in the Sepulcher

The final station is, naturally, more of the same. Instead of meditating on Christ being placed in the tomb, from which He will rise again gloriously on Easter Sunday, Sister is interested only in one thing: man. “The desert and the seas have become the new cemeteries of our world”, she opens her meditation. Similarly, the prayer that follows gives consideration to our Blessed Lord only insofar as the station can be used to advance the Naturalist, humanist agenda: “Lord, make us realize that we are all children of one Father. May the death of your Son Jesus grant to the leaders of nations and lawmakers consciousness of the role they must play in the defense of every person created in your image and likeness.”

Francis’ Concluding Prayer

After a concluding prayer by Sr. Bonetti, Francis also contributes a concluding prayer of his own, one entirely in line with the foregoing reflections and prayers.

He begins thus: “Lord Jesus, help us to see in your Cross all the crosses of the world.” No! We must see in the Cross of Christ the great love God has for sinners, even to the point of exhausting Himself to offer proof of His infinite Love and to obtain our love in return, because it is only by loving Him for His own sake that we will be eternally happy! But this truth was utterly absent from the “papal” Good Friday Stations this year. What then followed as part of Francis’ prayer was what Vatican News calls “a litany of present-day crosses, representing various forms of suffering in the world today.” We will spare you the details.


Final Thoughts

Thus far the “papal” and very political Way of the Cross of Good Friday 2019. It is hard to see what, in essence, the Dalai Lama, the Masonic Grand Master, or the Secretary of the United Nations would object to. At best, the theme found throughout these reflections was Christ not as Redeemer of the world or as the Sacrifice of Calvary but as the Perfect Man who suffers in solidarity with His creatures. The meditations and prayers by Eugenia Bonetti were entirely horizontal in character; the seriousness of sin was reflected upon only in terms of what it does to our fellow man. God did receive an honorable mention on the side, but the focus clearly lay elsewhere.

The video of the whole spectacle can be watched here:

Did Sr. Eugenia mention anything supernatural? All we heard was concern for the temporal welfare of bodies. What about souls? Did Christ not say: “And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mt 10:28)?

It is clear that the participants in this travesty of a Via Crucis meditated on a lot of things, but the Passion of Jesus Christ wasn’t one of them. We recall what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about the Stations of the Cross:

The object of the Stations is to help the faithful to make in spirit, as it were, a pilgrimage to the chief scenes of Christ’s sufferings and death, and this has become one of the most popular of Catholic devotions. It is carried out by passing from Station to Station, with certain prayers at each and devout meditation on the various incidents in turn. It is very usual, when the devotion is performed publicly, to sing a stanza of the “Stabat Mater” while passing from one Station to the next.

(s.v. “Way of the Cross”; underlining added.)

During the Stations of the Cross, we are to meditate on the sufferings of Jesus Christ, not on everyone else’s sufferings. That doesn’t mean that we ought not or need not have sincere compassion for the sufferings of our fellow men and try to alleviate them as much as possible, in genuine Christian charity; but that is not the object of the Way of the Cross nor is it the focus of Good Friday.

Besides, the only true and lasting way to put an end to all those evils and injustices rightly deplored in these Novus Ordo “Stations of the Cross” is to preach the true, supernatural Gospel, for only the grace of God can enable man to live a holy life and resist all temptation to sin: “…for without me you can do nothing” (Jn 15:5; cf. Jn 6:64; 1 Cor 10:13).

Sr. Bonetti’s anthropocentric (man-centered) Stations are perfect for Bergoglio because they express the entirety of his Naturalist program in a nutshell, in accordance with the abominable Second Vatican Council’s declaration that “all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown” (Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, n. 12; cf. Jn 2:24-25). It’s all about man, so much so that God and religion are used merely as bait to direct one’s focus on man and his temporal needs. This is a perversion of the true Gospel (see Lk 12:31; Phil 3:18-19) — it is Freemasonry in Catholic wrapping paper!

The natural world and the well-being of the body is all Bergoglio cares about, and he and his ilk will reap precisely what that world ultimately has to offer — death: “For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap life everlasting” (Gal 6:8).

In his inaugural encyclical over 115 years ago, Pope St. Pius X warned that

this according to the same apostle [St. Paul] is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, [that] man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. “He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God” (II. Thess. ii., 2).

(Pope Pius X, Encyclical E Supremi, n. 5)

Francis adores man, not God; and in this year’s Good Friday Stations at the Colosseum, he has made it obvious to anyone willing to look.

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

Jorge Bergoglio: “I like the Lutherans who follow the True Faith of Jesus Christ”

And four-sided triangles, too?

Jorge Bergoglio: “I like the Lutherans who follow the True Faith of Jesus Christ”

Jorge Bergoglio says the darndest things, most of them incompatible with Catholicism.

After the Jesuit pretend-pope gave an address to a mixed audience consisting mostly of young Novus Ordos and Lutherans on Oct. 13, 2016 in the Vatican, he engaged in a question-and-answer session with the youngsters. It was on that occasion that he pronounced one of his many condemnations of “proselytism”, telling a girl who had asked whether she should try to convert her non-religious friends: “It is not licit to convince them of your faith; proselytism is the strongest poison against the ecumenical path” (source). We covered this in a blog post at the time:

However, there was another thing Francis said during his audience with these hapless youths, something that escaped not only us but, it seems, just about everyone else too. Asked about what he likes and dislikes about the Lutheran church, he answered: “I really like the good Lutherans, the Lutherans who follow the true faith of Jesus Christ. However, I do not like lukewarm Catholics and I do not like lukewarm Lutherans” (“Pope jokes in ecumenical meeting: Who is better – Catholics or Lutherans?”Rome Reports, Oct. 13, 2016; underlining added.)

A video report by Rome Reports has captured the moment he said this and provided English subtitles. The fun begins at the 1:09 min mark:

The heresy implied in these words is so blatant that it defies belief that Francis actually said this so openly.

As far as a refutation of this outrageous Bergoglian remark goes, it shouldn’t be necessary to point out the obvious, but we might as well: There can be, and is, only true religion, one true Faith. God has revealed only one truth, one set of revealed teachings, contained in the Deposit of Faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles (see Jn 1:17; Jn 16:12-13; Heb 1:1-3), passed on through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (see 2 Th 2:14; 2 Tim 3:15-16). He established the Church to be the infallible and indestructible guardian of that truth, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15), “that henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph 4:14). Any deviation from this true Gospel is necessarily a falsegospel, one that leads to eternal damnation (see Gal 1:8-9; 2 Jn 1:9). Lutheranism is a set of heresies invented and/or propagated by Martin Luther in the 16th century. It is a perversion of the Gospel.

It is therefore clear that it is absolutely impossible for someone to adhere to Lutheranism and to “the true Faith of Jesus Christ” at the same time. The one excludes the other. That is not to say that there aren’t many Lutherans who are sincere in their errors, but sincerity in error is still sincerity in error — it does not change the fact that the doctrines of Lutheranism are not the teachings of Jesus Christ but “doctrines of devils” (1 Tim 4:1; cf. Heb 13:9). That many Lutherans mean to adhere to the true Faith of Jesus Christ can readily be assumed but is irrelevant with regard to the fact that they do not in fact adhere to it.

What Francis did in this ecumenical audience on Oct. 13, 2016, is confirm Lutherans in their errors (something he habitually does also with Jews and Muslims). He told them, essentially, that their heresies are the true Faith of Jesus Christ. That is a complete denial of the Catholic Faith. By contrast, Pope Leo XIII didn’t exactly share Francis’ belief that Lutheranism is just as much “the true Faith of Jesus Christ” as Catholicism is, as is evident from this Apostolic Letter to Cardinal Pietro Respighi.

Francis has long had a love affair with Lutheranism:

Thus, it is clear that what the Frankster said in that ecumenical audience regarding there being “good Lutherans” who “follow the true Faith of Jesus Christ” is not at all out of character for him.

Here is a small sampler of what real Catholic Popes have said about the only true Faith, the only true religion.

Addressing dissidents, Pope Leo XII exhorted “all of you who are still removed from the true Church and the road to salvation”, hoping they would “sincerely agree with the mother Church, outside of whose teachings there is no salvation” (Encyclical Quod Hoc Ineunte, n. 9).

Pope Pius IX condemned those who claim that “[t]he Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion” (Syllabus of Errors, n. 21) and warned against them who make no distinction “between the true religion and false ones” (Encyclical Quanta Cura, n. 3). Indeed, in his encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, he rebuked those who try to draw Catholics into “Protestantism, which in their deceit they repeatedly declare to be only another form of the same true religion of Christ, thereby just as pleasing to God” (n. 6). That applies to Bergoglio to a tee!

Upon convoking the (First) Vatican Council, the same Pope Pius IX addressed an apostolic letter to Protestants and other non-Catholics who, “whilst they acknowledge the same Jesus Christ as the Redeemer, and glory in the name of Christian, yet do not profess the true faith of Christ, nor hold to and follow the Communion of the Catholic Church” (Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes; underlining added).

Pope Leo XIII noted that “French Catholics … have the happiness of belonging to the true religion” (Encyclical Au Milieu Des Sollicitudes, n. 7) and, in another document, emphasized the exclusivity of Catholicism as the only religion revealed by God: “…the Catholic religion … is alone the true religion” (Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, n. 34; underlining added).

Pope Pius XI, too, referred to Catholicism as “the true religion of Christ” (Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 115). In another place he stated clearly: “The Church is indeed conscious of her divine mission to all mankind, and of the obligation which all men have to practice the one true religion…” (Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, n. 39).

Pope Pius XII called “the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church” nothing less than the “true Church of Jesus Christ” and warned that “grave errors … are being spread among those outside the true Church” (Encyclical Mystici Corporis, nn. 13, 8).

Bergoglio is a Modernist and an an adherent of Vatican II ecclesiology, and so he considers Protestantism to be simply a different “expression” of the same Christian religion. He recently admitted that for him, Christianity is really not about adherence to doctrine, and shortly before he had proclaimed in Abu Dhabi that God positively wills the diversity of religions!

“Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true”, wrote Pope St. Pius X in his landmark encyclical Pascendi (n. 14). His successor, Pope Pius XI, condemned “that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule” (Encyclical Mortalium Animos, n. 2).

Thus we see once again the stark contrast between the true Catholic religion of the ages and the Novus Ordo counterfeit that began with the false pope John XXIII (1958-63) and has reached its present zenith in the man the world calls “Pope Francis.”

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

que preserva de las seducciones del error” (II Tesal. II-10).

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

que preserva de las seducciones del error” (II Tesal. II-10).

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

%d bloggers like this: