New post on Roma Locuta EstThe Next Conclave: A Nightmare Scenarioby Steven O’ReillyJuly 17, 2021 (Steven O’Reilly) – Yesterday, Pope Francis issued Traditionis Custodes, his motu proprio which places significant restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) going forward. I will not comment in great detail on its harsh measures as others have already done so. However, for the ‘pope of mercy’ who speaks often of those on the ‘peripheries’ of the Church, it is clear neither his mercy nor the peripheries extend as far as those attached to the TLM. “Irreversible Change” One of the oddities of Traditionis Custodes is not so much that Francis did what he did; but rather it is when he did it. That is, he did not wait until the death of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI before attempting to abrogate Summorum Pontificum. I suspect we would have seen something like Traditionis Custodes long ago had Benedict passed away soon after stepping down from the Chair of St. Peter. That Pope Francis could no longer wait for Benedict’s death to issue TC, along with the fact the motu proprio went into effect immediately, clearly suggests an impatience or urgency on the part of Francis.Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez is said to be very close to Pope Francis, e.g., reportedly being the Pope’s ghostwriter for various documents, such as Amoris Laetitia. There is something he said a few years ago that seems to explain the impatience and urgency noted above. Archbishop Fernandez has been quoted as saying the following (emphasis added):”The slow pace is necessary to insure the effectiveness of the changes… You have to realize that he (Francis) is aiming at reform that is irreversible. If one day he should sense that he is running out of time and doesn’t have enough time to do what the spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up.” (Crisis Magazine. “Clerical Machiavellians with Magical Beliefs“, William Kilpatrick, 11/06/2018)Consequently, perhaps what we are seeing is that Pope Francis, now 84, ‘senses that he is running out of time‘ and therefore he is ‘speeding up.’ Francis wants to hurry to make changes or ‘reform’ which will be “irreversible.” This idea of Francis wanting to make “irreversible change” also shows up in words of Fr. Adolfo Nicolas, former Superior General of the Jesuits, of whom Phil Lawler once wrote:”Father Adolfo Nicolas, the former worldwide leader of the Jesuit order, reported that Pope Francis once told him that he hoped to remain as Pontiff until “the changes are irreversible” (see ‘The new cardinals: Pope Francis bids for ‘irreversible change’, Phil Lawler, September 3, 2019).As far as other attempts at “irreversible” change, only Francis and Heaven knows what is next on his chopping block. Francis has already endeavored to improve the odds his changes are irreversible through his episcopal appointments, and even more importantly through the cardinals he has created over the course of his pontificate. More on that in a bit.”Four or Five Years“In researching some of the quotes for the article, there was a curious thing that caught my attention. The Pope has said in various places he expected his pontificate to brief, perhaps “four or five years.” Consider, for example (emphasis added):In an interview with the Mexican broadcaster Televisa published Friday, the Argentine Pope predicted a “brief” tenure for himself. “I have the feeling that my pontificate will be brief: four or five years; I do not know, even two or three,” Pope Francis, 78, said. “Two have already passed. It is a somewhat vague sensation.” (Time Magazine)Pope Bergoglio has opined a few times his pontificate would be brief, perhaps “four or five years.” This mention of “four or five years,” plus the fact his closest comrades say he wanted “irreversible change” is something very curious, as it echoes precisely a talking point intended to sell his candidacy just before the 2013 conclave. For one, Andrea Tornielli, at the time a Vatican correspondent (“vaticanista”) and a friend of Cardinal Bergoglio (later to be given a position in the Vatican), published essentially a press release for Cardinal Bergoglio’s candidacy on March 2, 2013 (see here, here, here, and here). Tornielli quoted an unnamed cardinal as saying: “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things.” In another echo of this Bergoglian theme, ex-Cardinal McCarrick was lobbied by an “influential Italian gentleman” (see Villanova Speech) who lobbied him to campaign for Bergoglio, saying in part that Bergoglio could change the Church in “five years” (see here, here, here, and here). The same Bergoglian theme bubbled up among other sources at the time. In sum, it was quoted by at least three separate reporters using two to possibly three separate sources — not to mention its use by McCarrick’s visitor [2]. We do know Bergoglio himself had said he believe he’d be pope for only four to five years, and that he spoke of wanting “irreversible change.” Consequently, it seems quite likely if not probable that Bergoglio was the original source of the statement (i.e., “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things”) – and that Tornielli (who had dinner with Bergoglio on February 27, 2013), and the “influential Italian gentleman”, and other cardinals had heard this papal campaign slogan in some form directly from Bergoglio himself prior to the 2013 conclave.A Horrid ThoughtWe know that Pope Francis went into the 2013 conclave with an agenda: irreversible change. The question is from his standpoint, how does he insure it is irreversible? As of now, over 50% of the cardinals were appointed by Francis. These new cardinals, for the most part, seem to have been picked because they are Bergoglians. Therefore, it appears quite likely, if not probable, that the next conclave will produce a Pope Francis II. As horrid a thought as this is — barring Divine intervention; another horrid thought came to me: what if these “odds” aren’t good enough for Francis? Consider, Pope Francis knows his own election, dependent on cardinals created by Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, was no sure thing. Indeed, his own election required the aid of the St. Gallen mafia, his own campaigning, the possible help of an Italian vaticanista, the help of the “influential Italian gentleman“, the help of McCarrick (all discussed in The Conclave Chronicles), and a questionably-timed police raid the morning of the conclave that knee-capped the chances of his chief rival for the papacy (see The Forgotten ‘October Surprise’ of the 2013 Conclave; The Forgotten ‘October Surprise’ (Part II): Cui Bono?). If such happy “coincidences” were necessary for his own election; will Francis leave it to chance that his hoped for successor — who he hopes will secure his “irreversible” legacy — will be as ‘fortunate’ in the next conclave? Or, could Francis do more to improve the odds?As horrid as it is to imagine it, there is something more Francis could do to virtually guarantee a successor along the lines he wants — at least as far as human agency goes. Theoretically, Pope Francis could alter the laws governing papal conclaves, or scrap them all together. He could, theoretically, enact new papal legislation for conclaves that would restrict the number of qualified Cardinal electors to a small group of Cardinals.There is something of a precedent for this going back to the time of Pope Nicholas II (see Here) when cardinal-bishops[1] had a leading role in selecting the candidate for the papacy (see also the election of Pope Innocent II and the election controversy involving anti-pope Anacletus). So, theoretically, in hopes of making his reforms “irreversible,” Francis could restrict eligible Cardinal-electors to a trusted set of Cardinals, for example, perhaps those who sit on his Counsel of Cardinal Advisors, at one time totaling eight cardinals but now seven.Perhaps such a scenario is no more than a scary hypothetical. No more than an improbable nightmare scenario. Then again, this is the Pope who gave us Amoris Laetitia, Pachamama, the Abu Dhabi statement, the Scalfari interviews, and a host of other outrages, most recently Traditionis Custodes. This is a Pope who want “irreversible” change.Buckle your seatbelts. It will be a wild ride to the end of this pontificate as Francis “speeds up.” Pray for the Church, and let us pray for Pope Francis that he remembers the Lord’s words to Peter: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Luke 22:31-32).Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta with their family. He has written apologetic articles and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions. He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on Parler or Gab: @StevenOReilly).Notes: The College of Cardinals is comprised of three ranks of cardinals: Cardinal Bishops, Cardinal Priest, and Cardinal Deacon.The origin of the phrase — “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things …” — is a curious one. As I discuss in more detail in my original article, “The influential Italian Gentleman,” Tornielli cites an anonymous cardinal, as indicated above. Gerald O’Connell, in his book, The Election of Pope Francis discusses the famous quote. In it, one of O’Connell vaticanisti colleagues, Mathilde Burgos, quotes Cardinal Errazuriz, using the same line: “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things!” While it is possible Errazuriz used the line with both Burgos and Tornielli, writer Paul Vallely quotes Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor use of the line (see here): “”Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things,” Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, and an old friend of Francis, told me.” This is curious indeed. We have Cardinal Errazuriz using the line with a Chilean reporter, and we have either Cardinal Errazuriz or Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor using the same line with Tornielli. Or was it yet another cardinal that used it with Tornielli? With such an circuitous pedigree, the “four years” line appears to be a pre-packaged, electioneering talking point manufactured to defuse concerns cardinals might have about Bergoglio’s age–and indeed there had been such concerns. We know the line was used with at least three different journalists, and was possibly used by two or even three different cardinals, and by the “influential Italian gentleman.” Yet, given this commonality, one may rightly wonder whether the line was even original to any of them! There is the real and amusing prospect that Cardinal Bergoglio himself was the ultimate and original source of the pithy phrase. Steven O’Reilly | July 18, 2021 at 1:54 am | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: https://wp.me/p7YMML-6V5
Yesterday, Archbishop Jan Lenga responded to Francis’s attack on the Traditional Latin Mass in a YouTube video titled “Abp Lenga: Dlaczego Msza Trydencka jest taka ważna?” which means in English “Abp.Lenga; Why is the Tridentine Mass Important?” Please view the video at this link: https://youtu.be/MxKWH6INssQ.
The Catholic Monitor welcomes any reader who speaks Polish to translate in full in the comment section the video. Below is a summary of who Archbishop Lenga is:
Archbishop Lenga was formerly the “Apostlic Administrator” of not only Kazakhstan, but of the tiny country of Turkmenistan. (Fatima, Russia and Pope John Paul II: How Mary Intervened to Deliver Russia,” Page 202)
Interestingly, last year, the Catholic Monitor which has given some coverage to Archbishop Lenga’s position that Francis is an antipope has begun noticing that the people of Turkmenistan are starting to read the online Monitor.
Might Lenga’s former territory of Turkmenistan be the first country to declare Francis an antipope in an imperfect council as St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s imperfect council in France was the first to declared the supposed pope in Rome Anacletus an antipope?
Is Lenga in schism as some may be stating for claiming Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid thus Francis is an antipope?
It must be remembered in history that St. Bernard claimed the supposed pope in Rome was an antipope as Lenga is doing and was declared correct by an imperfect council which he headed.
Author Msgr. Leon Cristiani wrote:
“King Louis convoked a Council at Etampes, to consider the question of the double pontifical election… Bernard was received at Etampes as God’s envoy.” (St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Pages 70-71)
Was St. Bernard in schism?
The Arian heretics were saying the same thing about St. Athanasius. That he was in schism.
The saint was resisting the Arian heretic bishops even apparently outside the valid pope’s approval.
It appears that Archbishop Lenga may force the cardinals and bishops to do an investigation and call an imperfect council into the validity of the Francis’s papacy because a bishop cannot suspend a bishop. Only a pope can suspend a bishop.
But, Lenga states Benedict is still pope because of a invalid resignation and therefore Francis isn’t pope according to the archbishop.
Cardinal John Henry Newman it appears showed that a validly appointed bishop can’t suspend another validly appointed bishop.
Newman said Athanasius ordained priests against the authority of the Arian heretical bishops who were validly appointed bishops.
In fact, scholar Joseph Bingham on page 98 in “The Antiquities of the Christian Church” said:
“Athanasius… made no scruples to ordain… [Bishop] Euesebius of Samosata… ordained bishops also in Syria and Cilicia.”
Moreover, Newman in his “The Development of Christian Doctrine” denied that Bishop Athanasius’s “interference” in the dioceses of the heretical Arian bishops was schism:
“If interference is a sin, division which is the cause of it is a greater; but where division is a duty, there can be no sin interference.” (Gutenberg.org, “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” Sixth Edition)
Was Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius a schismatic?
Moreover, serious scholars are claiming Francis is a material heretic. The 19 Scholar’s Open Letter say that Francis is a material heretic which also brings into play the Bellarmine and Francis de Sales option of declaring an explicit heretical pope self-deposed.
Bishop Gracida’s Open Letter to the Cardinals analysing and quoting Pope John Paul II’s Universi Dominici gregis questions the validity of the Francis conclave calling for an cardinal investigation into the validity of the Francis conclave.
Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s in-depth thesis “Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage in the Code of Canon Law of 1983” using exhaustive quotations from canon law showing why canon law explicitly states that ministerium and munus cannot be synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the same thing thus denying the validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Are Most Conservative Catholics Semi-Modernists who are slowly becoming Total Modernist Heretics?
“Some… assembled [Council] prelates advocated… harsh measures towards the [Semi-Arian] Arianizers… Athanasius, however, proposed more temperate measures… A decree was passed, that such [Semi-Arian] bishops as had communicated with the Arians through weakness or surprise, should be recognized in their respective sees, on signing the Nicene formulary; but that those, who publicly defended the heresy, should only be admitted to lay-communion… Yet it cannot be denied, that men of zeal and boldness were found among the [Semi-Arian] Arianizers. Two laymen, Flavian and Diodorus, protested with spirit against the [unambiguous Arian] heterodoxy of the crafty Leontius, and kept alive an orthodox [Catholic] party in the midst of the [Arian] Eusebian communion.” (The Arians of the Fourth Century, By John Henry Newman, Pages 198-199)
‘Yet the men were better than their creed; and it is satisfactory to be able to detect amid the impiety and worldliness of the heretical party any elements of a purer spirit, which gradually exerted itself and worked out from the corrupt mass, in which it was embedded. Even thus viewed as distinct from their political associates, the Semi-Arians are a motley party at best; yet they may be considered as Saints and Martyrs, when compared with the Eusebians, and in fact some of them have actually been acknowledged as such by the Catholics of subsequent times. Their zeal in detecting the humanitarianism of Marcellus and Photinus, and their good service in withstanding the {300} Anomœans, who arrived at the same humanitarianism by a bolder course of thought, will presently be mentioned. On the whole they were men of correct and exemplary life, and earnest according to their views; and they even made pretensions to sanctity in their outward deportment, in which they differed from the true Eusebians, who, as far as the times allowed it, affected the manners and principles of the world. It may be added, that both Athanasius and Hilary, two of the most uncompromising supporters of the Catholic doctrine, speak favourably of them. Athanasius does not hesitate to call them brothers [Note 7]; considering that, however necessary it was for the edification of the Church at large, that the Homoüsion should be enforced on the clergy, yet that the privileges of private Christian fellowship were not to be denied to those, who from one cause or other stumbled at the use of it [Note 8]. It is remarkable, that the Semi-Arians, on the contrary, in their most celebrated Synod (at Ancyra, A.D. 358) anathematized the holders of the Homoüsion, as if crypto-Sabellians [Note 9].” [http://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/chapter4-2.html] – Cardinal John Henry Newman
How many conservative Catholics does it take take to screw a light bulb to see that the Communion for adulterers heresy and the COVID hysteria are hoaxes?
Two: One to screw the light bulb to see their beloved Francis the almighty and a second to say the Communion for adulterers heresy can’t be corrected and the COVID is really, really the Black Plague because the always infallible Francis the almighty says so and he is definitely the pope no matter the evidence because there has never been an anti-pope in Catholic history and maybe some future pope can correct the Communion for adulterers heresy and maybe tell us that the COVID wasn’t the Black Plague and maybe that future pope will end the banning of the Mass and etc…
Might Francis be a Modernist heretic?
Francis’s closest adviser and collaborator Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga apparently declared himself, Francis and all liberals to be total Modernist heretics since Vatican II:
“The Second Vatican Council… meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and Modernism… Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and rights of the person.” (Whispers in the Loggia Website, “The Council’s ‘Unfinished Business,’ The Church’s ‘Return to Jesus”… and Dreams of “The Next Pope” – A Southern Weekend with Francis’ ‘Discovery Channel,'” October 28, 2013 and see: //catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-evidence-that-pope-francis-is.html?m=1)
Conservative Catholic Milo Yiannopoulos in his book “Diabolical” reported:
“Since Vatican II, most popes have been preoccupied with holding together the conservative [Semi-Modernist] and liberal [Modernist heretic] factions that emerged in its wake.”
Why are almost all the conservative present day bishops and conservative Catholics so afraid of a schism with the Modernist heretic faction?
Might it be because like in the Arian crisis when there were Arians and Semi-Arians so today there are Semi-Modernists who because of “weakness” don’t want schism and want communion with the total Modernist heretics?
Remember what Cardinal Newman said:
“Athanasius, however, proposed more temperate measures… A decree was passed, that such[Semi-Arian] bishops as had communicated with the Arians through weakness or surprise, should be recognized in their respective sees, on signing the Nicene formulary; but that those, who publicly defended the heresy, should only be admitted to lay-communion.”
Semi-Arians were those who attempted the practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the traditional teachings of the Church while holding on to Semi-Arian ambiguous teachings because they were afraid of being in schism with the total Arian heretics.
So today, it appears that most conservative Catholics like the Semi-Arians have tried to do the practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the infallible teachings of the Church while holding on to Semi-Modernist ambiguous teachings as well as the ambiguities of Vatican II because they are afraid of being in schism with the Modernist heretics.
Newman said that during the Arian Heresy Crisis 80% of the bishops were heretics which is probably similar to the number of bishops who today have fallen into Modernism or Semi-Modernism.
Columnist Chris Jackson writes that the Semi-Modernist whom he says have the Neo-Modernist faith by simple statistics show that their Modernism has led to the collapse of the Catholic faith in America and the world:
“It is a shame that the [Semi-Modernist] Neo-Catholics interviewed simply cannot make the obvious connection so many Traditionalists have made before them. That far from protecting the faith of Catholics against modern errors and temptations and helping to spread the Faith, Vatican II and its reforms opened the Church up to the modern errors and temptations and fed Her sheep to the wolves.”
“… In order to be meaningful to anyone, the Faith being offered must have meaning to begin with. And Neo-Modernist faith does not. In fact, it is not faith at all. The Neo-Modernist faith ascribes to a mythical god who is not just, who punishes no sin, no matter how egregious, who works no real supernatural miracles, who is merely a representation or allegory of vague concepts, and who is to be used as a mascot to help attach religious significance to merely naturalist and humanistic concerns. Those who were poisoned by this ‘faith’ were right to leave it. Their only mistake was not replacing it with the true Faith it is obscuring. The answer to this exodus is not some desperate attempt to be even ‘more relevant’ by infusing more of the same poison, but to make these people aware of the true Catholic Faith that most of them have never even experienced despite growing up as Catholics in the modern era.”
The attacks on the Open Letter appear to show that most conservative [Semi-Modernist] Catholics, not all, are Modernists and appear to slowly be losing their faith in the same way they say a frog will boil to death if the heat in the stove under the pot is heated up slowly.
“Just a few short years ago, everyone who considered himself a conservative was up in arms about Amoris Laetitia and skeptical of the elaborate rabbinical apparatus that attempted to square it with the Church’s perennial teaching. Now it’s as if they’ve given up; they shrug their shoulders and say, “I’m sure it’ll all be fine someday. It’ll come out in the wash. Put credentialed theologians and canonists on the case, and everything Francis says and does can be justified.” We strain the canonical gnats and swallow the doctrinal camel.”
“It seems that many simply do not wish to confront the weighty and ever mounting evidence of the pope’s errors and reprehensible actions, of which the letter provided only a sample sufficient to make the case. This is not to say that Francis altogether lacks true words and admirable actions. It would be nearly impossible for someone to say false things or do bad things all the time. That is beside the point. It is enough for a pope to assert a doctrinal error only once or twice in a pontifical document, or to perform really bad acts (or omissions) of governance a few times, in order to merit rebuke from the College of Cardinals or the body of bishops, sharers in the same apostolic ministry. With Francis, however, there is a lengthy catalogue, with no sign of coming to an end. If this does not galvanize the conservatives into concerted action, one has to wonder — what would? Do they have a line in the sand? Or has papal loyalism dethroned faith and neutered reason?”
“Things that made everyone anxious just a few years ago are now taken in stride: now we all just live in a post-Bergoglian Catholic Church, where you can make exceptions about formerly exceptionless moral norms, give Communion to those living in adultery, and say God wills many religions as He wills two sexes, or — a point not addressed in the Open Letter — dismiss the witness of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium (trifecta!) on the death penalty. The frogs have grown accustomed to floating in ever hotter water and have decided to call it a spa.” [https://onepeterfive.com/normalcy-bias-chaotic-pope/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Onepeterfive+%28OnePeterFive%29]
Sadly, it appears that most conservative Catholics are Semi-Modernists who seem to be slowly becoming total Modernist heretics?
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
The Next Conclave: A Nightmare Scenarioby Steven O’ReillyJuly 17, 2021 (Steven O’Reilly) – Yesterday, Pope Francis issued Traditionis Custodes, his motu proprio which places significant restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) going forward. I will not comment in great detail on its harsh measures as others have already done so. However, for the ‘pope of mercy’ who speaks often of those on the ‘peripheries’ of the Church, it is clear neither his mercy nor the peripheries extend as far as those attached to the TLM. “Irreversible Change” One of the oddities of Traditionis Custodes is not so much that Francis did what he did; but rather it is when he did it. That is, he did not wait until the death of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI before attempting to abrogate Summorum Pontificum. I suspect we would have seen something like Traditionis Custodes long ago had Benedict passed away soon after stepping down from the Chair of St. Peter. That Pope Francis could no longer wait for Benedict’s death to issue TC, along with the fact the motu proprio went into effect immediately, clearly suggests an impatience or urgency on the part of Francis.Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez is said to be very close to Pope Francis, e.g., reportedly being the Pope’s ghostwriter for various documents, such as Amoris Laetitia. There is something he said a few years ago that seems to explain the impatience and urgency noted above. Archbishop Fernandez has been quoted as saying the following (emphasis added):”The slow pace is necessary to insure the effectiveness of the changes… You have to realize that he (Francis) is aiming at reform that is irreversible. If one day he should sense that he is running out of time and doesn’t have enough time to do what the spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up.” (Crisis Magazine. “Clerical Machiavellians with Magical Beliefs“, William Kilpatrick, 11/06/2018)Consequently, perhaps what we are seeing is that Pope Francis, now 84, ‘senses that he is running out of time‘ and therefore he is ‘speeding up.’ Francis wants to hurry to make changes or ‘reform’ which will be “irreversible.” This idea of Francis wanting to make “irreversible change” also shows up in words of Fr. Adolfo Nicolas, former Superior General of the Jesuits, of whom Phil Lawler once wrote:”Father Adolfo Nicolas, the former worldwide leader of the Jesuit order, reported that Pope Francis once told him that he hoped to remain as Pontiff until “the changes are irreversible” (see ‘The new cardinals: Pope Francis bids for ‘irreversible change’, Phil Lawler, September 3, 2019).As far as other attempts at “irreversible” change, only Francis and Heaven knows what is next on his chopping block. Francis has already endeavored to improve the odds his changes are irreversible through his episcopal appointments, and even more importantly through the cardinals he has created over the course of his pontificate. More on that in a bit.”Four or Five Years“In researching some of the quotes for the article, there was a curious thing that caught my attention. The Pope has said in various places he expected his pontificate to brief, perhaps “four or five years.” Consider, for example (emphasis added):In an interview with the Mexican broadcaster Televisa published Friday, the Argentine Pope predicted a “brief” tenure for himself. “I have the feeling that my pontificate will be brief: four or five years; I do not know, even two or three,” Pope Francis, 78, said. “Two have already passed. It is a somewhat vague sensation.” (Time Magazine)Pope Bergoglio has opined a few times his pontificate would be brief, perhaps “four or five years.” This mention of “four or five years,” plus the fact his closest comrades say he wanted “irreversible change” is something very curious, as it echoes precisely a talking point intended to sell his candidacy just before the 2013 conclave. For one, Andrea Tornielli, at the time a Vatican correspondent (“vaticanista”) and a friend of Cardinal Bergoglio (later to be given a position in the Vatican), published essentially a press release for Cardinal Bergoglio’s candidacy on March 2, 2013 (see here, here, here, and here). Tornielli quoted an unnamed cardinal as saying: “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things.” In another echo of this Bergoglian theme, ex-Cardinal McCarrick was lobbied by an “influential Italian gentleman” (see Villanova Speech) who lobbied him to campaign for Bergoglio, saying in part that Bergoglio could change the Church in “five years” (see here, here, here, and here). The same Bergoglian theme bubbled up among other sources at the time. In sum, it was quoted by at least three separate reporters using two to possibly three separate sources — not to mention its use by McCarrick’s visitor [2]. We do know Bergoglio himself had said he believe he’d be pope for only four to five years, and that he spoke of wanting “irreversible change.” Consequently, it seems quite likely if not probable that Bergoglio was the original source of the statement (i.e., “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things”) – and that Tornielli (who had dinner with Bergoglio on February 27, 2013), and the “influential Italian gentleman”, and other cardinals had heard this papal campaign slogan in some form directly from Bergoglio himself prior to the 2013 conclave.A Horrid ThoughtWe know that Pope Francis went into the 2013 conclave with an agenda: irreversible change. The question is from his standpoint, how does he insure it is irreversible? As of now, over 50% of the cardinals were appointed by Francis. These new cardinals, for the most part, seem to have been picked because they are Bergoglians. Therefore, it appears quite likely, if not probable, that the next conclave will produce a Pope Francis II. As horrid a thought as this is — barring Divine intervention; another horrid thought came to me: what if these “odds” aren’t good enough for Francis? Consider, Pope Francis knows his own election, dependent on cardinals created by Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, was no sure thing. Indeed, his own election required the aid of the St. Gallen mafia, his own campaigning, the possible help of an Italian vaticanista, the help of the “influential Italian gentleman“, the help of McCarrick (all discussed in The Conclave Chronicles), and a questionably-timed police raid the morning of the conclave that knee-capped the chances of his chief rival for the papacy (see The Forgotten ‘October Surprise’ of the 2013 Conclave; The Forgotten ‘October Surprise’ (Part II): Cui Bono?). If such happy “coincidences” were necessary for his own election; will Francis leave it to chance that his hoped for successor — who he hopes will secure his “irreversible” legacy — will be as ‘fortunate’ in the next conclave? Or, could Francis do more to improve the odds?As horrid as it is to imagine it, there is something more Francis could do to virtually guarantee a successor along the lines he wants — at least as far as human agency goes. Theoretically, Pope Francis could alter the laws governing papal conclaves, or scrap them all together. He could, theoretically, enact new papal legislation for conclaves that would restrict the number of qualified Cardinal electors to a small group of Cardinals.There is something of a precedent for this going back to the time of Pope Nicholas II (see Here) when cardinal-bishops[1] had a leading role in selecting the candidate for the papacy (see also the election of Pope Innocent II and the election controversy involving anti-pope Anacletus). So, theoretically, in hopes of making his reforms “irreversible,” Francis could restrict eligible Cardinal-electors to a trusted set of Cardinals, for example, perhaps those who sit on his Counsel of Cardinal Advisors, at one time totaling eight cardinals but now seven.Perhaps such a scenario is no more than a scary hypothetical. No more than an improbable nightmare scenario. Then again, this is the Pope who gave us Amoris Laetitia, Pachamama, the Abu Dhabi statement, the Scalfari interviews, and a host of other outrages, most recently Traditionis Custodes. This is a Pope who want “irreversible” change.Buckle your seatbelts. It will be a wild ride to the end of this pontificate as Francis “speeds up.” Pray for the Church, and let us pray for Pope Francis that he remembers the Lord’s words to Peter: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Luke 22:31-32).Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta with their family. He has written apologetic articles and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions. He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on Parler or Gab: @StevenOReilly).Notes: The College of Cardinals is comprised of three ranks of cardinals: Cardinal Bishops, Cardinal Priest, and Cardinal Deacon.The origin of the phrase — “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things …” — is a curious one. As I discuss in more detail in my original article, “The influential Italian Gentleman,” Tornielli cites an anonymous cardinal, as indicated above. Gerald O’Connell, in his book, The Election of Pope Francis discusses the famous quote. In it, one of O’Connell vaticanisti colleagues, Mathilde Burgos, quotes Cardinal Errazuriz, using the same line: “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things!” While it is possible Errazuriz used the line with both Burgos and Tornielli, writer Paul Vallely quotes Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor use of the line (see here): “”Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things,” Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, and an old friend of Francis, told me.” This is curious indeed. We have Cardinal Errazuriz using the line with a Chilean reporter, and we have either Cardinal Errazuriz or Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor using the same line with Tornielli. Or was it yet another cardinal that used it with Tornielli? With such an circuitous pedigree, the “four years” line appears to be a pre-packaged, electioneering talking point manufactured to defuse concerns cardinals might have about Bergoglio’s age–and indeed there had been such concerns. We know the line was used with at least three different journalists, and was possibly used by two or even three different cardinals, and by the “influential Italian gentleman.” Yet, given this commonality, one may rightly wonder whether the line was even original to any of them! There is the real and amusing prospect that Cardinal Bergoglio himself was the ultimate and original source of the pithy phrase. Steven O’Reilly | July 18, 2021 at 1:54 am | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: https://wp.me/p7YMML-6V5
Dear Friends: Don’t be discouraged. God is in charge of everything, and this would not be happening if He did not allow it. This has all happened before. I know, I remember, I lived through it. This is a chastisement, yes, but it does not alter what we are called to do: We must know, love, and serve God, and resist those who do not.
Francis has no power to change that.
There is no mystery here. . . no surprise. We know exactly what this is. It’s all about the crumbling facade of Vatican II, shuttered churches, empty seminaries, lost Faith and a massive clerical sex scandal vs. the international youth movement that is traditional Catholicism.
Francis is also obsessed with crushing the tiny remnant of believers left in a world of universal apostasy because he is a globalist tool. He has locked down Summorum Pontificum because like a crucifix to a vampire, the old Catholic liturgy threatens the diabolical New World Order to which Francis has signed on. The Latin Mass united Catholics from every country in the world for a couple of thousand years like no government ever could. And it was in the process of doing so again.
Over the past 15 months, Traditionalists refused to give up the Sacraments. We stayed open. We never missed Mass, and the Traditional Latin Mass movement is booming because of it.
Our globalist “Pachamama Pope” is, therefore, coming after the very thing that united the Catholic resistance against Hell itself.
Consider the absurdity of it all: With war breaking out all over the world, violence and mayhem in the cities, abortion rampant, violations of the laws of God and Man rampant, Francis is determined to suppress the old Latin Mass. Why? Because that Mass is preparing hundreds of thousands of children and young families to keep the Faith through the days of darkness ahead.
That Mass is the touchstone of the “rigid faithful” who care, not about great resets and “saving the planet, but about giving proper worship to Almighty God and saving their souls. And that kind of Catholicism must be banned if the New World Order is to take flight. Catholics must be forced to reject any claim of religious supremacy or objective truth. Why? Because demons are terrified of that Truth. Because the Catholic Church teaches that the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. And this is not equity! This is not inclusive of the Children of Darkness.
What Francis wants is CRT – Critical Religion Theory – to tear down the old Catholic religious supremacism. The whole point of Assisi, Abu Dhabi and the rest of the ecumenical blasphemies is to erase the memory of the “supremacist” Catholic Church whose countries, popes, saints, heroes, emperors, and kings built the Old Order of Christendom the very memory of which the New World Order plans to erase.
Christian privilege is over. Catholicism will be tolerated only to the extent that it eliminates its non-inclusive dogma and moral teaching, is tolerant of every vice and sin, and is never “rigid” again.
Francis is abolishing the Traditional Latin Mass because it is Truth, and because it is the most perfect worship of Christ the King Lord of History. And Francis now knows that there is a remnant left that will lay down their lives in defense of their King. His only recourse is clumsy persecution, the Revolution having failed to eradicate the holy Faith.
Well played, Catholic brothers! By this action, Francis has only confirmed that your faith is too strong for his New Order. He fears that the entire conciliar Revolution of Vatican II itself is in peril, so long as you continue to worship God as your fathers and mothers did for a thousand years. And you know what? He’s right! Again, well played!
So onward, Christians soldiers! You know what to do. We have nothing to fear, the blindfolds having now been officially removed. For the sake of our country, our souls, and the faith of our children we now, with good conscience and righteous wrath, can resist Francis to his face for however long it takes until God saves His Church.
Long live Christ the King.
APOSTOLIC LETTER ISSUED “MOTU PROPRIO” BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF
FRANCIS
“TRADITIONIS CUSTODES”
ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970
Guardians of the tradition, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome constitute the visible principle and foundation of the unity of their particular Churches. [1] Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the proclamation of the Gospel and by means of the celebration of the Eucharist, they govern the particular Churches entrusted to them. [2]
In order to promote the concord and unity of the Church, with paternal solicitude towards those who in any region adhere to liturgical forms antecedent to the reform willed by the Vatican Council II, my Venerable Predecessors, Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI, granted and regulated the faculty to use the Roman Missal edited by John XXIII in 1962. [3] In this way they intended “to facilitate the ecclesial communion of those Catholics who feel attached to some earlier liturgical forms” and not to others. [4]
In line with the initiative of my Venerable Predecessor Benedict XVI to invite the bishops to assess the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum three years after its publication, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith carried out a detailed consultation of the bishops in 2020. The results have been carefully considered in the light of experience that has matured during these years.
EXPELLING THE FSSP: French Bishop Follows Pope’s Lead
At this time, having considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I now desire, with this Apostolic Letter, to press on ever more in the constant search for ecclesial communion. Therefore, I have considered it appropriate to establish the following:
Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.
Art. 2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, [5] to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese. [6] Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.
Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:
1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;
2. is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes);
3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962. [7]In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences;
4. to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful. This priest should be suited for this responsibility, skilled in the use of the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970, possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts, and be animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion. This priest should have at heart not only the correct celebration of the liturgy, but also the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful;
5. to proceed suitably to verify that the parishes canonically erected for the benefit of these faithful are effective for their spiritual growth, and to determine whether or not to retain them;
6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups.
Art. 4. Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization.
Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.
Art. 6. Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life, erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei , fall under the competence of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies for Apostolic Life.
Art. 7. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, for matters of their particular competence, exercise the authority of the Holy See with respect to the observance of these provisions.
Art. 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated.
Everything that I have declared in this Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio , I order to be observed in all its parts, anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I establish that it be promulgated by way of publication in “L’Osservatore Romano”, entering immediately in force and, subsequently, that it be published in the official Commentary of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Given at Rome, at Saint John Lateran, on 16 July 2021, the liturgical Memorial of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, in the ninth year of Our Pontificate.
FRANCIS
________________________
[1] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 November 1964, n. 23 AAS 57 (1965) 27.
[2] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 November 1964, n. 27: AAS 57 (1965) 32; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree concerning the pastoral office of bishops in the Church “Christus Dominus”, 28 October 1965, n. 11: AAS 58 (1966) 677-678; Catechism of the Catholic Church , n. 833.
[3] Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei”, 2 July 1988: AAS 80 (1988) 1495-1498; Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, 7 July 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 777-781; Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Ecclesiae unitatem”, 2 July 2009: AAS 101 (2009) 710-711.
[4] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei”, 2 July 1988, n. 5: AAS 80 (1988) 1498.
[5] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 December 1963, n. 41: AAS 56 (1964) 111; Caeremoniale Episcoporum , n. 9; Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament, Instruction on certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist “Redemptionis Sacramentum”, 25 March 2004, nn. 19-25: AAS 96 (2004) 555-557.
[6] Cf. CIC , can. 375, § 1; can. 392.
[7] Cfr Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decree “Quo magis” approving seven Eucharistic Prefaces for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, 22 February 2020, and Decree “Cum sanctissima” on the liturgical celebration in honor of Saints in the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, 22 February 2020: L’Osservatore Romano , 26 March 2020, p. 6.
[01014-EN.01] [Original text: Italian]Published inRemnant Articles[Comment Guidelines – Click to view]back to topLast modified on Friday, July 16, 2021Sharehttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.06c6ee58c3810956b7509218508c7b56.en-gb.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en-gb&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fremnantnewspaper.com%2Fweb%2Findex.php%2Farticles%2Fitem%2F5472-we-resist-francis-to-his-face-pachamama-pope-anathematizes-latin-mass&size=l&text=The%20Remnant%20Newspaper%20-%20WE%20RESIST%20FRANCIS%20TO%20HIS%20FACE%3A%20Pachamama%20Pope%20Anathematizes%20Latin%20Mass&time=1626544311139&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fremnantnewspaper.com%2Fweb%2Findex.php%2Farticles%2Fitem%2F5472-we-resist-francis-to-his-face-pachamama-pope-anathematizes-latin-masshttps://www.facebook.com/v3.3/plugins/like.php?action=like&app_id=449478478466814&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df1485ff61f0b8d4%26domain%3Dremnantnewspaper.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fremnantnewspaper.com%252Ff1332705319ce68%26relation%3Dparent.parent&color_scheme=light&container_width=0&href=https%3A%2F%2Fremnantnewspaper.com%2Fweb%2Findex.php%2Farticles%2Fitem%2F5472-we-resist-francis-to-his-face-pachamama-pope-anathematizes-latin-mass&layout=button_count&locale=en_GB&sdk=joey&share=true&show_faces=true&size=largehttps://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&f=remnantnewspaper&t_u=https%3A%2F%2Fremnantnewspaper.com%2Fweb%2Findex.php%2Farticles%2Fitem%2F5472-we-resist-francis-to-his-face-pachamama-pope-anathematizes-latin-mass&t_d=The%20Remnant%20Newspaper%20-%20WE%20RESIST%20FRANCIS%20TO%20HIS%20FACE%3A%20Pachamama%20Pope%20Anathematizes%20Latin%20Mass&t_t=The%20Remnant%20Newspaper%20-%20WE%20RESIST%20FRANCIS%20TO%20HIS%20FACE%3A%20Pachamama%20Pope%20Anathematizes%20Latin%20Mass&s_o=default#version=1d62d7a68460a7a82d224c1ca569e248
Michael J. Matt has been an editor of The Remnant since 1990. Since 1994, he has been the newspaper’s editor. A graduate of Christendom College, Michael Matt has written hundreds of articles on the state of the Church and the modern world. He is the host of The Remnant Underground and Remnant TV’s The Remnant Forum. He’s been U.S. Coordinator for Notre Dame de Chrétienté in Paris–the organization responsible for the Pentecost Pilgrimage to Chartres, France–since 2000. Mr. Matt has led the U.S. contingent on the Pilgrimage to Chartres for the last 24 years. He is a lecturer for the Roman Forum’s Summer Symposium in Gardone Riviera, Italy. He is the author of Christian Fables, Legends of Christmas and Gods of Wasteland (Fifty Years of Rock ‘n’ Roll) and regularly delivers addresses and conferences to Catholic groups about the Mass, home-schooling, and the culture question. Together with his wife, Carol Lynn and their seven children, Mr. Matt currently resides in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Is Francis’s Motu Proprio a Modernist Document that will have to be Corrected?
Traditionalists said it was a facade which was ambiguous and not defined teaching that would eventually have to be corrected.
Francis’s Vatican Archbishop Guido Pozzo who was negotiating with Society of Pius X for Francis agreed with the Traditionalists that it was not defined teaching.
Pozzo said that Dignitatis Humanae “is not about doctrine or definitive statements, but… pastoral practice.” (Die Zeit, August 2016, Interview with Archbishop Guido Pozzo) – The Catholic Monitor
The Okie Traditionalist website appears to give a good summary of Francis’s Motu Proprio as a Modernist document:
I am confident it will be shown by Cardinals, Bishops, and theologians to be null and void on several points…
Modernists will not stop to impose the Council’s radical reforms on those of us who want to maintain the Tradition, especially imposing a Protestant-ized Mass, and ultimately to force Traditional Catholics to one day set aside the Ancient and Venerable Roman rite, and fully conform to the new Modernist liturgy…
… Francis more explicitly than ever requires you now, in the new Motu Proprio as it stands as of today, to give TOTAL acceptance to Vatican II… It requires bishops to ensure total acceptance. If you believe the Council’s fallible statements on religious liberty or ecumenism are errors. [http://okietraditionalist.blogspot.com/2021/07/dear-fellow-tulsa-traditional-catholics.html]
-“[T]he [Modernist] Blondelian schema holds that justification for the faith is to be found by turning inwards to the personal experience of the human subject. This turn to the subject is characteristic of modern philosophy, from Descartes right up to the Idealism of Kant and Hegel and beyond, and presented a major challenge to the traditional Catholic apologetics… If it were the case that inner experience justified the faith, if each person was to find the proof of God’s existence within their own life, then what would be the basis for the teaching authority of the Church?” – Liberal AnthonyCarroll [https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20090724_1.htm]
Francis’s closest adviser and collaborator Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga apparently declared himself, Francis and all liberals to be total Modernist heretics since Vatican II:
“The Second Vatican Council… meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and Modernism… Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and rights of the person.” (Whispers in the Loggia Website, “The Council’s ‘Unfinished Business,’ The Church’s ‘Return to Jesus”… and Dreams of “The Next Pope” – A Southern Weekend with Francis’ ‘Discovery Channel,'” October 28, 2013)
The ultimate “new springtime” of Vatican II conservative Catholic Matthew Schmitz, senior editor at First Things, on August 16, 2018 in the Catholic Herald explained “the post-Vatican II settlement”:
“[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]… Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption… has required a culture of lies… that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish… we must sweep it away.”
The Amoris Laetitia-like liberal Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae on the Catholic state is what brought about the “[u]pholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality… has required a culture of lies… that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish.”
Traditionalists said it was a façade which was ambiguous and not defined teaching that would eventually have to be corrected.
Francis’s Vatican Archbishop Guido Pozzo who was negotiating with Society of Pius X for Francis agreed with the Traditionalists that it was not defined teaching.
Pozzo said that Dignitatis Humanae “is not about doctrine or definitive statements, but… pastoral practice.” (Die Zeit, August 2016, Interview with Archbishop Guido Pozzo)
The greatest living American Thomist Edward Feser gives a brief summary of the history before and after Vatican II of the teaching on this subject and the ambiguity of the document:
“That depends. In the Catholic context, the traditional teaching, vigorously and repeatedly upheld by the 19th century and pre-Vatican II 20th century popes, is that ideally Church and state ought to cooperate. Contrary to an annoyingly common misunderstanding, these popes were not teaching that non-Catholics ought to be coerced by the state into becoming Catholics. Nor were they teaching that non-Catholics should be forbidden from practicing their own religions in the privacy of their own homes, their own church buildings or synagogues, etc. Rather, the issue was whether, in a country in which the vast majority of citizens were Catholic, non-Catholics ought to be permitted to proselytize and thereby possibly lead Catholics to abandon their faith. It was not denied that there can be circumstances in which such proselytizing might be tolerated for the sake of civil order. The question was whether non-Catholics have a strict right in justice to proselytize even in a majority Catholic society. And the pre-Vatican II popes taught that they did not have such a right, and that in a Catholic country the state couldin principle justly restrict such proselytizing (even if there are also cases where the state might not exercise its right to such restriction, if this would do more harm than good).” “This was the teaching which Vatican II seemed to reverse, though the relevant document, Dignitatis Humanae, explicitly taught that it was “leav[ing] untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.” Yet whether the principles set out in Dignitatis Humanae really can be reconciled with the principles set out by the pre-Vatican II popes, how exactly they are to be reconciled if they can be, and which principles are more authoritative and ought to be retained if they cannot be reconciled — these have all been matters of controversy. They are controversies most Catholics, including conservative Catholics, have avoided. The reason, it seems to me, is that the older teaching is extremely unpopular in modern times, and thus whatever its current doctrinal status, most Catholics are happy to let it remain a dead letter and leave its precise relationship to Dignitatis Humanae unsettled. Yet a question unanswered and ignored is still a real question, and there are scholars who have in different ways attempted to apply to this one a “hermeneutic of continuity,” including Thomas Storck, Fr. Brian Harrison, and Thomas Pink.” (edwardfeser.blogspot, “Liberalism and Islam, January 7, 2016) One knows a Vatican II document is a disaster when a defender of Dignitatis Humanae (DR) like Fr. Brian Harrison says:
“The effect DR have been much more harmful than beneficial for the Church, the world and most important, the honor due to Christ the King . . . The form in which it presents its truth is so one-sided, so poorly explained, so perilously open to unorthodox interpretation, and so infected with the spirit of liberal humanism, that its promulgation has turned out to be a cause of rejoicing for the Church’s worst enemies: freemasonry and all the other forces which seek to promote the ever more total secularization of society, the ever more complete exclusion of Our Lord Jesus Christ from His rightful sovereignty over the public life of nations, and confusion and division within the Church itself.” [http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]
Christopher Ferrara stated why Dignitatis Humanae brought about “[u]pholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption… has required a culture of lies… that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish”:
“There is no question that the Popes before Vatican II consistently condemned the modern notion of “religious liberty”—–i.e., that everyone in society must have the right, both privately and publicly, to practice, preach and otherwise manifest the doctrines of the religion of his choice, even if that religion is filled with error and immorality. That such a “right” attacks both public morality and the very foundation of Catholic social order (where it exists) hardly needs to be proved. There cannot, obviously, be any “right” as such publicly to deny the Divinity of Christ or to preach in favor of contraception, abortion, divorce[, homosexuality] and other evils. No one has the right to do or to say what is wrong. A right to commit wrong is utter nonsense. Stated negatively, a right not to be prevented by the State from committing wrong is equally nonsensical. The State might for prudential reasons, as St. Thomas observed, tolerate certain public errors and vices, but there is no question of any right to be tolerated in spreading them.” [http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]
Unfortunately, almost all conservatives such as Archbishop Charles Chaput thought Dignitatis Humanae was defined teaching and not a disaster.
Apparently, Chaput teaches that “error has no rights” in paper, but in reality error or a culture of lies has rights if “persons… choose falsehood over truth.” The Archbishop wrote:
“Error has no rights, but persons do have rights – even when they choose falsehood [a culture of lies] over truth… freedom of conscience, is – along with the right to life – the most important right any human being has.” (First Things, “Of Human Dignity,” March 18, 2015)
So did conservatives such as Chaput think that they on paper could teach that homosexuality was error, but in reality error had rights if “persons [such as the liberal McCarrick]… choose falsehood [a culture of lies] over truth… freedom of conscience”?
In fact, in 2001 when then President Bush met with Catholic leaders and his “‘longtime friend’ Cardinal McCarrick” who was there with him according to liberal Catholic Betty Clermont: “McCarrick; Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver.” (“The Neo-Catholics,” pages 154, 159)
What did Chaput know about McCarrick when he sat with him in that meeting?
Did he think McCarrick as a person had a right to freedom of conscience to falsehood over truth?
Does Chaput think that on paper that he can teach that homosexuality is a error but in reality error has rights if “persons [such as the liberal Fr. James Martin]… choose falsehood [a culture of lies] over truth… freedom of conscience”?
On March 31, 2017, LifeSiteNews in “Numerous ‘gay’ affirming parishes unopposed by bishops” reported that Chaput agrees with Martin when he “expressed concern about the use of ‘intrinsically disordered'” which is a defined Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
Chaput, also, defends gay activist Fr. Martin who taught on YouTube that chastity is not required of homosexuals. (Church Militant, “Father Martin: Homosexuals not Bound to Chastity, “September 20, 2017)
It appears that the “conservative” Chaput is using Dignitatis Humanae to build a bridge to hell for homosexuals by claiming on paper that the error of homosexuality has no rights, but in reality error has rights if “persons [such as Martin and McCarrick] choose falsehood [a culture of lies] over truth.”Unfortunately, one of the main writers of Dignitatis Humanae was Pope John Paul II before he became pope. It appears that John Paul II when it came to the documented evidence of the sex abuse of a bishop taught that “error has no rights” in paper, but in reality error has rights if “persons… choose falsehood [a culture of lies] over truth”:
“In 1996, Kunz became a canon law adviser to the Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF), an Illinois-based group investigating the sexual abuse of boys by Catholic priests and bishops. Kunz was recommended to RCF by the Rev. John A. Hardon, SJ, a widely respected theologian and author who worked for several popes and had deep connections at the Vatican. The group was gathering information on Bishop Daniel L. Ryan of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill. Ryan was accused of sexually assaulting a mentally disabled man, soliciting sex from a 15-year-old boy, trolling area parks for teenage male prostitutes, and having sex with priests in his diocese. In sworn testimony to RCF investigators, one of the teen prostitutes said Ryan once heard his confession and blessed him, then told him, “go and sin no more.” Then the bishop winked at the teen and said, ‘See you later.’”
“With help from Kunz and Father Fiore, RCF developed a dossier on the situation in the Springfield diocese. Father Hardon carried the report to Rome and presented it to Pope St. John Paul II, vouching for RCF and the accuracy of the document. Nothing was done with the explosive information. Hardon told RCF officials that at least a dozen American bishops supported Ryan in his quest to hold onto his bishopric in Springfield, according to RCF president and founder Stephen G. Brady. One of them was the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, then archbishop of Chicago, Brady said. When the group approached Bernardin for help in removing Ryan, he refused, Brady said. Ryan abruptly retired in October 1999, shortly before a lawsuit was filed accusing him of covering up the sexual abuse of a child by another Illinois priest. Sheriff Mahoney said Dane County investigators interviewed Ryan, but have no indication he is linked to the Kunz homicide. Ryan died in December 2015.”
“Father Hardon told me to go to Kunz if I needed any contacts anywhere or needed direction in my investigations,” Brady told Catholic World Report. ‘Father Kunz never discussed any other investigations with me except my own. He was tight lipped and you could trust him 100 percent. He had my files and answered any questions I had. He did work behind the scenes for me but kept it private.’”
“Brady said during the 14 years that RCF conducted its investigations, he received three death threats. One was serious enough to involve the FBI. An email circulated claiming a contract was out for Brady’s assassination. After Kunz was murdered, Brady bought a bulletproof vest.” [https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/08/08/the-unsolved-murder-of-fr-alfred-kunz/]
This is the end result of the “post-Vatican II settlement.”
Sadly, almost all conservatives such as Chaput appeared to think that Dignitatis Humanae was defined teaching that was a central document governing the Church after Vatican II which brought about the “post-Vatican II settlement.”
As Schmitz said:”[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]… Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption… has required a culture of lies… that allowed men like McCarrick [and those whom Fr. Kunz attempted to expose] to flourish… we must sweep it away.”
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Is Francis’s Motu Proprio a Modernist Document that will have to be Corrected?
Traditionalists said it was a facade which was ambiguous and not defined teaching that would eventually have to be corrected.
Francis’s Vatican Archbishop Guido Pozzo who was negotiating with Society of Pius X for Francis agreed with the Traditionalists that it was not defined teaching.
Pozzo said that Dignitatis Humanae “is not about doctrine or definitive statements, but… pastoral practice.” (Die Zeit, August 2016, Interview with Archbishop Guido Pozzo) – The Catholic Monitor
The Okie Traditionalist website appears to give a good summary of Francis’s Motu Proprio as a Modernist document:
I am confident it will be shown by Cardinals, Bishops, and theologians to be null and void on several points…
Modernists will not stop to impose the Council’s radical reforms on those of us who want to maintain the Tradition, especially imposing a Protestant-ized Mass, and ultimately to force Traditional Catholics to one day set aside the Ancient and Venerable Roman rite, and fully conform to the new Modernist liturgy…
… Francis more explicitly than ever requires you now, in the new Motu Proprio as it stands as of today, to give TOTAL acceptance to Vatican II… It requires bishops to ensure total acceptance. If you believe the Council’s fallible statements on religious liberty or ecumenism are errors. [http://okietraditionalist.blogspot.com/2021/07/dear-fellow-tulsa-traditional-catholics.html]
-“[T]he [Modernist] Blondelian schema holds that justification for the faith is to be found by turning inwards to the personal experience of the human subject. This turn to the subject is characteristic of modern philosophy, from Descartes right up to the Idealism of Kant and Hegel and beyond, and presented a major challenge to the traditional Catholic apologetics… If it were the case that inner experience justified the faith, if each person was to find the proof of God’s existence within their own life, then what would be the basis for the teaching authority of the Church?” – Liberal AnthonyCarroll [https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20090724_1.htm]
Francis’s closest adviser and collaborator Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga apparently declared himself, Francis and all liberals to be total Modernist heretics since Vatican II:
“The Second Vatican Council… meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and Modernism… Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and rights of the person.” (Whispers in the Loggia Website, “The Council’s ‘Unfinished Business,’ The Church’s ‘Return to Jesus”… and Dreams of “The Next Pope” – A Southern Weekend with Francis’ ‘Discovery Channel,'” October 28, 2013)
The ultimate “new springtime” of Vatican II conservative Catholic Matthew Schmitz, senior editor at First Things, on August 16, 2018 in the Catholic Herald explained “the post-Vatican II settlement”:
“[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]… Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption… has required a culture of lies… that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish… we must sweep it away.”
The Amoris Laetitia-like liberal Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae on the Catholic state is what brought about the “[u]pholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality… has required a culture of lies… that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish.”
Traditionalists said it was a façade which was ambiguous and not defined teaching that would eventually have to be corrected.
Francis’s Vatican Archbishop Guido Pozzo who was negotiating with Society of Pius X for Francis agreed with the Traditionalists that it was not defined teaching.
Pozzo said that Dignitatis Humanae “is not about doctrine or definitive statements, but… pastoral practice.” (Die Zeit, August 2016, Interview with Archbishop Guido Pozzo)
The greatest living American Thomist Edward Feser gives a brief summary of the history before and after Vatican II of the teaching on this subject and the ambiguity of the document:
“That depends. In the Catholic context, the traditional teaching, vigorously and repeatedly upheld by the 19th century and pre-Vatican II 20th century popes, is that ideally Church and state ought to cooperate. Contrary to an annoyingly common misunderstanding, these popes were not teaching that non-Catholics ought to be coerced by the state into becoming Catholics. Nor were they teaching that non-Catholics should be forbidden from practicing their own religions in the privacy of their own homes, their own church buildings or synagogues, etc. Rather, the issue was whether, in a country in which the vast majority of citizens were Catholic, non-Catholics ought to be permitted to proselytize and thereby possibly lead Catholics to abandon their faith. It was not denied that there can be circumstances in which such proselytizing might be tolerated for the sake of civil order. The question was whether non-Catholics have a strict right in justice to proselytize even in a majority Catholic society. And the pre-Vatican II popes taught that they did not have such a right, and that in a Catholic country the state couldin principle justly restrict such proselytizing (even if there are also cases where the state might not exercise its right to such restriction, if this would do more harm than good).” “This was the teaching which Vatican II seemed to reverse, though the relevant document, Dignitatis Humanae, explicitly taught that it was “leav[ing] untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.” Yet whether the principles set out in Dignitatis Humanae really can be reconciled with the principles set out by the pre-Vatican II popes, how exactly they are to be reconciled if they can be, and which principles are more authoritative and ought to be retained if they cannot be reconciled — these have all been matters of controversy. They are controversies most Catholics, including conservative Catholics, have avoided. The reason, it seems to me, is that the older teaching is extremely unpopular in modern times, and thus whatever its current doctrinal status, most Catholics are happy to let it remain a dead letter and leave its precise relationship to Dignitatis Humanae unsettled. Yet a question unanswered and ignored is still a real question, and there are scholars who have in different ways attempted to apply to this one a “hermeneutic of continuity,” including Thomas Storck, Fr. Brian Harrison, and Thomas Pink.” (edwardfeser.blogspot, “Liberalism and Islam, January 7, 2016) One knows a Vatican II document is a disaster when a defender of Dignitatis Humanae (DR) like Fr. Brian Harrison says:
“The effect DR have been much more harmful than beneficial for the Church, the world and most important, the honor due to Christ the King . . . The form in which it presents its truth is so one-sided, so poorly explained, so perilously open to unorthodox interpretation, and so infected with the spirit of liberal humanism, that its promulgation has turned out to be a cause of rejoicing for the Church’s worst enemies: freemasonry and all the other forces which seek to promote the ever more total secularization of society, the ever more complete exclusion of Our Lord Jesus Christ from His rightful sovereignty over the public life of nations, and confusion and division within the Church itself.” [http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]
Christopher Ferrara stated why Dignitatis Humanae brought about “[u]pholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption… has required a culture of lies… that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish”:
“There is no question that the Popes before Vatican II consistently condemned the modern notion of “religious liberty”—–i.e., that everyone in society must have the right, both privately and publicly, to practice, preach and otherwise manifest the doctrines of the religion of his choice, even if that religion is filled with error and immorality. That such a “right” attacks both public morality and the very foundation of Catholic social order (where it exists) hardly needs to be proved. There cannot, obviously, be any “right” as such publicly to deny the Divinity of Christ or to preach in favor of contraception, abortion, divorce[, homosexuality] and other evils. No one has the right to do or to say what is wrong. A right to commit wrong is utter nonsense. Stated negatively, a right not to be prevented by the State from committing wrong is equally nonsensical. The State might for prudential reasons, as St. Thomas observed, tolerate certain public errors and vices, but there is no question of any right to be tolerated in spreading them.” [http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]
Unfortunately, almost all conservatives such as Archbishop Charles Chaput thought Dignitatis Humanae was defined teaching and not a disaster.
Apparently, Chaput teaches that “error has no rights” in paper, but in reality error or a culture of lies has rights if “persons… choose falsehood over truth.” The Archbishop wrote:
“Error has no rights, but persons do have rights – even when they choose falsehood [a culture of lies] over truth… freedom of conscience, is – along with the right to life – the most important right any human being has.” (First Things, “Of Human Dignity,” March 18, 2015)
So did conservatives such as Chaput think that they on paper could teach that homosexuality was error, but in reality error had rights if “persons [such as the liberal McCarrick]… choose falsehood [a culture of lies] over truth… freedom of conscience”?
In fact, in 2001 when then President Bush met with Catholic leaders and his “‘longtime friend’ Cardinal McCarrick” who was there with him according to liberal Catholic Betty Clermont: “McCarrick; Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver.” (“The Neo-Catholics,” pages 154, 159)
What did Chaput know about McCarrick when he sat with him in that meeting?
Did he think McCarrick as a person had a right to freedom of conscience to falsehood over truth?
Does Chaput think that on paper that he can teach that homosexuality is a error but in reality error has rights if “persons [such as the liberal Fr. James Martin]… choose falsehood [a culture of lies] over truth… freedom of conscience”?
On March 31, 2017, LifeSiteNews in “Numerous ‘gay’ affirming parishes unopposed by bishops” reported that Chaput agrees with Martin when he “expressed concern about the use of ‘intrinsically disordered'” which is a defined Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
Chaput, also, defends gay activist Fr. Martin who taught on YouTube that chastity is not required of homosexuals. (Church Militant, “Father Martin: Homosexuals not Bound to Chastity, “September 20, 2017)
It appears that the “conservative” Chaput is using Dignitatis Humanae to build a bridge to hell for homosexuals by claiming on paper that the error of homosexuality has no rights, but in reality error has rights if “persons [such as Martin and McCarrick] choose falsehood [a culture of lies] over truth.”Unfortunately, one of the main writers of Dignitatis Humanae was Pope John Paul II before he became pope. It appears that John Paul II when it came to the documented evidence of the sex abuse of a bishop taught that “error has no rights” in paper, but in reality error has rights if “persons… choose falsehood [a culture of lies] over truth”:
“In 1996, Kunz became a canon law adviser to the Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF), an Illinois-based group investigating the sexual abuse of boys by Catholic priests and bishops. Kunz was recommended to RCF by the Rev. John A. Hardon, SJ, a widely respected theologian and author who worked for several popes and had deep connections at the Vatican. The group was gathering information on Bishop Daniel L. Ryan of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill. Ryan was accused of sexually assaulting a mentally disabled man, soliciting sex from a 15-year-old boy, trolling area parks for teenage male prostitutes, and having sex with priests in his diocese. In sworn testimony to RCF investigators, one of the teen prostitutes said Ryan once heard his confession and blessed him, then told him, “go and sin no more.” Then the bishop winked at the teen and said, ‘See you later.’”
“With help from Kunz and Father Fiore, RCF developed a dossier on the situation in the Springfield diocese. Father Hardon carried the report to Rome and presented it to Pope St. John Paul II, vouching for RCF and the accuracy of the document. Nothing was done with the explosive information. Hardon told RCF officials that at least a dozen American bishops supported Ryan in his quest to hold onto his bishopric in Springfield, according to RCF president and founder Stephen G. Brady. One of them was the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, then archbishop of Chicago, Brady said. When the group approached Bernardin for help in removing Ryan, he refused, Brady said. Ryan abruptly retired in October 1999, shortly before a lawsuit was filed accusing him of covering up the sexual abuse of a child by another Illinois priest. Sheriff Mahoney said Dane County investigators interviewed Ryan, but have no indication he is linked to the Kunz homicide. Ryan died in December 2015.”
“Father Hardon told me to go to Kunz if I needed any contacts anywhere or needed direction in my investigations,” Brady told Catholic World Report. ‘Father Kunz never discussed any other investigations with me except my own. He was tight lipped and you could trust him 100 percent. He had my files and answered any questions I had. He did work behind the scenes for me but kept it private.’”
“Brady said during the 14 years that RCF conducted its investigations, he received three death threats. One was serious enough to involve the FBI. An email circulated claiming a contract was out for Brady’s assassination. After Kunz was murdered, Brady bought a bulletproof vest.” [https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/08/08/the-unsolved-murder-of-fr-alfred-kunz/]
This is the end result of the “post-Vatican II settlement.”
Sadly, almost all conservatives such as Chaput appeared to think that Dignitatis Humanae was defined teaching that was a central document governing the Church after Vatican II which brought about the “post-Vatican II settlement.”
As Schmitz said:”[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]… Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption… has required a culture of lies… that allowed men like McCarrick [and those whom Fr. Kunz attempted to expose] to flourish… we must sweep it away.”
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Francis’s “Motu Proprio… Matches exactly, Word for Word, the Criticism Bishop Callahan recently Lodged against Father Altman”
A reader of the Catholic Monitor texted the following to us today:
“Gandalf: ‘The lies were too much alike for my comfort.'”
“Funny, isn’t it, how the language in the new motu proprio–Bergoglio, acting for the ‘unity’ of the Body of Christ, asks bishops to evaluate whether the use of the TLM has been pastorally ‘effective’–matches exactly, word for word, the criticism Bishop Callahan recently lodged against Father Altman?”
” One thing these Modernists aren’t, is original.”
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Dear Friends: Don’t be discouraged. God is in charge of everything, and this would not be happening if He did not allow it. This has all happened before. I know, I remember, I lived through it. This is a chastisement, yes, but it does not alter what we are called to do: We must know, love, and serve God, and resist those who do not.
Francis has no power to change that.
There is no mystery here. . . no surprise. We know exactly what this is. It’s all about the crumbling facade of Vatican II, shuttered churches, empty seminaries, lost Faith and a massive clerical sex scandal vs. the international youth movement that is traditional Catholicism.
Francis is also obsessed with crushing the tiny remnant of believers left in a world of universal apostasy because he is a globalist tool. He has locked down Summorum Pontificum because like a crucifix to a vampire, the old Catholic liturgy threatens the diabolical New World Order to which Francis has signed on. The Latin Mass united Catholics from every country in the world for a couple of thousand years like no government ever could. And it was in the process of doing so again.
Over the past 15 months, Traditionalists refused to give up the Sacraments. We stayed open. We never missed Mass, and the Traditional Latin Mass movement is booming because of it.
Our globalist “Pachamama Pope” is, therefore, coming after the very thing that united the Catholic resistance against Hell itself.
Consider the absurdity of it all: With war breaking out all over the world, violence and mayhem in the cities, abortion rampant, violations of the laws of God and Man rampant, Francis is determined to suppress the old Latin Mass. Why? Because that Mass is preparing hundreds of thousands of children and young families to keep the Faith through the days of darkness ahead.
That Mass is the touchstone of the “rigid faithful” who care, not about great resets and “saving the planet, but about giving proper worship to Almighty God and saving their souls. And that kind of Catholicism must be banned if the New World Order is to take flight. Catholics must be forced to reject any claim of religious supremacy or objective truth. Why? Because demons are terrified of that Truth. Because the Catholic Church teaches that the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. And this is not equity! This is not inclusive of the Children of Darkness.
What Francis wants is CRT – Critical Religion Theory – to tear down the old Catholic religious supremacism. The whole point of Assisi, Abu Dhabi and the rest of the ecumenical blasphemies is to erase the memory of the “supremacist” Catholic Church whose countries, popes, saints, heroes, emperors, and kings built the Old Order of Christendom the very memory of which the New World Order plans to erase.
Christian privilege is over. Catholicism will be tolerated only to the extent that it eliminates its non-inclusive dogma and moral teaching, is tolerant of every vice and sin, and is never “rigid” again.
Francis is abolishing the Traditional Latin Mass because it is Truth, and because it is the most perfect worship of Christ the King Lord of History. And Francis now knows that there is a remnant left that will lay down their lives in defense of their King. His only recourse is clumsy persecution, the Revolution having failed to eradicate the holy Faith.
Well played, Catholic brothers! By this action, Francis has only confirmed that your faith is too strong for his New Order. He fears that the entire conciliar Revolution of Vatican II itself is in peril, so long as you continue to worship God as your fathers and mothers did for a thousand years. And you know what? He’s right! Again, well played!
So onward, Christians soldiers! You know what to do. We have nothing to fear, the blindfolds having now been officially removed. For the sake of our country, our souls, and the faith of our children we now, with good conscience and righteous wrath, can resist Francis to his face for however long it takes until God saves His Church.
Long live Christ the King.
APOSTOLIC LETTER ISSUED “MOTU PROPRIO” BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF
FRANCIS
“TRADITIONIS CUSTODES”
ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970
Guardians of the tradition, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome constitute the visible principle and foundation of the unity of their particular Churches. [1] Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the proclamation of the Gospel and by means of the celebration of the Eucharist, they govern the particular Churches entrusted to them. [2]
In order to promote the concord and unity of the Church, with paternal solicitude towards those who in any region adhere to liturgical forms antecedent to the reform willed by the Vatican Council II, my Venerable Predecessors, Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI, granted and regulated the faculty to use the Roman Missal edited by John XXIII in 1962. [3] In this way they intended “to facilitate the ecclesial communion of those Catholics who feel attached to some earlier liturgical forms” and not to others. [4]
In line with the initiative of my Venerable Predecessor Benedict XVI to invite the bishops to assess the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum three years after its publication, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith carried out a detailed consultation of the bishops in 2020. The results have been carefully considered in the light of experience that has matured during these years.
EXPELLING THE FSSP: French Bishop Follows Pope’s Lead
At this time, having considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I now desire, with this Apostolic Letter, to press on ever more in the constant search for ecclesial communion. Therefore, I have considered it appropriate to establish the following:
Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.
Art. 2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, [5] to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese. [6] Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.
Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:
1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;
2. is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes);
3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962. [7]In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences;
4. to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful. This priest should be suited for this responsibility, skilled in the use of the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970, possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts, and be animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion. This priest should have at heart not only the correct celebration of the liturgy, but also the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful;
5. to proceed suitably to verify that the parishes canonically erected for the benefit of these faithful are effective for their spiritual growth, and to determine whether or not to retain them;
6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups.
Art. 4. Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization.
Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.
Art. 6. Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life, erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei , fall under the competence of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies for Apostolic Life.
Art. 7. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, for matters of their particular competence, exercise the authority of the Holy See with respect to the observance of these provisions.
Art. 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated.
Everything that I have declared in this Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio , I order to be observed in all its parts, anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I establish that it be promulgated by way of publication in “L’Osservatore Romano”, entering immediately in force and, subsequently, that it be published in the official Commentary of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Given at Rome, at Saint John Lateran, on 16 July 2021, the liturgical Memorial of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, in the ninth year of Our Pontificate.
FRANCIS
________________________
[1] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 November 1964, n. 23 AAS 57 (1965) 27.
[2] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 November 1964, n. 27: AAS 57 (1965) 32; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree concerning the pastoral office of bishops in the Church “Christus Dominus”, 28 October 1965, n. 11: AAS 58 (1966) 677-678; Catechism of the Catholic Church , n. 833.
[3] Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei”, 2 July 1988: AAS 80 (1988) 1495-1498; Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, 7 July 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 777-781; Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Ecclesiae unitatem”, 2 July 2009: AAS 101 (2009) 710-711.
[4] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei”, 2 July 1988, n. 5: AAS 80 (1988) 1498.
[5] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 December 1963, n. 41: AAS 56 (1964) 111; Caeremoniale Episcoporum , n. 9; Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament, Instruction on certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist “Redemptionis Sacramentum”, 25 March 2004, nn. 19-25: AAS 96 (2004) 555-557.
[6] Cf. CIC , can. 375, § 1; can. 392.
[7] Cfr Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decree “Quo magis” approving seven Eucharistic Prefaces for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, 22 February 2020, and Decree “Cum sanctissima” on the liturgical celebration in honor of Saints in the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, 22 February 2020: L’Osservatore Romano , 26 March 2020, p. 6.
[01014-EN.01] [Original text: Italian]Published inRemnant Articles[Comment Guidelines – Click to view]back to topLast modified on Friday, July 16, 2021Sharehttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.06c6ee58c3810956b7509218508c7b56.en-gb.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en-gb&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fremnantnewspaper.com%2Fweb%2Findex.php%2Farticles%2Fitem%2F5472-we-resist-francis-to-his-face-pachamama-pope-anathematizes-latin-mass&size=l&text=The%20Remnant%20Newspaper%20-%20WE%20RESIST%20FRANCIS%20TO%20HIS%20FACE%3A%20Pachamama%20Pope%20Anathematizes%20Latin%20Mass&time=1626471222087&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fremnantnewspaper.com%2Fweb%2Findex.php%2Farticles%2Fitem%2F5472-we-resist-francis-to-his-face-pachamama-pope-anathematizes-latin-masshttps://www.facebook.com/v3.3/plugins/like.php?action=like&app_id=449478478466814&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df3e968f7aab8846%26domain%3Dremnantnewspaper.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fremnantnewspaper.com%252Ff1d8e3ffcc8d25a%26relation%3Dparent.parent&color_scheme=light&container_width=0&href=https%3A%2F%2Fremnantnewspaper.com%2Fweb%2Findex.php%2Farticles%2Fitem%2F5472-we-resist-francis-to-his-face-pachamama-pope-anathematizes-latin-mass&layout=button_count&locale=en_GB&sdk=joey&share=true&show_faces=true&size=largehttps://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&f=remnantnewspaper&t_u=https%3A%2F%2Fremnantnewspaper.com%2Fweb%2Findex.php%2Farticles%2Fitem%2F5472-we-resist-francis-to-his-face-pachamama-pope-anathematizes-latin-mass&t_d=The%20Remnant%20Newspaper%20-%20WE%20RESIST%20FRANCIS%20TO%20HIS%20FACE%3A%20Pachamama%20Pope%20Anathematizes%20Latin%20Mass&t_t=The%20Remnant%20Newspaper%20-%20WE%20RESIST%20FRANCIS%20TO%20HIS%20FACE%3A%20Pachamama%20Pope%20Anathematizes%20Latin%20Mass&s_o=default#version=1d62d7a68460a7a82d224c1ca569e248
Michael J. Matt has been an editor of The Remnant since 1990. Since 1994, he has been the newspaper’s editor. A graduate of Christendom College, Michael Matt has written hundreds of articles on the state of the Church and the modern world. He is the host of The Remnant Underground and Remnant TV’s The Remnant Forum. He’s been U.S. Coordinator for Notre Dame de Chrétienté in Paris–the organization responsible for the Pentecost Pilgrimage to Chartres, France–since 2000. Mr. Matt has led the U.S. contingent on the Pilgrimage to Chartres for the last 24 years. He is a lecturer for the Roman Forum’s Summer Symposium in Gardone Riviera, Italy. He is the author of Christian Fables, Legends of Christmas and Gods of Wasteland (Fifty Years of Rock ‘n’ Roll) and regularly delivers addresses and conferences to Catholic groups about the Mass, home-schooling, and the culture question. Together with his wife, Carol Lynn and their seven children, Mr. Matt currently resides in St. Paul, Minnesota.
“They wound; they kill; they go down to hell.”—St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises #108.
Leaving a sick call about 10 years into my priesthood, I ran into a gothic-looking fellow. He was about 30 years old and decided to strike up a conversation with me. I didn’t have much time to talk, but I realized this would be one of his only interactions with a priest his whole life, so I couldn’t brush him off. As usual, I had to listen to someone preach to me. (This is ironically more common than me preaching to someone.) In any case, this guy was a little different. He just wanted to me to agree with him that the world was a lot better than it ever has been in the history of the world: Less wars, less violence, less womanizing, less racism, less slavery. I didn’t have time to explain to him that he was wrong, but I will say briefly here: His view is not uncommon among those “educated” in a Western University these days.
I think that arguably the greatest error of Catholics nowadays is the notion that the world is not so dark without Christ. “Oh, sure, life might be better a little better with Christ,” they say, “but we’re all going to heaven anyway.” In fact, their views are supported by Vatican documents claiming that “in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery.”—Nostra Ætate #2. All of this has has led to conclusions nothing short of Universalist Unitarianism, including catchy analogies like: “Non-Catholics are going to heaven in a Dodge Dart ,but Catholics are going to heaven in a Cadillac.” It sounds cute and comforting but it’s not Catholicism. It’s just a spin on what the gothic guy believes: The world is better than ever before and we don’t really need Christ to save this planet.
But from the ancient Church in Rome all the way through 1950, Catholics believed that the world was not just slightly dark without Christ. Rather, Catholics in the early Church and Medieval Ages believed the world was absolute darkness and hatred before the Gospel of Jesus Christ was preached there. In the 16th century, St. Ignatius of Loyola had tens of thousands of men go through his rigorous “Spiritual Exercises.” St. Ignatius called his retreatant to imagine the Blessed Trinity before the Incarnation, discussing the salvation of the world. The retreatant even imagines what every violent continent looked like before the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. St. Ignatius here describes the pre-Christian world in his usual terse, Spanish way: “They wound; they kill; they go down to hell.”—Spiritual Exercises #108.
St. Ignatius of Loyola
Yes, that was the view of every Catholic of what a pagan country looked like before Catholic missionaries arrived there: “They wound; they kill; they go down to hell.”—Spiritual Exercises #108. But now we have to ask these questions: In a post-Christian world, have we returned to the darkness of pagan days? Or is the gothic-fellow correct that the world is better than ever before?
Let’s just look at the facts. First, we must remember that the German Holocaust killed at least 6 million people in the 20th century. Communism killed over 100 million people in the 20th century. But since Roe vs. Wade, most countries across the globe have legalized pre-born baby slaughter (also called abortion.) Those babies killed by the bloody surgical tools of abortion now total more than 1 billion. (Remember that a billion is a thousand-million.) Those new individuals killed by chemical abortions are above 2 billion if taken at an extremely conservative estimate. This means that abortion has now killed more than 500 times what the Jewish holocaust has killed. 500x the holocaust dead are now dead via abortion. The world is not getting better. I believe that if evil is so extreme these days, the remedy is going to appear even more extreme to dull eyes.
How about slavery? Again, let’s just look at the stats. Wikipediawrites, “It is estimated that over the centuries, twelve to twenty million people were shipped as slaves from Africa by European traders, of whom some 15 percent died during the terrible voyage.” Notice again that there were 20 million African slaves in the Transatlantic slave trade. However, even the ever-blind-to-evil New York Times admits that there are now 45 million slaves in the world today. That means there are now at least double the amount of slaves in the world today as during the Transatlantic Slave Trade.Operation Underground Railroad estimates that among these 45 million slaves in the world, 6 million are child slaves. And 2 million of those 6 million kid-slaves are sex slaves. A child is sold every 30 seconds. The world is not getting better. I believe that if evil is so extreme these days, the remedy is going to appear even more extreme to dull eyes.
The United States has probably had numerous rigged elections in her history. But we just experienced a full communist-coup. Unresponsive Joe Biden is nothing except a puppet-emperor of a stolen election, controlled probably by China or Soros. Similarly, the Vatican has had some serious scandals in history, but she has never been paid-off by a regime as diabolical as China. Yes, “Chinese dissident Guo Wengui claims that the Chinese Communist Party ‘allocates up to $2 billion a year’ to buy the Vatican’s silenceconcerning the ongoing persecution of the Catholic Church in China and other human rights abuses,” as reported by LifeSite News. So we see: The world is not getting better. I believe that if evil is so extreme these days, the remedy is going to appear even more extreme to dull eyes.
Pachamama, Marx, Marx and the suckling weasel.
If evil has become this extreme in the 21st century, perhaps only so called “extremists” on the other side will make any difference at this point in the collapsing history of Church and State. At least I know: The world is not getting better. And if evil is found to be so extreme these days, then the remedy is going to appear even more extreme to dull eyes.
Featured image of St. Michael at very top and Clerical Concupiscence just above appear with permission of Irish artist, Eugene Deleastar.
The Next Conclave: A Nightmare Scenarioby Steven O’ReillyJuly 17, 2021 (Steven O’Reilly) – Yesterday, Pope Francis issued Traditionis Custodes, his motu proprio which places significant restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) going forward. I will not comment in great detail on its harsh measures as others have already done so. However, for the ‘pope of mercy’ who speaks often of those on the ‘peripheries’ of the Church, it is clear neither his mercy nor the peripheries extend as far as those attached to the TLM. “Irreversible Change” One of the oddities of Traditionis Custodes is not so much that Francis did what he did; but rather it is when he did it. That is, he did not wait until the death of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI before attempting to abrogate Summorum Pontificum. I suspect we would have seen something like Traditionis Custodes long ago had Benedict passed away soon after stepping down from the Chair of St. Peter. That Pope Francis could no longer wait for Benedict’s death to issue TC, along with the fact the motu proprio went into effect immediately, clearly suggests an impatience or urgency on the part of Francis.Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez is said to be very close to Pope Francis, e.g., reportedly being the Pope’s ghostwriter for various documents, such as Amoris Laetitia. There is something he said a few years ago that seems to explain the impatience and urgency noted above. Archbishop Fernandez has been quoted as saying the following (emphasis added):”The slow pace is necessary to insure the effectiveness of the changes… You have to realize that he (Francis) is aiming at reform that is irreversible. If one day he should sense that he is running out of time and doesn’t have enough time to do what the spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up.” (Crisis Magazine. “Clerical Machiavellians with Magical Beliefs“, William Kilpatrick, 11/06/2018)Consequently, perhaps what we are seeing is that Pope Francis, now 84, ‘senses that he is running out of time‘ and therefore he is ‘speeding up.’ Francis wants to hurry to make changes or ‘reform’ which will be “irreversible.” This idea of Francis wanting to make “irreversible change” also shows up in words of Fr. Adolfo Nicolas, former Superior General of the Jesuits, of whom Phil Lawler once wrote:”Father Adolfo Nicolas, the former worldwide leader of the Jesuit order, reported that Pope Francis once told him that he hoped to remain as Pontiff until “the changes are irreversible” (see ‘The new cardinals: Pope Francis bids for ‘irreversible change’, Phil Lawler, September 3, 2019).As far as other attempts at “irreversible” change, only Francis and Heaven knows what is next on his chopping block. Francis has already endeavored to improve the odds his changes are irreversible through his episcopal appointments, and even more importantly through the cardinals he has created over the course of his pontificate. More on that in a bit.”Four or Five Years“In researching some of the quotes for the article, there was a curious thing that caught my attention. The Pope has said in various places he expected his pontificate to brief, perhaps “four or five years.” Consider, for example (emphasis added):In an interview with the Mexican broadcaster Televisa published Friday, the Argentine Pope predicted a “brief” tenure for himself. “I have the feeling that my pontificate will be brief: four or five years; I do not know, even two or three,” Pope Francis, 78, said. “Two have already passed. It is a somewhat vague sensation.” (Time Magazine)Pope Bergoglio has opined a few times his pontificate would be brief, perhaps “four or five years.” This mention of “four or five years,” plus the fact his closest comrades say he wanted “irreversible change” is something very curious, as it echoes precisely a talking point intended to sell his candidacy just before the 2013 conclave. For one, Andrea Tornielli, at the time a Vatican correspondent (“vaticanista”) and a friend of Cardinal Bergoglio (later to be given a position in the Vatican), published essentially a press release for Cardinal Bergoglio’s candidacy on March 2, 2013 (see here, here, here, and here). Tornielli quoted an unnamed cardinal as saying: “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things.” In another echo of this Bergoglian theme, ex-Cardinal McCarrick was lobbied by an “influential Italian gentleman” (see Villanova Speech) who lobbied him to campaign for Bergoglio, saying in part that Bergoglio could change the Church in “five years” (see here, here, here, and here). The same Bergoglian theme bubbled up among other sources at the time. In sum, it was quoted by at least three separate reporters using two to possibly three separate sources — not to mention its use by McCarrick’s visitor [2]. We do know Bergoglio himself had said he believe he’d be pope for only four to five years, and that he spoke of wanting “irreversible change.” Consequently, it seems quite likely if not probable that Bergoglio was the original source of the statement (i.e., “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things”) – and that Tornielli (who had dinner with Bergoglio on February 27, 2013), and the “influential Italian gentleman”, and other cardinals had heard this papal campaign slogan in some form directly from Bergoglio himself prior to the 2013 conclave.A Horrid ThoughtWe know that Pope Francis went into the 2013 conclave with an agenda: irreversible change. The question is from his standpoint, how does he insure it is irreversible? As of now, over 50% of the cardinals were appointed by Francis. These new cardinals, for the most part, seem to have been picked because they are Bergoglians. Therefore, it appears quite likely, if not probable, that the next conclave will produce a Pope Francis II. As horrid a thought as this is — barring Divine intervention; another horrid thought came to me: what if these “odds” aren’t good enough for Francis? Consider, Pope Francis knows his own election, dependent on cardinals created by Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, was no sure thing. Indeed, his own election required the aid of the St. Gallen mafia, his own campaigning, the possible help of an Italian vaticanista, the help of the “influential Italian gentleman“, the help of McCarrick (all discussed in The Conclave Chronicles), and a questionably-timed police raid the morning of the conclave that knee-capped the chances of his chief rival for the papacy (see The Forgotten ‘October Surprise’ of the 2013 Conclave; The Forgotten ‘October Surprise’ (Part II): Cui Bono?). If such happy “coincidences” were necessary for his own election; will Francis leave it to chance that his hoped for successor — who he hopes will secure his “irreversible” legacy — will be as ‘fortunate’ in the next conclave? Or, could Francis do more to improve the odds?As horrid as it is to imagine it, there is something more Francis could do to virtually guarantee a successor along the lines he wants — at least as far as human agency goes. Theoretically, Pope Francis could alter the laws governing papal conclaves, or scrap them all together. He could, theoretically, enact new papal legislation for conclaves that would restrict the number of qualified Cardinal electors to a small group of Cardinals.There is something of a precedent for this going back to the time of Pope Nicholas II (see Here) when cardinal-bishops[1] had a leading role in selecting the candidate for the papacy (see also the election of Pope Innocent II and the election controversy involving anti-pope Anacletus). So, theoretically, in hopes of making his reforms “irreversible,” Francis could restrict eligible Cardinal-electors to a trusted set of Cardinals, for example, perhaps those who sit on his Counsel of Cardinal Advisors, at one time totaling eight cardinals but now seven.Perhaps such a scenario is no more than a scary hypothetical. No more than an improbable nightmare scenario. Then again, this is the Pope who gave us Amoris Laetitia, Pachamama, the Abu Dhabi statement, the Scalfari interviews, and a host of other outrages, most recently Traditionis Custodes. This is a Pope who want “irreversible” change.Buckle your seatbelts. It will be a wild ride to the end of this pontificate as Francis “speeds up.” Pray for the Church, and let us pray for Pope Francis that he remembers the Lord’s words to Peter: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Luke 22:31-32).Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta with their family. He has written apologetic articles and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions. He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on Parler or Gab: @StevenOReilly).Notes: The College of Cardinals is comprised of three ranks of cardinals: Cardinal Bishops, Cardinal Priest, and Cardinal Deacon.The origin of the phrase — “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things …” — is a curious one. As I discuss in more detail in my original article, “The influential Italian Gentleman,” Tornielli cites an anonymous cardinal, as indicated above. Gerald O’Connell, in his book, The Election of Pope Francis discusses the famous quote. In it, one of O’Connell vaticanisti colleagues, Mathilde Burgos, quotes Cardinal Errazuriz, using the same line: “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things!” While it is possible Errazuriz used the line with both Burgos and Tornielli, writer Paul Vallely quotes Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor use of the line (see here): “”Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things,” Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, and an old friend of Francis, told me.” This is curious indeed. We have Cardinal Errazuriz using the line with a Chilean reporter, and we have either Cardinal Errazuriz or Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor using the same line with Tornielli. Or was it yet another cardinal that used it with Tornielli? With such an circuitous pedigree, the “four years” line appears to be a pre-packaged, electioneering talking point manufactured to defuse concerns cardinals might have about Bergoglio’s age–and indeed there had been such concerns. We know the line was used with at least three different journalists, and was possibly used by two or even three different cardinals, and by the “influential Italian gentleman.” Yet, given this commonality, one may rightly wonder whether the line was even original to any of them! There is the real and amusing prospect that Cardinal Bergoglio himself was the ultimate and original source of the pithy phrase. Steven O’Reilly | July 18, 2021 at 1:54 am | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: https://wp.me/p7YMML-6V5
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.