Francis is in SCHISM from ALL Valid Popes in History who Reject his Sacrilege of Communion for Adulterers
Remember when Francis and his collaborators cry “SCHISM” it means they are AFRAID!
What are they afraid of?
They are AFRAID that it will finally get through the cowardly and apparently not too bright heads of the few faithful bishops that:
Zero valid popes in the history of the Catholic Church have committed the sacrilege of instituting as the Vatican’s official teaching that unrepentant adulterous couples can profane the Holy of Holy Jesus Christ who is true God by having unrepentant sinners receive Him in the Most Holy Eucharist.
Next to this sacrilege against the Most Holy Eucharist, the proposed Amazonian Synod heresy of women’s ordination is a minor sacrilege.
Maybe these cowardly and apparently not too bright bishops might, finally, realize:
Francis is in SCHISM from ALL valid popes in the history of the Catholic Church.
Maybe they will, finally, join Bishop René Gracida and investigate if the Francis conclave was invalid which even Cardinal Raymond Burke says is a valid possibly.
Or, maybe because it is their infallible belief that there can never be a invalid pope or antipope then they will do what Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said:
“The Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic… 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)
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
Note:
– 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.Fred Martinez at 9:53 PMShare
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on WHEN FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL BEGINS TO TALK ABOUT SCHISM, YOU KNOW THAT SCHISM IS BECOMING A REALITY UNDER FRANCIS
THE MOYNIHAN LETTERS Wednesday, September 18, 2019
“The Church doesn’t belong to Bergoglio but to Christ.” —Italian Catholic journalist Vittorio Messori, author in 1984 of The Ratzinger Report, an interview book with then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) and then of an interview with John Paul II, at the time when interviewing a Pope was quite unusual (link and link)“
Cardinal Reinhard Marx has fired back at the Vatican after it informed him the German bishops’ plans for a ‘binding synodal path’ are ‘not ecclesiologically valid,’ saying the German bishops’ plans, which include addressing issues of priestly celibacy, the role of women, and sexual morality, will be ‘helpful’ to the Church.” —Lifesitenews, September 17, 2019, yesterday. (link and link)
This is an example of resistance among German Catholic leaders to obeying instructions from the Holy See. As an initial interpretation, it seems to represent a tendency on the “left” in the Church in Germany toward open disobedience to the Holy See (according to traditional definitions, the essence of schism). While this is occurring, much attention in the press continues to focus on the possibility of a “schism” from the Catholic “right,” especially among “conservative” Catholics in the United States.
So these events in Germany are a suggestion of the difficult of the present Church situation: actual schismatic acts (possibly) surfacing on the “left,” while debate about schism intensifies on the “right” (of course categories such as “right” and “left,” when speaking of Church doctrine, are inadequate and so in some way false)“I beseech you, brethren, that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.” —St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 1:10=============
The Need for Unity within Doctrinal OrthodoxyThere is a great need in the Church right now for unity in judgment, as expressed by St. Paul: “I beseech you, brethren, that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.” (St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 1:10)But the very fact that St. Paul appeals to the Corinthians in this way reveals that the temptation for Christians to divide, to make different judgments, goesback to the very first years of the Church.
Hence the profound need to work for Church unity by every means, at all times, and in every way, today as in the past — and in years to come.Otherwise, schisms may come, and have come.In recent weeks, following the publication of a French book which argued that there is a desire among conservative Americans to “change the Pope,” Pope Francis remarked on the papal airplane that he is “honored” to be criticized “by Americans.” A few days later, on the same plane as he returned to Rome from Africa, he said in answer to a question that, even if a schism occurs in the Church, he does not “fear a schism.” That papal remark led to a further flurry of articles about the dangers of a possible schism in the Catholic Church. (see for examplelink
But where is the true danger of schism greatest?For example, in Germany, the German bishops seem now intent on plowing ahead with a “binding synodal process” despite instructions from Rome that this process — coming to doctrinal decisions in one country — is not acceptable.Rome actually sent official letters to the German bishops saying that. Cardinal Marc Ouellet, head of the Congregation of Bishops, wrote German bishops a 4-page letter saying the Synodal Assembly is contrary to instructions from Pope Francis and “not ecclesiologically valid.”
But on September 12, Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich-Freising, head of the German bishops’ conference, 65 (he turns 66 in three days) wrote back to Ouellet to say the German bishops believed they had good reasons to carry out their plan, and would not obey Rome.
Rome’s argument is that Catholic doctrine must be common throughout the worldwide Church. It cannot be decided in one country, by one country’s bishops’ conference. (see the two links cited after the quote of Cardinal Marx above).So where is the danger of schism in the Church greatest? On the “right” — or on the “left”?Who is departing from traditional Church doctrine, and so from Church unity, and who is defending that traditional doctrine?This is the question.
As this takes place, an interesting interview with Italian Catholic author Vittorio Messori has just been picked up by the Rorate Caeli website, a site which focuses on the splendor of the Church’s old liturgy.Messori is the Italian Catholic layman who became famous with his book interview of Cardinal Ratzinger in 1984, called The Ratzinger Report.This interview recalls to all of us, layman and priest alike, that the Church is not a social organization or a business or a human institution, but a mystical reality “in Christ” and “under Christ,” and that no human being “owns” the Church, but all serve the Church, which is Christ’s.And Messori ends by repeating that, despite human tendencies to both error and schism, “Christ will not abandon His Church.” ===============
Vittorio Messori: “The Church does not belong to Bergoglio”By Bruno VolpeLa Fede Quotidiana (link)September 17, 2019“The Church doesn’t belong to Bergoglio but to Christ. Certainly, I’m worried” says the well-known Catholic journalist, Vittorio Messori, fine intellectual, author of a historic, John Paul II interview, at the time when interviewing a pope was not the done thing by newspapers.“I have seen many people worried, even desperately. As a believer, nonetheless, I keep in mind that the Church is not a business, a multinational or a state. In a word, it cannot fail. Certainly, there are plenty of reasons for alarm. I’m thinking, for instance, of the upcoming Synod on the Amazon and its related equivocations; I don’t know what they want to attain – probably the married priesthood. So, I’m worried, but not desperate because the Church does not belong to Bergoglio or the bishops, but to Christ alone and He governs it with wisdom. The forces of evil will not prevail,”
In your opinion, is there a kind of underlying confusion? Vittorio Messori: Yes, there is, and it is saddening, bewildering, But I think sooner or later the Father will intervene. God surpasses our limited vision of things”.
Do you believe that there is a type of conformism, even informational, regarding Pope Francis?Messori: The conformism you are referring to exists. It is quite palpable in the Church. It is staggering that only two or three, almost 90-year-old cardinals are speaking up and protesting. Many bishops and cardinals I talk to in private, throw up their hands in despair and dissent, but they are afraid, silent — they keep quiet. For 2000 years, touching the Pope has [always] been discouraged, but such a tendency is accentuated today and one can clearly experience it firsthand. It is said that this is the Church of mercy, but is it really so? Those in command are intolerant of any criticism.I wrote a polite article for the Corriere della Sera, in which I posed some questions and reflections and I was covered with insults, especially from certain Catholics in the media. A committee to petition my removal from the Corriere sprung up. This committee includes — to use the fashionable expression — the “giglio magico”* (supporters, literally, the “magic lily”) of the Pope. Well then, how can it be affirmed coherently that this is the Church of mercy, of open and sincere dialogue, of parrhesia? As I said before, I’m worried, but not desperate. Christ will not abandon His Church.”*supporters. The term “giglio magico” refers to the Italian politician Matteo Renzi’s supporters.(to be continued)
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE CHURCH DOES NOT BELONG TO BERGOLIO BUT TO CHRIST
ROME, September 17, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — The guiding documents for the upcoming Amazonian Synod contain “the blueprint for a new Church,” are permeated with “tribalism,” and present “witchcraft” as a new paradigm for theology, a Peruvian author has claimed.
Julio Loredo, author of Liberation Theology, a life jacket for the poor made of lead [Teologia della liberazione. Un salvagente di piombo per i poveri(Cantagalli, 2014)], says that “for the average reader, the idea of tribal society as a model for the West, and Amazonian witchcraft as a new paradigm for theology may sound baffling.” But, he adds: “for someone who has studied the historical revolutionary process, it makes perfect sense.”
LifeSite spoke with Mr. Loredo ahead of an Oct. 5 conference in Rome titled, “Amazon: The Stakes.”
Loredo, who serves as editor and a regular to the “Pan-Amazon Synod Watch” and will moderate the Oct. 5 event, said its purpose is to “delve deeper into the underpinnings” of the Amazon Synod and “bring the voice of the real Amazonian Indians to Rome.”
The conference will feature speakers representing the indigenous Amazonian peoples as well as experts in the fields of climatology, philosophy and liberation theology.
“Europeans need to realize that many, if not all, of the figures that appear on the media circuit are in fact mere mouthpieces of the environmentalist lobbies,” Loredo said, citing Pope Francis’s recent meeting with Chief Raoni, an internationally renowned defender of the Amazon’s delicate ecosystem.
“They are flown in private planes and received at the highest levels, attracting huge media coverage. They, however, do not represent the Amazon,” he said.
In the interview, Loredo also expresses concern about the “overwhelming role” that “progressive German bishops” are taking at the Amazonian Synod. German prelates, in fact, have played a key role in pre-synod meetings and financing of the October Synod, being held Oct. 6-27 at the Vatican.
“The Germans are using the Amazon River to help the Rhine flow into the Tiber,” Loredo said. “Bishop Franz-Josef Overbeck, of Essen, who is one of the Synod organizers, was very clear about its goals: ‘After the Synod, nothing will be the same in the Church. [The Synod] will mark a break in the Church.’”
Here below is our interview with Mr. Julio Loredo. See a full schedule of the Oct. 5 Rome conference here.
Mr. Loredo, you will be serving as Moderator for the Conference “Amazon: the Stakes,” being held in Rome one day before the opening of the Amazon Synod. What is the aim of the conference, and what are the issues that will be discussed?
Our international conference in Rome has several aims, which I will try to summarize here.
First of all, it intends to inform the public about the real situation in the Amazon region. The Synod, as indeed the encyclical Laudato si’ from which it draws inspiration, is largely based on pseudo-scientific data spread by the environmentalist lobbies. For this purpose, we have invited several experts to speak at the conference, beginning with Prince Bertrand d’Orleans e Braganza, Prince Imperial of Brazil and author of the best-seller Environmentalist Psychosis. Then there is Professor Luiz Carlos Molion, a well-known climatologist from the University of Alagoas, Brazil. An important speaker will be Jonas Macuxí de Souza, an indigenous leader from the Macuxí tribe in Roraima. He will bring the voice of the real Amazonian Indians to Rome.
A second aim of the Oct. 5 conference is to delve deeper into the doctrinal underpinnings that inform the Synod. Few people in Europe are familiar with so-called Indigenous Theology, which is derived from that Liberation Theology formally condemned by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, and then rehabilitated by Pope Francis. The encyclical Laudato Si’ and the Amazonian Synod itself draw heavily on this theology. Indeed, both the Synod’s Preparatory Document and the Instrumentum Laboris were clearly written by people who belong to this heretical current.
Referring to Liberation and Indigenous Theology, Peruvian Cardinal Pedro Barreto declared that the Synod “brings to completion a process begun in the Latin American Church forty years ago.” Having studied the subject for almost half a century, I can say that the fingerprints of Liberation Theology are all over the place, albeit in more up-to-date and radical versions, already tending towards pantheism.
The task of analyzing the doctrinal underpinnings of the Synod will be divided among several speakers: James Bascom, from the TFP Washington Bureau, Prof. Stefano Fontana, from the Osservatorio Cardinale Van Thuan, Professor Roberto de Mattei, President of Lepanto Foundation, and José Antonio Ureta, author of The Change of Paradigm of Pope Francis.
The third and, indeed, most important aim of our conference is to instill a sense of confidence and hope. Holy Mother Church is going through troubled times, which did not begin with the current Pontiff, but are certainly reaching a climax with him. We want to proclaim ourselves devoted sons of the Church, while pointing out the pitfalls toward which she is heading if the Synod has its way. It is a cry of love and concern for the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The Church, however, is immortal and will rebound in even more radiant holiness. Our conference will close with a message of fidelity and hope.
You have mentioned that the conference features a talk given by a leader of one of the Amazonian tribes in Brazil. What will he discuss, and what questions do you believe his presence will raise regarding the Amazonian Synod?
We actually had several Indigenous leaders wanting to participate. We had to choose one, and so chose Jonas Macuxí de Souza. As I said, he will bring to Rome the voice of the real Amazonian Indians, and not the bogey ones paraded by the media. Europeans need to realize that many, if not all, of the figures that appear on the media circuit are in fact mere mouthpieces of the environmentalist lobbies. They are flown in private planes and received at the highest levels, attracting huge media coverage. They, however, do not represent the Amazon.
Take, for example, Caiapó chief Raoni Metuktire, who was recently received by Europeans leaders, including Pope Francis and President Macron. According to indigenous leader Kayna Munduruku, “Raoni does not represent us, Amazonian peoples.” According to Kayna, Raoni simply represents the NGOs “that have abusively assumed the right to speak for us. Who gave them this right? We know who we are and what we want. We don’t need the NGOs which, by the way, are millionaires while the Amazonian peoples suffer.”
To best describe the message we wish to convey at the Rome conference, I will use the words of another Indigenous leader, Silvia Nobre Waiãpi, Federal Secretary for Indigenous Health in Brazil. She said:
“We natives want to be protagonists of our own history. We do not want to continue to depend on people and organizations, such as NGOs, that tell us what to do. Some NGOs do a good job, but most are nothing more than political and ideological instruments. Those who want to keep the Indians in the wild, simply want to cut them off from development, in order to exploit their lands. Instead, we want the Indians to integrate, to be informed, to have access to decision mechanisms, to take their future into their own hands.”
Since its origin, the Church has evangelized by civilizing and civilized by evangelizing. Faith and culture, as Pope John Paul II recalled, are intertwined in the Church’s mission. This point has to be stressed. The promoters of the Synod, on the other hand, flatly deny that the Church has to evangelize, let alone civilize. They say that the Church has to learn both the real faith and the real civilization (so-called “good-living”), from the Amazonian Indians. Not the other way around. Thus, they turn upside down two millennia of evangelization.
The real Amazonian Indians want to be evangelized. A shocking proof of this is the huge surge of Evangelical sects in the region. As the Church abandons its missionary spirit, this void is being filled by the Protestants.
What importance does this conference have for the world outside the Amazon region and for the universal Church? In other words, why should readers take notice of this conference and regard it as important?
Bishop Franz-Josef Overbeck, of Essen, who is one of the Synod organizers, was very clear about its goals: “After the Synod, nothing will be the same in the Church. [The Synod] will mark a break in the Church.” A tale-telling sign is the overwhelming role progressive German bishops are assuming in the Synod. It seems obvious that they want to take advantage of it to push through their agenda. To borrow Father Ralph Wiltgen’s metaphor, the Germans are using the Amazon River to help the Rhine flow into the Tiber. No wonder some promoters are calling the Synod the “III Vatican Council.”
Synod organizers and promoters are quite explicit that they want to “reinvent” the Church, using the expression coined by liberation theologian Leonardo Boff, a main contributor to Laudato si’. The Synod intends to revamp the Church ab imis fundamentis, giving it an “Amazonian face.” In other words, the Synod wants to reinterpret the whole Church – its doctrine, its liturgy, its sacraments, its organization – from what they (abusively) call an “Amazonian” perspective. In this sense, the importance of the Synod goes way beyond the boundaries of the Amazon region.
In reading the Preparatory Document and the Instrumentum laboris, one clearly sees the blueprint of a new Church. These documents contain a new theology that produces a new pastoral approach. And this will affect the whole Church. For example, these documents contain a new concept of Revelation, that is immanentist and no longer transcendental. They contain a new model of Church, that is communitarian rather than hierarchical. They contain a new theology of the Sacraments, no longer signs that convey grace but acts that share the imminent divine. They contain a new concept of “ministry” that would even include the Amazonian witch doctors.
Some optimists (I would call them naive) claim that the Synod merely wants to open a few exceptions, like ordaining married men and accepting women to the deaconate, within a very restricted region, i.e. the Amazon, for very specific pastoral needs. We know full well how the game goes: you open an exception for a specific need, and the next thing you know, it becomes the universal practice throughout the Church. Communion in the hand and “extraordinary” ministers of the Eucharist are classical examples.
Is there anything you wish to add?
For the average reader, the idea of tribal society as a model for the West, and Amazonian witchcraft as a new paradigm for theology may sound baffling. However, for someone who has studied the historical revolutionary process, it makes perfect sense.
In “The Origin of Private Property, the Family and the State,” Friedrich Engels affirms that tribalism is the final goal of Communism. After the dictatorship of the proletariat, and a transition phase of self-managing socialism, the final Communist society – “socialism at a higher level” – would be like the tribe, where there is no private property, no family and no State and, therefore, no “alienations.” Marxist thinkers considered tribalism the “original Communism,” to which history will return, thus completing its evolutionary cycle.
That’s why Communism has always promoted indigenism as a way of furthering the Revolution, especially in Latin America. The first Inter-American Indigenist Congress took place in 1940 in Pátzcuaro, Mexico. All the indigenous thinkers and leaders in the 20th century belonged to the Communist or Socialist parties.
Later, Liberation Theology began to present the Indians as an “oppressed” class in need of “liberation.” Hence the birth of Indigenous Theology, which was later adopted by several Latin American episcopates, particularly in Brazil.
In 1977, Brazilian philosopher Professor Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira wrote a ground-breaking book: “Indian Tribalism: The Communist-Missionary Ideal for Brazil in the Twenty-First Century.” In it, the Catholic leader denounces the tribalist and indigenous currents that had taken over the Bishops’ Conference.
Chapter after chapter, he shows how these currents abandoned the missionary ideal. For them, it is no longer a question of evangelizing the Indians but of learning from them, who supposedly maintained a sort of primordial innocence in communion with nature, which Western society has now lost. They present the tribe both as a religious and social ideal. In this light, says Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, the Amazonian peoples would be the true evangelizers of the world.
Leafing through this 1977 book, one almost has the impression of reading passages from the Instrumentum laboris of the Amazon Synod set for next October. All of it has been predicted …
Read more about the International Conference on the Pan-Amazon Synod at the event’s website here.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on The Germans are using the Amazon River to help the Rhine flow into the Tiber. Bishop Franz-Josef Overbeck, of Essen, who is one of the Synod organizers, was very clear about its goals: “After the Synod, nothing will be the same in the Church. [The Synod] will mark a break in the Church.”
Cardinal Reinhard Marx attends a news conference at the Vatican Press Office on Oct. 17, 2014. ( Bohumil Petrik/CNA)WORLD | SEP. 16, 2019Cardinal Marx Says German ‘Synod’ Will Proceed Despite Vatican ObjectionsThe letter followed a week of coverage concerning plans by the German bishops.Ed Condon/CNA
MUNICH — The head of the German bishops’ conference told Vatican officials last week that addressing controversial theological topics during the German bishops’ proposed “binding synodal path” will be a service to the universal Church.
“We hope that the results of forming an opinion [on these matters] in our country will also be helpful for the guidance of the universal Church and for other episcopal conferences on a case-by-case basis. In any case, I cannot see why questions about which the magisterium has made determinations should be withdrawn from any debate, as your writings suggest,” Cardinal Reinhard Marx wrote in a Sept. 12 letter to Cardinal Marc Ouellet, who is head of the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops.
“Countless believers in Germany consider [these issues] to be in need of discussion,” Cardinal Marx added.
Cardinal Marx’s letter informed the Vatican that the German synodal process will continue as planned, despite recent instructions from the Vatican Curia and Pope, and will treat matters of universal teaching and discipline.
The letter followed a week of coverage concerning plans by the German bishops to create a Synodal Assembly with “deliberative power” to address issues including the separation of power in the Church, priestly life, women’s access to ministry and office in the Church and sexual morality.
The letter was a response to the Vatican’s most recent intervention in German preparations for a synodal process, in which Cardinal Ouellet sent Cardinal Marx a four-page legal assessment of the German plans, which concluded that the Synodal Assembly is contrary to instructions from Pope Francis and “not ecclesiologically valid.”
The legal analysis especially criticized German plans to discuss matters of discipline and doctrine that have already been decided by the Church’s universal teaching or universal law.
“It is easy to see that these themes do not only affect the Church in Germany but the universal Church and — with few exceptions — cannot be the object of the deliberations or decisions of a particular Church without contravening what is expressed by the Holy Father in his letter,” concluded the legal review, signed by Archbishop Filippo Iannone, head of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.
CNA reported Sept. 5 that the executive committee of the German bishops’ conference in August had approved draft statutes for the creation of a Synodal Assembly, in partnership with the Central Committee of German Catholics, a lay group that has called for the ordination of women, an end to clerical celibacy, and the blessing of same-sex unions in churches.
At the same meeting, the German bishops’ executive committee rejected an alternativesynodal plan that was drafted to reflect the instructions of Pope Francis, issued to the bishops in a June letter to all the faithful of Germany. Those instructions warned the bishops against falling into a “new Pelagianism” and insisted that synodality could not be used as an excuse for reducing Church governance and teaching to a democratic process.
In his Sept. 12 letter to Cardinal Ouellet, Cardinal Marx registered his apparent disapproval at the Vatican’s decision to present its legal advice without consulting him first.
“Perhaps a conversation before sending these documents would have been helpful,” Cardinal Marx wrote.
In an apparent rejection of the Vatican’s legal assessment, Cardinal Marx added that the Church in Germany will “conduct a consultation of our own kind that is not covered by canon law.”
The legal opinion of the Pontifical Commission for Legislative Texts, sent to the Germans by Cardinal Ouellet, concluded that the bishops seem intent on convening a particular council “without using the word” as a means of passing binding resolutions without Roman approval.
A council differs from a synod in that, with Vatican approval, it is able to make new policies for the Church for a particular reason.
But Cardinal Marx said Germany’s plans are not for a council, or even a synod in the traditional sense, but something unique and not anticipated by canon law.
“The Synodal Way is a sui generis process,” Cardinal Marx wrote. “The draft statutes should therefore by no means be read and interpreted through the lens of canonical instruments such as a plenary council. It is not a Particular Council!”
The cardinal’s letter also insisted that the Vatican legal assessment is based on a draft of the German plans that “has long been outdated” and had since been “further developed in July and August.”
The version of the statutes passed by the German bishops’ executive committee on Aug. 19 was obtained and published by CNA.
While Cardinal Marx noted that the statutes include a recognition of the authority of both the diocesan bishop and the episcopal conference, Article 2 of the current statues say that the Synodal Assembly “has deliberative power.”
Despite Cardinal Marx’s insistence to Cardinal Ouellet that the statutes underwent further changes in August, CNA has obtained internal documents from the German bishops’ conference that show that the statutes most recently voted on by the executive committee were drafted Aug. 1 and remained unchanged through the end of that month.
CNA has confirmed with officials at both the Congregation for Bishops and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts that the Vatican was already in possession of the most recent draft of the German synodal statutes by the time Cardinal Ouellet’s letter was sent to Cardinal Marx on Sept. 4.
The current version was also considered by Cardinal Marx to be sufficiently finalized that he instructed conference officials to prepare authorized translations of the statues in various languages following the Aug. 19 meeting. Senior conference officials told CNA that it is the intention of the German bishops to create an example that can be “exported” to other parts of the world.
The results will be “helpful for the guidance of the universal Church and for other episcopal conferences,” Cardinal Marx wrote.
The text of Cardinal Marx’s letter was released to German media over the weekend, appearing in Frankfurter Allgemeine on Saturday.
Anthony Hopkins stars as a priest, performing an exorcism, in a scene from the 2010 movie “The Rite.” (CNS photo/Warner Bros.)
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
What follows here are the canonical steps by which Bergoglio can be peacefully, easily and lawfully removed from his position of power.
First, any Catholic Bishop or Cardinal, whether holding jurisdiction or not, whether of the Latin Rite or not, in his capacity as a member of the College of Bishops needs to make this public declaration, or its equivalent:
As member of the College of Bishops, whose unity with the Successor of Saint Peter is essential to its proper function in the Church for the accomplishment of the will of Christ, to continue His Salvific Mission on Earth, I hereby declare that I have examined the official Latin text of Pope Benedict XVI’s act of renunciation of February 11, 2013 A.,D., which begins with the words Non solum propter, and I have found that it is not in conformity with the requirement of Canon 332 §2, that states explicitly that a papal resignation only occurs when the Supreme Pontiff renounces the Petrine Munus. Seeing that Pope Benedict renounced only the ministerium which he received from the hands of the Cardinals, and seeing that he did not invoke Canon 38 to derogate from the obligation to name of the office in a matter which violates the rights of all the Faithful of Christ, and even more so, of the members of the College of Bishops, to know who is and who is not the Successor of Saint Peter, and when and when not he has validly renounced his office, I declare out of the fullness of my apostolic duty and mission, which binds me to consider first of all the salvation of souls and the unity of the Church, that Pope Benedict XVI by the act expressed in Non Solum Propter never renounced the Papal Office and therefore has continued until this very day to be the one and sole and true and only Vicar of Jesus Christ and Successor of Saint Peter. I therefore charge the College of Cardinals with gross negligence in the performance of their duties as expressed in Canon 359 and n. 37 of Universi Domini Gregis by proceeding in February and March of 2013 to the convocation and convening of a Conclave to elect Pope Benedict’s successor when there had not yet been consummated a legal sede vacante. And thus I do declare the Conclave of 2013 was uncanonically convoked, convened and consummated and that the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergogio as Successor of Saint Peter is null and void and irritus by the laws themselves of Holy Mother Church, as established by Pope John Paul II.
Second, Catholic Bishops and Cardinals and indeed all the Faithful should personally examine the text of February 11, 2013 according to the norms of Canons 332 §2, canon 17, canon 38, canon 145 §1, canon 41, canon 126, and in particular canon 188. (see ppbxvi.orgfor more information.)
Third, the Cardinals and Bishops should hold spontaneous regional or universal Synods to confirm the same and publicly affirm the same.
Fourth, the Bishops and Cardinals should call on the Swiss Guard and Vatican Police to arrest Cardinal Bergoglio and detain him and obtain from him public affirmation of the same.
Fifth, the Cardinals should approach Pope Benedict XVI and ask if it is now his intention to resign the Petrine Munus or not. If not, they should convey him to Saint John Lateran’s and acclaim him with one voice as Pope and ask his forgiveness publicly for having defected from him and elected an antipope. If so, they should ask him to redo the renunciation, this time renouncing the Petrine Munus; and then they should convene a Conclave to elect Benedict’s legiWhat follows here are the canonical steps by which Bergoglio can be peacefully, easily and lawfully removed from his position of power.
First, any Catholic Bishop or Cardinal, whether holding jurisdiction or not, whether of the Latin Rite or not, in his capacity as a member of the College of Bishops needs to make this public declaration, or its equivalent:
As member of the College of Bishops, whose unity with the Successor of Saint Peter is essential to its proper function in the Church for the accomplishment of the will of Christ, to continue His Salvific Mission on Earth, I hereby declare that I have examined the official Latin text of Pope Benedict XVI’s act of renunciation of February 11, 2013 A.,D., which begins with the words Non solum propter, and I have found that it is not in conformity with the requirement of Canon 332 §2, that states explicitly that a papal resignation only occurs when the Supreme Pontiff renounces the Petrine Munus. Seeing that Pope Benedict renounced only the ministerium which he received from the hands of the Cardinals, and seeing that he did not invoke Canon 38 to derogate from the obligation to name of the office in a matter which violates the rights of all the Faithful of Christ, and even more so, of the members of the College of Bishops, to know who is and who is not the Successor of Saint Peter, and when and when not he has validly renounced his office, I declare out of the fullness of my apostolic duty and mission, which binds me to consider first of all the salvation of souls and the unity of the Church, that Pope Benedict XVI by the act expressed in Non Solum Propter never renounced the Papal Office and therefore has continued until this very day to be the one and sole and true and only Vicar of Jesus Christ and Successor of Saint Peter. I therefore charge the College of Cardinals with gross negligence in the performance of their duties as expressed in Canon 359 and n. 37 of Universi Domini Gregis by proceeding in February and March of 2013 to the convocation and convening of a Conclave to elect Pope Benedict’s successor when there had not yet been consummated a legal sede vacante. And thus I do declare the Conclave of 2013 was uncanonically convoked, convened and consummated and that the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergogio as Successor of Saint Peter is null and void and irritus by the laws themselves of Holy Mother Church, as established by Pope John Paul II.
Second, Catholic Bishops and Cardinals and indeed all the Faithful should personally examine the text of February 11, 2013 according to the norms of Canons 332 §2, canon 17, canon 38, canon 145 §1, canon 41, canon 126, and in particular canon 188. (see ppbxvi.orgfor more information.)
Third, the Cardinals and Bishops should hold spontaneous regional or universal Synods to confirm the same and publicly affirm the same.
Fourth, the Bishops and Cardinals should call on the Swiss Guard and Vatican Police to arrest Cardinal Bergoglio and detain him and obtain from him public affirmation of the same.
Fifth, the Cardinals should approach Pope Benedict XVI and ask if it is now his intention to resign the Petrine Munus or not. If not, they should convey him to Saint John Lateran’s and acclaim him with one voice as Pope and ask his forgiveness publicly for having defected from him and elected an antipope. If so, they should ask him to redo the renunciation, this time renouncing the Petrine Munus; and then they should convene a Conclave to elect Benedict’s legitimate successor.
Jonah began his journey through the city, and when he had gone only a single day’s walk announcing, “Forty days more and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” the people of Nineveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast and all of them, great and small, put on sackcloth. When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. (Jonah 3:4-6)
A year after his bombshell testimony on the cover-up for Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò remains a prophet in exile, exposing the filth in a Church that needs to be burned clean. As Inside the Vatican’s Robert Moynihan notes, the Italian prelate is an unlikely hero. He’s a “small man with intelligent eyes, exquisite manners, studious, hardworking.” But this 78-year-old with thin-rimmed glasses bears in his bones the burden of prophetic speech. He bears the weight of being (as Moynihan puts it) a kind of modern-day Jonah, called to preach to Nineveh before the potential destruction comes.
These days, Archbishop Viganò is warning of an invidious campaign to infiltrate the Catholic Church. In a bombshell interview with Moynihan published last week, Archbishop Viganò tells of a “project” that “goes back centuries”—“in particular, to the creation in the middle of the 1700s of Freemasonry.” This “very deceptive” plot against the Church included some of her own senior members.
“This is described in the book Infiltration by Dr. Taylor Marshall, so you may find some indication of this process there,” says the Archbishop. He is referring to the bestselling book which argues that, “for over a century, the organizers of Freemasonry, Liberalism, and Modernism infiltrated the Catholic Church in order to change her doctrine, her liturgy, and her mission from something supernatural to something secular.”
Viganò believes that this process of infiltration “became strikingly evident in modern times,” and that we are now witnessing the “triumph of a 60-year-old plan” to revolutionize the Church with “a Jesuit on the See of Peter.” As Viganò recalls, many key Vatican II revolutionaries were Jesuits who maneuvered to replace the council’s prepared schemas with ones they had drawn up. Most prominent among them was Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J., frequently touted as the council’s most important ideologue.
“This was the beginning of an opening… in the process of creating a new Church,” says Archbishop Viganò.
❧
He isn’t the only one speaking of a “new,” Jesuit-fashioned Church. In La Nuova Chiesa di Karl Rahner (“The New Church of Karl Rahner”), Stefano Fontana soberingly traces the genealogy of Pope Francis’s “open Church” back to Rahner, the towering radical suspected of heterodoxy under Pope Pius XII. As Fontana shows, Rahner negotiated a “surrender to the world” which is being registered in this pontificate’s signature agendas—from Communion for adulterers and the ordination of married men to the enthronement of “conscience” and the rapid abandonment of evangelization.
Historian Roberto de Mattei likewise calls Rahner the Pope’s “grandfather,” arguing that the two Jesuits are linked through a third—Carlo Cardinal Martini, leader of the St. Gallen mafia and Pope Francis’s “father.” “The agenda of Cardinal Martini, which is the same as Rahner’s, offers us the key to understanding the papacy of Pope Francis,” says de Mattei, pointing to the Cardinal’s fiery last interview calling for the autonomy of conscience and Communion for adulterers.
Today, St. Gallen don Walter Cardinal Kasper and others are euphemizing Pope Francis’s ruptures with the past as a glittery “paradigm shift.” But Archbishop Viganò says the “exotic,” “sophisticated” slogans are just being used “to mislead, to deceive.”
He explains that, in the past, a “huge machine of media propaganda” applied a hermeneutic of rupture to Vatican II. Today, he says, a slick “media machinery, including photos of Pope Francis with Emeritus Pope Benedict, and so forth, has been used to argue that the ‘new paradigm’ of Pope Francis is in continuity with the teaching of his predecessors.”
“But it is not so,” he warns. “It is a ‘new church’.”
❧
Benedict XVI “said this would be a catastrophe,” says Archbishop Viganò of the project to make a new Church. He’s referring to the Pope Emeritus’s letter this year on the sexual abuse crisis. To borrow Michael Brendan Dougherty’s summary of the “explosive, acid” text:
Benedict charges that a revolutionary spirit from the world entered the Church in the 1960s. Possessed by that spirit, arrogant theologians determined on creating “another Church” destroyed the traditional moral theology of the Faith, leading to a complete breakdown of moral discipline in the clergy and even a generalized spirit of blasphemy, which Benedict intimately and unforgettably connects with the phenomenon of child abuse.
Today, as the Amazon synod looms near, that malefic spirit seems to have brought with it seven others. Everywhere we hear klaxon calls warning of heresy, apostasy, and schism. Two powerful traditionalist prelates, Raymond Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, have called for 40 days of prayer and fasting to drive those spirits out.
Publicly, Pope Francis is playing it cool, saying he’s just a copycat of Pope John Paul II and a faithful implementer of Vatican II. It’s the prophets who are lighting angry blazes. Ask the Holy Father and he’ll say it’s an “honor” that they’re “attacking” him. He almost dares them to keep raising their voices and playing with fire. “I pray that schisms do not happen, but I am not afraid of them,” he defiantly declares, warning the “schools of rigidity” that their “pseudo-schismatic” ways will “end badly.”
“Pope Francis is saying that because he knows the Amazon Synod may provoke a schism,” argues Viganò in another interview with Moynihan last week. “He is ready to say others are making the schism, but (by his actions in continuing to support the Amazon synod) he is provoking it himself. Is this the attitude of a pastor who cares for the faithful? It is his own duty to prevent a
“But what is your message really: that God is about to chastise the Church, as Nineveh was threatened with destruction, or do you believe there is still a chance to renew the Church, through prayer and a renewal of priestly and lay spirituality?” Moynihan asks Viganò.
Fixing his eyes on the burning, purifying thing that must come, he replies: “The two possibilities you offer are not mutually exclusive. There may be both a chastisement, which will shake and diminish the Church, and also a reform and renewal of the Church, making her more resplendent in holiness. Both are possible.”
Today, here in Nineveh, the prophets are speaking—and time is running out for all of us, great and small, to heed them.
As the Church in America continues down the road to ruination, a discussion has arisen in some quarters about the repeated reports that what got the ball rolling on all this was a Communist plot back in the 1920s to put young communist agents into Catholic seminaries.
Reports all point to a woman, former Communist Party member Bella Dodd, who told numerous individuals and large groups that specific story: that shortly after coming to power in the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin communicated to communist parties in various countries to infiltrate the Catholic Church.
According to Dodd, he specifically instructed that the young men should be at the very least immoral, and preferrably active homosexual.
This was precisely what the esteemed Alice von Hildebrand told Church Militant three years ago in an exclusive, on-camera interview.
Dodd had converted to the Faith owing to Bp. Sheen and had become friends and a confidante of the von Hildebrands. One afternoon, in their New York home, when Deitrich von Hildebrand was lamenting the state of affairs in the Church, she explained to him how it had begun.
Alice von Hildebrand:
Stalin, soon after he came to power, ordered his cronies to invade Catholic seminaries … with young men that had neither faith nor morals. Now … the ideal cases: homosexual. Obviously, you don’t suppose that someone … well, it’s much more complicated, you know, to have an affair with a woman. But if you’re a homosexual, and then it was a tragic mission … . [Dodd] declared publicly — I repeat, publicly — that in the course of the 20 years of activities for the Communists, she recruited some 1,100 young men.
So there is a bit of debate whether Dodd’s story is true or not — and frankly, there is no way to substantiate it. What is known is she did tell large numbers of people; one couple from Texas has even signed an affidavit which Church Militant has been given, testifying that Dodd told them.
Additionally, as you just heard, she told the von Hildebrands as well. Others have also been public about hearing Dodd relay the same information. So there is no dispute that she claimed this all to be true. What is being debated is whether her claim itself is true.
As we said, there’s no way to know this one way or the other, not this many years removed from the reported activity. However, what we can do is look at the current state of affairs in the Church and ask, does the story have at least some plausibility? The answer to that is a resounding yes.
And it is yes because it is a simple, undeniable fact that marxist, communist ideas have come to be commonplace in the Church, especially among the clergy and the hierarchy — especially in this pontificate.
Did communists infiltrate the Church? Absolutely, beyond a doubt. Did it begin with Bella Dodd and her role? The answer to that question at this point no longer really matters, beyond historical curiosity.
Church Militant learned exclusively and reported earlier this year that in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the Soviets established a network of indoctrination centers — more than 30 in all, all over Europe.
Church Militant communicated with the former communist agent from Poland who was one of those instrumental in establishing the centers. One of those centers was in St. Gallen, Switzerland, the same location that the now-dead and corrupt Cdl. Danneels specifically said the plot to elect Jorge Bergoglio to the papacy was hatched many years ago.
Saint Gallen is also the place Theodore McCarrick first visited in his youth and not only remained for an entire year, but also returned to year after year for decades.
It was McCarrick, the potential communist plant, resurrected by this socialism-friendly pope, who struck the deal between Communist China and the Vatican that has brought such misery to Chinese Catholics.
Liberation Theology — the evil approach to Christology explicitly condemned by St. John Paul, and which is now roaring back under this pontificate — we have come to learn was planted into South America by KGB agents specifically to undermine the Catholic Church.
Almost to a man, the entire Jesuit order has converted to some form or another of marxism, and true to marxist form, is using its vast network of more than 300 colleges and universities to poison young minds and produce young socialists.
The founder of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci, specifically said that for the ideals of Marx to be spread throughout the world, the Catholic Church would have to be destroyed.
Now we hear from the Vatican almost non-stop attacks against politically conservative, theologically orthodox Americans, accusing us of being greedy capitalists, racists, xenophobes, climate changers, immigrant-haters — Pope Francis even going so far as to have said recently that he welcomes attacks from Americans.
Unfortunately, tthe current Vatican Vogue is echoed nearly daily by weak-minded cowardly bishops in the U.S., who continue to push the talking points of the Democratic Party, which is now itself going through the pangs of converting into a socialist party — a conversion not yet complete, but nearly.
It’s why the Democratic debates so far have been so raucous, as the younger socialist set are seizing more and more control, and the old guard, like Joe Biden, are wrestling ferociously with each other.
Too many U.S. bishops are in lock step with the Democratic socialists, and both those bishops and those Democrats are too heavily influenced by a smorgasbord of marxist, socialist, communist ideas — which brings us back full circle to the question of Bella Dodd and her self-admitted activity of placing American Communist Party agents — 1,100 in all — into Catholic seminaries beginning in the mid- to late 1920s and continuing for approximately 10 years or so.
Close to a hundred years after the reported activity was launched, what do we have? A highly corrupt and immoral hierarchy, with deep involvement in the homosexual world, actively and passively destroying Church dogmas, eroding faith in nearly everything Catholic by sowing doubt and confusion, warmly embracing socialist politics on a large number of issues, striking deals with communist governments which result in horrors for Catholics in those countries, sitting atop a virtual empire of lies and deceit and cover-up in literally thousands of places around the universal Church.
This communist evil which has infiltrated the Church is present in nearly every location you can imagine, right down to an enormous percentage of local parishes.
Catholic universities are no longer Catholic; Catholic hospitals are no longer Catholic; Catholic bishops reject Catholic tradition; the Communist scourge has been set loose within the walls.The Communist scourge has been set loose within the walls.Tweet
Good priests who remain authentically Catholic are persecuted or have to go into hiding so as to escape the reach of their superiors who wish to silence them because they will not bend to marxist/communist precepts so dominant in the Church and the culture.
A warning to faithful Catholics: When Communism, Marxism, Socialism gain significant enough control, the Church ends up attacked and persecuted, for the goal of Communism is world domination, which is the same goal the Church has. The only difference is the weapons employed. Communists use lies and violence. The Church uses truth and peace.
We are in momentous, never-before-seen times, and faithful Catholics need to realize exactly what’s playing out here.
September 12, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider are calling on Catholics to pray and fast to combat the “serious theological errors and heresies” they identify in the controversial working documentfor the impending Amazon Synod.
Burke and Schneider released an eight-page statement warning of six such heresies contained in the document, or Instrumentum Laboris, which is the source for discussion by the Synod of Bishops taking place in Rome October 6-27.
They encourage a 40-day crusade of prayer and fasting beginning on September 17 and ending on October 26, the day before the synod concludes.
“The theological errors and heresies, implicit and explicit in the Instrumentum Laboris of the imminent Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon, are an alarming manifestation of the confusion, error and division which beset the Church in our day,” the two prelates say in the statement.
“It is our duty to make the faithful aware of some of the main errors that are being spread through the Instrumentum Laboris,” they stated, adding that the working document is “long and is marked by a language which is not clear in its meaning, especially in what regards the deposit of faith (depositum fidei).”
The prelates’ statement calling for the crusade of prayer and fasting is dated September 12, and covered in a report from Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register.
Burke, patron of the Sovereign Order of Malta, and Schneider, auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, are both well-regarded among Catholics for their steady defense of the faith despite all but continual attacks directed at them for upholding it.
They encourage Catholic clergy and laity to “pray daily at least one decade of the Holy Rosary and to fast once a week” during the crusade.
Pray to combat theological errors and heresies
They ask that the prayer and fasting be directed toward the intention “that the theological errors and heresies inserted in the Instrumentum Laboris may not be approved during the synodal assembly.”
Additionally, they ask “particularly” for prayer that Pope Francis, “in the exercise of the Petrine ministry, may confirm his brethren in the faith by an unambiguous rejection of the errors of the Instrumentum Laboris.”
The synod’s Instrumentum laboris was released in June and draws heavily from Francis’ encyclicals Evangelii Gaudium and Laudato si.’
Learn more about Cardinal Burke’s views and past actions by visiting FaithfulShepherds.com.Click here.
Will the synod undermine Church teaching?
The Synod and its working document have been criticized over a number of issues, which Burke and Schneider lay out in their declaration, supporting their arguments with Church documents, the Catechism, and Scripture.
Titled Amazonia, New Paths for the Church and for an Integral Ecology, the document and synod, it is feared, will be used to undermine Church teaching in a number of areas and to advance radical ideas incompatible with Catholic doctrine.
“Various prelates and lay commentators, as well as lay institutions, have warned that the authors of the Instrumentum Laboris…have inserted serious theological errors and heresies into the document,” state Burke and Schneider.
‘Heretical’ and an ‘apostasy’
Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, one of the two remaining dubia cardinals, issued a stiff critique of the Instrumentum Laboris in June, terming it “heretical” and an “apostasy” from Divine Revelation. Brandmüller called on Church leadership to “reject” it with “all decisiveness.”
‘False teaching’
In a statement this past July Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), denounced the Instrumentum Laboris as well for its “radical u-turn in the hermeneutics of Catholic theology” and for its “false teaching.”
Asked if the document may become “something definitive or authoritative for the Church,” Burke responded, “It cannot be. The document is an apostasy. This cannot become the teaching of the Church, and God willing, the whole business will be stopped.”
Burke and Schneider also ask Catholic to pray for the intention that Pope Francis “may not consent to the abolition of priestly celibacy in the Latin Church by introducing the praxis of the ordination of married men, the so-called ‘viri probati’, to the Holy Priesthood.”
‘The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women’
The threat to priestly celibacy by way of the synod is of great concern to Catholics, along with an attempt to establish a female “diaconate,” regarded widely as a strategy to push for women “priests” – an impossibility given the Church has no authority to ordain women as Christ chose only men as his apostles.
In his 1994 encyclicalOrdinatio Sacerdotalis, the late Pope Saint John Paul II affirmed Church teaching on the matter, stating, “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
The working document suggests discussion of a married priesthood with the priest shortage in the Amazon as rationale.
The list of errors
Among the errors listed by Burke and Schneider is “implicit pantheism” which identifies God as one with the universe, or regards all gods on the same level.
“The Magisterium of the Church rejects such an implicit pantheism as incompatible with the Catholic Faith,” they state.
The second error identified is that “the pagan superstitions of the Amazon tribes are an expression of Divine Revelation deserving an attitude of dialogue and acceptance on the part of the Church.”
The third concerns the document’s advance of “Intercultural dialogue instead of evangelization.”
“The Instrumentum Laboris contains the erroneous theory that aboriginal people have already received divine revelation, and that the Catholic Church in the Amazon should undergo a ‘missionary and pastoral conversion,’” Burke and Schneider write, “instead of introducing doctrine and practice of universal truth and goodness.”
They further add, “the Instrumentum Laboris says also that the Church must enrich herself with the symbols and rites of the aboriginal people.”
“The Magisterium of the Church rejects the idea that missionary activity is merely intercultural enrichment,” they say.
And fourth, Burke and Schneider list, “An erroneous conception of sacramental ordination, postulating worship ministers of either sex to perform even shamanic rituals.”
Fifth, the prelates say that in keeping with “its implicit pantheistic views, the Instrumentum Laboris relativizes Christian anthropology, which recognizes the human person as made in the image of God and therefore the pinnacle of material creation (Gen 1:26-31), and instead considers the human a mere link in nature’s ecological chain, viewing socioeconomic development as an aggression to ‘Mother Earth.’”
And lastly they say the working document puts forth “a tribal collectivism that undermines personal uniqueness and freedom,” that is, along with the other errors, rejected by the Magisterium.
All Catholics must be informed and pray
Burke and Schneider write that no one is excused from “being informed about the gravity of the situation and from taking appropriate action for love of Christ and of His life with us in the Church,” and that “all the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, before such a threat to her integrity, must pray and fast for the eternal good of her members who risk being scandalized, that is led into confusion, error and division by this text for the Synod of Bishops.”
The prelates invoke the Blessed Mother’s intersession along with that of other Catholic missionary saints to protect Pope Francis and the bishops taking part in the Amazon Synod from “the danger of approving doctrinal errors and ambiguities, and of undermining the Apostolic rule of priestly celibacy.”
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt has issued a 185-page report on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church committed by priests, deacons, seminarians, and nuns. The Attorney General’s office reviewed more than 2,000 files on priests who worked in Missouri since 1945. It also read the files of more than 300 deacons, seminarians, and nuns. News reports and communication gleaned from victims were also accessed.
The alleged offenses (many were never substantiated) range from “boundary issues,” such as inappropriate communication, to sexual acts. The report found 163 priests and deacons involved in some form of sexual misconduct. In other words, approximately 8 percent had an accusation made against them, extending back to World War II. Of the 163 accused clergymen, more than half (83) are dead, and most of the offenses are time barred by the statute of limitations. The Attorney General’s office is pursing 12 cases of alleged abuse.
One of the more curious aspects of the report is the failure to identify the sex of the victims, though it is obvious that most were male. I draw this conclusion because in some cases the report speaks about “her” or “she,” yet it rarely uses male pronouns. This is pure politics: the homosexual cover-up continues.
Some news reports, and comments made by professional victims’ groups, are making it sound as if the abuse is ongoing. In fact, there is little in the way of misconduct. “Only a small percentage of the abusive priests described in this report are reported to have committed misconduct after 2002 [the year that the bishops announced the Dallas reforms].” Unfortunately, this important fact is not mentioned until p. 133 of the report.
I decided to do some of my own digging, and what I found is not the kind of data that critics of the Church want the public to know about.
I broke down the 163 cases according to the decade in which the abuse occurred (if there were multiple offenses that extended into another decade, I counted only the decade of the initial misconduct). No date could be determined by the report in eight of the cases; there was one case which did not involve abuse (it was listed because of a failure to report an incident). Some priests were laicized and others simply ran off, abandoning their ministry. Unrealistically, the report says the dioceses should track them down and bring them to justice.
Here are the 154 cases listed by the decade in which the offense occurred.1940s: 31950s: 141960s: 331970s: 511980s: 331990s: 82000s: 72010s: 3This is consistent with everything we have learned about clergy sexual abuse. The timeline is clearly associated with the sexual revolution, a phenomenon that infected the Church as well as the rest of society. Most of the abuse took place in the 60s and 70s, and if we include the 80s (when the sexual revolution was trailing off), fully three-quarters (76%) of the misconduct took place during that time. Only 8 percent of the cases were alleged to have occurred in this century.
Since 2002, the report says of the Catholic Church, “it has taken steps towards significant reform,” crediting it with strengthening “independent oversight and an integrated approach to supervising all clergy working in Missouri.”
While this acknowledgement is appreciated, the report still has a hard time noting just how much change has taken place. It cites the latest report by the National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People, commissioned by the bishops. That report noted that “seventeen years after the approval of the 2002 Charter…existing auditing procedures were not sufficiently thorough or independent.”
Yes, improvements can always be made: One incident of sexual misconduct is unacceptable. But the Attorney General’s report could have discussed the data from the latest National Review Board report. It should have.
The 2018 National Review Board report covered the period of July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. During this period, there were 26 new allegations involving current minors. But only three could be substantiated (all three clergymen were removed from ministry). Seven were unsubstantiated; three were unable to be proven; two were referred to a religious order; two were reported as unknown; and three were “boundary violations,” not instances of sexual abuse.
If we consider the three cases that were substantiated, this means that only .006 percent of the 50,648 members of the clergy had a substantiated accusation made against him in that one-year period.
Is there any demographic group, or an institution, religious or secular, where adults intermingle with minors on a regular basis, which has a better record than this?
Will Missouri Attorney General Schmitt now commence a similar probe of sexual abuse in the Missouri public schools? If the real issue is sexual abuse, he will. If it’s a matter of “getting the Catholic Church,” he will not. If he is like his colleagues in other states, we already the know the answer.
“Pope Innocent III: ‘For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God, for the slightest sin in the matter of the faith I could be judged by the Church.’ (propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judican)
– Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book “Magister Authority” shows that almost all Francis apologists be they liberal, conservative or traditionalist are “proximate to heresy”:“[T]reating ALL papal statements as if they are infallible… is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in Vatican I… by essentially saying the pope is infallible regardless of conditions…” “… Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused.” (Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14) – Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in “Si Papa”:
“‘Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all men cannot be judged by anybody, unless he should be called to the task of having deviated from the faith. (Si Papa)'”
“Pope Innocent III: ‘For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God, for the slightest sin in the matter of the faith I could be judged by the Church.’ (propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judican)” (The Remnant, “Answering a Sedevacantist Critic,” March 18, 2015)
Dr. Taylor Marshall, the co-host on the YouTube “TnT,” show said:
“[Cardinal Muller said] No pope alone if he spoke ex cathedra could make possible the ordination of women… It seems to be if the pope came out and said ex cathedra ‘Women are to be ordained to the sacred order of the deaconate…'”
“You have only two options at that point. One, it’s true. That is Divine Revelation that God revealed. I can’t see how it works. Or second, the pope ain’t the pope. sedevacantist.” (YouTube, TnT, Dr. Taylor Marshall, “What about Married Deacons, Minor Orders, and So-Called Women Deacons?,” Time 18:15 to 19:02)
In Twitter, Nick Donnelly wrote:
“Bishop Schneider tells Raymond Arroyo that the [the Open Letter] signatories were wrong to accuse Francis of heresy because he hasn’t made a formal, universal declaration of heresy. Though he admits he has allowed wrong teaching Very disappointing hair splitting.”[https://mobile.twitter.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/1129334902153986050]
In responding to Donnelly’s statement, Marshall apparently is implicitly saying Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales is promoting “sedevacantis[m]”:
“I agree w Bishop Schneider. If you condemn Francis as “heretical pope” one must break communion with him. This is why I called the doc “practically sedevacantist”. It’s not formally sede but the natural conclusion [what it ultimately promotes] is.” [https://mobile.twitter.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/1129334902153986050]
Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales wrote:
“Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinion, as did John XXIL.; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, andthe Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: ‘Let another take his bishopric.'” (The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Marshall appears to be saying by inference that the Doctor of the Church is promoting “sedevacantis[m]” by “natural conclusion” when he wrote: “[T]he Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, andthe Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” Do Marshall and Schneider think they are greater theologians than St. Francis de Sales?
Do Marshall and Schneider think that the Church can’t depose a pope contradicting a Doctor of the Church or possibly that magically the Church doesn’t have to “condemn Francis as [a] ‘heretical pope'” before it “either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See”?
According to Donnelly, Bishop Athanasius Schneider said “the signatories were wrong to accuse Francis of heresy because he hasn’t made a formal, universal declaration of heresy.”
Marshall agreed with this statement.
Are Schneider and Marshall waiting for “a formal, universal declaration of heresy” such as this:
Not privately, but Pope Francis officially acting as the pope explicitly contradicted traditional Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage when he in a “official act as the pope” placed the Argentine letter in the the Acts of the Apostolic See (AAS) in which he said of the Buenos Aires region episcopal guidelines:
“There is no other interpretations.”
The guidelines explicitly allows according to LifeSiteNews “sexuality active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'” (LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers, December 4, 2017) In a article on OnePeterFive, specialist in Magisterial authority Dr. John Joy said “It means that it is an official act of the pope.” Moreover, the article said:
“Dr. Joy pointed out that adding the letter to the AAS could, in fact, damage the credibility of Amoris Laetitia by potentially removing the possibility that it could be intercepted in an orthodox way, via its publication in the official acts of the Apostolic See, that the unorthodox interpretation is the official one.”(OnePeterFive, “Pope’s Letter on Argentinian Communion Guidelines for Remarriage Given Official Status,” December 2, 2017)The “official act of” Francis is a “unorthodox interpretation.” It is not just a private contradiction of traditional Catholic teaching.The “official act of the pope” is a “unorthodox interpretation” which means it contradicts traditional Catholic teaching which is just another way of saying by “official act the pope” is teaching heresy.Now, let us quote philosopher Ed Feser: “(1) Adulterous sexual acts are in some special circumstances morally permissible… these propositions flatly contradict irreformable Catholic teaching. Proposition (1) contradicts not only the perennial moral teaching of the Church, but the teaching of scripture itself.”(Edwardfeser.blogspot, “Denial flows into the Tiber,” December 18, 2016)
How’s that for an understatement?
Marshall and Schneider might have heard that God commanded in one of the Ten Commandments:
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
But, just in case they never heard of the Ten Commandments, Dubia Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said:
“Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism.” (LifeSiteNews, “Dubia Cardinal: Anyone who Opens Communion to Adulterers a Heretic and Promotes Schism,” December 23, 2016)
Does this mean because Cardinal Brandmuller said that if a pope “open[ed] Communion to adulterers” he is “a heretic and promotes schism” that according to Marshall by inference he is a “sede” by “natural conclusion”?
Since Marshall wants to claim everyone who demonstrates that the Francis teaching that Communion for adulterers is heresy or anyone who calls for an investigation into the validity of the Francis conclave is a schismatic or a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist, here are five really short and easy to answer dubia questions which hopefully aren’t too complicated for Marshall to answer to prove he is not a heretic who believes it is impossible for a supposed pope to be a antipope or is not proximate to heresyin treating “ALL papal statements as if they are infallible… [which] is proximate to heresy.”
To make it really easy for him it has been formatted so that he only has to answer: yes or no.
1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said “The Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic… the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See.” Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.
2. “Universal Acceptance” theologian John of St. Thomas said “This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff.” Was John of St. Thomas for saying “the supreme pontiff” must be BOTH “lawfully elected and accepted by the Church” a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.
3. Do you think that a “supreme pontiff” if “universally accepted” is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on “dubious election[s]”, that he is “a woman… a child… a demented person… a heretic… a apostate… [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law”? Answer: yes or no.
4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:
“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses… A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”
Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or Benevacantists? Answer: yes or no.
5. Is Bishop Gracida really only a pawn of the legendary and notorious “Sedevacantist and Benevacantist” mastermind Ann Barnhardt for convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which “prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no. Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.