Wednesday, May 1, 2019

Episcopal Action Needed to Solve Papal Crisis

By David Martin

While complacent Catholics entertain the false security that the gates of hell can do no harm to the Church, the fact remains that the current papacy under Pope Francis has become a debacle of unprecedented proportions that has inflicted great harm on the Church. 

Aside from his having abetted anti-life forces, betrayed the underground Church in China, sacked loyal priests, empowered homosexuals, rewarded abortionists, praised Luther, blessed adultery, and denied the miracle of the loaves, Francis more than once has professed heresy.

For instance, on February 4, 2019, he signed a joint statement with the head of Egypt’s al-Azhar Mosque, which states that "diversity of religions" is "willed by God." 1  

While the previous popes since John XXIII had committed some slight errorssuch perfidy had never been expressed by them.                                                                    

Francis vs. His Predecessors

The primary difference between Francis and his immediate predecessors is that the former were surrounded by wicked cardinals who were driving the radical agenda and who tried to coerce these popes into complying with it, which when they didn't, were persecuted for their resistance. Whereas with the present pontificate, it is Francis who is driving the radical agenda, and he does this in harmonic accord with those who surround him, many of whom he has appointed. Unlike the previous popes, it is Francis who persecutes tradition-minded Catholics who resist change and who hold to the Old Mass and teachings, while it was Popes John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI who tried to bring back the Traditional Latin Mass. 

There is even evidence showing that Pope John Paul I was murdered after it was discovered that he had plans to expose the Vatican Freemasons by name and to universally bring back the Latin Tridentine Mass. Note that his reign lasted only 33 days, which providentially alludes to the murderous cult of the Freemasons that operates in 33 degrees.  

While we cannot allege that Francis is an initiated Freemason, we can state as fact that the Freemasons haven't ceased from praising Francis since the day of his election. For instance, on March 13, 2013, the day of Francis’ election, the Virtual Grand Lodge of Italy, GLVDI, published a statement of Grand Master Luciano Nistri concerning the election of the new pope.

A message that Freemasonry itself perceives a sharp break with the past and one which is turned now to listening to the poor, the marginalized and the weakest. To the new Pontiff we send our best wishes for his good work for years to come. Luciano Nistri, Grand Master GLVDI.”

The Emergence of true Shepherds

With the crisis intensifying with each passing day, it should encourage Catholics to see that there are faithful prelates like Cardinals Burke and Sarah and Archbishop Viganò who have come forward to defend the Church against FrancisWhat is needed is for a committee of bishops to respectfully present Francis with an ultimatum to either clarify or recant his erroneous statements or be deposed if he isn’t willing to voluntarily resign.

Theologians argue that such action requires that a pope first profess formal heresy, which is apparently why he often makes his avant-garde statements in an informal context to avoid censure, but does this not make him all the more worthy of rebuke? What is worse, a heretic or a deceiver?

One Bishop’s Opinion

Episcopal action is needed to correct the current Petrine debacle. And while many look to Bishop Athanasius Schneider for direction in this matter, his March 20 statement, "On the Matter of a Heretical Pope," leaves little or no room for effective action, since it denies the Church’s teaching that a pope can lose his papacy ipso facto through the profession of formal heresy and that the Church can declare him deposed on account of it. Bishop Schneider states:

"A pope cannot be deposed in whatsoever form and for whatever reason, not even for the reason of heresy."

This doesn’t stand next to the teaching of St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church.

"Now when [the Pope] 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."  — St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy 

St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, likewise states: 

"A pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church.”  — St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff

Here the saint makes it clear that a pope can be "punished by the Church" for having excommunicated himself ipso facto, yet Schneider disagrees, saying that “the loss of his office ipso facto because of heresy – is only a theological opinion, that does not fulfill the necessary theological categories of antiquity, universality, and consensus.” 

So, were the saints and doctors of the Church wrong? Cardinal Raymond Burke made it clear in an interview with Catholic World Report (CWR) in December 2016 that if a pope were to “formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope.”

Burke was reiterating Church teaching, as expressed by famed canonist Franz Wernz in his Ius Canonicum: “In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact.”

Inquisition into Francis’ Election

A committee of bishops also needs to look into the matter of Francis’ election, since the 2013 conclave contained multi-violations against Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Unversi Dominici Gregis, which governs papal elections. The pope makes it clear in his Constitution that political vote canvassing on the part of cardinal electors renders the election “null and void.” 

The mere fact that Cardinal Godfried Danneels confessed on video in September 2015 that he and several cardinals were part of the notorious “St. Gallen’s Mafia” that had conspired for the ouster of Benedict XVI and the election of Cardinal Bergoglio is every reason to consider that the 2013 election conferred no right on Francis. 

Austen Ivereigh's book, The Great Reformer, brings to light how Cardinal Murphy O'Connor along with several key cardinals had spearheaded an intense lobbying campaign, through which they garnered pledges from up to 30 cardinals to get Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio elected as pope. This directly contravened John Paul II’s Constitution where it states:

“The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons.” (81) 

Section 76 of the Constitution states: 

“Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.” (76)

Aside from Cardinal Bergoglio’s collusion with St. Gallen’s Mafia before being elected pope, there is the question of his errant background as bishop and cardinal, which could have nullified his elevation to the papacy. Francis has a history of involvement with the Charismatic sect, and also Liberation Theology, which is Marxist-driven and loaded with heresy. 

Consider this excerpt from the Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus, which was issued ex-cathedra on February 15, 1559, by His Holiness Paul IV.

“[By this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: 

(i) “the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless.” (6:1) 

Naturally, it would take an episcopal committee to depose Francis for past heresy, though such an action would not render him deposed but would simply make official what already is the case, namely, that Cardinal Bergoglio would have automatically lost his bishopric upon the profession of heresy, thus nullifying his election as pope. 

This is not to mention the many heresies he has professed as pope, which, if done formally, would have excommunicated him ipso facto had his election been valid. 

It only behooves the Church’s episcopal body to take a closer look at the 2013 papal election, since we may very well be witnessing the fulfillment of the prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi concerning a false shepherd. 

"At the time of this tribulation, a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error…. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer." (1226) 

(Taken from Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, R. Washbourne Publishing House, 1882, pp. 248-250, with imprimatur by His Excellency William Bernard, Bishop of Birmingham) 

1.  At the General Audience of April 2, Francis appeared to offer a clarification by saying that God “permissively” wills other religions, but his explanation has generally been dismissed given the context in which his February 4 statement was made: ”The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom.” Francis obviously meant that diversity of "colour, sex, race and language are willed by God" in the ordained sense, which they are, so we can only infer that he meant "diversity of religions" the same way.



Anonymous said...

"The primary difference between Francis and his immediate predecessors is that the former were surrounded by wicked cardinals who were driving the radical agenda and who tried to coerce these popes into complying with it, which when they didn't, were persecuted for their resistance."

Could you please offer one iota of proof for this statement? Francis was appointed bishop and cardinal by his immediate predecessors. In the 2005 conclave he came in 2nd to Ratzinger. These are documented facts. Seriously, how can a cardinal persecute the pope? I agree w/you that ratz & jp2 were surrounded by wicked cardinals but that's because they themselves were and are wicked and appointed wicked men just like themselves--including Burke (the first bishop to put a transgender into a convent).

So sick and tired of opus devil lies: what we need is episcopate action (too bad the entire episcopate was appointed by Francis and his immediate predecessors).

David Martin said...

But not deliberately. John Paul II and Paul VI believed their appointments were good, not realizing they had empowered some scoundrels, whereas Francis deliberately empowers radicals, knowing full well what they stand for.

JBQ said...

@David Martin: Your comment is insightful.

Anonymous said...

"But not deliberately. John Paul II and Paul VI believed their appointments were good (for what?), not realizing they had empowered some scoundrels, whereas Francis deliberately empowers radicals, knowing full well what they stand for."

Excuse me--you can't judge their hearts--but their actions are there in black and white and how we got where we are today was mapped out by VC2 and implemented by J23, P6, JP1,JP2, Ratz & Frannie. Paul VI was responsible for the death of priests behind the Iron Curtain because he was betraying them to the communists and that's why Pius XII moved him out of the Vatican. In addition, he was a sodomite and a promoter of rights for sodomites; he had JP1 give a speech to the cardinal on accepting sodomy in the 1970s and paved the way for JP1 to succeed him. He also made bishop/cardinal Weakland, Bernardin, Hickey, Ratzinger, JP2, etc. etc. Surely he knew they were sodomites. Surely he appointed those who favored the vernacular protestant mass. Surely he knew they were accepting of contraception, abortion, pre-marital sex, divorce, sex education of children and equality of the sexes. Surely he knew they believed that Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church were not necessary for salvation--only the U.N.

Just three months before his death, Pope Paul VI permitted Cardinal Luciani to address the Vatican cardinals on the possibility that the Church might encourage homosexuals to enter into long term loving relationships as they represented the only population group that was large enough and willing to provide economic and emotional support to millions of children who otherwise would be aborted by women too young or too poor to support them. Luciani argued that the Church’s traditional position exiled homosexuals from society, forcing many of them into lives of loneliness and despair. He argued the Church’s position was one of prejudice, as medical science had proved that sexual orientation cannot be changed and the Bible’s condemnation of homosexual acts was scant compared to its vast condemnation of heterosexual acts.

At the conclusion of the session, Luciani had been unable to convince more than a handful of his audience that the matter should even so much as be discussed. He thanked Paul for having given him the opportunity. He then turned to the Vatican cardinals and told them, “The day is not far off when we will have to answer to these people who through the years have been humiliated, whose rights have been ignored, whose human dignity has been offended, their identity denied and their liberty oppressed. What is more, we will have to answer to the God who created them. “

Homosexuality and Pedophilia
He also rejected outright the common assumption that homosexuals and pedophilia go together, When an opponent tried to argue aginst gay adoption on the grounds that “Nevertheless, homosexuals are pedophiles. This will put children in great danger” , this was his reply:

“To begin with,” Luciani responded, “homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia; one is sexual orientation and the other is sexual perversion. Yet, in that most cases of pedophilia involve incest, we must consider the question. If our objective is to prevent pedophilia in adoption then the only logical action is to permit only homosexuals to adopt children who are only of the opposite sex. This would reduce incest to zero. If we permit heterosexual couples to adopt children, then children would be at risk. “

MyronM said...

In place of the purebred Shepherd's dogs, a pack of stray mongrels slipped into the episcopal sees - no wonder they are wandering around the rubbish bins (eco-friendly) instead of fighting against the cones of Satan who have settled in the Vatican.
Petty, ill-educated conformists in the miter on their heads: there is not a single bishop in the whole Roman Catholic church to call down God's anathema on this infernal company that occupies the Vatican and is leading the poor souls to perdition - even this seemingly militant Kazakh, Fr. Athanasius Schneider, tilted his tail in the confrontation with Bergoglio.

Anonymous said...

Schneider is not a real Kazakh. He might have been born there, but he is ethnically Caucasian and of German stock....immigrants to the area, as are most of the Catholics there.
Most Kazakhs are either Muslims, Buddhists, or some Russian Orthodox. They are also mostly Asian in appearance....similar to the Mongols.
But there is a large Caucasian minority of mostly Russians.....and some others such as Schneider. Catholics are an almost insignificant minority of immigrant origin....not native.

Damian Malliapalli

Anonymous said...

Schneider was born in DDR and then his family went to Kazakhistan when he was 5 or 6 years old, he's german.

MyronM said...

Athanasius Schneider, born as Anton Schneider on 7 April 1961 in Tokmok, Kirgistan, is a Kazakhstani Roman Catholic bishop, the auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan.

Instead of guessing, it's better to look into Wikipedia.

Anonymous said...

It does not matter where Schneider is from - he is a coward.

He uses Tradition to further himself for he feels out of the power loop over there in the middle of nowhere.

He also engages in a shocking amount of travel - up to 10 trips to Europe every year - 20 flights to and from Kazakhstan - is this on the donations of the People of God?

When push comes to shove, Schneider lies down and submits to the vulgar, ignorant heretic slouching on Peter's chair.

Bergoglio must be deposed and deposed this year.

Tancred said...

Saint Paul was such a coward.

+Schneider is auxiliary bishop as well as being General Secretary of of his conference and people want to hear him.

Is he a coward because he doesn’t live up to your high standards?

Thomas Coffey said...

Ok, so how many bishops does it take out of the 8000 + , Who gets to pick them? If the bishops have gone along with this nonsense for the past fifty years what makes you think they will stop now? Then what if your group of bishops vote and they support Frankie and the boys? What do you do then ? Are they infallible ?Do you get another committee until you get the vote you like?I agree that as a practical matter we no longer have a pope ,at least not a functioning one. If you want to change things start saying your rosary,wear your scapular and make the first saturdays of reparation as Our Lady asked and leave the rest to her!

Anonymous said...

When push comes to shove, Schneider lies down and submits to the vulgar, ignorant heretic slouching on Peter's chair.

Bergoglio must be deposed and deposed this year"

Whoever wrote this, you deserve a standing ovation from trad Catholics. 100% true statement.

Schneider and Burke both are cowards. Schneider would lick Bergoglio's ass and turn radical dissident if it could mean an advancement. That line he gave that a Pope, no matter how much a heretic, can't be deposed is pure b.s. He's probably trying to cover himself. Loser.

Damian Malliapalli

Roseanne said...

It seems evident that Francis should be examined on these charges by canon law, theologians, etc. If he's not called on to answer these charges, or called to give a response, something is really wrong. As for myself, I saw the net video clip several years ago, where he told a boohooing protestant woman that if she and her husband discussed the matter of whether she could receive Holy Communion without being Catholic, and they decided between them that it was alright, then, he said just go ahead! !!! That's a bunch of hooey!!

Tancred said...

Actually, the converse is true. Bishop Schneider frequently says things at variance with the pope’s agenda which get his colleagues retired early or destroyed in some kind of scandal.

Your assertion is absolutely baseless and presumptuous.

Tancred said...

That sort of thing is widespread in western countries.

David Martin said...

Schneider is an outstanding bishop, and very pastoral, but I think he should be more open to the idea of examining Francis' election. For while we cannot allege that the conclave conferred no right on Francis, we can absolutely assert that the conclave was not canonical, i.e. it contained multi-violations against John Paul II's Apostolic Constitution on papal elections.

For example, Archbishop Scola was elected pope on March 13, 2013, but then his election was illicitly nullified when it was discovered that one of the cardinal electors had cheated by submitting two votes with the same name. But according to John Paul II such cheating was not to invalidate the election but the double vote was to simply count as one.

On the other hand, cancelling the election for the aforementioned reason would invalidate the election. And there were many other violations as well, vote canvassing, etc. Hence these violations warrant and perhaps even oblige an episcopal committee to look into the matter of Francis' election with a little more depth to see if in fact he was truly elected.

Catholic Mission said...

May 3, 2019
The approach which should have been used by the 19 signatories of the Open Letter to the Bishops on Pope Francis' heresies would be to identify Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite). Then interpret the Council in harmony with all Magisterial documents, also interpreted with Feeneyism. Once this orthodoxy is established they would then present what they already written

The approach which should have been used by the 19 signatories of the Open Letter to the Bishops on Pope Francis' heresies would be to identify Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite). Then interpret the Council in harmony with all Magisterial documents, also interpreted with Feeneyism.
Once this orthodoxy is established they would then present what they have already written.They could show that Pope Francis generally accepts and promotes heresy. They would point out precise theology which creates new doctrines.
They would not say that he 'seems' to be promoting heresy.
This has not been done in the present Open Letter and even Massimo Faggioli noted it. The signatories have pointed out the heretical doctrines but not the particular theology (Cushingism) which is responsible for it and which can be avoided in future.
Pope Francis cites Vatican Council II (Cushingite) in his defence. He does not disagree with those who criticize him. On the plane from Abu Dhabi, when asked, he said that he had not shifted a millimetre or two from Vatican Council II. He meant Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) in which Lumen Gentium 16, for example, refers to known non Catholics saved outside the Church in ignorance or a good conscience.
But there is no such person in 2019 he had to be told. LG 16 refers to only a hypothetical case. So it does not contradict Feeneyite EENS which suggests that the person with whom he signed the document in Abu Dhabi was on the way to Hell. Vatican Council II (AG 7) says he does not have faith and baptism for salvation. This is interpreting Vatican Council II without the false premise. It is Feeneyism.
His critics do not point out the difference between Vatican Council II Cushingite and Feeneyite.The conclusions of the two interpertations are different. One is traditional and rational and the other is heretical and non traditional.It is black and white and like the binary system of the computers.
Once it is clear that Pope Francis is using Cushingite theology, which is different from my Feeneyite theology, his doctrinal errors can be identified.
Then when Pope Francis is asked about it he cannot cite Vatican Council II ( Cushingism).There would be no citation in the Council, which would support him.If he uses the irrational premise he would be checked.
If he says that Nostra Aetate contradicts Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation, he would be corrected.No where does Nostra Aetate say that there are physically known non Catholics saved outside the Church. It does not say that we know any one who is an exception to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
If he says Protestants do not need to enter the
Church since they are saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) it would be pointed out that UR 3 refers to a hypothetical case.It does not refer to someone we know in 2019. So it is not an exception to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need Catholic faith and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.So he cannot cite Vatican Council II any more.
If he says the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) is obsolete with Vatican Council II it would be pointed out to him that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc can refer to only hypothetical people and so are not literal cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church.They are not objective exceptions to EENS in 1965-2019.The Council, Feeneyite, supports 'triumphalism' and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So he has no argument any more from Vatican Council II to support his heresies....
-Lionel Andrades