Monday, November 18, 2019

Pope Pius X's Prophecy of "my Successor... after a Short Retirement"?

In "Antichrist and the End Times" by Rev. Joseph Iannuzzi (who apparently is a Francis apologist from some research), he quotes a Pope Pius X prophecy which appears related to the 3rd Secret of Fatima:

"I saw one of my successors taking to flight over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in disguise somewhere; and after a short retirement [exile] ["exile" in the brackets is part of the quote in the Iannuzzi book] he will die a cruel death."
(books.google.com)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Sunday, November 17, 2019

Why are Remnant Writers Hilary White & Siscoe Afraid of an Cardinal Investigation of Francis's Validity?

On November 14, Remnant writer Hilary White twitted:

"The validity of a papal election rests on more than one thing, the most important of which is his acceptance by the Church in the person of the bishops. Even C. Burke, an elector and canon lawyer, has said nothing about UDG affecting validity. Its the reason the question...
... is unanswerable. Only a pope can determine if a person has violated UDG and only a pope can violate UDG. If these are the same person, what have we got? Only a pope can say that a previous pope had been an antipope. So, maybe the answer to your question will simply have to wait."
White is wrong on her claim that Cardinal Raymond Burke said nothing on the conclave constitution:
Patrick Coffin on his YouTube show asked Cardinal Burke:

"I was wondering rather if those [Universi Dominici Gregis conclave constitution] rules [of the 2013 conclave that elected Francis] were violated and rather or not the whole election of Francis may be invalid. Is there any foundation for that speculation?"

Cardinal Burke answered:

"The only grounds that could be used for calling into question the validity of the election would be were the election organized by a campaign beforehand which is strictly forbidden and that would be difficult to demonstrate..."

"... If these persons [the St. Gallen Mafia of liberal cardinals] engaged in a active campaign first to undermined Pope Benedict XVI and at the same time to engineer the election of someone [Francis] then that could be a argument. I don't think I have the facts, and there have to be facts, to prove that. That's all I have to say about that."
(Patrick Coffin show, "141: Dubia Cardinal Goes on the Record - Raymond Cardinal Burke (Free Version)," Premiered 13 hours ago, 19:55 to 21:46)
Next, White is wrong in saying "Only a pope can determine if a person has violated UDG and only a pope can violate UDG":
White is ignoring paragraph 5 of Universi Dominici Gregis which says:

"Should doubts arise concerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution, or concerning the manner of putting them into effect. I [Pope John Paul II] Decree that all power of issuing a judgment of this in this regard to the College of Cardinals, to which I grant the faculty of interpreting doubtful or controverted points."
(Universi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 5)

Later in the paragraph it says "except the act of the election," which can be interpreted in a number of ways.

The point is, as Bishop Rene Gracida says and Universi Dominici Gregis said, only the cardinals can interpret its meaning, not a future pope, not White or anyone else.
Again, White is wrong in saying "The validity of a papal election rests" most importantly on "his acceptance by the Church in the person of the bishops" and, moreover, "Only a pope can say that a previous pope had been an antipope":
The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is a antipope.

In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope.
In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II.
How is this possible?
St. Bernard who wasn't a pope said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops."
(St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72)

 How is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for Anacletus?
Historian Warren Carroll explains:

"[C]anon law does not bind a Pope arranging for his successor... [Papal Chancellor] Haimeric proposed that... a commission of eight cardinals should be selected to choose the next Pope... strong evidence [shows] that the Pope [Honorius] endorsed what Haimeric was doing, including the establishment of the electoral commission [of eight cardinals]."
(The Glory of Christendom, Pages 36-37)

The majority or "sanior pars," five cardinals out of eight of "the electoral commission," elected Pope Innocent II as St. Bernard said and as evidence shows was the will of the previous pope in what we can call a constitution for the election of his successor.
In the same way, is it possible that Francis was not elected pope even though he received a absolute majority of cardinals votes and is now as in the case of Anacletus proclaimed pope by the same absolute majority?
As with the case of Anacletus, it is possible Francis is a antipope if his election contradicted or violated the constitution promulgated by Pope John Paul II for electing his successor.
The renown Catholic historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the "election procedures... [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope":

"Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope)." 

"During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals."

"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. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."

"Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims."
[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt
Finally, Remnant writer White got her idea that "The validity of a papal election rests" most importantly on "his acceptance by the Church in the person of the bishops" from Remnant writer Robert Siscoe who claims that it is a infallible dogma that a man is infallibly a pope if there is "peaceful and universal acceptance" by the Church.
The problem apparently is Siscoe, who is White's mentor in the "universal acceptance" claim, is possibly either a poor scholar or possibly a bit disingenuous in his leaving out the second part of a quote by a Doctor of the Church.

He says "peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected... nevertheless becomes a true Pope... [by] universal acceptance... curing any defects that may have existed in the election... Here is what [Doctor of the Church] St. Alphonsus taught":

'It is of no importance that in the past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would become the true Pontiff.'"
(TrueorFalsePope.com, "Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a  Pope," 2-28-19 & 3-20-19) [read this whole article here]

The problem with Siscoe's quote is he leaves out the very next sentence:

"'But if for a certain time, he was not accepted universally and truly by the Church, during that time then, the pontifical see would be vacant, as it is vacant at the death of a Pope.' 'Verita Della Fede', vol. VIII, p. 720.'"
(CathInfo.com, "Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal," December 2, 2017)

Did Siscoe leave it out because he is a poor scholar or for some other reason or because it said "for a certain time"?

What does "for a certain time" mean?

Is that "certain time" immediately at the conclave or is it a few years after the conclave?

Does this possibly mean that since Francis "afterwards... for a certain time... was not accepted universally... then, the pontifical see would be vacant"?

Francis is not "accepted universally."

I am honored to know a successor of the Apostles, Bishop Rene Gracida, who questions the validity of Francis and is calling for the cardinals to investigate if he was "lawfully elected."

Moreover, Siscoe can't have it both ways in his quotes when they apparently contradict each other.

In the above same article he quotes John of St. Thomas saying:

"[T]his man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff."

(TrueorFalsePope.com, "Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a  Pope," 2-28-19 & 3-20-19)

 But getting back to Siscoe's selective quote of St. Alphonsus, a good place to go to find out what the Doctor of the Church really meant is to go to a scholar who quotes him in full.

This is Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira who Siscoe respects as shown by his website:

"'Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira's Endorsement of 'True or False Pope?'"  Note: Having recently learned of the passing of the great Brazilian scholar, Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, we are publishing a portion of his endorsement of True or False Pope?, which will appear in the upcoming second edition. (1-8-2019)" [http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/?m=1]



There is good reason to respect de Silveira's scholarship has he himself explained:

"In the 1970 Brazilian edition of my study of the heretical Pope, in the French edition of 1975 and in the Italian in 2016, I stated that on the grounds of the intrinsic theological reasons underpinning the Fifth Opinion I considered it not merely probable but certain. I chose not to insist on the qualification 'theologically certain' for an extrinsic reason, namely, that certain authors of weight do not adopt it.43 This was also the opinion of the then Bishop of Campos, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, as expressed in a letter of 25th January 1974, when he sent my work to Paul VI, asking him to point out any possible errors (which never took place), expressly stating that he referred to the study 'written by lawyer Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, with the contents of which I associate myself .'”


Here is what  de Silveira say in his book "Implications Of New Missae And Heretic Popes":
"On this same sanatio in raclice by virtue of the acceptance of the Pope by the whole Church,
Saint Alphonse of Liguori writes, in less heated but perhaps even more incisive terms:

“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession
of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope,
since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not
been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been
vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff’
(2).

"4. The Election of a Person who Cannot Be Pope

"The designation, as Pope, of a person who cannot occupy the charge, would constitute a special
case of dubious election
. For it is a common opinion (3) that the election of a woman, of a child, of a
demented person and of someone who were not a member of the Church (a person not baptized, a
heretic, an apostate, a schismatic) would be invalid by divine law.

"Among these causes of invalidity it seems to us that it would be necessary to distinguish those
which would admit of a “sanatio in radice” from those which would not. A woman could not become
Pope under any hypothesis. But the same thing would not apply with a demented person, who could be
cured; with a child, who could grow; with a non-baptized person, who could be converted.

"This being laid down, we ask: in the hypotheses of invalidity which admits of sanatio in radice ,
would the eventual acceptation by the whole Church of the invalidly elected Pope remedy the vices of
the election?


"A complete answer to this question would require a detailed analysis of each of the cases of
invalidity. And this would exceed the objectives which we have set for ourselves.

"Such being the case, we shall only consider the hypothesis which is most relevant to the
perspective in which we place ourselves: The election of a heretic to the Papacy. What would happen if
a notorious heretic were elected and assumed the Pontificate without anyone having contested his
election?


(1) Billot , Tract de Eccl. Christi, tom. I, pp. 612-613.

(2) Saint Alphonse de Liquori , Verita della Fede, in “Opera...”, vol. VIII. P. 720, n. 9.

(3) See: Ferreres , Inst. Canonicae, tom. I, p. 132; Coronata , Inst, luris Canonici, vol. I, p. 360; Schmalzqrueber ,
lus Eccl. Univ., tom. I, pars II, p. 376, n. 99; Caietan , De Auctoriatate..., cap. XXVI, n. 382, pp. 167-168.

187

"At first sight, the answer to this question is, in theory , very simple: since God cannot permit that
the whole Church err about who is her chief, the Pope peacefully accepted by the whole Church is the
true Pope (1). It would be the duty of the theologians, on the basis of this clear theoretical principle, to
resolve the concrete question which would then be put: either proving that in reality the Pope had not
been a formal and notorious heretic at the moment of election; or showing that afterwards he had been
converted; or verifying that the acceptation by the Church had not been pacific and universal; or
presenting any other plausible explanation.

"A more attentive examination of the question would reveal, nevertheless, that even on purely
theoretical grounds, an important difficulty arises, which would consist in determining precisely what is the concept of pacific and universal acceptation by the Church.
For such acceptation to have been
pacific and universal would it be enough that no Cardinal had contested the election?
Would it be
enough that in a Council, for example, almost the totality of the Bishops had signed the acts, recognizing
in this way, at least implicitly, that the Pope be the true one?
Would it be enough that no voice, or
practically no voice had publicly given the cry of alert?
Or, on the contrary, would a certain very
generalized though not always well defined distrust be sufficient to destroy the apparently pacific and
universal character of the acceptance of the Pope?
And if this distrust became a suspicion in numerous
spirits, a positive doubt in many, a certainty in some, would the aforementioned pacific and universal acceptance subsist?
And if such distrusts, suspicions, doubts and certainties cropped out with some
frequency in conversations or private papers, or now and again in published writings, could one still
classify as pacific and universal the acceptance of a Pope who was already a heretic on the occasion of
his election by the Sacred College?"
[https://archive.org/stream/ SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissa eAndHereticPopes/Silveira% 20Implications%20of%20New% 20Missae%20and%20Heretic% 20Popes_djvu.txt]

It is obvious that the renowned theologian de Silveira does not think that St. Alphonsus taught what Siscoe claims he taught that "peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected... nevertheless becomes a true Pope... [by] universal acceptance... curing any defects that may have existed in the election."

Does Siscoe think that "peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected... nevertheless becomes a true Pope... [by] universal acceptance... curing any defects that may have existed in the election" includes "curing" such "defects" as:

- "a special case of dubious [unlawful] election. For it is a common opinion (3) that the election of a woman, of a child, of a demented person and of someone who were not a member of the Church (a person not baptized, a heretic, an apostate, a schismatic) would be invalid by divine law."

Francis is not "accepted universally" as Bishop Gracida has said. But, even more important, it is obvious that besides "acceptance" a valid pope needs to be "lawfully elected."

Lastly, I ask Siscoe and White to specifically answer if Francis was not "lawfully elected" then does a "peaceful and universal acceptance" overturn a unlawful election?

More importantly, why are Siscoe and White apparently so afraid of an investigation by cardinals since they continually ignore or avoid addressing the subject by the "universal acceptance" mantra?

I ask both to please give a specific answer to why they are apparently so afraid of an investigation.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and for Catholics to not just bemoan heresy, but put pressure on the cardinals to act as well as for the grace for a cardinal to stand up and investigate and to be the St. Bernard of our time. 

Is the Remnant Wrong in saying Francis is same as Benedict & John Paul II?

The Remnant newspaper recently appears to be saying that Francis is the same as Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI which I will attempt to show is inaccurate. However, the newspaper is right in saying that the Vatican II's ambiguities which were a forerunner of Amoris Laetitia's ambiguity lead to false ecumenism within the Church and outside.

Strangely, the non-traditionalist conservative Matthew Schmitz put it best:

"[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]... Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality as led to widespread corruption... a culture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish."

It allowed the Church of John Paul II and Benedict XVI to keep heretics and homosexual predators in the hierarchy such as McCarrick and others like him to flourish and to promote neo-sacrilegious media productions such as the Assisi fiasco and the kissing of the Koran.

This was wrong and God will judge them for their failures to be good fathers (popes) in allowing evil men into God's Church to abuse and to lead many to indifferentism and away from salvation which is only in Jesus through His Church.

Both sincerely in my opinion because of false philosophical personal ideas while not totally abandoning Thomism tried to do the practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the infallible teachings of the Church while holding on to neo-modernist Personalist versions of Kantian and Hegelian philosophy as well as the ambiguities of Vatican II.

Benedict if you read his later writings finally rejected Kantianism, but apparently couldn't completely give up Hegelianism.

However, he realized in a vague way that the ambiguity of Vatican II was destroying the Church so he brought back the Traditional Latin Mass and attempted to fight against sex abuse, the Vatican gay lobby and reform the finances to the Church.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, these efforts united the financially corrupt old guard of Cardinal Angelo Sodano and the Vatican gay lobby which brought about Vatileaks and other pressures against Benedict that eventually lead to the Benedict resignation and the papacy of Jorge Bergoglio whose pontifical validity has been questioned by many even in the hierarchy from the beginning to this day.

As Bishop René Gracida has said there was never universal acceptance of Bergoglio by the Church.

But even more importantly, there are reasonable doubts about the validity of Benedict's resignation and Bergoglio's lawful election to the papacy which were never present with the other papacies which Bishop Gracida declares must be investigated and interpreted by the cardinals as John Paul's conclave constitution explicitly states.

This is one reason that Francis is not the same as Benedict and John Paul.

The other reason that The Remnant is wrong about apparently recently saying Francis is the same as Benedict and John Paul can be put simply in analogy:

John Paul and Benedict were sincere doctors with medicine that was getting the patient sicker.

Benedict realized the medicine was bad and slowly started giving good medicine.

But in my opinion, Francis is a doctor who is trying to kill the patient by slow poisoning.

In my opinion, it is obvious that Francis doesn't have even a remnant of Thomism. Nor does he apparently care about being loyal to the infallible Church teachings. He appears to be a nihilistic postmodernist like his favorite theologian Michel de Certeau.

Francis's only grasp of reality or meaning appears to be leftist and Peronist ideology as well as his close friend the kissing bishop's Bernard Haring Hegelian situation ethics all dressed in religious language.

While Benedict and John Paul upheld Church teachings on paper while not always in reality, Francis with Amoris Laetitia, the Argentine letter, the death penalty Catechism change and the latest indifferentism papal statement isn't even upholding the infallible teachings on paper.

George Gilder wrote a book called "Sexual Suicide" which helped me return to the Church because it showed that the Catholic teachings on sexuality were true and those outside those teachings were committing slow suicide.

Francis in my opinion is trying to kill the Church by slow suicide.

He will not succeed because Jesus promised the gates of Hell will not prevail.

Those who don't oppose him in my opinion are his accomplices unless they are in invincible ignorance.

In my opinion, it appears that if Francis doesn't convert he may be heading down a path of destruction along with all his accomplices if they don't convert if they aren't in invincible ignorance.

I feel sorry for them.

We must pray for him and his accomplices, but most of all we must pray for all those abused and lead away from salvation by their promotion of heresy.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Is Francis our First Gay Pope?



Francis strolls hand in hand with the anti-gangster and gay rights advocate Fr. Luigi Ciotti.


Yesterday, the pro-gay CBS headline was:

"Pope Francis compare homophobic politicians to Hitler"

Is Francis our first gay pope?

It is beyond a doubt true that no pope or antipope in history has had a gayer agenda than this man.

Put it this way, it appears probable that someone with Francis's gay agenda would have felt more at home in the idol worshipping pagan cities of Sodom and Gomorrah than in the tent of Abraham.

Remember how a extremist Black feminist said Bill Clinton was the first black president in an 1998 New Yorker article. The radical Black feminist Toni Morrison in the piece said Clinton is "our first black president. Blacker than any actual person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime."

Remember how extremist feminists said Barack Obama would be our first woman president. More womanly than any actual person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime. Feminist Bonnie Erbe said Obama was a "woman":

“ Still, her [Clinton] female supporters who are watching Obama's movement coalesce, solidify, and take over should console themselves that there will be a woman Democrat in the White House either way if the Democrats win the general election. The nominee will either be a woman [Hillary] with double-X chromosomes or one [Obama] with XY chromosomes who votes more like a woman than most with XX." [https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/erbe/2008/02/13/if-hillary-loses-do-women-lose]

Feminist Kathleen Dolan said:

"Obama... [is] being more feminine than she [Hillary] can be." [http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/02/21/obama_uses_female_style_to_win/

What they were saying was that Bill Clinton had a radical Black agenda and Obama had a radical feminist agenda.

Now we have Francis who is our first gay pope. Gayer than any actual person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime.

The Francis like Clinton and Obama has a agenda.

Francis has a radical gay agenda and his inner circle is largely composed of the gay lobby and those who covered-up for them.

The Deus Ex Machina blog in a post titled "This Might Sound Crazy, But this Question Needs to be Asked" said that Francis's inner circle is a "WHO’S WHO of the homo-mafia":

"It appears as if it’s a WHO’S WHO of the homo-mafia in the upper echelons of the post-conciliar church."

I mean, it’s like Francis has a LIST of names of the worst HOMOHERETICS in the post-conciliar church and is promoting them, with their entire entourages to the highest levels of the government of the Vatican."


Moreover, the blog had a video to illustrate the point:

"[T]his here caught the ever gazeful eye of this humble blogger, not to mention his news feed filters:"



[https://sarmaticusblog.wordpress.com/]


The Catholic Argentinian website the Wanderer on October 23, 2014 posted "Unmasking Bergoglio" where it said "Bergoglio [Francis] always had the 'gay agenda'" and bestowed "constant protection that he lavished on many homosexual priests":

"Bergoglio always had the "gay agenda" among his plans... It is a question of asking the Buenoairean clergy about the constant protection that he lavished on many homosexual priests."

"... Cardinal Bergoglio as Primate... of the Argentine Episcopal Conference... "[had a] "star"... of the Argentine Episcopate. The great theologian... of the poor [Archbishop Juan Carlos Maccarone]."

"Until... in March 2005 a video appeared in which the archbishop appeared having sexual games with a young man... Pope Benedict XVI... immediately removed [him from his]... position [as bishop]."

"The reaction of Bergoglio"

"By a letter that Maccarone himself directed in [to] his bother bishops, it can be easily deduced that the entire Argentine episcopal gang knew of his weakness... And, in spite of that, they promoted him to the episcopal office."

"... Bergoglio... issued a statement in which he expressed his 'gratitude' to the former bishop [Maccarone]."

"... The spokesman of the arzobipado porteno went out to say... the [sex] video corresponded to "the private life of Bishop Maccarone."

Jimmy Burns in his book "Francis, Pope of Good Promise" after referencing that "Maccarone resigned" because of the "videotape showing the bishop having 'intimate relations'" wrote:

"Bergoglio's own spokesman, rather than focus on Maccarone's political links with Kirchner, jumped to the bishop's defense claiming he had been set up."

"... Fortunato Millimaci, a Buenos Aires sociologist [said]... 'This means that the idea of the Catholic Church as a moral reference of a Catholic nation is very strongly in doubt... It shows that a double standard exists within the Church [of Bergoglio] itself.'" (Pages 231-232)

Francis's inner circle since leaving Argentina is largely composed of the gay lobby and those who covered-up for them:

Business Standard, September 19, 2017:

Francis's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith perfect Archbishop Ferrer will go to trail for "complicity in alleged cover-up" of paedophile priest.

The Telegraph, July 19, 2013:

"Pope's [Francis's] 'eyes and ears' in Vatican bank [allegedly] 'had string of homosexual affairs'... [Battista] Ricca is a trusted confidante of the Pope"

LifeSiteNews, March 7,2018:

Francis's closest advisor in the C9 papal inner circle Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga left in charge of his Honduras archdiocese his close confidant Bishop Juan Pineda "accused of 'abusing seminarians, having a string of male lovers.'"

National Catholic Reporter, April 29, 2014:

Francis's close advisor in C9 papal inner circle Cardinal "Errazuriz [and his]... successor... [Cardinal] Ezzati" "Chilean cardinals close to pope stained by abuse cover-ups" of priest sex abuser of Juan Carlos Cruz.

The Remnant, September 12, 2017:

Francis's confidant Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio's Secretary has homosexual orgy in Vatican:

"Secretary to the powerful Cardinal Francesco 'Positive Realities of Homosexuals'... [Coccopalmerio's Secretary] Capozzi was arrested for hosting a raucous drug fueled homosexual orgy."

New York Times, April 30, 2018:

"Cardinal George Pell, the [Francis] Vatican's third-highest-ranking official, will stand trail... of sex abuse."

BBC, August 29, 2010 & LifeSiteNews, September 16, 2017:

Francis collaborator invited by Pope to be number two representative in family synod "Belgian Cardinal Danneels condoned sex-abuse silence."

The Week, January 3, 2017:

"Pope Francis and his cardinal allies... known to interfere...  on abuse cases... Consider case of [serial sex-abuser] Fr. Mauro Inzoli... Francis returned him to the priestly state."

Vebuumdei.blogspot, June 23, 2014 & Catholic Monitor, April 18, 2017:

Francis strolled hand in hand down the street with gay activist Fr. Luigi Ciotti at a anti-gangster event.

Chiesa, December 16, 2016:

Vatican expert Sandro Magister said Francis has a "number of homosexual priests in the inner circle of his closest collaborators and confidants."

Now we are going to look at the evidence that Francis has a gay agenda. Just because Francis's inner circle is almost completely composed of gays and those who cover-up for them doesn't necessarily mean he has a gay agenda.

On September 1, 2017, Crux reported that Francis said:

"Let's call unions between the same sex 'civil unions.'"
(Crux, "'I consulted a psychoanalyst,' Pope Francis reveals in new book," September 1, 2017)

The gay/lesbian dissenting New Ways Ministry said:

"Pope Francis has never, as pontiff, stated his endorsement of civil unions so flatly. (He did support civil unions as a compromise to his opposition towards marriage equality... As pontiff, he did make a ambiguous statement about civil unions...)."
(New Way Ministry Bondings 2.0 Blog, "Pope Francis Allows for Civil Unions for Lesbian and Gay Couples," September 2, 2017)

The gay movement New Way Ministry endorsed Francis's apparent endorsement of the civil unions of cohabiting homosexual couples.

On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Faith, said such an endorsement was against Catholic teaching:

"Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions."
(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003)

On June 18, The Telegraph reported that Pope Francis has a commission drafting doctrine for "excommunicating" the Italian Mafia which again has the endorsement of the gay movement.

Francis appears to be following the lead of gay advocate Fr. Luigi Ciotti and the gay/feminist "antimafia" movement in Italy.

This movement is spearheaded by "Rosario Crocetta, Sicily's openly gay governor and antimafia activist... That normative order effaces queer, gay and feminist antimafia protests. That 'taste' for justice and civility' spoken of by don Luigi Coitti" according to author Robin Pinkering-lazzi.
("The Italian Antimafia, New Media, the Culture of Legality," 2017, books.google.com)

It appears that Francis may be following the lead of the Italian gay movement against the Mafia and the gay mafia within the Catholic Church against moral doctrine.

Author and gay mafia expert Fr. Dariusz Oko according to ChurchMilitant.com affirmed that homosexual clerics "control...many diocese." Oko said:

"There is...a problem with homosexual bishops...There is a gay mafia...They create informal unions, and they infiltrate the Church." (ChurchMilitant.com, April 18, 2017)

Has the gay mafia infiltrated the diocese of Rome and do they control Francis?

Vatican expert Sandro Magister said Francis has a "number of homosexual priests in the inner circle of his closest collaborators and confidants." (Chiesa.espressolineit.com, December 16, 2016)

Monsignor Battista Ricca, for example, was appointed by Francis as head of the Vatican Bank. The Monsignor is "well known for homosexual conduct." (Lifesitenews.com, July 14, 2015)

The appointment of the gay priest to run the Vatican Bank was "a totally personal one made by Francis" according to Asia News.

Francis, after a long day of papal work, goes home to the homosexual Ricca who is the head of Francis's personal "residence at the Casa Santa Marta hotel." (Asianews.it.com, 06/26/2013)

On March 21, 2014, in his desire to accompany someone who is a "strong promoter of homosexuality" and gay rights who "participates in a 'gay parade'" as well as is promoted and better known as fighting the Italian Mafia, Francis decided to pay homage to Fr. Luigi Ciotti. (The Vatican promoted the Ciotti visit as a anti-ganster event.)

Ciotti is a advocate or "a strong promoter of homosexuality...of 'gay marriage' and the adoption of children by homosexuals." (Vebuumdei.blogspot.com, June 23, 2014)

Two very telling photos of Pope Francis and Ciotti can be viewed if one googles: Fr. Luigi Ciotti.

Francis is actually holding hands with the priest, who is a gay rights advocate, as they stroll.

Just because the Francis's home is run by a priest "well known for homosexual conduct" and he holds hands as he strolls with a gay rights advocate and he appears to endorse gay civil unions doesn't necessarily mean he is controlled by a gay mafia agenda.

Unfortunatedly, another of Francis's appointments after Ricca begins to show a pattern of homosexual activist influence on papal policy.

The Francis's appointment of Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia to head the Pontifical Council for Life showed the direction of papal policy.

Archbishop Paglia's coat of arms features the gay activist symbol of the rainbow and he commissioned a gay artist to paint a massive "homoerotic" pornographic mural at his former cathedral.

Lifesitenews.com reported the mural depicts:

"Jesus carrying nets to heaven filled with naked and semi-nude homosexuals, transexuals, prostitutes, and drug dealers, jumbled together in erotic interactions." (Lifesitenews, March 3, 2017)

In the painting is the homosexual image of a shirtless Paglia affectionately embracing a naked man. (Lifesitenews, March 16, 2017)

If Paglia was painted affectionately embracing a naked woman that would be a heterosexual image. There is no dought it is a homosexual image of the Archbishop.

This is not the end of Francis's appointee to head the Pontifical Council for Life exploits in the homoerotic.

Psychologist Gerard van den Aardweg and sex abuse expert Rick Fitzgerald M.D., in an article titled "Is the pontificate of Francis in the clutches of the gay lobby?" wrote that Paglia produced  a sex education program that "contained homoerotic and heterosexual pornography which was like that employed by adult predators of youth." (Lifesitenews, March 6, 2017)

The Paglia pornographic sex ed program called Meeting Point was released with the "apparent approval" of Francis on World Youth Day accordingly to the article.

The two sex abuse experts said the "homoerotic and heterosexual" porn predator like program "should be withdrawn as soon as possible by the Vatican and its website closed."

It is beginning to appear that Pope Francis just might be under the influence of his "homosexual...inner circle of...collaborators and confidants" who could be pushing the gay activist agenda.

Fr. Zuhlsdord at his website on April 16, 2016 posted:

"Pope Francis made it clear to everyone that he was backing the Kasper Proposal and Pope Francis knows how to use his absolute power!"

Fr. Z in the same article showed why Francis used his "absolute power" to attempt to bring about the ultimate purpose of the Kasper Proposal:

The "Trojan Horse Archbishop Bruno Forte stealthily snuck into the Synod's Interim Report... of the 2014 Synod...was the moment when many of us knew that 'homosexuality' was the bigger issue with the Kasperites...This is still the Kasperite strategy."

Lifesitenews.com summarized what Forte and Kasper were using Francis's "absolute power" to control the procedures of the Synod for:

-"'Earthquake': Vatican Synod mid-term report suggests emphasizing' positive aspects of cohabitation, homosexuality...'Accept and value' homosexuality."

-The "Voice of the Family coalition charging that it amounts to the 'betrayal' of the Catholic faith." (Lifesitenews.com, October 13, 2014)

Remember what Fr. Z said of the Kasper Proposal. It is ultimately the strategy to achieve the gay agenda:

Homosexuality is "the bigger issue...This is still the Kasper strategy."

Is this Francis's strategy?

Is Amoris laetitia the strategy to achieve the Kasper Proposal which is ultimately the means to impose the gay agenda?

Francis strolled hand in hand with the gay rights advocate Fr. Luigi Ciotti.

Is Francis hand in hand, that is closely working together, with the Kasperites who would betray the Catholic faith?

Is Francis hand in hand with those who call for the acceptance and imposing of the gay agenda "pastorally" by sex ed and other abuses on the little ones in the Church without supposedly changing doctrine?

If he is truly hand in hand with those who would cause one of these little ones to fall into sin then he needs to listen to Jesus's words:

"If you cause one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for you to have a great millstone fastened around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea." (Matthew 18:6)

The sex abuse experts Fitzgerald and van den Aardweg, who wrote "Is the pontificate of Francis in the clutches of the gay lobby?," in the article said:

"Public concern about the policies placing Catholic youth at risk of abuse has been further intensified by Pope Francis' restoring to priestly ministry an Italian priest Fr. Mauro Inzoli, who was laicized by Pope Benedict XVI for homosexually abusing adolescent males. After his priestly facilities were restored, he again repeated his homosexual abuse of youth, was arrested and imprisoned."

"In the United States, a member of the hierarchy who deliberately places youth at risk of abuse by a known sexual predator is expected to resign."

Alessandro Bianchi/Reuters at RT News on June 5, 2016 wrote the headline:

"Pope Francis vows to remove pedophile cover-up bishops with new church law" (https://www.rt.com/news/34565-pope-bishop-priest-abuse/)

Will Francis be true to his vow?

Will he remove the Bishop of Rome for pedophile cover-up?

International child advocate attorney Elizabeth Yore asked Francis:

"Dear Pope Francis, who is responsible for ignoring the pleas of victims of the sexual abuse by Fr. Nicola Corradi of deaf and mute children? Who restored priestly facilities and released back into the community a formerly laicized sexual predator, Fr.Inzoli? Who raised the stature of Cardinal Danneels caught on tape covering up abuse by appointing him to the Synod on the Family and having him on the balcony at the papal election?" (Lifesitenews, January 25, 2017, "Six cases where the sexual abuse scandal touches Pope Francis")

Jesus said to St. Faustina:

"When you say this prayer with a contrite heart and with faith... I will give the grace of conversion."

This is the prayer:

"O Blood and Water, which gushed forth from the heart of Jesus as a fount of Mercy for us, I trust You." (Divine Mercy Diary 186,187)

Say this prayer for the conversion of Francis every day.

If Francis through his free will refuses the grace to convert, then may the grace go to Cardinal Burke and the other dubia Cardinals so they will issue the correction to him which would be the first step to him being "deprived" of the "Apostlic See."

In no way do I mean this request for prayer to dishonor the Office of St. Peter.

I honor the Office of Peter.

St. Paul honored St. Peter, but when he clearly witnessed Peter manifesting error and confusion on the infallible teachings of the Church by his actions & words, he "rebuked" or corrected him for the good of the first Pope and the Church.

As in the time of Paul, it is now very clear that Francis is manifesting error and confusion on the infallible teachings of the Church by his actions & words.

In this website, I have tried to present the evidence in a straight forward manner without polemics although sometimes I implicitly used humor.

I may have used and I have quoted others who used a tone that could be considered harsh, but not, I believe, different from the tone Paul used on Peter.

Please read the posts in this website for clear evidence of Francis's errors.

Please remember what a great priest in our present troubled time said:

We get the leaders we deserve. What have we done to preserve the Catholic faith? Have we prayed and practiced our Catholic life? Or do we just talk about it? In that case we get what we deserve.

Please pray and practice your Catholic faith for your sake, for your family and friends sake and for the Church.

Pray especially for Francis and Cardinal Burke & the dubia Cardinals.

The most reliable Vatican expert in the world Edward Pentin reported on why it is of the upmost importance to pray for the Pope:
"Whatever the exact truth behind the lurid and disturbing story, it has further exposed such gravely sinful behavior taking place in the Vatican that one senior member of the curia says has 'never been worse.'”

"According to reports in the mainstream media, Vatican police broke up a drug-fueled homosexual debauched party in an apartment of the Holy Office, but how true is it?"

"The news first broke in a June 28 article in Il Fatto Quotidiano..."

"The article’s author, Francesco Antonio Grana, says Pope Francis, whose Santa Marta residence is just 500 yards from the Holy Office, was aware of the raid and knew of the monsignor’s capture..."
"In the meantime, a reliable senior member of the curia has told the Register that he has heard from “multiple sources” that the story is true, including from another senior curial figure."

"He said the extent of homosexual practice in the Vatican has 'never been worse...'”

"The precise details of the reported events in the CDF therefore remain open to question, but the substance of the story appears to be true. If so, many would find such behavior taking place in the Holy Office not only unconscionable but also highly sacrilegious..."

"In light of the latest scandal and the current situation, one former official urged readers to recall the warnings of the Lord on homosexual acts, especially between priests, as explained by St. Catherine of Siena in her Dialogues written as if dictated by God Himself."

"The medieval mystic, co-patron of Rome and Doctor of the Church, relayed the words at a time when a number of clergy had fallen into grave sin."

"Such priests, the Lord told St. Catherine, not only fail from resisting their fallen nature, 'but do even worse as they commit the cursed sin against nature [homosexual acts].'”

“'Like the blind and stupid having dimmed the light of the understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves,' the Lord continued, adding that it not only causes God 'nausea, but displeases even the demons themselves, whom these miserable creatures have chosen as their lords.'”

"He added that 'this sin against nature is so abominable that, for it alone, five cities were submersed, by virtue of the judgement of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear them.' The Lord told St. Catherine that even the demons are 'repulsed upon seeing such an enormous sin being committed.'”

"As a remedy, St. Catherine recounted the Lord saying:
'Never cease offering me the incense of fragrant prayers for the salvation of souls, for I want to be merciful to the world. With your prayers and sweat and tears, I will wash the face of my bride, Holy Church. I showed her to you earlier as a maiden whose face was all dirtied as if she were a leper. The clergy and the whole of Christianity are to blame for this because of their sins, though they receive their nourishment at the breast of this bride.'”  
(Click for complete July 8th, 2017 National Catholic Register article by Edward Pentin: http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/the-drug-fueled-homosexual-scandal-allegations-at-the-holy-office#.WWELJXNlAwi)

Jesus have mercy on the Church.

Mary and Joseph pray for the Church.




Image result for Fr. Luigi CiottiImage result for Fr. Luigi Ciotti


Francis strolls hand in hand with the anti-ganster and gay rights advocate Fr. Luigi Ciotti.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Saturday, November 16, 2019

Br. Bugnolo: Those with "Teaching[s] on what happens to Heretics" like Skojec including "Cardinals and Bishop" may be in "Heresy"

One Peter Five publisher Steve Skojec apparently claims a manifest heretical pope can not as Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales says be "deprived" of "the Apostlic See" by the Church. Skojec appears to claim Francis's heretical papacy can't be judged by the Church in this present time in history.

One of the great heroes in the present crisis canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo recently stated that those with teachings like Skojec "on what happens to heretics" without mentioning his name including "Cardinals and Bishop" may be in "heresy":

"We are left with repeated examples that defy explanation. Those Cardinals and Bishop who have the reputations for being the most conservative, who often speak in the defense of many truths, openly reject catholic teaching on what happens to heretics. To do such a thing is itself a heresy, because it is asserting that entire dogmatic and canonical tradition of the Church on heresy is not true."

"Heretics will never out heretics. I just hope that this principle is not verified in the case of the men of whom we speak, and that they are only cowards, not heretics."
[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/11/why-is-schneider-apologist-of-franciss.html]

Br. Bugnolo stated that in the comment section of the Catholic Monitor to this article:

Why is Schneider a Apologist of Francis's "Apostasy" by Defending the Manifest Heretical Papacy of Francis against a Pope, Two Doctors of the Church and "all the ancient Fathers"?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, in his recent interview with Michael Matt on Remnant Video called "Defend & Resist," said about the Francis Vatican Pachamama idolatry:

"[T]he apostasy... even Pope Francis, unfortunately, defends."

 Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine said:

"The manifest heretical pope ceases per se to be pope... This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers."

Bishop Schneider who admits that Francis "defends" the "apostasy" or heresy of idolatry, unfortunately, claims a manifest heretical pope can not as Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales says be "deprived" of "the Apostlic See" by the Church. Schneider by claiming Francis's heretical papacy can't be judged by the Church is implicitly defending the Francis "apostasy" or heresy of idolatry.

Is Schneider's opinion true or false?

Here is the answer from a POPE to Schneider's opinion and all the Francis apologists who claim that a heretical pope can't be judged by the Church:

 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)

Moreover, the important theologian Dominique Bouix in, Tractatus de papa, ubi et de concilio oecumenico, vol. II , pars IIIa, cap. iii, p. 653ff, responded to Schneider's opinion:

It is objected 1°. — This opinion stands contrary to the more common and ancient opinion of the doctors of the school.
It is responded: That is true. But in questions not yet defined and permitted to the free disputation of the schools, it can happen that a more recent and less common opinion is true and ought at length to be recognized as such.

It is objected 2°. — Moreover, it stands contrary to the authority of Innocent III, whose words these are in the third sermon for the anniversary of his consecration: Faith is so necessary to me, that, while I have God for my judge in other sins, I am able to be judged by the Church on account of the sin which is committed against faith (see Sylvius, In IIamIIæ S. Thomæ, tom. III, q. xxxix, art. 3, concl. 2).

It is responded: Indeed, in that text Innocent III supposes that the Roman Pontiff can, as a private person, fall into heresy. But Innocent III spoke thus, following the opinion which was more accepted in his time; nor did he pronounce it as the Pontiff defining the faith; whence it can be said that in this, he erred. But this error of his is not heresy, because this proposition, the Pope cannot become a heretic even privately, even if it be true, is yet not an evident or defined ARTICLE OF FAITH. Therefore the cited dictum of Innocent III indeed favors the opinion which holds that the Pope can become a heretic privately; yet it does not have peremptory force.

It is objected 3°. — The canon Si papa (from the acta of Boniface of Mainz, in Gratian, dist. XL, c. vi) affirms that the Pope is exempt from the jurisdiction of his inferiors, with this exception: Unless he be discovered to have deviated from the faith. And in a similar document of the fifth council under Pope Symmachus it is read: Unless he should deviate from the right faith. Therefore, even in remote antiquity the doctrine held sway undoubted, that the Pope could become a heretic[https://lumenscholasticum.wordpress.com/2019/05/05/bouix-on-the-pope-heretic/]

It is objected 3°. — The canon Si papa (from the acta of Boniface of Mainz, in Gratian, dist. XL, c. vi) affirms that the Pope is exempt from the jurisdiction of his inferiors, with this exception: Unless he be discovered to have deviated from the faith. And in a similar document of the fifth council under Pope Symmachus it is read: Unless he should deviate from the right faith. Therefore, even in remote antiquity the doctrine held sway undoubted, that the Pope could become a heretic.
Finally, one of the greatest modern theologian Fr. Ioachim Ioachim whom "Msgr. Clifford Fenton in a March 1953 article of the American Ecclesiastical Review [said] 'holds very much the same position in the theological world of the mid-twentieth century that Cardinal Billot occupied in that of fifty years ago'" appears to disagree with Schneider's opinion. In Salaverri’s De Ecclesia Christi, it says:

1056. The doctrine of the Church. The first part is implicitly defined in the Council of Florence’s decree for the Jacobites: D 714. But concerning heretics and apostates, we deduce our teaching also from the formula of faith “Clemens Trinitas”, from can. 23 of the Second Lateran Council, and from the Bull Ineffabilis Deus of Pius IX: D 18 367 1641.

The second part, in which we hold that those excommunicated by perfect excommunication, which the Supreme Pontiff can determine, are separated from the body of the Church, is taught as Catholic doctrine by Pius XII in the encyclical Mystici corporis: AAS 35 (1943) 202ff.
1057. This whole thesis of ours is clearly taught by Pius XII and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.[16]

Pius XII writes: “But in truth, only those are to be numbered amongst the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, who have not miserably separated themselves from the community of the Church or through most grave crimes been separated by the legitimate authority…For this reason, those who are divided from one another in faith or government are unable to live in the one Body of this sort and in its divine Spirit…Nor should it be thought that the Body of the Church, because it is insigned with the name of Christ, consists, even in this time of terrestrial pilgrimage, only of members outstanding in sanctity, or that it is constituted only of the company of those who are predestined by God to sempiternal felicity…Indeed not every crime, even if a grave wickedness, is of such kind that of its very nature it separates man from the Body of the Church—as do schism, heresy, or apostasy.”

In the Catechism of the Council of Trent we read:

“Only three sorts of men are excluded from the Church: firstly, infidels, then heretics and schismatics, and finally excommunicates: pagans indeed, because they have never been in the Church, nor ever known it, nor been made partakers of any Sacrament in the society of the Christian people; heretics and schismatics, because they have revolted from the Church, for they no more pertain to the Church, than do deserters to the army from which they have defected: yet it must not be denied that they are in the power of the Church, as ones who may be called to judgment by her, punished, and condemned by anathema. Finally also excommunicates, because by the judgment of the Church have they been excluded from her, and do not belong to her communion until they come to their senses. But concerning other men, though they be wicked and criminal, it is not to be doubted that they yet persevere in the Church.”

1058. Dogmatic value. The first part, concerning heretics, apostates, and schismatics, is implicitly defined, particularly in the Council of Florence: D 714. The second part, on excommunicates by perfect excommunication, is Catholic doctrine, especially from the words of the encyclical of Pius XII, Mystici corporis Christi, recently cited by us above.

1059. The first part is proved. Heretics, apostates, and schismatics are not members of the Church...


         
... For the minor. That formal and manifest heretics, apostates, and schismatics formally and manifestly have severed the essential social bond of the Church’s faith or government, is clear from the notions themselves. Thus they are not of the Church, which is the congregation of the faithful, because schismatics are not congregated and heretics are not faithful.
1060. The same doctrine is confirmed by the authority of testimonies of the holy Fathers.

a) On heretics. Tertullian: “If they are heretics, they cannot be Christians” (R 298). St. Hilary: “I am a Catholic; I do not wish to be a heretic. I am a Christian, not an Arian.” St. Jerome: “Heretics pass judgment upon themselves, receding from the Church of their own will.” St. Augustine: “Sever yourselves from the members of the Church, sever yourselves from its Body. But what still might I say, in order that they might segregate themselves from the Church, since they have already done this? For they are heretics; they are already without.” The controversy on the rebaptizing of heretics, which was agitated thence from the middle of the third century, supposed as recognized by all that heretics are outside of the Church.[17]

b) On schismatics. Cyprian: “But what pertains to the person of Novatian…you know that we in the first place ought not to be inquisitive of what he taught, since he taught from without. Whosoever he is and of whatever condition, he is not a Christian who is not in the Church of Christ…he who neither held fast to fraternal charity nor ecclesiastical unity, has lost even that which he was previously.” St. Jerome: “Between heresy and schism, we think there to be this difference, that heresy imports perverse dogma; schism, on account of episcopal dissension, separates from the Church…moreover, no schism does not fabricate for itself a heresy, so that it might seem to have receded from the Church rightly.” St. Augustine: “Heretics and schismatics call their congregations churches. But heretics, thinking falsely about God, violate the faith itself; but schismatics burst free of fraternal charity through hostile divisions, although they believe those things which we believe. For this reason, heretics do not belong to the Catholic Church, because she loves God, nor schismatics, because she loves the neighbor” (R 1562). St. Fulgentius: “Most firmly hold and doubt not at all, that every one baptized outside of the Catholic Church is unable to become a partaker of eternal life, if before the end of this life he has not returned and been incorporated to the Catholic Church. Most steadily and in no way doubt, that not only all pagans, but also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics, who finish this present life outside of the Catholic Church, are to enter into the eternal fire” (R 2274-5). Pelagius I: “Pollute not a mind ever Catholic by any communion of schismatics. It is clear that the Body of Christ is one, the Church is one…our Savior taught: a vine separated from the grapevine cannot be good for anything, but fire for burning…Do not think that they either are or can be called the Church. And indeed since, as we have said, the Church is one…it is clear that there is no other but that which is founded in the apostolic root.”[18]
[https://lumenscholasticum.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/]

Why is Schneider a apologist of Francis's "apostasy" by defending the manifest heretical papacy of Francis against a pope, two Doctors of the Church and "all the ancient Fathers"?

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Friday, November 15, 2019

American Spectator Editor Neumayr & Scholar T. Marshall call for Catholic Cardinals to Judge if Francis is "Manifest Heretic" who has "Self Vacated" the Papacy

The contributing editor of The American Spectator George Neumayr who is a best-selling author and former editor of the Catholic World Report and Thomist scholar Dr. Taylor Marshall called on the non-heretical Catholic cardinals to convene in order to judge if Francis is a "manifest heretic" which could mean he "self vacated the Chair of St. Peter" and is no longer the pope.

In Marshall's popular YouTube channel the two declare what "should happen":

"[Neumayr said Doctor of the Church St.] Robert Bellarmine said members of the Church have the right and duty to resist a bad pope... It is the cardinals who have the power to confront the pope and say do you actually support the teachings of the Church. If you don't then you self vacated the Chair of St. Peter and we can move to elect a new pope... "

"... [Marshall said] Bellermine says when anyone is a manifest heretic even the pope [or a cardinal] he ceases to be a member of the Church and they can no longer hold their office... It seems to me that that would require a ecclesiastical decree... You would have to have cardinals make this decree... "

"... [Neumayr said] It's a case of declaration. They are simply declaring what Francis himself has done through his actions and statements. He would in fact have self vacated the Chair of St. Peter then the cardinals would simply come in and declare that happened and move to fill the Chair with a new pope. We are at that stage when I know that should happen."
(Dr. Taylor Marshall YouTube Channel, "Why are USA Bishops Tone-Deaf & Promoting Liberal Policies? w George Neumayr," 1:02:05 to 1:06:55)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and for the laity to demand that the cardinals convene an imperfect council to judge if Francis is a manifest heretic.

Why do some Traditionalists pretend John Paul II and Benedict are Total Relativists like Francis?

Fr. George Rutler in his 2017 Crisis article said Fr. Antonio Spadaro, and by implication Francis since both he and Spadaro are liberal Jesuits, "grew up in a theological atmosphere of... Transcendental Thomism [which] was Karl Rahner's attempt to wed Thomistic realism with Kantian idealism. Father Stanley Kaki, theologian and physicist, called this stillborn hybrid 'Aquikantianism.'"
(Crisis, "The Mathematical Innovations of Father Spadaro," February 22, 2017)

Both the liberal Jesuits: Spadaro and Francis it appears are total relativists, as are most Jesuits and all liberal theologians.

Rahner's "Foundation of Theological Study: A Sourcebook" says:

"The German Jesuit Karl Rahner (1904-1984) remains one of most influential theologians of the twentieth century."
(Foundation of Theological Study: A Sourcebook, https://booksgoogle.com>books)

Rahner was a disciple of Kant as Rutler said. Jaki, also, makes this clear in his books on Aquikantists.

Kant taught that one could only know the phenomena of the mind or ideas and not know reality. Jaki wrote:

"Kant, who begins with ideas and, as all the history of modern philosophy shows, never gets to reality."
(Chesterton: A Seer of Science, page 19)

Kant and those who follow him thought God was only a thought. Jaki quotes Kant and explains the citation:

"'God is not a being outside me but merely a thought within me.'"

"That man was his own God, if he needed one, was evidently Kant's conclusion."
(Angels, Apes and Men, page 10)

Rahner's Kantian philosophy lead him to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Fr. Regis Scanlon, OFM, Cap., wrote:

"In 1966 the late Fr. Karl Rahner stated that 'one can no longer maintain today that bread is a substance, as St. Thomas and the Fathers of the Council (of Trent) obviously thought it was'.[12] [Theological Investigations, page 307] For Rahner the 'substance' of a thing did not include its < material and physical> reality, but the 'meaning and purpose' of the thing. [13] [Karl Rahner, S.J.., p.307; Engelbert Gutwenger, "Transubstantiation," page 1754, pp. 34-35] So, according to Karl Rahner, transubstantiation meant that, after the consecration of the Mass, the physical bread remained physical bread but it now had a new 'meaning' of spiritual food because it was now a "symbol" of Jesus Christ.[14] [Engelbert Gutwenger, pp. 1754-1755]"

"Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx agreed with Fr. Karl Rahner that the physical bread and wine were only a 'sign' of Christ.[15] In fact, for Schillebeeckx, the 'real presence' of Christ in the Eucharist was not the consecrated bread and wine, but the < 'assembled community'>.[16]"
(Modern Misconceptions About The Eucharist, PDF, St. Patrick's Basilica > 2016/10, https://Basilica.ca, Provided courtesy of: Eternal Word Television Network)

Jaki thought the "archetype" figure of this type of philosophy which Rahner professed was "Lucifer":

"Kant who once wrote of himself: 'I am an Archangel!' and went on to state repeatedly: 'I am God.' The archetype for this self-enrichment was none other than Lucifer. If one looks for the source of the pride, the self-sufficiency... one merely has to look in the direction of the camp that still breeds Aquikantists... Aquikantists were overjoyed when the invocation of Saint Michael was dropped as a first step towards the new liturgy."
(Newman's Challenge, pages 76-77)

Remember Aquikantists, specifically Rahner, have totally influenced all liberal theologians and many, maybe most, conservative ones.

Rahner's influence even reached to the papacy of Pope John Paul II who believed in the Eucharist and objective morality unlike Francis who apparently may not believe in the Eucharist or objective morality.

John Paul because of philosophical inadequacies had a relativist inter-religious dialogue blindspot such as in the Assisi scandalous episode unlike Pope Benedict XVI. Scholar Fr. John Coleman S. J. wrote:

"John Hick's pluralist model is based on a Kantian epistemology that undermines, at the outset, any notion of a normative revelation of God in history... In Danielou's theology, the grace of Christ may mysteriously touch individuals outside Christianity but the other religions, their scriptures and rituals, remain purely human customs... Rahner did not make such a strict distinction... John Paul was closer to Rahner... Whereas Ratzinger had warned of the dangers of relativism in inter-religious dialogue." (Inter-Religious Dialogue: Urgent Challenge and Theological Land-Mine, PFD Australian Catholic University>au)

Rahner's influence has effected Francis as well as his inner circle, Catholic colleges, schools and children as well as youth catechism teaching books and their teachers who prepare them for the Sacraments.

Since all liberal Catholics and many conservative ones, knowingly or unknowingly, have been deeply influenced by Rahner's Kantian "theology," is it possible that the crisis in the Church, in large extent, is due to their unconscious and in some cases conscious disbelief in objective reality as well as objective "normative" revelation which leads to disbelief in the Eucharist and God.

Does this explain Francis's panicked reaction against Cardinal Robert Sarah's call for reverence at the Mass and the Holy Eucharist and his desire to explain away and in many cases openly reject God's Ten Commandments?

It appears that Francis isn't just a moral relativist, but apparently may not believe in the Eucharist.

Why do some traditionalists, recently, want to pretend that the Amoris laetitia total relativist Francis is exactly the same as Benedict and John Paul who both believed in the Eucharist and objective morality despite both having major philosophical inadequacies?

Is Francis a total relativist?

In my opinion, the evidence points to Francis being an apparent total relativist. Please read the following posts:

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/11/evidence-francis-is-modernist-who.html?m=1

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2018/11/is-pope-francis-nihilist-who-doesnt.html

 Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Is Francis a Nihilistic Total Relativist who doesn't believe in Truth?

The Catholic Thing wrote that "Francis made a startling claim" that appears to deny objective truth:

"We must be careful not to fall into the temptation of making idols of certain abstract truths."
[https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2018/04/21/of-truth-and-idols/]

Francis apparently got this terminology about "abstract truths" from a Jesuit theologian Michael de Certeau who wrote:

"In history everything begins with the gesture of setting aside, of putting together, of transforming certain classified objects... It exiles them from practice [praxis] in order to confer upon them the status of "abstract" objects of knowledge..."

"... [T]he historical discipline... designate[s] the "that" as a "fact" is only a way of naming what cannot be understood."
( Michael de Certeau's book: The Writing of History, pages 72-73 and 84)

De Certeau is a nihilist who Francis considers to "be the greatest theologian for today." This theologian believes that there is no "possibility of an objective basis for truth" and that there is no objective meaning or reality. (Dictionary.com definitions of nihilism)

 In simple words, de Certeau's theology denies objective truth and objective Catholic truth.

The present Pope considers him the most eminent modern theologian. Francis said:

"For me, de Certeau is still the greatest theologian for today." (onepeterfive.com, March 8, 2016, "Pope Francis Reveals His Mind to Private Audience")


Rev. Dr. Federico Colautti, ITI, in a talk titled "Pope Francis: Understanding His Language and Mission (1-10-2015)," shows that de Certeau had "a great influence in the Pope's way of being open... [n]ot making faith of a museum":

In the "discourse, a video message that the Pope send the Catholic University of Buenos Aires... I discovered that one of the few quotes he makes is from a theologian... a certain Michael de Certeau... I can imagine that this author had a great influence in the Pope's way of being open... Not making faith of a museum... This preference for the periphery could have a relationship with this theologian Michael de Certeau."

De Certeau in his greatest book "Heterologies" said:

"It is not Mr. Foucault who is making fun of domains of knowledge... It is history that is laughing at them. It plays tricks on the teleologists who take themselves to be the lieutenants of meaning. A meaninglessness of history." ("Heterologogies," Pages 195-196)

Historian Keith Windschuttle shows that the Pope's favorite modern theologian is a radical who thinks that there is no "access" to outside reality. Windschuttle wrote:

"Of all the French theorists... de Certeau is the most radical. He is critical of the poststructuralist Foucault for his use of documentary evidence and of Derrida for the way he privileges the practice of writing. For de Certeau, writing is a form of oppression... he argues... writing itself constitutes the act of colonisation..."

"Like both structuralist and poststructuralist theorists, de Certeau subscribes to the thesis that we have access only to our language and not to any real, outside world..."

"De Certeau claims that writing can never be objective. Its status is no different from that of fiction. So, because history is a form of writing, all history is also fiction." ("The Killing of History," Pages 31-34)

By Francis's greatest modern theologian's logic then Jesus Christ, true God and true man, who walked the earth during the reign of Pontius Pilate, is fiction.

The central doctrine of Catholism, the Incarnation, is fiction.

Post Structuralists like de Certeau, more widely known as Postmodernists, believe all reality is fiction or "narrative."

They change the "narrative" or story usually to compile with their leftist or liberal views on politics, sexual morality or whatever their pet project happens to be.

They rarely use scholarship to backup their "narrative" point of view, only mind numbing long confusing writing that obscures instead of clarifying.

The Postmodernists in the media are one exception to the obscurantism of non-clarity.

Their "narratives" are clear and well written, but again rarely is there scholarship or strong evidence to backup their stories. They use spin to obscure.

Media spin "narrative" is "news and information that is manipulated or slanted to affect its interpretation and influence public opinion." (Dictionary.com)

They usually use their "narratives" in history, news, the Bible and any writing as a vehicle to promote their ideological ideas.

With that background, here is Francis's favorite theologian's central religious ideas. The de Certeau Scholar Johannes Hoff wrote:

"According to this new approach to the Biblical narrative, the focal event of Christianity is not the incarnation, the crucifixion, or the resurrection of Christ, but the empty tomb. The Christian form of life is no longer associated with a place, a body, or an institution, but with a quest for a missing body: the missing body of the people of Israel, and mutatis mutandis the missing body of Jesus."
(Article by Johannes Hoff, "Mysticism, Ecclesiology And The Body Christ: Certeau's (Mis-) Reading of Corpus Mystium and the Legacy of Henri de Lubac" Page 87, Titus Brandsma Institute Studies In Spirituality, Supplement 24, "Spiritual Spaces: History and Mysticism in Michel De Certeau")

The nihilist theologian believes that the central truths of Christianity are about "absence" or nonexistence. De Certeau scholar Graham Ward wrote:

"For de Lubac the... Eucharist is not a sign of the presence of Christ's body, it is Christ's body... And yet Certeau... makes the Eucharist (as later the church and body of mystical text he treats) into substitutes, acts of bereavement, signs of absence." ("Michel de Certeau - in the Plural, " Page 511)

In other words, Francis's greatest modern theologian believes that the Eucharist is not the body of Christ present, he doesn't even believe it is a sign of the presence of Christ's body like some Protestants, but a sign of "absence."

Might de Certeau's influence on Francis be the reason he never kneels before the Eucharist, but kneels to wash the feet of those he like Certeau might consider oppressed?

De Certeau's influence on Francis may be the reason he reportedly said:

"It is not excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church." (Der Spiegel magazine, December, 23, 2016)

De Certeau scholar Frederick Christian Bauerschmidt wrote:

"Certeau... came increasingly to stress the clash of interpretation, the "law of conflict," that applies even to the church. Under the pressure of this clash, the ecclesial/eucharistic body is "shattered." ("Michael de Certeau - in the Plural", Page 359)

Francis's greatest modern theologian doesn't believe in the central truths of the Catholic Church.

The Francis's most eminent modern theologian doesn't even believe in objective truth.

Does Francis believe in the central doctrines of the Catholic Church or in objective truth?

The question needs to be asked:

If Francis is a disciple of de Certeau and Postmodernism, then what ultimately do he and these thinkers believe in?

Philosopher Stephen Hicks said:

The "Left thinkers of the 1950s and 1960s... Confronted by the continued poverty and brutality of socialism, they could either go with the evidence and reject their most cherish ideals - or stick by their ideals and attack the whole idea that evidence and logic matter..."

"Postmodernism is born of the marriage of Left politics and skeptical epistemology..."

"Then, strikingly, postmodernism turns out not to be relativistic at all. Relativism becomes part of a rhetorical political strategy, some Machiavellian realpolitik employed to throw the opposition off track..."

"Here it is useful to recall Derrida: 'deconstruction never had any meaning... than as a radicalization... within the tradition of a certain Marxism, in a certain spirit of Marxism.'" ("Explaining Postmodernism," Page 90, 186)

For Postmodernists like de Certeau, Derrida, Foucault and it appears Francis, if he is their disciple, falsehood or truth doesn't matter.

The only thing that matters is achieving power for their liberal ideology or group.

Instead of economic Marxism, the post-modernist in the 1970's focused on Cultural Marxism which de Certeau and other post-modernists termed "oppression" of groups.

Power not truth for groups such as women, gays, transexauls, workers and any sub-category of minorities was the new goal to achieving control.

An example is abortion: women had to have power over their bodies so the truth that the unborn baby is human must be denied and politically incorrect.

Another example is homosexual acts: gays had to have power over their bodies so the truth that it is was a sin and led to disease and a early death had to be denied and politically incorrect.

Remember that liberals, who never use Marxist words, are nothing but post-modernist who use words like equality and compassion as masks for raw power.

Venezuela is another example.

The liberals from Fr. James Martin to Francis will not lift a finger or say a word to stop the Venezuelan people from being starved and brutalized because the country's dictator is part of their liberal group.

The liberals means to achieve power in the Church is praxis theology.

Internationally renowned theologian Dr. Tracey Rowland said Francis's "decision - making process" outlined in Evangelii Gaudium is "the tendency to give priority to praxis over theory."

She states that chapter eight of Amoris Laetitia "might be described as the praxis chapter rather than a theory chapter." Theory meaning Catholic doctrine.

The renowned theologian asks:

How can footnote 351 of Amoris Laetitia "be consistent with paragraph eighty-four of John Paul II's Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio and paragraph twenty-nine of Benedict XVI's Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis? A pastoral crisis may arise if the lay faithful and their priests have to choose between... two Popes (John Paul II and Benedict XVI) on one side, and a third Pope (Pope Francis) on the other." ("Catholic Theology," Page 192, 198, 199)

The choice appears to be between the infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church or praxis theology.

Rowland says "praxis types agree in rejecting classical metaphysics." She then explains praxis ideology or "theology":

"Doctrinal theory is at best extrinsic and secondary. The reflex character of theory-praxis tends toward a reduction of theory to reflection on praxis as variously understood. The normativity tends toward an identification of Christianity with modern, secular (liberal or Marxist) process." ("Catholic Theology," Page174)

If what the internationally renowned theologian is saying is true of  Francis and praxis "theology," then the Church is in the greatest crisis in history.

The Church has a Bishop in Rome who has betrayed Jesus Christ and His Gospel for the world.

It appears that Francis has exchanged the Gospel of Jesus Christ for "secular (liberal or Marxist)" ideology which denies objective truth.

Francis in Amoris Laetitia and back on Holy Thursday appeared to be denying objective truth. Canon lawyer , in The Catholic Thing, wrote at the Chrism Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica on Holy Thursday morning "Francis made a startling claim" when he called truth an idol:

"We must be careful not to fall into the temptation of making idols of certain abstract truths. They can be comfortable idols, always within easy reach; they offer a certain prestige and power and are difficult to discern. Because the “truth-idol” imitates, it dresses itself up in the words of the Gospel, but does not let those words touch the heart. Much worse, it distances ordinary people from the healing closeness of the word and of the sacraments of Jesus."

Fr. Murray then defines truth as the Catholic Church and St. Thomas Aquinas teaches and shows that apparently Francis denies truth and makes "erroneous opinion into an idol": 

"Truth is the conformity of mind and reality. The truth about God is understood when we accurately grasp the nature and purpose of His creation (natural theology), and when we believe in any supernatural revelation He may make. Jesus told us that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. All truths have their origin in the Truth who is God made man. The Christian understands that the truth is a Person."

"... Pope Francis states that “the ‘truth-idol’ imitates, it dresses itself up in the words of the Gospel, but does not let those words touch the heart.” Is the Gospel obscured or falsified by truths taught by the Magisterium of the Church – which are drawn from that Gospel?

"If the truth could be an idol, then naturally any use of the Scriptures to illustrate that particular truth would be a charade. But the truth of God cannot be an idol because what God has made known to us is our means of entering into His reality – the goal of our existence."

"Francis states that this 'truth-idolatry' in fact 'distances ordinary people from the healing closeness of the word and of the sacraments of Jesus.'”

"Here we have the interpretative key to what I think he is getting at. He is defending his decision in Amoris Laetitia to allow some people who are living in adulterous unions to receive the sacraments of penance and the Holy Eucharistic while intending to continue to engage in adulterous relations."

"... The truth will set you free, it will not enslave you in error and darkness. Those who seek to be healed by coming close to Christ in his sacraments will only realize that goal by knowing and doing what Jesus asks of them. To reject in practice his words about the permanence of marriage and the obligation to avoid adultery, and then assert a right to receive the sacraments risks making an erroneous opinion into an idol." [https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2018/04/21/of-truth-and-idols/]

Francis because of his apparent denial of truth appears to be denying objective morality and intrinsically evil acts. Professor Claudio Pierantoni, a Patristic Scholar of Medieval Philosophy at the University of Chile and Member of JAHLF (John Paul II Academy for Human Life and Family), said that  Francis's Gaudete et Exsultate appears to deny "the existence of intrinsically evil acts" and is promoting "situation ethics":

"[T]he document is read within the context of the present controversies in the Church, especially that about Amoris Laetitia and situation ethics, one gets the strong impression that many passages are directly aimed at harshly rebuking all those people (cardinals, scholars, journalists and simple laypeople writing on blogs) that have opposed the papal agenda about giving Communion to the divorced and remarried, Communion to Protestants, permitting contraception in certain cases, too mild opposition or silence in the face of anti-family and anti-life legislation (pro-abortion, pro-birth control pro-euthanasia and pro same-sex marriage). In this sense, the document brings no progress or clarity in any of the most controversial and anti-doctrinal stances of Pope Francis. Quite to the contrary, it seems to represent one more step towards giving a kind of official approval to situation ethics."

"So, the reading of this document should once more to urge us to plead before the Pope for an answer to the dubia, and in particular to dubium no. 2 about the existence of intrinsically evil acts, which are not justifiable in any situation. We should not forget that to deny this doctrine, or sow doubts about it, in any field of ethics, is the principal heresy of our times and the most dangerous enemy of sanctity." [http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/professor-pierantoni-gaudete-et-exsultate-supports-error-of-situational-eth#.WuLDtN9lDqC]

Why does Francis deny truth which has led to his promoting situation ethics?

Francis expert Austen Ivereigh points to how this happened:

"Bergoglio’s fascination with polarities began in the 1960s, when he first began exploring as a Jesuit via Gaston Fessard’s 1956 monumental anti-Hegelian work on the dialectics of grace and freedom in St. Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises. Fessard, Francis tells Borghesi, 'gave me so many of the elements that later got mixed in.'”


"Fessard was one of a 1950s group of Lyons-based jésuites blondéliens - that is, Jesuits inspired by Maurice Blondel - that included Henri de Lubac, Gaston Fessard and Michel de Certeau." [https://cruxnow.com/book-review/2017/11/18/new-book-looks-intellectual-history-francis-pope-polarity/]


Ivereigh's claim that Fessard is "anti-Hegelian" is wrong.

Back in 1950, scholar Jules "Isaac [O.P.] was accusing Fessard of identifying this quasi-science of thought with the science of the real order, or metaphysics. That is what Hegel does."

"The executive function of the dialectic, as Isaac interpreted Aquinas, uses the law of thought in a concrete instance of thinking or arguing. Because Fessard used these laws not as laws of arguing, but as laws of the development of historical events, he is again accused of Hegelianism." ("Gaston Fessard S.J., His Work Toward A Theology of History," by Mary Alice Muir, 1970, page 25-26)

 Francis theological advisor Fr. Juan Carlos Scannone connects the final dots of the close connection of Francis's thinking with Fessard and Blondel's Hegelian teachings which explains why the Pope does not apparently believe in truth and promotes situation ethics:


"Between Blondel’s philosophy of action and Pope Francis’ pastoral action, there are significant coincidences, probably because they both draw from the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. However, indirect links between the two should not be excluded, for example, through the relationship between Gaston Fessard (strongly influenced by Blondel) and Miguel Ángel Fiorito, much appreciated by Bergoglio. This article focuses first on the convergences regarding action; then it compares the coincidences between the two authors regarding the overcoming of social and existential conflicts. Finally, it studies the parallelism between the «logic of love», nominated and applied by the Pope, and the «logic of a moral life» by Blondel, focused on charity. ( La Civiltà Cattolica 2015 III / www.laciviltacattolica.it )" [https://m.facebook.com/civiltacattolica/photos/a.10150836993325245.745627.379688310244/10242607255245/?type=3]

Scannone connecting the Pope's thinking to Blondel is very important because he is one of "Francis’ closest theological advisors" according to an expert on Latin America and Francis's theology, Claudio Remeseira:

"In the almost fifty years since its appearance, the Theology of the People has become the Argentine theological school by default. The generation of its founders was followed by a second generation of disseminators, the most prolific of whom is father Scannone... Scannone, Galli, and Fernández are among Francis’ closest theological advisors. ["https://medium.com/@hispanicnewyork/pope-francis-per%C3%B3n-and-god-s-people-the-political-religion-of-jorge-mario-bergoglio-2a85787e7abe ]

Theologian John Lamont explains what Blondel taught:

"The neomodernists, due to their historical perspectivism, did not think that the theology and dogma of previous epochs could satisfy this understanding, but they did not want to dismiss them as false. They accordingly held that dogma was true, but that its truth could not be understood in Aristotle's sense. Garrigou-Lagrange saw them as reviving the philosopher Maurice Blondel's rejection of the traditional definition of truth as bringing the mind into conformity with reality ('adaequatio rei et intellectus') in favour of an account of truth as bringing thought into line with life ('adaequatio realis mentis et vitae'). While this definition of truth was not explicitly stated by the neomodernists, the importance of Blondel for their thought makes this interpretation a plausible one; Bouillard, for example, wrote extensively and approvingly on Blondel.12 What they did explicitly assert was that the truth of past dogmatic pronouncements does not consist in their being an accurate description of reality, and that a theology that was not relevant to the present day ('actuel') was untrue." [https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-christmastide-gift-for-our-readers.html?m=1]

Even liberal neo-modernist philosophy writer Anthony Carroll wrote:

"Conscious of the challenge to the traditional Thomist theory of knowledge that had been ushered in by modern philosophy, Blondel, for example, sought to identify the practical level of human action as the place where one might find a new apologetic for the Christian faith. In his L’Action (1893), he analyses the dynamics of human action and argues that the distance between what we desire and what we actually realise in our actions indicates that what we truly desire lies always beyond the particular object that we are momentarily fixed upon. This transcendental horizon of desire draws the mind and heart towards God as the only One who can satisfy truly our infinite longings. For Blondel, it is this Augustinian unrest that leaves a trace of the divine in our human experience. Such a turn to the interiority of human experience as grounds for the proof of God’s existence is what is meant by immanentism in Pascendi."

"Rather than pointing towards the historical existence of Jesus, the factual occurrence of miracles and the fulfilment of earlier prophecies for proof of God’s existence, the Blondelian schema holds that justification for the faith is to be found by turning inwards to the personal experience of the human subject. This turn to the subject is characteristic of modern philosophy, from Descartes right up to the Idealism of Kant and Hegel and beyond, and presented a major challenge to the traditional Catholic apologetics of the time, which had been constructed on the basis that external revelation could be taken for granted. With this turn to the interior experience of the human subject, more than simply philosophical questions were raised. If it were the case that inner experience justified the faith, if each person was to find the proof of God’s existence within their own life, then what would be the basis for the teaching authority of the Church?" [https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20090724_1.htm]

Finally, the great theologian and teacher of Pope John Paul II, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., wrote about Blondel and why anyone who was influenced by his teachings, directly or indirectly, would deny truth, as apparently Francis is influenced according one of his closest advisor's Scannone:

"One sees the danger of the new definition of
truth, no longer the adequation of intellect and reality
but the conformity of mind and life.™ When Maurice
Blondel in 1906 proposed this substitution, he did not
foresee all of the consequences for the faith. Would he
himself not be terrified, or at least very troubled?
What life" is meant in this definition of: "conformity
of mind and life"? It means human life. And so then,
how can one avoid the modernist definition: "Truth is
no more immutable than man himself inasmuch as it
is evolved with him, in him and through him. (Denz.
2058) One understands why Pius X said of the
modernists: "they pervert the eternal concept of truth. 11
(Denz. 2080) " [https://archive.org/stream/Garrigou-LagrangeEnglish/_Where%20is%20the%20New%20Theology%20Leading%20Us__%20-%20Garrigou-Lagrange%2C%20Reginald%2C%20O.P__djvu.txt]


Blondel's modernist theology came from "the Idealism of Kant and Hegel." Hegel leads to the "Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida" where de Certeau got most of his philosophy.

Did Francis's theology of the periphery come from the "Prophets of Extremity"?

The definition of extremity is "the furthest point or limit of something."

The definition of periphery is "the outer limit or edge of an area or object."

Remember what Francis expert Rev. Dr. Colautti said:

In the "discourse, a video message that the Pope send the Catholic University of Buenos Aires... I discovered that one of the few quotes he makes is from a theologian... a certain Michael de Certeau... I can imagine that this author had a great influence in the Pope's way of being open... Not making faith of a museum... This preference for the periphery could have a relationship with this theologian Michael de Certeau."


Francis's favorite theologian de Certeau's key ideas are oppression of groups and the deconstruction of meaning for the most part. De Certeau got these ideas from most of the same sources as Derrida who, like Fessard, had as his starting point Hegel. Remember that much of Francis's thinking comes not only from de Certeau, but from Fessard who was a Hegelian.

Derrida scholar Allan Megill on the Hegelian influence wrote:

He "sees no possibility of ever "escaping" Hegel... every attempt to state a truth is already a reintegration into the dialectic... A key term for Derrida is "dissemination"... a kind of anti-dialectic, going against the dialectical rule of three... The fourth moment of the dialectic is the deconstruction moment: position, negation, negation of the negation, deconstruction (or Nietzsche... Derrida)."
("Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida," Pages 271, 273-274)

The fourth moment or the deconstruction of meaning for Derrida and de Certeau is the Nietzschean relativism moment.


Francis's favorite theologian de Certeau ultimately leads him to Friedrick Nietzsche and the Nietzschean relativism moment.

De Certeau apparently made Francis a Nietzschean.

Nietzsche scholar Hans-Georg Gadamer wrote a book that shows Hegel leads to Nietzsche:

Nietzsche said the "'dialectical principles with which Hegel assisted the German spirit to gain its victory over Europe- 'contradiction moves the world, all things are contradictory to themselves.'"
("From Hegel to Nietzsche," Page 180)

Professor Allan Bloom, author of "The Closing of the American Mind thought that the only virtue 50 years of Nietzsche's influence on public education – and he could have said 50 years of Catholic education – has achieved is relativity of truth.

Bloom said relativism "is the modern replacement for the inalienable natural rights that used to be the traditional ground for a free society."

The move away from objective truth leads to universal rights being replaced by Nietzsche's will to power. Bloom, for example, showed how the old civil rights movement "relied on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution." But the new Black Power movement considered the Constitution "corrupt" and demanded a "black identity, not universal rights. Not rights but power counted."

The liberal "Catholics" speak the jargon of the Catholic while following Nietzsche's will to power. They understand power and hold most of the power positions in the infrastructure of the American Church.

According to Catholic scholar James Hitchcock, the leftist "clerical homosexual network" extends to "bishops, seminary rectors, chancery officials, [and] superiors of religious orders."

The faithful Catholics, the ones not infected with relativism and will to power, not realizing that their opponents use words as ploys to attain power, still use logic in an attempt to reason them back into objective truth. So they control many traditional and conservative publications, as well as the EWTN Cable Network, but they have power over only a few dioceses, colleges and high schools, where the real power is.

Meanwhile, the Nietzschean "Catholics" are going for the throat by going after the young. They control the American Catholic high school system, which is pro-homosexual, and filter out Roman Church documents such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism states that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered ... [and] under no circumstances can they be approved." 


That the Catholic schools are not teaching the Catechism of the Catholic Church is shown by recent polls which found that the vast majority of Catholic high school students are pro-gay. That is, they buy the whole gay agenda and even have gay clubs at their Catholic schools.

Norman Mailer, in his book "Prisoner of Sex," shows why this relativism and moving away from natural objective truths such as heterosexual sex can lead to will to power:

"So, yes, [homosexuals] in prison strive to become part of the male population, and indeed – it is the irony of homosexuality – try to take on the masculine powers of the man who enters them, even as the studs, if Genet is our accurate guide, become effeminate over the years. ... Homosexuality is not heterosexuality. There is no conception possible, no, no inner space, no damnable spongy pool of a womb ... no hint remains of the awe that a life in these circumstances can be conceived. Heterosexual sex with contraception is become by this logic a form of sexual currency closer to the homosexual than the heterosexual, a clearinghouse for power, a market for psychic power in which the stronger will use the weaker, and the female in the act, whether possessed of a vagina or phallus, will look to ingest or steal the masculine qualities of the dominator."

This is the end result when universal truths and responsibility toward those truths are denied. The only "currency" left to the left is stealing of power, because they are insecure in any truth including their own objective masculinity.

Unsure of their own objective masculinity – or any objective truth, for that matter – they will not tolerate truth, calling it intolerance. They will not tolerate the truth of the purpose of sex, which is married love, with the creation of a secure family for the children of that love.

Leftists replace the traditional family with sexual power struggles that lead to the death mills of the abortion industry and the graveyards of AIDS and the abandonment of children and women at the altar of free sex.

Sex is not free. It was once a responsibility that a mature man entered into for life, for the security of his beloved children and wife.

Likewise, liberals replace the Constitution with gay, gender, group and ethnic power struggles that lead to the breaking of the rule of law.

If a president can sexually abuse women and possibly even rape them, then obstruct justice and lie under oath, are we under the rule of law?

If our society will not tolerate truth, then men and women are not secure in their "inalienable natural rights that used to be the traditional ground for a free society," as Bloom said.

If we reject the rule of law and natural rights, our society will progress toward the Clintonian and homosexual power tactics of prison inmates.

The leftists in the Church and the media rejecting objective truth no longer want to be identified as men of objective faith and reason, but rather as Nietzschean post-modernists to be identified with the "culture" of the gay and Clintonian playboy slogans of the media elite.

The media elite uses management tactics on anyone who wants to be identified as a man of objective morals, faith and reason. They redefine the meaning of words like morals, faith and reason through association and repetition, then isolate those who don't accept the new definitions, after which they ostracize the good name of any person or group that doesn't accept the new "culture" and isn't a "team player."


The very respected scholar Edgar H. Schein of MIT Sloan School of Management explains the process in "Organizational Learning as Cognitive Re-definition: Coercive Persuasion Revisited":

"It may seem absurd to the reader to draw an analogy between the coercive persuasion in political prisons and a new leader announcing that he or she is going 'to change the culture.'

"However, if the leader really means it, if the change will really affect fundamental assumptions and values, one can anticipate levels of anxiety and resistance quite comparable to those one would see in prisons. The coercive element is not as strong. More people will simply leave before they change their cognitive structures, but if they have a financial stake or a career investment in the organization, they face the same pressure to 'convert' that the prisoner did. ... Consider, for example, what it means to impose a 'culture of teamwork' based on 'openness and mutual trust' in an individualistic society."

By using this process, the leftists with the media's marketing ability learned they could create massive peer pressure – some would call it a "mob mentality," which changes the worldview of people with weak morals, weak faith or the Judas mentality. These types of people see themselves as the "elite" because they accept the "culture of teamwork" and have "openness" to the new definitions.

These persons wishing to be part of the "culture" or "team" are open to cognitive re-definition. Schein explains how the process works:

"'Cognitive redefinition' involved two different processes. First, concepts like crime and espionage had to be semantically redefined. Crime is an abstraction that can mean different things in different conceptual systems when one makes it concrete. Second, standards of judgment had to be altered. Even within the western concept of crime, what was previously regarded as trivial was now seen to be serious. The anchors by which judgments are made are shifted and the point of neutrality is moved. Behavior that was previously judged to be neutral or of no consequence became criminal, once the anchor of what was a minimum crime was shifted. These two processes, semantic re-definition and changing one's anchors for what is good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable, are the essence of cognitive re-definition."

Professor Bloom thought that Nietzsche was the father of the modern American culture with it's "semantic re-definition and changing one's anchors for what is good or bad." He said, "Words such as 'charisma,' 'lifestyle,' 'commitment,' 'identity,' and many others, all of which can easily be traced to Nietzsche ... are now practically American slang."

But the most important Nietzschean slang word is "values."

"Values" are the death of Christian morality because values simply mean opinions. If opinion is how things are decided, then might makes right.

One must remember that whenever someone talks about values in modern America – family values or religious values or place-the-blank-in-front-of values – they are saying there is no real or objective right or wrong – only opinions of the self and its will to power.

Nietzsche's philosophy is summed up by Bloom as:

"Commitment values the values and makes them valuable. Not love of truth but intellectual honesty characterizes the proper state of mind. Since there is no truth in the values, and what truth there is about life is not lovable, the hallmark of the authentic will is consulting one's oracle while facing up to what one is and what one experiences. Decisions, not, deliberations, are the movers of deeds. One cannot know or plan the future. One must will it."

As a philologist, Nietzsche believed there was no original text and transferred this belief to reality, which he thought was only pure chaos. He proposed will to power in which one imposes or "posits" one's values on a meaningless world.

Previous to Freud's psychoanalysis, Nietzsche's writings spoke of the unconscious and destructive side of the self. In fact, Freud wrote that Nietzsche "had a more penetrating knowledge of himself than any other man who ever lived or was likely to live."

Max Weber and Sigmund Freud are the two writers most responsible for Nietzschean language in America. Few know that Freud was " profoundly influenced by Nietzsche," according to Bloom. Freud, much more than Weber, profoundly changed America from a Christian culture to a therapeutic or self-centered culture.

The therapeutic approaches, which started with Freud, have a basic assumption that is not Christian. The starting point is not the Christian worldview, which is summed up in the parable of the prodigal son: a fallen and sinful world with persons needing God the Father to forgive them so they can return to be His sons and daughters.

Unlike the Christian worldview, the therapeutic starting point is that the individual must overcome personal unconscious forces, in Freud, and in Carl Jung the person must unite to the collective unconscious, which is shared by all humans.

In both cases, the therapist assists his client to change himself to 'become his real self.' Forgiveness and returning to God are not needed. What is needed are not God and His Forgiveness, but a therapist assisting a self to reach the fullness of its self.

Freud, under the influence of Nietzsche, moved psychiatry away from the mechanistic and biological to the previously "unscientific" model of the "symbolic language of the unconscious."

Freud's pupil Carl Jung took the symbolic language of the unconscious a step further. Unlike his mentor, Jung's unconscious theory is not just about making conscious sexually repressed or forgotten memories. His symbolic therapy used what he called the "active imagination" to incorporate split-off parts of the unconscious (complexes) into the conscious mind.

He believed with Freud that dreams and symbols are means to the unconscious, but for Jung the dream and symbol are not repressed lusts from stages of development. They are a way to unite with the collective unconsciousness.

Many Christians thought this "language of the soul" was a step forward from what they considered the cramped scientific reality of modernity. What they didn't understand was that Jung's theory was part of a movement that led to the rejection of objective morality and truth.

Jungian (and Freudian) psychoanalysis reduces Christian concepts such as God, free will and intelligence to blind reactions, unconscious urges and uncontrollable acts. Even more disastrous, Jung inverted Christian worship.

Leanne Payne, a Christian therapist, considers Jung "not a scientist, but a post-modernist subjectivist. Jung's active imagination therapy is hostile not only to the Judeo-Christian worldview, but to all systems containing objective moral and spiritual value. Within this world the unconscious urge becomes god. What the unconscious urge wants is what is finally right or moral. These psychic personae [complexes] are literally called 'gods' (archetypes),' and so an overt idolatry of self follows quickly."

It seems to me that within the modern French Nietzschean schools of thought of Foucault, Derrida and Francis's favorite theologian de Certeau a type of Jungian unconscious urge is replacing the old existential conscious self who chooses. The post-modernist and all Nietzschean secularists are moving from the idolatry of self to the idolatry of autonomous inner "beings" that, according to Payne, are similar to pagan "gods." 


Sadly, these pagan "gods" appear to be the "spirits" that guide those who are disciples of de Certeau and the French Postmodernists who can be called Marxist "Materialist Magicians."

Are they the "spirit" that guide the Pope's synods? Francis has said of his synods:

They are "the outcome of the working of the Spirit."
(Fatima Perspectives, "The 'Synodality' Scam," November 20, 2018)

As C.S. Lewis predicted in "The Screwtape Letters," we are moving to a "scientific" paganism. C.S. Lewis' name for the "scientific" pagan was the Materialist Magician and the name of the autonomous inner "beings" was the "Forces."

In "The Screwtape Letters," his character who is a senior evil spirit said:

I have high hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, belief in us (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to the Enemy [God]. The "Life Force," the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis may here prove useful. If once we can produce our prefect work – the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls "Forces" while denying the existence of "spirits" – then the end of the war will be in sight.

Some of the largest audiences for this "scientific" paganism with its inversion of worship and the Judeo-Christian worldview are followers of Christ. By using Christian symbols and terminology, Jungian spirituality has infiltrated to a large extent Christian publishers, seminaries, even convents and monasteries.

Many Christians are using Jung's active imagination as a method of prayer. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., thinks this is dangerous "because this fantasy life has no moral underpinnings, because it helps to reinforce an experience of autonomous inner 'beings' accessible via the imagination, and because it is a defense against redemptive suffering, it easily allies with and quickly becomes a Gnostic form of spiritually with powerfully occult overtones."

If one is under the influence of the autonomous inner "beings," uncontrollable urges can overpower the self. One can go temporarily or permanently insane. And in the Christian worldview, the autonomous inner "being" is not always just an imaginary being, but can be a personal being, which then makes possession a rare, but not impossible, occurrence.

In fact, according to one Jungian therapist, Nietzsche himself went insane permanently when an autonomous inner "being" (archetype) overpowered him. So, unfortunately with the widespread acceptance of Jungian spirituality, mainstream Christianity seems to be moving to post-modern Nietzschean insanity and possibly, in some cases, possession.

Jung's autobiography is full of insane or occult experiences. He was continually hearing 'voices.' In his autobiography he said his home was "... crammed full of spirits ... they were packed deep right up to the front door and the air was so thick it was scarcely possible to breathe."

During the Hitler regime, which itself was obsessed with the occult, Jung edited a Nazi psychotherapeutic journal where he said, "The 'Aryan' unconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish." Keep that word "potential" in your mind. It will be used by American psychology.

Once opinion is master, then might makes right. In "Beyond Good and Evil," Nietzsche proclaimed a new morality, "Master morality," which was different from Christian morality – or "slave morality," as he called it. He thought the weak have the morality of obedience and conformity to the master. Masters have a right to do whatever they want; since there is no God, everything is permissible.

In what Nietzsche considered his masterpiece, "Zarathustra," he said the new masters would replace the dead God. The masters were to be called Supermen, or the superior men.

After Freud and Jung came Alfred Adler, also a follower of Nietzsche, with "Individual psychology," which maintains that the individual strives for what he called "superiority" but now is called "self-realization" or "self-actualization," and which came from Nietzsche's ideas of striving and self-creation.

The "human potential movement" and humanistic psychology of Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers are imbedded with these types of ideas. The psychologists of "potential" teach the superior man.

Edvard Munch said:

"Alfred Adler translated Nietzsche's philosophical idea of 'will to power' into the psychological concept of self-actualization."

"Thus, Nietzschean thought forms the foundation for and permeates Alfred Adler's Individual Psychology, Abraham Maslow's Humanistic Biology, Carl Rogers's Person-Centered Psychology, and has influenced many other psychological ideas and systems. ... Alfred Adler was the first psychologist to borrow directly from Nietzsche, making numerous references to the philosopher throughout his works. Adler took Nietzsche's idea of "will to power" and transformed it into the psychological concept of self-actualization, in which an individual strives to realize his potential."

Mary Kearns, in an address to the Catholic Head Teachers Association of Scotland, spoke of the Nietzschean ideas now being taught in Catholic schools in the name of "scientific" psychology. Kearns said:

"The methods are based on 'the group therapy technique' first developed in America in the 1970's by two psychologists, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. They described how emotional conditioning should be carried out by a group 'facilitator.' The facilitator does not impart knowledge like the old fashioned teacher. Instead he/she initiates discussions encouraging children to reveal their personal views and feelings. The facilitator's approach is 'value free.' There is no right or wrong answer to any religious or moral question. Each person discloses what is right or wrong for them. All choices are equally valid even if they are opposites. Everything depends on feelings or emotions. Reason and conscience are discouraged. If anyone attempts objective evaluation, they are to be treated as an 'outsider' and there will be a strong emotional reaction against such judgemental intolerance'".

If it is true that Catholic education now uses these techniques in "teaching religious and moral education," then the Catholic education system has entered into the Nietzschean insanity. If these are the techniques being used in education and in the seminaries, then sexual misconduct charges against priests are a symptom of "scientific" paganism replacing Christianity.

Santa Rosa priest Don Kimball, who is charged with sexual misconduct, is an example of someone whose "approach" was "value free" – that is, there was "no right or wrong answer to any religious or moral question."

In 1996, Karyn Wolfe and Mark Spaulding of Pacific Church News said, "THE WEDGE! You can't do youth ministry (any ministry for that matter) without it. ... Basing his theory on psychologist Abraham Maslow's 'Hierarchy of Needs', the Rev. Don Kimball developed this model for the growth and maturity process of a group."

Another example of the value-free approach is Thomas Zanzig, a major leader in the Catholic Church for youth ministry, plus an editor and writer of Catholic textbooks.

According to Marks S. Winward, Zanzig, in a book on youth ministry, "bases his 'Wedge Model' on a similar model developed by Fr. Don Kimble." Homeschool leader Marianna Bartold said, "Sharing the Christian Message by Thomas Zanzig has students come up with as many slang or street words as possible for penis and vagina in three or four minutes."

Now, many might say these are only isolated cases of misuses of Maslow and Adler until one reads the original text. According to William Coulson, a former collaborator of Carl Rogers, Maslow was always a revolutionary. ... In 1965, working a radical idea about children and adult sex into his book about management, "In Eupsychian Management: A Journal," [Maslow said]: "I remember talking with Alfred Adler about this in a kind of joking way, but then we both got quite serious about it, and Adler thought that this sexual therapy at various ages was certainly a very fine thing. As we both played with the thought, we envisioned a kind of social worker ... as a psychotherapist in giving therapy literally on the couch."

As one can see, the basic therapeutic assumption leads to certain results in the real world. These thinkers don't believe in the basic Christian assumption that there is a need for forgiveness from God. Instead, they believe there is no sin, only selves needing to reach the fullness of themselves.

It is understandable that Nietzschean atheists such as Maslow, Adler and gay activists could hold these basic assumptions that sexually abusing children is okay, just as Hitler thought killing Jews was okay since he had the basic assumption that there is no right or wrong only relativism and will to power disguised in Nazi pagan religious and "National Socialist" language.


It would not be understandable and would be a disgrace if Francis holds these Nietzschean assumptions. Relativism with its implicit denial of original sin and personal sin is, in large part, behind the sex-abuse headlines of Chile, Pennsylvania and those around the globe.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.