Friday, May 31, 2019

Communion for Adulterers Mirus shrieks that Taylor Marshall isn't a "Sound" Catholic

It just makes you want to laugh when Dr. Jeff Mirus shrieks that Dr. Taylor Marshall's new book "Infiltration" and it's publisher Sophia Institute Press are not "sound" in their "Catholic editorial judgment."
(CatholicCulture.org, "Infiltration: An idiot's guide to the problems of the Church, May 31, 2019)

Mirus in his review of the book reviles Marshall and apparently the pre-Vatican II eleven Popes since 1738 for calling out "the secret machinations of the Masons" with his really funny attempt at trying to sound reasonable with his accusations in what appears to be a attempt to smear their reputations.

Here are some of his never ending name calling ravings which are so left-wing "crazy relative"-like you want to laugh:

- "idiot's"
- "absurdity of a crazy relative"
- "McCarthyism"
- "conspiratorial"
- "Catholic far-right"
- "Marian apparitions"
- "papal visions"
- "loss of sanity"
- "Satan's human tools"
- And on and on he goes in crazy left-wing relative-like shrieks...

Like all left-wing Catholic crazy relative-like persons, Mirus has a theory that it isn't heretical for adulterers to receive Communion.

He attempts to open Communion for adulterers by saying it isn't sacrilegious or heretical because it's only a "venial sin."

Even the often ambiguous Dr. Edward Peters who loves Mirus' writings said:

"[E]ven if Mirus' theory of venial sin for some divorce-and-remarried [adulterous couples] is correct, it does not answer the question about their being admitted to Holy Communion."
Canon Law Blog, "May I demur Mirus this once," 3 years ago)

Dubia Cardinal Walter Brandmuller is a little more straight forward on if Mirus' position is heretical:

"Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism."
(LifeSiteNews, "Dubia Cardinal: Anyone who opens Communion to a Heretic and Promotes Schism," December 23, 2016)

It appears that any Catholic who trusts Mirus' Catholic judgement on heresy has a problem.

His theories are not "sound" in their "Catholic editorial judgment."

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



How many Dr. Kwasniewskis does it take to Change a Light Bulb?

How many Dr. Kwasniewskis does it take to change a light bulb?

Two: One to change the light bulb and one to change it back.

How many thought polices does it take to screw a light bulb?

None: There never was any light bulb.

In the serious side, please pray for Dr. Peter Kwasniewski. I consider him to be a man of great learning and courage especially for signing the Open Letter.

One can only imagine the culture of fear that surrounds him which caused him to change a short Amazon review at least three times on Antonio Socci's book which just presents evidence that Pope Francis may be a Antipope.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and for Dr. Kwasniewski.


Thursday, May 30, 2019

CNSNews: Trump White House "'Spiritual Cleansing'... All [Obama Demonic Idol] Religious Artifacts... Removed"

CNSNews.com on February 8, 2018, in a article titled "Trump Demanded Spiritual Cleansing of WH, Removal of Pagan, Demonic Idols," reported Pastor Paul Begley said:

 "[A] close [anonymous] source to those working in the White House revealed to me that the 'Spiritual Cleansing'... of [a]ll religious artifacts from [the] former [Barack Obama] administration were removed except for 1 cross."

The article reported that Begley on the "Weekend Vigilante" show said the removed Obama religious items "were all kinds of idol gods and images and all kinds of artifacts in there that were demonic."

On January 18, 2016, the Bob Larson website appeared to implicitly confirm this report about Obama having "idol god... artifacts" saying:

"Obama has [the] Hindu god Hanuman in his pocket!... last week... in a series of interviews... reached into his pocket and pulled out... a Buddha, and a miniature idol of Hanuman, the Hindu monkey god! Oh yes, he did have a small rosary give[n] to him by Pope Francis, hardly an offset to the other demonic devices."
(Boblarson.org, "Obama Carries Curses," January 18, 2016)

A spokeswoman for First Lady Melania Trump while not denying the removal of Obama religious artifacts said that no exorcism in the White House happened.
(Associated Press, "First Lady did not hire exorcist for White House," February 10, 2018)

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

Sunday, May 26, 2019

Pope Francis, Ocasio-Cortez, Abortionist One-World Government & the Club of Rome

Is Pope Francis the biggest hypocrite of our time?

He compares abortion to Nazi eugenics:

“The murder of children. To have an easy life, they get rid of an innocent... Last century, the whole world was scandalised by what the Nazis did to purify the race. Today, we do the same thing but with white gloves.”
[http://www.lifenews.com/2018/06/18/pope-francis-was-right-to-compare-abortion-to-nazi-eugencis/]

But then he promotes the foremost one-world government abortionist eugenicist leaders:

Pope Francis's Vatican hosted Paul Ehrlick who has "called for forced abortion and mass sterilization" according to Lifenews.com.[https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/pope-francis-marks-pope-francis-marks-day-for-life-with-abortion-language-c]

Francis said he is "gratified" by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals which "promote universal access to abortion" according to Voice of the Family.com.[http://voiceofthefamily.com/pope-francis-gratified-by-un-goals-that-demand-universal-access-to-sexual-and-reproductive-health/]

In 2015,  LifeSiteNews reported:

"Pope Francis has appointed controversial German Professor John Schellnhuber as an ordinary member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.  Schellnhuber was one of the four presenters of the new encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si’, on Thursday. He is also scheduled to chair a session of a Pontifical Academy for Sciences educational workshop on “Children and Sustainable Development” set for November."

"... Schellnhuber is also known for his advocacy of a one-world government.  In order to avoid his catastrophic predictions for unchecked climate change."

"... Schellnhuber is also a full member of the Club of Rome."

"[T]he Club of Rome in 1972, was one of the starting points for the worldwide attempt to reduce the population by aggressive methods of promoting birth control and the killing of pre-born children."
Francis is in alliance with the United Nations, the Club of Rome and Schellnhuber in calling for a one-world government.

On May 9, the New American reported on the "unholy alliance" between the one-world regime globalists and the Pope:

Francis said "'When a supranational common good is clearly identified, it is necessary to have a special authority legally and concordantly constituted capable of facilitating its implementation. We think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new forms of slavery and peace,' his holiness told those gathered to discuss 'Nation, State, and Nation-State,' the conference theme."

"Pope Francis put a pretty fine point on his message, claiming that planetary problems are exacerbated by 'an excessive demand for sovereignty on the part of States.'"

"... Our only hope for planetary peace and progress is to make room for 'international organizations' to develop into governing bodies, supplanting the 'state interests' with the will of the United Nations, he stated."

"... Those people pushing for unlimited access to abortion loathe the Roman Catholic Church and its centuries-long opposition to the murder of children in utero are the very people standing with the head of that church in the fight to kill sovereignty and establish a one-world government."

"That seemingly bizarre and undeniably unholy alliance should be enough to compel people to question what the underlying goal of the globalists must be."

"In other words, what sort of government would the pope and pro-abortion advocates find mutually commendable?"
[https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/32245-pope-francis-calls-for-end-of-sovereignty-and-establishment-of-global-government]

Also, apparently in alliance with Francis and the Club of Rome is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) in their attempt to bring about a abortionist eugenicist one-world government:

"Ocasio-Cortez is the leading champion of the Green New Deal, in collaboration with a Rockefeller-funded left-wing astroturf advocacy group called the Sunrise Movement [SM]... "

"The Green New Deal is exploiting the popularity of social democratic ideals as sugar coating to disguise the globalists’ poison pill. According to reporting by Inside Philanthropy, institutional funders made up about 55 percent of Sunrise Movement’s 2018 budget, which includes donors like the Rockefeller Family Fund, Wallace Global Fund, and the Winslow Foundation. The Wallace Global Fund was originally founded by former US Vice-President Henry A. Wallace. Winslow is run by Wren Winslow Wirth, who is married to former politician Tim Wirth.[3] SM was launched in April 2017 by six principal co-founders—veterans of the Occupy Movement—who had developed a friendship with Michael Dorsey of the Rockefeller-funded globalist institution, the Club Of Rome; Dorsey  was also a former Sierra Club board member, whom President Barack Obama had appointed to the EPA’s National Advisory Board in 2010 and 2012."
Who is Dorsey who is apparently one of AOC's major players behind the scenes pulling strings with his Rockefeller connections which are funding Ocasio-Cortez?

The Rockefeller-funded Club of Rome Dorsey "is a recognized expert on global governance and sustainability."
It appears that Ocasio-Cortez is a fellow traveler with the abortionist eugenicist one-world agenda of the Club of Rome who promote "birth control and the killing of pre-born children":

"'Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don't turn this ship around and so it's basically like, there's a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult,' Ocasio-Cortez said while chopping up food in her kitchen during an Instagram live video. 'And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, 'Is it okay to still have children?'"
By coincidence it appears that Ocasio-Cortez's new Chief of Staff Saikat Chakrabarti is a fan of a ally of Hitler:

"Based on a recent clothing choice, Chakrabarti might justifiably be considered a Nazi sympathizer. But really? Well, yes. In his latest love-fest video for AOC, Chakrabarti is sporting a tee-shirt that features a portrait of Subhas Chandra Bose. Not familiar with this former Indian head of state? Here a few facts:"
Also, by coincidence Ocasio-Cortez and her Chief of Staff Chakrabarti happen to be pro-choice like the one time wannabe one-world government abortionist eugenicist leader Adolf Hitler.

As the German Media covered up Hitler's many eugenic scandals, the Nazi Media proudly promoted the pro-choice Hitler.

In 1933, when the Nazis came to power, one of Hitler's first acts was to legalize abortion for the "health of the mother" which meant abortion on demand. By 1935 Germany had 500,000 abortions a year.[http://www.klannedparenthood.com/nazis-and-abortion/hitler-was-pro-choice/]

Pro-choice Hitler's next step after legalizing abortion was sterilization which lead to eugenics which lead to the mass murder of not only the innocent unborn babies, but the disabled, poor, unemployed, Nazi opponents, gypsies and Jews.[http://www.klannedparenthood.com/nazis-and-abortion/hitler-was-pro-choice/]

Getting back to Francis who appears to be in alliance with Ocasio-Cortez in achieving the goal of the Club of Rome to have a abortionist eugenicist one-world government; we need to remember that Francis's Vatican hosted Paul Ehrlick who has "called for forced abortion and mass sterilization" according to Lifenews.com.[https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/pope-francis-marks-pope-francis-marks-day-for-life-with-abortion-language-c]

Author and visiting lecturer at the University of Illinois Allen Chase wrote that the Francis Vatican hosted Ehrlich was:

"[A]n open and blunt advocate of genocide political policies... Dr. Ehrlich has neither the intellectual right and professional right... to speak for biology in particular and for the scientific community in general. Genocide remains genocide, whether advocated in a Munich beer hall in the 1920 or in a Texas college auditorium in 1967."
(Counterpunch, "Population Bomb or Bomb the Population?," April 3, 2019)

The New Atlantis showed the racist implications of Ehrlich's policies:

"In 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote in The Population Bomb, 'I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self sufficient in food by 1971, if ever'... By 1972-1973, the number of sterilizations in India reached three million per year."
(The New Atlantis, "The Population Control Holocaust," By Robert Zubrin, Number 35, Spring 2012, pp. 33-54)

When most people think of eugenics and forced sterilization they think of Nazi Germany, but tragically Francis's Vatican is hosting and promoting the foremost one-world government abortionist eugenicist leaders of those same policies such as Ehrlich.

The Francis and the Club of Rome agenda for a one-world regime is also Ehrlich's goal according to Fox News:

"President Obama's 'science czar,' John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, 'compulsory sterilization,' and the creation of a 'Planetary Regime.'"

"... [Holdren propounded this 'Planetary Regime' policies in a] textbook he co-authored in 1977, 'Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,' a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com"

"The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich.
(Fox News, "Obama's 'Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions," Published July 21, 2009, Last Update January 27, 2015)

Remember that Hitler's next step after legalizing abortion was sterilization which lead to eugenics which lead to the mass murder of not only the innocent unborn babies, but the disabled, poor, unemployed, Nazi opponents, gypsies and Jews.

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

Francis Declares himself Complicit to Abortion "Assassin" or "Paid Killer" Bonino who Killed 10,000

Pope Francis called abortionists "assassins" or "paid killers" which is being translated in the US media as "hitman."

Francis thereby accused himself of being complicit with Emma Bonino who confessed to killing 10,000 unborn children.

Francis invited the abortionist to the Vatican and called the "assassin" one of Italy's "forgotten greats."

(It seems similar to if Francis had called Hitler a murderer, but then invited him to the Vatican and called the "murderer" one of Germany's "forgotten greats.")

Thereby, the Pope's actions and words towards Bonino appear to make him complicit in promoting abortion despite his lip service against killing unborn children.

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

Saturday, May 25, 2019

Why do Cowardly Anti-Open Letter Catholics & Sedevacantists Reject the Teachings of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales?

All the Conservative and Traditionalist anti-Open Letter Catholic commentators and all the Sedevacantists are united in rejecting or ignoring the teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales:

"[T]he Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

The Sedevacantists reject the Doctor of the Church's teaching that the Church "must... declare him [the explicit heretic Pope] deprived, of his Apostolic See" because like Neo-Protestants they, the Sedes, get to "declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See" not the Successors of the Apostles who Jesus Christ put in authority.

The Sedes love quoting that the explicitly heretical Pope "falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church," but then dishonestly ignore or deliberately leave out the second part of the sentence.

The anti-Open Letter Catholics, however, are in some ways more cowardly in that they ignore St. Francis de Sales' teaching altogether.

They over and over again talk about the "speculation" of St. Robert Bellarmine while they are either ignorant or choose to ignore for the sake of their strawman arguments not the "speculation" of this Doctor of the Church, but his straight forward explicit teaching about deposing a Pope.

The favorite strawman arguments of the anti-Open Letter Catholics are the mantras of schism and recently "counciliarism" to avoid the hard discussion of the teaching of a Doctor of the Church.

Why are these anti-Open Letter commentators afraid of engaging St. Francis de Sales?

Do they honestly think they can use their strawman mantras of schism and "councilarism" against him?

Are they calling a Doctor of the Church a schismatic and a "councilarist" heretic?

Remember that the "counciliarist" heresy came about before the time of St. Francis de Sales so he would be a explicit heretic if what he taught above had anything to do with it.

Do they honestly think that the Church makes schismatics and heretics into Doctors of the Church?

Anti-Open Letter Catholics stop being ignorant or cowards.

Overcome your ignorance or fear and honestly engage St. Francis de Sales' teaching about deposing a heretical Pope.

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




Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Renew America: Alabama Law "Allow[s] all Abortions"

Long time pro-life activist Siena Hoefling and colleague of Alan Keyes said it best:

"[T]he [Alabama Law] 'mental illness' exception... would allow all abortions... the doctor is authorized to kill the baby if the mother 'engages in conduct' that harms herself or her child. (What logic!)"
(Renew America, "The Alabama pro-life fraud," May 21, 2019)

Pray for laws that really protect the unborn children.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and laws to really protect the unborn children.


Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Why are Shea & all his Leftist Catholic Journalist Colleagues Complicit in Francis's Sex Abuse Cover-ups of McCarrick, Zanchetta, etc... ?

Why are Mark Shea and all his leftist Catholic journalist colleagues complicit in Pope Francis's sex abuse cover-ups of McCarrick, Zanchetta, Inzoli, etc... ?

In 2002, Shea, who was described as a "left-wing Catholic" by renowned philosopher Edward Feser, wrote:

"[R]ankest clericalism... not protecting innocent children from sexual predators... Bishops [that includes the Bishop of Rome presently Pope Francis] who repeatedly and knowingly lied to victims and exposed still more victims to the depredation of these men [sex abusing priests] should face the consequences of their actions."
("Shaken by Scandals: Catholics speak out about priests' sexual abuse," Page  102-103)

If Shea, who was dubbed "Mark Shea Pro-Abort" by pro-life attorney Donald McClarey in The American Catholic, isn't a hypocrite then he needs to call for Francis to "face the consequences" of "expos[ing] more victims to" McCarrick, Zanchetta, Inzoli, Grassi, Pardo and the "sexual abuse" predator priest list goes on.

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


Sunday, May 19, 2019

Why Is the Remnant's Matt Sounding like Jimmy Akin & Why is he Ignoring the Bishop Gracida Solution?

We are in the greatest crisis in the history of the Church, which is equal to the Arian crisis, because we appear to have a heretical Pope and his pro-gay bishops network who make the immoral Borgia Popes and their inner circles look like choir boys.

It seems that Remnant editor Michael Matt understands the depth of the crisis saying we must fight for the restoration of the Catholic Church and the papacy including getting a "serious" Catholic Pope to replace Pope Francis.

He says we must join forces with non-Catholic conservatives to help us get rid of Francis by critiquing his globalist evil politics.

All of which I agree, but then he starts sounding like Jimmy Akin on the Open Letter saying you can't make a case of heresy out of twisted "airplane utterances."
[https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4473-biden-time-catholics-fear-pro-democrat-pope-francis]

This sounds like when the National Catholic Register's Jimmy Akin said you can't make a case of heresy out of a "Open Letter [that] also fails to demonstrate that Pope Francis obstinately doubts or denies dogma."

But, Matt and Akin aren't able to show how you can't make a case of heresy out of Communion for those committing adultery which way back in 2017 was endorsed by Francis's Argentine letter that is called "authentic magisterium" by his Vatican and placed in the Holy See's AAS.

Please explain how this doesn't make a case of heresy and "demonstrate obstinately doubts or den[y] dogma."

Matt then says the Open Letter is highly unpopular so forget about it and only attempt to get a  "serious" Catholic pope by critiquing Francis's globalist evil politics.

Even a commenter on his video post said:

"Evangeline1031
Why does it have to be either or, why can't it be both?"

Why can't we go after Francis for both his heretical teachings and his evil globalist politics? 

The  blog summed up the best case scenario of the Matt tactic:

"Now, everyone with an IQ bigger than the size of his shoes knows that the Bishops aren’t avoiding to release information so that they can investigate more thoroughly than the public could do. No, they are keeping information away from you so that they can a) protect the vast number of people implicated in the protection and enabling of Cardinal McCarrick, b) avoid the unearthing of a vast, vast homosexual clerical net inside and outside of the Vatican,  and c) pretend that they are acting against clerical abuse when they are, in fact, consolidating it and helping it to fester inside and even at the very heart of the Church."

"If you thought that the US Bishops would put themselves at the head of the movement (not because of concern for the victims or desire to do Christ’s work; but merely in order to avoid the donations drying out) curb your enthusiasm, because I don’t think that this is going to happen. These people are, evidently, too compromised to risk any degree of openness."

The solution, at this point, is the handcuffs. I hope AGs all over the Country will soon start to treat the US Bishops like the organised criminal ring they are. Let them feel the cold metal on their wrists, and see whether this helps to, as they say today, “facilitate” a change of attitude."
[https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2018/11/15/make-purple-the-new-orange/]

This is part of the solution, but as a good priest recently said even if we can get the state or Church to remove all the bad bishops, Pope Francis is only going to replace them with worse bishops. And a conclave packed with Francis cardinal electors is only going to give us not a "serious" Catholic Pope, but a Francis clone.

Of course, we must continue to work for the removal of Francis's immoral pro-gay bishops network and it's evil globalist politics, but the only way we are going to begin a real restoration of the Church is to remove Francis as well as all his controllers and collaborators.

The only way to end the greatest crisis in the history of the Church is to remove Pope Francis and his collaborators!

How do we do this?

The Vatican is a sovereign state so no government is going to put Francis in handcuffs and even if they did he would still be Pope.

If putting the Pope in handcuffs along with his pro-gay bishops network and collaborators "organised criminal ring" is not the answer then what is?

The only answer is the Bishop RenĂ© Gracida solution which strangely Matt's Remnant and Steve Skojec's Onepeterfive choose to ignore.

But, before I get to the solution, we need to remember what early Church expert Rod Bennett wrote:

"Another historian asserts that the number of episcopal sees that can be shown to have remained in orthodox [Catholic] hands throughout the crisis can be counted on the finger of one hand."
("Bad Shepherds," Page 29)

I have been reading St. Athanasius's writings lately and his situation was so dire and grim that he keeps referring to the antichrist and apparently the end times.

But, before we get to the Gracida solution here is a short history of his dire situation in a old 1919 book by F. A. Forbes titled "St. Athanasius" which shows we in the rag-tag Catholic resistance have not come close to the persecution that the Catholic heroes of the Arian crisis endured:

"It was indeed the hour of darkness, and it seemed as if the powers of evil were let loose upon the world. The Arians, with the Emperor on their side, were carrying everything before them. Nearly all the Bishops who had upheld the Nicene faith were in exile or in prison."

"St. Anthony, over a hundred years old, was on his death-bed."

"... Fear not," replied the old man, "for this power is of the earth and cannot last. As for the sufferings of the Church, was it not so from the beginning, and will it not be so until the end?"

"... [A] new reign of terror began, in which all who refused to accept the Arian creed were treated as criminals. Men and women were seized and scourged; some were slain. Athanasius was denounced as a 'run-away, an evil-doers, a cheat and an impostor, deserving of death."

"... In the meantime, where was Athanasius? No one knew - or, at least, so it seemed. He had vanished into the darkness of the night. He was invisible, but his voice could not be silenced, and it was a voice that moved the world. Treatise after treatise in defence of the true faith; letter after letter... to the faithful, were carried far and wide by the hands of trusty messengers. The Arians had the Roman Emperor on their side, but the pen of Athanasius was more powerful than the armies."

"... Rumour said that Athanasius was in hiding in the Thebaid amongst the monk. The Arians searched the desert... The monks [of St. Anthony] themselves might of thrown some light on the matter, but they were silent men... even when questioned with a dagger at their throats."

"Silent, but faithful, their sentinels were everywhere, watching for the enemy's approach. Athanasius was always warned in time, and led by trusty guides to another and safer place. Sometimes it was only by a hair's breadth that he escaped, but for six years he eluded his enemies."

"... Tide and wind were against them; the monks had to land and tow the boat; progress was slow and the soldiers of Julian were not far off. Athanasius was absorbed in prayer, preparing for the martyr's death that, this time at least, seemed very near."

"... 'I have no fear,' answered Athanasius; 'for many long years I have suffered persecution, and never has it disturbed the peace of my soul, It is a joy to suffer, and the greatest of all joys is to give one's life for Christ.'"

"There was a silence, during which all gave themselves to prayer. As the Abbott Theodore besought God to save their Patriarch, it was suddenly made known to him by divine revelation that at that moment the Emperor Julian had met his end in battle... and that he had been succeeded by Jovian, a Christian and a Catholic. At once he told the good news to Athanasius, advising him to go without delay to see the new Emperor and ask to be restored to his see."

".... [After meeting  Emperor Jovian] Athanasius was back once more in the midst of his people."

"He had grown old, and his strength was failing, but his soul, still young and vigorous, was undaunted and heroic as ever..."

"His pen was still busy. One of his first acts on return to Alexandria was to write the life of St. Anthony, a last tribute of love and gratitude to the memory of his dear old friend."

"... In 366 Pope Liberius [who had excommunicated Athanasius] died, and was succeeded by Pope St. Damasus, a man of strong character and holy life. Two years later in a Council of the Church, it was decreed that no Bishop should be consecrated unless he held the creed of Nicaea. Athanasius was overwhelmed with joy on hearing this decision. The triumph of the cause for which he had fought so valiantly was now assured. His life was drawing to an end."

"... Scarcely was he dead when he was honoured as a Saint. Six year after his death, St. Nazianzen speaks of him in one breath with the patriarchs, prophets, and martyrs who had fought for the Faith and won the crown of glory."

Now, finally, the Bishop Gracida solution is:

"ONE CAN SAY THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A HERETIC [or a anti-pope] UNTIL ONE DIES BUT IT CHANGES NOTHING. WHAT IS NEEDED IS ACTION... WE MUST PRESSURE THE CARDINALS TO ACT. SEND THAT LINK TO EVERY PRIEST AND BISHOP YOU KNOW": https://wp.me/px5Zw-95e.


The link goes to his Open Letter which shows that there is strong evidence that Francis may be a anti-pope. But only the cardinals can validly make that Church juridical declaration.

In 2018, Onepeterfive's anti-Open Letter Steve Skojec rejected Bishop Gracida's call for the cardinals to judge if Francis's election to the papacy was valid calling the validity question itself a "potentially dangerous rabbit hole."
(Onepeterfive, "Cardinal Eijk References End Times Prophecy in Intercommunion," May 7, 2018)

At the time, Skojec referred back to his September 26, 2017 post where he said:

"JPII has removed the election-nullifying consequences of simony... nowhere else in the following paragraphs is nullity of the election even implied."
(Onepeterfive, "A Brief note on the Question of a Legally Valid Election," September 26, 2017)

Bishop Gracida shows that Skojec is wrong in his legally crafted Open Letter quoting Pope John Paul II's Universi Dominici Gregis' introductory perambulary and paragraph 76:

-"I further confirm, by my Apostlic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process [the above which Gracida clearly shows in his Open Letter was not maintained thus making the conclave and Francis's papacy invalid according to the Bishop]."
(Introductory perambulary)

-"Should the election take place in a way other than laid down here not to be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void."
(Paragraph 76)

Gracida's Open Letter, moreover, shows that Skojec is wrong above:

"The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave."

On top of all that, Skojec ignores paragraph 5 and contrary to what canon lawyer Edward Peters has said about Universi Dominici Gregis when he suggests canon lawyers have a role in interpreting the John Paul II Constitution, the document 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 Gracida says and Universi Dominici Gregis said, only the cardinals can interpret its meaning, not Skojec or canon lawyers.

The Bishop is saying what the document says: only the cardinals can interpret it.

He, also, says put pressure on the cardinals to act and interpret it which both Skojec and Peters appear to prefer to ignore.

Moreover, Bishop Gracida's Open Letter and Pope John Paul II's document make a number of points which neither Skojec, Peters or anyone else to my knowledge have even brought up or offered any counter argument against.

They are both wrong if they ignore this important Open Letter of Bishop Gracida.

If Skojec and Peters as well as the conservative and traditional Catholic media are ignoring Bishop Gracida because he isn't a cardinal and retired, remember that St. Athanasius wasn't a cardinal (that is involved in the selection or election process of the pope of the time) and was retired.

During the Arian heresy crisis, Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius. You don't get any more retired than being excommunicated.

Skojec gave blogger Ann Barnhardt's analysis of the papal validity a long article. The only bishop in the world (besides Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano) contesting Francis in a meaningful way deserves as much.

Matt, Skojec, Peters and all scholarly Catholics need to answer Gracida's theologically clear and precise arguments and either clearly and precisely counter them or put pressure on the cardinals to put into action the needed canonical procedures to remove Francis if he was "never validly elected" the pope or else remove him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy.

Francis is not orthodox so there are only two things he could be
:


 1. A validly elected pope who is a material heretic (as the scholar's Open Letter states) until cardinals correct him and then canonically proclaim he is a formal heretic if he doesn't recant thus deposing him (See: "In-depth Explanation of Dubia Consequences for Pope Francis including 'Removing him from Office'": 
https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2016/12/in-depth-explanation-of-dubia.html?m=1)  or
  
2. a invalidly elected anti-pope who is a heretic.

The point is whether you think using all the information available 1. is the objective truth or 2. is the objective truth you must act. 

You must as the Bishop says put: "pressure on the cardinals to act" whichever you think. 

Gracida is calling on pressure to be put on the cardinals to "[a]ddress... [the] probable invalidity" due to a invalid conclave or a invalid resignation by Pope Benedict’s XVI before they attempt to depose him from the Petrine office for heterodoxy. But, just as importantly he is calling all faithful Catholics to act and not just bemoan Francis's heresy.


There are many ways to put pressure such as pray and offer Masses for this intention, send the Gracida link to priests, bishops and cardinals, make signs and pray the rosary in front of their offices as we do in front of abortion clinics. Use your imagination to come up with other ideas.   

But, the best way to put pressure on the cardinals to remove Francis is the rosary. The solution to the greatest crisis in the history of the Church is the rosary as it was for the Austrians.

The way to victory for the Austrians to defeat the Russians according to Fr. Pater Petrus was "a tithe: that ten percent of the Austrians, 700,000, would pledge to say the rosary daily for the Soviets to leave their country. 700,000 pledged" as told on the Santo Rosario website:

                            
"At the end of World War II, the allies did a nasty thing: they turned Catholic Austria over to the Russians. The Austrians tolerated this Soviet domination for three years, but that was enough. They wanted the Soviets out of their country. But what could Austria do: seven million against 220 million?"

"Then a priest, Pater Petrus, remembered Don John of Austria. Outnumbered three to one, Don John led the Papal, Venetian, and Spanish ships against the Turks at Lepanto, and through the power of the rosary miraculously defeated them. So Pater Petrus called for a rosary crusade against the Soviets. He asked for a tithe: that ten percent of the Austrians, 700,000, would pledge to say the rosary daily for the Soviets to leave their country. 700,000 pledged."

"For seven years the Austrians prayed the rosary. Then, on May 13, the anniversary of the apparition at Fatima, in 1955, the Russians left Austria."

"Even to this day military strategists and historians are baffled. Why did the Communists pull out? Austria is a strategically located country, a door to the West, rich in mineral deposits and oil reserves? To them it was an enigma."

"Al Williams, former custodian of the National Pilgrim Statue of Our Lady of Fatima, heard me tell this story once. He said to me, "You know, Father, I am Austrian. Well, three months before Therese Neumann died, I visited her (June 18, 1962). One question I asked her was, 'Why did the Russians leave Austria?' She told me, 'Verily, verily, it was the rosaries of the Austrian people.' ' "

"In other words, Our Lady's rosary did what the Hungarian Freedom Fighters could not do with a bloodbath of 25,000 people. John Cortes, brilliant writer and diplomat of the 19th century wrote: 'Those who pray do more for the world than those who fight. If the world is going from bad to worse, it is because there are more battles than prayers.'"
[http://www.santorosario.net/power.htm]

St. Athanasius pray for Bishop Gracida, the resistance for Faith in this present time and the restoration of the Church.

Pray an Our Father now that a Fr. Petrus be risen up by God in the United States and all countries to bring about a tithe: that ten percent of the faithful American Catholics as well as faithful Catholics in every country say the rosary daily for the cardinals to remove Francis and his collaborators. I am going to start praying one of my rosaries everyday for those two intentions
      

Friday, May 17, 2019

Is Anti-Open Letter Taylor Marshall calling Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales a "Sedevacantist"?

"Bishop Schneider tells Raymond Arroyo that the signatories were wrong to accuse Francis of heresy because he hasn't made a formal, universal declaration of heresy. Though he admits he has allowed wrong teaching Very disappointing hair splitting."

In responding to Donnelly's statement, anti-Open Letter Taylor Marshall, apparently, is implicitly calling Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales a "sedevacantist":

"I agree w Bishop Schneider. If you condemn Francis as “heretical pope” one must break communion with him. This is why I called the doc “practically sedevacantist”. It’s not formally sede but the natural conclusion is."
[https://mobile.twitter.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/1129334902153986050]

Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales wrote:

"Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinion, as did John XXIL.; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: 'Let another take his bishopric.'"
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Marshall appears to be saying by inference that the Doctor of the Church is a "sede" by "natural conclusion" when he wrote:

"[T]he  Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."

Do Marshall and Schneider think they are greater theologians than St. Francis de Sales?

Do Marshall and Schneider think that the Church can't depose a pope contradicting a Doctor of the Church or possibly that magically the Church doesn't have to "condemn Francis as [a] 'heretical pope'" before it "either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See"?

According to Donnelly, Bishop Athanasius Schneider said "the signatories were wrong to accuse Francis of heresy because he hasn't made a formal, universal declaration of heresy." Marshall agreed with this statement.

Are Schneider and Marshall waiting for "a formal, universal declaration of heresy" such as this:

Not privately, but Pope Francis officially acting as the pope explicitly contradicted traditional Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage when he in a "official act as the pope" placed the Argentine letter in the the Acts of the Apostolic See (AAS) in which he said of the Buenos Aires region episcopal guidelines:

"There is no other interpretations."

The guidelines explicitly allows according to LifeSiteNews "sexuality active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"
(LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers, December 4, 2017)

In a article on OnePeterFive, specialist in Magisterial authority Dr. John Joy said "It means that it is an official act of the pope." 

Moreover, the article said:

"Dr. Joy pointed out that adding the letter to the AAS could, in fact, damage the credibility of Amoris Laetitia by potentially removing the possibility that it could be intercepted in an orthodox way, via its publication in the official acts of the Apostolic See, that the unorthodox interpretation is the official one."
(OnePeterFive, "Pope's Letter on Argentinian Communion Guidelines for Remarriage Given Official Status," December 2, 2017)

The "official act of" Francis is a "unorthodox interpretation."

It is not just a private contradiction of traditional Catholic teaching.

The "official act of the pope" is a "unorthodox interpretation" which means it contradicts traditional Catholic teaching which is just another way of saying by "official act the pope" is teaching heresy.

Now, let us quote philosopher Ed Feser:

"(1) Adulterous sexual acts are in some special circumstances morally permissible... these propositions flatly contradict irreformable Catholic teaching. Proposition (1) contradicts not only the perennial moral teaching of the Church, but the teaching of scripture itself."
(Edwardfeser.blogspot, "Denial flows into the Tiber," December 18, 2016)

How's that for an understatement?

Marshall and Schneider might of heard that God commanded in one of the Ten Commandments:

"Thou shalt not commit adultery."

But, just in case they never heard of the Ten Commandments, Dubia Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said:

"Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism."
(LifeSiteNews, "Dubia Cardinal: Anyone who Opens Communion to Adulterers a Heretic and Promotes Schism," December 23, 2016)

Does this mean because Cardinal Brandmuller said that if a pope "open[ed] Communion to adulterers" he is "a heretic and promotes schism" that according to Marshall by inference he is a "sede" by "natural conclusion"?

Getting back to St. Francis de Sales' teaching that heretical popes can be deposed by the Church, just in case Schneider and Marshall don't think the Doctor of the Church knew what he was talking about here are some of his credentials as a great theologian. The Catholic websites Word on Fire and Catholic Culture.org wrote:

- "In addition to his devotional and apologetical writings, he also was a brilliant theologian who helped orchestrate something of a cease-fire in the debates between the Dominicans and Jesuits on grace and predestination. He also wrote the mystical Treatise on the Love of God, of which Pope Benedict XVI said: 'In an intensely flourishing season of mysticism The Treatise on the Love of God was a true and proper summa and at the same time a fascinating literary work.'”
- "The special importance of the teaching of St. Francis de Sales: The thought of this Doctor of the Church is of special importance since the Pope himself followed the advice of St. Francis in putting an end to the debates De Auxiliis. Pope Pius IX reports it as follows:1 '. . . our Predecessor of holy memory, Paul V, when the famous debate De Auxiliis was being held at Rome decided to ask the opinion of this Bishop on the matter and, following his advice, judged that this most subtle question, full of danger, and agitated long and keenly, should be laid to rest, and that silence should be imposed on the parties.' The special importance of his teaching is even clearer from the words of Pius XI:2 'But taking the opportunity, he lucidly explained the most difficult questions, such as efficacious grace, predestination, and the call to the faith.'"
But, again, just in case Schneider and Marshall need St. Francis de Sales' credentials as a great theologian on matters dealing with papal theology explained by another anti-Open Letter conservative Catholic here is what pro-Francis Dave Armstrong wrote about the Doctor of the Church:

"Historically, there were many expressions similar to 'papal infallibility', such as: papal authoritypapal primacyheadshippapal supremacyRoman primacy, etc. All of those can be traced back to very early times. Papal infallibility developed (i.e., became more fully understood in its detail) just as all Christian doctrines do."

"But if we restrict ourselves to uses of the word infallibility itself, (and with direct reference to the pope), one notable historical use comes from a Doctor of the Church, St. Francis de Sales, and his book, The Catholic Controversy, completed in 1596. Note how remarkably it anticipates the later fully developed dogma of papal infallibility, as pronounced at the First Vatican Council in 1870 (274 years before it):

'When he teaches the whole Church as shepherd, in general matters of faith and morals, then there is nothing but doctrine and truth. And in fact everything a king says is not a law or an edict, but that only which a king says as king and as a legislator. So everything the Pope says is not canon law or of legal obligation; he must mean to define and to lay down the law for the sheep, and he must keep the due order and form.'

'We must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right; that he can err extra cathedramoutside the chair of Peter. that is, as a private individual, by writings and bad example.'

'But he cannot err when he is in cathedra, that is, when he intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of the whole Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and to conduct them into the pastures of the faith. For then it is not so much man who determines, resolves, and defines as it is the Blessed Holy Spirit by man, which Spirit, according to the promise made by Our Lord to the Apostles, teaches all truth to the Church.' (The Catholic Controversy, translated by Henry B. Mackey, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1989, 306-307)"
Schneider and Marshall, although good men, appear not to be great theologians when compared to St. Francis de Sales.

Also, it appears that Schneider and Marshall, although good men, appear cowardly when compared to St. Athanasius.

Athanasius demanded the Arian semi-heretical and heretical Church leaders of his time be deposed unless they repented.

Schneider and Marshall are directly contradicting the traditional teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales in saying the Church can't depose a heretical pope.

And in saying there is no formal Church definition saying the Church can depose a heretical pope so let's sit in our hands they are showing they are very unlike Athanasius.

Again, Athanasius shows Schneider and Marshall to be a bit cowardly as compared to him by his defense of the as yet not formally defined traditional teaching that Jesus is God and demanding a Church formal definition that Jesus is God.

We need to act like Athanasius did, and not act like Schneider and Marshall, in demanding that the traditional teaching that a heretical pope can be deposed be formally defined by the Church.

Sadly, the sincere Schneider and Marshall are apparently like many good men in the Church in our time and I hope they prove me wrong. They speak well of the truths of the Church, but are afraid to act on those truths.

There is only one bishop in our time acting with the bravery of St. Athanasius. That is Bishop Rene Gracida.

All good, but fearful Catholics needs to hear the following:

 - Bishop Fulton Sheen:

"Cowards go to Hell. Never forget that. No matter what happens in your life never forget that basic truth."
(CatholicMilitant.com, "Saints and Popes Quotes")


- Pope Pius IX (1792-1878) 

"If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him. (Letter to Bishop Brizen)"

- Francisco Suarez S. J. (1548-1617)

"If the pope gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defence. (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)"

- St. Robert Bellarmine, S. J. (1542-1621) 

"Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)"
[https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/10/resisting-heretic-popes-classic-catholic-reflections.html]

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



Thursday, May 16, 2019

Does Anti-Open Letter Fr. Harrison Believe that Vatican II gives the Satanic Temple the "Right to Abortion" because of the "Right to Freedom"?

Fr. Brian Harrison in his latest attack on the Open Letter, in his defense of Pope Francis's religious indifferentism in the Abu Dhabi statement, said:

"Since, according to Vatican II teaching... Dignitatis Humanae... the truth or falsity of the religion we profess does not in itself affect our right to freedom from governmental or social harassment."
(The Wanderer, "Pope Francis: The Charge of Formal Heresy," May, 14, 2019)

Does Harrison believe that Vatican II gives satanic-like children sacrificing Baal religions the "right to freedom"?

Do the teachings of Vatican II mean that Rome was wrong to destroy the child sacrificing religion of Moloch?

Does religious freedom mean that G. K. Chesterton was wrong to socially harass the memory of the religion of Baal? Chesterton said:

[W]orshippers of Baal or Moloch... a religion of despair... fell [by the hands of Rome]... to its logical conclusion [of] her own vision of the universe. Moloch had eaten his children."

Or, in 2019, does he think Vatican II gives the Satanic Temple the "right to abortion" because of religious freedom?:

""A member of the Satanic Temple in Missouri is challenging a state law... [on] abortion... saying it violates the member's religious freedom."
(Associated Press, "Satanic Temple challenges Missouri abortion law," April 10, 2019)

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