nowire2.jpg



Scrambling to maintain Francis is Pope...

de-mattei.jpg

Dr. De Mattei’s Anti-Sedevacantist Tranquilizer

As it becomes more and more undeniable that the man who claims to be “Pope Francis” of the Catholic Church is in fact an anti-Catholic heretic (apostate, to be exact), various thinkers who adhere to the Modernist Vatican II Church are scrambling to look for ways to maintain that even though Francis may be a heretic, this does not mean he cannot be the Pope. One way to do that is to attempt to find historical precedent, parallels in history to the situation today, where there was a Pope who — supposedly — was a heretic and yet remained Pope, with a church that “resisted” him. Over the 2,000 years of the Church’s history, there are only a handful of cases where such a parallel can even be remotely attempted, and one of them is the case of the fourteenth-century Pope John XXII (that’s the twenty-second). In a recent article, the Novus Ordo historian Dr. Robert de Mattei tries to make precisely this case — that John XXII remained Pope even though he “fell into heresy” and that the Church resisted and corrected him.

We currently have in preparation a new series of blog posts entitled “The ‘Heretical’ Popes”, in which we will take a look at and refute all the arguments that are made against true Popes of the past, including John XXII, Liberius, Honorius I, Adrian VI, and others. As research for and preparation of these posts continues — and drags on, thanks to the fact that Francis is incessantly stirring up more trouble — we share the following brief rebuttal, written by a sedevacantist priest, to Dr. de Mattei’s thesis in the interim.

The following post is a reprint of Fr. Anthony Cekada’s “Dr. de Mattei Prescribes an Anti-Sede Tranquilizer”. It is a brief rebuttal to de Mattei’s article, “A Pope who fell into heresy: John XXII and the Beatific Vision of the Just after Death”.


Dr. de Mattei Prescribes an Anti-Sede Tranquilizer
by Rev. Anthony Cekada

A 14th century pope was a “heretic” and remained pope, so Bergoglio must remain pope, too, right? Right? 


JORGE BERGOGLIO’s antics are unnerving more and more people in the conservative/traditionalist wing of the post-Vatican II establishment, and it is becoming harder and harder for them to insist that Francis is really a pope.

In the past week alone (in January 2015), Bergoglio has rattled on about “rabbits,” repudiated apologetics (Take that, Catholic Answers!) and given a pat on the head to a “trans” couple. What next?

Those who recognize the gravity of Francis’ errors find themselves peering over the precipice into sedevacantism — the only truly coherent theological explanation for the dilemma he embodies — and it makes them dizzy.

Anything, anything but that!

So controversialists on the right have stepped forward and tried to jury rig some guardrails.

The latest is the work of Dr. Roberto de Mattei, an Italian historian and commentator on Church affairs who has written eloquently and incisively on Bergoglio’s errors and his revolutionary program. In a January 28 article, translated and posted on the Rorate blog, Dr. de Mattei treats the case of  Pope John XXII (1316-1334) as an example of “a pope who fell into heresy and a Church that resisted.”

He doesn’t explicitly mention the dreaded “trigger word,” sedevacantism, but it is absolutely clear that this is the real subject of his article.

The implied conclusion Dr. de Mattei wants us to draw about sedevacantism proceeds, more or less, from the following analogical argument: John XXII (1) became a public heretic after he was elected pope, (2) but he did not therefore lose the papal office, and (3) the Church resisted him. So too, Francis (1) has become a public heretic after he was elected pope, (2) but he does not therefore lose the papal office, and (3) we have the right to resist him.

So take a deep breath, and feel the sense of calm and contentment as the effects of your recurring Bergoglio-induced sedevacantism anxiety attack once again recede from your head and members.

But alas, the soothing analogical argument that Dr. de Mattei prescribes fails for at least two reasons.

I. John XXII was not a heretic

The accusation of heresy arose from a series of sermons John XXII preached in Avignon, France in which he maintained that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgement. Sounds promising as an anti-sede argument at first, since John XXII was always recognized as a true pope. However:

(a) The doctrine on the Beatific Vision had not yet been defined — John XXII’s successor, Benedict XII would do that.

Dr. de Mattei, perhaps sensing a weakness in his analogy because of this, waffles on the point: when it came to the common teaching on the beatific vision at the time, John XXII “contested the thesis,” “fell into heterodoxy,” “entered into conflict with Church tradition on a point of primary importance,” “sustained the view,” “re-proposed the error,” “tried to impose this erroneous view,” etc.

So while in the title of his article, Dr. de Mattei speaks of “a pope who fell into heresy,” he shies away from employing the specific technical term “heresy” in his text. And the heresy of the post-Conciliar popes, including Bergoglio, is the starting point for the sede argument.

(b) Then there is the mode that John XXII, who had been a theologian before his election, employed to present his arguments and conclusions.

Here, the theologian Le Bachlet says that John XXII proposed his teaching only as a “private doctor who expressed an opinion, hanc opinionem, and who, while seeking to prove it, recognized that it was open to debate.“ (“Benoit XII,” in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 2:662.)

Thus, it is incorrect for Dr. de Mattei to claim that John proposed his thesis as “an act of ordinary magisterium regarding the faith of the Church.”

In the pope’s second sermon, moreover, he said the following:

“I say with Augustine that, if I am deceived on this point, let someone who knows better correct me. For me it does not seem otherwise, unless the Church would so declare with a contrary statement [nisi ostenderetur determinatio ecclesie contraria] or unless authorities on sacred scripture would express it more clearly than what I have said above.” (Le Bachelet, DTC 2:262.)

Such statements excluded the element of “pertinacity” proper to heresy.

So, two of the conditions which by definition are necessary for heresy to exist were simply not present in the case of John XXII.

II. John XXII validly became Pope, while Bergoglio never did

The second point on which Dr. de Mattei’s implied analogy fails is the hidden assumption that, like John XXII, Bergoglio validly obtained papal authority in the first place, which he could somehow retain, despite public heresy.

Bergoglio, however, was a public heretic before his election, and as a public heretic, he could not be validly elected pope.

The principle is a matter of divine law. When treating the requirements for election to the papal office, numerous pre-Vatican II commentaries on the Code of Canon Law explicitly lay down this principle. For instance:

“Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized,heretics, schismatics…” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum 1:415)

We made just this point and provided more citations for it in an earlier article, whose title sums up why Dr. de Mattei’s implied John XXII/Bergoglio analogy fails: Bergoglio’s Got Nothing to Lose.

*   *   *

SO ON BOTH COUNTS — heresy and validly obtaining papal authority — the analogy between John XXII and Francis is yet another shaky barrier that must fall on the road to acknowledging the only logical explanation for Bergoglio: He’s a heretic who was never a real pope to begin with.

Anything else is just whistling past the graveyard.

[Source: Quidlibet Blog]


See Also:


Bad News for Novus Ordo Apologists...

Francis Denounces Apologetics, Seeking Conversion of Protestants

francis-vs-apologetics.jpg


Don’t you hate it when that happens? You’re a Novus Ordo apologist publishing articles, blog posts, podcasts, and videos trying to convince the world that the Modernist Novus Ordo Sect is in fact the glorious Catholic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ; you’re trying your darndest to either ignore, minimize, or excuse Francis’ constant “indiscretions”; you’re trying to get your followers all fired up about the Catholic Faith that the Vatican II Church supposedly represents and teaches; you’re telling people that Protestantism is in fact HERESY and that everyone must become a Catholic to be saved, and then… then… Francis — the man you just spent all your energies convincing people is the Pope of the Catholic Church and must be submitted to under pain of eternal damnation (see Denz. 469) — stabs you in the back and denounces your apologetics apostolate with all its proselytism. Darn it! 

What to do? Ignore the problem and hope it goes away? Talk about other stuff and hope people won’t notice? Pray that Novus Ordo Watch won’t find out? Well, too late, because we’re on it:

During Vespers for the Feast of the Conversion (!) of St. Paul on January 25, 2015, His Phoniness “Pope Francis” gave a sermon in which appear the following lines, full of the typical vagueness that characterizes Modernist tripe about phony “unity” that rejects the idea of conversion to Catholicism by all non-Catholics:

The woman of Sychar asks Jesus about the place where God is truly worshiped. Jesus does not side with the mountain or the temple, but goes deeper. He goes to the heart of the matter, breaking down every wall of division. He speaks instead of the meaning of true worship: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (Jn 4:24). So many past controversies between Christians can be overcome when we put aside all polemical or apologetic approaches, and seek instead to grasp more fully what unites us, namely, our call to share in the mystery of the Father’s love revealed to us by the Son through the Holy Spirit. Christian unity – we are convinced – will not be the fruit of subtle theoretical discussions in which each party tries to convince the other of the soundness of their opinions. When the Son of Man comes, he will find us still discussing! We need to realize that, to plumb the depths of the mystery of God, we need one another, we need to encounter one another and to challenge one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who harmonizes diversities, overcomes conflicts, reconciles differences.

Gradually the Samaritan woman comes to realize that the one who has asked her for a drink is able to slake her own thirst. Jesus in effect tells her that he is the source of living water which can satisfy her thirst for ever (cf. Jn 4:13-14). Our human existence is marked by boundless aspirations: we seek truth, we thirst for love, justice and freedom. These desires can only be partially satisfied, for from the depths of our being we are prompted to seek “something more”, something capable of fully quenching our thirst. The response to these aspirations is given by God in Jesus Christ, in his paschal mystery. From the pierced side of Jesus there flowed blood and water (cf. Jn 19:34). He is the brimming fount of the water of the Holy Spirit, “the love of God poured into our hearts (Rom 5:5) on the day of our baptism. By the working of the Holy Spirit, we have become one in Christ, sons in the Son, true worshipers of the Father. This mystery of love is the deepest ground of the unity which binds all Christians and is much greater than their historical divisions. To the extent that we humbly advance towards the Lord, then, we also draw nearer to one another.

Her encounter with Jesus made the Samaritan women [sic] a missionary. Having received a greater and more important gift than mere water from a well, she leaves her jar behind (cf. Jn 4:28) and runs back to tell her townspeople that she has met the Christ (cf. Jn 4:29). Her encounter with Jesus restored meaning and joy to her life, and she felt the desire to share this with others. Today there are so many men and women around us who are weary and thirsting, and who ask us Christians to give them something to drink. It is a request which we cannot evade. In the call to be evangelizers, all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities discover a privileged setting for closer cooperation. For this to be effective, we need to stop being self-enclosed, exclusive, and bent on imposing a uniformity based on merely human calculations (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 131). Our shared commitment to proclaiming the Gospel enables us to overcome proselytism and competition in all their forms. All of us are at the service of the one Gospel!

In this moment of prayer for unity, I would also like to remember our martyrs, the martyrs of today. They are witnesses to Jesus Christ, and they are persecuted and killed because they are Christians. Those who persecute them make no distinction between the religious communities to which they belong. They are Christians and for that they are persecuted. This, brothers and sisters, is the ecumenism of blood.

(Antipope Francis, Sermon at Vespers, Jan. 25, 2015; underlining added.)


In short, Francis’ message is: No “Catholic Answers”. No “Church Militant”. No “Vericast”. No tough-guy “we’ve got the truth and you need to convert!” No fancy seminars, luxury cruises, or apologetics workshops. No debates with Protestants. No podcast shows on the internet. No talks at your local parish to get people all fired up about converting non-Catholics. No! Only encounter, soup kitchens, and peripheries. Counting Rosaries - bad! Having transsexual perverts over for coffee - good! Why does anyone listen to this fool?

What Francis teaches stands in direct contradiction to perennial Catholic teaching over 1,900 years. His ecumenical tripe is precisely what was condemned as heretical and erroneous and very dangerous before Vatican II. See for yourself — here’s the real Catholic teaching by contrast:

[This sacred council] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

(Council of Florence, Decree Cantate DominoDenz. 714; underlining added.)


Even on the plea of promoting unity it is not allowed to dissemble one single dogma; for, as the Patriarch of Alexandria warns us, “although the desire of peace is a noble and excellent thing, yet we must not for its sake neglect the virtue of loyalty in Christ.” Consequently, the much desired return of erring sons to true and genuine unity in Christ will not be furthered by exclusive concentration on those doctrines which all, or most, communities glorying in the Christian name accept in common. The only successful method will be that which bases harmony and agreement among Christ's faithful ones upon all the truths, and the whole of the truths, which God has revealed.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Orientalis Ecclesiae, n. 16; underlining added.)


… [The bishops of the Catholic Church] shall also be on guard lest, on the false pretext that more attention should be paid to the points on which we agree than to those on which we differ, a dangerous indifferentism be encouraged, especially among persons whose training in theology is not deep and whose practice of their faith is not very strong. For care must be taken lest, in the so-called “irenic” spirit of today, through comparative study and the vain desire for a progressively closer mutual approach among the various professions of faith, Catholic doctrine — either in its; dogmas or in the truths which are connected with them — be so conformed or in a way adapted to the doctrines of dissident sects, that the purity of Catholic doctrine be impaired, or its genuine and certain meaning be obscured.

Also they must restrain that dangerous manner of speaking which generates false opinions and fallacious hopes incapable of realization; for example, to the effect that the teachings of the Encyclicals of the Roman Pontiffs on the return of dissidents to the Church, on the constitution of the Church, on the Mystical Body of Christ, should not be given too much importance seeing that they are not all matters of faith, or, what is worse, that in matters of dogma even the Catholic Church has not yet attained the fullness of Christ, but can still be perfected from outside. They shall take particular care and shall firmly insist that, in going over the history of the Reformation and the Reformers the defects of Catholics be not so exaggerated and the faults of the Reformers be so dissimulated, or that things which are rather accidental be not so emphasized, that what is most essential, namely the defection from the Catholic faith, be scarcely any longer seen or felt. Finally, they shall take precautions lest, through an excessive and false external activity, or through imprudence and an excited manner of proceeding, the end in view be rather harmed than served.

Therefore the whole and entire Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ. It should be made clear to them that, in returning to the Church, they will lose nothing of that good which by the grace of God has hitherto been implanted in them, but that it will rather be supplemented and completed by their return. However, one should not speak of this in such a way that they will imagine that in returning to the Church they are bringing to it something substantial which it has hitherto lacked. It will be necessary to say these things clearly and openly, first because it is the truth that they themselves are seeking, and moreover because outside the truth no true union can ever be attained.

(Holy Office, Instruction “On the Ecumenical Movement”, Dec. 20, 1949; underlining added.)


Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church … cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity.

(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes, Sep. 13, 1864; underlining added.)


Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be “one.” And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another”? All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.

… And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: “That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,” with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. This, Venerable Brethren, is what is commonly said….

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, nn. 4,7; underlining added)


BAM! Could it be any clearer that Francis does not hold to the Catholic Faith as it was known for nearly 2,000 years before Vatican II? Which do you adhere to — the Catholic teaching or the Novus Ordo teaching?

Besides the foregoing, the true Catholic doctrine regarding Faith, ecumenism/dialogue, and religious unity is also expounded in the following magisterial documents:


The Catholic doctrine is solid, clear, reasonable, and beautiful. It is also fruitful, having produced countless converts over the last 2,000 years. What’s downright ugly, by contrast, is Francis’ perversion of Catholic teaching. He likes to talk about “preaching the Gospel always” but at the same time he rules out making converts — because the gospel he preaches is not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, which we are commanded to bring to every human creature and to retain in all its purity until the end of time (see Mt 28:19; 2 Thess 2:14; 1 Tim 3:15; 2 Jn 1:9).

When it comes to the issue of converting people, Francis very much practices what he preaches — that is, not only does he preach that we ought not to convert non-Catholics, he also practices this anti-evangelization by refusing to even hint at the necessity of their conversion. For example, when Anglican-Evangelical Tony Palmer was considering becoming a Catholic (well, Novus Ordo, but that’s all he knew), Francis specifically told him no:


Now Tony Palmer is dead — he died shortly thereafter, in an accident, as a Protestant. (For anyone who is now going to swoon over the “good old days” of Benedict XVI, please note that Ratzinger was no different and kept a Lutheran worker in the Vatican from converting.) Francis quite bluntly told other Protestants whom he had invited to the Vatican that he was not interested in their conversion, and in one of his first interviews likewise suggested that he does not care what religion someone is. And let’s not forget his clear triple negation of the need to convince others to become Catholic: “Do you need to convince the other to become Catholic? No, no, no!” (source). Clear enough?

So, it’s really bad news for Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, Michael Voris, Tim Haines, “Fr.” Paul Nicholson, and all the rest of the “tough” apologetics crowd in Novus Ordo Land. It’s too bad, but Francis’ latest attack on Catholic doctrine probably isn’t going to help Catholic Answers’ latest fund drive, according to which they still need to raise $100,000 to meet their goal so they can continue to tell you how Francis and his Novus Ordo Sect want everyone to become a Catholic.

novus-ordo-apologists.jpg

Pictured from left: Michael Voris, Jimmy Akin, Patrick Madrid, Tim Haines

Sorry, fellows, your boss just isn’t all that into you...

francis-headdress3.jpg

“Pope” Francis during World Youth Day 2013


Remember how a while back these same apologists were trying to tell you that when Francis denounces “proselytism”, he doesn’t mean seeking the conversion of the other but rather a dishonest, underhanded way of doing so? We told you that this was nonsense — and now we’ve been proven right once again. Francis doesn’t want you to convert people to Catholicism because he is not a Catholic himself. Jimmy Akin went so far as to claim that when Francis told the apostate Eugenio Scalfari, “I don’t want to convert you”, he really meant, “I do want to convert you.” You can’t make this stuff up!

By the way, this wasn’t the first time Francis denounced apologetics and making converts. In March of 2014, he said, “The church does not need apologists of its causes nor crusaders of its battles, but sowers humble and confident of the truth, who ... trust of its power” (source). Now, before you say, “But look - he does mention truth!”, remember that Francis is on record stating that no one “owns” the truth, that the truth is an “encounter”, and that “[e]ngaging in dialogue does not mean renouncing our own ideas and traditions, but the claim that they alone are valid or absolute.” 

Remember? No? Here are two blog posts to refresh your memory:


This claptrap is going to continue and get worse for as long as people are willing to accept such a heretic as Jorge Bergoglio as the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Had enough yet? What are you waiting for? Reject the Impostor Pope and become a Catholic.

See Also:


Welcome to the Peripheries...

Francis Receives Sex-Changed Woman & Her “Fiancée”

transgender-diego.jpg

“He” is actually a She: Diego Neria Lejárraga


[UPDATED 29-JAN-15 12:43 UTC]

If you want a special private audience with the “Pope” nowadays, all you need to do is undergo sex-change surgery — at least it worked for a Spanish woman who goes by the name of Diego Neria Lejárraga and presents herself as a man because she underwent a surgical operation that converted her biological appearance from female to male. The money for this operation would have been better spent on brain surgery instead, but oh well.

Diego, who had written Francis a letter complaining about the terrible “discrimination” and “marginalization” she’s experienced — including her own parish priest calling her “the Devil’s Daughter” — got a private phone call from the Pretend Pope Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) on Christmas Eve 2014, inviting her and her (likewise female) fiancée to a private audience. Diego, you see, is about to “get married” — to a woman, of course.

Details of the meeting, which occurred on Saturday, January 24 and was not at all publicized, have not been revealed. Neria Lejárraga did not make a statement after the visit, and Vatican sources have been silent as well.

At this point, as this story is just breaking, there is very little information about the incident. We are aware only of the following sources but are adding more and more links as they become available [UPDATE: Some more information is now available, incl. some testimony from the woman-as-man herself — more links added to the following list as of Jan. 29]:


So Francis scolds a C-section mother of seven for being pregnant again but has a transsexual pervert over for coffee. Lovely.

There is no doubt that there will be a schism within the Novus Ordo Sect in the not-too-distant future, as we have said before. Francis is pushing the envelope so much that a great number of people will simply no longer be able to take it:


A schism within the Vatican II church would be the icing on the cake for the Great Deception, as it would serve to keep even souls clearly opposed to Francis within the New Church one way or another, by offering people an alternate poison from which to die, under the guise of giving them a way out. 

That schism is coming. It is stories like this one that add lots of fuel to an already raging fire.

Related:


The Party is over...

richard-mcbrien.jpg

And Now the Judgment:
Fr. Richard McBrien is Dead

One of the most notorious American Modernists has been called to judgment: The University of Notre Dame’s infamous Fr. Richard McBrien is dead. He died on January 25 at the age of 78 and is thus no longer able to offend our Lord or deceive souls.

Few people did more to undermine the Catholic Faith than the suit-and-tie priest McBrien. Ordained in 1962, he was a priest for the diocese of Hartford, Connecticut. He taught as a professor of theology at different schools such as Boston College and, most notably, at that beacon of Modernism, the University of Notre Dame. Despite his numerous open heresies, such as his denial of the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the Bl. Virgin Mary and the Virgin Birth of our Lord, McBrien was never censured or otherwise disciplined and remained a priest “in good standing” in the Novus Ordo Sect.

mcbrien-catholicism.jpg

His lifetime achievement, if one may call it that, is the 1344-page mammoth Catholicism, originally published in two volumes in 1980 and republished as a single volume in a revised and updated edition in 1994. The book does not carry an imprimatur.

McBrien’s Catholicism is a work so Modernist that even the Novus Ordo “Bishops” of the United States condemned it — and that says a lot:


Besides Catholicism, McBrien wrote 24 other books and authored a syndicated weekly column called “Essays in Theology”. He was a frequent guest on television whenever the media needed a “Catholic” voice critical of Catholic teaching. It should come as no surprise that the Modernist giant McBrien served as the theological consultant for the blasphemous movie The DaVinci Code, which portrays our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ as having been married to St. Mary Magdalene.

All this and more information can be found in the following sources (all Novus Ordo, so use caution):


The death of Richard McBrien is a good reminder that death will come for all of us, whether sooner or later: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment” (Heb 9:27).

UPDATE 29-JAN-2015: Tom Droleskey has written the following piece on McBrien’s passing:


See Also:


news-digest2.jpg

     Published January 24, 2015

A Baptism to remember: Novus Ordo “Priest” fights woman using “holy water”


Would Popcorn distribution have looked any different?

Communion Chaos at
Francis’ Mega “Mass” in Philippines

“The Body of Christ”...


It is now 2015, and the Francis Show continues unabated. In Manila, the capital of the Philippines, Francis celebrated the Novus Ordo worship service for a 
reported crowd of 6-7 million people, on January 18, an event which has already been tagged as the fifth-largest gathering in human history. Of course, the Novus Ordo religion being what it is, it was a given that such a “mega Mass” had to include distribution of what purports to be Holy Communion to the enormous number of attendees. Just how that worked out, you can see in the video above. 

Now, remember: Novus Ordos believe that what was being distributed there was the most holy Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. (It was not in fact, as almost all Novus Ordo clergy now are not valid priests anymore due to the changes in the ordination rite, and the New “Mass” itself is invalid due to defect of form — see links below for details.) It is such utter lack of reverence and respect for the sacred — even God Himself — that has ultimately caused the loss of Faith among the once-Catholic masses. More than any sermon or catechism, it is the Novus Ordo Missae (1969 new rite of Mass) itself and the ways in which it is usually offered that have caused this tremendous spiritual devastation that we see today, most especially with how clergy and laity treat the supposed sacred species.

For those in the Novus Ordo Church who immediately shift into the standard defense mode of, “If only the Pope had known or seen this, he would have condemned it,” we present the following inconvenient video as a reminder of how Jorge Bergoglio himself distributes “Communion” at a large outdoor liturgy (if the video won’t play, you can also view these photographs here):

(distribution of “Communion” begins at 8:00 min mark)


Doesn’t look all that much different, does it? And did we forget already that at the last “mega Mass” Francis presided over (in Rio at World Youth Day 2013), hosts were distributed from disposable plastic cups?!

Let’s be clear: Francis is part of the problem, not the solution. Anyone who refuses to recognize this is simply in denial.

For the Vatican II Church, such ridiculous distribution of “Communion” is but par for the course, however, as it merely gives external expression to the anti-Catholic and heretical theology inherent in the Modernist church. You see, for a religion that defiles churches by means of idolatrous Pagan rituals, virtually nude dancers, elaborate audiovisual music/disco spectacles, and even horses, this kind of “Communion” chaos is really just business as usual. They’re not far from a “Drive-Thru Eucharist” at all, which would actually have been less irreverent.

Make no mistake about it, though: This sort of thing is not new. It happened also, for example, at World Youth Day 1993 in Denver, Colorado, under “Pope” John Paul II, as witnessed by Mr. Gerry Matatics. But unlike back then, we now live in an age of the internet, of social media and blogs, and this allowed conservative Novus Ordo blogger Steve Skojec to call attention to the scandal right away, something picked up by GMA News and Filipino television. Have a look:

 


In these clips, you see the “Archbishop” of Lingayen-Dagupan, Mr. Socrates Villegas, who is also the president of the “Catholic” Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), “explain” the putative sacrilege as coming from “extraordinary” circumstances and thus being somehow permitted (exact quote in English here). As though no one could have foreseen the difficulty of distributing hosts to literally millions of people.

And Francis? He doesn’t care about any of this. The visit to Sri Lanka and the Philippines made him look good, and that’s all that matters to him.

Where will this scandal go from here? 

Not far. If the past is any indication, there will be a few clerical and lay bigshots responding on various “Ask Father” and “Question Box” forums and shows in Novus Ordo Land, assuring various inquiring “conservatives” in the New Church that this handling of “Communion” was indeed a lamentable abuse, and that we should all write to our local bishops, pray for the “Holy Father”, etc. — the usual spiel. By and large, that is where this whole thing will end, and everything will continue to go on as before, until the next mega “Mass” offered by Francis, when the whole circus will start all over again. We’ve been around long enough to know how these things work in the Vatican II Church. Nothing has changed in decades, and nothing will change in the future. The same lame excuses and explanations that were offered by the Modernist religion’s paid “experts” in the 1970s and ‘80s are still being given today. It’s just different people but essentially the same message.

At the end of the day, folks, this really isn’t rocket science — what’s going on is quite clear: “An enemy hath done this” (Mt 13:28). The Holy Catholic Church’s official structures have been usurped by blasphemous and heretical adversaries, as predicted and anticipated in prophecy. The “abomination of desolation”, spoken of by the prophet Daniel and our Blessed Lord Himself (see Dan 12:11; Mt 24:15), is now here.

The Novus Ordo Rorate Caeli blog has some more details on what transpired during “Communion” time on January 18 in Manila, and we can only thank the Almighty that these hosts were not in fact validly consecrated but remained mere bread. It was no doubt the workings of Divine Providence that saw to it that, as “Pope” Paul VI was about to unleash unmitigated spiritual and liturgical disaster upon the Catholic world in the 1960s, the sacrilege of direct desecration of the Lord’s own Body and Blood through Communion in the hand would not be permitted to occur. The only way to do this while still permitting the “operation of error” to afflict the people (cf. 2 Thess 2:10), was to ensure the invalidity of the New Mass itself. God, knowing what grave things would be committed by the Novus Ordo Church and its liturgies, protected the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar in this manner. Divine Providence works in wonderful ways. 

So, when are you ready to exit the Modernist pseudo-Catholic Church in Rome?

See Also:


His foot-in-mouth disease continues...

Francis and the Rabbits:
Bergoglio on “Responsible Parenting”

francis-rabbit.jpg


Surely you’ve heard about it by now: During his flight from the Philippines back to Rome, “Pope” Francis opened his Modernist mouth again, this time on the issue of birth control, in response to questions posed by journalists. Here are the salient snippets:

[“Pope” Francis]: What I want to say about Paul VI is that it is true that openness to life is the condition of the sacrament of matrimony. A man cannot give the sacrament to the woman, and the woman give it to him, if they are not in agreement on this point to be open to life. To the point that it can be proven that this or the other did not get married with this intention of being open to life, the matrimony is null. It's a cause of the annulment of the marriage, no? Openness to life, no.

Paul VI studied this, with the commission, how to help the many cases, many problems. They are important problems, that are even about love in the family, right? The everyday problems -- so many of them.

But there was something more. The refusal of Paul VI was not only to the personal problems, for which he will tell the confessors to be merciful and understand the situation and pardon. Being understanding and merciful, no? But he was watching the universal Neo-Malthusianism that was in progress. And, how do you call this Neo-Malthusianism? There is less than one percent of birth rate growth in Italy. The same in Spain. That Neo-Malthusianism that sought to control humanity on the part of the powers.

This doesn't mean that the Christian must make children "in series."

I met a woman some months ago in a parish who was pregnant with her eighth child, who had had seven C-sections. But does she want to leave the seven as orphans? This is to tempt God. I speak of responsible paternity. This is the way, a responsible paternity.

[Reporter]: Holy Father, first of all I would like to say: Thank you very much for all the impressive moments of this week. It is the first time I accompany you, and I would like to say thank you very much. My question: you have talked about the many children in the Philippines, about your joy because there are so many children, but according to some polls the majority of Filipinos think that the huge growth of Filipino population is one of the most important reasons for the enormous poverty in the country. A Filipino woman gives birth to an average of three children in her life, and the Catholic position concerning contraception seem to be one of the few question on which a big number of people in the Philippines do not agree with the Church. What do you think about that?

[“Pope” Francis]: I think the number of three children per family that you mentioned – it makes me suffer - I think it is the number experts say is important to keep the population going. Three per couple. When this decreases, the other extreme happens, like what is happening in Italy. I have heard, I do not know if it is true, that in 2024 there will be no money to pay pensioners because of the fall in population. Therefore, the key word, to give you an answer, and the one the Church uses all the time, and I do too, is responsible parenthood. How do we do this? With dialogue. Each person with his pastor seeks how to do carry out a responsible parenthood.

That example I mentioned shortly before about that woman who was expecting her eighth child and already had seven who were born with caesareans. That is a an irresponsibility That woman might say 'no, I trust in God.’ But, look, God gives you means to be responsible. Some think that -- excuse the language -- that in order to be good Catholics, we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood. This is clear and that is why in the Church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors, one can search; and I know so many ways that are licit and that have helped this. You did well to ask me this.

Another curious thing in relation to this is that for the most poor people, a child is a treasure. It is true that you have to be prudent here too, but for them a child is a treasure. Some would say 'God knows how to help me' and perhaps some of them are not prudent, this is true. Responsible paternity, but let us also look at the generosity of that father and mother who see a treasure in every child.

(“Full text of Pope's in-flight interview from Manila to Rome”, Catholic News Agency, Jan. 19, 2015)


The Italian original of the whole press conference can be found on the Vatican web site here; an alternate English translation is provided by Gerard O’Connell here.

Francis’ comments have a lot of people up in arms, including — no joke — rabbit breeders in Germany:


On the other side of the fence, a Filipino “Archbishop” has weighed in on the controversy, claiming that Catholic parents must “plan rationally” the number of their children.

Semi-Traditionalist John Vennari has just released his own contribution to this dispute in the form of a video. His criticism of his boss — the “Pope” — is spot-on, we just wish he would finally put two and two together and acknowledge that to be Pope, you must be a Catholic, and Mr. Bergoglio obviously isn’t one (which is why Vennari has stated he would never let Francis teach religion to his children):


Further, at this morning’s General Audience, Francis Lauded Large Families, which certainly has the appearance of being an attempt at damage control. See for yourself.

Clearly, it’s time that we gave this controversy — which has been labeled “Rabbitgate” — a thorough reality check.

Catholic Reality Check:


Of course, at the very beginning of creation, our Blessed Lord Himself gave the command: “Increase and multiply” (Gen 1:28), which He reiterated through Jeremias the prophet: “Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters: and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, and let them bear sons and daughters: and be ye multiplied there, and be not few in number” (Jer 29:6).

We’ll end this post by adapting a famous saying of G.K. Chesterton: Birth control leads to two things — no births and no control (source).


You waited long enough...

TRADCAST:
Novus Ordo Watch for Your Ears

tradcast-season1-thumbnail.jpg


New Sedevacantist Podcast Show Launched

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION
AND TO LISTEN NOW

See Also:


Disaster strikes fourfold...

francis-poncho.jpg


Chaos Frank in the Philippines

Wherever Francis goes, there is death, destruction, and disaster. Early on in his “papal reign” we gave him the moniker “Chaos Frank” because he upsets everything in his Modernist church, and this was even before all hell began to break loose around his various special events and trips.

To give you just a few examples: On August 1, 2013, right after Francis had left Rio de Janeiro having concluded World Youth Day, the host nation of Brazil legalized abortion, and not without Francis’ indirect help. In April 2014, just days before Francis would “canonize” John Paul II and John XXIII, a pilgrim was crushed to death in Italy by a distorted giant “crucifix” that had been erected for John Paul II. The 21-year-old victim was a resident of Bergamo, the hometown of John XXIII, and lived on a street named after the same “Pope.” When Francis visited the Holy Land in May of the same year, a fire broke out in the Church of the Nativity in Jerusalem within 48 hours of his departure. In June, Francis hosted Muslims and Jews at the Vatican to engage in an interreligious “prayer for peace” service in which our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ was humiliated by being dragged down to the level of Islamic and Jewish infidelity (cf. 2 Cor 6:14-15), and immediately following this abomination, the Middle East erupted in the fiercest and most barbaric violence seen in recent history. 

We could go on and on — the examples can be multiplied ad nauseam (Tom Droleskey has some more examples here). So when the same Jorge Bergoglio visited the Philippines this month, it was no surprise to hear that death and destruction were once again in the news, both before and during his visit (see below for details). As he is officially departing only as of the time of this writing, Heaven help us for what else might be coming in the next few days, if past history is any indication. 

Pray for the Filipino people. So many of them are trying to be real and good Catholics — they do not realize that they are the victims of a cruel fraud. They thought they were being visited by the Pope, the Vicar of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity — instead they got a blaspheming Modernist who kisses babies and talks about the poor.

Francis’ Chaos in the Philippines (Articles & Videos):






Our Blessed Lord is making it really easy even for those who are blind on matters of sacred theology. But none are so blind as those who refuse to see. So, for those who have eyes to see, please see!

See Also:


New Book Released

No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far from Catholic Truth

benedict-francis-kneeling.jpg


by Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.


Although there has been quite a concerted effort on the part of some who consider themselves conservative or traditional Catholics, to contrast the supposedly “traditional Pope” Benedict XVI with his supposedly more “radical” successor, “Pope” Francis, both of these men are Modernists who defect from the Catholic Faith on numerous points. Whatever differences exist between Joseph Ratzinger and Jorge Bergoglio, they center mostly, although not exclusively, on matters of style and emphasis. No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio is an effort to explain that there is no theological “space” between two men whose manifest public heresy has been laid out to see throughout the entirety of their careers. Acknowledging the difficulties inherent in focusing on various matters to the exclusion of others, the author, Tom Droleskey, believes that this book will provide food for thought and reflection to those who are interested in a dispassionate search for the truth about the state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

For more information about this book or to purchase a paperback copy, please click below:

no-space-ratzinger-bergoglio-droleskey.jpg

No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio:
So Close in Apostasy, So Far from Catholic Truth

by Thomas Droleskey

364 Pages (CreateSpace, 2015)

click here to purchase
or view sample pages

About the Author

Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey (b. 1951) received a Ph.D. in political science from the State University of New York at Albany, New York, on August 5, 1977. Droleskey also studied theology at Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary, Emittsburg, Maryland, and at Holy Apostles Seminary, Cromwell, Connecticut. Droleskey taught as a full-time and part-time faculty member at numerous colleges and universities between January of 1974 and October of 2014. Formerly a pro-life activist and candidate for public office, Dr. Droleskey was nominated by the Right to Life Party of the State of New York as its candidate for lieutenant governor in 1986 and as its candidate for Supervisor of the Town of Oyster Bay, New York in 1987. Before his conversion from the Novus Ordo Church to real Catholicism, hundreds of Droleskey’s articles appeared in The Wanderer (1992-2001) and later The Remnant (2002-2006) and Catholic Family News (2004-2006). Now a Sedevacantist, Droleskey blogs at ChristOrChaos.com.

Related:


Looking for More? We only keep the 10 most recent blog posts on this page. For more, check the monthly Wire Archive...


...as well as the News Archive, which we maintained before our Wire Blog:

2013: 01/1302/13
2012: 01-03/1204/1205/1206/1207/1208/1209/1210/1211/1212/12
2011: 02/1105/1108/1110/11
2010: 01/1002/1005/1006/1007/1008/1010/1012/10
2009: 01/0902/0903/0904/0905/0907/0911/09   
2008: 01/0802/0803/0804/0805/0806/0809/0810/0812/08

2007: 01/0706/0707/0708/0709/0710/0711/0712/07
2006: 01/0602/0603/0604/0605/0606/0607/0608/0609/0610/0611/0612/06
2005: 01/0502/0503/0504/0505/0506/0507/0508/0509/0510/0511/0512/05
2004: 01/0402/0403/0404/0405/0406/0407/0408/0409/0410/0411/0412/04
2003: 01-03/0304-05/0306/0307/0308/0309/0310/0311/0312/03

2002: 10-12/02

Disclaimer:
We are not responsible for the content of externally-linked web pages. We do not necessarily endorse the content linked, unless this is explicitly stated. When linked content is endorsed by Novus Ordo Watch, this endorsement does not necessarily extend to everything expressed by the organization, entity, editor, or author of said content.

Fair Use Notice:

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Google Analytics Alternative