CRISIS POINT?
I had begun writing on a particular theme regarding affairs in the Church when some articles came through that seem more urgent to post. Over the years I have become used to reading articles strongly flavored with scepticism on the legitimacy of Vatican II and the popes of the Novus Ordo while, at the same time noting events, news and papal pronouncements reported by neutral, insipid, and loyal-to-the-pope media. It's been a case of radical trad organizations versus moderate journalism. But, a crescendo is notable lately whereby the moderates appear to be turning against Pope Francis, not to mention many of his bishops and priests. What were once questions are now becoming accusations. Just two days ago I posted on Fr. Weinandy's scathing address in Sydney, and he is a member of the International Theological Commission. Just through is an virulent article from Guy McClung Ph.D published in the moderately traditional magazine The American Catholic. Now, I would include this normally as another radical item in the vein of The Remnant or The Church Militant Mag, but McClung's article appeared to be truthful enough to be posted on the site of a bishop, being Bishop Gracida. On top of this I already was holding an article from a Novus Ordo sympathizer, Phil Lawler, which is also signalling that Lawler is turning against the Pope. Further, among my emails is another article by Cardinal Sarah, criticizing the prelates and the tone of hermeneutics. I will reproduce the McClung article and reference the links to the others I mentioned.
While this must becoming distressing for many, especially for those who haven't kept abreast of such matters over the reign of Francis or previously, I myself have felt the weight of this quite suddenly, despite having kept informed. The reason for this is that, with all my various engagements and readings of the various sites, interlocutors and posters and commentators are suddenly talking about the possibility of "impeachment" or "dismissal" of the Pope. I will address this at the end of this post.
Here then is McClung's article............
Bergoglianism Is The Worst Heresy
It will be a small comfort in future to those faithful Catholics of today when the encyclopedic lists of heresies begins thus: “ Apollinarianism, Arianism, Bergoglianism, . . ….”.
This Heresy Is Unique In Church History
There are things unique about the Bergoglian heresy that do in fact make it the worst heresy of all time. These include:
- The astounding numbers of sheep led astray, deceived via the modern-day real-time worldwide promulgation of Bergoglian error and the use of media to spread this error to the ends of the earth.
- The Bergoglian denial, in effect, of the existence of Hell, making it into a somewhat warm vacation before one returns to the heavenly home, and the eradication of eternal punishment for every type of grievous, mortal sin.
- The Bergoglian demand that sin and sinners be publicly celebrated, elevated, and even blasphemously blessed within the church community.
- Jorge Bergolgio’s destruction of divine law in his new doctrine that God judges some to be in sin while requiring others doing the same sinful action to continue in sin; with the implications that God, in some situations, wills people to sin, that God has one divine law for some and a contradictory divine law for others.
- The utter depravity and demonic perversity of a legion of many who aid in the spread of this evil – including laity and clergy, priests, pastors, bishops, and cardinals worldwide, as well as Vatican officials, some of whom not only condone, but take part in, such abominations.
One thing that is not unique about Bergoglianism is that this heresy, like others, includes declarations directly and explicitly contrary to what Our Lord Jesus Christ said in His own words. It is difficult to conceive of what a man must be and must tell himself so that he can say, in effect, “Jesus, here is what you got wrong” and “God, here is how you can improve and be a better god.”
The Bergoglian Heresy
In denying Church tradition, in correcting God Almighty, in contradicting the infallible declarations of numerous Church Councils, and in proclaiming a new magisterium, Jorge Bergoglio announces the sand on which he would erect Jorge church:
“ . . .it can no longer simply be said . . “ (Bergoglian Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, Section 301, henceforth “AL”)
What follows from this is that Jorge Bergoglio, he alone, is the one to let us know what can now “be said.”
The main tenets of his heresy are:
- There is no mortal sin, e.g. adultery and fornication, which results in the loss of sanctifying grace; even for those aware of the demands of the divine law.
- Divine grace does not make all mortal sins avoidable; a situation’s circumstances can dismiss one from the demands of the divine law.
- Depending on the situation and its circumstances, God sometimes wills a person to sin.
- For those God judges and who are then sent to Hell, Hell is not eternal, the fire is not everlasting. “No one is condemned forever,” the capsule version of Bergoglianism (from AL, 297), is the implicit Non Serviam of the Bergoglians.
How many sheep led astray?
Because of our modern media, and the present population of the world, this heresy will lead more people astray than any other heresy in all of history.
In past centuries, many thousands of faithful Catholics were assaulted by various heresies; but their numbers were relatively small compared to the number of Catholics today. There are over 1,000,000,000 Catholics alive today. These faithful 1.2 billion, plus or minus, are part of Jesus’s flock. Included in His command to the eleven apostles, and their apostolic successors, “Go and teach all nations,” are another 1,000,000,000 Christians; about 1,500,000,000 Muslims; and about 3,200,000,000 more souls here and there around the globe.
Jesus does not want to lose even one of these. Satan wants each and every one of them; and, with the media being what it is – the Internet, cellphones, satellites, television, mass communications, movies, and instant news – a multitude of the faithful will hear the Bergoglian heresy, and many of them will like what they hear, especially coming from “The Pope.” When a man wearing papal white says “Who am I to judge?” within thirty-six hours people everywhere conclude that what they are doing and what they want to do is just fine with a God who loves them, a God who will not judge them, despite the words they say weekly in the Creed, “who will come to judge the living and the dead.”
When this same man proclaims that God’s Hell, everlasting Hell, does not exist, and then in an official document proclaims that his new Get-Out-Of-Hell-Free Mercy Card applies to everyone, in every situation, and to everything previously called mortal sin, many will conclude that what sins they do here will never mean they will not, eventually, enjoy heaven. Never mind what God told them in His inspired Word, and continues to tell them as the voice of Conscience, the man in white has used the keys to the kingdom to loose them free eternally.
New paradigm, new dogma, heresy
Jorge Bergoglio and his mouthpieces have been joyfully proclaiming that there’s a new paradigm in town, replacing the old judgmental one of Jesus and ushering in a new light of love and mercy into Jorge’s church. This is being foisted on the faithful as the usual development of doctrine that happens in Jesus’s Church as it has been done since the Resurrection.
Paradigm shifts are cataclysmic. One paradigm replaces another. One paradigm is not the “development” of another. A new paradigm destroys an old one, utterly. This is why the philosopher of science who popularized the study of paradigms, Thomas .S. Kuhn, did not use the words “paradigm development,” but called his seminal book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.”
For example, there was no “Copernican development” of the theory of the earth-centered universe; there was a revolt that undermined and threw out the geocentric Ptolemaic system and totally replaced it with the new paradigm, the Copernican sun-centered heliocentric theory.
Jorge Bergolgio and his brother Bergoglians are correct – he is declaring and promoting a new paradigm. Saying so is a tacit admission that Bergoglianism is heresy – a revolt against the deposit of faith, a denial of the immutable and infallible teachings of Jesus’s Church as proclaimed for millennia. The Jorge-centered paradigm’s appeal to sinners is that it is a me-myself centered paradigm, a pleasure-here-and-now paradigm. The Jorge paradigm says “Eat, drink, be merry, and fornicate, for tomorrow you may die.” The Jorge-centered paradigm, by definition, must supplant the Jesus-centered paradigm.
Conclusion
Many heretics over the centuries have had no problem publicly confronting their accusers and providing responses, however weak or vacuuous, to accusations of heresy and attacks against their heretical dogmas. One last reason Bergoglianism is the worst heresy is that Jorge Bergoglio refuses to respond to those faithfully expressing doubts and seeking the loving, caring guidance of the shepherd who is the “servant of the servants of God.”
Instead, like a totalitarian despot, a third world dictator, he calls the faithful who question him the “doctrinal resistance,” and he has let it be known, in his own words, “I know who they are.” This from a pope, the vicar of Christ on earth, the shepherd of shepherds, the successor of Peter. He has also let it be known that his minions inform him about the attacks on him. The Vatican now has its own Okhrana, KGB, Gestapo, and Stasi. Jorge church is a microcosm of 1984, Animal Farm, and Brave New World all rolled into one. Future lists of tyrants will include the names Nero, Adolf, Josef, and Jorge.
The conclusion to be drawn from his refusal to address those who seek clarification of what he has said is that the questions are spot-on. His studied indifference declares that he has no reasoned, credible response. His silence screams “Yes, I am a heretic, and proud of it.”
Someday Jesus will say to each of us, to Jorge Bergolio, and all the Bergoglians, “I indeed know who you are.” There will then be a progression for everyone from a belief in the mystery of resurrection to the certain knowledge that heaven is eternal, hell is real, and those in hell are condemned forever.
What I do have against such an article is the lack of references. When such allegations are aired, they call for some evidence. To that end I refer the reader to this link in which McClung's accusations will, for the most part, be referenced somewhere. [Personally, I find a few of these references to be trivial and/or of no consequence, but for the most part they are damning if only to the volume of them] ...........
Here is a different list ............
And another ................
https://www.xyz.net.au/top-ten-times-pope-francis-revealed-inner-sjw-2017-no-2-will-mildly-surprise/
Here then are two articles from a supporter of the Pope, Phil Lawler, one from over a year ago and one from two days ago which can be compared for the change of attitude, should readers wish to dig that deeply ........
and ........
Here is Cardinal Sarah's latest criticism ........
On the reduction in the numbers of Catholics, both nominal and practicing, from Pew Research........
The short answer is "NO", the pope cannot be removed. Check this out from a discussion on Dr. Eowyn's Blog ......
The answer to your question “is there no way to (unable to think of a better term) impeach the pope?”, alas, is “No”.
From the blog, Canon Law Made Easy: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/01/31/pope-removed-from-office/
(the blog does not enable copying, so I took a screenshot of the relevant paragraphs):
(the blog does not enable copying, so I took a screenshot of the relevant paragraphs):
Following this a friend, Old David, sent me these thoughts .........
“This a curly one! The short answer is that there is no power on Earth that can “impeach”, depose or condemn a pope other than another pope.
However, there are some precedents that might indicate some Divine intervention. The following are some instances “off the top of my head” from long ago that I don’t remember the details for.
Back in the Arian crisis there was at least one instance where the faithful took up their cudgels and pitchforks and physically chased an Arian bishop out of the Diocese. Of course, that act alone did not depose the bishop but it put the frights on Rome to appoint another more orthodox bishop.
At about the same time the Roman clergy (I presume, the Cardinals) were so dismayed at the activities of the pope (Liberius, perhaps?) that they elected another in his face who was technically an antipope until his predecessor died.
There is a tradition that, on the election of a new pope, the faithful gathered should proclaim “habemus Papam” and it was a matter of contention amongst theologians that if the pope was not popularly acclaimed and accepted then the election was void. There is more to what constitutes a valid pope that need not concern us here… it’s a matter for the appropriate authorities and God to sort out in His own good time.
Anyhow, as I see it, if there was a popular uprising (not necessarily with pitchforks and cudgels) against a decadent and traitorous episcopacy and papacy and its entourage it should surely put the frights on “the appropriate authorities”.
......and then corrected this today.......
Cogitating on what I said yesterday I began to have some
doubts.
There is some considerable confusion over the Liberius
affair. I have
been caught with this one before. Liberius is often accused
of signing
up to a "semi Arian" (whatever that is)
confession. One version of this
history (that I read many years ago) has stuck in my mind.
In this
version Liberius was exiled and replaced with an antipope
Felix who went
on to become one of the Pope St Felixs.
However, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Liberius
was
essentially a good guy who was exiled and replaced by an
Arian antipope
Felix II. So then, in the absence of compelling evidence to
the contrary
the Catholic Encyclopedia version should be considered the
"official"
version.
I sincerely apologise if my dim memory has compromised your
credibility
in any way.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06030a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm
A theological aspect for those wishing to dig deeper .......
ABOVE: This is not a "holy picture" ......... this is a heretic, and I will deal with him next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment