American Editors Accuse Pope Franciseditor
The following narrative, written in our desperation as lowly members of the laity, is what we must call an accusation concerning your pontificate, which has been a calamity for the Church in proportion to which it delights the powers of this world. The culminating event that impelled us to take this step was the revelation of your “confidential” letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires authorizing them, solely on the basis of your own views as expressed in Amoris Laetitia, to admit certain public adulterers in “second marriages” to the sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion without any firm purpose of amending their lives by ceasing their adulterous sexual relations.
You have thus defied the very words of Our Lord Himself condemning divorce and “remarriage” as adultery per se without exception, the admonition of Saint Paul on the divine penalty for unworthy reception of the Blessed Sacrament, the teaching of your two immediate predecessors in line with the bi-millenial moral doctrine and Eucharistic discipline of the Church rooted in divine revelation, the Code of Canon Law and all of Tradition. [from Part 1]
Click here to read all three parts of the Letter & Liber of Accusation at Catholic Family News. The page opens at Part III, with links to Parts 1 & 11.
This is an excellent and courageous letter which should shame every member of the hierarchy and priesthood who have remained silent over the increasingly worrying actions of Pope Francis.
I couldn’t agree with you more. The letter is wonderful and I hope it bears the desired good fruit.
I’m still praying every day for the conversion of Jorge Bergoglio, who is obviously a Marxist pretending to be a Catholic (i.e. trying to cloak himself in certain Catholic accidentals as he affirms the major planks of the NWO agenda), but perhaps, since his Pontificate is a major part of our chastisement, my prayers are being diverted to the lay Catholic heroes who put this Liber of Accusation together. May God bless them richly for it, and I can hardly wait for Part II to come out tomorrow…
Meanwhile, I’m still in the middle of True or False Pope?, but if I understand this magnificent book correctly, what is required to depose this nightmare of a Pope is two warnings from Church prelates to establish the pertinacity of his heresies, followed by a Council to declare the crime (if he is unrepentant), remove him from office, and excommunicate him. In other words, the Church must act.
I wonder if Bishop Fellay could be one of those two prelates?
Does the book give the source for that rule about two warnings from Church prelates followed by a Council unless he repents? I thought nobody could depose a pope, I thought that’s what St Robert Bellarmine said, and he is the expert on this subject?
Yes, multiple sources in fact, including Councils and Doctors of the Church. Don’t be fooled by snippets of St. Bellarmine typically posted on SV websites. There is a greatly detailed background to this, and I would highly recommend the book as a thorough and comprehensive refutation and expose of all – repeat all – SV claims.
“I wonder if Bishop Fellay could be one of those two prelates?”
I don’t see why not, if they can’t find two with the courage in the Church at large, why not Bishop Fellay. Pope Francis has already said the SSPX priests and bishops are Catholics!
Gerontius posted the following comment in response to the initial link to the Remnant/CFN letter, which you were first to post on the blog – over on the General Discussion thread. I’ve deleted the link there, in order to keep all comments together here, now that we have a dedicated thread, but here, for the record, is the comment posted by Gerontius:
This is truly excellent work from these great American Christian men. And many thanks once again, to you RCAV for posting Good info.
Chris Ferrara, Michael Matt and John Vennari are real Catholic heroes. I’ve been wondering why there was no response to the “leaked” letter, and now I see the reason for the delay. They have put together a devastating condemnation, and the great scandal is that it has been left up to laymen to do so, but God bless them for their loyalty, their faith, and their courage.
As far as I’m aware, no subordinate – prelate(s) or Council – has the authority to depose a Pope. St. Robert Bellarmine treats of this when he says that we may confront the Pope with his errors and even disregard his harmful orders, but we cannot judge and/or depose him. I suppose the only thing that can be done then is for a group of senior prelates to confront the Pope and oblige him to recant his errors or advise that he step down from the Papacy. That, I think, would be pressure enough to bring the change.
I agree that all three men involved in the writing of this accusation are to be congratulated. I have read comments elsewhere (not this blog) that they are wasting their time, that their efforts will come to nothing. Such people fail to see that it’s not about success or failure, it’s about doing our Catholic duty before God. We do our bit and leave everything in God’s hands. Perhaps the idle bystanders and naysayers should reflect on the wise adage “Evil abounds because good men do nothing”.
That’s what I have always thought, that nobody can depose a pope, not even top cardinals, not even a Council, until after his death when he can be pronounced excommunicated. It’s a hard saying when you are living through a pontificate as horrendous as this one, but that’s all the more reason for us to show that our faith doesn’t rely on any one pope.
What about this, then?
“Indeed the Church has the right to separate herself from a heretical pope according to divine law. Consequently it has the right, by the same divine law, to use all means of themselves necessary for such separation…” – John of St. Thomas
Nicky is right in this matter, as I am. There is no precedent in the history of the Church for a Pope being deposed and excommunicated by his subordinates. The speculation of the Doctors and saints in the matter of a heretic Pope was just that, speculation. Even so, I am not aware that any directly held the opinion that a Pope could be deposed for being a heretic.
The sedevacantists have tried many times to take Catholics down this novel route, quoting theological speculation as though it were defined dogma. However, there is the little matter of whether a heretic Pope is materially heretical or formally so. We must assume the former, for the latter requires a definite judgment of soul that we are not qualified to make.
I think the precedent that was set in history was the judgment and excommunication handed down posthumously to Pope Honorius I by his successor, Pope St. Agatho, who ratified the findings of the Council set up to investigate his and other heresiarch’s actions. To be fair, it looks like Honorius was condemned and excommunicated more for failing to prevent the spread of heresy by his Apostolic authority than actually being a heretic himself.
The most any Catholic can do in this present situation is to disobey the Pope when he commands something contrary or dangerous to faith, obstruct him in every way possible when he attempts to introduce dangerous novelties, and pray that he either recants or abdicates upon request of the Cardinals and bishops. In the meantime, we’re stuck with Francis and we still have to obey him in all that is not against the faith.
“There is no precedent in the history of the Church for a Pope being deposed and excommunicated by his subordinates”
However, I don’t think there’s ever been a pope like this one in the history of the Church!
I suppose I’m kind of playing the devil’s advocate by saying that but your closing words give some hope that he might be forced out of office by the orthodox Cardinals and bishops anyway, which would be the next best thing to a formal deposing. Personally, I just want him to be gone, and I don’t care one way of the other how it comes about! LOL!
Athanasius, I think this is an extract from Lily’s link, and I have, somewhere along the nightmare way we’re travelling with this Pope, picked up on this notion of an ‘imperfect council’. The link suggests that such a council could be called by relatively few orthodox prelates, such as we have at present in Schneider, Burke, et al.
“An imperfect council is one that is convened “with those members who can be found
when the Church is in a given condition.” Cajetan refers to an imperfect council as “a
perfect council according to the present state of the Church”.”
Do you think that Cajetan was wrong here?
See my response to Laura above, regarding St. Bellarmine. According to Salza & Siscoe’s book, a Council does indeed have the authority to depose a Pope, provided that his heresy(-ies) are pertinacious (i.e. he has ignored two warnings from prelates), and provided that a Council duly investigates, defines and pronounces the crime first. They have even reconciled Bellarmine & Suarez on the subject, but it would take me days to type out all the proofs they provide. They also dwell on John of St. Thomas, quoted above by Lily.
Canon law does not apply to a Pope, apparently, but he can indeed be deposed if the Church follows a specific process. This is way over my head, just to be clear, but I’m merely relaying the information in the book, which is very scholarly and very detailed.
Moreover, this is not the same route the SV’s have attempted repeatedly, which the book exposes as private judgment falsely based on a loss of faith in the internal forum, and actually contrary to the teachings of the Church. This is an entirely different matter. There may not be a precedent, but apparently there is a generally defined process.
I’ve been unavoidably kept away from my computer today but, having read this thread so far, and further, having just read those glorious words from you “there IS a generally defined process” (to depose Papa Francis the First, and we pray, Last) I’m off to enjoy some very sweet dreams indeed, which conclude with the words…. “Habemus Papam! [and his name is…] Pope Pius XIII”! 😀
Sweet dreams! I hope I’ve not come across as some sort of expert on the subject – which would be laughable, since this is the first book I’ve read about it – but I urge all the bloggers to acquire it and read it ASAP. The scholarship is meticulous and detailed, and it is by no means an easy read.
Some endorsements of the book: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/endorsements.html
I was under the impression that the book is available to read in pdf, but can’t find it on a very quick search. Found the two videos below, though, which will probably prove very interesting – I’ll view them later, myself. Right now, I have places to go, people to see!
Knowing, as I have the misfortune so to do, some sedevacantists (much as I like them as individuals, their misguided position grieves me) I think those testimonies will surely encourage people to read the book, especially the observation, from Bishop Fellay, that “both extremes [from “left” and “right”] result from the same error—an exaggerated notion of papal infallibility.”
So, thank you for posting those endorsements.
That is all very very interesting indeed. I see that Bishop Fellay has endorsed the book so I don’t think he would do that unless it was sound. It opens a can of worms that they are showing evidence that a Council can depose a pope. But who is going to call a Council about a modernist pope when the bulk of the cardinals are modernists themselves. It’s all crazy.
Aye, there’s the rub. There have been a few preliminary steps by theologians, however. Here’s the latest, from a philosopher: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/top-philosopher-pope-must-revoke-objectively-heretical-statements-to-avoid
I see that Part II of the Remnant letter is to be posted today at 12.00 CST (whenever that is!)
Would you (or A.N. Other) post the link here if you see it before I do. I will add it to the blog introduction when it goes online, as soon as I see it.
Please and thank you, kind Sir…
RCA Victor, at your service!
Many thanks, RCA Victor. I’ve now added the link to Part II, to the blog introduction.
PS – whatever they’ve done over at the Remnant, the link to the first part of the letter doesn’t show up when I click to reach it. Both links show Part II (and probably when Part III is posted, the link will take us to Part III and from there links given to reach the earlier parts.) A daft system, but there you have it. And that’s BEFORE Donald Trump becomes President! 😀 I will now remove the superfluous link.
That is an excellent article, the points made by Josef Seifert, the Austrian Catholic philosopher, about Amoris Laetita are all very important but this passage is especially important, IMHO:
“This interpretation cannot be what the pope really means — must not be what the pope really means because it leads to countless
sacrileges, all kinds of grave sinners [coming] out to the Sacrament of Holy Communion,” Seifert said. Allowing this “opens the door to transforming the Church, temple of God, [into] a kind of temple of Satan.”
This is one of the best, most short and to the point, articles on Amoris Laetita that I’ve read.
Maybe this will be added to the list of accusations
Not Enough Celibate Priests? Make Way For Married Priests. This is the remedy being considered by Cardinal Hummes and Pope Francis for regions with a scarcity of clergy, starting with the Amazon, writes Sandro Magister. There is renewed vigor behind the rumor that Francis wants to assign to the next Synod of Bishops, scheduled for 2018, the question of the ordination of married men.
Let’s pray that by 2018, one year on from the 100th anniversary of the Fatima apparitions, Pope Francis will be but a distant memory. I mean, of course, that he will have kept his promise to resign/abdicate.
Editor, if he hasn’t we could all stand in St. Peter’s Square shouting “FRANKIE, FRANKIE, FRANKIE, OUT, OUT, OUT.”
Don’t forget to add the “subito”!
Vianney, LOL. That’s the best idea anyone’s had yet. I’m in, and I’ll do some banners.😁
Although Pope Francis said he would resign, I can’t see it. He likes the limelight too much, IMHO
Apparently there is going to be a Part III posted tomorrow at 5 pm CST (Central Standard Time). I will not be home at that time, nor most of the weekend, so perhaps another blogger can keep an eye out for Part III and post the link…
Since AL I have wondered if Pope Francis believes that he is allowing people in an objective state of mortal sin to attend a ‘commemorative meal’ rather than to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ – a thought just too terrible to contemplate.
That is a profound thought, esp. since Francis is notorious for not kneeling during the Consecration. I can only consider with dread what he thinks he is doing while saying Mass, and whether his intentions even remotely resemble the intentions of the Church.
RCA Victor, certainly his scandalous reported behaviour vis-a-vis Lutherans, and his plans for celebrating that heresiarch’s break with the one true Church, lead to legitimate questions as to what he believes on differing points of doctrine. Most significant was his characteristically-waffling response to the woman who wanted her Lutheran husband to be given Communion in a Catholic Mass. In only these two paragraphs does he seem to me to show his position:
“I can only respond to your question with a question: what can I do with my husband that the Lord’s Supper might accompany me on my path? It’s a problem that each must answer [for themselves], but a pastor-friend once told me that “We believe that the Lord is present there, he is present” – you believe that the Lord is present. And what’s the difference? There are explanations, interpretations, but life is bigger than explanations and interpretations. Always refer back to your baptism – one faith, one baptism, one Lord: this Paul tells us; and then consequences come later.
I would never dare to give permission to do this, because it’s not my own competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and then go forward. [Pauses] And I wouldn’t dare – I don’t dare say anything more.”
The only ‘explanation and interpretation’ of Christ’s presence in the Holy Eucharist is found in the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. Every other such was explicitly anathematised at Trent. So what are we to think of a pope who seems to pooh pooh the idea that differences of interpretation, i.e. of faith, matter? That whether you’re Catholic or Lutheran, or any other brand of Protestant heretic, you have the same ‘One Lord, one faith, one baptism’, so what you believe about the manner of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is of no consequence. Incidentally, that is a disgraceful misinterpretation of St. Paul’s words, which apply to the Catholic Church, and not to all other heretical Christian denominations.
It has often been noted on this blog that this Pope cannot be accused of explicit heresy, and here we have it – ” I don’t dare say anything more”, (“because if I did I would be accused of heresy”?).
All in all, it certanly seems to me that what he and the rest of his modernist cabal THINK he is doing with AL is quite different from what the remaining orthodox pastors and laity KNOW he is doing!
Thank you for that. I’ll keep checking when I’m near my computer – which won’t be till quite late in the day but, hey, who’s gonna miss li’l ole me?
The Bishop of Phoenix in USA thinks Pope Francis is showing continuity in marriage in Amoris Laetita – and I think he is one of the good bishops in the USA.
It seems that Bishop Olmstead either is trying to put lipstick on a pig, or he hasn’t heard about the scandalous letter Francis wrote to the Argentinian bishops, confirming the real intent of AL. He is also using the “hermeneutic of continuity” approach by trying to reconcile the heretical AL with faithful documents of previous Popes. But whatever he thinks he is doing, I’m sorry to say that I think he is making a fool of himself.
The Francis effect continues…
That is such a pity because I have often quoted Bishop Olmstead, who is very strong on kneeling for Communion, when he said: “if we could see Who it is that we receive, we would not kneel, we would crawl”.
How sad and unexpected that he could be so far off the wall on any moral issue, let alone one of such gravity as the indissolubility of marriage.
Confusion into chaos, with bells on…
Since RCA Victor’s suggestion, have kept a beady eye opened for the said Part III. Unfortunately it was not yet on the Remnant Newspaper.
It is terrifying having to spell out exactly what sin is for a Pope.
Thank you for that. I had quite a bit of difficulty in getting Part III to link on our blog, at the introductory piece above, but managed it in the end. All three parts are published at Catholic Family News as well as the Remnant so, since the Remnant have still not published Part III, I’ve deleted the original links and left only the CFN link, with all three Parts easily accessible. I think that will make for an easier read…in a practical sense only – it makes terrifying reading, as you say, having to spell out exactly what is “sin” for, of all people, a Pope! Incredible. We are living through astonishing times.
I hope each of these good men are awarded the honour, Defender of the Faith
That’s the same link that Theresa Rose posted – LOL!
It’s also in the article at the top now. So we’re all getting well educated on this – three links exactly the same – LOL!
I agree with you that these good men should be given an award for defending the faith. Their letter and “liber of accusation” is fabulous. Well done, them!
Ach, Done it again – drat, double drat and triple drat!
And with that being once too often, I think it’s my time to sign off.
We all make mistakes – it’s easy on blogs ‘cos we read a lot of stuff and it’s easy to get mixed up. Just make sure you are reading what’s there and not jumping to the wrong conclusion, as I’ve done myself often, LOL!
Nah, don’t you dare sign off. LOL instead. And I too agree these men should be awarded the honour of Defender of the Faith.
I’ve had a peek at the Remnant Newspaper to find that they now have Part III on its pages.
I just wondered if the exclamation “drat, double drat, etc” came from the Hooded Claw of ‘Penelope Pitstop’ and ‘Catch that Pigeon’ fame. You may remeber his little dog “Mutley” as well? I loved those cartoons.
You’ve not had a reply to your comment addressed to Gerontius, because he is unwell at the moment. He was absent from Mass this morning and lots of people expressed concern that he is ill.
I’ve emailed him to promise our prayers and sent him our best wishes for a very speedy recovery.
Our Lady of Lourdes, health of the sick, pray for him.
I hope he’s ok. I will say a prayer for his speedy recovery.
Many Thank Athanasius
My prayers, too, for Gerontius. Hurry back!
Many thanks dear lady.
Many thanks for your great kindness.
I loved those cartoons.
Yes indeed – happy memories of watching them with my Children and grandchildren. I seem to recall the villain being a certain “Dick Dastardly” whom “Mutley” took pains to annoy.
Yes, I loved them as well. Loved the Ant Hill Mob. Great stuff!
Gerontius won’t mind me mentioning that he is to undergo surgery soon, so let’s all redouble our prayers for him, not least because he not only has to care for his own health, but his wife is in poor health as well. So, all rosaries on deck to pray for Gerontius at this particularly trying time.
Just off to say my rosary now, so will include Gerontius and his wife in my intentions.
This superbly laid out article just in from AKA Catholic.
THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
JORGE MARIO BERGOGLIO aka FRANCIS,
CHARGE NO. 1: Heresy
SUMMARY: The defendant publicly denies that the state of mortal sin, with specific reference to adultery and fornication, entails the loss of sanctifying grace; even on the part of those who are not ignorant of the demands of the divine law.
EVIDENCE: On 8 April 2016, the defendant promulgated the following:
“It can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation [adultery, fornication] are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule.” (Amoris Laetitia 301)
APPLICABLE LAW: Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter XV:
“In opposition also to the subtle wits of certain men, who, by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent, it is to be maintained, that the received grace of Justification [sanctifying grace] is lost, not only by infidelity whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, though faith be not lost; thus defending the doctrine of the divine law, which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelieving, but the faithful also (who are) fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins…”
VERDICT: Guilty as charged
END OF EXTRACT
The question that must now be asked is, Will the Church authorities take action to protect the Faithful?
to be honest I think that article from aka catholic comes across like the kind of thing the kids would do in school! It’s nowhere close to the liber of accusation and covering letter from the American editors, IMHO.
I do agree with the verdict, though, LOL!
Thanks for reply.
…..comes across like the kind of thing the kids would do in school!
Exactly so – I’ve been trying for some time with my posts to target any teenage lurkers that per chance, visit the Blog with what I hope, will give them some serious food for thought.
Good idea! We do have some teenage lurkers, some of whom say this is where they come for answers to their questions about the Faith – they are in the USA so that’s high praise indeed!
Hope you are feeling well enough – lots of people from St Andrew’s asking for you both at the Thursday night conference and again tonight after Mass. One asked me when you’d be back – I said “asap!”
Since posting my good wishes above to Gerontius, he has emailed to say he should be having surgery around 11th October, so please continue to pray for him and for his wife who, although also very unwell, has made “remarkable progress” recently. Gerontius thanks everyone sincerely for their prayerful support and will keep us posted on his progress.
Comments are closed.