ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, September 25, 2017

Calling out the Pope

Although they stop short of calling him a heretic, a group of faithful Catholics are calling out the Holy Father and issuing "a filial correction" to the him.
A group of clergy and lay scholars from around the world have taken the very rare step of presenting Pope Francis with a formal filial correction, accusing him of propagating heresies concerning marriage, the moral life, and reception of the sacraments.

Entitled Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis, meaning ‘A Filial Correction Concerning the Propagation of Heresies,’ the 25 page letter was delivered to the Holy Father at his Santa Marta residence on Aug. 11.

The Pope has so far not responded to the initiative, whose 62 signatories include the German intellectual Martin Mosebach, former president of the Vatican Bank, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, and the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay (he learned of the document only after it had been delivered to the Pope and signed it on behalf of the Society).

The letter begins by saying that with “profound grief but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself” the signatories feel “compelled” to take this action “on account of the propagation of heresies.”

They cite in particular Francis’ apostolic exhortation on marriage and the family, Amoris Laetitia, and “other words, deeds and omissions.”

They accuse the Pope of upholding seven heretical positions about “marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments” which, they say, has “caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church.”

The clergy and scholars “respectfully insist” that Pope Francis condemn the heresies that he has directly or indirectly upheld, and that he teach the truth of the Catholic faith in its integrity.

The filial correction, the first to be made of a reigning Pontiff since Pope John XXII was admonished in 1333, is divided into three main parts.

In the first, the signatories say they have the “right and duty” to issue such a correction. They make clear the doctrine of papal infallibility has not been contradicted as the Pope has not promulgated heretical opinions as dogmatic teachings of the Church, but they maintain that Francis has “upheld and propagated heretical opinions by various direct and indirect means.”

The second part deals with the correction itself. Written in Latin, it lists the passages of Amoris Laetitia in which, they argue, the Pope insinuates or encourages heretical positions. They mention those who claim these texts can be interpreted in an orthodox way, but the correction lists examples of when it is clear “beyond reasonable doubt” that the Pope “wishes Catholics to interpret these passages in a way that is, in fact, heretical.” In particular, they say the Pope has advocated the belief that obedience to God’s moral law can be impossible or undesirable, and that Catholics should sometimes accept adultery as compatible with being a follower of Christ.

In the third part, the signatories highlight two causes of this crisis: modernism and the influence of Martin Luther. They argue that the embrace of modernism, which they define as the belief that God has not delivered definite truths to the Church which she must continue to teach in exactly the same sense until the end of time, means that faith and morals become “provisional and subject to revision.” Such thinking, they point out, was condemned by Pope St Pius X. Regarding Martin Luther, they show how some of the Pope’s ideas on marriage, divorce, forgiveness, and divine law correspond to those of the German Reformation monk, and draw attention to the “explicit and unprecedented praise” the Pope has given the 16th century heresiarch.
I don't pay much attention to Catholic theology or politics, but I will say that the Church has survived worse popes and worse leaders, so I expect it will survive this one too. That being said, I think Catholics would be wise to purge their SJWs and throw out all of the changes since Vatican II. It's been pretty much straight downhill since that pernicious council took place.

Labels: ,

101 Comments:

Blogger Laramie Hirsch September 25, 2017 4:25 AM  

Catholics would be wise to purge their SJWs and throw out all of the changes since Vatican II

It's a hierarchy, not a democracy.

This pope is the worst, and we haven't had a pope this bad ever, in terms of violating dogma. A pope's personal sins are much different from what Pope Francis is doing. We are in a crisis unseen since the Arian heresy, and this may even be worse.

Since this hierarchy is not democratic, chances are that the False Church will purge the remaining remnant of actual Catholics from it, and they can continue on with their glorious Abomination of Desolation.

The remaining Christians will be holdouts until the final resolution to this all.

Anonymous JAMES September 25, 2017 4:27 AM  

Speaking as a Catholic married to another Catholic I had two kids.

My SSPX auntie had twelve, most of whom stayed in the church after adulthood.

The traditionalists are starting from a small base but I wouldn't count them out.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch September 25, 2017 4:39 AM  

@2 True, true. The Trads are a small minority, but hardened and formidable, I believe.

Sad to say, the SSPX abandoned Tulsa today.

http://thehirschfiles.blogspot.com/2017/09/wheres-tulsas-fr-stan-rother-sspx-packs.html

Anonymous JAG September 25, 2017 4:43 AM  

That being said, I think Catholics would be wise to purge their SJWs and throw out all of the changes since Vatican II

All purged, all their policies reversed, all traces of their presence erased, the room fumigated, and the site nuked from orbit.

Anonymous Mycroft Jones September 25, 2017 4:54 AM  

If you are Catholic, you can try SSPX. But I tried the local SSPX, and found the level of Gamma white knighting among those priests was so high, they weren't much better than the regular SJW priests. Ok, so they say the mass in Latin. Big whoopedy-do. Eunuchs can't lead a virile church. The Crusades happened back in the days when most priests were married, or at least had a mistress on the side. Virile.

Blogger Sillon Bono September 25, 2017 5:06 AM  

Laramie Hirsch wrote:Catholics would be wise to purge their SJWs and throw out all of the changes since Vatican II

It's a hierarchy, not a democracy.

This pope is the worst, and we haven't had a pope this bad ever, in terms of violating dogma.
...


He's a heretic, period.

He can't continue being the pope.

While I agree the Church will survive the damage he's doing to Catholics is immense.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch September 25, 2017 5:10 AM  

Here's a Nostradamus quatrain that discusses what would happen after St. Peter's bones would be re-discovered:

After the see has been held for seventeen years,It will change hands five times in a comparable period of time:Then one will be elected at the same time [as another],Who will not be too much in conformity with the Romans.

And here we are. We got two popes simultaneously in charge doing damage to the Christian world.

Blogger Matt September 25, 2017 5:40 AM  

Until the Vatican publicly hangs all their pedo clergy, they're a false church.

Anonymous Icicle September 25, 2017 5:43 AM  

The filial correction, the first to be made of a reigning Pontiff since Pope John XXII was admonished in 1333,

That sounds unusual.

draw attention to the “explicit and unprecedented praise” the Pope has given the 16th century heresiarch.

Better late than never for the pope-ists.

Anonymous Ages September 25, 2017 5:55 AM  

He wouldn't be the first heretic Pope...

As I understand it, a lot of Catholics are not satisfied with this document. It's not signed by anyone important, and the language is actually quite weak and rambling. They don't want to outright accuse the Pope of heresy because that would jeopardize their theology of the papacy, or make Francis an antipope (and how could he not be, at this point?).

So it's kind of a spineless gesture.

Blogger Lovekraft September 25, 2017 6:04 AM  

Also the expulsion of someone looking into Vatican finances. I really don't have a problem with it because it is natural for anyone to first state, should they be demanded to give up the keys, to inquire whether this applies to all.

I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt there is a universal campaign to do that.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/auditor-claims-vatican-axed-him-probing-illegal-activity-104306251.html

Anonymous Icicle September 25, 2017 6:06 AM  

Bring back an Avignon Papacy.

Make antipopes great again!

Anonymous Aeoli Pera September 25, 2017 6:11 AM  

Last time this happened it preceded the Hundred Years' War, the Black Death, the little ice age, and five centuries of intensive k-selection.

Blogger The Kurgan September 25, 2017 6:11 AM  

Being recently baptised as an actual Catholic via the Instituto Mater Buon Consilio, (Sede Provationists) I can guarantee that the actual few Carholics left absolutely do refer to Bergoglio as an apostate, anti-pope, heretic and I personally always mention he seems fit to be the herald of the Antichrist from revelation.

Most actual Catholics also reject anything and anyone involved with Vatican II, which is itself a heresy. In fact, Protestants ignorantly assume Catholics are obsessed with the Pope and Papal infallibility. This is not so. Popes have been of all stripes, this one just happens to be the worst ever because he is a true antichristian, not just a philandering or homosexual power hungry egomaniac like many popes before him.

Blogger Stilicho September 25, 2017 6:46 AM  

It's been 500 years next month. There's just something about October that makes one inclined to nail a list of problems with the Papal catholicism to a church door. If you wish to keep it focused, I would suggest limiting the list to the five Solas this time. Although of more recent vintage, they do get to the heart of the matter quite well.

Welcome to the Reformation boys. Time to get our houses in order, the gates of Vienna need defending.

Anonymous Rfvujm September 25, 2017 6:50 AM  

If America could get Donald Trump elected as president, perhaps there's a way to get Mel Gibson to make Catholicism great again.

Blogger Stilicho September 25, 2017 6:52 AM  

On a more practical note, this reprimand will encourage other Roman Catholics to take a stand against leftist infiltration and subversion of their church and that is a good thing. Vox, this could be an interesting case study in how a partially converged institution (Vatican) reacts to resistance from the right although it might not play out in time for inclusion in the current book.

Anonymous Moldbug September 25, 2017 7:07 AM  

Step 1: Depose the Papal heretic.

Step 2: Round up the "Ilk" heretics.

Blogger darrenl September 25, 2017 7:11 AM  

Some distinctions, Vox. Some of this is inside baseball, so lots can be missed in the details.

1. The letter is not accusing the Pope of formal heresy, and can't at this point because they currently cannot judge the degree of awareness to which the Pope has propagated heresy.

2. Even if the letter did accuse the Pope of formal heresy, it is not task of those who signed to do so.

3. As Catholics, we don't get to choose our Popes...or our Councils for that matter as that is infinately above our pay grade. What we are called to do as Catholics is have faith that the Holy Spirit is always working through the Ministers of the Church. Unfortunately, it usually takes a couple hundred years to understand what that work is.

Anonymous Jack September 25, 2017 7:16 AM  

It's remarkable how many bad things happened in such a short span of time. Vatican II, the Hart-Cellar act, the decisions of the Warren Court that legalized pornography, all within a few years of each other.

I would like to see a kind of Alt Right Guide to the 20th century, which summarizes some of these major turning points in Western history, so that people can better understand what has happened, and what needs to be changed.

Blogger Furthest Right September 25, 2017 7:30 AM  

The problem is, as I see it, is manifold.

Either this Pope is unaware of the fact that he is commiting heresy, or he is aware and doesn't give two swings of a censer.

If the first is true, then those in the Catholic Church must look at what they are teaching these guys, and how someone like him advances so far without anyone noticing.

If the second is true, then they must discover how far this rot has spread; he is, as we have seen, not the only Leftist member of the Catholic Church in a position of power, merely the most powerful one.

The fact that the Vatican looks at every aspect of a man's life with the most intense scrutiny before choosing him as Pope says to me that the convergence of the Catholic Church goes all the way up; these jokers knew who this guy was and what he believed before they gave him the funny hat and keys to the Popemobile.

This means that the Vatican has fallen.

Blogger FSL September 25, 2017 7:45 AM  

The document basically does accuse him of heresy, according to the everyday definition. The only holdup is the extremely technical (like everything else they define) Catholic definition requires consciousness of one's obstinacy against true doctrine. In my opinion even this is established beyond a reasonable doubt, since he refused to answer the traditionalist cardinals' questions about AL expressed in the "Dubia" document.

This is unprecedented and has not happened since Pope John XXII was accused of heresy by the faculty of the University of Paris in AD 1333. That was over soul sleep. The nature of marriage and justification are much bigger issues, which makes this situation unprecedented.

Anonymous Anonymous September 25, 2017 7:47 AM  

Vox,
as a literate Christian and a history buff, I'm surprised you have little interest in Catholic theology as this church is so important to the foundations of Christendom and much of our intellectual life. Its doctrines on the nature of human life and natural law are cases in point.

I'm curious as to why you take this view?

(I'm an agnostic "cultural Christian" and great fan of the previous Pope's writings)

Blogger VD September 25, 2017 7:49 AM  

How much time do you think I have? Seriously, what do you recommend that I give up in order to pay more attention to a church to which I do not belong?

Blogger tkatchev September 25, 2017 7:59 AM  

Laramie Hirsch wrote:
Since this hierarchy is not democratic, chances are that the False Church will purge the remaining remnant of actual Catholics from it, and they can continue on with their glorious Abomination of Desolation.


If the Pope actually goes ahead and formally pronounces heresy, then it is grounds to excommunicate him and start a real Orthodox Church of Rome. So it's not all bad, if ever it gets completely out of hand then such a crisis could lead to mending the Great Schism.

Blogger Lazarus September 25, 2017 8:12 AM  

Furthest Right wrote:This means that the Vatican has fallen.

It fell awhile ago. Look up info on the St. Gallen Group

Blogger Jew613 September 25, 2017 8:14 AM  

How far can this go, is it even possible to excommunicate a Pope?

Also how did the situation get this bad, what prevented the Catholic Church from excommunicating heretics before they were in charge?

Blogger JC September 25, 2017 8:16 AM  

Ann Barnhardt argues that he's an anti-pope and that Benedict is still the true pope.

I am a recent convert (this year), and I am looking to move to a church that has the traditional Latin rite. As you say, the church needs a good purge including Vatican II. I had the chance to attend my first traditional mass last month and it was absolutely beautiful.

Anonymous Killua September 25, 2017 8:24 AM  

The west has a massive problem with the institution of marriage.

Marriage used to be a two part arrangement between a man and a women. Nowdays it is a three part arrangeent between a man, a woman, and the state. And because of todays insane divorce and alimony laws, a man who gets legally married risks getting his entire financial life ruined in the case his wife decides to divorce him.

Is the government that ruined the insitution of marriage, not the church.

Anonymous Avalanche September 25, 2017 8:36 AM  

@19 "because they currently cannot judge the degree of awareness to which the Pope has propagated heresy."

Huh!?! James Comey has taken over this group? "It's alllll illegal, but I can't find any motivation -- despite the 'law' not requiring motivation"?

Anonymous Avalanche September 25, 2017 8:42 AM  

@128 "Benedict is still the true pope."

Yes, where IS the German Shepherd? What secret work is Benedict doing that he gave up the Church and has STAYED away?

Blogger Duke Norfolk September 25, 2017 8:49 AM  

Jack wrote:It's remarkable how many bad things happened in such a short span of time. Vatican II, the Hart-Cellar act, the decisions of the Warren Court that legalized pornography, all within a few years of each other.

Yes, it was quite the inflection point, wasn't it. You can add in there the closing of the gold window. IOW the move to full unmitigated money printing which has enabled all the other ills. The list goes on and on.

And the way they took place somewhat simultaneously throughout the Anglo countries is quite remarkable.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 25, 2017 8:56 AM  

He wouldn't be the first heretic Pope...

Yes he would, because according to Catholic teaching, that's not possible. The pope is the final guarantor of the Faith. That's what we believe that "keys" and "rock" stuff was about: even if everyone else in the Church goes astray, we can count on the pope, guided by the Holy Ghost, to be the Rock we can hold onto in the storm.

This is where someone usually points to Pope Honorius. Honorius didn't preach heresy to the Church across the land. He said in a private letter that he didn't think a particular error was bad enough that he needed to condemn it as a heresy. He thought it was a quibble over wording that would work itself out. A later Council disagreed and censured him for that, but that doesn't make him a formal heretic, and he didn't preach a heresy to the universal Church.

Francis has done so repeatedly, throughout his term. Sometimes officially as in Amoris Laetitia; many times unofficially when he makes offhand comments in sermons and interviews. It's all part of a body of work called "Francis's magisterium." They can hide behind sophistry about how he hasn't taught any of it infallibly (not actually true; there are different types of infallibility and they're only talking about the big one defined at Vatican I), but that's not the bar.

The problem these "correctors" and the dubia cardinals have is that they're still trying to have it both ways. They want to call him pope and yet correct him, but that's not possible. A valid pope is an absolute monarch, so they have no mechanism by which to reign him in -- or even a right to do so, or to suggest that he's teaching heresy (which is what they're saying, no matter how carefully they say they aren't). So they're trying to shame him, but that's impossible. Might as well try to shame Zoe Quinn.

What they can do is admit they screwed up and elected a man who wasn't/isn't qualified to be pope, declare the seat of Peter to be empty (just as they do whenever a pope dies), and elect a new one. While there has never been a heretical pope, there have been anti-popes, so there's a mechanism for that. They're a long way from being willing to do that, though.

That comes to the second problem: they don't actually disagree with his heresies, for the most part. His Vatican II predecessors held to the same core heresies of Vatican II; they were just smarter men who couched them more carefully and were willing to take the Modernist revolution slowly. Francis is the first to be fully formed by Vatican II and have no appreciation for Catholic tradition even as nostalgia, so he has no such reticence. He wants to get on with bringing the revolution now.

So even getting rid of Francis won't fix the problem, as the entire Vatican-obedient hierarchy holds to the same heresies, so they would elect a Vatican II replacement who is more moderate and wouldn't push so hard (especially on the sex stuff), but the underlying program wouldn't change. The problem is Vatican II. It must be rooted out, every page of it condemned, and all its fruits eliminated: the Novus Ordo service, the new sacraments, invalid ordinations, iffy canonizations, etc. Until that happens, the Church will have to continue in the catacombs.

Blogger pyrrhus September 25, 2017 9:02 AM  

The Pope is most definitely a heretic and a globalist imposter, and even Vatican II was inherently heretical...The Catholic Church will go through its own rightist de-globalization if it wants to survive.

Anonymous Jack September 25, 2017 9:08 AM  

One of the cultural critics and historians that I've learned a great deal from and harbor a lot of respect for is the Catholic writer E. Michael Jones. He's recently been making a lot of his writings available as ebooks on Amazon, which are a lot more accessible than his dense and incredibly expensive print books, which are nonetheless also worthwhile.

When the rest of the Alt Right grows up and realizes that the West needs Christianity, I hope that more people discover his writings.

Blogger The Kurgan September 25, 2017 9:09 AM  

Slightly OT: for people actually still looking for the last real Catholics, go here:

https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com

They reject everyone and everything connected to Vatican II. Their masses are awesome if hard to get to and their priests openly disavow Bergoglio and call for the utter rejection of things like Islam. They are the only spiritual hold-outs from the time of the crusades.

Anonymous Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Grass September 25, 2017 9:13 AM  

This correction was long past due. They went about it the right way. What is most telling is that the letter was submitted back in August, long after the five dubia were asked by the four cardinals, two of whom have hopefully gone on to eternal life. May God grant their souls rest. Interesting to note, Dr. Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg, one of the signatories, wrote a good book on Purgatory called Thirsty Souls and also has taken lots of flak due to his views that homosexuality is a choice.

JAMES wrote:Speaking as a Catholic married to another Catholic I had two kids.

My SSPX auntie had twelve, most of whom stayed in the church after adulthood.

The traditionalists are starting from a small base but I wouldn't count them out.


We're (traditionalists) are younger in age, too. It's like Barnhardt has said, the liberal orders are literally dying out. As Fr. Z has said it's brick by brick in terms of restoration.

Mycroft Jones wrote:If you are Catholic, you can try SSPX. But I tried the local SSPX, and found the level of Gamma white knighting among those priests was so high, they weren't much better than the regular SJW priests. Ok, so they say the mass in Latin. Big whoopedy-do. Eunuchs can't lead a virile church. The Crusades happened back in the days when most priests were married, or at least had a mistress on the side. Virile.

Try the FSSP or ICRSS which are in good standing with the Holy See, instead of the SSPX who are in irregular union with Rome due to Lefebvre's shenanigans among other things.

Sillon Bono wrote:Laramie Hirsch wrote:Catholics would be wise to purge their SJWs and throw out all of the changes since Vatican II

It's a hierarchy, not a democracy.

This pope is the worst, and we haven't had a pope this bad ever, in terms of violating dogma.

...



He's a heretic, period.

He can't continue being the pope.

While I agree the Church will survive the damage he's doing to Catholics is immense.



The damage he is doing to souls is certainly immense; many will be led to Hell over this nonesense.

Matt wrote:Until the Vatican publicly hangs all their pedo clergy, they're a false church.

The pedo infiltrators in the seminary and Church writ large are dying off.

Anonymous Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Grass September 25, 2017 9:14 AM  

Ages wrote:He wouldn't be the first heretic Pope...

As I understand it, a lot of Catholics are not satisfied with this document. It's not signed by anyone important, and the language is actually quite weak and rambling. They don't want to outright accuse the Pope of heresy because that would jeopardize their theology of the papacy, or make Francis an antipope (and how could he not be, at this point?).

So it's kind of a spineless gesture.


There's procedures on how to progress forward in situations like this. They're simply following it. He'll have to answer the charges or he'll get so fed up he'll resign or he will eventually die.

Furthest Right wrote:The problem is, as I see it, is manifold.

Either this Pope is unaware of the fact that he is commiting heresy, or he is aware and doesn't give two swings of a censer.

If the first is true, then those in the Catholic Church must look at what they are teaching these guys, and how someone like him advances so far without anyone noticing.

If the second is true, then they must discover how far this rot has spread; he is, as we have seen, not the only Leftist member of the Catholic Church in a position of power, merely the most powerful one.

The fact that the Vatican looks at every aspect of a man's life with the most intense scrutiny before choosing him as Pope says to me that the convergence of the Catholic Church goes all the way up; these jokers knew who this guy was and what he believed before they gave him the funny hat and keys to the Popemobile.

This means that the Vatican has fallen.


It appears more and more likely that the St. Gallen mafia rumors were true.

tkatchev wrote:Laramie Hirsch wrote:

Since this hierarchy is not democratic, chances are that the False Church will purge the remaining remnant of actual Catholics from it, and they can continue on with their glorious Abomination of Desolation.



If the Pope actually goes ahead and formally pronounces heresy, then it is grounds to excommunicate him and start a real Orthodox Church of Rome. So it's not all bad, if ever it gets completely out of hand then such a crisis could lead to mending the Great Schism.



I can't remember the exact steps but there are two forms of heresy. If he's guilty of one of the forms, he will be declared by the College of Cardinals (IIRC) to no longer be Pope, simple as that.

Anonymous Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Grass September 25, 2017 9:15 AM  

JC wrote:Ann Barnhardt argues that he's an anti-pope and that Benedict is still the true pope.

I am a recent convert (this year), and I am looking to move to a church that has the traditional Latin rite. As you say, the church needs a good purge including Vatican II. I had the chance to attend my first traditional mass last month and it was absolutely beautiful.


I went to my first TLM in Spain when I studied a semester abroad in Madrid. It's simply beautiful. Having grown up in the Novus Ordo Latin rite, I was a bit angry to be honest...having been cheated out of something so beautiful for most of my life.

One other point: something I think most non Catholics don't seem to grasp is yes, we're obedient to the Pope, etc. However, if you're properly formed in the faith (as I was thankfully and still am; it's an ongoing process), even screw ups by the Pope can't stop you. You have the faith, especially Christ's promise to Peter (who was the first Pope) about how the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church.

@36 Nah, FSSP and ICRSS are better.

Anyone looking for good homilies from priests from the above two groups just mentioned, look here.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 25, 2017 9:18 AM  

The fact that the Vatican looks at every aspect of a man's life with the most intense scrutiny before choosing him as Pope says to me that the convergence of the Catholic Church goes all the way up; these jokers knew who this guy was and what he believed before they gave him the funny hat and keys to the Popemobile.

Yes, they did. The general public didn't know much about him when he was elected, because we don't pay much attention to the Church in Latin America. (It's kind of taken for granted, which is a mistake.) But plenty has come out since to show that he was well-known as a Modernist revolutionary, basically exactly what you'd expect if you heard the phrase "Jesuit-trained advocate of Liberation Theology with close homosexual and Jewish friends." They knew who he was, though they probably didn't realize he would be so intemperate and obvious.

That's why it's not really about Francis, and there's no refuge in "Benedict is still my pope." Benedict and JPII went to Assisi and worshiped false gods too. They too preached that the Jews have an alternate path to heaven that doesn't require Jesus. They too promulgated a fake Mass that strips out as much Catholic theology as possible. And so on. The same gang who elected Francis elected them -- because they're all basically in agreement on the big issues. Francis is just more obnoxious.

Amoris Laetita has something like 400 footnotes. I haven't checked them all, but I guarantee nearly all of them are to post-Vatican II documents, with many references to the writings of John Paul II and some from Benedict. He's carrying out the revolution, not starting one. The break from Catholicism was Vatican II, not Francis.

Anonymous Durandel September 25, 2017 9:25 AM  

If you wish to read more, but don't want to support the SJW converged Catholic Register article cited above, Church Militant has a write up already (Crisis and CERC don't as of yet).

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/62-leaders-sign-filial-correction-to-pope-francis

Blogger Cail Corishev September 25, 2017 9:29 AM  

The document basically does accuse him of heresy, according to the everyday definition.

Yes. Imagine if someone said you were "insinuating and encouraging" pedophilia, but then said, "But we're not saying you approve of it! Oh no, we just think you goofed a little, and unknowingly insinuated and encouraged it. Probably a typo; we'll help you spellcheck the next one." They might be covered legalistically, but you'd still want to punch them in the face.

Thing is, they know he meant what he said. In fact, he's already said so. A group of Latin American bishops who were happy about Amoris Laetitia wrote him a letter saying, "It looks like you're saying it's okay to do this and that. Is that really what you meant?" He basically responded, "I said what I said." He didn't correct them when they specifically asked whether he intended what it looks like he meant, so clearly that's the interpretation he intended people to take. He's just crafty enough not to put it in the affirmative. As long as he doesn't do that, and only confirms his meaning by refusing to condemn alternative "interpretations," they can continue this dance where everyone pretends it's a misunderstanding.

Anonymous JamesD September 25, 2017 9:30 AM  

While I agree the Church will survive the damage he's doing to Catholics is immense.

That would be damage to "the world". He is controlled by Soros through Maradiaga (consult the Soros Wikileaks) and is a water carrier for the NWO. He backs the EU, ecofreaks, globalism, mass immigration, and the UN.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 25, 2017 9:55 AM  

How far can this go, is it even possible to excommunicate a Pope?

No. It would be possible to recognize that a man has excommunicated himself, in which case he would already not be the pope. That probably seems like playing with words, but it matters.

Also how did the situation get this bad, what prevented the Catholic Church from excommunicating heretics before they were in charge?

Well, one short answer is infiltration of the seminaries by Communists (literally, sponsored by the Soviets) and homosexuals in the first half of the 1900s.

A longer answer: there had been attempts to bring the Enlightenment and French Revolution to the Church since they happened, but there was always the pope to stop them. Even when popes weren't particularly good men personally, they held the line on the Faith, so when a bishop or priest would start preaching universal salvation or turning his altar into a table, he'd get slapped down before it could get too carried away. They realized they had to get the pope out of the way, and they did so somehow at the 1958 conclave (there are different theories how), installing John XXIII, a man who had been under suspicion as a Modernist. Without a true pope in place to stop it, the revolution could now charge ahead. John XXIII almost immediately called for Vatican II.

The Modernists (including Ratzinger/Benedict) arrived at Vatican II well-organized with documents ready to advance and daily talking points to distribute. The Catholics were overwhelmed and confused, and ultimately fell back on, "Well, the pope is on their side, so this must be okay, even though it looks pretty sketchy." Even the ones who were unhappy with it went back to their dioceses and started implementing it, and within a few years they also had new rites, new architecture, new theology, new everything. The rest is history.

Blogger The Kurgan September 25, 2017 10:42 AM  

Rubbish. A heretic cannot, de facto, be Pope. Educate yourself on canon law. Bergoglio has acted as a heretic in his function as "Pope", not merely in his private capacity as a flawed human.

Blogger Jesse September 25, 2017 10:43 AM  

"Catholics would be wise to purge their SJWs and throw out all of the changes since Vatican II

It's a hierarchy, not a democracy. "

Those with power in the heirarchy should purge the SJW's below them. This was advocated and practiced by Pope St. Pius X. Unfortunately neo-con cucks in the heirarchy wanted feel they were nice and so they indulged the liberals, whereas the SJW's lied and doubled down. Now orthodox Catholics barely have any power in the heirarchy.

It is a heirarchy not a democracy so obviously lay Catholics can't vote in Pope Trump. But they can use social pressure. This filial correction is a start in this direction.

After the central US states secede from the Union and institute a Catholic monarchy, they can combine forces with Poland, occupy the Vatican, and supervise a legitimate conclave.

Blogger DeploraBard (spiritualpeanutbutter.com) September 25, 2017 10:47 AM  

Wonder if he will double down?

Anonymous James Widener September 25, 2017 11:21 AM  

The Holy Spirit has protected the Church and her teachings since she was created by Christ almost 2,000 years ago. She has survived popes who were sinners and borderline heretics, with the Holy Spirit ensuring that those men did not change fundamental Church teaching.

There is a great argument to be made that this is what is happening right now. The current Pontiff has done some good (e.g. a renewed focus on care for the poor, ala the renewal of Saint Francis of Assisi), but also seems inclined, as a man, to pull the Church away from some of her teachings. But note well that to date, he has not done that. No dogma has been promulgated, just exhortations and pastoral messages.

The Holy Spirit is doing Its work.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 25, 2017 12:08 PM  

33. Cail Corishev September 25, 2017 8:56 AM
The problem is Vatican II. It must be rooted out, every page of it condemned, and all its fruits eliminated: the Novus Ordo service, the new sacraments, invalid ordinations, iffy canonizations, etc.



errrm.

isn't that a declaration that Pope Paul VI ( and possibly Pope John XXIII ) was a heretic?

in direct contradiction of your previous assertion:
"While there has never been a heretical pope"


42. Cail Corishev September 25, 2017 9:29 AM
they can continue this dance where everyone pretends it's a misunderstanding.



as i pointed out last year, Bergoglio openly said, in a Vatican released advertisement, out of his own mouth, that he has "confidence" in the prayers of Buddhists and Muslims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzbERQC_pIg

that's overtly Satanic. Biblically, there is not, CANNOT be any 'efficacy' in praying to false gods.

even the Jews believe this. it is one of the primary teachings of the Old Testament.

Blogger Lazarus September 25, 2017 12:20 PM  

After this I saw another angel descending from heaven with great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his glory. 2And he cried out in a mighty voice: “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a lair of demons. She is a haunt for every unclean spirit, a hideout for every unclean bird, and a hold for every detestable beast.

Blogger VFM #7634 September 25, 2017 12:48 PM  

Y'all are a little late. Heretics have usurped the papacy since 1958.

Paul VI, in many ways, was the worst; he trashed all the sacraments and salted them over, by invalidating the rite of consecration.

John Paul II the Koran Kisser was a heretic too. He made Francis a cardinal in the first place.

Benedict XVI is a heretic too. He's just sneakier than Francis.

If you are Catholic, you can try SSPX. But I tried the local SSPX, and found the level of Gamma white knighting among those priests was so high, they weren't much better than the regular SJW priests. Ok, so they say the mass in Latin. Big whoopedy-do. Eunuchs can't lead a virile church. The Crusades happened back in the days when most priests were married, or at least had a mistress on the side. Virile.

@5 Mycroft Jones
That's another problem. If you're a trad, you'll have to vet potential priests for Gamma behavior, especially control-freakishness. For example, you might run into priests who refuse to accept you as a parishioner if you go to anyone else. The absolute worst are those priests who blackball you if you dare suggest Francis is NOT legitimately the pope. That type runs the SSPX, incidentally.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 25, 2017 1:08 PM  

isn't that a declaration that Pope Paul VI ( and possibly Pope John XXIII ) was a heretic?

Yes. And therefore also not popes. As far as I can tell, we haven't had a pope since 1958. That's not actually a problem, theologically. We always go without a pope for some period of time, from days to years, after one dies. There's nothing in Catholic teaching or canon law that sets a time limit. People complain "the gates of hell shall not prevail," but why would being without a pope for 60 years mean that the gates of hell have prevailed? There is still the Faith, still the faithful, still the line of succession, still priests offering the Sacrifice of the Mass and other sacraments, still the Church. Not having a pope for a long time is bad, but not fatal.

Having a heretic pope would be fatal, because it would mean we couldn't know for sure what the Faith is. It's not just that it would be a bad thing; it's that it's a contradiction in terms, like a "crooked straight-edge."

Biblically, there is not, CANNOT be any 'efficacy' in praying to false gods.

Right. But Francis isn't pulling that out of his ass. That's Vatican II. He's just more blunt about it.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 25, 2017 1:27 PM  

This will end in death, whether poison, plague or gunfire. And it's tarting to look like gunfire.

Anonymous johnc September 25, 2017 1:35 PM  

Obviously we are living in some of the most turbulent times in Christian history. Surely Our Lord would prepare us for such a time. So, to answer Jack's question (@20), we have to look at the apparitions in Fatima, Portugal (1917) as the guide that unlocks the 20th century, and to understand where we are now and where we are going.

Sometimes I wonder if we're going to get off the hook with merely an extraordinary chastisement (such that "the oceans will flood whole areas of the earth, and that from one moment to the next millions of people will perish")... or if instead we're actually running up to the end times here. They are clearly building an anti-church within the structures of the True Church. Many people are talking about it and admitting it now. What kind of character would sit on the throne of a global anti-church?

A couple of predictions appear to be coming true:

"The final battle between the Lord and the reign of Satan will be about marriage and the family."

That looks quite familiar, hence this filial correction.

"In the Third Secret it is predicted, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top."

Well that looks quite familiar too.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 25, 2017 1:50 PM  

52. Cail Corishev September 25, 2017 1:08 PM
That's not actually a problem, theologically.



not being a Catholic, i would agree that it's not a "theological" problem.

but it's the Catholics who are constantly appealing to the authority of the magisterium of the church, and claiming the infallibility of the Pope to promulgate that magisterium, etc.

the mere fact that the RCC has been this blitheringly incompetent that they would acclaim such men ( whom you agree are heretics ) as "Pope", disproves the RCC as any sort of accurate repository of traditional ecclesiastical knowledge or authority.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 25, 2017 1:58 PM  

((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) wrote:disproves the RCC as any sort of accurate repository of traditional ecclesiastical knowledge or authority.
Thereby proving bob's inability to actually think all the way through a complete thought.

Anonymous Anonymous September 25, 2017 2:11 PM  

((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) wrote:Bergoglio openly said, in a Vatican released advertisement, out of his own mouth, that he has "confidence" in the prayers of Buddhists and Muslims.

that's overtly Satanic.


It's Satanic because it's a bald-faced lie. Muslims and Buddhists don't pray and don't even have the concept of prayer.

(Buddhists have meditation and Muslims have ritual, which are, of course, nothing at all like prayer.)

Blogger Matthew September 25, 2017 2:25 PM  

The Kurgan wrote:Rubbish. A heretic cannot, de facto, be Pope. Educate yourself on canon law. Bergoglio has acted as a heretic in his function as "Pope", not merely in his private capacity as a flawed human.

Schrodinger's Pope. You have to elect him to find out if he's pope or not.

Blogger Matthew September 25, 2017 2:26 PM  

VFM #7634 wrote:Heretics have usurped the papacy since 1958.

Was that when the Vatican started lending at interest?

Blogger VFM #7634 September 25, 2017 2:36 PM  

the mere fact that the RCC has been this blitheringly incompetent that they would acclaim such men ( whom you agree are heretics ) as "Pope", disproves the RCC as any sort of accurate repository of traditional ecclesiastical knowledge or authority.

@((( bob kek mando )))
The only way it would disprove the RCC as the metaphysical guardian of truth is if these last six antipopes were actual Popes. Which they can't be, because they're heretics. There was a sharp, identifiable break between Pius XII and John XXIII that anyone who cares to can identify.

And these SJWs were sneaky. They had to fool the vast majority of Catholics into thinking they were actually Popes. This, it turns out, wasn't all that difficult, since MPAI. Actually, MPAAI -- most people are apathetic idiots.

And as for those Catholics who aren't apathetic idiots, most appear to have some sort of emotional block when it comes to suggestions that these past six usurpers are antipopes. It may be the same sort of emotional block that causes people to dismiss "conspiracy theories" out of hand, despite the evidence. Or maybe it's a sort of emotional ethnic attachment to the Papacy. I'm a high-functioning Omega, and am not a pure member of a historically Catholic ethnic group, so emotional attachments of that sort never made any sense to me, so I can only speculate. But it appears to me to be extremely important for a lot of people. Try telling someone from Poland, for example, that John Paul II was a fraud, an imposter, and a Communist. Or a Latin American, about Francis. Uh, yeah.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents September 25, 2017 2:36 PM  

@54 johnc
Obviously we are living in some of the most turbulent times in Christian history.

Totally, dude. All that "human candles", "thrown to the lions", "tortured then crucified" stuff in the first 300 years is nothing compared to a mass session of guitars.

Blogger VFM #7634 September 25, 2017 2:38 PM  

Was that when the Vatican started lending at interest?

@59 Matthew
If you want to go down that rabbit hole, the Catholic Church was forced to bend the rules once it had completely lost control of the European economy to the usury-happy Calvinists, who now called all the shots as to how banking was done.

Blogger VFM #7634 September 25, 2017 2:39 PM  

Totally, dude. All that "human candles", "thrown to the lions", "tortured then crucified" stuff in the first 300 years is nothing compared to a mass session of guitars.

@61 Paradigm
Killing the soul is worse than killing the body. At least the Roman martyrs knew they were getting valid sacraments.

Anonymous Kryst September 25, 2017 2:47 PM  

you telling catholics or christians what to do is, well, comedy.

i bet you posted that while cernokike was sucking on your tiny anglo dick. it would be wise to not let faggot jews attach themselves to you. you've gone straight downhill since that pernicious mentally ill freak got on a plane to fly to you, just so he could suck your buttcheeks shut. you liked it so much you begged some greek pedo jew to hop on pop too.

shut up dork. stop posting about things you know nothing about, (((ted))). stick to e-books and jewish faggotry. sit on the sideline like the benchwarmer you are. let the big boys and real men handle things. while you sit and fucking kike blog about it giving pithy 2 sentence posts after copy and pasting others' work. you are a jew.

#altkike

Anonymous Kryst September 25, 2017 2:55 PM  

(((ted))) shit talks catholics yet lives in italy
(((ted))) claims to hate sjw's but loves jewish faggot sjws.

weird how that works out?

actually, when you think about it, it makes perfect sense...because (((vox gay))) is a homo kike.

(((ted))) doesn't get to use his full brain because he has two jewish faggots attached to his cawk, sucking the energy and life out of him. a dark symbiotic relationship you have with homosexual jews. (((vox gay))). does your wife watch you get buttfucked by homo jews? i guess homosexual jews sucking nigerian dick is what passes as humor to a fucking boomer geek mestizo larper from white ass, mn.

you should move to (((kurdistan)) with all your zionist kike buddies, you brown jew piece of shit.



Anonymous Kryst September 25, 2017 3:06 PM  

The Kurgan wrote:Protestants ignorantly assume

that sums it all up.

protestants are never taught history, or church history. they don't know how their church began when a fat drunk bastard demanded the right to chop of his wives' heads. protestants think the world began in 1517, or something. i've spent time in their church. it is a hollow shell, lacking any strength. sort of like (((theodore the brown anglo))).

protestants are fucking retarded- just like (((theodore the brown anglo))). these are the people that call the one real true og church "false". yet they go and let some kike preach to to them at some born again church. or get bitten by a fucking talking rattlesnake in a shack in nate's backyard.

protestants are just jewish faggot sjws. it's why (((theodore the brown anglo))) is one. it's so very fitting.

i got a crypt with a early martyred pope with my name on it. that name was ancient roman first gens. this is me laughing at anyone that calls themselves a christian but isn't catholic.

now go worship your shekel snake in your jew buddies' pants, (((vox gay))).

Anonymous Kryst September 25, 2017 3:15 PM  

Rfvujm wrote:get Mel Gibson to make Catholicism great again

oh it's already happening. i'll run it by him at mass. i got some plans. i'm sure him and his father do too. no jews allowed, of course. so (((theodore))) will be upset.

Moldbug wrote:Step 1: Depose the Papal heretic.

Step 2: Round up the "Ilk" heretics.


step 3: jews like (((moldbug))) who think they speak for our church are gassed out of the church and hung along the appian way

VD wrote:How much time do you think I have? Seriously, what do you recommend that I give up in order to pay more attention to a church to which I do not belong?

it seems you have plenty of time. instead of writing dark elf fan fiction with faggot sjw jews sucking the life out of you through your tiny anglo cawk...why don't you attempt to save your lacking soul? i know you love jews more than jesus. that is you first problemo, (((teddy))).

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 25, 2017 3:20 PM  

Kryst wrote:a whole bunch of faggoty Nazi sperging bullshit
Dude, get into rehab, now. Meth is BAD FOR YOUR BRAIN, okay? It will kill you if you let it.
You will probably never be as smart as you once were, but with time, you will be able to be a productive 'tard again, and live a really kickass life without the meth.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 25, 2017 3:20 PM  

protestants are never taught history

It's hard to imagine they could be worse off than modern Catholics in that regard. My generation of Catholics learned zero Church history. Maybe less than zero, since we were taught things that weren't true. As far as Modernists are concerned, Church history took a break from about 69 A.D. to 1969, except for things they slam the Church for like the Inquisition and Crusades. If you're talking to a Catholic who knows any history, you're talking to someone who was raised in a traditionalist ghetto or self-educated in adulthood.

Anonymous Red September 25, 2017 3:21 PM  

Marriage was always a 3 way arrangement, with the man, the woman, and God. The state has been allowed to usurp the role God, as the author or marriage created, and to the predictable results of corruption and decay. If a man and a woman recognize God correctly as the author, the marriage has a much higher probability of success.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents September 25, 2017 3:25 PM  

@66 Kryst
protestants are never taught history, or church history. they don't know how their church began when a fat drunk bastard demanded the right to chop of his wives' heads.

John C. Wright, is that you?

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 25, 2017 3:26 PM  

@66 Kryst
i got a crypt with a early martyred pope with my name on it.

Did it come with a piece of Jesus's cross as a value-add bonus?

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 25, 2017 3:28 PM  

@68 Snidely to Kryst
Dude, get into rehab, now. Meth is BAD FOR YOUR BRAIN, okay?

Seconded.

Anonymous Anonymous September 25, 2017 3:28 PM  

VD wrote:How much time do you think I have? Seriously, what do you recommend that I give up in order to pay more attention to a church to which I do not belong?

Erm NFL?

Blogger Matthew September 25, 2017 3:31 PM  

VFM #7634 wrote:Was that when the Vatican started lending at interest?

@59 Matthew

If you want to go down that rabbit hole, the Catholic Church was forced to bend the rules once it had completely lost control of the European economy to the usury-happy Calvinists, who now called all the shots as to how banking was done.


Oh, it was the Calvinists who started the erosion of the rules against usury?

Blogger VFM #7634 September 25, 2017 3:40 PM  

Oh, it was the Calvinists who started the erosion of the rules against usury?

@75 Matthew
Yes, two hundred years before the Church started to tolerate it, in the 1700s. And I say "tolerate", as in "accept something undesirable for the sake of peace and because it can't do anything about it". The Church's prohibition on usury was completely unenforceable by that time.

Anonymous Kryst September 25, 2017 3:58 PM  

Cail Corishev wrote:He's just crafty enough not to put it in the affirmative

it's just commie beaner jesuit legalese...

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 25, 2017 4:19 PM  

57. anonymos-coward September 25, 2017 2:11 PM
Muslims and Buddhists don't pray and don't even have the concept of prayer.



hooo boy.

observant Muslims pray to Allah five times EVERY DAY.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Salah#The_five_daily_prayers

and Catholics can't exclude them on the basis of repetitive formulations, "Hail Mary".


56. Snidely Whiplash September 25, 2017 1:58 PM
Thereby proving bob's inability to actually think all the way through a complete thought.


if you actually NEED me to point out that i'm stipulating to Cail's assertion that EVERY POPE SINCE 1958 HAS BEEN A HERETIC when i'm making that comment
...
you might not be tall enough for this ride.

this, in point of fact, is why most Catholics don't want to touch Cail's Papal Heresy position with a 10 foot pole. because the Popes get elected by and from the Cardinals. for there to have been ~60 years of heretical popes requires the entire College of Cardinals ( because they've kept their mouths shut in the face of the obvious purported heresy AND continue to elect new heretics as Pope ) to be complicit with that heresy. therefore, at a minimum, he's logically claiming that a majority of the Cardinals have been heretics and that they have been so since 1958.

and no purported 'Church' whose leaders are that theologically astray can claim any authority or guidance by the Holy Spirit.

IF you don't agree that the last six Popes have been heretics
THEN the above conclusions don't necessarily apply to you.

i'll give Cail this, he's further out than Crazy Eyes Barnardt is. she still claims that Benedict is a real Pope, just in extreme error and that Francis is merely an anti-Pope ( of which there have been many previously ).

Cail has just disavowed this position.


66. Kryst September 25, 2017 3:06 PM
they don't know how their church began when a fat drunk bastard demanded the right to chop of his wives' heads.



Protestants and Anabaptists both predate Henry's divorces.



71. A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents September 25, 2017 3:25 PM
John C. Wright, is that you?



not cool.

John and i have our disagreements but that was uncalled for.


75. Matthew September 25, 2017 3:31 PM
Oh, it was the Calvinists who started the erosion of the rules against usury?



weird.

i could have sworn that Jews were hated because the Catholic kings declared that Jews could only practice Usury whilst Christians were forbidden to engage in it.

thus, Christians only owed money to Jews.

it's so hard to keep up with what lie i'm supposed to believe in Current Moment.

Anonymous James Widener September 25, 2017 4:24 PM  

The church is made of men. All men are sinful. The Holy Spirit protects the Church in matters of doctrine and dogma. It does not protect the Church from having popes sin, or be wrong-thinking on certain issues. It just prevents them from instituting those ideas as Church dogma. A pope can be wrong. He can be a sinner. He can be an adulterer. He can be a murderer. He can be a communist. It doesn't mean he's not the pope, or that he will promulgate false dogma. The holy spirit protects the Church.

A fundamental truth about the Church is that she is one, holy, and apostolic. The problem with SSPX is that it broke from the Church, and is not part of that unity (the unity Christ desired for the Church) any more than the protestant sects were / are.

For the commenter who suggested that celibate priests can not be strong enough to fight for true, historical Church values because they are "eunuchs," I would suggest taking a look at Saint Paul.

Anonymous c matt September 25, 2017 4:32 PM  

Seriously, what do you recommend that I give up in order to pay more attention to a church to which I do not belong?

Understand time constraints. But odd that one who seeks to restore Western Civilization wouldn't have time to follow its creator.

Blogger daddynichol September 25, 2017 4:35 PM  

In our church, the priests are more and more old school traditional. Our new priest is young, bringing back the Latin chants and preaches about salvation AND damnation. The pews are filling once again with younger and younger members.

The Pope is unintentionally stirring the traditionalists to life!

Blogger Cail Corishev September 25, 2017 4:50 PM  

It doesn't mean he's not the pope, or that he will promulgate false dogma.

So what do you do if the man you think is the pope clearly promulgates false dogma? What if Francis came out tomorrow and said Jesus Christ is not the only-begotten Son of God? (And if you say you're confident he would never say that, you haven't been paying attention.) If your answer is, "The pope could never do that," I'll answer, "Right. A pope couldn't." But Francis has done and said many things that, a decade ago, most Catholics would have said a pope could never do. They've had to move the goalposts of "a pope couldn't" to accomodate him.

Cail has just disavowed this position.

I didn't like it much, but that's where the facts and logic led me. I was a Benedict fan -- until I actually read many of the things he had written and said, and looked into his involvement in Vatican II, instead of taking his conservative fans' word for his orthodoxy and desire to restore Tradition. I avoided that for several years, but eventually couldn't anymore. If you reject Francis but don't reject Benedict, then you're basing it on personality, not dogma.

Blogger VFM #7634 September 25, 2017 4:53 PM  

(((bob kek mando)))

For pete's sake, bob. Haven't you read SJWAL about SJW convergence? This was a textbook example!

Except they weren't called SJWs, but rather Alta Vendita, Grand Orient, various flavors of Freemasons, Communists, and so forth.

And back in 1958, it would only have been necessary for there to be a sufficiently large swing vote of compromised Cardinals. Most likely the French and Germans, since they were notoriously liberal. Fifty years later, due to the Pope and SJW Cardinals promoting each other, the College of Cardinals is almost certainly entirely SJW by now.

I mean, now, we have disgusting liberals like Blase Cupich given escalator rides right into the Cardinalate, while actual Catholics are kept out of the homo-infested seminaries.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 25, 2017 5:24 PM  

80. c matt September 25, 2017 4:32 PM
But odd that one who seeks to restore Western Civilization wouldn't have time to follow its creator.


he didn't say that he didn't follow a church, doofus. he said that he didn't follow the CATHOLIC church.


79. James Widener September 25, 2017 4:24 PM
The holy spirit protects the Church.



yes, yes, that's standard RCC claptrap.

that's *not* the position that Cail is taking, and thus, has no bearing on this particular sub-conversation.

i'm fully cognizant that the implications of Cail's statements don't apply to your position in any way.

it's just that you've got even bigger problems, as you're being less honest about what is going on.

for instance, what should the Biblical consequences for the Legion of Christ be? and why didn't John Paul or Benedict implement them?

i mean, you're telling me that those two were 'real' Popes.


83. VFM #7634 September 25, 2017 4:53 PM
This was a textbook example!



are you somehow mistaking me for a Catholic?

when have i ever denied that the RCC was getting converged?

Anonymous johnc September 25, 2017 5:41 PM  

The problem with SSPX is that it broke from the Church, and is not part of that unity (the unity Christ desired for the Church) any more than the protestant sects were / are.

That isn't true. There is no Catholic doctrine that SSPX members deny, and they believe the popes are legitimate popes and accept their authority. They even continue discussions with Francis regarding normalization of relations, and consider him the pope.

It's the Vatican that has a bug up its butt.

Blogger VFM #7634 September 25, 2017 5:56 PM  

(((bob kek mando)))

when have i ever denied that the RCC was getting converged?

When you dismissed Cail Corishev's opinion on the past six popes as ridiculous.

Look... we know that SJWs always lie. Therefore, an organization that is taken over by SJWs is therefore lying, and cannot be the true Church.

But this has no bearing on the Church's status before it was converged.

You also say this:

and no purported 'Church' whose leaders are that theologically astray can claim any authority or guidance by the Holy Spirit.

The fact of the matter is, if these ARE Catholic leaders, then yes, you'd be correct. But if they're non-Catholics -- or, as a matter of fact, ANTI-Catholics -- then this point is irrelevant. All it proves is that the post-Vatican II Novus Ordo Edgar-suit-church is a false church, not that the Catholic Faith itself is false.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 25, 2017 6:15 PM  

@78 bob kek mando

not cool.
John and i have our disagreements but that was uncalled for.

Someone called "John C. Wright" posted that ignorant drivel about the Reformation almost word-for-word a couple of years ago.
Deal with it.

Blogger VFM #7634 September 25, 2017 6:18 PM  

Someone called "John C. Wright" posted that ignorant drivel about the Reformation almost word-for-word a couple of years ago.
Deal with it.


@87 Paradigm
Doesn't change how the Anglican section of Protestantism got started: Horny VIII and his lust (and greed, to steal Church lands).

We could ding Luther too, if you want. Luther, a neurotically hyper-scrupulous monk who was abused by his father repeatedly for trifling faults, figured God was like his idiot father, and who actually hated God. He said so himself.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 25, 2017 6:24 PM  

@88
@87 Paradigm
Doesn't change how the Anglican section of Protestantism got started: Horny VIII and his lust (and greed, to steal Church lands).


Moving the goalposts proves nothing.

Blogger VFM #7634 September 25, 2017 6:50 PM  

@Paradigm

Neither does sticking your head up your posterior.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 25, 2017 7:10 PM  

@90 VFM #7634

You can be as juvenile and obnoxious as you like, it will not change a single fact of history. Have a nice day.

Blogger Abyssus Invocat September 25, 2017 7:51 PM  

You're right. I'm one of those "trads"-which really just means someone who tries to be a faithful Catholic-and I will literally never give up on a matter of the faith.

Anonymous Jack September 25, 2017 8:12 PM  

Buddhists pray. In theory, Buddhism is a "non-theistic" religion, which they claim isn't the same as atheistic, but it allows them to appeal to all the atheist tards in the West who hate Christianity but still want a religion. In practice, Buddhists say prayers to the Buddha and literally thousands of other buddhas, which vary depending on the sect. They say the difference between this and theism is a subtle philosophical distinction because they don't believe that these buddhas "inherently exist." For that matter, they don't believe that they themselves inherently exist. They don't believe in the soul, which they ridicule, but they believe in a "mindstream" which reincarnates. Buddhism, especially Western hippie Buddhism, is a VERY confused religion.

That being said, Buddhism does have a lot of insight on human psychology and some of the mind's flawed habits.

Regarding the prayers of Buddhists or Muslims or whatever, I don't think they have efficacy per se, but rather it's that God knows what is in the heart, and will know a sincere desire for truth and goodness. This doesn't mean that the other religion is sufficient - it means that they should ultimately be led to Christianity in some way.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 25, 2017 11:10 PM  

86. VFM #7634 September 25, 2017 5:56 PM
When you dismissed Cail Corishev's opinion on the past six popes as ridiculous.



dude, get the Asperger's under control. i never did any such thing.

in fact, i'm probably pissing off a lot of the Catholics reading this by how much i DO NOT respect any of the "Popes".

i may not agree completely with Martin, but ( imo ) he had far more the right of it than the 16th century popes.

the whole buying indulgences thing by itself is enough to disqualify the "infallibility" of the RCC. and that makes me far and away more 'apostate' than any assertion Cail has made.


86. VFM #7634 September 25, 2017 5:56 PM
But this has no bearing on the Church's status before it was converged.


well, at minimum, that would go back to the Schism of 1054 when the Bishop of Rome tried to assert authority he didn't have over all the other Churches. so much for Papal "infallibility". had he truly been infallible, the Pope wouldn't have forced the first major Schism, now would he?

i actually think they went off the rails over the Donatism issue back circa 300AD when the general church violated EVERY Biblical standard for the clergy by allowing former apostates ( those who had actually denied the divinity of Christ and defiled a Bible publicly, in front of a Roman authority ) to re-enter the Clergy.

if someone commits an act of Apostasy because they are afraid of dying, sure, they can repent at a later date and *rejoin* the Church.

what they ABSOLUTELY CANNOT DO, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, is to pretend to Ecclesiastical authority or to administer Sacraments.

you want to know why the clergy is irredeemably corrupt today? because the Church, in it's Magisterium, decided it was more important to protect the sinecure of corrupt priests than to properly worship God.

that's been going on for 1700 years.

and yes, the Orthodox Church is also guilty of this crime.


86. VFM #7634 September 25, 2017 5:56 PM
But if they're non-Catholics -- or, as a matter of fact, ANTI-Catholics



why would i care? i'm not Catholic. i note that every Biblical requirement for the position of 'Bishop' ( and the Pope is the Bishop of Rome ), REQUIRES that he be married, that he have children, and that he and every member of his household be of good reputation.

there are no 'virgin celibate' clergy who can meet this criteria.

YOUR argument is with the Catholics, the vast majority of whom DO assert that Francis is Pope and that Benedict is simultaneously 'Pope Emeritus' in good standing.

i have no ( ecclesiatical ) respect for the whole lot of them, going back 1700 years. these are the kind of people who spend so much time fantasizing about the Mother of God's cooter that they decided that her hymen never broke. it's fucking retarded that the "Doctors of the Church" ever even had that debate. the condition of Mary's hymen has NO BEARING on whether or not Christ's sacrifice on the Cross redeemed your soul.

and i'm not going to accept the opinion of a Satanic like Jerome ( who is acclaimed a 'Saint' by the Church ) on a subject like that anyways.


87. A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 25, 2017 6:15 PM
Someone called "John C. Wright" posted that ignorant drivel



learn to identify Agents Provocateur.

John C. Wright is a Castalia House author in good standing and he doesn't talk anything like that. that could be a drunk Taylor, but more likely it's Andrew or one of the other really crazy ones.

SJWs love to False Flag and cause unnecessary division.

Blogger marco moltisanti September 25, 2017 11:24 PM  

Does anyone know if the original Latin text of this Correctio is available online? The Googles are not helping.

Blogger Paul, Dammit! September 26, 2017 5:08 AM  

Here's the English version.
http://www.correctiofilialis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Correctio-filialis_English_1.pdf

I'm still hunting down the latin.

While I am currently at sea, I am very much looking forward to attending a traditional mass at a SSPX chapel, thankfully near my home. I too, hope the celebrant isn't faggy and weak. Perhaps one of the best models for staffing at a novus ordo church was the common practice of having a minimum of 3 priests at medium-sized parishes. A Pastor, a fire-eater and a retiree. Seemed to be a stable model.

Anonymous Anonymous September 26, 2017 7:03 AM  

((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) wrote:
hooo boy.

observant Muslims pray to Allah five times EVERY DAY.


No, they do not. According to Muslims, "Allah" has no personhood. "Allah" isn't God according to our normal concept of who God is; for Muslims, "Allah" is rather like a pantheist force of nature, except that (unlike in garden-variety pantheism) "Allah" is supposed to be completely irrational and incomprehensible to man.

Praying to "Allah" makes as much sense as praying to the electromagnetic force. The so-called Islamic "prayers" are rather rituals that are supposed to keep "Allah" from producing various untoward consequences. It's akin to wearing rubber gloves while fixing an electric outlet, not the personal communion with God of the Christians or pagans.




((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) wrote:
what they ABSOLUTELY CANNOT DO, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, is to pretend to Ecclesiastical authority or to administer Sacraments.


Priests don't have authority to make Sacraments valid, only Christ does. They're witnesses, not magicians.

Anonymous Maurice P. September 26, 2017 12:47 PM  

@5

And you know they were gamma males after one visit, how? Because they weren't spouting psuedo-alpha catchphrases like Alan Dershowitz's best friend, Mike Cernovich?

https://fitzinfo.wordpress.com/2017/05/06/pizzagate-activist-cernovich-a-double-agent/

I'll be impressed when any of these queer-loving, zionist alt-right figure heads shows the same amount of guts as Bishop Williamson or E. Michael Jones.

Priests need mistresses to be good leaders? What kind of pygmy African tribal logic is that? Nor was it ever historically true that the majority of priests were married or had mistresses.

Anonymous Maurice P. September 26, 2017 12:51 PM  

And the Latin Liturgy IS more important than the individual priest.

Anonymous Gen. Kong September 26, 2017 12:56 PM  

VFM #7634 wrote:
The only way it would disprove the RCC as the metaphysical guardian of truth is if these last six antipopes were actual Popes. Which they can't be, because they're heretics. There was a sharp, identifiable break between Pius XII and John XXIII that anyone who cares to can identify.

And these SJWs were sneaky. They had to fool the vast majority of Catholics into thinking they were actually Popes. This, it turns out, wasn't all that difficult, since MPAI. Actually, MPAAI -- most people are apathetic idiots.

And as for those Catholics who aren't apathetic idiots, most appear to have some sort of emotional block when it comes to suggestions that these past six usurpers are antipopes. It may be the same sort of emotional block that causes people to dismiss "conspiracy theories" out of hand, despite the evidence. Or maybe it's a sort of emotional ethnic attachment to the Papacy. I'm a high-functioning Omega, and am not a pure member of a historically Catholic ethnic group, so emotional attachments of that sort never made any sense to me, so I can only speculate. But it appears to me to be extremely important for a lot of people. Try telling someone from Poland, for example, that John Paul II was a fraud, an imposter, and a Communist. Or a Latin American, about Francis. Uh, yeah.


I expect you're routinely denounced as one of them eeeevil Sedevacantists. I guess it's your cross to bear for seeing what Vatican II really is, or least noticing the fruit it has borne. I think "heretic" is too mild of a term to describe the "Popes" who failed to reject Vatican II, whose heart is pure apostasy. Some are shocked to find that their beloved "conservative" JP II kissed the Koran. What they fail to comprehend is that this behavior is directly in line with the core of Vatican II, which was inserted by a marrano infiltrator during the conference. Talmudic Satanism and Mohammedan Satanism are considered equally valid paths to "salvation" under Vatican II as Novus-Mundi-Ordo Catholicism.

Interestingly, both Orthodoxy and Protestantism (despite Prot convergence largely pre-dating even Vatican II) are still in the dog house for failing to kiss the one ring. Vatican II is outright apostasy, and its fatal blow was signed and sealed in 1965 - reaffirmed ever since. By failing to repudiate an apostate doctrine (indeed all of the "Popes" since have explicitly re-affirmed it), all since have confirmed their own apostasy - making them anti-Popes. This is something even few traditionalists comprehend. Thus we see trads like Barnhardt getting it partly right by torching the Koran. But then she turns and viciously attacks those who point out the Satanic behavior of (((Talmudic Satanists))), when she's not busy indulging in an absurd Mary Beard style worship of Kangz-n-Godz in de Roman Empire. Barnhardt condemns all Sedevacantists, but admits Vatican II was an "asteroid that hit the church" (apparently not even thinking through the actual meaning of her own metaphor). Thus she's reduced to incoherence.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( i'm sorry you raped Andrea Dworkin and i disavow your Patriarchal Cisheteronormative Bourgeois Consciousness in shame ) September 27, 2017 5:06 AM  

97. anonymos-coward September 26, 2017 7:03 AM
Praying to "Allah" makes as much sense



your OPINION as to whether or not it makes any 'sense' has precisely ZERO bearing on whether or not what they are doing meets the definition of prayer.

so what if Queztacotl is a blood thirsty maniac. ripping hearts out is how Aztecs pray to him.

your attempt to deny that Muslims "pray" because you disapprove of their conceptualization of Allah makes you a Liar. they can pray to anything they wish too.

and it doesn't matter how much of a Snowflake you are, your opinion about Allah doesn't have a damn thing to do with whether or not a Muslim is praying to that demon.

they are praying. and they are praying to a deity, false though it may be. they could pray to Zeus or Baal or Thor if they wanted too.



97. anonymos-coward September 26, 2017 7:03 AM
Priests don't have authority to make Sacraments valid, only Christ does.



i didn't say that they did. you just conflated two separate clauses.

try reading again, this time for comprehension.

YOU accepting an open and public Apostate giving you a Sacrament puts YOU in direct contradiction to the New Testament requirements for those YOU permit to exercise Ecclesiastical authority over you and your family.

don't complain that they abuse their position. YOU abdicated your own Biblical responsibility to hold them to account for their public sins.

that's part of whats so funny about Barnhardt. now she wants to hold Francis to account for his violation of the teachings of the Church?

what authority does she have to start doing this now?

we've got multiple Catholics in this very thread acknowledging that the Church has been in serious error since ~1960.

i'm not going to hold anything against them for that, i expect that was well before they were of age to even voice an opinion on that.

but, by implication, they are admitting that the Church is teaching error. now we're just quibbling about how long it's been going on. i'll grant you, 1600 years is a fairly large gulf. but at least they are trying.

Barnhardt is still trying to maintain the fig leaf of 'Infallibility'. that's why she can't hold Benedict fully to account. that's why she doesn't even want to consider the impliction of John Paul celebrating Maciel Marcial, and what that means.

why should the Lay members of the Church hold their clergy to account?

the Bible tells you why.

For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.


you have permitted they that "PROFESS that they know God; but IN WORKS THEY DENY HIM, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate" to pretend to be Pope and Christ's Vicar.

Paul informed Titus very clearly what the consequences of violating the clerical qualifications laid down by the Apostles would be.

and lo, it has come to pass. exactly as Paul told you that it would.

why are you surprised? how can you even pretend to be surprised? have you not heard? if you have heard, why have you not listened?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts