Skip to main content

Formal Correction: Why are Cd. Burke & Francis Trads like the Leashed Dog in the Foghorn Leghorn Cartoon?



https://youtu.be/ocJ1GTnmO-w

In the old Warner Brothers cartoon the rooster Foghorn Leghorn's archenemy George P. Dog was on a leash which meant he could only go as far as the length of the rope leash and had to stop.

Foghorn even painted a line on the ground with a sign reading "Rope Limit" which George P. Dog could never go beyond.

Why are Cardinal Raymond Burke and Francis traditionalists such the Remnant's Michael Matt and Taylor Marshall as well as other Catholic media like Leghorn's archenemy George P. Dog not allowed to go passed the line with the sign that reads "Rope Limit"?

Why is the once talked about Formal Correction of Francis by Burke and the faithful Catholic media now beyond the "Rope Limit"?

Why is even discussing the possibility of a imperfect council and/or a cardinal and bishop investigation into the Francis conclave and Pope Benedict XVI resignation beyond the "Rope Limit"?

Who and/or what has made Cardinal Burke and the faithful Catholic media into George P. Dog with a rope leash and a "Rope Limit."

Who or what controls them?

Why are they forbidden to even give reasoned arguments, instead of straw man agruments that don't counter our stated dissertations or name calling, against Bishop Rene Gracida and Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo who put forward serious reasoned dissertations from canon law and Pope John Paul II's conclave constitution?

If they really think those who follow Bishop Gracida and Br. Bugnolo are wrong and headed to hell for being in schism from Francis then out of simple charity for our souls they should counter our dissertations and arguments.

If they really believe we are wrong and headed to hell for calling for a formal correction, a St. Francis de Sales/St. Bellarmine imperfect council, a canonical trial and cardinal investigation of the Francis' conclave and refuse to give us real arguments then they apparently have lost the supernatural virtue of charity.

If they really believe what they say then for charity's sake they should attempt to save us from hell for being in schism from Francis:

But, all we hear are straw man agruments that don't counter our stated dissertations, name calling propaganda, silence or the noise of them running away as fast as they can from serious reasoned back and forth argumentation.

Just to give fair warning:

We are not going away.

We are growing.

Soon we will be to be too big to ignore.

As even Francis conservative Michael Voris reported we are becoming the majority of faithful Catholics in Rome. The same thing is happening in the United States and if you can't stop us now we will probably grow to be the majority of faithful Catholics in America.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Comments

Justina said…
What Fred said.
5:46 PM
In Their Hearts said…
Dear Mr. Martinez, could I have your email so I can send you a treatise showing how Benedict's resignation is in fact valid, as well as a comment on why not to criticize decent Prelates too harshly? I tried placing it as a comment, but it was too long even after clipping it. I could clip no more without extremely diminishing the message. God bless and Our Lady Protect You always.
5:50 PM
Justina said…
Perhaps you could send the treatise to Benedict XVI, along with a note mentioning that validly resigned popes don't get to keep the "spiritual" part of the office for themselves, wear papal white, sign with their papal names, impart papal blessings, and the like. (See two thousand years of Church history on this point.)Also, please let Our Lord know He was totally out of line with the whole overturning tables thing, and calling decent Pharisees "vipers," and all. You could refer Him to Gospel passages about "loving your enemies," that perhaps He wasn't aware of at the time. Then there's UD Gregis, which Catdinal Danneels has openly and publicly stated was violated by the SG Mafia colluding to anoint Bergoglio, casting serious doubt on the validity of theethe regardless of the status of Benedict's resignation. And what about Amoris laetitia Chapter 8? Cardinal Burke has said it either had to be clarified in keeping with Tradition or rejected by the Church as heretical, yet to date neither has happened. Sure sounds like George P. Dog to me.
6:21 PM
Catholic Monitor said…
Dear In Their Hearts,

Before I would consider having an email exchange with you I need your real name and what organization you are associated with. You obviously have never posted a comment here before. Where have you posted before?

I would also like to know why you are "critiiz[ing a] decent [blogger] too harshly." Please, tell me what in the above post was not fair to your "decent Prelates"?

I would love to see your "treatise showing how Benedict's resignation is in fact valid," why Bishop Gracida's call for a formal correction, a St. Francis de Sales/St. Bellarmine imperfect council, a canonical trail and cardinal investigation of the Francis conclave is "too harsh" for your beloved Francis and "Prelates."

Add, what are your views on Communion for adulterers and pagan pachamama worship?

Also, please answer all Justina's above questions.

Finally, if you refuse to identify yourself, please feel free to break up your long "comment on why not to criticize decent [bloggers and] Prelates too harshly" as well as you long scholarly "treatise" into small segments placed one after another below in separate continuous comments as is done on Twitter.

God bless and Our Lady protect you always.
8:16 PM
Fr. VF said…
I know a man who refuses to entertain the thought that Bergoglio is not pope. He has convinced himself--therefore--that a heretic CAN be pope. He is therefore about to join the Orthodox Church. My question is: What is this spell that has so many convinced that THE FIXED, INFALLIBLE, CENTRAL truth of Catholicism is that Bergoglio is pope?
8:17 PM
Ivanmijeime said…
What I've heard most time from many Catholics, where among them are some cincerely good people, is:
1. That he is "universally accepted"(?!)
2. That we deserved such a bad Pope (?!)

Here are the problems that I have with these statements:
He is not accepted by many including me. Which makes them and me an outsider if we are wrong, - or, if we are right, he is not pope.
Even if it was so that he ever was "universally accepted", it is just too obvious that bergoglio is an imposter, a heretic and an apostate.
Who as such cannot be a member of the Church. Let alone the Pope! Even if he ever was legaly and licitly chosen, which, I refuse to believe, has ever happened.
Therefore bergoglio is not a pope.
Therefore bergoglio is an antipope.
Ivan
1:17 AM
Alexis Bugnolo said…
Taylor Marshall seems to think that Burke did not sign the Vigano appeal because Lenga and Gracida are on it. But considering Burke's record allowing a man to take vows as a sister, I think it might be because Vigano the whistleblower organized it.

However, a friend of mine contacted the petition organizer and they refused to even talk to me, so I am honored to be the one person that both Vigano and Burke --- Bergoglio is certainly the pope men -- dont want to be associated with.

I sleep soundly in this.
12:56 PM
Praypraypray said…
Thanks, Fred.
I just don’t understand
why the correction was never done.
I have a lot of questions, at this time.
Why haven’t the cardinals and bishops asked Francis to denounce and repent from the pachamama worship that he brought to the Vatican? I would have thought that the obvious idolatry, even caught on camera for the world to see, would be enough to make them act or, at the very least, question Francis. They act now as if it never ever happened!
Why can’t they question the subject of the proper present pope? How come they won’t honestly talk on the subject without sidestepping by attacking straw men or attacking the persons bringing up the questions?
Why can’t they get together for an imperfect council?
What or who is holding them back?
If nothing or no one is holding them back,
why won’t they cross the line to get to the truth?
Why are they being silent and still,
while it’s getting worse and worse?
Who in any authority is protecting Christ’s Holy Catholic Church and God’s people?
Where are true shepherds of the Holy Catholic Church?
Thanks again for another thought provoking article, Fred. God bless you and Catholic Monitor and the Holy Catholic Church.
9:14 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
3 comments
Read more