Skip to main content

Newman Expert Fr. Hunwicke: "PF [Francis] Repudiates the Petrine Ministry... It is also Blasphemous. PF is Not Jesus"

 Fr John Hunwicke

In 2016, Cardinal John Henry Newman expert Fr. John Hunwicke said:

"I suggest that Jorge Bergoglio's formal refusal to respond to the Five Dubia constituted a formal entry into a period of Temporary Suspense of the function of his Petrine Magisterium." (Liturgical Notes, "Suspense of the Magisterium," November 25, 2016)

This week, the Newman expert said "Again, PF [Francis] repudiates the Petrine Ministry":

"My" conception of the Petrine Ministry is what was defined by Vatican I in 1870. I believe, ex animo, that the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of S Peter so that, by His revelation, they should propagate new doctrines, but so that, with His help, they should devoutly hand on the Tradition, the Deposit of the Faith, which they have received through the Apostles.

I condemn what Vatican I condemned  both because Vatican I gives me the authentic Teaching of the Catholic Church which demands my unconditional adherence and because (happily for me) it coheres with my own understanding of the Catholic Faith.

Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I got things right. When I teach the same, I am getting things right. When PF teaches the opposite, he is getting things wrong.

PF says he going to tell us all about S Paul's Letter to the Galatians. But you don't need to wait for him to do this. Even in this pontificate, you are allowed to read the Epistles of S Paul for yourself.  And here is the programmatic statement which launches this magnificent Epistle on its way:

"If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received [par' ho parelabete], let him be accursed [anathema esto]." 

S Paul says in Galatians precisely what Vatican I taught. "What you received" Rules OK. If anyone teaches the opposite, Anathema...

PF's approach is the same now as it was in his 2017 homily at the Easter Vigil, which I analysed in Defending the Faith Against Present Heresies (pp 207ff). PF claims that those who disagree with his own new dogmas are in a situation analogous to that of those who disagreed with the Lord ... or (in this recent address) disagreed with S Paul.

But this is not only arrogant almost beyond belief. It is also blasphemous. PF is not Jesus. There is to be no Third Age with new teaching. Moses' version of the Law was "fulfilled" by that of Jesus, but PF is not a Third Lawgiver sent to supersede Jesus. [https://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2021/06/again-pf-repudiates-petrine-ministry.html]

Hunwicke gets the idea of  "Temporary Suspense of the function of his Petrine Magisterium" from Cardinal Newman which means there is a temporary "cessation of the Magisterial teaching or office during a 'suspense.'" (Liturgical Notes, "The temporary suspense of the Ecclesia Dozens," February 26, 2018)

Newman saw the Suspense of the Magisterium during the "Arian controversy, in which the great majority of the Bishops... including the Successor of S Peter, were either heretics or were cowed into silence" according to Hunwicke.

The Newman expert by this means that the Arian compromised pope and bishops as well as Francis and those who follow him into error "lost their function" temporarily, but not their papal or episcopal office as Sedevacantists would hold who claim that there hasn't been a pope since Pope Pius XII.

In the above article Hunwicke asks:

"During a 'suspense', does the episcopal ministry of those bishops who are heterodox on just one point still call for religiosum obsequium [religious submission or assent] on other matters?"

One of the greatest saints in history St. Athanasius gives us an answer to the question.

Athanasius fought the Arian heretic bishops tooth and nail on matters other than the Arian heresy.

How does this apply to us in our current crisis?

In the Hunwicke's "Temporary Suspense" post, a well-known blog commenter Fr. VF, who I know knows canon law very well, gave us a battle tactic in the Liturgical Notes comment section:

"Since 2004, the American bishops have repeatedly approved a document, 'Catholics in Political Life,' which declares that a bishop may 'legitimately' give Communion to pro-abortion politicians."

"I.e., the bishops have nullified canon 915. Canon 915 exists precisely because the thing it prohibits is grave matter."

"I.e., the bishops have voted themselves permission to commit mortal sin!"

"Surely, the teaching function of such bishops is "'in suspense'!"

Canon 915 says:

Catholics who "obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."

What does this mean to the laity and ordinary good faithful priests and bishops?

Laity must first pray for God's grace as well as wisdom and then they can demand that priests and bishops who still have the Catholic faith refuse to give Communion to heterodox bishops and cardinals.

I am sure the greatest Catholic hero of orthodoxy St. Athanasius never gave Communion to Arian bishops. 
 
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost - Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

- Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)


Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

 -  LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

-  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."

- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes:  

- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html

- Tucker Carlson's Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written" according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1
 
- A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1
 
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: "Anitfa 'Agent Provocateurs'":
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God's Will and to do it.
 
Pray an Our Father now for America.
 
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

 

 

Comments

Anonymous said…
The author should double-check his citations to Sts. Francis de Sales and Bellarime. The saints do not believe what he suggests. Quite the opposite, actually.

If you read Ch. XIV of St. Francis's *The Catholic Controversy* (https://wherepeteris.com/st-francis-de-sales-on-the-pope-as-the-guarantor-of-orthodoxy-and-unity-in-the-church/) you will see that it is perfectly clear that St. Francis believes that the Pope can only err either in his personal capacity or as to matters of fact, but not when teaching in his official capacity as Pope. (The Commentary that follows in that link is worth reading.)

Then there is Bellarmine. The author claims:

> Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."

Similarly, if you rad Ch. XXX of the Third General Controversy in St. Bellarmines's *Controversies of the Christian Faith*, you will see that Bellarmine does not believe that the Pope can be deposed as a heretic.

"I respond: On this matter there are five opinions. The first is that of Albert Pighius ..., where he contends that the Pope cannot be a heretic; therefore he cannot be deposed in any case; this opinion is probable, and can easily be defended, as we shall show later in the proper place. However, because this opinion is not certain, and the common opinion is contrary to it, it will be worth the effort to see what response should be given, if there can be a heretical Pope."

When Bellarmine defends the fifth opinion as "true" — that "the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church" — he is doing so only arguendo.

Instead of seizing upon juicy quotes, one should try to look at a quote in context. Even when it appears to be perfectly clear, it often is not. In this case, the author's use of the technically accurate quotes is not only doubtful, but actually wrong.
Aqua said…
Anonymous states that the Pope can not err when teaching in his official capacity as Pope, only in a personal capacity or in regards “matters of fact (?)”.

I respond that in his official capacity as Pope, he must stand amidst Sacred Tradition and the Catholic Magisterium and speak in union with Jesus Christ and the Church. He must reference and connect everything he says now with everything that was said before with ample footnotes. What he can NOT do is create something new, innovative, cool, “relevant” - by definition that is *personal capacity*.

I would remind anonymous of the exhortation of St. Paul that NO ONE, not a single created being is above the Gospel revealed by Jesus Christ and the Apostles:

“ 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.” (Gal 1:8)

No one, not even a Pope, gets to make a new Gospel, new doctrines, new morals, redefine sins or create a new god. And that is precisely what this man who calls himself Pope is attempting to do.

We worship Jesus Christ within Holy Mother Church in union with all Saints past, present, future. It is already perfect, so it cannot nor ever will change. Anyone who tries is a heretic - murderer of souls.
Anonymous said…
Anonymous said nothing of himself. He only claridied what Sts. Francis de Sales and Robert Bellarmine did and did not say.
Anonymous said…
Thank you Anonymous and Aqua. It is edifying just to see there are Catholics who deeply care and understand Catholicism.
I also appreciate Fr. Hunwicke's assertion and wish it were openly shared by bishops and Cardinals. Unfortunately it seems they do not agree. Could we have a more dire situation, where we have a rogue pope, corrupt cardinals, and complicit bishops. One suspects most of these are homosexuals and certainly unwilling to defend Christ, the church, the faith, or the beleaguered flock. Hirelings. All. We have a few notable exceptions which cannot be named lest they be targeted for removal by the evil head.
So what if Fr. Hunwicke is correct, and one hopes he is, I think. To the ordinary rank and file Catholic, and I do not mean well-informed Catholics but the ordinary Novus Ordo Catholic, does this "suspense" make any difference to them? It does not. They are and will remain exposed to worldly, heretical, and anti-Christian teaching and example. They will remain in ignorance and one can easily imagine, some will die in their ignorance and souls will be lost, following an evil man and and evil church which corrupts Truth and replaces it with lies. Unfortunately it is not "just" one evil pope which is our problem. The majority of the church appears corrupt. Only God knows the resolution of it.
Aqua said…
Aqua also said nothing of himself. Aqua only clarified what the Saints (including St. Paul) did and did not say.

Saints did not become Saints by opening up the pathway for heretics to spread heresy from the Seat of St. Peter.
Aqua said…
Anonymous@7:23

I appreciate what you say, except in regards to “rogue Pope”, “one evil Pope”.

It is more accurate to refer to this man as rogue anti-Pope, “one evil anti-Pope”. Regardless of whether you accept the evidence in support of this assertion, or not, you must (and do) at least acknowledge the fruit of the evil tree. I would say there has not been a single, tiny little morsel of edible fruit from this tree in over eight years. Not one. So what does that tell you? Shouldn’t a legitimate Pope say proclaim and pronounce *something* Catholic, edifying and holy from time to time?

The first heresy, precedent to all the subsequent, is the invalid resignation that left a contemplative Pope, active Pope - two visible Popes living in the same space. We moved beyond that and declared that within the proper bounds of Magisterial authority. It is not. It is without precedent. And it leaves us with what we visibly see and the fruits of the evil tree can also be seen be all.

That must be returned to and addressed before the sickness can be cured.
Anonymous said…
Anonymous now asserts that Aqua was wrong to assert that he said nothing of himself. Aqua’s entire post is a personal take on St. Paul — Aqua’s interpretation of what St. Paul means. But, at the very least, Aqua’s application of St. Paul to Pope Francis — “And that is precisely what this man who calls himself Pope is attempting to do.” — is absolutely Aqua’s own, not St. Paul’s.
Aqua said…
“ ... you will see that it is perfectly clear.”

“ ... you will see that Bellarmine does not believe that the Pope can be deposed as a heretic.”

“ ... he is doing so only arguendo”

“ ... one should try to look at a quote in context. Even when it appears to be perfectly clear, it often is not. In this case, the author's use of the technically accurate quotes is not only doubtful, but actually wrong.”

Anonymous thinks he speaks only to clarify the direct meaning of Saints. Read anonymous if you wish to understand true meaning and hidden intent of the ancients. But anonymous very clearly is asserting his own opinions, just like everyone else.

At least Aqua directly quotes Holy Scripture which cannot be refuted, even by false Popes. Aqua simply quotes it, and allows it to stand there by itself in all its Divine glory: “ 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”

I’m sorry anonymous. You may interpret Scripture how you like, it is between you and God, but you cannot claim the Saints are interpreting it as you say. The Pope will not, and in this case the anti-Pope cannot preach a gospel other than that which has already been preached. The Canon is closed with the death of St. John on Patmos. Change is ended. Development - Sí. Revolution - Nó.
Aqua said…
And btw, it is also irrefutable that Saints did not open up the pathway for heretics to spread heresy from the Seat of St. Peter.

We have 2,000 years of Magisterial development. Dogma is De Fide and certain. No one living, not even an Angel from heaven can change any of it. It must all remain true to itself forever.

If you disagree, if what was true is now not true if proclaimed so by a “Pope”, find support for that in the writings of DeSales and Bellarmine.
Aqua said…
As to “Pope” Francis -

AL Footnote 351: “ “It can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.”

Bergóglio on Almighty Triune God: “Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Jehovah, Allah. These are all names employed to describe an entity that is distinctly the same across the world.”

He precisely fits the definition of the one St. Paul warned us to anathemitize.
Anonymous said…
Aqua still can’t see that Anonymous did not give any personal opinions, and only clarified what Sts. Francis de Sales and Robert Bellarmine were clearly saying — backed by extensive quotes directly on point. Aqua also clearly is wrong when he tells us that he is simply quoting Holy Scriptipure and letting it stand there by itself in all its Divine glory, since he spends a most of his time telling us what it means here and now in his opinion. Aqua thinks he’s right, but it’s still not the case that St. Paul opined on Pope Francis. Aqua also seems to claim that Anonymous was interpreting scripture or claiming that the saints were interpreting scripture, when in fact Anonymous did nothing of the kind. Anonymous merely clarified the context of the quotes that the author took out of context. Finally, Anonymous thinks that Aqua needs to read what people are actually saying and not make assumptions about people’s ulterior motives are; because, even if the author and Aqua are correct about Pope Francis, that doesn’t mean that the quotes in question support the propositions they were quoted for. They don’t.
Anonymous said…
Anonymous wishes to make the point a little more clearly, since Aqua seems to have difficulty following. The author cited Sts. Francis de Sales and Robert Bellarmine for the proposition that heretical Popes can be deposed (basically). In fact, Anonymous showed that both saints did not even believe that a Pope could be a heretic (in St. Francis’s case, not when acting officially as a teacher). Thus, to cite these saints in defense of the proposition was wrong.

This says nothing about the underlying matter. It may be that Popes can be heretics and can be deposed. It’s just that St. Francis de Sales and Robert Bellarmine can’t really be used in support of the proposition. Anonymous hopes that helps Aqua understand the issues to which Anonymous spoke.
Anonymous said…
Anonymous forgot that he could not include extensive quotes because of the word count on comments. He had prepared an initial draft comment with extensive quotes, but had to remove them. Nevertheless, Anonymous wishes to assure Aqua that if he were to read the underlying documents, Aqua would see that what Anonymous says is clearly correct. Again, not about the underlying merits (on which Anonymous has not opined), but on the views of Sts. Francis de Sales and Robert Bellarmine.
Aqua said…
Anonymous: Galatians 1:8 is not complicated, nor is it subject to interpretation.

The answer is: No, a Pope cannot teach heresy because to do so would make him anathema - according to Sacred Scripture.

Anathema: exclusion from the society of the faithful because of heresy.

Don't make something complicated that really is not. A Pope cannot redefine sin. A Pope cannot redefine who God is. A Pope cannot redefine the nature of heaven and hell. A Pope cannot redefine the nature of salvation and the redemptive power of the Cross.

A Pope can remain within Sacred Tradition, in union with the Constant Magisterium and reveal its Divine Truths to the Faithful in the name of Christ; and lead the Faithful to Christ on earth and in heaven. That’s all he has power to do. Period.

If he preaches any other Gospel, he is anathema - “excluded from the society of the faithful”.
Aqua said…
“ Anonymous showed that both saints did not even believe that a Pope could be a heretic”.

Then you write -

“When Bellarmine defends the fifth opinion as "true" — that "the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church" — he is doing so only arguendo.”

Arguendo: for the sake of argument.

There is much of your own personal opinion and bias within the last six words of that important little paragraph. You can dismiss it as a mere “arguendo” for the sake of argument, don’t really mean it. Sorry anon, but that’s your opinion about the text, not the text itself. Perhaps Bellarmine couldn’t comprehend a heretical Pope, but ... if one were ... for the sake of argument ... arguendo in the Latin .... then he is anathema in accord with Gal 1:8. Which is a fact. And clear from Bellarmine’s text as written.
Anonymous said…
Anonymous thinks that Gal. 1:8-9 is probably a little more complicated and subject to interpretation than Aqua thinks, since Anonymous doubts that the gospel that St. Paul originally preached included the kind of details that Aqua’s conclusions would require to hold the Pope heretical pursuant to that passage alone.

Anonymous would point to Matt. 16:17-20, where Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom (a big deal, if you understand what that means) and says that what Peter binds (and loosens) on Earth will be bound (and loosened) in Heaven. This language also seems uncomplicated and not requiring interpretation, and yet Anonymous imagines that Aqua would think it does require some interpretation.

Again, if may well be that Aqua is right. But Anonymous doubts that it is quite as simple as Aqua supposes.
Anonymous said…
On Bellarmine’s opinion, Anonymous would point Aqua to the one passage he did quote in his original comment:

"I respond: On this matter there are five opinions. The first is that of Albert Pighius ..., where he contends that the Pope cannot be a heretic; therefore he cannot be deposed in any case; this opinion is probable, and can easily be defended, as we shall show later in the proper place. However, because this opinion is not certain,and the common opinion is contrary to it, it will be worth the effort to see what response should be given, if there can be a heretical Pope.”
Anonymous said…
Aqua said, “ Perhaps Bellarmine couldn’t comprehend a heretical Pope”

Yes, that’s right. So it’s unfair to use him in support of the principle that a heretical Pope could be deposed. All he said was that “if there can be a heretical Pope” — for the sake of argument — then something would seem to follow. (By the way, that something is not what the author said. Bellarmine rejects that with the fourth opinion. But it’s something similar enough.)
Anonymous said…
Aqua seems to ignore the fact that St. Robert Bellarmine states that the opinion — “ the Pope cannot be a heretic; therefore he cannot be deposed in any case” — “is probable, and can easily be defended, as we shall show later in the proper place.” Aqua wants to consider this a limit to his imagination rather than a state,met of principle. Anonymous disagrees.
Aqua said…
What is your basic point? Boil it down to one or two sentences for me.

The Pope can be be a heretic.

The Pope can even be an apostate.

The Pope can teach heresy, the Faithful can follow the Pope into heresy.

The Pope has the power to declare sin, righteousness.

The Pope has the power to flush the old Dogmas and Magisterial teachings down the toilet and come up with a new set, all his own.

The Pope has power over Jesus Christ to declare what Jesus taught and the nature of what Jesus did.

The Pope has power over God Himself and can define God any way he pleases.

All of the above? Is that your essential point? The man they call Pope can do anything he pleases and we have to go along with it - is that it?
Aqua said…
“The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.”

Pope Paul VI (1977)
Anonymous said…
Aqua asks, “What is your basic point? Boil it down to one or two sentences for me.”

Anonymous responds: The author was unfairly using quotes from Sts. Francis de Sales and Robert Bellarmine to support his position. Regardless of the merits of the author’s position (on which Anonymous did not opine), those saints cannot fairly be said to support the author’s position.
Aqua said…
Fair enough. However, you accuse the blog host, Mr. Martinez of “ ... seizing upon juicy quotes ... look at the quote in context. Even when it appears to be perfectly clear, it often is not.”

I would submit your paragraph excerpts are little more than your own juicy quotes, extended out by a few more lines than Martinez’s, with your own various conclusions drawn from them as to what they mean (“you will see that Bellarmine does not believe that the Pope can be deposed as a heretic.”).

And so, in regards to your conclusions, in the spirit of the Dubia ... would you answer yes, or no, to the above questions I posed? Because, as to what Bellarmine, DeSales actually meant - it really comes down to that. Can he do these things? Or not? Do you propose they answer yes to any or all of these questions?
Anonymous said…
I think that if you read the sources, you will see that it is indisputable that, although the author’s quotes are technically accurate, they are taken out of context and do not support his position. As I said, I originally wrote up a draft with extensive quotes, but I had to cut it back severely because of the word count limit for posting comments.

In case you aren’t aware, both of these saints were writing books defending the authority of the Pope, not attacking it.

On your questions, the only question which these two saints address in the cited documents is whether “The Pope can be be a heretic.” It seems that St. Francis believes that the Pope can be a heretic in his personal capacity, but not when acting as Pope teaching the Church. It seems that St. Robert Bellarmine that it is “probable” that the Pope cannot be a heretic and cannot be deposed for any reason. So, according to these opinions, Pope Francis is not — cannot be — a heretic for his teachings. Presumably, the Holy Spirit protects against that.

As for me personally, I don’t have easy answers to most of your questions (except the last two, “The Pope has power over Jesus Christ” and “The Pope has power over God Himself,” for which the answers are clearly “no”). I don’t know the extent of the Pope’s power of the keys or of binding and loosening. I am fairly confident that I believe that they are much stronger than you do. I am also fairly confident that we have different notions of what counts as infallible Church teaching and when it has been violated. Finally, it seems that I trust the Holy Spirit to protect the Church more than you do.

On the question of the hour, I do not believe that Pope Francis is a heretic. And, much like our two saints, I hope and trust that the Holy Spirit will protect us from a Pope that teaches heresy.
Aqua said…
The questions above are not difficult. They must be answered no, if you are to remain Catholic.

You may say you hope that a Pope won’t teach heresy. Practically speaking, now is your chance to act if you really believe that.

Because Jorgé Bergóglio is quantifiably heretic.

If you don’t consider a Pope heretical who teaches that Muhammad and Allah are just another name for “the entity that is distinctly the same across the world”; and that “It can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace,” or that the earth goddess Pachamama and its demonic Wicca religion is but another name for our Blessed Mother within Christianity and that Pachamama earth god on St. Peter’s High Altar during Holy Mass is acceptable Liturgical expression ... then there really isn’t much left for you in the heretical pallet.

And then there is the unanswered Dubia, matched to the sodomy that is protected throughout the Church and the orthodoxy that is similarly persecuted throughout, as demonstrable fruit which indicates the essential Papal choice of heresy over orthodoxy.

This is not theoretical arcana. This is about as basic to the Christian Faith as you can get. These things must be insisted upon if we are to remain Catholic. The Pope cannot be apostate. The Faithful cannot follow the Pope into apostasy. There is no middle ground on questions such as these.
Anonymous said…
I’m not going to engage with you on the merits of Pope Francis. Suffice to say that I disagree with you. My point was simply that we ought not to quote reputable people improperly in order to advance our own questionable claims.
Aqua said…
To note Bergóglio is a heretic is not questionable. It is certain. Any Catholic who wishes to remain Catholic must acknowledge the fact.

It is essential that when the “Pope” states that what was sin is no longer sin - we resist.

It is essential that when the Pope says the prophet Muhammad is just another name for the universal force we call God - we resist.

It is essential that when the Pope gives us pagan Wicca earth gods and incantations and calls it Christian - we resist.

Heresy is upon us, and every Christian has a duty before God to call it for what it is - EVIL.

See Fred Martinez’s latest: “Can Francis "Conservative" Collaborators be "Proximate to Heresy" & can Popes be Heretics?”

Aqua said…
Jorge Bergóglio: “ the Eucharist is not the reward of saints, no, it is the Bread of sinners. This is why he exhorts us: ‘Do not be afraid! Take and eat.’”

“The Council of Trent: “Can. 5. If anyone says that the special fruit of the Most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that from it no other fruits are produced: let him be anathema.” ..... and ...... [A]ssuredly, the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly sacrament are understood by a Christian, the more diligently ought he to give heed that he approaches not to receive it but with great reverence and holiness, especially as we read in the Apostle those words full of terror: He that eat and drink unworthily, eat and drink judgment to himself (1 Cor. 11:29). Wherefore, he who would communicate ought to recall to mind the precept of the Apostle: Let a man prove himself.

One is Protestant - Bread of sinners.

The other is Catholic. Ecce panis angelorum - Bread of Angels

One begins with a seared conscience and ends there. The other begins with a pricked conscience, repentance, Confession, Reconciliation, Communion.

One leads to anathema and separation from Hoky God. The other makes us holy and fit for true communion with Holy God.
Aqua said…
Holy God.

Fat finger hits K instead of L.

Lazy editor fails to check his work.

Popular posts from this blog

"Exorcist Fr. Ripperger is asking everyone to say this Prayer until the Election is Resolved"

A good friend of the Catholic Monitor got this from a group message. She said "exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger is asking everyone to say this prayer until the election is resolved": Prayer of Command In His Name and by the power of His Cross and Blood, I ask Jesus to bind any evil spirits, forces and powers of the earth, air, fire, or water, of the netherworld and the satanic forces of nature.  By the power of the Holy Spirit and by His authority, I ask Jesus Christ to break any curses, hexes, or spells and send them back to where they came from, if it be His Holy Will.  I beseech Thee Lord Jesus to protect us by pouring Thy Precious Blood on us (my family, etc.), which Thou hast shed for us and I ask Thee to command that any departing spirits leave quietly, without disturbance, and go straight to Thy Cross to dispose of as Thou sees fit.  I ask Thee to bind any demonic interaction, interplay, or communications.  I place N. (Person, place or thing) under the protectio

High-profile Lawyer Barnes: Amy Coney Barrett would be a Disaster

High-profile trial lawyer Robert Barnes who deals in civil, criminal and constitutional law reported on Twitter that Amy Coney Barrett would be a disaster. The Barnes Twitter report shows that Coney Barrett has " sid[ed] with the government on the lockdowns, on uncompensated takings, on excusing First Amendment infringements & Fourth Amendment violations... [and] exclaimed the benefits of Jacobson, the decision that green-lit forced vaccines & carved out an emergency exception to Constitutional protection in "public health" or "emergency" cases used to justify forced sterilizations & detention camps... [and] hid behind precedent... to prohibit pro-life activists from exercising their free speech ." The Avvo.com lawyer directory reports that attorney "Robert Barnes embraces the challenge to defend the little guy and stand up for what is right. This is why he left the prestigious Yale Law School, whom publicly stated their unwill

If Kamala Harris' Father is part White & part Jamaican African and her Mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black?

  Is Joe Biden's running mate really Black? If Kamala Harris' father is part white and part Jamaican African and her mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black? Reason.com tries to figure it out: Kamala Harris, Joe Biden's pick to be the Democratic Party's vice-presidential nominee, is the daughter of an Indian immigrant mother and a Jamaican immigrant father. Her father, as I understand it, has ancestors of both European and African origin. [Welcome new Volokh readers. FYI, I've been working on a book on the American Law of Race, with this forthcoming article the first relevant output. My own opinion is that Ms. Harris should be deemed American, period, but there is no such box on government forms, and if you decline to state your race, someone will decide for you… First things first. There is no multiracial or mixed-race category in American law in any jurisdiction. Nor is there an Indian category. So Harris cannot be legally Indian, nor can she b