Skip to main content

Semi-Modernists, FrancisTrads like Skojec, Sedevacantists and Vatican II & I: Might the Vatican II Crisis be like the Arian Crisis when there were Arians and Semi-Arians so that today there are Semi-Modernists who because of "Weakness" don't want Schism from Total Modernist Heretics?

 Novus Ordo Watch on Twitter: "Hilary White and Steve Skojec on Twitter:  https://t.co/CFmTBdhdoj You can't make it up. #CatholicTwitter #catholic  https://t.co/UdoSPUUEd7" / Twitter

- This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.

Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge - orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives

Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held, even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the past. Since non-infallible ordinary acts of the Magisterium can be erroneous, this leaves one in a precarious situation if one takes as true only what the current Magisterium says. While we are required to give religious assent even to the non-infallible teachings of the Church, what are we to do when a magisterial document contradicts other current or previous teachings and one does not have any more authoritative weight than the other? It is too simplistic merely to say that we are to follow the current teaching. What would happen if in a period of crisis, like our own, a non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching contradicted what was in fact the truth? If one part of the Magisterium contradicts another, both being at the same level, which is to believed?

Unfortunately, what has happened is that many neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible ordinary magisterial teachings (such as, for instance, the role of inculturation in the liturgy as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are, in fact, infallible when the current Magisterium promulgates them. This is a positivist mentality. Many of the things that neoconservatives do are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their operative principles. - Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. [http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_sp_ripperger.html]

- "Some... assembled [Council] prelates advocated... harsh measures towards the [Semi-Arian] Arianizers... Athanasius, however, proposed more temperate measures... A decree was passed, that such [Semi-Arian] bishops as had communicated with the Arians through weakness or surprise, should be recognized in their respective sees, on signing the Nicene formulary; but that those, who publicly defended the heresy, should only be admitted to lay-communion... Yet it cannot be denied, that men of zeal and boldness were found among the [Semi-Arian] Arianizers. Two laymen, Flavian and Diodorus, protested with spirit against the [unambiguous Arian] heterodoxy of the crafty Leontius, and kept alive an orthodox [Catholic] party in the midst of the [Arian] Eusebian communion."
(The Arians of the Fourth Century, By John Henry Newman, Pages 198-199)

  
'Yet the men were better than their creed; and it is satisfactory to be able to detect amid the impiety and worldliness of the heretical party any elements of a purer spirit, which gradually exerted itself and worked out from the corrupt mass, in which it was embedded. Even thus viewed as distinct from their political associates, the Semi-Arians are a motley party at best; yet they may be considered as Saints and Martyrs, when compared with the Eusebians, and in fact some of them have actually been acknowledged as such by the Catholics of subsequent times. Their zeal in detecting the humanitarianism of Marcellus and Photinus, and their good service in withstanding the {300} Anomœans, who arrived at the same humanitarianism by a bolder course of thought, will presently be mentioned. On the whole they were men of correct and exemplary life, and earnest according to their views; and they even made pretensions to sanctity in their outward deportment, in which they differed from the true Eusebians, who, as far as the times allowed it, affected the manners and principles of the world. It may be added, that both Athanasius and Hilary, two of the most uncompromising supporters of the Catholic doctrine, speak favourably of them. Athanasius does not hesitate to call them brothers [Note 7]; considering that, however necessary it was for the edification of the Church at large, that the Homoüsion should be enforced on the clergy, yet that the privileges of private Christian fellowship were not to be denied to those, who from one cause or other stumbled at the use of it [Note 8]. It is remarkable, that the Semi-Arians, on the contrary, in their most celebrated Synod (at Ancyra, A.D. 358) anathematized the holders of the Homoüsion, as if crypto-Sabellians [Note 9]."
[http://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/chapter4-2.html]

- Cardinal  John Henry Newman

In February, I said Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis":

Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed....as does schism or heresy or apostasy." Pope Francis is condemned by Pope Pius XII. Only one can be right on this matter. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzxvFNb59Ug] 

The question was will he do the Steve Skojec Francis Trad-like semi-modernist thing.

Here is a post that shows what that is like:

Semi-Modernists, FrancisTrads like Skojec, Sedevacantists and Vatican II & I

 

- This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.

Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge - orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives

Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held, even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the past. Since non-infallible ordinary acts of the Magisterium can be erroneous, this leaves one in a precarious situation if one takes as true only what the current Magisterium says. While we are required to give religious assent even to the non-infallible teachings of the Church, what are we to do when a magisterial document contradicts other current or previous teachings and one does not have any more authoritative weight than the other? It is too simplistic merely to say that we are to follow the current teaching. What would happen if in a period of crisis, like our own, a non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching contradicted what was in fact the truth? If one part of the Magisterium contradicts another, both being at the same level, which is to believed?

Unfortunately, what has happened is that many neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible ordinary magisterial teachings (such as, for instance, the role of inculturation in the liturgy as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are, in fact, infallible when the current Magisterium promulgates them. This is a positivist mentality. Many of the things that neoconservatives do are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their operative principles. - Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. [http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_sp_ripperger.html]

- "Some... assembled [Council] prelates advocated... harsh measures towards the [Semi-Arian] Arianizers... Athanasius, however, proposed more temperate measures... A decree was passed, that such [Semi-Arian] bishops as had communicated with the Arians through weakness or surprise, should be recognized in their respective sees, on signing the Nicene formulary; but that those, who publicly defended the heresy, should only be admitted to lay-communion... Yet it cannot be denied, that men of zeal and boldness were found among the [Semi-Arian] Arianizers. Two laymen, Flavian and Diodorus, protested with spirit against the [unambiguous Arian] heterodoxy of the crafty Leontius, and kept alive an orthodox [Catholic] party in the midst of the [Arian] Eusebian communion."
(The Arians of the Fourth Century, By John Henry Newman, Pages 198-199)

  
'Yet the men were better than their creed; and it is satisfactory to be able to detect amid the impiety and worldliness of the heretical party any elements of a purer spirit, which gradually exerted itself and worked out from the corrupt mass, in which it was embedded. Even thus viewed as distinct from their political associates, the Semi-Arians are a motley party at best; yet they may be considered as Saints and Martyrs, when compared with the Eusebians, and in fact some of them have actually been acknowledged as such by the Catholics of subsequent times. Their zeal in detecting the humanitarianism of Marcellus and Photinus, and their good service in withstanding the {300} Anomœans, who arrived at the same humanitarianism by a bolder course of thought, will presently be mentioned. On the whole they were men of correct and exemplary life, and earnest according to their views; and they even made pretensions to sanctity in their outward deportment, in which they differed from the true Eusebians, who, as far as the times allowed it, affected the manners and principles of the world. It may be added, that both Athanasius and Hilary, two of the most uncompromising supporters of the Catholic doctrine, speak favourably of them. Athanasius does not hesitate to call them brothers [Note 7]; considering that, however necessary it was for the edification of the Church at large, that the Homoüsion should be enforced on the clergy, yet that the privileges of private Christian fellowship were not to be denied to those, who from one cause or other stumbled at the use of it [Note 8]. It is remarkable, that the Semi-Arians, on the contrary, in their most celebrated Synod (at Ancyra, A.D. 358) anathematized the holders of the Homoüsion, as if crypto-Sabellians [Note 9]."
[http://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/chapter4-2.html]

- Cardinal  John Henry Newman

What is a Semi-Modernist and could Fr. Thomas Weinandy be a Semi-Modernist in recently promoting the Francis agenda? 

Why were the conservative Vatican II popes and why are almost all the conservative present day bishops and conservative Catholics so afraid of a schism with the Modernist heretic faction?

Might it be because like in the Arian crisis when there were Arians and Semi-Arians so today there are Semi-Modernists who because of
"weakness" don't want schism and want communion with the total Modernist heretics?

Remember what Cardinal Newman said:

"Athanasius, however, proposed more temperate measures... A decree was passed, that such [Semi-Arian] bishops as had communicated with the Arians through weakness or surprise, should be recognized in their respective sees, on signing the Nicene formulary; but that those, who publicly defended the heresy, should only be admitted to lay-communion." 

Semi-Arians were those who attempted the practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the traditional teachings of the Church while holding on to Semi-Arian ambiguous teachings because they were afraid of being in schism with the total Arian heretics who were supported and protected by the Roman government.

So today, it appears that most conservative Catholics like the
Semi-Arians have tried to do the practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the infallible teachings of the Church while holding on to Semi-Modernist ambiguous teachings as well as the ambiguities of Vatican II because they are afraid of being in schism with the Modernist heretics.

Newman said that during the Arian Heresy Crisis 80% of the bishops were Arians or semi-Arains which is probably similar to the number of bishops who today have fallen into Modernism or Semi-Modernism.

Francis's closest adviser and collaborator Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga apparently declared himself, Francis and all liberals to be total Modernist heretics since Vatican II:

"The Second Vatican Council... meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and Modernism... Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and rights of the person."
(Whispers in the Loggia Website, "The Council's  'Unfinished Business,' The Church's 'Return to Jesus"... and Dreams of "The Next Pope" - A Southern Weekend with Francis' 'Discovery Channel,'" October 28, 2013)

The journalist conservative Catholic Milo Yiannopoulos in his book "Diabolical" reported:

"Since Vatican II, most popes have been preoccupied with holding together the conservative [
Semi-Modernist] and liberal [Modernist heretic] factions that emerged in its wake."

Again, I say during the Arian crisis, Semi-Arians were those who attempted the practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the traditional teachings of the Church while holding on to Semi-Arian ambiguous teachings because they were afraid of being in schism with the total Arian heretics.

So today, it appears that most conservative Catholics like the
Semi-Arians have tried to do the practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the infallible teachings of the Church while holding on to Semi-Modernist ambiguous teachings as well as the ambiguities of Vatican II because they are afraid of being in schism with the Modernist heretics.

Might it be because like in the Arian crisis when there were Arians and Semi-Arians so today there are Semi-Modernists who because of "weakness" don't want schism and want communion with the total Modernist heretics?

If Francis is a Modernist then, might the conservative Fr. Thomas Weinandy possibly hold Semi-Modernist and Semi-Arian opinions?

This Project MUSE theological article seems to present the case that Weinandy might possibly hold Semi-Arian poistions: 

This article responds to Thomas Weinandy's account of the consciousness and knowledge of Christ. Deserving of careful consideration, his is a rich and multifaceted proposal on a difficult and complex topic. Some of the complexity is theological in nature, not all of which I will be able to avoid in my response. Still, this response is meant to be primarily philosophical in nature. And it appears that there are two kinds of philosophical presuppositions that typically go unacknowledged in discussions of this topic. One concerns theories of personhood and self-consciousness. The other has to do with the "principle of perfection," a "principle of fittingness"—or what Thomas Weinandy calls "the false presupposition" of Thomas Aquinas's Christology. To my mind, both are philosophical presuppositions, but the first (on personhood and self-consciousness) fits the theme of this volume more closely, and so it will be the topic of this response.

Person versus I—The Trinity

Weinandy's proposal regarding the human consciousness of Christ seems peculiar if not unique in that it suggests that in Christ there is no divine I, but only a human I. In fact, in this proposal none of the divine persons has an I—though I am not sure the suggestion is that they share a common [End Page 425] I.2 Thus Christ would be a divine person without a divine I. The personal pronoun I would be connected with a human nature as self-conscious, rather than with the divine person in which this nature subsists.

[... ]

I do not currently see any philosophical objections to this suggestion regarding the Trinity. But neither do I see what would force us to make this assumption. By contrast, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, for example, would hold that there are three intelligent and free subjects in God.4 And [End Page 426] indeed, though the three persons are distinct from each other, each is not "really" distinct from the divine essence, and we would therefore expect each person to have all the properties that the essence has. The persons are distinct only by their proper relationality with each other. And this relationality consists in the way in which each person passes on the whole and entire essence to the other.5 Thus the Son has the whole essence as received from the Father; he has the essence in a filial way. He has the divine will in a filial manner, and the divine mind as "conceived" or in the form of a concept, word, or logos. If therefore self-consciousness is a property of the divine essence—for God is Spirit—and if persons are beings that have a nature or essence, then each of the divine persons has this one divine essence and the property of self." [https://muse.jhu.edu/article/735101]

It appears that the Sedevacantist friendly website, aka Catholic, may be making a big deal for their cause about the apparent Semi-Modernist and possible Arian Fr. Weinandy jumping on board with Francis's "Synodal Path to a Synodal Church":

Based on his 2017 letter to Jorge, it appeared that he had at least some semblance of Catholic faith coursing through his veins. Did someone spike the Capuchin’s cappuccino? Was he blackmailed? Did Jorge’s operatives threaten to shoot his puppy? 

While any and all of these things are possible given the level of evil presently dwelling in occupied Rome, the real answer is far more obvious:

Weinandy is just another man of the Council. As such, whenever or wherever his words or deeds give the appearance of orthodoxy, it is just this, mere appearance. In reality, he, like the rest of his conciliar con freres, is tainted with more than a little leaven of error. They belong to a counterfeit church. As the Baltimore Catechism states:

“If any Catholic denies only one article of faith, though he believes all the rest, he ceases to be a Catholic, and is cut off from the Church” (see Q. 129, 1945 edition, p. 142).

Consider Weinandy’s passionate praise for the Almighty Council and its abundant fruit published just last year: 

– “Without Vatican II, it would be hard to imagine Karol Wojtyla being elected Pope.” [https://akacatholic.com/what-happened-to-stompin-tom-weinandy/]

Before we move to the next point that Sedevacantists and Francis Traditionalists like Steve Skojec are in agreement that Francis and Benedict as well as John Paul II are the same, let's look at the problems with Sedevacantism.

Number one is Vatican I.

Are they prepared to deny Vatican I?

Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually:

"[T]he true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 1)" (UnamSanctumCatholicm.com, "False Principles of Sedevantism (Part 1)).

Br. Alexis Bugnolo explains some other problems with them:

Sedevacantists hold in general that there have been no true popes since Pius XII. They accept the error of Luther that there is no authority or unity in the Church except that which is given the individual by the virtue of Faith. Thus, holding themselves as purer than all others, after the manner of Jansenists, they judge nearly everyone a heretic and thus outside of the Church. Their special target is all who hold an office which comes down through Apostolic Succession, because that is the real threat to their error and their egos." [https://fromrome.info/2020/01/19/flagship-of-sedes-presages-ppbxvi-movement-victory-in-2020/]

Getting back to the Sedevacantist and Francis Traditionalists like Skojec thinking Francis and Benedict as well as John Paul II are the same.

The Remnant and Skojec are right in saying that the Vatican II's ambiguities which were a forerunner of Amoris Laetitia's ambiguity lead to the problems within the Church and outside including false ecumenism.

Strangely, the non-traditionalist conservative Matthew Schmitz put it best:

"[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]... Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality as led to widespread corruption... a culture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish."

It allowed the Church of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI to keep heretics and homosexual predators in the hierarchy such as McCarrick and others like him to flourish and to promote neo-sacrilegious media productions such as the Assisi fiasco and the kissing of the Koran.

This was wrong and God will judge them for their failures to be good fathers (popes) in allowing evil men into God's Church to abuse and to lead many to indifferentism and away from salvation which is only in Jesus through His Church.

Both sincerely in my opinion because of false philosophical personal ideas while not totally abandoning Thomism tried to do the practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the infallible teachings of the Church while holding on to neo-modernist Personalist versions of Kantian and Hegelian philosophy as well as the ambiguities of Vatican II.

Benedict if you read his later writings finally rejected Kantianism, but apparently couldn't completely give up Hegelianism.

However, he realized in a vague way that the ambiguity of Vatican II was destroying the Church so he brought back the Traditional Latin Mass and attempted to fight against sex abuse, the Vatican gay lobby and reform the finances to the Church.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, these efforts united the financially corrupt old guard of Cardinal Angelo Sodano and the Vatican gay lobby which brought about Vatileaks and other pressures against Benedict that eventually lead to the Benedict resignation and the papacy of Jorge Bergoglio whose pontifical validity has been questioned by many even in the hierarchy from the beginning to this day.

As Bishop René Gracida has said there was never universal acceptance of Bergoglio by the Church.

But even more importantly, there are reasonable doubts about the validity of Benedict's resignation and Bergoglio's lawful election to the papacy which were never present with the other papacies which Bishop Gracida declares must be investigated and interpreted by the cardinals as John Paul's conclave constitution explicitly states.

This is one reason that Francis is not the same as Benedict and John Paul.

The other reason that The Remnant and Skojec are wrong about saying Francis is the same as Benedict and John Paul can be put simply in analogy:

John Paul and Benedict were sincere doctors with medicine that was getting the patient sicker.

Benedict realized the medicine was bad and slowly started giving good medicine.

But in my opinion, Francis is a doctor who is trying to kill the patient by slow poisoning.

In my opinion, it is obvious that Francis doesn't have even a remnant of Thomism. Nor does he apparently care about being loyal to the infallible Church teachings. He appears to be a nihilistic postmodernist like his favorite theologian Michel de Certeau.

Francis's only grasp of reality or meaning appears to be leftist and Peronist ideology as well as his close friend the kissing bishop's Bernard Haring Hegelian situation ethics all dressed in religious language.

While Benedict and John Paul upheld Church teachings on paper while not always in reality, Francis with Amoris Laetitia, the Argentine letter, the death penalty Catechism change and the latest indifferentism papal statement isn't even upholding the infallible teachings on paper.

George Gilder wrote a book called "Sexual Suicide" which helped me return to the Church because it showed that the Catholic teachings on sexuality were true and those outside those teachings were committing slow suicide.

Francis in my opinion is trying to kill the Church by slow suicide.

He will not succeed because Jesus promised the gates of Hell will not prevail.

Those who don't oppose him in my opinion are his accomplices unless they are in invincible ignorance.

In my opinion, it appears that if Francis doesn't convert he may be heading down a path of destruction along with all his accomplices if they don't convert if they aren't in invincible ignorance.

I feel sorry for them.

We must pray for him and his accomplices, but most of all we must pray for all those abused and lead away from salvation by their promotion of heresy.

Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.

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.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants 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

T said…
Francis Trads are now trying to reinterpret and demythologize the papacy because Francis contradicts what the Church believed about the papacy before. Instead of reconsidering Francis as pope, they’re reconsidering the papacy as an institution. A lot of things would be clear if they just read manuals on dogmatic and moral theology from before the council. But they never do.
Anonymous said…
"Francis Trads are now trying to reinterpret and demythologize the papacy because Francis contradicts what the Church believed about the papacy before. Instead of reconsidering Francis as pope, they’re reconsidering the papacy as an institution. A lot of things would be clear if they just read manuals on dogmatic and moral theology from before the council. But they never do."

-Spoken like a true schismatic that thinks he's trying to save the faith but is actually rebelling against the authority of the established/legal hierarchy of the church. Even if Francis is later declared an Anti-Pope...his conclave had been 100% legal. You guys have nothing but conspiracies/false resignation and other unproven claims to reject authority.
Anonymous said…
"-The SSPX has no canonical status within the Catholic church, no jurisdiction...faculties that they do have were granted by the man you say is an Anti-Pope (Francis) in a limited manner.

-They operate independently and have no obligation to adhere to anything from Rome
-They have validly ordained Priests, who lack ordinary jurisdiction
-Lefebvre had been excommunicated for not having a papal maandate in 1988 , as required by Canon law.
-Lefebvre's excommunication never got lifted.
-Lefebvre tried to do a lot of good, but he created a schism in the process and a rebellion against authority.
-Paul VI revoked their faculties before Francis gave them some back (Benedict who you claim to be the current Pope never granted them faculties).
-Benedict XVI had said on many occasions that the SSPX had no canonical status even as Cardinal.
-Their teaching on the vincentian canon adds a condition for infallibility that they borrowed from the protestants in the 1800s. (I can send you a good lecture on that if you wish to hear it).
-Fr. Peter Scott has called the church flawed and with defects (Pius IX called the church the pillar and ground of truth...and that she has neither spot nor wrinkle)

The list goes on and on."
Justina said…
So we're all about authority, now? The authority of UD Gregis,anyone?
Fred Martinez said…
Scholar Michael Davies said that "Archbishop [Marcel] Lefebvre has been compared rightly to St.Athanasius:

http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2014/09/25/pope-benedict-praise-michael-davies-who-totally-criticized-vatican-ii-and-the-new-mass/

Pope Benedict Praised Michael Davies Who Totally Criticized Vatican II And The New Mass...Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 9 November 2004

Scholar Michael Davies said that "Archbishop [Marcel] Lefebvre has been compared rightly to St.Athanasius":

He is the Athanasius of our times. Like St.Athanasius...

"In the fourth century St. Eusebius of Samosata traveled thorough Eastern dioceses devastated by the Arians and ordained orthodox pastors for them, without having particular jurisdiction over them. These are evidently extraordinary actions, as were the Circumstances that gave rise to them." [http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/sdavies.htm]

Wikipedia explains that Archbishop Lefebvre's "Operation Survival" was "due to necessity":

Lefebvre argued that his actions had been necessary because the traditional form of the Catholic faith and sacraments would become extinct without Traditionalist clergy to pass them on to the next generation. He called the ordinations "opération survie" ("Operation Survival"), citing in his defense canons 1323 and 1324 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the first of which says that "a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls" is not subject to penalty for violating a law or precept, while the other says "the perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed ... by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned in can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present."[34] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X]

Scholars Alon Harel and Assaf Sharon show how St. Thomas Aquinas sees the "state of exception" or "Case of Necessity":

In the Summa Theologica Aquinas addresses the case of necessity by focusing on the limits of legislation. Aquinas asserts that: The lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens more frequently by directing his attention to the common good. Wherefore, if a case arises wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed.11Furthermore, Aquinas recognizes that cases falling into this category are not “legislatable” and adds that:

He who in a case of necessity acts besides the letter of the law does not judge of the law but of a particular case in which he sees that the letter of the law is not to be observed.

Last, Aquinas stresses that agents operating under these exceptional circumstances are not accountable to the law as in ordinary cases. In his view: “The mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.” 11 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part II, 1st part, que. 96, art 6. See also II, II, que. 110 art.1. [https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/conferences2/Constitutionalism09-Harel.pdf]
Aqua said…
Anonymous said: "Spoken like a true schismatic that thinks he's trying to save the faith but is actually rebelling against the authority of the established/legal hierarchy of the church."

Which is in schism ...

This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iY2r52WQs0

Or

This: https://gloria.tv/post/Nukkhm9Ejk7C2uVgndGxHXfcP#5

How is it "rebelling against authority" to honor Our Lady and her Son?

Or

How is it a just expression of apostolic authority to desecrate holy places with clowns and idols and shaman incantations?

I don't know, I'm comfortable with SSPX Tradition.

Truth is, if you've found Tradition, you are also in some level of "schism" since the apostolic authority now demands you leave it behind. You just won't admit it publically, likely won't even admit to yourself. Most Catholics won't. And so ... we all go floating on down Modernist river.
Fred Martinez said…
Anonymous said: "Spoken like a true schismatic that thinks he's trying to save the faith but is actually rebelling against the authority of the established/legal hierarchy of the church."

Very amusing since I assume you a Francis Catholic agree with Francis:

Pope Francis: ‘No One Can Exclude Themselves from the Church’

https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2022/02/03/pope-francis-no-one-can-exclude-themselves-from-the-church/

Pope Francis raised eyebrows Wednesday by suggesting unrepentant blasphemers and apostates are part of the “communion of saints.”

The Church is “the community of saved sinners,” the pontiff told the crowds gathered in the Vatican Wednesday for his weekly general audience.

“No one can exclude themselves from the Church, we are all saved sinners,” he continued. “Our holiness is the fruit of God’s love manifested in Christ, who sanctifies us by loving us in our misery and saving us from it.”

We have been bound “and bound in a profound way and this bond is so strong that it cannot be broken even by death,” he stated.

“Let us consider, dear brothers and sisters, that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature,” Francis asserted, “only the manner of being together with one another them changes, but nothing and no one can break this bond.”

What about “those who have denied the faith, who are apostates, who are the persecutors of the Church, who have denied their baptism: Are these also at home?” the pope asked. “Yes, these too. All of them. The blasphemers, all of them. We are brothers.”

796: Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis [Podcast]

https://taylormarshall.com/2022/02/796-pope-francis-teaches-heresy-pope-pius-xii-condemned-heresy-francis-podcast.html

Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, “that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature…who have denied the faith, who are apostates.” Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: “who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed….as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” Pope Francis is condemned by Pope Pius XII. Only one can be right on this matter. It is Pius XII. Dr. Taylor Marshall reads the texts. You decide.
Aqua said…
Fred Martinez: It is very helpful to see all of that combined in one place. It is difficult to recall specifics, when there is such a large quantity of modernist bilgewater passing through.

This man looks like a Pope, and that is why so many are deceived. We have never seen his like before, and there is, therefor nothing to fall back on to defend ourselves from this threat within - except to merely call it what it is: a threat from within. And then put our trust in God to lead us through the "troubled waters" of this moment".
Anonymous said…
@Fred you are funny. Benedict is not the Pope anymore...that's the reality.
T said…
Are we in a comedy movie?

”For 2000 years the pope has been considered the unfailing rock. The current claimant is not. This can only mean one thing: those 2000 year beliefs were pious nonsense."
Anonymous said…
Yes, yes, change all the forms of the sacraments under DefnatelyPope Francis:

https://aleteia.org/2022/06/10/vatican-confirms-new-translation-of-prayer-of-absolution/
Anonymous said…
If Jorge Bergoglio is truly an Anti-Pope...the church has not yet declared him to be a formal heretic.
Aqua said…
Anonymous: when a vast majority of the church embraces heresy with him, formal declarations of heresy will likely not happen in our lifetimes. That does not make them any less heretical, heresy being an objective thing, definable by anyone in a state of grace and a sense of reason.

We are in a time of chastisement and our problems are significant. Darkness prevails. Much work needs to be done. Giving up and living in heresy with the prevailing church is not an adequate answer. Clericalism says we must do what clerics say based on their authority as Clerics. The Church says we are all mutually bound to Christ within the Depositum Fidei, equally binding on us all, from the Pope on down.

We must all, as Archbishop Fulton Sheen predicted, protect the Church from heresy, deviations from Depositum Fidei. Recognizing and accepting two visible Popes in a new and expanded Papacy - before you ever even get to the heresy of the invalid second occupant - the new and expanded Papacy is an intolerable, fatal innovation never seen before, unsupported by Depositum Fidei.

THAT conundrum has never been answered beyond either blithe, ignorant acceptance - or - redefinition that what we see is actually not what we see; to make heterodoxy seem orthodox by calling what is ... something it is not.
T said…
Are things true because they the Church declares them or does the Church declare things because they are true?

If you believe in realism, it is the latter. If it is the former you should wear a mask and get vaxxed every few months.

I think this misunderstanding that we are all realists is what is keeping us opposed to each other, anon.

Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    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) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk

"The same Globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime... [&] those who did not volunteer for this are Literal Human Shields for the Zelensky/Soros government... [if] Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war"

Above: Ukrainian President Zelensky (2nd from left) and three other men perform a homoerotic skit on Ukrainian television.    What is the Real Agenda of the corrupt Joe & Hunter Biden's Russiagate backing of the Trudeau-like Obama corrupt Ukraine Operatives in their Warmongering Posturing? "If President Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war (because he respects Russia’s legitimate security interests and wants to disband NATO)." - Scott Lively Constitutional lawyer Scott Lively thinks that the "same globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime in Ukraine... [and] those who did not volunteer for this are literal human shields for the Zelensky/Soros government": The use of human shields in warfare of any kind is a horrifying satanic tactic, and, ironically, it is most effective against people who are truly humane. The tactic uses our humanity against us, because we don’t want the innocent t