Skip to main content

"Steven O'Reilly said… Fred, Are you that desperate for blog content that you must continually resort to the combox for it?" vs. "Catholic Monitor said… Steve, That's amusing because I find that Aqua is a better writer in terms of clarity and coming to the point of the argument than you"

About - Roma Locuta Est 
 

Steve,

That's amusing because I find that Aqua is a better writer in terms of clarity and coming to the point of the argument than you. Every now and then you have interesting ideas ("content"), but your writing style reminds me of the sometimes almost unreadable postmodernist's dense prose.

As long time Catholic Monitor readers know many times I post comment section writers because their stuff is just better than what I could write on that particular subject.

By the way, I was a paid journalist for the San Francisco Faith and wrote for NewsMax during the first Sex Abuse Scandal.

Best,

Fred Martinez- The Catholic Monitor comment section [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/aqua-synod-of-popes-those-like-oreilly.html]

The Catholic Monitor (CM) was honored to have the publisher of .RomaLocutaEst, Steven O’Reilly, who is a former intelligence officer, visit its comment section in which he and the publisher of CM had a back and forth.

I have found O'Reilly's comments interesting and at times amusing, but in the following exchange I needed to explain to him a CM time honored practice "As long time Catholic Monitor readers know many times I post comment section writers because their stuff is just better than what I could write on that particular subject... [by] the way, I was a paid journalist for the San Francisco Faith and wrote for NewsMax during the first Sex Abuse Scandal:

Comments

Steven O'Reilly said…
Fred,

Are you that desperate for blog content that you must continually resort to the combox for it? Really? If you are going to publish such comments as article content, don't you then assume responsibility and liability for that content, and errors in it?

I speak for no one but myself. Mundabor and others can speak for themselves.

Catholic Monitor posts:

"Those, like O'Reilly, Skojec and Mundabor (etc) who insist on Bergoglio as Pope at the same time they condemn him as a rank heretic Apostate do grave damage to their own faith, but also to that of others."

I reply:

Where have I ever "condemned" Bergoglio as a "rank heretic Apostate"? Source please?

My position has been consistent: In my opinion, many valid questions have been raised about Francis, such as in the Open Letter. These should be, and need to be examined by competent Church authorities. I'd like to see an imperfect council look into such questions. Given an imperfect council is a practical improbability, a future pope will need to examine this pontificate, and judge it. That is not my place or anyone else's to judge. Only competent Church authorities can declare the final decision on the question. How does that damage my faith? It is essentially the position Bellarmine's position, i.e., one in which there is no place private judgment in place of the Church's on such a question. I leave it to the Church.

Contrary to this approach, the leading Benepapists have proclaimed a final judgment aside from competent Church authority: "Benedict is definitely still pope" and "Francis is definitely an anti-pope". The leading Benepapists who have already declared a judgment on a question only pope can decide, i.e., rule on the validity of a papal act. On top of that, they try to convince others to accept their judgment as a fact that should be acted upon. For example, there are leading Benepapists who have issued a declaration and petition pledging their fidelity to Benedict as the still reigning pope, and declaring they won't accept a future conclave that fails certain conditions they(!) have set.

Catholic Monitor Posts:

"...All such will never tolerate discussion of the base error: you can't have two visible Popes."

I reply:

This is nonsense. Obviously, one cannot have two REAL popes at the same time. Who is arguing that is possible? Who is arguing one can have "two visible popes" if by this you mean "two real popes"?

Certainly on Roma Locuta Est I have posted a number of articles rejecting the premise that we even have the appearance of "two visible popes." Apparently, you see two guys wearing white and declare 'we can't have two visible pope.' The truth is, Benedict wears a simple white cassock. He no longer wears the mozzetta, or red shoes -- all symbols of papal authority. He does not wear the Fisherman's ring, a symbol of the papal office. The Benepapists don't address these contrary questions with regard to the change in Benedict's attire post resignation.

Benedict is an ex-pope, who decided to continue to wear a simple white cassock -- but without the mozzeta and red shoes to exhibit a distinction to show he is no longer pope. Regarding the honorific, "emeritus" (e.g., see canon 185), i.e., it applies to an office which is 'lost due to resignation.' While c. 185 was not written with the papacy in mind; it seems rather clear Benedict intended "emeritus" in the same sense as c. 185 -- i.e., an honorific for an office LOST DUE TO RESIGNATION. Thus, the very title "emeritus" itself proves Benedict recognizes he lost his office due to his resignation.

So...there is no confusion here...except for those who cannot get beyond the color "white" as trumping all other evidence against their position.

Regards,

Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
Steve,

That's amusing because I find that Aqua is a better writer in terms of clarity and coming to the point of the argument than you. Every now and then you have interesting ideas ("content"), but your writing style reminds me of the sometimes almost unreadable postmodernist's dense prose.

As long time Catholic Monitor readers know many times I post comment section writers because their stuff is just better than what I could write on that particular subject.

By the way, I was a paid journalist for the San Francisco Faith and wrote for NewsMax during the first Sex Abuse Scandal.

Best,

Fred Martinez
Aqua said…
" .... except for those who cannot get beyond the color "white" as trumping all other evidence against their position."

Ah, yes. That troublesome white color. Worn by the man who still calls himself Pope. Who poses for Papal photos with the other guy while receiving new Cardinals.

No, I can't get beyond the color.

Nor can I get beyond that little word Munus, curiously absent from his resignation sentence.

Catholics don't do innovation. Innovation is not compatible with the Faith.
Aqua said…
PS: One man (only) on earth gets to wear white. It has always been thus.
Steven O'Reilly said…
Fred,

I have never suggested my writing is better than anyone else's, yours or Aqua's or whomever! In terms of writing and reader's opinions, my view on the quality of writing has been the reader's opinion is always right. So, I bow to your opinion of my many, manifest faults.

That said, not sure why you are focused now on writing quality. The point of my comments was neither your writing quality nor your resume, but your propensity to resort to comboxes for content. You continually post from your and other comboxes, using the words of others as your articles. If you want to attack my opinions -- as you seem to want to do, just come out and use your own words, Fred. Don't hide behind Aqua, or Acosta and her ad hominems -- as you did. Say it, man. Have the courage of your convictions. Say it, man. Put your name on it.

But...either way...if you are going to publish it...take the responsibility and liability for what you publish as an article. So, for example, I want to know where I used the term "rank heretic apostate" on my blog, as you published. Link, please?

Also, please...finally respond to the first two of the dubia I submitted on your site. You said you would respond. They are on your site. You know where they are, and what they are. I am certainly not a fan of Skojec nowadays...but I do remember how you harassed him on your site for not answering your dubia. Well, I answered them the same day you asked me to. Please answer mine. Now. Or...admit to a bit of hypocrisy.

Regards,

Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)

Steven O'Reilly said…
Aqua,

He wears white...but he no longer wears the mozetta, or red shoes, or the Fisherman's ring. No answer on that?

Regarding the "munus" that has been answer before:

""ministerium"...can be used for 'office.' That is clear in the latin dictionaries. Secondly, canon 332.2 does not require the word "munus" be used at all. Even Estefania Acosta **admits** this much in her book -- and she is a full blow Benepapist. The ONLY two requirements EXPLICITLY SPECIFIED in canon 332.2 is that the resignation be "Free" and "properly manifested." That is it. Basta cosi. Full stop. The point isn't even debatable. The canon literally says that. Third, Celestine V and Boniface VIII, whence we have the definitive teaching a pope can resign, do not say the word "munus" must be used. Essentially, the teaching is a pope can resign the 'papacy' (see the Liber Sextus). So, any number of words might be used. It is not for you or anyone else to declare what can't be used.

So, contrary to your assertions, there is no set formula, either one necessary word, or necessary phrase. Common sense suggests, it should be obvious that a pope intends to resign the papacy. In that regard, it is impossible to read the Declaratio's key phrase without understanding Benedict is renouncing the papacy. He said he renounced the 'ministry' of the bishop of Rome "in such a way" that the "See of Rome, the See of Peter" would be vacant and a new conclave must be called. What else can be resigned in such a way that the See of Rome, the See of Peter is vacant? Nothing, except the papacy itself. It is clear. It is plain. It is obvious.

However, even *if* we were to entertain the question about the use of 'ministry' it is not for you or I to act on that doubt to affirm the resignation is definitely invalid. Papal acts are not subject to review or appeal, except by a future pope."

God bless,

Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomalocutaEst.com)
T said…
All I’m satins is that the formal heresy shows that whoever Bergoglio is, he’s not the pope. We can argue about why he’s not the pope, but that fact alone shows he isn't, the denial of which calls Christ a liar. Unless you say that Christ meant that no one with legal authority would ever judge the pope to be a heretic.
Aqua said…
Steven:

332.2 is a logical progression of "If" and "Then".

*IF* it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his *office* ...
*THEN* ...

Everything hangs on the word Munus.

Munus is who the Pope is.
Ministerium is what the Pope does.

Ministerium is not used interchangeably with Munus in Canon Law. Every sentence in every Canon that describes the nature and facets of Papal authority use Munus. Never Ministerium.

You want them to be =, because your thesis hangs on it. They are not =.

And your thesis is proved false, dangerously false, because the result is an apostate Pope leading the visible Church to commit every possible error starting with the worship of false gods and Idols, and proceeding on to desecrate the Eucharist, admit sodomy into the Priesthood and marriage and officially violate every one of the Ten Commandments.

It is a dumpster fire. THAT is proof that your thesis of Munus = Ministerium is false.

But once again, if you truly believe Bergoglio is valid Holy Father until proven otherwise ... as a Catholic you are required to venerate him and follow where he leads. And IF he is Pope, that should be as easy and natural as taking a breath of air.

It is not. So you won't.
Aqua said…
In addition, in reference to Ministerium ...

It doesn't talk about Ministerium in Canon Law because Canon Law does not restrict what a Pope must do in his Munus, Office.

Once in Office, the Pope acts in any variety of ways, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Canon Law does not speak to this relationship of activity. It sets *boundries*, laws that must not be broken, but it does not specify how a Pope will rule, act in his Ministerium to the Church for God.

Canon Law does speak to how a Pope can enter and leave his Office. That law was violated when a simple declarative sentence that could have resigned him from Office, instead just took him out of its administration of "ministry".

One sentence. One word. And now ... the dumpster fire that is consuming our Church shows the result of a choice that led the Church into error under a Pope without Divine Protection of an Office connected to God, its author - an antipope.

And of you think what we see under Bergoglio has any precedent in all recorded Catholic history ... I have no words for that. His is a constant stream of heresy and error and outright Apostasy from God, demanded by the titular but false Vicar of Christ ...

https://www.forhumanfraternity.org/abrahamic-family-house/
Aqua said…
In regards to the Divine protections, codified by Vatican Council I, reading that you see the same thing - every word of it rests in the Office of Peter. Line after line after line reference is to Office, Office, Office. His authority and the Divine connection that renders protection - for the sake of the Faithful - is in the Office.

Since our souls hang in the balance, under the spiritual leadership of the Pope, it is our Divine *right* to know who the Pope is and whether we are required to folllow one in total submission to ultimate and lawful authority.

And that is why, the only question that should matter: Who.Is.Pope?

I have answered that question for myself, in conscience, after years of prayer, conversations, Confessions etc. And I am now fully comfortable, in conscience, in ignoring every word that comes from the mouth of Bergoglio.

The solution is simple and understandable to any Catholic with a brain and in possession of his senses. The solution doesn't even require the ability to read. The simplest among us can know, MUST KNOW, who is Pope and act in accord with that knowledge.

And that is how I would expect it to go under a just and merciful God who demands obedience to all Truth, but also provides a path to find it ... if we search for it with all our heart.
Debbie said…
Given all the evidence, especially the pachademon worship and the almost immediate effects on the entire planet thereafter, aren't enough "proof" that Bergoglio is NOT the pope....then I don't suppose anything said to the likes of Mr. O'Reilly will convince them.

As it stands today, a future "pope" from a Bergoglio "pontificate" will only give us Francis II. Something needs to be said and done now, as there seems to be exactly zero Cardinals or bishops willing to act. Heck, Cd. Burke still hasn't done the promised formal correction.

No, Mr. O'Reilly, the people need a Saint right now to help us and that often comes from the laity.
Anonymous said…
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-true-meaning-of-bellarmines-ipso.html

-Fred & Aqua need to read this.
Anonymous said…
@Fred

Your blog is a mess...it needs a major do over. I've had other big name Catholic bloggers personally say to me that your site is a "joke". I don't see a porblem with you as a journalist but it needs a better theme or format.
Aqua said…
Anonymous 4:02

That is a scuzzy comment. Def: "dirty, shabby, or foul in condition or character." You left a stinky on the carpet. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/aqua-synod-of-popes-those-like-oreilly.html]

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

- If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the"Roman Rite Communities" like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & "Eminent Canonists and Theologians" by "Resist[ing]" him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.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

Justina said…
Is Steven O'Reilly so desperate for online attention, after his cringeworthy debate performance versus Dr. Ed Mazza drained off his own admittedly limited audience in the first place, that he has to resort to vacuous nitpicking on other blogs just to keep from tanking entirely?
Anonymous said…
Justina,

O'Reilly doesn't care about being a big name blogger...that's what people don't understand about him. He's in it for the truth, and the simple truth is that Benedict XVI is not the Pope anymore. There was no botched resignation, no chess plan to outfox the modernists in the Vatican etc...these are theories that Benedict himself has already refuted in his own words!

Aqua said…
Anonymous: If he was interested in the truth, then he would have responded directly to Mazza's points; he would have responded directly to my own points.

His response to my points? They don't matter ... and move on.

Examples:

Munus = Ministerium. Office = Ministry. Canon Law says this, Benedict said that - and that's close enough.

Benedict remained as Pope, "safely and forever within the enclosure of St. Peter in a new and expanded Petrine Ministry which is now forever changed" ... Benedict's own words ... he did this for the first time in history and O'Reilly says those words and actions mean nothing.

O'Reilly says he addressses these concerns, but he does this by changing the subject. He doesn't explain from Depositum Fidei why and how it is orthodox to "retire and remain" in the way Benedict did. He says that what we see, we don't actually see; it's something different.

You say:

- quote -

"the simple truth is that Benedict XVI is not the Pope anymore. There was no botched resignation, no chess plan to outfox the modernists in the Vatican etc."

- end quote -

Which is precisely the O'Reilly method. "It is so". No. It is not so. I see what I see, and no one can convince me that my eyes, ears and mind are deceiving me. I see Sacred Tradition over here. I see current activity over there. There is a misalignment, a significant deviation, a *rupture*.

And so ... the "simple truth is" ... Benedict XVI remains Pope.

The simple truth is, the imposter squatting on the Holy Throne of St. Peter clapping like a little boy for these perversities

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

is not Pope.

Aqua said…
For a really good analysis of the flawed resignation letter, see this:

https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?p=209274#p209274

This is written by a Latin expert, on a Latin language blog "TextKit", HumilisAuditor his screen name.

The entire letter is deeply, deep flawed from a technical language standpoint.

The man writing the Papal resignation letter is one of the foremost historians on the planet, one of the foremost Latin experts on the planet, Prefect of the CDF FOR 25 years ... yet he wrote a resignation letter filled with technical and strategic errors such that the TextKit auditor refers to the errors as Latin 101.

Substantial error renders the resignation invalid. Period. If we are a Church of Law and not lawlessness, anarchy.
Aqua said…
And for the record: I am aware of the skill set of Steven O'Reilly, one who has been trained by the military Intel community to be an "intelligence expert". You have raised the point here on your blog. He is open about it on his own blog. That is a unique skill set and background which very few share, and I suggest nothing more than that I am aware of it.

Having been on the receiving end of some of that in military training scenarios ... long ago ... and so, I am aware that a key feature of "Intel" is to make objects of their attention disconnect from what they thought they knew, to unmoor them from psychic certainties, to make them more receptive to suggestion and direction and control.

I am not saying any of this is the case with Steven. But it is most certainly a feature of the American community we live in, generally speaking. We call that "Gaslighting". When there is an active mind behind it, not just a malign mind but a malign and intelligent mind with a purpose ... that is the world of Intel. And I do indeed think that in this psychological war for the soul of this nation, through the individual souls (aka hearts and minds) of the citizens of this nation, a war we don't see because the violence is invisible and non-quantifiable, Intel - whether military sourced or some other variant - has been turned inward against us.

Net effect? Confusion. Anger. Discord. Violence ... Openness to 'suggestion'.
Anonymous said…
"And for the record: I am aware of the skill set of Steven O'Reilly, one who has been trained by the military Intel community to be an "intelligence expert". You have raised the point here on your blog. He is open about it on his own blog. That is a unique skill set and background which very few share, and I suggest nothing more than that I am aware of it.

Having been on the receiving end of some of that in military training scenarios ... long ago ... and so, I am aware that a key feature of "Intel" is to make objects of their attention disconnect from what they thought they knew, to unmoor them from psychic certainties, to make them more receptive to suggestion and direction and control.

I am not saying any of this is the case with Steven. But it is most certainly a feature of the American community we live in, generally speaking. We call that "Gaslighting". When there is an active mind behind it, not just a malign mind but a malign and intelligent mind with a purpose ... that is the world of Intel. And I do indeed think that in this psychological war for the soul of this nation, through the individual souls (aka hearts and minds) of the citizens of this nation, a war we don't see because the violence is invisible and non-quantifiable, Intel - whether military sourced or some other variant - has been turned inward against us.

Net effect? Confusion. Anger. Discord. Violence ... Openness to 'suggestion'.
9:52 AM"

This is just a sad attempt to paint Steven as some government operative that's intentionally deceiving people to believe that Francis is Pope just because Aqua can't properly understand that Benedict gave up by the munus by saying that he renounced the see of Peter (giving up the munus) and that there's going to be sedevacante and a conclave. This isn't hard to figure out...
Fred Martinez said…
Or maybe, to put the shoe on the other foot this is a clever way of you Anonymous whoever you are of "sad attempt to paint [Aqua] as some government[-like] operative that's intentionally deceiving people to believe that [Benedict] is Pope just because [Steve] can't properly understand that Benedict [didn't]g[i]ve up by the munus by saying that he renounced the see of Peter ([not] giving up the munus) and that there's going to be [heretic antipope]... conclave. This isn't hard to figure out...
Aqua said…
Anonymous: But he didn’t write that, did he? And he didn’t leave, did he? And he didn’t do anything as required by Canon Law and Sacred Tradition did he? And so … we have a heretic apostate antipope don’t we?

So, no, not hard to figure out, unless you’re trying to be clever and make something that is not.

Did you read your sentence? He gave up the Munus by saying the See of Peter is vacant. Why is he still there? It’s not vacant. Why did he choose a different word - the one required by Canon Law?

No. Not hard to figure out. Anyone can know the true Pope, so all are without excuse.

Popular posts from this blog

Bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx "Exemption" Letter & Stated: "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary"

Today, the bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx " exemption" letter (21_8_Vaccine_Exemption_CCC_Fin...docx(20KB)) and stated that "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary":  COLORADO CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1535 Logan Street | Denver, CO 80203-1913 303-894-8808 | cocatholicconference.org   [Date]   To Whom It May Concern, [Name] is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including [name], to decline certain vaccines. The Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of most vaccines, and generally encourages them to safeguard personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious

Does Francis's "Right-hand Man" Parra have a "Sexual Predation against Seminarians, Adultery, and even a Deadly Sex Game...[that] 'might even be a Scandal Surpassing that of McCarrick'"?

  Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra with Francis Today, the Call Me Jorge website asked "What could be so important that Francis interrupted his weekly adulation [Audience] session?": Pope gets a phone call during the Audience. Haven’t seen this before. Then he quickly leaves and says he will be back. pic.twitter.com/npCuPzdnxP — The Catholic Traveler (@MountainButorac) August 11, 2021 It was Abp. Mons. Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, Substitute for the Secretariat of State, who was involved in the recent scandal of mismanagement during the acquisition of a € 300 million building in London. Still no word on what the phone call was about . [http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2021/08/what-could-be-so-important-that-francis.html] Who is Archbishop Edgar Robinson Peña Parra ? Parra according to the Catholic Herald is Francis's "right-hand man"[https://catholicherald.co.uk/roman-curia-the-popes-new-right-hand-man/] In 2019, Life Site News reported that Parra alleged

Might it be Good for all of us & for Francis to Read about the "Gruesome Death of Arius"?

  I have read the letters of your piety , in which you have requested me to make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians , in consequence of which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death of Arius . With two out of your three demands I have readily undertaken to comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the heresy . But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which has taken place among you concerning the heresy , has issued in this question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the Church ; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his death, as thinking that the question woul