Skip to main content

Fr. Kramer: "Salza... deliberately mak[es] it appear that he is accusing... Pope Benedict of the Dolus of Formal Heresy while exonerating the Heretic Bergoglio"

Father Paul Kramer, his long-time friend late Father Nicholas Gruner, and Cardinal Martino holding Father Kramer’s book, The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy, during the Fatima: Your Last Chance Conference, held in Rome in 2012. [http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com/2017/06/why-does-father-paul-kramer-still.html?m=1]

BUT—unlike what some Sedevacantists teach—the loss of faith does not, in and of itself, sever a man from the body of the Church.  A mortal sin against faith does not, in and of itself, sever a man from the body of the Church.  And if the man who loses the faith happens to be pope, he does not thereby lose his office.  This is a crucial point that is often missed by even the most learned defenders of the Sedevacantists’ position. Formal heresy in the internal forum only severs a man from the soul of the Church.  It requires formal heresy in the external forum to sever a man from the body of the Church, and formal heresy in the external forum is declared heresy by the proper authorities—i.e. a Church Council. - Catholic pundit Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi's article "Why does Father Paul Kramer still maintain that Francis is not the true pope?"

On February 20, 2020, John Salza claimed that Francis was "universally accepted":

"In no case were any of these antipopes universally accepted by the entire episcopacy following their election, as in the case with Pope Francis."
[http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/annbarnhardt-is-liar-and-fool-byjohn.html?m=1]

Salza's editors at the Remnant and 1P5 are not allowing free debate and argument on the validity of the papacy of Francis in their publications or comment sections. So, this seems like a good time to see if their greatest theologian of all time will answer five simple yes or no dubia questions and then respond to Bishop Rene Gracida's rejection of their and Salza's teaching since he would have to be part of that great and powerful infallible teaching of "universal acceptance":

 1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said ” The Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic… the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See.” Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.

2. “Universal Acceptance” theologian John of St. Thomas said “This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff.” Was John of St. Thomas for saying “the supreme pontiff” must be BOTH “lawfully elected and accepted by the Church” a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.

3. Do you think that a “supreme pontiff” if “universally accepted” is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on “dubious election[s]”, that he is “a woman… a child… a demented person… a heretic… a apostate… [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law”? Answer: yes or no.

4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:

“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses… A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”

Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or Benevacantists? Answer: yes or no.

5. Is Bishop Gracida really only a pawn of the legendary and notorious “Sedevacantist and Benevacantist” mastermind Ann Barnhardt for convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which “prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/06/5-dubia-questions-for-steve-skojec.html]

Finally, on March 23, 2019, Bishop Gracida who would have to be part of such a "universal acceptance" demonstrated that Salza's statement is false:

https://abyssum.org/2019/03/23/why-do-intelligent-men-pursue-the-application-of-an-obsolete-concept-universal-acceptance-to-the-problem-of-the-invalidity-of-the-papacy-of-francis-the-merciful-in-this-day-and-age-of-instant-elec/
- The Catholic Monitor [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/04/most-infallible-1p5remnant-francis-trad.html]

Before Francis came on the scene, Fr. Nicholas Gruner's close collaborator Fr. Paul Kramer was a member in good standing with the Traditionalist establishment including John Vennari, Christopher Ferrara, Michael Matt, and the Fatima Center as everyone knows. Why did the Trad establishment turn against Fr. Kramer? 

Ann Barnhardt says that there was a power struggle between the bad guys, Ferrara and Salza, against Fr. Kramer on rather Francis was a heretic and an antipope

Salza agrees with Barnhardt, but, of course, claims that Kramer was the bad guy:

"[T]here was a split in the Fatima Center, not over some orchestration of a purge through the leverage of a million dollar donation (events which never occurred), but rather the influence that Fr. Paul Kramer was attempting to exert over the Fatima Center, and the untenable theological positions that he (and Barnhardt) holds. That’s right. And that is why the donor family in question raised their concerns (and they weren’t the only ones). It was public knowledge, shortly after the death of Fr. Gruner, that Fr. Kramer was attempting to seize control over the Fatima Center. And it was Fr. Kramer (not Messrs. Ferrara and Salza) who sought to purge the apostolate of those who didn’t agree with his antipope Francis position, including Mr. Salza." [http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/annbarnhardt-is-liar-and-fool-byjohn.html]

The fact is that Salza's opinions and ideas are well known because the Trad establishment promotes his positions and even falsely accuses Fr. Kramer of Sedevacantism.

The Catholic Monitor thought that in fair play it would be good to give the other side of the argument and first quote Kramer's book "On the True and the False Pope: The Case against Bergoglio" on what Kramer believes is Salza's position on Pope Benedict XVI and Francis:

"Salza... deliberately mak[es] it appear that he is accusing... Pope Benedict of the dolus of formal heresy while exonerating the heretic Bergoglio." (Page 326) 

Next, we want to quote at length Catholic pundit Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi's article "Why does Father Paul Kramer still maintain that Francis is not the true pope?" on Kramer's thesis on Francis:

To start with, we note that Fr. Kramer initially accepted Francis as a valid pope, which of course shows he has no personal issue with him but is only striving to keep the Faith, which is simply his duty as a priest of Christ. As I pointed out in my article, How Pope Ratzinger messed up the papacy!, “the fact that Bergoglio is indisputably a public heretic has been Father Kramer’s major reason for rejecting the current “pontificate”. The other idea of some mafias wanting to force Benedict XVI to resign is simply not a fiction as well, but it’s just secondary.” Being a cautious priest, his rejection of Francis came later only as a result of Francis’ teaching of “explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic Faith.” And what dogma exactly?

On November 28, 2013, Fr. Kramer announced on his Facebook page that he rejects Francis’ claim to the papacy due to manifest heresy found in his (then newly-published) “Apostolic Exaltation” EvangeliiGaudium. He wrote:

"“Pope” Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”. This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated”. I have been saying for years that when a “pope” will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophesied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic — not a member of the Catholic Church. Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null & void. The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. St. Francis of Assisi foretold of the un-canonically elected pope who would not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”. Bergoglio plainly fits the description."

Here, we shall consider the following questions:

1        Is it true that no. 247 of Francis’ Evangelii Gaudium is an explicit profession of heresy, as Fr. Kramer says — “directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, etc.—that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated””?

2        Can we demonstrate how the text opposes any of the solemn dogmatic definitions of the Church? If so, what then can be the consequence of this?

3        Is it truly the teaching of the Church that “when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic — not a member of the Catholic Church”?

4        Did St. Francis of Assisi prophesy that there would be an un-canonically elected pope who would not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”?

[...]

So then, question number 2: Can we demonstrate how the text opposes any of the solemn dogmatic definitions of the Church? If so, what then can be the consequence of this?

Yes, we can.  The doctrine of the supersession of the Old Testament by the New is a universal and perpetual doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is a defined article of the Catholic Faith—i.e. a solemn, dogmatic definition. The solemn Profession of Faith of the Ecumenical Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV, (1441, ex cathedra), says the following:

“The Holy Roman Church ... firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after Our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; ... All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it (the Roman Church) declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”

Again, Pope Benedict XIV reiterated this dogma in his encyclical Ex Quo Primum:

“The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.” (Ex Quo Primum, # 61)

Again, Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: 


The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews ...cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives...

As already mentioned, the above declaration of the Ecumenical Council of Florenceas well as Benedict XIV's Ex Quo Primum and that of Eugene IVis simply a dogma. And what is a dogma? A dogma is what has been infallibly defined by the Catholic Church. The dogma of the Faith is known by the solemn, infallible definitions of the magisterium of the Church. “Dogma is the name given to a proposition that is proclaimed with all possible solemnity either by the Roman pontiff or by an ecumenical council. A dogma is a revealed truth that the Roman Catholic church solemnly declares to be true and to be revealed; it is most properly an object of faith. Vatican I declared that the pope, when he teaches solemnly and in the area of faith and morals as the supreme universal pastor, teaches infallibly with that infallibility that the church has.” (Encyc. Brit., 2014). The word infallible means “cannot fail”. Therefore the dogmatic definitions of the Faith, solemnly defined by the Church, cannot fail. Again: “Dogma (for all who receive it) is an affirmation which it is sinful to deny, or to change, or to ignore. ...From Nicaea onwards formulated dogma is accompanied by anathemas,” says the Encyclopaedia Britannica. (Encyc. Brit. Vol. 7; 1955, pp. 501-502).

In 1870 the First Vatican Council solemnly and infallibly defined the infallibility of solemn dogmatic definitions. So we now know what the Faith is, what the dogma of the Faith is, by the solemn, infallible, dogmatic definitions. Men can fail; lay people can fail; priests can fail; bishops can fail; cardinals can fail; and even the pope can fail in matters which do not involve his charism of infallibility, as history has shown us with more than one pope. For example, 42 years after his death, Pope Honorius I was condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople (680 AD) for aiding and abetting heresy, precisely for supporting the doctrine of “one will in Christ”, and that condemnation was confirmed by Pope Leo II in 682, (who stated that Honorius “allowed the immaculate faith to be stained” by teaching not “in accord with apostolic tradition.”) and repeated by later popes. Note, however, that Pope Honorius wasn’t even a manifest heretic, yet he was anathematized. He wasn’t the originator of the heresy. The heretics were the Monothelites—Sergius and co—and Honorius was condemned together with them. And why? The anathema of the Third Council of Constantinople read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things.” Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, “And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” The Sixteenth Session adds: “To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!”
           
But according to Bellarmine, “Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived by corrupted copies of the Sixth Council, which falsely reckoned Honorius was a heretic, we still cannot deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged.” Hence Pope Leo II’s letter of confirmation of the Third Council of Constantinople interprets the council as intending to criticize Honorius not for error of belief, but rather for “imprudent economy of silence”. Leo's letter states: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, ... and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes: “It is in this sense of guilty negligence that the papacy ratified the condemnation of Honorius.”  

The point we’re trying to make here is the fact that even a pope, as a private person, can fail. But the solemn dogmatic definitions of the Faith, defined by the Pope, or the Pope together with all the bishops in a Council of the Church—such as the above definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV regarding the Jews—cannot fail. Everything, therefore, must be judged by these definitions that cannot fail. As Fr. Nicholas Gruner once put it during the era of John Paul II, in response to “new Catholic doctrines” which surfaced since Vatican II and which simply contradict or at least “revise” the solemn dogmatic definitions: “The infallible definitions are the unchanging standard by which one measures every doctrine, just like a 36-inch yardstick is the unchanging standard for measuring a yard. We don’t suddenly decide that the new standard for measuring a yard is a 35-inch stick. Everything in the Faith must be measured against the yardstick of infallible definitions. Even the pronouncements of the popes must be measured and weighed against this standard.” (The Fatima Crusader, Summer 2001, Issue 67, p.48).

Fr. Gruner further stated: “Solemn definitions, by necessity, must say “this is the Catholic Faith” and therefore, by strict logical implication, also say, “those who say the opposite are anathema”—meaning, they are cut off from the Faith and the Church. In other words, you must believe this in order to be saved. So by necessity, the definitions also must state or imply that those who don’t believe this are condemned.” (Ibid. p.49)

In his article, “Defection from the Faith & the Church - Faith , Heresy, and Loss of Office - An Exposé of the Heresy of John Salza & Robert Siscoe Part I (Revised and amplified),” Fr. Kramer quotes Pope St. Pius X who makes this very clear “in Question 200”:

“Whoever would not believe in the solemn definitions of faith or would doubt them, would sin against faith; and remaining obstinate in unbelief, would no longer be a Catholic, but a heretic.” (“Chi non credesse alle definizioni solenni del Papa, o anche solo ne dubitasse, peccherebbe contro la fede, e se rimanesse ostinato in questa incredulità, non sarebbe più cattolico, ma eretico.”).

“Heretics are not only those who stubbornly doubt or deny any solemn definitions,” writes Fr. Kramer, “but the same Pontiff teaches that they are heretics who refuse to believe any truth revealed by God which the Catholic Church teaches as “de fide”: “Gli eretici sono i battezzati che ricusano con pertinacia di credere qualche verità rivelata da Dio e insegnata come di fede dalla Chiesa cattolica” (Q. 228).”

Therefore, from the perspective of Catholic doctrine, the consequence of the above teaching of Francis is that he is indeed a notorious heretic, already separated from the Body of Christ, and indeed, accursed—and likewise all those who know his blatant heresies but refuse to reject and denounce him.

Question number 3: Is it truly the teaching of the Church that “when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic — not a member of the Catholic Church”?

The answer is a resounding YES. To start with, when Fr. Kramer first stated that a manifest—and not a secret—heretical pontiff loses his office ipso facto, not only did many “traditional Catholics” not believe him, some in fact ridiculed him. But that attitude now seems to have abated only because Raymond Cardinal Burke—a high-ranking prelate—has now acknowledged the same fact! In an interview with Catholic World Report, Burke, a canon lawyer, said: “If a pope would formerly profess heresy, he would cease, by that act, to be the pope. It’s automatic.” (See: “If a Pope would formally profess heresy, he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic”. (Raymond Cardinal Burke).). 

So YES, it is the teaching of the Church that a manifestly heretical pope automatically ceases to be pope, and is not a member of the Church. A manifest heretic is a formal heretic in the external forum—this is quite unlike a formal heretic in the internal forum, that is, an occult or secret heretic. There are two kinds of heresies—material heresy and formal heresy. On the one hand, a material heresy, or the matter of heresy, is a belief that is contrary to a defined dogma—a belief quite contrary to what a Catholic must accept with divine and Catholic Faith.  The matter of heresy exists in the intellect and can be present with innocent ignorance, or with sinful pertinacity in the will. 

On the other hand, a formal heresy, or form of heresy—what renders an erroneous belief formally heretical—is pertinacity in the will.  When a person knowingly rejects a dogma of the faith, or when he wilfully doubts a defined dogma, he is guilty of formal heresy in the internal forum (the realm of conscience).  And since heresy is contrary to faith, a person who wilfully disbelieves a single article of faith immediately loses all supernatural faith.  Just as one mortal sin removes all supernatural charity (grace) from the soul, so too a single heresy removes all supernatural faith. St. Thomas Aquinas writes: “Just as mortal sin is contrary to charity, so is disbelief in one article of faith contrary to faith. Now charity does not remain in a man after one mortal sin. Therefore neither does faith, after a man disbelieves one article… Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article, has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will”. (ST. Pt II-II, Q. 5, A. 2).

A man who is guilty of the sin of heresy immediately loses all supernatural faith; and since faith is the foundation of the supernatural life, when faith is lost, so too are the theological virtues of hope and charity, which, along with faith, unite a man to the soul of the Church.  Therefore, when one loses the faith—the foundation of the supernatural life—he is completely severed from the soul of the Church. 

BUT—unlike what some Sedevacantists teach—the loss of faith does not, in and of itself, sever a man from the body of the Church.  A mortal sin against faith does not, in and of itself, sever a man from the body of the Church.  And if the man who loses the faith happens to be pope, he does not thereby lose his office.  This is a crucial point that is often missed by even the most learned defenders of the Sedevacantists’ position. Formal heresy in the internal forum only severs a man from the soul of the Church.  It requires formal heresy in the external forum to sever a man from the body of the Church, and formal heresy in the external forum is declared heresy by the proper authorities—i.e. a Church Council.
 

However, before such a declaration a person who is guilty of a formal heresy in the external forum is already automatically severed from the body of the Church, that is, he is ipso facto excommunicated, or rather, he automatically excommunicates himself. This is simply the official teaching of the Catholic Church and anyone who doesn’t believe it is simply in grave error. Just like apostasy and schism, the sin of heresy per se has the intrinsic effect of separating the heretic from the Church by itself, without any ecclesiastical censures; and is distinguished from other sins which do not by their very nature separate the sinner from the body of the Church. For these other sins, for other grave offenses the sinner can only be separated from the Church by a sentence of excommunication incurred or inflicted by legitimate ecclesiastical authority. But a heretic is automatically separated from the Church by his own heresy. This is the infallible teaching of the universal magisterium of the Church which must be believed de fide divina et Catholica under pain of heresy. As Pope St. Pius V teaches in the Roman Catechism:

“Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have defected (desciverunt) from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted."; whereas those who have not left the Church by defecting, but are excluded from the Church by excommunication, are "cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.” (Quoted by Fr. Kramer in the article cited above).
 
[...]
 
Catholics who are now awaiting the world Cardinals and bishops to denounce Francis are greatly mistaken because, as Fr. Kramer rightly puts it, “It is plainly evident that in our own time, a sort of blindness has fallen upon almost all the bishops of the Latin Church. With a prophetic insight, more than 1,500 years ago St. Vincent described the present condition of the Church today: “if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole”. Under such circumstances, he says, “the clergy and faithful cannot reasonably be expected to suspend judgment on manifest heresy until the Church pronounces officially, and remain subject to a ravenous wolf and destroyer of souls – quod esset miserrima conditio Ecclesiæ, si lupum manifeste grassantem, pro pastore agnoscere cogeretur. (Bellarminus).”

The Church’s attitude regarding “Catholics” who support manifest heretics like Francis is simply excommunication, as we read in the following:

“Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics… If however, he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater the punishment. If any refuses to avoid such persons after they have been pointed out by the Church [postquam ab ecclesia denotati fuerint], let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilent persons nor give them a Christian burial…” (Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 3, On Heretics. Pope Innocent III. 1215).    

Therefore, it is our collective duty, as Catholics, to recognise exactly what the Church teaches on this very essential matter, then unite and reject as well as denounce Francis and his innumerable poisonous heresies—even if no bishop or cardinal is in support. This is Fr. Kramer’s position.

Question 4: Did St. Francis of Assisi prophesy that there would be an un-canonically elected pope who would not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”?

YES. St Francis of Assisi (whose name Bergoglio intentionally bears in order to mess it up) prophesied: “A Man, not Canonically Elected, will be raised to the Pontificate… In those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a Destroyer.”

Finally, let us kindly note that John Paul II and Benedict XVIas well as the heretical Second Vatican Councillaid the foundation of Francis’ heresy regarding the Jews, the only difference between them being that the duo never expressed their errors officially as Francis has done. The errors of John Paul II and Benedict XVI in this regard are well documented by Mr. John Vennari in his article: Judaism & the Church: before & after Vatican II, written before Francis' invasion. 

John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis praying at the Wailing or Western Wall in Jerusalem.

While both John Paul II and Benedict XVI expressed their heretical opinions in their bad books, scandalous speeches, and by their visits to the synagogue as well as praying at the Western Wall, Francis has now taught this heresy officially
. “I have been saying for years that when a “pope” will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophesied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions.” (Fr. Kramer). [http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com/2017/06/why-does-father-paul-kramer-still.html?m=1]
 
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

T said…
Many people think formal heresy refers to a formal process. But “material” and “formal” are used in an Aristotelian sense. A material heretic is someone who believes a heresy; a formal heretic believes it, knowing that the Church condemns it. So the question on whether Cardinal Bergoglio is a formal heretic is not decided by whether anyone with authority called it out but whether he knows what he teaches is heresy.

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