"RORATE" Traditional Latin Mass in the Archdiocese of Toronto

Monday, 11 April 2016

Pope Francis and his poison!


Fatigue must not be allowed to settle in with regards to this rotten fruit given to us by the Bishop of Rome in the form of his apostolic exhortation. We are only getting started. We must oppose this error and this Pope. It is our duty to Christ and the Church. If not us, who then?

It is mainly the laity who have called out the heresy the "Joy of heresy." So far, little has been said by Cardinals and Bishops who would naturally oppose the error being preached. I suspect that they will speak soon after taking the time to review the document, dissect it. It is even possible that their are broader discussions taking place around the world to oppose the error and proclaim the truth.

This document is poisonous. It is catastrophic. Some writers, priests, bishops, cardinals will tell you otherwise. They lie. Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Satis Cognitum, wrote:


"There can be nothing more dangerous than those who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one worked, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition."

Leo's statement describes well this document. Francis cannot run from it. He cannot hide. 

He has promoted numerous heresies. Of this, there can be no doubt. It is not even easily disguised. Read it. If you have any knowledge of true Catholicism it will jump out at you intantly, It starts in the third paragraph.

The clerical twitterati is lying to the poor sinner; telling them they are all okay now, no need to repent, no need to amend their lives. They are liars and deceivers, they are leading souls to Hell and will join them there or precede them.

Now, there are those who quite rightly say that the document must be read in continuity with the Faith and Tradition. Yes, fine; for me and you, dear reader. But that is not what is going to happen with those who will use the contradiction and ambiguity to further their agendas. The fact is, nobody should need to "interpret" a papal exhortation, it should be clear enough for the average Catholic that is simply interprets itself.

This document must be denounced. Those who wrote it must be called out for the scandal. The Pope must be held to account in this world so that he may repent and find the mercy he so frantically preaches.

Otherwise, Bergoglio will go to Hell. 



21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Even though I pray for our legitimate pope, I sadly acknowledge that he is simply another obviously bad pope. He is like a stranger, almost open enemy, instead of a true shepherd.

Ana Milan said...

There is no earthly reason for the Hierarchy to delay so long in speaking out about this Exhortation, as they certainly knew its content well before we did. Cardinal Napier has already said it is OK when read through several times. We have tolerated heresy after heresy for the past three years and still no sign from the more conservative Cardinals (with exception of two retired) that they are going to do anything about it, so they must be in full agreement with PF's agenda. Otherwise, by omission, they are as guilty as he.

Russell Koch said...

This could simply be God's way of exposing that which has been going on in the Parishes for decades. The weakening of the Church Militant began decades ago as seen by the families with two for fewer children, the dearth of vocations, support for homosexuality, the election of politicians anathema to Doctirne with the Catholic vote. This Pope is simply putting his imprimatur upon common (so it is said) pastoral practice. We desparatly need the sun to shine upon this mold and mildew which is destroying us.

Peter Lamb said...

A person becomes a heretic when he exteriorly manifests his interior heresy. Thoughts can be manifested not only with words but also with gestures, attitudes, signs and as Ana Milan has just noted, by omissions. Many theologians have confirmed this truth. Here are just a few - there are many others:
De Lugo: “According to the general rule, for something to constitute external heresy and incur censure, it is necessary and sufficient for the internal heresy to be manifested through some external sign. These signs are usually classified in two kinds: words and acts. Words include signs with the head, hands or any others, such as sign language. Acts also include omissions of some external action, for at times the omission of an act is no less a manifestation of internal heresy than a positive act, which is why heretics are often discovered by the very fact that they do not do what Catholics do.”
Merkelbach: “External heresy is the one manifested by external signs (words, signs, acts or the omission thereof).”[3]

Prümmer: “External heresy is an error against the faith manifested byword or another external sign.”

Tanquerey: “To incur such excommunication ... it is necessary that heresy, after being conceived internally, be manifested externally by a word, writing or act.”

Saint Paul commands that the heretic be admonished once or twice before being anathamatised. How can one then become a heretic by the mere fact of practicing certain actions, or omissions? Authors teach that the admonition required by St. Paul is aimed at making it clear to the sinner that he is denying a truth of the faith - a truth that cannot be denied under any pretext whatsoever. One must remember those first Catholics were hearing the Gospel by word of mouth, for the first time in their lives. A man might easily misunderstand a point and it is only fair that his brothers should make quite sure that his mistake be pointed out to him. He would only be cast out if he proved pertinacious in his heresy.
Repeated warnings are not necessary for a Jesuit versed in the Faith!

Peter Lamb said...

As De Lugo expounds:
"... a previous admonition and reprimand is not always required to punish someone as heretical and pertinacious; nor is such requirement always admitted in the practice of the Holy Office. For if it can be ascertained in some other way, given the defendant’s qualities, obvious doctrinal knowledge and other circumstances, that he could not be unaware that his doctrine was opposed to the Church’s, by this very fact he will be considered a heretic... The reason for this is clear, for external admonition can only serve to make the person in error become aware of the opposition existing between his error and the doctrine of the Church. If he knows the subject much more through books and conciliar definitions than he could through the words of his admonisher, there is no reason to require another admonition for him to become pertinacious against the Church."

When a pope lays aside his tiara; gives away his ring; places a Buda on top of the Tabernacle; kisses the Koran; wears the ephod of Caiaphas, or the satanic pallium of lucifer, he commits acts and gestures of heresy. A bishop, for example, teaches veneration when he incenses the Blessed Sacrament. There is clearly a doctrine behind his gesture. Conversely, a person who shows no veneration to the Blessed Sacrament by refusing to genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament, EVEN AT THE OFFERTORY, is expressing doubts, or opposition to traditional Catholic doctrine, albeit without saying it.

Fosterers of heresy: “are those who, by some act or omission, do heretics a favor that helps promote the heretical doctrine.”
This is something that traditional Catholics should be very wary of!

De Lugo: "They favor the heretic who, by virtue of their office, are obliged to arrest, punish, or expel him, and yet neglect these duties. For example, the judges to whom a bishop or Inquisitors resort, or to whom they deliver a heretic to be punished; and also the Inquisitors and ecclesiastical prelates themselves, if they neglect what they are obliged to do by virtue of their office and thus favor heresy. The same should be said of the other ministers and officials of the Holy Office and even of the private person on whom this office is imposed by those who have the power to impose it; and also of the witnesses who, obliged to say the truth when legitimately interrogated, hide it to favor a heretic."

This applies to those who tolerate, aid, or abet Bergoglio and his false NWO religion.

Anonymous said...

Paul Morphy : Vox has hit the nail on the head here. The fact that this document is open to interpretation is where the real danger lies. This document is part of a process to create a separate doctrine to the age old tried and tested doctrine. The role of this Pope - and every Pope - is to protect and defend what has already been given. However this Pope appears to want to add to what was already there and not in a good way.

Brian said...

Vox

The poisons that Jorge spews would not be possible if he wasn't already soaked in the poisons condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sanu Exitu. Yes Truly Lamentable Results we continue to see. And from a bishop of Rome no less.


http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

Libera nos Domine a haeresibus Modernistarum

Leah said...

In the meantime, while we are exposing the Lamentable Results and the lamentable Pope, Cardinals and bishops, let us not forget what it is all about, e.g. the divorced and remarried. We, the laity, who have our feet on the ground as solid Catholics, must ferret out the divorced in our midst, befriend them, make sure that their divorce was a necessity and assist them with out friendship and assistance. Above all, impress them that remarriage is not an option. For that reason they need our friendship more than any other. The clergy and nuns have their own communities for fraternal support, the divorced laity must have the parish, not in some pie-in-the-sky sort of way, but in a real way wanting to be a shoulder to lean on and hands to help.
Then and only then can we hold up to the Holy See that the divorced life is possible, without concessions that endanger the soul and betray the teachings of Our Lord. Because in all the bewailing of what the Modernists are doing, we are forgetting what this 'Love Letter of Pope' is all about. It is about the divorced who, let us be clear, were not called to be celibate and stand alone in a hostile world.

Barona said...

Read Vatican I and the Code of Canon Law (1017 version, if you like). The theories of theologians prior to the Council now are laid to rest by the infallible pronouncements of that same Council. Francis is the Pope, whether we like it or not. He may be a material heretic or not, but he definitely is not a formal heretic.

Peter Lamb said...

Barona to what declarations of Vatican I and to which canons of 1917 law do you refer? Prior to which Council do you mean?

Matthew said...

Barona - right - fine - but is he a Catholic? Could anyone argue that this man holds to the Catholic faith, pure and in its entirety? Refer repeated and uncontested (and even Vatican-website-published) Scalfari interviews for guidance. Because any election of a non-Catholic Pope (just as the election of a woman or a horse) is invalid. In any case, this lot are far too wily to get caught in formal heresy. Remember Kasper's boast of the deliberate ambiguities inserted into the VII documents. These men stand for deception and confusion. They undermine. This is a revolution. We have witnessed nothing but since March of 2013.

Anonymous said...

Pope Francis is on record as saying he does not believe in a Catholic God,am i being naive in thinking that in order to be the leader of the Catholic Church,one is obliged to believe in it.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if be truly realized what he is doing.

Anonymous said...

Vox,

I found this through was.cfnews.org. You will LOVE this article (pun intended):

http://theweek.com/articles/617324/cowardice-hubris-pope-francis

This is fantastic.

Anonymous

Anonymous said...

Perhaps it is time to accept the real and distinct possibility that Francis IS in fact the False Prophet as Catholic Theologian, Dr. Kelly Bowring suggests.

Temple_Police said...

I have asked several priests and Bishops and am yet to get a substantive response. I suspect that the biggest problem with this document is that in allowing for the sacrilegious reception of the Holy Eucharist it changes the intention of the Church at the consecration.

The Church's intention has always been to transubstantiate the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Christ for the sanctification, vivification and salvation of the faithful AND that we might give due adoration, praise and worship to God in the person of Christ. This has a secondary intention to protect the sacred species from desecration, blasphemy and sacrilege. St Paul says that those that receive the Eucharist unworthily eat and drink their own condemnation.

With this document Pope Francis allows for the reception of the Eucharist by people in "an objective situation of sin". This means that a priest has the intention of sanctioning a sacrilege to the detriment of the faithful, that he knowingly confects the Eucharist (or attempts to) with an intention to desecrate the sacred species.

There is a reason why satanists have to steal the host for their black masses, why priests who have fallen into the enemies camp cannot consecrate hosts for satanists to use. It is because of the intention. The intention of such priests is the desecration of the Host which is not that of the Church. At least not the intention of the Church before 4/8/2016.

Thoughts?

Dejan Thaddeus said...

Amen! Praise the Lord for this article! Read all Facebook posts from Theologian Dr. Kelly Bowring. Read the Book of Truth that was prophesied in the Holy Bible 2500 years ago through prophet Daniel and apostle John.

God Bless.
Peace and love.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Temple Police, Me no expert and this is a complicated subject, but for what they worth my thoughts:
1. You have raised a very good point.

2. "With this document Pope Francis allows for the reception of the Eucharist by people in "an objective situation of sin". This means that a priest [and the "pope"] has the intention of sanctioning a sacrilege ..."
Spot on! But no true Pope, or Priest would ever do that which would incur grievous sin! Herein lies your answer.

3. Satanic priests consecrate validly. See the black mass said in the Vatican by satanic prelates. The Priesthood leaves a permanent mark on the soul as do baptism and confirmation. A sinful priest can give valid absolution. A masonic apostate can confect valid sacraments.

4. The "Intention of the Church" is something I also initially found very difficult to understand, but a good explanation of it is given here - the same principles apply:
"Sacramental Intention and Masonic Bishops."
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/MasonicBishops.pdf

5. I hope this helps. :)
6. Oh! I almost forgot to say:
For the pope to say what we are talking about, we agree is humongous error. Only problem is that the Holy Ghost prevents a Pope from teaching error to the Universal Church on questions of Faith and Morals. Hence the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Ergo a pope who teaches humongous error CANNOT be a true Pope, or the Holy Ghost has been sleeping on the job - which is impossible - not so? That is why I said in 2 above "herein lies your answer".
You have perfectly illustrated the fact that modernism cannot and does not resonate with Catholic Doctrine. Modernism is the Queen of Heresies and bergoglio is the Patriarch of the World. I rest my sedevacantist case. :)

Vox Cantoris said...

Peter, that is an excellent commentary by Father Cekada.

Temple Police: a Black Mass can be "valid" in the sense of the confection of the Sacrament, it is however, grossly sacrilegious and evil.

As long as the priest intends to consecrate with what the Church intends, (what the Church has always intended) then it is valid. It can't be any other way.

Peter Lamb said...

Thanks Vox. OT, but it's weekend - braai time! I bet you don't know what a "bontspan" is. Slabs of rump steak 10cms square and 4 cms thick, interspersed with slabs of "bees nier vet" (bovine kidney fat)of the same dimensions on a skewer. Plenty of both. Looks like a multicoloured span of oxen - hence "bontspan". Braai slowly, while sipping Old Brown, or Black Label. "Kerf" ( slice;pare) the cooked rump and fat like biltong into a heap. Scratch the desired amount onto your plate. The fat permeates the meat in a most original way. Delicious beyond description. Humongously delicious! Try it! :)

Vox Cantoris said...

Frankie left South Africa at 2, she's not heard of this. Enjoy!