Sts. Peter & Paul Sung Latin Mass

Sts. Peter & Paul Sung Latin Mass
Toronto Latin Mass

Tuesday, 5 July 2016

Once again Francis disgraces the Church in collusion with the secularist manipulators!

Tancred, at the Eponymous Flower, has a full translation of the latest secular media interview with the occupant of the Chair of the Holy Apostle, St. Peter. It comes through the original German at Katholisches, titled: "Pope Francis' spectacular interview: Was Pope Benedict XVI, "the problem" of the Church."

As reported here a few days ago, this is where Jorge Bergoglio made his reference to pushing on in spite of the "ultra-conservatives" also known as faithful and orthodox Catholics, who always say "no" to his radical reformist-globalist agenda.

A Pope is not a political leader. He is not to be a captive of secular media and sound bites. That any Pope should submit himself to secularists in this manner is a disgrace upon the papacy and a standard that is beneath the dignity of the Vicar of Christ. He foments confusion and heresy in these interviews. He feeds the Church's enemies robustly. He scandalises the faithful and sets up faithful and orthodox Catholics for mock and ridicule.

When will the cardinals and bishops and theologians of sound faith and reputation say to this Bishop of Rome, "Enough!" 

When will they find the courage to denounce these scandalous and delinquent comments in the secular world?

When will they hold this man to account for his own words in newsprint and heretical notions in exhortations? 

When will they hold him to account for those who act in his name and undermine the faith?

Cowards. Effeminates, nearly all of them.

We are waiting.





(Rome / Buenos Aires) A spectacular newspaper interview with Pope Francis was published on Sunday in which the Pope uses an unusual dialectic. Is the Catholic Church leader to understand that his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, was a "problem" for the Church?" Indicates Francis in addition that "ultraconservative" Church representatives, according to context meaning the defender of Catholic marriage and morality and the Discipline of the Sacraments, actually "beheaded" include?

Newspaper interviews as a new papal "magisterium"

With his first interview that was published in the leftist daily on October 2013 by La Repubblica, Pope Francis revolutionized the communication policy of the papacy. The atheist from a Masonic Lodge, Eugenio Scalfari, gave it the title: "The Pope: 'Thus, I Will Change the Church'". With Francis a new communication strategy of a pope was introduced. For Pope Francis, interviews are part of the Magisterium: "All the time I submit declarations, keep preaching, and that is teaching," he said in December 2014 in his first interview with a Latin American newspaper, the Argentine La Nacion.

With his recent interview, which was published in Argentina yesterday, again by the daily newspaper La Nacion, Pope Francis continued with his special "magisterium".

The interview has an Argentina focus and addressed recent polemics in the Pope's home country. The Pope has been accused of having a disturbed relationship, since December 2015 with incumbent President Macri. The pope had supported the left-Peronist rival candidate in the election campaign.

The interview was meant to smooth the waves, hence the title: "I have no problem with Macri. He is a noble man. "

The Pope and the "Ultraconservatives", "I want an open Church. They say no to everything "

However, some questions concern the entire Church. So the Pope was asked by Joaquin Morales Solá how he gets along "with the ultra-conservatives in the Church."

The tendentious exaggeration of the term "ultra-conservatives", as it is known by left journalists, was neither corrected nor rejected by the Pope. The Pope responded by implicitly adopting it. In his own words about the "Ultraconservatives":

"They do their job and I do mine. I want an open, understanding Church that accompanies the injured families. They say no to everything. I follow my path, without looking to the left and right. I don't want to behead anybody. That's what I never liked. I repeat: I do not support the conflict.' With a broad smile he concludes: 'nails are pulled by making upward pressure. Or one puts them quietly to the side when they reach retirement age.'"

Astonishingly, Pope Francis made a direct connection between "Ultraconservatives" and "heads." He said he's never "chopped off anyone's head" because that still doesn't appeal to him. At the same time, the Church leader actually suggested that "ultra-conservatives" were actually "beheaded." And by that the Pope does not mean any special marginal groups, but apparently, high-ranking employees of the Roman Curia.

Resignation of Benedict XVI. "Has made all the problems of the church visible"

Another question from the interview which took place on the June 28th relates to the health of Benedict. Pope Francis confirmed his reply that there actually was no compelling health reason for the resignation:

"He has problems in moving, but his head and his memory are perfectly intact."

Simultaneously Francis presented, however, that the resignation was clearly Pope Benedict XVI's "last act of government." Recently, there were discussions after a lecture by Curial Archbishop Georg Gänswein about a type of dual papal authority in an "almost common" exercise of the papacy by an "active" and a "contemplative" Pope.

Pope Francis said of Pope Benedict XVI. for La Nacion: "He was a revolutionary. In the meeting with the cardinals just before the conclave of May 2013, he told us that one of us will be the next pope, and he did not know his name. His behavior was impeccable. His resignation made visible all of the problems of the Church. His resignation had nothing to do with the personal. It was a governmental action, his last governmental action."

Pope Benedict XVI. a "revolutionary"? The statement made with the excessively used word "revolution" which seems to be meant as a compliment, but is rather outlandish in characterizing the German pope.

On the other hand, the statement, Pope Benedict XVI. has "made visible all the problems of the Church" with his resignation is truly noteworthy. In connection with the next statement, his resignation had "nothing to do with anything personal," but was a "governmental action", Pope Francis himself opens the floodgates to new speculation that Benedict XVI. may have been pressured to vacate the Chair of Peter in order to eliminate "all the problems of the Church."

Does Pope Francis himself adopt the opinion as it was represented in 2012 by the late Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini? He even demanded the resignation of Benedict XVI. shortly before his death, because he saw in the German pope a "problem" for the Church, rather even, "the problem."
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: La Nacion (Screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...

AMDG

23 comments:

Ana Milan said...

At this stage it simply isn't acceptable for anyone to consider PF as a truly elected Pontiff. His governance in Argentina should really have been enough to exclude him from going forward for such office. The election itself was not carried out according to the rules laid down by JPII & the canvassing & secret meetings beforehand should have made that conclave null & void. Every day since his election we have had to endure endless Doctrinal heresies, listen to his outright hatred for anyone trying to keep the True Faith of their fathers (including the clergy), making Modernists promotions & demoting Orthodox men, siding with the LGBT activists & those in 'irregular' states.

Of course this didn't all happen overnight - we have had fifty-five years of non-stop tearing apart of CC Doctrine, Magisterium, Tradition, Liturgy of Ages, Ten Commandments et. etc. Why cannot Canon Lw deal with this imposter? It seems to have rules for everything BUT the dismissal of a fraudulent pope. Our cries for action from the Hierarchy fall on deaf ears. What is wrong & is ANYONE going to right it before it's too late? Our Lady of Fatima HELP US.

Anonymous said...

In complete agreement with Ana Milan and Ann Barnhardt.....Our Lady of Fatima, Ora Pro Nobis! Protect Pope BXVI!

Peter Lamb said...

Can a heretic be a valid Pope of the Roman Catholic Church?

No. The Papal Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV teaches that: if anyone was a heretic before the Papal election, he could not be a valid pope, even if he is elected unanimously by the Cardinals. Canon 188.4 (1917 Code of Canon Law) teachers that : if a cleric (pope, bishop, etc.) becomes a heretic, he loses his office without any declaration by operation of law. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Antonius, St. Francis deSales, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and many other theologians all teach that a heretic cannot be a pope: “If however, God were to permit a pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.” -- St. Alphonsus Liguori, Church Doctor: Verita bella Fede. Pt. iii, Ch.viii, 9-10.

Peter Lamb said...


Can a true Pope become a heretic?
Saint Robert Bellarmine carefully examined all the cases of every true pope who had ever been accused of heresy up to his own time. He proved conclusively that such a thing had never occurred:
"Since it can be proven that no true pope has ever become an heretic, THIS IS A SIGN FROM HEAVEN THAT IT CAN NEVER OCCUR."
("CONTROVERSIARUM DE SUMMO PONTIFICE, LIBER QUARTUS, DE POTESTATE SPIRITUALI.)

Vatican I came to the same conclusion in its day.

To a rhetorical question IF, IF, IF, "If a True Pope ever became an heretic, what would be the result?" Saint Robert answered:
"... IF a true pope ever became an heretic, THEN he would automatically lose all office and would be excommunicate ..."

From this, it is clear that no one has to "judge the pope" for he has excommunicated himself by committing the sin of heresy.

Montini to Bergoglio are no more popes, than you, or I.

Peter Lamb said...

How it used to be:

http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/glories-of-the-middle-ages/medieval-cathedrals/sainte-chapelle-faith-carved-in-stone.html?utm_source=sm-tfpsa&utm_medium=email&utm_content=SAE0384&utm_campaign=tfpsa_newsletter

Dan said...

"He scandalises the faithful and sets up faithful and orthodox Catholics for mock and ridicule."

The pope doesn't just set us up for mock and ridicule... HE IS mocking and ridiculing us.

I for one believe the pope was validly elected which just proves how terrible the rot is in the Church.

The pope wants a "poor church?" I am glad to do my part now to make it poorer. Give somewhere else. They'll get the message.

Leah said...

That is all true and good, but where does that leave us? I haven't called him Pope or Catholic almost from the beginning, nor do I go to the Mass created by Montini.
We are a counter-movement, but without leadership because I suppose such leadership, if they took the helm, would be called a schismatic.
As things stand, the next Pope will be a liberal like Francis. Do we just fold our hands and pray for the happy demise of the true church, except for its catacomb branch. As far as the catacombs are concerned, we also need a leader. Has anybody ever had a heart-to-heart with Card. Burke or Bishop Schneider? Was there only one Archbp. Lefebvre?
I am fine in the catacombs, but that does not a visible church make.
What exactly is Card. Burke's problem? Pope Francis says he will go ahead with his reformation, without looking over his shoulder. Does Card. Burke feel okay with that?
It is true we have to pray as if everything depended on God, but we also have to work blood, sweat and tears, for this we need a leader.

Eugene said...

@ Dan said:
"The pope wants a "poor church?" I am glad to do my part now to make it poorer. Give somewhere else. They'll get the message."
PLEASE PLEASE ALL TRUE BELEIVING, PRACTISING CATHOLICS...THIS IS THE SOLUTION...WHEN THE MONEY RUNS DRY THEY WILL WAKE UP...PERHAPS VOX AND HIS OTHER CATHOLIC BLOGGERS CAN START SOME KIND PF MOVEMENT TO ENCOURGAE THIS...I FOR MY PART HAVE RECUDED MY GIVING BY 50% AND CHANNELED IT TO THE PRO LIFE CAUSE, THE FSSP AND THE POOR. I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW AND AM THINKING OF ANOTHER 50 % REDUCTION AND CHANNELING THAT TO THE SSPX...ENOUGH IS ENOUGH OF HYPOCRITICAL CATHOLICISM.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Leah,
1. We are not a counter movement. We are Catholics. They are a modernist sect.
2. Our Leader and Head of our Church is Jesus the Christ. He is with us at the helm, as He has always been and always will be.
3. The Church is not dying, nor will it ever die. The modernist sect has left the Church, it is not Catholic.
4. We are the visible Church. The Church is in its members - not the buildings.
5. Everything does depend on God. He is in control. He is allowing "the operation of error" to separate those who believe from those who don't. We have long been warned this day would come.
6. What do we do? We remain faithful to Christ and His Church. Say the Rosary every day. Wear the brown scapula. Assist at Mass webcasts virtually - live, or DVD. Make spiritual Communions. For this we have our Leader. Be patient. The Immaculate Heart will prevail.

Greg J Ben said...

The only involvement of the Catholic Church in world affairs at the moment should be the following:

To apologize.

Yes, to apologize to all sinners, from the LGBT to the Atheists.

But not an apology as this pope said for being "harsh" on them or whatever expression he used, no, but the Church and He, this pope, must apologize for FAILING to accomplish the mission Jesus commanded him and all Christians to do which is to preach and to convert the world, including these sinners, from the LGBT to the Atheists. An apology for failing to tell the world the TRUTH.

The Catholic Church should apologize most of all and first of all to Jesus for failing Him.

But with a Vatican like this and a worldwide Church like this, ruled by Satan, I don't expect anything decent coming from her.

Anonymous said...

Vox,

"Pope Francis said of Pope Benedict XVI. for La Nacion: "He was a revolutionary. In the meeting with the cardinals just before the conclave of May 2013, he told us that one of us will be the next pope..."

The conclave was in March - not May - 2013.

Was that a mistranslation or did he actually say "the conclave of May 2013"?

Margaret

Anonymous said...

Card Burke?

What if what God wants is exactly what's going on? What if Burke knows it and just lets it happen?

In one way or another this might serve a higher purpose, separate wheat from chaff.

Let's pray and trust we'll be found among the pure golden wheat.

Anonymous said...

Peter,

There is a big difference between the CRIME of heresy and the SIN of heresy. Only the Church (e.g. a General Council, a group of Cardinals) - not you or me - can determine whether or not the Pope is guilty of the CRIME - not the sin - of heresy and has severed himself from the Church (cf. True or False Pope? by John Salza and Robert Siscoe).

The Church has gone through crises in the past and has survived. It will survive this one too.

Margaret

Anonymous said...

I want an open, understanding Church that accompanies the injured families. They say no to everything. I follow my path,
( At least he is honest here stating * my path*..it is *HIS* Path and NOT the Lords)...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

*without looking to the left and right.*)
0 please C Jorge, do you not understand eternal truth...there is no left or right, you are either in the truth or out of it, those who do not follow the fulness of truth which is Jesus Christ himself is *out* of it, including HIM for Jesus said I vomit out the lukewarm!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to behead anybody. That's what I never liked. I repeat: I do not support the conflict.' With a broad smile he concludes: 'nails are pulled by making upward pressure. Or one puts them quietly to the side when they reach retirement age.'"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad he mentions nails because he by his *OWN* authority is putting nails in the eternal coffin of those who do *NOT* REPENT* and believe in the gospel..And that gospel is.. The Gospel according to God not C Jorge gospel!
Waek leadership is a punishment from God and by gee are we being punished!!!!... Judas Pope!!!!

Anonymous said...

The rise of PF has been and continues to be a deeply disturbing and ominous reality.
Bizarre events in the last three popes pontificate...One shot in assassination attempt, one resignation under bizarre circumstances and PF entire papacy...ominous.

Vox Cantoris said...

...and one murdered?

Michael Dowd said...

Perhaps we need to again become a catacomb Church in order to drive off all the careerists in the clergy. In other words, to regain our spiritual strength Catholicism may need to become an outlaw religion. Or, another approach would be clear chastisement by God on the Catholic clergy who fail in faith and responsibility.
My guess is Our Lady of Fatima, who must be rather distressed to say the least, that her requests were not followed may soon make her will known. It will not be pretty.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Margaret, You are correct.There is a big difference between the CRIME of heresy and the SIN of heresy.
The Pope's authority comes from God and only God may judge a Pope. No man on Earth may judge a true Pope. No man is superior to the Pope.
When a Catholic (layman, or Pope) commits the sin of heresy (a sin against Faith), he automatically excommunicates himself from the Mystical Body.
If the heretic has a position of authority, his authority is rescinded by God, from Whom it came. One who is not a member of the Mystical Body, cannot be its Head.

So, if a heretic (who because of his heresy is no longer a Catholic), is elected to the Papacy, his election is VOID (worthless), because a non-Catholics may not, by canon law, be elected to the Papacy.
Pope Paul IV wrote Cum ex Apostolatus Officio precisely for this reason after the Reformation - to prevent a protestant from ever being elected Pope. Please google Cum ex and read paragraph 6: i - vi.

So, the elected heretic has no authority and is not a true Pope (i.e. he is not a Pope FORMALITER), BUT election is a process and the process proceeded according to canon law. Therefore, the man is LEGALLY pope (i.e. he is pope MATERIALITER).

Now, we have a non-Catholic layman legally sitting in St. Peter's Chair with no authority whatever. This is the current situation and the one we have had with all the conciliar "popes". We have had popes materialiter - legally elected heretics deprived of all authority by God for their having committed the sin of heresy prior to being elected pope.

NOW these imposters can be judged by men, because they are not true Popes, for the CRIME of heresy against CANON LAW. (The SIN of herey is against DIVINE LAW.) Now the proper Church authority (College of Cardinals) can and must depose the fraudster in the interest of good Church GOVERNANCE. This is a LEGAL deposition in terms of CANON LAW. He is deposed by God when he commits the sin - long before the legal deposition by the Cardinals gets done.

So far we have been talking about a man who was a heretic BEFORE his election. What about a true Pope (i.e. Pope formaliter), who BECOMES a heretic?

Firstly, it is probable that this could never happen, because the Holy Ghost prevents a true Pope from ever teaching error to the Universal Church - DOGMA of Papal Infallibility. As noted above, both St. Robert and Vatican I found that there NEVER has been an heretical Pope in the history of the Church. Saint Robert went so far as to say: "Since it can be proven that no true pope has ever become an heretic, THIS IS A SIGN FROM HEAVEN THAT IT CAN NEVER OCCUR."

For argument sake, let's say a true Pope became a heretic. Numerous authorities unequivocally say he would immediately be deposed by God.
One thing is sure - the Holy Ghost would not permit a true Pope to teach error to the Universal Church. To doubt this, is to deny the dogma of Infallibility.

Dear Margaret, the heretic excommunicates himself by committing the SIN. It is not us judging him - he judges himself. He is automatically excommunicated for the SIN, NOT the CRIME. The Cardinals merely make legal declaration for benefit of Church governance. Only the Cardinals can judge the crime - perfectly correct. But the SIN severs him from the Church, NOT THE CRIME!
Salza is controlled opposition.

Anonymous said...

Peter Lamb said... For argument sake, let's say a true Pope became a heretic. Numerous authorities unequivocally say he would immediately be deposed by God.

The SV view is myopic in the extreme because SVs do not take their arguments to their logical conclusions.

What they fail to understand, probably because most of them are not old enough to have lived through the changes, is that, in the year 1965, every bishop of the Catholic Church would fall into that same "deposed" category.

If the documents of Vatican II contain heresy, which SVs believe they do, that means every bishop who signed those documents, including men like Archbishops Lefebvre and the favorite Thuc, fell into heresy by the year 1965 and were deposed.

The few bishops that were not present at the council due to various obstacles, like those in some communist countries, kept communion with those bishops who attended Vatican II.

In the SV view, a person who keeps communion with a heretic cannot escape the charge of heresy himself.

Therefore, the SV view demands the idea that every single bishop defected from the Catholic Faith in the 1960s, which means the Catholic Church lost its true hierarchy.

A person cannot get around that conclusion and still be true to the SV position.

If Pope Francis is deposed due to heresy, the bishops who attended Vatican II cannot escape that same charge, which, with a few exceptions, was every Catholic bishop in the world at that time.

SVism is actually a repudiation of the indefectibility of the Catholic Church and is therefore not Catholic.

DJR

Peter Lamb said...

Dear DJR, Roncalli and Montini were heretics and excommunicants and not Popes formaliter.
Neither had authority to convene a Council, nor to promulgate the documents of a Council. Vatican II was a false, meaningless "council" promulgated by authority of a non-Catholic wearing the ephod of the Jews. Those who signed, were signing meaningless bits of paper. Of course all the masonic prelates who connived at the "council" were themselves excommunicants. You forget the many prelates who opposed the "council" and who were not masons.

"In the SV view, a person who keeps communion with a heretic cannot escape the charge of heresy himself."
Correct, but this is not a "SV view", this is Catholic doctrine.

"If Pope Francis is deposed due to heresy ..."
Do you not accept the authority of Vatican I, Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church and theologians who have categorically stated that manifest heretics are automatically excommunicated and deposed upon committing the sin?

". . . the SV view demands the idea that every single bishop defected from the Catholic Faith in the 1960s, which means the Catholic Church lost its true hierarchy."
You sure like making wild, uninformed statements about the "SVs"! :)

Peter Lamb said...

Dear DJR, I forgot the last bit.
"SVism is actually a repudiation of the indefectibility of the Catholic Church and is therefore not Catholic."
From this statement, one must conclude that you believe:
1. The conciliar popes were/are Popes formaliter.
2. Vatican II was a valid Council free from error, or heresy.
3. The teachings of Vatican II are in complete conformity with and without any deviation from the teaching of all previous magisteriums of the Church.
4. The teachings (magisteriums) of the conciliar popes have never deviated from those of prior magisteriums by even an iota - because as you say the Catholic Church is indefectible (dogma.)
Well if you believe that, so be it.

In actual fact, Vatican II and the conciliar popes have deviated grossly from prior magisteriums and by doing so, have proved in terms of the dogma of indefectibility you quoted, beyond doubt, that the conciliar sect is not the Catholic Church.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear DJR, just a few Saints for you to consider. If you want theologians etc. just let me know.

St. Francis de Sales: – “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”

St. Robert Bellarmine: – “A Pope who is a manifest heretic
automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases
automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori: – “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should
fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If,
however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and
contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the
apostolic chair would be vacant.”

St. Antoninus: – “In the case in which the Pope would become a
heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without
any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”

Mark Thomas said...

Once again, Pope Francis's words have misrepresented by various Catholics.

1. There are blogs, fortunately not Vox's, on which it's been claimed that His Holiness used the word "ultra-conservatives". Where during the interview did he use that word?

2. Do we have a Spanish-to-English translation of the interview in question. Is it correct that what we have is a Spanish-to-German-to-English translation of the interview.

3. My understanding is that the reporter, not Pope Francis, used the word "ultra-conservatives". That said, Pope Francis' response was very mild. He did not comment with the venom that one traditionalist after another has pretended.

4. Pope Francis said simply said that he does his job and his critics do their jobs.

5. Pope Francis said that he's not out to destroy his critics.

How on earth is any of that vicious? Where is the venom in Pope Francis' comments in question? This is bizarre. Where did he lay waste to his critics?

Finally, Pope Francis made the following point, which is simply the truth: He said that there are people within the Church who say no to everything. Conversely, he said that ideologically, he neither looks to the right not left.

-- The undeniable fact is that there are Catholics who say "no" to everything. There are liberal Catholics who say "no" to everything that pertains to Holy Tradition.

There are "ultra-conservatives" who say "no" to everything. Some are so extreme in their conservatism that they denounce the SSPX, FSSP, ICK...all TLM groups except their group as "liberal" and even "heretical".

Is there anybody on earth except certain "ultra-conservatives" who actually believe that the SSPX, FSSP, and ICK are "liberal", let alone "heretical"? Is there a sentient adult Catholic who believes that the SSPX is "liberal"? Well, there are "ultra-conservatives" who actually espouse such nonsense.

Anyway, from the translation that I read of Pope Francis' interview in question, I failed to view his comments as venomous toward "ultra-conservatives". Again, he offered a very calm response to the reporter's question.

Pope Francis offered a live and let live response...they perform their jobs, Pope Francis performs his job...and he made it clear that he's not interested remotely in destroying even his most vicious critics.

Pax.

Mark Thomas