Sunday, 31 July 2016

Fundamentalist Catholics murder Imams, blow up Muslim marketplaces and have desires to destroy Mecca

On the aeroplane returning from Poland, Francis of Rome gave another off-the-cuff interview. In addressing the recent attacks causing death and mayhem by Muslim terrorists Francis said:

"I don't think it is right to equate Islam with violence.” 
"In almost every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists. We have them too." 
"If I have to talk about Islamic violence I have to talk about Christian violence. Every day in the newspapers I see violence in Italy, someone kills his girlfriend, another kills his mother in law, and these are baptised Catholics."

Parce Domine, Parce populo tuo.

What does Canada's Rex Murphy get that our Pope does not?

"How long must our leaders, from the White House to the Vatican, blindly argue that Islamists are not who they themselves say they are; that their motives are not what they declare their motives to be? This is not turning the other cheek. It is shutting their eyes and ears. The murder of Fr. Hamel was a much a proclamation as a crime, and to deny its symbolism is not a mercy, it is an evasion of declared reality."


Unknown said...

"We have them too." This is just plain stupid, on so many levels. As if petty thieves and common criminals were comparable to a virtual institution of Islamic jihad that transcends the centuries. The stupidity and recklessness of this man knows no limits.

Anonymous said...

I suspect no one wants to publish a comment lest they need to go to a Confession afterwards. What is it with this pope that makes pious Catholics want to swear?

Anonymous said...

A stroke couldn't come fast enough for this guy.....COME HOLY SPIRIT!

bvs said...

Contrast pope Francis' poison with the wisdom of Bishop Filton Sheen who said
"Judge the Catholic Church not by those who barely live it's spirit, but by the example of those closest to it"

Parce Domine, parce populo tuo

Ana Milan said...

On reading this I don't know whether to cry or laugh hysterically into my morning cup of tea. This Papacy is becoming more irrelevant by the second.

Anonymous said...

C Jorge states.. "I don't think it is right to equate Islam with violence.”
Only part of his statement is correct... He doesn't think, Period!

philipjohnson said...

I am sorry but the sight of the man fills me with horror . I am 63 yrs of age and never,never have i heard such filth and utter Heretical nonsense spew from a Popes mouth like this Devilish clown

Anonymous said...

Ne plus ultra
Reduce his every uterrance to its inherent absurdity. He is a Marxist. The latest issue of Dabiq, an Isis inspired magazine is dedicated to "breaking the Cross". The editor obviously did not receive clarification from the "Islamic scholar" currently occupying the Diocese of Rome. Enough with this horrible man. His fanciful and dangerous musings are a threat to the physical and spiritual lives of Christians and non-Christians everywhere.
A papa maledicto, libera nos Domine!

Michael Dowd said...

"Experts are still divided whether having your “head chewed off” by a detractor and having your head literally sliced from your body by a Muslim with a knife are equivalent in any meaningful sense."

See William Briggs blog:


Anonymous said...

Francis of Rome is evil and a terrorist from within the Church, in the spiritual sense. Hitler was a baptized Catholic but "not" a practicing one, big difference; Jesus said thou shall not kill, so how can they be catholic let alone fundamentalists. As for Mohammad he commanded his followers to kill… C Jorge you are one crazy anti-Catholic nut!

Truth Seeker said...

I was so dreading his return flight from Poland and what he would say. I dreaded opening my computer this morning and of course...there were his latest opinions that he expressed regarding Islam vs Catholics - and once again, he came out with outrageous statements. The new sex ed program handed out at World Youth Day from the Vatican still has me reeling in disbelief.

It is becoming increasingly very difficult to keep charitable thoughts regarding this supposed leader of our church. I have to keep my focus on our only true Shepherd - and may He have Mercy on us all - Jesus I trust in You! So many are so blind to the truth today. These are very dark times...getting ever so darker. We are certainly being tested. Yesterday's second reading in the Office of Readings, attributed to a letter from Barnabas - had some truths that apply to today -

"When evil days are upon us and the worker of malice gains power, we must attend to our souls and seek to know the ways of the Lord. In those times reverential fear and perseverance will sustain our faith, and we will find need of forbearance and self-restraint as well."

Well -evil days are certainly upon us, and the workers of malice are hard at it trying to gain power over us. We must sustain our faith and belief in the true words spoken by Christ, and know He will triumph over all this chaos! Practicing self-restraint is becoming exceptionally difficult indeed, but persevere we must!

Mark Thomas said...

I am amazed that certain Catholics today are shocked...shocked...amazed, stunned...over Pope Francis' belief that Islam is peaceful.

Seriously, do we go out of our way just to bash and trash His Holiness Pope Francis? Do we need to turn everything that he says into controversy and "heresy?"

Pope Francis didn't say anything that was new in regard to Islam. He has maintained from the beginning of his Pontificate that Islam is peaceful. He holds Moslems in high regard.

He has the very same approach to Islam as did Pope Benedict XVI, who prayed with Moslems in a mosque and praised Islam as a great and peaceful religion.

Pope Francis has the very same approach to Islam as did Pope Saint John Paul II, who kissed the Koran, prayed with Moslems in a mosque, and praised Islam to the hilt.

Popes Benedict XVI, and Saint John Paul II, exhorted Christians to throw open the doors wide to the acceptance of Moslem refugees.

Popes Francis, Benedict XVI, and Saint John Paul II view/viewed Islam in line with Nostra Aetate.

Vatican II declared: "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God."

"Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting."

If Pope Francis is heretical in regard to Islam, then Vatican II, as well as Popes Blessed Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI are heretics.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

I am so overwhelmed by this pope, it is becoming more evident that he is an old Marxist living in the era of liberation theology. It could very well be that like so many clerics of his age, he has lost his faith and only believes, like a Marxist, in the kingdom of man. This is only the beginning of the great apostasy and the horrors of a disintigrating western culture. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Mark Thomas said...

Breaking News:

"Heretical" Pope Praises Islam;

Says Christians, Moslems share the same God; Says Islam traces itself to Abraham; Insists upon dialogue with Moslems; Says Moslems praise and worship the True God.


By the way, it was Pope Benedict XVI who issued the above "heretical" statements.

November 28, 2006 A.D.

In light of the above, it is baffling as to why certain Catholics treat Pope Francis' opinion of Islam as shocking and even "heretical."


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous at 12:05 am, August 01, 2016 said..."A stroke couldn't come fast enough for this guy.....COME HOLY SPIRIT!"

Who is "this guy"? Did you refer to His Holiness Pope Francis? Or do you wish a stroke upon a different child of God? Are you Cstholic?



Mark Thomas

A "stroke couldn't come fast enough for this guy.."

— Anonymous.


— The same Anonymous.

Dan said...

"Seriously, do we go out of our way just to bash and trash His Holiness Pope Francis? Do we need to turn everything that he says into controversy and "heresy?"

Pope Francis didn't say anything that was new in regard to Islam. He has maintained from the beginning of his Pontificate that Islam is peaceful. He holds Moslems in high regard."

At this point who cares if EVERYONE says nice things about Islam. My only concern is whether or not what is said is TRUE. If not, criticism is deserved.

Dan said...

And I don't like this pope's constant criticism of Catholics. His analogy is also invalid and would be laughed at in a freshman class in logic.

Wolverine said...

Thank you Mark Thomas for pointing out the hypocrisy of attacking Francis while ignoring the outrages of the other post VII popes. You are helping to open eyes to the absolute train wreck (apostasy?) of the entire post VII Church.

Ana Milan said...

Mark Thomas: All the Popes since Pius XII have been Marxist/Masonic/Modernists. This is verifiable, as is the evidence of Bella Dodd who confirmed that she, as a member of the Communist Party in the '30s &'40s, helped to plant them in the seminaries of the day in order to destroy the CC. With this in mind and the traumatic times we have endured since the election of Pope John XXIII, it is manifest that heresy has been handed on by all incumbents of the Seat of Peter since that time. The difference between PF & those that went before him boils down to his election which was not carried out in accordance with the rules set down by JPII & in which canvassing on a grand scale was carried out by the St. Gallen Group (Mafia). The question arises as to the validity of his appointment & the trenchant ongoing streams of heresies he spouts would suggest that he is an invalid pope - but history will have to judge. His Papal Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (particularly in the footnotes) abounds in heretical pastoral concepts which, if introduced (as they have been in some areas), directly contradict the ordinary Magisterium. This cannot be if such an Exhortation on a Pastoral Synod is to be made a Binding Document. I list nine others in my response to the article just below this one. There are, I'm sure, more but such will do for now.

The Muslims do NOT worship the same God as we do - they do NOT believe in the Triune Godhead & make the point that Allah & their prophet Muhammad, Allah's messenger, is not the Abrahamic God consecutive popes have insisted upon, solely for the sake of ecumenism. Allah urges his followers to 'go for the neck' of all infidels who do not agree to convert. Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Al Azhar University in Cairo confirmed that all Muslims who converted to Christianity should be killed - two months ago he visited PF in the Vatican. Is it any wonder that PF is coy about speaking about Muslim terrorism, even to the extent of playing down the murder of Fr. Hamel & the attack on Fr. Vanderlee? Incredible for any Pope worthy of the Seat of Peter!

Thankfully he has indicated on the return flight to Rome from Poland that he will not be going to Panama in 2019 - another Peter will go, he said. It cannot happen too soon!

newguy40 said...

A fantastic and accurate image comparison.

Whhat's next, really? "I don't think it is right to equate Catholicism with Charity and Love of Neighbor.”

Wait... What?

Peter Lamb said...

"f Pope Francis is heretical in regard to Islam, then Vatican II, as well as Popes Blessed Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI are heretics."

Indeed they are!

Vox Cantoris said...


I wrote this in February 2015. I posted it again, on July 26, last week.

We agree.

All of them from Paul VI and that rotten Council have been wrong!

Every. Single. One

But not one of them has said that this one has said!

Not one has bowed to the vagina rock in block shroud as he did in Africa!

Woody said...

It could be worse. He could travel by train which takes a lot longer.

Peter Lamb said...

Well this ought to put Jorge and the "Islam is a religion of peace brigade" to bed:
n the new edition of its full-color, glossy magazine, ISIS mocks those who claim Islam is a peaceful religion ... ISIS mocks those who claim Islam is a peaceful religion ... The 15th issue of Dabiq, published on July 31, is titled “Break The Cross” and appears to be primarily directed at those that ISIS considers its enemies, particularly Christians. One section is devoted to the words and actions of Pope Francis and is headlined “In The Words Of Our Enemies.” An editorial titled “Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You” takes aim at Westerners and “apostate ‘Imams’ in the West” who refuse to define ISIS’ motivation as being Islamic ... The ISIS author of the “Why We Hate You” piece aims to settle the argument, and “clarify” in “unequivocal terms” that ISIS is Islamic. The author says that those ... who identify Islam with ISIS are correct.

Vox Cantoris said...

Indeed. Islamic State terrorists are in accord with the Koran. This is how Islam wiped out nearly all Christians in the Middle East and Africa 14 centuries ago. The Pope is deluded and even malevolent in this statement.

Unknown said...

There is just cause for singling out Francis for criticism, because the quantity and frequency of his anti-Catholic statements completely outnumbers anything we saw during the pontificates of John Paul II or Benedict XVI.

Stephen Lowe said...

What a courageous Shepherd...letting the wolf roam free amongst the flock. Please resign now.

Anonymous said...

How Low Can He Go?


F said...

Mark Thomas, what are you saying, brother? You're trying to justify Pope Francis' erroneus actions and utterings regarding Islam by bringing up erroneus actions and utterings of his predecessors. Really? Pope Francis is damaging the Church and sowing confusion right NOW. And you're basically saying: "I can't understand you guys, why are you complaining? Pope Francis is not the first pope damaging the Church and sowing confusion". The damage done by his predecessors is thing of the past, nothing we can do about it. We are resisting Pope Francis' errors NOW.

Unknown said...

Some French traddies are having fun with this, by circulating pictures/memes on the net of "Catholic violence" at work. There are pictures of monks, pictures of High Mass, etc. You know, all those Catholic terrorists we know!

Ronald Sevenster said...

There is a simple reason why Western leaders avoid ascribing acts of Islamist terrorism to the Islamic religion: It is ineffective in the combat against radical Islam. Europe would become one big Yugoslavia of civil war. The war against Islamism can not be fought as a classical war because too many Muslims live in the Western world. As soon as Western leaders would start a full-scale war against "Islamism" or "political Islam", or ISIS, &c, our Muslim neighbours would start massive killing sprees against us and Europe would be in complete turmoil. That's why religion has to be kept out of it and the war has to be kept low key.

Mark Thomas said...

Ana Milan said..."Mark Thomas: All the Popes since Pius XII have been Marxist/Masonic/Modernists."

I disagree with that. Pope Venerable Pius XII enacted many radical reforms that he believed would benefit the Church. His successors followed his lead in that regard. But I don't believe that from Pope Venerable Pius XII to Pope Francis, our Popes have been Marxist/Masonic/Modernists.

I believe that our Popes acted in good will, Unfortunately, their radical reforms have not, in my opinion, benefitted the Church as our Popes had hoped.

I don't equate their liberalism with evil.


Mark Thomas

Ana Milan said...

Mark Thomas:

Do you not regard the tearing apart of our Liturgy of Ages & the dumbing down of our sacraments, including getting rid of the altar rails & confessionals in order to appease schismatics, a disgrace & unworthy of any man sitting on the Throne of Peter? What about the countless numbers of people who have never been catechised & don't know how to behave in Church - don't acknowledge Our Lord in the tabernacle, irreverently receive the Sacred Host because they don't recognise His presence contained therein as they are told it is a 'meal' & haven't been to confession because priests don't like hearing them & so don't encourage people to avail of the sacrament. Do you see nothing wrong in the Assisi debacle led by JPII or the follow-up by PBVI & PF praying at the blue mosque & inviting infidels to pray in the Vatican? Do you really not believe it is the function of the Pope to vocally demand an end to the killing of Christians in the ME by IS terrorists & to show outrage at Fr. Hamel's murder & the murders of those killed in France & Germany in the recent past? Maybe you consider PF should only show interest in hosting Vatican Light Shows & endlessly talking about environmental issues instead of preaching the Gospel & urging his Cardinals, Bishops & priests to do the same, instead of coming down on them like a ton of bricks when they do? It seems incredible to an onlooker that he chose to call one of the Presidential candidates a non-Christian while ignoring the spiritual status (or lack thereof) of the other candidate, particularly as that candidate says she will fund Planned Parenthood to the limit if elected. If he wants to become part of the political scene he must at least give a Christian bent to it, otherwise he simply isn't upholding God's laws and cannot therefore represent Catholics.

JPII may have been personally a holy man who physically suffered greatly in his last years (at least he didn't renege the Papacy) but he made awful mistakes by showing reverence to other 'faiths' instead of being adamantly clear there was only One True Faith by which all can be saved, & he made imbecilic appointments which led to the child abuse scandal from which the CC will never recover. We still have these predators & enablers in high positions to-day. PBVI being his chief adviser & Head of CDF had a hand in their selection & didn't do much better himself when he became Pope.

I believe it is clear to anyone with eyes to see & ears to hear that the Popes of the past sixty years have been Marxist/Masonic/Modernists who have changed the CC beyond recognition for those of us who have lived through them & beyond, & who yearn for, but cannot access, the Old Rite because it has been taken away from them without their approval or consent. When the Pope tells them everyone can get to heaven (even the unbaptised), there is no Catholic God, no hell (because that isn't in accordance with salvation) etc. they believe him & don't even try to lead a Christian life.

We are all prisoners of this Modernist regime & until everyone recognises that there will be no end to it. People like yourself must wake-up to the insidious Satanic teaching of our prelates over the past sixty years & rub the sleep from your eyes. The CC is in chaos due to these men & bar a few holy priests & Bishops we, the laity, are on our own. We must stand together & DO something, anything, be if in conformity with Canon Law or not. We must restore the Christ's Church on earth to its former glory!

Wolverine said...

Mark Thomas said...I believe that our Popes acted in good will,...I don't equate their liberalism with evil.

Pope Pius IX - Syllabus of Errors - 80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.

Evil is in created things under the aspect of mutability, and possibility of defect, not as existing per se : and the errors of mankind, mistaking the true conditions of its own well-being, have been the cause of moral and physical evil (Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, De Div. Nom., iv, 31; St. Augustine, City of God XII).

Therefore we can conclude that the post VII Popes have promulgated various liberal errors (good will or not) in opposition to the Magisterium. These errors have in turn been the direct cause of moral evil within the Church and indirectly to the rest of the world. Hence we can objectively conclude that we must equate their liberalism with evil.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Ana, your heart is good and strong, but your head hasn't caught up yet. You correctly call the NWO hierarchy a modernist regime, which it is. You explicitly state that " the Popes of the past sixty years have been Marxist/Masonic/Modernists" - correct again. You state you are a "prisoner" of that regime. How is that? You have free will. Are you behind bars? No, if you are a prisoner, you are a "prisoner" by choice.

You know very well that modernism is the synthesis of all heresies - Pope St. Pius X has infallibly told you so. You know that any heretic automatically, ipso facto excommunicates himself from the Church. Catholic doctrine has taught you that, along with Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church and Catholic theologians. Have I said anything incorrect, disputable, or non-Catholic so far?

Yet you call your gaolers Popes. You recognise them as Popes while you list some of their heresies. Dear Ana, why can't you understand that their heresies don't just make them "a disgrace & unworthy of any man sitting on the Throne of Peter" - they PRECLUDE them from sitting on the Chair of Peter? Connect the dots in my first paragraph.

You always seek something we/you can DO to counter the situation. Well, the first thing you/we can DO, is to stop referring to them and recognising them as true Popes, which they are not. All their power and influence comes from people like you who recognise them as legitimate, true, Catholic hierarchy, in spite of acknowledging them as being modernist heretics. Would you gainsay Pope St. Pius? Do you? The innocent, good, rank and file Catholics (who have never been authentically catechized), follow these heretics in good faith, because of the legitimacy afforded them by the R&R crowd. Stripped of recognition and an aura of legitimacy, their "power" would vaporize.

If you find anything heretical, anything not in complete conformance with our beloved Catholic Faith, anything schismatic, or in any way false in what I have written, please let me know. You are free to walk out of your prison, any time you like.

Peter Lamb said...

Very well said Wolverine!

Michael Dowd said...

Ana Milan your note to Mark was excellent. Modernism has been catastrophic for the Church and the most serious heresy ever. My guess is there will be no recovery from this. Only a remnant will be left who can call themselves Catholic.

Ana Milan said...

Peter Lamb:

The Church of Christ on earth is Hq'd in Rome, always has been since Peter decided that was where it should be. As I said previously sedevacantism is a denial of the promise of Our Lord set out in Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I) which is a binding teaching. There cannot be such an interim in His Church without a Supreme Pastor as He made perfectly clear when he chose Peter to be the first Pope. Whether they are mad, bad, heretics or apostates, & no matter what way the trash His Church, Christ will not abandon it - we have His Words for that assertion. In Her many apparitions Our Lady has never told us to disobey the Pope or to stay at home if things got tough. She did say Rome would lose the faith & it would start at the top, and those who should speak won't. If we all took the sedevacant position there would be no valid ordinations either of priests or bishops & therefore no valid Holy Mass or sacraments. We would have lost Apostolic succession just as the Schismatics & Protestants when they decided they knew better than Christ & went their own way. No matter what is happening & has happened in the CC these past sixty years we must not despair. It has all been foretold.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Ana, yes, you have previously said that sedevacantism is a denial of Pastor Aeternus and, if I remember correctly, an option of despair. I asked you to explain your statements to me , in terms of Catholic doctrine, but sadly you did not do so. Please may I repeat my request?

There most certainly can be such an interim (interregnum) in His Church, without a visible Supreme Pastor and Our lord certainly did not make clear that there could not be one, or more, when He chose Peter as the first Pope. Now I have a problem! I would like to post some info to correct your misunderstanding, but it is going to make a very long post. Still, Vox permitting, if I can convince you, it will be very worthwhile. Well, here goes:

In 1882, Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly, one of the most orthodox and erudite theologians of the 19th century, wrote in reference to the Great Western Schism:
"There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...
The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation.

Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise.

What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises.

Peter Lamb said...

We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment.
I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."
(The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, p. 287).

According to theologian Dorsch:
"The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7.)

Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

Peter Lamb said...

By way of Summary:
i. The visibility of the Church is not bound to an actual, living pope on the throne of St. Peter. Does the Church become invisible every time a Pope dies and then suddenly become visible again, when the next Pope is crowned?
ii. The Vatican Council's 1870 decree on the papacy has been misconstrued. The institution of the papacy is perpetual; there is no need nor guarantee of actual men to fill that See [uninterruptedly - which is impossible].
iii. The Great Western Schism sets historical precedent for a de facto interregnum of 51 years.
iv. The teaching of the theologians clearly shows a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time [is possible]. Such a vacancy cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the Indefectibility of the Church.
v. It is also taught by the theologians that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See, except for that which would be contrary to Divine Law [such as an "heretical pope" - an oxymoron.]

Vatican Council of 1870, in its decree Pastor Aeternus which decrees:" Therefore,if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by Divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."

Nota bene: The succession of Peter will be perpetual. There always be successors of St. Peter. BUT, nowhere is there specification, or limitation of the durations of the interregna between occupants of the Papal Throne!
The Head of the Church is perprtually present unto eternity. The Visible Head of the Church is intermittently present, according to human circumstances willed by Our Lord.

Madness is an impediment to the Papacy.
Badness is not. There have been many bad Popes.
Heresy is an impediment to the Papacy by Divine law, as is apostasy.
Christ has not, nor will He ever abandon His Church.
Indeed, Our Lady never told us to disobey the Pope, so why do the R&R do so?
What do you suggest those who have not access to a valid Priest, or Mass do? attend the heretic sect you identified as modernist?
Indeed, Our Lady said that "Rome would lose the faith and it would start at the top, and those who should speak won't."
So why don't you take her at her word? Why do you insist on calling he who has lost the Faith, her Son's Vicar? Do you think you are pleasing Our Lady?
There are no valid bishops, priests, sacraments, or mass in the NWO sect, (except baptism and some marriages, or those ordained by Bishops consecrated in the traditional rite) So why not go to where there are, if you are able to?
I am a faithful son of the Catholic Church, who believes and practices what the Church has believed, always and everywhere. Can you say the same?
"No matter what is happening & has happened in the CC these past sixty years we must not despair."
Who's despairing? Certainly not the sedevacantists!
"It has all been foretold." Indeed is has! So, why not act accordingly?

Ana Milan said...

Any ordination or consecration carried out by a bishop without papal mandate is simply not valid. That is the real problem surrounding both the sedevacantists & SSPX. If not in union with Rome the Apostolic succession ceases, just as it did before for those leaving the CC to set-up their own churches/sects. The SSPX know this only too well & are fully aware of the scandal they & others have caused by their disobedience in consecrating bishops without prior Vatican approval. While accepting the position of the Pope they have tried to keep a foot in the door whilst going ahead with their own agenda. Of course, Catholics of my generation would love to see the restoration of the Old Rite but in full communion with Rome.

According to the sedevacantists there is no validly ordained bishop or priest & the CC has therefore lost the four signs of One Holy Catholic & Apostolic that distinguishes it from other denominations/sects. In other words, the Gates of Hell have prevailed & Christ has not been true to His Word, which is nonsense. We Catholics know there has been infiltration & subversion of the CC bringing about a Passion of the Church similar to the one suffered by Christ on Calvary, but not its absolute visible destruction & replacement by a totally different Church. The Pope can only lose his Office if he is guilty of the crime of heresy, not the sin of heresy, so it is quite possible that a heretical Pope could legally retain his Office. Maybe Canon Law can be updated to deal with the disastrous position we have been left in for the past sixty years or so, but that is the present state of affairs.

The sedes are continuously arguing amongst themselves & have set-up several rival entities, similar to the schismatics & protestants. The most public sedes known to me are Fr. Cedaka & Bishop Sanborn. Fr. Cekada started his religious calling in a Cistercian Monastery, then after two years joined the SSPX in Ëcône where after some time he broke with them & attached himself to the SSPV only to leave that community in order to form his own sedevacantist church.

Bishop Sanborn again started with the SSPX but was later expelled with nine others for objecting to liturgical changes imposed by Archbishop Lefebvre & ignoring his order to publicly affirm their allegiance to JPII. He also joined the SSPV but again left with others after another dispute & became independent priests. He was consecrated by Bishop Robert McKenna who in turn was consecrated by Michel Guerard who was consecrated by the heretic Bishop Ngo Dinh Thuc without papal mandate.
“If anyone say… that those who have not been rightly ordained by ecclesiastical and canonical power and have not been sent [by the Church], but come from some other source [such as a heretical or schismatical source], are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.”

Bad & all as Rome has become there simply is nowhere else to go. We continue to put our trust in Our Lord & Our Blessed Lady to untie the knots & restore Christ's Church on earth to its former glory. It is all in their hands now - prayer, sacrifice & penance is our duty & to support those priests & bishops who do occasionally speak out against the distortions of Catholic Doctrine & the sacrileges committed by several Popes & members of the Hierarchies since Vatican II.

Mark Thomas said...

Wolverine said..."Therefore we can conclude that the post VII Popes have promulgated various liberal errors (good will or not) in opposition to the Magisterium. These errors have in turn been the direct cause of moral evil within the Church and indirectly to the rest of the world. Hence we can objectively conclude that we must equate their liberalism with evil."

We disagree with each other. I don't equate Pope Venerable Pius XII's radical reforms, which did not benefit the Church, with evil. The same applies to Popes Saint John XXIII to Francis.

There isn't any reason to believe that our Popes, from Venerable Pius XII to Francis, engaged in evil via prudential decisions that failed to achieve desired results.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Wolverine said..."Therefore we can conclude that the post VII Popes have promulgated various liberal errors (good will or not) in opposition to the Magisterium. These errors have in turn been the direct cause of moral evil within the Church and indirectly to the rest of the world. Hence we can objectively conclude that we must equate their liberalism with evil."

1. You begin with the premise that the reforms that you dislike are "errors" promulgated "in opposition to the Magisterium."

2. The Magisterium is of Divine origin.

3. The very same Magisterium that existed at the dawn of the Church exists today.

4. Therefore, the Magisterium that promulgated the reforms (you identified the reforms as "errors") that you dislike is the same Magisterium that has existed always and everywhere.

5. Therefore, the reforms ("errors," in your opinion) were not enacted in opposition to the Magisterium. The reforms ("errors," in your opinion) were enacted by the Magisterium, not in "opposition to the Magisterium." The Magisterium of all-time is not divided against itself.

6. The Magisterium does not promulgate "errors."

7. That said, whether reforms/prudential decisions benefit the Church as planned and hoped is a different matter.

The Magisterium, via the Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325 A.D.), failed in its goal to combat successfully the scourge of Arianism. Does that mean that the 325 A.D. Council of Nicea was "evil" as the Magisterium had failed to achieve desired results?

During the 1950s, well prior to Vatican II, the Magisterium issued dramatic fasting reforms. Were Pope Venerable Pius XII's "liberal" fasting reforms "errors" and "evil?"

Pope Venerable Pius XII's radical fasting reforms, enacted with good intent, weakened, rather than strengthened, the sense of fasting that had once existed within the Church. However, that does not mean that his failed reforms were "errors" and "evil."

Wolverine, I disagree with the notion that the same Magisterium that has existed since the dawn of the Church, and exists today, is in opposition to itself. I disagree also with the notion that the lack of hoped-for success related to a reform promulgated by the Magisterium equates to "error" and "evil."


Mark Thomas

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Ana, you have set forth so many of your opinions, that it would take a small booklet to elaborate on them. :)
So let's take just one for now. You are convinced that a heretic can be a true Pope and recognise Bergoglio and his conciliar predecessors as such. Well, let's see what some others, who don't agree with you, have to say:

Vatican I declared, “For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession:

"The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ …for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32)

So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.”

The topic of a pope becoming a heretic was addressed at the First Vatican Council by Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio: “The question was also raised by a Cardinal, ‘What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?’ It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself ... The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.” (The New Princeton Review, Volume 42 p. 648, also The Life and Life-work of Pope Leo XIII. By James Joseph McGovern p. 241.)

Peter Lamb said...

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 bodyfrom which it was cut off.”

Bull of Pope Paul IV — Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559:
“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roma Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or
fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define: — “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void. — “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception
of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all. — “Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way - “Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected — and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever. “Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further
declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

Peter Lamb said...

Coronata: Institutions Juris Canonici, 1950: “Appointment to the Office of the Primacy: ... required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded. . . It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic — if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible. If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church ... Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.

Billot — De Ecclesia, 1927: “Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a
pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without
hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power,
insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be
cast outside the body of the Church.”

Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943: “Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church… A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be amember of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”

A. Vermeersch — Epitome Iuris Canonici, 1949:
“At least according to the more common teaching; the Roman Pontiff as
a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any
declaratory sentence (for the Supreme See is judged by no one), he
would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no
longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia:
“Since contumacy implies obstinate persistence in crime, in order to become liable to these punishments a person must not only be guilty of crime, but must also persist in his criminal course after having been duly warned and admonished. This warning (monitio canonica), which must precede the punishment, can emanate either from the law itself or from the ecclesiastical superior or judge. Contumacy can therefore occur in one of two ways: first, when the delinquent does not heed the warning of his ecclesiastical superior or judge, addressed to him personally and individually; second, when he violates a law of the Church with full knowledge of the law, and of the censure attached, in the latter case the law itself being a standing warning to all (Lex interpellat pro homine).”

Finally, dear Ana, here is a conundrum for you to solve:
If the pope is a heretic, we must apply the principle of Nullam Partem ["no part"] with heretics, not so?

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
(Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam [1302]; Denz. 469)

Heretical Pope - oxymoron. An heretical Pope is not possible - that concept, you might now agree, is contrary to Catholic Doctrine !!!

susan said...

Ana said, "Any ordination or consecration carried out by a bishop without papal mandate is simply not valid. That is the real problem surrounding both the sedevacantists & SSPX"

Ana, that's quite simply wrong. At best you could say the consecrations are illicit, but they are valid....Even rome accepts that the SSPX bishops are real bishops. Deo gratias for that!...quite frankly, they are quickly becoming the only TRUE bishops in the Catholic Church.

Ana Milan said...

I have nothing against the SSPX & Traditional Orders except they don't have jurisdiction & on that account have little or no input in Europe because all our bishops are NO Bishops who won't allow them in. In my Diocese of Malaga there simply is no option but the NO Mass, which is valid but not on a par with the Old Rite, & our sacraments have been trashed because of false ecumenism. I would dearly love to see Spain swamped by Traditional Orders if they could be regularised. The fly in the ointment is what is PF up to & what conditions will the CDF under Schönborn make that will differ from what Müller was prepared to offer?

Yes, you are right that the ordinations are valid but illicit which was my mistake (t was 3 a.m. when I was writing) but the consecrations of those sede bishops by a rampant & deposed heretic cannot be deemed valid or licit. It does seem to me that all who stray away from the centre of Catholicism (Rome) drift into groups who decide for themselves what they will accept & what not, just as the various Protestant sects have always done, and this is to be avoided.

I have no liking for any of the Popes or Hierarchies since VII as each one displayed heresies of one kind or another & they have destroyed the reverence & accessibility of the sacraments that used to be fully available to everyone. Our churches are shut during the week, very few marriages or baptisms, everyone cohabiting, Last Rites for the dying gone - Blessing of the Sick once a year instead. Of course, I and my fellow parishioners are thirsting for TLM, Benediction, Annual Retreats, etc. but it will take a restoring pope with plenty of back-up to get that sorted & there simply aren't enough non-Modernist men to get the show on the road. Divine intervention it has to be!

Ana Milan said...

I will never accept the sedevacantist position. It just isn't logical or in keeping with Christ's promise to be with His Church until the end of time. As least the SSPX & other Traditional Orders have always acknowledged the Papacy & the infallibility (ex cathedra) that goes with that position. The sedes have gone from pillar to post arguing with each other, leaving one community & joining another & finally setting-up on their own bat. There is no discipline to be seen. They never have acknowledged any Pope since Pius XII and say there are no valid ordinations since the last 'validly consecrated' bishop died. If that were the case our entire clergy would be Protestant & the Gates of Hell would certainly have prevailed. That I will never accept as it would mean that Christ did not honour His Word.

I have no liking for any of the post VII popes, whom I believe were Marxist/Masonic/Modernists inc. PF whose election is very disturbing to say the least. It is up to Canon Lawyers to determine if they are manifest heretics or not, if prior to their election or when holding the Papal Office they taught heresy & failed to uphold the Deposit of Faith, Magisterium etc. I feel there is plenty of evidence to say that PF was a heretic prior to his election & since, and telling young people that it is OK to sin, accepting a Communist crucifix, telling a divorced & remarried woman In Argentina she could receive Holy Communion, etc. is IMO teaching against the Ten Commandments. In Amoris Laetitia PF is certainly trying to change Catholic Doctrine by altering pastoral practice, but again we are told he hasn't crossed the line. We are all suffering as a consequence of the lack of a Canon that can actively deal with the situation we are enduring to-day & this must be corrected for future generations.

BTW, I seldom stay on threads more than two days & unless people reply via Disqus to my email address I won't be aware of an extended conversation going on. Sorry if you felt I was ignoring your response but that is what happened. I hope we can agree to disagree & pray for everyone caught up in this diabolical situation not of our making. Maybe one day with Our Lady's help we can fully come together again.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Ana, a combox is a place for Catholics to discuss matters regarding our Faith, particularly with regard to the particular post, politely and courteously. Please try to refrain from making ill-informed statements about sedevacantism, or sedevacantists while you know so little about the subject, or the persons you mention. By all means voice your objections, or ask questions on the matter, but make them specific and only when you are willing/able to back your statements up with citations from traditional Catholic doctrine. Wild, generalised, insulting allegations, airing your personal unsubstantiated views, with respect, are of little general interest, or value to others wishing to discuss these matters seriously. The crisis of our times is serious and deserves constructive debate.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Ana, no hard feelings at all. We can agree to disagree, or we can work step by step towards finding Catholic unity. We both love the same Faith; our faith is clear and absolute, so if we stick to what our doctrine says, we must end up together. What I'm proposing is that we take one matter at a time and settle it to our satisfaction before proceeding to another.

A basic question to settle is: can an heretic be a Pope and can a Pope be a heretic?
Now I have posted a long substantiation of the view that an heretic cannot become Pope and that a Pope, if he became a heretic, (IF this were possible), ipso facto loses office. I have quoted numerous authorities to back my view up.

Now let's hear your view as to why an heretic can become Pope and why an heretical Pope maintains his office. How do you regard my suggestion?

susan said...

Peter....she was nothing but respectful.

Vox Cantoris said...

I love and appreciate ALL of my commenters, even the one who harasses me.

Now, play nice in the sandbox or they'll be no ice cream!

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Susan, I don't want to belabour the matter and I meant insulting to sedevacantism and the sedevacantists she mentioned - not me personally.
I will only mention two instances, by way of illustration:
- the Gates of Hell have prevailed & Christ has not been true to His Word ..." To say the gates of hell have prevailed is gross heresy. Attributing this to sedes = sedevacantism is heretical and sedevacantists (including me!!!) are heretics. That is somewhat insulting and unadulterated bovine whatyoumacallit!

- "the heretic Bishop Ngo Dinh Thuc; the consecrations of those sede bishops by a rampant & deposed heretic cannot be deemed valid or licit."
Oh man! Our Lord said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." I would say: My dear Ana, if only you knew what you say!
Bishop Thuc was a saintly man. Certain agencies launched a vicious campaign to discredit him, to malign him and to pronounce him mad, or deficient of his faculties, to keep him quiet. In the end they actually kidnapped him - I mean physically kidnapped him. (These boys can play very rough indeed.) One day the story will come out and she will weep.

Anyway, we all pals now and we move on. :)