The correct answer to Pope Bergoglio? Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.

  1. Amoris Laetitia is dated March 19th, 2016. Six months later, Canadian, American and  Portuguese Bishops continue to teach that:
    "In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ ... Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if ... the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists... Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n.º1650).
    On the other hand, a section of the Buenos Aires Diocese and the Pope's Vicar for the Diocese of Rome teach exactly the opposite... in certain circumstances... They call this "continuity", although they are contradicting the Catechism and the previous 265 Popes.

  2. The publicly available list of Amoris Laetitia's doctrinal errors which was sent to all cardinals has not met with a public response from Amoris Laetitia's advocates who prefer to, wrongly and blindly, invoke Lumen Gentium 25 instead.

  3. Some people are still trying to judge Amoris Laetitia on its own terms but end up concluding that the whole thing is a dead end. Dead in the sense of mortal ... sin.

    I would like here to call your attention to two articles:

  4. BTW, the worst is still to come (the next episode...).

  5. After many months of trying to get to grips with the present pontificate I think I have finally got it.

    First of all, God has allowed us to live through and to endure the worst pontificate in the history of the Church.

    Second, we got the Pope and the Bishops that we deserve. If pew sitters are lukewarm catholics their pastors will be even worse than them. If pew sitters are saints, their pastors will be even better than them.

    So all we can do, with the Grace of God, is to strive for sainthood... no compromises, no shortcuts; union with Jesus and Him crucified.

    A few practical pointers:

    If the Pope and a few bishops are promoting Eucharistic Sacrilege we must make sure, first, that our own communions are in a State of Grace and with the required dispositions and, second, that we do reparation for our sins and the sins of others;

    If our pastors don't kneel before the Blessed Sacrament we will do it for them;

    If our Shepherds fail to teach and in fact distort the teachings of the Church we must study Holy Scripture and Tradition, practice it and teach it to our families;

    If we can no longer rely on priests and bishops to guide us in our way to Heaven (vice is in, virtue is out), we must fall back on the writings of the saints, on the previous magisterium on the works of the Doctors and faithful theologians of ages past;

    If the Pope wants to make peace with the World we must shun it;

    If the hierarchy seems to have lost the Faith we must pray for their conversion; for a catholic Pope, for catholic bishops.

    In His own good time, God will sort it out.


[UPDATE 15] Doctrina Christiana: The Timeless Catechism of St. Robert Bellarmine

[original post]

Are we bound to give "religious assent of mind and will" (Cf. Lumen Gentium 25) to magisterial error?

In 2014, Fr. Ripperger published a short book that directly dealt with this issue (See "Magisterial Authority"). The book lists the conditions under which the answer to the title question is ... no.

During the month of August, several people have posted about this following the L'Osservatore Romano's article that tried to sweep Amoris Laetitia's errors under the Lumen Gentium 25's rug: Ryan Grant at Unam Sanctam Catholicam, Catholic Culture's Jeff Mirus; Fr. José Maria Iraburu of Infocatólica (in spannish); ...

Fr. Iraburu exposes the flawed (circular) logic of the L'Osservatore Romano's article and notes that none of Amoris Laetitia's defenders attempt to respond to the list of errors that have been uncovered and published.

[BTW, another extensive critique of Amoris Laetitia has been published in France.]


Was Martin Luther "not mistaken" concerning the doctrine of justification? (1): Martin Luther Vs Catholic Church

In the flight back from Armenia (June 25th, 2016), Pope Francis said:

"I think that Martin Luther’s intentions were not mistaken; he was a reformer. Perhaps some of his methods were not right, although at that time... we see that the Church was not exactly a model to emulate. There was corruption and worldliness in the Church; there was attachment to money and power. That was the basis of his protest. He was also intelligent, and he went ahead, justifying his reasons for it.

Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification: on this very important point he was not mistaken."
The Pope will also commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation on 31 October in Lund, Sweden (see here).

Since the beginning of this pontificate, the Pope has used these in-flight press conferences as a testing ground and 'early-warning system' for his 'innovations' (i.e. communion for practicing adulterers, normalization of homosexuality, women deacons, ...). So I'm willing to bet that the Lund event will be a sort of 'canonization' of Luther with the active blessing of the Pope.

But there is only one minor problem concerning the efforts to rehabilitated Martin Luther. The fact is...

...Martin Luther was completely mistaken. In fact he was a bit more than wrong; he was a condemned heretic!

Pope Leo X, expressly condemned the errors of Martin Luther in the Bull Exsurge Domine of July 15, 1520. It formally condemned forty-one propositions drawn from his writings, ordered the destruction of the books containing the errors, and summoned Luther himself to recant within sixty days or receive the full penalty of ecclesiastical punishment:
"By the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication".
Several of condemned propositions concerned Luther's doctrine of justification (i.e. 1-14, IMHO).

Not only did Pope Leo X condemned several propositions concerning Luther's doctrine of justification, but the Sacred and oecumenical Council of Trent, sessions VI and XIV anathematized all the tenets of the said doctrine (see, inter alia, Session VI - Canons IX,XII, XIV, XIX and Session XIV - Chapter II).

I would argue, based on the way in which Pope Leo X and the Council of Trent expressed their condemnations of Luther's doctrines, that to say that Martin Luther's doctrine of justification is "not mistaken" is to say that the Church's infallible magisterium is wrong.

Besides proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Church has thought that Luther's doctrine of justification is indeed mistaken, it is also important to show why it is so.

The doctrine of justification: Martin Luther Vs Catholic Church

The Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Sanctifying Grace summarizes the differences between Luther's and the Catholic doctrine of justificaton. The author of this article is the Rev. Joseph Pohle, S.J. (who also authored the Pohle-Preuss Manual of Dogmatic Theologya, available at archive.org).

I tried to express the whole argument in SmartArt form (I like diagrams):


Dealing with bergoglian scandal: a taxonomy

From what I can gather, people - or at least tweeps and bloggers - tend to deal with Pope Francis' scandals in different ways.

First, there are those who...

... question the message and/or the messenger

If you feel disturbed by Pope Francis' words and "gestures" but cannot fit in any of the above little boxes, then there is always the rational possibility of...

... questioning the institution

The issue is indefectibility (I posted about it before here).

The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Concerning morals, the consequences of indefectibility are the following:
"[Christ] established [the Church] that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard."
Pope Francis, by promoting or enabling Situation Ethics, proportionalism and gradualism, is setting up a false and corrupt moral standard.

If you cannot bring yourself to accept these false teachings and, at the same time, cannot fit in one of the  little boxes above then the alternative is:

This opens a plethora of possibilities, from oriental schismatic to atheist and everything in-between.

But this is a bit extreme, so some people enter into a state of...


There's a little bit of the battered wife syndrome and of the Stockholm syndrome thrown in too.

Then there are those who are...

... just loving it


Da hipótese teológica de um Papa herético (Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira)

Foi agora publicado em Itália o estudo de Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira intitulado "Da Hipótese teológica de um Papa herético" (ver notícia na Corrispondenza Romana").

Trata-se da primeira parte de um estudo mais vasto, escrito nos anos 70, cuja republicação é plenamente justificada pelo momento que a Igreja atravessa.

Para quem, nos últimos quase três anos, perante as muitas perplexidades provocadas pelas palavras, 'gestos' e omissões do Papa Francisco - e na ausência de alternativa -, andou pela Internet à procura de respostas, nem o autor da obra (bio, site), nem o texto são completamente desconhecidos.

Aliás, existem mesmo várias edições em português desta obra disponíveis na Internet (embora neste momento só consiga encontrar esta - ver pp. 1-61).

Transcrevo de seguida algumas das conclusões deste estudo recordando que se trata de um texto escrito há quase 50 anos, quando - apesar da confusão reinante na altura - a hipótese da eleição de um Papa Francisco se encontrava circunscrita ao reino da (má) ficção:

  • "cremos que um exame cuidadoso da questão do Papa herege, com os elementos teológicos de que hoje dispomos, permite concluir que um eventual Papa herege perderia o cargo no momento em que sua heresia se tornasse "notória e divulgada de público". E pensamos que essa sentença não é apenas intrinsecamente provável, mas certa, uma vez que as razões alegáveis em sua defesa nos parecem absolutamente cogentes. Ademais, nas obras que consultamos, não encontramos argumento algum que nos persuadisse do oposto.

    De qualquer forma, outras sentenças permanecem extrinsecamente prováveis, visto que têm a seu favor autores de peso. Logo, na ordem da ação concreta não seria lícito optar por uma determinada posição, querendo impô-la sem mais. É por isso que, como dissemos de início, convidamos os especialistas na matéria a reestudarem a questão. Só assim será possível chegar a um acordo geral entre os teólogos, de modo que uma determinada sentença possa ser tida como teologicamente certa.

  • "Os autores que admitem a possibilidade de um Papa cismático, em geral não hesitam em afirmar que em tal hipótese, como na do Papa herege, o Pontífice perde o cargo. A razão disso é evidente: os cismáticos estão excluídos da Igreja, do mesmo modo que os hereges.

    Nesta matéria, Suarez constitui exceção, ao sustentar que o Papa cismático não está privado nem pode vir a ser privado do cargo; sua opinião entretanto não merece particular atenção, uma vez que se baseia na tese suareziana, hoje por todos abandonada, de que os cismáticos, mesmo públicos, não deixam de ser membros da Igreja.

    Assim sendo, podemos concluir, com Caietano que:
    '(...) a Igreja está no Papa quando este se comporta como Papa, isto é, como Cabeça da Igreja; mas caso ele não quisesse agir como Cabeça da Igreja, nem a Igreja estaria nele, nem ele na Igreja.'
    Ademais, é oportuno lembrar que quem é pertinaz no cisma, praticamente não se distingue do herege; que nenhum cisma deixou de excogitar alguma heresia a fim de justificar sua separação da Igreja; que o cisma constitui uma disposição para a heresia; e que o cismático, segundo o Direito Canônico e o Direito Natural, é suspeito de heresia".

  • "De todo o exposto se infere que, em princípio, não repugna a existência de erros em documentos não infalíveis do Magistério – mesmo do Magistério pontifício e conciliar.

    Sem dúvida, tais erros não podem ser propostos duravelmente na Santa Igreja, a ponto de colocarem as almas retas no dilema de aceitar o ensinamento falso, ou romper com Ela. Pois, se assim fora, o inferno teria prevalecido contra a Igreja. No entanto, é possível, em princípio, que por algum tempo, sobretudo em períodos de crise e de grandes heresias, se encontre algum erro em documentos do Magistério.

    ... O que, de fato, buscamos ao evidenciar a possibilidade de erro em documentos não infalíveis, é auxiliar o esclarecimento de problemas de consciência e os estudos de muitos antiprogressistas que, por ignorarem tal possibilidade, se sentem freqüentemente perplexos.

  • "Em face das razões expostas, não vemos como excluir, em princípio, a hipótese de heresia em documento oficial do Magistério pontifício ou conciliar não revestido das condições que o tornariam infalível.

    Conseqüentemente, se em documento pontifício ou conciliar oficial não infalível for alguma vez encontrada uma heresia, não se há de julgar, com isso, que o Espírito Santo faltou à sua Igreja.

    Ou que o absurdo da hipótese obrigue a encontrar, a todo transe, uma interpretação não herética para o texto indicado como oposto à fé.
    Ou, ainda, que a essas circunstâncias se aplicaria o dito célebre de Santo Inácio: "O que a nossos olhos se apresenta como branco, tê-lo-íamos por preto, se assim o declarasse a Santa Igreja."

    Concluímos: o admirável princípio inaciano, expressão acabada da fé na infalibilidade do Papa e da Igreja, vale sem restrições para os pronunciamentos do Magistério que envolvam a infalibilidade. Mas faltaria ao próprio "sentir com a Igreja" quem lhe atribuísse um alcance que a doutrina católica não justifica – interpretando-o, por exemplo, no sentido de que se deva aceitar sempre e incondicialmente, mesmo contra a evidência, todo e qualquer ensinamento não infalível do Magistério eclesiástico.

  • "diante de um perigo próximo para a fé (Santo Tomás), podemos sustentar com toda a segurança que também [estes autores], seguindo as pegadas do Anjo das Escolas – para não dizermos as de São Paulo – autorizariam uma resistência pública [à Autoridade Eclesiástica].

    Se se vissem em face de uma agressão às almas (São Roberto Bellarmino) ou de um escândalo público (cf. Cornélio a Lapide) em matéria doutrinária; ou de um Papa que se houvesse afastado do bom caminho (Santo Agostinho) por seus ensinamentos errôneos e ambíguos; ou de um crime público que redundasse em perigo para a fé de muitos (Santo Tomás) - como poderiam negar o direito de resistência e, se necessário, de resistência pública?"


“Como una madre amorosa” misericordiaremos a los obispos tachándolos de “negligentes”

Tudo o que há a dizer sobre esta questão está no Secretum Meum Mihi.

O amigo Cd. Danneels está safo. Os outros estão avisados...


Pope Francis: advancing the 'gospel of mercy' through deception, dishonesty, manipulation and lies

John Vennari:
"Archbishop Bruno Forte, confidant and collaborator of Pope Francis, revealed in a recent interview a statement from Francis that displays the cagey manner by which he manipulated the Synod toward a pre-determined heterodox outcome.

To quote the May 3 Zonalocale.it Italian news report provided in English by Steve Skojec:

“Archbishop Forte has revealed a ‘behind the scenes’ [moment] from the Synod: ‘If we speak explicitly about Communion for the divorced and remarried,’ said Archbishop Forte, reporting a ‘joke’ of Pope Francis, ‘you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, [but] do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusion’.” 1

Let’s take a look at what is here revealed:

  1. Francis is determined to open the door for sacrilegious Communion via admission of divorced and remarried to the Blessed Sacrament;
  2. He is aware that to speak openly of this aim would make a ‘terrible mess,’ in other words incite a healthy Catholic opposition;
  3. He urges his collaborators not to speak plainly of this insidious aim but to lay the groundwork and prepare the structure;
  4. “And I will draw out the conclusions,” that opens the door to sacrilegious Communion under the false pretext of tenderness and mercy.

Is anyone else long weary of dishonest tactics enacted by the one man on earth who has the greatest obligation to speak the truth?

We are well aware that what Forte describes as taking place behind the scenes is what occurred in broad daylight. We endured a riotous two year Synodal process, starting in February 2014 with Francis publicly backing Kasper’s proposal for Communion for the divorced and remarried, the forming and shaping of the Synodal documents, the speeches given by radical prelates during Synod press briefings, all leading to Amoris Laetitia which furtively opens the door to Communion for divorced and remarried. What we learned by means of Forte’s revelation is exactly what any clear-thinking observer had already surmised.

There is a fundamental principle of morality that one may never use a bad means to a good end. Francis, however, does not even employ a bad means for a praiseworthy end but a dishonest means for a sacrilegious end.

Yet Francis’ pontificate is marked by such dishonesty, which cannot help but call into question his trustworthiness on any issue.

We will content ourself with four more examples of Bergoglian caginess: the first from Francis’ book on Mercy and three from Amoris Laetitia.

“Who am I to Judge?”

In his recent book, The Name of God is Mercy, Francis was asked by interviewer Andrea Tornielli about his famous “Who am I to judge?” comment that occurred during the inflight interview during the Pope’s return trip from Rio de Janeiro.

Francis responded, “On that occasion, I said this: if a person is gay and seeks out the Lord and is willing, who am I to judge. I was paraphrasing by heart the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it says that these people should be treated with delicacy and should not be marginalized.”2

This is a woefully incomplete response, and hence, a dishonest response.

Francis fails to acknowledge that homosexuals around the world latched on to his “Who am I to Judge?” phrase to publicly celebrate their homosexuality. Homosexuals now sport “Who am I to judge” t-shirts complete with Francis’ picture on display. Francis also does not acknowledge, neither in this book nor elsewhere, the vicious bullying of homosexual activists to impose public acceptance of their lifestyle (a bullying that includes the corruption of young children).

Further, Francis does not acknowledge the damage his “Who am I to judge” statement has caused in the political realm. To give but one example, in November 2013, two Catholic lawmakers, after claiming to be be undecided, cast their vote in favor of same-sex ‘marriage’ legalization in Illinois, due to Francis’ “Who am I to judge?” comment. We read in the November 5, 2013 Chicago Tribune, “As a Catholic follower of Jesus and the Pope, Pope Francis, I am clear that our Catholic religious doctrine has at its core love, compassion and justice for all people," said Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia, a Democrat from Aurora who voted for the bill after spending much of the summer undecided.

Likewise, Illinois House Michael Madigan also cited the Pope's comments in explaining his same same-sex “marriage.” support. “For those that just happen to be gay — living in a very harmonious, productive relationship but illegal — who am I to judge that they should be illegal?" the speaker said.

Francis, given an opportunity in his book to publicly repair the harm of his statement, glides along defending his words as if they are blameless.

Finally, Francis claims he merely quotes the New Catechism and speaks of the alleged respect we should nurture for homosexuals. Again, this is not quite true. He fails to repeat the most important aspect of the Catechism’s teaching on this point: that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law.” #2357

In fact, Francis never seems to call homosexual acts or any immoral acts intrinsically disordered. And he effectively undermines natural law in Amoris Laititia wherein he presents natural law not as an objective reality that must be acknowledged and lived but only at the level of “inspiration” that one may take or leave as the individual works out his “deeply personal process” of deciding one’s moral behavior. (#305).

Keep in mind, his book on Mercy was not an off-the-cuff interview wherein he blurted his words even before he had time to think them through. Rather, the text was a book, the contents of which he had plenty of time to consider, re-write and fine-tune to the exact answer he wished to convey.

His response was inexcusably self-excusing as well as misleading, for he quoted only the ‘tenderness’ part of the Catechism, with no mention of the fact that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.”

Amoris: No One Condemned Forever?

The final three examples of Francis’ less-than-honest approach are from Amoris Laetitia.

We read in Amoris Laetitia document one of the most bizarre claims yet to come from a post-Conciliar pontiff: “No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the language of the Gospel.” (#297)

This is blatantly untrue. It is actually embarrassing to have to answer Francis on a point so fundamental.

As any sane Christian knows, Our Lord often spoke of the punishment of eternal hell and warned us of the judgment of those who will not be saved, “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Matt. 25:41).

It appears that Francis, as is not unusual among modernist Jesuits, does not believe in eternal hell despite the obvious words of Our Lord and the teaching of Catholicism since its inception. In a La Republica interview published on March 15, 2015, Eugenio Scalfari relates that Francis believes the “condemned soul” is simply annihilated: “What happens to this lifeless soul? Will it be chastised? How? Francis’ response is exact and clear: there is no chastisement, rather, this soul is annihilated.”

Francis’ personal failure of Faith does not give him license to pervert the truth of Christ and mislead his flock especially in what appears to be a magisterial document (though as Father Nicholas Gruner would often observe, the Pope himself has no authority to teach an untruth, and if he does so, then what he says is not a magisterial statement.) Even Cardinal Burke noted that Amoris Laetitia is a “personal reflection of the Pope” that is “not [to be] confused with the binding faith owed to the exercise of the magisterium.”

Amoris: Misuse of Concilar Text

Speaking of divorced-and-civilly-remarried Catholics, Francis writes in Amoris Laetitia: “In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy [i.e., the ‘marital act’] are lacking ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers’ (Gaudium et spes, 51).” - AL fn. 329. Canonist Dr. Edward Peters calls this “a serious misuse of a conciliar teaching,” since “Gaudium et spes 51 was speaking about married couples observing periodic abstinence. Francis seems to compare that chaste sacrifice with the angst public adulterers experience when they cease engaging in illicit sexual intercourse.”

Dishonesty again.

Amoris: Selective Silence

In an effort to excuse divorced and remarried Catholics, Francis quotes a passage from Familiaris Consortio of John Paul II which acknowledges that that there can be situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.”

Francis, however, quotes only the first part of the sentence and makes no mention of John Paul II’s conclusion which insists that such couples must “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.” Francis here displays the standard tactic of the modernist who will engage in “selective silence” and, in the words of the eminent Father Edward Hanahoe, will “pretend the magisterium has not spoken”.

Deception and manipulation again!

I have not even bothered to recount Francis’ misuse of St. Thomas Aquinas in Amoris Laetitia (two references). Suffice to say that even EWTN’s Fr. Gerald Murray observed in a televised panel discussion critical of Amoris: “I can’t believe a good group of Thomists won’t have a response to that.”

“Because they have no love of the truth…”

In light of Francis’ ongoing deceptive tactics - there is no other term for them – I cannot help reflect that such caginess displays a desire to deceive as well as a contempt for the truth. There could be no more unacceptable behavior for a Pontiff and no greater danger for the Church at large.

The Church demands clear-thinking and holy leaders to teach doctrine with precision and fortitude, but Francis’ attempt to outfox the truth places himself and the Church in grave peril.

Sacred Scripture warns of the spiritual blindness that befalls those who harbor contempt for the truth. “For they have not received a love of the truth .… therefore God sends them a misleading influence that they may believe falsehood.” (2 Thes. 2:11).

As the modernist has no love of the truth, he is punished by a “deceiving influence” wherein he will actually believe his modernist delusions. A more apt description of many in today’s Church leadership could hardly be found...