The heart of the Bergoglianist error is, in my fallible opinion, to be found in such texts as the letter Archbishop Nichols wrote last year to PF, assuring him that English Catholics believe that his election was the work of the Holy Spirit [not in my name, Vincent], and that the Holy Spirit guides him daily [ditto]; vide similar statements by now-Cardinal Farrell linking the Pope to the Holy Spirit ... Mgr Pio of the Rota ... ...
Now one of the Church's leading and most extreme hyperultrapapalists, the papolatrous Cardinal Maradiaga, has encapsulated that error in a single lucid sentence and, in so doing, has pushed the error a few notches further up the scale ... or even, you may feel, off the scale. Here are his reported words:
"To ask for the resignation of the pope is, in my opinion, a sin against the Holy Spirit, who ultimately is the guide of the Church."
I need not remind you that the "sin against the Holy Spirit" is, according to the words of the Lord, the unforgivable sin: unforgivable both in this world and in the next (Mt 12:31 sqq et parr).
Not even, apparently, merely a sin canonically reserved to the Holy See. A sin ... unforgivable!
As PF's grip on power becomes ever more threatened, it is natural that his cronies should become daily more extreme in their desperate rhetoric designed to protect their unfortunate and profoundly flawed hero.
But to say that calling on him to resign is a sin against the Holy Spirit goes even further than I had feared possible.
I wrote recently, "They are running scared and they will become very dangerous".
When I wrote this I had no idea just how scared and how dangerous. Is there anything they will stop at?
2 September 2018
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
These claims are becoming more and more desperate. Will they next claim that PF is an incarnation of the Holy Spirit? (shudder) we will have then reached a moment of "Biblical" proportions.
My, erm,meticulously researched and referenced historical theory:
The first two thousand years of recorded human history, the first childhood of "homo spiratus", were taken up with fighting about the nature of the Father - mainly, one or many? Demiurge or creator?
The second two, up to the last cebtury, were filled with controversies and dire heresies about the nature of the Son. I hardly need list them, but our whole civilization is built on their outcomes.
The next two will be about the great pneumatological heresies,and they are just beginning to crystallize.
Are we lucky to be at the dawn of such an age, where the greatest doctors and fathers will be capped on to fight? Or is it just exhausting to think we have another 1982 years to go?
Is there anything they will stop at? Hmmm. Not so far👹
One really has to wonder whether anyone in Rome is even slightly interested in reconciliation with the East anymore. Surely all the papolatry and the stupefying (even if, on examination, illusory) innovations have set us back another millennium? If we Latins cannot respect our own traditions,how can we reasonably be expected to respect those of others?
On that point, have any of our learned correspondents here taken the temperature of the Eastern Catholics recently?
I am often vexed by the seeming attitude of some progressives that the Latin Church is the "main" church, our "flagship brand", where all the "prompting" of the Holy Ghost, all the aggiornamento, is supposed to take place. Meanwhile our brothers are seen as quaint museum pieces - they can keep their liturgy, they seem to be saying, for the same reason the Court of Chivalry can keep its jurisdiction: no one cares! An outrageous habit of mind, if by chance I read it correctly. But I am an ignorant person and I may not.
And so, for centuries, the Church has prayed, citing a psalm, "non tradat eum in animam inimicorum eius" do not hand him over the the will of his enemies, and if he is hos own worst enemy, then. But Satan is still his worst enemy.
I guess I'm accumulating a lot of unforgivable sins by their standards. The problem I can't help it. Reason, fused to my Catholic faith, tells me this pope needs lots and lots of criticism. His papacy a grotesquery.
I recall that back in February, during the Q&A of his von Hügel address, Cdl Cupich claimed that the pope was 'inspired' when he wrote Amoris Laetitia.
"Is there anything they will stop at?"
Surely, Father, the statements about the Holy Ghost speaking through this pontificate made by cardinals and suchlike, to my mind are blasphemous or approaching it! These people, who should know better, seem to purport to know the mind of God, and this in contradiction of and despite the constant teaching of the Church. Mind you, these sycophantic ultramontanists are only reflecting the current papal manner. They are sucking-up to Francis, their boss. Perhaps they feel that their words will not be taken too seriously at face-value, but merely as gushing vagueries in the manner of their irritatingly waffly Argentinian master Then we can all, (in the way the Pope recommends}, wait and see which way the cookie will crumble, before we get too certain what the Francis NuChurch really is teaching. This is the way all will become Gradually clear as to how doctrine has Gradually been "changed". This is how a "God of surprises" reveals Himself no doubt! Poco-a-poco. Obviously, this is blatant heresy achieved through the back door! If ya can't push everyone to believe it by bullying them, do it gradually. Nibbling away at the Catholic Faith. A little at a time. (A bit like how people's "perceptions" of what Catholic dogma is since VII and the Novus Ordo Mass became omnipresent. OH, I know, I'm rambling; but this is serious.) A lot of the stuff that's being pushed is what the Modernists believe anyhow. (German cardinals and bishops are getting their own "ecumenical" way -- we were even told to celebrate Luther's Revolt (the Reformation). Really!! And now we find that American and other criminally perverted hypocrites have been shielded from their comeuppance!) Sorry --just my usual disjointed gabble.
From the beginning of Pope Francis's papacy, he spoke very little about Catholicism, Christ, God, or even religion; his focus was on politics and this world. When he did speak about religion, it was usually to undermine the faith and to mock devout Catholics as "rigid". It was very revealing when after Archbishop Vigano released his explosive testimony, sworn under oath, one of this Pope's staunchest supporter's, Cardinal Cupich, went on television and said the Pope was not thinking about Vigano because he was focusing on his "real priorities: climate change and migrants". Well, he said it; I didn't. I suspect Pope Francis long ago lost his faith. That old joke, "Is the Pope Catholic?" doesn't work anymore because the answer right now is, "Well, not really."
Dear Father. Americans argue about what point their country was lost; some say it was during the Presidency of the Tyrannical Mercantilist, the rapidly racist Abraham Lincoln, in the 1860s , while others say it was much earlier when in 1787 the Congress sent some representatives of the Sovereign States (each its own country) to Philadelphia to update/reform the Articles of Confederation and the revolutionaries ignored their charge and did what they wanted to and formulated a Constitution; in a secular way, the representatives anticipated what the The Bugman and his revolutionary brethren did to the Real Mass after being charged by an authority to implement Sancrosanctum Concilium.
The point at which we, The Catholic Church, lost the plot was when Pope Paul VI went to Fatima on May 13, 1967 and refused to meet with Sister Lucy, after having met the mini-skirt-wearing Gina Lollobrigida and Claudia Cardinale inside St. Peter’s Basilica about a week earlier.
Well, to be fair to Pope Paul VI, Sister Lucy was not a movie star and she wasn’t wearing a mini skirt…
In any event, it seems the purpose for the visit of Pope Paul VI to Fatima was to shift the focus of the Church from that of Theocentrtism to that of Anthropocentrism.
While in Fatima, Pope Paul VI claimed to have had a vision of what was to be done and it had aught to do with what God desired in His message to the world spoken by The Blessed Mother but Pope Paul VI had other ideas and he appealed to man and his putative greatness and Pope Paul VI spoke a strange prayer at Fatima and then run oft to meet with two Jewish women.
C'et la vie.
It does one well to remember that Pope Paul VI is the father in Faith and model of Faith for the Bishop of Rome and Bergoglio is all about man as the king of the world - in imitation of his master, Paul VI.
The error is that they ascribe all of it solely to the direct working of the Holy Spirit, instead of to Divine Providence (God working in the midst of fallen and sinful men).
For the selection of the Pope, the chicanery present in previous Conclaves demonstrates that the selection is more than the direct and unfettered work of the Holy Spirit. This is underscored through the chicanery outside of the Conclaves (for it was through the hardness of an emperor’s heart that God could raise up Giuseppe Sarto to be St. Pius X).
As to the writings of the Popes... do we suggest John XXII’s error to be the inspired words of the Holy Spirit? Can God author error? We don’t even ascribe such direct inspiration to Scripture.
How absurd these men that see the mark of the Holy Spirit in every scribble on a Conclave ballot, and the movement of the Spirit in every wind that breaks forth from the one the Conclave selects!
I think it’s time to remind all of the false clerics and impostors in the Vatican that descending on the Vatican with an army to clean house has a long and well established tradition throughout the history of the Papacy. And this case is about 60 years overdue.
Antonio Spadaro issued the most amazing and incoherent Facebook rant on Friday in support of PF, which sounded like something coming out of Hitler’s Bunker as the Allies closed in:
“The accusations are by now a broken record….. Journalists are engaging in their craft. The net is overflowing with hate and fake news…. Some very desperate interests (pseudo-Catholic American media are involved...) are already revealed….. The Pope draws energy from conflict and sees that his actions upset them as a sign……the backlash… crossing over him without moving him... Some shepherds are shown to be wolves…… No, we don’t need to think about a general purification of the cliques of shady powers (God promised that there would not be another universal flood after the first one...)…..A pure and sinless Church would be an unreal abstraction. Where there is man or woman there is always a shadow [I am referring here to those who raised up this mess against the Church, the Viganò thing, which is just evil. Even they need mercy. No new great flood anymore]”.
The Fuhrer's serene, OK?
This threat, like a holy sword in the hands of Satan, will not have it's intended effect. It is almost laughable. Catholics, with the exception of the seniors, have been robbed of an actual Catholic education, today's Catholics have no idea what he is referring to, so his attempt to subdue conversation about the fact our pope returned a known serial homosexual predator of boys and young men to active ministry, will fail. He is counting on an understanding that, thanks to these Materialists who have taken over the Church, is not there to the extent it once was. Anyone well versed enough to understand this threat would likely also know that these men are that desperate to maintain power, and are going to start flailing, saying anything, in order to silence the growing opposition. I was delighted to hear the recent Angelus, and one woman's voice in the background, clearly heart about 8.5 minutes in, amazingly, over the crowd, "Vee-gah-NO, Vee-gah-NO!".
Their day of reckoning is coming. As the reading today reminds us, God will not be mocked.
Desperate people will do (and say) desperate things.
I'm quite sure that Francis and his supporters would split the Church rather than go away quietly. Francis has already said he may go down in history as splitting the Church. They are prepared.
Hmm, let's see . . . time for a bite from the "Reality Sandwich":
* Pope St. Marcellinus
Elected in 296 A. D., under Diocletian's persecution he not only gave up the Sacred Scriptures to be burned, but he also apostatized for a time by offering incense to the pagan gods. Not even St. Augustine could defend his acts. Later stories claim he repented, and was martyred for it. (Still, his name was stricken from the list of Popes by his successor, Pope St. Marcellus I.) No resignation was asked for or forthcoming. Only his death brought his pontificate to an end.
* Pope St. Damasus
Elected in 366, although he had gone into exile with Pope Liberius, he later betrayed him and changed sides: accepting the anti-pope Felix II. After the true Pope, Liberius, was dead, the partisans of anti-pope Felix II (who had died earlier) offered the papacy to Damasus . . . and, Damasus apparently had no problem with that. Those who had been supporters of the true Pope, Liberius, refused to acknowledge Damasus and elected somebody else, namely, Ursinus. So, he got together a bunch of thugs who went out and beat or killed the "Ursinians". Bishops were shocked, and yet . . . no resignation was asked for or forthcoming. Only his death brought his pontificate to an end.
* Pope Boniface VI
Elected in 896 -- the son of a bishop, doncha know! -- he had been degraded from the clergy twice for his immorality. Yet, he was (uncanonically?) elected Pope. No resignation was asked for or forthcoming. Only his death brought his pontificate to an end.
* Pope Sergius III
Came to the papacy in 904 -- or, 898, if you think he was illegally deposed by the King of Italy -- he had Pope Leo V murdered in prison by strangulation. (Leo had been placed there by the anti-pope, Christopher.) He re-affirmed the posthumous condemnation of Pope Formosus. In the meantime, he fathered a child with the teenaged Marozia. No resignation was asked for or forthcoming. Only his death brought his pontificate to an end.
* Pope John XI
Elected in 931, the bastard son of -- wait for it -- Pope Sergius III. Fed up with the Holy See's disgrace, his half-brother, Alberic II, overthrew Marozia and her Pope-son, placing the latter under house arrest at the Lateran for the rest of his pontificate. No resignation was asked for or forthcoming. Only his death brought his pontificate to an end.
* Pope John XIX
Elected in 1024 . . . but, only because he bribed everybody and his donkey to become Pope! No resignation was asked for or forthcoming. Only his death brought his pontificate to an end.
* Pope John -- again?! -- XXI
Elected in 1276, he was morally unstable. Oh, yeah . . . he hated the mendicant orders. No resignation was asked for or forthcoming. Only his death brought his pontificate to an end.
* Pope John XXII (oy)
Elected in 1316, he moved against the "Spiritualist" reform movement amongst the Franciscans. Their crimes? Wearing a simpler, less-adorned habit and trying to live by poverty. Some were handed over to the Holy Inquisition, which burned a few at the stake.
He himself seemed to do a "face-plant" into heresy whilst opining his own views on the Beatific Vision (or, lack thereof) by the souls in Heaven. No resignation was asked for or forthcoming. Only his death brought his pontificate to an end . . . with a partial recantation of his views.
* Pope Alexander VI
Elected in 1492 . . . and, nothing more need be said.
The claims of the"Bergoglio-mafia" are very harmless compared to this statement where one has to speak about a "Bergoglio-sect"!
Please just read what Gustavo Oscar Carrara, a new Auxiliary of Buenos Aires said about the Pope:
"Die Vorstellung, dass der Papst nur an Argentinien denkt, ist doch etwas beschränkt, nicht wahr? Wir Argentinier sollten mehr auf seine Botschaft hören. Ich sage immer, man muss versuchen, Franziskus Worte und Gesten so zu hören und zu lesen wie sie sind – also die Essenz, ohne Interpretationen. Ich glaube, dies ist ein großer Moment: Gottes Geist verkörpert sich in Franziskus', aber diese Dimension erfassen viele nicht."
Its the last sentence which is mostly shocking!
"I believe this is a great moment: God's Spirit is embodied in Francis', but many do not grasp that dimension. "
A short analysis:
1. Its a heresy to state that the third divine person incarnates in a human being. Only the second divine person, the eternal logos, became flesh.
2. If he speaks of "God´s spirit" we have to presume, as he claims to be a validly ordained catholic bishop, that he speaks about the One God we confess in the creed. So his statement is heretical. And if his statement is true, it is acceptable that this "incarnated spirit of God" aka Begoglio can change everything he has inspired for example in the holy scriptures 2000 years ago.
3. "but many do not grasp that dimension."
This is pure gnosticism without any "neo". Gnosticism states that the Lord revealed certain truths only to certain people like the Gospel of Thomas etc. So no person can understand Begoglio properly, only those who know him personally for many years and have lived around him. Its a special and occult knowledge only a small group of people has. Its like Archb. Fernandez speaking about "a new logic" and "a new way of thinking". Or Spadaros 2+2=5.
Even writing this down, makes my knees shaking! I have send this episcopal statement to many traditionalist outlets, but no one considered it important.
here is the source
Our Lord spoke about "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" because the "teachers of the law" were saying that he cast out demons "by the prince of demons" (Mark 3:29). In other words they accused Jesus of being possessed by The Devil. They hated everything Jesus said and did because they felt it was the as the polar opposite of who they really were in the secret of their souls. They experienced him as an existential threat to their power base and so labelled him "evil". Our Lord was warning that if you find the ultimate Good (i.e. the impact and presence of God himself) intolerable and reject it absolutely as something utterly opposed to your own spirit, then it is in fact you who are evil. If such malice motivates you to reject The Holy Spirit as the enemy of your own spirit, then you put yourself beyond salvation. I am in no position to judge any man, but I was disturbed to read that a Jesuit official in the Vatican named Spadaro has now called Monsignor Viganò's letter "evil". If they find what he is doing so hateful, what does that tell us about them?
Thanks ABS. I was unaware of that trip and "prayer." So much has been hidden from us.
Identifying with the Holy Spirit is far too modest for the "God of Surprises."
@ Dan02 who writes:I'm quite sure that Francis and his supporters would split the Church rather than go away quietl
Splitting the Church was the goal all along.
Detraction, calumny, lack of substantiated accusations, name-calling: the usual filthy tactics of the Left (whether political or ecclesial) and clear proof that truth and goodness are not found with them. It is Spadaro and the Vatican clique who are brazenly evil and possessed of the "spiritus delende." But to them, and their clericalist papolators, good is evil and evil is good and reason and evidence mean absolutely nothing. I wish we had some place to go and have nothing to do with these perverse men and the equally perverse institution they have created over the past half century. I don't think theirs is the Catholic Church, so where does that leave us? I ponder what "good" Pope John has been telling the Almighty about the pandora's box he so optimistically opened during his stewardship of the Church and his personal responsibility for the countless souls lost in the "Great Aggiornamento."
Post a Comment