According to a report published in the Tablet, retired Archbishop Jan Lenga has been ordered by the local ordinary, Bishop Wieslaw Mering of Wloclawek, Poland, to “refrain from delivering sermons and publicly conducting the liturgy.” He is also prohibited from making “contacts with the media.”
The restrictions on Lenga come as a result of the following:
In a book-length interview, still circulating in Polish on YouTube, he [Lenga] said he still recognised Benedict XVI as Pope and had dropped the name of the “usurper and heretic” Francis from his Mass prayer intentions.
Gloria TV is reporting that Lenga has responded by telling a local television outlet that he has no intention of abiding by the restrictions.
“Christ gave me the authority through the Church to proclaim the Truth, and I will do this until I die,” said retired Archbishop Jan Lenga, 69…
Lenga has long been on record as casting doubt on the validity of Benedict’s resignation. In an open letter published in 2015, he wrote:
It is difficult to believe that Pope Benedict XVI freely renounced his ministry as successor of Peter.
The idea that the act was forced reflects my own opinion. As such, I do not find it at all surprising that every reaction I’ve encountered thus far on the part of Catholic commentators is focused on Lenga’s stance concerning Bergoglio the “usurper.”
Even so, the arguably more important element of this story is Lenga’s public insistence that Bergoglio is a “heretic,” which alone amounts to a declaration that he is not the pope.
According to the Tablet:
“Bergoglio has not confirmed himself in the faith and is not passing that faith to others, he is leading the world astray,” said the archbishop, who trained secretly in Soviet-ruled Latvia and Lithuania and was appointed Kazakhstan’s first bishop in 1991 and Archbishop of Karaganda in 1999. “He proclaims untruths and sins, not the tradition which has endured for 2000 years… He proclaims the truth of this world, which is precisely the truth the devil”.
Why does this aspect of Lenga’s statement deserve at least as much, and arguably even more, attention than his stance concerning the resignation?
First, canon lawyers and Latinists continue to quibble about the true meaning of the language Benedict employed in the Declaratio stating his intentions. Those who consider his act canonically invalid are but a small and vocal minority, and this even though the Ganswein presentation of May 2016 confirmed what plainly constitutes defective intent; e.g., an “expanded” papacy with “an active member” and a “contemplative” member.
Secondly, and more to the point, the unanswered questions concerning the validity of Benedict’s so-called resignation as it relates to the degree to which he was forced to submit it (the basis for Lenga’s stance) will die with him.
Benedict is going to die, folks, in all likelihood before Bergoglio, perhaps even well before.
Those presently taking the position that the resignation was invalid, for whatever reason, thus making conclave 2013 a total farce, will only find themselves further dismissed, and unfairly so, as a mere lunatic fringe.
Bergoglio, for his part, will continue his work of deception and destruction with all the more reckless abandon, convincing nearly all of humanity – including even the majority of sincere self-described “traditionalists” – that he is the Vicar of Christ. Nothing could be more dangerous!
The reality is, and I shall never tire of saying it, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, of his own volition, is not a member of the Body of the Church, much less is he her visible head on earth, the pope. He is, to borrow the words of Archbishop Lenga:
A heretic, who has not confirmed himself in the faith, is not passing that faith to others, is leading the world astray, proclaiming the untruths of the devil.
Archbishop Lenga, in spite of being a man of the Council (just like Benedict XVI) and thus part of the problem, gives every appearance of sincerely wishing to embody the true faith. His public stance on the resignation of Benedict XVI is noteworthy indeed, but chances are very remote that it will gain the traction it deserves among other likewise sincere persons – be they bishops, priests, theologians or simple laity.
If for no other reasons, this is the case due to the nature of the resignation debate itself and the inaccessibility of certain crucial details, not to mention the fact that very few individuals possess intimate knowledge of either canon law or Latin.
On the other hand, focusing on Bergoglio’s heresies and blasphemies promises to garner far more attention and bear much greater fruit, both immediately and in the long run. Why? Because while mystery and disagreement surround much of the resignation debate, there is room for neither mystery nor disagreement when it comes to the one true faith.
Likewise is there no room for confusion when it comes to the relationship of every man, and every thing, to the one true faith. This includes the least of those who lay claim to membership in the Holy Catholic Church, all the way up to those who lay claim to the Office of Peter. It also includes the relationship of the Second Vatican Council and the bastard rite known as the Novus Ordo Missae to the one true faith.
And this, my friends, is where the rubber meets the road.