Over the past few days, fresh on the heels of the Vatican letter debacle, many in traditional Catholic media have been wrestling with Francis’ most recent interview with his pal Eugenio Scalfari.
Did Francis plainly deny the existence of Hell or not?
I’d say there is good reason to believe that the answer is that he probably did; but as I’ll explain momentarily, I don’t especially care either way.
As a kind reader recently made me aware, among those in Catholic media who have weighed in on the debate is Michael Matt, publisher of America’s oldest traditional newspaper, who said:
If he actually did say this … If he believes this … Pope Francis is a heretic.
Indeed! The next obvious question, one I suspect he is unwilling to answer, is whether or not such a man can be considered Catholic much less the pope.
Look, I don’t mean to pick on Mr. Matt – whose approach to the present crisis is emblematic of a much more widespread problem – but why are we hyperventilating over what may or may not have been said to a ninety-three year old atheist who prides himself on not taking notes?
How about we focus on what we know – like the fact Francis has kindly provided the world with a signed written statement (and other irrefutable evidence) clearly attesting to which immutable Catholic doctrines he accepts and those that he rejects.
On the topic of Hell, for instance, he left no room for debate concerning what he believes, and what’s more, what he intends to lead others into believing, by stating:
No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone… (AL 297)
No one, everyone; i.e., there are no exceptions.
Folks, this is as blatant and as unambiguous a denial of the existence of Hell as we could ever hope to see, and it is just one of the many heresies set forth in Amoris Laetitia; the selfsame document wherein Francis plainly insists:
- The Divine Law is impossible for some persons to keep (cf AL 295)
- Adultery is not a mortal sin even for those who knowingly persist in it (cf AL 301)
- And worst of all, that God Himself asks us to do so. (cf AL 303)
And yet there are some in the comfortable world of well-established “traditional” Catholic media who – even though Francis has rejected appeal after appeal to confirm the true faith – cannot bring themselves to state the obvious:
Francis is without any question whatsoever a heretic, and a formal one at that.
Those of us who have a voice in Catholic media have a grave obligation to speak this truth plainly, warning all with ears to hear of this clear and present danger; even though we know very well that doing so will incur a certain cost.
And why?
Simply put: For the glory of God and the salvation of souls.
I trust Scalfari more than I’d trust the Vatican Press Office.
Scalfari for all his no-note-taking has presented us time after time with a completely consistent description of Francis and his unCatholic, hell, unChristian, hell, non-religious views, considering Hell exists even amongst other false religions.
Scalfari’s telling the truth. The Vatican Press Office is telling us how they’d prefer to define the word “interview.” Those buffoons can’t even get their story on Benedict’s letter straight.
But Scalfari does provide us with the key to Bergy’s words that “No one is condemned forever” as he’s already consistently done with previous “interviews” of Francis, which Francis has published in a book.
I pray Francis adds this non-interview to the Bishop’s letter as part of his official ‘magisterium’ too. Let’s see what the bishops and press office do then… I’m guessing, nothing. Maybe they’ll call for more “clarifications” and hold a conference where they’ll sit around scratching their heads saying, “I dunno.”
“While extremely sensitive as to the slightest approach to slander, you must also guard against an extreme into which some people fall, who, in their desire to speak evil of no one, actually uphold and speak well of vice.” ~ St. Francis de Sales
Bravo Louis! Any Cardinal, bishop, priest, or consecrated who dares state this truth will be demoted, laized, and excommunicated by Francis I. The assertion of this truth requires spiritual fortitute and mutual Catholic support on the part of all Catholics.
Years ago i asked a very talented and educated young Argentine what he could tell me about Borgoglio. His answer was direct and to the point. “I can tell you he destroyed everything that was Catholic in my country.” I asked him if he would ever go back despite living on the border of one of the worst crime infested cities in America and he said ,”No.”
Mary_ P and all those who would like to participate , here is one suggestion to follow Our Holy Mother’s advocating the use of our most powerful weapon against the evil of our time.
http://rosarycoasttocoast.com/
I have no doubt there are those who would mock this suggestion even among those who identify as Faithful Catholics, but personally I know the power of meditating and praying the rosary and I know the personal miracles involved.
Anyone who faithfully recites the daily rosary will never doubt the existence of Hell
or the all encompassing joy and love that IS Heaven.
Prayers of the Auxilium Christianorum
https://www.amazon.com/Prayers-Auxilium-Christianorum-Chad-Ripperger/dp/1979704902/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1522689393&sr=8-1&keywords=auxilium&dpID=51K0gXExLrL&preST=_SY344_BO1,204,203,200_QL70_&dpSrc=srch#customerReviews
I posted on LifeSiteNews the following, which was removed today. Steve Jalovesc is still in denial:
The man is a heretic and a freemason. He is a puppet of his controllers. As St. Bernard and St. Norbert would have done we also must do. They dealt with a heretic in the papacy by seeking his removal through diplomatic and military means. It must be the same for us. You can remove this comment but you cannot remove historical precedent.
I stand by my statement.
Mary_P , I believe it is because the online publication is affiliated with Opus Dei that they take this position. You can see the same position on Michael Voris’ site.
Opus Deites take filial vows to the Pope , any and every Pope that happens to occupy the position.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/opus-dei-leader-says-filial-correction-signers-attack-the-pope
………..and I might add, that under the Pope ,especially THIS Pope , there will be numerous OD canonizations because this is a road to greater power and authority, as it was with Maciel who was stopped in his tracks by the much publicized voluminous revelations of laity regarding his perversions , all the while preparing for his own canonization and mausoleum in Rome, while trying to open the Cause for his own mother’s Beatification.
Canonization and being entitled as a “Saint” by the Vatican is perceived as a proven method of authenticity.
……However, Francis renders it all null because if there is no Hell , there is no guaranteed Heaven either.
I don’t believe LifeSite scraps comments critical of the Pope or blaming the Pope directly. Plenty of those comments exist on LifeSiteNews.
They do tend to censor anyone calling for violence, or in this case military action, which well, as a pro-life site they don’t want to be associated with the taking of life or any suggestions of violence outside of cautionary warnings of consequences.
Mary is still correct to raise the topic, but it is understandable why LifeSiteNews will not post such a comment.
You may be correct Johnno , I will have to look into their publication more critically BUT in the article link posted ,it is clear OD takes the stand that the filial correction is an attack on the Pope.
I also believe Traditionally minded Catholics should not be so quick to hold the middle ages as a benchmark for genuinely Faithful Catholicism either. They made quite a few errors in that epoch too. One long held belief was that Mary Magdelen was a prostitute .
https://aleteia.org/2018/04/02/was-mary-magdalene-a-prostitute/
I used to read Novus Ordo Watch occasionally and think, man they are right but no, this just couldn’t be. But when Bergoglio orchestrated AL, I KNEW he was not the Pope. And when he made it official Magisterium, any doubt vanished. I’m giving all these folks, (poor Michael Matt gets the brunt here but I’d include any Catholic still calling the man Francis) as much benefit of the doubt as I can and assuming they are grasping in every illogical direction in order to keep their own faith. I can understand trying to keep your faith, that I understand. But, just like a drowning person will drag you under w/his flailing, these people are just flailing around and are in no position to help anyone else but may do the opposite. Anyone who still says this man is Pope is just not operating in a rational manner. I feel for them but, the benefit of the doubt is running WAY thinner as Bergoglio prances around announcing heresies to the WORLD during HOLY WEEK. At some point, if they do not denounce him as an imposter, even if they cont. to call him mean mean names, they serve on his team and that team is as evil as they come.
P.S. After writing this I noticed even Mr. Verrecchio calls this little devil Francis, maybe out of respect for Catholics who may be just looking this stuff up after reading the Drudge headlines during HOLY WEEK. I hope not out of respect for the cretinous blasphemer masquerading as our Holy Father, because I can’t really think of a worse crime and I’ve read of many many horrible crimes against humanity, this takes the cake.
Excellent points, sweep. It’s obvious these websites have financial ties to heavy hitters like Opus Dei. I wouldn’t be surprised if Opus Dei has connections at it’s upper levels to Soros organizations or Masonic organizations, but just being aware that they are Opus Dei is illuminating enough. As I said before, if these websites are going to publish inflammatory and derogatory information about the pope they have to expect Catholic will react. Instead they seem to try to control the reactions as if they are the arbitors of moral reaction to heresy on the part of the pope. You’re right, it’s all about money and power. What else? Has Rome changed?
In Jorge’s own words:
http://meddlingcatholics.com/2018/03/30/franciscast-ep-3-about-my-comments-on-hell/
Also, remember that in 1890 priests were to REFUSE absolution to any that would deny belief in the fires of Hell.
I read one of the usual neo cat sites trying to spin this, “but…but… Scalfari doesn’t take notes and he’s done this to Francis at least 5 times!”
Um…WHY THE HELLO DOES FRANKIE THEN REPEATEDLY DO INTERVIEWS WITH THE MAN IF HE’S TWISTING WORDS?!
Answer: The atheist isn’t twisting Frankie’s words, and Frankie is more than happy to use Scalfari as a way to drop his poisonous little crumbs, to pave the way for his wicked agenda without looking like he’s doing it. FRANKIE NEVER CLEANS UP FRANKIE’S MESSES. Why? Because they’re who he really is.
And my hell! If someone accused ME of heresy I’d come out swinging with some very very clear language, but no, here is what the Vatican said:
“What is reported by the author in today’s article is the fruit of his reconstruction, in which the precise words uttered by the Pope are not cited. No quotations in the aforementioned article, then, should be considered as a faithful transcription of the words of the Holy Father.”
What about, “OF COURSE THERE IS A HELL, AND I BELIEVE IN ITS EXISTENCE AS MUCH AS HEAVEN, AND ANYONE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH WILL FACE DAMNATION, TO INCLUDE LYING ATHEISTS. WE MUST ALL PROSELYTIZE AND SPREAD THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST AND HIS HOLY CHURCH, OUTSIDE OF WHICH THERE IS NO SALVATION.”
It’s really hard to say what anyone should do in this bizarre situation, we’ve never experienced this before, and neither has anyone else in living history. We have to go back quite a ways to find a rogue, bad pope, and even then it was due to “an error” he persisted in, or something like that. At no TIME have we had such blatant apostasy AND, obvious hostility toward Catholicism and Catholics. The man does what he does with methodical attention, his timing is part of the plan. He insults or provokes on the eve or day of a significant event, then if there is a backlash, a muddled retraction or fudging to create more obfuscation, then, a week or two later, something is said or done that is orthodox in nature. Despite this alternating path of destruction, Catholics are nonetheless picking up on the general direction and theme, and many, get it.
Now the people who do not get it don’t want to get it. Many just don’t want to. They’re happy living in Let’s Pretend, and we can’t drag them out of there.
But the people in the media, especially the bigger outlets, they do have a responsibility. We know the truth now, there can be no doubt, he is an apostate, not just a heretic. Beyond that we cannot say, although we can imagine, but that is a fact, and as much as I appreciate and admire the Remnant (and I really do), it is way past the time to identify him as such openly and repeatedly. The integrity of your newspaper demands it, if not your obligation to God and man.
CM is another outlet. I appreciate the work they do and believe they are sincere and earnest. Michael Voris is a tremendous apologist and defender of Catholicism, no doubt, he is most effective. But CM has an obvious restriction on it’s ability to state the most obvious truth, that this pope, the apostate, IS an apostate. They are hampered for some reason, one can suspect why, but money is usually involved in such things. Yet I have no idea why.
It may have no effect in the temporal world at all. None of us have the slightest idea of what is going to happen tomorrow nor when things will change. But at the very, very least, we deserve truth. If we aren’t going to get ONE Cardinal or bishop to make the case, we can say the truth and have a right to expect the gaslighting to end.
We are well versed enough to know apostasy when we see it. We are beyond heresy, far, because it is not a matter of one or two errors. He clearly rejects Catholicism wholesale.
May God give us strength and courage as we wait for Him.
Louie, regarding your “next obvious question”, ” whether or not such a man can be considered Catholic much less the pope.” Doesn’t the Church teach if one is baptized Catholic, one is Catholic? There is nothing that can be done to remove that state, whether belief, practice, or desire, even in the deepest bowels of Hell. The state of being pope has different requirements.
“At some point, if they do not denounce him as an impostor, even if they cont. to call him mean names, they serve on his team and that team is as evil as they come.”
Well said, Melanie. As for those who call him “Francis”, I am okay with that so long as they don’t include the “Pope” part.
Mike, I do believe that apostasy, heresy and/or schism carry the penalty of automatic excommunication.
The man took the name of a Saint in a blatant scheme to rob Catholics of their faith and divert them from the path to Heaven, which makes me pretty mad at him. If people want to use it, I wouldn’t be mad at them, I know we need to communicate here. I wouldn’t quibble with someone like Mr. Verrecchio, who is refreshingly truthful, God bless him. I said Francis, until I was left without doubt that he was an evil imposter but now, he’s Jorge Bergoglio because I refuse to participate in the smallest way in this sacreligious charade. I wouldn’t say I’m okay w/it because it’s offensive and I think it’s not better than just his name, Jorge Bergoglio.
I understand. Sometimes I see folks say “Pope Bergoglio”. Just stop giving him any sort of legitimacy! (not you).
Thank you Melanie, and my point is, an excommunicate is still Catholic. They’re still under the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy days, they’re barred from the Eucharist and positions of authority in the parish and the Church. They are a Catholic apostate, Catholic heretic or Catholic schismatic, and Church Doctors and Saints taught that when in Hell, will suffer greater punishment.
Mike, the Church has taught for centuries that heresy, schism, and apostasy separates one from the Church. There are non dogmatic reasons Catholics can be excommunicated that do not separate one from the Church. Only heresy, schism, and apostasy separates one from being Catholic.
Is it possible that Francis says and does outrageous things simply because he loves the reaction and craves attention. After all, he is an egomaniac who has put himself above God. Should he be ignored?
Tom A,
From the Latin: ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion. I’ve never heard or read from any valid Church source/authority that anyone can scrub the indelible mark of Catholic from their soul. If you can cite one, it’d be interesting. Everyone has the obligation to honor the Lord’s day, but who but a Catholic, (excommunicated or not), would have the obligation to attend Mass?
Bergolio is simply the symptom. The disease is the modernism of Vatican 2. Until trads understand that modernists who accept V2 are not objectively Catholic, they will continue their hand wringing and lamenting and accomplish nothing.
Mary_P
FYI …I just rec’d confirming information.
Steve Jalsevac from Ca is affiliated with Opus Dei.
John Henry Westen is not Catholic.
While not necessarily bad or even evil people involved, anyone with OD affiliation appears to be strictly controlled for the organizations own agenda.
“On May 14, 1999, anti-pope John Paul II bowed to and kissed the Koran of fellow anti-christ Mohammed. The Koran is the impious Muslims’ “holy book” which blasphemes the Most Holy Trinity and denies the Divinity of Jesus Christ. To revere this un-Holy Book of a fabricated and false religion, has always been considered an act of apostasy
a complete rejection of the true and only religion instituted by Jesus Christ, The Holy Roman Catholic Faith.
Thus, this act alone makes anti-pope John Paul II an apostate.”
And they made HIM a Saint.
“But the Koran was a gift! It would be rude to snub a gift!”
Sure. Kiss a diabolical filthy, blaspheming book. Whatever makes you popular. Go ahead and throw Christ under the ecumenical bus.
LifeSiteNews has a lot of Canadian news. Your assertion that OD members are tightly controlled makes a lot sense and comports with they way they run their combox. They have an agenda alright and that agenda is not necessarily consistent with good Catholic doctrine. It seems to me The Wanderer, a much older publication, is not as idealogically controlled. I don’t think they are associated with OD, Regnum Christi, Foccolare, Legion of Christ, etc. but their editorial policy is extremely conservative.
Mystici Corporis, by Pope Pius XII: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.” Here Pius defines that a Catholic is one who is baptised AND professes the Catholic faith. This excludes apostates, heretics, and schismatics. Yes you are right that excommunicates are separated from the Church too. I was not clear what I wrote as I was trying to draw a distinction that not all excommunicates are guilty of heresy, schism, or apostasy. There is another authoritative papal teaching that says that that mortal sin does not separate us from the Church but only heresy, schism, and apostasy do. I forget who said that. Ill look it up later for you.
Mike, also from Pope Pius XII:
Mystici Corporis Christi(# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
Paul VI has,
” …kindly provided the world with a signed written statement (and other irrefutable evidence) clearly attesting to which immutable Catholic doctrines he accepts and those that he rejects.”
It’s called Vatican II and JP2 and Benedict have also signed their own heretical documents. Why is Bergolio’s heresy noteworthy while the others get a pass? If Bergolio can be said to be a heretic, so can all the other conciliar “popes” who accepted the errors of Vatican II. I do acknowledge that Bergolio makes it rather easy for most laymen to recognize his heresy whereas the others were more nuanced and carefully concealed it from the average pewsitter.
“they made him a saint”…..”they” do not have the final word. Only Almighty God does.
Tom A, I really don’t think that it’s any more complicated than what you acknowledge, “Bergoglio makes it rather easy for most laymen to recognize…whereas the others were more nuanced and carefully concealed…” A Catholic would naturally not expect ANY Pope to be a heretic and if a Pope caused them confusion, they may even ignore him so that he doesn’t hurt their faith. It’s to be expected that you’d really have to punch some of us in the face with it. Well done Bergoglio. That doesn’t excuse anyone but the average pewsitter and y’all know who you are, a lot of people should have known better. What did we have 1 Bishop that went sede? What happened to everyone else? My goodness, if you listen to these trads explain Papal infallibility to you, firstly they act like you must have rocks in your head to have believed the Pope had any role in the Church AT ALL and secondly they know they’re selling just the most desperately desired gobbledegook that most will just nod and say PHEW, what a great relief, thanks pal.
It may be possible that one is still Catholic even though not considered a member of the Church, (Mystical Body). Popes St. Cornelius and Stephen I, in dealing with the Lapsi, (apostates), said they were not to be rebaptized, (after performing their assigned penance). I would think that if they were no longer Catholic, baptism would be required. Even when a branch is cut off from a vine, it would still be called a piece of vine, and if grafted back on would yield the same fruit.
“Why is Bergolio’s heresy noteworthy while the others get a pass?”
Not to give them a pass, but in therms of why Bergolio’s is noteworthy, a certain distinction can be made – that given the actions and words of JP2 and Benedict XVI, it is possible to argue that they were in fact genuinely confused, especially on the part of Benedict XVI given he was operating under the heliocentric paradigm, as was JPII for which they could at least offer a more coherent description of why they did what they did (which doesn’t excuse them).
Francis on the other hand, breaks with basic morality and more obvious doctrine as understood by the less theologically-inclined masses, for which he himself is not so theologically inclined, and this is proven by how he runs away and deliberately hides behind others and deliberately manoeuvres his heresies knowing full well the conservative idiots he can count on to twist themselves into pretzels defending him.
The argument can be made (not necessarily making it true) that JPII and Benedict were confused.
NOT SO with Bergolio. He knows precise what he’s doing. He simply. DOES. NOT. CARE. unlike his predecessors he doesn’t care about any kind of logical consistency, except that everything is naturally permitted because as Ann Barnhardt says of him, “He doesn’t believe any of that B*(($#!*.”
But he knows the rest of us do, and that’s why instead of just making his apostasy open, he is put in charge of the “reform” which is to take us towards full apostasy by gradual methods and by the efforts whereby he proclaims he’s carrying out the “will of the people,” where people = the Church, hence all the synods and collegiality and cherry-picked lay participation.
Illustration: Another conservative fool is saying “Whatever Pope Francis said or didn’t say in his private conversation with Mr. Scalfari, elsewhere he has made clear he stands by traditional Christian teaching on hell.”
Sure, sure… he “stands by” the Teaching on Hell. But does he actually believe it? Many atheists don’t believe in any of that Christian nonsense, but they too “stand by” the Christian moral code and social ethic. What is this supposed to tell us? Is this an American thing where one can separate their beliefs from their public office? Like those politicians who are “personally opposed” to abortion, but uphold it as a legal right?
So is Bergolio “personally opposed” to the actual dogma of Hell, but by virtue of his position, must publicly uphold it? But privately he rejects it entirely?
Therein lies the difference between JPII and Benedict XVI, and this apostate. JPII and Benedict wore their errors on their sleeve believing they were consistent. If you want to consider them heretics, and least they were more honest about it. And therefore one could argue in favor of their confusion or diabolical disorientation.
Francis, however, is a hypocritical two-faced charlatan. A liar exposed for all the world to see. Believers and unbelievers alike see him for what he is. An opportunist, a peronist who will say whatever he wants to whichever crowd of people he happens to stand before. That’s why these conservative morons make reference to when Francis has spoken of Hell and Satan, but the boobs don’t actually recognize the modernist method when they see it.
A consistent, honest man, does not say diametrically opposite things to different people. Particularly one who would believe in Hell. Only one who actually doesn’t would engage in this behaviour.
If he doesn’t believe in Hell. Then absolutely nothing about the Church or its existence is of any relevance to him. It can’t logically be so. It wouldn’t make any sense. So imagining that he’s so much more enlightened than the rest of us, he is ‘playing along’ and reorienting the Church towards his own will. “Not Thy will, but MINE, be done.”
Right, except that Pope Francis is, well, Pope Francis. Saying he isn’t is like people who said “#notmypresident” on social media (which quickly died down).
You can dream and deny reality all you want, but Trump is President of the United States. And that Pope Francis is the Pope. But Trump is President. And Francis is Pope.
Evangeline
We don’t have to go back that far. I remember seeing with my own eyes John Paul 2 hold blasphemous prayer meetings in Assisi, where heretics & pagans were allowed to desecrate Catholic Churches by performing their satanic rituals in them. All this recorded on video and can be seen by just googling the Assisi prayer meetings. I saw him ( JP2) on EWTN during the canonization of Juan Diego where he allowed a pagan witch to perform a satanic purification ceremony on him !! On live TV !! Not only wasn’t this traitor to Christ not stripped of his title and tossed in the street , he was actually made a “saint”!!
Then we had Ratzinger who publicly stated that Jews don’t need to accept Christ , and that their wait for a messiah is not in vain !
There are many examples of all the “Popes” since Vatican 2 denying the Faith, but not a thing has been done about it. This road has led us to the humble one.
I agree with Mary P that action needs to be taken now or the Church will cease to exist in any meaningful way. I disagree with military action ; what we need is at least one bishop & one Cardinal with some manhood left, who will publicly accuse Mr Humble Pie of heresy & then announce a schism. This will make Catholics choose,( the large majority will stay with the heretic because the large majority are degenerate heretics themselves) then another real Pope must be elected that will rally the small remnant to start crushing the counterfeit Novus Ordo Anti Christ Religion.
I pray for the day all those Protestant tables are smashed and sent back to hell were they came from !!
“ Lord, please send us just one Holy Bishop & Cardinal to defeat your enemies !,”
Right, but Pope John Paul II was Pope John Paul II. Saint. Not anti-pope.
Don’t deny reality like lunatic Ann Barnhardt.
Freemason? Like the dudes who sponsored the mile of highway cleaning? That was Pope Francis?
Tom I have lurked this site for a while and read your comments with great interest . You are right the Vatican 2 Church is simply not Catholic, but by just going off to some splinter group may help individuals stay sane, we need a Cardinal to publicly come out and accuse Bergoglio of heresy and declare a formal schism to make Catholics choose otherwise this road leads to nowhere
You go back to the Middle Ages and you’ll find plenty of papal reprobates. Nothing new under the sun.
JP2 is a “ saint” of a false religion. Not a Saint of The Catholic Church, we must start to choose !! We have 50 years of evidence !
Either you are Catholic and believe the Faith or a follower of a perverted counterfeit.
No bs I agree with you on this.
Blunderbuss, The Papacy is not the same thing as a presidency and you know that. How do you explain what is going on here? Seriously, I’m believing you are an actual Catholic person and I’d like to know what you think is the explanation for the situation in which we find ourselves. If the Catholic faith is true than that man can not be the Pope. If, as Limbaugh believes, the Catholic faith can be corrupted by some leftist, firstly, I believe that would have happened centuries ago, but if it did, than it just wouldn’t be true. If you have something else, I’d like to hear it.
Nonnobis,
It is most disconcerting to take the words of a notable Saint in order to use it against another……
St Francis continues……….
“No, my child, we must never, in our wish to shun slander, foster or flatter vice in others; but we must call evil evil, and sin sin, and so doing we shall serve God’s Glory, always bearing in mind the following rules.
If you would be justified in condemning a neighbour’s sin, you must be sure that it is needful either for his good or that of others to do so. For instance, if light, unseemly conduct is spoken of before young people in a way calculated to injure their purity, and you pass it over, or excuse it, they may be led to think lightly of evil, and to imitate it; and therefore you are bound to condemn all such things freely and at once, unless it is obvious that by reserving your charitable work of reprehension to a future time, you can do it more profitably.”
I believe we all should be calling out the evil words of Borgoglio that cause confusion and or heretical thought ! In like manner I commend those TRUE Catholics who are disgusted and shocked by the evil of sodomite pederast clergy !
It is also reprehensible for anyone to use quotes from the Saints or Scriptures out of context in order to covertly discredit another under the guise of charity.
Tom,
Again (as I have stated before) I recall clearly that our Pastor, who was teaching our Catechism class in 1963 and ’64 , was delighted to update us on the daily happenings during Vat 2 . He told us that they decided not to teach seminarians that Satan was a real entity who incited evil in this world , but that evil was in the hearts of mankind. I raised me hand and asked him how seminarians would believe in God if they were taught there was no devil ? He had no answer , but was disturbed enough that he called my mother in the evening demanding to know what I was reading at home.
The same could be asked of Borgolio .If there is no hell and eternal damnation ,why then did Jesus suffer and die on the Cross?
The proof there’s a Hell is Francis is pope.
Surely, he (who, a year ago, said ‘Christ made himself the Devil’) believes in Hell, otherwise he wouldn’t try so hard to make us go there…
But we will not follow Bergoglio but hold on even stronger to Jesus Christ.
Although I am totally in agreement with Tom regarding the other “popes”, I wonder whether a major reason why Francis appears different than the others is because he is the first “pope” who was ordained AND consecrated in the new false rites of ordination and consecration. He is nothing but a layman.
I agree that the average lay person “gets” issues regarding the sixth and ninth commandments because they deal with sexual matters. The fact that Vatican II and its popes throw the first commandment to the wind? Well, that’s a whole different matter.
Blunderbuss: “You go back to the Middle Ages and you’ll find plenty of papal reprobates. Nothing new under the sun.”
Oh yes, bad popes indeed. But which one of these popes taught heresy to the Universal Church?
CM will never call Bergoglio a heretic and/or an apostate. Opus Dei owns CM and Voris.
It’s really curious Ursula, because if he really did believe in Hell as Christians do, why would he ever risk going there himself by trying to get everyone else there too? Yet, his overall goal does appear to be to stear those trying to avoid Hell to despair and those doubting Hell exists to be assured it doesn’t. He doesn’t seem to seek popularity, because he EASILY did not need to make a public spectacle of pedo protecting and he did. That spectacle seemed the designed goal of the Latin American tour. He really just seems to be trying to direct people to the pits of Hell, what the heck religion is that? I really don’t know.
“He did not complain in any way about the bad reputation he enjoyed all over the world, assured me that he himself was the person the most interested in the destruction of superstition, and admitted to me that he had only been afraid for his own power one time, and that was the day when he had heard a preacher, more subtle than his colleagues, shout out from the pulpit:
“My dear brothers, never forget, when you hear the progress of enlightenment vaunted, that the devil’s best trick is to persuade you that he doesn’t exist!”
Baudelaire, “Le Joueur généreux,” pub. February 7, 1864; translation by Cat Nilan, 1999¹
and the MOST powerful people in the world are?
Wait for it…………….here he is
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/forbes-reveals-worlds-most-powerful-people-of-2015/
“O My Jesus, forgive us our sins. Save us from the fires of Hell…….”
Did Our Lady get it wrong?
That was then ……….and THIS is now THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN HISTORY !
https://www.osv.com/TheChurch/Article/TabId/563/ArtMID/13751/ArticleID/24368/Pope-The-Most-Powerful-Man-in-History-March-11-CNN.aspx
2 Cents , apparently we ALL have it wrong ……
He even tops Jesus according to Our Sunday Visitor’s headline !
Mike, you ask “Doesn’t the Church teach if one is baptized Catholic, one is Catholic?” And in another post, you state: ” I’ve never heard or read from any valid Church source/authority that anyone can scrub the indelible mark of Catholic from their soul. If you can cite one, it’d be interesting.” Further, in one more post you state: “Popes St. Cornelius and Stephen I, in dealing with the Lapsi, (apostates), said they were not to be rebaptized, (after performing their assigned penance). I would think that if they were no longer Catholic, baptism would be required. Even when a branch is cut off from a vine, it would still be called a piece of vine, and if grafted back on would yield the same fruit.”
First, Popes St. Cornelius was pope during and following a period of persecution of the church under Emperor Decius who ruled from 249-251 AD.
Two schools of thought arose after the persecution. One side, led by Novatian, who was a priest in the diocese of Rome, believed that those who had stopped practicing Christianity during the persecution could not be accepted back into the church even if they repented. Under this philosophy, the only way to re-enter the church would be re-baptism. The opposing side, including Cornelius and Cyprian the Bishop of Carthage, did not believe in the need for re-baptism. Instead they thought that the sinners should only need to show contrition and true repentance to be welcomed back into the church.
Stephen was urged by Faustinus, Bishop of Lyon, to take action against Marcian, Bishop of Arles, who denied penance and communion to the lapsed who repented, the position called Novatianism, after Novatian, later declared a heretic, who held for the strictest approach.
The controversy arose in the context of a broad pastoral problem. During the Decian persecution some Christians had purchased certificates attesting that they had made the requisite sacrifices to the Roman gods. Others had denied they were Christians while yet others had in fact taken part in pagan sacrifices. These people were called “lapsi”. The question arose that if they later repented, could they be readmitted to communion with the church, and if so, under what conditions.
Pope Stephen held that converts who had been baptized by splinter groups did not need re-baptism, while Cyprian and certain bishops of the Roman province of Africa held re-baptism necessary for admission to the Eucharist.
This controversy was answered in the Council of Trent and codified in Canon Law:
Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul, but heresy separates one from the Church.
Canon 2314, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto excommunication.
So one who has been excommunicated from the Church is no longer Catholic.
Further, in Pope Leo XIII’s “Satis Cognitum”, On the Unity of the Church:
#9: The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).
The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: “Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: “One Lord, one faith,” and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: “that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only – “but until we all meet in the unity of faith…unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ” (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that – “He gave some Apostles – and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (11-12).
Wherefore, from the very earliest times the fathers and doctors of the Church have been accustomed to follow and, with one accord to defend this rule. Origen writes: “As often as the heretics allege the possession of the canonical scriptures, to which all Christians give unanimous assent, they seem to say: ‘Behold the word of truth is in the houses.’ But we should believe them not and abandon not the primary and ecclesiastical tradition. We should believe not otherwise than has been handed down by the tradition of the Church of God” (Vetus Interpretatio Commentariorum in Matt. n. 46). Irenaeus too says: “The doctrine of the Apostles is the true faith…which is known to us through the Episcopal succession…which has reached even unto our age by the very fact that the Scriptures have been zealously guarded and fully interpreted” (Contra Haereses, lib. iv., cap. 33, n. 8). And Tertullian: “It is therefore clear that all doctrine which agrees with that of the Apostolic churches – the matrices and original centres of the faith, must be looked upon as the truth, holding without hesitation that the Church received it from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God….We are in communion with the Apostolic churches, and by the very fact that they agree amongst themselves we have a testimony of the truth” (De Praescrip., cap. xxxi). And so Hilary: “Christ teaching from the ship signifies that those who are outside the Church can never grasp the divine teaching; for the ship typifies the Church where the word of life is deposited and preached. Those who are outside are like sterile and worthless sand: they cannot comprehend” (Comment. in Matt. xiii., n. 1). Rufinus praises Gregory of Nazianzum and Basil because “they studied the text of Holy Scripture alone, and took the interpretation of its meaning not from their own inner consciousness, but from the writings and on the authority of the ancients, who in their turn, as it is clear, took their rule for understanding the meaning from the Apostolic succession” (Hist. Eccl., lib. ii., cap. 9).
Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. “Lord, if we be in error, we are being deceived by Thee” (Richardus de S. Victore, De Trin., lib. i., cap. 2). In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).
For this reason the Fathers of the Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: “All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are pro posed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium” (Sess. iii., cap. 3). Hence, as it is clear that God absolutely willed that there should be unity in His Church, and as it is evident what kind of unity He willed, and by means of what principle He ordained that this unity should be maintained, we may address the following words of St. Augustine to all who have not deliberately closed their minds to the truth: “When we see the great help of God, such manifest progress and such abundant fruit, shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that Church, which, as is evident to all, possesses the supreme authority of the Apostolic See through the Episcopal succession? In vain do heretics rage round it; they are condemned partly by the judgment of the people themselves, partly by the weight of councils, partly by the splendid evidence of miracles. To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant. And if all learning, no matter how easy and common it may be, in order to be fully understood requires a teacher and master, what can be greater evidence of pride and rashness than to be unwilling to learn about the books of the divine mysteries from the proper interpreter, and to wish to condemn them unknown?” (De Unitate Credendi, cap. xvii., n. 35).
It is then undoubtedly the office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity. But this is not all: the object for which the Church has been instituted is not wholly attained by the performance of this duty. For, since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth of its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind. But faith alone cannot compass so great, excellent, and important an end. There must needs be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine Sacrifice and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the Saviour for ever. The Church alone offers to the human race that religion – that state of absolute perfection – which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.
Thumbs: you state: “we need a Cardinal to publicly come out and accuse Bergoglio of heresy and declare a formal schism to make Catholics choose othteerwise this road leads to nowhere.”
It is extremely doubtful any Cardinal could publicly come out and declare Bergoglio of heresy as he would also be condemning himself as there isn’t a single Cardinal who isn’t a Modernist at one level or another. Regardless, it is up to us as individuals to be faithful to Christ and the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church which we know cannot change. It is up to us as individuals to persevere, particularly in times such as the one we live in where there are very few who actually believe in all of the true teachings of the Church as it is us, as individuals, who are going to have to account to Christ on our particular day of judgment. Certainly it is most difficult to be a faithful Catholic if we cannot obtain the graces conferred in the Sacraments, particularly in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, because their validity is doubtful, but there have been times that Catholics have not had priests available at all and yet have remained faithful Catholics.
Blunderbuss: How do you define the role, duties, and responsibilities of the pope?
No, these dudes:
http://traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A775-Crato.htm
Saint? Hardly! Not of the Catholic persuasion, anyways!
Traditon in Action? Really?
I’m Catholic. So are other 1.1 billion others who call themselves Catholic. Sounds like you are not and you believe the Church has ceased to exist?
Head of the Roman Catholic Church.
It’s easy to explain. He is a lousy Pope. The visible Church is an institution 100% staffed by flawed human beings just like us (except much older). The issue most Traditionalists have, including many here, is that they have spent their lives denouncing “dissenters” and fixating on the infallibility of pronouncements from Rome. When you get a Pope who’s full of it, it hard to do a 180 and suddenly say it’s OK to disagree with the Church and not listen to the Pope.
The reality is that you need to properly form and follow your conscience and stop obsessing about the musings and rantings of celibate octogenarians, both Cardinals and Popes. You’re responsible for your salvation. God is not coming down from the clouds to get rid of Francis, but he will die soon. Learn the Faith, go to church, and do your best to live a good life. I plan to blast my AC this summer, for instance. And I don’t think God will be angry with me.
Ha ha, I think there is something a little bit wrong with that logic but I really like you. I appreciate your explanation, I’ll let it roll around.
Really, dude it’s FrancisBishop Gilberto Pastana de Oliveira! TIA was up all night deciding to pick on just him and his masonic dude pals. Really.
Correction: (((Blunderbuss))) & 14.5 million
Ah yes. The triple parentheses. I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are 150 years old and don’t know what that means. But your “14.5 millon” reference tells me that you do and that you hate Jews. Sad! And not at all Catholic.
C’mon. Among other strange things, this guy romanticizes rural agricultural life and trashes Abraham Lincoln as subjugating the South (somehow connecting Honest Abe to Communism). Not going gonna waste virtual ink on the Lincoln thing, so let’s talk naive agrariophilia. Try talking to an actual farmer about farm life. Research what it takes to run a viable farm, especially the equipment costs. Tell me this is some sort of nirvana we should aspire to.
Dude is nuts, or at least maintains a vast gulf between himself and reality.
Why he may want to go there?
Possible explanations:
1) He knows Satan is his master, and he hates God
2) Despair – he believes he cannot be saved
3) He thinks his friends are there, too. For example Judas, Marx, Lenin etc.
4) He thinks Hell is not that bad, at least it won’t be for him after serving Satan so well
I agree with you, Melanie, he has no fear of Hell in the Catholic sense.
And yes, LennyB, as the Devil’s greatest trick is to convince people that he does not exist, so Jorge Bergoglio’s job is to tell people that Hell does not exist.
I knew you would take the bait! LOL. Never give “haters” the benefit of the doubt. Now let’s go have a bourbon and talk about “naive agrariophilia” and your blind hatred for the elderly.
Well Blunder, you are wrong. Christ is the head of the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope is His Vicar on Earth. A Vicar is like a Vice President of Vice Commander. He is a second in command. Plus you didn’t answer Katherine’s question fully. You also have to define the mission of the Roman Catholic Church before you can define role, duties, and responsibilities. Here is where modernists start to squirm because they have an heretical definition of The Church and her mission.
@LennyB – You’re using something that has a specific meaning. I don’t get how that’s “bait” or what benefit of the doubt I’m supposed to be giving you. I also don’t understand why you’d cite a nutjob website like Tradtion in Action. As for “blind hatred of the elderly” – that makes no sense. I’ve often seen very old people use internet slang without knowing what it means. In his case, I would have assumed the best – that you didn’t understand the triple parens except that you mentioned the number of Jews and so it’s clear that you know exactly what it means. No discussion here had anything to do with Jews – you’re using a white supremacist Internet thing to insult someone by insinuating that they’re Jewish. Is that clearer?
@TomA – ok if you want to be that precise, sure. But Christ hasn’t been around in person for nearly 2 millennia, so the Pope is left to run the day to day.
The Church’s mission is to help people save their souls. Spiritually, it’s universal. How it does this on a practical, everyday level varies tremendously over time and by culture. For both the spiritual and temporal Church affairs, he buck stops with the Pope.
Lack of precision and clarity of purpose is why the modernists were able to gain control of the temporal organs of the Church. The weak Papacies of Benedict XV to Pius XII allowed the enemies of Christ the maneuver room too usurp the See of Peter. Your answer above leaves out the principal mission of the Church. Defend the Faith. Without the unblemished Truth, found only in the revealed deposit of faith, the Church would not be able to save a single soul. The Faith must be protected from every error no matter how small. That is the prinicpal role of the Pope. All else is secondary and as you say varies from age to age depending on practicalities and circumstances.
Blunderbuss: “It’s easy to explain. He is a lousy Pope.”
Yes, we have had many “lousy” popes Blunder. The problem is Francis isn’t just “lousy”. How many popes taught heresy to the Universal Church? When has the Vicar of Christ, the visible head of the Roman Catholic Church, ever taught heresy to Christ’s Church?
Mike, Baptism makes an indelible mark on the soul. It lasts for all eternity.
Membership in the Church is conditional upon being Baptised AND profession of the true Faith. Anglicans and Greeks are validly Baptised, but are not members of the Church, due to their schism and heresy.
Like Tom A has expertly pointed out, Pius XII teaches this clearly in Mystici Corporis Christi.
Baptised heretics are not Catholics, even though Vatican II wants you to think that they are.
Blunderbuss, thanks for your response to my question. The lack of a correct answer reveals all we need to know as to why you post what you do.
Thank you, Louie. You and Vox Cantoris have assisted me a great deal in this matter.