Satan on the left, and to the right the chair in which Saint Peter used to sit.
[Satan, Chair]
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Lost Sermons
Satan on the left, and to the right the chair in which Saint Peter used to sit.
[Satan,
Chair]
Because of the terrible storm in which the Barque of Peter is currently being bashed around, some Priests, and I assume some Bishops, have "excommunicated" parishioners who claim that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is very probably not a valid Pope.
This worries me a lot, because I claim pastors who scrupulously avoid any kind of public criticism against the errors disseminated by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, AND who simultaneously ask the faithful to call him "Pope" and to submit to his leadership, are endangering the flock.
Are these "excommunications" valid? Good question. I would need to methodically investigate the actual claims: what Priest or what Bishop said what exactly, with what intention, with what canonical authority, and who were they talking about? Were these members of the clergy talking about parishioners who have doubts about Bergoglio? or parishioners who have abandoned the Magisterium and are now devoutly believing anything coming out of the mouth of some self-proclaimed "prophetess"? Etc.
To simplify the discussion, let's eliminate right away "priests" or "bishops" who are obvious heretics. In other words, what should we think about "condemnations" coming from apparently Catholic members of the clergy?
As soon as we mention "apparently Catholic" members of the clergy, we probably both agree on many things, such as:
3.1) The Catholic Faith. My Profession of Faith in Jesus Christ and His One and Only, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is easy to find on the Internet.
3.2) Respect for the Holy See and the Magisterium. Here again, if there is anyone in Quebec who defends the Magisterium tooth and nail, it is me!
3.3) The holy contempt we must have for false prophets and pseudo-mysticism. I have a track record of years of fighting against false prophets like Marie-Paule Giguère (founder of a religious cult here in the Quebec City region). In addition, many can attest to my impatience when someone begins to rant about "revelations" and "prophecies" (concerning Jorge Mario Bergoglio or any other subject). I believe Revelation ended a long time ago [CCC, #65-67].
If someone tells you that the Moon is made of cheese, or that your car will continue to work very well if you fill up your gas tank with water, you don't need to scrutinize these claims. They're wacky.
Is it wacky to have doubts about Jorge Mario Bergoglio? I don't think so. Here are a few clues:
4.1) There have already been anti-Popes in the history of the Church. There has never been a unicorn or chimera, but there have already been anti-Popes.
4.2) A Pope who resigns is extremely rare. To my knowledge, of the approximately two thousand years of Church history, there have been two Popes who have offered their resignations, the most recent of which is Pope Benedict XVI on 2013-February-28. So the current situation is unusual.
4.3) The Code of Canon Law provides for the case of a null resignation. I am not talking about the resignation of this or that Pope. I'm just saying that a pseudo-resignation is a case anticipated by the Legislator:
A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice,
substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.
[Code of Canon Law, #188]
4.4) The rules for the election of a Pope provide for the case of an anti-Pope. The Legislator considers that an anti-Pope is possible, since he foresees the case in the regulations for Conclaves:
Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present
Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is
for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter;
consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.
[Universi Dominici Gregis, #76]
4.5) The Code of Canon Law provides for the case of a person who self-excommunicates instantly. We are not talking about a wacky idea, but about a real possibility, provided by law:
The apostate of the faith, the heretic or the schismatic incur an
excommunication latae sententiae
[Code of Canon Law, #1364]
4.6) Falling from Faith of Peter seems to imply falling from the seat of Peter. Would a Pope who became a heretic automatically cease to be Pope? Good question! The canonist Edward Peters in A canonical primer on popes and heresy concludes: "In sum, and while additional important points could be offered on this matter, in the view of modern canonists from Wernz to Wrenn, however remote is the possibility of a pope actually falling into heresy and however difficult it might be to determine whether a pope has so fallen, such a catastrophe, Deus vetet, would result in the loss of papal office". Also, Catholic historian Michael Davies, quoted by the author of Who is Right, Athanasius Schneider or Robert Bellarmine?, says Saint Robert Bellarmine claims all ancient Fathers share this opinion.
About excommunication, the Code of Canon Law says precisely "obstinate negation" ("pertinax" in Latin, Canon #751). Am I "obstinate" within the meaning of the law? Unlike some priests, when I speak about delicate matters that endanger the salvation of souls, I do so in writing and publicly. It's easy to see if I say "obstinate" things about Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Allow me to quote myself verbatim:
Personally,
my opinion
is currently that Bergoglio [...]
[Source]
Note the hyperlink for the expression my opinion, which leads to the description of what an opinion is, strictly speaking. By definition, when one has an opinion strictly speaking, one is not married to one's position. We are open to the idea that we can be wrong. We are still afraid of being wrong. It's the opposite of obstinacy.
Not only is my opinion not stubborn, but I am actively searching for light. If my opinion on Bergoglio is false, I want to know! I ask nothing better than to be enlightened by someone more virtuous and more competent than me. In fact, one of my dreams is to participate in a debate against Cardinal Gérald-Cyprien Lacroix (the only person in this diocese who is officially mandated to perform excommunications).
[Source]
In these trying times where there are wolves in the sheepfold, we should all re-read the fable of Jean de La Fontaine called "The Wolf, the Mother Goat and the Baby Goat".
In a nutshell, the Mother Goat sternly warns her Baby goat before leaving, forbidding it to unlock the door to strangers. She gives the Baby goat a password, but of course, the wolf happens to be around and hears it! So as soon as the Mother leaves, the wolf tries to pretend to be her, by giving the password. The Baby goat, wisely, asks for a second verification (the famous French expression: "Showing the White Foot"). Since the wolf cannot put his paw under the door to show it's not a wolf's paw, he leaves without harming the baby. Problem solved!
"Showing the White Foot" is important for baby goats, but even more important for organizations. The science of Sociology tells us that the most intelligent and most efficient way to destroy any organization is to insert an attacker inside that organization, preferably at the highest levels of the hierarchy. Remember also that the Catholic Church teaches that Satan is the most intelligent creature in the Universe, and that the Devil is actively trying to destroy the Church. So guess what might be Satan's Ultimate Attack Plan?
Personally, I prefer to only open the door to members of the Catholic clergy who are able to "show me the white foot". (Another way of putting it is that I prefer to conduct a mini-inquisition before unlocking the door leading to my precious religious obedience. Saint John, in the Apocalypse, has yet another way of saying the same thing: "you have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and discovered that they are impostors" [Ap 2:2].)
I like science. I like scientific experiments. Is Bergoglio really an anti- Pope? I invite all Catholic priests to do the following experiment. You'll need a sheet of paper, a pen, and a good industrial stapler with at least four staples.
Start by printing the following 5 questions on a sheet, adding also your name, your photo, and the address of the parish where you are now a priest:
1) It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (#300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, #84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, #34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, #29. Can the expression «in certain cases» found in Note 351 (#305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?
2) After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (#304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II's encyclical Veritatis Splendor, #79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
3) After Amoris Laetitia (#301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God's law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, «Declaration,» June 24, 2000)?
4) After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (#302) on "circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility", does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II's encyclical Veritatis Splendor, #81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which "circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act «subjectively» good or defensible as a choice"?
5)
After Amoris Laetitia (#303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching
of St. John Paul II's encyclical Veritatis Splendor, #56, based on
sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative
interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never
be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit
intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
[Source1,
Source2]
Then you answer the questions on that sheet of paper. (If you want to cheat by copying off another student, my answers are: No, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes.) Sign, date, and go and staple this sheet on your church's door. Take a selfie of yourself and your statement, and put it on the Internet. Send an email to your bishop to tell him the news. Talk about it in your parish newsletter. Make sure everyone in the diocese knows. Then wait for your bishop's reaction.
What? You do not have the courage to try this scientific experiment, despite the fact that you are a Catholic priest?
In that case, perhaps you should have a little more respect for your parishioners who have the courage to remain loyal to the Holy See, despite the bullying and slanders of the satanic wolves who are inside the sheepfold.
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Lost Sermons