Friday, 20 December 2024

FRANCIS LIKE LUTHER EX-CATHOLIC, CAN'T BE POPE

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X (Twitter). Protestant rants will not be published on this page. 





Martin Luther, raised Catholic, started a new, Protestant Church. So has Francis  





I have been spoken to, severely, on social media for 'declaring' that 'Pope Francis' is no such thing and has no more authority than Kim Kardashian. Or than Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, come to that. I'm no Catherine of Siena so my reply is, I don't 'declare' it . But common sense and the sensus fidei tell me that's how it is and as a Catholic journalist I am obliged to state it. I've done so for over three years.


I know I'm not among the "intelligent scholars" Dr Edmund Mazza cites below but it's heartening to see that he and other illustrious Catholic writers are now at least asking the question I first mooted back in July 2021. https://juliadufresne.blogspot.com/2021/07/bergoglio-cancels-latin-mass.html


It was the brilliant mind and heroic faith of Archbishop Carlo Maria which enlightened me, and we all know what happened to him. He was excommunicated, allegedly for the delict of schism. (As for moi, I was banned from playing the organ at my parish church. And from arranging the flowers.) 


But. Cardinal Thomas Cajetan OP, Fathers Werner SJ and Vidal SJ all advise us that: "If someone, for a reasonable motive, holds the person of the Pope in suspicion and refuses his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delict of schism nor any other whatsoever, provided… he be ready to accept the Pope were he not held in suspicion.[8]". 


As the guilty party, Jorge Bergoglio SJ knew that +Vigano's arguments and accusations - which perhaps were beyond the grasp of many of the faithful - were true. To further his impious agenda he had to silence him with the heaviest weapon at his disposal. 


Only of course, as he is not the pope his excommunication had no weight in the eyes of God. And neither should it in the eyes of men, but the apostate hierarchy accepted that ultimate penalty and so, unfortunately, did the priests and people whom the Novus Ordo has rendered apostate also, as the 'New Mass' was designed to do.


The scriptural "cloud of witnesses" (Heb 12,1) are quoted below to prove to anyone that having "wandered from the path of Apostolic tradition, ... being deformed, succumbed to heretical novelties" (Pope Lucius I, Martyr) Jorge Bergoglio SJ cannot be 'Pope Francis' as he pretends to be. 



self-explanatory



Dr Edmund Mazza, Professor of Church History, leads off:


I am grateful to Fr. Brian Harrison, OS for taking note of my contribution to the growing number of voices asking whether Francis is Pope. Fr. Harrison, however, thinks that’s one question we ought not to ask:

How are the countless millions of ordinary lay Catholics in the pews to prudently decide this question, given that they don’t have the theological and canonical formation necessary to weigh and evaluate the respective arguments of Dr. Lamont and the scholars who disagree with him? 

 “Well, I see that Archbishop Viganò, John Lamont, Matthew McCusker, Edmond Mazza [sic], the writers at ‘Novus Ordo Watch’ and some other intelligent scholars are now saying Francis is not a true pope.

 

But on the other hand, not one other Catholic Successor of the Apostles that I know of, among the 4,000 or so who now govern God’s Church, denies Francis’ status as the true Successor of Peter…Could it be that God has not only allowed the Successor of Peter to lapse from office through notorious heresy, but has also allowed the entire College of Cardinals and all the Catholic bishops bar none to remain blind to Bergoglio’s pertinacious heresy and so continue to recognize a faithless impostor and antipope as true pope?…Won’t I be prudent, therefore, to follow the maxim securus iudicat orbis terrarum – ‘the judgement of the whole world is safe’ – and so continue to recognize Francis  as pope…

My reply: Why talk in the abstract?

In 1378, there was a concrete case of “an ordinary lay Catholic in the pews” who had to decide whether Clement VII was Pope because God “allowed the entire College of Cardinals” to recognize him as Successor of Peter instead of Urban VI (still very much alive and kicking).

 

Against the view of Bishop Schneider that: “There is no authority to declare or consider an elected and generally accepted Pope as an invalid Pope,” Doctor of the Church, St. Catherine of Siena did exactly that: declared and considered an elected and generally accepted “Pope” Clement VII an antipope and defied the entire college of cardinals when she wrote to them:

…I tell you that you [cardinals] did wrong, with the antipope… he was chosen a member of the devil… you have committed all these faults in regard to this devil… to confess him as Pope, which he surely is not…(emphasis added).[1]

 Fr. Harrison also writes:

 

even though through his (putative) notorious heresy Francis would have incurred latae sententiae excommunication the instant after losing the papal office, his continuing acts of papal governance would still be valid, even though illicit. Why? Because according to c. 1331, §2, no. 2, those acts, unlawful though they be, will be invalid only after his excommunication has been declared by the competent authority. 

In short, even supposing Francis has indeed lapsed from office as a notorious heretic, all faithful Catholics, paradoxically, will still be obliged to treat him as pope for all practical purposes for as long as our other shepherds, the college of bishops, do so. For as long as they do not declare and enforce Francis’s removal from office, we, like they, will be obliged to obey his just commands, assent to his orthodox magisterial statements, and recognize the validity of his appointments and other acts of church governance.

Again, unlike Fr. Harrison, St. Catherine did not wait for any of the cardinals and bishops to declare Clement VII deposed before she declared that he was an antipope—and a devil!

 Furthermore, if Fr. Harrison’s reasoning is correct, then when Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman said:

we hold also that a heretical Pope, ipso facto, ceases to be Pope by reason of his heresy,[2]

what he really meant to add (but did not) is that because of canon law we need to treat him as Pope anyway.

 

And when Archbishop of Cincinnati John Purcell said:

if he [the Pope] denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I,[3]

what he really meant to add (but did not) is that because of canon law we need to treat him as Pope anyway.

 And when Cardinal Alfons Maria Stickler, S.D.B. Vatican Librarian said

If the person of the pope becomes a heretic, he no longer holds the office of pope, just as a judge who has become clinically insane, even though he remains the same person, can no longer be regarded as a judge as far as the effects of the office are concerned.[4]

what he really meant to add (but did not) is that because of canon law we need to treat him as Pope anyway.

 

And when Fr. Malachi Martin said:

a pope who became a heretic would cease to be pope…[5]

what he really meant to add (but did not) is that because of canon law we need to treat him as Pope anyway.

 

And speaking of canon law, Fr. Harrison ignores the clear teaching of the most authoritative commentary on canon law from 1917 to 1982, that of Fathers Werner SJ and Vidal, SJ:

Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church… A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church (emphasis added).[6]

The antipope is deemed deprived of jurisdiction before any declaratory judgement.

 

Wener and Vidal also disagree with Fr. Harrison about whether individuals are allowed to believe that a putative Pope is an antipope:

…they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider [him]… suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumors in circulation.[7]

And in this Werner and Vidal are following the view of Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, OP who taught:

If someone, for a reasonable motive, holds the person of the Pope in suspicion and refuses his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delect of schism nor any other whatsoever, provided… he be ready to accept the Pope were he not held in suspicion.[8]


 

Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich

 

 

 

Lastly, Fr. Harrison claims that scholars like Dr. John Lamont and myself “owe it” to the rest of the Catholic world to tell them

which of the cardinals he appointed (if any) are true cardinals possessing the right to elect a new Pontiff. But in any case, since the names of those who voted for this or that candidate during a conclave are never made known publicly, and since after the December 2024 consistory 80% of all voting cardinals will have been appointed by Francis, there will be an overwhelming probability that whoever is elected will owe his election partly to the votes of men who, having received their red hats after Bergoglio lapsed from office, are not true cardinals.

In short, if Lamont, Viganó et al are right, the next man elected to the See of Peter at the next conclave will almost certainly not be a true pope. And since the cardinals he appoints will also not be true cardinals, and since the bishops he appoints will have no true jurisdiction over the faithful in their dioceses, there will be no foreseeable future way out of this rabbit hole.

 

The Church as a recognizable, visible entity will have ceased to exist, because no future conclave will have certainly valid papal electors. And the ecclesiology implied by affirming that the entire college of bishops could ever be, and has in fact been, seduced into following an antipope is surely heterodox. It implies the Protestant ecclesiology that the true Church is invisible, that it needs no recognizable earthly head, and that it consists of all those scattered individuals who hold orthodox Christian belief. This runs up against the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church and the dogma, defined by Vatican I, that Blessed Peter will have perpetual successors i.e., right up till the Second Coming.

 

Again, I would point out that against a fact, there is no argument.

 

As I stated above, history shows that Fr. Harrison is wrong when he says the notion that “the entire college of bishops could ever be, and has in fact been, seduced into following an antipope is surely heterodox.” In St. Catherine’s day, that was precisely the case. (The entire college of cardinals and eventually a sizable number of bishops.)[9] The Visibility of the Church survived. It also survived the Great Western Schism when for forty years there were two “popes” and then three at a time. And those cardinals and bishops appointed by antipopes were ultimately considered valid. Why not today?

 

As for which of the cardinals are eligible to vote in the next conclave, I would say the ones who have never publicly and pertinaciously denied or cast doubt on any Catholic dogma of faith and morals. That should narrow the number down to about twelve or so, don’t you think Father?

Is Francis Pope? My Reply to Fr. Brian Harrison - OnePeterFive and https://nonvenipacem.org/2024/12/11/is-francis-pope-dr-mazza-lays-it-out-to-fr-brian-harrison/




Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich


And more from Dr Mazza:

If Francis is pope…

Then Pope Saint Lucius I, Martyr, (r. 253-254) was wrong when he said: “The Roman Apostolic Church is the mother of all Churches and has never been shown to have wandered from the path of Apostolic tradition, nor being deformed, succumbed to heretical novelties according to the promise of the Lord himself [to Peter]… ‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not…’(Lk 22:31-32). ”[1]

 

Then Pope Saint Felix I, Martyr, (r. 269-274) was wrong when, speaking of the Roman Church, he said: “As it took up in the beginning the norm of the Christian Faith from its authors, the Princes of the Apostles of Christ, She remains unsullied according to what the Lord said: ‘I have prayed for thee, etc.’ ”[2]

 

Then Pope Damasus I (r. 366-382) was wrong when he said: “The First See, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish…”[3]

 

Then Pope Saint Innocent I (r. 401-417) was wrong when, speaking of the Roman Church, he said: “that…all other churches might derive what they should order, whom they should absolve, whom, as being dirtied with ineffaceable pollution, the stream that is worthy only of pure bodies should avoid; so that from their parent source all waters should flow, and through the different regions of the whole world the pure streams of the fountain well forth uncorrupted.”

 

Then Pope Saint Gelasius I (r. 492-496) was wrong when he said: “This is what the Apostolic See guards against with all her strength because the glorious confession of the Apostle [Peter] is the root of the world, so that she is polluted by no crack of depravity and altogether no contagion. For if such a thing would ever occur (which may God forbid and we trust cannot be), why would we make bold to resist any error?”[4]

 

Then Pope Pelagius II (r. 579-590) was wrong when he said: “For you know how the Lord in the Gospel declares: ‘Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired you that he might sift you as wheat, but I have prayed the Father for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren.’ See, beloved, the truth cannot be falsified, nor can the faith of Peter ever be shaken or changed.”

 




“Consider, most dear ones, that the Truth could not have lied, nor will the faith of PETER be able to be shaken or changed forever. For although the devil desired to sift all the disciples, the Lord testifies that He Himself asked for PETER alone and wished the others to be confirmed by him; and to him also, in consideration of a greater love which he showed the Lord before the rest, was committed the care of feeding the sheep [cf. Jn 21:15ff.]; and to him also He handed over the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and upon him He promised to build his Church, and He testified that the gates of hell would not prevail against it [cf. Mt 16:16ff.]…”[5]

 

Then the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681) was wrong when it repeated the words of Pope Agatho (r. 678-681): “For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ [See of Rome], has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, ‘Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.’

 

"Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.”

 

 

Then the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (869) was wrong when it repeated the words of Pope Hormisdas (r. 514-523): “The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith. And because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed by, who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,’ these things which have been said are proved by events, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled, and her well-known doctrine has been kept holy.

 

"Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of this See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion.”[7]

 

Then Pope Saint Leo IX (r. 1049-1054) was wrong when he said, “By the See of the Chief of the Apostles, namely by the Roman Church, through the same Peter, as well as through his successors, have not the comments of all the heretics been disapproved, rejected, and overcome, and the hearts of the brethren in the faith of Peter — which so far neither has failed, nor up to the end will fail — been strengthened.”[8]

 

Then Pope Saint Leo IX was wrong again when he also said, “Without a doubt, it was for him alone, whom the Lord and Savior asserted that he prayed that his faith would not fail, saying, ‘I have prayed for thee, etc.’ [Lk 22:32]. Such a venerable and efficacious prayer has obtained that to this point the faith of Peter has not failed, nor can it be believed that it is ever going to fail in his throne.”

 

RELATED: Does Bishop Schneider peacefully adhere to Francis as pope?

 

Then Pope Saint Gregory VII (r. 1073-1085) was wrong when in his Dictatus Papae, he said: “…the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.”

 

Then Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, (1090-1153) was wrong when he said: ““all the dangers and scandals that occur in the kingdom of God must be referred to the Holy See, but none more urgently than those which concern the faith. It is indeed just that any menace to the faith should be dealt with by the one whose faith cannot falter. To whom else has it been said: I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not? The words that follow must apply to Peter’s successor…and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren’?”[9]

 

Then Pope Innocent III (r. 1198-1216) was wrong when he said: “The Lord confesses at the time of the Passion that he prayed for him: ‘I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail: and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren’ [Lk 22:32], by this manifestly indicating that his successors would never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith, but rather they would recall others and also strengthen others in such a way as to impose on others the necessity of obeying….”[10]

 

“Without faith, it is impossible to please God, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. If I myself have no faith, how can I strengthen others in faith? And that is one of the chief points of my function [officium meum]: for did not The Lord say to Saint Peter, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not”, and “when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren”. He prayed, and was hearkened to,— hearkened to in all points, owing to His obedience. The faith of the Holy See has never failed in trouble: but it remains firm and invincible, so that the privilege of Saint Peter remains inviolable.”[11]

 





 

Then Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church (1542-1621) was wrong when he said : “For the Pope not only should not, but cannot preach heresy, but rather should always preach the truth. He will certainly do that, since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brethren, and for that reason added: ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail,’ [Lk 22:32] that is, that at least the preaching of the true faith shall not fail in thy throne.”

 

Then Saint Robert Bellarmine was wrong when he also said: “There [Pope Saint] Gregory clearly teaches the strength of the Church depends upon the strength of Peter, and hence Peter is less able to err than the Church herself.”[13]

 

Then Saint Robert Bellarmine was again wrong when he also said: “The power of Peter’s keys does not extend to the point that the Supreme Pontiff can declare ‘not sin’ what is sin, or ‘sin’ that which is not sin. In fact, this would be to call evil good, and good evil, something that always has been and will be very far from the one who is the Head of the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.”[14]

 

Then Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was wrong when he wrote in his Lectura on the Gospel of St. Matthew: “However, the Roman Church was not corrupted by heretics because it was founded on a rock. Hence there were heretics in Constantinople, and the work of the apostles was lost; only Peter’s church remained intact (Luke 23:32). And this refers not only to the Church of Peter, but to the faith of Peter, and to the whole Western Church. Hence, I believe that the Westerners owe greater reverence to Peter than to the other apostles.”

 

Then the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-1444) was wrong when it said: “For with the Lord’s approval the most illustrious profession of the Roman church about the truth of the faith, which has always been pure from all stain of error shines.”[12]

 

Then Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church (1542-1621) was wrong when he said : “For the Pope not only should not, but cannot preach heresy, but rather should always preach the truth. He will certainly do that, since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brethren, and for that reason added: ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail,’ [Lk 22:32] that is, that at least the preaching of the true faith shall not fail in thy throne.”

 

Then Saint Robert Bellarmine was wrong when he also said: “There [Pope Saint] Gregory clearly teaches the strength of the Church depends upon the strength of Peter, and hence Peter is less able to err than the Church herself.”[13]

 

Then Saint Robert Bellarmine was again wrong when he also said: “The power of Peter’s keys does not extend to the point that the Supreme Pontiff can declare ‘not sin’ what is sin, or ‘sin’ that which is not sin. In fact, this would be to call evil good, and good evil, something that always has been and will be very far from the one who is the Head of the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.”[14]

 

Then Blessed Pope Pius IX (r. 1846-1878) was wrong when he said: “This authority judges infallibly all disputes which concern matters of faith and morals, lest the faithful be swirled around by every wind of doctrine which springs from the evilness of men in encompassing error. And this living infallible authority is active only in that Church which was built by Christ the Lord upon Peter, the head of the entire Church, leader and shepherd, whose faith He promised would never fail. 

 

This Church has had an unbroken line of succession from Peter himself; these legitimate pontiffs are the heirs and defenders of the same teaching, rank, office and power. And the Church is where Peter is, and Peter speaks in the Roman Pontiff, living at all times in his successors and making judgment, providing the truth of the faith to those who seek it. The divine words therefore mean what this Roman See of the most blessed Peter holds and has held.”

 

“For this mother and teacher of all the churches has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to it by Christ the Lord.” [17]

 

Then Pope Leo XIII (r. 1878-1903) was wrong when he said: “And since all Christians must be closely united in the communion of one immutable faith, Christ the Lord, in virtue of His prayers, obtained for Peter that in the fulfilment of his office he should never fall away from the faith.

 

 ‘But I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not’ [Luke 22:32], and He furthermore commanded him to impart light and strength to his brethren as often as the need should arise: ‘Confirm thy brethren’ [ibid.]. He willed then that he whom He had designated as the foundation of the Church should be the defense of its faith. [As Saint Ambrose said.]”[18]

 

Then Pope Benedict XV (r. 1914-1922) was wrong when he said: “The ancient Fathers, especially those who held the more illustrious chairs of the East, since they accepted these privileges as proper to the pontifical authority, took refuge in the Apostolic See whenever heresy or internal strife troubled them. For it alone promised safety in extreme crises. Basil the Great did so, as did the renowned defender of the Nicene Creed, Athanasius, as well as John Chrysostom.”[19]

 

Then Pope Pius XII (r. 1939-1958) was wrong when he said: “The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he makes charity and virtue loved.”[20]

 

Then Cardinal Alfons Stickler, Vatican Archivist, (1910-2007) was wrong when he said: “the pope stands for the Church which has never erred, which cannot err, in questions that involve eternal spiritual salvation. Therefore, he is the absolute (and, consequently, implicitly infallible) guarantor of the truth which one who wishes to be Catholic must profess.”[21]

 

Then Pope Benedict XVI (1927-2022) was wrong when he said: “For with the same realism with which we declare today the sins of the popes and their disproportion to the magnitude of their commission, we must also acknowledge that Peter has repeatedly stood as the rock against ideologies, against the dissolution of the word into the plausibilities of a given time, against subjection to the powers of this world…Therefore the Petrine promise and its historical embodiment in Rome remain at the deepest level an ever-renewed motive for joy: the powers of hell will not prevail against it.”

 

Then Pope Benedict XVI was wrong when he also said: “The pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He cannot proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism…[22]

 

Then Pope Benedict XVI was again wrong when he also said: “Abraham, the father of faith, is by his faith the rock that holds back chaos, the onrushing primordial flood of destruction, and thus sustains creation. Simon, the first to confess Jesus as the Christ and the first witness of the Resurrection, now becomes by virtue of his Abrahamic faith, which is renewed in Christ, the rock that stands against the impure tide of unbelief and its destruction of man…”

 

“Many non-Catholics affirm the necessity of a common center of Christianity. It is becoming evident that only such a center can be an effective protection against the drift into dependence on political systems or the pressures emanating from our civilization; that only by having such a center can the faith of Christians secure a clear voice in the confusion of ideologies.” [23]

 




RELATED: Is Francis really the pope? — The debate

 

“Pray for Pope Francis’ conversion and for all the souls who are being led into darkness by him and the Cardinals who promote this agenda which contradicts the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Bishop Joseph Strickland, December 9, 2024.

“Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you [plural: i.e. Peter & his successors], that he may sift you [plural] as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” Gospel of St. Luke (22: 31-32).

ENDNOTES

[1] St. Lucius I, Epist. I ad Episcopos Hispaniae et Galliae. This and many of the following quotes may be found at www.catholicism.io/2021/06/18/freedom-from-grave-error-in-the-apostolic-see/ [NB: A pro-Francis site]

[2] St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, vol. 2: Books III-V (De Controversiis) (p. 157-158). (Mediatrix Press), Kindle Edition.

[3] Stephen K. Ray, Upon This Rock, (Ignatius Press), p. 85.

[4] Pope St. Gelasius, Epistle to the Emperor Anastasius in Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, vol. 2: Books III-V (De Controversiis), p. 161.

[5] Pelagius II, Apostolic Letter Quod ad Dilectionem; Denz. 246. This and many other quotes may be found at www.novusordowatch.org/the-catholic-papacy [NB: Sedevacantist website]

[6] Cf. also www.erickybarra.wordpress.com

[7] Letter of Pope Hormisdas included in Constantinople IV. Cf. Erick Ybarra.

[8] Pope St. Leo IX, In Terra Pax Hominibus, September 2, 1053; DS. [Denzinger] 351.

[9] Saint Bernard, Epist. 190, Ad Innocentium.

[10] Pope Innocent III, Sedis primatus  November 12, 1199, DS 775.

[11] Pope Innocent, Sermon On the Consecration of the Supreme Pontiff.

[12] Session 13; 30 Nov. 1444.

[13] St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice vol. 2: Books III-V (De Controversiis) (p. 161).

[14] Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, 3; 6.

[15] Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, 4.

[16] Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, deputation from Pope Pius IV, Relatio to Vatican I, n. 7-8.

[17] Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, n. 10-11.

[18] Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, n. 12.

[19] Pope Benedict XV, Principi Apostolorum Petro, n. 3.

[20] Pope Pius XII, Ancora Una Volta, February 20, 1949.

[21] Cardinal Alfons M. Stickler, The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 60, No. 3 (October 1974), pp. 427-441; Cf. https://www.obeythepope.com/2017/12/the-indefectible-church-of-rome.html

[22] Homily at the Basilica of St. John Lateran, May 7, 2005; quoted in Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, “Happy Catholics Don’t Make the Pope More than He Is,” One Peter Five, February 13, 2019.

[23] Joseph Ratzinger, Called to Communion, (Ignatius Press), p. 47.If Francis is pope, a cloud of witnesses have been wrong about the papacy - LifeSite







O Sorrowful, Immaculate Heart of Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us

 

 

Posted by at 8 comments:

Tuesday, 17 December 2024

'CLIMATE CHANGE', ABORTION, CHILD RAPE CRIMINALS

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, Fb Messenger or X (Twitter). Protestant rants will not be posted on this page.









New Zealand's Supreme Court panders to an adult male child rapist asking that his extended supervision order be lifted, now that he's 'a transgender woman', by using his preferred pronouns of 'she' and 'her'.



Pierre John Parsons who says he is now a woman wants his extended supervision order lifted because his predilection is now “latent and might only emerge in certain circumstances”



New Zealand's Ministry of 'Health' reports that New Zealanders are  killing 43 unborn citizens EVERY DAY. That's an increase of 23% since Ardern the Kind introduced her fiendish abortion legislation in March 2020.







New Zealand's Climate Change retiring Chair, Dr Rod Carr, tells Parliament that supporters of continued use of fossil fuels are committing "crimes against humanity".


Last night TvOne Spews 'reporters' chose to chirrup on at length on the woes of animals in a Christchurch zoo and endangered species somewhere down south. As if they have no idea that mankind is actually an endangered species. And NZHerald chose to follow the Supreme Court in calling that repulsive child rapist transsexual as a woman. The legacy media have had their day. Their disgraceful bowing and scraping to Ardern and her lockdowns and mandates earned those closures and sackings in the MSM. Some would call it karma. We call it divine justice. "Revenge is mine, and I will repay them in due time"(Deut 32,35).


So we repair to Rodney Hide of Bassett Brash and Hide, who as usual tells it like it is:


 




 
Here’s retiring Climate Commission Chair Dr Rod Carr telling Parliament:

[T]hose who continue to promote the combustion of fossil fuels in the open air without permanent carbon capture and storage are …“committing a crime against humanity”.

 


Of course, Dr Carr is free to speak his mind and I encourage him to do so. I am also free to judge him accordingly.


I can confidently say Dr Carr has dropped off the deep end and is not fit and proper to hold any position of responsibility.


The only place dangerous climate change is occurring is in climate models which are programmed to show exactly that. In the real world it is not happening.

 

Every prediction of the dire consequences of climate change made over the last 50 years has proven false. The theory has blown up with a bang.

 

So the answer is depopulation - right?

 

 

It’s now not science but propaganda backed by big money. And it is propaganda deployed to impoverish us and subject us to tyrannical control.

It always was the case and now after decades of failed prophecy it is evident to the man in the street. That said, Armageddon is institutionally embedded in our institutions and successive governments have been committed to taxing us hard and dictating what we must do to combat a non problem to no good effect.

 

The only effect is to make the world poorer and unfree. I well recall the great Professor Aaron Wildavsky explaining over 30 years ago that governments taking control of CO2 emissions would control everything.

 

His observation shocked me at the time.

 

Professor Wildavsky died in 1993 but his chilling observation has been affirmed. Climate Change policies are tyrannical and totalitarian both in their intent and their practice.


 


It should be of no surprise that the practitioners demonise and divide and incite violence against dissenters.

 

And so back to Dr Carr.


Those supporting the continued use of fossil fuels are supporting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the cheap use of energy that provides both freedom and prosperity and, indeed, for the foreseeable future, the world’s population depends upon the continued combustion of fossil fuels for its very survival.

 

According to Dr Carr, in penning the above, I have committed a “crime against humanity”.

 

Think of the Nuremberg Trials. I have, according to him, committed a large scale attack against civilians akin to the Nazi leadership ordering and overseeing the Holocaust.

 


Dr Carr has a PhD in Insurance and Risk Management from Wharton, was Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, and Vice Chancellor of the University of Canterbury.


He has been on the taxpayer dollar operating on behalf of us all having been appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Minister.

 


He is someone who should be respected for his judgement and his judicious choice of words.

 

And yet here he is accusing New Zealanders like you and me of “Crimes against Humanity” simply for disagreeing with him using both facts and reason.


So buckle up. It’s about to get much worse. A few short years ago it was the looney activists accusing us of “crimes against humanity”. Now it is a career and senior public servant.


That’s how far the debate has shifted.


So what do the angry activists do now? How do they up the ante? Well, what are you supposed to do with those committing “crimes against humanity”?


 


 

If the government won’t stop us criminals then caring citizens must. And how to stop us? Why, it is death. The right thing to do would have been to kill Hitler if given the chance.

 


And to be clear, that is precisely the comparison Dr Carr was making.


Dr Carr’s language to Parliament was incendiary and an incitement to violence.

 

There was not one word of criticism from MPs or the media. That’s a big shift.

 

And compare what Dr Carr said, and the absence of any response, with, say, a teacher misgendering a pupil.


We are in rough and dangerous times.


Dr Carr said the quiet bit out loud. But he is not alone in his thinking. Our government is our enemy.RODNEY HIDE: Violence and Incendiary Language


 


Cardinal George Pell who 'died suddenly' in Rome - his government was his enemy
. 

 

O sorrowful Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us who have recourse to thee 


Posted by at 5 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)