CARDINALS WILL IGNORE ANTIPOPE DEBATE; CATHOLICS WON'T

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X. 

 At last. The possibility that horrifies most Catholics (and the conviction that brings the remainder to their knees) that the two men most recently called 'the pope' - Francis and Leo - are nothing of the sort but in fact antipopes, has been very publicly acknowledged. John-Henry Westen of LifeSiteNews is petitioning the cardinalate to investigate. 

It's not as if the cardinals will beat their collective breast, repent of their silence and complicity in the Vatican regime and surrender their sinecures for the sake of truth. No. The value of Westen's invitation to all Catholics to sign lies in the choice made: sign, for Christ and His Church, or don't and side with error and apostasy.

The laws of the Church exist only to ensure the salvation of souls. But Jorge Bergoglio, illegally elected, manipulated his faux pontificate to wreak untold spiritual havoc and Robert Prevost (elected on the third ballot so how many of his cardinal-electors will want to investigate him?) has sworn to continue his predecessor's program. Neither Bergoglio nor Prevost has any validity and neither do their appointments - which renders merely academic any question of excommunication for the Society of St Pius X.

1n 1846 at La Salette, the Blessed Virgin Mary prophesied "two worm-ridden popes", and many believe Bergoglio and Prevost fill that bill. However, IF the cardinals investigate, and IF they find Bergoglio and Prevost to be truly popes, the Church is not competent to judge them: no man can judge the Roman pontiff. If on the other hand they were found to have denied Church teaching and were declared formal heretics, they ipso facto would lose faith and office.

And if they were declared antipopes, who, in a conciliar, synodal, apostate Church, could deliver justice? "We have not here but 5 loaves and 2 fishes..." (Mt 14:16). In the remnant of faithful clergy still inside the Barque of Peter, the Society of St Pius X springs to mind. 

self-explanatory

From John-Henry Westen:

There is a clear and definite break in the papal line after Pope Benedict XVI. Whereas previous popes may have led grievously sinful lives, they didn’t alter Church teaching in official documents. With Francis all that changed.

 

Let’s ignore the Pachamama idolatry of Francis and Leo’s allowance of the LGBT pilgrimage into St. Peter’s Basilica – which Bishop Schneider saw as the abomination of desolation entering the Holy Place, which Christ mentioned as a sign of the end times in Matthew 24.

 

Let’s ignore Francis saying all religions are pathways to God and Leo telling the Anglicans with their homosexual clergy and their female archbishops, “We are already one.”

 

READ: John-Henry Westen: An open letter to Cardinal Sarah on the SSPX

 

Let’s ignore Francis and Leo both giving audiences to the world’s most notorious homosexuality-promoting priest, Fr. James Martin.

 

Let’s ignore the Vatican-China deal struck under Francis and upheld under Leo where the Chinese Communist Party is able to name bishops, and the underground Church and her bishops are persecuted.

 

Let’s ignore Pope Leo’s appointment of many bishops who support women’s ordination and celebrate LGBT pride Masses.

 

Let’s focus only on official teaching documents which are contrary to the faith.

 

An antipope enabling his successor

Are we now to believe in blessings for homosexual couples as Fiducia Supplicans explicitly encourages? The spirit of Fiducia Supplicans is amply demonstrated by both Francis and Leo with their support for James Martin and his embrace of homosexuality.

 

Are we now to believe, as the revised Catechism under Francis teaches, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”? Believe that even when it flatly contradicts the witness of Sacred Scripture, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Pius XII, and the unbroken tradition that affirmed its legitimacy?

 

But of course, Pope Leo upholds it as he just told the world, “Someone who says I’m against abortion but says I’m in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life.”

 

Must we now hold that divorced and remarried couples, without annulment or a commitment to continence, can under some circumstances be admitted to Holy Communion, as Amoris Laetitia and the Acta Apostolicae Sedis proclaim as official magisterium?

 

Do you affirm that the Novus Ordo is the sole legitimate expression of the Roman Rite, endorsing the severe restrictions on the Latin Mass as decreed in Traditionis Custodes, the subsequent rescript, and rigorously enforced under Leo?

 

And finally, are we now to deprive Our Lady – the Mother of God – of her titles of Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces, both proclaimed by saints and popes, as the document promulgated under Leo has demanded of us?

 

Has not Jesus sent His holy Mother to warn us of the apostasy? Did not Our Lady of La Salette – an approved apparition – tell us that “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Anti-Christ”? Our Lady of La Salette also told us there would be “two worm-ridden popes.”

 

READ: Pope Leo is pushing the synodal error that process trumps truth

 

The famous stigmatist in France [presumably Marie-Julie Jahenny - ed] in the same century as La Salette, similarly prophesied that there would be “two successive anti-popes.”

 

And if the “private revelation” is a little too much for you, how about the public revelation in the Bible?

 

Christ Himself warned us “Many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.” (Matthew 24:11)

 

The first pope, St. Peter, warns us of “false teachers among you” who will “secretly introduce destructive heresies.” (2 Peter 2:1–2)

 

St. Luke warns similarly in Acts (20:29–30) “savage wolves will come in among you… even from your own number…”

 

 

Bishop Gaspard Béby Gnéba of Man Diocese, demoted by 'Pope Leo' for asking laity to report priests leading unchaste lives

The Catechism (CCC 675-677) describes a “final trial” that “will shake the faith,” a “religious deception” at the price of “apostasy,” and identifies the “supreme religious deception” as that of the Antichrist.

 

Pope St. John Paul II himself warned us of this 50 years ago in 1976 when he spoke (as Cardinal Wojtyła) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:

 

“We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel.

 

This confrontation lies within the plans of divine Providence; it is trial which the whole Church… must take up.” https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/petition-to-cardinals-cant-we-consider-the-possibility-that-francis-and-leo-are-anti-popes/

John-Henry is the co-founder and CEO of LifeSiteNews.com. He and his wife Dianne have eight children and they live in the Ottawa Valley in Ontario, Canada.  

He has spoken at conferences and retreats, and appeared on radio and television throughout the world. John-Henry founded the Rome Life Forum, an annual strategy meeting for life, faith and family leaders worldwide. He is a board member of the John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the Family. He is a consultant to Canada’s largest pro-life organization Campaign Life Coalition, and serves on the executive of the Ontario branch of the organization. He has run three times for political office in the province of Ontario representing the Family Coalition Party.

John-Henry earned an MA from the University of Toronto in School and Child Clinical Psychology and an Honours BA from York University in Psychology.

MAORI SEATS UNJUST, UNDESERVED, PATRONISING

To comment please open your email account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.

The media goes quiet, wanting voters to defect to the uniparty  

NZ First's Winston Peters reckons that 'If people give me the tools, I'll finish the job". "The job" is a binding referendum on Maori seats in Parliament. It was actually Winston Churchill who famously said that first, in 1941 and thank God, Britain believed him.


However. In 2017 Winston Peters promised New Zealand a referendum on the Māori seats as "a bottom line". Then in 2018 he voted to PROTECT the Māori seats by voting YES in support of Labour's ENTRENCH the Māori Seats Bill. What he delivered was ARDERN as PM, no referendum, and the status quo on the seats. In 1975 he stood for a Māori seat. .In 1996 he celebrated NZF winning all the Māori seats. So although this issue is pretty much as critical to this country's survival as WWII victory was to Britain's, is Peters to be believed?


ACT is all for abolition. Prime Minister Luxon, having stated the obvious in 2023 - "Maori seats don't make a lot of sense" - is now steadfastly staying shtum. Meanwhile TPM's Rawiri Waititi indulges in snails and macorons in Paris at taxpayers' expense and when Debbie Ngarewa-Packer takes advantage of Question Time to rule out a referendum, no one else from Te Pati Maori bothers to show up.


Maori seats are unjust. Maori travelled here just like the rest of us. The colour of their skin is beside the point and equality of outcome for Maori is not helped but rather hindered by the undeserved, patronising privilege of reserved seats.


A referendum is simply common sense and Luxon's reluctance to promote it can only be fear that he'll lose votes he wouldn't get anyway, or compliance with a global agenda opposed to our nation's best interests.

From Muriel Newman at the NZ Centre for Political Research:

The future of the Maori Seats has once again been raised as an important issue for New Zealanders to consider. 

Introduced in 1867 as a temporary measure to ensure Maori men could vote at a time when property requirements excluded many from the franchise, the Maori seats were retained even as universal suffrage in 1893 removed the rationale for their existence.

New Zealand First has now put the matter back on the table. They say the race-based seats should be abolished because they are discriminatory and distort the proportionality of Parliament.

 

posted just today, this pic (directly above) was still up 6 hours later (note the sp!)

Accordingly, they have drafted a Private Members’ Bill to hold a binding referendum on the future of the Maori seats at November’s election. Their proposed Yes/No referendum question asks: “Should there be separate Maori seats in the New Zealand Parliament?”

Ironically, the opposition already has a Maori Seats Bill in the Parliamentary Members’ Ballot. Following Labour’s failed attempt to entrench the seats in 2019, Green MP Huhana Lyndon lodged the Electoral (Equal Protection of Maori Seats) Amendment Bill in January to do the same in order to make it harder for the Maori seats to be abolished.

 

Under democratic conventions, a country’s voting system is deemed to be of such constitutional significance that it is afforded special protection in law to prevent those in power from manipulating it for their own advantage.

 

In New Zealand this democratic safeguard comes in the form of the entrenchment provisions found in Section 268 of the Electoral Act, which ensures any proposal for change has widespread public support either through a supermajority vote in Parliament of 75 percent of MPs or a simple majority in a nation-wide binding referendum of voters.

Crucially, while neither the general electorates nor Maori electorates are entrenched - and could be changed by a simple majority in Parliament – other matters such as the voting age, the length of the Parliamentary term, the secret ballot, and the MMP electoral system are entrenched, as is the work of the Representation Commission and the mechanics of dividing the country into electorates.

The ACT Party agrees that the Maori seats should be abolished and have stated that their preference is to pass legislation to that effect in Parliament, bypassing the idea of a referendum altogether.

While the Maori seats could be abolished by a simple majority vote in Parliament, there is a suggestion that doing so could trigger court challenges.

This claim rests on the erroneous argument that the entrenchment of the Representation Commission, which draws electorate boundaries, might somehow protect the Maori electorates.

But since the Commission’s entrenchment protects the process for drawing electorates, not the existence of the electorates themselves, any court action would almost certainly fail.

A binding referendum on the other hand, is definitive. Should a majority of the population vote in favour of abolition - as is likely - then the Government has a legitimate public mandate to remove all references to separate Maori representation from the Electoral Act, including section 45 on Maori representation, section 269 on the creation of Maori electoral districts, and sections 76–78C on the Maori electoral option.

The need to abolish the Maori seats is no longer a matter that can be ignored. Their existence is now having such a distortionary impact on our Parliament, that in the interests of true democratic representation, it cannot be allowed to continue.

 

At the present time New Zealand has a record 33 Members of Parliament who claim to have Maori heritage. They now exercise political influence through every major party: Labour has 9, the Maori Party 6, the Greens 6, National 5, New Zealand First 4, and ACT has 3.

With New Zealand’s 54th Parliament having a total of 123 MPs, Maori MPs now make up a record 27 percent of Parliament, far exceeding their 17 percent share of the population.

Te Pati Maori can hardly deny this is true ...

If the seven reserved seats were removed, there would be 26 Maori MPs making up 21 percent of Parliament – still an overrepresentation, but less so.

That means any argument that the Maori seats are still required to ensure Maori have a voice in Parliament is no longer valid.

The Maori seats are in fact discriminatory and racist. By granting those who identify as Maori a separate electoral pathway and guaranteed Parliamentary representation that’s not available to other ethnic groups, they violate the foundational democratic principle of equal rights. By treating New Zealanders unequally on the basis of race, they contravene both our Bill of Rights’ commitment to equal treatment, and the Article Three Treaty promise that Maori would have the same rights and duties as all other citizens.

The system also distorts MMP proportionality through overhangs.

At the last election, the Maori Party gained 3 percent of the party vote entitling them to just four MPs. But by winning 6 of the 7 Maori seats, they gained six MPs, creating a two-seat overhang in Parliament. This gave a small race-based party disproportionate influence and leverage that unfairly amplifies the group’s power. And with the Maori Party vote currently collapsing, the overhang may well be greater after the next election.

These outcomes were, of course, predicted by the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System, which was tasked with reviewing New Zealand’s electoral framework amidst growing public dissatisfaction with First-Past-the-Post voting. Its landmark report, “Towards a Better Democracy”, unanimously recommended adopting MMP - a system that allocates seats proportionally based on party votes, supplemented by electorate wins.

Crucially, the Commission argued that if MMP was adopted the Maori seats must be abolished, recommending in Section 3.74 of their report: “In the form of Maori representation we have proposed for MMP, there would be no separate Maori constituency or list seats, no Maori roll, and no Maori option. All New Zealanders would vote in the same way for the party they wish to govern, and for a constituency MP.”

They strongly argued that the separate seats had “not helped Maori”, since they segregated Maori issues to the small group of reserved seat MPs, effectively marginalising them from broader parliamentary consideration and perpetuating a dependency culture that had long hampered Maori self-development and achievement.

Furthermore, they warned that retaining separate seats alongside a proportional electoral system would risk “disproportionate and discriminatory over‑representation”.

In other words, the Maori seats were never meant to coexist with MMP since if they did, they would distort the very principle of proportionality that is at the core of the MMP system of voting.

Initially, the Bolger National Government took on board the Commission’s advice and when the first MMP Bill was introduced to Parliament in December 1992, it stated: “No provision is made for separate Maori seats.”

However, Maori leaders mounted a strong campaign to retain the seats, culminating in a meeting at the Turangawaewae Marae in Ngaruawahia where they claimed unanimous support. As a result, National caved in and the bill was amended during the select committee process to re-introduce Maori seats as constituency seats, with the number based on a Maori Electoral Option.

Since that first MMP election in 1996, calls to abolish the Maori seats have grown louder.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentary is the speech given by National’s leader Hon Bill English in July 2003, when he declared, “We are the party of national unity in one standard of citizenship, and national ambition for a higher standard of living. There can be a future where New Zealand will be united and successful. National intends to lead it” - and with that English announced that his Party would abolish the Maori seats:

 

"I am here today to explain to you why citizenship, one standard of citizenship for all, matters so much… We have been at our best when we have worked to make sure citizenship is fulfilled and preserved. Citizenship erases the prejudices and privileges that go with birth, race or belief. One standard of citizenship is the foundation of national unity, national pride and national ambition for every New Zealander.

“Many Maori have the same vision of a shared future… We have faith in the capacity of Maori to strive and succeed in work and politics on the same basis as everyone else… That's why a National-led Government will abolish the Maori seats.”

In his 2004 State of the Nation address at Orewa, National’s new leader Don Brash renewed the call for abolition with an impassioned plea that labelled the seats an “anachronism” that fostered special race-based privileges for Maori.

The party’s spectacular rise in the polls following that speech – from 28 percent in December 2003 to 49 percent by March 2004 - demonstrated widespread public support for the fundamental truth that New Zealanders do not want to be a nation divided by race.

In 2008, John Key pledged abolition but with a proviso - only after all Treaty settlements had been resolved. However, even that was dropped once National formed a Coalition with the Maori Party.

Since John Key’s willingness to compromise on this core democratic principle, National has largely sat on the fence on what is an issue of key importance for the future of New Zealand.

The ACT Party has consistently advocated for the removal of the Maori seats, emphasising the need for one law for all.

Similarly, New Zealand First has called for their abolition over recent years, most notably in 2017 when Winston Peters made a binding referendum a “bottom line” in any coalition agreement, arguing the seats had become irrelevant under MMP.

Since that bottom-line promise was forgotten once New Zealand First entered into the Ardern Coalition, questions are now being raised about just how genuine the Party’s commitment really is.

 

Be warned. We've had a referendum about reducing the number of MPs before and MPs IGNORED IT

In 2008, a leading Constitutional Lawyer and Professor of Law at Canterbury University Dr Philp Joseph KC, undertook the most comprehensive clinical analysis of the Maori seats since the 1986 Royal Commission in order to ascertain whether they should be abolished or retained. He concluded, “There are four reasons why the Maori seats should be abolished: they are anachronistic, they institutionalise Maori separatism, they represent a form of reverse discrimination and they threaten to manipulate MMP electoral outcomes through ‘overhang’.

Depicting the Maori seats as a form of “reverse discrimination” and “a symbol of racial separatism” he explained that the strongest case for abolition is that “the Maori seats that the Maori Party will win have the potential to thwart proportionality and the expressed will of the people.”

While the case for the abolition of the Maori seats is now overwhelming, anyone wavering needs to reflect on the point made by Professor Joseph, that the Maori seats have the potential to significantly undermine the outcome of an election, and as such represent a grave democratic risk.

A hint of what was being planned emerged in 2024, when, buoyed by their protest to Parliament, Maori Party members claimed they could win 20 Maori Seats in our Parliament by encouraging Maori voters to switch from the General Electoral Roll onto the Maori Electoral Roll.

Such an outcome would, of course, completely destroy the proportionality of Parliament, undermining our democracy and reducing non-Maori representation to a fraction of what it should be. And while it would be difficult - if not impossible - to achieve such a high number of Maori seats, the sobering point is that the mechanism to allow this sort of result is nevertheless embedded in our electoral law.

This is an issue National can no longer ignore. It needs to get off the fence and explicitly state whether or not it will support a referendum on the Maori seats.

And, to avoid doubt, each New Zealand First MP needs to personally pledge that if a referendum on the Maori seats is not held at the 2026 election, then their demand for a binding referendum in the next term of Parliament is an issue they are not prepared to compromise on during post-election coalition negotiations. Only then will their word be credible.https://www.brashandmitchell.com/post/muriel-newman-the-future-of-the-maori-seats?u

 

St Isabel of France, pray for us

articles/item/8103-why-the-sspx-will-consecrate-bishops-without-rome-s-approval-fr-de-lacoste-explains