Anti-Church Bergoglio openly declares heresy in Candlemas discourse; British priest video must be seen

 Amici,

Okay, this is it. On Candlemas, February 2, in a general audience, no less, The Great Heretic, a.k.a. Pope Francis, a.k.a. Bergoglio, a.k.a. Pachamamapapa, gave an address in which he openly preached out-and-out heresy. See the LifeSiteNews article here for details. 

An example:

Continuing his theme, Pope Francis posed himself a question about membership of the communion of saints. “‘Father, let us think of those who have denied the faith, who are apostates, who are the persecutors of the Church, who have denied their baptism: are these also at home?’,” he asked.

“Yes, even these, even the blasphemers, all of them. We are brothers: this is the communion of saints. The communion of saints holds together the community of believers on earth and in heaven.”

“Let us think, dear brothers and sisters: in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature; only the way of being together with each one changes, but nothing and no one can break this bond,” Pope Francis said.

AnP again:

Forsooth, dar Crom, who knew? Apparently, God Himself can't "separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature; only the way of being together with each one changes, but nothing and no one can break this bond" and apostates and blasphemers and persecutors of the Church (who, himself?) all "go to Heaven", "Heaven" meaning eternal being in the intimate presence of God, enjoying the Beatific Vision.

Right.

• And as I understand it, this is NOT about repentant apostates and blasphemers and persecutors. To repent, one has to know one is a egregious sinner, and Bergi's Anti-Church has no egregious sinners, none, that is, except "rigorous" Trad Catholics.

This fat-head moralizing "We're all 'saved'" drivel is sparking utter outrage and many are denouncing Bergoglio for preaching true heresy. He's been doing that in myriad ways, of course, since his installment.

• (N.B. I can't say "election", not because I have any authority to say it was a fraud, but common-sense insists Bergoglio is not a true pope for, after all, "By their fruits ye shall know them", St. Matthew 7:20.) But this time, in a rather formal setting, in his chair, he reads out this complete anti-Gospel. Bergoglio is not just an anti-pope, he's the rightful "pope" of the anti-Church.

Let me repeat that: Jorge Mario Bergoglio isn't a proper pope of the Catholic Church, but he sure is the pope of the Anti-Church.

Bishop Fulton Sheen used to preach this was coming, and here he discusses the anti-Church in "Signs Of Our Times": Ven. Fulton Sheen on Anti-Christ & Crisis in the Church & Society (1947 - radio).

Bishop Sheen talks about the anti-Church, the "Ape of the Church" as the Devil is the "Ape of God" at 8:15 minutes in.

"It didn't begin with Francis." – Father James Mawdsley

But we've a new voice saying what needs to be said, as well.

Excerpt from the above link:

"What is happening is evil beyond description. Sit back and consider, the highest power on Earth is attacking the greatest good on Earth, precisely when it is his job to defend and preserve tradition and pass it on to the next generation."

Many thanks to The Remnant Newspaper site for allowing us to listen to Father James Mawdsley, a "British traditional Catholic priest who was once imprisoned and tortured in a Burmese jail, is openly challenging Pope Francis’ efforts to suppress the Church’s ancient Roman liturgy". Fr. Mawdsley does NOT mince words here. Read the article but be absolutely sure to listen to Fr. Mawdsley's video, toward the bottom of the article. If ever there was a "must hear" video, it is this one. (How different the Church would be if had many more priests like this!)

Another excerpt: (3:25 minutes in) "Nobody has the right to attack Tradition. The bulk of Catholics don't care because they don't know what's happening here. They don't come to Mass anymore anyway. For 70 years they've been robbed. We might not understand if we simply think the pope is attacking the old Mass. The fact is, the pope is attacking God's revelation. That should matter to everybody. To reject tradition is to reject Christ. We know it would be evil to change the Scriptures. ... The truth of Christ comes through both Scripture and Tradition, and just as it would be evil to change the Scriptures, so it is to obstruct Tradition."

Then, referring to the hierarchy, Fr. Mawdsley quotes St. Matthew, 23:13:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."

Apparently this video was released before yesterday's Candlemas outrage was uttered. If so, it is truly prophetic.

Pass this all along to family and friends, priests especially. If somehow you have access to a bishop, he needs to hear this, and he needs to remember Saint John Chrysostom's warning that most bishops go to Hell. It's one thing for an arch-heretic to dance his pompous masque; it is another for bishops to sway to the music.

An Préachán

 

Pope declares himself heretic by denying a dogma held from beginning of Church: Capital Punishment

No pope can change Church dogma. 

"Dogma" is the Greek for doctrine, and refers to a must-be-held teaching. You cannot change 'em. No pope (or anyone else) has the right or power or authority to do so.

Not only do popes not have that power, but if one were to change a dogma, esp one held from the beginning, then ALL the dogmas can go, domino-style. There's nothing to stop that. (Same principle as with if you let two men "marry" each other, than you can't stop one man and two women "marrying" each other, or any other combo; all that restrains it is public opinion, vox populi, which of course changes with the wind. And as General Sherman said, "Vox populi, vox humbug.")

However, Pope Francis, a.k.a. Jorge, Bergoglio, El Caudillo, Bergi, and other nomenae, has just declared the Church opposes Capital punishment in all circumstances. And he's ordered the Catechism to be so changed.

Boom!

How big is this­? Steve Skojec of OnePeterFive calls it a nuclear theological bomb.

So it is. It was the necessary preliminary for ordaining women priests and many other upcoming changes that are planned. Get rid of a dogma a lot of people don't like. Easy to do, easily accepted. Then spring the trap.

It's how the Vatican II Church operates.

From the National Catholic Register:

Pope changes Church teaching on death penalty. Says it is never justified.

An excerpt:

In an explanatory letter to bishops, dated August 1, Archbishop Ladaria drew on the past teaching of Pope St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI on the death penalty to state the change is an “authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.”

An Préachán:

Oh, c'mon! That is completely untrue. 60 years now of the Vatican II Church saying X, and that X isn't a change from Y, but of course everyone knows X is now "in" and Y "out" and of course  Z is now permitted, as well, though it goes against "official teaching", all with a "wink-wink, nod-nod, the fix is in, dontcha know" smirk – 60 years of this deceit and misdirection and "false-flag" operations is enough.

It's classic "disinformation". Psychological warfare. Plain and simple.

Protestants know this (some, at least); see:

Paul does not deny the right of the state to execute people. Instead of denouncing capital punishment, Paul assumes its validity and appeals to Caesar as was the right of Roman citizens when a  crime worthy of death and then levied.
Conclusion

It seemed clear that New Testament does not denounce the idea of capital punishment but instead assumes the right of the state to use it.

Indeed. And for the Catholic, 2,000 years of Sacred Tradition reaffirm that.

 See also:

Rod Dreher at The American Conservative An excerpt:

I don’t see how he can do this. To be clear, I am in most cases opposed to the death penalty, but I agree (agreed) with the previous teaching of the Catholic Church, which was (until Francis’s statement) that it is permissible when there are no bloodless ways to protect society. Catholic supporters of the death penalty have pointed out in the past that there’s no way that the Church can totally forbid it, and remain faithful to its past authoritative teachings.

In 2001, Avery Cardinal Dulles, an eminent theologian wrote an essay about the Church and the death penalty. 

He shows how the Church, from the patristic period until the 20th century, maintained consistently that capital punishment was permissible under certain conditions. The (at the time) official position of the Catholic Church was that the death penalty should only be used in extreme situations.

An Préachán again:

I think this needs reiterated: St. Paul, that teacher so elemental to the Faith, wrote in both Romans 13:1-4, and Acts 25:10-11, that capital punishment was allowed. And therefore each generation of the Church has held this as well, and it is an indelible part of Sacred Tradition. You can't change that, or of you try, you declare yourself a heretic. You've removed yourself from both Tradition and Revelation. You are, in effect, claiming a new revelation. (And you open the door to changing anything you don't like  – which is what the Vatican II Church has been doing for 60 years.)

But Begoglio has done that to himself, now. And his officials approve it. Is this the "Sarajevo bullet" that begins full-fledged Church crisis? De jure, not just de facto. It should.

See again my favorite modern philosopher, Edward Feser, here:

for details. That was little less than a year ago. Feser authored, a little over a year ago, the book, By Man Shall His Blood be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment (15 Mar 2017) It is a detailed defense of the traditional Catholic teaching.

JP2 said dangerously close to those waters but didn't dive wholly in. Bergi has.

So, what's it mean? If you are a Catholic, you're no longer under any obligation to the guy? It's over? We are not "sheeple", or we shouldn't be; "Dogma Denial" is a Rubicon no pope can cross. The 

Deposit of Faith has been compromised.

You, as an individual, might find capital punishment distasteful, or barbaric, or that it is sometimes (historically, certainly) abused. But so what? It is meted out to individuals 1,000s of times a day around the world by murderers, robbers, Islamic zealots, Communists, and official police forces either intentional or "by accident" as here:

Vietnam veteran shot intruder trying to murder his (the veteran’s grandson) and the police shot and killed the veteran.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/01/vietnam-vet-naked-intruder-shot/

“They shot first and asked questions later.”

See also: http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/01/bodycam-footage-lapd-hostage-shooting-released/ Hostage shot to death along with hostage taker.

You are not going to "wish it away" and the Church has tried to restrict it to what it ought to be for, but now the Vatican Twoers – who so officiously think they've taken the high road, have merely – as so often – emasculated themselves. To put it bluntly, this is "virtue signaling", something this pope is congenitally addicted to. That's all. There's far more Narcissism to it than necessity.

Now, will the Cardinals and bishops who claim to be orthodox respond to this with anathema, "bell, book and candle," as Bergoglio deserves, or what? They seem hopeless about dealing with the Church Sex Abuse Scandal. Totally. See:

I've been predicting the Church would go into Schism de jure as it has clearly been in Schism de facto (since 1968 and the push back against Humanae Vitae).

Now what?

An Préachán

The Church's Constitutional System and the Modernist War Against It

(Partly from a blog post I wrote for OnePeterFive)

We live in a time of Ecclesiastical troubles: The Church's system isn't working, clearly, but what is it, that system, exactly?

The Catholic Church's "constitution" is a three-legged support system, as is the U.S. Constitution's, curiously, except the U.S. Constitution stipulates the three supports of government are specifically designed to counter-balance each other, to be a self-correcting mechanism, whereas the Church's three supports: Holy Writ, Sacred Tradition, and the living Magisterium, are supposed to be MUTUALLY SUPPORTIVE.

Curiously enough, it is plain from the New Testament that the living Magisterium is the oldest of the three: what else is the Council of Jerusalem in Acts except the living Magisterium of that day meeting to decide an important issue? Then came Holy Scripture, written mostly by VIP's in the initial Magisterium: two epistles by St. Peter, head of the Apostles and Christ's Prime Minister of the New Israel (and one gospel by his secretary and amanuensis, John Mark, later bishop of the 2nd largest city of the empire, Alexandria), one by St. James, bishop and presider at the Jerusalem Council, which was held in his city, and the lion's share of the NT books were of course written by St. Paul, another VIP at the Council.

     Rembrandt's Paul the Apostle

It always dumbfounds me – and I grew up among Protestants, mostly rural Methodists and Lutherans – that Protestants just don't get this; apparently Baptists believe as a matter of essential Baptist dogma (haha, BAPTISTS having DOGMA? But they DO!) that the various attendees at the Council were just buddies and followers (or relatives) of the departed Jesus, and had no hierarchy in any sort of actual institutional "Church". But whatever. I make this point because nothing the current pope and the Modernists do is so shocking to me (I mean, what would one EXPECT Modernists to do but such stuff, right?) as how Protestants can call themselves Bible Christians and NOT get this.

Sacred Tradition came last, and is the "Constitutional Case Law) of the Magisterium living the Biblical teachings out over 2,000 years. The difference is: whereas the U.S. Supreme Court is not bound by case law (which is contrary to the original English law system ) the Magisterium IS bound by Sacred Tradition (and the Bible as understood via the decisions of past Magisteriums, i.e., Sacred Tradition).

The whole thing operates as a mutual support system. The living Magisterium has tons of "case law" to guide it and the pope has essentially carte blanc authority to legislate and enforce to support the Bible and Tradition. But naturally, were he to depart from supporting the other two legs of authority, then HIS authority evaporates: oh, he's still "pope" until some validly appoint Council removes him, but who would listen to or trust him?

Now first, I need to talk a little bit in political terms. Catholics (and others) often say they don't want politics and religion mixed, but here I am just talking about the nature of the U.S. Constitution, its Three Branches of Government, and not "politics" per se.

What we're dealing with today in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is that a specialized party (acting very much indeed like a political faction or party – and remember James Madison, author of the U.S. Constitution, LOATHED such!) has been working assiduously for over 100 years now to overturn the entire system. These are the Modernists, so called, also known today as Progressives. They organized originally to try to come up with a solution to a collapse of the Faith in Europe. The Intellectuals left Christianity (Prot or Catholic) in the 18th century, the working masses left if – or began to – in the 19th century for the new Christian heresy of Socialism. And then at the end of the 19th century, the middle classes began to show signs that they were leaving, too; i.e., the lose morals and "free thinking" and "Bohemian living" of the "Gay Nineties" was only put on hiatus by "The Great War" and reappeared in in the 1920s. Again on hiatus because of Fascism and Communism and World War II, it began again in the 1950s (Beatniks) and finally came into full flower in the infamous 1960s.

The Modernist solution to all this was to relax the moral teachings, their idea being that Christianity's moral strictures (Catholic or Protestant, but especially Catholic, which of course wouldn't allow divorce, etc.) was too strict for "Modern Man". They had various roots, often Protestant ones, such as the Tübingen School during the mid-19th century. Their ideas and personalities included:

• Easing off on traditional morals. "Relativism" is a key word to understand their thinking (and remember that Benedict 16 condemned the "Dictatorship of Relativism" before he was forced out of office). "Relativism will keep people in church!" they essentially said. 
• But naturally, to "ease off" on morals, one had to argue for relativism; i.e., everything is relative. To do that, they then had to do a lot of tinkering with the Church's authority structure and the roots of the Church in its origin; basically, all this was soon seen by the hierarchy as quite dangerous, as it could unravel the whole system. 
• If one were to "ease off" on the morals, (relatively, if I may say it that way), for example, then one would have to "reinterpret" Sacred Scripture, and to reinterpret Sacred Scripture, one would have to negate, undo, and generally rewrite Church Tradition! It all would just avalanche out of control, in other words.  
• Charles Darwin was an essential but indirect influence, naturally enough, because science seemed to be saying we were evolved from lower forms, and if so, then we could certainly "evolve" further and further: there could be no "baseline".
• Adolf von Harnack (1851 – 1930) a liberal German Lutheran, was an influence.
• His contemporary, Louis Duchesne (1843 – 1922), a Breton priest, polymath (linguist, archaeologist, historian, etc.) helped to influence the Modernists, and his Early History of the Christian Church was put on the Index of Forbidden Books in 1912. Duchesne was one influence on...
• Alfred Loisy (1857 - 1940) who is considered a founder of the Modernists, and who argued Scriptural elements might be only metaphorically true, not literally true (a Baptist friend is always telling me Catholics read Biblical metaphor literally, for example), and
• The Jesuit-influenced Bollandists, who were refounded about 1845: their research led to a lot of Vatican II ideas on the liturgy (though subsequent scholarship cast doubts on much of their work, Pope Francis still even today finds the time to praise them). 
• Another Jesuit, the Dubliner George Tyrrell (1861 – 1909), is an interesting and sad case of a Modernist, and who sort of encapsulates the whole movement, as it were.

So Modernism had a lot of intellectuals involved in it. But Leo XIII worked to counter it, and Pius X tried to blast is out of existence in 1907. In Lamentabili Sane Exitu of that year (the finely phrased "A Lamentable Departure Indeed"), His Holiness condemned 65 Modernist ideas, and in his famous encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis (or "Feeding the Lord's Flock"), he described Modernism as the "synthesis of all heresies". Then he promulgated Sacrorum antistitum, an anti-Modernist oath all clerics had to take, and which of course the "spirit of Vatican II" abolished in 1967 when the Holy Office of that time, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) rescinded it. (Priests ordained in the Trad Orders often take it voluntarily, however.)

The next pope, Benedict XV, had his hands full because of WWI, and it wore him out. Pius XI, an exemplary pope, tried to combat both Communism and Fascism. So it was the next pope after him, Pius XII, who, after WWII, tried to put the brakes on some budding Modernist-type theologians, such as Henri de Lubac, by putting some of his writings on the Index. It pretty much tells you all you need to know that John Paul II made de Lubac a cardinal!

After that, a series of weak popes simply didn't understand what they were dealing with; however, Pius XII started the earthquake by letting some "liturgical reformers", including the infamous devotee of Ba'al (Hannibal) Bugnini loose in the Vatican's "Deep State"; also, Pius didn't assiduously appoint orthodox, young, highly intelligent cardinals during the last decade of his life: thus, when the Conclave that met in October 1958 to vote on his successor, its cardinals had a very small pool to choose from.

With that, the ball began rolling down the bowling alley toward the long-standing pins of Catholic dogma. "Cry havoc! And let slip the Modernists of War!"

1. Starting with poor John 23, who was honestly too old and not vigorous enough to manage a Council, so the Modernists organized and simply took it from him (this is a well-known, exhaustively researched bit of history, btw)...
2. Then the "Weeping Pope Hamlet" Paul 6, who was trying to be a supporter of the Progs but ultimately horrified at where they wanted to go...
3. Then poor Albino Luciani, who might well have died of fright. 
4. Karol Wojtyla was an amazing Nazi-era survivor and hero against Communism, a wonderful world evangelizer but a prelate who steadfastly held to Vat 2 principles – which were innately bad (the foundational thesis of all Traditionalists is that whatever the merits of Vatican II's documents, their over-all effect and many of their specific teachings are, sadly, actually bad doctrines and need to be excised). Because of JPII's reliance on Vat2, then, and unavoidably – since they're teachings are defective, resulted in his downfall – they left him a very bad Church manager because he "didn't get it"; i.e., I mean that while occasionally he appointed a good bishop, he also steadfastly appointed Progressive Modernists to important sees (can anyone say Cardinal Archbishop Bergoglio? I once read where Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz told JPII to his face that he was appointing bad bishops!) The sex scandal, which grew on JPII's watch, and finally the infamous, depraved debacle of the Legionnaires of Christ, killed him. 
5. And finally we had the deeply intelligent and subtle theologian, Josef Ratzinger. In his early days, he was an ardent Vat2 reformer, but of the "milder" Cummunio faction (along with Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar, and thus an enemy of the rival "Terminator reformer school" known as the Concilium coven...er, school (these two groups were named for competing theological journals that published the papers of the two factions) that consisted of that old fornicator Karl Rahner, and Edward Schillebeeckx, and the infamously hyper-boring Hans Küng. 

So, to sum up: I think Pope Benedict 16 knew VERY well what was going on, but the Modernists' long-term War of Position (i.e., working incrementally and unnoticed to put their own supporters in important places in the hierarchy) left him in a strategically bad place: when they went to an open War of Maneuver against him (and I firmly believe they did so with Obama's help), they brought him down.
I pray that understanding this past and present background can, along with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, help us to deal as effectively as we can with this ecclesiastical mess we find ourselves in.

An Préachán