“Filial Correction on Account of the Propagation of Heresies”…
Bergoglio takes a Blow:
“Filial Correction” accuses Francis of Heresy
The Novus Ordo world is in uproar: A group of clergy and laity affiliated with the Vatican II Sect have solemnly accused “Pope” Francis of heresy. In a 25-page document entitled Correctio Filialis De Haeresibus Propagatis (“Filial Correction on Account of the Propagation of Heresies”), 62 Novus Ordo scholars accuse Francis of seven heresies found in his “Apostolic Exhortation” Amoris Laetitia of Mar. 19, 2016.
The document was delivered to the papal pretender on Aug. 11, 2017 at the Casa Santa Marta in Vatican City. Since Francis, predictably, ignored this latest effort as much as prior efforts to confront, correct, or petition him, the signatories have now made the document public and notified the press.
The Correctio Filialis even has its own web site, where you can find the full text, a list of the signatories, and more in six different languages:
- Correctio Filialis Official Web Site
- FULL TEXT: Filial Correction in English (PDF)
The following is the official press release issued by Dr. Joseph Shaw, one of the signatories and the official spokesman for the effort:
Press Release on the ‘Filial Correction to Pope Francis’
In an epoch-making act, Catholic clergy and lay scholars from around the world have issued what they are calling a “Filial Correction” to Pope Francis.
No similar action has been taken since the Middle Ages.
Then, Pope John XXII was admonished in 1333 for errors which he later recanted on his deathbed. In the present case, the spiritual sons and daughters of Pope Francis accuse him of propagating heresies contrary to the Catholic faith.
Their letter, delivered to the Roman Pontiff at his Santa Marta residence on August 11, 2017 and now made fully public, states that the Roman Pontiff has supported heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the Eucharist.
The letter of correction has three main parts, as follows:
1) In the first part, the 62 signatories explain why, as believing and practicing Catholics, they have the right and duty to issue such a correction to the Pope. This does not contradict the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility, because Pope Francis has not promulgated heretical opinions as dogmatic teachings of the Church. While professing their obedience to his legitimate commands and teachings, they maintain that Francis has upheld and propagated heretical opinions by various direct or indirect means.
2) The second part of the letter is the essential one. It contains the ‘Correction’ properly speaking, written in Latin, the official language of the Church. It lists the passages of Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis’s document on marriage and family life, in which he insinuates or encourages heretical positions. Because some commentators have argued that these texts can be interpreted in an orthodox way, the Correction goes on to list Pope Francis’s other words, deeds, and omissions which make it clear beyond reasonable doubt that he wishes Catholics to interpret these passages in a way that is, in fact, heretical. In particular, the pope has advocated the beliefs that obedience to God’s moral law can be impossible or undesirable, and that Catholics should sometimes accept adultery as compatible with being a follower of Christ.
3) The final part, called ‘Elucidation’, discusses two causes of this unique crisis. One cause is ‘Modernism’. Theologically speaking, Modernism is the belief that God has not delivered definite truths to the Church, which she must continue to teach in exactly the same sense until the end of time. Modernism therefore focuses on experiences and holds that doctrines about God, faith, and morals are always provisional and subject to revision. Significantly, Pope St Pius X condemned Modernism at the start of the 20th century. A second cause of the crisis is the influence of the ideas of Martin Luther on Pope Francis. The letter shows how Luther had ideas on marriage, divorce, forgiveness, and divine law which correspond to those which the pope has promoted. It also notes the explicit and unprecedented praise given by Pope Francis to the German heresiarch.
The signatories make no judgment about Pope Francis’s culpability in propagating the 7 heresies that they list, since it is not their task to judge whether the sin of heresy has been committed (the sin of heresy, that is, formal heresy, is committed when a person departs from the faith by doubting or denying some revealed truth with a full choice of the will). It should however be noted that others who have spoken up in defense of the Catholic faith have been subject to reprisals. Thus, the signatories speak for a large number of clergy and lay faithful who lack freedom of speech.
It will be noticed that Bishop Bernard Fellay has signed the correction. His signature came after the document was delivered to the pope, but he now expresses the agreement of the Society of St Pius X with its contents. Pope Francis has recently extended a welcoming hand to the SSPX in order to integrate them legally into the Catholic Church.
The signatories respectfully insist that Pope Francis condemn the heresies that he has directly or indirectly upheld, and that he teach the truth of the Catholic faith in its integrity.
(Source: CorrectioFilialis.org; italics and bold print given.)
A similar document, signed by 45 Novus Ordo scholars and pastors, had been published in July of 2016:
Here are some initial reactions to the Correctio Filialis and commentaries from various sources:
- “Conservative Theologians Accuse Pope of Spreading Heresy” (Associated Press)
- “With Profound Grief… A Filial Correction” (LMS Chairman)
- “62 scholars correct Pope Francis for ‘propagating heresies’” (Life Site)
- “‘Pope’ Francis again corrected as a heretic by his own people. But…..” (Everything Catholic)
- “Clerical and Lay Scholars Send the Pope a Correctio Filialis About Amoris Laetitia” (FSSPX News)
- “Clergy and Lay Scholars Issue Filial Correction of Pope Francis” (Edward Pentin)
- “Francis plainly accused of Heresy” (AKA Catholic)
Most of the names of the 62 signatories to the Correctio are not well known. In fact, the only cleric with serious name recognition is Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X.
Perhaps the biggest story here is who didn’t sign the Filial Correction: Not a single Novus Ordo cardinal (not even Raymond Burke or Walter Brandmuller) and not a single Novus Ordo bishop did (not even Athanasius Schneider, who has publicly accused Francis of spreading the “joy of adultery”).
There is so much to be said about this Filial Correction and the signatories’ idea that a Pope need not be a Catholic to be Pope, that the papal magisterium can be corrected by inferiors, and that Francis may not be culpable for teaching these seven heresies they are solemnly condemning in this document. Our commentary will be forthcoming, and it will be published in a separate post.
Meanwhile, we can sit back and see how Francis will react to this publication of the Filial Correction.
Get the popcorn ready!
Image source: shutterstock.com
Besides not broaching the pope-heretic question, it was a well-done exposition of all Bergoglio’s heresies. I especially liked the section where they showed he’s a Lutheran. References to pre-Vatican II, magisterial documents seemed to outnumber those to post-Vatican II, Conciliar Church documents, too.
I wonder why Bp. Fellay signed it after it was presented to Bergoglio, as they said in the summary:
Bp. Fellay is spineless. The S?PX has been in the business of NUMBERS, ever since Abp. Lefebvre landed on the side of “safety in numbers,” after flip-flopping for a while with sedevacantism. For the bulk of them, it was too inconvenient to explain to “ignorant masses” what they believed, and what their stand against the new Mass ultimately meant. Therefore they modified their beliefs.
Since then, Abp Lefebvre and his successors in the S?PX have been on a crusade of making the S?PX more conciliatory towards the heretics occupying Rome. Abp. Lefebvre kicked out priests who wanted to maintain Catholic teachings and disciplines. Abp. Lefebvre signed some sort of concordat with Wojtyla and the Novus Ordites, etc. Fellay was recently on the brink of accepting all of the Novus Ordo, so long as the S?PX could keep doing what they do, etc. It is sick. But it all comes from them originally thinking that the laity are incapable of understanding the Catholic Faith, and that they would lose their following (numbers) if they taught, or even permitted their priests to adhere to, sedevacantism. Sedevacantism is an evil worse than Novus Oridoism for the S?PX today.
The very existence of this website disproves the elitist idea that only priests and bishops can understand the faith. And, the very fact that the vast bulk of priests and bishops went along with the destruction of the faith after October of 1958, should also prove that ordination and consecration does not necessarily give a man more intelligence, more piety, a deeper faith, etc. If that were so, we would not be in the situation we are in today. Vatican II and John XXIII would have been rejected immediately.
Bp. Fellay is spineless. Exactly why he waited remains to be seen. Maybe he was still trying for that full communion with Jorge at the time. Or, maybe he wanted to see if there were some immediate excommunications because of it. Who knows? Frankly, I am surprised he signed at all. It must be that he recognizes that his much sought after acceptance by the Novus Ordo is no longer possible.
I hope Jorge excommunicates all of the signatories.
“–Abp. Lefebvre kicked out priests who wanted to maintain Catholic teachings and disciplines. —-” It’s so very interesting that this fact is often used by the Remnant-esque / Verrecchio types as a condemnation of sedevacantism in order to uphold the man they adore more than the Holy Religion, Lefebvre. Ironically, we can hear publicly that these very priests, to this day, speak about the Archbishop with temperate affection.
Abp Lefebvre did a lot of good, early on. Remember that he made public statements which were perfectly in line with sedevacantism. But, he started listening to the more liberal priests associated with him. Then he started to enforce the 1962 rubrics on his priests, he started allowing “priests” who were not ordained with the traditional rite to function in His organization, and so forth. Eventually he mandated that his priests not be sedevacantist.
But early on, as priests and laity were instinctively reacting to what was going on, Abp. Lefebvre took a stand, and did a lot of good, and spoke out against the evil doers. Give credit to where credit is due. I think it is for this reason that those priests, to this very day, speak with affection about him.
It’s true. I only spoke with the Archbishop 2 times with several young ones including a newborn in tow, both times only adding up to about 30 mins. I count myself among those who loved/love Archbishop Lefebvre. In my heart I’m convinces that if he’d lived a bit longer post consecrations, he’d have moved fully to sedevacantism.
I hope you are correct. But I am inclined to think otherwise. He was conniving to negotiate with Wojtyla and the Modernists at least as as far back as 1982.
“Conservative” heretics accusing the arch liberal heretic of heresy. I love it.
In case anyone gets warm and fuzzies over this spectacle, let me ask some questions:
1) where was the outrage and correction to Angelo Roncalli (AKA John XXIII) for Pacem in Terris, and for throwing out Catholic schemas at Vatican II and adopting Protestant schemas, etc?
2) where was the outrage for Montini’s (AKA Paul VI) New Mass, and New Sacraments of ordination of priests and consecration of Bishops, new “disciplines,” new calendar, etc.
3) where was the outrage for Chuck Wojtyla (AKA John-Paul II) for all of his heresies and outrages (too numerous to even start mentioning)
4) Where was the outrage for the heresies of Ratzinger (AKA Benedict XVI), one of the great architects of Vatican II?
Novus Ordites (including Fellay and the S?PX) do not want Catholicism. They want Novus Ordoism, but with a more traditional appearance. The question for all of them is how much traditional wrappings to use to conceal their stercoraceous beliefs. What is refreshing with Jorge is that he is more open and blatant with his perfidy. But, that’s exactly what the “conservatives” don’t like about him. The wrappings are off, the box is opened, and instead of the deposit of the Faith, it is plain for all to see it is a deposit of a very different nature.
Let’s look at some of the errors in the Correctio.
1) They cite the case of Pope John XXII in 1333 who in a speech gave an alternative view to a theological opinion.
While it might have been gravely sinful on his part, it wasn’t sufficient to separate him from the Church because the matter hadn’t yet been dogmatically proclaimed.
2) They claim a right and duty to correct a Pope.
No one may correct a true Pope when he pronounces on a matter of faith and morals.
3) They say that correcting the Pope doesn’t contradict the doctrine on papal infallibility, because Francis didn’t attempt to dogmatize his heresies.
They’ve just moved the goalposts. They used to claim that the Vatican II papal claimants were still legitimate popes because they hadn’t attempted to teach their errors in any formal manner such as an encyclical. Now that they can’t deny it’s happened, they’ve suddenly decided he has to issue a dogmatic proclamation with heresy in it before papal infallibility is violated. If dogmatizing a heresy is a necessary condition to separate one from the Church, how does this then apply to laymen, because by their very state they have no authority to teach.
4) They profess obedience to Francis while deciding for themselves which of his teachings and commands they will obey.
5) They refer to his errors as “heretical opinions” as if they’re not actually heresies.
6) The signatories say that they are not judging whether or not Francis has committed the sin of heresy.
They must be deluding themselves with the notion that Jorge has simply made an honest mistake.
All of this because they refuse to consider the obvious as even possible- that Francis is simply not a real pope. The mistakes of Archbishop Lefevre and the adherence by the SSPX to erroneous conclusions about the nature of the papacy are now spreading throughout the Novus Ordo. How many souls will be lost because of them?
They always use the case of John XXII. He had no intention of teaching the Church, but pronounced three homilies with erroneous doctrine.
But even so, he had to rectify. And he did it very soon. For a single question.
Today they emit official documents and do not rectify for decades.
Good post, Pascendi. To me, its like blind optometrists trying to fit blind Jorge with prescription glasses. It is comical to observe.
The S?PX is definitely spreading a distorted, perverted “Catholicism,” in order to try to justify their non-Catholic position with regard to the papacy.
May Almighty God lead the catholic-minded people (however many that may be) out of that schismatic, heretical organization before they become too steeped in its errors.
Comparing John XXII to Bergoglio is like comparing St. Thomas Aquinas to modern-day deniers of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. John XXII denied a (then-)material dogma, but Bergoglio denies several already-defined dogmas! There’s no comparison between the pope and non-pope.
Re: #2: What about St. Paul correcting St. Peter?
Re: #6: Can’t only a confessor determine his culpability?
Re: #2: Contrary to what some websites maintain, St. Paul was not correcting St. Peter on a matter of doctrine, rather it concerned a habit. St. Peter had the custom of preferencially dining with Jewish converts to the Catholic faith. This gave the scandalous impression that Jews were of greater importance than non-Jews, and that their customs including that of circumcision needed to be followed.
Re: #6: We can’t judge the subjective state of his soul, but we can and should judge the objective nature of his words and actions. Heresy is objectively speaking, a sin. But my guess is they’re actually confusing the sin of heresy with the crime of heresy. It’s another one of the erroneous ways they use to justify the R&R position.
That’s not how St. Thomas Aquinas interpreted Gal. 2:11 (Summa Theologica II-II q. 33 a. 4 ad 2):
St. Peter’s BEHAVIOR is what was a scandal to the faith, not his doctrine. And even his behavior was not wrong in and of itself, it was just imprudent given the circumstances.
Can’t heresy be proclaimed by actions or imprudent behavior?
By actions, yes, but that wasn’t the case with St. Peter. St. Augustine calls it a “venial sin of imprudence” that he withdrew from the Gentiles to eat with the Jews. The action itself is morally indifferent — you can eat together with or separately from whomever you wish. When you consider that St. Paul said that
“I became all things to all men, that I might save all” (1 Cor 9:22), it is not clearly unreasonable (at least not at first sight) that St. Peter made the decision to withdraw from the Gentiles. It seems he wanted to avoid scandal of the weak — he did not want the converted Jews to be scandalized by eating together with the converted Gentiles (since in the Old Covenant it was forbidden for the Jews to eat with Gentiles). However, eating separately could scandalize the Gentiles, who would feel excluded or as second-class Christians.
If you look at both scenarios — eating together or eating separately — then it is clear that eating together is more in comformity with Catholic doctrine, which holds that “There is neither Jew nor Greek… For you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). That doesn’t mean you CANNOT eat separately, only that it is imprudent to do so. St. Peter simply made the wrong judgment with regard to his behavior in a particular situation, and he accepted St. Paul’s rebuke.
The Holy Spirit can use even an ass to correct a sinner. Num. 22:28 “And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass….” .Balaam repented maybe Bergoglio will also.
Jay, what a great comment!
Yes, if we are talking about simply correcting a sinner, fraternally, then that is indeed so. But what cannot be done is inferiors correcting a superior in a way that is canonically binding.
Saint Matthew 19:26 :but with God all things are possible’.
That would be a most inappropriate verse to use here. God set up His Church in such a way that an inferior cannot correct the Pope’s magisterium, and God cannot contradict Himself.
Then you must summit to every Vatican II pope. and a limited god.
No. Your position assumes the very point we dispute: That the Vatican II bozos were true Popes.
I agree and have always been outside of the Vatican II sect . But am I wrong in saying that the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, exercised by the pope when proclaiming dogma . So if as you say an inferior cannot correct a pope or for that matter anti pope then who is making the judgement that they (Vatican II anti popes } are heretics.
Jay, I am a newcomer to all of this. This is my understanding: for any of us to be Catholic, we must hold to all that the Catholic Church holds, believes, teaches and professes. If we were to deviate on any point — reject any point at all — then we are no longer Catholic. This applies to every Catholic — from the most recent convert to the oldest cradle Catholic and it includes the pope and all of the clergy. In addition, in order to be pope, one must be a male, one must be baptized and one must be Catholic.
As a woman, I cannot be pope. If I were elected “pope” I would be not be pope. Who are you, as an individual lay Catholic, to judge that? It isn’t a matter of judgment; it is a statement of fact. I am a woman; I am not a man; I cannot be pope. The head of the Southern Baptist Convention cannot be pope. If he were to be elected “pope” he would not be pope. Who are you, as an individual lay Catholic, to judge that? It isn’t a matter of judgment; it is a statement of fact. The head of the SBC is a Protestant; he is not a Catholic; he cannot be pope.
Now with respect to the six men who were “elected pope” after 1958 (i.e., the Vatican II Council popes): these men all held to, taught, professed and promulgated dogma and doctrine that were 180 degrees contrary to what the Catholic Church has always held, believed, taught and professed. Yes, all six of these men were elected popes. But they cannot be popes based upon the heresy that they espoused. Who are you, as an individual lay Catholic, to judge that? It isn’t a matter of judgment; it is a statement of fact. Men who are public heretics, men who do not hold to the Catholic faith, are not Catholic and cannot be pope. These men are not popes.
I would give you this analogy: You see your neighbor fighting with his wife in the front yard of their home. In the middle of the argument, your neighbor pulls out a gun from his belt and shoots and kills his wife. She had not physically tried to hurt or attack your neighbor; but he shot her in a fit of rage. You are now an eye-witness to 2nd degree murder. You call the police and your neighbor is arrested. Now, you are not the police, you are not the prosecutor, you are not the jury and you are not the judge. You are an eye-witness to murder. Your neighbor has not yet been convicted of any crime (as we know, the wheels of justice turn slowly).
Does the fact that you don’t have the authority to try and judge the case, issue a verdict and impose a sentence mean that you can’t say that your neighbor shot and killed his wife? That he is a murderer? Are you somehow barred from saying that you witnessed a murder because you lack education and training on forensics or on medical science or on ballistics and weapons? Does the fact that your neighbor has not yet been convicted make him any less of a killer or murderer? If someone else came along and said: “You can’t make that determination that your neighbor murdered his wife?” or “You have no right to judge what happened” — wouldn’t you think that person was literally insane or out of his mind to say these things to you?
You would be incredulous for someone to say such things to you. As applied to our pope situation, what folks are asking is that we go against faith and reason, basic common-sense and observation. These men (the post Vatican II popes) introduce a different liturgy, a different church calendar, a different catechism, different canon laws, etc. and we are not supposed to notice that what was before is very, very, very different than what came afterward? We are prevented from saying that anything has changed when indeed everything has changed? We are told we have no right or authority to say what we have witnessed with our very own eyes (i.e., like you having witnessed the murder of your neighbor’s wife)? By what judgment: by faith, reason, common-sense and by direct observation as eye-witnesses.
Formal official judgment and determination may (or may not) come with respect to the pope. But I bet that if your neighbor posts bail, you won’t be going over to his house for a BBQ in his back yard! Nor will you let your wife or kids anywhere near him. And I bet you might just have a concealed carry weapon on you at all times, just in case. You can’t try or convict your neighbor of murder (in an official court proceeding) but that doesn’t make him any less of a murderer. You would be a fool not to protect yourself (and your family) from him. And if any of your neighbors said, “You can’t say that; who are you to judge?” you just might punch them in the mouth.
That’s my take on all of this in layman’s (or laywoman’s) terms.
I don’t quite understand what you are trying to say. But simply put are you following the Vatican II sect because it appears to be catholic or are you following the Catholic Church that is still here but in the catacombs. You seem to be saying that the anti popes of the sect are not popes but as a “lay person’ we cannot make that judgement . It is Church teaching that formal processes and judgments are not necessary for ipso facto excommunication to take effect. St Paul (Titus 3:10) is shown where a heretic exiles himself from the church without a judicial sentence.
OK. I’m not disagreeing with anyone, but I have to ask at this point. Since a formal process and judgment isn’t necessary to excommunicate a person because the act or belief held and/or taught is enough in itself to separate a person, well, whose responsibility is it to clue that person in that they no longer are in communion with the Church or that they no longer have faculties (or never had)? Because, given the current state of affairs, although it might seem silly, somebody ought to say directly, “hey, you’re an imposter. Turn in your gear, and get out.” I mean, is there literally no system of checks and balances from where that can and should have already come?
Canon 2314 1917 Code of Canon Law ” All apostates from the Christian (Catholic) faith and each and every heretic or schismatic 1) Incur ipso facto (by the very fact ) excommunication…) If we take the case of the Heretic Martin Luther his words (ipso facto) condemned him before the Bull of Pope Leo X. ) In this age of the Great Apostasy I rely on what was taught before Vatican II. personally if a dogma or tradition or Scripture is unclear I don’t comment on it. many years ago it was easy if the Pope said it from the chair you followed it. Today we don’t have that option.
I will try to give you an example. I am traveling, and do not have my references with me, but the 1st Vatican Council (1870) said that If any one should say that the miracles of Christ do not prove His Divinity, let him be anathema (“anathema sit” in Latin, sometimes abbreviated as A.S.). But John Paul II (Chuck Wojtyla) preached a sermon in a Lutheran Church on December 11, 1983 on the second Sunday of Advent in which he proclaimed that very heresy.
I would ask, what good is it for the Church to give a list of canons of condemned doctrines, if we cannot act on that teaching? It renders the canons useless. Therefore, all of the anathema sit proclamations of popes and councils from Pius XII back to St. Peter are useless, and makes their promulgation a joke, if we cannot act on them.
I remember, when I was young, reading a question/answer column in either the National Catholic Register, or in the Pittsburgh Catholic, in which folks were asking how it could be that Vatican II could undo what was always taught with regard to Liberalism, and how could the new teaching be reconciled with Quanta Cura of Pius IX and the accompanying syllabus of errors. The answer was that the two are not reconcilable, but that the Church has to power to change the religion. There was also some garblegoop answer that since things change with regard to social circumstances, the church could change doctrines to fit those exigencies.
Quanta Cura was traditionally a text book example of an infallible teaching, because Pius IX used his Apostolic Authority, he defined what it was that he was condemning clearly, and in an irreformable way, he bound the consciences of the faithful of the Church in the whole world, etc. (By the way many translations simply say that “We wish” that these errors be held as condemned…, whereas the Latin says “We wish and command.”)
We know the new religion is just that, a new religion, because it embraces things which were formally condemned, and it condemns things which were always upheld in the Catholic Church. So the real question is: does one want to adhere to the Catholic Church which was one and the same from the time of St. Peter through Pius XII; or does one want to adhere to the Cult of Man, the Vatican II new religion, which the enemies of the Church have been trying to shove down our throats since the death of Pius XII.
There is no middle ground.
Also: please be aware of anyone (including me) who writes to you. Look up things. Check references. There are many non-Catholics who like to write in Catholic blog spots. These are dangerous times in which we live.
I am saying that the truth is truth even without a “formal pronouncement” of that truth by some official organization. If you witnessed a murder; you don’t need a jury conviction or a judge’s sentence to know what you saw.
There is not any official Catholic church pronouncement that these six popes are anti-popes and heretics. It is unlikely that there will be such a pronouncement unless something drastic (and I venture to say “supernatural”) takes place.
I do not attend the modernist Roman Catholic Church. I do not attend the Recognize and Resist version of Church either. I’ve retreated to the catacombs — Vatican II is not Catholic. If the mission church I attend does not have mass, then I stay home.
What is a mission church?
It is an outreach from an established church. The priests travel to different locations around the state (and actually to other states too) to offer mass. That means mass is twice a month and depending upon weather conditions and/or their schedule, it could be once a month.
Traditional priests who adhere to Catholic doctrine, morals and worship, and who reject entirely the new religion, often will go out to various places where like-minded Catholics congregate, and those priests will say Mass, hear confessions, and do other things for the faithful (devotions, blessings, catechetical classes, etc). I believe that is to what Susan is referring.
Yes, that is what I am referring to. God bless these holy men.
God bless them, indeed!!! I am so fortunate to have “one of the nine” True Priests who offers a mission Mass to us about once/month as he flies from Montana to Colorado to give us the True Sacraments! When I first discovered all of this chaos in the Church (only 3 years ago now) I felt so lost and had no idea where to turn and then I found Father Skierka. God is so good and has blessed my family during this very difficult time! I am beyond thankful for this blessing. We have to stay home until Fr. Skierka flies in but we are so truly blessed to have him during the great Apostasy.
Significant is the presence of Gerard van den Aardweg, the first signer. He belongs to Opus Dei, which means that he has signed with the permission of the Prelate of Opus Dei.
There are also simple diocesan priests signing the letter, which seems incredible. We must wait for Francis’s reaction on these people.
Francis responds to the “Filial Correction.”
Of course it’s something. What is important to convey to those who’re, as you put it, waking up-is to point to the problem. The problem is a Heresy-the Heresy of Modernism. It becomes then a simple matter. One doesn’t have to belabor oneself with this or that individual-one can just study Modernism, what it is, where it began, etc. Jorge Bergoglio is just an everyday, rather dull, walking around Modernist, bloviating banalities. He’s in reality a much less dangerous Modernist than Ratzinger, who-because of his choice of raiment, allowed the pseudo trad R & R’s to choose to rather peacefully coexist- compared to having the tantrums they have today.
Consider this: https://inveritateblog.com/2017/08/25/formal-correction/
For more consideration:
“——— what St. Peter did that caused St. Paul’s rebuke. Just what was it that St. Peter was doing?—-”
***Scroll way down to Part 2-***
(#4–St. Peter’s Sin in Galatians 2:11 )
Sedevacantist Bishop Sanborn on the idea of a Formal Correction:
Anna: I am delighted that folks are waking-up, if that is what is happening. But the problem is not Bergoglio per se. He is a great advertisement for sedevacantism, but he is not the problem. The problem is the new religion pushed on us from John XXIII onward.
John XXIII’s (Roncalli’s) Pacem in Terris was a huge upheaval. Communists, non-Catholics, Jews, and Freemasons were ecstatically happy over it. Catholics were doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to try to reconcile it to Catholic teaching up to that time. I know this from studying, and not from memory, because I was way too young (Born in 1961). Roncalli’s and Ratzinger’s Vatican II was a huge revolution. Even Ottaviani quipped that he wanted to die before the council ended, because he wanted to die a Catholic. There was no outrage at the time from the laity, and little to none from the clergy.
It was not a hidden revolution. Nuns were abandoning their habits, altars were being torn down for tables. Refined artwork was being replaced by rough caveman looking stuff. Tabernacles were being put into closets. I remember my sisters telling me how they were looking forward to the “Mass” being celebrated with big loaves of bread (like Italian or French bread). I remember my father scolding my sister and trying to teach her about the fragments that would be all over the place due to this kind of bread being used as the matter of the sacrament. I remember the buzz all around when the abstinence from meat on Fridays was lifted. There was no outrage at the time, or very little outrage. That was the late 1960’s
Just like then, so today the bulk of the “Catholic” world just takes everything in stride, and yawns. Nobody studies their catechism and puts 2 and 2 together. There is no outrage.
Mr. Jorge Bergoglio is the product of the new religion. He hates anything remotely in tune with the pre-1958 Catholic Church (I realize that I should not have to use the qualifier “pre-1958”). He adheres to Liberation Theology. He is not even a priest, due to his being ordained in the new rites. But again, there is little outrage.
Therefore I am concerned that the folks who are allegedly waking-up will take the stand that Jorge is no pope, but say Ratzinger still is. Or, some will pine for days when the “conservative” John Paul II “reigned” in Rome. Ratzinger and Wojtyla are two peas in a pod. He kissed the Koran and got Indian dung smeared on his forehead for crying out loud. But there was no outrage.
Luckily I had a father and his friends who instinctively knew a revolution was taking place. Since 1981, I had the great grace of knowing traditional priests who educated me. I became 100% convinced of the non-papacy of Chuck Wojtyla (JPII) in late 1983 or early 1984; but I was leaning towards that conclusion since 1981. I am fortunate, I know. Thanks be to God. I did not deserve it, for sure. I am partly the product of the outrage of my father.
Unfortunately for me today, when I speak to Novus Ordites, they do not care. I have sent them links to N.O. Wire, I have shown them the photo’s of Buddha on the altar in Assisi, I have shown them the new code of Canon Law of John Paul II (cannon 844 paragraph 3 and 4), etc. etc. etc. It does not matter. Nobody wants to adhere to what was consistently and infallibly taught for approximately 1950 years. There is no outrage at anything other than a little bit of disapproval of Jorge. That is why I guess I am negative.
But, if you are telling me that there are some who are now waking-up, and who actually want to be Catholic (in the sense of how that term was understood for centuries) than I am overjoyed at the news.
Please don’t let me discourage you.
I would ask that you keep studying the faith. Get a good pre-1950 high school or college level catechism containing dogma, morals, and worship. Study Quanta Cura of PIUS IX and the accompanying syllabus of errors, and Pascendi Dominici Gregis of St.Pius X with its accompanying syllabus of errors.
The enemies are Modernist. There is a real definition of that term. It is comprised of Agnosticism and Immanentism. First understand your faith, then understand their errors. God bless you.
Very good. With just a few lines you nailed it.
Truly the operation of error has most people in total cooperation. The Novus Ordo, for the most part don’t know and/or don’t care that they are not Catholic. The signatories, like so many R&R, continue to be make-believe Catholics in full communion with an antichrist or seeking the same. And then there is the ‘sedevacantist’ with an audience, who attacks the true remnant by encouraging those who have received the grace to reject the false church and its heresiarchs, to throw off that grace by attending an illicit Mass offered in communion with a modernist, anticatholic antichrist. And Protestants in general, like atheists, Jews, Moslems, buddhists and satanists, hate the true Church of Christ with all original fervour of a Caiaphas, Mohamet, a Luther, Calvin, etc. With all the current fervour of a Bergoglio.
You and me both, but closer to 3 years now for me.
When my eyes opened the only thing I could say without losing my head or heart was that I felt I had been hoodwinked!
All those years lost and literally behind me, and never recoverable.
Be steadfast in the faith for the devil as a roaring lion is seeking someone to devour.
Conservative Modernists picking on their Arch-Modernist? Excuse me while I go cut an apple and watch it brown…
I am technologically challenged regarding the computer. If there were a way for me to upload scanned images of the title pages of catechism books, I could send you those, and you could look for them. Please let me know how to do it.
As I said before, I am happy folks are waking up. I just hope they do not fall into the trap of just thinking Jorge is the problem. The post from Timotheos very succinctly said it all in one sentence. If I could write like that, I could quit my day job: “They had little problem when Francis’ heretical predecessors defecated all over the Catholic religion, but now that Francis refuses to pull the chain, and dispel the stench with a little air freshener, their worldly sensibilities are outraged.” Wisdom, brevity, and a biting irreverence towards those who deserve no reverence is all there. Wow!
hi, Burning Eagle-see below
Hi, Anna-May I suggest this: -on Restoration Radio the first 8 Episodes of Catechism given by His Excellency Bp. Donald Sanborn are FREE PODCASTS.
They’re wonderful, maybe you can provide a time to listen.
+Sanborn here uses :
“A Complete Catechism of the Catholic Religion” by Father Joseph Deharbe, S.J. it’s stated here the following:His Excellency finds the Deharbe Catechism to be the most complete to convert and instruct people in the Catholic Faith.
Here is this Catechism online for you & your family to read: https://archive.org/details/completecatechis00deharich
God Bless you & yours.
Anna—-With regard to quickly & easily understand, review & disseminate to others the Heresy of Modernism–a treatise approved my Pope St. Pius X: “Liberalism is a Sin,” by Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany -the entire book is online here: http://www.liberalismisasin.com/
Also, a sedevacantist has recorded the entire book, the audio here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL5k2qOdutw&list=PLMqTedoWpsw9uqZ16k0ujAqcL14HtcTl1
I often listen & read this when I am overwhelmed by the daily onslaught. BurningEagle & strickerm are right, do not be discouraged. Further, remember that we are not whining, complaining recognize & resisters. For we know that, contrary to what they put forth, Holy Mother Church is not damaged for> She is the Undefiled Bride of Christ. May His Peace be to you & yours always
All of you are correct in all that you have shared and are well informed and awake. As Burning Eagle said, this is so much deeper than Frankie. What everyone needs to really understand is how the Judeo-Masonic evil is the real demon we are all fighting. They laid out their plans to take over the Church in a document called “The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita” so I encourage everyone to understand what it entails. Also, spend some time recognizing how they switched the Pope in 1958 because that is a key element. In addition to the resources mentioned, I HIGHLY recommend reading “The Devil’s Final Battle” by Fr. Kramer and “The Plot Against the Church.” There are links to read all of these for free on my website which I created to help educate people on the REAL evil we face – the Judeo-Masonic infiltration of the Church.
God Bless and keep up the great work in awakening and educating others!
Very good graph of principals (essential) differences between corrections:
Once you get the Deharbe’s catechism mentioned by Siobhan and referenced in the radio show provided by Siobhan, (it is a good one-book catechism), I would suggest you look for: Exposition of Christian Doctrine, by a Seminary Professor, a course of Religious Instruction from the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools 1908, 1913, 1927. It comes in three parts (hence, the three years of its publication from John Joseph McVey, Philadelphia PA). The three parts (volumes) are I Dogma, II Moral, and III Worship. These “catechisms” were used in high school and college level courses in bygone days, and are well written in easily understood English.
I was recently told there was a condensed one-volume edition of the same course that may be available. I will try to located one for reference.
You guys are the best! This ought to keep me busy for a while! Thank you!
The progressive Novus Ordites have started their own counter-“filial correction”: http://www.pro-pope-francis.com/