Print Friendly, PDF & Email

New year picks up where old year left off…

Five Novus Ordo Bishops yap at Francis
over Amoris Laetitia

[UPDATE 06-JAN-2018: Retired “Bishop” Andreas Laun of Austria signs Kazakh Profession]

[UPDATE 05-JAN-2018: Retired “Cardinal” Janis Pujats adds his signature to Kazakh Profession]

It is now 2018, and the international soap opera known as Amoris Laetitia enters into its third season. On April 8 of this year, it will have been 2 years since “Pope” Francis released this heretical, blasphemous, and truly infernal document, and there is not a single “bishop” in the Novus Ordo Sect who will stand up and denounce its author as a manifest anti-pope.

The latest episode in this never-ending story comes from the Central Asian country of Kazakhstan, where on Dec. 31, 2017, “Archbishops” Tomash Peta and Jan Pawel Lenga and “Bishop” Athansius Schneider released a document they labeled “Profession of the Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage”. The 2,381-word statement was first published in English on Jan. 2, 2018, and can be found here:

The statement — let’s call it the “Kazakh Profession” — essentially amounts to a clear refutation of the main sophistical arguments put forward in Amoris Laetitia and in various essays and books published in support of it. While a number of the sources the three Kazakh “bishops” use to refute the Bergoglian errors are genuinely Catholic, the majority of them are magisterial texts of the pre-Francis Novus Ordo magisterium.

After laying out the truth about Holy Matrimony, adultery, and the reception of the sacraments, the Kazakh Profession culminates in the following affirmation:

It is not licit (non licet) to justify, approve, or legitimize either directly or indirectly divorce and a non-conjugal stable sexual relationship through the sacramental discipline of the admission of so-called “divorced and remarried” to Holy Communion, in this case a discipline alien to the entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.

Since the release of this statement, the usual hullabaloo has kicked in. The semi-trad web site One Peter Five described it as a “bang” with which the new year was supposedly starting off; various Novus Ordo news sites (such as Life Site and Crux) reported on it; and Francis admirer Stephen Walford immediately rushed to his man’s defense.

But not everyone sees the Kazakh Profession as particularly significant. Resignationist Louie Verrecchio, for example, criticized the statement as nothing more than a toothless tiger that is afraid to even identify by name the heretic-in-chief who has created the entire problem in the first place:

As just a casual reading of their text reveals, the authors of the “Profession” are so Hell bent and determined to avoid mentioning by name, much less blaming, the heretic-in-chief who created this mess that it’s embarrassing.

Forget the headlines and the news reports – the hero-bishops don’t utter even a peep about “the Pope’s reading” or “the Pope’s interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia.

Even if they did, the very suggestion that Francis is misreading or misinterpreting the text of his own personal Love Letter to Lucifer is patently absurd.

…[A] singular mention of “the supreme authority” is as close as the bishops dare come to identifying the actual perpetrator of this unprecedented attack against the Catholic faith.

(Louie Verrecchio, “The ‘Profession’ of the Kazakhstani Bishops”, AKA Catholic, Jan. 3, 2018; italics given.)

Shortly after the Kazakh Profession was released, two more high-profile Novus Ordo clerics came out in support of it: The Vatican’s former Nuncio to the United States, “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Viganò, and “Archbishop” Luigi Negri, formerly the head of the Modernist Archdiocese of Ferrara-Comacchio, Italy. Both of them are retired.

Of course it wasn’t going to take long before someone would publish an interview with one of the three Kazakh “bishops”, and on Jan. 4, Rorate Caeli did exactly that:

In this lackluster exchange, Schneider disappoints all who were hoping for some eventual “deposition” of Francis at the hands of “Cardinal” Burke, “Bishop” Schneider, or some other group of Novus Ordo clerics who are popularly perceived as conservative or even traditional simply because they oppose adultery and use more incense than the rest. No, Schneider’s solution is that “[o]ne has to continue to profess the immutable faith and pray still more for the Pope and, then, only God can intervene and He will do this unquestionably.” That’s very reassuring, and the last 59 years have shown how successful that strategy is. It is also a testimony to how much the Kazakh Novus Ordo bishop believes in the Papacy as being the rock against which the gates of hell will not prevail (cf. Mt 16:18).

At the same time, of course, Schneider is stuck between a rock and a hard place — because if Francis really is Pope, as he believes, then he is entirely correct in saying that no one can judge or remove him:

As long as Francis is accepted as Pope, he will win. That much is guaranteed. With Peta, Lenga, Schneider, Vigano, and Negri, you may have five Novus Ordo bishops now directly opposing Francis’ “mercy” agenda for adulterers, but since they work in communion with and under him, recognizing him as the Vicar of Christ, they will ultimately lose.

What will be the upshot of all this? In the long run, probably nothing. For the next few weeks, you will find journalists and commentators running around like chickens with their heads cut off, but after the initial excitement subsides, nothing will come of it, except perhaps Francis announcing some personnel changes in Central Asia.

So, expect lots of discussion about this in the Novus Ordo and semi-trad blogosphere; expect a few EWTN broadcasts with Raymond Arroyo on the “fallout” from the Kazakh Profession; expect more interviews with “Cardinals” Raymond Burke, Gerhard Ludwig Muller, and Walter Brandmuller; expect rumors about Francis losing his temper at the Casa Santa Marta, and so on. But while everyone will be busy excitedly looking for and talking about all these developments, the apostasy in Rome will quietly continue unabated as before. That’s how it’s been in the past, and there is no reason it should be any different this time around.

Just remember that when the Filial Correction was released on Sep. 24 of last year, all hell broke loose for a short while, but ultimately — and quite predictably — it accomplished absolutely nothing, other than giving journalists and bloggers a lot of work and a lot of web site hits:

Since Apr. 8, 2016, we’ve been chronicling the neverending chaos generated by Amoris Laetitia in a special “chaos watch” page, which links to the most important stories and developments on the topic and is thus continually updated:

Please, let’s not make 2018 yet another year of headlines along the lines of, “VIPs ask Pope to clarify Teaching on Communion for Divorced-and-Remarried”, “Cardinal Burke gives Interview, hints Fraternal Correction could come later this year”, or, “Did the Pope just answer the Dubia?”.

From this day forward, expect no prominent coverage on this web site of any of such stories until something significant actually takes place.

The controversy over Francis’ Amoris Laetitia demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is not possible to accept Francis as a valid Pope and still be a Catholic. Yesterday’s dissenters have become today’s “papal” cheerleaders, and yesterday’s “papal” cheerleaders have become today’s dissenters. All of this is possible only because a public heretic is being accepted as a true Pope. It is not a popular observation, to be sure, but that is ultimately the root cause of it all.

Accepting a man as Pope has consequences, and when that man is a public heretic, the consequences are disastrous. People must finally realize that, no matter how much they may “resist” Francis, if they recognize him as a true Pope, they are just as much part of the problem as those who accept his teachings. As we said in a blog post 19 months ago, do not complain about the “Undertaker Pope” if at the same time you’re busy leading people to the graveyard in the first place.

Recognition of Francis as Pope is the linchpin that holds the whole madhouse together. Only once it is removed will the whole thing finally collapse.

By the way, where were all these supposed conservative and traditionalist defenders of the Faith when “Saint” John Paul II allowed Holy Communion to be given to Protestants?

31 Responses to “Five Novus Ordo Bishops yap at Francis over Amoris Laetitia”

  1. Dum Spiro Spero

    Amoris Laetitia has gone from being considered a non-magisterial document, to a document of authentic magisterium. Some say it is not yet included in the code of canon law.
    The admission of Protestants to communion has finally been admitted into the 1983 code.
    Do you know any “magisterial” document prior to 1983 that allowed communion to Protestants in particular cases?
    Because it is very possible that in the case of AL follow the same path. Finally, they will also include it in the code of canon law.

  2. BurningEagle

    It seems the reaction to Amoris Laetitia is doing one thing which is not good: All these reactionaries are reacting with a NON-CATHOLIC reaction. Instead of the blind leading the blind, it is the perfidious leading the faithless. So long as the reactions to Amoris Laetitia remain non-Catholic, and embrace some form of heresy regarding the supposed vicar of Christ, they will keep coming. It serves the purpose of eradicating Catholicism.

    • anna mack

      It also makes things much more difficult for the (probably few) remaining NOites who mean to be of good will to escape the clutches of this wicked organisation.

      • BurningEagle

        Yes. I agree. And those who (culpably, I might add) do not take their obligation to know their faith seriously, and who just leave it to their parish “priests” or diocesan “bishops,” will likely be lost. For many, it appears the Catholic faith, and the practice of living the Catholic faith, is something that is given a few minutes of time on Sunday or Saturday night, and then that’s it.
        They can learn the intricacies of this age of computers, malware, and viruses, etc. They can lean all about the lives of the Kardashians, Harvey Weinstein, Meryl Streep, Mick Jagger, Malcolm Young and other leaders of the counter-Catholic culture. They can even learn all the latest food fads, food cooking trends, and strange theories for health and wellness. But God forbid anyone learn their catechism. God forbid they spend 5 to 20 minutes a day learning something new (to them) about Catholic dogma or morality, or the lives of the Saints, or canon law, or the richness of the Roman Catholic liturgy.
        I believe the laxity of Catholics is what allowed the Novus Ordo revolution to succeed. If the majority of Catholics in the 1930’s through the 1960’s knew the faith as well as the majority of sedevacantists do today, this whole Novus Ordo revolution would have stopped at Roncalli, regardless of the machinations of modernist prelates.

        • anna mack

          That’s very true but, most people don’t know that actually studying the Faith is onte of its requirements. I certainly didn’t know that. What made me start to learn about the Faith was that I had previously been interested in the various odd developments in the world, and gradually came to suspect that they were in many ways linked to what had happened to the Church. I’d stopped practicing a long time before that, because I didn’t like what I mistakenly (as it turned out) believed to be the Catholic Church, not because I understood what was going on – I had no idea. It was only after I started reading about what the Church *should* be like that I began to understand what had gone wrong, and to look around for where I might actually find a real Catholic Mass to go to.

          I said that there are “probably few” NOites of good will (if Bergoglio hasn’t woken them up, then it’s unlikely that anything will – just how many warning notes does Our Lord have to sound?). In fact, I think that sedevacantists of the future are most likely to come from the ranks of people (like me) who have left it long since.

          • BurningEagle

            Both of us should be grateful to the Almighty for the grace we have been given to know and love the truth.
            Most humans don’t go though life just knowing how to add and subtract. We also learn to multiply, divide, work with fractions, then most study a little bit of plane geometry and algebra. We do not just know how to phonetically sound out words, but we also learn the many words that have irregular pronunciations. We grow our vocabulary, and learn how to diagram a sentence. Most learn some composition techniques.
            We don’t just learn that we must eat and drink to live, but we also learn about a well rounded diet, and cooking or preparation techniques to make certain foods more palatable.
            The analogy should be clear by now. In my estimation, it is insufficient to teach a child the Baltimore Catechism #2 or #3, and the consider it done.
            I say shame on our immediate ancestors from the 1930s through the 1970s. We were their children, and they did NOT teach us the importance of our faith, and the love of our faith. By extension, shame on the Catholic priests and religious which ran the catholic schools prior to the wretched Vatican II.
            Regardless of how much certain folks talk about how their parents walked 20 minutes to get to mass, and how pious they were; as a whole, the generations which preceded Vatican II did not really care. They lived in such a way as to not impress on their children the importance of knowing and loving the faith. For the most part, Catholicism occurred for 45 minutes on Sunday’s and perhaps holy days.
            None of us as laymen are bound to learn the intricacies of moral theology, or even the philosophical courses of minor seminarians. But, as a general rule, we are all bound to learn the faith to the best of our abilities.
            Just look at the poor worldlings out there who are so wrapped up in Star Wars that their whole lives revolve around an idiotic series of science fictional films and books. They know all the geeky Star Wars trivia, and they dress up like the movie characters, and wait long hours in the cold to go see a science fiction film (made by an industry 100% committed to the destruction of Catholicism). If only they could put 1/2 of that energy and time into learning the basics of dogma, morals, and worship of the most important thing in anyone’s life: the Catholic faith.
            And as I always say, since there is allegedly no difference between what is called Catholicism today (Novus Ordoism), and the Catholicism of the roughly 1,925 years before Vatican II, it would seem to make sense that a person would study what was believed and practiced consistently for 1,925 years, and not just what has been pushed on us for the last 60 years.

          • anna mack

            You know, it never ceases to disgust me how little of your examples in paragraphs two and three people actually *do* learn! It may possibly be better in the US but, here in the UK, we actually have children going to nursery school (aged four to 11) who are still wearing nappies because their mothers haven’t house-trained them, and who have never used a knife and fork, and I believe that this is all part of the general lack of care to which you refer in terms of the Faith. These are the depths to which society has sunk and, yes, parents ought to be deeply ashamed.

            Unfortunately, you are right, the rot set in a *long* time before V2 – not just in terms of our Faith but also in terms of Civilisation in general. I honestly think that things have gone too far to be turned back, so I am daily grateful for (and humbled by) the grace I’ve been given.

          • David Ellis

            Are the 11 year olds wearing diapers mentally retarded? I can’t see how an eleven year old would otherwise wear a diaper.

          • David Ellis

            It sounds like the mother’s of these children may also be fairly severely cognitively handicapped also. These should be helped and pitied as the poor and broken of the earth.

          • anna mack

            No, sorry, that’s the age range of the schools (I included it as I don’t know how things work in the US). The children arrive at them at age four and then the *schools* have to teach the basics to such children.

          • BurningEagle

            Wow. I did not know you were from the UK. You have a rough go of it over there, from what I understand, because of the lack of priests who “get it.”
            I should not have used the Baltimore #2 catechism, because that was something put out by the American bishops after their council of Baltimore, in the mid to late 1800s. I hope you did not mind.
            Just today, my son-in-law told me of a co-worker who has a Bachelor’s of Science degree and is working in the medical hospital with him. They were having contests between their various functions, and one of the games’ instructions was to name a noun. The young lady who recently got a Bachelors of Science, did not know what a noun was. The example she gave was the word, “swam.”
            Additionally, the youth of today (in the US) generally do not have the foggiest notion of diagramming a sentence. It is no longer taught.
            Here’s another one. My daughter is a care giver for the elderly. At one of her places of work, she wrote a note to her co-workers. None of them could read the note, because none of them could read her cursive writing (and she has beautiful handwriting). I am not exaggerating. Modern schools no longer teach cursive writing, and penmanship is a thing of the past in the USA.
            Table manners are also a thing of the past.

          • anna mack

            No, I didn’t mind at all! I appreciate that most of the people on the sedevacantist sites are American, so I wouldn’t have expected anything else. Sedevacantists are few and far between in the UK, as it is, quite frankly, a completely Godless country. As far as I’m aware, there are only one or two traditional priests (I don’t include the SSPX, of course) actually resident in the country. However, I’m fortunate to live only an hour and a half’s drive from a mass centre served by two German CMRI priests, so I manage to get to Mass every month; things could be a lot worse!

            Your examples are typical of education in the UK, too. We have nearly half the population going to university(!) but no one seems to learn very much…The noun story is pretty desperate, though…

  3. Lee

    For those of you out there who believe a pope must be deposed in order for him not to be recognized as a pope how could this take place if a handful of bishops decided they were going to depose him when the much larger majority of bishops and cardinals who support Francis would have a different say in the matter. Then what? The most likely conclusion would be that those handful of bishops would be branded as schismatics who suggested to depose him. This is why things happen automatically (such as losing office if he were to be a manifest heretic etc.) because if there were a process to oust somebody out, when everybody knows what he already is (hint… hint) it would never happen. The Church isn’t a democracy but a divine institution founded by Jesus Christ with a hierarchy and when the shepherd is struck the sheep are scattered

  4. Nicholas

    Blah, blah, blah. They go on and on. If Francis is pope, they are required to listen to him. He already clarified his document. Divorced and remarried (unrepentant adulterers) are permitted to receive the novus ordo sacraments. Amoris also said that a variety of family situations can offer a certain stability.

  5. Teuton1981

    These ‘bishops’ should begin to worry about the voodoo thing that killed the other 2 ‘bishops’ (just kidding =D).

  6. James Locke

    When the time comes for Bergoglio and the Vatican II sect to be removed from the property of the Church, it will be done by the hand of God in a manner we can’t fathom. Till then it’s all theater of which I have little interest I’ve seen the seven plots to many times now they only provide a night light.

  7. Peter San Paolo

    The long view leads one to see the logic behind Amoris Laetitia and the entire opera of post VII magisterial texts. Deconstruction, confusion, and the expected results. The vast majority of “Catholics” will follow the putative Pope and take the easier course over time. They are more ignorant than their forefathers concerning the fundamental truths of the Faith (this too was planned!). They can’t follow all the intricate arguments and specialized technical jargon of a Burke or Mueller, or a Kaspar.. In fact, they are suspicious of it. The lack of trust in the claims of the Magisterium to present God’s truth stems from the vacillations, the ambiguities of he who claims to be the Supreme Authority. That is exactly what the modernist strategists planned from the outset. Confusion and ambiguity, squabbling amongst the “bishops” and theologians””, lead to the conclusion that one must find ones own way. Which is the lax, hedonistic, worldly way. The teachers are confused and irresolute, so the sheep must fend for themselves. And we all know what happens to lost sheep!

  8. PESh

    Bergoglio isn’t a heretic. I wouldn’t call him that. A heretic at least believes in God, albeit choosing wrongly and in spite of correction or a correct definition of doctrine being preached. Someone who says ‘God cannot be God without man’ does not believe in God. Why can these well informed and learned men not speak plainly? If they managed that, we could see some sense of Catholic charism in them despite their problematic sacerdotal orders. Instead just weak and vague criticisms of that lewd, coarse man, that Head of State of the Vatican City. He now sees that whatever he does, nothing worse than the issue of an interesting book or two, some blog posts, and some vague words, will happen.

    • Peter San Paolo

      One constant in his bizarre behavior is a consistent animus toward the Roman Tradition and its history. I think he really loathes the Church. Hence his embrace of every heretical,apostate and pagan institution he encounters. He gets chills when he sees a the “born again” traipsing about. He can’t bend low enough for the Jews. He shills for the Wahhabists. Now one should be kind to all. That is part of our religious profession also. BUT: he has a soft spot in his heart for everyone but his own kind. They get snide remarks, cold stares, ridicule, and the “heave ho.” Why? Because they love the Church and are faithful to its Truth. Sometimes at great cost and sacrifice. Like the woman who is abandoned by her husband but refuses to enter another “marriage”, for the love of Christ. What is Francis telling her? That she was a fool all these years.

  9. BurningEagle

    Only 6 Novus Ordo churchmen dare to protect *some parts* of Catholic Doctrine.
    (None of them protect all of it. In as much as they adhere to ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, the new Code of Canon Law, the New Mass, none of them are Catholic, and none of them protect the Catholic Faith. Additionally, with the changes in the form for the consecration of bishops, I am of the opinion they are not bishops.)

  10. Emmet Sweeney

    When will some of these so-called “pastors” have the courage to spell it out: Bergoglio is a heretic and an anti-Christ.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.