Print Friendly, PDF & Email

That explains a lot…

Francis: “I don’t go to the Doctor, I go to the Witch!”

[UPDATE 15-JAN-2018 21:38 UTC: Not funny! Turns out Bergoglio’s Doctor is a Taoist practicing Reiki]

Francis is currently aboard the “papal” airplane on his way to Chile and Peru, where he will spend a few days doing what he does best: talk, hug, and receive the adulation of the crowds. Speaking to the members of the press accompanying him on his trip, the “Pope” today delivered yet another contribution to our ever-growing “You can’t make this stuff up” stack of files.

Asked jokingly by Italian journalist Cristiana Caricato what the doctor prescribes him to be able to go on such long journeys, Francis gave an answer that is going to make headlines. Andrea Tornielli reports in the Italian edition of Vatican Insider:

Loud laughter accompanied the joke Francis made in answer to a question posed to him by the journalist Cristiana Caricato of TV2000, who, greeting him, asked him what the doctor gives him to be able to face such long journeys. “We want to know what the doctor gives you so that we can take it too, we who struggle just as you do” — a reference to Bergoglio’s stamina during these trips. “But I do not go to the doctor, I go to the witch!”, he said, laughing heartily.

(Andrea Tornielli, “Che medicine prendo? Vado dalla strega!”, Vatican Insider, Jan. 15, 2018; our translation.)

Yes, Francis really said this. No, this is not fake news. No, it’s not a mistranslation. And no, we don’t need 12 things to know and share so we understand what he really meant. Of course, Francis said this as a joke, that much is clear. However, even the jokes people tell can say a lot about them: “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Mt 12:34).

It has to be admitted that the joke is a bit odd. One could say all sorts of witty things about (not) going to the doctor’s, or where one gets one’s physical endurance (for a Catholic: prayer and grace perhaps?). It is rather uncanny and perhaps quite telling that Francis, out of all the things he could have said, came up with witch.

Was it perhaps a Freudian slip? Was he thinking of witch doctor perhaps, after a profound meditation on the life of the Voodoo admirer “Saint” John Paul II?

Or perhaps he remembered with fondness the visit at the Vatican of the representatives of indigenous peoples attending the United Nations’ Third Global Meeting of the Indigenous Peoples’ Forum for Investing in Rural People organized by the International Fund Agricultural Development (IFAD)? This took place on Feb. 15, 2017, and it is then that a Pagan witch seemingly worked some sorcery on him. Recall the images released by the Vatican and the related news stories:

The last time Francis had mentioned a doctor was in August of last year, when he revealed in an interview book that in the late 1970s, he had been in therapy with a Jewish psychoanalyst for six months.

Joke or no joke, what has been going on in the Vatican since “Saint” John XXIII usurped the papal chair in 1958 is not a laughing matter.

80 Responses to “Francis: “I don’t go to the Doctor, I go to the Witch!””

  1. Geremia16

    There’s not much difference between today’s physicians (“doctors”) and witches, especially since the mainstream medical industry thinks one can take organs from warm human bodies (brain+heart death ceased being their criterion for death ~½ century ago), pregnancy is a disease (to be prevented with a carcinogenic pill / φαρμακεία), and infanticide is an “operation”!

  2. Sede for Christ

    In isolation, this is actually really hilarious. At least to me. But given the whole context of Vatican II, global apostasy, ecumenism, “popes” acting like crazy people, I think this is telling. But still, this is funny.

    • BurningEagle

      I must lead a too sheltered life, but I don’t get the humor. The joke is no good if someone has to explain it. But, for a dunce like me, I would like someone to tell me what the joke is about.

      • Sede for Christ

        I think it’s kind of like transgenderism: it’s so outrageous and absurd, that it doesn’t actually boggle the mind. One just….well….laughs! Because any serious response to it is feeding into the intentional deception that this is not only to be taken serious, but is also a meaningful contribution to reality. Although, I have to say, I do have an outrageous sense of humor. My response to things like this is not the falsely pious, and very often hypocritical, response of some who try to “act” offended at this: they’re not offended by it, they just want to appear so. Anyway, I think this is my outlook: reality is a parody of the ideal. Just saying….

        • anna mack

          I actually think that the current obsession with transgenderism is the best example that we are heading towards the Apocalypse of any of the perversions of modern life. The evil of it is so staggering that I cannot for one moment think how anyone could laugh at it.

          • BurningEagle

            But humor consists in a surprise and in the absurd coming together simultaneously. I must admit that sometimes the shenanigans of the perverted made me chuckle, because of their utter insanity. Often, a story or event has elicited the expression, “You have to be kidding!” I have had to apologize to more pious folks than myself who have taken offense at my involuntary chuckles. In my own defense, it is a derisive laughter. However, any serious contemplation of the perversion causes utter disgust.

            I recently was asked about what a public customer service person should say or do when confronted with a man who now asks that instead of being called Bruce, he wants to be called Sheila, and is having all of his records changed to reflect those desires. My first reaction was to chuckle at the absurdity. However, when the reality sets-in that we are living in a hellish up-side-down world, the chuckle turns quickly to sadness and disgust.

            I can understand that Jorge’s utterance that he sees a witch, and not a doctor would elicit a chuckle for us who loathe the New Church, and are accustomed to deriding Novus Ordites for their idiocy, and heresy. But I do not see what was so funny to Jorge when he uttered it. I do not understand what joke he was trying to pull off.

          • Sede for Christ

            I would disagree that surprise is essential to humor, because that would imply knowing via the lead up to a joke you’ve already heard would render it stale, which is not always the case. Some things never get old. Although I totally agree with the first paragraph. That’s me 100%, except I don’t apologize because it was funny!

        • BurningEagle

          Therefore, for you, it is not really a joke, but it is something so strange that it elicits laughter in the hearer. That I can understand.
          But, I am wondering if he was somehow taking a jab at the peoples whom he was about to visit in S America. Or, was this utterance a conscious effort to cause a commotion in “traditionalists,” who are so black and white, and who actually believe all that the Church taught before Vatican II.
          What was the purpose of the remark and his laughter? Maybe I am too suspicious, but something doesn’t add up.

          • Sede for Christ

            I think any effort towards deciphering this is falling for the ruse: the purpose of modernism is to confuse, and as cause and effect, to destroy, because it allows people to do as they please with it, interpretatively speaking. I mean, if a traditionalist sede were to say this (say a friend) I would laugh as well. Because it would obviously be sarcasm (in that Catholics are forbidden to go to witches, etc.), and I’d probably congratulate him on a good joke. What Francis says off the cuff is intentional, it’s meant to keep people guessing, because it distracts from the issues that matter. So while some might laugh at it (as did Francis), it would be precisely because it contains two elements essential to comedy of any genre: criticism and truth. All things funny contain an element of criticism and truth, even if implicitly. Thus while it is true what he says (ecumenism), it also contains some criticism (an implicit jab at the prohibition of Catholics to go to witches, which being a pre-V2 catholic at one time, Francis would know). But it really proves nothing, it just makes the sede position more credible and adds salt to the wound.

        • Sancho Panza

          I’d see it in very much the same way. From one perspective Bergoglio is the chief clown of a troupe. Perhaps God allows us to see the absurd and funny side of it as a consolation? Without it, the NO spectacle would be very grim and intolerable.

          When Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973, Tom Lehrer declared that by this act, satire had been rendered obsolete. In the same way the NO is impossible to satirise, it’s all too ridiculous for that. Best thing to do is get your popcorn, settle down in your seat and watch the show.

  3. EIA

    Is the main evidence that John XXIII usurped the papacy in 1958 that the freemasons approved of him, that he didn’t oppose a Christian voting for a Marxist, that he had a modernist friend or well known acquaintance whose notes he borrowed? Which of these prove with certainty that he could not have been elected pope? Is there any other fact that is considered irrefutable proof?

    Is it possible that there be a worst alternative than a Marxist? Is it possible that freemasons may approve of a pope as an attempt to manipulate him psychologically? Is it possible that he may have kept a modernist acquaintance to convert him and to borrow his notes to show him where he was wrong; or that he was his friend since childhood and wanted to convert him?

    What dogmatic truth of the faith had he for certain contradicted by word or act before the election?

    • EIA

      Hmm. In answer to part of my own question, even though there could even be worse choices (i.e. someone who explicitly denies the divinity of Christ), voting for a Marxist contradicts the Catholic faith. Marxists are atheists, believe only in matter, persecute Christians, and attempt to indoctrinate them to become Marxists, as John XXIII had to know. If it can be proven that he said Christians could vote for one, I don’t see how he was not at least a material heretic when supposedly elected in 1958. (This also appears to impliy that Christians would have to be willing to suffer martyrdom before voting for an avowed Marxist. In a Marxist state that allows only a vote for a Marxist that would mean all Christians might be killed if they are not allowed a blank vote.)

      But precisely what dogma did he contradict if he said one could vote for a Marxist? And what other dogmas did he – certainly – contradict with other words or acts, or, with certainty by implication? I’m trying to come to a fair and accurate assessment of this man’s claim to the papacy.

      • BurningEagle

        He was a modernist from his seminary days. Even if he had become pope, his Pacem in Terris was certainly heretical, as were his machinations regarding the schemas for Vatican II.

      • BurningEagle

        Do Catholic popes have these qualities?:
        Modernism
        Continued praise and admiration for his friend, the defrocked and
        excommunicated, un-penitent modernist Ernesto Bonaiuti
        Gluttony
        Worldliness
        Freemasonry
        Communism
        Preaching: The guiltlessness of Jews
        Ecumenism
        Reverence for schismatics
        Liberalism or “religious freedom” and freedom of conscience
        Respect for Protestants
        Liberation Theology
        The convoking of the 2nd Vat. Council
        Being the “seat warmer” for Paul VI, the homo, whom he called the “first Fruit of our pontificate,” and the term “fruit” is not insignificant
        Sacrilegious bugging of a confessional (Padre Pio)
        Hatred of the defense of the Catholic Faith, and hatred of the Holy Office
        The reversal of Beatifications (e.g. Bl. Andrea da Rinn of Tyrol)
        De-canonizing of St Philomena, who was canonized by Gregory XVI

        That does not sound like a Catholic to me, especially a “sainted” Catholic.

      • 2c3n1 .

        EIA, He denied the dogma that error has no rights. As for being a material heretic…

        “It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ’s Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the “Catholic Church”? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.” (Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ’s Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242.)

        Canonist Rev. Augustine taught that material heretics are baptized persons in non-Catholic sects.

        If John XXIII were a mere material heretic in 1958, he still couldn’t be pope since the more common opinion is that such persons are not members of the Church. There can’t be a reasonable doubt about whether a pope is a heretic at all.

        • EIA

          I agree that he professed the heresy of religious liberty, and that is sufficient, but that came after he was supposedly elected.

          With regard to a material heresy it’s a bit fuzzy. By definition he wouldn’t even know, and unless it became manifest, perhaps no one else would know either. It would seem that if a material heretic could be pope the Church would have defected. But how would anyone know unless it was manifest?

      • Pascendi

        In Pacem In Terris he directly contradicted the condemnation of religious liberty by Pope Pius IX. The 1864 decree isn’t considered to have been a dogmatic proclamation but it is nevertheless irreformable. So while John XXIII may not have separated himself from the Church with Pacem, it does prove that he could not have held the papacy at the time he issued it.
        In fact he was well aware of the contradiction. Before Pacem was published the theologian of the Holy Office told him that it contradicted the decree by Pius IX. “Good Pope” John’s reply was “I won’t complain about a few spots as long as the rest of it shines.”

        • EIA

          I quickly reread Pacem in Terris. Paragraph 14 is heretical in that it professses a right to practice any religion. Paragraph 57 builds on this heresy by claiming the state should aim at the spiritual prosperity of its subjects. Furthermore, he argues by implication that Peace on Earth can come without humans converting to Jesus Christ and His Church.

          But this is after 1958. What about before?

          • Pascendi

            I don’t remember anything specifically from before 1958. I know he was called into the Holy Office in 1910 to answer the accusation that he was using books to teach theology courses that were banned by the Church. He denied it, but afterwards the Cardinal Inquisitor wrote a note in his file “Suspect of heresy.”

          • BurningEagle

            It is widely believed that he lied to the Holy Office about not using Duchesne.

          • EIA

            Reading the sources that Burning Eagle has referenced makes me ask what those “electing” him knew about his views. That 1958 conclave is quite the mystery.

          • BurningEagle

            The cardinals were infected. Remember, there was a reaction against St. Pius X’s program. That is why Benedict XV was elected. The program of St. Pius X effectively ended with St. Pius X’s death. “Humanly speaking the Church is finished,” is what I have been informed Cardinal de Lai said at the election of Benedict XV. Even Benedict XV had to protest to the college of Cardinals that he was not a modernist. The war was over with the modernists. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief. (But the modernists continued their work.)
            Most of the Cardinals were sympathetic to Modernists and their views. Most of them did not have the furious hatred for Modernism that St. Pius X had.
            Keep in mind that the bishops of Vatican II came from somewhere. They were the progeny of weak popes since the death of St. Pius X, and most especially they were due to Pius XII’s overly diplomatic, and weak papacy.

          • BurningEagle

            Many believe that another was elected at that conclave. Some believe that there were two others elected before John XXIII was elected.
            There were mysterious deaths and accidents before the conclave with regard to some of the cardinals.
            White smoke bellowed from the chimney for 5 minutes (twice as long when compared to the election of Pius XII). Yet they say a “mistake” occurred and no pope was elected. 2 days later Roncalli was announced to be the new pope.
            Roncalli acted switftly once he was announced as the new “pope.” He made all cardinals return and swear their loyalty to him, and swear their secrecy regarding the conclave, under the threat of excommunication.

          • EIA

            The tension at the recent conclaves is perhaps evident by the number of days it took to elect someone: just 5 days to elect Pius IX, 15 for Pius X, 24 for Benedict XV, 19 for Pius XI, 20 for Pius XII ,19 for John XXIII, 18 for Paul VI.

            I’m aware of the alleged mistake with the smoke, the possibility of Siri having been elected, the FBI consultant’s allegations. It’s not impossible that even though Cardinal Siri submitted to John XXIII and apparently conformed to the post-Vatican II order, that he was somehow under duress. One can only suspect. I suspect something happened either before or during the conclave. Who could doubt that others would want (and still want) to control Catholics and the Catholic Church? It’s right out of Scripture (“The gates of hell will not prevail..”.Matthew 16:18).

          • BurningEagle

            I just perused some of the bits and pieces I have of Fr. Ricossa’s work on Roncalli. I think you should try to get it. Roncalli was an ecumenist, a lover of novelty, and a religious libertarian long before he became “pope.”

          • BurningEagle

            To someone who wished to convert to Catholicism from orthodox schism, Bishop Roncalli counciled: “My son don’t be hasty. Reflect. You will always have time to convert. We didn’t come to Bulgaria to proselytise.” Fr. Ricosa cites Tanzella, Padre Paolo S.C.J., Papa Giovanni (Andria: Ed. Dehoniane 1973), pp. 114 and 108.

            Roncalli spent money on both Catholic and Orthodox churches devastated by an earthquake. “All are houses of God. The orthodox are our brothers.”

          • BurningEagle

            He had the word “Filioque” removed (erased) from the front of the building of the Apostolic Delegation in Bulgaria.

            In France: “Often I find myself more comfortable with an atheist or a Communist than with certain fanatical Catholics.”

            Then there was the time he told a high ranking Mason to remain a mason.

            There are loads of things that Fr. Ricossa has collected from various sources, which show that Roncalli was a heretic before his so-called election.

          • BurningEagle

            Fr. Francesco Ricossa of Mater Boni Consilii Institute wrote extensively on John XXIII. You ought to get his writings. I have a few bits and pieces. But I need to get all of his writings too.

          • BurningEagle

            It will take some digging on your part. Take a look at page 42 of this book:
            https://books.google.com/books?id=aLJiAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=Louis+Duchesne+and+Roncalli&source=bl&ots=W1EGaFtIOB&sig=TFAK85hho0h_msj–qr4VplSgW4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw6oD24dzYAhVOG6wKHSTHAV0Q6AEIRzAJ#v=onepage&q=Louis%20Duchesne%20and%20Roncalli&f=false
            The book was written in such a way as to shed a good light on Roncalli. Further on, it says he despised freemasonic liberalism, but we know that is a lie from his actions as “pope.” Remember, under Pius X, these people had to go underground and be very stealthy. Therefore they had to say and do things under the guise of being good Catholics. That is precisely why the Sodalitium Pianum was needed.

          • EIA

            Thanks very much for providing your fruitful research. It suggests to me that he was most likely a material heretic before the 1958 election. According to the footnote, his diaries are the source, so it’s probably accurate. Because of the religious liberty/indifferentism position in Pacem In Terris I regard him to be definitely a heretic at least at that point, and therefore not pope.

            What’s also remarkable to me is that I had read that Pacem In Terris a few years ago and didn’t even notice. I had simply assumed he was a valid pope so there was no need to question, only to imbibe. At the time, I was certain that Christ and His Church was the only way to salvation but had swallowed ecumenism uncritically. I think this was because I had been softened by years of heretical involvement in other religions. When I confessed this as a sin to a “Traditional” Catholic priest in communion with Benedict XVI, he said that we’d have to wait and see how God sees that. I did not realize at the time that Benedict XVI was a heretic too. I say it in this forum because it may help others see how heresy attacks the Church.

          • 2c3n1 .

            EIA, How could John XXIII be considered a material heretic since a material heretic is one who denies a dogma ignorantly and innocently?

          • EIA

            Do you mean before or after the 1958 conclave? He was a formal heretic after 1958 because of what he wrote in Pacem in Terris, as I had already responded to Pascendi and you. Before 1958, there are his diaries which I haven’t read, and what others say or wrote about him. I would think all this needs to be verified. If it were verified (e.g. in his diaries and by more than one reliable independent source) that he believed in the right of others to any other religion, then I would agree he was a formal heretic. Do you believe he was a formal heretic before 1958? On what basis?

          • 2c3n1 .

            EIA, You said, ” It suggests to me that he was most likely a material heretic before the 1958 election.” I’m asking how is that possible since a material heretic is one who denies a dogma ignorantly and innocently.

          • EIA

            What’s your proof that before the 1958 conclave he was deliberately denying a dogma of the faith and was obstinately unwilling to submit to what the Church taught?

            Catholic Encyclopedia: “Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church’s decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions.”

          • 2c3n1 .

            EIA, What’s your proof that before the 1958 conclave he was NOT deliberately denying a dogma of the faith and was obstinately unwilling to submit to what the Church taught?

            The Church teaches that obstinacy is presumed. You’re guilty till proven innocent. Of course, popes and cardinals don’t fall under the penal code, but the principle is the same.

            See Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”

            “The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.” (Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. Rev., The Delict of Heresy, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Univ. of America, 1932, p. 35. (Cf. Canon 2200.2)

            Again, popes and cardinals don’t fall under the penal code, but the principle applies for the same reason. Therefore, I don’t need the proof he was obstinate, you need the proof that’s he wasn’t.

          • EIA

            2c3n1, If John XXIII was a formal heretic prior to the 1958 conclave, why wasn’t he excommunicated?

          • 2c3n1 .

            EIA, Excommunication is a penalty. Cardinals are immune from penal laws, unless they are expressly mentioned as subject to them such as can. 2397 concerning the oath of secrecy of conclaves. However, public heresy by it’s nature severs one from the Body of the Church, as solemnly taught by Pope Pius XII. Canonists teach that public heresy has three degrees: almost occult, manifest, and notorious. Obviously, Roncalli’s heresy was not recognized by Pope Pius XII or else he would have done something. That doesn’t mean Roncalli wasn’t a public heretic just because he wasn’t known to be one by the pope. And only the pope could have done something about it. It’s that simple.

            That being said, you’ve already admitted that Roncalli was a heretic before 1958, which necessarily means that he MUST be considered a formal heretic since there’s no evidence he was ignorantly and innocently rejecting a dogma, which was my point in the question I asked you.

            Roncalli was no dummy. He was a Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University and fired for teaching the theories of Rudolf Steiner. He was put on Vatican record for suspicion of modernism.

          • EIA

            2c3n1, What do you claim was Roncalli’s heresy prior to 1958? You wrote: “Obviously, Roncalli’s heresy was not recognized by Pope Pius XII or else he would have done something.”

          • BurningEagle

            In my opinion, Pius XII’s papacy was a disaster for the church. He was a Catholic, and never taught error, but his papacy was a disaster for the Church, as was the papacies of Benedict XV and Pius XI.
            Pius XII should have demoted or incarcerated Montini. But instead, he was promoted to Archbishop of Milan. Therefore, I doubt Pius XII would have “done something” about Roncalli. – Just my opinion.

          • 2c3n1 .

            BurningEagle If, for the sake of the argument, Pope Pius XII knew Roncalli was a heretic but kept in him, or moved him, promoted him, etc. like the Vat2 popes did with their pedophiles, wouldn’t Pope Pius XII be guilty of heresy by facilitating heresy since falling into external heresy consists in dictis vel factis — not only in words, but also in signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds.

          • BurningEagle

            I am not competent to answer with any authoritative references. But Pius XII promoted Montini, who was a heretic. Pius XII promoted Roncalli. Pius XI promoted Roncalli. Benedict XV promoted Roncalli. I would presume that not excommunicating a heretic, or in some way not taking a hard line does not make one a heretic. We have had hard line popes and soft line popes. All have been orthodox, but some were disasters with regard to those whom they promoted. Even St. Pius X promoted della Chiesa (the Future Benedict XV) who although orthodox, was very much a sympathizer of the modernists.
            The soft line popes never taught error or heresy to the Church. That cannot be said for Roncalli through Jorge. They continually teach error and heresy and therefore are not popes.
            I realize you are trying to ascertain whether Roncalli was heretical before he was elected. After reading the fragments I have from Fr. Ricossa’s work, I am convinced that he was. However, even if he had been validly elected, and even if he were pope for a short time, he quickly lost it.
            One of his modernist and ecumenical friends, Dom Lambert Beauduin said at the death of Pius XII, “If they elect Roncalli, all will be saved; he would be capable of convoking a council, and consecrating ecumenism.”
            (So much for the Holy Ghost inspiring Roncalli to convoke the council.)
            Roncalli always referred to his excommunicated and de-frocked friend Ernesto Buonaiuti as Don Ernesto, and always spoke positively about him, and NEVER with any condemnation.

          • 2c3n1 .

            BurningEagle I believe Roncalli was a heretic before the 1958 election but I don’t think Pope Pius XII knew it. His promotions came without the popes realizing they were promoting a heretic. If the popes knew Roncalli was a heretic AND THEN promoted him anyway, that’s huge! That’s almost as bad as teaching heresy yourself. It would be like a Don hiring a hitman to do the killing for him, or perhaps a better analogy, a Vat2 pope promoting a known pedophile.

          • BurningEagle

            I really do not know what went on in the heads of the post Pius X popes. But they were disasters. Pope Leo XIII’s pontificate was also disasterous with regard to the politics of the men promoted. Perhaps none of them knew what they should have known.

          • BurningEagle

            However, there were files on these men in the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Roncalli was suspect of Modernism since the days of Pius X, if I recall. Yet these men were continually promoted. Montini was always regarded as a flaming liberal. Again, I do not know the answer to your question. But I suspect the neglect to punish the liberals are personal sins of these popes, and the All Just Judge has already passed judgement on them for the damage they did. We ought to do penance and pray for the deceased popes such as Leo XIII, Benedict VX, Pius XI and Pius XII.
            Modernists and liberals were slippery, sneaky folks back then, especially due to the backlash that the Pius X papacy (and its Sodalitium Pianum) occasioned. Perhaps Roncalli and Montini were not viewed as heretics per se, but they should not have been promoted regardless.
            Rampolla would have been pope instead of Pius X, if Emporer Franz Joseph did not intervene. If that had happened, we would have had the Vatican II council in the late 1940’s or early 1950’s. But, the Providence of the Almighty gave us St. Pius X, and then later, against all odds, and against the wishes of many bishops and cardinals, Pius XII canonized him. Nevertheless, Vatican II came because of the disease that was in the veins of hierarchy.
            What we needed at the death of St. Pius X was another pope of like mind. What we got was della Chiesa (Pope Benedict XV), the right hand man of Rampolla. It was down hill from there.

          • JohnnyVoxx

            Pope Pius XI wasn’t bad, except that he didn’t consecrate Russia.

          • BurningEagle

            Pope Pius XI promoted to positions of prominence the modernists Roncalli and Montini. He, too, did not take up the fight against the modernists.

            In my opinion, Pope Pius XI was “bad” in the sense that the most evil and insidious enemies of Catholicism were allowed to flourish under his reign. That also holds true for Pope Pius XII and Pope Benedict XV, and also for Pope Leo XIII.

            There were other regrettable things during Pius XI’s reign (e.g. the dialog Mass), which although were not wrong per se, they certainly were not the best course of action, and, per accidens, strengthened the positions of the modernists.

            One has to be precise with one’s language today. The S?PX/R&R crowd like to use the terms “bad” popes and “good” popes. ALL the popes did not teach error or heresy. NONE of them legislated sinful things. They were men with (many) flaws. Few were saints.

            The current non-popes or usurpers are not popes at all. Therefore Roncalli through Jorge are not “bad” popes. They have taught error and heresy. They have legislated sinful things.

            If one wants to determine if a pope was bad or good, one should see what the effects of his reign were. If the pope in question strengthened the Church, and caused more piety and more fidelity, and suppressed error and heresy; that pope could be called “good,” (at least in my opinion). But if a certain pope’s reign allowed the enemies of the faith to go unchecked, or if the rights of the church were not upheld, or the faith and piety of the church in general decreased, I would think one would call such a pope “bad.”

            None of this has to do with orthodoxy.

            The church has had some disastrous popes in the past. Usually the more soft-line popes were the bad ones, and the hard-line were the good ones.

            But what has occurred since October of 1958, has been a coup d’etat orchestrated by the Church’s enemies. It is the great apostasy.

          • 2c3n1 .

            EIA, You made the claim that “he was most likely a material heretic before the 1958 election.” What do you claim was Roncalli’s heresy for you to make that statement?

          • EIA

            False ecumenism. But considering what happened after the 1958 conclave, I think religious indifferentism. A statement he allegedly made in Turkey, and his allegedly close relationship with Montini also suggest that. Pope Pius XII should have known this. But Pope Pius XII and his predecessors didn’t make the jump, which raises questions. One is, what did and didn’t they know? But where would this end?

          • 2c3n1 .

            EIA, I think it’s several things, but one of the big ones is his signs, deeds, and omission of deeds. His associations with communists and masons are major strikes against him. The fact that he’s on record attending the Lodge in civilian clothes may be enough.

            As far as what Pope Pius XII knew and didn’t know, if there was evidence that he knew, I don’t know how he could be considered pope, but the evidence is not there. He did know that it was all about to go down because it’s reported that he said, “After me, the deluge.”

          • EIA

            2c3n1, Catholics need to figure out what was done prior to the 1958 conclave that caused all that has come after. What happened such that, despite warnings, and even though the popes prior to Vatican II didn’t teach error, enemies of Christ took the wheel? What is the truth? When told by Our Lord that one of them was unclean, the apostles began asking: “Is it I, Lord?” Well, now He’s been betrayed within His Church.

            I am certain of the divinity of Christ and of the holiness of the Church which canonized Saint Ignatius of Loyola in 1622.

          • 2c3n1 .

            EIA, Agreed, except that I wouldn’t say “within His Church.” Roncalli was outside of it but appeared within.

          • EIA

            2c3n1, But the popes treated Roncalli as a Catholic. What evidence didn’t they have about his life – before the 1958 conclave – that might have changed that? And how is it known that they didn’t have such evidence?

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            Just a quick reminder here: We can know an effect without knowing or understanding the cause (i.e. we can know THAT someone wasn’t Pope without knowing exactly WHY not), and public heresy isn’t the only thing that can prevent someone from becoming Pope. I’m not going to elaborate here because this is not the place for endless discussion.

          • EIA

            N.O.W.- We’re not discussing whether Roncalli was pope but whether he was a Catholic prior to the 1958 conclave.

        • BurningEagle

          Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors have all the attributes of an infallible pronouncement. Pius IX, by his Apostolic Authority commanded that the universal Church hold as condemned all the errors which he mentioned in the encyclical, an enumerated in the Syllabus. His language was clear, and was expressed in an irreformable way.

          • Pascendi

            Yes, infallible and irreformable. Thus Roncalli could not have been a true Pope when he issued Pacem because the Holy Ghost would prevent a true Pope from contradicting an irreformable decree.

      • EIA

        I did that and will have to more of it. But just because someone calls someone a modernist, an anti-Christ or a heretic, doesn’t make him one. I’m looking for specific statements he (not others) wrote or made or acts he performed. For example, Paul VI prayed for Muslim martyrs of the faith. That one did it for me,

        • Patrick O'Brien

          I did not know that about Paul VI — thank you for the sordid detail. And here is the speech in which he did praise Muslim “martyrs.” All religions are just swell and dandy!

          JOURNEY TO UGANDA
          ADDRESS OF PAUL VI TO THE DIGNITARIES
          AND REPRESENTATIVES OF ISLAM
          Friday, 1 August 1969

          Dignitaries and Representatives of Islam,
          How can we express Our deep satisfaction in meeting you, and Our gratitude to you, for granting Our lively desire to greet, in your persons, the great Moslem communities spread throughout Africa? You thus enable Us to manifest here Our high respect for the faith you profess, and Our hope that what we hold in common may serve to unite Christians and Moslems ever more closely, in true brotherhood.
          It gives Us pleasure to salute also the Representatives of the Indian and Pakistani communities, which have found, in this country, a fraternal welcome.
          In our prayers, We always remember the Peoples of Africa, for the common belief in the Almighty professed by millions of them must call down upon this Continent the graces of His Providence and Love, most of all, peace and unity among all its sons, We feel sure that, as Representatives of Islam, you join in Our prayer to the Almighty, that He grant all African believers that desire for pardon and reconciliation so often commended in the Gospels and in the Koran.
          Our pilgrimage to these holy places is not for purposes of prestige or power. It is a humble and ardent prayer for peace, through the intercession of the glorious Protectors of Africa, who gave up their lives for love and for their belief. In recalling the Catholic and Anglican Martyrs, We gladly recall also those confessors of the Moslem faith who were the first to suffer death, in the year eighteen hundred and forty-eight, for refusing to transgress the precepts of their religion.
          May the shining sun of peace and brotherly love rise over this land, bathed with their blood by generous sons of the Catholic, Christian and Moslem communities of Uganda, to illuminate all of Africa! And may this, Our meeting with you, respected Representatives of Islam, be the symbol of, and first step towards, that unity for which God calls us all to strive for His greater glory, for the happiness of this blessed Continent!

        • James Brown

          I have a copy of The Raccolta published by Benziger 1944. It was
          previously owned by a Monsignor. In 253, An Act Of Dedication Of The Human Race, he made a note in which part of that prayer was abrogated by Pope John XIII in Acta Apso (Apostolicae) Sedis vol 51, p 595-96 on July 18,1959. The abrogated part of the prayer reads;

          “Be Thou King Of all those who even now sit in the shadow of idolatry or Islam, and refuse not Thou to bring them into the light of Thy kingdom. Look, finally, with eyes of pity upon the children of that race, which was for so long a time Thy chosen people; and let Thy Blood, which was once invoked upon them in vengeance, now descend upon them also in a cleansing flood of redemption and eternal life.”

          Why the need to abrogate this part of the prayer and so soon into his “papacy”. Simple. He was always a modernist. There are hundreds of prayers in The Raccolta. Why would anyone feel these lines needed to be removed?

  4. Lee

    What’s interesting is that Novus ordo “Catholics” and R &R “Catholics” are the ones mesmerized by his spells and yet they think sedevacantist are lost. Francis will joke all he wants because everybody who follows him is joke for thinking he’s pope.

  5. BurningEagle

    Maybe the guy is just trying to antagonize “traditionalists” with another stupid utterance. I have no clue what is so humorous about it. And I cannot understand why he would say that.

    • anna mack

      I just think it’s that he can’t resist any – literally *any* – opportunity to ridicule and insult the Catholic Church and the Papacy. He is a Satanist.

  6. CumExApostolatus

    You remind me of a man.
    What man?
    The man with the power.
    What power?
    The power of hoodo.
    Hoodo?
    Yoodo.
    Do what?
    Remind me of a man…

  7. Sonia

    No joke. Bergoglio would rather have Wojtyla’s old voodoo colonic to pep him up for the next round of Mohammed-bergog against Christ.

    Poor Novus Ordites. If only they were orphans. (Their father is satan)

Leave a Reply

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