BREAKING: Pope takes major step toward formal heresy - Louie Verrecchio

[Michael]

BREAKING: Pope takes major step toward formal heresy - Louie Verrec...

[Cristera]

Well said Adrienne

[Dawn Marie]

FROM FATHER PAUL KRAMER:

(make of it what you will... but the part that interests me most is that Francis said he will destroy Fatima.  The only one who can be behind such a motive would be satan.  Nothing from God would want to destroy Fatima)

QUOTE FR. KRAMER MAY 29th 2015-"Clarification regarding reports on Mr. Putin's visit to the Vatican in Nov. 2013

In my recent talks, some of the details in my statements made on Mr. Putin's visit with Bergoglio have been found to be erroneous. My immediate source did not give me false information, but he miscommunicated in his attempt to report the facts to me. I have followed up and verified what did transpire with other sources.There was no GRU officer present with Putin during his visit with "Francis". The man does not exist. It was someone else from the private sector who accompanied Mr. Putin on his private audience with the "pope". Also, the cardinal's comment, "We will destroy Fatima", was a separate incident and did not take place during Putin's visit, nor was it made in his presence. However, the comment was made. I heard it from the original source.
In his visit with "Pope" Francis", Mr. Putin did bring up the topic of the consecration of Russia with Bergoglio, but Jorge did not want to discuss the matter. Mr. Putin is sincere in his Orthodox faith, and is not a Communist masquerading as a Christian as so many in Western media and institutions claim. Many Catholics have been brainwashed into believing that Putin is a hard core Stalinist who is attempting to expand the new USSR by means of aggression. It is the West that is the aggressor. Mr. Putin seeks the good of Russia and of the other nations of the world as well. He is not the one who will cause World War III, but rather the Western leaders, whose hands are already dripping with blood who are precipitating the world into the abyss of world war and the collapse of civilization about which Pope Benedict warned in his discourse of 20 Dec 2010." end quote

[Alley]

Which reiterates that Francis is Not a true pope but an Anti Pope.  JMHO

[David Kaftal]

Isn't that the essence of sedevacantism in a nutshell? That the putative pope is in fact not a true pope, and that therefore the Seat of Peter is empty?

Alley said:

Which reiterates that Francis is Not a true pope but an Anti Pope.  JMHO

[Dawn Marie]

Not really because many believe that Benedict is still the pope while Francis is a false pope.

http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/newsviews031315.pdf

[Alley]

Yes that is what I believe. Besides the fact that Pope Francis is trying to kill

our Holy Catholic Faith. Every time he opens his mouth he says something

else contrary to what the Holy Catholic Church has Always taught.

[David Kaftal]

Louie Verrechio's whole demeanor seems to me far too cocky and superior to pass for holy. Now, that may just be a personality thing, something about him that rubs me the wrong way, but speaking from an intellectual perspective, I have to protest his inflammatory, intellectually dishonest sensationalism.

Francis said, "I feel like saying something that may sound controversial, or even heretical, perhaps."

Verrechio said, "Did you get that? Pope Francis made it clear that he knows very well that his statement suggesting that we are one in Christian unity with the heretics, in spite of our differences, is heretical. Heretical — that's his word."

The situation is grave enough with this sort of distortion. People, please be very careful, and don't be swayed by emotional arguments that lack merit. 

And for the record, formal heresy is not determined as the result of a private conversation, which may or may not have even occurred, between a candidate for formal heresy and someone ecclesiastically his inferior. Formal heresy requires pertinacity, which is a refusal to abandon a doctrine contrary to a defined point of faith after being admonished to do so by an ecclesiastical superior. This is one of the reasons that it is so difficult if not impossible to nail down formal heresy in a sitting pope — he has no ecclesiastical superior.

[Michael]

I think that Louie Verrecchio is sounding an alarm to try and awaken those that are asleep to the ongoing disaster that is occurring in the pontificate.  I think it is personality.  The Pope is playing a a game of lulling people to his position.  It is hard to argue against the "we are all in this together argument."  I think that by looking at the picture of the Pope appointing a notorious Father Radcliffe to a position of trust and power, a secret meeting outlining the goals of the coming synod in October, I think I see where Mr. Verrecchio is coming from.  The Pope was giving a private conversation but a talk to an assembled group of protestants.  The problem lies in that most Catholics are so dumbed down in their catechesis that they believe everything that comes out of the Pope's mouth has a binding effect on them.  If you would ask them to define "ex cathedra", they would look at you dumbfounded.  I know here where I live it is always a response of "well, the Pope says so..."

I agree it takes pertinacity to declare someone a formal heretic, and this is almost impossible with a sitting pope.  I also believe that Mr. Verrecchio is trying to wake people up to an emerging pattern of pertinacity and the profound effects that it can have on the Church and its faithful.

The study of the Conciliar Church by Bishop Tissier also serves as an excellent resource to really discern the problems of the modernists and the leadership in Rome.         

[David Kaftal]

I have no doubt that Louis Verrechio is trying to sound an alarm, and I don't deny that the situation is truly alarming. What I object to is his sloppy, perhaps even intellectually dishonest, argumentation. What Francis is doing is unquestionably more damaging that what Verrechio is doing, BUT I disagree strongly with the notion that sloppy thinking is permissible as long as it's in the service of something we can all agree upon. THAT is very problematic. I don't think I'm quibbling.

[David Kaftal]

Good point. I actually lean in that direction myself. Sorry Alley!

Dawn Marie said:

Not really because many believe that Benedict is still the pope while Francis is a false pope.

http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/newsviews031315.pdf

[David Kaftal]

I wouldn't dream of denying that Francis has made numerous heretical statements. He is an ambulatory disaster!

[Michael]

I found this  on the "From Rome" blog; it supports the uncanoical election of Pope Francis:

Rome, March 13, 2015:  Two years ago, this afternoon, the College of Cardinals elected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Roman Pontiff.

A Failure in Law

I will omit, here, a long repetition of that which I have blogged about for 3 1/2 months, namely, that there are very grave and probative reasons and facts regarding the validity of that election, and this for 3 reasons:

1. Cardinal Bergoglio was elected on the 5th ballot in the afternoon, in violation of the Papal Law, Universi Dominici Gregis, which allows only 4 ballots per day.  The facts were the subject of Antontio Socci’s bestselling book, Non è Francesco, and the crucial arguments were discussed here.  The facts have never been denied, the reasonings in law for the validity, require a rewriting of 2 sections of the papal law; the reasonings against the validity require no change in the law. That makes the argument against the validity more probable both in law and in testimony.
2. Cardinal Bergoglio’s candidacy was promoted by a violation of UGD 81, which forbids any and all agreements among Cardinal electors as to whom they are going to vote for, such as any campaigning or promises of votes which is consequent upon canvassing for votes.  The facts were presented by various sources, but summarized and brought to clear relief by Dr. Austen Ivereigh, in his book, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, specifically in chapter 9 of the same, where he names the conspirators, “Team Bergoglio”.  The blog you are reading, From Rome, has made it the point to cover this story from the beginning; you can read all about it in our Chronology of Reports on “Team Bergoglio”.  The consequences of the violation are the invalidation of the election, and this in virtue of the Code of Canon law.  See the discussion here. Note that today Vatican Radio reports that Pope has himself confirmed that he was elected by a 2/3 majority (here), which puts validity in gravest doubt.
3. Cardinal Bergoglio before his nomination to Cardinal, and after, was notorious for giving communion to those in public sin and for instructing others to do the same.  The allegations are confirmed by Sandro Magister. The consequence is that in virtue of the Papal Law, Cum ex apostolatus officio, of Pope Paul IV, he could not validly be elected Roman Pontiff.  This argument is explained in the petition to the College of Cardinals. The validity in law of the Papal Law of Paul IV, has been discussed here and here.

A Failure in Prudence

But, moreso, the election of Cardinal Bergoglio by the College was a supreme failure of human prudence.  Because, it is not prudent to elect quickly and without reflection someone who merely claims to be in favor of solving problems.  One must look to his life and deeds, and that requires reflection.  It is obvious to everyone in the Church, that if you spoke with Jorge Mario Bergoglio for 15 minutes, you could easily detect that he is not suitable for the office — that is, if you have any supernatural prudence at all, a prudence founded on an immaculate faith and resolute virtue.

I pity the man whom the Church’s Cardinals and Bishops regard as the Pope: it was a horrible sin against fraternal charity to promote to the office of Pope, a man whose entire career, from all accounts, has been obsessed with having and holding on to power.  If any of the Cardinals had any question, in conclave, they could have certainly spoken to Cardinal Sandri, who was well acquainted with Cardinal Bergoglio’s failings.

I really do not see how the College of Cardinals was so possessed to elect such a man.  But I feared that they had lost all sense, when during the general congregations for the Conclave, on March 7, the Cardinal Dean read out a message of condolence for the death of the dictator of Venezuela.*

It seems, from the continued silence of the College to so many scandals which have occurred on account of their choice, that that sense, after March 13, 2013, has not yet returned.

________________________

* Disturbing, too, was the fact that the first twitter user to recognize the newly elected Cardinal by face, that afternoon, was a male-prostitute.

The election of Cardinal Bergoglio was a supreme failure of the Col...

David Kaftal said:

Good point. I actually lean in that direction myself. Sorry Alley!

Dawn Marie said:

Not really because many believe that Benedict is still the pope while Francis is a false pope.

http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/newsviews031315.pdf