Disclaimer: Guest articles represent the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this site owner or any affiliated staff.
By David Martin
While complacent Catholics entertain the false security that the gates of hell can do no harm to the Church, the fact remains that the current papacy under Pope Francis has become a debacle of unprecedented proportions that has inflicted great harm on the Church.
Aside from his having abetted anti-life forces, betrayed the underground Church in China, sacked loyal priests, empowered homosexuals, rewarded abortionists, praised Luther, blessed adultery, and denied the miracle of the loaves, Francis more than once has professed heresy.
His latest dissent occurred on February 4, 2019, when he signed a joint statement with the head of Egypt’s al-Azhar Mosque, which states that “diversity of religions” is “willed by God.” 1 https://onepeterfive.com/schneider-christian-god-willed/ While the previous popes since John XXIII had committed some slight errors, such perfidy had never been expressed by them.
Francis vs. His Predecessors
The primary difference between Francis and his immediate predecessors is that the former were surrounded by wicked cardinals who were driving the radical agenda and who tried to coerce these popes into complying with it, which when they didn’t, were persecuted for their resistance. Whereas with the present pontificate, it is Francis who is driving the radical agenda, and he does this in harmonic accord with those who surround him, many of whom he has appointed. Unlike the previous popes, it is Francis who persecutes tradition-minded Catholics who resist change and who hold to the Old Mass and teachings, while it was Popes John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI who tried to bring back the Traditional Latin Mass.
There is even evidence showing that Pope John Paul I was murdered after it was discovered that he had plans to expose the Vatican Freemasons by name and to universally bring back the Latin Tridentine Mass. Note that his reign lasted only 33 days, which providentially alludes to the murderous cult of the Freemasons that operates in 33 degrees.
While we cannot allege that Francis is an initiated Freemason, we can state as fact that the Freemasons haven’t ceased from praising Francis since the day of his election. For instance, on March 13, 2013, the day of Francis’ election, the Virtual Grand Lodge of Italy, GLVDI, published a statement of Grand Master Luciano Nistri concerning the election of the new pope.
“A message that Freemasonry itself perceives a sharp break with the past and one which is turned now to listening to the poor, the marginalized and the weakest. To the new Pontiff we send our best wishes for his good work for years to come. Luciano Nistri, Grand Master GLVDI.” https://onepeterfive.com/freemasons-love-pope-francis/
The Emergence of true Shepherds
With the crisis intensifying with each passing day, it should encourage Catholics to see that there are faithful prelates like Cardinals Burke and Sarah and Archbishop Viganò who have come forward to defend the Church against Francis. What is needed is for a committee of bishops to respectfully present Francis with an ultimatum to either clarify or recant his erroneous statements or be deposed if he isn’t willing to voluntarily resign.
Theologians argue that such action requires that a pope first profess formal heresy, which is apparently why Francis deliberately avoids making formal professions of heresy, since he knows it could lynch him. Hence he often makes his avant-garde statements in an informal context to avoid censure, but does this not make him all the more worthy of rebuke? What is worse, a heretic or a deceiver?
One Bishop’s Opinion
Episcopal action is needed to correct the current Petrine debacle. And while many look to Bishop Athanasius Schneider for direction in this matter, his March 20 statement, “On the Matter of a Heretical Pope,” leaves little or no room for effective action, since it denies the Church’s centuries-old teaching that a pope can lose his papacy ipso facto through the profession of formal heresy and that the Church can declare him deposed on account of it. Bishop Schneider states:
“A pope cannot be deposed in whatsoever form and for whatever reason, not even for the reason of heresy.”
This doesn’t stand next to the teaching of St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church.
“Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” — St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, likewise states:
“A pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church.” — St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff
Here the saint makes it clear that a pope can be “punished by the Church” for having excommunicated himself ipso facto, yet Schneider disagrees, saying that “the loss of his office ipso facto because of heresy – is only a theological opinion, that does not fulfill the necessary theological categories of antiquity, universality, and consensus.”
So, were the saints and doctors of the Church wrong? Cardinal Raymond Burke made it clear in an interview with Catholic World Report (CWR) in December 2016 that if a pope were to “formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope.”
Burke was reiterating Church teaching, as expressed by famed canonist Franz Wernz in his Ius Canonicum: “In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact.”
Inquisition into Francis’ Election
A committee of bishops also needs to look into the matter of Francis’ election, since the 2013 conclave contained multi-violations against Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Unversi Dominici Gregis, which governs papal elections. The pope makes it clear in his Constitution that political vote canvassing on the part of cardinal electors renders the election “null and void.”
The mere fact that Cardinal Godfried Danneels confessed on video in September 2015 that he and several cardinals were part of the notorious “St. Gallen’s Mafia” that had conspired for the ouster of Benedict XVI and the election of Cardinal Bergoglio is every reason to consider that the 2013 election conferred no right on Francis.
Austen Ivereigh’s book, The Great Reformer, brings to light how Cardinal Murphy O’Connor along with several key cardinals had spearheaded an intense lobbying campaign, through which they garnered pledges from up to 30 cardinals to get Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio elected as pope.
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/the-great-reformer-francis-and-the-making-of-a-radical-pope/ This directly contravened John Paul II’s Constitution where it states:
“The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons.” (81)
Section 76 of the Constitution states:
“Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.” (76)
Aside from Cardinal Bergoglio’s collusion with St. Gallen’s Mafia before being elected pope, there is the question of his errant background as bishop and cardinal, which could have nullified his elevation to the papacy. Francis has a history of involvement with the Charismatic sect, and also Liberation Theology, which is Marxist-driven and loaded with heresy.
Consider this excerpt from the Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus, which was issued ex-cathedra on February 15, 1559, by His Holiness Paul IV.
“[By this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) “the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless.” (6:1)
Naturally, it would take an episcopal committee to depose Francis for past heresy, though such an action would not render him deposed but would simply make official what already is the case, namely, that Cardinal Bergoglio would have automatically lost his bishopric upon the profession of heresy, thus nullifying his election as pope.
This is not to mention the many heresies he has professed as pope, which, if done formally, would have excommunicated him ipso facto had his election been valid.
It only behooves the Church’s episcopal body to take a closer look at the 2013 papal election, since we may very well be witnessing the fulfillment of the prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi concerning a false shepherd.
“At the time of this tribulation, a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error…. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer.” (1226)
(Taken from Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, R. Washbourne Publishing House, 1882, pp. 248-250, with imprimatur by His Excellency William Bernard, Bishop of Birmingham)
1. At the General Audience of April 2, Francis appeared to offer a clarification by saying that God “permissively” wills other religions, but his explanation has generally been dismissed given the context in which his February 4 statement was made: ”The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom.” Francis obviously meant that diversity of “colour, sex, race and language are willed by God” in the ordained sense, which they are, so we can only infer that he meant “diversity of religions” the same way.