jump to navigation

Epochal History: Faithful Deliver Charge of Heresy against Francis, Bishop of Rome September 25, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, cultural marxism, different religion, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, manhood, priests, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, true leadership, Virtue.
trackback

I’m sure all readers are already well aware of the unprecedented submittal to Pope Francis of a letter of Filial Correction against heresy from several dozen people, clerical and lay, this past weekend.  I say the letter is unprecedented, because while, once, in the long history of the Church, a living pope has been formally corrected by his subordinates on a matter related to faith or morals, that was on one, very specific, and rather detailed, matter.  The correction of John XXII (and thus it was 645 years before that name was taken by a sovereign pontiff again, and isn’t THAT revealing) had to deal with whether the saints in Heaven partake of the Beatific Vision at death, or only at the last judgment (John XXII erroneously believed the latter).  This was not heavy, vital to the every day life of the Church kind of stuff.

No, the matter with Francis is entirely different.  He is accused of promoting errors which, if allowed to stand and metastasize as they inevitably must, will, with shocking speed, result in the destruction of the entire moral edifice of the Faith. Francis intends a revolution so radical that, as his closest allies contend, no roll back will be possible. He intends to change how the Church believes and practices, root and branch.  That some people still do not see this, still refuse to see this, shows just how deeply the papalotry has become.

Several specific errors were challenged in the letter called Correctio Filialis.  I will not go into those in detail, but they all revolve around the entirely novel, and erroneous, contentions put forward in Amoris Laetitia that people in the manifest state of mortal sin through adultery (aka attempted bigamy) may receive the Blessed Sacrament as if they were in the state of grace.  That this destructive proposition is Francis’ intent with the document is amply supported by his direct intervention with two episcopal conferences -those of Argentina and Malta – directing them, when asked whether to implement Amoris Laetitia (AL) in line with the constant belief and practice of the Faith – that is, to continue denying the Blessed Sacrament to public adulterers – or to allow these adulterers to receive, as they read AL to mean, Francis both times answered that the adulterers were to be allowed to receive.  Thus Henry VIII becomes a “saint” in the new church of Francis?

The authors of the correction further note that Francis, in AL and in many other regards, appears to operate under the influence of two condemned heresies – modernism and Lutheranism.  This is, from all the available evidence, an extremely difficult accusation for Francis to disprove, as are the detailed points of accusation regarding AL.

So, Francis has chosen to respond as he usually does to those questioning his authority and his doctrinal integrity, with personal silence (for over a month since the letter was first delivered) and an orchestrated campaign of character assassination by his allies, within and without the Church, against his “enemies” (enemies who are striving with great might to inspire him to convert and, almost certainly, save his soul).  However, that campaign is being conducted, thus far, almost entirely by “inside baseball” publications, websites, and social media networks.  The leftist state media have chosen to almost wholly embargo this massively important development, the first time a reigning Bishop of Rome has been formally accused of error amounting to heresy in nearly 700 years (actually, that was the case until just an hour or two ago, when a rash of articles appeared).  Time will tell how this will play out, but, so far, the media is largely presenting this correction as coming from a kooky fringe, invoking quotes from the usual sources, but never, in the slightest, actually attempting to argue against what the letter of correction actually claims.

A further note regarding the letter of correction: it is claimed that no (save one) bishops or cardinals signed the letter of correction because they were not asked.  That would be a fine and possibly sensible response, but why, then, did Bishop Fellay sign?  He was invited to sign, but no others were?  The first line of attack by the leftists against this correction is that it comes from a tiny element with no influence in the Church and no support from any bishops or cardinals – to this absence may lessen its influence. Similarly interesting – one might say concerning, even frustrating – to me, was the fact that no priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter signed.  I know that this is an extremely difficult issue for the, the Fraternity’s very founding was based at least in part on a perceived need to be “more” obedient or submissive to the Holy See than those in the SSPX, but I also know there are a number of priests in the FSSP who are as aghast at and opposed to the errors emanating from this pontificate as anyone. Perhaps no one in the FSSP was asked, then, either.  Some diocesan priests were, as were a number of theologians.  Good on you, Philip Blosser. I pray this doesn’t cost you your job at Sacred  Heart seminary in Detroit.

I pray we will see many more signatories in the days to come (In fact, we have.  The wonderful Bishop Emeritus Rene Gracida of Corpus Christi has signed.  This is a great credit to this steadfast bishop and friend of Tradition, but it does also indicate that, while bishops perhaps were not asked in advance to sign the Correctio, basically none so far have volunteered to do so).  I know of at least one wonderful, traditional priest who has submitted his name for inclusion.  I pray some bishops do wind up signing, but I’m sure the vast majority will sit tight and see which way the wind blows.  True heirs of St. Paul.  Not.

The question is being asked by some: is this a big deal? Will this have any real effect?  The answer to the former is, yes, it is a YUGE deal for all kinds of reasons.  It is huge historically. It is huge doctrinally and ecclesiastically.  It is hugely significant as a sign of formal, PUBLIC resistance to the revolutionary leftist agenda in the Church, something that was notably absent during the first outbreak of full-on revolution in the period 1958-78.  Thousands of people attempted private interventions with Pope Paul VI, and hundreds or thousands have done so with Francis, but these private interventions have had no effect.  Cardinals have publicly questioned the pope’s doctrine – the next step was for a group of laity to do so in an even more detailed manner.  If there is no adequate response or change in behavior, the step after this is, given Francis’ response to the Dubia and his seeming total resistance to the effect of prayer and sacrifice on the part of so many, for cardinals to move from question to accusation (probably using this Correctio Filialis for support), and from accusation to judgment.  I am certain Cardinal Burke is striving to find collaborators in this process right now, and I pray he has the health and faith to continue on with formal opposition to Francischurch.  To the extent he succeeds or fails will determine whether this interim step of filial correction will have any real effect on the life of the Church.

And that, I think, will very much depend on priests but, particularly, bishops and cardinals to be willing to man up and add their name to the Correctio.  However, recent history, where over a thousand priests worldwide publicly proclaimed that they would not administer the Blessed Sacrament in accordance with Amoral Laetitia had no apparent effect on Francis, does not make me sanguine at the possibilities. Furthermore, I doubt a single further American bishop signs, and I will be surprised if more than a handful worldwide do.  Perhaps there will be several hundred priests sign, but that is unlikely to have much effect.

It is opposition from bishops that is most key.  We’re 4 1/2 years into this pontificate, with Francis’ appointments growing always in numbers, and there has yet to have been any significant public opposition from the episcopate to Francis and his revolution.  Even privately, during the sin-nods, opposition was wholly insufficient (it should have been practically unanimous).  I am not certain what we as laity can do to inspire bishops to start defending the Faith (for some, for the first time in their lives) beyond always trying to increase prayer and sacrifice.  I’m all for cutting off funds in a very public and concerted way, but tying cutting off the local bishop to lack of opposition to Francis would be a really far stretch for a lot of people.

There are some easy things you can do, right now, to witness to  your own appreciation of the Faith, to indicate your solidarity with the Correctio, and to hopefully inspire more priests and some bishops to do the same: you can sign the petition supporting the Correctio here. You can follow who has signed the letter at this site here.

Beyond that, I think far more Catholics need to start publicly voicing their opposition to Francis and his pontificate.  Refusing to give to Peter’s Pence is one thing, but getting active on social media or out in the real world with activities to support and defend the Faith while politely noting opposition to the revolutionary direction emanating from Rome is something more people should consider getting behind – and I don’t mean just leaving comments on blogs like this one.  Heck, start your own.  Send a polite letter to your bishop. Ask your priest to unequivocally address this crisis – at our local parish, little has been said of late, sadly.

Make your own suggestions in the comments. I have spent much of the afternoon on this post and I’m out of time.  Man do I love Bishop Gracida, though. Since our local ordinaries have never seen fit to offer Confirmation at our TLM parish, maybe we should extend an invitation to Bishop Gracida?  I have no idea if he would come, but he’s a rock and deserves our support, prayers, and love, as do all those who are willing to take the most uncomfortable step, for any Catholic, of accusing their very father, their spiritual father, of error amounting to the horror of heresy.  What a tragic time we live in.

 

Advertisements

Comments

1. Tim - September 25, 2017

It’s about time. Why hasn’t every priest of the SSPX, FSSP and ICK signed this?

Tantumblogo - September 25, 2017

Fear.

Tim - September 26, 2017

YUP.

Camper - September 26, 2017

This is the quinetessential demonstration of the reason the Ecclesia Dei communities are not acceptable!

Tim - September 26, 2017

Unfortunately, the signatures of the vast majority of the SSPX are not there. Ecclesia Dei communities are not alone here.

Camper - September 27, 2017

Bishop Fellay+ signed and he pretty much speaks for all of the SSPX. He has the title of “Superior General”. The Ecclesia Dei communities have lost their credibility!

Tantumblogo - September 27, 2017

Yes, it’s a notable act. That alone probably permanently terminated any possibility of the SSPX being “regularized” under this pontificate. It was manifestly the right thing to do, irrespective.

Richard Malcolm - September 26, 2017

But the fear is not just for themselves, you know.

Let us say, hypothetically, that the FSSP priests of St Anne’s in San Diego had signed the Correction. A few days later they get notice that Bishop McElroy is commencing proceedings to revoke their canonical presence in his diocese, on grounds that their dissent against the Holy Father is “disruptive of the unity of the diocese,” or some pathetic blather like that.

Well, at that point, several hundred families are deprived at a stroke of all the sacraments, sanctification, and teaching that St Anne’s is pretty much uniquely offering in their diocese. They could drive up the road a few hours to FSSP-LA to get these things, and many would – unless that apostolate got nuked as well for signing it. Some might even go to the SSPX at Liberty Station, but that’s only a Sunday Mass, not a real parish.

And maybe these are the kinds of Athanasian sacrifices we should all be willing to make now. I grok that argument. I really do. And it may yet come to that. But let’s be sure we understand just how high that price might be, and why the Ecclesia Dei societies may be reluctant to pay it right now – not least because their flocks will have to bear most of it.

Lynne - September 26, 2017

And they don’t have a bishop…which they were promised so they must remain silent.

Tim - September 26, 2017

But they do have a God….silence is not always golden.

Richard Malcolm - September 26, 2017

“And they don’t have a bishop…which they were promised”

Two excellent points.

Tim - September 27, 2017

Shocking that that promise has been broken!!!

Counciliar methods….lie, cheat and swindle per Fr. Hesse

Tim - September 26, 2017

“Some might even go to the SSPX at Liberty Station, but that’s only a Sunday Mass, not a real parish.”

How many “real” parishes are there? The Novus Ordo ones are not as they are conduits of modernism and indifferentism. Maybe they have their protestantized liturgy on a daily basis, but how many have confession every single day? Good luck on that one. When the SSPX parish is operating they offer confession, the True Mass and true teaching of the Faith. 99.9% of the “canonically regular” parishes can’t hold a candle to that. I’d take 1 Sunday at an SSPX parish over 1000 Sundays in the Novus Ordo. At SSPX priories there is all this every day. At St. Marys, KS there are multiple Masses daily, 6 on Sundays(standing room only), the confessions are frequent, with very long lines. Catholic education sessions/conferences all the time, etc.

Richard Malcolm - September 26, 2017

“How many “real” parishes are there?”

The FSSP site says they have 48 personal parishes, a subset of 226 Mass locations. The locations run a spectrum of the church where a Fraternity priest might travel in just for a Sunday Mass, to full-fledged canonical parishes

St. Anne’s in San Diego is a canonical personal parish with three priests. I picked them in part because of that consideration.They would be losing far, far more than just a Sunday Mass.

I won’t dispute what you say about other diocesan parishes.

2. Tim - September 26, 2017

Comparing John XXII to Francis is like comparing a bantum league football team to the New England Patriots. Francis is Belichick, and he has dozens of Bradys with red hats. I understand their fear to a degree but these so-called traditional priests of the SSPX, FSSP and ICK need to fear the judgement of God and the loss of countless souls more than the wrath of Francis or the local ordinary. Francis is destroying the Church and souls and he must be stood up to. It seems most Catholics are more concerned with morons in the NFL kneeling than the 4 last things.

Lynne - September 26, 2017

Why are you lumping the SSPX in with the rest? Their Superior General (+Fellay) signed it. I can promise you that every SSPX priest agrees with the document. Let’s not make uncharitable assumptions, eh?

Tim - September 26, 2017

I would think that they do….so they should sign it and denounce this enemy of the Church from the rooftops.

Camper - September 29, 2017

Aren’t you a sedevacantist? Do you follow bishop Williamson?

Tim - September 29, 2017

Sede? Absolutely not!!! I am a faithful follower of our Holy Father, Pope Michael!!

3. Richard Malcolm - September 26, 2017

“Perhaps no one in the FSSP was asked, then, either. ”

I have reason to believe that neither they, nor the ICRSS, nor the IBP, were asked to sign – though a few of them may have had a whiff that something was in the offing.

And it may be that they were not asked for their own good. Does any of us really doubt that pretty much every single one of these Ecclesia Dei priests agrees in the main with this Correction? How awkward would it be if they were put in the position of being forced to decline to sign something they believe in – or risk signing it and watch their apostolates being taken away by vindictive local bishops or even the Holy See? The price for the latter would be chiefly borne by their sheep, you know.

In the crisis in which the Church finds itself in, traditionalists on each side of the 1988 dividing line have been forced to make tradeoffs as a result of their choice. The Ecclesia Dei societies and orders have accepted, de facto, some constraints on their liberty to speak publicly on the crisis in exchange for the opportunity to reach a lot of Catholics in their steadily growing apostolates. The SSPX in turn has full liberty to speak without fear of harm (and they use it!), but they do so at the cost of being unable to reach many Catholics who would be otherwise sympathetic to their appeal simply because they are canonically irregular (and erroneously thought by many to be in schism), and their growth has suffered as a result.

I am an Ecclesia Dei man, but I sympathize with both choices and why they were taken, and are still taken today. The hard fact is that any choice comes with a price. In the future, even harder choices may loom.

Tim - September 26, 2017

Who’s really irregular? The “canonically irregular” and have the Faith or those who destroy souls and who happen to hold power and those who look the other way so they can claim to be in “full communion”?

Richard Malcolm - September 26, 2017

I think it’s a reasonable description of their legal status – not their theological or spiritual worth. (Notice that I reject the term “schismatic.” Which they simply are not.)

But my point is that that there remain many traditional Catholics who are wary of attending their Masses, because of their situation. That will not seem fair to SSPX adherents. But it;s just the reality, whether we like it or not.

Tim - September 27, 2017

I think it is an unreasonable description of their legal status.
They are preserving the True Faith and the Traditional Priesthood. They abide by the supreme law of the Church…the SALVATION OF SOULS. The New Order throws that law into the sewer. They are a pack of legalistic pharisees who by and large don’t give two hoots about the salvation of souls. God’s Law is above human law and also above Church law. Church and human law should be consistent with God’s Law, but often times are not. Therefore, in those cases they are not laws and are not to be followed.

Paul VI broke canon law by not hearing Archbishop Lefebvre’s appeal to his suspension. That purposeful omission renders the suspension invalid as well as other “weasel legal” attempts to keep the SSPX “down”. It’s all modernist smoke and mirrors. Their “decrees” would not withstand true moral and legal examination.

Listen to Fr. Hesse above.

Tim - September 26, 2017

Ask Neville Chamberlain how well appeasement worked out.

” In the future, even harder choices may loom.”

You got that right!

c matt - September 26, 2017

I guess they are trying to say there is a difference between appeasement and stealth. Chamberlain appeased; the French resistance operated under the occupation with stealth.

4. Richard Malcolm - September 26, 2017

“…maybe we should extend an invitation to Bishop Gracida?”

If you do, I wouldn’t wait too long, He’s 94 years old. I wonder what kind of condition he is in to travel now.

Cherish him while you have him. He will not be with us much longer, God bless him.

Tim - September 26, 2017

At 94, you don’t have anything to loose, invite him.

5. Eoin Suibhne - September 26, 2017

“…but I also know there are a number of priests in the SSPX who are as aghast at and opposed to the errors emanating from this pontificate as anyone.”

If I am understanding you correctly, shouldn’t “SSPX” in this sentence be “FSSP”?

Lynne - September 26, 2017

No, SSPX priests speak to their people about this pontificate *and* Vatican II. Pope Francis wasn’t created in a vacuum.

Dismas - September 26, 2017

Yes. I noticed that as well. The statement as it stands goes without saying and requires no defense. No surprise. It would be instructional to learn, however, that a number of FSSP priests are aghast. And very true, I might add. My guess is that that is what Tantum intended. Forgive me, Tantum, if I surmise incorrectly.

Tantumblogo - September 27, 2017

Yes it is fixed. Sorry about that.

6. Augustine - September 26, 2017

Per your 5th paragraph, I don’t think anyone here is questioning the Pope’s authority, not that I assume you are stating that.

I heard that Bp. Fellay only signed on when this went public because he got wind of it. Bishops were not asked to sign (fillial not fraternal correction).

Here’s hoping (and praying) that fraternal correction occurs on October 13th 2017 (exactly one year after the Bergolglio-Lutheran intercommunion debacle).

Tim - September 26, 2017

We can’t question that the Pope has authority. We are bound under obedience to questing the improper use of that authority.

7. Eoin Suibhne - September 26, 2017

“I am not certain what we as laity can do to inspire bishops to start defending the Faith (for some, for the first time in their lives) beyond always trying to increase prayer and sacrifice.”

I think increasing prayer and sacrifice is our only means because, as Miss Barnhardt has pointed out, “The Cool Kids don’t actually BELIEVE any of that bullshit.”

Tim - September 26, 2017

Agreed, prayer and sacrifice. They are more powerful than men in power, don’t underestimate their power.

8. Carlos Del Valle - September 26, 2017

Well, the question of whether one is invited to sign or not is now moot, no? The petition appears to be open to the public to sign, so let’s see who does and who does not.

Tim - September 26, 2017

Yes, we shall see.

9. Tim - September 26, 2017
10. Canon212 Update: – The Stumbling Block - September 26, 2017

[…] MORE BISHOPS SIGNING?  THUS HENRY VIII BECOMES A “SAINT” IN THE NEW CHURCH OF […]

11. Tim - September 26, 2017

If you speak the truth, you will be persecuted:

12. Tim - September 26, 2017
13. Elizabeth - September 26, 2017

In case you’ve not seen this yet, the new Remnant Video on the state of the Church, especially in light of this formal Letter. Great video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SOCptUNbGs&feature=em-uploademail

Terri Bradley (@TLYNNB7) - September 27, 2017

Yes, even in the cesspool that we find ourselves swimming in within the Church under a Bergoglian Pontificate, this video is very encouraging and uplifting. Make no mistake, the Immaculate Heart of Mary WILL triumph and we will see a very glorious day indeed!!! It cannot be that far off. I feel we are almost there, albeit we have a little farther to go. Hang on to the hem of our Mother’s garment, she will indeed guide us through.

14. Tim - September 27, 2017
15. Tim - September 27, 2017

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: