Tag Archives: heretical pope

How Bergoglio’s permanence means the apostasy of the Flock

From Rome has been ahead of many issues way before the general public confronted them. One of these regards the problem of having a man whom you think is the Pope be a man whom you know is a heretic.

From Rome answered this in an editorial of May 12, 2016, nearly 3 and a half years ago. Back then nearly no one took notice. It was too politically incorrect. But now many, having seen the unending monstrosity of Bergoglio who is willing to publicly slap and excoriate with the most foul language a woman merely for pleading for the help of fellow Catholics who were being persecuted by his Marxist allies in China, and his total lack of insouciance at the publication of a book by Pope Benedict on Celibacy, the barriers of non-think have, are or about to fall in the minds of the general populace.

Some readers have remarked that From Rome does not speak so much about the heresies or errors of Bergoglio anymore, but this is not because he has stopped, or that this publication finds them tolerable, but because the solution to the problem of Bergoglio is simple: Restore Benedict XVI because he was robbed of the Papacy, and we were robbed of his Pontificate!

In this editorial, written when the pretensions to the Papacy of Bergoglio were still commonly held, hope was held out for his repentance. But now after nearly 4 years, that is clearly never going to come about. Those still hoping for it, are deceiving the faithful.

Nevertheless, we share with our readers now in January of 2020, what we published in May of 2016, for your edification and thought, and to share with your fellow Catholics who are still struggling to understand Bergoglio and why the clergy are obsessed with remaining in communion with him.

How Bergoglio’s Permanence means the apostasy of the Flock

Rome, May 12, 2016 A.D:  There is no greater and more radical challenge for the Christian believer than to take another as his Master.

Indeed, Christians are recognized by the fact that they regard Jesus Christ, and Him alone, as their Master, in accord with the scripture verse, in which Christ condemned the religious leaders of ancient Israel, Matthew 23:10 ff:

10 Neither be ye called masters; for one is you master, Christ. 11 He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Indeed, its very tempting, in today’s world in which truth is up for grabs and violent political clashes are being waged on all sides, for the Christian to take an “I’m ok, you’re ok” view, that is, a “get along with everyone” kind of attitude, in which truth does not matter, only co-existence.

The Loadstone of Hope

The only problem is, that there is a vast difference between the man who thinks Christ is a religious teacher and the man who is loyal to Christ no matter what.  First first regards Him as one might regard a philosopher:  taking the man’s teachings here and there, according to his personal tastes and likes, but not as a rule of life.

The second regards Him as the Incarnate Son of God, apart from Whose teaching No man on Earth can escape eternal and perpetual damnation in the fires of Hell.

As St. Augustine said, “If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.”

Indeed, what distinguishes the Christian from all other men is Hope.

Hope is that theological virtue least spoke of today, because in modern times a proper understanding and appreciation of it has been so attacked in the minds of men, that nearly nobody appears to have it or cultivate it or use it.

Hope is that theological virtue which puts full faith and confidence in the promises of God for those who keep them.  Its the most essential and key Christian virtue, given to us in Baptism, but cultivated only with good works.  If you do not really hope that God will reward you for fidelity to Christ, then obviously you will not be faithful to Him.  Likewise, if you think that you can manage for yourself the rules by which you will get into Heaven, there is no need for you to have hope in God’s promises, you can presume for yourself — a presumption which is both your ultimate self-deceit and the absolute guarantee of your own damnation.

All of this has an ecclesiological impact, that is, all of this effects the Church, what She is and your place in or outside of Her, who alone is the ark of Salvation, the Pillar of the truth, apart from AND outside of which no man woman or child can be saved.

The Temptation of Bergoglio

The great temptation presented by the election and presence of Bergoglio on the Apostolic Throne, then, is precisely this: the offer of a Church, of a Christianity, in which Christ is no longer The master, but merely a guide post from which one can wander here or there and remain a “christian” without fidelity and without the need to practice hope.

This temptation is offered the Cardinals, the Bishops, the priests, the religious and the laity, is offered thus to the whole Church, because in Bergoglio they have, without any shadow of a doubt, a man who does not believe in Christ as his Sole Master, who does not love or tolerate the Church as Christ founded it or gave it, does not suffer the rules the Apostles, the Faithful Disciples of the Lord handed down to us, and is filled with compassion and love for the traitor who sold Christ for 30 shekels of silver.

To have a public manifest heretic on the throne of the Apostle Peter, and tolerate him, presents for every true Christian, the opportunity of pretense, to keep the name “Christian” or “Catholic” without any more obligation to Christ.  Its the ultimate game-plan of Lucifer.

Either Bergoglio must Change or the Church has changed

Finally, if one were to accept this situation and the principles which erroneously lead to it, as have been briefly described here, it would be enough to end this article with the usual lament.  Because with faith it is possible to lament these things, but with hope it is not possible to tolerate them.  Nearly every author on the Internet today, and as far as we know, all the Cardinals and Bishops of the Catholic Church since April 8, 2016, the date on which “Amoris Laetitia” what released, do not have or are not acting faithfully to Christian Hope.

For the man with Christian hope, would declare and manifestly insist and demand that Bergoglio be canonically reprimanded, and if refusing 3x, be declared to be in open schism with Christ and His Church, and self-deposed by reason of his malice and heresy against Him and His Bride, the Church, whose first duty is to keep herself immaculate and worthy of Him.

Either Bergoglio must change or the Church has in fact changed, because if he repents, the Church is saved in Her fidelity to Christ, and Christ is glorified above all human whim, even the human whims of the Roman Pontiff. But if Bergoglio does not change AND the Church tolerates him, it is the Church which has changed, She has committed adultery with Bergoglio, accepting him rather than Jesus Christ as Her spouse, the God above all other gods…

__________

CREDITS: The featured image is of the Medieval Manuscript depicting The False Shepherd, a detail of the illumination from the mss. Douce 266 in the Bodleian Library. As a faithful reproduction of a work of art produced more than 200 years ago, it is in the public domain.

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

Former Rector of Gregorian University: A Heretical Pope loses office immediately by the law itself

Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S.J, greets His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

There has been an ongoing debate as to whether a man who is the pope loses his office immediately after having taken a pertinacious and manifest position which is heretical.

Most of this debate regards citing authors in previous ages or decades, against the opinion of Bishop Athanasius Schneider and others, like Steve Skojec, who hold that he needs to be judged and/or that no one can judge him.

Here, however, is the opinion of Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S. J., former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University at Rome. Father Ghirlanda is one of the most highly respected Doctors of Canon Law in the City of Rome, if not in the Catholic Church. He still teaches at the Gregorian. Considering the opinions just given by Cardinal Burke which impinge on this controversy, I think it’s apropos to cite Father Ghirlanda’s position, not made in reference to the Cardinal’s comments, but from March 3, 2013, no less, in Civiltà Catiolica, the leading Jesuit publication in Italy:

The original Italian can be found here.  Here is that text quoted in part, on this subject:

Allora, se il Romano Pontefice non esprimesse quello che già è contenuto nella Chiesa, non sarebbe più in comunione con tutta la Chiesa, e quindi con gli altri Vescovi, successori degli Apostoli. La comunione del Romano Pontefice con la Chiesa e con i Vescovi, secondo il Vaticano I (3), non può essere comprovata dal consenso della Chiesa e dei Vescovi, in quanto non sarebbe più una potestà piena e suprema liberamente esercitata (c. 331; “Nota Explicativa Praevia” 4). Il criterio allora è la tutela della stessa comunione ecclesiale. Lì dove questa non ci fosse più da parte del Papa, egli non avrebbe più alcuna potestà, perché ipso iure decadrebbe dal suo ufficio primaziale. È il caso, ammesso in dottrina, della notoria apostasia, eresia e scisma, nella quale il Romano Pontefice potrebbe cadere, ma come «dottore privato», che non impegna l’assenso dei fedeli, perché per fede nell’infallibilità personale che il Romano Pontefice ha nello svolgimento del suo ufficio, e quindi nell’assistenza dello Spirito Santo, dobbiamo dire che egli non può fare affermazioni eretiche volendo impegnare la sua autorità primaziale, perché, se così facesse, decadrebbe ipso iure dal suo ufficio. Comunque in tali casi, poiché «la prima sede non è giudicata da nessuno» (c. 1404), nessuno potrebbe deporre il Romano Pontefice, ma si avrebbe solo una dichiarazione del fatto, che dovrebbe essere da parte dei Cardinali, almeno di quelli presenti a Roma. Tale eventualità, tuttavia, sebbene prevista in dottrina, viene ritenuta totalmente improbabile per intervento della Divina Provvidenza a favore della Chiesa (4).

This is my English translation, bold face added:

Now, if the Roman Pontiff does not express that which is contained in the Church, he would no longer be in communion with the whole Church, and hence neither with the other Bishops, who are successors of the Apostles. The communion of the Roman Pontiff with the Church and with the Bishops, according to Vatican 1 (cf. footnote 3 below), cannot be manufactured out of the consent of the Church and Bishops, inasmuch as it would no longer be a full and supreme power freely exercised (cf. canon 331; cf. the Nota Previa to Lumen Gentium, 4.). Thus, the criterion is the safeguarding of the ecclesial communion itself. There, where this might no longer be the case on the part of the Pope, he would no longer have any power, because he would fall by the law itself (ipso iure) from his primatial office.  This is the case, admitted in doctrine, for notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, in which the Roman Pontiff might fall, but as a “private teacher”, which does not require the assent of the faithful, because through faith in the personal infallibility which the Roman Pontiff has in the exercise of his office, and hence, in the assistance of the Holy Spirit, we are obliged to say that he cannot make heretical affirmations while willing to impose his primatial authority, because, if he were to do such a thing, he would fall ipso iure from his office.  Nevertheless, in such cases, since “the first see is not judged by anyone” (canon 1404), no one could depose the Roman Pontiff, but there could only be a declaration of the fact, which would have to be on the part of the Cardinals, at least of those present at Rome.  Such an eventuality, however, though foreseen in doctrine, is considered to be entirely improbable through the intervention of Divine Providence on behalf of the Church (see footnote 4).

FOOTNOTES

3. Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3074.
4. Cf. F. J. Wernz. P. Vida., “Ius canonicum”, tome II, “De Personis”, Rome, 1933, 517 seqq.

When Father Ghirlanda says a heretic, who is pope, would fall ipso iure from the office – that is, would by that very fact immediately lose the office of the papacy — I believe he is speaking of Canon 1364 which imposes itself the penalty of excommunication for all apostates, heretics and schismatics, without limitation to what office they hold. But he might also be referring to the Divine Law, since as Scripture clearly teaches, no one who calls God a liar is in communion with His Son (cf. 1 John 1:5-6, for example). This not only applies to all popes, but to all Bishops and priests who hold ecclesiastical offices in the Church, that is any munus, as canon 145 §1 specifies.

What is noteworthy about the article in Civiltà Cattolica is that Father Ghirlanda is not writing an article on controversial points, he is merely reciting the received tradition, prior to the Conclave of 2013 regarding the loss of the papal office. His main thesis does NOT regard heresy in a man who is pope, but in what way a man who is pope holds or is united to the papal office, because he took the position that it is impossible for a man who was pope, but renounced the office, to be called “Pope emeritus” and that this title should NOT be accorded to Ratzinger. — He does not consider, however, the implications of the title, namely, as many have since opined, that its conferral signifies an incomplete or invalid renunciation.

Finally, I agree with Father Ghirlanda, that it is more probable the Divine Providence will prevent the final or ultimate defection of a pope (because Christ promised His prayer for Simon that his faith not fail). I would go so far to say that it is de fide, because of Scriptural support. But what exactly is that Divine Protection preventing? The event, the deviation, the pertinacity, the formal defection, the ultimate defection? All of these, step by step, with more grace the more the one who is pope deviates? That does not seem to be clearly explained by anyone, so far. But it would make a very interesting Doctoral thesis in the theology of Providence and Grace.

Contrariwise, if Christ’s prayer prevents a true Pope from final defection, then the final defection of a man whom one thinks is the pope would be an infallible sign that his canonical claim to the office was vitiated by some substantial error. This is substantially the argument of His Excellency the Most Rev. Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi, USA.