Pope Francis and the Entire Ecclesial Sellout to the Modern Zeitgeist Predicted in The Remnant in May of 1976

Pope Francis and the Entire Ecclesial Sellout to the Modern Zeitgeist Predicted in The Remnant in May of 1976

Written by Louis Salleron
Introduction by Michael J. Matt

Remnant columnist, Father Ladis Cizik, is being taken to task by a few Remnant critics for having preached a sermon last Sunday which was evidently too “rad trad” [see text in comment below]. The sermon drew a comparison between the terrorists who hijacked Flight 93 on 9/11 and the liturgical terrorists who hijacked the Catholic Church at Vatican II.

Father also points out that the brave passengers who finally downed that plane—rather than allowing it to crash into the White House—could be likened to traditional Catholics who’ve spent the last fifty years trying to frustrate the plans of the “terrorists” destroying the human element of Christ’s Church.

Though Father certainly needs no defense from me, I would say that Father’s sermon is very much in line with what pioneer traditionalists were saying decades ago—the Church has indeed been hijacked, and if you think otherwise you’ve been living under a rock somewhere. The problem seems to be with a few well-meaning “trads” who mistakenly believe our fight is merely for the restoration of the Mass we prefer, rather than an actual counterrevolution—a notion I myself excoriate on the front page of the latest print edition of The Remnant.

By way of substantiating my contention that Father’s sermon is a statement that is becoming increasingly obvious with the passing of each new day, we’re posting the following Remnant article that my father published forty years ago. It was written by the late, great Louis Salleron (1905 –1992), a French author, journalist and traditional Catholic theoretician. In 1956 Salleron and the late, great Jean Madiran founded the French journal Itinéraires, which later became a leading organ for criticism of the “reforms” after the Second Vatican Council. Louis Salleron died on 20 January 1992.

The article, under the title, “To Each His Problem”, first appeared in Itinéraires in April of 1976 (Number 202), and was then translated for publication in The Remnant by the late Robert Opelle (RIP) shortly thereafter.

So a mere a decade after the close of the Council men such as Salleron were lamenting Paul VI, the New Mass, the ecumenical heresy, etc., in exactly the same manner seen in these pages today—only they were predicting the outcome, whereas we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

Note, for example, how Salleron casually points out the obvious fact (which became a bombshell in 2007 when Pope Benedict XVI made it official) that the Old Mass had NEVER been abrogated. This article also makes it abundantly obvious that Francis is part of a continuum of revolution and revolutionaries in Rome itself.

Much food for thought here. Let’s say an Ave or two for these early traditional Catholic greats who took the stand for Tradition when it required more courage to do so than most of us can imagine. God bless them and all those, such as Father Cizik, who have the courage to follow in their footsteps. MJM

The Pope, for a Catholic, is the supreme recourse. But in the current crisis this recourse is of little use. If it were only a matter of following Paul VI in his teaching upon the great questions which touch on the faith, all would be simple. But one would be hard pressed to find the doctrine which he professes in the practice of his government. Under the banner of ecumenism, the Church is swinging around towards Protestantism. Faithfulness to tradition becomes a sin against the Spirit. Luther is preferred to Pius V. The national Churches are establishing themselves everywhere. The Pope no longer seems to preside except at the “auto-demolition” of the Church, which he deplores without anyone perceiving what he is trying to do to stem the tide.

For many, Paul VI is their problem. It is not mine. I have only too well observed the catastrophic character of the post-conciliar era, that I would not be overly alarmed if I saw there the deed of a man. That which alarms me, that which is my problem, is that the entire Church in the Occident appears to align itself perfectly with the present situation. If there is discord, it is only to the extent where the Roman orientations are judged too timid. Notably, the French episcopacy, strongly installed in Rome where its representatives occupy a number of key posts, to name only one that of Secretary of State, consider Paul VI as a major obstacle to the revolutions of which they dream. This is to say much about where we are now.

Nonetheless, it is not so much this general deterioration of the Church that strikes me, as it is the fact that no bishop’s voice denounces it. There is, one will say, Mgr. Lefebvre. But he is not a diocesan bishop. In France, and practically throughout the Occident, no bishop disassociates himself from the “collegiality” in order to affirm, in his diocese, his will to defend the faith, the exact text of Holy Scripture, the sacrificial character of the Mass, the priestly ministry, the Catholic catechism, etc. That would be so much the easier since there is an embarrassment of choices for supporting his stance by the texts of Paul VI and Vatican II. But no, it is the praxis of collegiality which makes the law. All the bishops submit to it.

Exactly there is my problem, because this situation is without precedent in the Church. It is even without precedent in any society. No profound change, no mutation, no revolution takes place without manifesting opposition. This time there is no opposition whatsoever in the Church (that is, in the official Church).

If one searches to understand this unanimity, one can find only two explanations. Either the bishops who within themselves are disturbed at all that has happened, say to themselves that before all else the unity of the Church must be assured and that a correction will arrive in due time, or indeed they think that the Holy Spirit is at work and will give to Christianity the new forms it intends to give. In either case, this absence of reaction would appear to me as tragic. Because it is true not only that God does not save Christians without themselves, He does not save His Church without herself. The surrender to evolution is a resignation. A Church at the prey of internal battles would be a sad spectacle; but it would be the spectacle of a living Church. The decomposition of the Church under the appearance of unity makes one fear for a moribund Church.

I know there are always the saints. There are innumerable martyrs in countries where Christianity is more cruelly persecuted than in the first centuries. There are the unknown martyrs in our country, priests, religious, lay people, who suffer and who die in silence not hearing any authority truly witnessed by the word, or having any possibility of it. There is the active charity of endless self-sacrifice, which is Christianity in action. I know all this. I have no doubt whatsoever of the Church of the Saints, but I question the institutional Church. That she thinks to guard herself against the formidable effects of proclaiming the Truth makes me tremble for her future.

In a recent article of “Le Monde”, André Fontaine raised, incidentally, a thought of Tocqueville following which religions are always menaced by two dangers: Schism and Indifference. He could as well have added Syncretism, which is in some sense their synthesis. Schism, this is the menace of the ages of faith. Indifference is the menace of the ages of a weakening of faith.

We are in an age of indifference. Dogmas no longer are important. Etienne Gilson had noted it when, in a translation of the Credo, “consubstantial” was changed to “of the same nature”. In a petition, signed by some of the greatest Catholic names, which demanded the return to “consubstantial”, Cardinal Lefèbvre gave a categorical refusal. In his refusal he gave two reasons. The first was, precisely, that the question “at the present time has lost its importance.” (It certainly had lost its importance because it had been decided some sixteen centuries previously. It takes up again an importance by the fact that it is put again into question.)

The second reason was that the petition constituted in his eyes an insolent proceeding upon the part of laymen with respect to the episcopacy: “In many eyes such a type of action makes it appear that a summons upon the episcopate to pronounce upon such a grave point of doctrine, as if one seems to doubt as already clearly having its accord.” Therefore, for Cardinal Lefèbvre, “Consubstantial” is at the same time a grave point of doctrine, which has indeed lost its importance. On the other hand, this point of doctrine has, by every hypothesis, much less importance than the attitude of silent submission which must be that of laymen in regard to the episcopate. It is impossible to manifest more indifference than this towards the Catholic Credo.

This indifference is today evident in every domain. But it has manifested itself to a degree which, in previous centuries, one would never even have thought possible, particularly with respect to the Mass.

Paul VI has, as one knows, approved a new Mass rite. In an age of faith, this new Mass would have elicited innumerable protests and contentions. As happened, it passed like a letter at the post office. Why? Because of indifference.

The Pope, one says, has the right to make a new rite, and one adds that that which was promulgated is quite superior to the former one. That’s possible, but it is here that indifference becomes obvious. Because the rite of Pius V was so ancient that the simple attachment to tradition—with all which represents that tradition in the Church—must have created a shock within a large part of the episcopate. But there was no shock. There was only indifference. One Mass chases another, and if the new one is more beautiful than the ancient one, of what is one complaining?

The scandal is all the greater by the fact that the new Mass had been made with the concurrence of Protestant theologians, that it had been set up to be acceptable to Protestants, and that its first “Presentation” (Institutio Generalis) had been made in terms so opposed to Catholic doctrine, that it had been necessary to redo it so that it was compatible with the teaching of the Council of Trent (confirmed itself by Vatican II.) The Presentation therefore changed, but the rite stayed unchanged. It is as a consequence that we have an equivocal Mass.

Much the better that the traditional rite was driven out. I do not say that it is forbidden, because there is no legal text which forbids it. But illegal texts do forbid it, and the bishops pretend that it is forbidden, persecuting those priests which have stayed faithful to it. All the official propaganda is aimed at convincing priests and faithful that it is forbidden. One has even seen a monk of Solesmes shamefully write a book in order to affirm that the new Mass was obligatory and the traditional Mass forbidden. O ghost of Dom Guéranger!

There was indeed, one will say, the solemn protest of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci. This is true. This has saved the honor of the Church and puts out the anchor of salvation for the restoration to come. By the same token, there is the unshakable attachment of Mgr. Marcel Lefèbvre (which one must not confuse with his dead cousin the Cardinal) to the Catholic doctrine of the Mass and the Sacraments. But he is alone and, by this token, he is put into the dock of the French episcopacy and persecuted by the Vatican bureaucracy. Understandably, indifference to the Mass is accompanied by an equal indifference for all the rest. But, again one time, it is not the fact that there is, in “The Church of France”—it is of her which I think of in the first instance, being a Frenchman—a general current of abandon of all Catholic tradition, it is the fact that this current is unanimous—I mean by this: in the Episcopate. That there is not one single bishop in his diocese who defends Catholic truth, it chills me to the bone.

In what do they believe? Into what degree of indifference have they fallen? My own problem is this unanimity. Speaking on the 12th of February, 1976, at the cultural center of Saint-Louis in Rome, Mgr. Etchegaray declared: “When it comes to propagating the faith, unity passes before all else.” Proposition eminently ambiguous. Because unity only has meaning when it serves the truth, and today everything tends to place unity before the truth. It is no longer the Faith that is propagated, but unconditional obedience to the Episcopate—an episcopate which admits all liberties for those whom progressivism terms within the conciliar spirit, and which condemns with extreme rigor all those whose fidelity to tradition puts them in their eyes outside “the Church of the Council.”

One can see poised upon the horizon of the near French future a national Church which, seizing upon the first opportunity, will create batches of priests in ordinating married men whose mission will be to constitute, upon the ruin of the parishes, “groupings” of Christians formed according to their political and social affinities. What will become of Catholicism in such circumstances?

At the Roman summit there are parallel designs, the sketch of an Ecumenical Church which would be the realization of syncretism, fruit of the proliferation of schisms upon a base of indifference. The Pope would become the President of a Federation of Churches confessing different beliefs around a common Credo reduced to the bare minimum. In brief, the Catholic Church would marry the structure and spirit of Protestantism, all the while conserving its proper historical core by some very subtle juridical and theological combination.

Is it impossible? It is impossible for the moment. But tomorrow? The religious need of the greatest number of men can be reduced practically to some sort of feeling and liturgy. The exaltation of the feeling of love for neighbor and the struggle against injustices, conjugated with a variety of liturgies, corresponds perfectly to a diversified ecumenical religion, rather analogous to Anglicanism which admits in its bosom Christian confessions going all the way from a Credo quasi-Catholic to the most vague humanism.

Numerous Catholics, by this token, believe they see in the attitude of the Pope an encouragement to this evolution. Because if it is true that Paul VI recalls always the demands of the Catholic faith, the gestures he lavishes upon the Orthodox, the Protestants, and more generally upon the believers of all confessions, and even towards all the members of “the great human family”, are interpreted by many as an announcement of an ecumenical unity which could hardly be long in coming. (The most brief, the most simple and currently the most recent to date of such allocutions from Paul VI upon this subject is that which he pronounced at the Angelus of Sunday 25 January 1976—Documentation Catholique No. 1692 of February 15 1976.)

Alas, I am troubled. Because the unity today of the Catholic Hierarchy is rife with ruptures, of which the equivocal character will cause to explode one day or another. One day or another, in effect, the Church will of necessity be led to take a position, either upon the one side, or upon the other. Either she will attempt to re-establish again the Faith and the Law, and she throws herself against the progressivist clan which holds practically all the “apparatus”; or she is going to continue to build into place ecumenism and, at this moment, it is impossible that an important part of the bishops and priests, who have wanted above all to be “obedient” in waiting, would not react. In the two cases, the schism—the crack—will be revealed in all its breadth. I know well that the reality to come is always different from what one envisages; but the schema which I indicate will necessarily verify itself in one form or another. The tragedy will be all the greater if the episcopacy continues to comport itself, in its “surface” collegiality, as if all goes well presently and that the small fissures which one must deplore would end up disappearing in and of themselves. That is my problem: this silence of all the bishops, this abdication of all the bishops. The Church is no longer conceived by them other than a gathering of which they are the leaders from whom successive orders must be accepted, whatever they might be, if one is to stay Catholic. One thinks of communism, of which the militants must always consider as the absolute truth, the truth of the moment maintained in the Party line. The Est, est, Non, non, is replaced by a political evangelism, evolutive and polymorphic, which then becomes the common Credo.

These great waves of feeling, charismatic or revolutionary, have been seen often in history. But there was always opposition, always resistance. Today, at the level of the hierarchy, I search in vain for such opposition, for such resistance. It is this radical novelty which constitutes my problem.

Get AQ Email Updates

2 comments on “Pope Francis and the Entire Ecclesial Sellout to the Modern Zeitgeist Predicted in The Remnant in May of 1976

  1. We Have Been Hijacked: A Tribute to Flight 93 and the Catholic Counter-Revolution

    Written by Fr. Ladis J. Cizik
    (This sermon was delivered at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on Sunday, September 11, 2016.)

    In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen. “We have been hijacked.” Those were the words of passengers and crew calling from air-phones and mobile phones on the ill-fated Flight 93 on September 11, 2001. The hijackers were Islamic terrorists.
    We have been hijacked. These are the words of the remnant of faithful Catholics calling out the message that our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith and our Catholic Identity have been taken away from us in an unholy revolution that moved ahead in earnest the 1960’s, and which now rules the present day. The hijackers, revolutionaries in this case, are heretics known as Modernists. Pope Saint Pius X defined Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies” which seeks “… the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion” (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, par 39).
    Today marks the 15th anniversary of the infamous Islamic airplane hijackings of September 11, 2001. On that day of infamy, several commercial passenger jet airliners that had been cruising high in the sky were taken over by Muslim pirates intent on physical destruction. From their lofty heights these hijacked planes would plummet to the earth amid fire, chaos, death, and total destruction.

    In 1962 on another September 11th, Pope John XXIII announced his hopes that Vatican Council II, due to start in the following month, would lead the Church to “a new leap toward the loftiest heights.” But since that time, the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and then-thriving Catholic Church would be driven to the ground by Modernist terrorists. Amid doctrinal chaos, Modernist hijackers are intent on destroying the Catholic Church that they have commandeered; thereby causing spiritual ruin in this life and thus plunging souls into the fires of hell.

    Statistics in the United States show that the Church has suffered catastrophic losses since Vatican II, with continuing dramatic decreases in number of: Priests, Priestly Ordinations, seminarians, religious sisters, religious brothers, Baptisms, Marriages, and Mass attendance. Rather than soaring “toward the loftiest heights,” the falling numbers indicate that the Church has plunged towards the ground.

    Centuries of atrocities committed against the Church by Muslims have definitively established Islam as the antithesis of Catholicism. However, in his Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope Saint Pius X identifies Modernism as an even greater enemy of the Church, which is hidden within the Church. In Pascendi, published on Our Lady’s Nativity, September 8, 1907, Pope Saint Pius X warned: “… that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open” (par 2).

    Since the time of Pope Saint Pius X, the cancerous infestation of Modernism has expanded to incorporate other noxious beliefs including Freemasonry, Communism, and Protestantism. The Church has been infiltrated by its enemies, who are now in positions of authority. They wear Ecclesial garb, but they are truly wolves in shepherds’ clothing. They have turned away from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith centered on God, the Blessed Trinity, and replaced it with a man-centered abomination.

    The Islamic hijackers blended in with the passengers on the doomed jetliners. In the Catholic Church, Modernists can be found throughout the ranks of clergy and laity. They “… put themselves forward as reformers of the Church …” but “… assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, Whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man” (par 2). The Modernist heretics, who act as if they are within the Church, deny the Divinity of Christ as do the Muslims.

    The Muslim hijackers sought to cause maximum damage with their acts of terrorism. They crashed into the World Trade Center buildings in New York, symbolizing the center of our commerce. They then struck the Pentagon in Washington, DC, representing our military might. Flight 93 was believed to have been headed toward the White House or the Capitol Building, the heart of our government.

    The Modernist hijackers of our Church, enemies within, seeking to cause the uttermost damage, targeted the center of our Faith, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. They have worked to destroy the God-centered Traditional Latin Mass, an unbloody re-presentation of Christ’s Sacrifice on Calvary, only to replace it with a Protestant-like man-centered memorial meal. Pius X warned that the “many roads (of) Modernism lead to atheism and to the annihilation of all religion. The error of Protestantism made the first step on this path; that of Modernism makes the second; atheism makes the next” (par 39).

    Modernist terrorists have destroyed most of our traditional High Altars and replaced them with modern tables. They have reduced the sublime role of the sacrificing Priest, acting in persona Christi to that of a ‘presider’ of a community celebration, entertaining the congregation ‘in the person of a performer.’ The Modernist hijackers of our Church have attacked the source and summit of our Faith, the Real Presence of Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament by: moving Tabernacles from a position of central prominence; by treating the Blessed Sacrament as if it were mere cookie with Communion in the hand; by eliminating almost all genuflections from the Novus Ordo Mass; and by numerous other sacrileges, outrages, and indifferences – warned of in the Fatima Message.

    In the decades following Vatican Council II, Priests were forbidden to offer the Traditional Latin Mass under pain of great punishment, including suspension from the Holy Priesthood. Some Priests heroically continued to offer the Tridentine Mass in private venues, such as in the basement of Catholic homes, as if the Church was once again in the catacombs during the Roman persecutions. A remnant of the faithful gathered around these Priests and refused to give up what was once considered so very holy.

    These suffering souls were justified in 2007 when Pope Benedict XVI declared in his Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum that the Traditional Latin Mass was never juridically abrogated. In the official ‘Instruction’ for Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict is quoted as saying: “What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful” (par 7).

    Modernists in positions of authority within the Church also terrorize clergy and laity by constantly changing Catholic teaching. Pope Pius X warned that Modernists held that “Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed” (par 13). Of these hijackers of the Catholic Faith, “… they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors” (par 14). They lead us “… to infer that all existing religions are equally true …” (par 15) and thus we are told not to ‘proselytize’ and are encouraged to ‘dialogue,’ which implies positions of equality with false creeds.

    On September 11, 2001, the passengers on Flight 93 took action once they became aware that their plane was hijacked and was in all likelihood on a path to monumental destruction. The passengers assembled and mounted a counter-attack against the Islamic terrorists. The final words of one of the doomed passengers, Todd Beamer, just before they broke into the terrorists’ cockpit, were: “Are you ready? Okay. Let’s roll.” Their counter-attack was successful in that those brave passengers stopped what could have been a disastrous attack on the White House or U.S. Capitol building. They were heroes in every sense of the word.

    As the Islamic terrorists of Flight 93 plunged into the pit of their destruction in an open field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, they were recorded on the cockpit voice recorder as shouting “allah akbar, allah akbar!” Translated those cries mean: ‘god is greater, god is greater!’ The Muslim hijackers were diabolically confused. Although they may have thought that they were serving God, they were actually doing the work of the devil.

    Likewise, Pope Saint Pius X warned that Modernist terrorists are “… animated by a false zeal for the Church …” who are “… thoroughly imbued with … poisonous doctrines …” who “… put themselves forward as reformers of the Church” (par 2). By attacking the Traditional Latin Mass, and dogmas, most especially that of the Real Presence, and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, “… they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the Faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt” (par 3). Like the Islamic terrorists, they are diabolically disorientated into believing that they are serving God, when they are actually serving the great deceiver, satan.

    Our Catholic Church has been hijacked by Modernists. These miscreants, in the wake of Vatican II, audaciously did away with Pope Saint Pius X’s “Oath against Modernism” in 1967. I once asked a Priest-professor in the seminary why the Oath against Modernism was no longer required of Priests and seminary professors. He said: “Because it is not needed anymore.” Actually, since Vatican II it is needed now more than ever.

    Hijackers take innocent people where they do not want to go. Modernist hijackers have steered the Barque of Peter into a murky sea of doctrinal confusion and religious indifferentism. Bewildered Catholics by the thousands have abandoned and continue to bail out of what appears to be a hijacked rudderless sinking ship. It is now time to put an end to this infamous Modernist revolution against Christ and His Church.

    It is now time for all Catholics to begin a counter-revolution against the Modernist heretics within the Church. Be a hero in every sense of the word. By the grace of God and the intercession of Our Lady, let us build up the faithful remnant into the majority. We must return to the Traditional Latin Mass; return to the Traditional teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; and return to a fervent devotion of the Blessed Virgin Mary, especially under Her title of Our Lady of Fatima. Remember my Three R’s of Modernism: Recognize it; Refute it; and Return to Tradition.

    We have to take back our Church from the Modernist revolutionaries before a dreadful situation becomes even worse. We need a Catholic Counter-Revolution NOW. On this September 11th, may we be inspired by the heroic words from Todd Beamer, one of the heroes of Flight 93 on that infamous September 11th fifteen years ago; when putting his life on the line, with little time left, he said: “Are you ready? Okay. Let’s roll.” Let us join together to defeat the Modernist terrorists or suffer martyrdom trying. Are YOU ready? Okay – LET’S ROLL.

    In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen

  2. It’s time to either expose or depose Francis

    Louie Verrecchio September 13, 2016

    Pope Francis mean face 2In April 2016, Bishop Athanasius Schneider issued, Amoris Laetitia: a Need for Clarification in Order to Avoid a General Confusion – the purpose of which is evident in the title.

    Some three months later, a group of forty-five theologians and clergymen issued a letter also calling for a clarification of Amoris Laetita from Pope Francis; ostensibly to make clear that the exhortation doesn’t contradict Church teaching.

    The letter, which was sent to all 218 cardinals and patriarchs, timidly stressed that the signatories “do not deny or question the personal faith of Pope Francis,” and even makes note of “valuable elements” in Amoris Laetitia that “make an important contribution to the defense and preaching of the faith.”

    Both appeals for a clarification focus on a supposed need for an authentic interpretation of Amoris Laetitia; as if Francis does not intend for Amoris Laetita to upend the Church’s perennial teaching concerning access to the sacraments for those who obstinately persist in mortal sin.

    Be careful what you ask for…

    The bishops of the Buenos Aires region of Argentina recently issued a document (translation courtesy of Life Site News), spelling out the ways in which priests should implement Amoris Laetitia.

    They key portion of this document states:

    In other, more complex circumstances, and when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, the aforementioned option [of living in continence, aka as brother and sister] may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, it is equally possible to undertake a journey of discernment. If one arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. AL 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union, AmorisLaetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. AL notes 336 and 351). These in turn dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the aid of grace.

    This is an excellent example of what Bishop Schneider called an “abusive interpretation” of Amoris Laetita, which is why he, and others, have been calling for Francis to issue a clarification.

    Well, just yesterday, the Holy See confirmed that Francis has done precisely this.

    In a letter to the bishops of Buenos Aries (translation courtesy of Life Site News), Francis removed all doubt as to both his intent for Amoris Laetitia, and his “personal faith” (or lack thereof) stating of the previously mentioned guidelines for the exhortation’s implementation:

    “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.”

    Bear in mind, that this comes after Francis has been challenged by numerous churchmen, likely in more ways than have been made public, to uphold the true Faith. This is his response.

    So, Bishop Schneider and group of forty-five:

    You asked for clarification from Francis, and here it is. There are no other interpretations. What now, gentlemen?

    Let me guess, and I hope to God I am wrong:

    There will be statements forthcoming from some of them asking for more clarity still; perhaps something more formal or more universal than a letter to a local bishops conference. Others may very well adopt Cardinal Burke’s position (another cop out to be sure); it’s not magisterial, so we simply need to remain true to tradition.

    Let me say this:

    Condemning Amoris Laetita and demanding that it be rescinded in its entirety is absolutely necessary, but even this isn’t nearly enough.

    The time for hemming and hawing is over. Francis has to go. He is a blasphemous heretic of the most dangerous kind. This has been clear to many of us for some time, but now, there are no other interpretations.

    Look, men of good will can debate whether or not Benedict resigned freely, or whether or not his intent was so defective as to render the act invalid, or if the See of Rome was truly vacant when conclave 2013 convened, or even whether or not Francis is an anti-pope…

    And yet every last one of us knows damned well that a formal heretic cannot be pope.

    The complete explanation of “the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia” provided by the Buenos Aires area bishops and confirmed by Francis is based upon the heresy contained in AL 301:

    “Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.”

    There can no longer be any denying, however illogical doing so always was, that among the “irregular” situations to which this refers includes those in adultery as described in the Buenos Aires guidelines.

    This statement (AL 301) contradicts the Council of Trent (Session VI, Chapter XV) almost verbatim, and it is based upon AL 295 wherein Our Lord’s admonition against the Pharisees is turned against Him by suggesting that the demands of the Divine Law are just too great a burden to be carried out by some.

    This opinion was formally anathematized by the Council of Trent (Session VI, Canon XVIII).

    If that isn’t enough, AL 303 even goes so far as to state that God sometimes asks adulterers to persist in their mortal sin!

    The three heresies above are the very basis for the clarification of Amoris Laetitia just delivered.

    It doesn’t take a doctorate in sacred theology to know that Francis – be it your opinion that he is an anti-pope or just an historically faithless pope – must be either exposed or deposed, and this for the salvation of souls. Take your pick.

    There are no other interpretations.

Leave a Reply