Elsewhere in the epistle, Francis implicitly condemns Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic, for misunderstanding the Church’s teaching on ordo amoris—the order of love. Vance, a convert who was catechized by two of the most intelligent Dominican priests in America (I introduced him personally to his first teacher), had defended the administration’s tough migration policy by referring to St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching that the order of love requires us to love those closest to us first—not exclusively, but primarily, as God has given us the duty to care for them.
It turns out that JD Vance really is more Catholic than the pope. The Catechism teaches that the moral duty towards foreign refugees must be balanced by duties to the common good of the people within one’s own country. Yes, wealthy countries do have a moral responsibility to be generous in welcoming distressed foreigners, but they have the right to set limits on migration, and to refuse it when they judge that it harms the common good. The official Catholic teaching balances charity with common sense.
JD Vance understands that; Pope Francis does not. The pope, in his teaching, has sanctified open borders—even, as in Europe, when those ungated frontiers allow the migration into the Christian lands of Europe of millions of Muslims who at minimum do not share the ancestral faith of Europeans, and no small number of whom are militantly hostile to it. If Francis had lived in the time of Pius V, Europe would be Islamic today.
NGO Pope Commits ‘Ecclesiastical Suicide’
by
Tags:
Comments
12 responses to “NGO Pope Commits ‘Ecclesiastical Suicide’”
-
When there were two, and then three popes at the same time (1878-1417), which one was infallible?
I can’t take the institutional RCC seriously anymore. -
Oops, typo, the first year’s date should read 1378.
More info here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism
Squalid in the extreme. & Not a word of this was breathed to me, either at Saint Therese grammar school, or at Bosco Tech high school. -
Which Catechism?
The first, I bought in recent years, is on my shelf because I wanted to read Article 6 “Moral Conscience”, Paragraph 1176.
And Paragraphs 1783-1785 on “The Formation of Conscience”.
This excellent material.
As well as Article 8 “Sin”, especially the definitions such as p/o Paragraph 1855 “Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.” This is beyond excellent; it is superlative material.
IIRC the previous edition was 400 years previous. These days are black and the material on the death penalty has been changed. Build on rock, the Holy Scriptures, from God, or build on sand, from man.
But THIS catechism has changed Paragraph 2267 by the presently expiring Francis.
All the best good folks,
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard -
Bill,
You and I have discussed the generally imbecilic and often heretical words and acts of this man many times over the years, and I have very little more to say about it, since I have essentially abandoned any hope for a restoration of the historic faith and liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church. So, I would like made just two points.
The first is something that I have called attention to here and on X a number of times; specifically, while Bergoglio and those closest to him are certainly fairly charged with greatly accelerating the destruction of the Church’s magisterium and tradition, they have been so successful in this evil endeavor only because of the widespread, longstanding theological and moral rot that infests this institution. As I wrote here in July 2023, “the greater scandal of the Church [is] under this Pontificate …THE SILENCE OF ALL BUT A FEW CARDINALS AND BISHOPS, ALL BUT A HANDFULL OF THEOLOGIANS AND CATHOLIC ACADEMICS, AND ONLY A RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF THE FAITHFUL IN REACTION TO THIS OPEN ASSAULT, AT THE SERVICE OF THE GLOBAL LEFT, ON THE GOSPEL, DOGMA, DOCTRINE, AND TRADITION.” This quisling acquiescence, which extends even to papal protection of sexual perverts and criminals among the clergy, from McCarrick, to Zanchetta, to Rupnik, to name just a few, now takes form of open political opposition by the American and European episcopates, following Bergoglio, to the efforts of the new American administration and populist parties in Europe to halt such invasions of national territories. Thus, here in our country, the USCCB, whose various “charities” have received 2.9 billion dollars from the Biden administration, in payment for their seminal role in promoting the massive illegal immigration, almost all of it in violation of American law and the cause of the exploitation, sexual and otherwise, of tens of thousands of children; widespread criminal activity; and the imposition of heavy burdens on the health, educational, and housing resources of many American communities, is now suing the Trump administration for the restoration of this funding.
And this brings me to the second point, one made repeatedly by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: the close alignment of what he calls the Deep State (the Globalist Left) and the Deep Church (the Bergoglian Church) and, more precisely, of the subservience of the latter to the former, an alignment with one overriding goal: “[T]he cancellation of national and ethnic identities, especially where they are based on Christian civilization; and on the contrary [the promotion] of what is linked to pagan and idolatrous beliefs. The cancellation of all differences and the external homologation of cultures should be considered by the Catholic Church as a disaster, while the Bergoglian church is its reckless promotor” (Translation from the Italian*). So, Bergoglio and his “modernist” supports are best viewed as one wing, and a compliant one at that, of a much larger global leftist force that has taken control of the leading institutions of civil society, the Church included, and that seeks to eradicate the rights of nations and peoples.
*https://www.renovatio21.com/mons-vigano-migrazione-forzata-e-conquista-islamica-la-visione-distopica-antiumana-anticristiana-ed-anticristica-di-bergoglio/
Vito -
Correction:
“Paragraph 1176” should be “paragraph 1776”
Ingvar -
Mr. Caiati, every time I ride my bicycle along the fromt of the local Catholic Church, which is most days when it is not raining, I point my finger at the front door and say OUT LOUD, “Put the Mass back in Latin ! Turn the altar back around ! Get rid of that stupid handshake ! ”
Then I keep going.
I’ll be back when they make those changes.
At any rate, I always have my rosary with me as I ride. -
Mr. Odegaard,
I entirely understand your views on this matter. I am lucky in the last years of my life to have a Mass in Latin, an altar against the eastern wall, and no handshake, but only because of one old priest, our pastor, who has managed to convince our bishop, retiring next month, to allow him continue in the old ways. -
Here is what Pope Francis and the moderns are trying to grind down to dust: This is Thomas Merton’s boyhood description of France before WW 2. (From Seven Story Mountain, the chapter “Our Lady of the Museums.”) It is too much to lose. Will we get it back? I hope so, and a new Pope might help.
• • • • • • • •
“And even now, although I never thought of it and was, indeed, incapable of doing so, since I had no understanding of the concept of Mass, even now, several times each morning, under those high arches, on the altar over the relics of the martyr, took place that tremendous, secret, and obvious immolation, so secret that it will never be thoroughly understood by a created intellect, and yet so obvious that its very obviousness blinds us by excess of clarity: the unbloody Sacrifice of God under the species of bread and wine.
Here, in this amazing, ancient town, the very pattern of the place, of the houses and streets and of nature itself, the circling hills, the cliffs and trees, all focussed my attention upon the one, important central fact of the church and what it contained. Here, everywhere I went, I was forced, by the disposition of everything around me, to be always at least virtually conscious of the church. Every street pointed more or less inward to the center of the town, to the church. Every view of the town, from the exterior hills, centered upon the long grey building with its high spire.
The church had been fitted into the landscape in such a way as to become the keystone of its intelligibility. Its presence imparted a special form, a particular significance to everything else that the eye beheld, to the hills, the forests, the fields, the white cliff of the Rocher d’Anglars and to the red bastion of the Roc Rouge, to the winding river, and the green valley of the Bonnette, the town and the bridge, and even to the white stucco villas of the modern bourgeois that dotted the fields and orchards outside the precinct of the vanished ramparts: and the significance that was thus imparted was a supernatural one.
The whole landscape, unified by the church and its heavenward spire, seemed to say: this is the meaning of all created things: we have been made for no other purpose than that men may use us in raising themselves to God, and in proclaiming the glory of God. We have been fashioned, in all our perfection, each according to his own nature, and all our natures ordered and harmonized together, that man’s reason and his love might fit in this one last element, this God-given key to the meaning of the whole.
Oh, what a thing it is, to live in a place that is so constructed that you are
forced, in spite of yourself, to be at least a virtual contemplative! Where all day long your eyes must turn, again and again, to the House that hides the Sacramental Christ!
I did not even know who Christ was, that He was God. I had not the faintest idea that there existed such a thing as the Blessed Sacrament. I thought churches were simply places where people got together and sang a few hymns. And yet now I tell you, you who are now what I once was, unbelievers, it is that Sacrament, and that alone, the Christ living in our midst, and sacrificed by us, and for us and with us, in the clean and perpetual Sacrifice, it is He alone Who holds our world together, and keeps us all from being poured headlong and immediately into the pit of our eternal destruction. And I tell you there is a power that goes forth from that Sacrament, a power of light and truth, even into the hearts of those who have heard nothing of Him and seem to be incapable of belief. -
Bill,
This short post on X of Archbishop Viganò contrasts the USCCB’s acquiescence and support of Democrat Party rule during the last four years and its present open opposition to that of the Trump administration:
“For years, the USCCB, had always been most careful to keep the utmost silence in regard to Democrat administrations, even when matters of Faith and Morality have been at stake. But lo and behold, now it even goes so far as to challenge President Trump’s executive decrees, accentuating the already polemical tones with which Bergoglio has cried out against “mass deportation.”
The Bergoglian bishops have one consistent motivation: money and power. They were silent before because they were sponsored by the government on the condition that they pander to the woke Left, and they are shouting now because Trump has cut them off and unveils their intrigues. This is typical of mercenaries, “who do not care about the sheep” (Jn. 10:13).
If the USCCB truly is not concerned about getting government funds and cares only about charitable works, it will have no objection if the President orders a forensic audit to find out how the funding it has received has been spent. At that point – we can be certain! – what we have seen so far will seem like negligible trifles compared to what will emerge.
The USCCB is a body totally subservient to the deep church, both in intra-ecclesial relations and in diplomatic and institutional relations with the government. Those in charge of it – encouraged by Bergoglio – are dragging the American Church into a confrontation from which the USCCB will emerge miserably defeated. Who knows whether other bishops will distance themselves from McCarrick’s heirs, or whether they will prefer to sink with them. The faithful expect clear answers.”
Vito -
Vito,
I am pressed for time. But thanks for the comments which I will think through at my leisure. For now, two questions and a comment.
Q1. Does RCC Canon Law make any provision for the removal of a pope in a manner analogous to the impeachment and removal (two different things as you no doubt know) of a U. S. president?
Q2. Do you have any idea who will take over the papacy should Bergoglio die?
C. I said recently that Biden was to the USA what Bergoglio is to the RCC. Now I opine that what the RCC needs for renewal is a pope analogous to Trump. -
Bill,
Q1. Does RCC Canon Law make any provision for the removal of a pope in a manner analogous to the impeachment and removal (two different things as you no doubt know) of a U. S. president?
This is a contentious issue. I am not an authority on these matters, but I do know that the Code of Canon Law, under the rubric “Loss of Ecclesiastical Office,” Article 3, “Removal (Can. 192-195) speaks of the removal from an ecclesiastical office “either by a decree issued legitimately by competent authority, without prejudice to rights possibly acquired by contract, or by the law itself according to the norm of can. 194.” In the case of the pope, the first form of removal butts against the question of what person or group of persons would constitute such an “legitimately competent authority.” Some have suggested that the College of Cardinals would be such an authority, but I find nothing in canon law that supports this claim. It appears that no authority exists in the Church to perform this task. That leaves second form of removal, the violation of canon 194, which reads:
The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:
1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;
2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;
3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.
The debate on this matter focuses on number 2, the defection from the Catholic faith. However, the theological opinion on this matter is highly divided, with some traditionalists arguing in favor of the position of St. Robert Bellarmine: “Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church.” However, this is just the opinion of one great theologian and not part of CL. Moreover, other equally eminent theologians, including Cajetan, differ on this matter. * In conclusion, I do not find in CL any explicit means of deposing a pope, and, in fact, after Vatican I, with the victory of the ultramontane party, it is essentially excluded.
Q2. Do you have any idea who will take over the papacy should Bergoglio die?
No, and anyone who says that they do is mistaken. Francis has created the overwhelming majority of the College of Cardinals, but he has also kept these men isolated from each other, with the exception of those in the curia or his close associates. The best that would could hope for is that this sidelining, along with a fatigue with the intentional confusion created by Francis, would lead a majority to select someone that would carry out a partial restoration, along the lines of Benedict XVI, but this is just wishful thinking on my part, and in any case, I see no chance of a counter-revolution and the return to the faith of our fathers. The best conceivable outcome would be Cardinal Sarah or perhaps Cardinal Erdo, since Cardinal Burke is judged too conservative (no Pope Trump).
Vito
*https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/ -
Thanks again, Vito. There is a lot here to ruminate on.
Leave a Reply to Ingvar Cancel reply