There is no real proof right now, Steve. Much information, but no real in-your-face, credible proof. Just innuendoes. A few facts that might add up. People are surmising. Maybe we might know the complete truth before too long. I still say the situation is murky, not clear. Until then, we have a sitting Pope. IMHO
What would be convincing proof? From the horse's mouth..... https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/bergoglio-and-mccarrick-manipulating-the-conclave Excerpt: "(Austen) Ivereigh confirmed the lobbying efforts of Cdl. Murphy-O'Connor, a member of the St. Gallen mafia, on Bergoglio's behalf. According to his 2014 book, Murphy-O'Connor's job was to inform the Argentine cardinal of their plan to get him elected, and to lobby for him in North America. "They first secured Bergoglio's assent," wrote Ivereigh. "Asked if he was willing, he said that he believed that at this time of crisis for the Church no cardinal could refuse if asked. Murphy-O'Connor knowingly warned him to 'be careful,' and that it was his turn now, and was told 'capisco' — 'I understand.' Murphy-O'Connor apparently told Bergoglio he could remake the Church in four years — language strangely similar to that of McCarrick's mysterious Italian friend who had asked him to "talk up" Bergoglio and claimed he could change the Church in five years." https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...ears-to-make-the-church-over-again.-heres-how Excerpts: "In an astounding talk given six months after Bergoglio’s election, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, D.C., revealed how he became part of the plan to elect the new pope. “Before the Conclave, nobody thought that there was a chance for Bergoglio,” he said in an October 1, 2013 talk given at Villanova University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania McCarrick, who like Murphy-O'Connor, was too old to vote in the conclave, said that prior to the event a “very interesting and influential Italian gentlemen” visited him at the American College in Rome where he was staying to ask him to campaign for Bergoglio. The conversation, as related by McCarrick, must be quoted at length to reveal its significance. We sat down. This is a very brilliant man, a very influential man in Rome. We talked about a number of things. He had a favor to ask me for [when I returned] back home in the United States. But then [the influential Italian] said, ‘What about Bergoglio?’ And I was surprised at the question. I said, ‘What about him?’ He said, ‘Does he have a chance?’ I said, ‘I don't think so, because no one has mentioned his name. He hasn't been in anyone's mind. I don't think it’s on anybody's mind to vote for him.” He said, ‘He could do it, you know.’ I said, ‘What could he do?’ He said, ‘[Bergoglio] could reform the Church. If we gave him five years, he could put us back on target.’ I said, ‘But, he’s 76.’ He said, ‘Yeah, five years. If we had five years, the Lord working through Bergoglio in five years could make the Church over again.’ I said, ‘That’s an interesting thing.’ He said, ‘I know you’re his friend.’ I said, ‘I hope I am.’ He said, ‘Talk him up.’ I said, ‘Well, we'll see what happens. This is God’s work.’ That was the first that I heard that there were people who thought Bergoglio would be a possibility in this election. McCarrick went on to say in his talk that when his time came to speak to all the cardinals prior to the vote, he urged them to elect someone from “Latin America” who could identify with the poor." -------------- "The day Bergoglio was elected, Argentinian journalist Marcelo González of Panorama Católico Internacional wrote that he was “terrified” for the future of the Catholic Church. It is worth quoting the post in its entirety: Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals, but because, judging from his work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and morals seem to have been irrelevant to him. A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass, he has only allowed imitations of it in the hands of declared enemies of the ancient liturgy. He has persecuted every single priest who made an effort to wear a cassock, preach with firmness, or that was simply interested in Summorum Pontificum. Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said that his magisterium is heterodox, but rather non-existent for how confusing it is. His entourage in the Buenos Aires Curia, with the exception of a few clerics, has not been characterized by the virtue of their actions. Several are under grave suspicion of moral misbehavior. He has not missed any occasion for holding acts in which he lent his Cathedral to Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and even to partisan groups in the name of an impossible and unnecessary inter-religious dialogue. He is famous for his meetings with Protestants in the Luna Park arena where, together with preacher of the Pontifical House, Raniero Cantalamessa, he was "blessed" by Protestant ministers, in a common act of worship in which he, in practice, accepted the validity of the "powers" of the TV-pastors. This election is incomprehensible: he is not a polyglot, he has no Curial experience, he does not shine for his sanctity, he is loose in doctrine and liturgy, he has not fought against abortion and only very weakly against homosexual "marriage" [approved with practically no opposition from the episcopate], he has no manners to honor the Pontifical Throne. He has never fought for anything else than to remain in positions of power. It really cannot be what Benedict wanted for the Church. And he does not seem to have any of the conditions required to continue his work. May God help His Church. One can never dismiss, as humanly hard as it may seem, the possibility of a conversion... and, nonetheless, the future terrifies us."
It's really down to the Bishops. It's ironic but I think the only hope is that it might get so bad so fast they might be stirred to at least some kind of little action. I note a recent statement by Cardinal Sarah that he is appalled by the number of priests coming to him everyday from all over the world who are despondent at current events in the Church. Word is getting out. I am trying to stay positive.
Mr Gonzalez certainly knew his man. He describes Pope Francis to a tee. I take consolation in the description of his magisterium as 'non-existent for how confusing it is'. Maddening as his pontificate has been, I suspect he has frustrated the liberals even more. Rather than make the Church safer for sodomy, he has instead exposed the predatory activities of the sodomites for all to see and left the perpetrators more vulnerable to secular prosecution than ever. Despite six years of horror, the modernists have few concrete achievements to crow about. Every unorthodoxy promulgated by Pope Francis has been so ambiguous or indirect that it seems unlikely to provide the long-term revolutionary change hoped for by the ageing modernists. The dilemma for the modernists is that their programme has most appeal for those who are least likely to participate in the life of the Church and its effects can only be to accelerate this trend. Removing any apparent need for the Fear of God takes with it any motivation to practice religion or morality-one is going to Heaven anyway, but might as well have as good a time down here as one can, while, very much in the back of one's mind, awaiting the former. It strikes me that such apostates should find Islam more appealing, with its promise of 'Heaven' as a form of eternal brothel. Of course, there is so much wealth in the Church that an apostate one could conceivably survive for quite a while on its accumulated capital, but what kind of Church is one without priests or laity, dependent for survival on the sale of its treasures? Despite the loud and prominent position of the modernists that surround PF, it is far from proven that the majority of future Cardinal electors will be so ideologically dedicated as to choose a future that will ultimately be their demise. It is possible that the situation might even be greatly worsened, but I retain hope that a different course will be charted at the next conclave. There are many martyrs for the Church these days, particularly in Africa. I think they will not die in vain. The influence of the African Church is growing. It may soon make its presence felt.
Love this...wish the world could be like that couple! Great faith on your part Padraig....going there without dough
There children were lovely too. I know a little Italian and one of them described me a , 'Brutto', which I thought meant , 'Fat'. Only later did I find our it meant ' Ugly'. Her brother was a Cardiologist in Padre Pio's Hospital which is how a got the Grand Tour of it. Since the couple worked in the monastery I got to see the parts other pilgrim's don't get to see for instance Padre Pio's cell. I had a little money but not enough for lodgings . I had a little tent but there was no campsite in the village. It's in the middle of nowhere in the mountains. I nearly got thrown off the train on the way down. I had bought some bread and salami and a very big bottle of wine in a shop. I started to sing and a lot of passengers joined in laughing' I was singing , 'The Bless of the Angelus', which they loved and joined in. However some Sicilian ladies dressed all in black were outraged and considered it blasphemous to singing hymns with drink taking so they went to get the conductor to throw me off the train. The Sicilians and Italians don;t get on , so the other passengers and conductor hid me from the ladies in black in another compartment. They were all killing themselves laughing at me. The Sicilians stalked up and down looking for me, but I had good protectors. Sicilians ladies seem to take things very,very seriously indeed.
I feel the same when a non-Catholic on FB chastises me for anything. Most of the time I know better than to put anything out there I know will get the ire of someone. That is not a good place for an apologetics debate. I trust what I know, though I may not be able to defend it perfectly with an evangelical. There will always be walls we ourselves cannot penetrate or break down. Evangelicals portray having all the answers, found only in the Bible....Perhaps some answers we are not supposed to have yet...but God will in His time present them to all. In the End my Heart will Triumph!!
Vatican | May. 15, 2019 Professor John Rist: Why I Signed the Papal Heresy Open Letter In an interview with the Register, the noted Catholic scholar explains what impelled him to sign the controversial letter and replies to some of the criticisms directed against it. Edward Pentin | http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/professor-john-rist-why-i-signed-the-papal-heresy-open-letter An open letter accusing Pope Francis of heresy and calling the world’s bishops to investigate has been signed by 86 people as of May 10, among them some prominent theologians and other academics. One of the most notable of the initial 19 to sign the missive is professor John Rist, a respected British scholar of patristics best known for his contributions to the history of metaphysics and ethics. The author of detailed studies on such subjects as Plato, Aristotle and St. Augustine of Hippo, Rist held the Father Kurt Pritzl, O.P., Chair in Philosophy at The Catholic University of America and is a life member of Clare Hall at the University of Cambridge, England. He was also one of the contributors to Remaining in the Truth of Christ, a book upholding the Church’s teaching on divorce and remarriage published ahead of the 2014 Synod on the Family. Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who was then serving as prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was another contributor to that 2014 collection of essays. In this May 13 email interview with Register Rome correspondent Edward Pentin, professor Rist responds to a number of criticisms that the open letter has drawn, including that it is “extreme,” “intemperate” and “overstates” its case. In response, he says he put his name to the initiative chiefly because he believes that what he sees as ambiguous statements from Pope Francis are designed to try to change the Church’s doctrine “by stealth.” He says the letter is aimed at preventing “further massive confusion among Catholics” and to “expose papal double-talk,” which he believes is a deliberate effort by the Pope for “evading charges of heresy.” Professor Rist, what were your own motives for signing the open letter? My chief motive for signing was that I had come to the conclusion that so many vain attempts have been made to get the Pope to “clarify” his ambiguities and correct his seeming errors that there was no useful alternative to an outright “charge.” By his wholly unreasonable unwillingness, in particular to answer the dubia, Pope Francis has brought this upon himself. How far has the letter achieved its goal? I do not think the letter has achieved its goal — nor did I think there was much chance that it would, at least in the short run. That is because the Pope can always shelter behind silence, and there is a servile mentality among the episcopate (and many others, even conservative commentators), which is squeamish about criticizing a pope. Such commentators approximate too closely to reducing the sacred and unchallengeable dogmatic teachings of the Church to the utterances of a pope: the Father [Thomas] Rosica theory of the present papacy! Why release the letter now, what prompted its publication, and how many people were asked to sign it? I did not organize the letter so I cannot answer your questions. But I do know that there was considerable debate about the content. I was only involved relatively late on and agreed to sign because I thought the general approach was essential at this time. I doubt whether a document could be written in which everyone would agree with all the wording: that is, unless it were so bland as to be pointless. What do you say to the various criticisms of the letter: that it represents an “extreme” and “intemperate” approach which “overstates” the case — as some see it — and this makes further criticism of this pontificate harder? Criticisms of intemperance, etc., whatever their intent, can only have the effect of diverting attention from the main concerns: that the Pope is deliberately using ambiguity to change doctrine and that the attitude he adopts over appointments indicates that he is out of sympathy (to put it mildly) with traditional Catholic teachings on a whole range of subjects. Fussing about “extremism,” etc. seems like fiddling while Rome burns; what it shows is that even many conservatives do not want to grasp the gravity of a situation where the Pope seems bent on turning the Church into a vaguely spiritually flavored NGO. Another criticism is that the signatories are not in a position to accuse the Pope of heresy, that only bishops can hold him to account for such a charge, and that the letter would have been better just calling on bishops to investigate the alleged heresies rather than accusing the Pope of them. What is your response to this view? But calling on the bishops is precisely what the letter does! The signatories are not in a position to convict a pope of heresy; they are in a position to “prosecute” the charge, and we judged it was our duty to do so. The letter is primarily and immediately a challenge to the bishops to act rather than ignore or wring hands only. What is your view of the critique that it’s not yet possible to accuse Pope Francis of specific formal heresy, but he can be accused of deliberate ambiguity and confusion, or “drift” toward heresy, and that that might have made a better critique? See my answer above. I am not a canonist, nor (see above) a judge. What I am is someone who believes he can recognize intended heresy in word [and] also how the words are confirmed by the actions. Others have said it would have been better to omit aspects which they believe are not strictly suspected of being heretical, such as supposed dubious episcopal appointments, protecting bishops who have covered up or committed abuse, and the Pope’s use of what some thought was a “stang” for a staff. What do you say to the criticism, that these are too extraneous to the accusation of heresy? The list of “misdeeds” is cumulative. One or two could be ignored, but this number …? I fail to see how someone who, for example, calls abortion-activist (and abortionist) Emma Bonino a “forgotten great” can possibly believe the truth of Catholic teaching (going back to the Didache) on such an important matter, involving the deaths of millions by abortion. What is your response to Jimmy Akin’s criticism that none of the signatories are specialists in ecclesiology and that the letter not only fails to show that Pope Francis obstinately doubts or denies dogmas? Someone pointed out to me that Catherine of Siena has only an “honorary” doctorate “of the Church” and that, to the best of our knowledge, the apostles had no degrees at all! Some of the criticism in this letter — including charges of syncretism, indifferentism and questionable appointments — has been raised to some extent about Pope St. John Paul II, as well. Are there any parallels here, and should his legacy be given greater scrutiny along these lines? This is now a merely historical matter. John Paul’s theatrical talents, and his comparative indifference to Curial reform, have not been helpful. The former encouraged the disastrous practice, which we now see in spades, of assuming that if you want the answer to any question, you go to the pope as talking oracle: The media took (and takes) advantage of that, often to the detriment of the Church. Are you concerned that in accusing the Pope of heresy, and especially if this accusation goes unheeded, you might be leading others to a sedevacantist position and disunity? Some may, unfortunately, resort to sedevacantism. That would be sad but cannot be advanced as an excuse for inaction. Francis’ election does seem to have some uncanonical features (recognizable in the activities of the “St. Gallen mafia”), but elections in the past have also been dodgy. That is no justification for sedevacantism. continued...
continued from above... Which period of Church history do the troubles of our own time most remind you of? At first sight there might seem particular similarities between the present situation and the rebellion of Luther. In both cases we had an overemphasis on a tendentious version of traditional teaching. Luther talked misleadingly about sola fides (saved by faith alone) — rather than the traditional fides caritate formata (faith expressed through love) — while the present German and Roman theologians seem to deal in sola misericordia (saved by mercy alone) without attention to Jesus’ call to reform one’s ways. But in our present case, a deliberate disregard of the recorded teachings of Jesus over “remarriage” while a spouse is still living implies either that Jesus did not really say what is reported of him or that his teachings have passed their sell-by date. This would accord with some Hegelian account of truth; however, that scenario implies a denial of his teaching authority and thus of his divinity. Which brings us to the most obvious parallel with the present situation: the Arian conflict of the fourth century. Insofar as current German-Roman theology implies or suggests the diminished authority of Christ, it is Arian, not in the sense of a direct “subordinationism,” since now the subordination arises not from dogmatic theologizing but indirectly out of moral theology. Furthermore, while Luther was soon expelled from the Church, in our case, as with the Arians, it is an internal matter: bishop against bishop, bishop against pope (as Liberius was for a while in Arian times). As [Cardinal John Henry] Newman observed, the world woke up and found itself Arian. What are we going to find when we wake up? Some noted that the letter was released not only on the traditional feast of St. Catherine of Siena, famous for her criticism of a pope, but also on the (postponed because of Easter) feast of St. George, the Pope’s name day. Do you see this letter not as a hostile attack on the Pope, as many have suggested, but as an act of fraternal charity? If so, do you think that could have been made clearer in the letter to avoid such criticism of hostility? Some will see it as “fraternal charity”; others as an attack on the Pope. My own sole concern is to act, after the failure of others to elicit responses from the Pope, to help to prevent any further massive confusion among Catholics. The job of a pope is to encourage unity, not to become the leader of a faction. What other concerns do you have that prompted you to sign the letter? I am concerned above all else to expose double-talk, which is how the present Pope has been evading charges of heresy. Uttering ambiguous and/or contradictory remarks on important issues must ultimately be viewed as a planned attempt to change doctrine by stealth. Had such ambiguities/contradictions been occasional, they could be attributed — in accord with the canonical principle of benignity — to “mere” muddle. Prolonged ambiguity on this scale requires that a sadder conclusion be drawn: that there is a design to achieve by stealth what could not be achieved by openly and unambiguously un-Catholic decrees. I end with a quotation from the greatest of Catholic doctors: “We tend culpably to evade our responsibility when we ought to instruct and admonish [evildoers], sometimes even with sharp reproof and censure, either because the task is irksome or because we are afraid of giving offense, or it may be that we shrink from incurring their enmity, for fear that they may hinder and harm us in worldly matters, in respect either of what we eagerly seek to attain, or of what we weakly dread to lose” — Augustine: City of God, 1.9. *** Thu May 16, 2019 - 10:00 am EST It’s ‘illusion’ for Christians to seek peace with world which rejects God: Bishop Schneider By Lisa Bourne Thu May 16, 2019 - 7:30 am EST How faithful Catholics can find hope in midst of Church’s crisis of faith By John-Henry Westen Thu May 16, 2019 - 6:09 am EST Catholic historian: Satanic revolution against Church, Christian civilization is happening now By Stephen Kokx Thu May 16, 2019 - 5:15 am EST ‘Gender theory’ is a ‘threat’ to proclamation of the Gospel: Dutch Cardinal By Stephen Kokx
Lobbying for votes clearly violates the instruction Universi Dominici Gregis promulgated by Pope JPII. In other words Francis was NOT duly elected. The dubia surrounding Pope Francis' election by David Martin https://canadafreepress.com/article/the-dubia-surrounding-pope-francis-election Excerpt: "We know from Cardinal Danneels of Brussels that he was part of a radical “mafia” reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI. Danneels, known for his support of abortion, LGBTQ rights, and gay-marriage, said in a taped interview in September 2015 that he and several cardinals were part of this “mafia” club that was calling for drastic changes in the Church, to make it “much more modern,” and that the plan was to have Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio head it. This infamous clique—which is documented in Austen Ivereigh’s book the Great Reformer—comprised key members of the Vatican “gay lobby” that had clamored for Pope Benedict’s resignation, the same members who stirred up so much chaos at the October 2014-15 Synods on the Family. Ivereigh’s book brings to light the intense lobbying campaign that was spearheaded by Cardinal Murphy O’Connor to get Cardinal Bergoglio elected as pope. Up to 30 cardinals were involved. According to Ivereigh, “they first secured Bergoglio’s assent” and then “they got to work, touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man.” This was confirmed, in the case of Cardinals Murphy-O’Connor and Cardinal O’Malley, in the Wall Street Journal report from August 6, 2013. As the conclave neared, they held a series of closed meetings, known as congregations, one of which featured Cardinal Bergoglio as the keynote speaker. Ivereigh points out that “because the organizers of his campaign stayed largely below the radar, the Bergoglio bandwagon that began to roll during the week of the congregations went undetected by the media.” Clearly, there was intense politics and vote canvassing at work in and around the time of the conclave, but this directly violated Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, which lays down the rules for conducting conclaves. Therein he makes it clear that vote canvassing among cardinal electors is strictly forbidden, and that it *renders the election “null and void.” Key passages are as follows: 81. 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. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition… 82. I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void. 76. 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. Clearly, “the conditions laid down” by the Holy Father were not observed, so it’s only proper to say (or to at least consider) that the 2013 election conferred “no right on the one elected.” Should one retort by saying it is up to a committee of bishops to declare this nullity, let him remember the pope’s ruling that vote canvassing renders the election “null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter.” Universi Dominici Gregis (February 22, 1996) | John Paul II"
You will recall that our late friend Mac/Luke was not 'in communion' with Pope Francis, being a member of the SSPX. I do not recall anyone chastising him for that position nor anyone begging him to repent of it even when he was dying. Presumably you hold out little hope for his soul if the above represents your position on the Papacy of Francis yet you did not speak as far as I recall. We are to be obedient in all but sin and to those licitly appointed over us.
No one in authority has stepped forward to do an investigation of the allegations. It’s not “clearly” anything until it is investigated and exposed. Daneels is dead, McCarrick is in Kansas. This is hearsay right now. That’s why I say it is murky. This is an extremely serious matter and deserves serious consideration, but until that time, we have Pope.
