The Vatican Has Fallen

Discussion in 'Church Critique' started by padraig, Dec 31, 2016.

  1. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    G.K. Chesterton described the main problem with capitalism as there being not enough capitalists. What makes me suspect that the intent of the 'guardians' is to make capitalism more exclusive, ensuring it is run by those who know best?
  2. Luan Ribeiro

    Luan Ribeiro Powers

    I doubt nothing; they have in common that they hate Holy Church ; but certainly the state Church model in the image and likeness of the Chinese government can be a model of a possible global union of churches with the new world order: a statist religion submissive to a reformulated socialism/capitalism.
    Byron likes this.
  3. Frankly

    Frankly Archangels



    You display far more diplomatic manners of speech than I'm generally accustomed to doing.. :)

    What greatly concerns me - yet does not surprise me whatsoever is?
    The Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican does not get v.widely disseminated!
    It is super-evidence - that the Vatican has yes indeed Fallen!

    Byron likes this.
  4. Luan Ribeiro

    Luan Ribeiro Powers

    this is certainly an efficient way to destroy the sacrament of Confession as it keeps people away from the sacrament for fear of the lack of secrecy of priests submissive to the communist government in the same way there is a risk of having priests excommunicated for breaking the secrecy of the sacrament; considering that Francis allowed this obscure agreement nothing coming from Rome surprises me more.
    Byron likes this.
  5. Frankly

    Frankly Archangels

    BINGO! Those with extremely deep $Pockets - wind up on the top of the heap of the lords of planet Earth..
    And some/many/most/all? of those who are peddling this notion which rails against God's Temple based upon Love? Are not faithful Catholics.. !
    Ref: Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild & Co.
  6. BrianK

    BrianK Powers Staff Member

    I DO NOT AGREE with this author’s conclusions but this idea is going mainstream (Front Page magazine now) and we have to understand how to address this:

    Francis: The First Anti-Pope in Centuries?
    The case is airtight - and foolproof - that he is.
    Fri Aug 5, 2022
    It is well known that orthodox minded Catholics have felt considerable consternation with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, known to the world as Pope Francis. On issue after issue, year after year, Catholics have had no shortage of occasions to feel perplexed, alarmed, and alienated – justifiably so.

    There’s been his positioning on the issue of remarriage and Holy Communion, for example, or his punitive attacks on the traditional liturgy. Even if non-Catholics may be indifferent to those matters, anyone of good will would also be troubled by his oblivious stance vis-à-vis Islam, his kowtowing to the Chinese Communist Party, his subservience to the globalists (whose “new world order” he condones), and so forth.

    Let’s also not forget about his accommodation of priestly pederasty during his Argentinian days and, as Pope, his calculating association with and elevation of prelates known for their own similarly egregious deviancy. It is baffling that he gets little to no bad press about this. Our society’s overlords, normally keen to seize upon any occasion to attack Christianity, have rather curiously refrained from pouncing on his – the Pope’s! – record on this front; that they turn a blind eye to this giant bulls-eye is worth pondering. Evidently this Pope is off limits. After all, Bergoglio is their man – not the “Vicar of Christ”, a title he himself has tellingly shelved.

    But cataloguing all his misdeeds and deviations from the deposit of faith, and from common sense and common decency, is not my aim here. My intent is to briefly mention a couple of reservations circulating about the legitimacy of Francis’ papacy - and to share a firm conclusion I unexpectedly and belatedly reached about Bergoglio.

    Many Catholics have wondered: is Francis a heretic? Several well-respected scholars and religious have formally claimed so. If any Pope were indeed an explicit heretic, he would automatically forfeit the Papacy, and place himself outside the Christian fold. I have some views on the subject, but I wish to explicitly distinguish the question of heresy with the conclusion I have reached about Bergoglio – because it does not depend on any particular issue, or any of his statements or actions.

    There is also the matter of the St. Gallen Mafia, a group of high-ranking cardinals vehemently opposed to Benedict XVI, named for the town in Switzerland where they regularly met. According to a recent autobiography by the late Belgian Cardinal Daneels, one of its members, they maneuvered in advance to install Bergoglio. Such manipulative scheming, if true, would automatically invalidate the outcome of the conclave.

    Both these issues do appear to be massive red flags but even they may be cast aside, because there is a more germane consideration – one that led me to believe, with moral certainty, that Bergoglio is not really the pope.

    He is an anti-pope because Benedict XVI did not validly renounce the Papal office as required by Canon Law – the most recent 1983 version of which he himself helped craft. Therefore there should never have been a conclave following his surprising February 11, 2013 announcement known as the Declaratio. This would be the case even if someone other than Bergoglio had been chosen, and even if Bergoglio hadn't done and said all the things he’s done and said.

    That is my conclusion. Here is how I got there.

    When trying to make sense of Bergoglio’s ambiguous or problematic positions, I was inclined – like many others – to give him the benefit of the doubt; to focus instead on crediting things he expressed that were consistent with the deposit of faith that any Pope is entrusted to guard and pass on; to allow things to sort themselves out over time.

    So I didn’t concern myself with any questions about the legitimacy of the Bergoglian pontificate itself. It never crossed my mind.

    As time went by, I heard some chatter here and there about how Bergoglio might actually be an anti-Pope, but still never really gave it any thought. After all, I told myself, aren’t there people out there who say that John Paul II wasn’t really the Pope either? That the Holy See has been vacant since 1958? Wouldn’t it be too dicey to try to navigate that whole minefield?

    Other thoughts came to mind: there is so much on the internet, so how can one be sure what is reliable and what is not? And if Bergoglio is an anti-Pope, why hasn’t anyone within the hierarchy been sounding the alarm?

    And if I were to engage the issue, wouldn’t I be “schismatic” – at least potentially; that was obviously an uncomfortable thought, but one I came to deem as overly deferential and ultimately evasive. (I suspect a noble but fallible impulse towards loyalty may in part account for why Catholic outlets have tended to steer clear of this matter). After all, if looking into this is somehow un-Catholic, how did previous anti-Popes ever get identified?

    So one day I said to myself: I am going to look into it. I am going to read what people who claim Bergoglio is an anti-Pope have to say – and evaluate their arguments. Not their personality or writing style, nor their position within “society” or the Church, but the thrust of their arguments. I wouldn’t have to commit. I could just sit with it all for a while. And so that’s what I did.

    First off, I was a bit surprised to learn that immediately after Benedict XVI’s Declaratio (within days), prominent Latinists, canonists, philosophers, theologians and journalists were pointing out significant errors in the Latin text Benedict XVI had delivered. Do such errors always nullify a juridical act? Possibly not. But let’s just say it raised eyebrows even at that time.

    Most significantly, though, I was struck by the simplicity and persuasiveness of the contention that, from an objective point of view, Benedict XVI’s Declaratio does not adequately constitute a valid Papal renunciation as stipulated by canon law. If the relevant canonical requirements are not satisfied in the communicated act of renunciation, no other circumstance (e.g. “everyone now accepts Bergoglio as the Pope), event (e.g. a conclave), or rationalization, whenever expounded, can validate it. At its core, it really is that simple.

    It is indeed noteworthy (and mortifying) that no one affiliated with the subsequent conclave called for an investigation into this matter at the time. That would have been prudent and indeed necessary, precisely because non-compliance with canonical norms voids such juridical, ecclesiastical acts.

    After all, if the consequential shortcomings or ambiguities of Benedict XVI’s Declaratio had been publically enumerated in a transparent effort to clarify his objective, Benedict XVI could have easily responded by issuing a simple, unambiguous renunciation of the Papacy, free of error, which would meet the requirements of canon law. But that never happened.

    Read the rest at the link
    DeGaulle and garabandal like this.
  7. Mario

    Mario Powers

    Lois, DeGaulle and Luan Ribeiro like this.
  8. BrianK

    BrianK Powers Staff Member

    Only the Church can decide/ declare whether a putative pope is actually an antipope. Lay people cannot take it upon themselves to make this determination.

    That said, I have the mental reservation that this pope probably is an antipope and that eventually the Church WILL get around to declaring that. That’s the only way I can maintain my own spiritual peace and sanity, given the obvious heresies of this Vatican regime, and the continual promotion of high churchmen who obviously display active same sex attraction.
    Luan Ribeiro, DeGaulle and Frankly like this.
  9. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    It's a big call to declare Pope Francis an anti-pope. I prefer to keep it simple and think that it's very difficult indeed to escape the conclusion that he's a wicked pope.
    Frankly likes this.
  10. Frankly

    Frankly Archangels

    Assuming for the sake of discussion that Francis has yes gone over to the other side, the burning question lit is: Who therefore represents 'the Church'?
    Do not those in the Church with the authority to declare Francis is an 'antipope' come from the heretical Vatican and active homosexual 'high churchmen' ?

    IMO - And keeping in mind Francis/Vatican's with (kept Sotto Voce) being part of The Council for Inclusive Capitalism - aka Money, Mammon, Gold?

    It's become easier to opine (as some already do) that the Vatican and those who follow its lead - is become minions of the leaders of AntiChrist/ianity~
  11. Frankly

    Frankly Archangels

    IMO, the understandable debating over 'anti-pope'? Officially? To Be? Maybe? Yes? No? --

    Nonetheless - Stands in the shadows of the actual reality of his ongoing actions as the Vicar of Christ !
    DeGaulle likes this.
  12. garabandal

    garabandal Powers

    I think things are being set up for change in the near future with this synodal revolution.

    Already PF has changed the Catechism on the death penalty as a forerunner to more radical changes.

    1. Altering church teaching on homosexual acts.
    2. Over turning Humane Vitae
    3. Married priesthood
    4. Tinkering further with the liturgy

    It is a given these things will at least be discussed during the synodal process and given the make up of the current hierarchy I think we are headed for apostacy times.
    DeGaulle, BrianK and Frankly like this.
  13. Frankly

    Frankly Archangels

    Yes, and as a first-hand witness to it, 'these' things have been under attack for c.50 years, whereby some Jesuits & Co. began preaching Apostasies - which much success.
    DeGaulle and garabandal like this.
  14. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    Particularly in relation to the first two, any section of the Church that insists on contradicting Revelation and the Truths derived from it will be, in actuality, placing itself in schism. Those, even if only a handful of us, who remain exactly where they are, in lockstep with The Church Triumphant, will remain in The Body of Christ. That's how I see it. Accessing valid sacraments might be problematic, of course. For example, does a gutted Mass, in which the Schismatic Church has abandoned the notion of Real Presence and in the absence of availability of a proper Mass, afford a mystical opportunity of the Real Presence of Christ for the committed believer? We are in extraordinary times and the Grace of God will be all the more abundant for those who crave It.
    garabandal and Lois like this.
  15. Lois

    Lois Principalities

    Not knowing anything about the author or the publication, if they think publishing this tome is doing us any favors, they, imho, are very mistaken. 19681309-D370-48A3-9847-46D126257D59.png
  16. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    Reading this in more detail, it strikes me as a belt and braces argument, which is always questionable. Pope Francis is alleged to be an anti-pope, firstly because Benedict cocked up his resignation and secondly because Francis' subsequent election was illegal. I'd be more convinced with one more solid case.
    Ang and BrianK like this.
  17. Frankly

    Frankly Archangels

    AMEN! Heading into the Worst of times in one manner and Best of times in another..

    From the Rock! Pope Peter (2 Peter 3)

    You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.
    That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire - the elements will melt in the heat.
    In keeping with his promise we look forward to a new heaven & earth, where righteousness dwells.

    So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2022
    Mmary, Rose and Mario like this.
  18. Luan Ribeiro

    Luan Ribeiro Powers

    I thought about the possibility of the synod discussing liturgical inculturation or at least preparing the way for it, following the initial proposal of an Amazonian rite that was discussed in the 2019 synod (marked by the idolatrous cult of Pachamama).
    DeGaulle and garabandal like this.
  19. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    With the help of God, sufficient of our 'sophisticatedly' liberal prelates will be repulsed by the concept of reversion to primitive, human-sacrificing Inca deities that the antichristian vote will be split. Those cardinals and bishops who wish to be accepted and even seen 'as cool' (in reality, no chance!) in polite, nice, secular society might not be able to embrace such unprogressive, atavistic mumbo-jumbo. Those of them who aspire to a Freemasonic, New Order universal religion for a newly evolved, 'improved' mankind might be somewhat averse to such savage innovations. As I say, with the help of God.
  20. Luan Ribeiro

    Luan Ribeiro Powers

    I couldn't find it on the forum but I remember that someone posted a dream on the forum (between 2019 and 2020) in which the image of Pachamama was next to the altar in a local Church ...
    DeGaulle likes this.

Share This Page