Francis Drives Neo-Traditionalists and Neo-Conservatives to Full Blown Gallicanism. Just Released Open Letter Accuses Francis of Formal and Public Heresy ---- Still Calls Him Pope ---- and demands that the "bishops of the Catholic Church" Depose Him if He Does Not Respond to and Obey Their Admonition.






Thou art Raymond, And Upon Conservative Cardinals I will build My Church.....
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5983408-Open-Letter-to-the-Bishops-of-the-Catholic.html

Dr. Chojnowski: This is an admonishment of the admonishers of Francis. The First See can be judged by no one. If you accuse a pope of falling into public heresy -- which you admit is done with his full knowledge and assent and pertinaciously --- you have created a new Church, which these signatories have done already by setting up the "bishops of the Catholic Church" ---- even in their minority, as judges of the orthodoxy of the man they freely and clearly claim to be pope. This is not Catholic, but rather Gallican, and differs not from the outlook of the Eastern Orthodox which would make the pope one subject to a collegial assembly of bishops. THIS IS HERESY AND YOU NOW RECEIVE MY SECOND ADMONITION, THE FIRST ONE BEING MADE IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR. I of course am only fooling here, I am not given any authority to judge a true pope BUT NEITHER ARE ANY OF THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PUBLIC LETTER NOR ANY OF THE BISHOPS THEY APPEAL TO, NEITHER INDIVIDUALLY NOR COLLECTIVELY. Their only function, and this would be really for cardinals, would be to declare that the man occupying the papacy has deposed himself through heresy or apostasy and has ceased to hold office thereby. In this case they would just be engaging in a canonical process, not of deposing a Vicar of Christ but of declaring that no such Vicar lawfully exists and preceding to licitly and validly elect someone who would then occupy the office truly and legitimately. Let us just admit it. Francis has moved many many people away from the Catholic Faith. Many have spent years claiming to "save the Church" in such a way that they are actually destroying the fundamental moorings of the Church itself as a monarchical society. 


Comments

  1. "Many have spent years claiming to 'save the Church' in such a way that they are actually destroying the fundamental moorings of the Church itself as a monarchical society."

    Yes, this is so true! In their desperation to further their Gallicanist agenda, the R+R and the Resistance are even destroying the true Popes. For example, in a recent post, on this site, entitled, "What Can the Virtue of Faith Have to do with the Roman Pontiff?", one commenter from the Resistance camp made a false and defamatory accusation regarding Pope Pius XII. This person erroneously stated that: "Pope Pius XII gave us permission to believe that God created the earth through the process of macro evolution without it having to be first proven beyond reasonable doubt by science!"

    Resistance was wrong. In fact, Pope Pius XII taught the complete opposite. In Humani Generis, he wrote:
    5. "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

    6. "Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences."

    What's more, Resistance used his/her own personal judgment by claiming to "follow Peter by adhering to Pope Pius XI." In other words, Pope Pius XII deserved to be shunned and ignored. Based on what? Based on the commenter's erroneous information regarding the Pope's teachings on evolution. Thus, it isn't only the "bishops of the Catholic Church" who make themselves judges of the orthodoxy of the Popes, it's also the individual lay people, who know nothing, but make themselves supreme judges over the Popes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find it very interesting that Bergoglio is now being accused of the canonical *delict* of heresy, and that he is *pertinacious* in adhering to this heresy.

    They’re right about the pertinacity bit. That’s going to set a lot of SSPX heads spinning! Because they’ve been telling their laity for decades that you cannot establish pertinacity.

    But if Francis is Pope - and according to these people he is - he cannot be accused of the canonical *delict* of heresy (which means the *crime* of heresy), because the Roman Pontiff is above canon law. And these are people who accuse sedevacantists as "judging the pope"!

    In any case, how can they request the "bishops of the Catholic Church" to accuse Francis of heresy, when these bishops are heretics themselves!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Deposing Francis? What a bunch of hypocrites. Why didn't they try to depose John Paul II when he had his heretical Assisi prayer meetings with pagans whom he told to worship and pray to their own gods instead of preaching the Gospel to them? Why didn't they try to depose Paul VI for being a homosexual and promoting homosexuality in the Catholic seminaries, and John Paul II for not doing a darn thing about it, except excusing it? All of a sudden with Francis they have drawn their line in the sand, which is too little, too late. If they had resisted Paul VI and John Paul II with as much vigor then they wouldn't have a pope like Francis to deal with. Robert Sungenis

    ReplyDelete
  4. Another open letter? What do they hope to accomplish? One thing that's very strange is that the signatories say: "(The bishops) must adjure the pope more than once to reject any heresies that he has embraced, and declare to the faithful that he has become guilty of heresy, if he refuses to renounce those heresies." In other words, the signatories think the bishops need to make sure the "Pope" is pertinacious before they can declare him guilty of heresy.

    It is ridiculous. (We're talking about Francis here!) If a pope denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, then how would this *not* be called "pertinacity"? If every true believer knows the basics of Catholic dogma, then the Pope must know even more.

    What do they think is going to happen when they admonish a "Pope" who is already aware of his heresies? They'll say: "Your Holiness, when you say that God positively wills the pluralism and diversity of religions, it shows a complete denial of the First Commandment of God. Your Holiness must obey all the Commandments."... And then the "Pope" replies: "Oh, wow! I didn't know we had to obey all the commandments. All of them? Really?"

    The signatories should be embarrassed to call themselves "prominent clergymen and scholars".

    ReplyDelete
  5. The letter is too intellectually pretentious to be intended for the bishops. The signatories are apparently using their credentials to divert ordinary Catholics who are finding truth in the sede vacante position.

    Interesting how the authors used the old "hypnotic bait and switch". The letter started with a long succession of true statements. But then it ended with a rejection of the sede vacante position and a promotion of Gallicanism.

    If the writers' real intention was to get the bishops to do something about Francis, they would state their case in a letter addressed to each individual bishop. They would certainly not publicly insult them with a phony lecture on "Canon law and Catholic theology concerning the situation of a heretical pope."... It all smells very fishy as usual.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Amazon Facial Recognition Technology Determines that Sister Lucy I and Sister Lucy II are not the Same Person. Not One Match Amidst Thousands of Comparisons.

Sister Lucy Truth Update: Michigan State Facial Recognition Lab Finds that Sister Lucy II (post-1967) was NOT Sister Lucy I (pre-1967). How Much Do We Need to Put Out Until the Crickets Stop Chirping?

More Than Metaphor: Our Lady at La Salette seems to have told us not only THAT the Church would be in "Eclipse," but WHEN IT WOULD GO INTO ECLIPSE, October 27th, 1958.

Long-Standing Fatima "Consecration of Russia" Narrative Implodes as Handwriting Expert Demonstrates 1980 Letter from "Sister Lucy" to Fr. Umberto Pasquale is Definitely a Forgery. Whatever the Real Sister Lucy Knew about the Requested Consecration of Russia DOES NOT Appear in this Letter. Fatima Center, Are You Listening? Report from Bart Baggett to be Posted Imminently.

ALERT: World-Class Handwriting Analyst Demonstrates that the Writings of "Sister Lucy" from after 1957 Were Forgeries. Analysis of "Third Secret" Released by Vatican in 2000, Forged 1969 Letter Urging Obedience and Submission to Paul VI, Signatures on Letters from 1967 and 1969, Letter about Consecration of Russia From 1980, and Manuscript Released by Carmelites of Coimbra and Used as the Basis for Sister Lucy's Official Biography Published by the Blue Army WERE ALL FORGERIES. Follow the Links to the Sworn Testimony Below.

Revised and Updated Edition of Handwriting Analyst Declaration in which 1969 Letter of "Sister Lucy" Advocating Submission to Paul VI is Proven to be a Forgery. Soon to be Released on SisterLucyimposter.org. Includes Analysis of the Purported Third Secret Released in 2000. Socci's "4th Secret" Looking More Plausible. Folks, if Sister Lucy was around in 1969, she would have been able to write her own letters.