Here are what every Catholic should know about Francis I, his “pontificate”, and the current Synod

Synod of Doom

By Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

I really marvelled at the kind of excitement and joy with which, on October 4^th, a friend and brother (a well committed Novus Ordite though!) announced to me that “the pope” had excommunicated a dissident Catholic priest! “I told you,” he said. “This pope is wise! He knows what he’s doing! The Holy Spirit is leading him!”

I couldn’t just laugh, and I couldn’t cry. I only gazed at him, mute!

One of the things that fascinate me—and amuse me too—about St. Augustine is the way he battled the enemies of Catholicism even until his very last breath—that extraordinary zeal for the things of God which, in different ways, can also be spotted in some other Christian Saints of the early centuries. The Encyclopedia Britannica says much about the various theological battles fought by St. Augustine, and in the concluding part of its biography of the Saint, it says:

“…approaching his 60th year, Augustine found—or manufactured—a last great challenge for himself. Taking umbrage at the implications of the teachings of a traveling society preacher named Pelagius, Augustine gradually worked himself up to a polemical fever over ideas that Pelagius may or may not have espoused. Other churchmen of the time were perplexed and reacted with some caution to Augustine, but he persisted, even reviving the battle against austere monks and dignified bishops through the 420s. At the time of his death, he was at work on a vast and shapeless attack on the last and most urbane of his opponents, the Italian bishop Julian of Eclanum.”

Of course, as a typical characteristic of modern scholars, the writers here are trying to be “fair to all the parties” and hence fail to tell us what Augustine’s opponents actually did—and particularly, who this Julian really was and why St. Augustine fought him even until his very last breath. Julian was bishop of Eclanum who is considered to be the most intellectual leader of the Pelagians—heretics. Julian was married in 402, but upon the death of his wife he was ordained and in 417 succeeded his father, Memorius, as bishop by appointment of Pope St. Innocent I. An early supporter of Pelagius, he and several other bishops refused to sign the document issued by Pope St. Zosimus excommunicating the heretic Pelagius and his disciple Celestius. Julian demanded that a general council of the church consider the problem. His appeal was rejected, and he was deposed and banished from Italy in 421. He was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and all his attempts to regain his see failed. He eventually settled in Sicily as a teacher. Julian systematized Pelagian theology (heresy) and wrote several works (most of which are now lost). His writings are known primarily through long quotations from St. Augustine, who refuted them.

Julian was highly educated and skilled in philosophy and dialectics, and as well had mastery of Greek and Latin. He possessed much theological learning which, however, was tainted with Pelagian errors. Principal among his works are the letter to Rufus, Bishop of Thessalonica, and the epistle to the Roman clergy, which Augustine, at the request of Pope Boniface, refuted in his work "AGAINST TWO LETTERS OF THE PELAGIANS"; the reply of Julian to what Augustine wrote in DE NUPTIIS ET CONCUPISCENTIA ("On marriage and concupiscence"); and his answer to the defence by Augustine of DE NUPTIIS ET CONCUPISCENTIA.

                       

When Julian emerged as the Pelagian champion, the controversy came to lack Christian charity. Julian accused Augustine of being a Manichee, a detestable African Aristotle, one who sought an argument, one who like an infant used words that lacked meaning, one who spoke slander, and one who gave bribes. Against De nuptiis et concupiscentia that was written by Augustine, Julian directed the four books of his work, Ad Turbantium in the year 419. Its main thought is the natural goodness of human beings in the divine creation. Augustine wrote a second treatise, De nuptiis et concupiscentia. Julian answered by addressing eight books to Florus, Libri viii ad Florum contra Augustine librum secundum de nuptiis ("Eight books to Florus against Augustine's book about marriage"). This was to be the most important writing by Julian. It forms the proper source for the knowledge of the theology of Julian. Though composed shortly after 421, it did not come to the notice of Augustine until 427. The written rebuttal by Augustine quotes Julian sentence by sentence and refutes them. It was completed only as far as the sixth section of the book by Julian, and hence is cited in subsequent Patristic literature as Opus imperfectum contra Iulianum ("The uncompleted work against Julian."). A comprehensive account of Pelagianism, which brings into strong relief the diametrically opposed views of the author, was furnished by Augustine in 428 in the final chapter of his work, De haeresibus ("About heresies."). The last writings by Augustine published before his death in August 430 were no longer aimed against Pelagianism, but against what is now called Semipelagianism. Augustine thus spent much time and thought during the last twelve years of his life defending his interpretations against the errors of Julian of Eclanum.

And why am I citing this case of St. Augustine versus Julian? Answer: This very zeal to battle and uproot even the least of heresies is what has simply become alien to modern Catholic Christians, particularly “theologians” and the clergy. It may interest you to know that the major heresy of pelagianism taught by Julian, for which Augustine battled him until his last breath, was his denial of the church's doctrine of original sin and the necessity of infant Baptism. Of course, St. Augustine did that because the Church does not tolerate error or heresy, no matter how “little” it may be. Now compare Julian’s error(s) to the numerous errors and heresies of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to find out who’s more heretical. Yet Bergoglio, unlike Julian who was excommunicated, is “the pope”!

My friend ignores all that; rather he’s excited, happy, and reassured that his pope is indeed the pope because he “excommunicated” a dissident “Catholic priest” (even a fellow heretic!).

Antonio Socci on the mystery of the two popes 

On February 12, 2014, Antonio Socci wrote the following (from II Libero):

“In the days following the announcement of the resignation (of Benedict XVI), before he had specified his new situation, even Civiltà Cattolica, like Father Lombardi, had committed a gaffe. In fact, it published an essay by the canonist Gianfranco Ghirlanda where it was affirmed: “It is clear that a pope who has resigned is no longer pope, and thus no longer has any power in the Church and cannot meddle in any affair of government. It can be asked what title Benedict XVI will retain. We think there should be attributed to him the title of Bishop Emeritus of Rome, like every other diocesan bishop who resigns.”

“In any case, not “Pope Emeritus.” But Benedict has chosen to be precisely “Pope Emeritus.” There must be a very serious reason for deciding to “continue” thus. And the consequences are obvious. His are very important signals sent to those who have to understand them, and to the whole Church.

“He signals that he continues to defend the treasure of the Church, albeit in a new way. And he seems to repeat what he said during his inaugural Mass: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.” ” 

Below are other remarks made by Socci, originally in Italian but translated for The Remnant readers by Christopher A. Ferrara with the title “Latest from Socci: The Papal Games”: 

Perhaps the “resignation” of Pope Benedict is not canonically valid

“The “retirement” of Benedict XVI—a year later —is tinged with yellow [mystery].* Because of emerging “details” which compel serious questioning of its real canonical validity.

“I start with that to which I myself have given testimony. In the summer of 2011 I received the news from a reliable source: Benedict XVI has decided to resign and will do so after having completed 85 years, i.e., in April 2012.

“I wrote everything in these columns, on September 25, 2011. I was buried by an avalanche of contemptuous responses from both the Vatican entourage and the Vaticanists. Arriving at the Spring 2012, one of the Vaticanists noted repeatedly that my prediction had not come true. I replied that it was in the middle of the storm of Vatileaks, and for that reason the Pope had not yet resigned. In fact, on February 11, 2012, with the Vatileaks case just closed, Benedict XVI announced his dramatic withdrawal (it was still in his 85th year).

“Yet yesterday the gnawing critics [rosiconi]* at “Vatican Insider” wrote: “Over the years, in the Italian newspapers, Antonio Socci and Giuliano Ferrara spoke, for different reasons, of the hypothesis that Joseph Ratzinger would resign. No one, however, was able to predict the timing.”

“Aside from the fact that mine was a news item, while the article by Ferrara, which was released months later, was a cultural reflection, in my article, the timing was very well defined.

Confirmation by Bertone

“Also yesterday, Cardinal Bertone, in an interview with Il Giornale, revealed: “The Pope had arrived at the decision some time ago; he had already spoken with me about it in mid-2012.”

“Then he decided to delay the communication awhile on account of the many storms that were in progress. But the decision had been made by April of 2012. Just as I had written. At this point I wondered how my source already knew all of this for certain in the summer of 2011, two years before [the resignation]? Who and why was he in a position to know such a thing?

“Or had someone close to the Pope, or some group of people, “negotiated” and obtained it? Well, in the summer of 2011, people close to the Pope did not know it. So, were there forces that wanted and pressed for that decision, even to the point of “extracting” a date from him?

Conspiracy?

“I do not think it is a conspiratorialist exaggeration because, in addition to the very strong external attacks that have characterized his papacy, Benedict XVI has from the beginning been opposed in an extremely harsh way within the ecclesiastical world: this is evident from the document in which a group of anonymous cardinals, just after the conclave of 2005, broke their oath on the Gospel by circulating an alleged diary of the votes that de-legitimized Ratzinger and in practice broadcast the signal to quit. Deviously prefiguring the events that would then indeed be realized. That public de-legitimization of a newly elected pope, on the part of perjured cardinals hidden behind anonymity, has no equal in the modern history of the Church.

                      

“And it is possible to think that from there was unfurled an entire hostile strategy that clearly pointed to the resignation of the Pope. In the book “Attack on Ratzinger” in 2010, Andrea Tornielli and Paolo Rodari reported the declaration of an important cardinal who, after the Conclave of 2005, said of Pope Benedict: “Two or three years; he will not last more than two or three years” (and “he accompanied the words with a gesture of his hands, as if to minimize”).

A disturbing report

“It should be mentioned also the disquieting “report” presented to Benedict XVI on December 30, 2011 by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, in which there are mentioned things that another Cardinal, Paolo Romeo, Archbishop of Palermo, is reported to have said to some people in November 2011 during conversations in Beijing. Cardinal Romeo, according to the author of the report, “harshly criticized Pope Benedict XVI.”  Finally, “with self-assurance, as if he knew with precision, Cardinal Romeo announced that the Holy Father would have only twelve months to live. During his conversations in China he prophesied the death of Pope Benedict XVI within the next 12 months.”

“This document then went out in the press in February 2012 and caused a sensation, but was quickly forgotten, even by the media (always superficial). Downgraded to empty chatter by some absent-minded person who had misunderstood everything, imagining assassination attempts and the like.

“Certain aspects of that report were strange, but in light of what really happened in the ensuing twelve months, can we say that it was just a coincidence that the disappearance of Ratzinger was foreseen with certainty?

“Certainly, with all this dark turmoil in the Curia, today appear hardly credible statements like the one by Cardinal Sodano in the heat of the Pope’s resignation: “A bolt from the blue.” Sodano—who was Secretary of State in 2005 and was replaced by Benedict XVI in 2006—is also the one who, as dean of the Sacred College, managed the new Conclave of 2013. And he remains the strong man of the Curia. 

The yellow [mystery]

“The story of the resignation of Pope Benedict is ever more mysterious. And embarrassing as well. Not coincidentally, on the anniversary of the withdrawal one read surreal things, such as the declaration by Cardinal Cottier, who told Avvenire: “With great clarity he measured his own strength and the work to be done.  And he decided that you cannot force Providence.”

“To remain at his post would have been “force Providence”? And in what theology manual would such nonsense be written, offensive to Pope Benedict as well as to Providence, which is held to be incapable of guiding human lives? Perhaps the Conclave of 2005 went against Providence?

“So here we are before the crucial question: that of the “resignation” of Benedict XVI. On February 11, 2013 he solemnly announced it, “well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom.” It is not admissible to doubt his words; therefore his was a free act. However, one can press in many ways to obtain a decision in this sense. Not necessarily with a direct demand.

“Some have suggested that the Pope had heard being aired catastrophic events for the Church which, in his heart, he believed he would be able to avoid by stepping aside. In this case, he would have made his own free decision, but how valid would his resignation have been?

“The problem of the canonical validity of his resignation is enormous. In fact, invalidity —according to some canonists—does not regard only the case of coercion, but arises in other cases as well.

Significant signs

“For example, one may ask whether there was a contest of the will in his heart when the Pontiff made the decision—that is, if he retired interiorly as well as exteriorly. It seems a speculative question, but in the things of God the heart, which He alone sees, is determinative.

“In fact, even for the sacraments this is requisite. The consecration of the Eucharist requires matter, form and intention: if it lacks even one of these elements, the sacrament is invalid. For example, if there is no inner intention of the priest to consecrate, if he expresses the words, but has no intention of consecrating, the consecration is invalid.

Has Benedict XVI also retired interiorly?               

           

“In addition to the language of words there is that of actions. What we see is that he has chosen to remain “in the enclosure of Peter,” to dress in white, to be called “Pope emeritus” and to continue to be called Benedict XVI (signing thus).

“He also refused to change his coat of arms back to that of cardinal, still retaining one with the keys of Peter! The Vatican has said that Benedict “prefers not to adopt a heraldic emblem expressive of the new situation created by his renunciation of the Petrine Ministry.”

“We know that in the Church there is also a “tacit magisterium.” Perhaps this is the case. And of course Benedict is in agreement with Francis. A beautiful mystery.”

(Antonio Socci, from Il Libero, February 12, 2014).

The two popes and us. Something is really happening in the Church

“What is the true nature of the “retirement” of Benedict XVI?

“In previous cases, in fact, popes who resign have always returned to their status as cardinal or religious: five months after he abdicated, the famous Celestine V, elected in 1294, returned to being the hermit Peter of Morrone. And the legitimate Pope Gregory XII, who, in order to repair the great Western Schism retired from the papal office on July 4, 1415, was reinstated to the Sacred College with the title of Cardinal Angelo Correr, serving as papal legate in Marche. Given the precedents, the same spokesman for Benedict, Father Federico Lombardi, during a briefing with reporters on 20 February 2013, in answer to the question “and if he decides to call himself Pope Emeritus?” said: “I would rule it out. ‘Emeritus’ is a bishop who, even after resignation, maintains a link ... in the case of the Petrine ministry it is better to keep things separate’.

“Famous last words. Just one week later, on February 26, the same Father Lombardi had to communicate that Benedict XVI would remain precisely “Pope Emeritus” or “Roman Pontiff Emeritus,” retaining the title of “His Holiness.” He would no longer wear the ring of the fisherman and would dress in a simple white cassock.

“In these days Benedict XVI also refused to change his papal coat of arms, rejecting both a return to the heraldry of a cardinal and the coat of arms of a Pope Emeritus. He will keep the coat of arms of a Pope, with the keys of Peter!

“What does all of this mean? Obviously excluded is any personal vanity for a man who has given proof of total detachment from worldly positions (here it involves matters theological, not worldly goods).

“So, there can be only a weighty historico-ecclesial reason, probably related to the motives for his retirement (for which so many pressed unduly). But what is this reason?”

Pope forever

“The only official explanation lies in his speech of February 27, 2013, the one in which he clarified the limits of his decision: “Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord.” 

“Note: I emphasize that expression “always and forever” because the Pope then explained it thus: “Always—anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church (...) he no longer belongs to himself….”

“Then he added, and I quote: “The ‘always’ is also a ‘forever’—there is no longer a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.”

“It is amazing that a statement of this sort passed unnoticed. If words have meaning, in fact, here Benedict XVI says he renounces “active exercise of the ministry,” but the Petrine ministry, as such, is “forever” and is not revoked. In the sense that his resignation applies only to “active exercise” and not to the Petrine ministry. What other meaning can these words have? I do not see it. Hence we must ask what kind of “resignation” was that of Benedict XVI.

“That speech of February 27 seemed consistently to confirm the distinction between “active exercise” and “passive exercise” of the Petrine ministry. He said, in fact: “I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life that, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.”

“To the fact of these words, and the words “forever” and “ministry not revoked,” were then added the acts of which we have spoken, that is, the permanence of the name Benedict XVI, the dress, the title “His Holiness,” and the pontifical coat of arms.

“…What in fact is his theological status? And what does “retirement” from only the “active exercise” of the Petrine ministry mean?...”

(Antonio Socci, from Il Libero, February 16, 2014).

Finally, Swiss bishops confirm the existence of Cardinal Danneels’ ‘mafia’ against Benedict XVI

Just six days ago, on September 30, 2015, LifeSiteNews published an article confirming—to those who can understand—that some forces were actually behind the resignation of Benedict XVI. We read:   

“While correcting local media reports, the Swiss bishops today confirmed the existence of the so-called “mafia” of bishops that aimed to counter the influence of Cardinal Ratzinger during the pontificate of John Paul II.

“The confirmation came amid intense discussion in Switzerland about the question of the now well-known group of cardinals, called the “St. Gallen Group,” about which Cardinal Godfried Danneels recently made some disturbing, even embarrassing revelations.

“This morning, the local radio station FM1 Today in Sankt Gallen, Switerland, reported on the alleged secret meetings of this “St. Gallen Group” that supposedly worked both on making Pope Benedict XVI resign and on getting Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio then elected for the Papal office. As sources for their claims, the radio station cited a new biography about Bishop Danneels, as well as a candid public statement that the cardinal himself made.  Summing up their claims about this seeming conspiracy, the radio station said:

“Karim Schelkens, historian and co-author of the biography, said in an interview that the election of Bergoglio has been without doubt prepared in St. Gallen in the middle of the “mafia” and also that Ratzinger resigned because of it [this “mafia”].

“For some reason, only a few hours later, that same radio station softened some of its claims. The second report, entitled “There were meetings, but no secret meetings,” now said: “It is wrong to put the St. Gallen circle of Cardinals in the connection with the resignation of Pope Benedict, since the meetings did not take place any more after the year 2006.”  ”

Of course, the report was quickly “refuted”, particularly by the Diocese of St. Gallen, whose bishop is the president of the Bishops' Conference—see the Diocese’s  summarizing statement, a statement based mainly on the “witness” of the former bishop of St. Gallen, Bishop Ivo Fürer. In this statement the official report of the Diocese of St. Gallen denied that the “St. Gallen Group” had worked both on making Pope Benedict XVI resign and on getting Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio then elected for the Papal office, but could not deny that such a “St. Gallen Group” existed. It rather admits that the group existed but in the past! Bishop Fürer also admits to his own approval of the election of Cardinal Bergoglio but insists that the meetings ceased in 2006! Ivo Fürer was Bishop of St. Gallen from 1995 until 2005. He was prominently involved, as its President from 1995-2009, with the Swiss Catholic Lenten Fund which has come under strong international criticism for its funding of LGBT activists, and for its funding of the Swiss Institute for Pastoral Sociology whose president, Dr. Arnd Bünker, is himself an active promoter of the homosexual agenda.

Pope St. Pius X’s Vision

In 1909, during an audience for the general chapter of the Franciscan Order, Pope Pius X suddenly fell into a trance. The audience waited in reverent silence. When he awoke, the Pope cried out:

"What I see is terrifying! Will it be myself? Will it be my successor? What is certain is that the Pope will quit Rome, and in leaving the Vatican he will have to walk over the dead bodies of his priests. ...Do not tell anyone this while I am alive."

Just prior to his death (August 20, 1914), Pope Pius X had another vision:

"I have seen one of my successors, of the same name, who was fleeing over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in some hiding place; but after a brief respite he will die a cruel death. ...Respect for God has disappeared from human hearts. They wish to efface even God's memory. This perversity is nothing less than the beginning of the last days of the world."

How do we know the anti-pope?                                                 

"The antipope and his apostate collaborators will be, as Sister Lucia said, supporters of the Devil, those who work for evil without being afraid of anything," says Father Paul Kramer.

Catholics love the pope.  Whoever he is, wherever he hails from, he always represents for them an evident and effectual sign of the presence of Christ in the world.  Even before Our Lady asked the children at Fatima to pray for the Holy Father, Catholics have prayed for him daily and not only look to him for leadership but also regard him as that firm and sure foundation on which the Church’s teaching authority is built.   For Catholics, the purity of teaching is so important that it is easier for them to accept the possibility that the ‘pope’ may not, in fact, be the pope than it is for them to believe that a pope could be a teacher of error.

Throughout his letters, St. Paul insisted that he had not invented any new doctrine, nor had he deviated from what he himself had received.  Regarding the Eucharist, for instance, he stated: “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread ...” (1 Cor. 11:23), and he went on to warn in verse 29 that “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”  Even more forcefully, he told the Galatians that there are some who want to pervert the gospel of Christ, and so “even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal.1:8).

The Papal Magisterium, according to the teaching of Vatican I (D. 3070), was not established to reveal new doctrine but rather to guard and transmit faithfully the truths of faith entrusted by Christ to His Apostles: “The Holy Spirit has not been promised to the successors of Peter to reveal, by His inspiration, a new doctrine, but to scrupulously guard and make known with fidelity, by His assistance, the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is, the deposit of faith.”

Whilst the faithful owe obedience to the pope as the Vicar of Christ, the pope himself owes obedience to the Word and Apostolic Tradition and, in so doing, facilitates the faithful in their obedience to him. In a world not dissimilar to that when “for a long time Israel was without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law” (2 Chr. 15:3), it is necessary that the pope be wise and clear in his teaching so that those hearing him may avoid the snares of death: “Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:16).  Pope Felix III, living in a world inimical to the Gospel message, saw the necessity of correcting error and reinforcing truth, saying that an error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed.

The following must be noted about the man called Pope Francis I:

1. Does Francis really see himself as a pope who follows the footsteps of the previous popes in history?

The answer to this question is simply NO. First, Francis doesn’t like to be called “the Pope”. He rather prefers to be called the “Bishop of Rome.” Francis doesn’t even profess the original doctrine of the papacy (…his belief in this regard is even worse than those of Protestants!), let alone seeing himself as a pope following the footsteps of the previous popes in history. Quite the contrary!

For instance, on the authority given to St. Peter by Our Lord, Francis once preached the following to his followers:

“…Simon, in the name of the Twelve, professes his faith in Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God”; and Jesus calls Simon “blessed” for his faith, recognizing in it a special gift of the Father. He says to [Simon], “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.”

“Let us pause for a moment on this point, on the fact that Jesus bestows on Simon this new name, “Peter,” that in Jesus’ language [Aramaic] was “Kepha,” a word meaning “rock.” In the Bible, this name, this term, “rock,” referred to God. Jesus attributes this name to Simon not for his own personal qualities or his human merits, but on account of his genuine and firm faith, which comes from on high.

“Jesus feels a great joy in His heart, because He recognizes in Simon the hand of the Father, the action of the Holy Spirit. He recognizes that God the Father has given Simon a “dependable” faith, upon which He, Jesus, can build His Church, that is, His community, that is, all of us. All of us.

“Jesus intend to give live [sic] to “His” Church, a people founded not on offspring, but on faith, that is to say, on a relationship with Himself, a relationship of love and trust. Our relationship with Jesus builds the Church. And so to begin His Church Jesus needs to find in His disciples a solid faith, “dependable” faith. This is what He must confirm at this point in the journey, and this is why He asks the question.

“The Lord has in mind the image of building, the image of the community as an edifice. And so, when He hears Simon’s frank profession of faith, He calls him “rock,” and makes clear His intention of building His Church on this faith.

“Brothers and sisters, what happened in a unique way in Saint Peter, also takes place in every Christian who develops a sincere faith in Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Being inclined as he is to engage in the modernist pastime of clothing novelties in quasi-Catholic language, the “Holy Father” went on to say:

“For his part, Peter is the rock, as the visible foundation of the unity of the Church; but every baptized person is called to offer to Jesus his or her own faith, poor but sincere, so that He can continue to build His Church, today, in every part of the world.”

Now don’t let the “visible foundation of the unity of the Church” rhetoric fool you. Jorge has made it rather clear that his vision of that oh-so-elusive “unity” that he “labours” to find along with the heretics has nothing to do with submission to the authority of the pope.

In any event, at the conclusion to his address, “the pope” goaded the faithful into joining him in crying out, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” three times. At this, he turned and waved goodbye, presumably to what he thought were a bunch of “rocks” assembled in the square below!       

Now for those who don’t know, the following is the Church’s teaching in this regard:

To really keep His church one, Jesus appointed Peter—one man—and made him head of His church (Matt.16:17-19;Jn.21:15-17). In response to his profession of faith in the divine nature of his Master, Christ thus addressed Peter:

“Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jona! Because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I say to you, you are Peter (from the Greek πέτρος—Petrus meaning “rock”) and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” 

The Greek text:

‘μακάριος εἶ, σίμων βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ' ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.’ (Matt. 16:17-19).

The above mandate was personally made to Peter and his future successors. Here then Jesus teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter. The expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is often spoken of under the metaphor God’s house (cf.Nu.12:7; Jer.12:7; Osee.8:1,9, 15; 1 Cor.3: 9-17; Eph. 2:20-21; 1 Tim. 3:5; Heb. 3:51; 1 Pet. 2:5). Of course, there is no house that can really stand without a foundation. Otherwise, it will definitely collapse. Peter is to be to the Church what a foundation is to a house. He is the principle of unity, of stability and of increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not joined to that foundation is not part of the Church; of stability, since it is the firmness of this foundation in virtue of which the Church remains unshaken by the storms which buffet her; of increase, since if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this foundation. It is through her union with Peter, Christ continues, that the Church will prove the victor in her long context with the evil one. “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. There can be but one explanation of this striking metaphor. The only manner in which a man can stand in such a relation to any corporate body is by possessing authority over it. The supreme head of a body, in dependence on whom all subordinate authorities hold their power, and he alone can be said to be the principle of stability, of unity, and of increase. The promise acquires additional solemnity when we remember that both the Old Testament prophecy (Is.28:16) and Christ’s own words (Matt. 7:24) had attributed this office of foundation of the Church to Himself. Christ is therefore making Peter His own representative, and thereby associating the Apostle with Himself in an altogether singular manner. (C.f. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPAEDIA, The Encyclopaedia Press, 1913, Vol. xii, p. 261).

In the following verse (Matt.16:19), He promises to bestow on Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The words are evident in Isaiah 22:22, where God declares that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office in place of worthless Sobna: “And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder, and he shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open”.

In all countries, the key (κλειδός) is a symbol of authority. Thus Christ’s words are a promise that He would confer on Peter supreme power to govern the Church. Peter is to be His representative here on earth, to rule in His place. Further, the character and extent of power thus bestowed are indicated. It is a power to “bind” and to “loose”—words which mean the granting of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measures. ‘‘...I will give to thee the keys (τὰς κλεῖδας) of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven” (Matt.16:19).

Thus, whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, his act will receive divine ratification. It should be noted that this is why we say that the Pope is infallible, which Protestants and non-Catholics do not understand. Now unfortunately, even some Catholic “theologians” are, in fact, more ignorant than the Protestants—we see this in action in the debate that has been going on over papal infallibility ever since Venerable Pope Pius IX defined the doctrine in 1870. 

2. Does Francis, like other Roman Catholic popes in history, believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation? 

In the Athanasian Creed—which is a Solemn Definition—we read:

“Whoever wishes to be saved must before all else adhere to the Catholic Faith. He must preserve this Faith whole and inviolate; otherwise he shall most certainly perish in eternity”.

Does Francis believe in this solemn definition, which is simply a dogma of the Catholic Church?

We don’t need to answer this question, since everyone already knows the answer. In the first place, Francis doesn’t even see any real difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, and between Catholicism and other non-Christian religions.

In On Heaven and Earth, page 236 Francis wrote about new religious belief systems and movements. He stated: “I am respectful of all new spiritual proposals… Surviving the passage of time is the major test of spiritual purity.” So, according to the apostate Francis, the false religion of Hinduism is a true and pure spirituality because it has been around for 3,000 years and has survived “the passage of time”.

Again, Francis, Address, May 18, 2013: “… promote religious freedom for everyone, everyone! Every man and every woman must be free in his or her profession of religion, whatever it may be.” L’ Osservatore Romano, May 22, 2013, p. 11.

Hence, as a “Cardinal”, Francis found nothing wrong in receiving "joint blessing" from Protestant “Pentecostal” ministers.

Commenting on this, John Vennari  writes:

“Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, states in his newly-released book On Heaven and Earth that he happily allowed Protestant Pastors to pray over him at a huge Charismatic Conference. He further says he is baffled as to why anyone would find this objectionable. 

“On Heaven and Earth is a joint production of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio and Rabbi Abraham Skorka. It is a book of conversations between the two men first released in Spanish in 2010, and now published in English. In this book we encounter Cardinal Bergoglio in his own words. He appears to have a warm heart, a number of good Catholic instincts, but also shows himself immersed in the new ecumenical orientation of Vatican II. The Council’s pan-religious program is central to his thinking. His commitment to Pentecostalism is one such instance. 

“…On June 19, 2009, the Third Annual Fraternal Encounter of Evangelicals and Catholics was held in Luna Park stadium, Buenos Aires. Cardinal Bergoglio attended. At one point, as is characteristic in these Pentecostal gatherings, the Cardinal dropped to his knees on stage to receive the “blessing” from the well-known Charismatic Father Raniero Cantalamessa O.F.M. and a number of Protestant pastors. Some well-meaning Catholics tried to argue that Bergoglio must have only intended to receive a blessing from the Catholic priest, and the Protestants jumped in as a surprise to the Cardinal. As I noted in the April CFN, I do not see how this could be the case. Long time readers know I have attended many riotous Charismatic gatherings as an observer. These pan-Christian joint-blessings are standard procedure at Charismatic assemblies. Also, Pentecostalism has been rampant in South America since the late-1960s, so it was unlikely the Cardinal of Buenos Aires was unaware of these ‘joint blessings” before participating in the 2009 event. 

“All speculation is put to rest on this point when we read page 220 of the newly released On Heaven and Earth. Cardinal Bergoglio states with pride that he knowingly permitted the joint blessing to take place. The Cardinal says, “The first time that the Evangelicals invited me to one of their meetings at Luna Park, the stadium was full. That day a Catholic priest [Father Cantalamessa] and an Evangelical Pastor spoke. They gave two talks each, interspersed with a break to eat some sandwiches at noon. At one point the Evangelical pastor asked that everyone pray for me and my ministry. He had asked me if I would accept that they would pray for me and I answered him that of course I would. When they prayed, the first thing that occurred to me was to kneel down, a very Catholic gesture, to receive their prayer and the blessing of the seven thousand people that were there. The next week, a magazine headline stated: ‘Buenos Aires, sede vacante. The Archbishop commits the sin of apostasy.’ For them, prayer together with others was apostasy. Even with an agnostic, with his doubt, we can look up together to find transcendence; each one praying according to his tradition. What’s the problem?”

“Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this story is not that the Cardinal accepted the ‘blessing’ from Protestants – though this is troubling enough – but that he appears to be genuinely mystified as to why anyone would find his actions objectionable. This makes one wonder what sort of formation young Jorge Bergoglio received in those heady days after the Council just prior to his 1969 ordination!”

It should be well noted that Roman Catholic Popes of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had issued several warnings about this type of ecumenism, championed by today’s Satanic Vatican. These popes were inspired by God and they spoke prophetically about the period we are living in now. For instance in 1928 Pope Pius XI wrote:

“These pan-Christians who strive for the unity of the churches would appear to pursue the noblest of ideals in promoting charity among all Christians. But how should charity tend to the detriment of faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems in his Gospel to have revealed the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and who never ceased to impress upon the memory of his disciples the new commandment “to love one another,” nevertheless strictly forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: “If any man comes to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him, God speed you.” (2 John 1: 10).” (On Fostering True Religious Unity (Mortalium Animos), January 6, 1928, par. 10).

Again, the Pope writes:

“Therefore, since the foundation of charity is faith pure and inviolate, it is chiefly by the bond of one faith that the disciples of Christ are to be united. A federation of Christians, then, is inconceivable in which each member retains his own opinions and private judgment in matters of faith, even though they differ from the opinions of all the rest. How can men with opposite convictions belong to one and the same federation of the faithful: those who accept sacred Tradition as a source of revelation and those who reject it; those who recognize as divinely constituted the hierarchy of bishops, priests and ministers in the Church, and those who regard it as gradually introduced to suit the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that wonderful conversion of the bread and wine, Transubstantiation, and those who assert that the body of Christ is there only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognize both Sacrament and Sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial of the Lord’s Super; those who think it right and useful to pray to the Saints reigning with Christ, especially to Mary the Mother of God, and to venerate their images, and those who refuse such veneration as derogatory to the honour due Jesus Christ, “the one mediator of God and men? (Cf. 1 Tim. 2:5).” (Ibid. par. 11).

3. Hence, Francis is against conversion of  non-Catholics to the Catholic Faith.

Francis 1, in an interview with Argentine magazine “Viva” in 2014, gave his top 10 suggestions on how people could have a “happier and more fulfilled life”. Two of his pieces of advice bear closer examination. Suggestion #9, however, was a real doozy: “Don’t proselytize; respect others’ beliefs. We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyses: ‘I am talking with you in order to persuade you,’ No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytizing,” Francis 1 said.

What is proselytizing? Put simply, to proselytise someone is to try to convert him. Synonyms for “proselytize”— evangelize, convert, save, redeem, win over, act as a missionary, advocate. So “the Pope” is clearly against believers doing any of these things!

The Bible, on the other hand, has this to say in regards to Bergoglios’ opinion on converting lost sinners: “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Timothy 4:2-4).

See this: http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=23850

4. Does Francis even believe that sin exists?

How does Francis actually view sins? Does he even believe that sin exists? If he does—if for instance, he does believe that abortion is really a sin—then what has he done about the horror of the Planned Parenthood now murdering countless of innocent babies in the United States? Similarly, in the wake of the legalization of “gay marriage” in the United States, following its legalization in Ireland, why did “the Pope”, in contrast, identify what he considers the major moral evil of our time, namely “neglect of the environment as witnessed by such atrocities as too much “air conditioning”? Why? 

Francis, Conversations, pp. 120-121: “I often say that the only glory we have, as Saint Paul says, is that of being sinners.”

Saint Paul doesn’t say this, of course! Francis then goes on to say on the next page: “That’s why, for me, sin is not a stain I need to clean.”

Again, Francis, Conversations, p. 129: “… it is a problem of sin. For four years Argentina has been living a sinful existence because it has not taken responsibility for those who have no food or work.”

Notice that the only sin Francis speaks of is not giving people food or work! He says nothing about sins against God and the Catholic faith. Liberation theologian in action!

5.  Francis on homosexuality—the “Who Am I to Judge?”

Even within the first year of his “pontificate”, "Pope" Francis had managed to unsettle even the most uncritical of Catholics, who tried desperately to explain away the ambiguity of his words and actions. To them, the fact that the Church’s traditional enemies approve highly of him raises concerns, not least because of the Lord’s warning that “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.  If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also” (John. 15:18-20).

Catholic concerns increased in proportion to the density of the fog covering “the pope”’s true position on key issues. To the consternation of Catholics and the satisfaction of the world, “Pope” Francis, by word and action, has provoked many major controversies, one of the most egregious of them being the “Who am I to judge?” comment, (the meaning of which he finally demonstrated to his defenders two weeks ago by allowing a famous homosexual to serve as lector during his “papal mass”, in the United States). This pontifical question instantly disarmed all those resisting the incursions of the gay lobby.  The “Holy Father” failed to make the required distinctions, namely, that the Church does not judge persons but that she has the right and duty to judge their actions and teachings.  The Church has passed no judgement of the personal morals of even arch-heretics, though she has certainly warned the faithful of the perniciousness of their teachings.  In writing to the Corinthians, St. Paul says: “But rather I wrote to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?  God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you” (1 Cor. 5:11-13).

Francis, On Heaven and Earth, p. 117: “When the head of the Government of the City of Buenos Aires, Mauricio Macri, did not appeal the judge’s opinion right away authorizing a [same-sex] wedding, I felt that I had something to say, to inform; I saw myself with an obligation to state my opinion. It was the first time in eighteen years as bishop that I criticized a government official. If you analyze the two declarations that I formulated, at no time did I speak about homosexuals nor did I make any derogatory reference toward them… Macri told me that these were his convictions; I respected him for that, but the head of the Government does not have to transfer his personal convictions to law. In no moment did I speak disrespectfully about homosexuals…”

Francis says he respects those who favour the abomination of same sex “marriage”, and says he never was disrespectful to sodomites and perverts. Ah! 

According to Edward Beck, a Roman Catholic priest who hosts "The Sunday Mass" on the ABC Family Channel, Bergoglio’s support for homosexuality is nothing secret.  Beck said that at a 2010 Bishop's Conference led by Francis I when he was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, in which he convened all the bishops in Argentina, he (“the pope”) suggested that the conference vote to support civil unions for homosexuals.  You can see the video where Beck speaks about this in a live CNN interview, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SBtfiGcGCQ&feature=youtu.be

6. Francis encourages priests to leave the priesthood if they fall in love, and divorce as well.

In a private conversation with his longtime friend from Buenos Aires, Oscar Crespo, Francis reportedly revealed his plans to change important "archaic" parts of the Catholic rules. Crespo says “the Pope” intends to overturn the "centuries-old ban" on Catholic priests from getting married and to lift the banishment of divorcees from the Catholic church.(See this: http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=59123

Francis, Conversations, pp. 118-119: “There are times when a priest does fall in love and must reassess his vocation and his life. Then he must go to the bishop and tell him, ‘I’ve made up my mind… I didn’t know I was going to feel something so beautiful… I truly love this woman’, and he asks to leave the priesthood.

And what do you do in these cases?

Francis: “I stay with him; I accompany him on his spiritual journey. If he is sure of his decision, I even help him find work… We request what is called ‘dispensation,’ permission from Rome, and then he would be allowed to receive the sacrament of marriage.”

So Francis will help a man who has taken a permanent vow of chastity before God to break his vow and leave the priesthood. What a wicked heretic! The Catholic Church has never allowed a priest to leave the priesthood and get married. This is a heretical invention promoted after Vatican II. As for Crespo’s testimony that “the Pope” intends to lift the banishment of divorcees from the Catholic church, we have already seen this in action, in the newly released Motu Proprio which “allows” local bishops to grant uncontested divorce (deceptively called annulments) to married couples within 45 days.

7. On the current Synod of Doom called by Francis

In his “Synod of Doom” Update Christopher A. Ferrara writes:

“The Instrumentum or working document for the second session of the Synod of Doom from October 4-25 (which I will be covering for The Fatima Center) is nothing short of a blueprint for subversion of the Church’s entire moral edifice.  I urge every faithful Catholic to read the extensive analysis of this atrocious document by Voice of the Family (VOF), the international coalition of lay leaders from pro-life and pro-family groups that was formed to defend the family Church AGAINST the Synod on the Family.  The author, Matthew McCusker, has done a tremendous service to the Church.

“As VOF’s report observes, the “interpretive key” to the whole Instrumentum is classic Modernist doubletalk: the Synod’s task, Instrumentum declares, is “to read both the signs of God and human history, in a twofold yet unique faithfulness which this reading involves.” The notion that the Church’s constant teaching on marriage and family is subject to “human history” is pure Cardinal Kasper, whose heretical ravings (as quoted by VOF) include the following:

‘The God who is enthroned over the world and history as a changeless being IS AN OFFENSE TO MAN… We must resist this God, however, not only for man’s sake, but also for God’s sake. He is not the true God at all, but rather a wretched idol. For a God who is only alongside of and above history, WHO IS NOT HIMSELF HISTORY, is a finite God. If we call such a being God, then for the sake of the Absolute we must become absolute atheists. Such a God springs from A RIGID WORLDVIEW; he is the guarantor of the status quo and the enemy of the new.’

“The correspondence between Kasper’s historicized God and the “God of surprises” Francis had invoked at the conclusion of Synod 2014 was not easy to miss.

“Further doubletalk appears in paragraph 7 of the INSTRUMENTUM, which contains the absurd affirmation that “[p]eople are becoming increasingly aware of the dignity of every person — man, woman and child,” only to admit in the same paragraph the truth of the exact contrary…

Confronted with a collapse in sexual morality and the disintegration of marriage and family in country after country since Vatican II, writes Ferrara, the INSTRUMENTUM does not propose that these “pastoral challenges” be met by a vigorous reaffirmation of the Church’s infallible doctrine and intrinsically related Church law and discipline.  Quite the contrary, as VOF’s report demonstrates meticulously, the 85 paragraphs the INSTRUMENTUM tacks onto the final report of Synod 2014 subversively reintroduce the very theme of the midterm report the Synod Fathers roundly rejected: a supposed need to relax Church discipline in order to accommodate the very situation that even the heretic John Paul II had called “silent apostasy” following the Synod of 1999. In the added paragraphs the “opening” to adulterous “second marriages,” cohabitation and “homosexual unions” in the midterm report had appeared again like a champagne cork bobbing to the surface from the deck of the Titanic, along with a generalized loosening of the Church’s teaching on marriage and procreation.

8. Getting to know Francis’ intention for the current Synod

In his piece published by LifeSiteNews on July 13, 2015, John-Henry Westen (a sincere believer in Francis I’s disastrous “pontificate”, wrote:

“If “actions speak louder than words,” as the saying goes, the message of Pope Francis on homosexuality is increasingly confusing. On the one hand, he has reiterated the Church’s teaching that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman, and has even repeatedly condemned gender ideology, the intellectual underpinning of the LGBT movement. However both in his deeds—most notably his choice of advisors and prelates to elevate to higher positions—and omissions he has left an impression in many minds that seems very different from the Church’s tradition.

“It is not only Catholic conservatives who have observed these mixed signals. In the wake of the demotion of prominent conservative Vatican cardinals like Raymond Burke and Mauro Piacenza, Vatican watchers both on the left and the right have pointed out the seeming favoritism of Pope Francis for liberal prelates. Italy’s conservative Vaticanist Marco Tossati dramatically described it as “open season on conservatives.” John Allen, one of the top Vatican watchers, although he falls on the left side of the spectrum of Catholic thought, has himself highlighted Pope Francis’ decisions regarding the demotion of conservative bishops and promotion of those on the left.

“Allen has said Francis is being seen as engaging in an “ideological purge” of conservatives. “Many on the Catholic right can’t help but suspect that the recent preponderance of conservatives who’ve found themselves under the gun isn’t an accident,” Allen added. “Some perceive a through-the-looking-glass situation, in which upholding Catholic tradition is now perceived as a greater offense than rejecting it.” ”

According to John-Henry Westen, Francis has chosen to remain silent at key intervals, most especially in the aftermath of some of the most significant shifts in the globe regarding homosexuality—the same-sex “marriage” decisions of both Ireland and the United States.”

Although journalists asked for comment, said John-Henry Westen, an eerie silence from Rome met June 2015’s judicial imposition of homosexual ‘marriage’ on the United States. Similarly, after traditionally Catholic Ireland voted to support same-sex “marriage” in their referendum, comment from the “pope” himself was absent! Francis I said absolutely nothing! Only after a few days did a comment appear from the Vatican Secretary of State—and not from Francis I—calling the decision a “defeat for humanity.”

Father Gruner’s Fatima Center also made a similar remark: “In the wake of the legalization of “gay marriage” in the United States, following its legalization in Ireland, the Pope, in contrast, identified what he considers the major moral evil of our time: neglect of the environment as witnessed by such atrocities as too much “air conditioning.” And, of course, there is always the daily attack on Catholics who take the doctrines of the Faith too literally, along with the vilification of capitalism” (see: http://fatima.org/perspectives/sv/perspective750.asp).

Westen continues:

“These silences come two years after the pope made his “who am I to judge” comment, which, while misconstrued in most media presentations and widely abused by advocates of same-sex “marriage,” has never been revisited by the Holy Father to clarify his intent—a clarification that could certainly put a swift end to the ubiquitous misuse of his words. Beyond this, the silence that met the first Synod on the Family’s interim document—which, although approved by the Pope for release, presented a view on homosexuality at odds with Church teaching—remains to this day. This despite the public pleading of Cardinal Raymond Burke for a clarification on that and related matters that could come only from the pope.

“Equally concerning as this silence, however, have been the appointments to high office and stature in the Church of men with a position on homosexuality at variance with the established teaching of the Church.”

Francis’ different treatment for liberal and “conservative” bishops is also well known. For instance, U.S. Bishop Robert Finn and Archbishop John Nienstedt, Paraguayan Bishop Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plano and German Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst are all bishops who were outspokenly supportive of the natural family and were all removed from office by Francis I.  The first three were removed from their posts for not reporting “abusive priests” within their dioceses, and the German was the so-called ‘Bishop of Bling” removed for perceived “overspending.”   

While some Catholics entirely agreed with the “disciplinary actions” taken against these bishops, others took note of the puzzling concurrent elevation of liberal prelates with records much more sullied than the “conservative” ones. For instance, Bishop Battista Ricca, a former Vatican diplomat, was well known for homosexual conduct during his term at the nunciature in Uruguay, but Francis nevertheless appointed him to head the Vatican Bank and defended his decision.  

Perhaps the most egregious case is that of Cardinal Danneels, who is a proponent of Church recognition for homosexuality. The evidence that Cardinal Danneels engaged in a cover-up of sex abuse is overwhelming, clear and well known, yet he was brought out of relative obscurity by the personal intervention of “Pope” Francis during the Synod. Immediately following his retirement in 2010, Danneels, who has publicly supported same-sex civil unions, was revealed to have actively worked to hide the activities of the now-notorious homosexual abuser, his friend and protégé Roger Vangheluwe, the former bishop of Bruges. Danneels was caught in a recording telling Vangheluwe’s victim, his nephew, “The bishop will resign next year, so actually it would be better for you to wait.”

The cardinal is heard in the recording warning the victim against trying to blackmail the church and urged him not to drag Vangheluwe’s name “through the mud.” Danneels added that the victim should admit his own guilt and ask forgiveness.

Meanwhile while Bishop Tebartz-van Elst, the leading German bishop defending the traditional family, was ousted over charges of overspending, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, one of “Pope” Francis’ Council of Nine advisers, spends more. But Cardinal Marx takes a weaker stance on homosexuality. Tebartz-van Elst headed the German bishops’ marriage and family commission and was excoriated in the German mainstream media after he disciplined one of his priests who had conducted a “blessing” of two homosexual men. In 2007, Tebartz-van Elst issued a statement saying that all Catholics “have a duty to protest the legal recognition of homosexual partnerships.” And these are just a few instances.   

Francis personally handpicked many of these apostates to attend the current evil Synod. Here are some of them:

 

• Bishop Heiner Koch: Bishop Koch was appointed June 8, 2015 by Francis I as the new Archbishop of Berlin, and selected as one of the three delegates of the German Bishops' Conference to participate in the current October 2015 Synod of Bishops on the Family. Koch has said, “Any bond that strengthens and holds people is in my eyes good; that applies also to same-sex relationships.” In another public interview he said: “To present homosexuality as sin is wounding. … I know homosexual pairs that live values such as reliability and responsibility in an exemplary way.”

• Cardinal Godfried Danneels (mentioned above): The retired former archbishop of Brussels was a special appointment by Francis to the 2014 Synod of Bishops. In addition to wearing rainbow liturgical vestments and being caught on tape concealing sexual abuse, Danneels said in 2013 of the passage of gay “marriage”: “I think it’s a positive development that states are free to open up civil marriage for gays if they want.”

• Cardinal Walter Kasper: A few days into his disastrous pontificate Francis I praised one of Cardinal Kasper’s books, and then selected the cardinal to deliver the controversial keynote address to the consistory of cardinals advocating his proposal to allow divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive communion “in some circumstances.” This proposal led to the high-profile debate at the evil 2014 Synod of Bishops on the Family. Cardinal Kasper, an apostate, was again selected as a personal appointee of “the pope” to the current Synod and regularly meets with Francis. Kasper defended the vote of the Irish in favour of homosexual “marriages,” saying: “A democratic state has the duty to respect the will of the people; and it seems clear that, if the majority of the people wants such homosexual unions, the state has a duty to recognize such rights.”

• Archbishop Bruno Forte: The archbishop of Chieti-Vasto was appointed Special Secretary to the 2014 Synod by Francis. Forte, an apostate, is the Italian theologian who was credited with drafting the controversial homosexuality section of the infamous midterm report of the evil Synod which spoke of “accepting and valuing [homosexuals’] sexual orientation.” When questioned about the language, Forte said homosexual unions have "rights that should be protected," calling it an "issue of civilization and respect of those people."

• Father Timothy Radcliffe: In May, Francis appointed the former Master of the Dominican Order as a consultor for the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace despite his well-known support for homosexuality. Writing on homosexuality in 2013, he said: “We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic. Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent. So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift.” In a 2006 lecture he advocated “accompanying” homosexuals, which he defined as “watching 'Brokeback Mountain,' reading gay novels, living with our gay friends and listening with them as they listen to the Lord."

• Bishop Johan Bonny: The bishop of Antwerp in Belgium was  named one of the delegates to the 2015 Synod of Bishops on the Family despite open dissent on homosexual unions. “Inside the Church, we must look for a formal recognition of the relational dimension that is also present in many homosexual, lesbian and bisexual couples,” Bonny said in a December 2014 interview. “In the same way that in society there exists a diversity of legal frameworks for partners, there must be a diversity of forms of recognition in the Church.”

• Blase Cupich, the archbishop of Chicago, who has defended giving Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. In 2011 Cupich, then bishop of Spokane, forbade priests in his diocese from taking part in the semi-annual 40 Days for Life pro-life vigil. He responded to the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to redefine marriage by focusing primarily on decrying discrimination against homosexuals rather than criticizing the imposition of same-sex “marriage.”

• Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the archbishop of Vienna and president of Austria’s Episcopal Conference, who identifies himself as the intellectual architect of so-called “lifestyle ecumenism” that calls on the Church to change its pastoral approach to focus on the “positives elements” in sexual relationships that violate the natural law and Church teaching. Schönborn has endorsed civil unions for homosexuals, telling the Tablet in 2013 that there “can be same-sex partnerships and they need respect, and even civil law protection.”

• Cardinal Timothy Michael Dolan, the archbishop of New York, who led this year’s St. Patrick’s Day parade as grand marshal after defending as a “wise one” the organizers’ decision to allow for the first time an openly homosexual activist group to march in the event. In March 2014 Dolan congratulated homosexual football player Michael Sam on NBC's "Meet the Press" for publicly announcing he was ‘gay,’ saying “Good for him… I would have no sense of judgment on him.”

• Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the archbishop of Washington, who is a leading proponent of giving Holy Communion to Catholics who publicly promote grave moral evils, such as pro-abortion politicians. In 2012 Wuerl stripped a priest of his faculties for refusing Communion to a lesbian Buddhist who had reportedly introduced her lesbian “lover” to the priest in the sacristy moments before her mother’s funeral Mass. The archdiocese issued a public apology to the woman, criticizing the priest’s actions.

• Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi, former archbishop of Milan who has agreed with the Kasper proposal put forward prior to the Synod last year that the Church should offer Holy Communion to Catholics in divorced and civilly remarried situations.

• Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the dean of the Vatican’s College of Cardinals, who attempted to halt investigations into sexual abuse allegations against Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the disgraced founder of the Legionaries of Christ.

• Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, the archbishop of Tegucigalpa, president of Honduras’ Episcopal Conference, and close adviser of Francis, who headed a strongly liberal conference in Rome a few months ago featuring numerous speakers defending the Kasper position.

• Cardinal Lluis Martinez Sistach, the archbishop of Barcelona, who stonewalled years of evidence from pro-life groups that abortions were happening in a Catholic hospital under his watch. He refused to excommunicate or discipline a priest in his diocese who financed the abortions of two young girls and who boasted about blessing homosexual unions.

• Cardinal Raymundo Damasceno Assis, the archbishop of Aparecida, Brazil, and president of the country’s National Conference of Bishops, who prior to last year’s Synod praised the “softer and tolerant rhetoric of Francis, especially regarding homosexuality.” In an October 2014 interview with LifeSiteNews Assis lamented that no matter how “stable” homosexual relationships might be, the Church would not approve them.

• Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, the archbishop of Manila, Philippines, who earlier this year decried what he said was the Church’s use of “harsh” and “severe” language to describe the sins of adultery and homosexual behaviour during the occasion of a UK youth conference. Later he told local reporters that the Church needs to relearn its teaching on “mercy.”

• Cardinal John Dew, the archbishop of Wellington and president of New Zealand’s Episcopal Conference, who made an intervention at the Synod last year calling on the Church to drop traditional language describing sin as “disordered” so that “people do not see and hear the Church judging or condemning.” Dew has also argued for the admission of the divorced and civilly remarried to Holy Communion.

• Victor Fernández, the titular archbishop of Tiburnia, Argentina, who is one of the Francis’ top theological advisers and who mutedly criticized Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for opposing the direction of Francis. Fernández, who was among the drafters of the final report of the Synod last year, and who was involved in drafting Francis' “encyclical” on the environment, told reporters in May that “the Pope” is “aiming at reform that is irreversible.”

• Fr. Antonio Spadaro, director of the Italian journal La Civilta Cattolica, who is a personal friend of “the pope” and who has repeatedly promoted in his journal the Kasper Proposal and other similar arguments aimed at liberalizing the Church's moral teaching on marriage and the family.

With only a few exceptions, the “prelates” above (who simply deserve a severe punishment even before being excommunicated), were made bishops by previous evil Vatican II popes but were given new prominence by Francis I despite their recent very public statements in opposition to Church teaching.  All of them are already well seated for the current evil Synod.