Catholic Prophecy and the Coming Chastisement

Fr. Altman REALLY rubs me the wrong way. He’s a very troubled soul. I’ve known other priests like him. They always ended up in shipwreck.

That said…

https://www.padreperegrino.org/2023/01/whoinferior/

“He is to Be Accused by His Subjects.”—St. Isidore
Father David Nix
I do not want this blog to turn my readers into “heresy hunters” since recognizing heresy is not enough to obtain eternal life. Also, there is so much heresy in current “Catholics” (both lay and clergy) that your “heresy hunting” would become an exhausting effort.

But this blog is worth writing because there is an odd gnostic-myth floating around Catholic circles today that a heretic in the hierarchy can only be recognized by either a group of Cardinals or an obsolete battery of canonical trials. While it is true that the saints seem to delineate between “material heresy” (small points) and “manifest heresy” (obvious heresy) the latter is held by saints to be easily-identified by your average faithful lay-man or lay-woman living in sanctifying grace. To believe secret wisdom on recognizing orthodoxy belongs to a shifty group of Cardinals is peak-gnosticism. (Gnosticism is the old and tired heresy that only a certain group of “enlightened-elites” have access to “secret” divine-knowledge.)

Rather, the Catholic Church has always taught you only need the true faith and blue-collar common-sense to identify a manifest heretic. This means you do not need a group of Cardinals behind you with “an imperfect council” or canonists forming a “canonical trial” to recognize an obvious enemy of the Catholic faith. (This is important because a manifest-heretic, by definition, ceases not only to be a member of the hierarchy, but even a member of the Catholic Church.)

Although a “material-heretic” could historically be judged a “formal-heretic” only by a canonical trial, Fr. Paul Kramer asserts in his recent book that “any prelate can be judged for heresy by his inferiors” in regards to obvious (or manifest) heresy. In other words, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck—it is a duck! And, as such, “the duck” heretic must be avoided as a non-Catholic intruder (even if he purports himself to be part of the hierarchy) by your average member of the lay-faithful. (The key-word here is faithful, as in catechized and orthodox.)

I realize this is the opposite of what most of the traditional Catholic faithful currently believe.

Fr. Paul Kramer quotes early saints and later Popes to prove this: Pope Gregory XVI…explicitly cites Ballerini’sdoctrine as the basis for his own position on this question; and Ballerini’s teaching is most clearly stated in the following passage: “For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he that is such a one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). He undoubtedly, who having been once or twice corrected, does not repent,but remains obstinate in a belief contrary to a manifest or defined dogma; by this his public pertinacity which for no reason can be excused, since pertinacity properly pertains to heresy, he declares himself to be a heretic, i.e. to have withdrawn from the Catholic faith and the Church by his own will, so that no declaration or sentence from anyone would be necessary . Conspicuous in this matter is the explanation of St. Jerome on the commended words of Paul: “Therefore, by himself [the heretic] is said to be condemned, because the fornicator, adulterer, murderer, and those guilty of other misdeeds are driven out from the Church by the Priests: but heretics deliver the sentence upon themselves, departing from the Church by their own will: this departure is seen to be the condemnation by their own conscience.”

Fr. David, here: A smart-but-suspicious reader would now ask this question: But can these admonitions to abjure heresy go from so-called “inferiors” to so-called “superiors”? First of all, the required “admonitions” against “obstinacy” alluded to above have already been executed—even if by so-called “inferiors” to so-called “superiors”—in this 21st century Catholic Church crisis many times over against our most famous heretics. Many public heretics who now claim to be in the hierarchy have repeatedly revealed themselves to be public heretics by ignoring what good lay people (and priests) have written them as they beg them to abjure their manifest heresy. Fr. Paul Kramer answers this question brilliantly:

Fr. Paul again: Moynihan mentions that there was such “a tradition already prevalent as far back as the seventh century.” The doctrine that any prelate can be judged for heresy by his inferiors has been asserted since the late Patristic period, namely, by St. Isidore of Seville, “the last scholar of the ancient world ” (c. 560–636); and the proposition that the pope can be judged for heresy was already explicitly asserted by St. Columban (540–615). In the year 636, St. Isidore wrote in his Sententiarum, Lib. II, c. 39, “The rulers therefore are to be judged by God, and by no means are to be judged by their subjects… but if the rector strays from the faith, then he is to be accused by his subjects; but for objectionable moral behaviour he is more to be tolerated rather than to be segregated from the people…” St. Columban wrote to Pope Boniface IV: “For if these things are certain rather than fables, then vice versa your children have become the head, but you the tail (Deut. 28:44) which is even painful to say, and for that reason those who have preserved the orthodox faith will be your judges, whoever they may be, even if they are seen to be your juniors those orthodox and true Catholics, who have neither received nor defended any heretics or suspected heretics at any time, but have persevered enduringly in the zeal of the true faith.” With the words, neque hæreticos neque suspectos aliquos[neither heretics nor those suspected as such] the saint makes it clear that the subjects have the right in conscience to judge and reject (literally “not to receive”) not only superiors who are notoriously manifest heretics, but also those who positively manifest themselves to be reasonably considered suspected heretics.

—On the True and False Pope, excerpts from pages 39 and 45, by Fr. Paul Kramer.



Sent from my iPhone

 

And…


https://www.padreperegrino.org/2023/09/can188/

Two Forgotten-Accounts of Canon 188
Father David Nix
Canon 188 in the 1983 Code of Canon Law reads: “A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.”

This means if an attempted papal-resignation were done under duress, it would be invalid. Keep in mind as you read this that some crimes can be proved, even if the victim denies it. This is true in both criminal law and canon law.

There has been much written on Can. 188 over the past decade by a few traditional Catholic authors. But I believe many Catholics have forgotten two of the most important accounts given not by the friends, but by the enemies of the late Pope Benedict XVI as to how he is reported resigned under duress.

I will now report two LifeSite News (LSN) stories. However, notice that the following two LSN articles reference secular news outlets as their main source of information. The first has to do with the Swiss bishops. The secondhas to do with the late Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. Both of these have to do with the hierarchy trying to scare Pope Benedict XVI off the throne around 2012, and admitting it.

As to the first, there was a biography about Bishop Danneels, head of the so-called St. Gallen mafia. In 2015, secular Swiss radio summarized his biography: “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.”

Keep in mind this was on secular Swiss radio, not a Catholic radio station. Still, the alarm at this admission was so great “that a few hours later, that same radio station softened some of its claims,” as LSN reads in the first link above. Obviously, they realized the import of this under Can. 188, for if “the election of Bergoglio has been without doubt prepared in St. Gallen,” then we have not only “a resignation made out of grave fear” (Can. 188) but even an illegal Conclave in 2013. This all explains a lot if we believe canon law without imposing a personal agenda.



The second “forgotten story” is in regards to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Cardinal Bergoglio. In 2014, the liberal British author Austen Ivereigh wrote a book called The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope. It is seen as the gold-standard biography of “the Radical Pope” in the English language. In the first edition of his book, there’s an almost unbelievable admission about what happened a couple years prior: “Murphy-O’Connor was [then] tasked with lobbying for Bergoglio among his North American counterparts as well as acting as a link for those from Commonwealth countries.”

LSN then quotes Ivereigh again in his Great Reformer in regards to an astonishing conversation between Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Cardinal Bergoglio: “They first secured Bergoglio’s assent… asked if he was willing, he said that he believed that at this time of crisis for the Church no cardinal could refuse if asked. Murphy-O’Connor knowingly warned him to ‘be careful,’ and that it was his turn now, and was told ‘capisco’ – ‘I understand.’”—The Great Reformer, edition one.

Notice they just admitted a conspiracy (not “a conspiracy theory”) to scare Pope Benedict XVI off the throne before 2012. The Englishman Mr. Ivereigh was a good source for this information since he served as Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor’s press secretary according to the UK’s Telegraph before the Cardinal died. These are ultra-liberals admitting (bragging?) about their pressure placed upon Pope Benedict to surrender the Chair of Peter around 2012. It’s old news, but it explains the current mess.

Over the past decade, friends of Pope Benedict XVI have pointed to his resignation under duress. That is often followed by middle-of-the-road Catholics dismissing such claims as “conspiracy theories.” But when such enemies of the late Pope Benedict XVI admit that he resigned under duress, it’s time to pay attention to what this means for the current Vatican apparatus. (And no, “universal acceptance” of a manifest-obstinate heretic does not bind the faithful as I explain here.)



Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re sprinkles holy water on the casket of Pope Benedict XVI during its burial in the crypt of St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican Jan. 5, 2023. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)



Sent from my iPhone

 

Do I think PF will eventually be declared to be - or to have been - an antipope?

I’m certain of it. Most likely due to some error in PBXVI’s resignation and/or PF’s election. In which case arguments about him being a heretic would be moot; he was never a pope to begin with IF that’s the case, and nothing he has said or done would be in effect going forward.

I truly believe this will happen, but probably only through direct and literal Divine Intervention.

At this moment in time, is any lay person or simple priest qualified or competent to make such a public declaration?

No. Unfortunately.