Evangelii Gaudium: A Very Mild Critical Take

You see below an extremely mild, but highly indicative criticism of the Pope’s latest inordinate waffling. 

It is very interesting that even when buried among 50,000+ words, the biggest pieces of nonsense coming out of Francis’ obviously limited wisdom do get noticed.

This here is a priest in good standing. Feel free to read behind his extremely mild and well-presented criticism, and to realise the disapproval that must be cooking behind the extremely gentle words.

This Pope is enraging everyone who can think.

Mundabor

Advertisements

Posted on November 30, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. Fr. Kramer: “Pope” Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”. This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated”. I have been saying for years that when a “pope” will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophecied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alohonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic — not a member of the Catholic Church. Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null & void. The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. St. Francis of Assisi foretold of the uncanonically elected pope who would not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”. Bergoglio plainly fits the description.

    • This is Sedevacantist teaching, and the opinion is not followed by most who consider Francis plainly heretical, like yours truly and the SSPX.
      When the SSPX declares the Sea vacant, we will talk about it again. Up to then, let us leave the Sedevacantist talk aside,
      For the record, I seem to understand the chap in question first said the conclusion that the sea is vacant is now inescapable, and then appears to have said the Sea is not vacant, but Benedict is Pope. Go figure.

      M

  2. You have said on multiple occasions that you are suspicious of any priest with a demonstrated past as an active homosexual. Concerning Fr. Sirico, this is pretty well documented. Why it seems to make no difference in his public ministry is a bit of a mystery:

    http://www.culturewars.com/2007/Sirico.htm
    http://www.newengelpublishing.com/pages/The-Sirico-Brief.html
    http://uscl.info/edoc/doc.php?doc_id=96&action=inline

    Just FYI.

    • Thanks Kerry,
      The fact that the accusations come from a respected source makes them worthy of at least careful consideration, and I therefore publish the link you posted.
      Heavens, what world do we live in! We live in times when it would be best to make an extensive research on every priest one mentions in his blog, just to make sure there are no credible suspicions he could be a homo. If he is a homo he should have never become a priest and should be defrocked, period.

      If any other readers have more to say about this – one day or the other – comments welcome.

      M

  3. Having spent some time reading the post links, I’d say this chap is one to be cautious around. A “smooth operator”, me thinks. A very chequered history too. At the forefront of homosexual rights in America he is a self proclaimed sodomist who wanted to *marry* his boyfriend and was into (excuse the pun) sado-masochism too. All this was before his “re-conversion” to Catholicism, of course,.so “who are we to judge?”

    As a “Christian Libertarian” he believes the state has no role to play in either the social, moral or economic arena and all decisions should be individual ones guided by whatever church one followers and all welfare should be charitable. How very noble but overlooks the flawed nature of man and the impact upon free will of social structures. He advocates the legalisation of prostitution, drugs, sexual deviances but, reluctantly not, it seems, abortion. That one would have had him thrown out of the Church for sure.

    Still, even Satan mixes truth with lies.

    • Without going into the details of his thinking (if I were the Duce, I would completely dismantle the social state, too; see my other post), the simple fact remains that a homosexual on no account can become a priest, converted or not converted.

      The idea that the state should not legislate (I do not mean “take over”; I mean “regulate in a sensible way”) in matters obviously concerning the collective welfare is mad. I find libertarians blood-curling.

      Surprisingly, Father Z also has him on his blog (I think we both got it from the “Pewsitter”).

      M

  4. I agree the State secular ‘socialistion’ of Christian charity is something to be dismantled but, in my opinion, the economic and social libertarianism pedled by this chap is dangerous. And he’s not low on ego when it comes to promoting causes and is very well connected.

    I see he is giving a talk as President of the U.S ‘Acton Institute’ at an International Conference to explore the ‘vocation’ of business for Catholic business leaders in Asia, He uses the title and collar of a Roman Catholic priest in this role, I agree business is the route out of poverty, I’m just not so sure this organisation, funded by businesses with an interest in Asia, is the best vehicle for promoting Catholic values,

    These are just initial thoughts and intuitions and I may be misjudging him and his organisation.

    • Libertarianism is dangerous, because it makes of liberty a god in itself. A Catholic understands his freedom as encased within the rules God has given to him.

      M

%d bloggers like this: