Former US Papal Nuncio Summoned to Rome on Charges of Subverting the Green Agenda
Essay by Eric Worrall
“It is necessary … to seriously ask … whether it is consistent with … the Catholic Faith to passively witness the systematic destruction of the Church by its leaders”
ATTENDITE A FALSIS PROPHETIS
Announcement regarding the start of the extrajudicial criminal trial for schism
(Art. 2 SST; can. 1364 CIC)The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has informed me, with a simple email, of the initiation of an extrajudicial penal trial against me, with the accusation of having committed the crime of schism and charging me of having denied the legitimacy of “Pope Francis” of having broken communion “with Him” and of having rejected the Second Vatican Council. I have been summoned to the Palace of the Holy Office on June 20, in person or represented by a canon lawyer. I assume that the sentence has already been prepared, given that it is an extrajudicial process.
I regard the accusations against me as an honor. I believe that the very wording of the charges confirms the theses that I have repeatedly defended in my various addresses. It is no coincidence that the accusation against me concerns the questioning of the legitimacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the rejection of Vatican II: the Council represents the ideological, theological, moral, and liturgical cancer of which the Bergoglian “synodal church” is the necessary metastasis.
It is necessary for the Episcopate, the Clergy and the People of God to seriously ask themselves whether it is consistent with the profession of the Catholic Faith to passively witness the systematic destruction of the Church by its leaders, just as other subversives are destroying civil society. Globalism calls for ethnic substitution: Bergoglio promotes uncontrolled immigration and calls for the integration of cultures and religions. Globalism supports LGBTQ+ ideology: Bergoglio authorizes the blessing of same-sex couples and imposes on the faithful the acceptance of homosexualism, while covering up the scandals of his protégés and promoting them to the highest positions of responsibility. Globalism imposes the green agenda: Bergoglio worships the idol of the Pachamama, writes delirious encyclicals about the environment, supports the Agenda 2030, and attacks those who question the theory of man-made global warming. He goes beyond his role in matters that strictly pertain to science, but always and only in one direction: a direction that is diametrically opposed to what the Church has always taught. He has mandated the use of experimental gene serums, which caused very serious damage, death and sterility, calling them “an act of love,” in exchange for funding from pharmaceutical companies and philanthropic foundations. His total alignment with the Davos religion is scandalous. Wherever governments at the service of the World Economic Forum have introduced or extended abortion, promoted vice, legitimized homosexual unions or gender transition, encouraged euthanasia, and tolerated the persecution of Catholics, not a word has been spent in defense of the Faith or Morals that are threatened, or in support of the civil battles of so many Catholics who have been abandoned by the Vatican and the Bishops. Not a word for the persecuted Catholics in China, with the complicity of the Holy See, which considers Beijing’s billions more important than the lives and freedom of thousands of Chinese who are faithful to the Roman Church. In the “synodal church” presided over by Bergoglio, no schism is recognized among the German Episcopate, or among the government-appointed Bishops who have been consecrated in China without the mandate of Rome. Because their action is consistent with the destruction of the Church, and therefore must be concealed, minimized, tolerated, and finally encouraged. In these eleven years of “pontificate” the Catholic Church has been humiliated and discredited above all because of the scandals and corruption of the leaders of the Hierarchy, which have been totally ignored even as the most ruthless Vatican authoritarianism raged against faithful priests and religious, small communities of traditional nuns, and communities tied to the Latin Mass.
This one-sided zeal is reminiscent of Cromwell’s fanaticism, typical of those who defy Providence in the presumption of knowing that they are finally at the top of the hierarchical pyramid, free to do and undo as they please without anyone objecting to anything. And this work of destruction, this willingness to renounce the salvation of souls in the name of a human peace that denies God is not an invention of Bergoglio, but the main (and unmentionable) purpose of those who used a Council to contradict the Catholic Magisterium and to begin to demolish the Church from within, in small steps, but always in a single direction, always with the indulgent tolerance or culpable inaction – if not the explicit approval – of the Roman authorities. The Catholic Church has been slowly but surely taken over, and Bergoglio has been given the task of making it a philanthropic agency, the “church of humanity, of inclusion, of the environment” at the service of the New World Order. But this is not the Catholic Church: it is her counterfeit.
The resignation of Benedict XVI and the appointment by the St. Gallen Mafia of a successor in line with the diktats of the Agenda 2030 was intended to allow – and has succeeded in allowing – the global coup to take place with the complicity and authoritative support of the Church of Rome. Bergoglio is to the Church what other world leaders are to their nations: traitors, subversives, and final liquidators of traditional society who are certain of impunity. Bergoglio’s defect of consent (vitium consensus) in accepting his election is based precisely on the evident alienity of his action of government and magisterium with respect to what any Catholic of any age expects from the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles. Everything that Bergoglio does constitutes an offense and a provocation to the entire Catholic Church, to her Saints of all times, to the Martyrs who were killed in odium Fidei, and to the Popes of all times until the Second Vatican Council.
This is also and principally an offense against the Divine Head of the Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Whose sacred authority Bergoglio claims to exercise for the detriment of the Mystical Body, with an action that is too systematic and coherent to appear to be the fruit of mere incapacity. In the work of Bergoglio and his circle, the Lord’s warning is put into practice: Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the guise of lambs, but who are ravenous wolves at heart (Mt 7:15). I am honored not to have – and indeed I do not want – any ecclesial communion with them: theirs is a lobby, which conceals its complicity with the masters of the world in order to deceive many souls and prevent any resistance against the establishment of the Kingdom of the Antichrist.
In the face of the Dicastery’s accusations, I claim, as Successor of the Apostles, to be in full communion with the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, with the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs, and with the uninterrupted doctrinal, moral, and liturgical Tradition which they have faithfully preserved.
I repudiate the neomodernist errors inherent in the Second Vatican Council and in the so-called “post-conciliar magisterium,” in particular in matters of collegiality, ecumenism, religious freedom, the secularity of the State, and the liturgy.
I repudiate, reject, and condemn the scandals, errors, and heresies of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who manifests an absolutely tyrannical management of power, exercised against the purpose that legitimizes Authority in the Church: an authority that is vicarious of that of Christ, and as such must obey Him alone. This separation of the Papacy from its legitimizing principle, which is Christ the High Priest, transforms the ministerium into a self-referential tyranny.
No Catholic worthy of the name can be in communion with this “Bergoglian church,” because it acts in clear discontinuity and rupture with all the Popes of history and with the Church of Christ.
Fifty years ago, in that same Palace of the Holy Office, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was summoned and accused of schism for rejecting Vatican II. His defense is mine; his words are mine; and his arguments are mine – arguments before which the Roman authorities could not condemn him for heresy, having to wait instead for him to consecrate bishops so as to have the pretext of declaring him schismatic and then revoking his excommunication when he was already dead. The scheme is repeated even after half a century has demonstrated Archbishop Lefebvre’s prophetic choice.
In these times of apostasy, Catholics will find in Pastors faithful to the mandate received from Our Lord an example and an encouragement to abide in the Truth of Christ.
Depositum custodi, according to the Apostle’s exhortation: as the time approaches when I will have to give an account to the Son of God of all my actions, I intend to persevere in thebonum certamen and not to fail in the witness of faith which is required of each one who, as Bishop, has been endowed with the fullness of the priesthood and constituted Successor of the Apostles.
I invite all Catholics to pray that the Lord will come to the aid of His Church and give courage to those who are persecuted for their Faith.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
June 20, 2024
Source: https://exsurgedomine.it/240620-attendite-eng/
S.cti Silverii Papæ et Martyris
B.ti Dermitii O’Hurley, Episcopi et Martyris
WUWT has previously written about the activities of Bergoglia, now known as Pope Francis;
The US Catholic Church have long been a center of resistance against Pope Francis’ global push for green communism. But this is the first time to my knowledge it has come to such an open split.
If anyone is creating schism, that would be Pope Francis, with his outrageous demands that everyone submit without question to his authority, even when their conscience screams at the radical woke globalist demands Pope Francis places on those of faith.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò could have simply submitted. Instead we are seeing a good man embracing conscience and principle over submission, and travelling to Rome, to challenge a Pope whose demands go well beyond what most would consider a reasonable exercise of religious authority.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That’s the way the left operates. Demanding that everyone submit to their authority, and that failure to do so is the cause of all division.
Communists have always defines “peace” as being the absence of opposition to communism.
I thought that that was fundamental to the Roman Catholic faith – the Pope is infallible, and everyone must accede to direction from the Holy See, or face excommunication.
Speaking as the knowledgable significant other to a devout Catholic, not quite. Originating with the first Pope, St Peter disciple of Jesus, papal infallibility only concerns matters of core doctrinal faith. NOT stuff like Bergolio’s Climate Change nunciate.
Exactly. The Pope speaking ex cathedra is also a VERY recent invention (in the history of the Church). Formulated in the First Vatican Council of 1869-1870, and considered to have its origin in the Counter Reformation.
Now, the same Council also made the assertion that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Pope to make heretical declarations, even if they are “ordinary” statements of faith. To my mind, that assertion has been proven completely false, thanks to the actions of this “Pope.” (I have no problem with homosexuality as such – but the Apostles and other authors of the Bible certainly did. One who is actually practicing “sin,” as defined there, is never eligible for coming into communion with the Church.)
Now, the same Council also made the assertion that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Pope to make heretical declarations, even if they are “ordinary” statements of faith.
Can you give the exact text of the First Vatican Council that says what you claim it says?
Do you understand the Catholic definition of “ordinary magisterium”? Have you bothered to find out what it means?
Do you? What the Pope is exercising in many things these days is not even an Ordinary Magisterium – much less an Ordinary Universal (or “Sacred”) Magisterium.
Some things, like banning the Latin Mass, he can maybe manage. (Although has it actually survived the “test of time” when there are so many who still do not agree?)
Others he ABSOLUTELY cannot do – as they are contradictory to Scripture, and therefore CANNOT “ascend” to “Sacred Magisterium.” Scripture is clear about many “sins” (note, again, that I do not agree they are “sins,” but they are defined as such by Christian Scripture). It is also clear that, to come into communion with the body of the Church, and to ascend to the Kingdom, one must acknowledge the sin, express contrition for committing it (or them), and show sincere repentance. It is NOT “Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned by having sex with another of the same sex.” “Oh, okay! Go get your Body and Blood.” “Hey, good, another week done – Joe, let’s go hop in the sack again!”
That is just one example.
We only have the Church’s word that St Peter – odd name for a Jew – was appointed by Jesus – a Jew – as first Pope. Peter’s name was in fact Simon, a good Jewish name, but Peter worked better in the Latin wordplay, Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclasiam meam… petrus being Latin for rock… You Rockie, are the rock on which I shall build my church…
Curious too that Jesus spoke Aramaic as did Simon, but it translated so conveniently into Latin.
In any case the Christian Church was invented by Saul, later Paul, of Tarsus who fell off his ass onto his ass on the way to Damascus as a brilliant flash of light hit him and he saw a fantastic opportunity $$$ for a new evangelical religion.
Chapter and verse where Paul rode an ass (or even a horse) on the road to Damascus.
“We only have the Church’s word that St Peter – odd name for a Jew – was appointed by Jesus – a Jew – as first Pope.”
Both Perter and Jesus are just literary characters, not real people.
“Curious too that Jesus spoke Aramaic as did Simon, but it translated so conveniently into Latin.”
It is completely logical, when you consider that these texts were written by a Roman aristocrat Gaius Calpurnius Piso, who used many pen names including Flavius Josephus, also a literary character, not a real person.
“In any case the Christian Church was invented by Saul, later Paul, of Tarsus”
Christian church was created by Roman nobility of Flavian dynasty with direct participation of both Vespasian and Titus.
I see a strong parallel with the rot that woke postnormal subversion has brought to governance of civil society and its institutions. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights for example, subsumed that all reasonable citizens would want freedom of expression for all, freedom of choice, safeguards to prevent tyranny of the majority, etc. It never occurred to the framers that they needed thick boilerplate to protect itself! The Costitution is regularly being violated and ignored
The first amendment gave freedom to the press. They didnt think they had to define ‘freedom to do what’ . They didn’t imagine that Princeton University Journalism would collude with news organs around the world to coordinate news stories to push climate change “crises” and even distribute millions of dollars put up by US billionaires like Bloombirgs as an enticemenr. We all know what’s in it for billionaires planning to be trillionaires.
Indeed regarding massive ballot box stuffing, putting dead people on the voters lists, signing up illegal aliens as they cross the border, buying votes,, etc., one must ask, if millions of citizens are so patently amoral, why would they NOT steal the an elwction?
“It never occurred to the framers that they needed thick boilerplate to protect itself! The Costitution is regularly being violated and ignored…”
It should have. Magna Carta upon which the US Constitution was based, was being violated and ignored by King John before the wax seals had set.
Magna Carta was de facto a surrender document whereby the King ceded his sovereignty to the People, and ceded his right to tax without consent. You can see why he ignored it.
It required a number of subsequent Magnae Cartae – repeated re-issue/re-writes to be signed by later Plantagenet kings who did their utmost to work round it, finally preparing the way for bloody civil war, the War of the Roses.
The provisions of Magna Carta and most of the Common Law, have been completely obliterated in the UK by subsequent legislation transferring more and more power to the State
That is what anti-pope Jorge Bergoglio is counting on, catholic (meaning ‘universal’ and Catholic) ignorance. #FJB
I am a 75 y.o. Catechumen studying closely the Church that I have aligned with. I have three civil marriages, one to a Mormon, one to a lapsed Catholic annulled, and to Milady Wife somehow holding me back. My case is approaching three years since inception.
In any case, God should put Francis on a diet.
They put Martin Luther on a Diet of Worms. 🙂
🙂 Wish I’d thought of that. All I could think of was Ozempic, and that’s not funny.
Diet of Worms?
Look on the internet. It’s a play on words.A diet is an assembly of sorts and Worms is a place.
Isn’t that what the Greens want to put us on?
Jorge Bergoglio has definitely fallen into Liberation Theology.
I find interesting parallels to this sad story in the present US Democrats.
Under the misguided guise of ‘empathy’ (because the ‘right’ believes you are entitled to equal opportunity but NOT equal outcomes) the Democrats have been captured by crazy progressives as bad as Pope Francis.
Tlaib openly emphasizes with HAMAS. AOC promotes the green new deal. Jayapal denies illegal immigratants are killing women and children. Cory Bush‘s new autobiography’ claims she heals cancer just with her hands laid on.
“Tlaib openly emphasizes with HAMAS.”
Empathizes?
Divide and conquer has no bounds.
TIME FOR PRIMATE CHANGE
That’s unfair on chimps.
Not the chimps that self-identify as muskrats
Only in CA.
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Matthew 15:14
Wow!
Well that’s certainly interesting.
Perhaps he should nail 95 theses to some Vatican door.
Nah. Martin Luther already did that. Initiated the Reformation, which culminated in the 90 year ‘war’ after which (and many many war deaths) the reformers won their Protestant reformation. Interesting result is northern Germany is Protestant, southern Germany is Catholic. Guess where the ‘war battles’ were fought—in the middle. Same in Switzerland, except upside down. North became Protestant (Calvin), south became Catholic (close to Italy).
Of course, the ultimately victorious Protestants soon splintered into many subgroups—Episcopalians (thanks Henry8), Lutherans (thanks Martin—now further split in two, evangelical and traditional), Calvinist’s (thanks Calvin, and then their subgroup UK Pilgrims), then among just US Southern Baptists (who just split again over female pastors).
Personally, I find the whole thing rather tiresome and NOT what God intended.
And highly recommend for understanding all this the Harvard produced Journal of Skeptical Science all time great ‘religious’ article, “Quantum gravity treatment of the ‘angels dancing on a pin’ problem”. Is definitive—and very funny.
My apology for misremembering , was published in the Harvard Journal of Improbable Research. Predecessor to he annual Harvard Ignoble Awards. Still worth the chuckle.
Rud, I’ve been unable to track down the Journal of Improbable Research “religious’ article, “Quantum gravity treatment of the “angles dancing on a pin’ problem. Advice?
Here you go. improbable research@ur momisugly improbable.com, v7 issue3 (joke, do not insert): gravity treatment of the angel dancing problem.
Enjoy.
No thud he nailed a Papal Bull to the door. Appropriate enough today
Nothing like people killing each other over religion.
but that’s the naked apes for you- Cain and Abel, ad infinitum
Rud, good old Henry established the Anglican Church, I believe Americans came up with the Episcopalian moniker because they could say they were not part of the Anglican (English) church.
Nah. Martin Luther already did that.
It is widely accepted among Protestant and non-Christian historians that Luther never nailed his 95 Theses to any door.
Interesting result is northern Germany is Protestant, southern Germany is Catholic. Guess where the ‘war battles’ were fought—in the middle.
Not sure what you are referring to here. Are you refferring to the Thirty Years War? In which case battles were not just fought in the middle of Germany. Have a look at the location of the battles the Swedes fought. It is also an interesting fact that the Catholic king of France fought against other Catholic armies. That’s because it was as much a war between states as it was a war between religions. Not a lot of people know that.
Also large parts of southern Germany became Protestant, eg. Swabia. It all depended on the viewpoint of whoever ruled the area.
Odd thing.
All he wanted was a debate on those 95 thesis.
A related very personal story.
My long time (24+ years) significant other, Patricia, and I never married. The reason was simple. We were both divorced and she was a devout Catholic who cherished helping serve communion every week. I am nominally Lutheran, but went with her every week for almost two decades to her chosen Catholic Church to worship there with her.
Several years ago, after she almost died from anaphylactic shock from a swarm of hornet stings at our Georgia mountain ‘cabin’ that resulted in severe PTSD anxiety disorder, on her behalf I contacted her beloved church to ask for a visitation thinking it would help her PTSD. They refused because we did not live in their specific church ‘service area’ despite her having helped serve communion every week there for decades. A rather brutal ‘excommunication’.
She never attended a Catholic Mass thereafter, and then Pope Francis with his out of lane Schellnhuber inspired climate nonsense clinched the deal for both of us. Good for Vigano upholding the ‘true’ values of the Catholic Church she learned in parochial school and held dear and tried to faithfully as possible practice her entire life. She passed away from acute pneumonia May 29, 2024 after two terrible ICU weeks, and I am sure will warmly greet Vigano in heaven when he eventually arrives despite ‘schism’ complications.
How awful. I hope your wife recovered from PTSD.
We got it under psychiatric medical control (duloxetine plus as required clonazapam) but she never recovered from her near death experience.
Although I’m an atheist, I believe in the religious freedom provisions of the 1st Amendment and support expressions and practices of religious belief currently under attack in official America. Leftists of any religious belief screw up any dogma they touch and punish any seekers of true religious understandings as defined by their religion’s traditional practices.
“Leftists of any religious belief screw up any dogma they touch and punish any seekers of true religious understandings as defined by their religion’s traditional practices.”
True believers do not seek any understanding, but practice the dogma passed on them by religious authority. Genuine search for truth leads away from any religion, first to a heresy, and ultimately to apostasy and atheism.
Freedoms to support expressions and practices of religious beliefs are not under any systematic attack in the USA. Rather, these practices always evolve, as religions themselves adapt to the changing world. There is always opposition to such changes from traditionalists loosing grip on the power within their organizations. But this all to be expected, I am not shedding any tears over this.
You have my sympathies.
Mine, too.
Rud, Thanks so much for sharing this story and sorry for your loss. It is an inspiring story of Faith in the face of adversity
Agreed.
“She was a devout Catholic”.
The term ‘devout’ is often misunderstood. It does not mean somebody who attends religious services frequently or prays 24 hours a day. It means somebody who is fully committed to obeying the will of God. If you wish to obey the will of God, prayer is a mighty useful thing to do, but it is not an end in itself. For a Catholic, “fully obeying the will of God” means that you cannot marry someone else if your spouse is still alive, unless the marriage is annulled.
Hi Rud.
Raised Roman Catholic. Nuns in grade school. Jesuits in high school.
Then I learned some things about what the Bible actually said.
Long story short, God bridged the gap between Himself and Man via The Cross. We could never build that bridge. But He did, even when we were His enemies.
Romans 10:9, 10.
ALL sins, real or perceived, are paid for.
May I suggest reading Romans thru Thessalonians and pausing to think about the words?
(Pause a bit longer on Romans 5)
A PS regarding family stuff and divorce in a Roman Catholic setting, on my Dad’s side, Dad’s father died when Dad was 10. 1931. His Mom died when I was about 5.
My Mom’s side. Her parents were divorced and then remarried. All Roman Catholic.
All us kids (8 of us) knew was that we had an “extra” set of grandparents that loved us and we loved them.
Perhaps, just perhaps, God is finally tired of the crap the pope is foisting on the true believers. And this coming battles between the commie pope and former papal nuncio is set to expose all the dirt which has been swept under the carpets in Rome for so long. More power to the Archbishop in his coming trials. God bless him for standing up for the people of faith.
Vignano will lose. And in losing, win. Much like Christ on the Cross. He even cites recent relevant V2 precedent.
Nothing will ever be made public about this “Nonjudicial Proceeding”. As Vigano stated, the sentence has already been decided. We may have read Vigano’s last public missive.
That’s a pretty odd comment. Do you expect one of Francis’ assassins to take him out?
He’s been making accusations against Pope Francis for nearly a decade. He is a sedevacantist (sede vacante ~ the throne is vacant), so he’s not about to change his mind and submit to an antipope. What power is going to stop him continuing to speak publicly and likely in harsher terms?
He will probably be laicized in addition to being excommunicated. It’s highly unlikely that he will cease celebrating mass or acting as if he is a bishop. Why would he do that when he is convinced that there is currently no pope?
It is certainly very believable to me that Francis could be an invalid pope based on the bitter fruits of his papacy. But the humble layman must ask what is the prudent path. If he is the valid pope he is surely one of the worst popes in the history of the church. But in that case he is nevertheless the legitimate authority and it is a mortal sin to choose schism. Better to pray for all those in authority in the Church and attempt to live our lives according to the true faith.
I for one will resist and ignore what my conscience dictates are contradictions of the faith or inappropriate interventions into science and politics where a pope has no authority. Nothing which the man and his ghostwriter have written about climate change has any legitimate claim to authority and I do reject it with a clear conscience.
But I cannot go so far as to endorse the views expressed by Archbishop Viganò which go beyond the question of the legitimacy of the current pope to the rejection of Vatican II and the teaching of post-conciliar popes including Pope St John Paul II.
See above for a comment putting your conscience at rest. The doctrine of papal infallibility extends only to core catholic doctrinal issues like the Trinity or priestly celibacy. Pope Francis liberation theology on stuff like refugees or climate change is FAR outside that doctrinal remit.
And the dogma of Papal infallibility is only ~150 years old having been proclaimed by Pope Pious IX in 1870.
I guess all those heretical souls who were languishing in hell before 1870 were then released and granted an acquittal.
interesting
Huh? Is there a kernel of logic hiding in there somewhere? What does that even mean “all those heretical souls”? What sense does it make that anyone would have gone to hell for believing that the pope was protected by the Holy Spirit from making an error in a solemn declaration on a matter of faith or morals, as had always been the common understanding?
Any defined dogma is merely a solemn confirmation by a pope that some belief of the church is now and always has been true as earlier christians had believed, but perhaps without a solid basis in scripture. The purpose is to remove any possible doubt, never to invent some novel idea.
The Vatican I council was where the pious Pius IX defined the dogma of papal infallibility in 1870, but it was not an invention of that council or that pope.
Papal infallibility is not some kind of power to change the faith. It is just a special ‘charism to confirm the brethren’ to authoritatively confirm the truth of a long-held belief. Just as in beatification, a soul is recognized as having been in a state of grace at the time of death and worthy of emulation and veneration (not worship). When Pope St John Paul II beatified Blessed Pope Pius IX, that did not send him to heaven or change the state of his soul.
Of course, the entire idea sprang from the head of the schismatic Bishop of Rome.
Myself, being an agnostic, but widely read in religious writings, I feel that the belief in the “infallibility” of ANY strictly human figure is the direct road to serious moral troubles. That applies to Popes just as much as to politicians.
Calm down old fella it was just a little facetious fun.
I feel pretty calm, Chris. How about you? I thought it would be an opportunity to explain something widely misunderstood about the Catholic church. Sorry if you didn’t want go hear it.
Rud, My conscience is at ease, but that’s not quite accurate or at least too ambiguous a description. Papal infallibility is limited to the formal ‘ex cathedra’ declarations of dogmas of faith and morals. It doesn’t however need to be a ‘core doctrinal issue’.
One such dogma that was formally declared as an exercise of papal infallibility was the Immaculate Conception. Not exactly a core belief. It refers to the teaching that although all men are born with the original sin of Adam, which necessitates baptism, when Mary was conceived in the womb of her mother St Anne, Mary did not inherit original sin.
Francis, whether he is the valid pope or not, has no teaching authority on climate science and his exhortations written by his ghostwriter, the questionable Cardinal Fernandez, are not ex cathedra in any case.
Ding dong. Priestly celibacy is a matter of disciplne, not doctrine. Hence many former Anglican priests are now Catholic priests even though they are married.
But you are right about statements concerning scientific matters being completely outside anything a Catholic must accept. The Church teaches that we have a duty to look after the natural world. Anything about the world “collapsing” is just the opinion of the Pope and no Catholic is bound to accept it.
Holy Shit!
It hit the fan.
Is this Pope Catholic?
I suspect that his first loyalty is to socialism. Christ comes second, at best.
Does the bear shi* in the latrine?
A question that was once only rhetorical.
The Pope appears to be “Green” in the same way that most of the “Green” political parties are. That is, much like a watermelon. A thin green veneer on the outside, and bright Red on the inside, all the way to the core.
Wow! That is a very conservative catholic point of view and there is not a word French in it, as they say in the place I came from. But he has a good point. A pope venerating the goddess Gaia is counterfeit indeed. You can disagree with him that the rot began with Vatican II, but the slow creep of the forces of evil is there for anyone to see.
Jesus H… This pretender was known and those who voted for him are 100% behind such ideology, ahead of God. These yahoos should take a lesson from Pope John Paul II and praise God instead of Marx. Sigh…
Bravo. Shivers run up my spine for his courage. He will likely be burned at the stake, after being subjected to the inquisition in Rome.
It wasn’t so long ago in the climate debate that we heard regularly from physicists, engineers, geologists and others who openly challenged the apocalyptic narrative. Their voices have largely fallen silent. They are largely too afraid to lose their jobs and perhaps their livelihoods to speak up.
Perhaps this will give some of them courage. At least those who have retired should be able to speak their minds.
If an Archbishop is willing to risk his entrance to heaven to speak his mind, surely retired physicists and engineers could make their views known.
CO2 is logarithmic, cooling response is exponential. That should have ended the debate before it began.
Heaven is on earth, while you live, make the most of it.
Exponential to the 4th power.
Just another example of why we have the phony crisis complex: It’s all a distraction from the corruption and abject failure of Progressivism.
Its not Wokism, its marxism. And Bergoglio is the perfect apostle.
He has always been the apostate Pope to me. Just to think of him makes my heart heavy.
Yes, as an earlier generation would understand, Pope Francis is an occasion of sin for me.
Woke ideology is deeply rooted in Marxist theory. There’s not a huge amount of practical difference. Though, that doesn’t mean that the various factions of Marxists won’t fight like the cousins they are.
No disrespect for Catholics but I don’t give a damn what the Pope thinks. I wouldn’t look to him for spiritual advice and damn sure not climate advise.
In the case of this pope, you make the wise choice on both counts, I reckon.
“The famous British atheist Richard Dawkins, author of the book The God Delusion, said in a recent interview that he identifies as a “cultural Christian” and prefers Christianity to Islam, although he clarified that he does not believe “a word” of the Christian faith.”
Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop seems to be all-in on the Christian faith.
Insofar as many do not know the difference between “the virgin birth” and the “immaculate conception”, I often wonder about the strength of belief of misunderstood statements.
The Dawkins quotes reminded me of a Jordan Peterson statement.
When asked if he was religious he replied “I live as if god exists”.
Humility is an under-utilized characteristic of humanns – and that includes Popes [& climate scientists].
Yes, Pascal’s Wager. That is where I come from with respect to my much maligned stance on Pope Francis. Better to proceed as if he is the valid but egregiously bad and likely heretical pope than to condemn oneself through the mortal sin of schism if by chance he really isn’t an antipope.
A pope can teach heresy. He is only prevented by the Holy Spirit from making a formal declaration of a dogma that is in error.
More to the point with Francis, a pope is not impeccable. He can be a notorious sinner.
A pope can be devious and intentionally mislead. He can speak ambiguously knowing and hoping to have his words misunderstood. He can say things ambiguously that he means in a heretical way but that he can later lie about and claim to have been misunderstood. He can protect and promote homosexual activists and pay lip service to traditional teaching.
He can do all of those things and still be the valid pope. A scourge on the Church so to speak. A chastisement from God, who allowed his election to chasten a wayward Church.
No, nothing Pascal’s Wager. When I was young I received some advice from a much older relative to the effect that if there is a god then the only one I would want to serve is one who calls on me to be a better human being, and if there is no god then I have no other option than to be a better human being or else we will all live in hell. No wager at all, no bet involved.
Perhaps not for you, Ed, but I was relating the comment to my own apparently paradoxical motivation for accepting the legitimacy of Pope Francis.
I do understand your thinking, but I believe that ultimately without the promise of infinite joy and/or the threat of infinite punishment, society must collapse under the weight of the tragedy of the commons.
A good point, many a Catholic thinks that the Virgin Birth was the direct consequence of the Immaculate Conception. Of course the IC refers to Mary being spared the stain of original sin when she was conceived in her mother St Anne’s womb. Which was to prepare her to be the Theotokos (God bearer).
The same sort of misunderstanding of obscure terms arises with ‘papal infallibility’. It is perpetually mischaracterized as the pope can never make an error. If that were so, much of Church history would disprove the concept. Of course adversaries of the Catholic Church find it a useful straw man argument against the Church. Common sense informs anyone that a man can make errors.
Papal infallibility is, I would say, a very regrettable misnomer. It would be better to call it papal authority to adjudicate matters of faith and morals or confirmational authority. It’s a very limited, rarely exercised authority to declare that some longstanding teaching of the church is definitively true. The spiritual aspect of it consists in the belief that the pope receives a special gift of the Holy Spirit that protects him from teaching error ex cathedra (from the throne) in those cases where a question arises about a matter of faith or morals and there is a formal declaration made.
When Francis shoots off his mouth to an atheist journalist friend, he’s not speaking ex cathedra even if the matter touches faith or morals.
In Europe, Roman Catholic politics always were conservative, with a social overtone, the Bavarion CSU is a classic exponent. The protestant churches in the Netherlands are strongly polarised with conservative denominations and environmental denominations.
but.. but.. isn’t the Pope infallible? 🙂
after all, it’s his job to…. pontificate!
No Joseph. I have already made several comments and won’t repeat myself here, but invite you to read those comments.
It’s as basic as this:
True believers repeatedly acknowledge God as the ‘giver of all good gifts’.
CO2 is essential to life on earth, so how can it be inherently ‘bad’?
Ditto fossil fuels, laid down before man existed but created to be available to transform our lives when we had advanced sufficiently to employ them.
And God is inherently good. S/he does not give us stones when we ask for bread, nor could S/he give us apparently good gifts knowing that they were in fact evil.
All the computer models in the world fall infinitely short of God’s Wisdom, even if, in the short term, the credulous let the arrogant build reputations, fortunes and power bases by claiming to know better. Another generation will look back at these decades and wonder how so many apparently rational minds succumbed to the ‘green’ mass hysteria.
I think I have seen extensive explanations as to why the giver of gifts, gives evil ones. Testing us, or something.
I’m going to let you search-up this material. I have dishes to wash.
God did not give us any evil, but He allows evil to exist so as not to render free will meaningless. A very deep topic. We can then say that his allowing us to suffer evil is a test or a chastisement.
Please, please, Eric, keep off commenting on religious matters, especially those relating to the Catholic Church. With regard to the Vigano trial you have got hold of one-tenth of the story, repirted it from only one side and drawn the conclusion that 2+2 = 25.
The Vigano trial has absolutely nothing to do with the Green agenda. It is all to do with things that Vigano has said about the Pope.
Ahhh, so it is like the Galileo trial. About statements against the pope.
No, Owen, it is primarily a matter of Church discipline. An archbishop who claims that the See of Peter is vacant, that Vatican II was not valid and that only the traditional Latin mass is a valid liturgy is not something that a legitimate pope can just ignore. Viganò has many grievances against Francis, and I’m sympathetic to many of them, but it should be very clear that he’s saying things that understandably get him ex-communicated. It would be the same if he had said those things while John Paul II or Benedict XVI was pope. The personal attacks on the pope would probably be ignored if it were not for those other issues.
I don’t know your point of view on Pope Francis or Archbishop Viganò, CampsieFellow, but I do not think that it is true that only 10% to the story has been told.
The story has been admittedly viewed through a limited prism or filter of what is relevant to WUWT. It’s certainly true that from a Catholic perspective, the story isn’t primarily about Viganò rejecting Francis’ climate change teaching.
Clearly stated in the head post, the Abp. considers Francis to be an antipope. He is formally in schism. He also rejects the Second Vatican Council and teaching of the post-conciliar popes. It does not seem that Viganò takes seriously enough the risks to his soul from taking these positions.
Perhaps you could enlighten us? What is missing from the reporting?