Excommunicated on Christmas Eve

     When I saw the tweet from Nick Donnelly (whom I follow and think does an outstanding job), I was saddened and a bit shocked, though to tell the truth I find it harder and harder to be shocked under the Francis Papacy. 

Most of the comments under the tweet were people upset and outraged that this happened. 

I wanted to know why, so I read the Declaration from the hermits themselves, which you can find HERE. 


The part that stood out to me, was this: 

"Though we are utterly unimportant, for who is interested in hermits that dare to speak out, we cannot keep silent for fear of damning not only our own souls, but the souls of countless others(xxii) .  We who are watchmen for the Church, who must speak from the watch tower of Truth, have no option but to withdraw our obedience from Pope Francis and sever communion with the Holy See(xxi) .  We do this with great fear and trepidation, but we cannot take part in the Pope’s sin. This is not an act of schism, nor is it an act of defiance, it is an act of real prudence; for no-one in their right mind would stay in a burning building, nor would they silently go down with the sinking ship.  They would try to save not only themselves, but warn others and help them to safety(xxiv)." 

As a result of the hermits severing themselves from the Holy See and Pope Francis, while acknowledging Francis to be the Pope, the Church had no other choice but to excommunicate them. 

And the battle began on social media among Catholic laity. I can see both sides in this, but I can't support both sides.

Some are taking the hermits side against the Church and others (myself among them) are siding with the Church.   

The way I see it (and I am open to anyone showing me how I could wrong-don't hold back in the comments), is that our Church, Our Holy Mother Church is in her Passion as Christ suffered His. 

Corrupt men inside the Church are a cancer, eating away and spreading disease in the Church. Francis, our wretched (God help him) pope is a large poisonous tumor spreading cancer in the body of the Church. 

What do faithful children do when their Mother is suffering so much? 

Do we abandon her? 

No! We stay and fight and pray for her. 

We cling to the authentic Faith, we have it, we know it. We don't leave her to suffer alone because Francis is a terrible pope! We suffer along side Mother Church and hold on because we KNOW who wins in the end! We already know how this story ends! 

Why in the world would you leave when there is no where else to go? Jesus created One Holy Catholic Church on earth, just the one. Outside of it, you may very well lose your salvation if you don't repent before death. 

Popes come and go. God will judge Francis as God Himself has allowed Francis to be our pope right now. 

I often wonder if Francis is a test on us. Do we love our Church enough that even when we have a bad pope we aren't rattled? OK, Francis rattles me, but he won't push me out of the Church.  

From the hermits blog page (sidebar)...

"Now however, the world and the Churches are descending ever further into a moral morass. And as we have ended our obedience to Pope Francis - and therefore all Bishops who go along with his false teachings and example - we are free to do what we must do under God. Preach God's Truth to the people, in season and out of season, so that those who have ears to hear may turn back to God and be saved."

They have, in my opinion (for what that's worth) placed themselves in schism and asked for the excommunication. 

In the hermits defense, they state in their Declaration that they believe Francis has set up the False Church of prophecy (by Blessed Anna Catherine Emmerich). 

The hermits quote: 

“I saw also the relationship between the two popes… I saw how baleful would be the consequences of this false church

“The Church is in great danger… I see that in this place the Church is being so cleverly undermined, that there will hardly remain a hundred or so priests who have not been deceived. They all work for destruction, even the clergy.

“When I saw the Church of St. Peter in ruins, and the manner in which so many of the clergy were themselves busy at this work of destruction – none of them wishing to do it openly in front of others – I was in such distress that I cried out to Jesus with all my might, imploring His mercy. He said, among other things, that this translation of the Church from one place to another meant that She would seem to be in complete decline. But She would rise again; even if there remained but one Catholic, the Church would conquer again because She does not rest on human counsels and intelligence. It was also shown to me that there were almost no Christians left in the old acceptation of the word.”

“Among the strangest things that I saw, were long processions of bishops. Their thoughts and utterances were made known to me through images issuing from their mouths. Their faults towards religion were shown by external deformities. A few had only a body, with a dark cloud of fog instead of a head. Others had only a head, their bodies and hearts were like thick vapours. Some were lame; others were paralytics; others were asleep or staggering.”

“I saw what I believe to be nearly all the bishops of the world, but only a small number were perfectly sound…”


“A false church, and wicked men scheming against the Catholic Church and doing much harm–both in her own time and in the future. And actually saw in a vision this, the enemies of the Church tearing it down and trying to build a new one on strictly human plans–but none of the saints would lend a hand. Later, this church of men is destroyed and the saints of God join in to rebuild the true Church of God, which becomes more glorious than ever before.”

Based on Emmerich and what Francis says and does, these hermits have severed all ties with the Church and Pope Francis because they believe our Catholic Church is now the False Church. 

What do you all think? 

Are the hermits right to sever all ties with the Church and Pope Francis? 

My current thinking, and its subject to change on this matter, is that Pope Francis will one day be declared an anti-pope and all he said and did will be washed away, leaving the Church and Her teachings as they always were. Now my hope and prayers are that Pope Francis will accept correction in his many errors, repent and one day be a decent pope. It could happen and I am praying for it to happen. But if it doesn't, I believe he will in the future be declared an anti-pope.

Now I want to hear from all of you.

What do you think of what the hermits did? 

Was the Church right in excommunicating them? 

Do you believe the hermits are correct? 

Has the Church become the False Church Emmerich speaks of? 

Let me hear your thoughts. 

Don't hold back, speak out and God bless you all. 



In Christ, 


Julie 



Sources: 

https://twitter.com/ProtecttheFaith/status/1209556382363668484 

http://www.trumpeteer.co.uk/the-declaration/4594595263 

http://www.trumpeteer.co.uk/the-hermits-blog/4594613512 

Louie Verrecchio takes flight?

We've got a bad pope. 

There is no denying. 

Some Catholic media outlets won't say it publicly but they know it just like the rest of us who aren't ostriches. 

For example [there are so many to pick from] a pope who says hell is not eternal because any soul that has been damned will be destroyed, is speaking heresy. 

This is wrong because 1) damnation is eternal, 2) souls are not destroyed they are eternal, and 3) this is a basic teaching of the Holy Catholic Church that must be accepted and believed because Jesus Christ himself stated such in Sacred Scripture (Matthew 25:46). 

Catechism: 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." 617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

Catechism: 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." 11

That said, we, the faithful (key word here) should not abandon ship. 

Our first pope, Saint Peter was corrected by Saint Paul when he was in error, he accepted the correction and that was that, as the saying goes. 

Pope Honorius I, believed that Christ had only Divine Will (Monothelitism) during his time as pope. He pushed and taught this heresy through out his papacy and many followed and believed him- perhaps because...well, he was the pope!  

They ignorantly thought that a pope could change the Faith and go against centuries of Sacred Teaching. They were wrong, and those who did not repent paid the ultimate price for it.  Excommunication and death outside the Salvation found in Christ's Holy Catholic Church. 

Pope Honorius I was not condemned as a heretic for decades AFTER his death during the Third Council of Constantinople.  Yet he was pope and the Church did not collapse or self destruct because he blathered heresy. What did happen was he created a following of a bunch of heretics who like himself were eventually excommunicated. To those of you out there swallowing the heresies of any Catholic clergy, open your eyes. Your very salvation depends upon it.

Sadly, there were others like Honorius I in the history of our Church and unfortunately, there may be more in the future. Had Honorius I accepted correction, he would not have died an excommunicated heretic. 

Now we have Pope Francis, preparing to celebrate...er...commemorate another excommunicated heretic who died outside the Church. Martin Luther. 

Will Pope Francis accept correction (see yesterday's post HERE) before he dies and is (in my opinion) declared a heretic by some future council? I certainly pray and hope so. 

Mr. Louie Verrecchio apparently disagrees with me on this -or am I reading this wrong? [my apologies if I'm reading this wrong] 

Over at AKACatholic.com in his "Pope or Anti-pope: Does it matter?" post, Mr. Verrecchio wrote the following... 

Quote: Even so, let’s consider some of the arguments being floated to this end:– A future pope will have to sort this mess out for us; we are unable.
The Church is mired in an unprecedented crisis that has been festering for more than five decades now.
In such an environment as this, it is entirely unreasonable – irresponsible even – to simply sit back and wait for a new conclave to elect an intrepid defender of the Faith who will right the ship and set the record straight. I mean, let’s face it, folks – the papabile talent pool is no more than ankle deep at this point.
Rest assured, Our Lord is not asking us to set aside our intelligence and ability to reason in this matter; on the contrary, we need to make use of these God-given gifts all the more in the absence of true shepherds.[clipped] 

My response is, look at previous councils!  This is how the Church works and has always worked. The Third Council of Constantinople- decades after Pope Honoriuos I's, death declared him a heretic and his teachings heretical.  This might very well be the case with Pope Francis himself should he refuse correction. 

So what do we Catholics do when we have a current pope speaking heresy and commemorating heretics? 

Mr. Verrecchio in his post says we have two options, "fight or flight"... 

Quote:
It’s “fight or flight.”
In the face of this unprecedented attack on the Petrine ministry, the “visible foundation” of the Church, some Catholic commentators will flee, and it must be said that flight has its rewards. Others will dig in and fight, which is always carried out at a cost.
I choose the latter.[end]

Again I ask, am I reading this correctly? 

I hope he means 'fight'...but if he means 'flight'...no!

Flight? Flight to where? Mr. Verrecchio does not elaborate- and after re-reading this a few times I am admittedly unclear as to which "latter" he is referring to. That said, my response stands for all who are considering "flight"- that is not an option for Catholics!

We do not take flight.  We are the church militant on earth. We fight! We stand with the teachings handed down to us from the Church.  We reject heresy- even when it comes from a pope. 

What we never do is take flight from Christ's Holy Catholic Church.  

We are not cowards. Our Lord is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The Holy Catholic Church is His Church and as such we must cling to Her regardless of who is pope or what heresy might come from his lips. 

There is no where else to go folks. Please don't fear a heretical pope. Cling to your Faith as it was handed down to you over the centuries. Popes come and popes go. We have good ones, we have great ones and occasionally we have heretical ones. 

Do not take flight. Fight. 

In Christ, 

Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner 

***Addition: I truly hope that Mr. Verrecchio means "fight" and not "flight". My message in this post remains to those who have or are thinking of taking "flight" from the Church.*** 

Sources: 

https://akacatholic.com/pope-or-anti-pope-does-it-really-matter/

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum06.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/1611-did-pope-francis-just-deny-the-existence-of-hell

http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/2016/09/theyre-coming-out-of-woodwork-now.html

Pope Benedict XVI and the SSPX

Apparently, some don't like that I hold the personal opinion that the SSPX are in schism with the Catholic Church.  I'm OK with that.  

What I am doing today is showing (in part) WHY I believe as I do.  I refer to the words of Pope Benedict XVI himself for my views...

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI

TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION

OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE

 Dear Brothers in the Episcopal Ministry!  The remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a mandate of the Holy See has for many reasons caused, both within and beyond the Catholic Church, a discussion more heated than any we have seen for a long time. Many Bishops felt perplexed by an event which came about unexpectedly and was difficult to view positively in the light of the issues and tasks facing the Church today. Even though many Bishops and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of the Pope’s concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of faith in our time. Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church.
An unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately suddenly appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church’s path. A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council – steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support. That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which – as in the days of Pope John Paul II – has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.
Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the world’s Bishops in the process of decision-making. The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.
I hope, dear Brothers, that this serves to clarify the positive significance and also the limits of the provision of 21 January 2009. But the question still remains: Was this measure needed? Was it really a priority? Aren’t other things perhaps more important? Of course there are more important and urgent matters. I believe that I set forth clearly the priorities of my pontificate in the addresses which I gave at its beginning. Everything that I said then continues unchanged as my plan of action. The first priority for the Successor of Peter was laid down by the Lord in the Upper Room in the clearest of terms: "You… strengthen your brothers" (Lk 22:32). Peter himself formulated this priority anew in his first Letter: "Always be prepared to make a defence to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet 3:15). In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god, but the God who spoke on Sinai; to that God whose face we recognize in a love which presses "to the end" (cf. Jn13:1) – in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light which comes from God, humanity is losing its bearings, with increasingly evident destructive effects.
Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecumenism – is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light – this is interreligious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love "to the end" has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity – this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est.
So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who "has something against you" (cf.Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents – to the extent possible – in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?
Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.
Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this "biting and devouring" also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to her Son, in whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide – even in turbulent times. And so I would like to offer heartfelt thanks to all the many Bishops who have lately offered me touching tokens of trust and affection, and above all assured me of their prayers. My thanks also go to all the faithful who in these days have given me testimony of their constant fidelity to the Successor of Saint Peter. May the Lord protect all of us and guide our steps along the way of peace. This is the prayer that rises up instinctively from my heart at the beginning of this Lent, a liturgical season particularly suited to interior purification, one which invites all of us to look with renewed hope to the light which awaits us at Easter. 

With a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain

Yours in the Lord,
BENEDICTUS PP. XVI    From the Vatican, 10 March 2009

Source:   http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html


That's really all I've got to say on this topic unless something new comes up.

God bless!


In Christ,

Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner


Added:

DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law. Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred <ipso facto> excommunication <latae sententiae> reserved to the Apostolic See. Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication <latae sententiae> as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1. The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur <ipso facto> the very grave penalty of excommunication. From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988. Bernardinus Card. Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

Source: https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CBISLEFB.HTM