Welcome Eagles to the New Crusade!
Will thou help defend the Fortress of Faith?

TradCatKnight- MOST VIEWED & FOLLOWED Traditional Catholic APOSTOLATE Worldwide!
As Seen on: Gloria.tv, SpiritDaily, Shoebat, Reddit, Beforeitsnews & many other notable websites
BOOKMARK us & check in DAILY for the latest Endtimes News!
Welcome to my Nest. #EagleoftheFortress
WEBSITE OWNERS: Don't Forget To Add Us On Your Page!

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Bergoglio; Hidden Apostasy?

Bergoglio; Hidden Apostasy?
Maurizio d'Orlando
Dear Father Kramer,
            Many thanks for sending me the Part III Reply to Salza & Siscoe, even though I have
not received the other two parts.
            Actually I was not aware of such diatribe by Salza & Siscoe, which is more restricted
to the Anglo-Saxon English world.
            As you know I am not a theologian and I never studied Theology, besides, of course,
basic Catechism. Their argument however is self-evidently weak by at least two accounts,
the notion of apostasy and the infallibility in matters of the Holy Doctrine.

 A hidden apostasy?
From what I can gather, in the Italian circles of the faithful worshippers, and not just
the Latin Mass attendees, the notion that Bergoglio is an apostate is pretty well spread. Just
simply the letter to Scalfari is sufficient evidence to that extent. See also for instance all the
pieces written by Antonio Socci, who is certainly not a traditionalist. Generally speaking, the
concept of a rupture with the Tradition of the Church is well accepted even by the modernists
of the Bergoglio party and vaunted (even though they would salute the departure from what
they would term the “tradition of the church” with lower case) as genuine sign of the “Spirit”,
of the new spring of the Church, a return to the “authentic” character of the pristine disposition
of the Church of the apostolic times. It is not a hidden apostasy and it shouldn’t be a point of
dispute. As a matter of fact the Greek word apostasy just means precisely refutation or distancing
or repudiation and I checked that in an old Greek dictionary I still keep – I had five years Greek
classes in my teenage years in the grammar school. Almost none of the modernists would
therefore argue against the fact that the Catholic Church of today does indeed refute or distance
or repudiate almost all of the “dark” notions of the Catholicism of the “dreadful” times before
the Vatican II Council. Only, they would say, Bergoglio goes simply a bit further, he is just more
adherent to the true spirit of the Council. Most of Catholics of today even ask actually for
“forgiveness” for the notions expressed by the Church of those “dark” days.
            So, this point, let me repeat it, shouldn’t be a contentious one: what we have with the
church of Bergoglio is not at all a hidden refutation, a hidden apostasy, but an open one and
one loudly proclaimed and boasted even.
2.      the infallibility in matters of the Holy Doctrine
            All the arguments made by Salza & Siscoe rotate just around one concept, i.e. that the
point expressed by Fr. Kramer is just a private judgement. See here below.

Here’s Fr. Kramer’s twisted reading of Bellarmine:
The main thrust of Bellarmine’s argument is that a pope who in FACT became a manifest heretic ceases to be a pope, a Christian and member of the Church. It is precisely due [sic] the FACT of loss of office [NB: by the private judgment of individual Catholics like Fr. Kramer] that he may be judged and punished by the Church. For so long as he holds office, a pope may not be judged by anyone” [except, evidently, by Fr. Kramer and his like-minded colleagues].

As John of St. Thomas explains, a Pope who is ‘judged” to be a heretic by private judgment alone remains Pope:
“So long as he [the Pope] has not become declared to us juridically as an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be pope as far as we are concerned."[5]
Again, if Fr. Kramer rejects this teaching, let him produce a quote from a reputable theologian that contradicts it.    
As Fr. Laymann taught, a heretical Pope who is being “tolerated by the Church” – that is, who has not been judged a heretic by the bishops – remains Pope.

            The arguments made by Salza & Siscoe, however, are untenable in the light of
the dogmas of infallibility as expressed by the Vatican I Council. The fact is that there
are two types of infallibility, one “in docendi” – in teaching – and one in “in discendi”. The first
one belongs only to the Holy Pontiff, while the second one belongs to all Catholic worshippers.
The second one means that if I have been taught that a given Doctrine is infallibly true, I have
the right to be sure to be infallible in holding that the given specific Doctrine is true, whoever
later claims to the contrary, even if dressed in white, as in the case of Bergoglio. One does not
need that a heretical Pope is judged a heretic by the bishops. A heretical Pope expressing openly
a self-evident heresy is an apostate of the Catholic Church. This the privilege of infallibility
granted to all Catholics.

            Our Lady of Fatima pray for us.
In Christo Rege per Mariam Reginam
Maurizio d’Orlando