Monday, October 22, 2018

A False Martyr


 On October 14, 2018, Traditionalists the world over shook their heads in disbelief as Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) "canonized" his equally false predecessor, Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) a "saint." This act requires no commentary from me. Montini was a practicing sodomite, a Freemason, and the person who "promulgated" all the heretical documents of the Second Vatican (Robber) Council, which form the basis of the man-made Vatican II sect religion. As real canonizations are infallible acts, everyone is faced with the choice of either accepting Montini as a saint worthy of emulation by the faithful, or rejecting the papal pretender who dared to list his odious name among the great saints of the Church. Yet, the "recognize and resist" crowd, and others immune to logic and reason, will somehow try to justify this act or convince themselves canonizations are not really infallible. They "forget" the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church, which means the Church cannot give that which is erroneous or evil--and giving Montini to the world as a "role model" is evil. Therefore, it could not have come from a true pope.

With most of the notoriety centered on Montini, less has been written about the second big name to be "canonized" the same day: "Archbishop" Oscar Romero of El Salvador. He was "martyred" on March 24, 1980. Romero was no martyr and no saint. As I will demonstrate in this post, Bergoglio has eviscerated the Catholic theology of martyrdom, and given the world a heretical notion in its place. To make an analogy, Romero is to martyr as Bergoglio is to pope.

Romero's Life in Brief
Oscar Romero was born on the Feast of Our Lady's Assumption in 1917. He had little formal schooling, but was very intelligent. At the age of 13, he wanted to become a priest, and was formally educated at the seminary in El Salvador, before completing his studies in Rome, graduating from the prestigious Gregorian University. He was ordained to the priesthood on April 4, 1942. Back in El Salvador, he worked as a parish priest and in several ministries. In January of 1966 he complained of exhaustion, and he was diagnosed by a psychiatrist as suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and the priests who counseled him said he suffered from scrupulosity. (See Oscar Romero: Love Must Win Out, Liturgical Press, [2014], pg. 45). 

Fr. Romero had no problems with the changes of Vatican II and embraced them. In 1970 he was invalidly "consecrated" as auxiliary "bishop" for the Archdiocese of San Salvador. In February of 1977, Romero was appointed "Archbishop" of that See by Montini. He held to nuanced version of the heretical Liberation Theology, (a form of Marxism) and denounced the government on the radio and from the pulpit every chance he had.  On March 24, 1980, while performing the Novus Bogus bread and wine service, a right wing death squad entered the church, and shot Romero in the heart, killing him at once. The perpetrators were never apprehended. In 1983, Wojtyla (John Paul II) prayed at Romero's tomb. The cause for his "sainthood" was opened in 1990. In 2000, Wojtyla declared Romero "that great witness of the Gospel." He was "beatified" in 2015, and "canonized" in 2018 by Bergoglio.

Liberation Theology
In the wake of Vatican II, Marxist ideals made inroads with the clergy and were openly embraced, particularly in South America. A Dominican priest, Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez (b. 1928, ordained 1959) wrote a book entitled A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll Press, NY: Orbis, [1971]) which gave the movement both its name and impetus. As a young man, Gutierrez studied to become a doctor, only to change course and study for the priesthood. He was taught by the most Modernist theologians of the day, Frs. Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, and Marie Dominique Chenu. De Lubac was removed from his teaching position in 1950 on suspicion of Modernism, Congar was prevented from teaching and publishing in 1954, and had one of his major works censured in 1952. Chenu had a book, Une école de théologie placed on the Vatican's Index of Forbidden Books in 1942 because of its heretical ideas about the role of historical studies in theology. He was subsequently removed from his teaching post. All three were rehabilitated by Roncalli (John XXIII) and Montini (Paul VI), becoming perti (theological experts) at Vatican II. De Lubac and Congar would be made "cardinals" and heroes of the Vatican II sect. Gutierrez credits heretic Chenu as his biggest influence. 

With this background, its not hard to see that "Liberation Theology" is heretical from its very inception. It is basically Communism dressed up in religious garb. Gutierrez rejects the idea that theology is a systematic collection of timeless and culture-transcending truths that remains unchanging for all generations. Rather, theology is in flux; it is a dynamic and ongoing exercise involving contemporary insights into knowledge, humanity, and history.Theology is about actions to help the poor and oppressed using Jesus Christ as the "model of liberation." Theologians are not to be mere theoreticians, but practitioners who participate in the ongoing struggle to liberate the oppressed. From what are they to be liberated? Not sin, but poverty and capitalism. Just like Modernists, they give traditional Catholic teachings new meanings while retaining the same verbiage. 

Sin. Using methodologies such as Gutierrez's, "liberation theologians" interpret sin not primarily from an individual, private perspective, but from a social and economic perspective. Gutierrez explains in his book that "sin is not considered as an individual, private, or merely interior reality. Sin is regarded as a social, historical fact, the absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among men." (pg. 72). Those who are oppressed can and do sin by acquiescing to their bondage. To go along passively with oppression rather than resisting and attempting to overthrow it (by violent means if necessary) is a sin. The use of violence has been one of the most controversial aspects of liberation theology. Such violence is not considered sinful if it is used for resisting oppression. Indeed, certain liberation theologians in some cases regard a particular action (e.g., killing) as the sin of murder only if it is committed by an "oppressor" (usually meaning any capitalist government), but not if it is committed by "the oppressed" in the struggle to remove inequities.

Salvation. Salvation is viewed not primarily in terms of life after death for the individual, but in terms of bringing about the kingdom of God: a new social order where there will be equality for all.

Jesus Christ. While liberation theologians do not outright deny Christ's Divinity, there is no unambiguous confession that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. The "significance" of Jesus Christ lies in His example of struggling to help the poor and the outcast. The Incarnation is reinterpreted to represent God's total immersion into man's history of conflict and oppression. Christ, they tell us, was about liberating the poor. They conveniently ignore He said, "For the poor thou hast always with thee: but Me thou hast not always." (St. Matthew 26: 11).  

The Church. Gutierrez and other liberation theologians say the Church's mission is no longer one of a "quantitative" notion of saving numbers of souls. Instead, the Church's Great Commission is about improving the "quality of life" on Earth; thereby siding with the poor and the oppressed.

Despite all this heresy, Gutierrez was never excommunicated or censured by Wojtyla, the "anti-Communist" who condemned Liberation Theology, yet did nothing to stop it. It is claimed that Romero disavowed violence, and was not a "liberation theologian" but a "Transfiguration theologian" who rejected Marxism. What is "Transfiguration theology"? It is an ecumenical, watered down socialism. Romero did indeed denounce violence. However, he stated:
"Pope Paul VI who continually enlightens my thinking in these matters...also encouraged ecumenism as a spiritual and pastoral need. With joy I am able to tell you that we have spoken with our evangelical sisters and brothers and very soon we will meet to plan and work together in an authentic ecumenical sense." (See http://www.romerotrust.org.uk/homilies/126/126_pdf.pdf)

 Montini, the apostate sodomite and Freemason, was Romero's "enlightenment." His work is based on ecumenism from Vatican II, and has its roots in Liberation Theology properly so-called. Furthermore, "Cardinal" Gerhard Muller claimed to have read through "six volumes on Oscar Romero" and at the end of this exhaustive study found nothing that would prevent him from being recognized as a saint. This is not very reassuring considering that Muller, the former head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (sic), is himself a heretic who denies the dogma of Transubstantiation. (See the excellent analysis of Novus Ordo Watch at: https://novusordowatch.org/2017/08/heresies-cardinal-muller-transubstantiation/).

The next section will explain why Romero was so keen on ecumenism.

Romero and Opus Dei
According to opusdei.org, Opus Dei’s founder, Saint (sic) Josemaría Escriva, and Archbishop Romero had known each other since 1955. In 1974 Romero came to Rome and had several conversations with the future saint. Escriva was concerned that the Archbishop should have the opportunity to rest during his stay in Rome, because he realized the tense situation he faced back in El Salvador.

After Escriva's death, Romero was one of the first bishops to write a letter to the Holy See asking for his canonization. In this letter he said that he was grateful for having known Msgr Escriva personally "and for having received from him encouragement and strength to be faithful to the unchangeable doctrine of Christ and to serve the Holy Roman Church with apostolic zeal."

And he [Romero--Introibo] continued: "Personally, I owe deep gratitude to the priests involved with the Work [Opus Dei], to whom I have entrusted with much satisfaction the spiritual direction of my own life and that of other priests."

Cardinal Rosa Chavez, auxiliary bishop of San Salvador and a close friend of Romero, says that the martyr’s spirituality was nourished by the spirituality of Josemaría Escriva and that he often read his book The Way."
(See https://opusdei.org/en/article/saint-oscar-romero/amp/).

Opus Dei (Latin: "The Work of God") is organized like a religious order, comprised overall of priests and laity. Entering "the Opus" is considered to be a vocation and there are both rules and vows, although married members take different vows than clerics. It is a personal prelature, meaning that, there is a prelate, clergy and laity under the direction of the Congregation of Bishops. As opposed to a diocese, people are bound to the prelature by membership as opposed to geographical area.

Is Opus Dei, in any sense, Traditional Catholic?

 In a word: NO.

  • It was the first institution to take in non-Catholics and even non-Christians
  • For Escriva and his organization, freedom of conscience comes before Truth. Hence he said, "[Religious] Pluralism is not to be feared but loved as a legitimate consequence of personal freedom."
  • Escriva had Protestant, schismatic, Jewish, Moslem and even pagan benefactors who were very good financial brokers for Opus Dei; it was already an active force for "political ecumenism." In Spain, the group refused to take a stand against abortion, not wanting to violate the "conscience" of the non-Catholics
  • Montini (Paul VI) used the work of Escriva for his personal meditations
  • The Opus Dei member ultimately learns not only to respect, but to love, religious pluralism

This was the garbage spirituality and theology of Romero. He used a version of liberation theology based on Vatican II ecumenism and made enemies based on this heretical theology as well as for denouncing the government.

Can Romero Be a True "Martyr"?

Bergoglio believes in an "ecumenism of blood;" that members of false sects can be "martyrs." He stated on Vatican Radio, February 16, 2015:
"The blood of our Christian brothers and sisters is a testimony which cries out to be heard,” said the Pope.  "It makes no difference whether they be Catholics, Orthodox, Copts or Protestants. They are Christians! Their blood is one and the same. Their blood confesses Christ."

This is so far removed from Catholic teaching, it can't be denounced strongly enough. Time for a reality check. The following points I condensed from Fr. Ronald Knox's wonderful treatise The Theology of Martyrdom (B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, Missouri, (1929)).

1. The word "martyr" means "witness." It means you give witness to the True Faith by your death. Martyrdom implies, not simply losing your life, but giving up your life. Your life is prematurely cut short in the interests of something greater than yourself. Neither suffering by itself, nor suffering followed by death is martyrdom properly so called.

2. The Church does not bestow the title of martyr upon those heroic priests, nuns, and layman who have persistently attended to the suffering in times of pestilence. St. Aloysius, whose death was brought on by such a labor was not canonized a martyr. These deaths were not the result of the assertion of religious truth against the enemies of religious truth. They laid down their lives for Christ's sake, but not for Christ's quarrel. 

3. The faith one dies for can only be the unadulterated, Integral Catholic Faith; the One True Religion. To those who object that non-Catholics can receive Baptism of Desire, and it is therefore hypocritical to deny Protestants who, in good faith, die for a false belief the title of martyrs, it can be demonstrated their argument is without merit.  Baptism of Desire does not deny the objectivity of Truth, as this argument presupposes. The world tells us "Be good and you will go to Heaven, if such a place exists." A martyr is not someone who dies for what they believe, it is someone who dies for the Truth. Thomas Crammer died because he disbelieved in the papacy. St. Thomas More died because he believed in the papacy. Both cannot be true, so to make martyrs of both means either objective truth doesn't matter or doesn't exist.

4. As an adult, you must have the intention to die as a witness for the Truth. If a Traditionalist is killed in his sleep (unaware he was in any danger) by someone who is an enemy of the Faith, he does not qualify as a martyr. The Church means, by martyrdom, death undergone at the hands of those who hate the True Catholic Faith, for the sake of the True Catholic Faith; and undergone, in the case of adults, deliberately. Infants, killed for the sake of the True Faith, by those who hate the True Faith, die as martyrs without any intention necessary. They receive Baptism of Blood (if unbaptized) and their salvation is assured. (e.g. The Holy Innocents).

5. On the part of the enemies of Christ, a certain odium fidei ("hatred of the Faith") is necessary. A wholesale abandonment of the Faith, or hatred of all beliefs, is not necessary. To hate any article of True Faith/Morals because it is taught by the Church will suffice. Therefore, Henry VIII did not have to abandon every belief of the Church. Denying divorce and remarriage is adultery and hating that belief because the Church teaches it as true, was sufficient without more, to establish an odium fidei.

6. A soldier who takes up arms to fight a just war is not to be considered a martyr if he dies. Hence, the one who dies must not be guilty of provocation---that he died because he didn't kill the other man first. The exception is with captured soldiers who, now unarmed, are given the option of death or apostasy.

7. Notice how different this is from the Moslem conception of committing suicide while killing others (e.g. 9/11 attacks) as "martyrdom"!

Romero was killed because of a heretical theology and his political activity. Therefore, he did not die for the One True Church and--on that basis alone--cannot be a martyr. His murderer(s) did not truly have the "hatred of the faith"--only hatred for Romero's politics and false theology which supported his politics. Romero is neither a saint nor a martyr, unless you jettison all Catholic teaching on martyrdom by replacing it with an "ecumenism of blood" as professed by Bergoglio.

Conclusion

On October 14, 2018, Jorge Bergoglio held up as "saints" a false pope and a false martyr. Montini (Paul VI) did more to destroy the Faith and drive the Church underground than anyone else. Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio were just speeding up the process he began.  Oscar Romero was a revolutionary who offered an ecumenical form of socialism under the guise of Christianity. His theology and spirituality were formed by (and praised by) heretics of the worst kind. He does not meet even the minimum standards to be considered a martyr according to the teaching of the One True Church. 

Meanwhile, real pope-saints, such as Pope St. Pius V, and Pope St. Pius X are obscured (at best) or derided as irrelevant in "today's world" because they were not ecumenical. Now, we have real saints and martyrs, like St. Isaac Jogues, St. Maria Goretti, and St. Thomas More being replaced in the Vatican II sect by the likes of Oscar Romero, a socialist and heretic, who didn't die for the Faith. "Pope" Francis does not want held up for emulation someone who died to convert the Native Americans from paganism (they were "noble savages"), or who died for defending her virginal purity (not sensitive to promiscuous sodomites), or who died defending the true doctrine on the papacy (not sensitive to Siscoe, Salza, and the SSPX who want to join Francis). 

No, Bergoglio wants the world to emulate someone who embodies the "spirit of Vatican II" and spouts the Communist "Social(ist) Gospel." As the world crumbles around us with Faith and Morals disappearing more and more, the day may not be too far off when many of us who profess the Integral Catholic Faith may be targeted and become true martyrs. May God then give us strength. 

33 comments:

  1. Another thought-provoking article. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Barbara! Comments like yours keep me writing.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. False martyrs for their false church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed Tom. There is virtually nothing left of Catholicism in the Vatican II sect. They have perverted EVERYTHING to one degree or another.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. Introibo - I don’t understand how Canonizations are infallible. Are they apart of the doctrine of faith and morals? I am not R&R, just in need of clarification on the matter. Thanks much!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      It is the unanimous teaching of the theologians that Almighty God protected His true Church from the possibility of erring in the canonization of saints, because to be in error about who is and isn’t a model of the Faith, deserving of veneration, and able to intercede for us in Heaven would be disastrous to souls and undermine the very purpose for which the Church was established, which is to lead people to Heaven.

      As theologian Salaverri teaches,

      “...the end of the infallible Magisterium demands those things that are necessary in order to direct the faithful without error to salvation through the correct worship [=veneration] and imitation of the examples of Christian virtues. But for such a purpose infallibility concerning decrees on the Canonization of Saints is necessary.

      [This] is certain, because by the solemn decrees of the Canonization of Saints the Church not only tolerates and permits, but also commends and instructs the whole flock of the faithful that certain definite Saints whom it canonizes are to be honored, and it proposes them as examples of virtue who are worthy of imitation. But the mere possibility of error in such a solemn declaration would take away all confidence from the faithful and fundamentally would destroy the whole cult of the Saints; because [then] it could happen that the Church would solemnly propose to all and mandate that condemned and evil men perpetually should be honored. Therefore, in order to direct the faithful without error to salvation through correct worship and imitation of the examples of Christian virtues, infallibility is necessary concerning the solemn decrees of the Canonization of Saints.

      (” Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB: On the Church of Christ,” n. 724).

      Theologian Van Noort explains that canonizations are secondary objects of Infallibility:
      “PROPOSITION 2: The secondary object of infallibility comprises all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperilled unless an absolutely certain decision could he made about them.”

      Van Noort continues:That is why the chief object of infallibility, that, namely, which by its very nature falls within the scope of infallibility, includes only the truths contained in the actual deposit of revelation. Allied matters, on the other hand, which are not in the actual deposit, but contribute to its safeguarding and security, come within the purview of infallibility not by their very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation.

      When theologians go on to break up the general statement of this thesis into its component parts, they teach that the following individual matters belong to the secondary object of infallibility: 1. theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints.”(See Dogmatic Theology 2:108-118; [1957]).

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo


      Delete
    2. Introibo - Thanks so much for the explanation and clarification. These fake saints are in the fake news and it is a shame that people actually believe it.

      Delete
    3. Always glad to help Joann! Consider this: as members of the True Church, we know INFALLIBLY that the person's soul is in the glory of Heaven and his/her life is worthy of emulation.

      Now consider the Vatican II sect with its phony "saints." In many cases, they have their people PRAYING TO A DAMNED SOUL IN HELL AND HOLDING THEIR LIFE UP FOR THEM TO IMITATE--- THE VERY LIFE WHICH BROUGHT THEM ETERNAL MISERY.

      Frightening reflections on the times of the Great Apostasy in which we live.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. Pius XII approved Opus Dei circa 1950.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pope Paul III approved the Jesuits in 1540. Sometimes orders go bad.

      Delete
    2. @anonymous12:27
      Yes he did, and if it were a religious order, the case is closed. However, the approbation MUST bear upon a religious order (See Zubizarreta, Theologia dogmatico-scholastica, Bilbao, 1947, 1:420); for the Church is then infallible because she uses the means of sanctification given by Our Lord himself (the religious life). Yet, precisely, the Opus Dei refuses to be classed as a religious order, and demands that its special lay, secular character be recognized. Moreover, the Indefectibility of the Church is not compromised in any way since the Holy Ghost does not protect such an order, just as episcopal appointments of the pope are not protected and bad bishops can be made.

      Tom is correct. In 1982, the “Work” revised its statutes to conform with Vatican II. Hence, Opus Dei is bad news.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. Personally,I do not endorse nor recognize Opus Dei as Catholics.
      With that said,I recently learned their founder, Fr.Escriva,had an Indult to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for his entire.
      If what I learned is correct,he didn't offer the
      'novus ordo Missae.'
      I attend a traditional Thuc line Catholic chapel so please don't misunderstand this as an endorsement of catholicity.
      It was simply just a surprise to read this info.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    4. It’s a surprise to me too, Andrew. Fr. DePauw knew Escriva personally. When I asked him what he thought of him after the 1992 “beatification” by Wojtyla, he looked at me and said (without further elaboration), “Trust me, he was no ‘saint’”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. Introibo, where have you been all my (Catholic) life? Your blog is extremely informative! I've just about had it with the "Traditional Catholic" bloggers saying, "I sure don't like what Pope Francis (sic) is doing, but --gosh-- I'd better go along with it. Pope Saint Paul VI, pray for us." It is maddening that if one (a typical R&R reader like myself) dares to suggest that a heretic, can't be a pope, thus his canonizations are invalid, they swoon and shriek, "You're nothing but an ultramontanist. How can you jump off the Barque, you Protestant heretic!" Sigh :( Your blog might just help me keep my sanity.
    I'm reading through your old posts. Thank you and keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you found my blog, my friend and thank you for the kind words! This is one blog that is firmly and proudly exposing the false Vatican II sect and its “popes.”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Ultramontanist just means "Catholic". Where did these people come up with the idea that ultramontanism isn't Catholicism?

      Delete
    3. Sarah,
      There’s a lot of strange ideas entertained these days!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. As someone cleverly pointed out somewhere else, the only miracle these fake saints of the fake church ever performed was getting people to actually think they were Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s a good one Tom! (Unfortunately, very true as well).

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I must say that I disagree with the first sentence of this article. I was happy Bergolio fake-canonized Montini. It is simply more proof these clowns are apostates. But I know what you were driving at. The semi-trads indeed woke up in panic that morning knowing they were going to have to get quite creative in trying to explain this one away. It seems several of them were "inspired" with some novel new concepts about canonizations, while most simply resumed their hand wringing.

      Delete
  7. Clement of Alexandria was a saint who was later de-sainted in 1586 by Pope Sixtus V. Until that point he was listed in the Roman Martyrology and his feast day was December 4th.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, he was removed when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Pope Clement VIII. Clement's name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of Cardinal Baronius. Benedict XIV maintained this decision of his predecessor on the grounds that Clement's life was little known that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church, and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least suspect.

      The canonizations that are infallible must be by the Supreme Apostolic Authority of the pope, and not simply by inclusion in the ancient Martyrology. Some names were there never having obtained a cultus within the Church as testimony to their acceptance as saints, hence the rightful purge. Since the revision was now approved by the Pontiff, we have assurance that the Roman Martyrology is now pure. (See e.g., Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm)

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Ahh, I see. The ancient popes were not infallible yet, so early saints who are later found to be heretics (i.e, Clement) could be stricken from the martyrology and their feast days recanted. But once papal infallibility began (late 2nd millennium) all the past papal errors could be fixed.

      Delete
    3. Unfortunately, you see nothing. There was no exercise of papal authority. Saints were only recognized if they had a cultus, which Clement did not have. Second, he was not found to be a heretic, only that some teachings were "suspect." To be a saint is a big deal and absolute purity of doctrine is necessary. The Vatican II sect "canonizes" apostates and heretics, not the Catholic Church. You sound like an Eastern Schismatic. As the Gospel of St. Matthew says about people like you: "In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
      ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.'" (St. Matthew 13:14).

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. I'm just trying to help. Clement of Alexandria is reason for hope. A future pope may look back on Saint Paul VI and strike him off the calendar too. Also, Clement was not the only one removed from the Roman Martyrology by Pope Sixtus so Romero can also be removed.

      Delete
    5. Ok. The real reason to hope is that there has been no pope since Pope Pius XII, so all canonizations are valid. Any “saint” made subsequent to 1958 can —and should—be removed.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Should real “all canonizations are INVALID” since 1958.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. "He held to nuanced version of the heretical Liberation Theology, (a form of Marxism)"

    Was his nuanced form heretical and Marxist?

    "Any “saint” made subsequent to 1958 can —and should—be removed."

    Or reprocessed?

    Up to now Sor Eusebia has not been "canonised" by a false pope, only the beatification was by one Wojtyla.

    I still think she was a real saint, as I think of Max Kolbe (not necessarily martyr, unless to his care of the dying).

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Chenu had a book, Une école de théologie placed on the Vatican's Index of Forbidden Books in 1942 because of its heretical ideas about the role of historical studies in theology."

    Namely? As I think historical studies have some role in theology, I hope to stay clear of heresy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The Opus Dei member ultimately learns not only to respect, but to love, religious pluralism"

    Except in relation to any kind of sede ... as I found out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Traditional Catholics are the only people who are not welcomed within the Novus Ordo.
      -Andrew

      Delete