Author Archives: VC Editors

About VC Editors

Editors of the website of « Veri Catholici », the international association dedicated to opposing the errors promoted by Cardinal Kasper.

How and why Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation is invalid by the law itself

Ben-Resign

Here we offer a calm reasoned canonical argument for the invalidity of Pope Benedict’s resignation, for any Catholic who wants to know the truth.

Why should any Catholic defend the validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation?

Are we obliged by canon law to do so? —No.

Is it a sin to do so when there is evidence that it is invalid? — No.

Is there a presumption of law that it is valid? — No.

Is there evidence that it was invalid? — Yes.

Why is Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation invalid?

To understand this, lets us refer to the original texts of the resignation and Canon Law:

Here is the text of the renunciation in the Latin original:

Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare…

What are the requirements for a valid Papal resignation? — These are found in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 332 §2;

§ 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

What is the first condition or requirement, then, according to Canon 332 §2 for a valid papal resignation? — That it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus (muneri suo renuntiet).

Does the text of Pope Benedict renounce the munus? — No, it says clearly declaro me ministerio … renuntiare.

If the renunciation does not regard the munus, does canon 332 §2 even apply? — Yes and no.  Yes, because since it does not fulfill the condition of a resignation within the term (in this case, munus) of Canon 332 §2, its not valid.  And no, inasmuch as being a juridic act which is outside the terms of Canon 332 §2 it does not regard a papal resignation, but merely a retirement from active ministry.

Can the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI be construed as valid?

Some say and seem to hold, that a Pope can resign his munus by resigning his ministerium. Is that a valid argument? — It is not, because its not a matter of mere assertion, the Law itself must declare it. Remember, there can be no innovation in Church Law without a positive act of a competent superior.

But is not the act of the resignation a juridic act which establishes a new way of resigning? — No. Juridical acts are not tyrannical acts, they cannot justify themselves, but must be in accord with Church Law. This is because as Vatican I declared, even the Pope has no authority to invent novelties.

But if one were to sustain that ministerium can supposit or be understood as munus, how would he have to prove it? — As canon 17 declares, when there is a doubt as to the signification of the law, one must have recourse to other parts of the law, and if there is no clarity there, then to the mind of the legislator.

Does the Code of Canon Law sanction the supposition of ministerium for munus? — No. In no part of the Code is a ministerium ever said to be a munus, or a munus to be a ministerium.  In fact, according to Canon 17, you must accept the definitions of terms contained in the Code itself as the AUTHENTIC expression of the Mind of the Legislator (Pope John Paul II) in promulgating the code of Canon Law.  Now in canon 145 §1, the Code defines every ecclesiastical office (officium) as a munus, not a ministerium!

What about canonical tradition, does it require a renunciation of munus for a valid resignation of papal office? — Yes, this is clear. Because in all previous renunciations there is not only a mention of munus (or its synonyms: onus, honor, dignitas, or proper names: papatus or episcopatus) but there is also no mention of ministerium. Nor is there any canonical tradition that one can suppose terms which do not mean munus according to canonical tradition for munus. The pope is not the creator or inventor of language or linguistic forms of signification, otherwise nothing would be certain or objective in the Church.

If both the text of the Code of Canon Law and canonical tradition require the mention of munus in a papal resignation, then in virtue of Canon 17, do those who claim Benedict’s renunciation of ministerium is valid, have any ground to stand upon? — No, one at all.

Then, must all Catholics recognize that in virtue of the law itself, the resignation is invalid? — Yes.

Does not the fact that the Cardinals all act as if it were valid, mean anything? — No, because according to canon 332 §2, even if the whole world held it to be valid, if it does not meet the conditions of Canon 332 §2, it is not valid. There is no wiggle room here.

But does not the very fact a Conclave was held in March of 2013 to elect a new pope make the resignation of Benedict XVI valid? Does not his tacit consent to this make it valid? — No on both accounts. First of all, because nothing makes a resignation valid except its conformity to canon 332 §2. Second, because by Divine Institution, the Petrine Munus cannot be shared by more than one individual. Ergo, if Benedict did not renounce it, he retains it. If he retains it, its contrary to divine law to elect another pope so long as he lives. And in his act of renunciation he never ordered a Conclave to be called in his lifetime. That he consented to such a thing may be either because of fear or of substantial error as regards what is necessary to resign his office. If it is fear, it does not make it valid. If he is in substantial error, then in accord with Canon 188, its expressly invalid by the law itself.

Comments Off on How and why Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation is invalid by the law itself

Filed under English

Dear Cardinals and Bishops, let me explain to you the nature and effect of Substantial error in Benedict’s Feb 11, 2013 declaration

The Magisterial Discourse of Anne Barnhardt on the current Crisis in the Church.

Comments Off on Dear Cardinals and Bishops, let me explain to you the nature and effect of Substantial error in Benedict’s Feb 11, 2013 declaration

Filed under English

El Segundo Sínodo de Sutri

800px-Sutri_with_Cathedral_Santa_Maria_Assunta

Tanto la salvación de las almas como la protección de los niños requieren que la credibilidad de la Iglesia Católica no se vea perjudicada por ser gobernada por hombres involucrados en el abuso y su encubrimiento. Por esa razón, ¡la Iglesia tiene el derecho de eliminar a todos esos clérigos corruptos, incluso al Papa!
Ahora, dado que ningún concilio es superior en autoridad al Sucesor de San Pedro, ningún Papa puede ser destituido del cargo. Sin embargo, con respecto al hombre que es Papa, la Iglesia tiene el derecho y la obligación de juzgar si su reclamo al cargo es válido. El precedente canónico para esto ocurrió en Anno Domini 1046; fue llamado el Sínodo de Sutri. (Para debatir, vea “Sí, un Papa puede ser depuesto”).
Con más razón hoy, desde que Cristo instituyó las Órdenes Sagradas para ser un servicio ministerial a todos aquellos que creyeron en Su Nombre. En este punto, es por la Institución Divina, que existe un derecho correlativo de la Iglesia para remover de su cargo a aquellos hombres que a causa de su gran corrupción o depravación moral, ponen en peligro a los fieles o representan una amenaza existencial a la credibilidad de la totalidad Iglesia en el cumplimiento de su misión de predicar el Evangelio de la salvación a toda la humanidad. La Iglesia a menudo lo hace mediante una sanción penal, como la destitución del cargo. Pero también puede hacerlo si el clérigo ha perdido su cargo por herejía o lo ha obtenido ilícitamente. Y en lo que respecta a Jorge Mario Bergoglio, hay 7 razones por las cuales el reclamo a su cargo de Papa podría no ser válido.
hqdefaultEsta iniciativa está motivada por el bien de la Iglesia, la salvación de las almas y, sobre todo, para defender a la Divina Majestad de la Santísima Trinidad de las patentes y malignas intenciones de Jorge Mario Bergoglio. El precedente canónico es el Sínodo de Sutri, cuyo precedente tiene carácter de tal, ya que el Código de Derecho Canónico no establece nada respecto de las quejas canónicas que se refieren a la cuestión de la validez del reclamo de la persona, que es ostensiblemente Papa, para ese cargo. Al no haber ningún tribunal establecido en el Código para escuchar tales casos, la jurisdicción de tal derecho regresa por derecho histórico y divino al clero de la Diócesis de Roma, cuyo clero sería el juez del Tribunal en tal decisión.
(Aquí, por “validez del reclamo”, no nos referimos específicamente a los resultados del Cónclave de 2013, sino a la pregunta de si el que parece ocupar el cargo, de hecho, actualmente lo tiene).
En dicho Sínodo, habrá al menos 7 cargos presentados para su discusión y votación. En cada cargo, el acusado a través de su (s) representante (s) designado (s) o en persona, tendrá la oportunidad de responder:
  1. ¿Si la renuncia de Benedicto XVI confirió al vencedor del Cónclave de 2013 el ministerio, no el munus de la Oficina Petrina? — Porque si este es el caso, Benedicto XVI sigue siendo el Papa y Bergoglio es simplemente su Vicario extraordinario.
  2. ¿Si la Mafia de San Gallen es una secta cismática, y por lo tanto no son miembros de la Iglesia Católica (Canon 194. §1)? — Porque si este es el caso, Bergoglio no puede ocupar ningún cargo en la Iglesia.
  3. ¿Ya sea porque Universi Dominici Gregis n. 81, fue claramente violado en el Cónclave 2013? — Si este es el caso, el Colegio de Cardenales debe declarar inacabado el Cónclave 2013 y proceder a la elección de un sucesor de Benedicto XVI.
  4. ¿Ya sea por las herejías contenidas en Amoris Laetitia, o en las declaraciones personales que niegan la existencia de un Infierno por los condenados, o la admisibilidad de la pena capital, privan a Bergoglio del cargo ipso facto (Canon 194. §1)? — Y si este es el caso, Bergoglio desde el momento en que aseveró pertinazmente cada herejía, perdió la facultad de ser miembro la Iglesia Católica y todos los cargos en ella.
  5. ¿Si la corrupción manifestada por la Carta del Arzobispo Viganò demuestra suficientemente que Bergoglio está involucrado en una inmoralidad conspiración contra la Iglesia Católica? — Si este es el caso, es un cismático y no puede ocupar ningún cargo en la Iglesia.
  6. ¿Si su pedido a los obispos católicos chinos de renunciar a sus sedes para que puedan ser ocupados por los nombrados por el gobierno comunista merece su excomunión como cismático, no solo por su violación de los preceptos de la Sede Apostólica contra la investidura laica, sino por su ataque contra el Cuerpo Místico de Cristo, que por tales medios estaría sujeto a herejes y cismáticos. — Si este es el caso, no puede ocupar ningún cargo en la Iglesia.
  7. ¿Si su promoción personal de la recepción de los Sacramentos por los pecadores públicos merece ipso facto la excomunión latae sententia impuesta por el Concilio de Trento en la Sesión XIII, canon 11? — Si este es el caso, se ve privado de todos los cargos de la Iglesia.

 

Comments Off on El Segundo Sínodo de Sutri

Filed under Español

Il Sinodo di Sutri II

800px-Sutri_with_Cathedral_Santa_Maria_Assunta

Sia la salvazione delle anime, sia la protezione dei fanciulli richiedono che la credibilità della Chiesa Cattolica non venga intaccata dal fatto di essere governata da uomini coinvolti in abusi o nel loro insabbiamento. Per questa ragione la Chiesa ha il diritto di rimuovere qualsiasi chierico corrotto, fosse anche il Papa!

Ora, dal momento che nessun concilio è superiore in autorità al Successore di San Pietro, nessun papa può essere rimosso dal papato per il fatto di essere Papa. Tuttavia, in riferimento all’uomo che è papa, la Chiesa possiede certamente il diritto e l’obbligo di giudicare se la sua pretesa al papato è valida. Il precedente canonico per questa procedura si verificò nell’anno 1046 ed è conosciuto come “Sinodo di Sutri”.

Questo vale a maggior ragione oggi, dal momento che Cristo istituì gli Ordini Sacri come un servizio di tutti i credenti nel Suo Nome. In questo senso, è di Istituzione Divina che sussista un correlativo diritto della Chiesa a rimuovere dall’ufficio quegli uomini che, in ragione della loro palese corruzione e depravazione morale, mettono in pericolo i fedeli o costituiscono una minaccia esistenziale alla credibilità della Chiesa tutta nell’adempiere alla Sua Missione di predicare il Vangelo di Salvezza a tutta l’umanità. La Chiesa spesso compie questo passo attraverso una sanzione penale, quale la degradazione dall’incarico. Essa però può agire anche nel caso in cui un chierico sia decaduto dall’ufficio per eresia, oppure abbia ottenuto l’ufficio in modo illecito. E per quanto riguarda Jorge Mario Bergoglio esistono 7 ragioni per cui la sua pretesa al ministero di Papa potrebbe essere invalida.

Per questo motivo, e in considerazione della moltitudine di eventi che indicano la totale corruzione morale di Jorge Mario Bergoglio, “Veri Catholici”, associazione internazionale per la promozione della Fede Cattolica contro gli errori del Cardinal Kasper, annuncia la propria intenzione di invitare il Clero di Roma ad un Secondo Sinodo di Sutri.

A questo scopo intendiamo pubblicare un avviso su uno dei maggiori quotidiani a Roma per invitare tutto il Clero di quella Diocesi ad un Sinodo che dovrà giudicare se Bergoglio possiede ancora un valido titolo al papato oppure se egli debba essere deposto per corruzione, in conformità all’operato del Sinodo di Sutri del 1046.

Per fare questo, abbiamo bisogno di raccogliere circa 5000 euro, che saranno esclusivamente impiegati per la pubblicazione dell’avviso e l’affitto della sede per il Sinodo. Sinodo che avrà effetto canonico in tanto quanto il Clero di Roma partecipi e voti. Null’altro.

Per aiutarci a compiere questo alto e santo compito, preghiamo di fare una generosa donazione sul sito https://vericatholici.wordpress.com selezionando il bottone PayPal nella colonna di destra.

Se il Sinodo dichiarasse deposto Bergoglio, a qualsiasi titolo, ed egli rifiutasse di dimettersi e/o di lasciare il territorio del Vaticano,  noi promuoveremo l’emanazione di un decreto da parte del Governo Italiano che riconosca la validità della dichiarazione e persegua la sua rimozione dal Vaticano ad opera delle Forze Armate Italiane, sulla base del fatto che egli non possa più invocare i diritti accordati alla Santa Sede dai Patti Lateranensi e trattati successivi.

hqdefault

Sant’Ildebrando di Soana, ossia Gregorio VII, che nella sua capacità come segretario di Gregorio VI, ha partecipato al Sinodo di Sutri e ha accettato i suoi decreti come validi.

L’iniziativa è finalizzata al bene della Chiesa, alla salvazione delle anime e soprattutto a difendere la Divina Maestà della Santissima Trinità dalle maligne intenzioni, ora manifeste, di Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Il precedente canonico è il Sinodo di Sutri; precedente che ha valore sulla base del fatto che il Codice di Diritto Canonico nulla stabilisce a riguardo di ricorsi canonici riferiti alla questione della validità dei titoli per l’accesso al ministero della persona che è ostensibilmente Papa.

Non sussistendo nel Codice del Diritto canonico alcun tribunale stabilito per giudicare simili casi, la giurisdizione di tali questioni ritorna per diritto storico e divino al Clero della Diocesi di Roma, Clero che diverrebbe giudice di Tribunale in un tale giudizio.

(Qui con l’espressione “validità dei titoli” ci riferiamo non specificamente ai risultati del Conclave del 2013, ma alla questione se colui, che appare possedere il ministero, in realtà lo possegga davvero in questo momento).

In questo Sinodo, ci saranno almeno 7 incriminazioni proposte alla discussione ed al voto. Su ciascuna incriminazione l’accusato, o per il tramite di rappresentanti di sua scelta, o di persona, avrà l’opportunità di rispondere e chiarire:

  1. Se le dimissioni di Benedetto XVI abbiano solamente conferito il ministero, ma non il Munus dell’ufficio Petrino, all’eletto del Conclave del 2013 – Perché, se questo caso fosse verificato, Benedetto XVI sarebbe ancora il Papa e Bergoglio sarebbe solamente il suo Vicario straordinario.
  2. Se la Mafia di San Gallo costituisca una setta scismatica, e perciò non più parte della Chiesa Cattolica (Canone 194.§1) — Perché, se questo caso fosse verificato, Bergoglio non potrebbe sostenere alcun ufficio nella Chiesa.
  3. Se il n. 81 di Universi Dominici Gregis sia stato chiaramente violato al Conclave del 2013 — Se questo caso fosse verificato, il Collegio dei Cardinali dovrebbe dichiarare non concluso il Conclave del 2013 e procedere all’elezione di un successore a Benedetto XVI.
  4. Se le eresie contenute in Amoris Laetitia, o nelle affermazioni personali neganti l’esistenza dell’Inferno per i dannati, o neganti l’ammissibilità della pena capitale, privino “ipso facto” Bergoglio dell’ufficio (Canone 194.§1) — Se questo caso fosse verificato, Bergoglio dal momento in cui ha ostinatamente sostenuto ciascuna eresia, sarebbe escluso dalla Chiesa Cattolica e avrebbe perso ogni ufficio in essa.
  5. Se la corruzione resa manifesta dalla lettera dell’Arcivescovo Viganò dimostri a sufficienza che Bergoglio è implicato in una immorale cospirazione contro la Chiesa Cattolica — Se questo caso fosse verificato, egli sarebbe uno scismatico e non potrebbe sostenere alcun ufficio nella Chiesa.
  6.  Se la richiesta ai Vescovi Cattolici Cinesi di abbandonare le proprie sedi in modo che esse vengano assegnate a uomini designati dal Governo Comunista gli valga la scomunica come scismatico, non solo per la sua violazione dei precetti della Sede Apostolica contro l’investitura di laici, ma anche in considerazione del suo attacco al Corpo Mistico di Cristo, che in tal modo sarebbe assoggettato ad eretici e scismatici — Se questo caso fosse verificato, egli non potrebbe sostenere alcun ufficio nella Chiesa.
  7. Se l’aver egli personalmente promosso la ricezione dei Sacramenti da parte di pubblici peccatori gli valga “ispo facto” la scomunica “latae sententiae” imposta dal Concilio di Trento, sessione XIII, canone 11 — Se questo caso fosse verificato, egli sarebbe privato di qualsiasi ufficio nella Chiesa.

 

 

Comments Off on Il Sinodo di Sutri II

Filed under Italiano

A Second Synod of Sutri

800px-Sutri_with_Cathedral_Santa_Maria_Assunta

Both the salvation of souls and the protection of children require that the Catholic Church’s credibility be not damaged by being governed by men involved in abuse and its coverup. For that reason, the Church has a right to remove all such corrupt clerics even the Pope!

Now since no council is superior in authority to the Successor of Saint Peter, no pope can be removed for office for being the Pope. However, as regards the man who is pope, the Church does have the right and obligation to judge whether his claim to the office is valid. The canonical precedent for this occurred in Anno Domini 1046; it was called the Synod of Sutri. (For discussion, see “Yes, a Pope can be deposed”).

All the more reason, today, since Christ instituted Sacred Orders to be a ministerial service to all those who believed in His Name. On this account, it is by Divine Institution, that there exists a correlative right of the Church to remove from office those men who on account of their gross corruption or moral depravity, endanger the faithful or pose an existential threat to the credibility of the whole Church in fulfilling Her Mission of preaching the Gospel of Salvation to all mankind.  The Church often does this by a penal sanction, such as degredation from office. But She can also do this if the cleric has lost his office by heresy or obtained it illicitly. And as far as Jorge Mario Bergoglio is concerned, there are 7 reasons by which his claim to the office of Pope might not be valid.

For this reason, on account of the multitude of events which point to the utter moral corruption of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, « Veri Catholici », the international Association for the promotion of the Catholic Faith against the errors of Cardinal Kaser, announces its intention to invite the Clergy of Rome to a Second Synod of Sutri.

For this purpose we intend to place an advertisement in a major Newspaper at Rome inviting all the Clergy of that Diocese to a Synod to judge whether Bergoglio still has a valid claim to office or whether he should be deposed for corruption, after the manner of the Synod of Sutri, in 1046 A.D..

To do this, we need to raise about 5000 Euros, which will go exclusively to the advertisement and rental of the place for the Synod. This Synod will have canonical effect inasmuch as the Clergy of Rome attend and vote. No more.

To help us achieve this great and holy work, please make a generous donation at by pressing the PayPal Button in the right column.

If the Synod declares Bergoglio deposed, on any account, and he refuses to resign and/or quit the Vatican City Territory, we will seek from the Italian Government a Bill in Parliament recognizing the canonical validity of the declaration and seeking his removal from the Vatican by Italian Armed Forces, on the grounds that he cannot claim the rights accorded to the Apostolic See in the Lateran Pact and subsequent treaties.

hqdefault

St Hildebrand, who attended and accepted the decisions of the First Synod of Sutri in 1046, as secretary to Gregory VI.

This initiative is motivated by the good of the Church, the salvation of souls and above all to defend the Divine Majesty of the Most Holy Trinity from the now patent malign intentions of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. The Canonical precedent is the Synod of Sutri, which precedent has force from this, that the Code of Canon Law establishes nothing regarding canonical complaints which regard the question of the validity of the claim of the person, who is ostensibly Pope, to that office. There also being no tribunal established in the Code to hear such cases, the jurisdiction of such a right returns by historic and divine right to the clergy of the Diocese of Rome, the clergy of whom would be the judges of the Tribunal in such a decision. (Here, by “validity of claim”, we refer not specifically to the results of the Conclave of 2013, but to the question whether the one who appears to hold office, in fact does currently hold it).

At such a Synod, there will be at least 7 charges brought up for discussion and vote.  On each charge, the accused through his designated representative(s) or in person, will be given opportunity to respond:

  1. Whether Benedict XVI’s resignation only conferred upon the victor of the 2013 Conclave the ministerium, not the munus of the Petrine Office? — For if this be the case, Benedict XVI is still the Pope and Bergoglio is merely his Vicar extraordinaire.
  2. Whether the St Gallen Mafia are a schismatic sect, and thus not members of the Catholic Church (Canon 194. §1)? — For if this is the case Bergoglio cannot hold any office in the Church.
  3. Whether Universi Dominici Gregis n. 81, was clearly violated at the 2013 Conclave? — If this be the case, the College of Cardinals must declare the 2013 Conclave unfinished, and proceed to the election of a successor to Benedict XVI.
  4. Whether the heresies contained in Amoris Laetitia, or in the personal statements denying the existence of a Hell for the damned, or of the admissibility of capital punishment, deprive Bergoglio of office ipso facto (Canon 194. §1) ? — And if this is the case, Bergoglio from the moment he pertinaciously asserted each heresy, lost his membership in the Catholic Church and all offices in it.
  5. Whether the corruption manifested by the Letter of Archbishop Viganò demonstrates sufficiently that Bergoglio is involved in an immoral conspiracy against the Catholic Church? — If this is the case, he is a schismatic, and cannot hold any office in the Church.
  6. Whether his request to Chinese Catholic Bishops to resign their sees so that they may be filled by those named by the Communist Government merits him excommunication as a schismatic, not only for his violation of the precepts of the Apostolic See against lay investiture, but on account of its attack on the Mystical Body of Christ, which by such means would be made subject to heretics and schismatics. — If this be the case, he can hold no office in the Church.
  7. Whether his personal promotion of the reception of the Sacraments by public sinners merits him ipso facto the excommunication latae sententiae imposed by the Council of Trent in Session XIII, cannon 11. — If this be the case, he is deprived of every office in the Church.

Comments Off on A Second Synod of Sutri

Filed under English

Join us in petitioning Bishops to rebuke Bergoglio for his heresy on Capital Punishment

Following the horrific betrayal of Jesus Christ by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who at the beginning of this month attempted to alter the Catholic Faith by means of an emendation of the Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church — and act which of itself is both heretical and pertinacious:  heretical, because it is a dogma of the faith to be held by all Catholics until the end of time, that God has entrusted to temporal powers with full jurisdiction, the authority to impose capital punishment upon the wicked in due circumstances (a doctrine clearly taught in Genesis 9:6, John 19:11 and Romans 13:4, and explicitly enunciated at the Council of Trent) — we have begun a petition drive to the Sacred Hierarchy to have Bergoglio publicly reproved and reprimanded, so that he may be given the canonical right to disavow and publicly recant his heresy, before being formally pronounced, by the Church, as a heretic and outside the Church.

The teaching of the Infallible, Sacrosanct and Holy Ecumenical and First Council of the Vatican clearly prevents Bergoglio from altering the Catholic Faith. This can be seen from a textual examination of its decrees, which we have summarized in this tweet (click on it to see the entire thread of citations and link to original decrees in English translation):

Since the Catholic Faith is the greatest treasure of mankind, and since being redeemed and saved by Jesus Christ and made members of the Catholic Church by His Divine Providence, we are each and entirely bound to show unbending and unflinching loyalty to Him and His Magisterium, and to hold fast in charity and faith and hope to the bonds of ecclesiastical unity, we are each and all bound gravely to petition our Bishops for a public reproof or condemnation of Bergoglio’s treachery. We must do this to save the Church from perfidy, from abandoning the clear teaching of God approving Capital Punishment. We must do this to save the Catholic Church for future generations! We must do this to save billions of souls from damnation for disagreeing with God on capital punishment!

Our small effort, therefore, begins with electronic petitions, since these are most rapid and cost no one anything to participate in. If the nearly 2700 followers of this website join it, we can make our voices heard to each of the Bishops and Cardinals we petition. While we have not chose them all, nor are all of them on twitter, the ones we have chosen are recommended as inclined to have the courage to act if there is sufficient public support.

You can write the Cardinals and Bishops of the Church by letter, call them by phone, visit them in person or re-tweet our online petitions to individual bishops. While our tweets are not directed to all the Bishops, you can nevertheless profit from the facility of joining in our petition to them by simply retweeting them on Twitter.

Here is a list of them:

Comments Off on Join us in petitioning Bishops to rebuke Bergoglio for his heresy on Capital Punishment

Filed under English

PETITION OF SOME CATHOLICS TO THE BISHOPS AND CO-ADJUTOR BISHOPS OF THE NETHERLANDS

(Republished, here, with permission of the authors)

INTRODUCTORY LETTER

Dr. G.J.M. van den Aardweg
Borgerweg 1 – 2111 CG Aerdenhout

Prof. Dr. Ir. W.J. Witteman
D.Nijhoffstr. 14 -7552 GR Hengelo

Aerdenhout/Hengelo, 4.4.2018

 

Mgr. Dr. Aldo Cavalli
Apostolic Nuncio
Carnegielaan 5
2517 KH ‘sGravenhage

 

Your Excellency,

Enclosed we send you, as representatives of a group of Dutch Catholics, a motivated Petition to the Bishops and Auxiliary Bishops of the Netherlands, consisting of three concrete requests.

We have limited the group of signatories, but it is clear to us that many orthodox Catholics support this initiative, among them many priests.

As you may notice, these requests are in line with several international initiatives such as the Polish action (with over 140.000 signatories), and, for instance, the call on the faithful in the U.S. by the Editor in Chief of Catholic World News, Mr. Lawler, to adress their Bishops with similar requests. The fact that we had the present requests ready before the above initiatives were made public, illustrates that the need inspiring this Petition is an international Catholic reality.

Fortunately, some recent clarifying statements by His Eminence Cardinal Eijk are clearly commensurate with this Petition; but given the actual situation in the Church, we hope that in continuation of them the Dutch Bishops will take the necessary further steps to protect orthodoxy and the faithful alike.

In principle. we consider this Petition as an Open Letter, for it s is not about accidental but essential questions which directly concern all Catholics. Therefore, we intend to make this piece public within shortly.

We hope the Bishops and Auxiliary Bishops will agree with the view underlying this Petition and not take its three concretized requests as criticism, but as support for their actions.

With all due respect,

on behalf of the signatories,

Dr. G.J.M. van den Aardweg                              Prof. Dr. Ir. W.J. Witteman

+ + +

PETITION

 I – Introduction

Eminence, Excellencies,

Until a few years it seemed inconceivable, but in recent years we are stunned to find that the Vatican, under the pontificate of Pope Francis, has taken a path that has touched the essence of the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality that must be called a road of degradation.

Initially one could try to condone the dubious statements and measures of the Pope himself or of his assistants, in the expectation that the mistakes or slips would be of a temporary nature and would be adjusted again. Now this is no longer possible. There is too much that cannot remain uncontradicted, there is too much division and uncertainty created.

A keyword-wise reminder of some questionable matters:

  • The Vatican representation as if a consent to the scientifically unfounded and morally dangerous climate theory of the United Nations is a religious duty;
  • The manipulated report on the 2014 Episcopal Synod in Rome, towards liberalization of divorce and recognition of homosexual relationships;
  • The paragraphs in the encyclical Amoris Laetitia, in which an opening is made for valid married couples in a new relationship to receive Holy Communion without fulfilling the required conditions, and in which the principle that the subjective conscientious conviction can be above the known law of God;
  • The persistent refusal of the Pope to provide the (correct & Catholic) clarification to the cardinals and others who have presented their “Dubia” respectfully and with strength of arguments – and the ignoring of the serious objections of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (cardinal Müller);
  • The papal fiat to the bishops of Argentina, Germany, and Malta, who use the disputed paragraphs in the liberal sense in which they are intended;
  • Honours to radical feminist abortion activists (including the Dutch scandal-Ploumen and its negligent treatment afterwards);
  • The appointment inside and outside the Vatican of persons who reject Humanae Vitae or are even pro-abortion, and of advisors and bishops in different parts of the world who openly advocate recognition of homosexual relationships;
  • The questionable attitude of a committee that “needs to re-examine Humanae Vitae”; the likely preparations for the elimination of the general priestly celibacy; probably making it possible to discuss “female deacons”;
  • The misplaced Luther worship and the denial of the need to strive for the conversion of Protestants, schismatics and even Muslims;
  • Looking away and trivializing the danger of Islam; to propose Islam as an innocent, humanitarian religion – we are of course not talking about the individual Muslim – and the neglect of Islam persecuted by Islam and of Christians who fled Islam;
  • The delivery of Catholic bishops and 60 million believers in China to the Communist State, which can become one of the most serious scandals in the history of the Vatican.

These things are interconnected. The common thread running through it is roughly that of Modernism and Protestantism. Half a century ago we have experienced in the Netherlands how these errors have largely destroyed our once vital Church. But after consolidation and careful restoration under the pontificate of the previous Popes, the ideas and claims of the dissident theologians and their followers of the sixties now come to us from the Vatican itself. We therefore have no illusions as where this will lead to.

II – Three requests to the Dutch bishops

Eminence, Excellencies,

1.  The priests and lay faithful for whom You bear responsibility as Bishops may rightly appeal to You at this moment of confusion and insecurity to lead them through an unambiguous, faithful position and education and to protect them from the errors in doctrine and practice that now get the chance.

With all due respect, we ask you to speak out:

-for integral enforcement of Humanae Vitae;

-for maintaining the doctrine and practice with regard to receiving Holy Communion by validly married divorced persons in a new relationship;

-for maintaining the moral doctrine concerning homosexual relationships;

-for maintaining the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, in the wake of Vatican II (Lumen Gentium); especially for maintaining the doctrine about the supremacy of the Law of God over the subjective conscience.

In concreto, we summarize these separate requests in a single, straightforward request:

Would you like to express your loyalty to and uphold the doctrinal writings of the previous popes: Blessed Paul VI, St. John Paul II, and Benedict XVI?

2. In addition, we ask you, who as Bishops are the first appointed in the Church who, in imitation of St. Paul, can warn a Pope and / or other supreme authorities for serious mistakes and, if necessary, to correct them according to the procedures that are in place; to join those sincere and courageous prelates in the World Church who have addressed the Pope in the right way.

In concrete terms, we ask you:

Do you want to join the request for the correct clarification of the controversial passages in Amoris Laetitia, as directed to the Pope by the initiators of this “Dubia”, the cardinals Caffarra, Burke, Meissner, and Brandmüller?

Of course we hope that the Bishops and Auxiliary Bishops of the Netherlands will unanimously make such a gesture. If this does not happen, our request will apply to each Bishop and Co-adjutor Bishop separately, as the responsible authority in his own diocese.

 

3. Thirdly, we ask your attention for the urgent need of the Church in China:

Do you want to make an effort to keep the Vatican from delivering the Church to the communist regime, against the urgent pleas of those who really know what this will mean? Do you want to support Cardinal Zen openly?

Thank you for your attention, and with all the respect we owe you,

 

Dr. H.F. Boon, Hengelo

H. Bos, Ede

Drs.  B.J. Bruggeling, Oldenzaal

Pastoor J.M. de Hommel, H. Landstichting.

Mr. C. de Kiefte, den Haag

Prof. H.C.M. de Swart, Tilburg

H. Huyskens, Ommen

Mr. drs. H.H.M. Jansen, Nederweert

Ing. A.J. Kors, Wassenaar

Ir. N.J.M. Kuipers, Delden

A.P.M. Meijknecht, Leeuwarden

Pastoor C. Mennen, lic., Vlijmen

Drs. Y.J.J. Postma, Leeuwarden

H. J. Rijkers, oud-hoofdredacteur KN, Malden

Dr. J. Schins, Amsterdam

Dr. G.J.M. van den Aardweg, Aerdenhout

H. van Winden, H. Landstichting

Drs. K.P. Wiecherink, Markelo

Prof. Dr. Ir. W.J. Witteman, Hengelo

 

Comments Off on PETITION OF SOME CATHOLICS TO THE BISHOPS AND CO-ADJUTOR BISHOPS OF THE NETHERLANDS

Filed under English