en.news
142.4K

Rector of Co-Cathedral Rebells Against Francis

Father Francesco D’Erasmo, 46, the rector of Tarquinia co-Cathedral, Italy, published a declaration (mt715.simplesite.com) stating that he considers Francis not to be pope.

Marco Tosatti calls him a “sincere priest, profound in his faith.” D’Erasmo states that Francis isn't a true pope, is excommunicated and “doesn't belong to the communion of the Church.” D'Erasmo notices that Francis pronounced multiple heresies, like his denial of hell and of Christ’s divinity.

The priest further considers it a serious sin to worship Pachamama and to insinuate that any authority can dispense Catholics from sanctifying Easter.

#newsFticfvxxsz

Rafał_Ovile
First and foremost he declared recognition of true pope Benedict XVI. "To His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, to all the bishops and lay faithful of the Catholic Church, to all men of good will,..." en.news are you hiding something out of fear? Do not fear. "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Ultraviolet
It would be fascinating to learn what Fr. D'Erasmo thought of the last four Popes since critics insist they, too, have pronounced multiple heresies.

"The priest further considers it a serious sin to worship Pachamama". Agreed. How about kissing the Quran? (JP II) Or praying with Jews and Muslims? (BXVI)
AngelusMaria
Let him work backwards, starting with "Francis," it is what I had to do. The daily outrages of Bergoglio are so blatant that they shake a Catholic out of their naivete.
Ultraviolet
They're daily outrages in the same sense that COVID is a pandemic: people focus on it and refuse to put it in perspective of what's happened before. People pick and choose what they're outraged over, what concerns them. They ignore the rest, and that's wrong.

There were doctrinal "outrages" under Benedict XVI and JPII. If that disqualifies them from being Pope (as Francis' critics claim it does …More
They're daily outrages in the same sense that COVID is a pandemic: people focus on it and refuse to put it in perspective of what's happened before. People pick and choose what they're outraged over, what concerns them. They ignore the rest, and that's wrong.

There were doctrinal "outrages" under Benedict XVI and JPII. If that disqualifies them from being Pope (as Francis' critics claim it does with him), then JPII probably wasn't a saint either, yet the Church claims otherwise.

What I find is Pope Francis' critics understand such implications which is why they refuse to apply their standards evenly as they should.

Indeed, suppose we do "start with Francis" and work backwards. How far are those critics willing to go back if they're true to their standards? There were profligate and degenerate Popes during the Renaissance. Is EVERY Pope since then a "fruit of a poisoned tree"?

Picking and choosing when we decide the Church is "right" leads to an almost insurmountable level of sedevacantism while placing ourselves in direct contradiction with many of the institutions of the Church itself. For example... What of the cardinals appointed under the last four potentially "non-Popes"? If their appointments weren't valid/ licit then no Pope now or in the future can be validly/ licitly appointed, can they?
AngelusMaria
You missed the point.
AngelusMaria
Bergoglio's example is giving Catholics a doorway into being able to reexamine the previous ponitificates. I agree heartily with the dilemna you present, and the sedes have seemed to paint themselves into a corner; however, that doesn't legitimize their concerns. Francis has serious problems not presented before, specifically the role of St. Gallenz mafia in orchestrating his election. I'm not …More
Bergoglio's example is giving Catholics a doorway into being able to reexamine the previous ponitificates. I agree heartily with the dilemna you present, and the sedes have seemed to paint themselves into a corner; however, that doesn't legitimize their concerns. Francis has serious problems not presented before, specifically the role of St. Gallenz mafia in orchestrating his election. I'm not sure how to resolve the valid conundrums you bring up, I myself wonder at such things. At this point, only the Lord can bring order to this mess. But just because the problems seem insurmountable, doesn't mean that I can reject their presence. It only means that we need faith to move mountains, that the death of God will be followed by His Resurrection, that just when Satan seems to have won and destroyed the Church, God Himself will, after letting the tares grow with the wheat, come with his winnowing fork. I don't reject the sedes' claims simply because they posit insurmountable problems. No one is claiming to have the solution or the answers, because both reside in Christ alone.
One more comment from AngelusMaria
AngelusMaria
*I meant to say "that doesn't DE-Legitimize their concerns..."
Ultraviolet
@AngelusMaria

That "doorway into being able to reexamine the previous ponitificates" has always been open. Some -have- stepped through it and they didn't like what they found there. Some even built charts outlining everything they didn't like.

"that doesn't de-legitimize their concerns."

Their concerns may or may not be valid but their reasoning and conclusions lead almost immediately to …More
@AngelusMaria

That "doorway into being able to reexamine the previous ponitificates" has always been open. Some -have- stepped through it and they didn't like what they found there. Some even built charts outlining everything they didn't like.

"that doesn't de-legitimize their concerns."

Their concerns may or may not be valid but their reasoning and conclusions lead almost immediately to schism -which is my main objection to their position.

canonlawmadeeasy.com/…/can-you-be-both…

onepeterfive.com/sedevacantism-luciferianism/

"Francis has serious problems not presented before."

Heresy and false doctrine is heresy and false doctrine. They're always serious problems.. Pope Francis may be more blatant about it, but that doesn't change the nature or the severity of the problem.

Many, arguably most, Catholics were quite happy ignoring these serious problems when they remained an occasional "lapse" -something they could snort at and then go back to pretending didn't exist.

It's mentality that goes something like this... "JP II praised Pachamama? Oh well... He visited a synagogue and prayed with the Jews? Tsk... tsk... But doesn't he look so holy when he's hunched over in prayer? Whatta guy! Who cares what BXVI wrote in his books, eh? Heresy? False doctrine? Whatever... Didn't read them, so it doesn't matter. He prayed in synagogues and mosques too? Even more than JPII? Well... Shows the Church is.. uh... yeah, ecumenical! That's it. Besides, he probably didn't mean it."

...and that's the real problem. They make excuses for those Popes because they liked those Popes. It's selective outrage, selective focus on what are, as you correctly said, serious problems. But it's always been serious and it's been around long before the current pontiff.

"I'm not sure how to resolve the valid conundrums you bring up, I myself wonder at such things."

I'll offer my suggestion, it isn't a popular one but it does work. I recognize Pope Francis is the Pope. By that I mean he was lawfully appointed according to Canon Law by those who have the authority to vote for the office of Pope.

After that, I stick to the traditional teachings of the Church. There is a difference between recognizing the Pope and following the Pope or approving of the Pope. This isn't some great innovation of mine, either. Many of Pope Francis' fiercest critics within the Church developed the concept first. Men like Cardinals Sarah and Burke and Zen or Archbishop Vigano are always quite clear in acknowledging Francis is the Pope while doing everything they can to criticize and countermand and undermine the Pope's policies.

If you place this kind of approach in a secular context, it's instantly recognizable. Just another day on the job. One boss resigns, a new boss gets assigned to the department and he's a disaster. People don't go running around saying he isn't "really" the boss. They keep on doing their jobs and working around his stupid suggestions and "improvements".

This is even easier within the Church since the Vatican's reforms offer such a wide latitude for interpretation as to how they're implemented. Pope Francis himself has grumbled about this on several occasions how American bishops aren't exactly complying with his vision for The Church.

He doesn't know the half of it. A number of American bishops despise the man and do everything they can to support and promote the pre Vatican Council II Church traditions. I follow their example. They recognize the Pope is the Pope, but they don't approve of him, and neither do I.

"At this point, only the Lord can bring order to this mess."

Agreed. God allows this mess for the same reason He allows all evil and disorder, because He allows us all free will. It's why he's allowed "Bad Popes" before and He will allow (as Revelations teaches) far worse Popes in the future.

I've said it before, if you think Francis is bad, just wait until you see his successor. He's going to make Francis look like a pre-VC II traditionalist.
AngelusMaria
Very well laid out, thank you. It helps me better understand the Recognize and Resist position. If I could boil it all down, it seems to come to center on taking a position that can not lead to schism. I don't see sede's as schismatics, as they don't reject the primacy of Rome or its Bishop, only certain claimaints to the Chair.

What I am concerned about is that many Catholics do not take the …More
Very well laid out, thank you. It helps me better understand the Recognize and Resist position. If I could boil it all down, it seems to come to center on taking a position that can not lead to schism. I don't see sede's as schismatics, as they don't reject the primacy of Rome or its Bishop, only certain claimaints to the Chair.

What I am concerned about is that many Catholics do not take the discerning route that you have laid out well, but instead are still stuck in a pollyannist papolotry whereby they are ill-catechised according to the developing modernist teachings and examples of the the Conciliar and Post Conciliar popes, and end up with a faith that is not Catholic anymore, but step-by-step, a globalist eco-pagan spirituality.

Thank you for laying out the R&R position. I am evaluating the various Catholic responses to this dilemna, and have not wedded myself yet to any of them. I just keep coming back to the impossibility of me being able to acknowledge all the corruption and anti-Church spirits that surround the Novus Ordo Church, and still ever refer to Bergoglio as "holy father." The disdain and sourness in my stomache when at Mass he is included in the Canon, this man who is destroying the Church, to ever call him "holy father," or refer to this wolf in any way that esteems his authority is repulsive to me, and hypocritical. That is the trouble I have with R&R, while the conundrums posited by the sede's position is what troubles me with theirs'.
AngelusMaria
The other thing that I also consider is that a College of Cardinals is not intrinsic to the appointment of a pope, because for the first thousand years there were no such things as cardinals. Some times they were even appointed by kings and rulers. Canon law is not the same as divine law, and there is no one is ever consecrated a pope, but has always been appointed or elected. When there were …More
The other thing that I also consider is that a College of Cardinals is not intrinsic to the appointment of a pope, because for the first thousand years there were no such things as cardinals. Some times they were even appointed by kings and rulers. Canon law is not the same as divine law, and there is no one is ever consecrated a pope, but has always been appointed or elected. When there were three claimants to the Chair, each one had supporters who became canonized saints.

And now that Bergoglio has stacked the deck of cardinals with leftists made in his own image, the possibility of a conclave electing a good pope becomes next to impossible. Perhaps during the ribbon-cutting ceremony in 2022 of the Abrahamic Faiths Complex in Dubai, Bergoglio's cardinals and bishop's will all be in attendence to show their fidelity to the NWO religious aspirations of the pope. And perhaps some Salfist-Wahabi-Sunni radicals will be outraged at the attempt to assign partners to Allah, and decide to take them all out in one attack. That would leave still alive the more faithful Cardinals and bishops who decided not to burn incense to NWO, and they could hold an emergency conclave to elect a good, holy pope. If not this, some other type of scenario could change everything in the twinkling of an eye.
Ultraviolet
A few follow-ups...

"I don't see sede's as schismatics, as they don't reject the primacy of Rome or its Bishop, only certain claimaints to the Chair."

You're following the commonly understood definition of the term "schism". However that definition is imprecise. The Church defines it somewhat differently. Scoot back over to Canon Law Made Easy and scroll on down to the stand-out sentence "what …More
A few follow-ups...

"I don't see sede's as schismatics, as they don't reject the primacy of Rome or its Bishop, only certain claimaints to the Chair."

You're following the commonly understood definition of the term "schism". However that definition is imprecise. The Church defines it somewhat differently. Scoot back over to Canon Law Made Easy and scroll on down to the stand-out sentence "what does canon law have to say about this?"

The author covers just this point while explaining from the precise definition of "schism" as set down in Canon Law 751

canonlawmadeeasy.com/…/can-you-be-both…

Short version: sedevacantists aren't discussed in Canon Law, but their actions are and, yeah, their actions conform with the definition of schism. Hey, I'm not trying to corner you or anything. This is why the Church has laws.

"What I am concerned about is that many Catholics do not take the discerning route that you have laid out well, but instead are still stuck in a pollyannist papolotry...."

:D :D :D "pollyannist papolotry"... Thank you for that. Oh, my sides. :D :D :D Yes. I know exactly what you're talking about. Certain species of nuns are the literal embodiment of it. I believe the popular term for that behavior is a "personality cult". Those are always somewhat queasy for outsiders to witness.

Depending on your age, you might have missed the short-lived (yet no less passionate) cult that sprang up around JFK. Now that was something to watch. Swing over to eBay sometime and do some searches for JFK memorabilia. It won't take long before you notice the quasi-religious nature of the goods. Nearly every devotional item that was popular with Catholics during the 60s had some JFK-themed counterpart.

Anyway, yes, your concern is a valid one and I'm certain your scenario can and will happen exactly as you're predicting. That's the wicked plan the enemies within the Church have as their end goal: "a globalist eco-pagan spirituality"

What I see happening here on GTV, particularly with the sedevacantist crowd, is no less pernicious.

Francis' critics are no less badly catechised. They reject the modernist teachings you described and then expand that rejection to literally every Catholic teaching (even those found in the Gospels) that contradicts their own sour, usually bigoted world-view.

I do understand your dilemma. Titles like "His Holiness" or "Holy Father" were instituted at a time when they truly meant something. They implied a reverence for the one who held them. I believe this is what you and many other Catholics today balk at. Sadly, the titles aren't always descriptive of the men who hold them. History has shown many men who were "His Holiness" and were also corrupt. They were "bad Popes" and history is full of them. But... they were popes.

Is the flakey dancing, giggling, crying Cardinal Tagle truly worthy of the title "Eminence"? 'course not. Is that obese biker-bishop down in Florida show any "Excellency"? Nah... Some Cardinals and Bishops are eminent and excellent. Others aren't. The same is true for the Popes. Some were holy amd some... *sigh* But that isn't anything new, either.

There's an obvious parallel within the Church itself today. Look at all the priests who've scandalized and abused children. The title "Father" carries the same implicit reverence for his person. Is a hedonist, paedophile priest still a priest? Yes. He's a bad priest an impious priest, a wicked priet. But he still holds that title "Father" and the office within the Church's hierarchy.

The same is true for the corrupt bishops who repeatedly transferred those priests, and the popes who looked the other way. All of that was going on long before Jorge Bergoglio started trying to reinvent the Church. There have always been bad priests, bad bishops, bad cardinals, and bad popes. But that doesn't change that they -do- hold the office, regardless of what words we use to address the man holding it.

"this man who is destroying the Church, to ever call him "holy father," or refer to this wolf in any way that esteems his authority is repulsive to me, and hypocritical."

I don't see hypocrisy in recognizing a Catholic cleric's lawful claim on a title or using the conventional forms of address associated with it. Because, in truth, the general criticisms you're making againt "Bergoglio" could just as easily be applied to his predecessors. Many critics have dissected the various teachings of the last four popes, notably JP II and BXVI and found what they argue is a staggering amount of false doctrines. If they're right, the destruction of the Church has been going on for a lot longer than the current pontiff.

...and yet for all that, the Church recognizes John Paul II as a saint. Will I refer to him as Saint John Paul II? Yes. Am I going to ask for his intercession? Probably not. ;-)

There's a secular parallel. The US has had leftist openly Marxist Presidents who've actively worked for the destruction of this country. I recognize their claim on the title and, if I ever had met them, I'd address them as "Mr. President" despite my loathing for them. It doesn't mean I agree with what they're doing or approve of their actions.

Anyway, hope this helps.
AngelusMaria
It does help, and I appreciate your generous response.
J G Tasan
May our crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ protects Rev. Fr. Francesco D’Erasmo with His Precious Blood!

Amen!
Prayhard
Blessed and based.