Well our next and final story I would entitle a tale of two cities or a tale
of two juridical processes as the contrast will be interesting. So the
first one we will turn to is the city is in...
and both stories we're going to talk about unfold in an interestingly parallel timeline.
So this story begins, there are three hermits who were living as hermits in Scotland,
a priest, a brother, and a nun.
They, in April, released a declaration and then sent it to Bishop Brian McGee, who has a juridical connection to them.
Now again, these hermits have not been well known.
They have a website called www.trumpeteer.co.uk, where they've information available, but they're
not a sort of typically known group, very small.
I've talked to some people in England who said they've met them and visited with them,
they're very holy, they appear to be living very ascetical, very holy lives.
Um, but they've not been really on the public scene. Well, they emerged in April
with a rather startling declaration
And they mentioned that they as hermits are the watchtower of the church
uh, and they
Uh say that never in history has there been such a pope a terrible dark
In their declaration, which you can read on their their website a terrible darkness has spread over the world and the church
Modernism secularism humanism and scientism are eroding the ancient truths of faith
aided by the poisonous ideology of evolution
again
Really an interesting commentary on the state of the church
quote, "...tragically, the head of the church on earth,
by his utterances, his behavior, his teaching, and his action, has shown himself to be indeed a great heretic."
So very similar, they're going to write very similar things to the open letter to the bishops.
And then they note, in all of this, silence has enveloped the bishops, unable or unwilling
to confront the successor of Peter, either through human respect, fear of schism, or
through the thought of being cast out of their diocese by the Pope.
They have been reduced to a state of helplessness.
Again, incredible rebuke of...
the episcopacy for failing to defend the faith.
So this leads to their final conclusion,
which I think we would all agree is worded
a little imprudently to be incapable of it being.
misinterpreted. But here's what they say, that they who must speak from the
watchtower of truth have no option but to withdraw our obedience from Pope
Francis and sever communion with the Holy See.
Now that's the bit that has been taken and seized upon, but it's we have to understand. What did they mean by that?
Obviously, they meant we say there is no such thing as the Holy See the Holy See has no
Juridical authority over the church in principle or theologically the Pope is just a bishop that would be heresy and schism
refusing in principle
And again, those words are open to that interpretation, but then we have to read them in context.
They go on to say, we do this with great fear and trepidation, but we cannot take part in
the Pope's sin.
So they're not referring to the Holy See as an entity or as a being, but to Pope Francis.
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 a sinking ship.
They would try to save not only themselves, but warn others and help them to safety.
So it's clear what they mean by this, that they are refusing to follow Pope Francis into his sin,
and they have made clear in a few public statements after this that when they were
refer to the Holy See, they mean Pope Francis's collaborators, that they are
separating from Pope Francis and his collaborators their obedience.
And again, this group have been canonically
approved, we're in good standing, quote unquote, full communion, use Vatican to
speak with the local bishop, but that they are realizing they can no longer remain
silent and stay in that posture because.
this great scandal. So again I think very important to take in that context, could
they have worded it better? Absolutely. Should they have said we're drawing
obedience to Pope Francis while affirming our obedience to the Holy See? Certainly, could
have been worded. They're not canonists however and I think they make their
intention very clear.
They also make clear that they know where this is going to lead. They say that although they know they they have to do this
However small we are quote, however much this declaration will lead to being persecuted
It is worth it for it is truly a wonderful thing to fight for the divinity and majesty of Christ
So they knew what was coming next and indeed that's exactly what
They sent this letter a few weeks before the open letter to the bishops in the beginning of April.
They then received a response in June from the Bishop McGee who threatened them with canonical punishment.
And then I've obtained a copy of his canonical decree dated December 16th and reviewed it.
So on December 16th he decreed that they were excommunicated, all three of them, for two crimes
interestingly. The first, for having insulted the Holy Father through social communication.
So, again, calling a spade a spade saying the Emperor has no clothes, or reason to just say this, this does not make sense. This is not truth is insulting the Holy Father, they're punished excommunicated for that and secondly, for schism.
now canonically this this decree has got many many substantive laws and it was delivered
hand delivered correct on christmas christmas eve yes
it was at their bishop's christmas gift to the hermits um on christmas eve and it had two
problems one uh he first of all says in the decree i should conduct an investigation under canon law
but i'm dispensing with that there's no need for it so we don't even have to look into this we
know their heritage we know their schematics a crime of schism has two elements
perform an act that is schismatic with a schismatic intent. So again always there
have to have to prove subjectively, not only did they do something but they did
it in a way to manifest a refusal to accept the authority of the Pope as Pope
in the institution. And the bishop just says, and this is called having the
proper malice, the mens rea, the mental state subjectively that you're
schismatic.
right basically saying you know like the Eastern Orthodox we do not accept the
Pope is the not the first he is really a bishop and we intend to break we are
outside we are not with him we are not with Pope doesn't matter if it's Francis
John Baldus and whoever we don't accept anything because we don't accept their
authority
In other words, they're rejecting the papacy as such as such. And again, these these hermits here are very clear. We are not going to schism. We accept the authority of the Pope. We just do not accept the abuse and the attack on the church by Francis and his collaborators.
Bishop says, I'm going to look into that. I just decree they have the proper
intent without an investigation. And he declares them excommunicated Christmas Eve. Again,
ineffective, illegal, invalid, but attempting to. They have responded. I understand they're
planning to release a statement to clarify this. You could clear what they meant by severing
them.
and that we will be looking for. But what's interesting is how swift this was,
that with all that's gone, we saw the whole McCarrick incident, that these three
people and some remote part of Scotland have a hammer on their head without an
investigation, without proper canonical findings, because they commit the only
crime worthy of punishment in Francis's church, that is objecting to Francis.
Meanwhile, in a similar parallel over in Amsterdam, we have an April, a priest, Father Valkering,
and here you can see him, how he presents himself.
while they're voucharing under the 25th.
That's a mild picture.
Apparently he also dresses occasionally in,
in rainbow or pink vestments or something.
uh yeah yes in rainbow i see yes but uh this father valkyrie on the 25th anniversary of his
ordination gave a sermon in which he uh launched a book that he wrote which is called uh
naked but not undressed or undressed but not naked i forget whichever it is
I don't know what it means.
But in this book and in this sermon, which he then also confirmed by a written letter
to all members of the parish, he admitted that he has been for decades, a person who
committed acts of sodomy with multiple people.
that he used to stalk saunas and other places to find people to commit acts of sodomy with.
He lived in a carnal sense with a man, a friend, for a long period of time,
that he was at the time still addicted to pornography.
So, he admitted these canonical crimes, all of which are deserving of a dismissal from
the clerical state, and again, if he doesn't recant them of excommunication, declaring
he openly, again, endorses and practices and is practicing homosexual and is addicted to
pornography.
He subsequently changed his tune a little bit and all of a sudden said he was cured
of his pornography addiction.
after this, but it's unclear when that happened.
But, so what happens, he does this, the Diocese of Amsterdam issues a statement saying that
he unfortunately backed them into a corner, whatever that means, and that they therefore
being backed into a corner, probably pushed into a corner, while trying to help him explore
the situation, issued some sanctions, requiring him to quote, reflect.
and get help.
Get him.
sexual continents. They said that he had already decided to leave the parish where he was in
Amsterdam, but that they couldn't reassign him yet because he hadn't actually left.
So the sanctions were to ask him to get help and to reflect. But then they immediately issued
a statement after they came under attack from the secular media saying they were not discriminating
against him based on his sexual orientation.
again so yeah yeah yeah we fast forward to christmas eve again a report by uh life site
news on christmas eve that the diocese of amsterdam received a request from the congregation
of clergy uh which oversees the discipline of the priest asking them to withdraw their
sanctions again that horribly frightening sanction asking him to reflect and get help
oh i'm faking in my boots
which apparently the Vatican described as quote unjust unjust exactly so an admitted
person who has committed acts of sodomy and continues to do so uh and has a pornography
addiction uh it's unjust to ask him to seek help the very things which caused the uh some of the
things that caused the clergy sex abuse scandal
in the first place. Exactly. And so the Vatican says please remit these because we're submitting
this to the Roman high court, the highest court, the signatura, which are going to strike them down
as quote, usually ineffective, saying that they're not done properly. And so basically saying we're
going to strike them down legally, why don't you just save yourself some embarrassment and withdraw
So again here we have a priest just like the Maguire in McCarrick too, a priest who is publicly
in writing and orally admitted vast numbers of sins against the sixth and ninth commandment,
unnatural acts, and he's allowed at least to live in in that parish.
I'm still there, even though he's officially not the pastor, still living there doing his thing,
has refused to leave, refused to take on a new parish. They do barely even flap them on the
wrist and the Vatican says, that's unjust, stop, you can't do that.
Meanwhile, over in Scotland, this bishop in a complete breach of canonical procedure,
excommunicates these three hermits for an imprudently worded declaration against Pope
Francis.
Again, do we need more proof where this pontificate is?
Be an outright flagrant sodomite in the priesthood for 25 years, brag about it, and you're protected.
question Pope Francis and you get excommunicated. That's an epitome of what's
going on in the church.