Speech at the Catholic Identity Conference This address was prepared in order to be given at the Catholic Identity Conference.
However, at the last minute, it was “cancelled” from the roster. It is
unfortunate that, in the current climate of fear within the Church, the
free exchange of ideas and viewpoints is no longer tolerated. Let us
pray for the unity of the Church, that unity which can only be grounded
in the Truth, who is Jesus Christ. A fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos. By their fruits you will know them. Mt 7:16-20 Allow me to greet and thank the organizers of the Catholic Identity Conference
and all who are taking part. In a moment of great confusion it is
important to clarify what is happening, even by comparing different
positions. That’s why I am grateful to my friend Michael Matt for giving
me the opportunity to share some thoughts with you. In this speech I will not try to give answers, but to pose a question
that can no longer be postponed, so that we Bishops, the clergy, and
the faithful can look clearly at the very serious apostasy present as a
completely unprecedented fact, one that cannot be resolved, in my
opinion, by resorting to our usual categories of judgment and action. The proliferation of declarations and behaviors completely foreign to
what is expected of a Pope – and indeed in contrast with the Faith and
Morality of which the Papacy is the guardian – has led many of the
faithful and an increasingly large number of Bishops to take note of
something that until some time ago seemed unheard of: the Throne of
Peter is occupied by a person who abuses his power, using it for the
opposite purpose to that for which Our Lord instituted it. Some say that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is manifestly heretical in doctrinal questions, others that he is tyrannical in matters of government, still others consider his election invalid
because of the multiple anomalies of the resignation of Benedict XVI
and the election of the one who took his place. These opinions – more or
less supported by evidence or the result of speculations that cannot
always be shared – nevertheless confirm a reality that is now
incontestable. And it is this reality, in my opinion, that constitutes a
common starting point in trying to remedy the disconcerting, scandalous
presence of a Pope who presents himself with ostentatious arrogance as inimicus Ecclesiæ,
and who acts and speaks as such. An enemy who, precisely because he
occupies the Throne of Peter and abuses papal authority, is capable of
inflicting a terrible and disastrous blow, such as no external enemy in
the entire history of the Church has ever been able to cause. The worst
persecutors of Christians, the fiercest adherents of the Masonic Lodges,
and the most unrestrained heresiarchs have never before succeeded, in
such a short time and with such effectiveness, in devastating the Lord’s
vineyard, scandalizing the faithful, disgusting the Ministers,
discrediting its authority and authoritativeness before the world, and
demolishing the Magisterium, Faith, Morals, Liturgy, and discipline. Inimicus Ecclesiæ, not only with respect to the members of
the Mystical Body – which he despises, ridicules (he never ceases to
launch poisonous epithets against it), persecutes, and strikes; but also
with respect to the Head of the Mystical Body, Jesus Christ: whose
authority is exercised by Bergoglio no longer in a vicarious way, which
would therefore be in necessary and dutiful consistency with the Depositum Fidei,
but rather in a self-referential and thus tyrannical way. The authority
of the Roman Pontiff is in fact derived from the Supreme Authority of
Christ, in which it participates, always within the boundaries and scope
of the goals which the Divine Founder has established once and for all,
and which no human power can change. The evidence of Bergoglio’s alienity to the office he holds is
certainly a painful and very serious fact; but becoming aware of this
reality is the indispensable premise for remedying an unsustainable and
disastrous situation. In these ten years of his “pontificate” we have seen Bergoglio do
everything that would never be expected of a Pope, and vice-versa
everything that a heresiarch or an apostate would do. There have been
occasions when these actions have appeared manifestly provocative, as if
by his utterances or certain acts of government he deliberately wanted
to arouse the indignation of the ecclesial body and urge priests and
faithful to react by giving them the pretext to declare them schismatic.
But this typical strategy of the worst Jesuitism is now uncovered,
because the whole operation has been conducted with too much arrogance
and in areas on which not even moderate Catholics are willing to
compromise. The sexual scandals of the clergy, and in particular the response of
the Holy See to the scourge of moral corruption of Cardinals and
Bishops, have shown a shameful disparity of treatment between those who
belong to Bergoglio’s so-called “magic circle” and those he considers
adversaries. The recent case of Marko Rupnik is evidence of one who
exercises power like a despot, legibus solutus, who considers himself
free to act without being accountable for any of his actions. It often
happens that the consequences of the decisions taken personally by the
Argentine are then passed on to his subordinates, who find themselves
accused and discredited for choices which are not theirs. I think of the
case of the London building in which officials of the Secretariat of
State were involved, while the contract of sale bears the august
chirograph. I think of the shameful handling of the Rupnik case, which
in addition to having rehabilitated a criminal responsible for
horrendous crimes, in contempt of the numerous victims, has also
discredited the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, Cardinal Ladaria. I am thinking of the McCarrick case, which
with the farce of a secret administrative procedure was hastily
liquidated without any compensation to the victims, and declared res judicata
unappealable. And the list goes on and on. It remains evident that the
unfortunates who willingly or unwillingly collaborate with Bergoglio
find themselves thrown overboard as soon as the press discovers the
Vatican scandals. Many are noticing this cynical utilitarian behavior,
which in fact brings them to decline appointments and promotions
precisely so as not to find themselves in the uncomfortable role of
scapegoat. The silence of the Episcopate in the face of the Bergoglian nonsense
confirms that the self-referential authoritarianism of the Jesuit
Bergoglio has found servile obedience in almost all the Bishops,
terrified by the idea of being made the object of the retaliation of the
vengeful and despotic satrap of Santa Marta. Some diocesan bishops are
beginning to no longer tolerate his devastating action, which undermines
the authority and authoritativeness of the whole Church. Bishop Joseph
Strickland, for example, has commendably reiterated immutable doctrinal
truths that the Synod on Synodality in the coming months is preparing to
demolish. And Cardinal Gerard Ludwig Müller has rightly recalled that
the Lord did not give power to the Pope to “bully” good bishops. Something therefore is beginning to change: alignments are taking
shape, and we see on the one hand Bergoglio’s “synodal church” – which
he emblematically calls “our church” – and on the other hand what
remains of the Catholic Church, towards which he does not fail to
reiterate his absolute extraneousness. Bishop Athanasius Schneider maintains that any irregularities that
may have occurred in the 2013 Conclave have in any case been healed in radice
by the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been recognized as Pope by
the Cardinal Electors, by the Episcopate, and by the majority of the
faithful. Practically speaking. The argument is that, regardless of the
events that may have led to the election of a pope – with or without
external meddling in it – the Church, practically speaking, places a
time limit beyond which it is not possible to challenge an election if
the person elected is accepted by the Christian people. But this thesis
is called into question by historical precedent. In 1378, after the election of Pope Urban VI, the majority of
Cardinals, Prelates and the people recognized Clement VII as pope, even
though he was in reality an antipope. Thirteen out of sixteen cardinals
questioned the validity of the election of Pope Urban due to the threat
of violence from the Roman people against the Sacred College, and even
Urban’s few supporters immediately retracted their election, convoking a
new Conclave at Fondi which elected the antipope Clement VII. Even
Saint Vincent Ferrer was convinced that Clement was the real pope, while
Saint Catherine of Siena sided with Urban. If universal consensus were
an indefectibly valid argument for a pope’s legitimacy, Clement would
have had the right to be considered the true pope, rather than Urban.
Antipope Clement was defeated by Urban VI’s army in the battle of Marino
in 1379 and transferred his See to Avignon, leading to the Western
Schism, which lasted thirty-nine years. Thus we see that the universal
acceptance argument does not withstand the test of history. Bishop Athanasius Schneider reminds us that the via tutior, or surer way, consists in not obeying a heretical Pope, without necessarily having to consider him ipso facto
fallen from his office as separated from the Church and therefore no
longer capable of being at its head, as St. Robert Bellarmine believes.
But even this solution – which at least recognizes that Bergoglio is
a heretic – does not seem decisive to me, since the obedience that the
faithful can deny him is only marginal compared to all the acts of
government and magisterium that he has carried out and continues to
perform without his subjects being able to do anything about them. Of
course, one can organize the clandestine celebration of the Catholic
Mass, but what can a priest or a layman do when a subversive group of
Bishops maneuvered by Bergoglio is preparing to introduce unacceptable
doctrinal changes through the Synod on Synodality? And what can they do
when in their parishes a deaconess blesses the “wedding” of two
sodomites? Certainly disobeying the illegitimate orders of a heretical or apostate Superior is a duty sub gravi,
since obedience to God comes before obedience to men, and because the
virtue of Obedience is hierarchically subordinated to the theological
virtue of Faith. But the resulting damage to the ecclesial body is not
prevented by an action of simple resistance: the root of the question
must be resolved. Thus, taking notice of the fact that Bergoglio is a heretic – and Amoris Lætitia
or his declaration of the intrinsic immorality of capital punishment
would be enough to prove it – we must ask ourselves if the 2013 election
was in some way invalidated by a lack of consent; that is, if the one
elected wanted to become Pope of the Catholic Church or rather head of
what he calls “our synodal church” – which has nothing to do
with the Church of Christ precisely because it stands as something other
than it. In my opinion, this lack of consent can also be seen in
Bergoglio’s behavior, which is ostentatiously and consistently
anti-Catholic and heterogeneous with respect to the very essence of the
Papacy. There is no action of this man that does not blatantly have the
air of rupture with respect to the practice and the Magisterium of the
Church, and to this are added the positions taken that are anything but
inclusive towards the faithful who do not intend to accept arbitrary
innovations, or worse, full-blown heresies. The fundamental question hinges on understanding the subversive plan of the deep church,
which, using the methods denounced at the time by St. Pius X with
regard to the Modernists, has organized itself to carry out a coup
d’état within the Church and bring the prophet of the Antichrist to the
Throne of Peter. The mens rea in infiltrating the Hierarchy and
ascending its ranks is evident, just as it is evident that the plans of
the ultra-progressive faction could not stop in the fact of Benedict
XVI, whom they considered too conservative, and whom they hated above
all because he dared to promulgate the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.
And so Benedict XVI was pressured to resign, and immediately there was
ready the unknown Archbishop of Buenos Aires. On October 11, 2013, in a
conference at Villanova University (here),
then-Cardinal McCarrick, Bergoglio’s longtime friend, revealed that
Bergoglio’s election was strongly desired by a “very influential Italian
gentleman,” an emissary of the deep state to the deep church:
those who work in the Curia know well who is called “the gentleman” par
excellence and what his links are with the power on both sides of the
Tiber [the Vatican and the Italian Government], and they also know his
embarrassing penchants that explain his close connections to the Vatican
homosexual lobby. It is also significant that McCarrick said he was
convinced that Bergoglio would “change the Papacy within four years,”
confirming the malicious intention to tamper with the divine and
unreformable institution of the Church. Seeing Bergoglio participate in an event sponsored by the Clinton
Foundation, after other no less scandalous endorsements from the
globalist elite, confirms his role as bankruptcy liquidator of the
Church, with the purpose of substituting the constitution of that
Religion of Humanity that will serve as the handmaid of the synarchy of
the New World Order. Ecumenism, ecology, vaccinism, immigrationism,
LGBTQ+ and gender ideology, and other instances of the globalist
religion are appropriated by Bergoglio, not only through an action of
ostentatious and proud support for the proponents of the 2030 Agenda,
but also by means of the systematic demolition of everything that
opposes it in the Magisterium, and the ruthless persecution of those who
express even prudent perplexities. So: Bergoglio is a heretic and blatantly hostile to the Church of
Christ. To carry out the task assigned to him by the deep church, he
concealed his most extreme positions, so as to find a sufficient number
of votes in the Conclave. To ensure total obedience, those who hatched
the plan made sure that he was widely blackmailable, as always happens.
And once elected, Bergoglio was able to show himself for what he is and
begin the demolition of the Church and the Papacy. But is it possible for a pope destroy the papacy that he himself
embodies and represents? Is it possible for a pope devastate the Church
that the Lord has entrusted to him to defend? And again: if a cardinal’s
participation in the Conclave is intended to be malicious, if it
intends a subversive act against the Church, if the aim is to commit a
crime, then even if the procedures and norms of the election are
apparently respected, there is undoubtedly a mens rea. And this criminal
intention emerges from the cunning by which the cardinals who were
accomplices to the plot collaborated in deceiving the cardinals who
voted in good faith. I wonder, then: are we not in the presence of a
defect of consent that affects the validity of the election? Without
saying that the very co-presence of a renouncing pope and a reigning
pope is already in itself an element that leads us to believe that they
had a false concept of the essence of the papacy, considered to be a
role that can be shared with others. Let us not forget that the
distinction between munus and ministerium is arbitrary
and that there cannot be a Pope who dedicates himself to the “ministry
of prayer” and another one who governs. Christ is one; the Church is
one; and there is only one Successor of Peter: a body with two heads is a
monstrum that is repugnant to nature even before the divine
constitution of the Church. Some may object: But even if Bergoglio acted with malice, he
still accepted what the Cardinals offered him: his election as Bishop of
Rome and therefore as Roman Pontiff. And so he assumed office and must
be considered to be the Pope. I believe instead that his acceptance
of the papacy is invalidated, because he considers the papacy something
other than what it is, like a spouse who gets married in church but
excludes the specific purposes of marriage from his intention, thus
making the marriage null and void precisely due to his lack of consent.
Not only that: what conspirator who acts maliciously in order to ascend
to an office would be so naive as to explain to those who must elect him
that he intends to become Pope in order to carry out the orders of the
enemies of God and the Church? Good morning. I am Jorge Mario Bergoglio and I intend to destroy the Church by getting elected Pope. Will you vote for me? The mens rea
lies precisely in the use of deception, dissimulation, lies, the
delegitimization of annoying opponents, and the elimination of dangerous
ones. And the proof that Bergoglio intended to carry out the criminal
plan of the globalist elite is right before our eyes: all the desired
goals of the emails of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s right-hand man,
have been or are being carried out, from the adoption of gender equality
as a premise for the female priesthood to LGBTQ+ inclusion, from the
acceptance of gender theory to the participation in the Agenda 2030 on
climate change, from the condemnation of “proselytism” to the exaltation
of immigration as a method of ethnic replacement. And at the same time,
there is the removal and condemnation of the other Church, the
“pre-conciliar” one, composed of rigid intolerant people, starting with
Our Lord, as Antonio Spadaro blasphemously wrote. And with the cancel
culture applied to Faith and Morals, there is also the elimination of
the Mass that intrinsically belongs to that Church, which Bergoglio
considers to be in conflict with the “new ecclesiology,” to the point of
prohibiting it as incompatible with the “synodal church.” So here I am, throwing the proverbial stone into the pond. I would
like us to take seriously, very seriously, the possibility that
Bergoglio intended to obtain the election by means fraud, and that he
intended to abuse the authority of the Roman Pontiff in order to do the
exact opposite of what Jesus Christ gave a mandate to Saint Peter and
his Successors to do: confirm the faithful in the Catholic Faith,
feeding and governing the Flock of the Lord, preaching the Gospel to the
nations. All the acts of Bergoglio’s governance and magisterium – since
his first appearance on the Vatican Loggia, when he introduced himself
with his disturbing “Buonasera” – has unraveled in a direction
diametrically opposed to the Petrine mandate: he has adulterated and
continues to adulterate the Depositum Fidei, he has created
confusion and misled the faithful, he has dispersed the flock, he has
declared that he considers the evangelization of peoples to be “a solemn
nonsense,” and he systematically abuses the power of the Holy Keys to
loose what cannot be loosed and to bind what cannot be bound. This situation is humanly irremediable, because the forces at play
are immense and because the corruption of Authority cannot be healed by
those who are subject to it. We must take note that the metastasis of
this “pontificate” originates from the conciliar cancer, from that
Vatican II which created the ideological, doctrinal, and disciplinary
bases that inevitably had to lead to this point. But how many of my
confreres, who also recognize the gravity of the current crisis, have
the ability to recognize this causal link between the conciliar
revolution and its extreme consequences with Bergoglio? If this passio Ecclesiæ is a prelude to the end times, it is
our duty to prepare ourselves spiritually for moments of great
tribulation and of true and proper persecution. But it will be precisely
by retracing the Via Dolorosa of the Cross that the ecclesial body will
be able to purify itself from the filth that disfigures it and merit
the supernatural help that Providence reserves for the Church in times
of trial: where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more. Finally, allow me to remind you that the Exsurge Domine
Association I founded aims to give spiritual and material help to
priests and religious brothers and sisters who are persecuted by the
Bergoglian church because of their fidelity to Tradition. If you would
like to make a donation towards the realization of our projects, you may
do so at the Association’s website – www.exsurgedomine.org – or by sending a text message: Text 502027 to 1-855-575-7888 (for USA & Canada). BREAKING:
Archbishop Vigano Canceled by Catholic Traditionalists for Saying Pope
Francis Intended from the Beginning to Destroy the Catholic Church
Vitium consensus
Pittsburgh - October 1st, 2023
Numquid colligunt de spinis uvas aut de tribulis ficus?
Sic omnis arbor bona fructus bonos facit; mala autem arbor fructus malos facit.
Non potest arbor bona fructus malos facere, neque arbor mala fructus bonos facere.
Omnis arbor quæ non facit fructum bonum exciditur et in ignem mittitur.
Igitur ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos.
Does anyone pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Just so, every good tree bears good fruit; and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
Therefore by their fruits you will know them. The Evidence of the “Bergoglio Problem”
Agere Sequitur Esse
Breaking Down the Wall of Silence
The Sanatio in Radice of the Irregularities at the 2013 Conclave
Bishop Schneider’s Via Tutior
The Defect of Consent in the Assumption of the Papacy
Possible Objections
Conclusion
Video
Source: https://exsurgedomine.it/230930-cic-eng/