Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Colombian Professor Criticizes Pope Francis, Declared Excommunicated

Image: A panel on Un Café con Galat, the television program hosted by Professor José Galat (center).

Some troubling news has, once more, just come to us from Colombia. As we reported a while ago, there was the case of Don Uribe Medina, a parish priest punished for criticizing Pope Francis and his novel teaching concerning marriage. Fortunately, that case was resolved on good terms, with Fr. Uribe’s own bishop now even fully defending the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage.

In the new case, however, Professor José Galat, former rector of the La Gran Colombia University and founder and owner of the television station Teleamiga, has been declared excommunicated for his purported schismatic attitude. More specifically, he and his own weekly TV program, Un Café con Galat (Coffee with Galat), have been accused of not being sufficiently obedient toward Pope Francis.

Significantly, it was Galat himself who, at the time of the Don Uribe case, hosted the priest and gave him the scope to defend his positions.

Galat himself recently made statements on his own television show, where, citing the “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” of whom Belgian cardinal Godfried Danneels is among the most famous members, he claimed that Pope Francis was unlawfully elected. He also claimed that Pope Francis is distorting many aspects of the Catholic Church’s fundamental teaching.

For these statements – and especially in light of the imminent mid-September 2017 visit of Pope Francis to Colombia – the bishops of Colombia have taken canonical steps against Prof. Galat.

One of the more unusual steps is that, on 26 July, Monsignor Pedro Mercado, president of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal of Bogotá, has published the following statement on Twitter (sic): “For obstinate disobedience toward the pope, José Galat has placed himself outside of the Communion with the Church. He cannot receive the Sacraments.” On the same day, the same prelate posted, again on his Twitter feed, a picture with himself and Pope Francis along with the caption: “I am Catholic and I am in communion!”

ACI Prensa, the Spanish branch of Catholic News Agency (CNA), has already published two articles on this Galat case. On 25 July, ACI Prensa reported that the Episcopal Conference of Colombia (CEC) “lamented the content of the Colombian television channel Teleamiga, which claims to be of Catholic inspiration but which attacks Pope Francis.” The bishops now “urged priests, religious, and lay people to cease any support they give” to this program. In their 25 July statement, the bishops also state that “Teleamiga does not represent, nor reflect, the teaching of the Catholic Church; therefore it cannot call itself a ‘Catholic channel.’” Here ACI Prensa also directly quotes the bishops: “Based on Canon Law, we point out that, by rejecting submission to the Pope and seriously injuring the communion of the Church, a schism is thereby incurred and other people are [thus also] induced to fall into it.”

The Colombian bishops – three of whom have signed the statement, among them the president of the Episcopal Conference – especially criticized the messages coming from Un Café con Galat as carried out by the founder and director of Teleamiga. The bishops accuse him of sowing among the Catholic faithful, with the help of “superficial and harmful arguments,” “attitudes of detachment and doubt regarding the validity of the pontificate of Pope Francis.”

The Colombian bishops also stressed that they have sought “the way of dialogue” with Galat “over the years.” “However, a calm and fruitful approach has not been possible, nor has there been a change of attitude [on his part],” they added. Next to telling Catholics not to support the channel anymore, the bishops also declare that “it is an absolute contradiction that the Teleamiga channel should continue to transmit the celebration [and Sacrifice] of the Eucharist and that, in its facilities, there is to be found the Blessed Sacrament [reserved].”

Teleamiga has been airing traditional Masses. The Colombian bishops advise the faithful to look for other ways and means to find “sound doctrine.” For example, the bishops have explicitly invited the faithful to prepare themselves well for a welcome of Pope Francis on his upcoming visit to Colombia (Bogotá, Villavicencio, Medellín, and Cartagena) and to listen to him “with docility.”

It might be of worth to note that the Archdiocese of Bogotá, Colombia is also about to host a conference given by Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto, dean of the Roman Rota, concerning the papal document Amoris Laetitia, with 600 participants in registered attendance already.

Teleamiga is a television station licensed, among others, by the La Gran Colombia University, Bogotá, whose rector was Professor Galat himself from 1981 to 2017. Galat has studied political sciences and philosophy at different universities in Paris, France; Barcelona, Spain; and Colombia. He is now 88 years of age…and just excommunicated.

On 26 July, ACI Prensa published a follow-up report on the Galat case, quoting Bishop Mercado: “[W]ith his angry response to the episcopate and his obstinate rejection of Pope Francis, Dr. José Galat has placed himself outside the communion of the Catholic Church[.] … He should not be admitted to the sacraments until he shows clear signs of repentance.” According to Bishop Mercado, “heresy and schism are typified as canonical offenses punished with (automatic) excommunication latae sententiae.” The bishop added, “Those who have committed this crime may not receive the sacraments of the Church until manifesting a visible and sincere repentance.”

At this point, Galat is disallowed from receiving even a Catholic burial. According to the bishop, “by disobeying Pope Francis in a visible, public, and reiterated way, Dr. Galat has placed himself outside the communion of the Church.”

According to ACI Prensa, Bishop Mercado said, “[I]t is painful for me to realize that Dr. Galat, who for so many years served the Church faithfully, has ended his days in this pitiful spiritual situation.”

These tones do not sound very merciful, at least to some observers.

Prof. Galat himself has now responded on two occasions. First, on 25 July, he declared that “it is true that a Catholic must have love and adherence to the legitimate successor of the Apostle Peter.” But, according to Galat, one wonders about a pope “not chosen by God, but by men and even worse by a ‘mafia of cardinals,’” as it had been called by “Cardinal Godfried Danneels himself, who, with savvy, publicly declared that this mob determined the resignation of Benedict XVI and put Francis in the papacy.” Galat goes so far to say that the present pontiff’s election “was the work of a political and corrupt mafia of cardinals.” The Colombian professor insisted that this is said not by him, but by Cardinal Danneels himself, as can be shown with the help of different sources, among them an article written by Edward Pentin. Galat also spoke about Francis’s “undoubted illegitimacy of origin,” complemented by an “illegitimate exercise of teaching doctrines contrary to the Catholic Faith.” As examples, he mentioned Francis’s claim that everyone is saved, that proselytism is foolish, and that adulterers may receive Communion.

Galat claimed that he has presented even more facts on his television program. He also spoke about the “nonsense of him who figures [presents himself] as pontiff.” He accused the Bishops’ Conference of branding as formal “schismatics those who try to defend the Faith, when it is exactly the opposite.” Galat explained that those who attack the Catholic truths are, in fact, the ones who put themselves outside the Church. He concluded that “‘false and harmful’ is the silence of those who are called to defend the Faith”; those who now practice “complicity or cowardice” also want to destroy Teleamiga, which does actually defend the Faith.

Galat “very respectfully” challenged the “Colombian episcopate itself to respond and to counter-argue – with the help of biblical evidence and the traditional teaching of the Church” in order to show “what are our alleged mistakes that have caused their ‘superficial and noxious’ anger.” And: “Why do they persecute those who defend the Faith of the Church?”

On 26 July, the day after his first response to the episcopal steps taken against him, Professor Galat also responded on his Facebook page to the claim that he is using “harmful and superficial” arguments. Galat rejected these reproaches, applying the same words to some of the confusing teachings coming these days from the Catholic hierarchy itself. “False and harmful are the heresies taught by theologians, bishops, cardinals, and even by Pope Francis – and not the defense of the truths of the Faith as we have undertaken it on our channel.” “False and harmful” are, in Galat’s eyes, those who, instead, endanger the salvation of souls by teaching “false doctrines against the Faith of the Church, taught and sustained by Pope Francis.” Amoris Laetitia was also mentioned here for calling “sin” [i.e., adultery] an “irregular situation.” “And harmful it is to destroy the family with the virtual legalization of adultery which is now to be easily achieved, according to the principles enshrined in that document,” explained Galat. After naming more examples, he concluded: “False and harmful are a multitude of other wrong teachings of  the current pope.” Galat posted this same statement on the website of Teleamiga.

The Galat case has, so far, not been widely covered. But the well respected Catholic website Infovaticana published on 29 July a comment that asserts Professor Galat’s inclination to make himself the center of his TV program, in spite of his alleged defective theological expertise. The article uses even harsher language that I prefer not to repeat. To an outsider like me, this article and tone seem inappropriate amid a grave situation where an 88-year-old Catholic man who seems to have contributed so much to the common good of his country – also economically, by fostering community-based enterprises that help the poor – is now threatened to be indefinitely excluded from the Sacraments. Is this to be a fitting manifestation of the newly (and more expansively) merciful Church? Is this how Pope Francis’s welcome is to be prepared in Colombia – at the expense of an elderly Catholic veteran?

We might not agree with all of Galat’s own forceful statements and sweeping assertions, which certainly are hard to prove. They might also lack prudence.

But we might also remember in this context that the well respected Italian journalist and papal critic Antonio Socci – who not many years ago also argued that the election of Pope Francis was invalid – received last year a personal letter from the pope, thanking him for his work and welcoming his criticism. How is it that one critic receives a papal thank-you note, while another – and much older – gentleman receives an excommunication?

Update: Infovaticana now published, today, another post on Prof. Galat, more differentiated, showing his many achievements and, while saying they don’t share Galat’s theses, calling Pope Francis to prudence.

They also add the information that we should add, too – namely, “His Teleamiga Television Channel, of which he is co-founder and director, reaches 35 countries and more than 50 million homes.”

395 thoughts on “Colombian Professor Criticizes Pope Francis, Declared Excommunicated”

  1. I don’t find his assertions on francis troubling, I think we should stop being naive. Why should the liberals in the Church be allowed to paint with broad strokes and one be so measured? Unity does not supersede truth, even if the conspired election were very difficult to prove, we have all his other actions to prove that by promoting heresy he has in fact forfeited the Papacy. One good thing is that if each episcopal conference will take matters into their own hands, then those of us that remain faithful to the teachings of Our Lord will by that very nature not follow the new church and thus a true Pope could come forth. Although it may sound far fetched we’re quickly approaching that state.

  2. Unfortunately, Professor Galat is saying the truth, which places him, not outside the Church, but outside the anti-church. However, his argument about the uncanonical election of Pope Francis is a valid one.

    In Universi Dominici Gregis, which are the requirements issued by Pope John Paul II for conducting conclaves, he makes it clear that strict secrecy must be observed among the cardinals electors, with no vote canvassing. To so much as text or pass secret messages from one to another is strictly forbidden. It is forbidden for a candidate to even tell another who his choice for pope is, both before and during the conclave. If any of these points are violated, the election is null and void. Consider John Paul II’s own words:

    76. “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”

    Note that there is no need to wait for a formal declaration in the case of an uncanonical conclave. The election is automatically null. The fact is that the 2013 conclave was loaded with politics and vote canvassing. Edward Pentin has covered this quite extensively. The plan was to oust Benedict XVI and get Francis in. He basically was already picked before the election, and there is evidence from the best writers to back this up. Though the election made it appear he was elected, it was actually rigged. If we would doubt it, just look at the fruits.

    • Be careful here. This is not an open and shut case. And I think your reading of UDG is flawed.

      People use paragraph 76 of UDG to try to invalidate the election of Bergolgio, but I don’t think that works at all. This is what that paragraph says:

      “76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”

      But #76 PRECEDES the proscription against canvassing. The latter is found within a section that begins:



      78. If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.23
      Then we get to the part people think is the smoking gun:

      81. The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.

      82. I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void.

      You will note that this section follows the commentary on Simony — which is of course just as bad as collusion — which EXPLICITLY states that JPII has removed the nullifying penalty of simony such that “the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged”.

      After that statement, nowhere in the following paragraphs is nullity of an election even implied due to the “matters to be avoided”, including #s 81 & 82.

      People read into UDG what they want to read. In my view, the document doesn’t say what you want it to say. I think we have to look at it from a legal basis, which is going to take into account the specifics of how the document is structured and where the penalties are laid out – and aren’t.

      • What about sensus fidelium? The Church has its (human) law, but there is a Holy Spirit who leads the authentic Catholic faithful, who are more and more aware that Bergoglio is not what the Holy Father should be. To tell to the faithful to obey what Bergoglio says in stead to obey to the Holy Spirit, and than to excommunicate the man from the Church because he was faithful to the Holy Spirit (which is evident even if he didn’t articulate every thought in a perfect manner or at right time), that is a huge misinterpretation of the Catholicism… by Bergiglio himself. He goes against the sensus fidelium, and that is a proof that it is actually Bergoglio who is on the wrong side, not the faithful one.

        • Another commenter brought up the other important point that theologians I’ve spoken with — none of them fans of Francis — seem to agree with (it seems his comment has since been deleted): namely, that the Universal Church has recognized Francis as pope, which goes a long way against the anti-pope thesis. The commenter cited St. Alphonsus, and I’ll borrow that quote here:

          “It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff” (“Verita della Fede,” in Opera de S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, Marietti [Torino, 1887], vol. VIII., p. 720, n. 9).

          • Another good point, Steve.

            I wholly accept that this man Bergoglio is the Pope.

            But that doesn’t mean I think he is a good one.

            He has indeed clarified, it seems to me, the discussion between Bellarmine and Suarez… 😉

          • It is one thing to collude during the conclave. What about collusion to cause a sitting pope to resign? Or partially resign?

          • Duress would compromise the validity of an abdication. But duress has never been proven in this case, even though it is clear that pressure was brought to bear. Benedict himself has said, every time he’s been asked, that it was his free choice.

            So barring an ecclesiastical investigation, we have to go with what we know and what we’ve been told. I don’t blame anyone for harboring suspicions, but to reach conclusions without sufficient information seems rash.

          • Steve, you cannot be certain that Benedict XVI has his free speech when interviewed.
            Once the pressures have been exerted until you resign, they remain intact for another further use.

          • But when one cannot be certain of a thing doubted, the benefit of the doubt goes to what has been asserted. We don’t get to just say, “SEE? SEE?? HE BLINKED TWICE THERE! HE’S CLEARLY TRYING TO TELL US SOMETHING!!! SEE?>?!?!?!”

            It’s God’s Church. Have faith that He knows how to sort this out, and that he wants us to continue to trust the authority structure He put in place.

          • One thing that gets missed whenever this is brought up, I think, and that is the difference between being convinced and being forced. If Benedict XVI was convinced that he simply couldn’t maintain the responsibilities of the papacy by his advisers, he could then conclude that he must resign. If he were blackmailed or threatened with death then obviously it would be invalid, but there is simply no evidence that anything of that sort happened. Convinced by pressure from many sides? Yes, but isn’t that what it would take to make anyone resign? Pressure that you’re simply incapable of handling?

          • In the event of ANY abdication, there will be pressure. People don’t quit a job because all’s well, the pay is great, the vacations are awesome and they love the work. To look at it after the fact and say that pressure met the level of an invalid abdication seems to me to be impossible to prove in the absence of a clear admission of same by the abdicator.

            And in this case, the abdicator publicly sides 100% with Bergoglio.

          • Sounds good but is it Church teaching or only his educated opinion? What is our obligation to agree with him?

          • Here is another problem: wherever you go worldwide, there are people who doubt or question Francis’ papacy. Hence it is not true that the “whole” or “Universal” Church recognizes Bergoglio as Pope so he would become the true Pontiff.

            I know that some very ordinary faithful from Croatia happily went to Sarajevo in 2015 to meet the “Pope Francis”. They came back disappointed, and one just gave a comment: “I don’t know what is going on, but something is wrong with this Pope”.

            Now, the averadge faithful are not so educated nor do they know all the details regarding the Church law, or the differences between certain theological terms, so they usually use simple formulations to express themselves in terms of how they feel or think. For example, “something is wrong”, “this pope is strange”, “it is invalid papacy”, “Francis is an anti-Pope”, etc. They can’t explain what is the problem and they don’t understand what is going on in Vatican, some of them never heard about Second Vatican Council and current polarisation on orthodox and modernists. However, there is a strong sentiment that things are not as they should be.

            Now, the theologicians are not the only ones who are the inheritors of the depositum fidei. They are perhaps the most educated Catholics but it is not that they are the only ones to recognize the Truth. That is why in this particular situation I find totally rude and disparaging when the “famous theologicians” from Vatican scold the Catholic faithful who are sincere, ordering to them to keep quiet and obey to Bergoglio. The authentic faithful have their own sense for right and wrong, and the Vatican theologists can’t convince them in the opposit by constantly repeating a lie that “evetything is just fine”. The theologicians have no right on such privatization of the Catholic Church, depositum fidei and sensus fidei. The Body of Christ is much bigger then the body of the theologists, and the Holy Spirit chooses to whom he will give certain gifts. Not the theologists or Bergoglio.

          • To sort of piggyback on your point here, let us also take a gander at the true enemies of the Church, those who deny Church teaching, hate the Bible, seek to promote evil in the form of all the gender crap and Communism and pop control.

            They love the guy.

      • I think this is especially pertinent: “It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.” Those claiming the election was invalid must first show that the Cardinals were doing more than exchanging views and stating preferences and giving their reasons. Even if they were doing more, such as making a pact or promise, the text says the electors are not bound by their promise, but it is not clear that the text is saying the election is therefore invalid, even assuming any members of a pact are excommunicated.

      • I have to agree. While there has been very shady dealings at the highest levels of Church Hierarchy, this section of UDG seems to state that all pacts and agreements are null and not binding and that all involved are excommunicated latae sententiae. It doesn’t say the election were invalid. Having said that, it would certainly be alot easier if Francis were not the Pope. We could just ignore his disjointed ramblings and ravings. What really disturbs me is that we live in a time were you have to be a Canon lawyer to define what is really being said. It really shouldn’t be the role of the Laity to have to do this.

      • I can agree, yes, if we look at it from a ‘legal’ basis there is probably nothing there. there. …….but that only pertains to his ‘election’. Bergoglio, although some say that he is a ‘non intellectual’ which insinuates his ignorance, is ‘dumb like a fox’. He knows exactly how to get his heresy out there without incriminating himself. He ‘speaks’ through his closest ‘advisors’ on A.L. and in effect has totally answered the Dubia, in order to get people on board with his Anti Church. But has he pronounced anything ‘from the Chair’?? Nope, he knows better than that. I’m going to say in laymen’s terms that he’s a ‘legal heretic’…..he knows exactly what he’s doing.

      • You are right, Steve.

        UDG is, for these purposes, a toothless and worthless text.

        A demonstration of violation of the text would serve as one piece of evidence, but nothing more, in the establishment of an invalid election. Actual proof would require much more than a violation of UDG.

        • I wouldn’t say toothless and worthless, more like inapplicable. It’s a case of misunderstanding the situation. The issue shouldn’t be trying to prove Francis is not the pope, but rather what to do when a pope preaches heresy. The trouble is that Francis IS the pope… so what do we do now? Also, why don’t our shepherds protect us? And how do we get them to?

      • UDG is a toothless document.

        It gives pause for discussion, but like a contract without an enforcement clause, is worthless in the end.

          • Thanks Steve, I asked this question because one high ranking Bishop did talk about how he was influenced to choose Francis, the evidence is on youtube during a meeting with protestants in the UK. Sorry, I should have added that his choice came from the laity and he said this.

      • John Paul II in paragraph 78 removes the nullity only for the simoniacal violation that the election may remain valid, but he does not remove the nullity for other forms of collusion, i.e. 81-82, vote canvassing, etc, therefore the continued nullity of these other violations, in light of paragraph 76, could invalidate the election if the violations were serious enough. Shall we nullify what the pope said?

        • You have to look at UDG how it’s written, not how you’d like it to be read. It doesn’t say what you want it to say no matter how much you want it to.

          Further argumentation along this line will be considered a violation of the comment policy, specifically this one:

          7. Unless your name begins with “pope”, don’t declare anyone else whose name begins with pope an antipope. This is not your job. We allow reasonable and prudent speculation about the confusing nature of the two living popes, but definitive, declarative statements of such and/or accusations that others must reach the same conclusion are not welcome.

        • On a natural reading, that interpretation is false. You’re going to have to do more than assert that this is true. You need to show the logic and how it fits with the legal structure of the document.

          And there’s no “removing the nullity” when UDG abrogated what came before it. It has to either explicitly spell out the penalty or it isn’t there.

        • Nowhere does the document say that the latae sententiae excommunication imposed on pre-conclave conspirators invalidates the subsequent election.

          One crime that does carry such penalty (i.e. invalidation), IN ADDITION TO a latae sententiae excommunication is the crime of simony. HOWEVER, even there the document REMOVES the penalty of invalidation “in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.”

          As such, if the document specifically removes the penalty of invalidation from a crime that incurs BOTH a latae sententiae excommunication AND an invalidation of the election, namely simony, there is no reason to assert that the crime of forming “pact, agreement, promise or other commitment”, which, according to the document incurs ONLY the penalty of a latae sententiae excommunication, should somehow also result in an invalid election.

          • There is every reason think these other forms of collusion will result in an invalid election, since the pope has said it will. The pope has his own reasons for removing the nullity from the sin of simony, but he does not remove the nullity for all other forms of collusion mentioned throughout the document. The other violations mentioned both before and after #76, render the election null and void if committed with enough malice. Paragraph 76 applies fore and aft, it’s not a chronological thing.

    • As St. Augustine said, you have to hate the sin but love the sinner. Hating sin shows that you truly love the sinner.

  3. False Prophet of the Antichrist

    EN News reported:. ‘The Columbian academic José Galat Noumer, 88, a former president of La Gran Colombia University in Bogotà and owner of the family and Church-oriented television station Teleamiga, said that Pope Francis is the “false prophet of which the Bible speaks” who “teaches heresies” that go against the word of God and “paves the way for the antichrist.”

    Talking to Blu Radio, Galat assured that Benedict XVI is the real Pope, not Francis, who “was elected by a mafia of cardinals who afterwards confessed it loquaciously”. He added that Francis is “false and harmful.”

    Galat pointed out that there is a “great ignorance” on the part of the Catholics and of a Church, which supports the “foolishness” of Francis.

    The Columbian Episcopal Conference issued a statement urging priests to withdraw their support for the Teleamiga because of Galat’s criticisms of Francis. Galat authored 22 books and is a lifelong Catholic activist.’

    The alien spirit of Bergoglio which has invaded the Church with its seven other demons ─ is consolidating the liturgical, sacramental, theological, moral, missiological, political and devotional destruction of Catholicism.

    The widening compliant hierarchy and episcopate are being dragged into Bergoglio’s net, there to await the arrival of his master. Bergoglio’s bedside reading? Field Manual 666 ─ Lord of the World!

    And if anyone doubts the hierarchical and episcopal outcome read ‘Iota Unum, A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century’, Romano Amerio, p 180. Learn of the dismal record of the French Revolution; 29,000 priests took the oath to uphold the Civil Constitution of the Clergy [condemned by Pope Pius V1], of whom 24,000 apostatised from the Catholic Faith.

    • Gerry: this is a violation of the 1P5 comment policy. Too much of this going on here. Please remove your comment:

      “7. Unless your name begins with “pope”, don’t declare anyone else whose name begins with pope an antipope. This is not your job. We allow reasonable and prudent speculation about the confusing nature of the two living popes, but definitive, declarative statements of such and/or accusations that others must reach the same conclusion are not welcome.”

      • Question: Didn’t St Catherine of Sienna do that??? Given what has been happening and what prophesy is showing can we not entertain the possibilty. (antipope)??

        • We can ask questions and speculate, but declarations or assertions are not welcome here. In addition, I don’t think anything productive will come from echoing such ideas. We’re more likely to scandalize those who find this comment box by chance or from linking other places.

        • I think St. Catherine sent her letters to the Pope, and I doubt she posted them on the Church doors, or the local pamphlet posting place. We can read what she said because it was made public in her writings but she was discrete, and prudent.

  4. ” … by rejecting submission to the Pope and seriously injuring the communion of the Church ..”

    The world is completely upside down and back to front.

    * Children rule parents
    * The “I” of out-of-control ‘freedom’ rules the common good of family, society and nation
    * The Islamic invasion of Europe is planned and executed by Europe’s own rulers
    * A Catholic who holds to the Catholic Faith is excommunicated
    * Those who actually have the responsibility to uphold the Faith bow down to a tyrannical homo heretic Pope
    * Good is called evil and evil good.

    The anti-Church headed by Bergoglio is the Whore of Babylon and Bergoglio is the False Prophet.

    They can do what they like to us. Their excommunications are as false as the false homo-liberal protestant, ecumenical religion they pretend to adhere to.

    We, on the other hand, will remain Catholics. Our Lord Jesus Christ knows His own.

    • I am inclined to agree with you comrade. I recently went to confession and mentioned that I had either had doubts about Francis’ legitimacy or had asserted in a forum that he was not the pope. I made a statement that I accepted him as legitimate as I said that I had no definitive proof to the contrary at the time, and did not want to be disobedient to God’s lawful ministers.i said this in good faith wanting to do the right thing even though every rational part of me says that there is something definitely wrong with this man, who corresponds with so many prophecies of a man who would be invalidly elected and cause many to go into error and death. I only pray that Our Lord is merciful in this matter given we don’t have all the inside information (dear Benedict could you please stand up now before the Russians bang down the gates??).

    • Hey Great Stalin I like the way you talk. Personally, I am hoping Christ will forcefully show us all who is really directing the Church. The current situation is absurd.

      • It is Christ’s Church. He awaits the moment that the Apostasy reaches its height. Soon, soon – if the last four years are anything to go by. The heretics and apostates are in the open, crowing wickedly and mocking all good Catholics. Their master will come soon.

        What persuades me more than anything that Bergoglio is the False Prophet is the very evident lack of belief they have. I am sure they are all atheists at the least, demon worshippers at the most.

        Why? They have absolutely no fear of God at all – none, not a shred. This tells us all plainly that they are not of God. They preach the devil, their preaching for now wrapped by a thin tissue of “Christianity”-sounding words.

        But it is a thin tissue, and everyday thinner. They will soon cast off the Christian wrappings altogether. One could easily argue that a good number of them already have.

        • Even sooner will be the September line-up of stars and planets (may be something or nothing) and isn’t there going to be an official celebration of heresy for Oct. 31st (the reformation anniversary)?

          Does anyone know if and when the Vatican is intending celebrating this great event? I’d actually forgotten about it till recently, with all the other revelations and horrors, but one wonders if Heaven will allow it.

          Watch this space!!

    • Very well put. I couldn’t agree more. I for one am more than ready to go to war to defend the One True Faith. Our Lord and true shepherd knows his own and they know him. The enemies of the Church are fully out in the open and confident in their power. Little do they know they are already defeated.

      • You can be a sodomite, a heretic, a communist, a Freemason, an abortionist , a population control person, or someone in an illicit relationship, or a pro-abortion politician and not only will nothing happen against you but you can be welcomed at the Vatican or even placed into a position of authority in the modernist ” church”.

        • Maggie you forgot Athiest. How could you !

          Just kidding. Thanks for great comment and you are absolutely right.

          • THAT’s PRECISELY what LUTHER BELIEVED and PREACHED ! St. Padre PIO stated that LUTHER is in HELL. Another Saint also saw Luther in Hell. The Church CONDEMNED and EXCOMMUNICATED LUTHER for his HERESIES. Yet, ‘Pope’ Francis seems to ignore all this and even has lately PRAISED his SPIRITUALITY! This just to be MORE CLOSE to the HERETICAL LUTHERAN SECT towards the AMALGAMATION of the Catholic Church with the HERETICAL PROTESTANT SECTS. See what Blessed Catherine Emmerich said about the NEW MAN-MADE DARK CHURCH being built by the ENEMIES of CHRIST within His Church. The manufacturing of The ONE WORLD RELIGION in conjunction with the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT ! God please help us poor sinners.

    • TGS: this is a violation of the 1P5 comment policy. Too much of this going on here. Please remove your comment:

      “7. Unless your name begins with “pope”, don’t declare anyone else whose name begins with pope an antipope. This is not your job. We allow reasonable and prudent speculation about the confusing nature of the two living popes, but definitive, declarative statements of such and/or accusations that others must reach the same conclusion are not welcome.”

        • We’ve been very patient for a very long time. He has been walking a tight rope line as to what is acceptable here for some time now. We need to be careful as Catholics as to how far we go in our assertions. There is a very real danger for faithful Catholics these days to end up our own little popes, determining what is right and what is not for ourselves. It is disastrous for the Church to have an unfaithful pope because it causes the faithful to sadly separate ourselves if we’re not careful. At the same time, we have to make sure not to follow any man into sin, even our Holy Father. It is a difficult line to walk and 1P5 is devoted to helping us all live genuinely Catholic lives. If a commenter who otherwise has valuable contributions continues to essentially insist that we separate ourselves from communion with Rome, we as faithful Catholics have a duty to speak up, and those of us who are moderators have a duty to close of those voices that tempt us into another type of sin, particularly the sins of heresy or schism.

          • While I concur that the line is sometimes crossed here by well intentioned and faithful Catholics who are deeply concerned for the integrity of the Church and its perennial Magisterium — to worry excessively over many little popes running abroad is somewhat late. The “National Catholic Reporter” opened the barn door back in — what was it? — 1965.
            Good Lord, I’ve been taught by popes — male and female — since high school — right through my theology degree. They are legion and they are 99.9% leftists of unapologetic stripe.
            Its about time we had a few loyal Catholics who have the zeal that St. Peter himself has for Holy Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the perennial Magisterium of the Church.
            Let’s make a deal. When Pope Francis puts the kabash on Arturo Sosa, or Tucho Fernandez — or James Martin, then we can start censoring passionately held opinions here. To employ any other tact is to play into the hands of the Adversary. They want all the little right wing papists to shut up and be good while they take over the Church. They are darn near there and we need to be screaming bloody murder.

          • We allow comments according to our comment policy. It’s fine for people to voice their opinions, but when they’re in our house they have to expect our rules. TGS was warned multiple times and did not comply, so Brian took action. Appeal can be made to Steve by the person banned, but that’s it. If you comment here, you accept the rules. If you don’t follow those rules, then you don’t comment here, by choice or otherwise.

          • Unless we stick together with other concerned, faithful Catholics the game is over….and we will be paving the way for future martyrs. Prof Galat should also be supported. This can be done without blanket approval but with an attitude of solidarity.
            If Cardinals …Pell, Mueller,Sarah, Arinze and others had shown some solidarity with Cardinal Burke and the other three dubia Cardinals they might actually have survived the wrath of Bergoglio.

          • In the late 1300s, early 1400s three people calmed the Papacy. The great and holy Saint Vincent Ferrer chose the wrong one. The issue was decided by the Church in later years.The opinion of OnePeterFive that Bergoglio is the true pope could also be wrong . Until there is a formal proclamation from the Church in future years, lets face it , we don’t know who is the real pope is or even if the See is vacant but we all have our opinions. St. Vincent had his opinions too but he was wrong. The important thing is true faith in the teachings of the one true Faith.

          • There were then multiple claimants and the church was unclear on the matter. Right now there is only one claimant and the universal church has told us that Francis is the pope. We have no reason to think he is not pope except that he is not acting and speaking as a pope should. It is foolish to think we individually can know better than the church. This is not the Western Schism. Perhaps a future pope will tell us otherwise, perhaps, but what is far more likely is a future pope will condemn Francis and all he has done.

            Also, we have a comment policy. And yes, we could be wrong. But the whole point is that none of us have the authority to say otherwise. So, when here, please follow that comment policy. Rule 7 is most applicable.

          • There is another claimant …Benedict XVI. Canon lawyers maintain he could not split the Papacy and only retain part of the office therefore what ? He either retains all or he abdicated it all. How can you be so absolutely sure about what Benedict actually did?

          • Benedict keeps saying he’s not the pope and he completely abdicated. The comments about maintaining part of it originate from Abp. Ganswein who’s comments are utterly suspect. A claimant is a person who claims something, in this case the papacy. Francis is the only one who claims it. Benedict does not. Benedict maintains he resigned completely.

          • Even if what you say were true and it is not. I would have my,doubts about
            whether Bergoglio,is really Pope. May I have doubts? ……if I say pretty please ?

          • Ok. I’ll interrupt my praying one more time. Try nonveni pacem FAQ Did Pope Benedict reveal his intent to bifurcate the Papacy…7/22/2017.

          • And by the way, nobody said you can’t have doubts. We have said — for the umpteenth billionth time — that you can’t come in here making statements of absolute certitude that Francis is not pope, or that Benedict still is.

  5. If Galat 1) claims Pope Francis was invalidly elected and the See of Peter is empty; 2) fails to provide good evidence for this; 3) proclaims this view to millions of people through an influential medium he founded; then the excommunication is warranted. He is not helping the cause of the dubia cardinals and those who share their concerns. On the contrary!

    • Ryan, your emphasis on the prudential aspect of the Galat’s actions misses the essential point: we have a destroyer Pope who hates the Faith as handed down by the Apostles and seeks to enshrine sin at the centre of the Church’s life.

      You should be focusing on the bovine passivity of Colombia’s Hierarchy, desperate not to offend the tyrant before he visits their country, in the face of his obvious heresies.

      While you exercise your canonical pedantry, the Church slides ever more firmly into the hands of Satan. Professor Galat is a Catholic hero.

          • It’s all part of the New church! We can have as many popes as we wish! We have a blank slate to write new rules! Be joyous or something! But don’t look to Tradition and what has always been taught before 2013 or you can be excommunicated.

      • How can a man be the “Pope” of the Catholic Church when:

        he is working to destroy the Church
        he hates the faith handed down by the Apostles
        and he seeks to enshrine sin at the centre of the Church’s life?

        Is this the job description of “the Vicar of Christ” or
        Is this the job description of “the Vicar of the Devil”?

        • I am quite sure that Bergoglio enjoys no authority whatsoever in Heaven. But on earth he happens to hold the office.

          Where are those dubia Cardinals? Where are Bishops Schneider and Lenga? Where are the Catholics?!? Are there none at all left?

          • Schneider still tells me “the little ones must save the Church”.

            It’s gross and increasingly disgusting to me, really, the more I think about it.

            Not that the “little ones’ shouldn’t be involved, but in the absence of any leadership at all standing up for the Truth, chaos is the result. How can we be accused of going over the top, rather, how can this poor Professor be accused of same when we all KNOW this pontificate is a complete disaster and the horrific evils are plain for all to see yet we have no support in leadership at all?

            What do prelates expect?

            Even the pope says “expect a punch’ if somebody bad mouths you about your mother.

            Well here we see our Mother the Church getting raped by prancy-dancy, vestment-clad gayboys all over the world now and we are supposed to stand by and nod in approval.

        • What Bergoglio is: the Pope Francis.

          What Bergoglio is not: the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, the Pontiff of the Catholic Church.

    • If, if, if! Can you show that Galat has claimed that Pope Francis was INVALIDLY elected rather than just discussing the possibility? The word used in the article is UNLAWFULLY. There is a crucial difference – an election can be unlawful in part but such unlawfulness does not necessarily invalid it. After all the Bishop accused him of ” “attitudes of detachment and doubt regarding the validity of the pontificate of Pope Francis.” That is not an accusation that Galat has said that the Pope’s elect is invalid but merely one that he has discussed or queried it.

      I note that Galat is accused of disobedience. In what way has he been disobedient to the Pope? Has there been a direct order from the Pope which he has disobeyed? It would seem to me that such would be essential to prove disobedience. Perhaps ‘Vietato Lamentarsi’ (Complaining is forbidden) is being enforced at a distance?

      The contrast with the treatment of Socci is interesting. That incident was some years ago when parrhersia or open discussion was being encouraged by a Pope who felt himself secure. Now discussion or any kind of confrontation is being discouraged. Has the Pope become rattled? It is the normal course in any totalitarian revolution. Freedom is proclaimed from the housetops but eventually is quietly suppressed.

      • If Universis Dominici Gregis is irrelevant to invalidate Francis’ election, we know however that Benedict XVI’s renunciation was done through huge (enormi) pressures from inside and outside the Vatican, according to Mgr Luigi Negri achbp of the diocese of Ferrara, a close friend of th Pope emeritus.
        Mgr Gänswein dismissed these assertions but he didn’t dare to say Mgr Negri was a liar.
        We got a small taste of the “pressures” exerted on Benedict XVI with the scandal recently exposed regarding many paedophile abuses in a german diocese (Regensburg ?) which his brother Georg would be involved in. These abuses were brought up just after Benedict’s puzzling (for the ongoing papacy) comments upon the death of Card Meisner.

    • What eveidence is there that a proper canonical process has taken place with the defendant being given the opportunity to defend himself before a canonically established tribunal? Excommunications are not things that can be waved about frivolously in social media no matter what the gravity of the offence.

  6. If I were Professor Galat I would be happy about the excommunication. First of all it is probably Canonically illegal and meaningless as he said nothing that wasn’t true. Secondly, there should be substantial publicity value in this action. Thirdly, it should encourage all Catholic bloggers such as One Peter 5 to double down critiquing this papacy in the hope that it will change or be replaced.

  7. Perhaps if Prof. Galat was to lower himself and become a fornicator, adulterer or homosexual he would be readmitted to the sacraments according to the merciful inclusiveness of Pope Francis the Destroyer? But I can see what is really going on here, in the church of Francis the Destroyer orthodoxy is the only thing that is not included nor deserving of mercy …

    • Or perhaps a fornicator, adulterer AND homosexual.

      Surely that should be the ultimate goal of anyone who wants mercy from Bergoglio.

  8. Amoris Laetitia is an impossible situation. Either St John the Baptist, St John Fisher, and St Thomas Moore died for nothing. Or Amoris Laetitia describing Adultery as an ‘Irregular Situation’ is completely hypocritical, contrary to both Church, Sacred Tradition, and Holy Scripture.
    St James is the first to rebuke ‘Amoris Laetitia’ when he writes in his Epistle.

    James 4 4 “Adulterers and adulteresses, don’t you know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”

    Divorce is demanding that God renounce his own word. Divorce is trying to make a Liar out of God, who can never Lie.

    2 Timothy 2 13 “If we are unfaithful, He remains faithful.”

    If God broke the promise made to Abraham because of our sin and rejection.
    Then we would never have been redeemed and saved by Jesus Christ.

    Romans 5 8 “….while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

    This is so ironic also.
    John 4 16 “Jesus said to her, ‘Go, call your husband, and come here.’
    The woman answered him, ‘I have no husband.’ Jesus said to her, ‘You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly.’”

    The most lenient that the Church can ever be is to say that they must live as ‘Brother and Sister.’ Anything less then this is Heresy. If Gods law changes, even one iota. It is no longer of God but of prideful and arrogant men. ‘Trying to teach as doctrine the commandments of men.’ Isaiah.

    • “Living as brother and sister” while BEING in an Adulterous “marriage”? Where does Christ say that? No where. THAT sort of statement was an accommodation with sin. Christ “married to” not “sex with” is Adultery. So sexual relations are not the defining attribute of adultery.

      • Well…. its not a Marriage, no legitimate Marriage and Chastity means ‘No Adultery’ so ‘Sex With’ becomes Fornication.
        Hence as ‘Brother and Sister’ or ‘Flatmate’ which is definitely not ‘Friends with Benefits’ lol.
        I don’t think its very realistic either (separate rooms at a minimum). It is still the most lenient that the Church can ever be. Without committing Heresy or Apostatizing.

      • “I will pluck you up by the root out of my land which I have given you: and this house which I have sanctified to my name, I will cast away from before my face, and will make it a byword, and an example among all nations.” (2 Chronicles 7:20)

        “Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born: and I will make her as a wilderness, and will set her as a land that none can pass through, and will kill her with drought. And I will not have mercy on her children: for they are the children of fornications. For their mother hath committed fornication, she that conceived them is covered with shame: for she said: I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread, and my water, my wool, and my flax, my oil, and my drink.” (Hosea 2:3)

        “And I will deliver them up to vexation, and affliction, to all the kingdoms of the earth: to be a reproach, and a byword, and a proverb, and to be a curse in all places, to which I have cast them out.” (Jeremiah 24:9)

        If anything, God has done nothing but keep his promises. You’re very right Margaret, except that it’s not only in the Epistle to the Hebrews but elsewhere too, as can be seen from the above.

        As Steve Skojec said in another post, the Papacy has become a heavy cross for all of us who love it and respect, and the sins of our fathers (shepherds) now weigh it down even further on us.

        The Ecclesiastes was right and there is really nothing new under the sun, just as Israel and the High Priesthood were once at the mercy of politicians and was rescued by the Maccabees, so it is now with our Church and Papacy (difficult as that may be for us).

  9. …..Admittedly, I certainly wouldn’t go on national TV just before Pope Francis visits to declare he is an invalid, apostate Pope. Especially when i couldn’t prove it. Especially when i didn’t have the public support of any Cardinals or Pope Benedict.

    The best way to defeat this madness is by learning and teaching Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture.
    Rather then attacking Francis himself, and out of respect for the Papal Office. Our duty is to remind the faithful of the Popes superiors in the Church…. That is his Papal predecessors and their Infallible Statements. Aswell as the Word of God itself. Francis is still bound by these. Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture still have a higher office then he does, even as Pope.
    What Antiquity has preserved let us endeavor to keep.
    We already know how the story ends anyway……. God wins.

  10. The Church of “pretend” lifts its ugly head.
    The strong-armed tactics employed against Jose Galat merely highlight the abuse of power to which he has drawn attention. The fact that the activities of St. Gallen Group were simply dismissed as inconsequential by people who were essentially complicit bespeaks corruption — or at least gives the impression of corruption. Corruption or the appearance of such requires public exposition, not simple denial, particularly by individuals who exhibit no credibility. The only time episcopal power is employed is when episcopal power is challenged. That itself bespeaks systemic corruption.
    The question at hand remains. That is not Mr. Galat’s responsibility. It is the responsibility of the episcopate and surely of Pope Francis himself. Telling someone to shut up doesn’t resolve the problem – but history will.

  11. Those who engineered the election of Pope Francis are automatically excommunicated according to Universi Dominici Gregis instructions of John Paul II.
    Therefore the election of Francis is dubious.
    Those who are performing, funding, and promoting abortion and those who are voting abortion laws are also excommunicated ipso facto latae sententiae.

    • Yep, if you are truly faithful to Christ in His true Church……..bye bye!! I agree with Steve Tacket…….the writing seems to be on the wall for ALL of us that are faithful to Christ’s true Church. But I’m with St. Athanasius……….they might have the buildings, but WE have the true faith!!

    • Meanwhile, Canada’s Prime Minister is sending C$650 Million to fill the void in international abortion funding left when the USA stopped funding abortions abroad. We only have 24 Million people ! The Arch Bishop of the PM’s Diocese issued a letter to be read in all Diocese Churches on Sunday the outlined how this policy was 100% outside the church. Excommunication was not mentioned at all an very public ecclesiastical warning was.

  12. I learned that Saint Patrick had to endure a considerable amount of time, perhaps several years, without recourse to the Sacraments, as he was in bondage to pagans at the time, before his eventual release, departure and then voluntary return back to Ireland in order to evangelize. Given Professor Galat’s track record I am optimistic that he can bear this cross.

  13. A faithful Catholic professor that defends the one true Faith and is excommunicated while the list, ad nauseam, of professors, laity, politicians, prelates constantly bash and run roughshod over Church teachings are in “:good standing” with the Church. This just shows how inside out and upside down Francis and his gang are. And I think it is a gang. It’s just a matter of time before ALL faithful Catholics will suffer the same fate at the hands of current Episcopal regime.

  14. When dealing with abusive authority we must follow the example of Jesus Christ himself. The gospel accounts of Jesus before Pilate are very clear. Jesus never backed away from the truth, but was subject to authority which had “come from above”.

      • Jesus never defied Pilate, nor did he question his legitimacy. Jesus confirmed that authority comes “from above” not as in democracy where authority comes from the people.

  15. Why such old and rigid ways towards this professor? Where is the MERCY! We need to be reaching out to the peripheries and accompanying such people!

    • 🙂 The ‘accompanying’ is only applied to those who are dissenters of the faith. Just like the progressive left is only ‘tolerant’ of those who believe as they do. And to those who don’t the claws come out, bearing their teeth and showing their claws.

      • Comments such as my previous one used to bring a chuckle and be fun to laugh about with friends. Now, it is depressing and only brings anger at the hypocrisy and scandal that this papacy brings. We are living in a time where the most outrageous lies are being offered as truth and I believe God is preparing us for what is to come.

      • I’m waiting for the update to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

        “Accompaniment: An heresy epitomized by the common practice of two sodomite prelates chatting merrily on their way to a gay bar and subsequently to Hell. Was denounced and condemned by Pope Leo XIV in his encyclical Praefatus in Condemnatione Sodomiticum, 2018”.

      • Since the Code itself does not impose an excommunication for questioning the Pope’s legitimacy or orthodoxy, it is preposterous for the bishops to “declare” that a latae sententiae excommunication has occurred.

        • You missed the point.

          The Bishops appear to be not-so-secure in their declaration, thus they appeal to latae sententiae, that is, to the concept that it has already occurred without any judgement on their part necessary.

          I don’t think they want to engage this guy in any debate on the subject. For fear of being made to look stupid?

        • I can’t comprehend how a prelate would correct something that is intended. Perhaps the answer really is in the sacrifice of the Mass and I’m sure there are high brow’s who understand where the battle lines are drawn. Though, my question is when will the lines be drawn for all to see?

          • The lines are drawn right now.

            ALL of the prelates appear to be standing with the Pope. ALL of them. Every one.

            Whether they will be at the end of the day is a different story, but right now, there is not one prelate, not Schneider, not Sarah, not Burke, not Brandmüller, not Wrobel, not nobody who is resisting this Pope to his face {AKA publicly}.

            They are ALL signing on to the Pope’s agenda, whatever their subtle and code-infused statements may be.

          • There are tiny lights, however that refuse to die out, no matter the danger they are in. I encourage everyone to read The Power of Silence by Cdl. Sarah. The few moments one spends each day reading it puts him in a different place, completely outside the world and able to believe that everything will be alright in the end. God speaks to us when we shut out the world completely and silently meditate Him.

            A quote from the explosive final chapter:

            “The Church is suffering from the infidelity of traitors who abandon and prostitute her. But this universal weakening, which affects the world, the faith, and believers, must be a special opportunity for the Church to take a stand for God with clarity, vigor and determination by proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ… is necessary to revive staunch adherence to the Catholic faith, it is necessary to proclaim the consistency of the Church at the heart of a world that is in complete upheaval and threatened with collapse.”


  16. The bishops have sought “the way of dialogue” with this excommunicated man “over the years,” yet without result? Couldn’t have been too many years, since Jorge Bergoglio first gave us all his cheery papal greeting in 2013. Either “dialogue” as a replacement for defending the Deposit of the Faith actually doesn’t work very well and ought to be discarded, or else the lip service paid to this approach has turned out to be as phony as the philosophy undergirding Amoris Chapter 8.

  17. What happened to “accompaniment? and “peripheries” and all that jazz? All of a sudden being a “doctor of the law” is in fashion.

  18. What a mess this pope has made.
    What heartache he has caused for may faithful.

    That was his plan perhaps?
    To make such a mess, to cause such dissension within the Church, to put souls at risk.

    Whether he was validly elected or not, I do not care.
    He is what he is; a bad pope.
    And no, that is not a statement I apologize for.
    Time is ticking for the cardinals to get their act together and defend the faith from the heresies this pope
    is penetrating, not only upon the Catholic Church and faith, but the godless promotion of what is immoral for the whole world.

    God help us all.

  19. So the only thing that gets a Catholic excomm’d is talking back to the Pope? And even that isn’t administered with any consistency and justice, some getting approval for it and some being placed in jeopardy of eternal damnation?

    How about Pelosi? How about Biden? How about Daneels himself? How about Kasper? How about the Irish tranny priest?

    Defy Jesus, get a Gold Star. Defy the Pope, get placed in the fast lane to Hell.

    Which begs the question.

    Do the Columbian Bishops even believe in Hell? I mean, what good is an excommunication without the threat thereof?

    What a collapse.

    May God Save the Catholic Church {from her leaders…}.

    • Excommunication does not place one “in jeopardy of eternal damnation.” It does not increase one’s jeopardy of damnation one iota. The Church has no such power.

      Separate issue: “Begs the question” does not mean “suggests another question” or “brings up this question.”

      • The sacraments are the ordinary means of acquiring the sanctifying grace necessary for salvation. If one is prohibited from the sacraments, one is barred from sanctifying grace, at least in the ordinary manner. Therefore excommunication DOES increase the likelihood of eternal damnation. That is why the penalty carries weight. It is intended to cause the sinner to pause and repent of their error that they may be readmitted to communion with the Church. In the case of an unjust excommunication I am believe God would grant the grace necessary to be saved, but that doesn’t change the reality.

      • Hi Arthur. I do believe many use “beg the question” incorrectly. Can you explain what it really means? Another blooper is thinking “penultimate” means the very highest degree when it simply means the second from last.

      • That’s a very good response. We do not know, and so we have to trust in Christ. After all it is his church, if we were to imagine the time of Saint Peter’s papacy would today’s catholics be arguing that Peter denied Christ three times? and therefore he can’t be the true pope?

        • It’s a distinction without any meaningful difference for his average listener. When people hear “unlawfully elected” they’re not going to bother parsing the minutia of whether unlawful means the same thing as invalid. They are just going to think, not-the-pope. The bottom line is Galat was way out of his league wading into such waters, and he sealed his fate by broadcasting it to millions.

          • You could be 100% correct, but not hearing for myself, and with the description that we have here sounding somewhat incomplete, I still believe the man should press the case to whatever authority he can, assuming the Pope hasn’t decided on this issue himself. That is, assuming Galat himself believes there is a distinction between “unlawful” and “invalid”.

            I myself feel that with the public confession of Daneels, the election breached the law, but I still believe the election was valid. Maybe I am the only one that believes that way, but I doubt it.

          • You’re not the only one… without hearing exactly what Galat said in the context he said it I can’t really make a final judgement myself. The newsworthy point here as I see it is the lack of consistency with how different people are treated and how the pope-of-mercy’s cronies can be so unmerciful…

  20. Banned from receiving the sacraments is usually called an interdiction . I only know this because some loyal Catholics in our parish including myself in the early seventies were
    under consideration for interdiction by the bishop. We had a catechetical group and were using the Baltimore Catechism.

    • An interdiction is, IIRC, that leveled against a group or region. an excommunication is directed at an individual as noted in the piece.

      • The word is interdict. Interdiciton is the action of imposing an interdict. Any you are correct. this applies to groups, regions, even whole countries (in the good old Middle Ages)

  21. I think it can’t get any worse, and it does. Excommunication by twitter? If Francis decrees we can earn an indulgence by following him on Twitter, then why not? Maybe confession could be the next great barrier for Twitter and the Catholic Church– hashtag it “ForgiveMeFather”. That would go viral, I’m sure. Important doctrinal matters are now declared in footnotes and in answer to secular journalist’s questions. Anything is possible with the god of surprises.

    So when are the various editors and authors of Catholic media who are critical to Most Merciful Jorge going to be excommunicated for not being submissive enough and not being in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Will that be the next step? Or does Francis fear the bad publicity and backlash he would create by trying to do that to an American publication? We all could be excommunicated for our criticism of Francis’ shenanigans.

      • Is it really Arthur? Seriously? I have said, “Forgive Me Father” since I was seven years old (first penance) and not one single priest in multiple decades has ever told me I was wrong. I am going to look that up. (I learn so much on these websites.) But …. “ForgiveMeFather” would be much more popular as a hashtag than “BlessMeFather”.

          • Thanks for that.

            I always wondered because when I converted, I seemed to remember Hollywood’s version was always “Forgive me…”, at least that’s what I remembered in the old black and white movies. I’d never heard of “Bless me…” till I became a Catholic.

            It’s good to know Hollywood was a reliable witness. LOL.

            Seriously, was “Forgive me” an older formula or something? I was taught “Bless me…” and the books I have reference it as well.

          • These expressions are actually not part of the Official Rite of Penance, they are colloquialisms based on locality and era. Both are old, Bless Me is probably older, but at the same time it’s a ‘local custom’ not part of the Rite. In other parts of the world neither are used, for they have their own ‘local custom.’

    • Depending on how far this farce of a Papacy goes, yes indeed, we not only COULD be next, we WILL be next. The writing is absolutely on the wall. The good Professor is being held up as an example. Yes indeedy, we will be excommunicated from the Anti Church.

      • Yes, the handwriting is on the wall. Why wait then? Perhaps a twitter campaign is in order: “I stand with Professor Jose Galat. Would you excommunicate me too?”

        Not only is this professor to be held up as an example, but the goal of a boycott is to ruin him financially and professionally. Folks are missing that part of the equation.

        If I recall correctly, St. Theresa of Avila sued the Pope over a real estate property dispute. That is one of the reasons I chose her as my confirmation name.

        Does Columbia have a tort of “malicious interference with contractual or business relationships”? Discovery can yield such interesting information/ documents!

  22. For all I know, maybe Prof. Galat is schismatic or heretical – but putting that aside, my first thought after seeing the title of this article alone was ‘hmm, interesting that the Vatican is quick to excommunicate those on the ‘far right’, yet fail very often to make any sentence/excommunication on those on the ‘far left’ who are clearly adhering to/teaching heretical positions. Wow.

    • Openly support adulterers receiving holy communion, nobody bats an eye.

      Criticize the Holy Father and everyone loses their minds!

      • Thomas, That’s not true because there are some oustanding Priests that are batting an eyelid and have the courage to know the situation of their parishoners. However, at the moment many priests are being bullied by their laity. Saint Padre Pio was not allowed to say the mass and hear confessions under the orders of his Bishop, but he took it on the chin because he had abandoned himself to Christ.

        • I was referring mainly to the higher echelons of the Church. I am blessed to know quite a few good and holy parish priests who, for lack of a better word, “get it.”

          But…What the hell does “the situation of their parishoners” even mean?

          Here’s the situation: People sin. Sin separates you from God. Mortal separates you from God eternally. To remove sin, go to Confession and make a firm resolution to amend your life. Repeat, as needed, until you die.

          That’s it.

          I understand priests are being bullied by their laity. I have seen how my parish is not a fan of my very young and very traditional pastor and how in some ways he is freer with what he does at Mass for the college students than for the baby boomers of the parish. But with all due respect MAN THE HELL UP.

          A father must discipline his children, otherwise they will walk right over him, break all the rules and get themselves hurt.

          • We are led right now by bad, abusive, dead beat “fathers” at least in large part of the prelature.

            The issue isn’t that they kick the dog thru the hedge as they walk up the lane from work every day. The issue is they don’t give their son a good thrashing for calling his Mother a bitch.

          • Dear Thomas, Apologies if you did not understand the previous comment. Hopefully this is hopefully clearer.

            Some Priests take the time to understand the situation of their parishoners in the sense that they know whether holy communion and confession can be given and are not afraid to make the reasons clear.

            I would not like to be a priest, it’s very easy to say that they should man up, however having spoken to our parish priest often, he needs prayers more than ever because satan is very strong at the moment.

            So, I help him by going to confession, going to mass and praying.

          • Sorry, I did misunderstand.

            Just “knowing the situation” sounded an awful lot like the “discernment and accompaniment” nonsense arising out of Amoris Laetitia

  23. IN all fairness, if this were the pontificate of Pius X, there probably WERE dioceses where you would get hit with a canonical hammer for publicly questioning the validity of the pope’s election – especially as a Catholic professor.

    But then if this were the pontificate of Pius X, this wouldn’t be an issue in the first place.

      • Is there no provision in Canon Law that allows for the defense of “selective enforcement” or “selective application” — thus invalidating the charges, the punishment and/or the process itself? In some legal venues (say for example, employment law), the selective enforcement of an employer’s handbook or policies can have the effect of winning a case (say for example, an employee was fired for some violation of the handbook, but he or she was the only one to ever have been fired on that basis; others committed the exact same offense but were treated disparately).

      • It’s a fair point.

        Progressives objecting to the Bad Old Days frequently don’t object to the means – just the ends.

  24. “According to Bishop Mercado, “heresy and schism are typified as canonical offenses punished with (automatic) excommunication latae sententiae.” The bishop added, “Those who have committed this crime may not receive the sacraments of the Church until manifesting a visible and sincere repentance.””

    If material heresy were really to incur the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, then Francis would most definitely be excommunicated and hence could not be Pope. I think Bishop Mercado is somewhat over-reaching himself – just another prelate promoted above his pay-grade.

    • He is right of course, which is why so many Catholics are utterly scandalized by the HERDS of heretic, pro-abort “Catholic” politicians remain in the fold.

      The question of course is…has the Professor crossed that line?

      • Whether the Professor has crossed that line or not, I don’t see any mention or evidence of a proper canonical process having taken place to establish that fact with the defendant being given the opportunity to defend himself before a tribunal. Even Martin luther was extended an invitation to attend the Council of Trent and to state his case.

        • That’s just it: Latae sententiae does not require a process, but rather is accomplished merely by the act. Procuring an abortion is an example.

          It seems to me the Bishops’ case is so weak they are appealing to latae sententiae as an “out”, that is, in order to avoid having to actually confront this man, a confrontation they may very well fear would make absolute monkeys out of them.

          • In the case of abortion you are not automatically excommunicated if you were not aware of the penalty for the sin.

          • Well, that is a good point but it applies as you imply to the Prof, too.

            But we do not know for sure that he has with pertinacity asserted that the Pope IS an antipope.

            The argument {speaking for the Columbian bishops} nevertheless would apply.

            Appeal to LS excom and you don’t have to expose your dirty laundry “in court” so-to-speak.

            But do ANY of us believe that Pelosi and her ilk don’t understand the gravity of abortion in the teachings of the Church? Have American bishops produced a list of such folks who continue to be communed…even at the Vatican…?

          • In the case of Pelosi and her like it’s hard to believe they would not know by now what the penalty is since they have been openly engaging in such behavior for so long but I have read that the majority of those who engage in that sin aren’t excommunicated because the cetechisis is so bad they don’t know or have no idea what the penalty is for engaging in such sin.

    • Another part of the issue is that the Pope is above Canon Law. It doesn’t really, truly bind him. Canon Law has authority and is binding because the authority of the pope makes it so. So the pope would not incur the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication because he can’t be excommunicated from communion with himself who is the visible source of unity of the church. If a canon lawyer or otherwise competent individual reads this and finds error, please reply and let me know!

      • That is the reading I have seen before.

        To put it another way, a way I heard a priest say it from the ambo: “No one judges a Pope but another Pope. Let’s give this things 40 years and see what happens…”

        Not the time-frame many would like to see, but the reasoning seems sound.

        • Exactly. Or the Pope could judge himself, which he seems unlikely to do, but that’s essential basic element of the Siscoe & Salza argument of how to depose a pope… The Lord will sort this out… it just might take awhile. Our job is to just remain faithful.

          • Ya’gotta admit it would be nice to have, even for the entertainment value only, a few bishops willing to ask the Pope a few pointed questions.

            Oh…we already have that…

      • The Pope is the supreme legislator as far as Canon Law is concerned – true. But the point I was trying to make is that professing a material heresy is NOT sufficient to incur the penalty of excommunication anyway. One must be obstinate and persistent in professing a heresy, despite correction, to be subject to the penalty of excommunication. Remembering of course that the sin of heresy only pertains to truths which must be “believed by divine and Catholic faith.”

        Which truth that must be believed by divine and Catholic faith is Galat supposed to have denied? Granted, a charge of schism against him may hold some water and there is due judicial process to determine whether he is in schism or not, but I don’t see from what is reported where heresy comes into it.

        • I struggle to see exactly what is schismatic about asserting that the Pope was unlawfully elected.

          To say the Pope is not the Pope is a different story, but I don’t think this Galat fellow has exactly said that. Maybe he has or maybe that’s what he meant, but I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

          You know, mistranslations…unclear phraseology, that sort of stuff. I mean, haven’t we heard that before?

      • John Salsa and Robert Siscoe wrote a book called True or False Pope? A *Refutation* of Sedevacantism and Other Errors. This book refutes sedevacantism, ultramontanism etc. Anyone can order the book from their website

        This is a fantastic book. Also, they occasionally write articles for the Remnant.

        I think this is the most recent one:

        It’s from a few months ago but it’s fantastic.

        * emphasis added

          • It’s a huge book and not an easy read but imho it’s worth it. Signing off now – it’s almost midnight here. I need some Zzzz.

  25. The Church has been in Schism for a long time. The great thing is that now we see those bishops who are politicians first and have long been themselves weak and unCatholic.

  26. How can the Professor be guilty of schism? He has not deliberately separated himself from the authority of the Holy See, still less his local Ordinary: he has simply stated what we all know, that Bergoglio has.

    As for heresy, how can he be possibly accused of that?

    And as far as excommunication is concerned, is there not a canonical process that has to establish his guilt? The action by the Colombian Bishop reeks of over-reach and, I am willing to bet, is completely uncanonical.

    • This was my point below about latae sententiae.

      Such does not require a process, but rather is accomplished merely by the act. Procuring an abortion is an example.

      It seems to me the Bishops’ case is so weak they are appealing to latae sententiae as an “out”, that is, in order to avoid having to actually confront this man, a confrontation they may very well fear would make absolute monkeys out of them.

      Let’s watch this play out. Should be interesting to say the least.

        • None.

          Given the case, if I was them, I’d want no debate, either.

          Can you imagine what would be the result of a tribunal or whatever else is required to be set up, with international news agencies from all over the world covering it, with all the theories and problems with the election of this Pope aired?

          I WISH a case such as that would come to the forefront.

          • I wrote a comment below about another point that is being missed: the attempt to ruin this man financially and professionally by appealing to the “Catholic faithful” to boycott him and his media outlet. In the US there is such a thing as “torturous interference with business/ contractual relationships”.

            Is there such a thing as that in Columbia? Not that the court system in the US is the same as that of a South American country, but the spotlight of the international press and the subpoena power of the legal process (i.e., the process of discovery in general) would act as a disinfectant and cleansing agent.

          • That is a very good point.

            Here they weasel out of actually confronting the man and then go on to try to ruin him financially.

            Very good point, Susan.

            This guy needs to “appeal his case to Caesar”!!!!

            He should demand an audience with the Pope himself and drag this whole thing into the Light where the truth can be disclosed.

          • it should. Canon lawyers may know of what kind of formal instrument that can do that – question the validity of a papal election. I never heard of any means to do that. I don’t know such an organ exists…UNLESS…PERHAPS…The Vatican is a member state of the European Union, and some sort of secular constitutional inquiry were conducted by the European Court. But the Vatican, like the United States, is not going to surrender her absolute sovereignty to some secular court…not going to happen.

          • no the Vatican is not. But the Vatican has only existed in its present legal condition since 1929, and maintains legal agreements with both Italy and the EU. I wonder just how far the Vatican would bend to comply with EU regulations….

  27. The final straw, it seems to me, with Galat comes with his declaration that Pope Francis was unlawfully elected.

    An argument can be made accordingly:
    If it is NOT true that Pope Francis is the Pope, then Galat has indeed gone into schism (as defined by the 1983 CIC) as he has separated himself from the Roman Pontiff.

    If is IS true that Pope Francis is the Pope, then Galat has not gone into schism.

    Right now, no one has officially declared this to be the case with Pope Francis. Thus, if the law provides the most favorable interpretation when there is doubt, Galat has an uphill battle to climb here.

    • No, your premise is I think incorrect. Galat would only be too happy to place himself under the authority of a Catholic Pope. But this one, the Argentinian – what on earth is he??? A Catholic?!

      Scripture tells us to have nothing to do with heretics. What comes first for you – Scripture and Tradition or the duty to be under the authority of the Pope?

      This whole Pontificate from the beginning has been absolutely without parallel.

      • That is not how the 1983 CIC defines schism. Canon 751:
        “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

        If Francis is the Pope and Galat refuses submission to him in the belief that Francis is not the true Pope, then Galat has gone into schism. It is as plain and simple as that.

  28. Galat wasn’t smart here. He spoke like I do here on 1P5 when I’m venting about the faithless sodomites in Rome but as a public figure, he shouldn’t wander into the realms of speculation, even though we’re all thinking exactly the same thing. He’d be on much safer ground if he confined himself to the dubia and consistently hammered Francis’ inability and/or unwillingness to answer 5 simple questions. The bishops would have absolutely no grounds for acting against him and he could flog Francis’ abdication of his responsibility until the cows come home. He could also highlight, in a very terse, analytical manner, Francis’ many anti-Catholic moments. Again, by pointing out how Francis’ words and actions are at variance with those of previous Popes and the teaching of the Church, he could achieve the same end without sticking his neck under the bishops’ axe.

    However, when he starts questioning the validity of the Pope’s election, he’s wandering into quicksand and the bishops will be only too happy to seize on his mistake.

    Note here, that I’m not insisting that Francis was properly elected. I’m simply talking about “strategery” (to use Will Ferrell’s famous term) and the best way to resist the Argentinian heretic.

    • You are right I think.

      But this does give an opportunity for an appeal by Galat which I would hope he demands. This case needs good, courageous canon lawyers and international news coverage.

    • You may be correct about strategy and tactics. However, I suspect that the time will come (very soon) when even a “strategic approach” is going to be meaningless. In the face of a dictatorial tyrannical ruler, pure raw power and force is all that matters. (After bribery, blackmail and threats fail to work.) There is no law and are no rules by which one plays this sort of game. Obey or else. Submit or else. Shut up or else. A dictator or tyrant simply finds another way to punish and destroy his critics. (Tell me I am wrong, but the Venezuelan opposition leaders who were recently arrested and carted off will likely end up missing and/or dead …. and will be an example to all the others who dare rise up in protest.)

  29. You can be for women’s ordination, homosexual marriage, trannies, et al. But stand up for Catholic truth and you’ll get excommunicated. Hah! Bogus excommunication.

    • Indeed.

      EENS, homosexuals, indissolubility of marriage, adultery of “remarriage”, just war, contraception, Real Presence, responsibility of the prelature/Pope to defend the faith, religious indifferentism, Islam, Protestantism, Luther, Communism, death penalty, relationship of husband and wife in marriage, unity of the Faith/”synodalism”, ALL are on the table now.

      But don’t float an idea that has many scratching their heads these days, an idea prompted by the teaching of a previous Pope.

      NO, NOT THAT!!

      • In my opinion there are many articles in 1P5 that are “border line” enough in their critics of Francis and his papacy.
        Certainly there are people spying in the Vatican and reporting tthe article’s contents and even the main comments to high ranked prelates advising the Pope.
        What if a LS excommunication strikes you, Steve?
        Will you comply and stop 1P5 ?

        • It is my opinion that the comment policy at 1P5, is in part, an attempt at protection of the authors, contributors, commentators, (including Steve as owner of the site). We do not allow x, y and z to be stated here. We enforce that policy. We believe a, b and c (all orthodox beliefs). Whether, in the end, that approach will be successful, is anyone’s guess.

          • How about this, Susan? The comment policy at 1P5 reflects what Steve and his contributors actually believe. Namely, that Catholics have absolutely no business contradicting the judgment of the Church respecting the lawfulness or validity of papal elections.

          • That wasn’t my point, Brian (whether Steve and his contributors actually believe the policy and statements they have published). I was not being snarky or smart or difficult in my comment and I was not insinuating dishonesty in private views vs. public statements. I see how you might have read it as such. And for that I am sorry.

            I was getting at the fact that I think you absolutely should have (and you do have) a policy to provide a measure of protection for yourselves. It would come as no surprise, in fact it would be expected, that faithful Catholics would adhere to orthodox Catholic beliefs. I agree with you about that.

            The risk of the Jose Galat situation is the chilling effect it may create for Catholic journalism and publications. Maybe Professor Galat was way out of line here– maybe not. But this can become a slippery slope. What you think is fair comment may be considered grounds for excommunication.

          • Thank you for clarifying, Susan, your support is appreciated. But I don’t understand what’s chilling here. A person who tells millions of people — against the judgment of the Church — that election of the Roman Pontiff was unlawful needs to be dealt with harshly.

          • Brian,
            What’s chilling …. First, I am not ready to condemn the man (Jose Galat) until I hear exactly what he has said vs. what he has been reported as having said. In context and with an accurate translation. Like RodH wrote in one of his comments, “unlawful” doesn’t necessarily mean “invalid.” He may not have said anything improper. If he has acted or spoken inappropriately, then he should be given due process (as others have written above) vs. given an automatic excommunication. Why is he not being given an opportunity to defend himself under the legalities of Church Canon Law — surely there must be a process. As a result, it comes across as underhanded and scheming to handle the matter in the way the bishops are handling it.

            Second, it is not at all clear what transpired with the resignation of Benedict and the election of Francis. Thinking people are going to connect dots. Neither of us have first-hand knowledge. And what has leaked out is not cause for confidence. (Like the Vatican Bank SWIFT system being cut off, like splitting the role of pope into active and contemplative, like two men in the Vatican with “Pope” in their names both wearing white, like Benedict’s cryptic statements, like the Galen mafia comments, like the recent abuse accusations that were brought against Benedict’s brother … you get the idea). I know, the entire Church says Francis is Pope. And I can tell you that I have legitimate/ reasonable doubts.

            I am certainly not a scholar or a theologian, but I can tell you that NEVER have there been two popes both living in the Vatican and NEVER has the role of pope been divided into two. Why am I (and others) wrong for questioning these things? I don’t think you have to have a seminary degree to say that something is amiss. Not sure what … not sure what to do about it … your dog barks in the middle of the night: is it a raccoon or a prowler/ thief? What we have here is all of the neighborhood dogs barking loudly and wildly and the clergy and the Vatican hierarchy are telling us that they don’t hear a thing. Everything is fine, just fine, ignore the howling that you aren’t hearing.

            Third, I think people are confused, fearful and angry. I know that I am. And I don’t think I have to list the litany of scandals that are coming from the Vatican and the Vatican hierarchy/ leadership because I suspect you know them probably far better than I do. The scandals are another issue entirely. Is the Pope Catholic is no longer a rhetorical question. And what if the answer is, “No, the pope is Lutheran”? Because if you listen to what Francis says in his homilies and in his remarks and in his answers to questions, his “theology” comes across as liberal and Lutheran AND NOT traditional and Catholic.

            When you have someone in the office of pope who speaks against tradition, against the faith, against devout Catholics, and against the Church …. is it any wonder if people are coming to the conclusion that the pope is not Catholic? And then the next question is how can the pope not be Catholic and yet be the head of the Catholic Church? It is bad enough and obvious enough that atheist philosophers, secular journalists and non-Christian politicians are commenting. Read the comments and listen to what average Catholics are saying: if folks are praying for Francis’ conversion to Catholicism …. something is seriously wrong.

            Finally, I think the Columbian bishops and the Vatican’s response to Jose Galat is striking people as downright hypocritical, vindictive and retaliatory. I can host a cocaine fueled gay orgy in the Vatican owned apartments (complete with police raid). Crickets. I can worship with the Buddhists. Crickets. I can march in the gay pride celebration. Crickets. I can publicly state my pro-choice stance. Crickets. I can publicly state my pro-gay marriage stance. Crickets. I can publicly state that the devil doesn’t exist, hell doesn’t exist, everyone goes to heaven (well, maybe not Hitler), Holy Scripture is not infallible, Christ’s resurrection didn’t happen. Crickets. I can do all manner of things that go 180 degrees contrary to the Catholic faith, proudly claim that I am Catholic and it is all good.

            But God forbid, should a man say that Francis was not lawfully elected as Pope (and there are some legitimate questions) ….. we are going to treat him with all the harshness we can possibly muster because he is scandalizing millions of people. Really? Folks smell a rat. It reeks of hypocrisy and folks don’t like it one bit. Progressive/ liberal good. Traditional/ conservative bad.

            Surely you see the problem here. And I have not even begun to get into issues of “chilling” of the Catholic media or the attempt to ruin a man financially and professionally by what is being done by the bishops and how it is being handled. Can you see why the site is getting the type of comments it is getting (i.e., robust response)? It has struck a nerve. A very raw nerve. Susan

          • Susan, thank you for this bold post. It mirrors the thoughts and concerns of many Catholics. Unfortunately, the modernist Church displays the attitude “take it or leave it”, showing no intention to correct itself or to clarify the things. I guess we truly need the Divine Intervention to sort this problem out.

          • In part, I suppose it is. Really, my concern here is multifaceted. As Brian said, this is what I actually believe. Nevertheless, I get accused fairly regularly of thinking Francis is an anti-pope in various places around the Internet. I suspect our comment boxes are seen as a reflection of my own views, and nobody sees the time we spend putting out these fires.

            But yes, we make it a policy to enforce orthodox belief because it is proper to do so. And even more than protecting us, it protects the faith of those who read through these comments filled with doubt, and wind up so much more confused that they give up.

            I want to give people freedom to work things out here. But there have to be parameters. It can’t be a no-holds-barred cage match. And for a lot of folks, there’s enough anger over all of this that this is the temptation.

            I get that this is a mess of the pope’s own making. But we have to be held to a higher standard than the one he holds himself to. In a sense, we all really do have to be more Catholic than the pope.

  30. If you’re Catholic: Yes, you are entitled to speak and have an opinion and engage in dialogue. But that opinion must be the correct opinion, after all there’s only one correct opinion. But you can have other opinions. But you can’t say them aloud. But we have to engage in dialogue. But not with with people who don’t agree with us. But we have to accept that others disagree with us. But not publicly. But we cannot disregard their opinions arising from their “concrete circumstances and experiences”. But they cannot be contradictory.

    If you’re not Catholic then odds are you’re right, holy and more Catholic than Catholics.

    Welcome to 2017.

    • “Dialogue” is welcome by the Church with heretics, atheists, sodomists, adulterous, transgenres, abortionists, euthanasists, buddhists, radical muslims, hinduists, etc…
      But it is strictly forbidden with trad orthodox catholics under LS excommunication.

  31. Why did they not send him away to a retreat house to pray, like the Gay-Orgy-and-Drugs King, Msgr. Capozzi, who is of course, still in full communion with the Church?

    Excommunicate This.

    • One can be a drug crazed raging sodomite and still be in good standing in NuChurch, as long as they don’t criticize Dear Leader.

  32. Of all the leftist ‘Catholics’ who attacked Benedict XVI, I don’t believe one was excommunicated by their bishop.

  33. The ‘God of surprises’ may indeed upset the expectations of the current Bergoglio-loyal episcopacy in Colombia by embracing Professor Galat in life eternal if he should die during the Bergoglian regime.

  34. Do you suppose that the good, brave professor could move to another diocese? One that might welcome him or does the excommunication follow him? Perhaps one of the legal eagles could clarify?

    • It was an INTERDICTION…imposed by the BISHOP. Looked it up interdictions are for an individual or a group….not reserved for only a group. So the good brave professor was not excommunicated which is supposedly more serious .

  35. Steve:

    Mods: I am not one who believes the Pope is invalid, but I sincerely hope there is someone who can investigate the right, opportunity and legality of appealing this decision with and on behalf of this Professor. It isn’t clear to me that he has unequivocally stated that Pope Francis is an antipope. I am curious as to how clearly this man has stated that he is invalid, if indeed he HAS made that clear.

    Thus, if he hasn’t {and since when is ambiguous language grounds for disciplinary action……..???}, I would HOPE someone {canon lawyers} would take up his case and appeal it to the highest authority possible, especially the Roman Rota and Pope even.

    This is a case, it seems to me, that could grow legs. One that could result in the exposing of many facts that would be useful for the encouragement of prelates to stand up for the faith by exposing many egregious acts that appear to have predated the election of Pope Francis.

    • As Maike reported:

      “Galat himself recently made statements on his own television show, where, citing the “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” of whom Belgian cardinal Godfried Danneels is among the most famous members, HE CLAIMED THAT POPE FRANCIS WAS UNLAWFULLY ELECTED.”

      Finesse “unlawfully” however you like, but at the end of the day Galat does not have the authority to make that determination, let alone broadcast it to the world. He made this bed and now he has to lie in it.

      • Yeah, I get that, but as someone else noted, there is a difference between unlawful and invalid.

        It appears to lots of commentators that laws were broken in the election of Pope Francis. Daneels himself has, as noted by Galat, publicly advertised and joked about such breaches of the code.

        Let’s not forget that such an event could occur completely without the assistance of Bergoglio himself.

        Are we thus saying that every jot and tittle of the law was met in the election of Pope Francis? When a self described member of an illicitly-assembled “Mafia” has trumpeted to the world that the very thrust of UDG was violated?

        I have said and will say again that UDG is a worthless rag vis a vis unseating a Pope who was elected against its provisions against lobbying, but that doesn’t say anything about whether those provisions WERE violated.

        I’m saying that I think this man, were he to have the energy for it and if there are mechanisms within the Church to allow him to do so, could make the case that 1} PF is valid but 2} PF was unlawfully elected and 3} he was excommunicated…unlawfully… .

        • “Who can with a straight face say that every jot and tittle of the law was met in the election of Pope Francis?”

          Well, who can say that of dozens of other papal elections over the past 20 centuries?

          Conclave history is not always a pretty thing, alas.

        • …” if there are mechanisms within the Church to allow him to do so”…
          Be certain that this tyrannical Pope already has secured these mechanisms under obedience, of course, so that they will never work against himself.

        • Succinct comment. This is about misdirection and distraction.

          The problem wasn’t that he made a “determination” — the problem was that he publicly spoke about his determination to a large audience in a media venue. If he had remained silent and kept his thoughts private, there would have been no problem at all. He spoke publicly; he will be silenced and made an example of.

          (Or at least that is what will be attempted.)

          Now we will be distracted with the canon law process and its fairness (or lack thereof) and the difference between excommunication and interdiction. Whether the penalty was deserved. Whether the Columbian bishops responded appropriately and in keeping with how others have been treated in the past. …..

          What will be totally disregarded is whether what this man said was truth or not? If it is truth, what are the ramifications/ consequences? Or if it is not truth, what are the ramifications/ consequences. And finally what, if anything, should be done? And by whom?

          • Very good points. The lugubrious truth is that relatively little can be done beyond living the Catholic life authentically and resisting and waiting out a wayward Pope, until the situation becomes more clear.

          • It’s not a semantic game to point out an absurd statement. The obvious point is the truth, not your attempt at legalism. 🙂 If a man says 2+2=4, you don’t dismiss it because he’s not got some vapid credential, the weight of the argument stands by itself.

          • The only legalism going on here is your attempt to obfuscate my obvious point by playing gotcha with semantics.

            It was perfectly clear (to anyone not playing gotcha) that I was not claiming people need some special authority in order to make up their minds for themselves about any given issue; instead, I was commenting on the fact that Galat was way out of his league in his choice to publicly contradict the judgment of the Church vis-à-vis the lawfulness of Francis’s election.

          • Nonsense. I was pointing out an error. The fact is, Francis is one of the most dubious Popes in centuries. If anything a vague phrase like “the judgement of the Church” is a semantic word game if there ever was on and it’s designed to silence discussion, not refute arguments. If circumstances present themselves such as the statements of Msgr Gansweinn concerning the utterly heretical “shared Petrine ministry” the judgement of the Church has yet to be ultimately rendered, we are quite possibly in a situation where confidence in the identity of the Pope is on a par with that during the Great Schism.

          • It’s about having the humility to recognize when you’re out of your league, and trusting that those God has appointed will sort out what you can only speculate upon.

          • God has appointed? God doesn’t appoint Churchmen. He permits them to do what they do by His permissive will. Even when He did directly appoint His Apostles, they weren’t infallible nor impeccable in their particular words and actions. Hence St. Paul had to rebuke his superior directly in the face for his lack of integrity between his behavior and the faith. Peter got the blame because he deserved the blame. It was a dizzingly unCatholic conclave that agreed on this man Francis to be the Pope. Francis gets the blame for his horrific lack of Catholic integrity and the conclave of ne’er do wells deserves the blame for electing him.

          • No. I’m not obtuse, you’re simply ignorant. The difficulty you have is when THE CHURCH” as you vaguely describe it, decides she was wrong about whether or not a Pope was valid. Take the case of Pope Stephen VI and his rulings on the validity of Pope Formosus from the infamous Cadaver Synod, “…..The decision was that the deceased had been unworthy of the pontificate, which he could not have validly received since he was bishop of another see. All his measures and acts were annulled, and all the orders conferred by him were declared invalid. The papal vestments were torn from his body; the three fingers which the dead pope had used in consecrations were severed from his right hand; the corpse was cast into a grave in the cemetery for strangers, to be removed after a few days and consigned to the Tiber. In 897 the second successor of Stephen had the body, which a monk had drawn from the Tiber, reinterred with full honours in St. Peter’s. He furthermore annulled at a synod the decisions of the court of Stephen VI, and declared all orders conferred by Formosus valid. John IX confirmed these acts at two synods, of which the first was held at Rome and the other at Ravenna (898). On the other hand Sergius III (904-911) approved in a Roman synod the decisions of Stephen’s synod against Formosus; all who had received orders from the latter were to be treated as lay persons, unless they sought reordination. Sergius and his party meted out severe treatment to the bishops consecrated by Formosus, who in turn had meanwhile conferred orders on many other clerics,
            a policy which gave rise to the greatest confusion. Against these
            decisions many books were written, which demonstrated the validity of
            the consecration of Formosus and of the orders conferred by him.”


            So, I guess truth changes according to the rulings of THE CHURCH as you see it. Formosus was valid until he wasn’t but that only lasted until he was and it went back and forth. The earth flattens if Churchmen declare it. Right?

          • No one is saying the Church cannot someday condemn Francis, just that its for her to decide when and why. In the meantime, we don’t put the cart of our private judgment before the horse of the Church’s. Know your place. This isn’t for you to decide.

          • The difficulty with your position is that you conflate “private judgement” as irreconcilable with “objective observation.” If you go to Mass and you any of a thousand sacrileges that are commonplace, you can still determine that it’s a valid but illicit or at least sacrilegious mass. When you see pretzels and beer in the consecration, with your “private judgement” if you are objective and know the faith, you can declare from on High and never back down that “There was no valid Mass there.” Should a Pope do something that crosses the line that the Catholic Church teaches a Pope cannot cross. It’s not private judgement, but the math of the situation that makes you submit to the Truth that “That man cannot be Pope.” Whether a condemnation comes from the Church at a later date or not is irrelevant to the objective criteria laid out by the Church. The facts are the facts, the issue of private judgement as the means to get to the truth is merely incidental. I was drawn on Saturday to go to Confession at a particular Church which is a decent clip away from where I live. I didn’t know why, but it’s moderately inconvenient. I got there a few minutes early and was, on the rare occasion the first person in line. The priest was late. I heard him shuffling papers in the confessional as I confessed. He got lost in the formula for absolution and said, “….through the ministry of the Church…God has absolved you of your sins in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit….” My exasperation and general laziness was not going to make me go to another Church for confession and I said, “Don’t you have to say, ‘I absolve you.”‘? He said, “Yes, I absolve you, God absolves you.” I was half expecting him to say, “Potayto , Potahto.” as a tagline. But, I realized that my “private judgment” in that case, more than likely got the priest, to get back into focus (unless he’s really malicious) and ensured the validity of someone else’s confession that may have needed it badly if they were soon going to be taking the high jump. Otherwise, there may have been a number of objectively invalid confessions that day because most people wouldn’t have the “brass” for lack of a better word to insist on the truth of the sacramental form.

        • The question here is not the making of a determination, the issue is broadcasting the determination to thousands/millions of people when you do not have authority or competence to make that decision. Galat was not in the conclave, he was not asked to investigate the election, therefore he does not have the competence.

          • It’s not even about the broadcasting, although that makes it so much worse. Bottom line: when the Church tells us a man is lawfully and validly elected pope, Catholics do not have any business determining otherwise.

          • I agree with that… Also, it’s distracting from the real issue. The pope is spreading confusion and heresy… what do we do? That’s what we need to be focusing on. That and, of course, being faithful ourselves.

          • Did Msgr. Ganswein have the competence to make the statements he made about Pope Benedict allegedly dividing the “Petrine Ministry” into two agents? An active and a contemplative agent? When a statement like that is uttered, do I have a right as a lay Catholic to point out what is obviously wrong about it? How many people am I limited to expressing my conclusion to? My point is, while I can point out the obvious. I am free to broadcast it to anyone and everyone. What I can’t do is bind people to my conclusion.

      • Even if Bergoglio is lawfully elected to become the Pope Francis, the things he says or does, as well as his manner of leading the (Catholic) Church as “the Bishop of Rome” are proof that the Pope Francis as “the Bishop of Rome” has nothing to do with the expected “virtue of his office”, which is the basis for giving the primacy to “the Bishop of Rome” over the other Bishops of the Catholic Church.

    • Under Francis the Roman Rota is silenced as soon as the Pope raises an eyebrow and the Pope despisingly will remain mute like he does with the dubia Cardinals.
      This method works very well…

      • Alas, no doubt correct, but a fight would publicize the issues and get the corruption on stage front world wide. Maybe that’s what we need?

        Or should we cover Noah’s nakedness?

        It’s a tough call.

  36. If this man (Professor Galat) has an audience of 50 million homes in 35 countries with his media outlet, then this “excommunication thingy” may well end up backfiring big time as a strategy by the Vatican. Does anyone remember PewDiePie (I think that’s his name) — the blogger who was accused of fake news and who knows what else by the main stream media? That didn’t go so well for those who made the accusations.

    Maybe we are all making things too complicated. Someone asked me if I trusted Francis with my soul as I would trust Jesus Christ and St. Peter with my soul. Would I trust Francis to teach my loved ones on matters of faith and morals? Catholic dogma and doctrine? If I could answer with an resounding and unhesitating, “Yes, absolutely,” then he is my pope. If I had to answer with a sorrowful, “No, I would not,” then he is not my pope.

    I am not saying that anyone else needs to apply the same process, but for me, that cut through millions of words and all sorts of argument and debate. Do I trust him with my soul? Or do I not trust him with my soul? Simple.

    • This man does indeed have a large audience and as you say, with such a large audience, has the Sword of Ink on his side.

      Will be interesting to see how this play out.

  37. As stated elsewhere, the professor received an interdiction imposed by the bishop of his diocese. An interdiction is not reserved for groups but may be. imposed on individuals as well.. The professor was not excommunicated but as I said before a rose by any other name….

  38. It is high time to adjust our actions and thinking. The Church is now a mustard seed. It is not the basilicas and cathedrals and parish churches. Those visible symbols are long usurped and we can let them go. Our faithful priests are ones who will say Mass in the quiet of homes and monasteries and little churches too small to be noticed. They will teach the perennial Tradition and say the Mass of Ages. The Counter Church may or may not allow the True Church to exist within its structure in small and controlled ways. But I feel grateful to know that the power of Christ will cause His Church to sprout anew. I am grateful to be a part of the Mustard Seed Church. Great will be the fall of the Counter Church.

  39. ‘The Colombian bishops advise the faithful to look for other ways [instead of the TV program by Galat] and means to find “sound doctrine.” ‘ Believe me you will not find “sound doctrine” under Francis.

  40. We all love our Church, for the love of Christ, for the love souls.
    And regardless of our deepest passions in that love, we have to be on caution that Satan would like nothing better than for the papacy to be delegitimized, and unfortunately, statements such as this professor’s regarding the validity of Francis’ pontificate, will only serve to do that.

    A Catholic public commentator, who has a large audience, cannot say these things, no matter what, unless a few credible sources, cardinals perhaps, were to make the case. And even then……..

    It is obvious, that our Church lacks strong and courageous leadership right now, who publicly and quite directly, would go on record to call out the heresies being supported under this pontificate.
    And because of this failure, the laity are beyond provoked, such as this poor professor.
    And in my thought, duly understandable.

    Pray to speak the Truth and act upon it, when the false Church comes knocking at your door.

    We really do need a prelate or two to step up to the plate here.
    What is the purpose of a holy prelate anyway, if he fails to defend the faith and with that point heresy when it enters the Church? What good are they, if they fail this duty?

  41. HI: I will like to add, something that you are missing, everything that was said in Teleamiga,, they specified the source, and what the bible and other Catholic documentation said about it, also they did asked Episcopal Conference in writing about these doubts, and they never in all this years got a response from them, they never attent to get in touch with teleamiga. The priest and the Episcopal Conerence told all catholic in Colombia if the watch the program, go to teleamiga they will be Excommunicated. So I think all the employees from teleamiga and the University they need to quit they’re job. ICardinal Danneels did said about the mafia, but He won’t be excommunicated, neither the person in charge of Jesuit, He said hell doesn’t exist. Pls can some one explain this, how about mercy, how about EWTN alwed Mr Bermudez to talk the way He did, pls why Mr Bermudez (Spanish EWTN) doesn’t rep ort the true, of what is going on on God’s Church, I read Italian, English, Spanish (with google translator)an in all the blogs said the same informacion dr Galat report. I love my church and it hurt.

    • Keep strong Ana. This storm will pass. Stay close to Mamita Maria in her holy Rosary and don’t worry. Jesus is in charge even if it seems like the ship is capsizing. It won’t.

    • This remembers me about the suspension a divinis of the late Abbé Georges de Nantes because he dared to write a “Liber Accusationis in Paulum Sextum” that listed the many heretrodox statements and heresies uttered by Paul VI.
      He canonically appealed of this sentence but he never got a response until his death in 2012.
      Remaining mute is the way the post conciliar popes use to silence the opponents under obedience. The dubia cardinals know this well.

    • Did the bishops really say Catholics would be excommunicated if they watch Professor Galat TV show ? What was the penalty for contributing to the Prof.’s TV

  42. so Francis says a good atheist can go to heaven but those that don’t believe he is pope can’t. Brian (mod) im confused are you saying pope francis could declare pope benedict an antipope because his name begins with pope.

  43. What a sad situation………………………….

    It is strange what you cannot be excommunicated for these days, however you can be if the article is correct excommunicated for speaking what you believe is the truth. It’s strange today how culpability has been erased and relevatism is cool, the best one of all is that mercy exists to everyone regardless of a contrite heart.

  44. While the comment policy is linked at the top of these comment boxes, it seems that many are not reading it. Before here, please familiarize yourself with it. In particular, I would like to highlight these relevant points:

    6. Persistently advocating for unorthodox positions (ie., sedevacantism, the falsity of Catholicism, outright denials of doctrines or dogmas, etc.) will not be tolerated.

    7. Unless your name begins with “pope”, don’t declare anyone else whose name begins with pope an antipope. This is not your job. We allow reasonable and prudent speculation about the confusing nature of the two living popes, but definitive, declarative statements of such and/or accusations that others must reach the same conclusion are not welcome.

    On this thread, these will not be tolerated. Any comments violating this policy (unless very clearly posed as a question or otherwise responding to such, and not declarations and assertions) will be deleted. In addition, you may be permanently banned from commenting on OnePeterFive. This is not a draconian measure to enforce a particular point of view, but a prudential policy to ensure the protection of vulnerable souls. We here at OnePeterFive acknowledge both realities that Pope Francis has done great harm to the faith and somehow also validly occupies the Chair of St. Peter. While we do not require that all commenters here believe this exact same thing, we ask you keep such views to yourself in our comment boxes. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.

    Pax Tecum!

  45. Has anyone considered the “chilling effect” a situation such as this could have upon Catholic writers, journalists, publications, scholars, professors, speakers, etc. I’m not judging the rightness or wrongness, or appropriateness or not, or the truth or falsity, of Professor Galat’s statements and broadcast. I am asking: Who is going to be next?

    One might say, “He deserved it. He was out of line in what he said.” Maybe yes, and maybe no. And I might ask, what has been written/ published here on One Peter Five that the Catholic Church hierarchy could find “an inconvenient article”? What about the author of the book, The Political Pope? What about Ann Barnhardt’s website?

    We have on one hand Building Bridges (no problem — give that priest a promotion) and we have on the other hand The Political Pope (not a problem YET but will the author find himself excommunicated or interdicted a few months from now?) In time, will each of us be Jose Galat, Steve Skojec, Ann Barnhardt, or George Neumayr?

    • I believe that many of us here have considered those things, even long before the events of the above article occurred. I fully expect that if things continue to develop along the lines they are going with out some kind of ecclesial or divine intervention then I will one day have to resign my pastorate and may even face excommunication myself, for I will not go quietly while souls are being lost.

      • What you say grieves me because it cites the very grave issue that I admit, haunts me at times; the effective {though not total} apostasy of the Church.

        Just so happens I am again reading thru the Bible and just today found myself in 2 Thessalonians. St Paul didn’t have much encouraging news for me…

      • If it comes to that, you will be sorely needed and wanted as priest in the underground church (into the catacombs, the church ends as it began). The Lord does not abandon his people and he does not abandon his shepherds either. I am glad you write under initials and I hope you have taken prudent and reasonable precautions so that you are not easily traced. There is no need for you to wear a target.

  46. Just a general observation: It seems to me that the reason why many cling to the possibility of Pope Francis being invalidly elected (I do not) is because they are subscribing to some form of Ultramontanism, most likely based on an erroneous understanding of Papal Infallibility. Or, they do not properly understand Pope St. JPII’s document Universi Dominici Gregis. (or a combo of both)

    However, I think the primary motivation of this is really very simple from a psychological perspective: things are so much easier if he isn’t the pope.
    Pope Francis clearly gives scandal to the faithful on a regular basis (and in myriads of different ways) so some of them seek an escape route that leaves there prior understanding of the Papacy and the Church in tact, so they go the sedevacantist way. It’s not good. And Pope Francis will have to answer for leading some of these souls astray.

    He is the Pope, his election was valid even though it was brought about via objectionable means. Pope Benedict XVI said he abdicated of his own free will and there isn’t any proof that he did not, so we must take him at his word. This is reality and it’s really difficult and filled with sorrow, but it’s where we are at this present moment in Church History: and it is objectively terrifying/terrible.

    As far as the Dubia goes, that’s a different story and I do not think the any of those Cardinal’s have run away as some like to accuse them of having done. It’s something that will continue to develop and we will see what comes of it.

    May God Deliver us from these unworthy tyrants who are attacking Holy Mother Church and harming her children. Amen.

    • Excellent summation.

      I feel the assertion that the Pope is invalid is an effeminate response to a deeply troubling reality. It is, as you say, so much easier to think the guy is a fraud than to come to grips with what is happening thru his leadership/lack thereof to so many.

      Thank you for the post. Everybody should read it.

    • …”Pope Benedict XVI said he abdicated of his own free will and there isn’t any proof that he did not”…
      Mgr Luigi Negri spoke of “huge pressures” from inside and outside the Vatican that obliged Benedict to resign. These huge pressures were aimed to get him not only resigning but also saying unceasingly that he resigned “of his own free will”.
      Once they placed the gun on his temple they had no intention to remove it anyways.
      See the odd coincidence between Benedict’s clumsy comments upon Card. Meisner’s death and the disclosing of an abuse scandal which his brother Georg can be involved in.
      Among other pressures, the Remnant raised the issue of the SWIFT payments bluntly stopped between the Vatican and the rest of the world a few days before he resigned.
      No, Benedict never resigned “of his free will”. Therefore his resignation was invalid.

      • Being pressured to do something does not in and of itself necessary remove one’s free will. He could have freely chosen not to succumb to the pressure. If it is truly a non-voluntary act then it must be proven to be so, and the fact that the one who made the act claims personal freedom in making it makes it quite difficult to prove that it was a non-voluntary act.

        I have no doubt that Benedict faced enormous pressure to resign, so did Pope St. Celestine V and Gregory XII and there resignations were and are both considered valid.

      • I think it is reasoable to believe what Pope Benedict has said. Has he every given the impression that he is a liar? As for his brothter being involved in an abuse scandal, that is in the category of “he should have known”. The habit of accusing others of wrongdoing with no proof has passed from politics into the Church. This is very serious.

    • Thank you Father for this excellent diagnosis of the situaion.
      From my own point of view my biggest concern has been not to fall into despair . I have resolved since two weeks ago to say at least 15 decades of the Rosary every day, for my lapsed wife, all my other loved ones any my own growth in holiness. As for the horrors in Rome I cannot do anything but let Christ sort it out in His time. Even after this short time I notice a great sense of peace.
      There is another point that leads from this. There are surely some people who read this blog (and others), and may even post here, who for the sake of their souls should not. Instead keep away from all discussion and say an extra Rosary every day. If you are being scandalised by Begoglio and his thugs it is better for your soul to avoid the news of evil coming from Rome on a daily basis. The Rosary will however make you stronger and help you in your vocation to lead your families to heaven, in spite of what the devils in the Vatican get up to.
      Please, please, everyone, stay close to Our Lady, Mary Most Holy, in these dark days.

      • Good. Yes, continue to pray the Rosary! And, if the news leads one to despair then they need to put it aside for a time and concentrate on the Good News of Jesus Christ, which no man can undo or take away. The Lord does not abandon His Church and He wins in the end.

        • By all means pray the rosary, (lots of rosaries) but continue to inform yourself yourself about the sad state of the Church. A Catholic is not a fundamentalist, but uses the great gift of reason along with the greater gift of faith to discern the truth. It is by understanding the truth that we are set free. It is by following the truth we can properly understand mercy. And finally, if the faithful are not aware of the current heterodox corruption in the Church we cannot properly understand how to fight against it. Jesus did not say he was the way, the mercy and the life. Faith leads us away from despair, but truth lights the way.

      • My own goal also includes the Mysteries of Light. Additionally I have resolved to renew my attempt at fasting on bread and water on Wednesdays and Fridays. And fast from news, like you said, on these days also. Wednesday starts in just under an hour where I am. Finally, I would like to say that I have been edified by comment contributions here and elsewhere.

      • Excellent post.

        This is grim stuff.

        And the Lord said to him as he was returning into Egypt: See that thou do all the wonders before Pharao, which I have put in thy hand: I shall harden his heart, and he will not let the people go. (Exodus 4:21).

        Why hast thou made us to err, O Lord, from thy ways: why hast thou hardened our heart, that we should not fear thee? return for the sake of thy servants, the tribes of thy inheritance. (Isaiah 63:17).

        And when the prophet shall err, and speak a word: I the Lord have deceived that prophet: and I will stretch forth my hand upon him, and will cut him off from the midst of my people Israel. (Ezekiel 14:9).

        Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth. (Romans 9:18).

        And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11).

        To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner; And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of scandal, to them who stumble at the word, neither do believe, whereunto also they are set. (1 Peter 2:7-8).

        There is yet mystery of God’s ways.

        Our job is to, in the face of all confounding, remain steadfast:

        Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace. Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word. (2 Thess 2:14-17)

      • Beautiful words, excellent advice. Every Hail Mary is powerful beyond our understanding. Enlist the Saints too! Padre Pio, Thomas More, St Catherine of Siena, Pius X, Robert Southwell, Edmund Campion, Margaret Clitherow–they understand our agony and have got our backs!

      • Oh yes definitely, if Bergoglio and his cronies scare you please don’t worry. Just stick your head in the ground and hope for the best.

    • Exactly – it is precisely because he is the valid Pope that the situation is so dire. I believe there was a spiritual involvement in his election which served the nefarious purposes of that particular spirit. That spirit has an intelligence and a will which dwarf the human intellect and he is more than capable of working within the bounds of a badly written Code of Canon Law to achieve his ends. He was never going to let this opportunity be lost because of avoidable canonical irregularities.

    • Hmmm…I thought Pope Benedict XVI abdicated part of the papacy. Did he not retain the spiritual part for himself? Shouldn’t we accept his word?

    • Dear Father. Thank you for your wise and prudent words. As difficult as it is for the Catholic faithful wanting to be faithful to Christ and His lawful ministers, I cannot imagine how much more difficult it is for a priest or bishop, who is aware that a wrong word here or there could cause scandal and possibly loss of souls. The principle that seems to be often forgotten is that it is the Faith (with Sanctifying Grace) that is the basis of our salvation, and that the virtue of obedience is always subordinate to the theological virtue of Faith. The Pope is charged with defending the Deposit of the Faith as clearly taught by Vatican I.

      For Francis there are 4 issues for which there is less than definite proof (so far)

      The status of the man Jorge Bergoglio before March 2013 vis-a-vis the Mystical Body of Christ. Obviously only God knows this unless it was manifested to the Church explicitly (The Church does not judge internals)

      The character of Benedict XVI’s resignation

      The circumstances of the 2013 election vis-a-vis current laws governing such elections

      The status of Pope Francis in the face of 2 formal warnings vis-a-vis amoris laetitia (to be seen)

      As for me now I’m going to get back to the Rosary and confession, but keep watch as Our Lord commanded.

    • Fr. RP

      Thank you for your diagnosis.

      Still, there are a few things I don’t quite understand. In particular, when you say “subscribing to some form of Ultramontanism, most likely based on an erroneous understanding of Papal Infallibility. Or, they do not properly understand Pope St. JPII’s document Universi Dominici Gregis. (or a combo of both)”
      Since – from your words – there seems to be more than just one explanation, it’s not easy – at least for me – to follow your reasoning:
      – Ultramontanism has rigorously more than one definition.
      – Papal Infallibility is another issue that is “erroneously understood”.
      – JP II’s Universi Dominici Gregis is “not properly understood”
      – a combo of these.

      I believe it would be very valuable if you could – not just as Moderator – write in greater detail an explanation of the criteria of the validity of Pope Francis’ election, pointing out what you mention the “not properly” and “erroneous” understanding of the rules and circumstances of an election.

      For many of us who don’t have your insight, it would be more than useful, and
      probably help us handle the mixed feelings of paradoxical belonging/not belonging, helplessness, impotence, confusion, and yes, anger – that live together with our deepest convictions, some of which may be wrong.

      To end, I want to send you a reference, which might be of some help. It’s a nihil-obstat book, by Alois Müller – “Das Problem von Befehl und Gehorsam in Leben der Kirche”, 1964 Verlagsanstalt Benziger & Co, AG, Einsiedeln (Switzerland), translated into Spanish as “El Problema de la Obediencia en la Iglesia” (in English it would approximately be “The problem of Obedience in the Church”). I’ve read three fourths of it, and it sheds some light on the subject.

      Thank you very much.
      JL Montero – Argentina

    • A serious question, with no disrespect or frivolity intended: If the Pope, most all Bishops, Cardinals and clergy no longer hold the Catholic Faith is the organization they lead still the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

      • Finely, someone asks an easy question. No, it’s not easy, the question you ask is very serious and very difficult. What I know is that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church and that we walk by Faith not by sight. The Catholic Church is the Church that the Roman Pontiff governs in union with the Bishops. If most of them, or even all of them fall into error, heresy or even apostasy, some how the Church will remain and God will provide for Her. She may appear near death of even dead, but God will raise Her up.

        Judas was an apostle, and there was a time when all of the apostles fled, but the Lord drew them back with the resurrection. The Arian Crisis came about and almost all the Bishops went into error, but the Truth of the Lord prevailed. The Great western Schism arose and the Church was torn between three Popes and eventually the Lord reunited her under one Pope.
        Peter denied Christ, Peter lead the brethren astray at Antioch, yet Jesus drew him back and Paul corrected him.

        Our Help is in the name of the Lord, Who hath made the heavens and the Earth. He will provide. We must watch and pray and hold Fast to the Faith, even if many of our shepherds our hirelings or wolves, the Lord will bring them to justice and deliver His flock. We may even suffer for a time with the loss of the Blessed Sacrament for a time, many prophets and saints have said as much. But God will not abandon His people, nor His bride the Church.

        And those enemies of His whom do not want Him as there King shall be slain in His presence. And as for that steward whom thought HIs master was long delayed in coming and began to beat the men and maid servants: He will be severely beaten and assigned a place with the unrighteous. And those who were lead astray and so did not do their master’s will, they will only receive a light beating.

        • Dear Fr. RP, The GATES of HELL will PREVAIL if ALL the MEMBERS of the CHURCH will lose the FAITH. Please I underscore the word ALL. Jesus said to a holy soul, I can’t recall exactly the details, but he told her that EVEN IF one SOUL RETAINS THE WHOLE FAITH, then the Church will prevail. A good example of this is the case of St. ATHANASIUS, who happened to be PRACTICALLY the only bishop who DEFENDED the faith as regarded the dual nature of Jesus Christ. St. Athanasius also said that ” They( the Apostates) may have the PREMISES, the BUILDINGS, the Churches, BUT we have the Faith ( which is the ONLY thing which COUNTS) “. He was hounded down and exiled 5 times. He became a Saint, but Pope LIBERIUS, who EXCOMMUNICATED Athanasius, ended up with being the FIRST POPE WHO WAS NOT CANONIZED AFTER St. Peter. I subscribe to the idea that yes, we should know what’s going on, that we should AT ALL COST NOT DESPAIR, that we SHOULD KEEP the Faith, that we should PRAY and PRAY ESPECIALLY the HOLY ROSARY, TRUST in Our Lady’s ASSISTANCE and trust in God’s Mercy because He loves PARTICULARLY His true Friends. He will never FORSAKE US. We have to go through this MESS due to the INNUMERABLE and VERY GRAVE SINS plaguing the world and the church. He who steadfastly keeps the faith to the last, he will be rewarded, Jesus confirmed. The TOP REASON why we are experiencing this overwhelming tragedy in the Church and the world is : ‘ THE POPES AND THE BISHOPS HAVE NOT YET OBEYED OUR LORD’S COMMAND, THROUGH OUR LADY OF FATIMA, TO CONSECRATE RUSSIA TO THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY ‘ AS REQUESTED BY HER IN 1917, AND 1929. Pope J.P. II confirmed that the CHASTISEMENT will come and cannot be AVERTED; we can now only DIMINISH its rigor by prayer. So let us pray, sacrifice and help others to realize the ominous state of affairs we are presently living in. May God have mercy on us poor sinners.

          • I didn’t say all members of the Church, I said the hierarchy and I do not believe that even that will happen, though many of them have entered into serious error, or outright heresy.

          • Yes, I agree with you Fr. RP. God will NOT allow all of the members of His Church will succumb to Satan ‘s LIES. What we all been experiencing in the last 4 years is SIMPLY UNHEARD of. Can you IMAGINE having a ‘Pope’ saying to 2-3 MILLIONS at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2013, ” I WANT A MESS ” ? Sadly, he is achieving his goal to the detriment of millions of UNWARY Catholics. Expelling HIGH RANKING CARDINALS from the Vatican because they expressed CONCERN for his outlandish remarks, teachings, statements that CONTRADICT the PERENNIAL teaching of the Church and all the previous Popes. Yet, God has allowed this to happen according to His Will. God be praised; who can fathom His Plans and Reasoning?

        • You are a treasure, Father. Thank you for your wisdom and insight…if those who lead souls astray are to have their comeuppance, I pray you too will reap the just consequences of pointing out the path to those who would otherwise be lost.

    • Be that as it may, it is worth recalling that, while it falls on the Pope’s shoulders to defend the faith, he is not the foundation of our faith. Our faith is authored by the Lord Jesus Christ, not by the pope:

      “Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:1,2)

      A bad pope might go astray but “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

      And even a bad pope cannot steal souls away from Christ: “My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand.” (John 10:27,28)

    • Thank you, Father, for your succinct summary.

      I hope that some good traditional Catholic (aka Catholic) with canonical / theological authority reaches out Senor Galat and informs him of the validity of Pope Bergoglio’s election, in spite of the behind the scenes shenanigans to get him elected. He is not the Pope that most of us want, but he is the Pope that God has permited – just as He permitted Judas to do what he had to do quickly. His papacy is part of these apocalyptic end times (of unknown duration). We are witnessing, as Cardinal Caffara was told by Sister Lucy of Fatima, “the final battle between Our Lord and Satan,” being waged over “marriage and the family.”

      We respect the office of Pope but we acknowledge that the Pope can and does make serious errors. The scope of infallibillity is very limited and only really pertains to defending the deposit of the faith. Infallibility does not extend to novel teachings on faith or morals; teachings in contradiction to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

      So our lot as faithful Catholics is to endure and to protect those about us from the onslaught. We know that Christ is already triumphant. He was triumphant on the Cross, when He said: “it is fiinished,” but now with the profound test of these times, the final score of salvation is being worked out. The victory of Christ is assured. We are just working to be part of it and to help others to share in it.

      Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us, & dear Mother of God let us pray fervently that Your still unfulfilled requests at Fatima are obeyed by Church and faithful! We look forward longingly to the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as desired by Our Lord at this time.

    • Fr. RP,
      I don’t know if you are a Traditionalist or what they called Modern Cathoiics Priest under Vatican II, but I noticed you had a fair answer on every reply and sense that you had a good heart and authentic Catholic Faith…
      If I may add my humble view on the present Church Crisis, the prophecy of La Sallete had a clear writings on this,that this is God’s Will…and CCC (675,574,575,576) already written that RCC will suffers this thing even JP2 said clearly the Church will undergo Final Confrontation..
      But Why a Loving God allows such thing to happen? The answer is perhaps, Jesus Christ as the “HEAD” of the Church suffers “Persecution, Passions & Death”, the Church as the ‘Mystical Body” must suffers the same this is the “Sovereign Will of God”, as Jesus Gloriously Resurrected thru his Death so the Church will & must also Rise-Up Triumphant & Glorious after this Crisis…It started in 1830 (Gen3:15 the symbol of Satan’s defeat) the “Age of Mary”…Satan had mistaken that his reign will end any moment in that era…and so year 1876 after death of St. Catherine Laboure, her writings was revealed…and the wearing of Miraculous Medal tremendously grew( 1billion medals was produced exactly the number of world population in 1870)…this prompted Satan to clarify his fate with the Lord as overheard by Pope Leo XIII…in exchanges we can see God has a different plan because La Salette is God’s Will (2Thess 2:3), he even granted Satan more power to destroy His Church,,for His End Purpose…Satan’s is God’s ape…Omnipotent God knows Satan hungers to Seat at the Highest Throne…and so God’s scripted Gen3:15 …the Seat of Peter is where Satan will lie in wait for Mama Mary to crush his proud head…you see Satan will not resist or fight Mama Mary anymore Her Sovereign Queen..From Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, even the Vatican II Popes are all Marian…Pope Francis too not only a Marian but a St. Joseph devotee…the Mysterious Hand of God is allowing Satan to take over the Seat of Peter…the moment Pope Francis is ousted due to concerted media propaganda…they will install the AntiPope that will promise to solve the Church Crisis…
      If Eternal & Loving God Wills this to happen it is for the salvation of souls…the Marian Remnant Church will rise…”IN THE END MY IMMACULATE HEART WILL TRIUMPH” iHMMP4us.Amen

    • Fr. RP, If I may add…Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has a vast knowledge sorrounding Vatican II era and its Spirit. Knows fully well the numerous numbers of enemies inside & outside Vatican who want to take over the Seat of Peter…In his profound wisdom…he chose & sacrifice “A LIFE OF PRAYER” clearly a Holy Father Benedict way of fighting the enemy.While Pope Francis role now is to reveal the hearts of all the clergy from priest,bishop all the way to Cardinal…so both of them hand in hand can subtle the attack only because it can’t be averted anymore…remember it is God’s Sovereign Will that the Church must suffers same like Jesus Christ for the end purpose of man’s salvation..While undergoing crisis…Pope Francis & Pope Benedict are both praying for the conversions of all mankind that they may Repent & heed the call of Mama Mary at Fatima…Eternal Father Will that all men created in His Image & Likeness regardless of religions & belief maybe united as one…maybe not in Communion of Faith but in the Language of Love…as Jesus said the greatest of all this is Love…May we all receive God’s graces & infinite mercies for our conversion and our loveones…Peace to all & God bless!. Blessed Ivan Merz, Bishop Obviar, Margaret of Castello, Bartolo Longo, pray for us. IHMMP4us.SJtdPP4us.SMdAPDus.Amen

  47. …Pope Francis on his upcoming visit to Colombia (Bogotá, Villavicencio, Medellín, and Cartagena) and to listen to him “with docility.”

    With docility – there it is in a nutshell. The faithful are not allowed to comment or have opinion, we have to believe what we are told and like it. Doesn’t matter what Jesus taught or the popes in the past that have been faithful to that teaching.

    Kneel before Jesus? No thanks.
    Miracle of the Loaves/Fishes? No, that was just people being nice.
    Ten Commandments? Only obsessive people follow those.
    Have more than 2 kids? Then you’re irresponsible.
    Traditional? Then you’re rigid.
    Luther? Great bloke.
    Pro-Life? Then you’re not welcome.
    Different faith? Then come on in.
    Dubai? What dubia?

    Our pope can go around firing clergy without cause, welcoming abortionists to talk in our churches (and making sure the doors are closed fully so they can’t hear the faithful praying outside), deny hell, use foul expressions, turn the Vatican in to a circus, AL: say no more. He has, directly or indirectly, effectively destroyed the Pro-Life Academy, the Order of Malta, the Franciscans and so on. And the list of abuses goes on. But don’t say a word or you’ll be excommunicated, removed or have some charge found against you.

    This current pontificate is using our obedience against us. Let us remember we do not follow a man. Our loyalty and obedience belongs to Our Lord. One day we will all stand before Him and try to justify ourselves, and that includes the pope.

      • Your comment is living proof that you have NOT prayed to the Holy Spirit for the gift of discernment; that you have little or no integrity; and that you are one of the less able, lukewarm. gullible Catholics who are contributing significantly to the downfall of our precious Faith. And that’s without your lack of charity for someone’s honest opinion
        Everything AClay said is not only true but on RECORD as being so. If you can’t be bothered to follow what’s actually happening to our Church I suggest you try fact finding, rather than swallowing mindless propaganda!

      • Not at all, AClay perfectly describes this pontificate.
        Everytthing can be documented.
        Obedience is always used harshly against orthodox catholics, never against those who dissent from the Faith because they will not comply anyways.

    • Good points. I agree with everything you say because, unlike Mortimer, I fact checked. Thank you – it sounds as though you are as genuinely concerned about what is happening a am I!

  48. I am in the same boat with the old guy. I have made the exact same public comments, perhaps not so widely disseminated, but public nonetheless. Yes, I lean toward holding the opinion – but don’t have enough explicit evidence to claim it as a true opinion, yet – that Pope Francis was not validly elected because cardinal electors broke the rules for conclaves set down CLEARLY by Pope John-Paul II and thus were themselves “de-facto” excommunicated, rendering their votes illicit. IF – and I say IF – Cardinal Bergoglio of Argentina was elected Pope because of these illicit votes, then his election is INVALID. Perhaps cardinals who DO KNOW the facts of the matter can see that their vow of silence with regard to conclave proceedings does not hold under the circumstance of an invalid election – and they will come forth with more explicit evidence, one way or the other. As of now I LIVE WITH DOUBT…am I to be excommunicated because I doubt the validity of Pope Francis’ election?

    • If Bergoglio was also involved in the pre-conclave conspiracy, he also would be excommunicated. Can someone excommunicated be elected Pope?

  49. (Laying aside the secondaries, such as tone), what has the professor said which has not been said here at 1P5?

    Not a Spanish speaking, so no access to original shows or writings, yet it seems – according to the report – that the broken camel’s back straw was his zeroing in on the Swiss Cabal: observing that the Machiavellian maneuvers of that gaggle of prelates is what sealed papal legitimacy on the Cardinal Archbishop of Argentina. Is it wrong admit into the conversation the very words of the conspirators – and the consequential effects of their actions?

    Seems, though, the near objective of the bishops conference is to clear the (Catholic) streets before Francis’ visit – as was correctly pointed it. This action follows the well-established ways of Latin American power holders: before the arrival of any person of note the streets are cleared of mongrel dogs (now and then barrio children), poisoned, right there, in the gutters and carted away.

    So, also, goes (communicated away) unwelcome thoughts and observations – dumped on the garbage heaps out there in the “peripheries”.

    Yet, there is one thing the streets cannot be cleared of – the footsteps (the foot-falls) of truth walking down the road. Right past ecclesiastical palaces.

  50. Be humble and stay very close to Mary the Mother of God. We must suffer a lot to get to Heaven. Humility wins all the time even ask our Holy Mother, to whom we should imitate in these situations. Harden not your hearts and work out your Salvation in fear and trembling.

  51. Everyone need be very aware of the following incontrovertible truth.
    There is not a single left wing Roman Catholic – pope, bishop, priest, sister, layman or laywoman who gives a hoot about obedience except when it is getting some one, particularly a pious conservative, to tow their line.
    Every one of them regards those observant of tradition at best, as ignorant groundlings. The more authority they wield the worse it is. I have not observed this in the conscientious “conservative” superior or pastor – they are most often measured and thoughtful.
    The abuse of legitimate authority to undermine the perennial Magisterium of the Church, to terrorize a subordinate, is a sacrilege which presently holds pride of place.
    If all of us are not being obedient to the perennial Magisterium of the Church, we need be very careful to whom we give deference and obedience.
    Far too many good and faithful Catholics are being railroaded by the duplicitous. We need be “…wise as serpents and gentle as doves…” Matt. 10:16
    The current crisis confected deliberately by an element in the episcopate is to employ the papacy in a counterintuitive ruse to undermine the papacy and, once done, refigure the office to suit the purpose of the new “church” they confect. Those who respect the papacy are thus demoralized, neutralized. Wielding boldly “evangelical obedience” as a weapon, and subconscious appeals to loyalty to silence orthodox, pious and devout clergy, religious and laity, these operators are having their way. How is one to defend the papacy when it has been debased intentionally – and from within, no less?
    The faithful are in the hands of clerical Svengalis and it requires a mighty and abrupt corrective. To be told to conduct yourself like good Catholic ladies and gentlemen by those rendering license to mortal sin, countermanding the perennial Magisterium of the Church, is appalling and sacrilegious. Admonitions to courtesy, submission and obedience to legitimate ecclesiastical authority in the current situation traverses the border of sadism, and it begs the big, forbidden and unspoken question, “Who is presently legitimate and what are you if you’re not?”
    I recall my former abbot returning from the General Chapter proudly bragging how he was regarded by the other abbots and abbesses as a “left wing brat.” That he was and rest assured, such narcissists know no shame. He left for “eternity” prematurely while leaving behind him a
    monastery that is not much more than a nursing home or a left wing retreat house, maze and all.
    Men such as him are blinded by toxic self-absorption and rendered ultimately impotent by the absence of common sense. They are responsible for incredible damage to persons and structures. They function without ears except to hear what they find pleasing and though
    sporting a backbone are consigned to writhe about on their bellies.
    I have wrestled some with the issue of the St. Gallen Group on the “legitimacy” of the current pontificate and know making that determination is over my pay grade. What is not above any faithful Catholic’s pay grade is whether we have a good or a bad pope.
    The excommunication of Mr. Galat has already had its desired effect of stifling the free exchange of ideas right here, with reminders for us to watch what we commit to the screen.
    They are having their way in Rome, Columbia, here, EWTN, the Knights and on and on and on.

  52. Yes, Francis is truly pope, as the moderators, here, correctly educate us. (The *Universal Acclaim* is a strong assent to the fact).

    But, as the exercise of this thread is demonstrating, it is both helpful and healthy to ask informed questions and let no honest observation be pocketed.

    The observed question underlying all others (for without it the others would not be popping up) is the one about the resignation of Benedict. Both the why and his state of mind. (And yes, embedded within it, the auxiliary observation – as was noted below – between a *forced* and a *pressured* resignation.

    The residual cloud surrounding Benedict’s leave-taking has been an Arctic or Equatorial front (or both) spawning all sorts of deep freezes and drenching storms. Even a sea-worthy ship can take on so much.

    One’s not a nosy busybody for asking, for Pope Benedict’s resignation has boated every Catholic Jack & Mary out onto the stormy open sea.

    Answer that question and then we will begin to discern God’s why in sending us Francis.

  53. As troubling as that may seem, it is right that he has been excommunicated. There’s dissent and then there’s outright rebellion based on a hearsay.

    If that happened during the other papacies, the same thing should have been done.

  54. …..Admittedly, I certainly wouldn’t go on national TV just before Pope Francis visits to declare him an invalid Pope.
    Especially when i couldn’t prove it. Especially when i didn’t have the public support of any Cardinals or Pope Benedict.

    The best way to defeat this madness is by learning and teaching Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture.
    Rather then attacking Francis himself, and out of obedience and respect for the Papal Office.
    Our duty is to remind the faithful of the Popes superiors in the Church…. That is his Papal predecessors and their Infallible Statements.
    As well as the Word of God itself. Francis is still bound by these. Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture still have a higher office then he does, even as Pope. Christ has not abandoned his Church.

    When the Arian Heresy was at its height, St Athanasius got the title “Contra Mundi” because he stood alone against the world for Christ (True God and True Man)…. and Arianism was defeated.

    St Mary Mackillop was excommunicated unjustly….. and she is a saint today.

  55. This is a clear warning to all clerics that any criticism of Pope Bergoglio will be dealt with by the same fascists reprisals. It is precisely for this reason, that Pope Benedict XVI predicted that the future church will be smaller but more fervent. I firmly believe that soon we will be returning to the catacombs and the “house churches” of the past.

  56. The bottom line is…. anyway one puts it that Francis seems to be bad news for the Church. The sooner he’s gone the better. Just pray a worse one does not emerge.

    • Dante Prudente..Good day! I’ve read some of your comment…and it seems you’re research & investigations sorrounding the Church Crisis was credible…hope
      & pray you become an instrument of God’s peace to bridge the gap between authentic Traditionalist whom you said is not spewing hatred & ridicule to Pope Francis. Unlike the numbers of traditionalist in the social media who hide under the name of catholics but constantly attacking Pope Francis creating further Confusions & Divisions..The present Catholic Church whom you said is wounded need mercy & compassion…I admire you for your kind words. May the God of Peace pours out His Infinite Wisdom according to the kindness of your heart.God bless! IHMMP4us.Amen

  57. It is said in the Scriptures “you are priest forever by the order of Melchizedek “,a priest can not present his resignation like a company CEO. The vows they made bind them so is a fallacy to say that Pope Benedict XVI retired. Of course Not.

  58. Can anyone please tell me where I can validate the accuracy of this statement at the end of this article?
    “His Teleamiga Television Channel, of which he is co-founder and director, reaches 35 countries and more than 50 million homes.”

    Thank You

  59. I do not understand all this constant negative chatter from all sides on every website, so I will make my first and only comment. How could any sincere Christian be scandalized and led into outright despair by such minor self-inflicted papercuts as the absurd constant monitoring of trash like social media or agonizing over fragments of interviews in another language from a corrupt news source, and so on? I can’t believe anyone who feels the Church is in mortal danger for these reasons has much faith in Jesus. Jesus is the king. Jesus is the good shepherd. How could anyone even notice the existence of a specific pope or a professor when Jesus lives? The Pope is just another imperfect representative of Christ in history, worthy of respect personally and especially officially, but he is not life itself. I see no faith in Jesus, nor respect for his priesthood or the order of things. This scenario is in no way analogous to St. Paul’s rebuke of St. Peter. For every Papal sentence fragment disseminated throughout the world in seconds by liars, there are a hundred blog posts by mysteriously angry Christians that not only echo the lie, but add to it by lying about the Pope and Church even more. All Professor Galat has to do is apologize in obedience to the Church. The Church is not an organization like a secular government for which the presumption of administrative ignorance requires equality and the presumption of innocence before the law as a safeguard under the impression that the Church is to provide public trials to every faithful. The Church cannot be held to such secular standards without damaging it in exactly the way modernists want. If a bishop has been led to believe Galat’s disobedience is a significant obstacle to Galat’s salvation, more of an obstacle to him than whatever genuine scandals he may have reported about other sinners, then we have to believe they are guided by God. If you don’t believe this, then you must hold the Church to secular government standards because you do not think the Church is a manifestation of God’s kingdom. No one should assume that Bishops must be evil for appearing inconsistent sometimes, but have wise reasons for what they deem is appropriate. I’m not seeing a lawyers sophistication, as it were, in all these divisive arguments carried out among online factions that have no authority. If people frustrated with Pope Francis are clever enough to know how and why his statements can be misconstrued, they should be constructively dedicating voluminous commentary to clarifying them on his behalf and elucidating Catholic teaching for the supposedly confused flock. That is not what is happening. That the loudest members of online communities are not doing this demonstrates more of a desire to stir up controversy and seem superior among their audience and co-commenters. And where is this supposedly “confused flock” that are commonly claimed to have been led astray by the Pope? I see no evidence among ordinary faithful Christians of papal sentence fragments and public rants by ambitious faction corrupting honest minds. I only see willfully misleading interpretations by anti-Catholic or ignorant journalists, fake aspiring leaders, and people who were already heretics using this atmosphere to spreads lies about the Pope and the Church, or justify old acts of disobedience. Sincere Christians don’t ground their faith on the rock of social media, mortal mouths aping dead words, and whining scrawled in pixels. This premise is preposterous and boring.

    • “I see no faith in Jesus, nor respect for his priesthood or the order of things.” —

      and I see in your comment no understanding of Catholicism, current events in the Church, the true nature of the current Church hierarchy, the words of Jesus concerning the end times, Catholic prophecy down the ages etc etc etc. So the faithful should be constructively dedicating voluminous commentary to clarifying the Pope’s statements on his behalf? Why can’t the Pope do that himself? Why would a Pope be needing to do that unless he wishes to cause confusion – oh, hang on – he said himself – he wants to cause a mess.

      I’ve had a quick look at your other disqus posts – please either, for your own sake start reading and learning about true Catholicism so you understand the abyss between it and the modern NO Church or, for everyone else’s sake, go back to computer commentary, but if you really care one iota for Pope Francis (and his minions), pray for him and them – often and fervently.

  60. According to Bishop Mercado, “heresy and schism are typified as canonical offenses punished with (automatic) excommunication latae sententiae.”
    Then – according to Bishop Mercado – who has been automatically excommunicated, based on the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia – the bishops of (for instance) Malta or the bishops of (for instance) Poland? Their interpretations are completly different, and some of them must be wrong and schismatic.

  61. Question: [And please do me the courtesy of giving me an answer rather than a lecture about my apparent ‘confusion’ !] Right! On whose authority did Pope Francis excommunicate Galat since he has publicly stated that there is NO God; at least no Catholic God ; there are three persons who show a united front but argue behind closed doors! [2 separate quotes put together] ……. If he doesn’t believe in God, who or what DOES he believe in?

  62. A yes the multiple divisions and schisms are appearing now in the body of Christ. Then will come the disappearance of the visible body of Christ. Soon will come the man of perdition.

  63. I have watched the Program Un Café con Galat and the defense they mount as well as the fact that the bishops have talked about dialogue and not practiced it. It seems to me that the excommunication of Galat is an extremely imprudent move and if they thought it would be helpful in the light of Francis’s September visti to Columbia, it is a lot more likely that the opposite is going to happen. Galat has received support from many Spanish speaking countries. He is accused of disobeying Pope Francis, but in what does he disobey him? He holds that Francis was illegitimately ellected by the St. Gallen Mafia.From what I understand the fact of plotting regarding the election of the successor of the sitting Pontiff is sanctioned by latea sententiae excommunication. Why, then has Galta been excommunicated for what would appear to be much less grave and Danieels, Kaspser and the rest of hte St. Gallen plotters got off scott free? All the comments on the websites and the youtube channels are favorable towards Galat. There is a huge outpouring of support for him. I have checked out the Canons based on which he has been excommunicated. It seems to me that in such a case, if they wanted to make a point, they could have made some kind of amonestation. He is not a theologian nor is he a Canon Lawyer, then why such severtiy against an 88 year old man who has done great good for the Church, and at the same time such favor towards Islam, Luther and other non-Catholics. The depraved Maciel was not given such a punishment. He was “invited” to a life of prayer and penance, but did he do? He retired to a rented house in Jacksonville, and before that to one in LA, near Universal Studies which was burned down. What kind of penance did he do? He was accompanied by his favorite mistress and his daughter by her as well as several of the Legion higher ups. He was given this slap on the wrist due to his advanced age. Why not some MERCY for Galat due to his advanced age, and undoubtable merits in favor of the Church?

    • Incredibly, we have arrived at a time in history when “excommunication” from Rome today can almost be viewed as a form of martyrdom for the sake of the Body of Christ. Is this a genuine time of schism when Priests as part of a Remnant Church would preside over a Catholic burial for this good man. I wonder how many here agree with this excommunication.

  64. Can anyone tell me, in this situation, would the SSPX give the Sacraments to someone ‘excommunicated’ by this Papacy for defending true Church doctrine? ~if not, would any one else? Any thoughts on this?

  65. seems that your hero José Galat thinks that the Antichrist will be a False Pope & that in order to survive the times of the Antichrist one must eat Tibetan food “tsampa”



Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...