Pope's Forte: Spilling the Beans

The Remnant Newspaper ^ | 5/7/16 | Christopher A. Ferrara

[BlatherNaut]

Archbishop Bruno Forte, Pope Bergoglio’s handpicked Special Secretary for both sessions of the Phony Synod, is a supremely arrogant man. For only supreme arrogance could explain his reported insertion into the midterm report of Phony Synod 2014 (with Francis’s full approval) those infamous statements about “valuing” the “homosexual orientation” and recognizing that “homosexual unions” can provide “precious support in the life of the partners” as they habitually engage in sodomy.

And only supreme arrogance could explain Bruno’s matter-of-fact revelation of what we have long known anyway: that the entire “synodal process” was stage-managed by Francis to advance his pet project to its predetermined completion: a post-synodal “apostolic exhortation” that permits the admission of the divorced and “remarried” to Holy Communion, just as they were admitted during Francis’s tenure as Archbishop of Buenos Aires.

In his supreme arrogance, Forte thought nothing of informing the attendees at a press conference on Amoris Laetitia on May 3 that during the Synod Francis made a joke (“una battuta”) about how “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried, you do not know what a terrible mess we will make.” So, Francis told Bruno, “we don’t speak of it plainly; do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

To which Bruno added: “Typical of a Jesuit.” The press account notes that by this Bruno meant that Francis the Jesuit had exhibited a “wisdom that permitted the maturation necessary to reach Amoris Laetitia.” That comment dovetails perfectly with Francis’s own statement—or, more aptly, his warning—at the end of Phony Synod 2014: “now we still have one year to mature, with true spiritual discernment, the proposed ideas and to find concrete solutions to so many difficulties and innumerable challenges that families must confront.”

Again, Forte is not telling us anything that wasn’t already perfectly obvious: that the Phony Synod was merely the delivery vehicle for what Francis had already decided to do. What is remarkable about Bruno’s admission, however, is his utter lack of concern about revealing explicitly to the world that the “synodal journey” was an exercise in cunning and deception designed to hide from the faithful and the few opponents in the hierarchy what Francis had in mind from the very beginning of his pontificate, when he heaped praise on Cardinal Kasper’s “theology of mercy” from the balcony of Saint Peter’s during his first Angelus address.

In other words, Bruno simply does not care if the world knows that Francis has been engaging in a massive ecclesiastical con job, culminating in a document that attacks the very foundations of the moral order by reducing the natural law to a “general rule” and the indissolubility of marriage to an “ideal.”

From which it follows that Francis does not care either, for of course there will be no denial of Forte’s revelation, just as there was no denial of the revelation by that woman from Argentina whom Francis gave telephonic permission to receive Holy Communion even though she was living in adultery with a divorced man. For Francis merely told the woman to do precisely what he had already planned to allow throughout the universal Church—but only in “certain cases” (Novus Ordo code for every case in short order).

Bruno’s disclosure is significant for another reason: It confirms the utter futility of petitioning Francis for an “authentic interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia that would reaffirm the Church’s constant teaching on the impossibility of admitting public adulterers to the sacraments. Why would Francis “interpret” his own document in a manner exactly contrary to the aim of all his scheming and plotting with the likes of Forte? In the Bergoglian dictatorship of mercy there is no appeal to justice.

[Elsie]

“Perpetual” means forever, not continuous.

HMMMmmm...

So; if something STOPPED being 'continous'; for whatever length of time; would that mean that 'perpetual' would no longer be true in that interval?

[BlatherNaut]

Fr. Paul Kramer did not become a sedevacantist until Francis issued his heretical, Evangelii Gaudium:

Does Fr. Kramer now subscribe to the sedevacantist delusion that sedevacantists alone have comprised the visible Church since 1958? If so, at this point, he may be doubting his own priesthood.

Regarding Fr. Kramer, you mentioned he was ordained in '76. Do you know anything else about him, e.g. when and where was he born, where did his study, by whom was he ordained, how does he pay for the bread on his table, etc.? Have read his book, "Devil's Final Battle" and watched a few of his Youtube videos, but beyond that, know very little about him, except that he was involved with the late Fr. Gruner and the Fatima Crusade.

Fr. Gruner: The "Sedevacantist" Theory is False

Christopher A. Ferrara: Defending the Papacy Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise

[piusv]

I look at it as a pause button. The papacy and primacy of Peter continues until the end of time. At times the Seat may be vacant (as in interregnums), but the teaching of the papacy is until the end of time.

[Elsie]

I see.

This makes a bit more sense; logically.

[ebb tide]

Do you know anything else about him, e.g. when and where was he born, where did his study, by whom was he ordained, how does he pay for the bread on his table, etc.? Have read his book, "Devil's Final Battle" and watched a few of his Youtube videos, but beyond that, know very little about him, except that he was involved with the late Fr. Gruner and the Fatima Crusade.

I also have read the Devil's Final Battle but do not have answers to your other questions. But I need to clarify: Because of Francis' heretical Evangelli Gaudium, Fr. Kramer has declared Francis to longer be a legitimate pope. Fr. Kramer, however, recognizes Pope Benedict to the current, valid Vicar of Christ.

[Prince of Desmond]

Fr. Kramer was ordained in 1976, long after the evil Robber Council.

In which case, how does he know that his own priesthood is valid? The Bishop who ordained him was likely appointed to that position post-council; if all Popes after the Second Vatican Council are illegitimate, how does Father Kramer know that his own ordination was valid? Again---all ecclesiastical authority ultimately flows downward from the office of the Papacy; invalidate that, and how can any ordination or Papal appointment be valid? Sedevacantism necessarily inflicts that manner of logical disconnect. If the chair is empty---where stands the Church?

[BlatherNaut]

Thanks.

[ebb tide]

I’m just pointing out that, like the Protestants, there are all different flavors of sedevacantism.