Tag Archives: Wikipedia

Opponents of ‘Fiducia supplicans’ — Erased Wikipedia Article

What follows was reconstituted from Archive.org’s January 8, 2024 version of the Wikipedia Page entitled, “Opponents of Fiducia Supplicans’ which was erased by radical LGBTQ+ editors of Wikipedia, and no longer exists.

This list omits many other authors, as myself, who wrote numerous articles against Fiducia supplicans, published a Broschure to oppose it, and urged a Canonical Action to remove Pope Francis from office on account of it, and declared the Conclave invalid for electing a heretical supporter of that document, before he was elected.  As of last count, FromRome.Info has more than 200+ articles about this horrendous document. 

List of opponents of Fiducia supplicans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fiducia supplicans is a declaration published by the Holy See‘s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on December 18, 2023, signed by Prefect Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández and approved with a signature by Pope Francis.[1][2] The declaration has sparked considerable controversy and criticism among Catholics, Conservative commentators, clerical congregations, and a number of high-profile individuals.[3][4]

Episcopal conferences

Cardinals and bishops

Congregations and priestly, religious, and lay associations

Some Catholic organisations which have released condemnatory statements include the following –

Other ecclesiastical authorities, priests, religious or influential lay people

Other Christian denominations

References (Footnotes)

  1. Fiducia Suplicans
  2. Fiducia Suplicans Official Press Release
  3. Coppen, Luke (19 December 2023). “‘Fiducia supplicans’: Who’s saying what?”. The Pillar. Archived from the original on 21 December 2023. Retrieved 21 December 2023.
  4. Imray, Gerald (December 22, 2023). “Some Catholic bishops reject Pope’s stance on blessings for same-sex couples. Others are confused”. AP News. Archived from the original on 23 December 2023. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
  5. “Bispos da CEAST em revolta contra decisão do Papa”. Voice of America (in Portuguese). 2023-12-24. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  6. “Statement from the Bishops of the Antilles Episcopal Conference on the Declarations, “Fiducia Supplicans””. Antilles Episcopal Conference. 2023-12-22. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  7. Atemanke, Jude (2023-12-20). “L’homosexualité est “contraire à la volonté de Dieu depuis la création du monde” : Les évêques du Bénin”. ACI Afrique. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  8. Atemanke, Jude (2023-12-21). “Fiducia Supplicans: Catholic Bishops in Burkina Faso, Niger Urge Calmness, “firm” Faith”. ACI Africa. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  9. “COMMUNIQUE DE LA CONFERENCE DES EVEQUES CATHOLIQUES DU BURUNDI CONCERNANT LA DECLARATION FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS DU DICASTERE POUR LA DOCTRINE DE LA FOI”. Eglise Catholique du Burundi (in French). 2023-12-23. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  10. Djene, Erel (2023-12-22). “Les Évêques du Cameroun contre les bénédictions des couples homosexuels (Déclaration)”. Actu Cameroun. Retrieved 2024-01-01.
  11. Secretum Meum Mihi (2023-12-23). “”Decimos NO a cualquier forma de bendición de parejas del mismo sexo”, obispos de Congo sobre Declaración Fiducia supplicans”. Blogspot. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  12. Aineah, Agnes (2023-12-21). “We’ve No “rites for such things”: Bishop in Ghana on Blessing of Same-Sex Couples”. ACI Africa. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  13. “Haïti – FLASH : Le Vatican autorise la bénédiction des couples homosexuels, réactions des évêques d’Haïti – HaitiLibre.com : Toutes les nouvelles d’Haiti 7/7”. HaitiLibre.com. 2023-12-24. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  14. “A Magyar Katolikus Püspöki Konferencia (MKPK) közleménye az áldásokról”. Magyar Kurír (in Hungarian). 2023-12-27. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  15. “Religion : l’Église catholique de Côte d’Ivoire demande aux prêtres de s’abstenir des bénédictions de couples de même sexe et ceux en situation irrégulière (Officiel) – Abidjan.net News”. abidjan.net (in French). 2023-12-27. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  16. Fr. James A (Faith-Chat Platform) (2023-12-20). “The Catholic Bishop’s Conference of Nigeria releases a statement on the new document “Fiducia Supplicans””. Twitter. Retrieved 2024-01-01.
  17. EWTN. “”Blessings for same sex unions of any kind are not permitted in Malawi”: Catholic Bishops”. ACI Africa. Retrieved 2024-01-07.
  18. Secretariado Geral (2023-12-28). “Nota Pastoral da Conferencia Episcopal de Mocambique sobre o significado das Bencaos”. Conferencia Episcopal de Mocambique (in Spanish). Retrieved 2023-01-01.
  19. Gęsiak SJ, Leszek (21 December 2023). “Rzecznik Episkopatu: Deklaracja Fiducia supplicans w niczym nie zmienia dotychczasowego nauczania Kościoła | Konferencja Episkopatu Polski”. Polish Episcopal Conference (in Polish). Retrieved 7 January 2024. Zarówno Deklaracja jak i Nota stwierdzają, że „nie wyklucza [się] udzielania błogosławieństwa pojedynczym osobom o skłonnościach homoseksualnych, które przejawiają pragnienie życia w wierności objawionym planom Bożym, tak jak naucza Kościół”. Chodzi zatem o pojedyncze osoby żyjące w całkowitej wstrzemięźliwości. [Both the Declaration and the Note state that “the blessing of individual persons with homosexual tendencies who manifest the desire to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God, as taught by the Church, is not excluded.” Therefore, we are talking about individual people living in complete abstinence.]
  20. Arnold, Tyler (22 December 2023). “Polish bishops: Church does not have authority to ‘bless same-sex unions'”. Catholic News Agency. Retrieved 7 January 2024. Catholic bishops in Poland have ruled out the possibility of blessing “same-sex unions” but remain open to blessing individuals with homosexual tendencies, only if they are “living in complete abstinence” of sexual activities. […] The Polish bishops’ statement did not expressly criticize the Vatican declaration but appeared to conflict with the guidance contained within it.
  21. Archdiocese Of Kigali (2023-12-20). “Itangazo ry’Abepiskopi Gatolika mu Rwanda ku mugisha wahabwa umugabo n’umugore babana bitemewe na Kiliziya n’ababana bahuje igitsina”. Twitter (in Kinyarwanda). Retrieved 2024-01-01.
  22. Secretum Meum Mihi (2023-12-28). “Obispos de Senegal toman posición sobre Declaración Fiducia supplicans”. Blogspot (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  23. “Bénédiction des couples homosexuels : réticence des évêques togolais”. République Togolaise (in French). 2023-12-21. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  24. “RORATE CÆLI: Ukraine Bishops Conference Chooses Sides: Against Francis’ Gay Declaration – “There is no blessing for living in sin”: “The document does not provide clear distinctions””. RORATE CÆLI. 2023-12-19. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  25. Staff, Crux (2023-12-24). “Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church announces Fiducia Supplicans ‘has no legal force’ for its followers”. Catholic Herald. Retrieved 2024-01-07.
  26. Fr. Edmond Nyoka (2023-12-20). “Zambia Episcopal Conference. My neighboring country”. Twitter. Retrieved 2024-01-01.
  27. Catholic Sat (2023-12-22). “The Bishops of Zimbabwe: “In respect of the law of the land, our culture and for moral reasons we instruct pastors to desist from actions that may be deemed as the blessing of same sex unions bringing confusion and even scandal to our people””. Twitter. Retrieved 2024-01-01.
  28. “Note su “Fiducia Supplicans””. Diocesi Ventimiglia – Sanremo. 2023-12-21. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  29. “Vatikanet klargjør utvikling i Kirkens lære om velsignelser”. Den katolske kirke (in Norwegian). 2023-12-24. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  30. Ravasi, Javier Olivera (2023-12-19). “Un arzobispo prohíbe la bendición de parejas en su arquidiócesis”. InfoCatólica (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  31. “Video di monsignor Viganò sulla “Fiducia supplicans””. Aldo Maria Valli (in Italian). 2023-12-21. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  32. Viganò, Carlo Maria (2023-12-21). “Declaration on “Fiducia supplicans””. EXSURGE DOMINE. Retrieved 2024-01-07. The delirious Declaration Fiducia Supplicans, recently published by the parody of the former Holy Office renamed the Dicastery, definitively pierces the veil of hypocrisy and deception of the Bergoglian Hierarchy, showing these false shepherds for what they really are: servants of Satan and his most zealous allies, beginning with the usurper who sits – an abomination of desolation – on the Throne of Peter.
  33. “Mons. Chaput sobre Fiducia supplicans: “La ambigüedad deliberada o persistente no es de Dios””. InfoCatólica (in Spanish). 2023-12-23. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  34. “Biskoppen om: Troslæredikasteriets erklæring om den pastorale betydning af velsignelser, herunder af personer af samme køn”. Den Katolske Kirke i Danmark (in Danish). 2023-12-19. Retrieved 2024-01-01.
  35. Tapia, Carlos (2023-12-24). “Sturla cree que instrucción de Vaticano sobre parejas del mismo sexo “no debió surgir en Navidad” y no bendecirá este tipo de uniones”. EL PAIS (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  36. “Statement of the Bishops of South Dakota – Joint Letter of Fiducia Supplicans”. Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls. 2023-12-22. Retrieved 2024-01-01.
  37. Esteban, Carlos (21 December 2023). “Obispo emérito suizo: “No puede bendecirse una unión pecaminosa”” [Swiss bishop emeritus: “A sinful union cannot be blessed”]. InfoVaticana (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-01-01. El llamado magisterio de Francisco, que se presenta como algo nuevo y sin precedentes en comparación con la tradición, es un neologismo conceptual sin sentido del cardenal Fernández […] Por lo tanto, sigue siendo cierto que una práctica y unión pecaminosas no pueden ser bendecidas porque contradice el orden de la creación y la voluntad de Dios, y en tal caso, la bendición no puede ser dada ni recibida fructíferamente […] Por eso [personas] pueden recibir la bendición para crecer en la gracia y para el éxito de sus esfuerzos morales y de sus próximos pasos en la buena dirección, pero no como pareja por el malentendido y la imposibilidad de tal bendición. [The so-called magisterium of Francis, which is presented as something new and unprecedented compared to tradition, is a meaningless conceptual neologism of Cardinal Fernández […] Therefore, it remains true that a sinful practice and union cannot be blessed because it contradicts the order of creation and the will of God, and in such case, the blessing cannot be given or received fruitfully […] Therefore [people] can receive the blessing to grow in grace and to the success of their moral efforts and their next steps in the right direction, but not as a couple due to the misunderstanding and the impossibility of such a blessing.]
  38. kath.net (2024-01-05). “”Die weltweite negative Reaktion aus großen Teilen des Weltepiskopates” auf Fiducia supplicans”. kath.net katholische Nachrichten (in German). Retrieved 2024-01-05.
  39. Luxmoore, Jonathan (5 January 2024). “Episcopate gives Rome a rough ride over Fiducia Supplicans declaration”. Church Times. Retrieved 7 January 2024. Another former Vatican Prefect, German Cardinal Müller, rejected the Declaration on 21 December, however, branding it a “sacrilegious and blasphemous act against the Creator’s plan”, which “directly contradicted” previous Vatican guidance and was “not based on any church doctrine, biblical teaching, writings by church Fathers or Doctors of the Church”.
  40. Centro Pieper (2023-12-23). “Centro Pieper: “Fiducia Supplicans” no debe ser obedecida – Mons. Héctor Aguer”. Blogspot. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  41. jesus sanz montes (2023-12-22). “Es controvertida Fiducia Supplicans. Innecesaria tras lo dicho por el mismo Dicasterio y avalado por el mismo Papa hace sólo 2 años. Una prisa poco sinodal y una pretensión ambigua en un documento que confunde y defrauda. Bendecimos las personas no las relaciones y circunstancias”. Twitter (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-01-01.
  42. “Mons. Munilla explica por qué la Iglesia no puede bendecir uniones homosexuales ni hoy ni nunca”. InfoCatólica (in Spanish). 2023-10-10. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  43. Esteban, Carlos (2023-12-19). “Obispo Strickland: Tenemos que decir “no” a la bendición de parejas homosexuales”. Info Vaticana (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-01-01.
  44. “Mons Aillet sobre Fiducia Supplicans: bendecir solo a personas, no a parejas y con llamada previa a la conversión y a pedir ayuda”. InfoCatólica (in Spanish). 2023-12-30. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  45. “Fiducia supplicans, réflexions et orientations des évêques des diocèses de l’Ouest”. rennes.catholique.fr (in French). 2024-01-01. Retrieved 2024-01-06.
  46. Kinyanjui, Moses (2023-12-24). “Archbishop Anyolo defies Pope’s decision, forbids blessing of same-sex couples in Nairobi”. Citizen Digital. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  47. Onyalla, Fr. Don Bosco (2023-12-24). “Nairobi Archbishop Prohibits Blessing of Irregular Unions, Explains “concept of blessing””. ACI Africa. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  48. “https://www.prelaturademoyobamba.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/24.01.02-Mensaje-del-Ob.-de-Moyobamba-sobre-Fiducia-Supplicans.pdf” (PDF). {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  49. Sarah, Robert (8 January 2024). “Messaggio di Natale” [Christmas message]. www.diakonos.be (in Italian). Retrieved 8 January 2024. [Fiducia supplicans] non ha saputo correggere questi errori e fare opera di verità. Di più, con la sua mancanza di chiarezza, non ha fatto che amplificare la confusione che regna nei cuori e alcuni addirittura se ne sono impadroniti per sostenere il loro tentativo di manipolazione. […] [A]nche noi non discutiamo con il divisore. Non entriamo in discussione con la dichiarazione “Fiducia supplicans”, né con i diversi suoi utilizzi che abbiamo visto moltiplicarsi. Semplicemente rispondiamo con la Parola di Dio e con il magistero e l’insegnamento tradizionale della Chiesa. Per mantenere la pace e l’unità nella verità, dobbiamo rifiutare di discutere con il divisore. […] Devo ringraziare le conferenze episcopali che hanno già fatto quest’opera di verità, in particolare quelle del Camerun, del Ciad, della Nigeria, ecc., di cui condivido e faccio mie le decisioni e la ferma opposizione alla dichiarazione “Fiducia supplicans”. Dobbiamo incoraggiare le altre conferenze episcopali nazionali o regionali e ogni vescovo a fare lo stesso. Facendo così, non ci opponiamo a papa Francesco, ma ci opponiamo fermamente e radicalmente a un’eresia che mina gravemente la Chiesa, Corpo di Cristo, perché contraria alla fede cattolica e alla Tradizione. [[Fiducia supplicans] was unable to correct these errors and do truthful work. Furthermore, with its lack of clarity, it has only amplified the confusion that reigns in hearts and some have even seized upon it to support their attempt at manipulation. […] [E]ven we do not argue with the divider. We do not enter into discussion with the declaration “Fiducia supplicans”, nor with its various uses that we have seen multiply. We simply respond with the Word of God and with the magisterium and traditional teaching of the Church. To maintain peace and unity in truth, we must refuse to argue with the divider. […] I must thank the episcopal conferences that have already carried out this work of truth, in particular those of Cameroon, Chad, Nigeria, etc., whose decisions and firm opposition to the declaration I agree with and make my own.” Fiducia supplicans”. We must encourage other national or regional bishops’ conferences and every bishop to do the same. By doing so, we are not opposing Pope Francis, but we are firmly and radically opposing a heresy that seriously undermines the Church, the Body of Christ, because it is contrary to the Catholic faith and Tradition.]
  50. Staff, Crux (2023-12-24). “Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church announces Fiducia Supplicans ‘has no legal force’ for its followers”. Catholic Herald. Retrieved 2024-01-07.
  51. Luxmoore, Jonathan (5 January 2024). “Episcopate gives Rome a rough ride over Fiducia Supplicans declaration”. Church Times. Retrieved 7 January 2024. Several Orthodox leaders, including Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), formerly the Russian Orthodox Church’s Foreign Minister and now Metropolitan of Budapest, have also strongly criticised Fiducia Supplicans, while the Primate of the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine, Major Archbishop Svetoslav Shevchuk, said in a statement last week that the Declaration would not apply to the world’s 23 autonomous Eastern Rite Catholic confessions, which followed separate canonical rules.
  52. Peta, Thomasz; Schneider, Athanasius (19 December 2023). “Statement of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana regarding the Declaration Fiducia supplicans, published by the Dicastery of the Doctrine of Faith and approved by Pope Francis on December 18, 2023”. Catholic Herald. Retrieved 6 January 2024. The fact that the document does not give permission for the “marriage” of same-sex couples should not blind pastors and faithful to the great deception and the evil that resides in the very permission to bless couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples. Such a blessing directly and seriously contradicts Divine Revelation and the uninterrupted, bimillennial doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church. To bless couples in an irregular situation and same-sex couples is a serious abuse of the most Holy Name of God, since this name is invoked upon an objectively sinful union of adultery or of homosexual activity. [..] With such blessings, the Catholic Church becomes, if not in theory, then in practice, a propagandist of the globalist and ungodly “gender ideology”.
  53. Luxmoore, Jonathan (5 January 2024). “Episcopate gives Rome a rough ride over Fiducia Supplicans declaration”. Church Times. Retrieved 7 January 2024. In one of the strongest RC reactions, Archbishop Tomasz Peta of Kazakhstan’s Astana diocese, said that Pope Francis had disregarded “truth of the gospel” and should revoke the blessing permit, which “most seriously abused the Holy Name of God” and embodied a “great deception and evil”.
  54. “El obispo emérito de Baní pide a todas las conferencias episcopales del mundo que se planten contra las bendiciones a parejas homosexuales”. Info Vaticana (in Spanish). 2023-12-22. Retrieved 2024-01-01.
  55. https://twitter.com/CardinalNapier?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1737743685813510459%7Ctwgr%5Efc4cb90538f351b467a5b5663d4d4c00fc36c22e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicarena.com%2Flatest%2Fvaticandoc211223[dead link]
  56. Secretum Meum Mihi (2023-12-20). “Obispos de Nigeria sobre Declaración Fiducia supplicans: “No Hay, por tanto, posibilidad en la Iglesia de bendecir las uniones y actividades entre personas del mismo sexo””. Blogspot (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  57. Colsy, Thomas (21 December 2023). “UK’s Confraternity of Catholic Clergy publishes letter reaffirming traditional Church teaching after Fiducia Supplicans”. Catholic Herald. Retrieved 5 January 2024. We see no situation in which such a blessing of a couple could be properly and adequately distinguished from some level of approval. Thus, it would inevitably lead to scandal – to the individuals concerned – to those involved directly or indirectly in the blessing – or to the minister himself. Furthermore, we fear that the practice of these blessings would confuse the faithful over the actual theology of marriage and human sexuality. Indeed, from the comments in the media over the past few days, and from concerns passed on to us by the faithful, we can already see such misunderstandings. We believe that genuine charity always follows true doctrine and that such blessings would work against the legitimate care a priest owes is flock.
  58. “PETICION AL SANTO PADRE POR AMOR A LA VERDAD Y EN FIDELIDAD AL EVANGELIO DE NUESTRO SEÑOR JESUCRISTO”. CORPORACIÓN DE ABOGADOS CATÓLICOS (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-01-01.
  59. Confraternity (2022-07-31). “Statements – Confraternity of Catholic Clergy”. Retrieved 2024-01-05.
  60. Feed, CV News (2023-12-22). “Marians of the Immaculate Conception to Refrain from Blessing Same-Sex Couples”. CatholicVote org. Retrieved 2024-01-06.
  61. “Comunicado de prensa del Superior General de la FSSPX”. Actualidad (in Spanish). 2023-12-19. Retrieved 2024-01-01.
  62. “ON THE DECLARATION FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS – Our Lord is already too much offended”. Transalpine Redemptorists. 2023-12-22. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  63. Thompson, Damian (4 January 2024). “Tweet by Damian Thompson”. X. Retrieved 7 January 2024. This is an embarrassing mess, written in a cold sweat of panic by Cardinal Fernandez. He’s clearly worried that Fiducia Supplicans could cost him his job – as indeed it should. Bishops are being treated with contempt, and the reckoning will come at the conclave.
  64. Thompson, Damian (22 December 2023). “Tweet by Damian Thompson”. X. Retrieved 7 January 2024. Fiducia Supplicans is a screw-up of historic proportions and certain to influence the next conclave.
  65. de Souza, Raymond J. (4 January 2024). “‘Fiducia Supplicans’ 2.0”. NCR. Retrieved 7 January 2024. It is startling that the prefect thought it necessary to issue a press statement insisting that the DDF is not teaching heresy or promoting blasphemy. Memory fails to recall an example of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger doing the same during his more than 23 years as prefect. It was, only months ago, assumed that the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith was neither heretical nor blasphemous. Given that many bishops are questioning that, we have an inversion of the previous order of things. It used to be that the doctrinal office would clarify orthodox teaching and then others would defend their orthodoxy. Now, the dicastery pronounces itself, and when local bishops object, the prefect protests his orthodoxy. This is “certainly something very different” indeed.
  66. Ashenden, Gavin (21 December 2023). “Fiducia Supplicans: an exercise in smoke and mirrors, where spin becomes substance and appearance reality”. Catholic Herald. Retrieved 7 January 2024. [The distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxy] is for many confusing. Once again, the hallmarks that have coloured the last ten years or so of this papacy re-emerge: ambiguity, confusion and perhaps chaos. […] At this point, in some act of metaphysical subtlety, too swift for the eye to follow or the mind to understand, they have been blessed as “individuals who presented as a couple”. To some this may seem a little Jesuitical. […] The homespun wisdom amongst hunters or the rural community that “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck”, becomes for faithful Catholics: “If it looks like heresy, reads like heresy, and effects heresy, then it probably is heresy.”
  67. “”Contextual” theology and Fiducia Supplicans”. Position Papers. 2024-01-01. Retrieved 2024-01-06.
  68. “https://twitter.com/JhWesten/status/1743452328210882583?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet”. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  69. Shaw, Joseph. “Briefing from the Chairman 3 – The Blessing of Irregular Relationships”. Mad Mimi. Retrieved 2024-01-06. The predictable headlines on the Church accepting sex outside marriage undermine the proclamation of the Gospel and harm souls. Good priests are demoralised, and bishops wishing to teach authentically risk being told that they are contradicting the Pope.
  70. Coppen, Luke (2023-12-19). “‘Fiducia supplicans’: Who’s saying what?”. The Pillar. Retrieved 2024-01-07. The question before us is not necessarily about the doctrine of marriage, which remains unchanged, but whether the Church and its pastors have any mandate to bless ‘irregular’ and same-sex relationships (para 4 and passim). Based on Scripture and the unvarying teaching of the Church down the ages, the answer has always been that the Church cannot do this. The 2021 Responsum was clear about this. […] Blessings can be for individuals, families or groups (para 8). This is not the same as blessing relationships which the Church teaches are outside the will of God for humanity. […] There seems to be some unclarity in the declaration about the distinction between intercessory prayer and blessing. […] Loving persons is not the same as endorsing and blessing everything they may be doing.
  71. Kwasniewski, Peter (5 January 2024). “A Clarification That Obfuscates”. Crisis Magazine. Retrieved 7 January 2024. In many ways, the clarification published by Cardinal Fernández on January 4, 2024, is even worse than the original document it purports to clarify […] For what it’s worth, that makes Fiducia Supplicans a good example of the ivory-tower, armchair, ideological theology Francis criticized in Ad Theologiam Promovendam.
  72. The World Over January 4, 2024 | BLESSING SAME SEX COUPLES: Philip Lawler with Raymond Arroyo, retrieved 2024-01-05
  73. Marshall, Taylor (19 December 2023). “Tweet by Dr Taylor Marshall™️”. X. Retrieved 7 January 2024. Every Catholic priest will now be forced to give blessings to same sex couples. If they refuse, they will be reported to diocese & punished. This is a systemic plan to reshape the priesthood globally. Time will prove my observation to be true, unless a future Pope fixes it.
  74. Marshall, Taylor (18 December 2023). “Tweet by Dr Taylor Marshall™️”. X. Retrieved 7 January 2024. This is Jesuit trickery: #INFILTRATION
  75. Mohler, Albert (19 December 2023). “The Briefing”. albertmohler.com. Retrieved 7 January 2024. The bottom line is that this is a disaster. It’s a disaster I think on many fronts, but in particular it’s a disaster because the impact of this in the larger culture is going to be to add momentum to the very forces that are tearing apart gender, tearing apart sexuality, tearing apart civilization, tearing apart marriage, tearing apart sexual morality, and all the rest.
  76. Webb, Katelyn (19 December 2023). “Franklin Graham says Pope Francis doesn’t have the right to bless ‘what God calls sin'”. The Christian Post. Retrieved 7 January 2024. So-called ‘blessings’ from religious leaders won’t save you from the judgment of God!” wrote Graham, the president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse. “Pope Francis has now approved Catholic priests’ blessing’ same-sex couples. But none of us, including the Pope, has the right to ‘bless’ what God calls sin. ‘Woe to those who call evil good and good evil…’ (Isaiah 5:20).

On the Expulsion of Jews from Western Catholic Monarchies: Part III

Undoing Historical Revisionism

Expulsions of European Jewry, 1290-1492

by Austin Walsh

Part III: In Spain Terror, Larceny and State Sanctioned Murder

After the Moors invaded Visigoth Spain in 711, the facts were plain and well-known that the Saracens would not have attempted the invasion were it not for the treason by way of intelligence furnished by local Jews who, as it were, held open the Gates of Toledo for the enemy. However, Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin were to plant the foundations of a glorious future only eleven years later, and fittingly, originating from a cave beyond which Saracen advances on Visigoth territory never did advance.

Our Lady of Covadonga and her son Don Pelayo loom large in a chapter of Catholic history that, while separate from this article, prove well worthy of any Catholic reader hungering for restoration. Visigoths surely taught the sons of their sons to be ever mindful of the death of their nation at the hands of treacherous Jews. The Councils of Toledo (400-681) had wisely decreed that Jews incorrigibly subverted the well-being of the state and should be barred in perpetuity from holding government office. However, after eight hundred years of preoccupation with recapturing their ancestral home from the Musselmen, this lesson was to be learned again the hard way.  Maurice Pinay, the singular pseudonym for the several authors of the absolutely essential-to-read The Plot Against the Church, recount for us the terror endured by the Spanish in the late Fourteenth Century under Monarch Peter the Cruel.  (A full and free PDF download of the English translation of The Plot Against the Church is available via Cognitive Gateway.)

Then the Christian kingdom of Iberia (Spain)… promoted the Jews to government members and even to ministers or royal state treasurers. As a result they violated the decisions of the Holy Church Councils, which excluded the Jews from government offices.

The Jews turned back once again to their traditional tactics, to gain their enemies through seeming good conduct and effective services, thus obtaining valuable offices which made it possible to them to later conquer the states which had offered them protection. They therefore left no opportunity unused in order to get into their hands control over this Christian kingdom, which had already become a second Palestine to them, into which they streamed ready and willing. The Jews came to Castile at a time when they had reached the high point of their power. (20)

Still an adolescent upon ascending the throne in 1350, Peter the Cruel took as his advisor Jewish leader Samuel Ha-Levi Abulafia, whose influence over the King increased, giving him power like no other before him. (21) This influence proved disastrous for Peter’s subjects, who were subject to a reign of terror and murder like no other during that period of history. Interestingly, regarding Peter the Cruel’s appetite for the killing of layman and clergy alike, Pinay traces a direct parallel to the murderous Jewish Bolshevik’s of Soviet Russia. No one in Castile felt safe. Pinay continues,

Unfortunately, however, history proves to us that every time the Jews in a Christian or pagan state attain “the highpoint of their power”, a terrible wave of murders and terror is unleashed, and Christian or pagan blood flows in streams. Thus it also occurred under Peter from the moment when the Jews obtained decisive influence upon education and government…The Jews attained high regard and the synagogues prospered, while the Churches decayed and the clergy and the Christians were disgracefully persecuted. (22)

Here another pattern can be seen in the larger context when considering aforementioned events in England and France: the more power Jews obtain, the greater the abuse and persecution to be suffered by the kingdom’s subjects. The bloodshed arising from such abuse is documented not only in the form of occult ritual killing seen in England and France, but in open murder of subjects by the monarchy so influenced, as noted here about Castile. Fittingly, this pattern also applies to royal treasuries. Whereas in England and France, the lending of money to the crown proved highly pernicious, under Peter the Cruel, who was a veritable thrall of his own Jewish advisors, usury devolved into crass and enormous theft. Such was the case when Peter’s advisor Samuel was betrayed by envious fellow Jews, accused of stealing gold and silver for himself, and forfeited his life. Pinay retells the discovery recorded by a chronicler of the period,

“And it (his death) caused the King much sorrow, when he learned of it, and upon the advice of these Jews he commanded to bring him all his possessions. The houses of Samuel were searched, and they found a subterranean chamber with three mountains of gold and silver coins, bars and pieces. Each individual one was so high that a man could hide behind it. And King Peter inspected them and said: “If Samuel had only given me the third part of the smallest of these heaps, then I would not have had him tortured. But he preferred to die, without telling me.” The fact that Jewish treasurers or finance ministers stole was not new. Many had been deposed for this reason. (23)

Tyrannized by Jew-controlled Peter the Cruel, the subjects of Castile languished until the Pope excommunicated Peter and declared his subjects free of any obligation to submit to Peter’s authority. At the same time, the Pope declared Henry – Peter’s half brother-  the lawful King of Castile. With the Pope’s blessing, Henry made war against Peter. In 1369, after a battle driving Peter, that tool of Spanish Jewry, into a castle near Toledo, a meeting was arranged via a certain double-agent envoy, at which Henry slew Peter, thus ending the terror.

Abravanel, the Monarchs and the Final Decree

The next and final chapter of Jew-orchestrated chaos in Spain began in 1483 with the arrival from Portugal of treason-suspect and refugee, the Jew Isaac Abravanel. As per typical historical pattern, Abravanel opened a bank, obtained an invitation to the Court of Ferdinand and Isabella, and succeeded in ingratiating himself with the Monarchy. Returning to Ryssen

Ferdinand and Isabella then entrusted him with the Spanish finances, despite the prohibition, frequently renewed by the Cortes, against entrusting any employment whatever to a Jew. “He himself’, writes Graetz, “recalls that his services brought him riches and honours, that he was highly esteemed at court, and before the high nobility of Castile”. As at Lisbon, he caused his fellow Jews to profit from his elevated position. It was certainly Abravanel who protected the Jews of Castile from the punishments which the inquisitors would have inflicted upon them for supporting the marranos. (24)

Nine years after Abravanel’s arrival in Spain, the southern region of Granada, final holdout for Islamic Spain, fell into Christian hands on January 2nd, 1492. After eight centuries, Visigoth Toledo was avenged, and this time unlike during the previous century, the Monarchs had seemingly crystal clear recollection of Jews’ role in the downfall of 711. Ryssen again,

On 31 March 1492, by an edict dated from the palace of the Alhambra, the Catholic Kings ordered the expulsion of all Jews from Spain. They were ordered, on pain of death, to leave the territories of Castile, Aragon, Sicily and Sardinia within four months. (25)

Now what have our Talmudic friends at the Jewish Virtual Library to say about this expulsion? It seems as if both the JVL and Ryssen use nineteenth century Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz as their source, as both accounts are in agreement. First the Jewish Virtual Library (source),

Tens of thousands of refugees died while trying to reach safety. In some instances, Spanish ship captains charged Jewish passengers exorbitant sums, then dumped them overboard in the middle of the ocean. In the last days before the expulsion, rumors spread throughout Spain that the fleeing refugees had swallowed gold and diamonds, and many Jews were knifed to death by brigands hoping to find treasures in their stomachs.

Now Ryssen,

The rumour of this practice became current, and certain Spaniards did not hesitate to disembowel them in order to search for treasure in their entrails. The captains of Genoese ships treated them with “ferocious savagery”. “Out of greed of simple caprice, to revel in the sufferings and desperate cries of the Jews, they threw large numbers of them overboard”. It was clear that the Spanish had nourished notions of vengeance against the Jews for many years, and were not about to waste their opportunity. (26)

How unfortunate indeed for these murdered Jews, who themselves as individuals were forced to suffer greatly in excess of any anti-Catholic antagonism in which they might have participated.

This is the difficult lesson faced by this subversive sect who, century after century, in Kingdom after Kingdom, so mistreat and abuse their host country that their presence becomes intolerable. In Visigoth Spain their treason was so malevolent, destructive and continuous through history, even as Spain emerged and attempted to unite itself in the fifteenth century, that those enacting the expulsion found themselves avenging the slaughter, enslavement and humiliation of their own ancestors, unrequited for eight hundred years.

While affirming on the one hand, Church teaching that no one has a right to harm the Jew; on the other, the Jew has no right to subvert, slander, swindle or slaughter any Catholic Kingdom or its subjects. This sort of lawlessness is precisely what England, France and Spain’s Jews put into practice.

All murder is regrettable, whether the victim be Christian or Jew. Thus this writer posits without contesting the Jewish Virtual Library’s prerogative to decry the harm done to Jews during their expulsion from Spain. However, the same also asserts the Catholic’s right and duty to mourn and remember all the Catholics murdered by perfidious, Christ-hating Jews, throughout the Church’s history. William of Norwich was a saintly boy who offered harm to no one, but was abducted, tortured, drained of his blood, murdered and discarded as if he were one hundred pounds of rubbish. This writer reserves mourning for the Church Militant, who while gaining a Saint, has endured a deep injustice. Just as no one has the right to harm the Jew, no Jew has the right to cram a phony historiography down the throat of any Catholic.

Weaponized Jewish Historiography vs. Authentic Catholic Counter-Narrative 

This inquiry into expulsions from Jews from kingdoms of Christendom leads to surprising discoveries regarding Jewish behavior, which in its malevolence invariably exceeds all rational limits and proportions, to the point where destruction falls upon Jews themselves by way of expulsion.

These excesses continue to this day and are observable in Jewish historiography which denies by way of omission their own culpability in the disasters which befell them. Not one word of acknowledgement is written that would admit even a small portion of responsibility resting with history’s Jews. Neither is one syllable of consideration given to the point of view of history’s Catholic protagonists.

Regarding historiography and education, if the reader take even a cursory look round, he’ll see that history texts are permeated by Jewish publishers, editors, and of course, that comic-book style historiography and the Christ-hating, anti-Catholic bigotry which that historiography attempts to conceal.  It behooves today’s Catholics therefore, to speak plainly with one another about this concealed Christ-hatred to be found just beneath the surface of this Judaized historiography.

Once our Catholic voice and vocabulary on this topic is regained, we can again begin asserting our historical counter-narrative among both Catholic and non-Catholic listeners and readers. Prior, however, to both the reasserting and the speaking plainly, is the knowing the truth for oneself. Completing this priority step involves criticizing, questioning and deprogramming from the relentlessly pushed varieties of Jewish comic book history that constantly crop up in media/alt-media/social media, and even Catholic media. Authors like Pinay, Ryssen, and E. Michael Jones can be a great start. It is time that Catholic minds were liberated.

Finally, a word on the intention behind the phony histories promoted by the likes of the Jewish Virtual Library, not only a contempt for the very concept of objective truth, but also a component of a larger and more pernicious long-term agenda. A quote follows, from a Jewish document dating back to 1489, attributed to the Great Sanhedrin, a hidden group alleged to this day to guide the work of world Jewry, and in the following letter encouraging other Jews suffering a setback at the hands of the French. The letter both disturbs and reveals much about the Jewish vision for Jewish-Catholic dialogue.

Dear beloved brethren in Moses, we have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great pain to hear it as yourselves. The advice of the Grand Satraps and Rabbis is the following:

As for what you say that the King of France obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise, but let the law of Moses be kept in your hearts.

1) As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your goods: make your sons merchants, that little by little they may despoil the Christians of theirs.

2) As for what you say about their making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians’ lives.

3) As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues: make your sons cannons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches.

4) As for the many other vexations you complain of: arrange that your sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix themselves up with the affairs of State, in order that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged on them.

This concludes the Series.

_________________

FOOTNOTES:

20  Pinay, Maurice; The Plot Against the Church; 1962; Online English Edition, (T. P. Johnson, Trans.), pp. 357-58.

21  Ibid..

22  Ibid., p. 359.

23  Ibid., p. 363.

24  Ryssen, op. cit., p. 254.

25  Ibid., p. 255.

26  Ibid. p. 256.

CREDITS: For the Featured Image, see credits to Part I.

FromRome.Info wishes to thank Mr. Walsh for his research and contribution of this series.

 

 

On the Expulsion of Jews from Western Catholic Monarchies: Part II

Undoing Historical Revisionism

Expulsions of European Jewry, 1290-1492

by Austin Walsh

Part II:  France: Holy Mother’s Eldest Daughter

What have the voices of Jewry to say about their ancestors’ expulsion (one of several) from France in 1394? The Jewish Virtual Library is peculiarly reticent:

Between 1338-1347, 25 Jewish communities in Alsace were victims of terror. Massacres in response to the Black Plague (1348-49) struck Jewish communities throughout the east and southeast. The Jews of Avignon and Comtat Venaissin were spared similar fates because of intervention from the pope. Further bloodshed spread to Paris and Nantes in 1380. The culmination of all the persecution and bloodshed was the definitive expulsion of Jews from France in 1394.

This is odd: a single sentence alone describes the entire event, appended like an afterthought to a lengthy list of grievances. What gives? Where is litany of suffering, or accusations of Catholic Frenchmen inflicting undue cruelty for no reason whatsoever? Perhaps that censorious journal of philo-semitism known as Wikipedia will disclose more, in the article on the History of Jews in France, in the section on the Expulsion of 1394:

On 17 September 1394, Charles VI suddenly published an ordinance in which he declared, in substance, that for a long time he had been taking note of the many complaints provoked by the excesses and misdemeanors which the Jews committed against Christians; and that the prosecutors, having made several investigations, had discovered many violations by the Jews of the agreement they had made with him. Therefore, he decreed as an irrevocable law and statute that thenceforth no Jew should dwell in his domains (“Ordonnances”, vii. 675). According to the Religieux de St. Denis, the king signed this decree at the insistence of the queen (“Chron. de Charles VI.” ii. 119). The decree was not immediately enforced, a respite being granted to the Jews in order that they might sell their property and pay their debts. Those indebted to them were enjoined to redeem their obligations within a set time; otherwise their pledges held in pawn were to be sold by the Jews. The provost was to escort the Jews to the frontier of the kingdom. Subsequently, the king released the Christians from their debts. 

This is more of what is to be expected: the sudden ordinance of King Charles VI arising, as it were, out of the blue.  Note well that here in France, as with England in 1290, a grace period was granted for Jews in France to get their affairs in order. This is contrary to what contemporary Catholics are conditioned to believe about their ancestors, being programmed by Jewish historiography and Jewish media. Where are the accounts of squadrons of gendarmes chasing every last (harmless and innocent) Jew to every corner of the kingdom in a surprise massacre? Even more noteworthy is that French Catholics in debt to the Jews were commanded, under a deadline, to repay their Jewish usurers, lest the collateral be sold by said Jews. Even a Jew-friendly source like Wikipedia, with paid editors working from Tel Aviv, contradicts what may justly be termed the Comic Book Historical Narrative, by citing all the measures taken to mitigate discomfort of Jews on the verge of expulsion.

Charging Interest on Interest While Debauching Coin of the Realm

What account is given by Hervé Ryssen in History of Antisemitism? Usury, pushed beyond all reason and sense of proportion, sets the stage in 1380, when riots broke out in Paris:

The common people, enraged by the usury of the Jews, practised with impunity, pillaged Jewish property and wounded or killed several inhabitants; but the Jewish community always managed to arrange compensation. For example, they argued that precious objects left with them as collateral – gold, silver, precious stones, jewelry, etc. – had been stolen in the riots, and that as a result they could no longer return these objects to their owners. They were thus dispensed from returning them without even having to compel the government to reimburse them.

Would that Catholics today understand their financial enslavement and their own progeny’s peril as did the fourteenth century French! Interesting is that which can be inferred of the above passage indicating that in the aftermath of pogroms, the Jews in France seemed to have recourse to the King for the redress of grievances by way of compensation and reimbursement. Not only ought such a fact disabuse Catholics of their philo-semitic programming in comic book historiography, but also inquire as to cause. From whence would such Jewish privilege have arisen? Ryssen supplies a clue:

We see, through the public documents of the time, that they never ceased supplying the King with bribe money, for wars and other expenses. In 1388, they extorted the right to demand four pennies per livre in interest, an exorbitant rate. But the kings always prohibited the cumulation of rents with capital, and charging interest on interest, which was called, in the language of the time, faire des montes montes [making mountains of mountains]. The Jews had never before been allowed to push usury to this point.

Here is what E. Michael Jones, quoting the lawyer, St. John of Capistrano, refers to as Jewish privilege. France’s Jews, both relentless and rapacious, used the lucre stolen in the unnatural act of breeding money by lending at compound interest, to bribe the King. French patriots alert to the problem, brought legal charges against the Jews and thus sought to end the chaos:

The king’s prosecutors and other judicial officers then filed charges against the guilty usurers. In fear that the authorities might discover transactions capable of bringing down a new tempest upon their heads, the Jews hastened to advance the king a large sum of money. They then complained that the officers of the law were molesting them, and begged the King to protect them from these “persecutions”. The monarch in this case was weak enough to impose perpetual silence upon his own prosecutor, and to protect the Jews from any prosecution for 10 years. The unfortunate borrowers, for their part, probably paid 10 times what it cost the Jews to obtain this concession. The King was weak enough to prohibit his own prosecutor from accusing them of any abuses whatever. He was also ordered to avoid disturbing them in any way and to allow them to enjoy their privileges to the fullest, so that the fortunes of private persons were placed at the discretion of the usurers for 10 years. Never since the reign of Louis the Pious had the Jews obtained so much power.

Now the historical picture takes on a much clearer perspective: the absurd presupposition of the Jewish Virtual Library that innocent Jews were banished from their homes with neither warning nor cause- can be discarded. As outrageous as may be the events detailed above, for the beleaguered French at the close of the fourteenth century, the Jews kept right on pushing. The forthright Ryssen continues:

With an insane king and a government undermined by factions, the Jews speculated in public misery, enriching themselves rapidly, and, as usual, pushing their audacity to ever greater extremes. In this case, they asked the king to stop issuing creditors with the letters of respite which were obtained to prevent prosecution by the creditors of anyone who enjoyed credit at the royal court. It cost them 10,000 francs.

Would that monetary gangster tactics were the only misery inflicted on the French of the fourteenth century.

Ritual Child Murder in France

The scene repeated itself over and over throughout Christendom, time after time. Unsuspecting inhabitants of an ordinary town or village were confronted with a grisly discovery: the body of the child of one of their neighbors. Adding to the pain and horror were wounds and mutilations suggestive not only of murder, but blood-curdling occurrences surrounding the death of an innocent. Often such discoveries occurred -as in the cases of Sts. William, Hugh and Simon around Holy Week. Once eyewitness accounts and other evidence led public suspicion to fall upon area Jews, arrest and prosecution led to detailed confessions fitting the gruesome facts torn into the body of a Christian child. Toaff provides detail of these legal facts contained in the historical record

The most famous, and most frequently studied, ritual homicide of which Jews in French territory were accused during this period is certainly that reported in 1171 in Blois, a central location on the main route from Tours to Orleans, on the banks of the Loire. Here, the Jews of that community, suspected of killing a Christian child and then dumping the body in the waters of the Loire, were condemned to death, and thirty-two of them met death at the stake after a summary trial.

The Expulsion of the Jews from France in 1394

The Royal Monarch had been bought. Interest upon interest and outrage upon outrage: Jews at court removed from debtors the legal protection from prosecution by lenders. Thus the power of the lender was joined to the power of the state to extract interest and, when the borrower failed to repay, to incarcerate. In France, as in England, Jewish privilege was quite real and very menacing to Catholics. Sporadic outbreaks in both city and countryside found murdered and dismembered Catholic children, often drained of their blood before dying. In sharper relief can be seen how Jewish behavior corroded the very foundations of the societies in which Jews resided. Ryssen quotes prominent Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz:

“The Jews collected great sums in interest and had their borrowers imprisoned when they didn’t wish to pay”, thus arousing popular enmity. “The people hated the Jews”, writes Graetz. Their incessant raillery against the Catholic religion, the receiving of stolen goods, their usury, pederasty, pimping, ritual murders, racketeering and swindling of all kinds, had aroused the disgust and hatred of the Christians against the members of this sect. On 17 September 1394, the day of the Great Pardon, the King finally took the decision to expel the Jews from the kingdom.

This concludes Part II of the Series.

_________________

FOOTNOTES:

12 Ryssen, op. cit., p. 60.

13  Regarding Wikipedia, there is an Israeli term known as Hasbara, or propaganda. Israel recruits volunteers to edit Wikipedia to alter its content in favor of Jewish historiography.  Their influence is huge, due to the number of young readers who rely on Wikipedia as a source. It is explained in a two-minute video.

14 Ibid., p. 212.

15 Ibid..

16 Ibid., p. 213.

17 Ibid..

18 Toaff, op. cit., 172.

19 Ryssen, op. cit., 214.

CREDITS: For the Featured Image, see credits to Part I.

FromRome.Info wishes to thank Mr. Walsh for his research and contribution of this series.