“Intellectual dishonesty” and “moral weakness” in the age of antipope Bergoglio

The two detestable behaviors noted in the headline were directly called out by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski in his review of Antonio Socci’s book, wherein the doctor declared that the evidence in the book PROVED that Benedict’s resignation was invalid. He lamented said behaviors in those who would lazily dismiss the evidence or shout down/calumniate those who have helped bring it to light.

After a few hours of his review going viral, the good doctor altered his review, and completely flip flopped on his assessment of the evidence. Suddenly, he is unconvinced, and he pledges his loyalty to “Pope Francis,” who is totally the Pope, obvi.

You can read the latest version of his review at Amazon, of course. But to answer those of you accusing me of slandering the doctor by willfully changing what he really wrote, I offer the original screen grab below, with the money phrase highlighted.

Screenshot 2019-05-29 at 19.36.03

37 thoughts on ““Intellectual dishonesty” and “moral weakness” in the age of antipope Bergoglio

  1. I had never heard of this man before you and Barnhardt both highlighted his review. Barnhardt takes special care to highlight that he is a family man: Could it be that he modified it as an act of self preservation? The original review is already out there, perhaps he felt there are no consequences to his original thoughts being preserved by others and taking himself off the front lines of the fight, for the good of those entrusted to his care?

    Either way, Socci wins.

    1. He certainly has a lot to lose materially by being honest, but he has even more to lose spiritually by being dishonest. It’s a time for choosing, if there ever was one. It’s definitely not easy, but there are times when the sword is the only option, and here we are.

      1. Certainly does take the wind out of a prime opportunity to stand firm against the crowd (bearing in mind of course that tho this may be a mote in his eye, the beam remains in mine, armchair prognosticator such as I am). I hope this is not the last we hear from him on the subject.

  2. I say give the good doctor a break. His edited review conveys the same message as the original – read the book, address the fundamental issues therein. We all go through gyrations in how to manage, much less clearly define our perception of, the current state of affairs. Read the book, address the issues.

    1. Steven, your comment is as dishonest as the doctor’s actions here. You state: “His edited view conveys the same message as the original.”

      Really?

      Original: “I read this book expecting to be a little skeptical…Socci, however, persuaded me with his careful analysis…and above all, interpretations of canon lawyers who have proved in detail that the resignation lacks several conditions for validity.”

      Revised: “I still consider and acknowledge Pope Francis to be the Roman Pontiff”

      1. I think the substance of the review is the same. Those who believe there is a watertight case for validity need to check their math. That in itself is significant. Breaking new ground on a red or blue team vote in the auspicious venue of an internet book review does not seem to have been the intent of the review. We have a well respected phd demanding that all the rest of them actually address Socci’s arguments. Great.

      2. True enough, I suppose. But the manner in which it was changed reeks of backside pressure or shouts of “YOU’RE IN SCHISM!”

      3. If “Socci….persuaded me… that the resignation lacks several conditions for validity.” is true, then “I still consider and acknowledge Pope Francis to be the Roman Pontiff”.” is false.

        B16 can’t still be Pope AND PF be pope.

        They are COMPLETELY contrary positions. He has once again shown to be gutless.

  3. Almost everyone of the sheep even the ovine intelligentsia is running scared.

    Agreed with our host—the time is here to take a stand

    I personally consider—and would in my own case and that if my family—an excommunication from Antipope Francis a badge of honor.

    I would and do consider an honor bestowed by Francis utterly repugnant. I would not want to stand with any man or crowd so honored. Emma Bonino; Ehrlich; Sachs & the rest. Even less so with the ‘Friends of Francis,’ like McCarrick, Parolin, Cupich, Sorondo, Maradiaga, James Martin (rumored to be coming to Philly bumping Chaput), and other actual criminal child rapists like ‘Don Mercedes’ Inzoli, Grassi and a plague of such degenerates.

  4. Dear friends,
    do not focus too much on positions taken by individuals. Much more important is objective truth not opinions about the subject where clear thinking can be fogged. Bergolio can not be the pope, if BXVI did not resigned. This is focal point, not election laws or heresies (there might be time for that in the future).
    Dr Kwasniewski is fine scholar but as such he does have responsibilities (to not spread rumour and to do thorough research) and limitations (pear and other pressures) also having family to feed can be an issue. I’m not saying that this is the case, I don’t know him enough to say that, but it is possibility. I did read something he wrote about Mass (NO vs Catholic Mass) where he used very strong words but he where he stopped short with conclusions. Anyway, he is worth reading but one have to make decisions by his own. Who is the Pope? – examine facts not opinions.

  5. Non Veni Pacem, thank you for saving the screen shot. And for making your “yes be yes and your no be no”. That Fabric of Reality that Jordan Peterson notes and is cited by S. Armaticus is unavoidable both in this life but especially in the next. “Come, Holy Spirit, enlighten the hearts of Thy faithful; enkindle in them the fire of Thy love.”

  6. What’s sad is watching you guys duke it out over Francis vs. Benedict, while the truth is that both are heretics and so neither are capable of having held the Papacy in the first place. This is the divine law on this matter and you men continue to go against God in insisting on one fake pope over another, and you remain dupes of the operation of error (see 2 Thes) in the process. You must learn the Catholic Faith on this matter rather than waste away in this pointless pseudo-debate. Both are heretics; both promote/d Vatican II’s heresies in their supposed Magisteriums and so both have made the Church a liar if in fact they are/were true Popes. Benedict’s admission of a Counter-Syllabus at Vatican II is one of the most glaring examples. Why do you men cling to Benedict instead of the Catholic Faith? The externals? The ‘Latin Mass’? Paul VI’s episcopal consecration and his new ‘Mass’ are both invalid; see Fr. Cekada’s work on this. You must wise up because you are confusing people in the process with this pseduo-Trad, make it up as you go along ‘orthodoxy’.

      1. Really, that’s it? If you do not by now understand that Vatican II itself is the root of all of this and you’re Hamlet Non-Pope Emeritus was at the center of that ‘Council’, you either are not seeking the truth enough or have been blinded and robbed of your faith and you’re simply ignorant. Either way, I’m telling in you in good faith to wake up and drop this Benedict vs. Francis charade. It doesn’t matter. Dead end either way. Dig deeper.

      2. Vatican II is not the root, my friend. You’re the one who needs to dig deeper. Start with all the encyclicals from Leo XIII and Pius X. Modernism has been coming at us for 150 years, which itself was rooted in the ideas of the French Revolution and further to Lockean philosophy of the 17th Century. It’s been a long time in the making.

  7. Already in hot water, a boiling frog, from Lifesite News, May 2/2019, the doctor himself administers a glancing blow to Bergoglio a heretic, by having signed the Open Letter to him.
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/im-a-catholic-philosopher-why-i-signed-the-open-letter-accusing-pope-francis-of-heresy
    On May 29/2019 Bergoglio in an interview states, …”I also pray for them because they are wrong and poor people, some are manipulated. And who are those who signed…?” Pope Francis added, alluding to an open letter signed by a group of 19 Catholics who accused the pope of “the canonical delict of heresy.”
    Now this Amazon critique and comment.
    Bergoglio knows who oppose him and the good doctor is one of the thorns. Someone got to this man, and persuasion used. Like all else for this man Bergoglio, he will ignore all, and deflect. He is not the pope, he does not care.
    Like those …”warriors”… we were asked to pray for in a previous article, we need to include the good doctor on that list.

  8. Let’s try to take slightly different view on dr Kwasniewski’s review. Maybe we don’t read there what we wish for, but there is definitely ‘something going on’, and it is going in good direction. If author for all those years thought about Bergolio as the Pope it is almost impossible to expect he will change his stance on the dime. It took me good amount of time to recognize and cope with reality. Yet still I admit that I can be wrong saying that BXVI is the Pope, not Francis.
    I can understand what disturbance (temporarily disturbance) in catholic’s mind can create thought that pope is someone else we thought all the time. Give him some time, he clearly is confused and, my guess, little dis-orientated. You can tell this by reasoning he uses, he even contradicts himself in that review. Nevertheless we should appreciate his honesty. Hopefully this event will result in more systematic and rigorous approach to the subject which, when logic applied, is not at all that complicated. More problems are with acceptance and consequences, but this is different story. Now there is a chance to bring it up to the level that can’t be simply ignored. Kwasniewski is not alone but the more scholars is involved the better (for the truth).

  9. The current review reads “based on the morally unanimous universal acceptance of his papacy…” What does “morally unanimous” mean? It sounds like an oxymoron.

    1. He is speaking about the theory of Universal Acceptance as a guarantor of election validity. A theory I see as irrelevant if an election never actually took place.

      1. Universal acceptance seems to apply to past papacies only, not to present. Sadly this point of view is popularized and adds to confusion. No, if whole world accept X as the pope (including faithful and pagans) it _does not_ mean that X is the pope.
        SSPX printed book that argues for univ acceptance. Not sure it this is SSPX official position, but you can see they put themselves in peculiar position by not willing to adhere to founder and compromising (accepting bribes) from Rome.
        Just remember that main point here is the Truth and it want be walk in the park. Kwasniewski wrote something important in his review: let the Bergolio supporters win the battle if true is on their side. I don’t think they have a chance achieve it it honest way but what do I know? Bringing this subject up to public debate is already big success.

  10. Nice comments (excepting those of NTG).
    IMHO, Kwasniewski’s two main problems are these:
    1) Hasn’t been a studious Catholic (i.e. studious TradCat) long enough to have the needed background to see the need for carefulness in avoiding unwarranted dogmatizing (especially by lame men — sorry, I meant laymen).
    2) Isn’t aware (or seems to be unaware) that his “doctorate” means essentially nothing in our day, wherein there are almost no truly reliable universities, and, perhaps being pressured by the obligation of using the influence that such a title gives him (because most people don’t *realize* the title is meaningless), he has been too precipitate, out of an imprudent zeal, in using that influence, by making assured statements that are not, in the end, assured.
    Nevertheless, as some have already said, it is a step forward. The more that this vile pervert Bergoglio is challenged, the better. One thing is absolutely crystal clear, I think, to all of us: Bergoglio is anti-Catholic, and must be hindered in every way possible, short of sin.
    Christus et Maria hunc perversum hominem conterant!

    1. I think I talk too much, but let me answer this one:
      >Bergoglio is anti-Catholic, and must be hindered in every way possible
      No, no, no! THIS IS WRONG! If the goal is to remove Bergolio, mind you that if you succeed the same method may, and will, be used for removal of future pope that you might like. The goal should be adherence to the truth. If Bergolio is valid pope, it doesn’t matter what you (or I) think or want. There are many points that his validity can be questioned: A) invalid B16 resignation B) invalid conclave C) heresy. It is not that we can pick whatever we want. Each argument need to be carefully weighted without connection to our particular situation. For practical reasons sequence A, B, C is logical and A is so clear (imo) that we don’t need to sink into B and C, where situation is more muddy. If Bergolio is removed for wrong reasons then, even if outcome may please us, it will be failure, because truth wont be revealed. Using untrue reasons for B. removal will backfire badly when if truth is revealed we don’t have to worry.
      So, be aware of any attempts to remove B. for wrong reasons. If I was on other side and see that B. cant be saved I’d push hard for removal of B. for untrue reason, because this will leave me field for future manoeuvres.
      I observed attempts to remove A) from public discussion in favour of B and C – not sure if this is deliberate, but this is dangerous.

      1. Sure it is right.
        But when did I say Bergoglio should be *removed*?
        And if adherence to truth is the goal, as I most heartily agree it is, since Bergoglio is a deeply perverse enemy of the truth, and in a position where he can and does do the most damage to truth as anyone can, wouldn’t you agree that he must be challenged and hindered in every way possible, even if not removed?
        Now of course, if there IS a way, justifiable by Tradition or at least the opinion of a number of competent theologians, and done formally by the competent authorities, to remove this man, that would be the best way of hindering him.
        BTW, I agree with your stated necessary sequence of steps for such a removal: A, B, C.

      2. – I’m not too familiar with reply system. Sorry it this answer is placed not in proper position.

        >But when did I say Bergoglio should be *removed*?

        Indeed, you did not speak about removal of Bergolio aka Francis (BaF), it was my interpretation. I didn’t intend to make personal post but rather used occasion to clarify situation we are in, and action that is to be taken, that seems reasonable. Other paths of development/clarification are also possible.
        Resistance to BaF is a matter I deliberately leave aside. No doubt resistance should be applied when we deal with clear actions of BaF that contradicts Church. When such contradictions aren’t clear or simply don’t apply, even if we may think so… much depends on real status of BaF. If he is not the pope he should be simply ignored.
        I understand your position in manner I described above, not as call to resistance to BaF simply because we don’t like him/don’t agree with him.

        Re A), B), C).
        Sequence from A) to C) is just practical approach. There is much work to be done with C) (heresy). It already started. There is need for deep knowledge, mostly theological. There is also, imo, no theologian today with necessary authority (not knowledge, but authority) to lead debate. Without such person/institution we will, most likely, end up with just a looong quarel. If C) is eventually solved (after many years) in favour for BaF we still have open questions in A) and B).
        If we then move to B) (invalid election) we have similar situation with the difference being that expert cannon lawyers are in heavier need.
        If we start with A) (invalid B16 resignation) and we succeed, there is no need for touching B) and C) at all. So this is just practical approach. You can say it this way:
        If A) then if B) then if C) then BaF is not the pope.
        Proving C) true or false does determinate outcome. where proving A) false ends the whole quest at the spot. And proving A) is easiest to do from all there – knowledge of experts is not as critical as with other two points. This not mean that I think that proceeding with A) will be almost automatic, just easiest of those three points.

        This is why I think that touching A) by dr Kwasniewski is important. I heard him using brave words in deference of the Church, so he is capable of overcoming applied pressure (I do not know his situation) and going straight for truth. Listening/reading other voices from hierarchy, academy and lay often can cause nausea. Not always, not always ofc. That is why I see his voice in A) as pretty darn important. If he wont drop the button the Truth has better chance to be revealed sooner.

        Keep this matter in your prayers.

      3. Correction.
        Please forgive me all mistakes in my last post. I meant >batonbutton< of course (and others).
        There is the "equation" I would like to write down correctly.

        If B16 resign validly (A)
        then
        if BaF was elected validly (B)
        then
        if BaF wont lost the Office due to heresy (C)
        then
        BaF is the Pope.

      4. “Indeed, you did not speak about removal of Bergolio aka Francis (BaF), it was my interpretation.”
        MC, I get it. We are on the same page, for what that is worth.

  11. Vatican II was of the ‘Church’, putatively. No one disputes that the forces of the French Revolution influenced people worldwide. But that isn’t the point. The Church is protected from making compromises like that with the world; from teaching error (like with religious liberty, ecumenism, the very nature of the Church and more, all of which were enshrined at VII as ‘Catholic’ teaching). Yet that’s what happened at Vatican II: supposed Catholic Popes have lead the faithful into heresy. But such a thing is impossible for the Church and her true successors to do. Ergo, Vatican II was not truly of the Church.

    When I say it is the root, I mean the root of the false ‘Church’ being set up ‘officially’ with the false sacraments, doctrine, discipline, popes, etc. If you study what the Church teaches about the Papacy and indefectibility, you’ll see you’re resisting the only logical and Catholic conclusion that follows when you abide by that teaching and hold it up to the claimants to the Papacy post V-II. And yes, that includes everyone’s favorite prince, Ratzinger, in whom so many have mistakenly placed their trust.

    1. Indefectibility and the guarantee of a visible Church are the most problematic issues for your position. I’m done with this, I’m sorry, just don’t have the time to debate in this space, and it never goes anywhere anyway.

      1. @NTG
        >that includes everyone’s favorite prince, Ratzinger, in whom so many have mistakenly placed their trust

        You create straw man argument. Nobody here sad anything that my suggest such a thing, it exist only in your head. Sure some people may look at Ratzinger the way you described but what is the point of discussing it here, where I see no proponents of this stance.
        I agree with you that V2 was major factor in situation we are in today. Hopefully it will follow the path of other failed Councils but it does not relate directly question who the pope is. I assume you lean to opinion that neither Francis or Benedict occupy on Peter’s Seat. Like docmx001 I don’t want to discuss that.

    2. This probably won’t get published anyway, but here goes, MC:

      Yes, it does relate directly to the question of whether Benedict/Francis was/is the Pope. The religion professed by both men is not the Catholic religion, but a bad imitation of it concocted by Modernists at Vatican II. Being a heretic is bad enough, but the fact that they taught heresy in their ‘authentic magisterium’ is an infallible sign that they lacked/lack papal power.

    3. The irony.
      Sedevacs preach up the indefectibility of the Church, and in the same breath declare that we haven’t had a pope for three generations or so. If the pope is the head of the Church by divine decree, and has had and must have successors till the end of the world (see Denzinger systematic index, IIIa), how does that work?

      Among other failures to distinguish, there is that of confusing the pope and/or the hierarchy with the Church. The hierarchy is not the Church, but just the hierarchy of the Church. The hierarchy acts AS the Church Herself only when it does what the Church does; that is, preach the true Faith, rule wisely, and sanctify, in line with Tradition.
      Or was it the Church acting, when for instance John XXII taught that souls dying in a state of grace would not see God until the Last Judgment?

  12. >it does relate directly to the question of whether Benedict/Francis was/is the Pope
    Yet it is different matter.
    Problem we touched, via dr Kwasniewski’s review, starts with B16 ‘resignation’. His papacy before that is not in question here. For you, problems starts with V2 (or whenever you say) and, for you, case of valid/invalid resignation doesn’t matter at all. Those are different subjects.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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