Should Catholics Keep Heads in Sand?

Check out our Latest News!

Should Catholics Keep Heads in Sand?

Should Catholics Keep Heads in Sand?

Pope Francis

(Remnant) Editor’s Note: As this article went to press, the Vatican Press Office—clearly in response to worldwide expressions of dismay by concerned Catholics—has floated reports that the interview of Pope Francis by Eugenio Scalafari quoted in this article was not a verbatim transcript and that Scalfari did not use a tape recorder or take notes. The same neo-Catholic commentators who attempted to defend some of the Pope’s shocking statements in the interview are now exulting that perhaps the interview was not accurate after all—showing once again their willingness to bend and twist themselves in any direction to persuade us all that nothing is amiss in the Church.

We are, however, witnessing the Vatican apparatus’s usual two-step. The interview in its entirety, complete with quotation marks, has been posted on the Vatican website and the Pope has not corrected a single word of it. Further, Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi told the press that “if Francis felt his thought had been ‘gravely misrepresented,’ he would have said so.”

The Remnant will not dance either the Vatican or the neo-Catholic two-step. Unless the Pope himself indicates to the contrary, the Remnant will assume that His Holiness stands every word attributed to him by Scalfari and posted on the Pope’s own official website. We have had enough of this nonsense! Another interesting development: Cardinal Dolan has informed the press that the “mystical moment” recounted in the Scalfari interview, when the Pope-elect supposedly stepped into a room adjacent to the Sistine Chapel to ponder whether to accept the election and was illuminated by an interior light, never happened. In fact, there is no such room next to the Chapel. Yet, the interview as posted on the Vatican website retains this entire account. It is up to the Vatican to explain this glaring discrepancy. We merely report it… END     (Click on photo to read rest of The Remnant article)

(Catholic Truth) Editor’s Note: It is puzzling, is it not, to find so many Catholics refusing to acknowledge that, due to the crisis in the Church, lots and lots of things are, as the Editor of the Remnant so tactfully puts it, “amiss”. To say the least. Why is that? Why do so many Catholics “bend and twist” in their efforts to defend the indefensible? Nobody EVER has anything to fear from the truth, as any true educator and any genuinely apostolic soul knows. So, why the refusal to acknowledge that what was foretold at Quito, Fatima and Akita, is now coming true before our very eyes? Is it because they have weak faith and so maybe we’d be better not discussing the issues raised by this very talkative pontiff? Is that the way forward? Over to you!

Comments (101)

  • Miles Immaculatae

    I just wrote something really amazing and it has disappeared into nothingness. I’m not pleased.

    October 11, 2013 at 7:59 pm
    • editor

      Miles Immaculatae,

      For some reason that post went into SPAM. I cannot see (at a skim) anything obvious that would have caused that, but, in any event, I have now released it.

      October 11, 2013 at 10:42 pm
  • Nolite Timere


    In no way am I any sort of adherent to Fr Z, I rarely read, much less pay attention to his site.

    I’m not sure why you see my statement as a ‘fixation’ with faculties, it was in response to the statement that the SSPX operate under supplied jurisdiction.

    Since supplied jurisdiction refers to faculties, so does my critique of its application… However me suggesting something you may want to ignore or not like is in no way a fixation.

    October 11, 2013 at 8:15 pm
    • sixupman

      The “fixation” referred to was that of Fr. Z, he espouses the “faculties” argument incessantly!

      If you ‘google’ Fr. Saju George, S.J., you will find a priest in good standing complete with “faculties” – to whom would you rather Confess, him or an SSPX priest?

      October 11, 2013 at 8:27 pm
      • editor

        An SSPX priest every time, Sixupman. Fr Saju George SJ is liable to give me ten Highland Flings and an Irish jig to dance for my penance!

        October 11, 2013 at 10:40 pm
  • sixupman

    The ‘real’ Anglo-Catholics used a vernacular version of our very own Tridentine Missal with only minute differences and lack of imprimatur. Why was that not good enough for them? Because they are not true Anglo-Catholics, but some lesser hybrid of the species. I await to view the product of their endeavours. BTW I think I have seen an Ordinariate clergyman [and brood] at the TLM I attend and an hybrid-NOM at the same church.

    October 12, 2013 at 4:03 pm
    • editor


      At his request, I deleted leprechaun’s post on the subject of the Ordinariate rite.

      He emailed the following clarification:

      The Catholic Herald and the NewLiturgy web page both give a different slant to the revised Ordinariate “Mass” to which my post refers.

      Possibly the article I read could be accused of scaremongering. END.

      I took a quick look at the link posted by leprechaun and it seems to be a sedevacantist site. Please be very wary of these sites and avoid posting links to them here, folks. Thank you.

      October 12, 2013 at 7:28 pm
      • sixupman

        I am aware that the “Traditio” site is sedevacantist and never watch it. For many years, certainly sixty, I have been intrigued by, pre-Vatican II, Anglo-Catholicism and the geographical areas of its strength – mining villages and super-rich areas. My grandmother warned me to be careful in London as there were churches and services which were identical to our own. The Ordinariate is just not the same. BTW I get the feeling that we will end up with a CofE type operation: low, middle and high church, but the “high” bit will not be the TLM.

        October 12, 2013 at 9:14 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    ‘Originally fabricated for use by the Pope Benedict XVI’s “ordinariate” for Anglicans, Monsignor Andrew Burnham, a senior cleric in the ordinariate at the inaugural Novissima Ordo service, admitted that something that was until now “merely Anglican” had become part of the conciliar Church of the New Order’.

    That is really spine-chilling. Is it me or does it make the ordinariate sound like a group of fifth columnists, whose motive is not true faithful conversion to the Church but to infiltrate and to Protestantise. Benedict XVI should not have ordained married priests. It undermines the discipline of celibacy. He should have reduced them to a lay state and only ordained unmarried priests and imposed celibacy on them. That said, some Anglican practices do appeal to me, such as the use of the Communion rail, unlike Catholics (not all) who receive standing and on the hand. When I get confirmed, I will kneel on the bare floor and receive on the tongue. I don’t care what the priest will think.

    October 12, 2013 at 4:46 pm
    • Whistleblower


      There’s serious concerns regarding the new rite of Confirmation. SSPX recommend conditional Confirmation because of these concerns. I wouldn’t want to risk being Confirmed invalidly.

      October 12, 2013 at 5:58 pm
  • Nolite Timere


    If people like 3littleshepherds (above) and many others tell us that we can legitimately attend the SSPX as they operate under “supplied jurisdiction” then that argument is about faculties and only faculties- as far as I am aware Supplied Jurisdiction applies only to faculties and no other argument.

    As regards your question, if I was in danger of death then I would confess to either as I could be guaranteed valid absolution from both. In normal circumstances I would confess to neither.

    Unfortunately your question is typical of many of the debates on here, posting polar opposites as if they are representative of the whole Church, SSPX is at one side and ‘clowns’ like the dancing priest are at the other. It may have passed you by, but there are many good, orthodox priests in between them- to these priests I would happily go to for confession

    October 12, 2013 at 7:30 pm
    • sixupman

      I seek out clergy whom I can trust – diocesan and otherwise – and support them. I support the parish priest where I live and I attend the Manchester Oratory and The Holy Name, when they were there. There are other clergy in the Salford, Liverpool and Lancaster Diocese whom I also trust. All that said, I speak from a very broad experience throughout the UK, Northern Germany and France and that leads me to stand by my support of the Sacraments dispensed by SSPX clergy. Clearly the reference to Fr. Saju George was humour, but equally I could have referred you to the chaos in the Diocese of Freibourg, or of the priestly associations in the UK which are anti-Magisterium and, de facto, appear to control diocese and castigate clergy who do not follow their particular inclinations. I was, through circumstance, perforce to attend a parish church, in Somerset, where BXVI, Rome and the Magisterium was criticised from the pulpit – not only by the PP but also by the proliferation of permanent deacons who postured their way through the parish. Not to mention the locum priest, from an adjacent parish, a convert, who espoused similar sentiments. Such was my concern and the effect it had on me, I sought the advice of a diocesan confessor in whom I could trust. Mother Church is falling about our ears and people are burying their heads in the sand. Upon current projections, my/our only salvation will be in identifying clergy who adhere to that which I was taught, by ‘real’ priests, in my youth, at the same time acknowledging the personal difficulties they, themselves, face in treading a difficult path.

      October 12, 2013 at 8:39 pm
  • Nolite Timere

    Catholic convert- there are married priests in the eastern rites of the Catholic Church, the decision or the ordinarate married priests is hardly surprising.

    Whistleblower – is there not some dubiety about the validity of SSPX sacraments????

    October 12, 2013 at 7:37 pm
    • Whistleblower


      If you are familiar with the story of the Hawaii Six then you would know the answer to that question.

      Regarding the Eastern Catholic Churches – the vast majority of their priests are celibate.

      October 12, 2013 at 7:57 pm
  • catholicconvert1


    You are right about the Eastern rite Priests. They must be married before ordination, hence most go to the seminary before marriage in their early twenties.

    Please tell me why the new right is invalid? How can a valid Priest, invalidly confirm?

    October 12, 2013 at 8:21 pm
    • Petrus

      Catholic convert,

      Permit me to answer on Whistleblower’s behalf. We cannot say that the New Rite of Confirmation is invalid per se. There are doubts over the matter and form used.

      October 12, 2013 at 8:38 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    New RITE. My spelling is all over the shop.

    October 12, 2013 at 8:22 pm
  • editor

    Here’s some worrying news – helps to contextualise Cardinal Murphy O’Connor’s disappointment when Pope Benedict was elected: at that time he told the world that “our man was not elected.” Now we know who “his man” is: Read more…

    October 21, 2013 at 10:13 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: