Pope Francis Latest…editor
This is hard work. How am I going to move the Church forward into full blown Modernism with all these traditionalist-leaning Catholics causing such a fuss every time I speak?
We decided to launch a “Pope Francis Latest” thread since there is just so much to discuss almost every time he speaks or writes. We are not being unkind. It is not a case of the pontiff not being media savvy and making unwitting gaffes. No. It’s clear that he knows what he is saying and he means what he says.
Feel free to post updates on this thread. From time to time we will post a particular topic thread but for most of the time, this thread will be home to your thoughts about the utterances and writings of the pontiff, whether good or not so good, heart-warming or heresy.
Click on the photo to read his first Apostolic Exhortation. There are no “off the cuff” remarks in there, made under pressure, but plenty of cause for serious concern.
Pope Francis’s heresy in n.247:
“We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”.
It gets worse. In the same passage he states:
“As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God”
Meaning that the Jews are not among those who need to convert to the Catholic faith. They no longer need to serve Christ. This is an explicit denial of Catholic Dogma, one of them being Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
On the point of the Covenant not being revoked Pope Benedict XIV said Ex Quo Primum (# 61):“The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.”
He cites the definition of the Council of Florence and declares in the Encyclical repeatedly that the Old Covenant was “revoked”, “abrogated” and “abolished”. The doctrine is repeated again by Pius XII in Mediator Dei
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments… after our Lord’s coming… ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began… All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”
Thus, if it is not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, then how can they serve the True God? Answer: they can’t.
Full blown heresy!
I just came across a thread on Fr Z about the SSPX and noted one of the comments included this introduction from someone keen to be known as “100 percent with the Pope and Bishops”
I wonder what he’s saying now? Anyone who is 100% with Pope Francis, reveals him/herself to be a manifest heretic.
Nobody has yet given me an explanation of ‘Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus’. Before anyone says, I know of Invincible Ignorance, Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, but just look at what previous Popes and Councils said:
The original saying by Saint Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century AD) is found his Letter LXXII, Ad Jubajanum de haereticis baptizandis, and in Latin reads: “Salus extra ecclesiam non est”.
Fourth Lateran Council (1215): “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302): “We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her’ (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Boniface I, Epistle 14.1: “It is clear that this Roman Church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship.”
Pope Pelagius II (578-590): “Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord… Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness… Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned… [If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church”.
Saint Gregory the Great (590-604), Moralia: “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.”
Pope Sylvester II, Profession of Faith, June AD 991: “I believe that in Baptism all sins are forgiven, that one which was committed originally as much as those which are voluntarily committed, and I profess that outside the Catholic Church no one is saved.”
Pope Innocent III (1198–1216), Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldensians: “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved”.
Pope Clement VI, Letter Super Quibusdam (to Consolator the Catholicos of Armenia), September 20, 1351: “In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside of the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved… In the ninth place, if you have believed and do believe that all who have raised themselves against the faith of the Roman Church and have died in final impenitence have been damned and have descended to the eternal punishments of hell.”
Pope Leo XII (1823–1829), Encyclical Ubi Primum: “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church… For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: ‘If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'”
Pope Gregory XVI (1831–1846), Encyclical Summo Jugiter Studio (on mixed marriages), 5-6, May 27, 1832: “You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation. The words of that celebrated disciple of the Apostles, martyred Saint Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians are relevant to this matter: ‘Be not deceived, my brother; if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God.’ Moreover, Saint Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: ‘Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ’ (Epsitle 141). Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise Saint Gregory the Great, who expressly testifies that this is indeed the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved’ (Moral. in Job, 16.5). Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of the Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all is saved.’ Finally, the same dogma is expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use (Creed of the Council of Trent), but also that which the Greek Orthodox Church uses (cf. Gregory XIII, Profession ‘Sanctissimus’) and that which other Eastern Catholics use (cf. Benedict XIV, Profession ‘Nuper ad Nos’)… We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”
Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Allocution Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: “Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and “judgements of God” which are “a great abyss” (Ps. 35.7) and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic Duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive form the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.
“For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3.2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is “one God, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
“But, just as the way of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ; and let us be devoted to the common salvation of men in proportion to our strength, ‘for the hand of the Lord is not shortened’ (Isa. 9.1) and the gifts of heavenly grace will not be wanting to those who sincerely wish and ask to be refreshed by this light.”
Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): “Teach that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and come to the community of His children (Romans 1; Hebrews 11; Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8). There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord (St. Cyprian, Epistle 43), outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church (ibid, On the Unity of the Catholic Church). … Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.”
Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863: “And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom ‘the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,’ (Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Pope Leo I) cannot obtain eternal salvation. The words of Christ are clear enough: ‘And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican’ (Matthew 18:17); ‘He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that dispeth you, despiseth Me; and he that dispiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me’ (Luke 10:16); ‘He that believeth not shall be condemned’ (Mark 16:16); ‘He that doth not believe, is already judged’ (John 3:18); ‘He that is not with Me, is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth’ (Luke 11:23). The Apostle Paul says that such persons are ‘perverted and self-condemned’ (Titus 3:11); the Prince of the Apostles calls the ‘false prophets… who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction’ (2 Peter 2:1).”
Pope Pius IX The Syllabus of Errors, attached to Encyclical Quanta Cura, 1864: [The following are prescribed errors:] “16. Men can, in the cult of any religion, find the way of eternal salvation and attain eternal salvation. – Encyclical Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846.
“17. One ought to at least have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who in no way dwell in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863, etc.”
Pope Leo XIII (1878–1903), Encyclical Annum Ingressi Sumus: “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.”
idem, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae: “He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.”
Pope St. Pius X (1903–1914), Encyclical Jucunda Sane: “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.”
Pope Benedict XV (1914–1922), Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Pope Pius XI (1922–1939), Encyclical Mortalium Animos: “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation… Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”
Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), Encyclical Humani Generis, August 12, 1950: “Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”
Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), Allocution to the Gregorian University (17 October 1953): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.”
Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14: “They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.”
Where does Invincible Ignorance etc fit in to all of this. I have foreseen Editor telling me this is ‘off topic’ but seeing as the previous blogger mentioned it, I thought this was a good opportunity to ask.
I don’t really know what you are asking, Convert. The answer is there, in your quotes. I think we’ve been over this any times.
Invincible ignorance is ignorance that cannot be helped, If someone really doesn’t know what the Church teaches about the necessity of the Church for salvation, sacraments etc. then they cannot be held responsible.
However, I’ve read often on this blog and I agree, that in this day and age, with computers and all the information to read very easily available, it would be difficult for anyone to claim they really didn’t know, or hadn’t heard that teaching.
I remember telling a Protestant friend about “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” and he said he knew about it but didn’t accept that he had to be a Catholic to be saved. He is therefore culpable and can’t claim he didn’t know. You’d have to be living in some remote island with no contact at all with the outside world, to be able to claim invincible ignorance these days, IMHO.
In mentioning “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” it was to show that if a pope tells the world that Jews need not convert to the Catholicism then it is an explicit denial of that Dogma.
If anyone is ignorant of Christ and His Church then that’s between them and God. But for a Pope to tell the world that there is no need for them to convert to the Catholic faith is absolutely demonic. No need for Baptism (even of blood or desire) no need for the rest of the Sacraments and especially no need for Christ.
I’m sorry, but talk of invincible ignorance goes out the window at that point.
I am aware that we have been through this on many occasions, but Invincible Ignorance and Baptism of Desire (Implicit) seem a bit universalist, and could be interpreted by some to be loopholes.
Baptism of desire isn’t a loophole. It means any adult who had planned to be baptised and received into the Church but died before that could be achieved (say in an accident) would be baptised because they had truthfully desired it. It’s not something we can wish for others, that’s not baptism of desire. It’s only if the person themselves had desired it but died before being able to achieve it.
But there is a difference between explicit and Implicit Baptism of Desire.
What’ the difference, Catholic Convert? I’ve never heard of “implicit” and “explicit” baptism of desire, and given the nature of baptism of desire, I find it a strange concept, but help us out by making your points a tad more clearly. What IS the difference – and a source link would be welcome. Thanks.
Explicit Baptism of Desire is when an individual explicitly asks to be baptised, but dies beforehand in an accident. Implicit is similar to invincible ignorance, where you follow the Natural Law and search for the truth, but have never known the Church. Here is a link, where Archbishop Lefebvre discussed it:
It’s in the second section.
You are absolutely correct about the gravity of this denial of a central dogma. Pope Francis has espoused heresy by denying the truth that “outside the Church there is no salvation”.
We should pray urgently for him during Advent. And for Pope Benedict XVI who, it is becoming clearer by the minute, was forced to resign to make way for the one described by Cardinal Murphy O’Connor as “our man” – if you recall, when Benedict was elected Murphy O’Connor said openly on TV that “our man” was not elected (shrug of the shoulders, style). Well they got their man in the end – and God, literally, help us all.
Is there a chance Benedict is still pope???
I forgot to add that I wrote about invincible ignorance in my previous post but should stress that it is almost impossible today to claim invincible ignorance so that’s not a loophole either. Both invincible ignorance and baptism of desire are proof of God’s justice, they’re not loopholes.
Cardinal Ratzinger was made Pope. He resigned. He is now, once more, Cardinal Ratzinger. He is not “Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI” – he is Cardinal Ratzinger.
Should anything befall Pope Francis, there could be no question of Cardinal Ratzinger picking up the reins again. There would need to be a new conclave and the election of a new Pope.
Let us not forget the death of Pope Leo XIII in 1903. Cardinal Rampolla, a senior member of the Order of the Oriental Templars and thus far more influential that any Freemason, was all set to be the chosen candidate due to the degree of infiltration of the College of Cardinals by the Freemasons.
He was stopped in his tracks by Emperor Franz-Josef of Austria-Hungary, who invoked an old right in order to veto him as a candidate. As a result, the Church got Pope Pius X.
Imagine what course the barque of St. Peter might have taken in 1903 had Cardinal Rampolla been elected!
Sadly, today, Austria-Hungary is no more and that right of veto has presumably been lost. The signs are that, short of Divine Intervention, there is no way to prevent the rigging of the election of the successor to Pope Francis.
Fascinating history lesson, but not quite what I meant. If Benedict was “forced” to resign, wouldn’t that question that validity of such a resignation? It’s a fascinating, but dangerous, path to go down.
There can be no doubt whatsoever – and I wrote this in my editorial at the time – that Pope Benedict was forced to resign in the sense that he “gave up the ghost”. He felt forced to resign, even if he didn’t or wouldn’t admit it in public. It seemed obvious to me at the time and now that we have his successor spouting heresy and now that we know that he was the man they wanted all along, it seems more obvious than ever.
In the end, Benedict physically made the decision to do so, and was not, as far as we know, tortured and forced to sign in that sense. All the signs are there, however; that he was unable to do what he needed to do as pontiff. He said that, didn’t he, only it was (mis)interpreted as meaning old age and infirmity. Not so. I maintain, as I have said all along, that Pope Benedict was not “morally free” when he resigned. However, since he made the decision to do so, I can’t see that it affects the validity of the election of the scandalous Pope Francis, who is a very bad pope, but a validly elected pope nonetheless, unless further information comes to light. Can’t see it happening.
I do know of one person who refuses to acknowledge that Pope Francis is a true pope but won’t embrace the sedevacantist position because he claims that we have a true pope – Benedict.
WHAT a tangled web! No wonder Catholics in certain parts of the world are flocking to the happy clappy Pentecostalists!
A mess indeed! Interesting theory, that Benedict is still pope. I’m of the opinion that we should accept Francis as pope and leave the judging to a future pope. However, I think given the gravity of Pope Francis’ actions, it is no wonder that some people speculate.
My post was not intended as a history lesson and I have no wish to get involved in the intricacies of canon law and the rights and wrongs of papal entitlements. Its intent was to show how close the enemies of Christendom came to getting their man into the Chair of St. Peter 110 years ago and how they are still striving to achieve that aim today.
No earthly power can challenge the authority and the wealth and the manipulative capability that those enemies have built up over the centuries. It is only by Catholic Action directed towards the Restoration of the Kingship of Christ that their purpose will be thwarted – Catholic Action leading towards the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and her eventually triumph when she will crush the serpent’s head beneath her heel.
From an ecclesiatical hierarchical point of view, there remains only the SSPX, although there are many lay bodies and fraternities doing what they can to help.
It is up to caring Catholics to join these fraternities in the fight for the Restoration of all things to Christ by constantly reminding other Catholics of where their duty lies.
Well said. I agree with you completely.
Except I’d have liked an additional exhortation (in bold here) to “join those fraternities AND support Catholic Truth in the fight for…” etc.
Well, you can’t blame a gal for trying 🙂
Would you say that having abdicated, Pope Benedict XVI is now under oath again not to reveal the Third Secret?
It would lead this thread off topic to answer your question, but the writing on the wall seems very plain to me.
It does not require much imagination to foresee where World War III will start, nor how it will be triggered, nor that 2017 falls 100 years after Our Lady appeared at Fatima.
We must put our energies into Catholic Action to promote the daily recitation of the Rosary, the wearing of the brown scapular and everything that will hasten divine intervention into the thwarting of the enemy.
Many thanks for using this blog to promote the rosary, brown scapular and “everything that will hasten divine intervention…” 🙂
Some good news at last concerning Pope Francis:
Isn’t it tragic and a sign of how terrible this pope is that we are thankful when he states the obvious!
Got it in one, Whistleblower. Got it in one.
Pope Saint Pius X points out in Pascendi that it is a feature of Modernism that the Modernist writes something orthodox on one page and on the next a heresy. That’s why Modernism is such an evil.
If you’d read the comments under that Lifesitenews report you’d have read some refreshingly honest assessments and some serious concerns from the contributors to that blog, about the ambiguity in what the Pope says about abortion in his scandalous Apostolic Exhortation.
It’s most unusual for the “professional” pro-lifers, who mostly like to pretend that there’s no crisis in the Church, to be so open, so it’s worth reading – I’ve added a few short comments myself. But I certainly wouldn’t laud this document as “good news concerning Pope Francis” in ANY aspect. Having said that, I’ve yet to read it right through myself, and plan to do so asap. But from what I have read, and from the commentaries I’ve read, it’s not good news at all. Far from it.
I agree Editor, I don’t like the content of that Apostolic Exhortation document at all.
From the very beginning of this papacy, it has been very obvious that all the wrong people have had difficulty keeping the smirks off their faces, if they even bothered trying to conceal their delight.
One of the most prominent leaders of the progressivist, revolutionary Modernists of the last five decades has given his happy approval to Pope Francis’ agenda, as set out in the recent Apostolic Exhortation; a man who, I believe, although I’m having difficulty typing this, is a priest “in good standing”! How nonsensical is that? By the way, Evelyn Waugh, who as most here will know wasn’t inclined to shy away from an acerbic comment if it could be avoided, once said that, “in happier times he would have gone to the stake”.
This really shouldn’t come as a surprise, considering the manifesto of destruction set out over four decades ago in his book, The Church, vol.2. The following quotations of Kung are taken from Atila Guimaraes’ highly informative book Animus Delendi I (p. 164-165):
“…This reform has already begun and it will suffice here to present an outline (of what the Pope ought to do):
“1. Evangelical humility: to renounce the non-biblical honorific titles befitting only to God or Christ (Sanctissimus Dominus, Beatissimus Pater, His Holiness, Holy Father, Head of the Church) or to all Christians or all Bishops (representative of Christ, etc.)…These are some appropriate titles: Bishop of Rome, Servant of the servants of God, Supreme Shepherd…
“2. Evangelical simplicity: not to yield to a romantic idealism in matters of poverty; to renounce the pomp and luxury from bygone eras of pontifical power above all in relation to dress, domestic servants, the (papal) court, guards of honour, and even more so with regard to the liturgy.
“3. Evangelical fraternity: to fully renounce the absolutist style of government, the baroque Byzantine imperial style in speeches and letters, secret legal process, private decisions without Church collaboration or her representation (collegiality, the Episcopate, episcopal and lay councils)…
“4. Evangelical liberty: to foment the autonomy of the (local) churches and their pastoral services according to the principality of subsidiarity; the internalization and dismantling of the Curia’s power apparatus….”
If anyone is still suffering from New Springtime delirium, or has been deprived of their cognitive faculties for the last nine months, reading the above words might have a very beneficial effect. Is that checklist not a precise encapsulation of what is going on?
I doubt it is possible to overstate the scale of the crisis in the Church when Kung’s programme has now become the programme of the Vicar of Christ.
I wonder what Waugh would have to say today.
Indeed we must pray much for the Holy Father.
I couldn’t agree more with you about this horrendous papacy. As for that document – I was appalled to read his deference to “His Grace” the Archbishop of Canterbury (not!) Can you imagine what would have happened if he’d mentioned Bishop Fellay in there, in a positive manner?
And his remarks about the Jewish covenant – unbelieveable. The Jews do not need Christ! Tell that to the twelve apostles not to mention St Paul!
As it happens, I’ve been in email discussions with a “concerned priest” about the fact that Pope Benedict also spoke of there being no need to convert the Jews, so why (I said) the big deal about Pope Francis saying the same thing in his first Apostolic Exhortation. Below is his reply: the reason for the inverted commas around “pope” and “papacy” is because this priest (we’ll call him “Father X”) doubts the validity of the election of Francis, given the nature of Benedict’s resignation. In other words, as I said in my editorial at the time and others have said since (copy cats!) it is very clear that Pope Benedict was “forced” to resign in the sense that, although he physically resigned without being made to sign, he is unlikely to have been morally free; in other words, his enemies wanted rid of him, and made it impossible for him to act as pontiff. To clarify, however, Father X argues that he is not a sedevacantist because he believes Pope Benedict is the legitimate pontiff – the Chair of Peter is not vacant. Father X writes:
Francis is the first “pope” in history to issue an official “papal” declaration that directly, explicitly and brazenly opposes a solemn dogmatic definition. He is finished, and the sooner people realize that, the better it will be for the universal Church. There is already growing speculation in Italy about Francis resigning. Bergoglio has stepped on a hornets’ nest, and they are not going to leave him alone until they sting him to death, i.e. resignation or removal. Bergoglio’s “pontificate” is as good as dead already. It is useless to attempt to revive the corpse — only God raises the dead, and He does not grant such a grace to His enemies. END.
That’s unbelievable, editor. Shocking. All I can say is that Pope Francis makes me feel very uneasy.
I can’t believe this is the case. What if Emeritus Pope Benedict suddenly died? That would mean (by Father X’s reasoning) that the Chair would be vacant, and we’d have no pope.
I think we have to just face the fact that we have a very bad pope and hope that somehow God intervenes soon.
That’s a very good point about the possible sudden death of Pope Benedict.
Father X says “There is already growing speculation in Italy about Francis resigning.”
Well, I have been Googling this and can’t find any reports suggesting that Pope Francis will resign. There’s only the satirical “Onion” video
Although I agree it’s very serious that he has denied Christ to the Jews, I can’t go along with this priest’s idea of him not actually being the pope.
I’m also surprised that he thinks the pontificate is “as good as dead already” because of how popular Pope Francis is with the media and the majority of Catholics who really don’t have a clue, with all due respect. I’m sure something will happen soon, God will not be mocked.
‘There is already growing speculation in Italy about Francis resigning’- from which mischief maker did Fr. X get this little gem. I am getting more and more worried that Benedict set a precedent.
The question is – Did any of the Cardinals who took part in the Conclave that elected Pope Francis, expect or anticipate that he would issue an official “papal” declaration explicitly and brazenly oppose a solemn dogmatic definition? Or is that a step too far?
I think that the cardinals who elected him think the same way as he does about the Jews, so they wouldn’t be bothered at all.
I would like to know who Father X is talking about when he says “they are not going to leave him alone until they sting him to death, i.e. resignation or removal.” Who are “they”?
Surely if there are cardinal in the Vatican who are as concerned as the rest of us about this pope they ought to be making public statements to warn us – there are still people who think that because he’s been elected, he’s inspired by the Holy Ghost – remember the silliness on the Canonisation thread along those lines. Unless someone in senior positions speaks out, most Catholics will think that whatever he says or does is OK.
I would like to know who Father X is talking about when he says “they are not going to leave him alone until they sting him to death, i.e. resignation or removal.” Who are “they”?
Me, too! Sounds like Father X has some contacts in high places but he’s not shared any names with me, unfortunately.
With regards to his comments on the Jews and Salvation, Francis is rejecting a dogma and is therefore a heretic. What does one have to do to become an anti-Pope, because I think Francis is well on his way.
I can’t help but wonder how different things would be if Cardinal Ranjith,had become Pope. He is very sympathetic to Tradition and to the SSPX. One thing I’m sure of is that we would be spared the rantings of Mgr.Basil Loftus because he would probably have died of shock.
Yes, Mgr Loftus would never have recovered from the election of Cardinal Ranjith. Almost worth calling for a recount 🙂
Oh, I would have been absolutely overjoyed if Cardinal Ranjith was elected.
The effect on Loftus etc would have been amusing alright!
Its worth noting that Cardinal Ranjith is (I think) approx 10 years younger than Pope Francis, so he might yet have his day.
Ranjith would have been a far more logical and natural successor to Benedict XVI, but I think the Cardinals went with Bergoglio for media value. Which is, of course, not the right basis on which to be electing people.
The Cardinals should be seeking to implement a stability and consistency in the Papacy and the views it espouses. They should not lurch from one starkly different candidate to the next, meaning successive Pope are like different pages in a modernist document.
I too am an admirer of Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith. He has done an excellent job in Colombo. He is controversial but don’t get me wrong, he’s controversial for the right reasons, for example he issued pastoral guidelines: “all faithful, including the religious, to receive Holy Communion reverently kneeling and on the tongue” as well as laymen being forbidden from preaching.In addition to this, priests are forbidden to bring elements or styles of worship from other religions into the liturgy”.
He also wanted the Holy See to allow him to put the SSPX in charge of his seminaries.
That being said, I am a Cardinal Burke fan, as he also strongly upholds the Latin Mass. They are both aged 65/6, so have a good chance, because, no disrespect, Pope Francis won’t last 10 years due to health issues (one lung- reminds me of a football song), so get your Rosaries out a pray for these Cardinals.
I don’t know if we will ever get the full story surrounding Pope Benedict’s resignation, but it is credible at the very least, that there was an ongoing mutiny and his authority was actively undermined. I know it has been denied that they were a factor, but it was rather strange how the Vatileaks business appears to have stopped since February. Popes have to Pope, however. That’s the job spec. And what about the graces of state? Pope Pius IX, had to flee for his life, splattered with the blood of his assassinated Prime Minister (I think) but it didn’t deter him from engaging vigorously with the enemies both inside and outside the Church. Both Pope Pius VII, and Pope Pius VI were imprisoned by Napoleon, but refused to cave in before the tyrant.
So much that has happened in the last five decades ties in with Catholic prophecy, and things are moving at such a pace, that anything, bar the gates of hell prevailing, appears to be possible right now. It’s just a hunch, and I have no idea what it might involve, but I think it’s very possible that we haven’t heard the last of Pope Benedict.
Questioning the validity of Pope Francis’ election is high altitude flying indeed. I’ll leave it to others to pursue any theories or speculations in that area. It’s not for me. I will say that I don’t imagine that the election of Cardinal Bergoglio happened without plenty of advance planning. I certainly got uneasy when in the days of immediately before the Conclave a liberal Cardinal, who was too old to vote, and now has the ear of the Pope, expressed confidence that the vote wouldn’t take long. When the white smoke appeared so soon (on the second day?) that sinking feeling really began to take hold. And after that? Well, things ain’t got better.
As for the Pope and the Old Covenant, it has to be said that on at least two occasions, Pope John Paul II, stated that it was “never revoked”. Filii Ecclesia has pointed out very clearly how this flies in the face of clearly stated Church dogma. The following article by John Vennari should be of interest:
“The Law and the Prophet were until John; from that time the kingdom of God is preached.” – Luke 16; 15-16
In his 1943 Encyclical, Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII, clearly stated the Church’s infallible teaching of the supercession of the Old Covenant by the New.
“And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law, which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For while, our Divine Saviour was preaching in a restricted area He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel- the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees and fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His Blood shed for the whole human race. ‘To such an extent then,’ says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, ‘was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.”
Nothing vague or ambiguous there. The words “Old Testament” and “never revoked” just don’t go together. How a Pope can join them without causing universal scandal, really is just one more sign of the times.
“Questioning the validity of Pope Francis’ election is high altitude flying indeed. I’ll leave it to others to pursue any theories or speculations in that area. It’s not for me. I will say that I don’t imagine that the election of Cardinal Bergoglio happened without plenty of advance planning. ”
My sentiments exactly. Talk about “tangled webs”.
If there is only one God there can only be one true religion and as far as I am concerned that is the Catholic Church. However, while we must spread the good news to all including the Jews, I’m not sure we can condemn people automatically to hell if they are not Catholic. Jesus mentioned the Old Testament stories about Naaman the leper and the Caananite women to whom Elisha was sent, to challenge the idea of the time that salvation was only for the Jews. Jesus also mentions that his father’s house has many mansions. It seems to me that the quotes from previous Popes that no matter what good a person does, it will all be in vain if they are not Catholic, are more in line with the legalism of the Scribes and Pharisees that with the teachings of Jesus. I think Francis was wrong to say we should not convert the Jews so why can we not criticize the comments of earlier popes. If tax collectors and sinners can get entry to the Kingdom why not people of other faiths such as Corrie Ten Boom or David Livingstone or Florence Nightingale.
Obviously we can’t condemn non-Catholics to eternal damnation, and it is our duty to pray for their immortal souls and have Masses said in their names. What people forget is that God is both a just judge and a merciful Saviour. As St. Augustine said: ‘how many sheep without, and how many wolves within’. At the end of the day, if someone has heard the Gospel and of the Church, but reject it either by refusing to enter it or by leaving it, then they are in a gravely deficient situation in the economy of salvation. As the Catechism says:
‘Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it’. (CCC 846)
However, people who are in a state of Invincible Ignorance may achieve salvation:
‘This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation’. (CCC 847)
Read what this website says as it will give you a clear overview. http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means But at the end of the day, the Pope is in error, and should not have said the Old Covenant was not abrogated and that Jews did not have to convert. Jews are members of a false religion, and are under an obligation to convert, if they know of Christ, the Church and the Gospel, and we are under an obligation to convert them.
Also, check out Dominus Iesus.
When dealing with these difficult issues, I try to ask some simple questions to clarify the issue. For example, Florence Nightingale displayed true Christian charity during the Crimean war as did Emily Hobhouse who, during the Boer War, was accused by her fellow countrymen of favouring the enemies of her country. Both of them believed in Christ and spent their lives helping the poor but as far as I am aware did not receive the true Catholic Eucharist. I find it difficult to believe they are in hell.
Why should they be in hell? The Church has never taught that only Catholics are saved.
Anyone who is saved, is saved through the Catholic Church. Their natural goodness cannot save them – there were plenty of good men and women before Christ so it’s got to be more than that – their natural goodness cannot save them, only Christ and Christ has established His Church to be the channel of His salvific grace. Therefore, anyone who is saved, is saved through Christ’s Church whether or not they were members of the visible body here on earth. Ditto members of false religions. They may be saved IN their false religion but never BY it. Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation means what it says. If Florence Nightingale is in Heaven, she didn’t get there because she was a compassionate nurse.
How can you be saved if you are not a ‘visible’ member?
This has been explained to you a million times. If you still don’t understand it, I think you have to offer a prayer of true Faith and acceptance. It’s one of those doctrines that you just cannot grasp but you accept it as (if nothing else), common – and theological – sense) that nobody will be denied salvation if they have not known the Church’s claim to be the sole, essential means of being saved. That’s about as basic as it can be. Christ died to save souls. He wants souls to be visible members of His Church. If they don’t know that but live according to their lights, seeking to do God’s will, then they will be saved but it will be through Christ and His Church. I honestly cannot make it any simpler.
Unless this simple analogy helps. A blind man (or woman, gimme strength!) crossing the road, is in danger of being knocked down. His/her guide dog isn’t paying attention. A young lad sees what is about to happen and grabs the blind man and races him to the safety of the nearest pavement. There’s nothing said, and the young man goes on his way. He saved the blind man although the blind man doesn’t realise it. He didn’t even know he was in danger. If someone had told him he was in danger, he would have been able to ask the young man to help him across the road, but he relied on his guide dog because other blind people told him that guide dogs are very reliable.
Think of the guide dog as the false religion and the young man as the Church. It would have been most unjust of the young man to refuse to save the blind man on the grounds that he ought to have known he was in danger and should have asked for help. If he HAD known, and refused the help of the young man, that would be a different thing altogether.
Get it now? Recommended answer = YES 🙂
I accept the doctrine, don’t get me wrong, but I just don’t understand how a person can be an ‘invisible’ member, i.e native Americans prior to the Conquistadors, when the Church has not been brought there yet.
Also, with regards to people who have heard of the Church, but have never ‘experienced it’, i.e through study etc, and thus have never known it to be true, but still lead charitable and Christian lives. Here the Salvation Army springs to mind.
The Salvation Army is not Christian. They are pagan. As far as I can remember, they have no Baptism.
Would you please elaborate on your first sentence?
Catholic Convert, Agreed that our natural goodness is not sufficient to enter the perfection of Paradise. St Paul tells us that our conception of goodness is so meager we have no real conception of how far we fall short of the goodness that is normal in Heaven. However with regard to salvation, I like the story about Jesus speaking to Simon the Pharisee after the woman of ill refute annointed his feet and washed them with her tears. Jesus says her sins, her many sins must have been forgiven for she could not otherwise have shown such great love. Surely one of the most beautiful and uplifting passages in scripture giving all of us sinners hope. I think there is no doubt that non-catholics like Florence Nightingale demonstrated that sort of love in abundance.
Thurifer posted a link on the General Discussion thread to an interview with Bishop Fellay about Pope Francis, so I’ve reminded them over there that we are over here discussing the latest about Pope Francis! Here’s a link to that video interview, transcript available to read as well.
Please post everything about Pope Francis here, to help us keep track of what he says and others say about him.
Therefore, anyone who is saved, is saved through Christ’s Church whether or not they were members of the visible body here on earth. Ditto members of false religions. They may be saved IN their false religion but never BY it.
You see we are getting into the realm of semantics – “saved THROUGH Christ’s church whether or not they were members…” . Most people would understand through Christ’s church as meaning that they need to be actual mass attending Catholics and while this is to be desired your interpretation makes clear that this is not so. We do not disagree with the One True church being the Catholic church but I think that the language of the earlier popes was very unfortunate in that we are here now centuries later trying to explain that it does not mean what it appaers to mean.
Oh but it DOES mean what it appears to mean. Even the Second Vatican Council affirmed the dogma as the earlier popes proclaimed it, to use your own words:
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. Source – Lumen Gentium # 14
The key phrase there is “Whosoever KNOWING…” (this truth) and rejects it, cannot be saved. Not those who do not know it, and are in good faith in false religions. All other things being equal (they don’t murder their granny or steal the family silver) they may be saved, but they will BE saved through Christ’s Church.
Hope that’s clearer.
It is not the language of the earlier popes which is unfortunate, but rather the laiety’s scandalous lack of education in and understanding of the Faith.
It seems that Fr Paul Kramer has announced on his Facebook page that the See of Peter is empty. In other words, Pope Francis is not a Pope, Fr Kramer claims. This is due to the n.247 paragraph of ‘Evangelii Gaudium’ quoted above. Here are his reasons.
“Pope” Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”. This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated”. I have been saying for years that when a “pope” will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophecied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alohonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic — not a member of the Catholic Church. Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null & void. The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. St. Francis of Assisi foretold of the uncanonically elected pope who would not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”. Bergoglio plainly fits the description.
Fr Kramer is then said to have posted the following on his Facebook page:
“The conclusion is inescapable. Sede vacante.”
I don’t have a Facebook account and cannot check this. So I have to admit to having discovered this through Cathinfo and then Tradition in Action. Sorry. But anyone with a Facebook account can check.
PS. I am not Sede Vacantist, for the simple reason that, as I understand, no-one but another Pope, or a Council of the Church, has the authority to judge a Pope.
I’ll be surprised if Father Kramer posted the sentence in quotes re. “Sede vacante”. My understanding is that he thinks Pope Benedict is still Pope, and doesn’t recognise Pope Francis.
I don’t have a Facebook account so can’t check it personally, but that’s what I’ve been led to believe.
I emailed a priest to ask what he thought about Father X’s position on this blog but he’s never replied.
So I don’t know really what to think – it’s all getting out of hand.
I had a similar experience recently, but if anyone ignores an important email from me, as your enquiry was/is important, I remove them from my address book and phone. To ignore a written communication is no different from ignoring someone who speaks to us in the same room. It’s not vengeance: I don’t feel any bitterness – not really 🙂 – it’s just annoying to waste the time, so removing them simply ensures that I don’t waste any time in the future; it’s hard enough keeping up to date with correspondence without wasting time writing to folk who don’t bother to reply.
I think priests wouldn’t want to answer anything about this because they are in the same puzzled state about the Pope as the rest of us. That’s no excuse for not acknowledging the email but I think that’s the reason.
I emailed Father Kramer a copy of your comment. This is his reply:
Actually, not even a council or anyone at all may judge a pope: prima sedes a nemine iudicetur.
It may be determined by those who are theologically competent that the one who appears to be pope is in fact an infidel, and therefore not a pope because an infidel is not a member of the Church. This is explained by St. Robert Bellarmine. If the “pope” is indeed a manifest heretic, then he is simply not pope. A council or a future pope need not make the pronouncement. One does not have to wait for a future pope to pronounce in the matter of manifest heresy.
Pope Benedict’s resignation was obtained by duress, and therefore his resignation according to Canon Law is invalid. Since the see was still occupied by Benedict, the election of Francis was canonically invalid. Benedict is still pope, and not Francis. END.
Goodness me, what a difference a day makes. I woke up yesterday morning under the impression that Jorge Bergoglio was Pope, and now this. He is a manifest and public heretic and therefore can’t be the Pope. Which also means that my argument against Sedevacantism goes out the window. His heresy isn’t hidden. It’s there for all to see.
Does this not solve the problem of next April’s Canonisations though. Jorge Bergoglio can’t canonise Popes John XXIII and John Paul II, because he isn’t the Pope? This is also the man who claimed that he didn’t believe in a Catholic God, according to that interview with the Italian atheist journalist.
Sorry, but I can’t accept that Pope Benedict was forced to resign. He gives no impression whatsoever of being a man under duress. What evidence is there that he was under pressure to give up the Papacy?
Therefore I am forced to come to the same conclusion as Fr Kramer – sede vacante. We have no Pope.
If Fr Kramer’s argument hinges (as it appears to do) on the nature of the pressure exerted on Pope Benedict, then, I agree with you – it does not hold water.
I have said from the outset that Pope Benedict was forced to resign in the same sense as anyone in any position who decides to resign due to pressure from colleagues which makes it pretty well impossible to do the job properly – constructive dismissal in the secular sphere.
However, that is all tied up with papal responsibility. The fact is, Pope Benedict should NOT have allowed himself to be forced, in that sense, to resign. It was an inexcusable choice, in my view, and one for which he will have to account at his judgment, but it doesn’t rank as a “forced resignation” in that he had no choice. He did. He make the wrong choice. He asked us all, on his election, to pray that he would not flee for fear of the wolves – and he did.
So, I repeat my own position. Pope Francis is a very VERY bad pope. He has espoused heresy (but so did his immediate predecessors in their comments about the Jews and salvation). More than, in my humble view, nobody can say with certainty, not least since we’ve had popes spout heresy before, notably Pope John XXII with his belief that there is no private judgment at death, no judgment until the General Judgment. Took a while for him to recant, which he did, but – as we can see – his heresy is now part of the history of the papacy. Yet, nobody writes of “Pope” John XXII…
“Yet, nobody writes of “Pope” John XXIII…”
Well, some people do and we both know who they are. And I think I might be about to agree with them. Sorry, but I woke up on Thursday morning believing we had a Pope. Then I came across Fr Kramer’s more than convincing argument that Jorge Bergoglio, having espoused heresy, cannot be considered the Pope. And now I am reminded that other Vatican II “Popes” have similarly espoused heresy. I already knew this, of course.
My question is, how can a Pope, any Pope, espouse heresy and still be Pope. Is it possible? If it isn’t possible for a Pope to espouse heresy and still be Pope, then we haven’t had a Pope since 1958.
There we have it. Am I about to cross the line? I have been musing on this all afternoon, and have spent some time attempting to consider the situation from the ‘no Pope since 1958’ position. And as a result of this thought experiment, I and can definitely say one thing. It makes everything seem much simpler.
No more wondering how a Pope could inject the poison of Vatican II into the Mystical Body of Christ, because no Pope did. No more asking myself how successive Popes could inflict such damage on the Church and the Catholic faithful, because no Pope did. No more speculation about the proposed Canonisations next April, because no Popes are involved. And no more wondering when Jorge Bergoglio will consecrate Russia. He can’t. He’s not the Pope.
I haven’t quite crossed the line yet and shall be seeking advice on the matter.
There isn’t the slightest need to take advice on the matter.
For one thing, I referred to Pope John XXII (22nd not the 23rd) – centuries ago! So, does that mean we’ve not had a pope since John 22nd in the 14th century? Of course not.
To worry about a pope adhering to heresy is to reveal a misunderstanding of the guarantee of Christ. Christ gave us no guarantee of good popes or even heresy-free popes. The ONLY guarantee we have, is that no pope will make any heresy binding on the faithful. Quote anything from any of the popes in recent times, telling us that we must accept – as divinely revealed – the nonsense of ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue? You can’t – of course not. Just as although Pope Benedict gave that dreadful interview – causing all the confusion he could muster on the subject of condoms – to a journalist who memorialised it in a book, despite that scandal, he did not make any pronouncement of an authoritative kind saying anything like what he’d said in that interview.
And the fact is that, despite the pressures on them, not one of the modern popes has failed to proclaim Catholic teaching on male-only priesthood, birth control, and homosexuality – all chestnuts of our age. That’s the only guarantee we have – that no pope will make binding on the faithful anything that is heretical. It doesn’t mean that they won’t believe heresy, say and write things in sermons and books that are “dodgy”; they are not “divinely inspired” beings, they are human beings whom the Holy Spirit assists in a mostly preventative way. He is not speaking every time they speak, or writing for them.
Thus, to go down the sedevacantist route is to proclaim your misunderstanding about the nature of the Petrine office, and to proclaim your doubts about Christ’s guarantee that He will be with His Church always, that the gates of Hell will not prevail.
Our Lady of Fatima spoke of “the Holy Father” – at no time did she indicate to any of the seers, not even in her later apparitions to Sr Lucia, that the Chair of Peter would be vacant. She spoke, remember, of the Holy Father publishing the Third Secret in 1960, so she clearly expected there to be a pope in place at that time! And she said, too, that “it would be late” when the pope consecrated Russia – well, we’re getting very late now, but still she said nothing about “it being late and there wouldn’t be a pope”. Don’t go down that deadly route, Awkward Customer.
We have a pope. He’s not a good pope. But we have a pope.
If you “cross that line”, Awkward Customer, then you’ll definitely lose your Catholic Faith. Christ cannot lie – He promised to ensure that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church and they have not done so. Nor will they.
Others in centuries past have had to endure bad popes and negligent bishops. We are not unique in our times. More than ever we must exercise Faith. We must pray every day for perseverance in the Faith. That’s a much better route than playing with the fire of sedevacantism.
We have a pope. Not a good pope. But we definitely have a pope.
Would I lie to you ? 🙂
Thank you for your concern, but have no fear. If my Faith can survive the Novus Ordo, it can survive anything, including popes espousing heresy right, left and centre.
It will take me ages to look into all the points you have raised. So for the time being, I think I should leave it at that.
I am glad to read that – and I agree about leaving it at that – if you read the comment from the traditional priest which I posted at 10.07, I think that will reinforce your view that we ought to kiss this subject “goodbye” and look forward to the day when we have another Pope Pius X. Can’t be that far off, surely?
In the meantime, keep smiling 🙂
Actually, Sedevacantism is a much greater danger than the New Mass. Attending the New Mass is not a heresy – sedevacantism is!
Popes Benedict XVI, John Paul II, and Paul VI all said the same thing about the Jews, did they not? So why should there be a state of sede vacant if Pope Francis said the same thing?
That’s a good question. I read somewhere – but can’t find where – that according to Fr Kramer, Popes Benedict XVI, John Paul II and Paul VI, all spoke in language that was vague and confusing enough to be open to interpretation and correction. Whereas the words of Pope Francis are clear, unequivocal and public.
As Fr Kramer states above, n.247 of Evangelii Gaudium is “an explicit profession of heresy …..”
The comments from the other popes to the effect that there is no need to convert the Jews, is – for the purposes of the “sede vacante” discussion are equally damaging. The effect is the same – a nullifying of the Church’s missionary purpose and the necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church.
May I respectfully suggest that all discussion of the legitimacy of Pope Francis ceases now. It will do no good and will only further confuse an already confused laity.
The of the matter is that no one on earth is competent to judge the Sovereign Pontiff. The Church, by means of a future pope or Council, will deal with the errors of these popes. That’s all we are permitted to say on the matter.
These discussions are very unlikely to win anyone over to Tradition so I suggest they stop now. Pope Francis IS the pope, albeit (as editor has said) a very bad one.
I understand what you are saying, but I think most adults understand that a discussion forum will always contain a variety of ideas and that we won’t always agree with everything. As you say, editor has already made the Catholic Truth position clear, that we have a bad pope, not “no pope”, so I, personally, don’t mind if people wish to explore what Fr Kramer and Father X think about the legitimacy of the conclave and as long as what you’ve said about nobody having the power to pronounce on a pope keeps being brought home, I can’t see it doing any harm. .
When you say “these discussions are very unlikely to win anyone over to Tradition” what comes to my mind is that anyone who is beginning to wake up to the truth about the crisis in the Church through the behaviour of Pope Francis might well be won over as they see us looking at the important issues. Quite a few people have said to me that they are suspicious of traditionalists because they think they are closet sedevacantist. This thread will put them right on that.
I do understand your concerns but one of the things that I like about this blog is that it is one of the few uncensored blogs around and I wouldn’t like that to change. When I get uncomfortable with any discussion I just withdraw from it but I wouldn’t like to be told to stop talking about an issue.
You said, “The of the matter is that no one on earth is competent to judge the Sovereign Pontiff. The Church, by means of a future pope or Council, will deal with the errors of these popes. That’s all we are permitted to say on the matter.”
Do you have a source for this? Because according to Fr Kramer, see Editor’s post above in which Fr Kramer replies to her email (Dec 6, 9.37am), the following is the case:
“It may be determined by those who are theologically competent that the one who appears to be pope is in fact an infidel, and therefore not a pope because an infidel is not a member of the Church. This is explained by St. Robert Bellarmine. If the “pope” is indeed a manifest heretic, then he is simply not pope. A council or a future pope need not make the pronouncement. One does not have to wait for a future pope to pronounce in the matter of manifest heresy.”
But what St Robert Bellarmine makes clear, is that it is not for us to make that judgment. That is the weakness in Father Kramer’s position. It is the weakness in the entire sedevacantist position. Their position is totally illogical. If we follow their logic, given the length of time that has elapsed since the last legitimate papal election and the fact that all the cardinals have been raised to office by (in their view) non-popes, we can never have a Pope again! It’s crackers. No intelligent person should give sedevacantism the time of day.
We cannot decide whether or not any particular pope is a “true pope”. Nobody on earth can judge a ruling pope. That’s what St Robert Bellarmine, the expert in this field, teaches. IF Pope Francis is, in fact, “not a pope” nobody on the face of the earth can do a darn thing about it and we must NOT defect on that presumption.
There are a lot of “if and but” points I could make but the key thing is what I have just said: that St Robert Bellarmine is very clear about the fact that nobody on earth may judge a ruling pontiff.
We should pray for him, publicly correct his public errors and pray for perseverance in the Faith. Otherwise the Devil wins.
I have no wish to enter into a debate with someone who comes to this conclusion in the space of 24 hours, based on what he reads on the Internet.
However, allow me to ask you three things. Who has the authority, note the use of “authority” rather than “competence”, to judge that the pope is a “manifest heretic”? Do you honestly believe Fr Kramer has such authority? Surely not!
Secondly, how do you distinguish between material and formal heresy? Who on earth has the authority and competence to declare that the pope is either?
Lastly, and this is similar to what the editor has already touched upon. Did Christ promise us perfect popes? Have all “bad popes” been “anti-popes”? If not, which ones were and how do we know they were? Do you see the knots you will tie yourself in?
Finally, Our Lady Herself constantly referred to “Holy Father” at Fatima. The Fatima seers, particularly Blesses Jacinta, were insistent that we must pray for “the Holy Father”. Now, do you honestly believe Fr Kramer is more enlightened than Our Lady?
“I have no wish to enter into a debate with someone who comes to this conclusion in the space of 24 hours, based on what he reads on the Internet.”
Please, what conclusion am I supposed to have come to? And as you have no wish to enter into a debate, then I shall oblige. Because I have no wish to enter into a debate with someone who resorts to personal attack.
There was no personal attack. You stated that you woke up thinking we had a pope and then decided that Pope Francis wasn’t the pope, based on writings of Fr Kramer. So, where is the personal attack in what I said?
I have no desire to debate these issues, I merely offer you some questions to ponder. I won’t debate sedevacantist because it is illogical. I won’t debate with someone who holds the belief that 2+2=5, I will seek to help them understand that 2+2=4. With respect, your “personal attack” cry is a red herring. If you could answer the questions I posed it would speak volumes.
“You stated that you woke up thinking we had a pope and then decided that Pope Francis wasn’t the pope, based on writings of Fr Kramer.”
No I didn’t.
Would you let go of the “Petrus” exchange. It’s really pointless, since he’s on record saying he does not want to participate in this discussion. That’s fair enough.
I’ve posted an email from a trusted traditional priest below, at 10.07, so I’d like you to read that.
There’s really nothing more to say on this – it’s clear that no Catholic can decide the pope’s not the pope, no matter how bad he is, so unless you’ve really got a burning question to ask or comment to make, I suggest we move on to pastures new.
“Goodness me, what a difference a day makes. I woke up yesterday morning under the impression that Jorge Bergoglio was Pope, and now this. He is a manifest and public heretic and therefore can’t be the Pope. Which also means that my argument against Sedevacantism goes out the window.”
Very interesting that you haven’t even attempted to answer any of my questions, awkward customer. Clearly you have no answer. This should tell you something!
I don’t think Petrus made any personal attack on you – he’s making the point that it is a pity to conclude anything contrary to Catholic Faith (as is sedevacantism per se) based on what any individual priest has said.
I have every confidence that you won’t conclude that sedevacantism is the answer at all.
I’ve promoted Father Kramer’s books, I’ve invited him to address one of our conferences but that doesn’t mean I think everything he says is right – and I’ve concluded, after much thought, that he’s definitely NOT right about this.
We have a pope. He’s not a good pope. But he’s definitely the pope.
I’ve asked a trusted traditional priest for his comment on Fr Kramer’s statement, and he has replied as follows:
• The conclave is secret, we do not know what goes on there, therefore it is never possible for the Catholic faithful to have the same certainty (because I saw it with my own eyes) that a cardinal in the conclave will have. What is the sign that the ordinary Catholic person needs? That he is accepted and presented by the Cardinals as pope and accepted by the universal Church as such.
• It is impossible for us to judge that Pope Benedict’s resignation was not valid: it had all the hallmarks of being a free act, therefore, we must presume it was free and continue to presume it until there is proof to the contrary. Just like a marriage is assumed valid, unless it is proven not to be. Therefore Fr. Kramer must produce valid and incontrovertible proof before he or we can act on it.
• We cannot use the private revelations/prophecies to prove that this is the antipope foretold. They may refer to Francis I or they may refer to Francis XXI who may be much worse. We can only say that this is the antipope when there is unassailable evidence that he is not the pope, then we can apply the prophecy to him. It is not proven that a pope who utters heresy is not pope, but I think Fr. Kramer agrees with us on that one – it is not the root of his argument. END.
That’s really helpful – it’s clear that we can’t make any judgment about Pope Francis except, as already said, that he is not a very good pope. I keep being asked if Pope Francis is the anti-pope so that priest’s answer is gratefully received.
I’ve done some digging and found this quote from St Robert Bellarmine’s ‘De Romano Pontifice’, Book II, chap 30:
“A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.’
So, what is a manifest heretic? Does contradicting an infallibly defined doctrine of the Church in a public, unequivocal way with full knowledge, qualify someone as a manifest heretic?
Incidentally, when St Robert Bellarmine states that no-one but another pope may judge a pope, he is referring to a true pope who behaves badly, not a pope who disqualifies himself from the papacy by virtue of manifest heresy.
No, St Robert Bellarmine is very clear that nobody may judge a ruling pope. He teaches that we must resist him if he is a manifest heretic, in that we do not obey him, but we cannot pronounce that he is not a pope. Where does it tell us, in Canon Law, or where does St Robert Bellarmine say that a pope may be dismissed or replaced? Who has that authority? Nobody. St Robert Bellarmine not only said no such thing, he said the opposite. He said “resist” but never said “replace”.
Pope Francis IS – it seems obvious following his comments about the Jews – a manifest heretic and unless he recants (e.g. on salvation of the Jews) then before God he may not be a Christian or pontiff. But I cannot make that definitive judgment – nobody can. I consider each and every one of the post-Vatican II popes to have been a disgrace to their office, to say the least, but how many of the neo-conservatives now worrying about Pope Francis, would agree? Not a lot. Definitely not those yelling “Pope John Paul the Great.” Yet, they are really all as bad as one another.
We ARE resisting Pope Francis as we resisted his immediate predecessors when they spoke or wrote contrary to the Faith. Consider the praise heaped on Pope Benedict for his books “Jesus of Nazareth” which he prefaced, himself, by warning that what he had written may not be in accord with Catholic doctrine. Unbelievable. The Pope may have believed things about Christ, contrary to Catholic teaching, It’s all the stuff of nightmares, so we resist, we speak out to oppose the errors of these modernist pontiffs, but we cannot become de facto Protestants by refusing to recognise the Pope. If Pope Francis is NOT pope, we will not suffer for having obeyed the Church by recognising him and obeying him where we legitimately may. If we decide that we know better and refuse to recognise him as pope, then we risk our salvation. It’s that simple.
I ask again – would I lie to you? 🙂
Apart from that which Franciscus may opine, equally concerning are his actions in ejecting prelates with Traditional inclinations and putting his own place-men into the vacancies.
I think we can take it as read, that everything Pope Francis says and does is cause for concern.
Of course you would never lie, to me or to anyone. But you have made the following statement:
“Pope Francis IS – it seems obvious following his comments about the Jews – a manifest heretic and unless he recants (e.g. on salvation of the Jews) then before God he may not be a Christian or pontiff. But I cannot make that definitive judgment – nobody can.”
So, let me ask, having come to the conclusion that Pope Francis is a manifest heretic, what do you think of the following?
Pope Innocent III (1198)
“Still less can the Roman Pontiff boast, for he can be judged by men — or rather, he can be shown to be judged, if he manifestly ‘loses his savor’ in heresy. For he who does not believe is already judged.”
Sermo 4: In Consecratione PL 218:670.
You have claimed that Pope Francis is a manifest heretic. Does this not mean that, in the words of Pope Innocent III, he is ‘already judged’ because he has lost ‘his savor in heresy’.
St Robert Bellarmine states that no-one may judge a ruling pope, as you yourself correctly point out. But this refers to a true pope, not a pope who is a manifest heretic, because a pope who is a manifest heretic is ‘judged already’.
As St Robert Bellarmine states:
“A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.’
By stating what he did in Evangelii Gaudium, n 247, did not Pope Francis prove himself to be a manifest heretic? You, yourself have said so. Therefore my question is, does not that manifestation of heresy mean that Pope Francis ‘automatically (per se) ceases to be pope.’
In other words, because his heresy is manifest, he is judged already.
Again, you miss a key point. How do you distinguish between material and formal heresy?
As I understand it, a material heretic would be an individual who, without realising that they are in error, holds a belief that is contrary to Catholic dogma. Once the error is realised, such a person might, in fact, change their opinion in order to be in conformity with Church teaching.
A formal heretic, on the other hand, would be an individual who, with full knowledge of Catholic dogma, holds to a belief that is contrary to that dogma. The issue of pertinacity is then raised. Does the person cling to that false belief and refuse to retract.
Furthermore, a heretic can be an occult heretic by holding an opinion that is contrary to Church teaching but without expressing it publicly.
A manifest heretic, on the other hand, is one who expresses that heresy openly and publicly.
First of all, Awkward Customer, by “judged already” I take it to mean judged by God. There is no process laid out in the Church to deal with a heretical pope, beyond “resisting” what he falsely teaches.
I said elsewhere that I could add some “ifs and buts” – choosing not to do so, not to expand the debate at the time. I think now I need to throw in an important “if”. We need to recall that my bald statement about it seeming obvious that Pope Francis is a manifest heretic, is based on his writings about the Jews/salvation in his first Apostolic Exhortation. I know nothing about whether he has formally embraced that heresy – that is, has any superior, prior to his election when he was known to be friendly with a Jewish rabbi, co-authored a book with him (if my memory serves me correctly) and possibly said the same thing in public, perhaps on one of his visits to a synagogue, about the Old Covenant. IF (and I know it’s a big “if”) IF he has been so malformed himself, or misled in diabolical disorientation since the catastrophic Vatican II, so that he really does not realise that he has embraced heresy, then that is a different kettle of heresy altogether. It’s material heresy certainly, but has he obstinately clung to that heresy, even after correction from a superior? My bald statement about him being a manifest heretic has to be contextualised in whether or not he formally embraces the heresy published in Evangelii Gaudium 247. That’s not to make excuses for him. If he doesn’t know the infallible teaching of the Church on the essential doctrine of salvation – unbelievable – then he blankety blank should know. End of THAT discussion.
Obviously, now he has no superior which brings us full circle to the question of not whether or not he is a manifest heretic, but who has the power to depose a pope? Nobody. How is it done? There is no process laid down in the Church to do this. The expert in the subject, St Robert Bellarmine, tells us the only thing he is authorised to tell us – not to obey, to resist heresies. As St Paul himself warned: “even if an angel from Heaven brings you a different doctrine, do not believe it.” Try telling all of this to a papolatrist even now (and the diocesan pews are full of them) and marvel at the reaction. I’ve already had a letter from a man in England telling me that he photocopied and distributed to parishioners, the article in the current newsletter about Pope Francis by Christopher Ferrara. “Very upset” he described these parishioners, who clearly need to get out more.
Now, I’ve received the following message from Father Kramer: I am publishing it to update the public record here, because we did not have Father’s Facebook comment first hand when Awkward Customer alerted us to it. We have it now, but note that we at Catholic Truth do not accept that Father is right on this for all the reasons already given; ultimately nobody may act against a ruling pope or decide that he is not the pope. By the way, St Robert Bellarmine was NOT talking about a “true pope” when he said that (that makes no sense); he was writing in the context of the Catholic position on the papacy when the pope is under suspicion of heresy. Even although St Robert refers to “manifest” heresy, his advice is clear; resist (of course) but the Catholic faithful are not permitted or authorised to take any action beyond that.
Anyway, below is what Father Kramer writes:
This is what I posted on Facebook. . I meant Pope Eugenius IV, I inadvertently wrote Eugenius III.
“Pope” Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”. This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated”. I have been saying for years that when a “pope” will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophecied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alohonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic — not a member of the Catholic Church. Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null & void. The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. St. Francis of Assisi foretold of the uncanonically elected pope who would not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”. Bergoglio plainly fits the description. END.
This is so terribly confusing. I will just do my best to stick to Catholicism pure and simple. I am not going to attempt to even think about these kinds of thing. I am far too much of a peasant Catholic to get my head round this.
“I am not going to attempt to even think about these kinds of thing. I am far too much of a peasant Catholic to get my head round this.”
Me, too! Very wise. We have a pope. A very bad pope, but he’s still the pope. Think no more of it.
Instead, make sure you watch the video of Bishop Fellay over on the “Restore Mass, End Crisis” thread. That will be much more fruitful for you and for us all. I’m heading over there right now to check if there are any more pearls of wisdom since my last visit …
I won’t labour my point beyond this but regarding those who know and refuse, knowing has a very definite and clear meaning i.e. those who really do believe that the Catholic Church is the One True church and still refuse to enter. In that category we can place Satanists who attempt to obtain the holy Eucharist in order to desecrate it. The Protestant bread is not of any interest to them because what they want to do is desecrate Our Lord and they KNOW that Protestant bread is bread and only bread. They know clearly what they are doing and still do it. That is a far cry from Florence Nightingale who apparently was thinking about becoming Catholic but didn’t. Does her decision not to join mean that she knew clearly and refused? I don‘t think so. With regard to baptism, Christ clearly taught about baptism but there is also the passage in Acts when the disciples were astounded that the Holy Spirit came down on pagans before they were baptized. That is what caused Peter to realize that salvation was for all and not just for the Jews. It is surprising that he hadn’t learned that during his 3 year sojourn in the company of Jesus and it just makes us realize that Almighty God works in mysterious ways. With regard to the See of Peter being vacant, if true, that would be another sign that the End Times are upon us. Looking at the world the way it is, I think we really need the second coming of Jesus pretty soon because now that society is rejecting Christ more and more explicitly the failures of politicians get worse and worse. Regarding the End Times Jesus said “.. if that time had not been shortened, no-one would survive”. World events seem to be heading strongly in that direction in terms of war, famine, refugees, global finance and social dis-integration.
That is a far cry from Florence Nightingale who apparently was thinking about becoming Catholic but didn’t. Does her decision not to join mean that she knew clearly and refused? I don‘t think so.”
According to Lumen Gentium 14, the most recent repetition of that ancient dogma, those who choose not to enter or remain in the Church cannot be saved. Why should Florence Nightingale be any different?
Perhaps before you answer you should read or re-read the extracts form the sermon by St Leonard of Port Maurice on page 10 of the current newsletter, which you can read on our website, Newsletter page.
This idea that God has made the Church mandatory for salvation but really doesn’t care one way or the other if people reject it, doesn’t make any theological sense.
Pere Lamy, a holy priest who died in 1931, said,
“One should never order one’s life according to visions, especially according to the visions of others. In material things we must use common sense. And in spiritual things we need common sense, too. . . .We must be careful of mysticism. The devil stands behind the Mother of God; if you let her pass you by, you find the devil.”
So many sede vacantists cite prophecies, conspiracy theories, and inside info as proof!
Here’s the latest from the BBC website, online an hour ago about Pope Francis:
Pope Francis is to set up a Vatican committee to fight sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church and offer help to victims.
The announcement, by the archbishop of Boston, follows a meeting between the Pope and his eight cardinal advisers.
It comes days after the Vatican refused a UN request for information on alleged abuse by priests, nuns or monks.
One of the main Italian associations of clerical abuse survivors has said it has “little trust” in the Vatican.
Pope Francis has said dealing with sex abuse is vital for the Church’s credibility.
Earlier this week the Pope expressed his compassion for the many victims of sex abuse by priests around the world. Source
What I’d like to see from Pope Francis is some compassion for the victims of just about everything in the post-Vatican II Church. Dream on…
Instead of setting up this committee he should be fighting against the evils of homosexuality and same sex unions, and preventing homosexuals from entering the seminary and actually publicly admitting that this whole scandal was not the cause of pedophiles, but rampant homosexuals who infiltrated the seminary after the laxity introduced by Vatican II.
What’s also interesting is that this committee is being run by Sean O’Malley, Cardinal Archbishop of Boston. Boston had the worst sex abuse crisis seen in the Church outside of Ireland, and is a hotbed of liberal Catholics.
Yes, you’re right. We shouldn’t use the term paedophilia when referring to Catholic clerical sexual abuse at all. Paedophilia is a very rare phenomena, and the majority of clerical sexual abuse cases, as we all know, are in reality pederasty. Pederasty is so intrinsically linked to male homosexuality that to do nothing to combat the issue of homosexuality in the priesthood and seminaries equates to not tackling the route cause of clerical sexual abuse itself.
The homosexualists tell us that when pederasty is bad it’s paedophilia, but when it’s good it’s ‘inter-generational intimacy’. A lot of pederastic abuse is “‘consensual'” [sic.] and a lot of homosexuals speak positively about their childhood abuse experiences, and feel that ‘pre-homosexual’ adolescent boys would benefit from the abuse they themselves received. But of course, they don’t see it as abuse. (A typical etiology of homosexuality involves an effeminate adolescent which poor gender esteem and weak relationships with same-sex peers. The older predatory homosexual takes advantage of him, and the victim in his confussion interprets this as love, concern and attention which they otherwise lack from other males).
That’s why the homosexualists are obsessed with lowering the age of consent. It is precisely the abuse (many) active homosexuals received during adolescence that they are the way they are in the first place.
I would disagree with you about homosexuality and Vatican II. Although the number of homosexuals skyrocketed after the council, the homosexual underground in the Church has been around for much longer. Perhaps even all the way back to antiquity.
The homosexualists tell us that when pederasty is bad it’s paedophilia, but when it’s good it’s ‘inter-generational intimacy’.
You are totally correct here Miles. Just think of what Mrs Tatchell said: ‘I know people who had sex as young as ten, and it gave them a feeling of great joy’. He wasn’t talking about any sex, he was talking about gay sex.
Thanks (as usual) for correcting me re my statement on Vat2. It just seems to be more prominent after wards.
To say that Pope Francis is a thorough-going Modernist does not fully explain his pontificate thus far. What does explain it, and should lead the faithful Catholic to fear greatly for the immediate future, is the fact that he is a Jesuit, and a Jesuit who entered the novitiate in 1958.
In his 1987 book, ‘The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church’ Malachi Martin begins ‘A state of war exists between the papacy and the Religious Order of the Jesuits…….That war signals the most lethal change to take place within the ranks of the professional Roman clergy over the last thousand years. And….it involves the interests, the lives, and the destinies of ordinary men and women in the millions’.
The Jesuits were, for four hundred years, ‘pope’s men’, to do in the world what the Sovereign Pontiff asked and commanded. Their order was the most glorious in the Church’s history, unrivalled for orthodoxy and achievements. They fought for the Church, upholding her authority as it descends hierarchically from the pope through bishops and priests to the laity. To a man, they worked for, and often died, confessing her sole ‘other-worldly’ purpose – that of ensuring that all men have the means of reaching heaven.
Then, in the fateful 1960s, during, and in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, the Jesuits, led by their superiors, changed completely. Crucially, while this was happening, Jorge Bergoglio was immersed in his Jesuit training (he entered the novitiate in 1958) where every radical new view was taught and absorbed. The purpose of the Church was no longer to be the other-worldly eternal salvation of souls. Its purpose was now to be the ‘this-worldly’ struggle to achieve the ‘liberation’ of the millions who suffer from social, economic and political injustice by redistributing the earth’s resources and altering governmental structures – essentially according to the Marxist model (the mistakes of Russia!). The Jesuit mantra (and where have we heard it recently?) being ‘to exercise a preferential option for the poor’. The Church’s hierarchical structure, established by Jesus Christ, was no longer acceptable to the Jesuits. They aimed (and aim) at a church composed of loosely associated small and autonomous communities of people – ‘The people of God’.
Orthodoxy went out of the window. As Malachi Martin says ‘…there is not one major dogma or one capital law of Roman Catholicism that has not been both challenged and denied by individual Jesuits, beginning with Jesuits of the highest rank and most honoured stature’. Through the Jesuit theologian, Karl Rahner, the substance of the Catholic faith was overthrown. Martin explains Rahner’s teaching on the papacy thus: ‘…..to achieve Christian unity….it was necessary to drop all insistence on papal infallibility as a dogma, and to drop insistence as well on all other doctrines about the Roman Pontiff and Roman Catholicism that had been defined and proposed by popes since the fourth century. In effect, Rahner was proposing that the Catholic Church officially take the entire body of rules concerning faith and morals as developed and taught by his Church for sixteen centuries, and unhinge them from everday life’. Henceforth the rules concerning faith and morals were to be constantly redefined according to the zeitgeist and the changing opinions and practices of ‘the people of God’. Every defined dogma was to be no longer binding on the Catholic conscience, but ‘optional’.
Jorge Bergoglio, having received his Jesuit formation in such a time, subsequently enjoyed the favour of his superiors. He was appointed to influential teaching posts, significantly in theology and philosophy, and was appointed Provincial of Jesuits in Argentina in 1973. It is impossible to believe that he was not of the same mind as those superiors who were patiently engaged in the deadly work of overthrowing the Catholic Church.
Malachi Martin has described how Paul VI and the Jesuits were in open war. Opposing all papal aims and policies, and refusing obedience to him, they were intent on turning the Church into an agent of purely social and political change. Toward the end of his life Paul compiled a dossier revealing the full extent of the Jesuits’ attack upon the Church, and this was passed on to John Paul I. Immediately upon the latter’s election an article by a prominent Jesuit in a Dutch newspaper called upon the new pope ‘to reconsider the Church’s ban on abortion, homosexuality and priesthood for women’. Thereupon John Paul summoned the Father General of the order and revealed that he was about to make a speech, based on Paul VI’s dossier, condemning their doctrinal deviations and threatening the reform or liquidation of the order. One day before he was to give this speech John Paul was found dead in bed. Pope John Paul II was by far the Jesuits’ most formidable adversary in the war, but they, as they had done through three previous pontificates, could wait.
Malachi Martin died in 1999, five years before Pope Benedict XVI began his brief rear-guard action before fleeing ‘for fear of the wolves’. What, I wonder, would Martin have made of the fact that for now the war is over. The Jesuits waited out five pontificates, and now a faithful one of their own is Pope.
Against this background I believe that all the doings and sayings of Pope Francis can be correctly understood. Truly the coming of the Antichrist must be imminent.
Our Lady of Fatima (to whom Malachi Martin dedicated his book) pray for us.
I noticed after posting the above that there is an older thread ‘Pope Francis Enemy of the Papacy’. I think that a re-reading of Petrus’s excellent leader to that thread is very much linked to what I have written here, and which is based on Malachi Martin’s book. It seems clear to me that Pope Francis is intent not only on dismantling the papacy, but actually destroying it.
Indeed in this prophetic book Martin writes, referring to John Paul II’s struggle against the Jesuits:
It would seem that Pope John Paul was still hopeful (in 1982) that he could rectify what in his view had gone awry in the Jesuit Order and that the Society itself in that case would bring back under control ……..the enormous cadre of so-called “Pope’s Men” around the globe who had set their faces so resolutely against this Pope, and indeed the very concept of papacy in the Catholic Church.
In 1982 Jorge Bergoglio was working, one must assume with the blessings of his superiors, in the Jesuit university sector where he was able to teach, and where, as regular readers of this blog will know, heresy and heterodoxy were, and are, rife. ‘Go figure’ as Editor might say!
Malachi Martin’s works are without doubt prophetic. He had read the third secret of Fatima, described in his novel Windswept House how Satan was enthroned in the Vatican in 1963 (an event which he later confirmed had actually happened), and was himself a Jesuit until, disillusioned with the changes in his order and the Church, he was partially released from his vows and left the Order in 1964.
The ascent of a modernist Jesuit to the throne of Peter would have been unthinkable until it actually happened. There is so much that we do not know, but the shadow of this papacy is very ominous. It is clear that the Jesuits do not believe in papal infallibility, want to dispense with the office, and are intent on changing the Church into a purely this-earthly institution consisting of a multitude of loosely associated base communities of ‘the people of God’. This has happened and is happening in South America. The papacy is surplus to requirements, and in their view must go.
I sometimes wonder if Pope Benedict’s resignation has much to do with the third secret and with his foreknowledge of what must ultimately come to pass.
I have just realised that I am a self-absorbed Promethean neo-Palagian. The only way I can overcome this is to leave the Catholic Church.
I am going to become a gay atheist instead, because I’ll have a much better chance of getting into heaven.
‘I am going to become a gay atheist instead, because I’ll have a much better chance of getting into heaven’.
Me too!!!! We’ll have to get married.
I was speaking to my mother the other day. She is not Catholic, and she does not have a theological mind. However, when I told her I was unsettled by the Holy Father she said that she had the impression the Catholic Church was heading for schism. I am not saying I agree exactly with her sentiments, although I think it is interesting that she has come to this opinion merely based on the impression she has gotten from the media and the world. It is also interesting how my mother seems to have more insight into the situation than so many Catholics, in particular Catholics with theological minds.
I suppose your mother’s idea would turn out to have been correct if the Pope begins to teach openly that he is not infallible.
Possible excerpts from the Pope Francis Little Book of Insults (no, I am not kidding, this is actually going to be a real book):
“Self-absorbed, Promethean neo-Pelagian!”
“Sayer of prayers!”
“Long-faced, mournful funeral Christian!”
“Querulous and disillusioned pessimist!”
“Mr and Mrs Whiner!”
I’ve got a great business model idea, I’ll make a line of t-shirts.
Seriously though, is that going to be a book? I can’t believe it. Also, your very wise mother, who may one day be a Catholic, may be right.
Do it! Bumper stickers, too (or whatever you call them, car stickers).
Now it’s true the Pope himself didn’t say this, but the Apostolic Commisioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate did. Perhaps it too should be added to the list?
Bishop Fellay’s new letter is out. He’s calling a new Rosary Crusade.
I’ve received an email with a link to this petition which many of you will undoubtedly wish to sign. I chose to post it on this thread, partly because by taking the action he did in favour of a handful of troublemakers, Pope Francis has, in a manner of speaking, made this petition necessary.
Time Magazine chooses Pope Francis as “Person of the Year”.
Says more than a month of Catholic Truth blog posts or editorials ever could 🙂
Does anybody know what the Pope is talking about in this homily?
I can’t make head nor tail of it.
He’s saying that the faithful are criticising him because they’re a bunch of prudes. He knows they don’t like the tango. They don’t like to open their minds up to the “spirit” to receive joy so they just go around not getting it, criticising the prophet. And Jesus and St. John the Baptist had the same problem.
He seems to be criticising the Faithful’s discernment of spirit.
In one sentence he extols the preacher and in another he says don’t listen to the preacher. He doesn’t tell us how to discern one from the other. To do that he would have to be definite about doctrine.
It’s absolutely definitive: the ‘Man‘ has dropped the ‘Tsar Bomba’ on the Franciscans of the Immaculate. IMHO if they just sit there and take it they are complicit in and responsible for their persecutors’ reprobate conduct. They have no excuse not to join the SSPX do they? If they put up with this they either agree with their modernist persecutors or they are what Psychoanalytic theorists would call ‘psychic masochists’. There is no virtue in the imagined martyr complex: if you’re being treated like this, there are are legitimate steps you can take, if you’re man enough, like Lefebvre.
I completely agree, Miles. BTW who are Rorate Caeli?
No name is given on the Rorate Caeli blog as being “administrator” (as far as I can see) so I presume that the names listed as “Contributors” must be those running the site.
One of those names is Joseph Shaw, Chairman of the Latin Mass Society in England. He was, at one time, very supportive of Catholic Truth but suddenly took agin us, as we say up here in not so sunny Scotland.
He ran a blog called Catholic Action UK where he posted our newsletter – then suddenly a notice appeared at the top saying this site was now focusing on the more “wacky” Catholic sites (and we remained there!) It now seems to be an abandoned blog.
Joseph also stopped answering my emails, including the one where I asked what, if anything, we’d done to cause him to apparently turn against us. I asked if the “wacky” reference on his blog applied to us – but he did not reply. It has been suggested to me that he probably distanced himself from us (if you can call “ignoring us” merely “distancing”) because of our public support for the SSPX – yet Rorate appears to me to be very pro-SSPX, so who knows?
A friend recently emailed to suggest I email Joseph Shaw about something or other, and I replied that I would do so the day after Hell freezes over. A gal doesn’t like being ignored and so, unless and until I receive a grovelling (and I do mean “grovelling”) apology, I won’t be contacting Mr Shaw again. Oh and any such grovelling apology must come outwith Lent – I refuse to be anybody’s Lenten penance 🙂
Anyway, whoever is responsible for it, Rorate Caeli is a very good site and an excellent source of information. Whoever runs it must have some top sources in high places, so it’s worth following. This latest news about the Franciscans of the Immaculate is pure dynamite and, if true proves, among other things, that the Pope can be very economical with the truth, to use a popular euphemism. After all, didn’t he give assurances recently that the action taken against the Franciscans did not mean that he had anything against Tradition or the Traditional Mass? Yeah right.
I don’t know exactly. I use them a lot because their content is very good quality and they are usually up-to-date regarding contemporaneous events in the Tradosphere. They appear to be traditionalist, but they are careful to avoid ‘polemicism’. They are sympathetic to the SSPX, but they officially associate themselves with the Ecclesia Dei communities, like FSSP.
I totally agree but doubt if the Franciscan of the Immaculate will take any action other than curl up in a “humble” ball, to keep up the appearance of the prevailing mistaken notion of “obedience”. That way they’ll be lauded for their obedience and fidelity and Archbishop Lefebvre will continue to be castigated as “disobedient”. Almost uniquely, it seems among prelates, he understood that true obedience has to be exercised towards the Faith – not towards any other human being, including the Pope if he is attacking the Faith.
If they do that then they will destroy their own order. And hemorrhage vocations. I knew someone who ‘tried them out’ precisely because of the Traditional Mass. Has Pope the Pope just signed the FI’s death warrant?
I don’t see how the Franciscans of the Immaculate can follow St. Maximillian Kolbe and stay under Fr. Volpe. I think it’s apparent that the grace is there for them to overcome all of these unjust obstacles. If you think about how St. Maximillian Kolbe suffered and died, I would think that through those merits they could definitely triumph over all sorts of persecution. I hope they refuse to sign anything that compromises. Their founder will no doubt offer his death for them
St Maximilian Kolbe didn’t found them. The FI founder is still alive though and he is under ‘house arrest’.
The Pope et al. chose the friars patronal feast day, the Immaculate Conception, to do this. Satan chooses the most inappropriate times to come out of the woodwork doesn’t he?
In what way is he under “house arrest”? Where is he?
I am not sure. I quote from the link given above:
“[…] he [Rev. Volpi] deposed the entire general government of the order, starting from its founder, Fr. Stefano Maria Manelli, who finds himself under house arrest without even knowing the reasons why […]”
This is an excellent and informative link on the subject as well:
“[…] even his [Manelli, founder of the FI] closest relatives are forbidden to visit him, and it is forbidden to make phone or receive phone calls and any contact with the outside world is denied to him […]”
To be honest with you, I really feel for the FIs, but if they are stupid enough to take this kind of [immoral, illegal, illegitimate] treatment then they can’t complain. There is a solution: join the SSPX.
I really love this humble and merciful Pontiff’s North Korean approach to ecclesiastical discipline. I reckon he’s going to prove himself to be the harshest Pontiff since Pius X. Just a shame the target is reversed.
“I really love this humble and merciful Pontiff’s North Korean approach to ecclesiastical discipline.”
It’s interesting how this pope speaks all the time of mercy but in this case he acts extremely harshly. This is very much food for thought.
I think I’d make a good Pope. Our dear Editor’s views would be fastidiously implemented.
The ‘enemy’ has taken control over the official FI website.
I meant their 90 year old founder. I thought he was dying or very ill.
Well this ordeal will finish him off.
Remember Pope Pius X Oath against Modernism mandated on September 1, 1910 where all Catholic clergy had to take. It was rescinded on July 1967.
For the record: Franciscans of the Immaculate under severe Vatican persecution.
RORATE brings you all texts:
* Apostolic Commissioner: FI problem is its “crypto-lefebvrian and definitely traditionalist drift”
* Seminary closed: no ordinations for one year
* Ordinands must take unprecedented oath on Novus Ordo
* Ordered “by the Vicar of Christ”
Is this not a reverse of the above Oath against Modernism. Forcing a Congregation of priests to say the Novus Ordo Mass and stop offering the Tridentine Mass?
Dangerous times indeed.
A first class comment. Would you mind copying it over on the new thread, Loftus lashes out, because his next week’s column will be even more insufferable when he discovers about this action against the Franciscans. Just if you find a minute. If you find two, send one to me!
A perversion, I would call it.
The attack on the FFI is obviously demonic. They have a ‘traditionalist drift’ and they get the hammer. They weren’t even totally traditionalist, they were just drifting toward it and they get the full treatment, even their books forbidden and even the lay people associated with them can’t have meetings. What in the world is this? Did they do this with the Legionaires? The neo catholic spin —> http://www.catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/pope-francis-and-the-franciscan-friars
“They have a ‘traditionalist drift’ and they get the hammer. They weren’t even totally traditionalist, they were just drifting toward it and they get the full treatment”
Spot on. That’s been my own personal experience. Even before I switched back to the Traditional Mass, any suggestion of orthodoxy (in the context of Catholic education, certainly) brought down the wrath of the “liberals”. As GK Chesterton (I think) said: “There’s no-one so intolerant as a full blown liberal”.
And thanks for that link to the usual spin put on anything “Holy Father Francis” does that is – how can I put it – outrageous. Would love to have read their take on paragraph 247 of his First Apostolic Exhortation. Oddly, for all the commentaries on that Exhortation that I’ve read, not one seems to have even mentioned that heresy.
I agree about the intolerance on the part of liberals. As you know I’m going through the RCIA, and when I said I prefer the TLM, a look of hate appeared on his face, and he spat out the following: ‘well, you’ve got to make a decision, you’re either becoming a Catholic, or one of these Tridentinists’. To which I said, ‘well, Father, I thought these Tridentinists were Catholics’, and he responded with ‘they’re not Catholics, they’re protesting, so they are Protestants’. Things you hear, eh?
Ask him if that means all the saints in Heaven are Protestants? To the best of my knowledge, not one canonised priest-saint ever offered the new Mass.
One more reason upon a heap of reasons why the imminent canonisation of JPII is so terrifying.
You may be wrong on the canonised Priest-Saints- what about the PP from Sicily who was murdered by the Mafia, Fr. Puglisi, I think who was beatified. What about the soon to be canonised JP2?
Don’t understand your point. Beatified isn’t the same as canonised.
I was driving at the fact that he may well be canonised in the future.
That is…until 27 April 2014, when priest-bishop-pope John Paul II will be canonized!
I don’t believe ‘Pope Emeritus’ Benedict XVI has a right to interfere. He resigned, so therefore absolved himself of a right to interfere in the activities of Francis, and also made an oath to pledge obedience to his successor. If he wanted the right to interfere, then he shouldn’t have abdicated, it’s his own fault, and he has just let himself become, in the words of Cardinal Hinsley on Pius XI, a ‘helpless old man’.
He made an oath to pledge obedience to his successor? Are you sure about that?
I don’t believe he made an oath – just a statement that he would give his “unconditional support” to the new pope. But nobody should ever give “unconditional support” to any pope. And, for heavens sake, if a pontiff doesn’t know that – even one who resigned – how is Joe Bloggs supposed to know?
Yes, Ed, that’s nearer the mark. I’m certain the news reports said something along those lines.
Well, as the friend said who just emailed me this dreadful news…
“Just when you think things can’t get any worse….He’ll be getting his red hat too then.”
Honestly, could you possibly, in a million years, make this stuff up?
This is a matter of routine. All Cardinals serve on one or two Congregations. Cardinal Winning was a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but had as much influence as the tea lady. I don’t think Cardinal Ratzinger could point Winning out in a crowd of one!
For the record, Archbishop Nichols is not a cardinal. And – sorry – but can you imagine Bishop Fellay “routinely” being appointed to choose new bishops in Rome? I hope you don’t apply for a job whistleblowing in the Vatican before you can separate the archbishops from the cardinals…
Seriously, this is anything but routine. The Pope set out to reorganise the Vatican and he’s sending clear signals all the way.
I can’t believe you just said that. You want OFF the pay scale altogether? 🙂
Many different Bishops and Archbishops serve on these Congregations too. Archbishop Conti was on a few.
Anyway, I think Archbishop Nichols might make a good choice. Sometimes these liberals can change their ways “when in Rome”, Hasn’t he improved already? He ended those homosexual masses.
I don’t think he did. I believe they’re still going on. They seem to have relocated to a more appropriate venue however. Farm Street Mayfair… a Jesuit Church. Would you believe it? Probably, yes. Actually, one of the Soho Mass priests is stationed in a prominent central Glasgow parish now. For the purpose of discretion I won’t name the church.
(It’s starts with ‘A’ and rhymes with pernicious)
I believe he was very clued up on O’Brian. He knew his so well it would seem, that he had him take an oath and make a public profession of faith before he was made Cardinal. Apparently, +Ratzinger wrote it. Or am I wrong?
That is correct, Cardinal Ratzinger knew that Archbishop O’Brien was not deserving of the red hat which is why he was so annoyed when O’Brien’s name was published on the list before he’d approved it. He then insisted on the oath of fidelity being taken by O’Brien in public before being made a cardinal.
I’ve no doubt at all that Pope Francis knows all about Archbishop Nichols, the bishop who said that those who criticised his gay Masses should hold their tongues.
Archbishop Nichols has been given a “leading role” in the Congregation for Bishops, not some kind of honorary position. I think that’s cause for concern.
That’s pay back for Benedict XVI appointing +Mennini. You know how much the Cambro-English bishops despise his influence over episcopal appointments down south. Well then, they’ve been compensated.
Oh yeah. And +Burke is out of the congregation as well. The only remotely traditional cardinal in the curia has been ousted.
Damn if that don’t cut it!!!!
Pope Francis: “I knew a parish priest in Hamburg who was dealing with the beatification cause of a Catholic priest guillotined by the Nazis for teaching children the catechism. After him, in the list of condemned individuals, was a Lutheran pastor who was killed for the same reason. Their blood was mixed. The parish priest told me he had gone to the bishop and said to him: ‘I will continue to deal with the cause, but both of their causes, not just the Catholic priest’s.’ This is what ecumenism of blood is.” I never heard of ecumenism by blood before, but if it is correct that Lutheran can go to heaven for teaching children heresy, my fear and trembling and working out my salvation just seems kind of silly now.
“no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (Decree Cantate Domino Council of Florence)
kind of sounds like teaching the road to hell is the road to heaven to me.
Many thanks for this – you are a star! Indeed, you’ve just earned yourself a corner in our next newsletter!
As you – spot on – say, “silly” is the word to apply to those of us who are working out our salvation in fear and trembling if “a Lutheran gets to heaven for teaching children heresy”. I couldn’t have put it better myself – which is why I didn’t even try 🙂
thanks! my blog is http://unknownsaint.wordpress.com/ where I did write this up. I did write about the invincible ignorance angle which is the only way a baptized person outside of the Church could be saved even if he did lose his life for his faith. It is very hard indeed to say that a Lutheran PASTOR who lives in Germany in the 1940’s could ever possibly be invincibly ignorant. If we did say that, then everyone who is not a Catholic should just be put into the invincible ignorant category. From what I have heard though Pope John Paul II has already put Ugandan ‘martyrs’ who were Anglicans into the official martyrology of The Catholic Church. I didn’t know that until I did a little research into this matter for my write up. I don’t know if anyone else knows more about that (in my opinion) travesty. Thanks again though for any mention!
I know that Vatican II Documents are not popular on this site but if you go to The Church in the Modern World you will find that it is not just about invincible ignorance but how the non catholic follows his conscience and the natural law. Again was the Pastor prompted by the Holy Spirit to see the truth, and again was there anyone there to show him the truth. Again the much maligned Pope Francis is right when he says it is not promoting single issues that promotes conversion but how Catholic are seen to live their Faith and to practice their Faith. This is a real challenge to all of us. How charitable are we to other people even our enemies. Would Jesus be writing on this blog if he was walking among us? Do we pray for those who anger us? Are we the kind of people who attract others ot the Church. What do we lack? The Times made Pope Francis man of he year because he hugged those who nobody hugs, and walked among the poor. That is what the Times found attractive, and may I say that it did not mention any intention of his to change doctrine. There are so many circumstances which make people sinners that I believe the Pope was correct in saying he could not judge any individual what was lost was the mention he made of the Church having a right nevertheless to teach what it believed. The Atheist whom he interviewed has admitted that some of his answers were not quite what the Pope said. One of the best ways of keeping an enemy in check is to have him close to you so I do not take a fit when Vincent Nichols is appointed to an office. He can be watched and perhaps changed. My own Bishop Egan who is very orthodox has made some surprising apppointments but after 24 years of the former bishop it is difficult for him to find good priests who will follow him. He is nevertheless achieving.
in the ‘modern world’. Try reading things before 1960. Don’t mean to be rude, but it does everyone good to read things before 1960 and try to read them at face value, not interpreting them through a ‘modern’ lens. Invincible ignorance means you could never know the Catholic Church. A Lutheran Pastor in Germany in the 1940’s does not fit that bill. I don’t condemn any particular person to hell, that is God’s job. But, I’m only saying he could not have been saved by invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance is a horribly abused concept in these modern times.
Also, I am a convert. I was not converted by witnessing anyone’s life as a Catholic. I was converted by the beauty of the Catholic Church (before 1960) and convinced by her doctrines and dogmas, which does not include canonizing Lutheran Pastors.
I completely agree about “try reading before 1960″…
It says something about how confused modern Catholics are, when one of our “leading Catholic laymen” (cough) has written in his column in the Scottish Catholic Observer this week that Pope Francis’s first Apostolic Exhortation is “perhaps the first papal document of the last 500 years that is readily accessible and understandable to ordinary men and women.”
Just as well he prefaced his usual daft musings with “perhaps” because it allows us “ordinary men and women” to reply either “perhaps not.” OR “perhaps you ought to get some help”.
“Pope Francis is right when he says it is not promoting single issues that promotes conversion but how Catholic are seen to live their Faith and to practice their Faith”
Well, no mathematician would claim to have become an expert in maths because he learned his “times tables” but they sure helped.
It’s disingenuous of the Pope to make the false dichotomies he keeps making – and which confuse well meaning people like yourself.
Nobody thinks of those who made it their life’s work to help the Jews in danger of ending up in concentration camps as “obsessed” with the issue. And I’ve not heard anyone claim that Nelson Mandela was “obsessed” with the anti-apartheid campaign. Far from it – they’re hailed as heroes. Yet those who are horrified at the butchering of unborn babies are described as “obsessed” by none less than the Pope. And we’re supposed to be surprised that the pro-abortionists publicly thank him? Oh yes, that’s it – they misinterpreted his (crystal clear) words.
And which pope has ever “judged” homosexuals? Churchmen, including this pope’s immediate predecessors, have explained clearly that the Church condemns unnatural vice because God condemns it. It’s malicious behaviours – in thought, word and deed – which lead people to Hell and the Pope has a duty to spell that out without ambiguity of apology. Nobody has ever said that because someone is inclined to or tempted to any particular sin or vice that they are consigned to Hell. That’s the only “judging” which is prohibited – not an obvious observation. If I see someone about to break into a shop, I’m not “judging” him, I’m judging the situation, the evidence before my eyes and thus I decide either to call the cops or run for my life… well, it’s my choice, after all 🙂
The trouble with this Pope is that he wants to tailor his message to suit his audience. So, to the atheist interviewer he says we mustn’t obsess about abortion and homosexuality. To pro-lifers he says wonderful work, this obsessing; to the atheist he says mustn’t judge homosexuals. To the campaign against same sex marriage he says we must judge the effects this will have on (real) marriage.
The man – as one of our long time readers keeps telling me – is a walking nightmare.
But papolatrists will never agree. He’s the Pope therefore either he can do absolutely no wrong, and/or it’s the rest of us who are misinterpreting his words.
Gimme strength. .
Invincibly Ignorant people aren’t Baptised. This situation of not knowing the Church as the means of salvation would also be impossible in Germany.
Well, that is up for debate. Suppose protestant missionaries went into the jungles and baptized people and gave them bibles and they never heard of the Catholic Church or saw a Catholic priest and died. The person who is baptized by the protestant could be saved if he followed the grace God gave him etc. Of course these are rare situations. Everyone would do well to remember they are rare. Even Vatican II says that.
Spot on, Unknownsaint.
What is important to remember is that there is no such thing as “Protestant baptism”. If a Baptism is valid in the Protestant sects, then it is a Catholic Baptism. All valid Sacraments belong to the Catholic Church.
I cannot recommend strongly enough that converts be conditionally baptised. No other Sacrament can be valid without Baptism.
If indeed only those who are baptised as Catholic can enter heaven that will mean that despite Christ`s Death and Resurrection 99.9% of humans loand perhaps higher when we consider catholics and mortal sin also bound for hell, are all lost. This I find astonishing and were it true I would be hesitant in even putting it forward.
17. “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.” — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc. This is on the syllabus of errors and this is condemned. So, it has already been put forward. There is no good hope that all those who are not at all in the true Church are saved.
I meant of course 99.9$ are lost to hell. But here is what puzzles me. On the Cross Jesus said to one of the thieves “This day you shall be with me in Paradise”. OK, Jesus made a theological mistake for the thief was a Jew and he had not been baptised. Therefore in the sight of St Pius X members he must stand shoulder to shoulder with Francis, John Paul, and all the other heretical Popes that dare take away the privileged position of Catholics.
That’s a bit of a straw man. Nobody here is advocating Feenyism.
As far as we know St. John the Baptist was not baptized either, and of course Abraham and Moses were not either. The good thief was under the old covenant as Jesus had not yet died, fulfilling the old law. Your point is moot.
Are you denying the dogma “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”? I hope not. If we deny one doctrine we place ourselves outside the Church. Submit to the Church, don’t go down the Protestant/Modernist “I think this” route.
I think some people think Traditionalists get a kick from believing that absolutely all non-baptised Catholics go to hell. I don’t. I wish the infallible dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus wasn’t true, I really do. The thing is, it is true, and there is nothing I can do about it. Wishful thinking won’t change Catholic doctrine. We have to do our absolute best to preach the Gospel to all four corners of the world, baptising all nations.
Father Z has stolen Miles Immaculates idea of producing merchandise with ‘Francis-isms’ as slogans.
He is now punting a range of goods (mugs, badges, stickers etc) with the slogan:
““I am a Self-Absorbed Promethean Neopelagian and proud of it.”
Miles should definitely get some commission on the sales!
In the comments under that page, Z claims that Francis *wasn’t* aiming that slogan at traditional Catholics. Hmmmmm.
If I was Monsignor Basil Loftus, I would sue Fr Zuhlsdorf!
(Damn, I wish I was a diocesan priest, then I would be rich enough to manufacture custom made goods and put it on my webstore.)
I wouldn’t be surprised if Fr. Z is too conservative for Rome. They could even shut his site down and send him to Mexico to work with the poor. Who knows, but it’s possible.
How about one of these:
“I’m a self-absorbed promethean neopelagian and Fr. Z’s not.”
Or “I’ve known neopelagians, and Father Z, you’re no neopelagian.”
At this rate you’ll be abandoning us and defecting to Fr Z – I mean, you’re defending him against accusations of being a neopelagian? Listen, having been blocked from his blog, any label is better than none for Fr Z, as far as I’m concerned 🙂
I thought neopalegian was code for Traditionalist. Of course that’s just a rumor.
I try not to read Father Z, he might talk me out of fighting the good fight. He might convince me that I’d be satisfied with some Latin, some wine, and the bestest, nicest, interpretation of Pope Francis’ words ever.
Holy Father is the ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual’ Person of the Year (I wouldn’t have thought it possible to be all four, but there you are).
WARNING! ATTENTION! WARNING!
THE MATERIAL GIVEN IN THIS LINK MAY CAUSE OFFENCE
These people should be shot.
Yes Catholic convert (well not yet) because that would the the appropriate Catholic action!!!
Interestingly if you delve a bit deeper into their site, they have a page called nine Catholics who should listen to the Pope, where the list 9 people or groups they perceive to be anti gay eg Cardinal Dolan and a few others….nothing interesting in that however one of the groups listed are ” the people who excommunicated ‘Fr’ Greg Reynolds (heretic Australian)
Obviously no one has pointed out to them that the person who signed the decree of excommunication was none other than their person of the year… Oh the irony!!!!!!!!!!!!
I saw the page about the 9 who should follow the Pope’s ‘direction’. I’m mad but not stupid.
I was only too relieved not to be on that list of 9 people who should listen to the Pope. That would have been worse than my Stonewall nomination for Bigot of the Year. Fancy, I couldn’t even win that! 🙂
Try to be more gobby 🙂 Then the US papers might hear aboot ye!!!
I am a little confused as to how an encyclical from a Pope can be put on the Syllabus of Errors. Perhaps we should all of them on this Syllabus so then we would not be quoting one Pope against another. But then what does it matter to God, his grand plan to save mankind does not seem to be working.
In other news Pope Francis again dispensed with the usual norms and declared Bl Peter Faber (a Jesuit) to be a Saint.
The actual text used has not been published so could be fallible or not?
WOW! Nolite Timere. That little nugget has passed us all by – thanks for the alert.
Are you saying there was no canonisation ceremony? “Holy Father Francis” just announced that we have a new saint?
And are you sure it was “Blessed Peter” he said, and not “Blessed Patricia”?
Well, you can’t blame a gal for trying, can you?
Unfortunately as far as I am aware you lack one fundamental trait for canonisation…
It’s quite unclear what actually happened, but the article mentions little known “equivalent canonisation” and then says the Pope has inscribed him in the catalogue of saints…. Sounds like there won’t be a formal ceremony!!!!
Can’t possibly be any of the virtues (I’m blessed with them all, notably humility) so you must be thinking of death as a fundamental requirement for canonisation but who’s to say that won’t change? In any case, I take great encouragement from the following extract from the article you posted:
“In Favre’s case, Francis was believed to have relied on a rarely used “equivalent canonization” process. With it, popes can declare that someone who has enjoyed widespread acclaim over time deserves veneration by the whole church without having to go through the Vatican’s typical procedures, which include ascertaining two miracles to their intercession.”
That’s it. Equivalent Canonization, tailor made for moi…
Don’t laugh… OK, well, just this once 🙂
“you must be thinking of death as a fundamental requirement for canonisation”
This reminds me of the story of a teacher talking to her class about saints and she asked what must you do to become a saint. One girl said you had to be nice, another that you must be kind. Anything else? asked the teacher. Little Jimmy puts up his hands and says “please miss, you’ve goat tae be deid.”
That reminds me of the story a primary school teacher friend of mine told some years ago when she worked in a Glasgow school. In a lesson about heaven, during which she’d told them that Our Lord has said nobody could imagine what God has prepared for those who love him, she asked the class to put up their hands if they wanted to go to heaven. All but one little boy put up their hands and when she looked in his direction, the boy sitting beside him used his elbow to poke him and whispered “put yer haun up, it’s no the noo….”
I’ve never understood these jokes on this blog when the punchline is in dialect. So this time I googled “what is ‘noo’ in Scottish?” A wikipedia entry labelled “Scotticisms” came up.
HaHa funny joke!
3lttleshepherds, just wanted to point out that while there are local dialects within Scots, Scots itself is a language not a dialect.
“Noo” is Scots slang for “now”. Or so I’ve always believed. No doubt (tr.doubt!) our very own EATS (Experts in All Things Scottish), Vianney, will correct me if I’m wrang (tr. wrong!)
I should have translated the joke to explain that the little boy nudged his friend and told him to “put up your hand, it’s not just now” (i.e. teacher doesn’t mean you’ll go to heaven just now – this minute, or today.)
I do prefer standard English I must confess – life is so much simpler that way!
Scots and English are both Germanic languages and are a bit like Norwegian and Danish in that, although they have the same origin and have many words in common, are regarded as different languages. This is taken from the web site of the Scots Language Centre:
“The language originated with the tongue of the Angles who arrived in Scotland about AD 600, or 1,400 years ago. During the Middle Ages this language developed and grew apart from its sister tongue in England, until a distinct Scots language had evolved. At one time Scots was the national language of Scotland, spoken by Scottish kings, and was used to write the official records of the country. Scots was displaced as a national language after the political union with England, in 1707, but it has continued to be spoken and written in a number of regional varieties since that time.”
“Sometimes people call the way they speak slang or Scottish slang. This is because, in past times, schools discouraged children from speaking the language by branding it ‘slang’”.
And as we are near to Christmas here is a little Scots suitable for the season:
This is the storie o the birth o Jesus Christ. His mither Mary wis trystit til Joseph, but afore they war mairriet she wis fund tae be wi bairn bi the Halie Spírit. Her husband Joseph, honest man, hed nae mind tae affront her afore the warld an wis for brakkin aff their tryst hidlinweys; an sae he wis een ettlin tae dae, whan an angel o the Lord kythed til him in a draim an said til him, “Joseph, son o Dauvit, be nane feared tae tak Mary your trystit wife intil your hame; the bairn she is cairrein is o the Halie Spírit. She will beir a son, an the name ye ar tae gíe him is Jesus, for he will sauf his fowk frae their sins.”Aa this happent at the wurd spokken bi the Lord throu the Prophet micht be fulfilled: Behaud, the virgin wil bouk an beir a son, an they will caa his name Immanuel – that is, “God wi us”.Whan he hed waukit frae his sleep, Joseph did as the angel hed bidden him, an tuik his trystit wife hame wi him. But he bedditna wi her or she buir a son; an he caa’d the bairn Jesus.
That’s very nice. I can understand most of it and guess at the rest.
I think that most of the time if anyone writes something in Scots on this blog they mean it to be humorous so I’ve never asked for a translation because explaining a joke kind of kills it. 🙁
Perhaps we should end this day with a prayer and best wishes to Pope Francis on his birthday. Many happy returns!
Thankfully, I didn’t know about his birthday until this minute. So I’ve got a cast iron excuse for NOT saying “many happy returns”!
My latest: The Selfie Pope: http://unknownsaint.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/the-selfie-pope/ It’s about a recent list of all the reasons why Pope Francis is the best Pope ever because of stuff he has done this year. The original article is linked.
I commented on your blog in response to your own very good commentary on the article about “The Selfie Pope”.
Your question: “do (people) see Jesus in the Pope or themselves” is spot on.
Methinks the latter!
thanks! Well, all the reasons listed are things that anyone pretty much could get on board with. It is not challenging but allows people to feel like they like the Pope, they are ‘spiritual’, but stay in complacency.
Here’s another very interesting update from Rorate about the FI scandal.
I recently received an e-mail from the Fatima Sisters’ Convent at Coimbra announcing that Sr. Lúcia’s manuscript recording the 3rd Secret of Fatima had been borrowed from the Vatican and could be seen at a temporary exhibition in the Basilica of the Holy Trinity.
I am told that the message is in fact the fraudulent version put out by Cardinal Bertone in 2000, but the e-mail I received specifically said “the manuscript, held by the CDF since 1957” so I am even more interested in finding out.
I e-mailed the Sisters asking to be told what the manuscript says.
They replied saying that I would have to buy Sr. Lúcia’s book “Fatima in Lucias’s own words”, volume I., where it was contained.
Can it be right that the Sisters should be attempting to make money in return for revealing the Secret that Our Lady wished the three seers to make known to the world for free?
Personally I found this sickening – what do other bloggers think?
The Sisters can be contacted at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Thank you for that important alert. It is absolutely NOT right that the Sisters should be attempting to make money in return for revealing the Secret… Not that they will really be doing that – the Vatican enemies of Fatima have made clear that they have no intention of releasing it, so whatever the Sisters are “selling” (literally) is not the real thing.
Thank you for posting their email address – I hope everyone emails to express their disgust – I certainly will.
I understand that the money from the sale of Sr. Lúcia’s books goes towards the expenses of obtaining her beatification, not that there need be much expense if pope Francis is just going to declare people to be Saints without any process at all, but, that aside, I have e-mailed the Sisters to remind them that it is not permissible to do a wrong in order to achieve a right and that it is a sin against Our Lady to try and make money out of the warning that she wants to give to the world.
I have again asked the Sisters to send me a transcript of the words on the manuscript.
I have received a pained reply from the Sisters at Coimbra who inform me that Sr. Lucia’s book, concerning the 3rd secret of Fatima, is also available as a free .pdf download and that they are not making any money from selling the book. They rely for their needs on charitable donations from the faithful.
I shall e-mail them apologizing for my ignorance of the availability of the free download.
For those who wish to read Sr. Lucia’s hand-written manuscript of the third secret of Fatima, followed by an English verbatim translation, followed by Cardinal Bertone’s “spin” on the meaning of Sr. Lucia’s words, a copy can be seen here:
Click on the “Free talks” button in the left-hand margin, and scroll to the foot of that page, where there is a link to the 6.5Mb .pdf book and all will be revealed. Having read the section dealing with the 3rd secret, I confess to not feeling greatly surprised, just even more puzzled.
That manuscript, with or without Cardinal Bertone’s “spin” it is not the missing part of the Third Secret.
As I said, I find myself even more puzzled. Having sent two e-mail enquiries to Fr. Gruner without response, I conclude that he finds himself in the same boat too.
The Fatima Center where Fr Gruner works very seldom answer emails. I think they’re overstretched with too few helpers. I’ve heard a lot of people complain about it. It doesn’t look good IMHO. Somehow they ought to answer their mail.
The message referred to, which is being displayed at Fatima, isn’t fraudulent, it is just the vision part of the Third Secret, not the text of Our Lady’s words, which hasn’t been released . . . yet. This original text of the vision in Sr Lucia’s handwriting is also on the Vatican website:- http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
There is a new book on Pope Francis called ‘The Francis Effect: How Pope Francis is Changing the Catholic Church’. It’s a good look at how libs and neo catholics are viewing him. Here is my post on it and the original source. http://unknownsaint.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/new-book-the-francis-effect/?preview=true&preview_id=318&preview_nonce=b065633b1a&post_format=standard
Many thanks for posting that link to the new book. I’ll take a look later when I’ve caught up with my Santa duties!
No problem 🙂
I got there in the end. Great comments from you re. the new book on Pope Francis – I urge other bloggers to visit Unknownsaint’s blog – it’s well worth a read and taking a few minutes to contribute. As I said over there, we all need to use our cyberspace to defend the Faith against these worsening diabolical attacks. The more widely we spread out nets/comments, the better.
H/T Protect the Pope: Franciscus’s Christmas Message instructs Curia not to interfere in local churches – aka bishops’ conferences. A ‘free for all’ and ‘Traditional’ clergy even further at the mercy of the self-interested Modernist cliques. There has to come a crunch time, when, in all conscience, diocesan clergy, FSSP, et al will have to make a decision. But what decision?
Two different readers have emailed me this Protect the Pope link to the news you report.
You have hit the nail on the head. Crunch time – in my humble view – is here already and it’s way past time for “the diocesan clergy, FSSP et al” to make the crunch decision. Are they going to continue to follow the example of Pontius Pilate – or what?
Here the Pope Blasphemes Our Lady: The Pope talking about Our Blessed Immaculately Conceived Mother and it is a disgrace! “was silent, She was silent, but in her heart, how many things told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’” She did NOT think God was lying to her! UGH! here is the source: http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/francecso-francis-francisco-30745/
Poor Blessed Mother!
Yes, reparations are in order here I think. I’ve been so upset about it all day.
Even from the most unemotional and detached point of view, that speculation about Our Lady’s inner thoughts is no more than wild guesswork. There is no historical evidence for it whatsoever. In fact, it is nothing but the gossip which he so zealously warns us against.
Good point. The Eponymous Flower blog wrote about recently and they wrote that is more of a reflection of what Pope Francis thinks faith is, something that must always, without exception, be mixed with doubt. He quotes him about it. Even if this is true in Pope Francis, (taking into account the Pope’s sneers against having security about doctrine I would say it is true) why he would project his own feelings and doubts onto the Blessed Mother is beyond me!
His guesses aren’t even good ones. We do know that our Lady was warned by prophecy early on about the sword that would pierce her soul. She knew tragedy was ahead. And (speculating now, but perhaps with better grounds than Pope Francis) it is most unlikely that in a loving mother-son relationship, she wouldn’t have been made aware of what was to happen and why. Furthermore, the little we know of her gentle and accepting words suggests that she would never rail against God.
Why would Pope Francis say this? We can only speculate! But if he is trying to sympathise with doubters, he has managed in so doing to alienate the many Catholics with a devotion to Our Lady.
Yes, that was the final straw for me. I have no hope for this Pope now, barring a miracle.
Fr. Ray Blake [marymagdalen.blogspot.co.uk] has just posted a magnificent review of Franciscus’ opinings. The final photo thereon appears to say it all.
Is this what you mean?
Of course not! That is dated Dec 02 to-day is Dec 22. The last entry and last picture thereon.
The Examiner says the Pope said,
Oh well. The Examiner’s version:
“The Gospel doesn’t tell us anything – if she said a word or not…she was quiet, but in her heart how many things was she saying to the Lord! Our Lady was human!” preached the Pope, “so perhaps she wanted to say to God, ‘you told me that he would be great, you told me that you would give him the throne of David his father, who would reign forever and now I see him there!’ But she, with silence, covered the mystery that she did not understand and with this silence allowed the mystery to be able to grow and flower in hope.”
Zenit reports it this way:
“The Gospel tells us nothing: whether She said a word or not…She was silent, but in Her heart, how many things did she tell the Lord! ‘You, that day -this is what we read – told me that He would be great; You told me that you would give Him the Throne of David, His father, that He would reign forever and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she had the urge to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!” John Paul II said this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment. But She, with silence, covered the mystery that She did not understand and with this silence she left this mystery so that it could grow and flourish in hope.”
Zenit, I believe is quoting the original. Shocking stuff.
Would should thoughts indicate a temptation from the devil.If so,Our Lady would not be subject to them.
Would such thoughts indicate a temptation from the devil.If so,Our Lady would not be subject to them,as i assume she would be preserved from them.Is this a reasonable assumption.
She would only be subject to external temptations like Jesus and like Adam and Eve. Like the snake is an external agent, he tempted Eve. The temptation did not come from within her. The Pope was talking about internal matters of the heart, so she would not be subject to those kinds of things.
Thanks for that.
I find the remarks on this blog biased to a degree I have not even met among the modernists. The opening remark was the model for all subsequent remarks, a totally biased interpretation of what the Pope meant when he said “We do not view the Jews as people who have to turn from idols and worship the true God” It is the God of the Jews who is our God, we share the same history of God dealing with his people, we read the Jewish bookis in the old Testament, and many of our prayers are Jewish prayers. So we cannot convert Jews to a different God but to the same God. The Jews have a special relationship with Christians that other faiths lack. That is what Pope Francis meant but again Editor in your now very damaging frame of mind you are twisting everything into some kind of heresy, and encouraging others to do so.
I’d appreciate your specific answers to the following questions:
Is Christ God – yes or no?
Do the Jews believe that Christ is God – yes or no?
If “no” – how can we believe in the same God?
Is Christ necessary for salvation – yes or no?
Did the first apostles seek the conversion of their fellow Jews or not?
If so, why did they do that if they already believed in the same God?
I always think this argument of whether we believe in the same God or not as the Jews has similarities to whether we believe that the world is flat or sphere like.
Using the best of our human abilities and knowledge at that specific time, we believed that the world was flat. However, at one point it was revealed to us, using our developed knowledge, understanding, technology etc, that the earth was in fact a sphere.
Now, if I reject the notion that the world is a sphere and continue believing that the world is flat, I don’t believe in the true earth. I believe in something mythical. My “earth” is a fantasy.
God revealed Himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ. If we reject this, we do not believe in the true God.
You’re saying Jews are more special to God than Christians? WTH? The Jews reject Jesus. Jesus said, whoever rejects me I reject them. He is God, therefore God rejects them. He called their places of ‘worship’, synagogues of satan! That’s in the bible. Go read what some Popes and saints have to say about the Jews pre Vatican II!
People actually believe this. I knew a Catholic convert from nominal Protestantism. He was an ethnic Jew but never practiced religious Judaism. He really believed he was a superior kind of Catholic. Our mutual confessor even told him “you are more Catholic than I am”. Saint Paul says their is no Jew or Greek in Christ. You can remain ethnically Hebrew after you convert to Catholicism, but it doesn’t make you ‘more Catholic’
“We do not view the Jews as people who have to turn from idols and worship the true God”
This is nonsense. This would be true of Judaism were it not for the fact that Judaism doesn’t exist anymore. It has been made up, it is a false religion: Talmudic Judaism. This is a hybrid of biblical Judaism and Babylonian paganism. The Talmud is a profoundly blasphemous book, worse than the Koran. Go and read what it says about Our Lord and Our Lady. Judaism is an idolatrous religion.
I do believe they refer to Our Divine Lord as a ‘bastard’ and Our Lady as a ‘whore who was raped by a Roman soldier’. All of this confuses me. Can you tell me again why Catholic leaders meet with Jews? Oh, the endless debates I’ve had about the Jews and who is the legitimate successor to the Temple.
I’m glad you and I are of one mind, and that I’m not the only sane person in the World.
I really do think it’s fair to say that the ‘Jews’, as far as the term goes, believed in the true God up until the moment Christ died and they continued to reject His Holy Name. As another commentator below has said Talmudic Judaism is a false construct. We are the true Jews as we succeeded the Temple.
I personally have very little time for any of them, and placing the Jews on any kind of pedestal is sickening. They are not the chosen people. They originally were, because why else did God reveal Himself to them, but only those who accept Christ are now God’s Chosen People, that is to say, the Faithful of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
From the Council of Florence about what the Church actually teaches about Jews and other non christians etc. “It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives…” This is dogmatic. Obviously, God has no part in people who have no part in Him and this includes ‘Jews’. From the Bible, Jesus speaking in the Revelation: “Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet and they will learn that I have loved you.”
Two gems from this a.m. CWN’s e-mail review:
Franciscus to review relationship between local ordinaries and religious institutions: “..charisma of various institutions should be nurtured … “.
Franciscus in Jesuit church in Rome:”Jesuits eager to evangelize …. “.
I think CWN is a Vatican friendly outlet. I wouldn’t depend on them for accurate news. They would never mention the FFI in any way critical of the Pope’s handling of that situation.
Pope Francis condemns what he calls “the novice trade” and warns of forming “little monsters” in comments thought to be criticism of successful traditional Religious Orders:
(selected from Eponymous flower)
“Pope Francis called on the religious superiors to put an end to the “novice business”.”
“It’s unclear what he means by “novice trade”, but it could refer to some orders which are growing, one in particular. It’s somewhat difficult to come to other conclusions looking at the topics for discussion.”
“The Pope on 29 November with 120 representatives of the Catholic Women’s Orders. “You have to form the heart, or we will make little monsters. And then, these little monsters form the people of God. That gives me the creeps,”
Oops here is a better link for the above information:
Lets make an addition to the list of Pope Francis Insults:
“Self-absorbed, Promethean neo-Pelagian!”
“Sayer of prayers!”
“Long-faced, mournful funeral Christian!”
“Querulous and disillusioned pessimist!”
“Mr and Mrs Whiner!”
That is just too incredible for words, that the Pope would put down successful Religious Orders like that – his terminology is absolutely scandalous.
I suppose someone has already posted this link from Rorate Caeli but in case not, I thought I’d post it here. It is a report that shows that what happened to the Franciscans of the Immaculte happened by order of Pope Francis.
Bishop Fellay could not have been more right – he’s an out and out Modernist.
“Pope Francis has abolished the conferral of the Pontifical Honor of ‘Monsignor’ on secular priests under the age of 65.”
The idea is to ensure the term is an honorific reserved for time-served priests, not a badge of honour or rank for young careerist upstarts.
I think that’s a good idea.
Damian Thompson reports, noting that this honour system now works again as it did at the time of Pius IX.
He also uses the news to have a dig at the infamous Monsignor Jim Curry:
“This is a wise reform, I think: let’s hope it means that elderly priests who have given exceptional service to parishes will no longer be passed over in favour of diocesan shinypants who Curry favour with bishops and curial officials. What a shame that certain monsignoral titles can’t be retrospectively removed to conform with the new guidelines.
PS: Sorry, my finger must have slipped. For “Curry” read “curry”.”
No surprise. As Cardinal and Archbishop he preferred to be addressed as ‘Father’.
He probably would prefer being called ‘Father Francis, Bishop of Rome’
Archbishop Nichols is being widely tipped for elevation to the Cardinalate and his appointment to the Congregation for Bishops was reported above on 16th December 2013.
Apologies if I missed it, but the full horror of Francis’ appointments doesn’t seem to have been posted. Wuerl, in particular, is anything but good news. In view of the English bishops’ campaign to get rid of the Nuncio, the signs for Archbishop Mennini (and conservative Catholics) are ominous.
This from Vatican Insider:
“In another very clear sign of renewal, Pope Francis has made highly significant changes in the membership of the Congregation for Bishops, demonstrating that he wants more pastorally-minded bishops involved in the selection process of new bishops.
He gave this signal not only by appointing 12 new members to that body, but also by not confirming 14 of its existing membership, including some hitherto very influential cardinals.
In this latest move, which the Vatican announced on December 16, Pope Francis confirmed Cardinal Marc Ouellet (Canada) as prefect of the Congregation. He has held that post since 2010, and it had been widely expected that the Argentinean Pope would confirm him.
More significantly, however, the Pope – who last June stated clearly that he wants bishops to be poor, close to their people and not with ‘the psychology of princes’ -, has appointed 12 new members to that congregation, including Archbishop Pietro Parolin, his new Secretary of State, Cardinals Donald Wuerl (USA), Joao Braz de Aviz (Brazil and Roman Curia), Kurt Koch (Switzerland and Roman Curia), and Archbishop Vincent Nichols (UK).
At the same time, he confirmed 18 out of the 33 former members of this body, among them Cardinals George Pell (Australia), Leonardo Sandri (Argentina and the Roman Curia), William Levada (USA) and Tarcisio Bertone (Italy) – though the latter will leave that body when he celebrates his 80th birthday in December 2014.
Apart from the new appointments, surely the most striking aspect of the Pope’s decision was the non-confirmation of several very highly influential members of the congregation, among them the American cardinals Raymond Burke and Justin Rigali, the Italian cardinals Mauro Piacenza and Angelo Bagnasco, and the Spanish cardinal Antonio Rouco Varela.
From the perspective of the Catholic Church in the USA, the non-confirmation of Cardinals Rigali and Burke is particularly significant. Sources say Rigali, who stepped down as archbishop of Philadelphia in 2011, had played a major role in the selection of bishops for dioceses in the USA for some two decades. Likewise, Cardinal Burke, the head of the Vatican’s Highest Tribunal – the Signatura Apostolica- and a leading figure in the conservative wing of the Church, had become a most influential player in the selection of US bishops ever since Benedict XVI appointed him to that congregation in 2009.
Their non-confirmation, along with that of others like Cardinal Piacenza – another exponent of the more conservative wing of the Church, is a clear signal that Pope Francis wants more pastorally minded bishops involved in the selection process. Indeed, the appointment of Cardinal Wuerl and Archbishop Nichols will be welcomed in the English speaking world, where they are seen as good pastors”.
Don K White,
Thanks for that – we didn’t report it as you say. So much going on!
The removal of Cardinal Burke, about the only “conservative” prelate in there, really says a lot.
The Sunday Irish Independent is reporting on Pope Francis – the sidebar article says he’s going to create 19 new cardinals soon. I wonder if we’ll have a Cardinal Nichols and a Cardinal Cushley?
This is the link http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/feed-your-babies-if-you-want-pope-francis-tells-mothers-in-sistine-chapel-29908842.html
Why is it that the left-wing media praise Pope Francis for his social views, as if the Catholic Church were a bastion of right-wing economics until 2013? Pope Francis has said nothing original in terms of the extent he has spoken about orthodox Catholic Social teaching. Do they not know that the Church has been opposed to socialism, but also laissez-faire systems of Capitalism since the 19th century, for example Pope Leo XIII’s monumental encyclical Rerum Novarum? Perhaps it is because of the influence of Americanism whereby an orthodox Catholic is supposed to be a Republican, whereas a secularist or liberal Catholic is supposed to be Democrat, mainly because of the radical political polarity in the USA.
An update on the Franciscans of the Immaculate:
An interesting post on the eponymous Flower blog. Outlines some of the draconian sanctions. If it is true, the one about Fr Manelli (the FI founder) not being able to receive hospital treatment without a permit is rather perplexing.
Some more concrete evidence at last that Pope Francis is aware of what is going on:
This is a surprise – the “Francis Effect” hasn’t made any difference in Austria.
Here’s a new mother who has named her baby Francis after the Pope. This, in my humble view, takes the “Francis Effect” to a new level…
Pope has kosher lunch with 15 Rabbis.
I find Pope Francis’ public Philo-Semitism very weird.
Not only is it ‘weird’, dearest Miles, it also proves that Pope Francis, like his predecessor [Pope John Paul II, who kissed the Koran] is a manifest heretic. By eating food, which has been slaughtered in the name of the Talmudic God, is paying homage and obeisance to the false Talmudic God. But mind you, according to Vatican II, we all worship the same God, therefore according to the new age Church, it’s us who aren’t playing by the rules.
I’ve recently been reading about Hutton Gibson, the father of Mel. He says the only valid Priests are those ordained prior to 1968, when the rites were changed. Is there any credence to this? Also, if the SSPX uses the pre-1968 rites, why does he view the society as a heretical organisation? Is it because they recognise the supposed anti-Pope?
There is absolutely NO credence to the claim that all ordinations after 1968 are invalid. The word “schism” is thrown around like a glass of water these days, but that really is a schismatic mindset. I believe Mel Gibson’s father is a sedevacantist, so nothing, absolutely nothing he says on the topic of the Church is credible. End of. And why would you waste your time reading such rubbish, when there are umpteen spiritual reading books, lives and spiritual treasures of the great saints, which would enrich your soul? Have you viewed all the videos on the “Retreats & Other Spiritual Treasures” thread? Read all the books recommended there? Give Mel Gibson and his father a miss – trust me, you’ll not be missing a thing. It’s the way I tell ’em…
It’s also unacceptable to describe Pope John Paul II in the way you’ve done above. Use the names of the popes, please – it is highly inappropriate to indulge in silly name-calling, whether cleverly alliterated or not.
Pope John Paul II did a very gravely wrong thing when he kissed the Koran. Speaking the facts, minus name-calling, is powerful enough. There are silly people who watch for any sign of disrespect in posts on this blog and then pounce. It’s “goodbye” topic after that, because they take delight in distracting the thread from its purpose. They’ll attack you, first, and then moi, for not being a good administrator, so watch their disappointment as they realise that I’ve beaten them to it for once – I’ve now removed your clever alliteration and would ask you to think twice in the future when referring to anyone on this blog, ordained or lay, other than by their name.
Any deviation from this rule is reserved to me – that is, moi – alone. 🙂
O editor, how you muddle things up! Pope John Paul never kissed the Koran! He was merely smelling the fragrant green leather that bound it. Take another look at the picture, you’ll see how wrong you are.
OK Pat I’m sorry for saying that about John Paul II. It is, however, a disrespectful way of stating facts.
Sorry, sorry, sorry. Forgive me. I kneel prostrate before you. That should say Editor. For some reason, I was in email mode.
Your case comes before the High Court in Edinburgh next month!
Bergoglio is never a pope. Benedict messed up the Latin in his resignation document, rendering it invalid under Canon Law. Did he do it on purpose ? Well he wasn’t writing a shopping list, but a very serious document written by a man highly skilled in Latin.
Editor: we’ve discussed the claim that the election of Pope Francis was not canonical – and rejected it, as reject it we must. Nobody on this earth has the authority to “sack” a pope, so, while it is good to remind ourselves why this is so (the real purpose of the thread) we must accept the election of Pope Francis, albeit sadly acknowledging that, while he is a true pope, he is not a good pope. There is a framed photo of Pope Francis in the sacristy of our SSPX chapel, so I remarked this morning to one of the SSPX priests where I attend Mass, that it would interest the enemies of the Society to know that it is customary to have a framed photograph of the current Pope in every sacristy. He joked that it had been more difficult than usual to find a suitable photo (as opposed to those with the Pope sporting a “red nose” or funny hat!) but, in the end, they found one, had it suitably framed and placed on their sacristy walls as is the custom when a new pontiff is elected. So, if the SSPX can accept this undeniably Modernist pontiff as a validly elected pope, who are the rest of us to think otherwise. In case you missed the thread where we originally discussed this issue, here is a quote from a very sound traditional priest on the matter:
• The conclave is secret, we do not know what goes on there, therefore it is never possible for the Catholic faithful to have the same certainty (because I saw it with my own eyes) that a cardinal in the conclave will have. What is the sign that the ordinary Catholic person needs? That he is accepted and presented by the Cardinals as pope and accepted by the universal Church as such.
• It is impossible for us to judge that Pope Benedict’s resignation was not valid: it had all the hallmarks of being a free act, therefore, we must presume it was free and continue to presume it until there is proof to the contrary. Just like a marriage is assumed valid, unless it is proven not to be (with) incontrovertible proof.
• We cannot use the private revelations/prophecies to prove that this is the antipope foretold. They may refer to Francis I or they may refer to Francis XXI who may be much worse. We can only say that this is the antipope when there is unassailable evidence that he is not the pope, then we can apply the prophecy to him. It is not proven that a pope who utters heresy is not pope… END.
As for Pope Benedict’s “deliberate mistake” with the Latin (implied in the claims of his first class command of Latin) – if that turns out to be true, then he has gone even further down in my estimation. That, I would class as a cowardly act. He was Prefect at the CDF for 30 odd years – he knew the state of things in the Vatican, so if he didn’t intend to act with the full authority of the papal office, he should have turned down the post on election. Such a “deliberate mistake” would have no standing before God – that’s for sure. In any case, there’s not a shred of evidence that Pope Benedict disapproves of his successor. Quite the reverse. He was quoted pledging his “unconditional obedience” to Pope Francis, despite the fact that no Catholic should pledge unconditional obedience to anyone, popes included.
Now, this subject has been well covered, and we have posted this Pope Francis thread to allow bloggers to post latest news items, to save us following the example of so many, if not most, other blogs, who seem to be discussing nothing except Pope Francis. I would ask, therefore, that you do not add further comment on this subject, on this thread. Thank you.
Seeing as were all busy talking about the Pope’s liberalism etc, and his interfaith initiatives, let me regale you all with a tale of terror from Mass this morning. It’s interchristian unity week, so they had a female Anglican Curate there to preach the homily. What a flaming liberty!!! Don’t get me wrong, she was a lovely and friendly woman, she’s just not true clergy and shouldn’t have been there. When we were shaking the Priest’s hand, an old dear asked ‘does this mean we are getting women Priests’. To which Father replied sharply ‘No’! This the problem with ecumenicalism. It makes us think we are all the same, and make no wonder many Catholics support women Priests.
That priest should hang his head in shame. If and when you get the chance, Catholic Convert, please pass on that message to him from me. Tell him, further, that Judas Iscariot would be proud of him.
I was present when a female minister addressed a Catholic school assembly (of the first three years – 1st, 2nd, 3rd year pupils) during which she said she could not belong to a Church which discriminated against women, did the pupils realise she couldn’t be a priest if she belonged to the Catholic Church? Sighs, shakes of her empty head. Standing by with idiotic grins on their faces were various members of the Senior Management Team. Disgraceful.
I don’t think I have the guts to tell him. My PP is very stern and strict. He is however very modernist, as is one of the others. You know the drill: Muslims/ Jews worship the same God as us, end to compulsory celibacy etc. They hate Tridentine Mass supporters with a vengeance. He blanched when I told him I would attend a TLM in a Diocesan Church after my Confirmation. If looks could kill, you’d be tending my headstone by now.
I nearly had a connery when I saw her there in chasuble and the scarf thingy- can’t remember it’s name. I said to a lay Franciscan ‘who’s she’? and he said ‘I think she’s a reader’ (which is bad enough a woman in the Sanctuary anyhow). I knew that something evil was afoot as soon as I saw her.
You would have probably walked out, eh?
Catholic Convert… It is not manifestly heretical to eat Kosher (and by extension Halal) food. In fact in many places all the meat served is Halal, this may not be ideal for some but still not heretical.
I would urge you to follow editors advice with regard to the Gibson clan and sede vacantism, that road only leads to one thing…extra ecclesiam nulla sallus.
Ed- along the lines of the Pope Francis portrait in the SSPX chapel, I have assumed that in the Canon of the Mass they pray for “Francis our Pope” but do they pray for Bernard our bishop (as the leader if the society) or for the bishop of the Diocese the church is located in… So in the case of SSPX glasgow Philip our Bishop??
They pray for the Diocesan bishop.
Editor: apologies – this went into moderation for no reason that I can see, as did a couple of other posts in the past couple of days. The wonders of technology, folks – sorry for any delay in publishing.
I see Petrus has already answered your question – yes, the Society priests pray for the local Ordinary and as we all know, just as well, since they need all the prayers they can get, these days. Note absence of smiley face… ❗
How can I consecrate myself to Mary? What prayer do I say and do I have to renew it?
How do I enrol with the Miraculous Medal (is it a society)?
The most fundamental consecration is being enrolled in the Brown Scapular. This is a must. It was asked by Our Lady herself at Fatima. It is the sign of personal consecration to Her Immaculate Heart. When we speak of the consecration of Russia, we also mean putting a Brown Scapular on Russia. Any priest may enrol you. The BS is efficacious if worn without the enrollment, even for non-Catholics.
A more perfect form of consecration is ‘total consecration’. Two saints have proposed methods: St Maximilian Kolbe and Saint Louis de Montfort. To find out about these read St Louis de Montfort’s ‘True Devotion’ and look up conescration to the Immaculata for the St Maximilian one. You should spiritually prepare for either.
You do not ‘enroll’ as such in the MM. By wearing any blessed MM you receive the graces, even for non-Catholics. Although you may be ‘invested’ if you wish. This is a short prayer and any priest may do this.
Say it now: O Mary, my Queen, my Mother, I am all Thine, and all that I have is Thine.
You can look in the raccolta or the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum for specific prayers or consecrations. There’s probably online copies.
Here’s a scream – the long awaited clear-out of the Vatican bank has taken place, with all but one cardinal replaced. And the replacements include the ultra-liberal Cardinal Schonborn. Priceless. Let’s hope he knows more about economics that he knows about Catholic Faith and Morals.
Apropos the Pope’s Halal lunch, and your reply to Catholic Convert, I would, as a Catholic, avoid eating Halal and Kosher meat at all costs because the slaughter of the animal is, I believe, a ritual act, and I would think myself distantly complicit in that ritual act of a false religion if I ate the meat.
I am very concerned that Halal meat is increasingly being foisted upon us in deference to Muslim immigrants. I know that local schools in my part of the world serve only Halal meat for the children’s meals, and I believe that the same is true of the hospitals. And in an ‘English’ fish and chip shop in Wales recently I asked why they did not fry ‘English’ chips in good old-fashioned dripping. The reply was that they can’t use beef dripping because it is not Halal and sometimes Muslims stay in a few of the local holiday cottages! Futhermore, I was told, all the chicken they cook is Halal because it is sourced most cheaply in Turkey and they, and most fish and chip shops, get chicken from there for economic reasons.
I believe that there is a small indicative mark on Halal meat packaging, but so far I have failed to find it. I am fortunate in that I can buy meat from a family butcher in the village and can be sure that it is locally bred and traditionally slaughtered. When in a restaurant I eat only fish or pork!
And again re the Pope’s Halal lunch:
Pope Francis expressed hope that “this meeting will help nurture the seeds we have planted together”
What seeds are those then?
I’m wondering if you received the email plus attachment sent a couple of days ago? It’s not like you not to reply, so I’m wondering if I should re-send? Top Secret stuff 🙂 so I would prefer if you’d reply by email rather than here. That way, we can drive the rest of them crazy!
On topic, re. your post of 12.26 am today – whatever happened to “when in Rome do as the Romans do?”
Re your subsequent post – I’d say those are the seeds of indifferentism, if not destruction, to which our pontiff refers…
I agree with Christina, I wouldn’t eat ritual food. But I have to admit that new world order food is tasty. We make our own Mediterranean food. How good is Turkish food? Yum!
Do you know you can have salt blessed and sprinkle it on your food?
Editor – sorry. I’ll go and look for that post now. (Or, I could always answer the e-mail on the blog in code – that would be even more annoying).
One thing I did like about Miles Immaculatae’s link to the Pope’s yarmulka lunch was the following comment from a Jewish gentleman – Why do Jews insist on talking to the chief idol worshiper and judging him positively in public?. That’s the spirit!
This video is shocking. It is a malevolent attack against the SSPX by a neo-Catholic priest.
There is only one phrase to describe this: ‘fratricidal hatred’.
Fr Paul Nicholson make a point which goes to the heart of the contradiction at the heart of the ‘Recognise and Resist’ position. It starts at 4.21.
“…. these people [the SSPX] say they recognise the Pope but at the same time will not submit to the Pope ….”
He then accuses the SSPX of Protestantism, which he claims is the result of them “refusing to submit to the Holy Father’s jurisdiction…”.
And then he says this. “Salvation is tied also to submission to the Roman Pontiff.”
Spot on, I’m afraid. The ‘Recognise and Resist’ position means recognising the Pope and refusing to submit to the pope. But far, far, worse than that, it means that the Church has defected.
John Paul II spent his entire pontificate promoting Vatican II. But Vatican II isn’t Catholic, the SSPX says. Which means that, according to the SSPX a true Catholic pope, and the hierarchy which supports him, can feed falsehood to the Faithful, falsehood which is destroying the Church and causing untold damage to souls. How can this be true?
It can only be true if the Church has defected.
Just consider the sub-heading of this thread for a moment.
“This is hard work. How am I going to move the Church forward into full blown Modernism with all these traditionalist-leaning Catholics causing such a fuss every time I speak?”
Modernism is heresy. If Pope Francis is aiming” to move the Church forward into full blown Modernism”, then he is a Modernist. And if he is a Modernist, as you accuse him of being, then he is a heretic. That is what you are saying. You are saying that Pope Francis is a heretic, knowing full well that a heretic cannot be Catholic and certainly cannot be pope.
At least the Sedevacantist position is logical.
I find it incredible that you still think sedevacantism is logical after all the explanations we’ve given here. Sedevacantism is baloney.
You are distorting just about everything in order to justify this baloney.
The subheading on the thread is obviously satirical. It’s supposed to be the Pope thinking. How do I know what he is thinking? Satire is intended for people of average intelligence. Satire exaggerates to highlight an issue. I can’t believe I’m having to say this again, having had to spell out the purpose of cartoons on another thread. There are some things that require an explanation. There are other things that are self-evident. Humour and satire fall into the latter category. Those who interpret everything in a literal sense, are perhaps not inclined to appreciate satire. I really wasn’t meaning to suggest that Pope Francis was deliberately seeking to impose Modernism. Elsewhere, I’ve explained my understand of the “diabolical disorientation” which is that he – like other Modernists – thinks he’s helping the Church, it is not his intention to destroy it.
You keep writing “recognise and resist” as if all that is involved is saying “he is pope but I don’t accept him.” That’s false.
There is absolutely no difference between what YOU call the “recognise and resist” position than there was in the first century when Paul rebuked Peter. WHEN HE IS EXPRESSING A PRIVATE VIEW/BELIEF, we are not obliged to “obey” any Pope. That was true in the first century, and it’s true today. It strikes me reading your posts and the sedevacantist position in general, that it is the logical conclusion of papolatry. Those who want to point to the pope in his every utterance and say “he’s the pope so we must obey” then fall into the error of thinking he can’t be the pope if he’s wrong about anything or a Modernist. Popes are human beings who have a very narrow charism of infallibility, whereby the Holy Spirit assists them in certain circumstances – not all the time. And He certainly doesn’t “inspire” them.
It’s wrong to say that Vatican II “is not Catholic”. There are dogmatic teachings re-affirmed in Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 25, for example) and any errors are not made binding.
THAT IS THE ONLY GUARANTEE CHRIST GAVE, that no pope would make heresies binding – not that he wouldn’t hold them, as did Pope John XXII and many others at various times.
Your/the sedevacantist position is not logical at all. If we don’t have a Pope, then you could argue that the Church has defected, and, therefore, Christ has not been true to His promise to be with His Church until the end of time. A Pope holding a heresy does not mean the Church has defected. The Pope is not “The Church”.
Finally, the bottom line is that nobody on earth has the power to judge a pope and depose or replace him. Nobody. There’s not a sedevacantist in the world who can do that. Theirs is a doctrine of despair, a refusal to believe Christ has kept His promise to be with His Church until the end of time.
If you choose to hitch your star to the sedevacantist wagon, Awkward Customer, please let us know because all discussion of that nonsense will then cease – we do not want this blog to be taken up with this issue day in and day out. I do not believe in censoring topics, as any adult of average intelligence should be able to discuss anything but that’s quite different from going round in circles forever on the same topic especially one that is arguing a case which is completely at variance with essential Catholic teaching on the papacy. While you are in doubt about the issue, we are happy to try to clarify things with you, but only for a time. It’s exasperating to have to keep repeating the same thing, in the same way that a Maths teacher would find it exasperating to have to keep explaining why 2 + 2 = 4. It’s that simple.
Pope Francis is the Pope albeit a very bad pope. As I’ve said many times about the diabolical disorientation (and this to underline again the satirical nature of my chosen sub-heading) he probably thinks he’s taking the Church forward, that he’s doing a good thing. So, he’s unlikely to have had the thoughts I attribute to him in the sub-heading. It didn’t occur to me that anyone would take the words I attributed to him literally. I must remember, though, in future, that literalists don’t DO satire 🙂
In fact, maybe I should ditch the humour and satire. Maybe simple straightforward, very clearly explained articles is the way to go. I must think about that because if the kind of communication skills required to interpret headlines and satire is missing in someone, such humour and satire might mislead them. I can see that now. On the other hand, I think most readers “get it” without any bother. Still will give it some thought. Previously, I thought it was just the dour Scots who didn’t get the satire / humour or couldn’t understand the provocative purpose of headlines, but I got the impression (perhaps wrongly) from something you’ve written that you hail from south of the border, so perhaps the problem is more widespread, after all.
Awkward Customer, there’s nobody here who gives a jot what any sedevacantist thinks about anything, to be frank. You won’t find any support for that thesis here, so I would appreciate if you would leave it at that. It’s a doctrine of despair, and Christ promised to be with His Church until the end of time, to prevent such despair in times of crisis such as we are suffering just now, Please don’t distort the “recognise and resist” position. We recognise that the Pope is the pope and obey him in all things except error. Those we resist. That’s always been the relationship between popes and people. It’s not new. Check out Paul recognising but resisting Peter. We must resist theological novelties – including the novelty of sedevacantism, and keep faith.
Finally, elsewhere you disagree with me about Our Lady of Fatima giving no indication that we would be left without a pope. You disagree because, you say, she didn’t actually say there would always be a pope either. Well, Our Lady spoke consistently about “the Holy Father” so that is clear indication that she had not come to warn us that we would be left without a pope. The quote to which you refer – the seers referring to “a bishop dressed in white – we had the impression it was the Holy Father” has now been interpreted as possibly meaning that it could be the former Pope Benedict who is assassinated and scholars have considered that a possibility since the resignation of Pope Benedict and his decision to continue to wear the white. It in no way supports the sedevacantist position. Quite the opposite.
Your lecture on satire reminds me of people who, when challenged about a comment they have made, insist that they were only joking and then accuse the person who challenged them of having no sense of humour.
No doubt you are aware that the Sedevacantists can refute every argument you make. So I won’t take up any more time repeating them here except to make a couple of final points.
When a pope states publicly that he doesn’t believe in a Catholic God, that atheists can get to heaven, that if people follow their own conscience they will be alright, that the Covenant with the Jews is still in force etc etc, how can these heretical statements possibly be classed as PRIVATE VIEWS, especially when they are reported across the world by the media?
And you are quite wrong when you say “Popes…..have a very narrow charism of infallibility,” When popes in union with the bishops of the world preach and promote a teaching, then that teaching falls under the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and Catholics are obliged to accept it. The Conciliar popes in union with the bishops of the world have been preaching and promoting Vatican II for 50 years. Catholics who believe that these popes are true popes are obliged to accept this teaching. So, Editor, submit to the Roman Pontiff as your Catholic Faith requires you to do. Alternatively, read how the Sedevacantists demolish your Paul-rebuked-Peter argument.
Your ‘diabolical disorientation’ theory reminds me of something a Sedevacantist priest wrote about people who use private revelations to address doctrinal issues. Needless to say, they argue that this is not a valid approach.
I seem to remember you also having a theory that Pope Benedict was forced to resign. All I can suggest is that you stop viewing these men as either ineffectual and spineless, or as idiots. This is the successor of Peter we are talking about, the Supreme Pastor of the Holy Catholic Church, the supreme lawgiver, the holder of the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, the Rock on which the Church is built.
Contrary to your entirely illogical argument, if these men truly are popes – and remember, they have been preaching Vatican II and its heresies in union with the bishops of the world for 50 years – then the Church has defected, And we know that this is impossible.
One last thing. You say Vatican II isn’t heretical because it contains elements of true doctrine. Please!!!!. By saying this you demonstrate that you have fallen for the oldest Modernist trick in the book – mixing truth and error.
Here’s some advice. Put the mad theories born of private revelations aside for a while and brush up on Doctrine.
You quoted the subtitle of this thread as if I had intended it to be taken literally.
Do you really think I can read the Pope’s mind? If you really believe that, then your criticism stands.
But since I clearly can NOT read minds, then you are being disingenuous, to say the least, to suggest that I claimed “only to be joking” because I couldn’t answer your criticism.
Your criticism was based on my literally quoting what the Pope was thinking. Do you really believe that? If so, I demand a pay rise.
The other error I wish to quickly point out to you is that you keep referring to Fatima as a private revelation when it is no such thing. Even those popes whom you think were not popes, pointed out that Fatima places an obligation on the whole Church (e.g. Pope Benedict) – Fatima is a public prophetic revelation, not a private revelation.
As for the rest – no time to reply to everything, I should be elsewhere even as I type this but I repeat the key point – nobody on earth has the authority to judge a pope, so if you cannot accept that, there’s nothing we can say to help you.
Sedevacantism is the twin brother of neo-Catholicism. There is nothing logical about neo-Catholicism. It is a position that defies reason – the foundation of faith – and if reason is attacked, faith will inevitably decay, you cannot believe things that defy the principle of non-contradiction and remain Catholic for long. That is why being a neo-Catholic is spiritually dangerous: you’re setting yourself up to being disillusioned. So I completely understand your reasons for being a sedevacantist. However, I am not a neo-Catholic in the first place, I do not accept your neo-Ultramontanism or your magisterial positivism, your papolatry. Therefore I have no reason – ie, reason does not compel me – to become a sedevacantist for the sake of my faith. My reasoning is based on 2 Thessalonians 2:11:
And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. (DR-C)
The NRSV says: For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false […]
For ‘delusion’ read ‘diabolical disorientation’. I think Sedevacantism is a cop-out position.
How can the above passage contradict Matthew 16:18, wherein is contained the dogma of Ecclesial Indefectibility? It can not. The Sacred Scriptures appear to justify ‘recognise and resist’ as you put it.
The bold and italics are all over the place, I didn’t intend this. In the last paragraph it looks like I’m shouting. I’m not.
‘And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.’ (2 Thessalonians 2.11)
Surely this quote refers to Vatican II. I mean, isn’t Vatican II ‘the operation of error’?
As for, ” I do not accept your neo-Ultramontanism or your magisterial positivism, your papolatry.”
Perhaps you’ve been reading too much Michael Davies. At any rate, I’m none the wiser.
I assumed your Sedevacantism was based on your view of papal authority? Hence, “neo-Ultramontanism, legal positivism” etc.. Have I misunderstood?
I’ve only read one booklet, about the history of the Roman Rite.
You do remind me of Michael Davies. That’s a good thing! I think he started writing books in his thirties. I have some old publications from the 1970’s and he writes under various pseudonyms, so that several articles in one publication are authored by him! My family didn’t agree with all of his decisions but certainly thought very well of him. He helped many souls to keep the Faith.
Michael Davies? Didn’t he write the book Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre? I assume he was an ‘SSPXer’, aka. “invincibly proud Protestant”.
Perhaps Father Paul Nicholson could learn something from him. This other man quoted below certainly thought well of him:
“I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.”
You’ll never guess who wrote this*. It will be something of a shock to Fr Nicholson who appears to believe that of all the people who are ‘outside'[sic.] of the Church, the SSPX are the ones who are in the greatest spiritual jeopardy.
*(His name is Joseph Ratzinger. Who’s being more Catholic than the Pope now, Fr Nichlson?)
My position on Sedevacantism is one of ‘Not proven’. I’ve posted this elsewhere, but ‘Not Proven’ is a verdict that can be handed down in a Scottish Court. It means that there is not enough evidence to declare a ‘Guilty’ or a ‘Not Guilty’ verdict.
What has led me to consider their arguments is my feeling of unease at being in the position of recognising a pope and all that this should entail, while at the same time being unable to reconcile his teachings with Tradition. I am being asked, told even, to accept a pope but not his teachings.
To be honest, I’m not really sure what ‘neo-Ultramontism’ is. I’ve heard of it though, which is more than I can say about ‘legal positivism’.
It’s not about accepting a pope but not his teachings. I’m no giant brain or anything but even I understand that not every teaching is infallible. This has been very well explained on this blog on many occasions, so much so that I’m now clear in my mind about it. I know that we don’t have to accept the things in Vatican II that were not taught previously. We do have to accept what has always been taught. I can’t see the problem.
As for the Not Proven verdict – many of us mightily dislike that part of our law in Scotland. If the case is “not proven” then the person should be pronounced “not guilty” IMHO
It’s just fancy ways of saying ‘papolatry’, ‘Ultra-montanism’ meaning ‘beyond the montains/ beyond the alps lies Rome’, meaning ‘papal [i.e. doctrines of papal authority] maximalism’. When you hear people like Jimmy Akin arguing assiduously against the validity of SSPX confessions, you understand that their interpretation of canon law and theology is completely warped, hence ‘legal positivism’.
If this numpty really believes that the media have a “Luciferian conviction to twist the words of Pope Francis”, then I’m afraid he is the “poor deluded soul”.
When the Pope says “Jump!”, people like Fr Nicholson say “Off which cliff?”
That’s very funny. We usually say “how high?” but the cliff is good as well. 🙂
The smiley face worked! Thanks 3LittleShepherds for the instructions!
Neo-Catholics hold positions that lead inevitably to their own destruction. They might as well all jump off cliffs, spiritually speaking.
Have you ever read Jimmy Akin’s blog posts on ‘what-the-Pope-really-meant-when-he-said-what-he-clearly-meant according to Jimmy Akin’? This kind of thought process is common in mental asylums. But it successfully passes for academia at the University of Steubenville. And William Oddie had the nerve to say Trads are the thick ones!
Miles, thank you for posting that video. It is indeed horrifying, and I had really no idea that what I call ‘the mainstream’ harbours influential priests holding and spewing such ignorant and vicious views. Ignorance yes. Only last Sunday as I was leaving our SSPX chapel, a parishioner stopped me to tell me, as something of a joke, that while he was talking to a priest after attending a traditional Mass (under Summorum pontificum), another person came up and asked the priest about a lady who had not attended those particular Masses for some time. My fellow-parishioner was not sure, but he thought the reference might have been to my unworthy self. The reply was “Oh no, she doesn’t come now. She’s gone to the dark side”! I had a good chuckle, but in light of that video perhaps it is no laughing matter – especially as the priest is very young, and ignorance, as we can see, can grow into viciouness.
I don’t think he realises he is vicious. Nor ignorant. Nor even aware he has just damned us all to hell (in the manner of a fundamentalist Protestant). He is diabolically disorientated, that is the only explanation for this.
And they say Trads are the mad ones! O my days!
This priest is so vitriolic, I thought at first it must be satire. No, alas, it’s real. To the neo-Catholic the SSPX are fair game. Barely human and apparently outside Our Lord’s precept of charity toward neighbour. Yet they insist we are the uncharitable ones!
From a psychological perspective, their ‘fratricidal hatred’ towards us can only be explained by their insecurity and that which ‘SSPXers’ cause them to see which they hate in themselves, which they repress through denial: the fact they are useful idiots, the fact we are not experiencing a New Spring Time, the fact there is a crisis. Yes, these things they know, deep down.
Their hatred is entirely in conformity with their revolutionary beliefs. According to their evolutionary world-view, the revolution is an historical inevitability which will take the human race forward into a new golden age. Anyone who opposes their ‘progressive’ views is therefore standing in the way of the historical process and must be eliminated.
It doesn’t make sense though. A lot of ‘traditional-minded’ Catholics are disorientated, and spout the same anti-Lefebvrian diatribe. They aren’t outright revolutionaries. That would be an exaggeration. This priest definitely considers himself to be ‘conservative’. He is more of a useful idiot, a pawn, than a fully conscious revolutionary.
This video would make Fr John Zuhlsdorf cringe. And that’s saying something.
Could you please answer the following point, which I made on another thread and which has not been addressed. Perhaps it is too inconvenient.
“We have before us a true Modernist.” said Bishop Fellay of Pope Francis. These are the Bishop’s actual words, spoken at the 2013 Angelus Conference.
Now we all know, or should know, that Modernism is heresy. Which means, logically, that if Pope Francis is a Modernist, and a true Modernist to boot, then Pope Francis is a heretic.
Please answer this question. Do you agree with Bishop Fellay that Pope Francis is a heretic?
This has been answered many times. Pope Francis espouses heresy. So have previous popes (John XXII springs to mind)
Doesn’t mean he’s not pope.
That’s about as clear as I can make it.
You haven’t answered my question. But there’s no need, since Bishop Fellay backtracked. 3 Little Shepherds quotes this backtrack below.
I did answer your question (if you don’t get the answer you want, you say I haven’t answered your question) but, in any case, to clarify is not to “backtrack”.
But, here are some questions for you:
1) What would have happened if, in earlier periods of the Church when we had bad popes, and we’ve had a fair few, the faithful had decided he wasn’t a pope after all and espoused sedevacantism? Where would we be right now?
2) What if Paul had done that when he went to Jerusalem to rebuke St Peter to his face? What if, instead of telling him he was in the wrong, he’d told him he wasn’t going to recognise him as “the rock” any more?
3) Explain the mechanism to me, with roots from Scripture and Tradition for deposing a pope. I can’t find a thing.
I’ll definitely get back to you on this, but I’m looking for sympathy at the moment, since I’m just about to leave for the dentist to have a tooth out!!!!
Meanwhile, were you aware of the 12th century ‘Decree of Gratian’ which served as a code of Canon Law until the 1917 Code was promulgated. I wasn’t.
You’ll see my pathetic attempts below to use boldface on the relevant bit.
I’m back from the dentist and didn’t feel a thing. Amazing. And now to your questions, bearing in mind that this is all quite new to me and I am looking for answers to these questions myself:
1) Sedevacantism is not concerned with bad popes, only heretical popes. Just because someone is a ‘bad’ Catholic doesn’t mean they are heretical. Such a person could hold the Faith wholeheartedly but fail to live up to it. This wouldn’t mean that they had lost the Faith.
2) St Paul was in no way accusing St Peter of heresy. Instead, he was rebuking him for imprudence in his actions, which cannot in any shape or form be compared to the claims the Sedevacantists make against the Conciliar popes. To this end they quote the following Challoner commentary from the Douai-Rheims Bible on Galatians 2:II – “The fault here that is noted in the conduct of Peter, was only a certain imprudence ….”. Hardly grounds for doubting the Faith of anyone, far less a pope.
3) You’re asking a lot from me here. Rev Anthony Cedaka quotes Pope Innocent III who states in one of his coronation sermons that the Church indeed can judge a heretical pope.
“ …. faith is so necessary for me that, though I have for other sins God alone as my judge, it is alone for a sin committed against faith that I may be judged by the Church …. For ‘he who does not believe is already judged’.”(Sermo 2: In Consecratione, PL 218:656)
The Sedevacantists use extensive quotes and references to claim that public, manifest heresy alone is sufficient to confirm that a cleric is a heretic. No ecclesiatical trial is necessary.
Crucially here, they distinguish between heresy as a sin against Divine law, and heresy as a crime against Canon Law. Someone can be guilty of the sin of manifest, public heresy long before they have been found by an ecclesiastical court to be guilty of the CRIME of heresy. Similarly, someone can be guilty of the sin of murder long before they are found guilty of the CRIME of murder by a secular court.
As for the mechanism for deposing a pope, normally that would be simple. A pope who is a public, manifest heretic ceases to be pope. since he is guilty of the SIN of heresy. Presumably the hierarchy would invite him to leave the Vatican and then elect a new pope. But that is impossible today, given the current state of affairs.
That’s the best I can do for the moment. The Sedevacantists have pages and pages of highly researched arguments on these issues.
Glad your visit to the dentist was not painful.
Which, I’m afraid, is more than can be said for those of us reading your posts.
You say this: “The Sedevacantists have pages and pages of highly researched arguments on these issues.”
And the Presbyterians/Anglicans/Methodists/Baptists etc have books and books and BOOKS “proving” that the Catholic Church is “the whore of Babylon”. So, that won’t do. Still, if you are convinced by their “pages and pages of arguments”, there’s nothing we can do to help you, any more than we can convince a committed Anglican that Luther got it wrong in the Middle Ages.
I’m swamped trying to do a number of things at once, one of which is to finish the February edition of our newsletter, and Leo, who has been magnificent in giving of his time when he has so little of it, must be feeling quite exhausted by now – I see he has written some terrific posts in response to your comments. So, I think it’s really time to call it a day. Others from our previous blogging register, who may have been able to help you, have gone to the mountain top to put their feet up and pray, so I hope you understand that your posts on this particular subject – covered really as fully as we can manage – have to go on the back burner now. Anything addressed to me is highly unlikely to receive a response until next week. Apologies in advance.
In any case, I’ve found that sedevacantists want to be sedevacantists. I’ve never yet engaged in discussion with any of them that wasn’t circular, so, in all honesty, there is no more to be said, as far as I can see.
As I said at the outset, I cannot imagine any intelligent adult taking sedevacantism seriously – it means the end of the Catholic Church if there’s been no pope since Pius XII. THAT means Christ has failed in His promise – cannot be the case. And frankly, I have no idea what you would gain from hitching your star to that particular wagon. What on EARTH is the advantage of deciding that Pope Francis is not the Pope? What is it about that doctrine of despair that makes you willing to actually – in fact – place yourself outside the Catholic Church?
What is the advantage you gain by calling yourself a person who believes that there is no pope?
Bishop Fellay said in a November, 2013, interview:
” I used the word “modernist;” I think that it was not understood by everybody. Perhaps I should have said a modernist in his actions. Once again, he is not a modernist in the absolute, theoretical sense: a man who develops a whole coherent system; that coherence does not exist.”
Thank you, 3 Little Shepherds, for posting that.
“that coherence does not exist” is bit of a double whammy.
Bishop Fellay does understated humour very well.
I kind of think Bishop Fellay – although he doesn’t realise it – is agreeing with me about the problem we have of not being able to read minds” 🙄
Actions speak louder than words.
Seems that everyone is backtracking these days, or needing their public utterances explained later. This happens almost weekly with Pope Francis.
But we understand what Modernist means, and what “true Modernist” means too.
There is of course understanding the difference between ‘formal’ and ‘material’ heresy.
Exactly. And the idea that a pope could only be a material heretic is, to me, unbelievable.
Meanwhile, here’s a quote from the ‘Decree of Gratian’, a 12th century collection of Canon Law texts which, according to the Rev Anthony Cedaka, formed the basis of the famous canon 1556 – ‘the First See is judged by no-one’.
Here’s what Gratian says:
‘Whose sins [the pope’s] no mortal man presumes to rebuke, for he shall judge all and is to be judged by no-one, unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith.’ Decree, I dist 60, ch 6)
‘…. unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith,’ I don’t know how to do bold, so I thought I’d repeat it.
type strong between . Then type text you want bold, then type /strong between . For italics replace strong with em.
strong between . ‘… unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith.’ type / strong between .
It didn’t work.
strong between . ‘,,, unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith.’ / strong between .
For some reason, this symbol is not typing…
Fr. Laisney writes (in a May, 12, 2013 letter) that Archbishop Lefebvre explained that Our Lord’s Passion was a challenge to the Faith of some in the beginning of the Church and that some heretics refused to recognize Christ’s true humanity saying God “could not have suffered so much, and thus they devised that He only had an apparent body; and there were other heretics who refused to recognise the Divinity of Him who suffered so much. In a similar way the present Passion of the Church, Mystical Body of Christ, is a challenge to the faith of some, and there are some who refuse to recognise the errors and evils going on in the Church, saying that Christ could not let so much evil in the Church, and there are others who refuse to recognise that those officials who strayed so far from their duty may still be a part of the Mystical Body of Christ and they became sedevacantists. Archbishop Lefebvre rejected both errors, and explained that, as no one could have said beforehand how far could physical evil (suffering) go in the physical Body of Christ, so no one could say beforehand how far could spiritual evil (error and sin) go in the Mystical Body of Christ; it is a mystery that the Son of God could say in His sufferings: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mt. 27:46); yet one ought to remain faithful like Our Lady at the foot of the Cross. So it is a mystery to see that the successor of Peter could invite all religions together to pray at Assisi like John Paul II did: to pray to which God? Yet contra factum non fit argumentum, as you rightly reminded us often. Yet even after that Assisi scandalous meeting, Archbishop Lefebvre was working with Cardinal Gagnon to establish a proper canonical situation for the SSPX. Catholic Truth is that, in spite of all the imperfection and some deep sins of the successors of the Apostles, some saints, some reprobates and Judases, we must be in communion with them, because they are the successors of the Apostles.”
Christ’s Passion wasn’t self-inflicted though. True, He allowed it to happen. But He didn’t crucify Himself. Whereas this current assault on the Mystical Body of Christ comes from within the Mystical Body itself. The comparison you quote makes it sound as if Christ is engaging in self-harm, a terrible thought.
May I also add that Christ underwent His Passion to redeem the human race and save souls. This second ‘Passion’ only harms souls.
Well, there’s the mystery. No, God allows this so somehow it will save souls.
Some more quotes of Fr. Laisney:
“……requires that we have stronger bonds, more solid, more resolute, in order to be well united with one another and work for the kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in this religious family which is – once more – united with the Church of all times. And united with the Church of today, and even united, I would say, to her leaders who, if they are influenced with modern ideas to which we cannot adhere ….. and if in this sense we do not feel united in thought with those with whom we should be in full communion of thought, it does not matter. This does not break this unity, because through their persons who should be fully submitted to Tradition, fully subject to what their predecessors have taught, we are united through them to this apostolicity which comes down through all the sovereign pontiffs to the present Sovereign Pontiff today reigning.”
“And united with the Church of today, and even united, I would say, to her leaders who, if they are influenced with modern ideas to which we cannot adhere ….. and if in this sense we do not feel united in thought with those with whom we should be in full communion of thought, it does not matter.”
But it does matter, surely.
As for this:
“This does not break this unity, because through their persons who should be fully submitted to Tradition, fully subject to what their predecessors have taught, we are united through them to this apostolicity which comes down through all the sovereign pontiffs to the present Sovereign Pontiff today reigning.”
Sounds good. But what does it mean?
The quote above that begins, “requires that we have stronger bonds,etc” are the words of Archbishop Lefebvre. I was posting Fr. Laisney quoting Archbishop Lefebvre which was unnecessary.
I don’t know how Leo does it! He can quote multiple sources looking at one subject from all sides so that it’s like looking down and seeing it all at once!
It now dawns on me what your problem is and why you are so drawn to sedevacantism. You seem not to know that the Church has been through a great many crises where there has been questioning of doctrines (such as the Arian) and these times of crisis give us great saints, such as St Catherine of Siena who told the popes off and even called on one to resign if he wasn’t going to sort out the Church.
This is not new although I do think Pope Francis will turn out to be one of the worst ever popes. But like all other times of crisis, God provides the grace for us to get through it and he raises up great saints at these times. There’s no merit in keeping the faith when all is going smoothly and as we want it to be.
I’ve been hearing about these things for years.
Except for the example you gave of St Catherine of Sienna, which is brilliant. Do you have a reference for that? I’d really love to know.
If only Traditionalists would follow her example?
Well, “traditionalists” who seek to deny that the Pope is the Pope are certainly NOT following the example of St Catherine of Siena or any other saint, for that matter.
Fr. Laisney writes:
“….. the teaching of St Augustine against the Donatists: in the Catholic Church communion with the bad ones does not harm the good ones so long as they do not consent to their evilness. The words bad ones translate the Latin mali. Put liberals in place of bad ones, since liberalism is bad, and the principle of St Augustine is exactly the position of Bishop Fellay and the refutation of those who oppose him: in the Catholic Church, communion with the liberals does not harm the good ones so long as they do not consent with their liberalism. To understand the principle of St Augustine, one must remember the great truth which Father Calmel often recalled: the head of the Church is Christ; the Pope is only his vicar. It is because the communion with the members of the Church is first of all communion with Christ that it does not harm the goods, so long as they do not consent to the evil. And it is because they forget Christ at the head of the Church that certain persons are so afraid of this communion, paying attention only to the human side of the Church and forgetting the Sacred Heart who is in control of everything in His Church. Their zeal so bitter – so opposed to the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre – manifests this neglect of the Sacred Heart. Let us pray for them.”
That could not be clearer. What a fantastic post. Thank you for explaining that so very clearly. I am delighted to have this answer under my belt.