“The Francis Effect” – An Overview
Christopher Ferrara, the well known American Catholic lawyer and commentator on the crisis in the Church, has written a devastating critique of the pontificate of Pope Francis to date “lest the true teaching of the Magisterium be lost in all the confusion” (resulting from Pope Francis’ statements). The essays were published over a period of a week on the Remnant website. We decided to place them on the record here, although there’s really nothing new. Still, reading this overview, seeing the scandalous quotes from Pope Francis all in one place, will come as something of a shock to the most hardened blogger so feel free to comment… after you pick yourself up off the floor.
The Francis Effect: A Gathering Storm…
The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres… churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. (Our Lady of Akita, October 13, 1973)
Editor, Catholic Truth – some time later…
Note: we no longer support the Akita claims. It is not, as we previously thought, an approved apparition. Click here to read more. Then continue with the Christopher Ferrara article below…
Introduction
On March 9, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, America’s foremost Catholic prelate, appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and commented as follows on the “coming out” of a “gay” college football star:
Good for him… I would have no sense of judgment on him…. God bless ya. I don’t think, look, the same Bible that tells us, that teaches us well about the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. So I would say, “Bravo.”
“No sense of judgment…. Bravo.” That is how a Prince of Church in the Year of Our Lord 2014 reacts to a celebrity’s announcement that he engages in unspeakable acts—“men with men, working that which is filthy (Romans 1:26)”—acts that cry out to heaven for vengeance, as Churchmen used to teach before the “opening to the world” at Vatican II. Here we see the vast ripple effect of the “who am I to judge?” mantra that Pope Francis launched into the collective consciousness of humanity by going out of his way to speak to reporters about homosexuals in the hierarchy at “a surprise news conference” they had not even requested. The “Francis effect” is disarming prelates and priests alike. It threatens to disarm us as well, unless we take a stand against what is happening.
As Pope Leo XIII, citing his predecessor Felix III, teaches: “An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed.” (Inimica Vis [1892]). That is why this article has been written. For the bad news concerning this pontificate shows no signs of abating. On the contrary, it seems to worsen by the day. This lengthy piece will consider troubling developments that occurred in rapid succession during a span of less than three weeks: from February 14 to March 5. I felt compelled in conscience to write it because I must agree with what the prominent moral theologian German Grisez wrote about this pontificate: “Pope Francis has failed to consider carefully enough the likely consequences of letting loose with his thoughts in a world that will applaud being provided with such help in subverting the truth it is his job to guard as inviolable and proclaim with fidelity.”
My purpose is two-fold: First, to attempt to give an overview of how serious our situation has become. Second, to clarify what is at stake for the Church in the controversies now swirling about Francis, lest the true teaching of the Magisterium be lost in all the confusion. The controversies to be discussed here—all erupting during the three-week period in view—include:
– Francis’s apparent endorsement of the neo-Modernist drive to admit divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion via “pastoral solution;”
– His intimations of a “pastoral” relaxation of the teaching of Humane Vitae;
– His apparent opening to “gay marriage” in the form of “civil unions;”
– His personal endorsement of the multi-denominational, doctrinally indifferent Protestant “Pentecostal” movement, which Francis gave in a video created for the benefit of a breakaway Anglican “bishop” in that movement;
– His continuing disparagement of the traditional liturgy and the growing numbers of the faithful devoted to it, including young people.
I hope in this way to render a service to the readers of this newspaper. Before I present the details, however, I will address a threshold question: Does a Catholic even have a right to publish an article of this sort? Read Part 1 of The Francis Effect…
“Let us make no mistake: Satan is right now shaking
the Church to her very foundations over this divorce issue…”
(Father Brian Harrison, O.S.)
Part II, Continued from Yesterday
(Read Part I)
A Warning Come True
Immediately after Cardinal Jose Mario Bergoglio was elected Pope, the Rorate Caeli blog site presented a dire report by an Argentinian journalist, who wrote that as Archbishop of Buenos Aires the Cardinal was a “sworn enemy of the traditional Mass,” that he was “[f]amous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies),” that he was “accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions,” that he was “loose in doctrine and liturgy,” and that “he has not fought against abortion and only very weakly against homosexual ‘marriage’(approved with practically no opposition from the episcopate)…”
Honesty compels one to admit that every element of this grim assessment has been borne out by the brutal dismantling of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate on the Pope’s direct order, and by his astonishing plenitude of disturbing statements and actions during the scant year he has been in office. These include the phrase that will be emblematic of his entire pontificate, which is now appearing on “Who am I to judge?” tee shirts marketed to gay-rights activists and assorted other radical liberals in order to taunt the Church. Read Part 2 of The Francis Effect…
“I find that [the Latin Mass] is rather a kind of fashion.
And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much attention.”…
(Pope Francis)
Part III
(Continued from Yesterday)
Read Part I, Read Part II
Still More Insults for Traditionalists
Pope Francis has publicly insulted faithful traditional Catholics so many times that one wag at CNN has compiled what he calls “The Pope Francis Little Book of Insults.” The insults keep coming.
On February 14, during an audience with Bishops of the Czech Republic, the Pope was informed of the growing numbers of young people who are attracted to the traditional Latin Mass. Instead of expressing approval of this development as a sign of true renewal in the Church, Francis dismissed the development, stating that “he cannot understand the younger generation wishing to return to it [the Latin Mass].” With amazing condescension he added: “When I search more thoroughly, I find that it is rather a kind of fashion. And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much attention. It is just necessary to show some patience and kindness to people who are addicted to a certain fashion. But I consider greatly important to go deep into things, because if we do not go deep, no liturgical form, this or that one, can save us.”
It must be said that Francis appears to be guilty of the very fault of which he publicly accuses others: liturgical superficiality, and this to an astonishing degree. In all candor, it is Francis who has not “gone deep” at all but rather rendered the shallowest of judgments on a matter that could not be more profound. How is it possible for a Roman Pontiff to dismiss as “a kind of fashion” the Church’s received and approved rite of divine worship down through the centuries, going back at least to the time of Pope Damasus (r. 366-384), if not to the Apostles themselves, a work of the Holy Ghost that is nothing less than the liturgical foundation of Christian civilization?
If anything is “a kind of fashion” it is the new rite of Mass concocted by committee a mere 45 years ago, which almost immediately collapsed in a welter of previously unthinkable abuses and profanations, including the “Pinocchio Mass” and the “Tango Mass” over which Francis himself presided as Cardinal Bergoglio. How can Francis defend and even participate in what his own predecessor admitted is the “collapse of the liturgy” (Ratzinger, Milestones, p. 148) while disparaging the Mass that nurtured the faith and heroic virtue of legions of saints and inspired the world’s most sublime works of art and architecture and music, including Gregorian and polyphonic chant? Read Part 3 of The Francis Effect…
Part IV of The Francis Effect follows..
While Pope Francis has not altered any Catholic doctrines in his interviews and disquisitions, he is sowing seeds of confusion among the faithful, a high price to pay, even for “skyrocketing” poll numbers”.… Patrick J. Buchanan
Yet Another Explosive Newspaper Interview
The Pope continues to give free-ranging, explosive interviews to Italian newspapers. The latest edition of this “magisterium” by newspaper is an interview with the editor of Corriere della Sera on March 5. As with all the other interviews, this one contains bombshells whose detonations the world media duly note while the diving bell constituency covers its ears. I will address six key statements from the interview:
First, confirming exactly what Antonio Socci was widely ridiculed for suggesting, Francis explicitly declares that the Church now has two Popes—a reigning Pope and a retired Pope: “The Pope emeritus is not a statue in a museum. It is an institution. We weren’t used to it. 60 or 70 years ago, ‘bishop emeritus’ didn’t exist. It came after the (Second Vatican) Council. Today, it is an institution. The same thing must happen for the Pope emeritus. Benedict is the first and perhaps there will be others.”
Notice that Francis does not say that the other Popes who have resigned in centuries past had this status, for in fact they became cardinals and lost all indices of the papal office. No, this is yet another post-conciliar novelty in the Church. Now, a bishop emeritus is still a bishop because, in receiving the fullness of Holy Orders according to a sacramental formula, including the laying on of hands, he received an indelible mark on his soul that can never be effaced. But a man who ascends to the office of Vicar of Christ does not undergo any such ontological change. So what precisely is Francis suggesting here? Who knows? But one thing is certain: we are witnessing still more confusion about the distinction between one thing and another that has bedeviled the Church since the Council. And confusion in the Church is always a sign of the Adversary at work on her human element.
Second, Francis revealed that he and Pope Emeritus Benedict jointly agreed that Benedict would in effect “come out of retirement” despite his earlier statement that he would remain “hidden from the world.” Said Francis: “We [Benedict and he] have spoken about it and we decided together that it would be better that he sees people, gets out and participates in the life of the Church. He once came here for the blessing of the statue of St. Michael the Archangel, then to lunch at Santa Marta and, after Christmas, I sent him an invitation to participate in the consistory and he accepted. His wisdom is a gift of God. Some would have wished that he retire to a Benedictine abbey far from the Vatican. I thought of grandparents and their wisdom. Their counsels give strength to the family and they do not deserve to be in an elderly home.”
So, as Francis sees it, the newly created Pope Emeritus serves as a kind of consulting Pope to the reigning Pope. But what if the consulting Pope publishes advice that contradicts the reigning Pope—say, in a newspaper interview with Corriere della Sera? Well, what’s a little more confusion in the post-conciliar Church? As Socci has written regarding Francis’s revelations: “The tempests approach.”
Third, taking aim at the Church’s traditional discipline respecting the divorced and remarried, Francis continued his theme that it would be Pharisaical “casuistry” to continue to refuse to admit them to Holy Communion:
There are many separated families in which the project of common life has failed. The children suffer greatly. We must give a response. But for this we must reflect very deeply. It is that which the Consistory and the Synod are doing. We need to avoid remaining on the surface. The temptation to resolve every problem with casuistry is an error, a simplification of profound things, as the Pharisees did, a very superficial theology. It is in light of the deep reflection that we will be able to seriously confront particular situations, also those of the divorced, with a pastoral depth.
In other words, Francis is at least considering a “correction” of the supposedly superficial, Pharisaical theology concerning the divorced and remarried that the Church has always defended. (If not, then what “superficial theology” is he referring to?) This would apparently involve something along the lines suggested by Cardinal Kasper. Francis left no doubt of this during the interview:
Corriere: Why did the speech from Cardinal Walter Kasper during the last consistory (an abyss between doctrine on marriage and the family and the real life of many Christians) so deeply divide the cardinals? How do you think the Church can walk these two years of fatiguing path arriving at a large and serene consensus? If the doctrine is firm, why is debate necessary? [Good question!]
Francis: Cardinal Kasper made a beautiful and profound presentation that will soon be published in German, and he confronted five points; the fifth was that of second marriages. I would have been concerned if in the consistory there wasn’t an intense discussion. It wouldn’t have served for anything. The cardinals knew that they could say what they wanted, and they presented many different points of view that are enriching. The fraternal and open comparisons make theological and pastoral thought grow. I am not afraid of this, actually I seek it.
Fourth, Francis clearly opened the door to “civil unions” as an acceptable legal substitute for civil “marriage” between homosexuals.
Corriere: Many nations have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?
Francis: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety.
But there are no “different cases” of “civil unions.” It is only homosexual activists who are promoting them as a compromise on “gay marriage.” Hence the mass media immediately seized on the obvious implication that the Pope has opened the door, at least a crack, to the Church’s acceptance of “gay marriage” so long as it is called “civil union.” As CNN declared, for example: “Pope Francis: Church Could Support Civil Unions.” Meaning, civil unions for “gays,” who are the only ones demanding them.
Given the media storm the Pope’s remark had stirred up, the Vatican issued yet another of its urgent “clarifications” of Pope Francis’s remarks. But the clarification only confirmed the media’s interpretation. Father Thomas Rosica, the English language spokesman for the Holy See Press Office issued this statement:
The Pope did not choose to enter into debates about the delicate matter of gay civil unions. In his response to the interviewer, he emphasized the natural characteristic of marriage between one man and one woman, and on the other hand, he also spoke about the obligation of the state to fulfill its responsibilities towards its citizens…. Pope Francis simply stated the issues and did not interfere with positions held by Episcopal Conferences in various countries dealing with the question of civil unions and same sex marriage.
Just a moment! The state has absolutely no “responsibility toward its citizens” to invent civil unions for sodomites who demand the benefits of marriage. On the contrary, it has a responsibility to forbid such unions for the common good, and Catholics have a duty to oppose them and refuse to cooperate in their implementation. Accordingly, in 2003 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the future Pope Benedict, declared as follows in a document that John Paul II specifically approved and ordered to be published:
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. [Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 3 June 2003].
Father Rosica’s “clarification” portends Francis’s disastrous abandonment of this teaching in favor of the local bishops’ conferences that have already caved in on “civil unions.” Then again, it must be said that Father Rosica himself seems to be at sea over what Francis said to Corriere. As he states: “We should not try to read more into the Pope’s words than what has been stated in very general terms.” Has he not conferred with the Pope on exactly what he meant? Or is Rosica, on his own initiative, engaging in frantic damage control regarding another spontaneous remark Francis uttered without consulting anyone?
Fifth, Francis dropped a thinly shrouded bomb concerning Humanae Vitae, which the interviewer blatantly prompted him to undermine by reference to the infamous Cardinal Martini, who declared in 2008 that “Jesus would never have written Humanae Vitae.” Francis, who has praised Martini as “a prophetic figure” and “a man of discernment and peace,” took the interviewer’s hint:
Corriere: At half a century from Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, can the Church take up again the theme of birth control? Cardinal Martini, your confrere, thought that the moment had come.
Francis: All of this depends on how Humanae Vitae is interpreted. Paul VI himself, at the end, recommended to confessors much mercy, and attention to concrete situations. But his genius was prophetic, he had the courage to place himself against the majority, defending the moral discipline, exercising a culture brake, opposing present and future neo-Malthusianism. The question is not that of changing the doctrine but of going deeper and making pastoral (ministry) take into account the situations and that which it is possible for people to do. Also of this we will speak in the path of the synod.
Questions abound:
What does Francis mean by “how Humanae Vitae is interpreted”? There is nothing to interpret: affirming what the Church has taught for all time, the encyclical unequivocally forbids as “intrinsically wrong”—that is, wrong under any circumstance—“any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.”
What does Francis mean by “much mercy”? One of the spiritual acts of mercy is to admonish the sinner. Moreover, the Church has always taught that a sinner cannot be granted absolution absent a firm purpose of amendment: “I firmly resolve with the help of thy grace… to amend my life. Amen.” The Church does not dispense her own “mercy” as a sort of kindly gratuity, but rather obtains Christ’s mercy through the Sacrament of Confession. But the mercy of God’s forgiveness cannot be obtained without a sinner’s repentance. How can priests show “much mercy” respecting the mortal sin of contraception unless a penitent repents of it, vowing not to commit it again?
If, in the name of “mercy,” people were to be excused from the obligation to cease contracepting based on “concrete situations” and what “it is possible for people to do,” what mortal sin would not be excusable on those grounds? How does this not represent the threat of a total collapse of the Church’s moral edifice within the confessional?
On the other hand, if Francis is not suggesting that confessors allow for the sin of contraception out of “mercy,” what does he mean, and what exactly does he have in mind when he says “also of this we will speak in the path of the synod.”
Sixth: Pursuing his vision of a “synodal” Catholic Church and a “conversion of the papacy” in line with Orthodox theology (cf. Evangelii gaudium, n. 246) the Pope told Corriere that “Orthodox theology is very rich. And I believe that they have great theologians at this moment. Their vision of the Church and of synodality is marvelous.”
Consider: With the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X suddenly back in the “schism” penalty box, even though they affirm the Pope’s authority and indeed appeal to it for an end to the crisis in the Church, Francis looks to the theology of true schismatics for a “marvelous” “vision of the Church” premised precisely on denial of the Pope’s authority! Moreover, “marvelous” Orthodox synodality involves autocephalous national churches, which, if applied to the Catholic Church, would mean the destruction of her very unity, if that were possible. No further comment is necessary.
Conclusion
When Pope John XXII gave his errant sermons on the Beatific Vision 700 years ago, he encountered fierce public opposition until he retracted his error, even though the sermons were heard by few and were probably completely unknown to the vast majority of Catholics. Some 700 years later, the statements of a Pope become known to the entire world within hours of their utterance and are amplified and repeated with enormous impact by the global mass media. Today, we are witnessing almost daily scandal provoked by a Pope who has rocked the Church and delighted the Church’s enemies, not with a single erring opinion, but with a cascade of disturbing remarks and suggested radical innovations the media exploit to attack the very foundations of the Faith, followed by frantic attempts at “clarification” by the Vatican Press Office. This has been going on almost from the moment Pope Francis said “Good evening” on the balcony of Saint Peter’s Basilica a year ago, and it has only gotten worse.
In the mere three weeks covered by this article, the Pope has managed to do and say enough to suggest what Roberto de Mattei called “a cultural revolution proposed in the name of praxis,” speaking only of Cardinal Kasper’s stunning advocacy of de facto Church approval of divorce and remarriage in an address Francis solicited and then praised as beautiful and profound. Yet in the midst of the booming explosions Francis has been setting off to the world’s rapturous applause—one after another in seemingly endless succession—the diving bell constituency continues to insist that we ignore the thunderous noise emanating from Rome, act as if all is well with the papacy, and continue to blame the bishops alone for everything that has gone wrong in the Church since Vatican II.
It is time for Catholics to unite in recognizing that the post-conciliar crisis began with, and is being perpetuated by, acts and omissions of the conciliar Popes, and that it will end only when some Pope—please God, this one—finally acts decisively to steer the Barque of Peter back to the course from which it deviated nearly half a century ago. It is time to stop pretending that the Pope’s subordinates are solely to blame for what the Pope has done, authorized, or tolerated for decades. This pretense has inflicted immense harm upon the Body of Christ because it effectively dispenses with the essential role of the Pope as supreme ruler of the Church, who is ultimately responsible for her state, and discourages the faithful from exercising their right to protest publicly the consequences of papal misrule, which the Church’s enemies are left free publicly to praise and promote.
Pope Benedict’s liberation of the traditional Mass, which immediately launched a worldwide movement for its restoration, is but one indication of the Roman Pontiff’s singular power to renew and reform a Church undergoing the deepest of crises. Pope Francis, however, is seemingly intent on disparaging, if not halting, that liturgical revival and dragging the Church back to the liturgical, theological, and pastoral tumult of the 1970s—with the threat of even more unheard-of novelties to come. To continue to insist on the ridiculous proposition that the Pope Francis must not be criticized in public in the midst of public scandals of worldwide magnitude provoked by Francis himself, is nothing less than to become complicit in accelerating the ecclesial auto-demolition Pope Benedict at least attempted to arrest. What Pope Francis is doing and saying publicly to the Church’s detriment must be opposed, just as publicly, by loyal Catholics who love the Church and cannot bear to see the spotless Bride of Christ humiliated before a gloating world.
Yet not a word of this article has been written against the person of Pope Francis. Like the late Dr. Palmaro, whom the Pope thanked for his severe public criticism in a newspaper, we do not “judge the Pope as a human person. We distinguish the action from the person.” Indeed, we ought to presume that Francis is well-intentioned; or even perhaps that his deliberation, focus and sense of restraint are somewhat compromised, as would be natural with anyone of his advanced age. But this does not change the objective signification of the words Francis utters, or their dangerous ambiguity, or the confusion and division they have caused. Nor can even the best of intentions avoid the damage Francis is unquestionably inflicting on the Church’s divinely mandated witness against the errors of this world.
Four years before his death in 1977, the great Dietrich von Hildebrand, hailed by Pope Pius XII as a “twentieth century doctor of the Church,” wrote that “the poison of our epoch is slowly seeping into the Church herself, and many have failed to see the apocalyptic decline of our time.” (The Devastated Vineyard, p. 75). Forty years later the poison of our epoch has penetrated into nearly every corner of the Church. Now there is almost a palpable sense that time is running out, that the Church’s human element is surrendering almost entirely to the spirit of the age, that the apocalyptic decline of our time has reached a depth that presages divine chastisement.
By now it should be self-evident to any Catholic who understands the nature of the Church that only the Pope has the power to avert what is coming, and that therefore it is the height of folly to pretend that only the Pope is immune from criticism concerning the disastrous misrule of the Church over the past half-century. At this turning point in salvation history, when virtually every word and deed of the Pope is a matter for worldwide discussion, no Catholic worthy of the name should be counseling silence about what is happening in the See of Peter. To remain silent, to refrain from expressing our conscientious opposition, is to refuse to dispel scandal among our brethren when we have the obligation and the means to do so, and to allow them, and ultimately ourselves, to succumb to the reigning confusion, which has led to nothing less than mass apostasy.
There will be no such silence on these pages. There never has been. For silence in the face of grave harm to the Bride of Christ is not the Catholic way, especially when that harm results from the notorious public conduct of a Pope. May Our Lady of Fatima, to whom Pope Francis’s pontificate is consecrated, intercede for us, illumine the Pope, and deliver the Church from the peril to which her own leaders have exposed her. Source
Comments (62)
‘Immediately after Cardinal Jose Mario Bergoglio was elected Pope, the Rorate Caeli blog site presented a dire report by an Argentinian journalist, who wrote that as Archbishop of Buenos Aires the Cardinal was a “sworn enemy of the traditional Mass,” that he was “[f]amous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies),” that he was “accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions,” that he was “loose in doctrine and liturgy,” and that “he has not fought against abortion and only very weakly against homosexual ‘marriage’(approved with practically no opposition from the episcopate)…” ‘
The statements of Francis are a definite cause for concern but when we look at the whole picture over the last 50 years, we see how it fits in with what was foretold. In the modern day we see the great apostasy prophesied by St. Paul also reflected in the words of Jesus asking if there will be any faith left when the Son of Man returns. We see the wars and rumours of wars, earthquakes, famines etc. mentioned by Our Lord when he responded to the question from the apostles about his second coming and in answering that question he referred to the prophesy of Daniel 9 which states quite definitely that the prophesy was for the End Times. In that context Jesus mentioned the disastrous abomination spoken of by Daniel set up in the holy place so the question arises – does Francis fit the bill?
I’ve only read the first article of the three but I can tell already it’s essential reading for every Catholic who is trying to understand this pope.
I don’t think it’s up to us to decide if Pope Francis is the disastrous abomination prophecy of Daniel. In fact I think it’s very wrong to get into that kind of judgment.
As editor keeps saying we know that he’s a terrible pope and we deal with that. Anything else is God’s judgment to make.
I’m going to read the other two articles asap.
I’ve read the first two articles and they are just superb. I can’t wait to read number 3. I’d read Mgr Basil Loftus oozing praise for Cardinal Kasper for his work in ending the ban on divorced and remarried Catholics getting Communion, in the Catholic Times, so this was a very different opinion altogether, totally shocking. I copied this towards the end of the second article:
“What Kasper is really after—as if anyone didn’t know it—is simply the Catholic Church’s practical defection from the indissolubility of marriage, while affirming it in principle (the defection in principle can always come later). Insulting Holy Church yet again, he declares that his “solution” is necessary to “give witness in a credible way to the Word of God in difficult human situations, as a message of fidelity, but also as a message of mercy, of life, and of joy.” In other words, until now the Church has been without credibility and mercy toward the divorced and remarried, her discipline joyless and lifeless, because she heeds Our Lord’s divine warning that the divorced and “remarried” are guilty of adultery! Kasper’s “beautiful and profound” conclusion is thus an implicit attack on God Himself. But that, after all, is what Modernism always involves.
Finally, consider the immense stakes involved in this insane pursuit of a way to admit public adulterers to the sacraments. Here I will quote from Father Brian Harrison’s recent letter to Inside the Vatican:
[W]on’t this reversal of bimillenial Catholic doctrine mean that the Protestants and Orthodox, who have allowed divorce and remarriage for century after century, have been more docile to the Holy Spirit on this issue than the true Church of Christ? Indeed, how credible, now, will be her claim to be the true Church? On what other controverted issues, perhaps, has the Catholic Church been wrong, and the separated brethren right? …
Admitting [the divorced and remarried] to Communion without a commitment to continence will lead logically to one of three faith-breaking conclusions: (a) our Lord was mistaken in calling this relationship adulterous—in which case he can scarcely have been the Son of God; (b) adultery is not intrinsically and gravely sinful—in which case the Church’s universal and ordinary magisterium has always been wrong; or (c) Communion can be given to some who are living in objectively grave sin—in which case not only has the magisterium also erred monumentally by always teaching the opposite, but the way will also be opened to Communion for fornicators, practicing homosexuals, pederasts, and who knows who else?
Let us make no mistake: Satan is right now shaking the Church to her very foundations over this divorce issue….
Diabolical is not too strong a word for Kasper’s proposal. Yet our friends in the diving bell will pretend that the Pope did not solicit and then praise it. Meanwhile, the world exults over the potential for an overthrow of the Church’s uncompromising defense of Holy Matrimony. Will Kasper’s proposal become a reality? We must pray that the Holy Ghost prevents such a disaster. Nevertheless, Catholics deceive themselves, and each other, if they pretend it is not the Pope himself who—whatever his subjective intention—has stoked the fires of dissent and rebellion by commissioning and then lauding Kasper’s “profound and beautiful presentation.”
Is there any chance that this ban will be lifted? People I ask are not sure if it is a discipline that could be changed and if so there is no infallible guarantee. Does anyone know?
Very funny but serious film about the election of a new Pope. Excellent. The costumes and characterisation are particularly praiseworthy.
Availible to watch for free on BBC iPlayer. We Have a Pope (2011)
Bears an uncanny similarity to events in recent history.
It reminded me of Benedict XVI, but it also expresses the uncertainty we feel around the election of Pope Francis.
The film also mocks the ‘psychologising’ of the clerical state, which is something which has been discussed on this blog previously.
Watch here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mnz09/We_Have_a_Pope/
I’ve just read (ploughed through!) all three parts of Christopher Ferrara’s article. Chilling! I was aware of quite a lot of the Pope’s utterances but, to see them all in one place, really brings it home and makes me realise just how serious the situation is.
In view of the serious crisis the Church is going through it never seems to amaze me that in-fighting still goes on amongst those who have joined up the dots, and who should be joining forces to combat this this very crisis, and not be squabbling amongst themselves. Talk about “fiddling whilst Rome burns”!! “I’m for Peter. I’m for Paul ” also springs to mind!
Crofterlady,
You sound like you know something the rest of us don’t about “infighting” – are you referring to the different traditional groups (FSSP, SSPX, Opus Dei etc) or infighting on this blog? The only infighting I can remember is when one or two bloggers took issue with a topic, thought it was dangerous but I can’t remember which one. Come to think of it, some well kent names are not posting here any more. Is that what you mean?
Anyway I agree with you in both cases. We should all be fighting the good fight, not one another.
Well, I don’t think I do. I’m just referring to several situations. For example “the rebels” and the split in the SSPX followers, what with Bishop Williamson’s followers and the rest etc. Then we have dissension within blog contributors: one would think they would lay aside personal disagreements for the sake of the Faith. It seems to me that persons are “fiddling whilst Rome burns”. We should lay aside personal ideas and join together for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.Then we have the FSSP, the Orkney monks etc., who semi toe the line although they don’t for a minute respect the authorities. God knows, we are few and far between, so why waste time squabbling?
Crofterlady,
Well said. It’s always disappointing when people lose sight of the bigger picture. I’m not long home from Stations of the Cross and Mass, she said, making sure to parade her sanctity before the world, and you know, just reflecting – even superficially – on Our Lord’s sufferings should make our own silly annoyances click into perspective.
Nothing and nobody in this world is perfect and we need to all work together to battle this awful crisis in the Church. Nothing else matters. None of us should dislike any group or individual more than we love our Faith. Of course, I don’t mean to belittle the issues with the FSSP, ICK, Opus Dei etc. However, generally speaking, we really ought to concentrate on wiping their respective grins off the faces of Cardinal Kasper and “Holy Father Francis”.
So the next time you annoy me 😯 I’m going to offer it up in the Lenten spirit – even if it’s not Lent.
There will always be splits because Auld Nick always tries to sow dissension. He thought he had got rid of the Tridentine Mass and the Catholic Faith but he didn’t reckon on the SSPX coming along to banjax his plans. The split in the SSPX is sad but it is only a tiny minority and I’ve been told that they are already fighting among themselves. AS for the likes of the FSSP and the ICKSP, these orders are at the whim of the local bishop and have to tow the line or they are out. In some places they have both rites of Mass. I know that, in the likes of Edinburgh, they have to share a church with a local parish, but even in places where they have a church of their own they often have the Novus Ordo because the bishop says they must. This is the case of the ICKSP church in New Brighton, England where the Novus Ordo is said once a week because the bishop has said it must be available for those who want it despite the fact that it is available in every other church in the diocese. He doesn’t say the Tridentine Mass must be made available in churches for those who want it. In one ICKSP chapel in the U.S. the bishop wanted the Novus Ordo said and the priests were going to go along with this but the congregation had other ideas. They told the priests that if they were going to say the NO then they could pack their bags and go. That chapel is now served by the SSPX. It’s easy to say that we should all sing from the same hymnbook but unless the hymns are 100% traditional we can’t join in and that’s why we must cling to the SSPX. At the Edinburgh SSPX chapel we get some of the FSSP people coming every now and then. They say they like to come to us because there is a “parish feel” about the place and one man told me that what he likes is that the atmosphere is thoroughly traditional. He says that come from the fact that only the Tridentine Mass is celebrated there whereas the FSSP chapel is a shared building and has a NO feel about it.
The SSPX is the lifeboat coming alongside the Barque of Peter and if we are truly serious about preserving the Faith then we need to get on board. There are two lovely chapels in Scotland, in Edinburgh and Glasgow. The Edinburgh one is the nicer of the two as our dear Editor is always reminding me, (that’s confession tomorrow) and a very warm welcome awaits all.
Vianney,
I wrote a lengthy reply to this which disappeared. I have been so careful to copy my comments recently, since there was a spell when this happened a lot. I’m livid. No, I can’t be livid, it’s Lent. I have to offer it up but if we were allowed to be livid in Lent, I’d be livid.
I’ll try to post my lost comment tomorrow. Right now I need my beauty sleep.
Signed:
Livid, Glasgow.
Spell “livid” backwards……
Cheeky!
Call me naive, or even foolish, but is this the sole reason why the SSPX and its followers are so opposed to the FSSP and ICKSP? I was always under the impression that it was to do with the fact that these two new congregations broke away from the SSPX. I’m sure the FSSP and ICKSP (not to mention other TLM groups) do a lot of good work and have many fruitful vocations. They are keeping the TLM alive in very difficult circumstances within the Church.
Catholic Convert,
It’s not that the SSPX is “opposed” to these groups. The fact is, the FSSP et al have had to compromise – not least regarding the new Mass – in order to be allowed to operate in dioceses. Thus, those attending one of their Masses in a parish where all the problems with Vatican II are manifest (new Mass, “Catholic” newspapers on sale, ecumenical and inter-faith events advertised in parish bulletins with exhortations to attend etc).
The priests will also have to take care when preaching. I know of diocesan priests who have been reprimanded by their bishop for preaching about Hell, for example. Another one, who refused an offer from parishioners to take a day off from saying Mass and allow them to “do” a Eucharistic Service was told off by his bishop and told to “give (the people) whatever they want.” A priest who encouraged his parishioners to follow the example of Pope Benedict and receive Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue, was also put in his place.
The only place where pure, undiluted Catholicism is preached is the SSPX so it’s not about being “opposed” to these other groups, it’s about protecting the Faith in its entirety.
Amazing. Was it Scottish priests who were reprimanded by their bishops?
Yes. There’s sufficient distance now to say that one of them was reprimanded by the “Vatican hardliner” of media invention, Archbishop / Cardinal Winning.
Dearest Ed,
Thank you once again for being your usual eloquent and erudite (not to mention glamorous and witty) self. You have dispelled my misconceptions. However, would the SSPX discourage the laity from attending Masses said by Priests who were ordained in the NO rite, but who since ‘crossed over’ to the traditionalist side? I’m thinking of Priests such as Fr. Michael Rodriguez.
Catholic Convert,
When Summorum Pontificum was first published, Bishop Fellay made a very positive comment and said something about supporting priests who want to learn the Usus Antiquior so I don’t see how the SSPX could discourage laity from attending their Masses. As editor keeps saying, individuals might decide not to do so out of a sense of duty, i.e. not wanting to read parish bulletins and so on, but I don’t think the Society has a position on this officially.
I became very suspicious when I read an FSSP priest refer to the Traditional Mass as the ‘extraordinary form’ in an email.
Miles Immaculatae,
I agree about “Extraordinary form” – it is very disappointing that the FSSP are using that. It’s one of the signs that they do have to compromise, as editor has pointed out.
Vianney,
Here’s the comment I wrote which disappeared couple of nights ago – if at first one does not succeed (one told oneself), try, try again…
I decided to post the following information after sharing some of it in an email with our Irish blogger, Leo, who urged me to post it on the blog (I think we were discussing “grace” on the blog at the time) and then we launched this topic, which, though I hate to admit it, is summed up nicely by you with these words:
“The SSPX is the lifeboat coming alongside the Barque of Peter and if we are truly serious about preserving the Faith then we need to get on board.”
When I encourage people to attend the Society chapels, I always say that, if we attend on a regular basis, not just an odd time, then there will be tangible difference in our lives, in our thinking and in our spiritual lives. I say this, not because I’m aware of my own sanctity (though others do assure me 😀 ) but after witnessing a dramatic change in A.N. Other…
Picture the scene: Glasgow, some years ago. Social cup of tea. I entered casually into a conversation with a young career-gal, who’d been an unwed mother in her youth, although by then she was married to a non-believer who has, to understate the case by oceans, no great love for Catholicism. She’s given permission for me to tell her story here, in the hope that it helps others to “get on board the SSPX lifeboat” although I promised to withhold her real identity.
So, let’s call her Katie. Our conversation was ignited by her questions to me as a then Head of Religious Education. She hadn’t had one. A religious education. Not really.Told me she felt she knew next to nothing about her Catholic Faith although she had always attended Catholic schools, primary and secondary. She had never known anything other than the novus ordo (didn’t know there was any other kind of Mass). She always wanted to attend Mass and got herself up and out even as a child from a lapsed home. Interestingly, she always disliked seeing lay people giving out Holy Communion, and always felt it wasn’t right and she never approached for the chalice. She just didn’t think it was right, and she was especially uncomfortable when she saw her former primary teachers distributing the Sacred Species. I found that particularly interesting.
Anyway, it came out in our conversation that I didn’t attend the novus ordo and her eyebrows shot up: “You lapsed, and you a Head of RE in a Catholic school?” I explained that there is a crisis in the Church, changes had caused division, including the one she’d just said herself that she disliked; I explained that the Mass she attended was a new Mass which lots of people believed is not pleasing to God. I then explained about Archbishop Lefebvre and said that after a great deal of reading, prayer etc, I’d decided to attend the Society chapels, because, while we could argue all day about whether or not the new Mass is pleasing to God (some point out there are good priests, sincerely offering it etc.) there is no question at all that the Traditional Mass, which the saints attended and for which the martyrs gave their life’s blood, IS pleasing to God.
Thereafter, there came a point in the conversation when she asked if she could attend the Society Masses. I said of course she was welcome to go along, but that those Masses are in Latin, so she would have to be prepared not to understand what was being said for a bit. Her reply? “I don’t understand the Mass anyway so I’m as well attending the one that definitely pleases God.” That, folks, is theology.
Now, I should emphasise here that Katie was a very modern miss, enjoying a very successful career. She loved her job. By the time she began attending the SSPX Sunday Masses, she was well organised in depositing her children at child minder, nursery and primary school respectively, Monday to Friday.
Imagine my amazement, therefore, when, after a relatively short space of time attending the Society Masses, Katie changed dramatically.
She told me she was reading up on the crisis in the Church, and checking her children’s RE books, questioning them about what they were learning about religion in school – and not liking what she was hearing.
In jig time, she was contacting the school to have her children withdrawn from RE and school Masses. She added that she didn’t want her children within earshot of any teacher talking about other religions. I couldn’t believe it. She had a bit of a battle on her hands but she was insistent and eventually the Head complied with her wishes. I have a theory that it was the shock of seeing someone so young looking, so pretty, so competent, knowledgeable about the issues and firm in her decision, that swayed the Head to agree to her wishes. Oh and Katie was very good too… 😀
Still, she wasn’t satisfied. She told me she was reading websites about home-schooling and wished she could give it a try – “but I love my job”.
In due course, Katie spoke to her boss and discovered that she would be entitled to have a five year career break with her job waiting for her if she wished to return. She was elated and decided to take the plunge.
Five years later, and she said she wouldn’t dream of returning to work while her children are so young. She loves home-educating and she says often that she now realises that her main job in life is to do everything she can to save the souls of her children.
That’s the effect of grace in a soul. It’s not “touchy feely” – it’s about actually changing minds and hearts, it’s about seeing more clearly, recognising the truth more easily. I’ve had the great privilege of witnessing the above transformation in Katie. Would that transformation have taken place if she’d continued in her local parish? No way. She’d have continued to witness all the liturgical abuses which we’ve discussed so often, continued to experience that shock and discomfort at seeing lay people playing at being priests in the sanctuary, and would probably have missed the fact that her children were being indoctrinated with pagan religions and sexualised in the name of “information sessions” to prevent them catching STDs.
No, there’s no doubt about it – attending the Society chapels is an absolute MUST for any Catholic today who wishes, not just to keep the Faith, but to develop and grow in the Faith, and to pass it on intact to the next generation. Katie is a spectacular example of someone who, on learning the nature of the crisis in the Church, decided that she had to do her duty to protect her own Faith and that of her children. Katie is now a Catholic mother – not just a mother who happens to be a baptised Catholic. She prays the daily rosary and Grace (mealtimes) with her family and reads the lives of the saints with them regularly. Katie – though she would blush and deny it – is a star…
Now, about me…
Vianney – say nothing 🙄
That’s a wonderful story about Katie. The power of God’s grace is just amazing.
I agree – that is a story of God’s grace at work, and it should have an electric effect on anyone still attending the novus ordo Mass. It proves how desensitised people become if they are going along with the reforms of the Council, beginning with the Mass.
“though I hate to admit it, is summed up nicely by you with these words:”
Good grief Editor, are you feeling ok, or are you just mellowing in your old age?
I hope when the new rules are implemented that we get them explained fully so that we can understand just how lecherous we can become while staying in a state of grace.
Since the laws in this country only allow one wife, will canon law have the same stipulation regarding concubines? I would hope that since there seem to be no strict, civil laws regarding how many fancy-women I can seduce that the Pope doesn’t go and spoil it for me by allowing only the one
There is nothing I would like better than to troop up to communion with my seven lovers, one for each day of the week, after arranging for my wife to hand out communion.
All joking aside, if people like Monsignor Loftus get their wishes a scenario such as this is possible if not probable.
Frankier,
You were joking? 😯
I’m still trying to figure out how this disastrous buffoon of a Pope fits in with the Fatima warnings. Is he the “Bishop dressed in white”? Or is that Benedict XVI, whilst Francis is just the Bishop dressed in a red nose?
Priceless! I laughed out loud when I read your concluding question, having braced myself at the penultimate to take it seriously!
This is one of the most shocking, and dare I say, disgusting, threads ever seen on this blog. We all know about the Pope’s twisted statements on the Jews, Atheists, homosexuals, going to Mass, abortion, and his idiotic statement that patronises and belittles those devoted to the TLM, but I am more shocked by what Cardinal Dolan said. The leading Prelate of the American Church is tacitly supporting the sodomite lifestyle, by extending his support to the sports star who ‘came out’, or as St Paul said ‘gave himself over to shameful lusts’. He is as bad as the sodomites themselves. He was elevated by Benedict XVI, arguably the most traditionalist Pontiff since Pius XII, due to his conservatism. Most of the Cardinals were elevated by Benedict due to their reputations. They have proved themselves to be utterly damnable and faithless individuals, by showing one face to one Pope and another face to his successor. The wrath of God is being revealed in Heaven, and He will mete out just punishment and justice.
Also, due to the Pope’s public heresy, and denial of ancient and infallible doctrines, such as ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’, he is endangering the probably already weak faith of Catholics around the world. My concern is for the children and what they are being taught. Due to a false sense of obedience, people hang off his every word, and this filters through modernists clergy, religious and catechists. I would exhort (us hip Catholics lurve exhortations) all Catholic parents NOT to inflict the catechist classes or Catholic schools on their offspring. Children should be educated by parents where they can be taught from the Catechism of St Pius X or the Catechism of Trent.
The Pope is the biggest threat the Catholic faith has faced since Emperor Domitian.
The Pope is obscure and surrounds himself with fake “prelates” with an agenda fixed in their sixties ideologies of faithlessness.
Almighty God help us all. Amen.
I think this Pope is just a prop for those subversive prelates, their stooge and front man…much like American presidents are front men for the New World Order.
Be that as it may, Great Pretender, Graeme and Catholic Convert, Pope Francis will still be faced. at his judgment, with his words and behaviour as pontiff.
Who, among us, would like to be standing in those ever so humble, straight off the shelf at Poundland, shoes?
He really does need our prayers – as anyone who has even skimmed those three shocking articles by Christopher Ferrara, knows. He needs our prayers, big time.
Poundland shoes! Nice one.
Madame Editor,
Nicky mentions above that there are bloggers who no longer post on this blog.
May I draw the attention of current and past bloggers (and current lurkers) to one ex-blogger and young mother in particular who used to post under the pseudonym of Jacinta.
Although she had lost the use of her right arm following a stroke, she still contrived to post. Sadly she subsequently suffered a severe brain haemorrhage which paralysed her from the waist down resulting in her being confined to a wheelchair and losing much of her power of speech and thus her ability to hold a conversation. It also ended her blogging capability. It did not stop her attending the Catholic Truth Fatima Conference in Glasgow in September 2009 where she managed a heart-warming smile for all who set eyes upon her.
I am making this post to appeal to all who read it to offer up a prayer on behalf of Jacinta to St. Philomena (pronounced Fee-loh-may-na) also known as “The Wonder Worker” for a miracle cure for Jacinta, whose brave heart surely merits a few minutes of our time, that she may be restored to full health and be able once more to go about the duties of her station as a wife and mother.
This prayer could be suitable, and I thank all of you who offer it up, if only once, for a very deserving case. Thank you and may God bless you.
Prayer to St. Philomena – The Little Wonder-Worker
O Glorious virgin and martyr, beloved child of God, blessed Philomena! I rejoice in thy glory, and give God thanks that He has bestowed on thee such power, for the glory of His name, for the edification of His Church, and to honor thy merits in life, and thy sufferings and martyrdom in death. Looking up to thee in heaven, I rejoice to see thee so exalted, so powerful, so pure, so generous. I congratulate thee on being so faithful to the precepts and counsels of Jesus Christ, while on earth, and on being so munificently rewarded by Him in heaven. Moved by thine example to the practice of solid virtue, filled with hope at the view of the rewards bestowed upon thee, I resolve to imitate thee in the avoidance of all evil, and in the fulfilment of God’s holy will. Assist me, O glorious little saint, by thy powerful intercession, and obtain especially for me perfect purity–invincible fortitude in all trials, temptations, and sufferings–generosity which refuses nothing to God–and love stronger than death for the one true Faith–a ready and willing obedience to the Holy Roman Catholic Church and to our sovereign Pontiff, the common Father of all the faithful, the Pastor of pastors and of their flocks, and vicegerent of Jesus Christ throughout the universe.
Beside these favors which I have now asked through thy powerful intercession, O blessed Philomena! I also ask an additional grace and favor, which I have the fullest confidence of obtaining through thy powerful intercession. (Here mention the graces and favors.) Surely God, who is so good, and for whom thou hast given up thy life–God who is so good, and who has bestowed so many gifts and favors upon and through thee–God who is so good as to have died for me, and to give Himself to me in holy communion–God who is so good as to have revealed the burning love of His sacred Heart for me, surely He will not refuse to hearken graciously to thy prayers, to my supplications, and even to His own desire to help the afflicted. For this do I hope, while I put all my confidence in God and in thee, O blessed Philomena! Amen.
O Jesus, grant me grace to love Thee, and to make others love Thee. O Mary, my tender Mother, obtain for me a great love for Thy divine Son Jesus. Holy St. Joseph, bless me and intercede for me. St. Philomena, pray for me.
Amen.
A free .pdf ebook on the life and miracles of St. Philomena may be obtained from the link below. Scroll 80% down to “Misc. Works” and it is the fourth entry.
http://saintsbooks.net/BooksList.html#Featured%20Books
Leprechaun,
Thank you. “Jacinta” (Betty, our Treasurer) also attended our conference last June. She is wheelchair bound these days but keeps in good spirits. I see her most weeks and she tries to follow the blog – she always gives it the thumbs-up.
She’ll be delighted with your appeal for prayers for her to St Philomena – thank you very much indeed. I’ve no doubt you will be getting the thumbs-up when I next see her!
Interesting that you should mention St Philomena.
I have just received a letter through the post this morning from the Universal Archconfraternity of St. Philomena, from whom I haven’t heard for a long time, who are based in Glasgow, announcing that they are having Masses all over Scotland throughout 2014.
The first one is on the 29th March at 1pm at St. Catherine Laboure Church in Glasgow.
I don’t know whether they will be NO Masses or not but I would assume they are.
Frankier,
I was brought up in the parish of St Catherine Laboure so I have a special affection for it.
N O T I C E . . .
Crofterlady alerted me to the fact that there is Part IV of “The Francis Factor….” over at The Remnant, so I’ve added it to the blog article for your comment.
Apologies for my tardiness – I was under the impression that the essay was in three parts only. Part IV came as a surprise, so thanks to Crofterlady for keeping me on my toes.
Could this man be the anti-Christ?
Benedict,
We’ve had this conversation before and I can only repeat what I always say: whether or not Pope Francis is “the anti-Christ” is not possible for any of us to say and therefore it’s a mistake to waste time and energy trying to prove the case one way or the other.
All we know for certain is that he is a terrible pope. Absolutely terrible.
And that’s really all we need to know to protect ourselves against his horrendous statements.
I posted an emailed comment from a very sound traditional priest on another thread where this question was raised. Father pointed out that the anti-Christ might be Pope Francis 1st or Pope Francis the 21st. It’s just not possible for us to make that judgment.
Yes, you are right – the speculation is pointless. Yet there are so many signs … .
One’s thing’s for sure! Traditionalists are the only ones who can correctly read the “signs of the times”, it seems to me.
What a hideous phrase that is: thankfully even the Conciliar Church seems to have dropped it.
I am having the following post repeatedly deleted by the kommissars of the Catholic Herald. Says it all really.
———————-
READERS!
The comment below has been deleted by the Moderators three times already. I will continue to post it however many times it is deleted. This is straight-forward censorship of the “truth” about this Pope – if you read Rorate Caeli blog, you will learn the real evidence of the targeted and clearly deliberate exclusion from the Catholic public space of the Traditionalist voice, enacted and led by the Bishops on behalf of the illiberal liberal jackals who are in full control again after the two preceding Pontificates had held them up (somewhat). They attack the Traditionalist and the Old Mass: one can only possibly conclude that the shepherds hate the Catholic Faith and they hate the flock they freely chose to lead.
The Catholic Herald is obviously part of this deception and assault on the truth, which truth about Bergoglio they seek to hide by any means available:
The sly Catholic Herald Moderators even delete posts which contain references to the documents of the Faith as always taught: this is beyond outrageous. FOR ONCE, READERS, SERIOUSLY ASK YOURSELVES WHAT IS GOING ON.
1.0 Here is Cardinal Carrafa, may God bless him, explaining simply and directly why Francis’ and Kaspar’s “pastoral” application of false mercy destroys the entire edifice of Catholic moral teaching:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/03/cardinal-caffarra-firm-stance-on.html
“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres… churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.”
(Our Lady of Akita, October 13th, 1973)
2.0 Here is a comprehensive demolition of the anti-Catholic nature of this Pontificate, written by the President of the Catholic Lawyers of America Chris Ferrara:
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/364-the-francis-effect-a-gathering-storm
3.0 Here is the link to website “Protect the Pope” which Deacon Nick Donnelly has been forced to close down by his Bishop: it appears (according to the Tablet) that other English Bishops in effect complained that PTP blog was upholding Catholic teaching and therefore should be closed down!
As to the Catholic Herald’s own growing censorship, may one ask how Dr. Oddie, who occasionally is able to see the wood from the trees, feels about being part of a journal which practices Soviet-style GLAVLIT ideological censorship?
Excellent, Benedict.
It’s a very grave sin to deny the manifest truth, so those censors at the Catholic Herald should be shaking in their shoes at what awaits them at their judgment.
Thanks for posting that here – it places it on the record and any Catholic Herald readers who happen by will become aware of the dishonesty of the blog editors. Or should that be “dishonesty and apostasy” of the blog editors because nobody who truly believes the truths of the Catholic Faith would deliberately suppress them in any context, let alone the pages and blog of a Catholic newspaper.
The deletion count is now way above fifteen. Time to shake the dust off the sandals.
Is the word “bastards” theologically acceptable?
The word should not only be acceptable but used more often to describe the demons who are now leading people astray.
Benedict,
We had to remove the B word from the blacklist because so many folk used it in its technically correct meaning when referring to the novus ordo Mass as a “B” rite. However, given its association in people’s minds I think it’s best avoided on this Catholic blog, no matter the temptation, please and thank you!
Understood, boss.
A reader in England emailed me the link to the latest Voris video on Pope Francis and the controversy surrounding CMTV decision not to criticise him publicly. I found it to be an arrogant, ignorant and shallow presentation – I’ll be interested to see what others think. But, as my English friend wrote when he sent the link: don’t watch if you have problems with your blood pressure 😀
This man is OK in small doses, very small doses.
Sorry to be late as usual, but I have been reading through some of the threads and feel that I must comment on the following post made by Vianney on this thread on 17th March.
This is the case of the ICKSP church in New Brighton, England where the Novus Ordo is said once a week because the bishop has said it must be available for those who want it despite the fact that it is available in every other church in the diocese. He doesn’t say the Tridentine Mass must be made available in churches for those who want it.
So Vianney, this extract is set in a context which inescapably leads to the inference that the traditionalist priests of the ICKSP at the shrine church of SS Peter and Paul and St. Philomena in New Brighton are ‘compromised’ in the way you claim that other priests of traditional orders are, and that they have to say the Novus Ordo as a condition of their ‘tenure’. This is misleading and mischievous, and it saddens me that many who attend SSPX Masses (as I do, most gratefully) are all too ready to denigrate the work of these good priests.
The facts of the matter are that the ICKSP priests at the shrine church NEVER say the Novus Ordo, and nor were they required to do so by Bishop Davies. An NO Mass is only said there on Friday mornings by a priest from a neighbouring parish. It is not said at the high altar, but at a side altar. This is a charitable concession to the previous parishioners and is understandable, given the recent history of the parish.
The church of SS Peter and Paul was a landmark on the Mersey waterfront for many years, and my school was in that parish, so I have been familiar with it from an early age. The big congregations of my youth dwindled like those of all Catholic churches since Vat. II, and eventually the previous bishop, Bishop Noble closed it, as the diocese could not maintain such a huge building. The remaining NO parishioners fought a very valiant campaign to keep it open, even appealing to Rome on the grounds that it had been illegally closed. They were successful insofar as the church remained open, but the financial drain on the diocese remained, and, upon his appointment, Bishop Davies entrusted the church to the ICKSP to establish and maintain it as a shrine church outside the diocesan parochial structure, providing perpetual adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and the traditional Mass and sacraments.
However it is understandable that those NO parishioners, who were largely instrumental in preserving the church from closure and possible demolition or sale, did not do so for the traditional liturgy. They wanted their NO parish to remain their NO parish, and there is understandably great disappointment, not to say hard feelings. They are now forced to go to Sunday Mass in a neighbouring parish in the local ‘cluster of parishes’.
Remember that the majority of these had grown up in the 40-odd years of NO Masses and catechesis, and they are completely ignorant of tradition. One NO Mass per week at a side altar on a weekday is a very small concession, and, as I said, I see this as a charitable act of Bishop Davies made under most sensitive and difficult circumstances. Like it or not, the NO is their Mass, and I would not wish anyone, no matter how misguided, to have to go through what the Catholics of the Latin rite went through all those years ago.
To address another point in the above extract, Bishop Davies ….. doesn’t say the Tridentine Mass must be made available in churches for those who want it. In accordance with Summorum pontificum he certainly allows it where it is asked for by parishioners. The sad fact is that after 40-plus years hardly any parishes have groups who do ask for the traditional Mass. The opening of the shrine church and Bishop Davies’s pontifical Mass there is certainly a big step towards remedying this, and people are gradually coming along and discovering tradition for the first time.
I really do deplore the fact that some of those fortunate enough to have access to SSPX chapels should so often uncharitably denigrate efforts, taking place within the ‘mainstream’, of good priests and laity who are equally devoted to tradition and who have suffered (as I have myself) to preserve it there. Rather than harmful sniping, please let us have fervent prayers that all of us traditionalists, whether we attend SSPX chapels or otherwise, will be the leaven that will help Holy Mother Church to rise again and regain her former glory.
Christina,
I’ve just spent quite a long time replying to your post and I’m afraid, heartily disagreeing with you on just about every count. Unfortunately, I broke the rule I’ve been following since losing a lengthy post last week, and forgot to save before pressing “post comment” – thus, it disappeared, with a message that I’d lost my internet connection. I could not believe it. There’s no way I can type it all again tonight, so will suffice by making a few brief points:
Firstly, I can assure you that if Vianney “misled” anyone it was not done so “mischievously”. That suggests a deliberate intention to deceive. Vianney would never do that, rest assured. Indeed, since you quote his own words accurately, you must know that he didn’t say that the ICKSP priests were celebrating the new Mass. I’m surprised, therefore, that you interpreted his words to say something that he did not intend.
Secondly, nobody here “denigrates” the work of other traditional priests and laity outside the SSPX. If you followed the “Bishops Signal” thread you will know that my own position is a very simple one; the crisis is now at such a point of no return, that it’s time for everyone who possibly can, to throw their weight behind the one group that we know has been given to us by God to preserve, without compromise, Catholic Liturgy, Faith and Morals.
None of the other groups would exist but for the courage of Archbishop Lefebvre and since all other groups have had to compromise to some extent – and since we should all be heartily sick of compromise at this stage – it’s time to, if at all possible, vote with our feet and go to the one place that no bishop wants the faithful to go – the nearest SSPX chapel. That’s NOT the position of the Society – it IS the position of Catholic Truth. But that is not to “denigrate” anyone. I know there are good priests and laity outside the Society. That’s not the point. If all of those traditional priests had joined the Society (instead of leaving it as some did, adding confusion to chaos) then who knows what benefits would have resulted in terms of restoring the Faith.
As for the NO Mass is being celebrated weekly at the Institute of Christ the King church because the parishioners grew up with it and it would be hard for them etc. Too bad. Too blankety blank bad. There shouldn’t have BEEN any new Mass for them to miss in the first place and sooner or later somebody is going to have to tell them that. And they are going to have to accept the fact.
And re. the argument “people are not asking for the TLM… hence not many Masses…” Cardinal Hoyos made clear at the London press conference that the line “people are not asking for the TLM so no need to provide one” is NOT in the spirit of Pope Benedict’s motu proprio. As the Cardinal said, young people who have never known the old rite Mass would not know to ask for it. It must be provided in parishes with exhortations from bishops and priests for the people to attend it. Then we’ll see the crowds.
Anyway, I’m well on my way to re-writing the lost post so will leave it at that for now. Just allow me to emphasise that there is no way in this world that Vianney would have deliberately misled anyone. His words were accurately reported by you, so I can only presume that you’ve seen his terrible jokes and stories on this blog – it’s only in THAT innocent sense that Vianney is remotely “mischievous”. Tell me about it 😉
Christina,The point I was trying to make is that in many places local Bishops are insisting that the NO be said in Tridentine Rite churches and when there is no reason for it as that Mass is available in every other church in the diocese.
I can understand the NO parishioners wanting to worship in their church but I’m sure that if they would just give the Tridentine Mass a chance they would soon prefer that it. There is a Catholic church in Cardiff that closed last year and has opened up again as a Greek Rite Catholic church. The former parishioners are only too happy that the building is still being used as a church and don’t feel the need to ask for a NO to be said there.
It is true that not many groups have come forward to ask for the Traditional Mass but that could be because many are still under the impression that it was banned.
In some places priests have introduced the Tridentine Mass without any parishioners asking for it and it has proved to be immensely popular.
I’m glad to hear that the ICKSP priests in New Brighton don’t say the NO but I have heard that in some places they do.
Excuse me Editor, what terrible jokes???
Editor, I thought that would have you spitting balls of mustard. That’s fair enough, and you know I love you really(!). I’ll have to reply to your post, but it’ll have to wait until tonight, as I’m v busy.
Meanwhile though, as you’ve given such prominence to the word ‘mischievous’, I must apologise abjectly to Vianney, whose posts I always appreciate. I did not intend to call Vianney personally ‘mischievous’. I referred to ‘this’ being mischievous – i.e. the conscious or unconscious denigration of good priests working as hard as do any SSPX priests for the restoration of tradition.
Sorry, sorry, sorry Vianney.
Christina,
Thank goodness SOMEBODY loves me! I’m so used to being under fire that your reassurance has cheered me up no end 😀
Unless you disagree with me, there’s no need to add to your workload, but if you do, make sure you save as you go along. It’s so frustrating to lose a comment.
I’m now about to become one of those “ladies who lunch” – in your neck of the woods you’d call it a “bacon sarnie” !
So, I’m off – more later…
Apology accepted, I’ll scrap the Lawyers Letter.
Vianney, I really only had a minute earlier today, and certainly no time to talk semantics, so I apologised because I was worried that you might take Editor’s word that the word ‘mischievously’ that I used in my post ‘suggests a deliberate intention to deceive’. Mischief is a word with many nuances – ‘an unfavourable consequence’ ‘troublesome fact’ ‘source of harm’ ‘pestering playfulness’ but in none of them is deception, deliberate or otherwise, implied. The nearest is the OED’s ‘vexatious but not malicious’. My intended meaning is best expressed metaphorically as ‘setting the cat among the pigeons’, and this is what I believe some SSPX people are doing when they, to use another metaphor, tar all the traditional orders and their priests with the same brush.
Editor, Par.3. It may be just about words again, but I took Vianney’s statement ‘AS for the likes of the FSSP and the ICKSP, these orders are at the whim of the local bishop and have to tow the line or they are out’ as denigration of the traditional orders. You don’t think it is, so we differ there. I do agree about where we should all throw our weight, but it’s not going to happen this side of the consecration to Our Lady of Fatima. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but I think that it will come about eventually when all strands of traditio converge, and we return together to the faith
Par.4. I need no reminding about the courage of Archbishop Levebvre, but there is little use saying that ‘If all those traditional priests had joined the Society……’ The fact is that they chose not to for reasons that were valid for them. Most of the bloggers here know that the ‘excommunications’ were not valid. I know it, thanks to books that providentially came my way and to better informed people like bloggers here. However, to the great mass of brain-washed Catholics the SSPX was, and still is, in schism, and a good deal of the fight to preserve tradition and the Mass was done by people who, through ignorance which was ABSOLUTELY no fault of their own, would have nothing to do with the SSPX.
Par.4 and the rest. Much as you would like to, you can’t force people to accept any facts, especially if you wield a sledgehammer! ‘My’ Mass was taken from me in 1972 (or was it ’71?), to the utter and abject bewilderment of congregations and the majority of middle-aged and older priests, to whom obedience to the Pope and bishops was reflexive, and whose pastoral care for their parishioners was very great. I would not like to see that so cruelly done again (although this much less biddable generation would simply walk away and not struggle to make sense of it all). I am very conscious of the fact that to all but the over-sixties who still practise, the Novus Ordo is the only Mass they have ever known. They are uncatechised, and (like the population at large) are nowhere near as literate as were their parents and grandparents. To impose anything, as you would like to do, won’t gain acceptance. Only education will work, and this happens in churches such as the one we’ve spoken of, where there is a weekly instruction on the form and theology of the old Mass, and to which, gradually the previous NO parishioners are (slowly) coming – not many, but it’s a start.
Cardinal Hoyos’ press conference was all well and good, but here in England (and I suppose in Scotland) we don’t have parishes with several priests. Indeed we now have ‘clustered parishes’ where one priest is administering and serving several. Some priests I know have put on an old-rite Mass on Sundays and exhorted people to attend, but without success – you know, “I’m not going to that kind of Mass again – he had his back to us all the time, etc.”
Well, that’s about enough. I do hope Vianney’s feathers aren’t ruffled (my night for metaphors) and hope that I’ll soon see another one of his ‘terrible joke’.
Christina,
I have never said I would wield a sledgehammer. I said sooner or later someone is going to have to tell the faithful (or what’s left of them) that there should never have BEEN a new Mass for them to “miss”. (and let’s not go into precisely what it is they “miss” – remembering the antics and travels, the hugs and the whispered greetings during the Sign of Peace allows us to take a wild guess…)
As for not “imposing” this information on them or “imposing” the TLM – well excuse me but the new Mass these folks all allegedly miss so much was imposed big time on me. So, forgive my lack of sympathy for the fact that one day that imposition is going to have to be reversed. And about this “re-education” process, nobody sent the Apostles on a course of instruction. They were told by Our Lord what to do and off they went in obedience to convert the world. Every priest is “another Christ” – let them do their duty and give ‘sufficient for the day thereof’ information to begin the restoration of the Faith.
Those people you mention who rejected the TLM after attending one Mass should, indeed, have received some education at the very least in the form of a clear explanation about some of the basic difference between the two Masses. That should have included an explanation that the priest will NOT have his back to them but will be leading them in the true ancient worship of the Church. Do they jump off the bus saying they won’t be back because the driver sat with his back to them throughout the journey? Of course not. THAT’s what the priests should have taken care to explain. For, St Paul teaches that “Faith comes by hearing” and if the clergy and bishops refuse to let the people hear the truth about the crisis in the Church and explain the crucial importance of offering God TRUE worship, then these “I miss my NO Mass” folks will be left wallowing in their ignorance.
Thank you Vianney. Phew, that’s one less bit of litigation coming my way.
I just found a piece of very good news in this week’s Tablet, of all places.
It comes from Australia and the heading is: “Parish for Old Rite Mass established.” and it goes on to say that “Archbishop Denis Hart of Melbourne has established the Personal Parish of Blessed John Henry Newman for Catholics wishing to avail themselves of the Tridentine Rite Mass in Latin. The archbishop has signed a decree establishing the ‘Personal Parish for Catholics who celebrate the Extraordinary form of the Latin Rite within the Archdiocese of Melbourne, from 28 March and will install Fr Glen Tattersall, who will be assisted by two other priests, as parish priest on 25 April.
Archbishop Hart said in the decree that the group would contribute to diocesan life and have a shared use of a named parish church – such use being regulated by an agreement concerning availability, occupancy, maintenance and financial contributions.
Archbishop Hart said he was making this provision ‘ in view of the stable nature of this community and in order to provide adequately for the care of souls within the normal diocesan structure’.
Fr Tattersall expressed gratitude for the move, adding:’ It is recognition by the Church of the normality of the Extraordinary Form’.”
I think this is a step in the right direction – I hope Pope Francis will not ban it and demote Archbishop Hart !!
Bededog.
I was just about to sing “Alleluia” while reading your post and then I saw the priest quoted as using the (insulting) term “Extraordinary Form”.
“A step in the right direction” – sure. But while the modernist mindset is still at play, there’s some way yet to go.
I have always wondered about the prophecy in Daniel which states that they will abolish the Perpetual Sacrifice. I always thought that it would refer to some external atheistic, political body. I never imagined that it would be church leaders who would have such a hatred for the Mass of All Ages. It just shows how successful satan has been at infiltrating. We have seen his influence in the political parties for decades and in the French and Communist Revolutions plus the destabilizing policies of America over the last century but having his minions in the Church has been a surprise until we reflect that Our Lord said that there would be signs and wonders to deceive even the elect.(Matthew 24:24)
Charles,
what signs and wonders could our current “prelates” be deceived by?
I am at a loss to understand? The parish closure programme to be announced by ++Tartaglia?
The “renewal” of the Church is a fantasy talked about by fantasists.
Frightening times.
Almighty God help us. Amen.
Comments are closed.