Growing Concern Among ‘Mainstream’ Catholics About Pope Francis…editor
Fr Blake says that in order to maintain the unity of the Church loyalty to the pope is now best expressed through silence. I fear he may be right
We are in such an atmosphere of uncertainty that even Jane Fonda can love the pope because she thinks he hates dogma: something has to give. Read more
The above Catholic Herald blog attracted my interest for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I have today received an email from a gentleman in England who has been a reader of our newsletter for years now, but has not been one hundred per cent with us, if you get my drift. Thanks to the words and behaviour of “Holy Father Francis”, however, he has come out of his “papolatry coma” so to speak. Secondly, the author of the above Catholic Herald blog is William Oddie a tried and trusted papolatrist if ever one existed. So, I consider the above blog to be a very hopeful sign indeed. That more and more Catholics in the ‘non-traditional’ category are waking up and smelling the crisis in the Church, now largely focused on this pontificate, is very encouraging indeed, even if they have some way to go. Silence, remember, is one of the ways in which we participate in the sin of another. Still, I think this tentative admission that we have a very worrying pope at the helm, is a step in the right direction. That’s how it looks to me, anyway – let’s hear what you think…
I absolutely agree that this is a big step forward. I suppose this is one good thing about the election of Pope Francis – the crisis is becoming more and more apparent.
Isn’t this pope quite unbelievable? I read a story today that he is planning to visit a Pentecostal congregation in Rome and apologise for the Catholic Church hindering the growth of the congregation. This is quite incredible.
I also completely agree that this is a big step forward.
I must say I had hoped Fr Ray Blake would be one to speak out but come to think of it, by saying what he said on that blog, he has spoken out. Also Bill Oddie. They are actually saying this pope is a problem, whether they realise it or not.
I don’t really think they can maintain silence for long. I think the synod in the autumn will be a turning point on that score. I think Bill Oddie has really said as much in that blog.
The other person to say we should keep silent is Michael Voris. I wonder how much longer he will be able to do that. It is just unbelievable that the Pope would apologise for the Church hindering the growth of a Protestant congregation. That is just beyond belief. I will Google to find a link to that report. It’s not that I doubt it, not at all, I would just like to read it for myself.
I know it is bad etiquette to correct adults, but your small mistake has made me laugh. Bill Oddie is the famous wildlife watcher!
Wicked. I am sure some people call William Oddie Bill Oddie – isn’t it a common short-form of the name?
Fidelis, ignore Petrus. He’s a very bad blogger to annoy you like that 😀
I once called William “Bill” and he went mad!
I’m actually not trying to correct poor Fidelis on this one. I’m a huge fan of “Bill” Oddie so it greatly amused me to think of him commenting on the Church, as did the thought of “William” Oddie in a field with Swarovski binoculars around his neck! I’m easily amused.
What about Dr Oddie?
Gosh, found a way at last of getting round some bug – and commenting!
That is truly incredible. I knew the Pope was going to meet with his old friend, the Evangelical pastor from Argentina, but not that he planned to apologise for the Catholic Church “hindering the growth of the congregation” – completely beyond belief.
I know I’m going to be proved wrong but, I’m going to bury my head in the sand and refuse to believe this 🙁
Reflect on the old saying “problems are sent to make us think, not to make us worry” and you will be a bit closer to understanding that with every revelation of the worsening of the crisis in the Church, we are closer to comprehending the importance of its solution – the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary – and to realising the importance of spreading that message far and wide.
Perhaps this is the quickening. One thing is clear from my experience: silence is taken as consent by those who impose the intimidation. Perverse as it sounds, that has been an age old tactic for many a bully. When the bullied stand up from themselves they are accused of disloyalty, disharmony, discontent (malcontent).
So you are left with the choice of tacitly accepting malpractice or being ostracised. The problem with silence is that it is a sin.
To him therefore who knoweth to do good, and doth it not, to him it is sin.
I don’t underestimate the difficulty of taking a deep breath and standing up, whilst being fully knowledgeable of the likely ramifications.
This man has yet to speak in defence of the Catholic Church. If he has I missed it. He said he considers himself to be more Christian than Catholic, so we have to ask why was he elected to the Chair of Peter? From telling a woman who admitted to living in adultery for 20 years it was OK to receive the Blessed Sacrament, By doing so he has deified himself by opposing the word of God..”Thou shalt not commit adultry” “What God has joined together, let no man put assunder” to out and out heresy, he, like his Masonic Brethren are destroying the Church from within. How can any Catholic worth the name keep silent in the face of this man’s outrages. From the time of Saint John the Evangelist the Fathers and Doctors of the Church have made it clear that heresy must be opposed and exposed for what it is. As I have said elsewhere in this blog, the greatest schism in the history of the Church is not far off.
Editor: I have again removed a link to a sedevacantist site from your post. If it happens again, I am afraid I will have to moderate your comments before publication. Note: on no other blog would the administrator give you notice of this, so don’t complain. Say “thank you” and stop promoting the error of sedevacantism.
Pope Francis being prayed for by Texas Protestant televangelist Kenneth Copeland
Pope Francis being prayed for by Anglican bishop Justin Welby
You couldn’t make it up.
That more people are waking up to the crisis is certainly a good sign. But what use is it to wake up and then be silent?
Surely silence in the face of heresy and stupidity is precisely what got us into this mess in the first place! It’s difficult to see how keeping quiet now is going to turn things round.
If St Athanasius had kept quiet we’d all be Arians. If St Catherine of Siena had kept quiet the popes might still be skulking in Avignon. Need I go on?
Don’t get me wrong. Personal attacks on this (or any other) Pope are neither necessary nor helpful.
But when he says or does something un-Catholic we have not only a right but a duty to speak up.
Silence is in this case not golden.
Even non Catholic pastors know the score since one of them has declared that silence is not golden, it is yellow. St Thomas More famously stated in his defence that silence implies consent. No, silence is not the way nor the truth nor the life.
There’s an article in this week’s Scottish Catholic Observer praising the ‘plain speaking’ of Pope Francis. The writer must possess a Star Trek translator! I can’t make head nor tail of anything this Pope says, and have given up trying.
The SCO is such a joke. It is a monumental insult to the people of Scotland that its pages are packed with reports designed to divert attention away from the fact that the Church is in crisis and that we have a really worrying pontiff. To say the least.
I “look forward” (so to speak) to reading the piece to which you refer. It’ll be the usual defence of the indefensible nonsense. Good for a laugh if not exactly intellectually satisfying 😀
I have just come back in for a walk.
Whilst I was out out I mused upon whether or not it is a sin to be angry about what is going on in the Church. I am vexed and annoyed that I’m angry. I’ll have to talk this over with a priest. I know that one of the seven deadliest is wrath.
When I came in from my walk I decided to read the Gospel in my St Andrew Daily Missal. Today is the Feast day of St. John Gualbert. The Gospel is Matthew 43-48. As you will know it concerns loving your enemies, your persecutors and the like.
When I rose this morning, I prayed from a different prayer book that I normally would and after praying the Angelus and Regina Caeli, the next prayer in order was the Prayer for our Pope. I was pretty furious with myself that I hesitated for a second before I did indeed pray for Francis.
So what I’m saying is that I’m anxious that I don’t become an embittered critic which will no doubt blind me to the good in these Holy people, just because I think they are erring gravely.
Anyway, I’m confessing at this stage 😉 This is for my priest.
We have to distinguish between bad temper and righteous anger. It’s on the same level as hatred. We must hate nothing and no-one except sin and heresy. Those we must hate.
Please do not take this as a slight on your priest, but asking priests about these things, in this day and age, is not necessarily helpful. I’ll put it no stronger than that. They’re usually so full of the “love” everyone message that the concept of righteous anger (unless directed at the plight of the materially poor) escapes them. And papolatry is still widespread so most priests remain horrified at the idea of criticising the pope – any pope (except Pope Saint Pius X who was “too rigid”). Priceless.
You’re right; hate the sin not the sinner.
My priest is a Priest of the Society of Saint Pius X: he’ll understand 🙂
I have the highest regard for Society priests. We have wonderful SSPX priests here in Scotland. However, there is a tendency, in preaching, to exhort the faithful to pray about the crisis in the Church in the spirit of “that’s all we can do”. That is wrong.
When I express my concerns to our priests about that message from the pulpit, they always tell me that’s not really what they mean; and it’s true that they quote great saints, like St Catherine of Siena, who very actively opposed the crisis in the Church in their times. And in conversation they will agree with me that the congregation could do great things if they were more active – I’m thinking of one occasion in particular when I pointed out that two of the Catholic Truth team were isolated in a meeting at a local diocesan church where one of the Jesuits gave a talk packed with Modernist error; Father agreed with me that if even half of those present in the tearoom had gone along and spoken out, the heretics would have been outnumbered – nevertheless, I’ve never heard any exhortation to action in their otherwise excellent sermons. That is the simple fact of the matter.
This reflects a wrong attitude to the lay apostolate which sadly existed in the Church pre-Vatican II. It was, in fact, this mistaken attitude – that the laity should be passive (pray, pay and obey) that – in my considered opinion – sparked the demands for “power” in the Church from those madwomen we now call “feminists”.
Perhaps it’s different in Australia, but in case not, I think you ought to be aware that you may meet with a “Oh don’t be angry, just pray” response from your priest – and quite possibly, an exhortation to avoid blogs! Especially this one!
‘Hate the sin, not the sinner’ is regarded by many as a comment showing charity (love), but actually it is merely a glib, ingratiating platitude which is shown to be erroneous on the individual’s day of judgment when it is the unrepentant sinner and not the sin that is cast into eternal darkness.
Then you’ll have to take that up with St Augustine for the origin of the ‘glib’ – (you mean I’m being insincere, shallow, right?) – comment lies there.
I’m not sure you ‘know’ how that comment is received on anyone’s judgement day. Fascinating comment though.
All the best.
Thank you for your best (wishes?).
The word ‘glib’ referred to the actual phrase and not your usage of it.
I have tried to take it up with St Augustine but since he was unavailable it is left to me to emphasise the importance of the word ‘unrepentant’.
So here is another ‘glib’ phrase – ‘But who am I to judge?’
All the very best.
I hope you don’t mind me putting in a comment here in response to your reply to Summa.
I just wanted to say that that statement of Pope Francis “But who am I to judge?” was misplaced by the Pontiff. Its origin is in the words of Our Lord: “Judge not lest you be judged” meaning that we should not judge souls whose disposition God alone can know. It was never intended to be used as justification for not opposing public sin.
Your mention of “unrepentant” in relation to sinners is a good example of where “who am I to judge” can be correctly applied. Since it is impossible for us to know what passes between God and individual souls up to and including in the last minutes of life, it follows that we cannot know who has and has not died unrepentant. Therefore, we cannot judge.
I am reminded here of the story of the distraught widow who went to confession to Padre Pio, lamenting with many tears her husband’s suicide. Padre Pio, by a special grace of divine providence told her that her husband had actually been saved.
“How can that be,” she asked, “he took his own life in despair by jumping off a bridge into the water?” “Ah, but he repented of his sin between the bridge and the water,” replied Padre Pio. There’s a lesson there for all of us.
When you use the phrase “glib, ingratiating platitude”, you infer that the culpability for such communication lies with the speaker.
Oh, and I don;t do fencing, either verbal or otherwise.
End of (this) conversation.
Since I have assured you that ‘glib’ appertained to the actual phrase and not to your usage of it, I am distressed that you have seen fit to repeat your unfounded allegation.
Furthermore, unfortunately, I find I am still unable to follow your, perhaps tongue in cheek, advice and discuss that phrase directly with St Augustine, which is indeed a pity.
Nevertheless, I shall conclude this particular episode by graciously apologising for any offence caused by my apparent failure to express myself as clearly as you deemed appropriate.
And, at least, I have the last word! LOL
I’ve never met a single Catholic in my life who disparages what Our Lord exemplified by His Passion and death on the Cross, i.e., “hate the sin, not the sinner.” Please God, I never will.
Is your comment merely a generalised statement of fact, of is it, in some obscure way, a gibe at my Faith and Catholicity?
I am always, in a spirit of respect and courtesy, open to Instruction from anyone with superior knowledge, and perhaps, status. So, please, feel free to enlighten me.
My comment was indeed a generalised statement of fact, not in the slightest intended to insinuate anything unwholesome about your Faith and Catholicity. I took it you were recounting your experience of how some other Catholics interpret the term “hate the sin, love the sinner” and I commented accordingly. My post was never intended as a personal gibe, you may rest assured. I am shocked, though, that some Catholics have expressed this sentiment to you concerning the term in question. I have never personally experienced this.
I forgot to add that I am neither superior in knowledge or status to any other contributor on this blog. I’m just an average Catholic trying to muddle through the crisis alongside everyone else, with the help of God’s grace of course.
Ask editor about my standing, she’ll confirm that I’m on the minimum wage.
Thank you most sincerely for your clarification which I am delighted to receive.
You are most welcome.
I think it fair to state that all Traditional Catholics worthy of the name have agonised over this question of whether or not the Pope should be criticised. After all, for 2000 years it has been the very essence of Catholicism to be of one mind and heart with the successor of St. Peter, remembering always the words of Our Lord Himself: “Who hears you, hears me.”
I cannot think of a single example in history where faithful Catholics, other than one which I shall quote shortly, have found themselves in the situation we find ourselves in today. In fact, until Vatican II it was just unthinkable that anyone but a heretic would dare to utter opposition to the Holy Father.
This age-old fidelity to Peter, written into our DNA, so to speak, is why so many Catholics in our time have gone along with the most outrageous offences against the Traditional Faith, refusing to believe, as we can all understand, that the very Popes themselves, those to whom the Divine Keys are given, have in their minds succumbed to the Modernist errors condemned by their predecessors, and proceeded, culpably or otherwise, God alone knows, to promote a conciliar reformation that has done the greatest harm to the faith they were chosen by providence to protect and pass on without alteration.
In what is the strangest of all ironies, it is, in fact, the Traditional Catholics in opposition to these errors of the conciliar Popes who are the ones who truly love the Petrine See. These play the part of St. Paul, who challenged Peter to his face “because he was to be blamed.”
Commenting on this Scripture passage, St. Thomas Aquinas writes: “There being an imminent danger to the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith…” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4).
St. Robert Bellarmine concurs with St. Thomas in this matter and distinguishes for us between legitimate resistance and forbidden judgment. He writes: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the soul or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.” (De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 29, Opera omnia, Paris: Pedone Lauriel, 1871, vol. 1, p. 418.
I think these quotations make it absolutely clear that Catholics have not only the right but a solemn duty before God to correct superiors who stray from the path of truth and place the faith in danger. St. Vincent of Lerins gives the same counsel.
Having fresh in his memory the devastation wrought in the Church in the 4th century by the Arian heresy, a devastation so great that St. Jerome felt constrained to declare “the whole world awoke and groaned to find itself Arian,” this 5th century saint proposed the following question and answer for future generations who might be faced with similar tragedy:
“…But what if some novel contagions try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he (the Catholic) will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.” (The Vincentian Canon, in Commonitorium, chap IV, 434, ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts).
I have lifted these few quotes from an extensive theological study I had published in The Angelus (March/April 2014 issue). If you have paid online access to this SSPX magazine you can read the study in full. The title is: Vatican II in retrospect: Fiddling while Rome burns. There is no personal opinion in that document, just the teaching of the Church.
What I think these quotes provide for us is the certainty that we can and must oppose errors, even if the proponent of those errors happens to be the Holy Father. And so I come to your concern, which is whether or not Traditional Catholic criticism of the Pope is lawful.
Well it is lawful, and even dutiful as I’ve pointed out, provided it remains within the boundaries of charity, patience and the respect we are bound to hold for the sacred offices of those God has placed over us.
In the same way that we are obliged to condemn the sin but not the sinner, we condemn the errors of our superiors without condemning them. Some Traditional Catholics have lost sight of this essential truth, as well as of the fact that Our Lord is still in charge of His Church. I am thinking of sedevacantists and those of schismatic mindset who have allowed that natural indignation that arises from the sensus fidei in the face of ecclesiastical scandal to turn into bitterness and forbidden judgment. The criticism of these people is generally of a negative, divisive nature not remotely charitable, patient or respectful. In other words, just as Satan used the intellectual pride of theologians to bring about this present crisis in the Church, so he uses pride in some Traditional Catholics to inspire bitter judgments in response. The upshot of it all is that both sides lose the Catholic spirit.
Our criticism on the other hand is positive so long as it restricts itself to observations of, and opposition to, errors based on what the Church has always taught. We do not allow the crisis in the Church to become personal to the extent of making personal derogatory statements about the Popes and prelates who have tragically fallen victim to the “diabolical disorientation” foretold by Our Lady of Fatima. That does not mean that we don’t feel a certain anger over their infidelity and the destruction their innovative blindness has wrought on the true faith and on countless millions of Catholic souls. It just means that we should never, ever allow our just indignation to turn into bitter zeal, which is counter-productive blindness at the other end of the spectrum.
It says in the Acts of the Apostles that St. Peter was released by an angel from the chains of his imprisonment upon the prayers of the whole Church. Surely, that has to be our example par excellence? Yes, we resist Peter to his face when he errs, but always with love of the Petrine See and the Holy Father rooted firmly in our hearts and in our prayers. This is the key to true Catholic resistance as opposed to the extremes of bitter zeal on one side and indifference/timidity on the other.
Now I know I have gone on a wee here so I might as well go on a wee bit longer to add something to the substance of the thread subject!
The late Fr. Malachi Martin once said that if ever a Jesuit was elected Pope the faithful should head for the hills, for then the Church really would be in serious trouble.
Being a Jesuit himself, Fr. Martin was in a better position than most to know just how opposed to the traditional spirit of the Order it would be for a Jesuit to accept election to the Papacy. The long established precept is that the Jesuits exist to assist the Popes but never themselves to become Popes, so there were more than a few Ignatian eyebrows raised when Cardinal Bergoglio broke that near-500 year tradition to accept election to the Papacy in 2013.
But there was an even greater reason why Fr. Malachi Martin feared the possibility of a Jesuit Pope. He understood perfectly well how far the Jesuits, former champions of Catholic orthodoxy, had strayed from the spirit of St. Ignatius to become chief amongst the architects and implementers of that “New Theology” so characteristic of Conciliar Reform.
A few Jesuit names are here worthy of mention, names such as Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Augustine Bea, Jean Daniélou and Karl Rahner, all progressive-minded theologians whose deliberations were the very antithesis of the Traditional Jesuit mindset so clearly expressed by the Reformation martyr St. John Ogilvie, who came “to unteach heresy”.
Sad to say, it becomes more evident by the day that Pope Francis is a Jesuit more in tune with the most liberal of his Vatican II brethren than with those Counter-Reform heroes of the past, those great stalwarts of Catholicism who sacrificed their lives for the faith.
To quote Archbishop Lefebvre: “The martyrs sacrificed their lives for the truth, now they sacrifice the truth.
It surely tells us something when the Church’s traditional enemies, especially the enemies of her moral teaching, sing the praises of the present “Bishop of Rome” for ridding the Church of her doctrinal “bigotry”.
By his own words and example it has to be stated without ambiguity that Pope Francis is doing more to undermine the sacred office he has been appointed to by Our Lord than all the enemies of the Church together could ever have hoped to achieve.
“Contemplatives in action” is how St. Ignatius described his Jesuits. Confederates in Modernism probably describes them better today as they continue at all levels to innovate the supernatural essence of the Catholic religion into oblivion with a new vision of earthly social justice based on equality and the rights of the human person rather than on the Kingship of Christ. As Cardinal Suenens, who was no friend of Tradition, once observed “…it is the French Revolution in the Church.”
That’s a great post.
However, I’m always puzzled by your comments about criticism of prelates should always be “within the boundaries of charity, patience and the respect we are bound to hold for the sacred offices of those God has placed over us.”
I don’t know if I’m misinterpreting what you say but when I’ve noted over the years I’ve been reading this blog that you say this quite often and I always think “Ah, well, Jesus didn’t show too much respect for the offices of the Pharisees and Scribes”, and they were the Jewish religious leaders of his time, who were held in high esteem by the mass of the people. He called them hypocrites for one thing.
IMHO the problem is the opposite – there’s far too much respect shown to priests, bishops and popes these days. I have to confess that I’ve been what I’m sure you would think was quite “disrespectful” when speaking to a couple of priests. I just do not think they merit my respect and that’s actually because of their sacred office! It’s because they are betraying that office that I feel unable to speak to them with “respect” – I do show them the same common courtesy I show everyone else but I’m not especially respectful because they’re priests. I hope you understand my meaning, but apart from that,. I thought your post was really great.
I think “common courtesy” is respect, so you are probably misinterpreting what Athanasius means.
Yes, common courtesy fits the bill just as well. Thank you for that.
Thank you for your general comments and for raising the point about respect for the priestly office. I’m glad you brought it up.
The first point I would like to make in response to what you said is that we cannot justify disrespect to those we consider to be bad priests on the grounds of Our Lord’s judgment of the Pharisees. Our Lord is God, He reads the hearts of men and knows their inner thoughts. We have no such insight and so we cannot automatically assume a bad disposition of soul where ignorance or misguided loyalty may be to blame for clerical scandals relating to the faith.
St. Paul demonstrates the attitude we should have towards even those priests who do harm to the faith. In Acts 23: 1-5, we read:
‘And Paul looking upon the council, said: “Men, brethren, I have conversed with all good conscience before God until this present day.” And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him: “God shall strike thee, thou whited wall. For sittest thou to judge me according to the law, and contrary to the law commandest me to be struck?” And they that stood by said: “Dost thou revile the high priest of God?” And Paul said: “I knew not, brethren, that he is the high priest. For it is written: ‘Thou shalt not speak evil of the prince of thy people.
The other example I would propose for your consideration is the example of Our Lord in respect to Judas and St. Peter at the time of the Passion. Judas betrayed Our Lord for money and yet Our Lord was not disrespectful to Judas. Rather, He cut Judas to the heart with a gentle rebuke: “Judas, you betray your Master with a kiss.” Likewise with St. Peter upon the triple denial. Our Lord did not angrily ridicule him for his very serious fall. Rather, He looked on Peter with compassion and it was enough to cause one of the greatest acts of repentance recorded in history.
I’m not saying there aren’t times when we need to be forceful in our arguments, even when talking with priests, but that we must always maintain respect for the office they hold with the wise counsel that more flies are caught with a spoonful of honey than with a barrel load of vinegar. Angry or contentious opposition is unlikely ever to win souls back to the truth. Do you see where I’m coming from, Nicky?
I wouldn’t dream of judging the inner disposition of any soul but I do not respect the priests I’ve heard encouraging people to sin and in one situation that I witnessed personally in church, attacking Catholic teaching on celibacy. Please don’t ask me to respect his “office” when he is betraying it.
I also think that it is selective to say we can’t take Jesus for our example in his outspokenness against the Pharisees because if we cannot imitate him in that, who is to say we should imitate him in anything else? We are told to take suffering in our lives in the same spirit that Christ took his sufferings but he was God, as you say, so he could suffer that extreme pain, we could argue. It cuts both ways. Either we are to imitate Jesus as given to us in the Gospels or not.
Actually, I note you do say that we may be forceful in our arguments, and that is really all that I mean. I’m not rude to the priests I mention but I’m not simpering either, I just don’t go along with this “the office not the man” argument.
Forceful is fine! I don’t have any problem with being forceful in argument with those who fail in the sacred offices assigned to them by Our Lord, so we agree on that. All I meant was that we should always beware bitter zeal, a zeal that is driven more by anger than by charity. I know about this because I’ve been there once or twice and it doesn’t achieve a thing. Don’t misunderstand me, I still get angry when I see what these men of the Church are doing to our religion but I no longer write when I’m annoyed or permit the sun to go down on my anger, to paraphrase St. James, because I’ve learned by experience that “the anger of man worketh not the justice of God.” Does that make sense to you?
All of what you posted Is exactly what our parents always taught us. My mother was always concerned that we keep piety towards the Pope, bishops,and priests for Our Lord’s sake.
That’s a nice phrase “keep piety” towards the Pope bishops and priests. I’ve never heard that before. I know what you mean about your mother being concerned, as my parents would never have dreamt of criticising any priest let alone a bishop or pope, being very respectful of their office.
Yes indeed, for Our Lord’s sake. And also because respectful correction is much more likely to have an effect than disrespectful correction.
I was also taught that piety even descends. A Father should have it for his children, etc.
Yep! There’s nothing like a good pious slap on the lug from ones father! Only joking.
Jane Fonda can love the pope because she thinks he hates dogma
I’m not so sure she’s wrong. The following quote is from Brian C. Stiller ,Global Ambassador, World Evangelical Alliance (posted on his blog http://dispatchesfrombrian.com/ on 9 July):
At lunch I asked Pope Francis what his heart was for evangelism. He smiled, knowing what was behind my question. His comment was, “I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism. I want people to find Jesus in their own community. There are so many doctrines we will never agree on. Let’s not spend our time on those. Rather, let’s be about showing the love of Jesus.”
Who’d like to be silent on that one? Well, the Vatican apparently since, as far as I’m aware, no ‘clarification’ has yet been forthcoming.
Please be on the look-out for The Plot. It appears to have been lost. 😯
Thank you for that very shocking quote from Pope Francis, but given the lengthy comments above on the importance of showing respect for his sacred office, and since nobody has yet defined precisely what constitutes “disrespect”, I think I am forced to say “no comment” – for now, at least! Once I’ve checked my dictionary, I’ll be back 😀
Would anyone who has a few minutes to spare, like to support a couple of our readers who are battling out the issues on the Catholic Herald blog – Petrus being one of them. I’ve posted a couple of comments and about to have another brief go, so if anyone is free to join in, let’s see if we can help William Oddie move further along the line, to where we can rule out a visit to Specsavers for him 😀 No disrespect intended, of course!
Re my lengthy post earlier, I would point everyone to the writings, sermons and conferences of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay. These are firm, sometimes even animated, in their defence of the Faith, but always respectful of superiors. It’s really about tone, that was the point I was trying to make in response to Summa.
For example, I could write something like “I see Bergoglio is at it again, telling Pentecostals that he’s not interested in converting them. That man is a nightmare, a heretic intent on the destruction of the Church.”
Or I could write: “I see Pope Francis has told Pentecostals that he’s not interested in converting them to the true faith. God help us, we need to pray for this Pope who so clearly contradicts the teaching of his predecessors to the great detriment of the faith and the salvation of souls.” It’s the same statement but with the vitriol removed.
The latter statement is much more likely to convince the ignorant and uncertain than the former because it is respectful, that’s the point I was trying to make. I think most reasonable people follow these rules of courtesy and respect anyway.
Are the two examples you provide an explanation of what’s in your head and how that is translated into writing? 🙂
Actually, I don’t think we have any real disagreement here. I think plain speaking does not preclude courtesy and I have never noted any discourtesy on this blog even when discussing the Pope’s latest scandalous statement or action.
When it comes to the details of wording our comments, the rule of thumb followed in some of the strictest of the old Religious Orders holds good; let me explain – were, e.g. nuns in some of the oldest orders allowed to blog on this subject, they would know, as do we, that open rudeness is out, we take that as a given, but that said, the Superior would accept, each must follow his or her “own grace.” One man’s (or woman’s, of course) plain speaking is another man’s (or woman’s, of course) downright cheek, so we can only take care not to make personal remarks (strictly prohibited in said Religious Orders) and hope for the best. That is, that we are not placed in the moderation box for an overly zealous contribution to the debate 😀
Yes, the claim to be “following one’s grace” has gotten many a novice out of a pickle, or so I’m told…
See, I can be pious, too, not just 3LittleShepherds. Cheek of them, trying to put me to shame 😯
Yes indeed! Plain speaking with courtesy, two attributes of Catholic conversation that have been seriously undermined by the liberal reformers of Vatican II and a small number of counter-revolutionaries. Thankfully, the latter are not nearly as commonplace as the former and are unlikely to be tolerated for long on faithful Traditional Catholic websites, including this blog.
Pope Francis’ comment “I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to catholicism”.
Perhaps His Holiness needs to be reminded of – “No salvation outside the Church”.
Or perhaps His Holiness needs to be converted to Catholicism himself!
My only concern about this Papacy is the hope that it will last long enough to ensure that the policies of Pope Francis continue long after the end of his mandate, whether it be by death (may he live to be 100!), or resignation. I only hope he appoints as many cardinals as possible who think like him so that the Church continues to grow according to God’s will.
I have often heard the criticism from your group that we talk as if the Chruch began with Vatican II. I consider that to be nonsense; I revere Pope St. Pius X just as much as I do Popes Saints John XXII and John Paul II. I do, however, think that some of you talk as if the Church came to an end with Vatican II. God bless you all!
At least you picked an appropriate nom-de-plume.
And on that note you are at odds with just about every right-thinking Catholic in the Church at present. I cannot believe you wrote those comments with anything remotely close to objectivity. No one in their right mind is saying what you’ve just said. This is one seriously worrying Pontificate, unlike anything the Church has seen before.
Athanasius’ concession (when responding to Margaret Mary) that “common courtesy fits the bill just as well” leads one to fear that his use of his familiar phrase may be because it contains twenty five words rather than two.
However, the Oxford Online Dictionary gives ‘politeness’ as the meaning of ‘courtesy’, and ‘admiration’ or ‘due regard for’ when referring to ‘respect’.
So, on the surface it appears that the two words have a different emphasis with ‘respect’ affording a higher level of deference than ‘courtesy’.
Needless to say I support your comments and reinforce them up by quoting the response given to me by an extremely elderly Irish priest when I brought up the topic of the LTM. ” I hate the Latin and getting rid of it was one of the great achievements of Vatican II.”
Is that a remark worthy of ‘respect’?
I wasn’t actually intending to start a full blown debate on what does and does not constitute respect, or common courtesy, or whatever one may wish to call it. The fact is that every Catholic really should know the limits permitted by charity and patience when speaking of or to a religious superior, especially when it comes to discussing the faith. Good example is every bit as powerful in the winning back of our neighbour to sense as prayer and solid argument.
As for the old Irish priest you mentioned, I would say he was more worthy of pity than scorn, God have mercy on him. I hope you gave him a firm and sound Catholic answer to his unCatholic statement, respectfully of course.
OR, Mikidiki could actually go a bit further then mere “respect” and be truly affectionate when correcting that priest. He could deliver one very pronounced Glasgow Kiss !
Unfortunately, not being a Scot, I would not know how to administer such a loving reaction! LOL
Just study the video – you’ll soon get the hang of it!
Hush now or some liberal innovator will earmark that suggestion for inclusion in a future reformed liturgy!
OR, a traditional Catholic attending a novus ordo Mass might be tempted to use it to replace the sign of peace!
When I was a child my mom and I went to see the parish priest. During the meeting the priest said, “You know, the worst problem I have is that no one comes to talk to me. It’s like everyone is afraid of me.”
My mom said, “Well, Father, I don’t think they’re afraid of you personally I think it’s probably just your office. ”
Father looked around the room and said, “I guess it could be this office maybe I should get it redecorated.” 🙂
I can picture that priest with a twinkle in his eye and a smile on his lips; and strangely enough I do not see many happy, carefree pastors these days, and I wonder why!
Except that Father was serious! 😕
I just can’t believe this pope – he’s all over the news again today saying stuff in an interview about celibacy only having started 900 years after Christ.
I was talking to friends about this blog after Mass this morning and frankly none of them could work out how it’s possible to separate the man from the office. How do you say even the politest statement “Pope Francis is not a very good pope” without referring to his office?
I’m sorry, and don’t mean to resurrect that discussion but just want to say that I do not think it’s possible to separate the man from the office. I hope this comment isn’t discourteous but nothing will convince me that this is a good pope.
I just can’t believe this pope – he’s all over the news again today saying stuff in an interview about celibacy only having started 900 years after Christ.
You thought that was the most worrying point in that interview ❓
He’s also alleged to have made the extraordinary claim that one priest in every fifty (2%) is a paedophile !!!
Of course, this is in another interview with Scalfari (what was he thinking giving that man another interview?) and, apparently, Fr Lombardi has already been wheeled out to deny the claim (I haven’t found a link to that statement yet). Unfortunately, that won’t make any difference to the anti-Catholic media some of whom are already reporting the claim with undisguised glee 😡
Yes, I saw that, too – about the 2% priest abusers. I mean, who needs the Orange and Masonic Lodges with Pope Francis attacking the Church from all sides?
I think you are misunderstanding about “respect” – I thought it had been clarified. I’ve written about this at length in the newsletter in the past. One more try.
We all “respect” doctors, lawyers, teachers, nurses, etc. But we do not “respect” BAD lawyers, doctors etc.in relation to their professional work. If they do not do the job properly, we say so. I’ve not heard anyone saying that the mass murderer Dr Shipman should be respected, just because he held the position of medical “doctor”. Nobody on here, as far as I can make out, is suggesting that we “respect” the pope because he’s pope. We are obliged to show respect for every human being because everyone is created by God. As for professional respect, that depends on how they do the job. One of our SSPX priests said as much a couple of weeks ago – we need to separate the man from the job. We don’t avoid criticising him because he has the job. That would be unintelligent in the extreme. We love and esteem the papacy – not necessarily any individual holder of the office at any given point in history.
I have immense respect and affection for Pope Pius X, above all, because of the courage he showed in defending the Faith, and also for his well documented virtues, even during his childhood. I do not remotely respect any of the post-Vatican II popes and that includes the present pontiff.
I won’t “name call” him – that would be to disrespect him as a human being, just as I won’t name call Dr Shipman. Neither of them is owed any respect in terms of their professional positions due to the treachery of each in executing their respective duties. One in the temporal sphere and one, so far at least, in the spiritual, religious and moral sphere.
You call Pope Francis “a bad pope” – I’ve said the same thing myself over and over again. Hearing today’s news on the radio as I drove home from Mass (his attack on celibacy to which you’ve posted a link) I used a number of adjectives. Bad? Way down the list today! Here’s just a couple of the more printable adjectives which sprang to my mind as I heard the news today:
1) – “ignorant” – because he literally does not appear to know that the celibacy law is in imitation of Christ’s own celibate lifestyle which dates from the first century – not the 10th or 11th century. The ordained were celibate from the earliest days of Christianity. As Pope he should know something so basic.
2) – “unpredictable” – he just cannot keep his opinions in check, nor does he appear to be able to distinguish his own personal (Modernist) opinions from the teaching and discipline of the Church, which he must uphold. He needs someone to tell him that we’re not interested in what Cardinal Bergoglio thinks any more. We need leadership from Pope Francis and to date we are not getting it. We are getting bad example on all fronts. Think of the faithful priests, some struggling to fight a physical attraction, what is he to think now? Might as well get out and marry, it’s going to happen anyway? “Disgraceful” is the adjective which followed close on the heels of “unpredictable”. Let’s label that one 2A.
3) – “a disaster” because he just provides one headline after another to the secular (and so called “Catholic”) media and they, of course, will love this latest scandal and use it as a stick with which to beat the Church. Why on earth he keeps giving interviews to atheists is beyond me. It suggests one of two things; either he is not too bright, doesn’t realise that he is being used by the seculars, OR, the opposite, he is very astute, knows exactly what he is doing and seeks, quite deliberately, to undermine the discipline of celibacy. Personally, I’m not sure which.
So, of course, you must not feel guilty about saying this pontiff is “not a good pope.” You gotta be kidding. He’s a bad pope with bells on.
Please bear in mind that judging popes is way above your pay scale, and indeed mine. Not one of us knows if Papa Francesco is ‘not a very good pope’ since we know not the reasons for his seemingly outrageous interviews and actions. We all know that the road to Hell is paved with the good intentions of the misguided. Perhaps we ought to leave it at that, bearing in mind the demands set upon us always to treat others in a respectful and courteous manner.
With great respect (that being the “in” word) 😀 we are obliged to speak out to correct errors, and that includes errors coming from the top of the house. Didn’t Cardinal Ciappi (chaplain to five popes including JP II) say that “In the Third Secret it is revealed that the crisis in the Church begins at the top”? Was HE “lacking respect” for the pope(s)? Of course not. Spades tend to be spades, even if we call them something else.
Nobody is “judging” Pope Francis in the Gospel sense of not making a definitive judgment on his interior life. That we cannot possibly know, just as we cannot possibly know what was going on in the soul of Dr Shipman when he murdered (at least) 200 of his patients. What we CAN say is that should not have murdered those patients and that is what we are saying about Papa Francis – he should, to put it simply, keep his mouth shut in interviews if he finds he cannot uphold Catholic doctrine and discipline. Better still, he should refuse to give any more interviews. Any other teacher passing on false information would be considered a bad teacher. Popes, the most important teachers on the face of the earth, are no different.
You are right about treating others in a respectful and courteous manner but there is nothing that can be faulted in any commentary on this blog or in the newsletter where plain speaking and the use of accurate terminology does not preclude courtesy. It would be discourteous to use profanities or to shout or to use nasty names (such as are sadly evident on sedevacantist websites) but nothing on here, albeit outspoken and unmistakeably critical where necessary, can be described as “discourteous” or “disrespectful”. I suggest anyone who disagrees is confusing “deference” (and that in undue measure) with “respect”.
Were I to have five minutes with Pope Francis today, for example, I would put the content to him that is contained in my two posts on the subject – this one and my response to Fidelis. I would speak as forcefully as I thought I could get away with, without being carted off between two cops, but I defy anyone to say that anything in either of these posts, or in Fidelis’s original post for that matter, is discourteous.
Don’t even think about it, folks! 😀
To say I am alarmed over this pope’s behaviour is an understatement. A friend who is a Doctor of Clinical Psychology said that Francis a very intelligent man, and that his statements are meant to cause confusion amongst the laity. She added that his “inner Circle” would know exactly what he means, and that Francis was in effect building a new church! And she is no extremist. Having spoken to people in other Parishes in Greenock, they are alarmed as I. They said that so far not one Priest has tried to explain Francis statements or his behaviour. Francis is taking us down a new road, and one that I have no intention of following
Thank you for your very interesting comment. I think we are all alarmed. And I’m more than a little pleased that you have sufficient Catholic sense to have no intention of following Pope Francis “down a new road”. Most Catholics seem to be papolatrists, these days – “don’t criticise the pope, no matter what”. You should thank God for the grace of seeing through that error.
I only hope and pray that your Catholic sense is strong enough to steer you away from the opposite error of sedevacantism. Pope Francis is the pope, albeit a very bad pope. Cling to that fact that then take steps to protect your Catholic faith.
Here’s a possible step… for a safe haven from the crisis in the Church, where you have the privilege of attending the old rite Mass so beloved by the saints and martyrs and where you will hear heresy-free sermons, you might want to think about coming along to our Glasgow SSPX chapel. I am pretty certain that we have a couple of people who come from Greenock already.
Anyway, welcome to the blog and thank you again, for your thought-provoking comment.
God bless you.
Thank you for your kind words, and I assure I have no intention of becoming a sedevacantist. If the Popes conduct is such as to bring scandal, or brings the Church into disrepute, then it is upto the Church Hierarchy to deal with the matter. At present their silence is not so much deafening but thunderous. I found the Church on Renfrew St, and will certainly try and pay a visit sometime. The youngest is an Altar server so it may be a while. Is there a daily Mass or on Sundays only? And hows this for a coincidence. Sorting out the various religious books I remembered a gift given to me by a former Headmaster.. a Sunday Missal imprimatur January 15 1962! Somebody sending me a message or what! It will be needed for the train wreck that’s up ahead
This week there are three Masses apart from the Sunday Mass.
Mass is on Tuesdays and Fridays at 6.30pm and on Saturday morning at 11.a.m.
This is changed from time to time, with prior notice given on the Sunday, but that is only if the priests are away. Usually, we have the above Masses during the week and on Saturday.
As for your youngest being an altar server – presuming your youngest is a boy, he would, I have no doubt, be welcomed to train as an altar boy in the Society chapel. My own two great-nephews love serving and they enjoyed learning.
Yes, finding that missal is a very good sign! Hope to meet you at the SSPX chapel of these days. Perhaps wiser not to mention your plan to your priest because, while he would no doubt encourage you to attend the nearest Kirk or Pentecostal church, he would warn you of the possibility of developing “a schismatic mindset” if you went along to an SSPX chapel. Priceless, or what? 😀
Does the Chapel produce a newsletter and if so is it available online?
If you Google UK SSPX you will get their website and then select “Newsletter”. It’s for the entire UK, not just Scotland.
As I have said elsewhere, I think Fr Blake posed a question, rather than an answer.
The Pope holds the office of Successor of Peter and is responsible for Catholic Church, the vehicle of Salvation for Mankind. The office of The Papacy requires respect. Fr Finigan has a good comment “Assent and Papal Magisterium” circa 06/09/13?
The person of the pope is another matter. We have no obligation to like the style or person of the Pope. A Catholic soldier fighting against Julius II, for instance would probably not have. But we must continue to respect The present Holy Father has chosen to hob-nob with the press and photographers and to speak frequently, without due consideration to the media. As such, the Catholic laity are released thereby from their normally required reticence, in these matters.
He has so far not made any statements which are infallible or require assent. Evangelii Gaudium is not a considered teaching document.
If, as has been reported, he said that Protestants do not need evangelisation or conversion to the Church, we have a problem. All Catholics are required to evangelise to the One True Church. Anyone who advocates otherwise is wrong. If that is said with knowledge of the Faith, and after due consideration, then that Catholic is in a position of Formal Heresy.
But let’s see what he actually said.
“But let’s see what he actually said”
I found the following on the Catholic Herald blog – the words that the Pope is supposed to have said about the Evangelical Protestants in Rome are in quote marks:
Pope Francis mentioned his plan to make a Sunday visit to a Pentecostal church in late June when he met a group of evangelical pastors and televangelists at his Vatican residence, the Domus Sanctae Marthae.
Brian Stiller of the World Evangelical Alliance, who was present at the meeting, wrote about the encounter on his Facebook page and on a blog.
“We talked about Christians marginalised, pressed under the weight of government power or the majority presence of other faiths,” Stiller wrote. “He listened and then told a remarkable story. In his years in and out of Rome, he became friends with the pastor of a Pentecostal church in Rome. In time he came to learn that the church and pastor felt the power and presence of the Catholic Church, with its weighty presence, obstructing their desire to grow and be a witness. ‘So,’ he said, ‘this July I will preach in his church on a Sunday and offer an apology from my Church for the hurt it has brought to their congregation.’”
Fr Lombardi said the Pentecostal friend the Pope was referring to was Mr Traettino. The spokesman did not comment on the rest of Mr Stiller’s account, other than to say the expected visit to Caserta would be “extremely simple and quick – just for the morning”. END.
Just the fact that the Pope will preach in a Protestant Church is bad enough, but to apologise for the Catholic Church for causing them hurt because they felt they were obstructed in their growth is just too incredible. This and now what he’s said about celibacy and paedophilia is just too much to take in. What does it all mean? I have read on here that this is all Fatima unfolding before our very eyes. I am more and more inclined to believe that.
I have no problem with the Holy father preaching in a protestant ecclesial building provided it is to make it clear to them that they are in Objective Heresy, and their duty before God is to return to the One True Church, the Catholic Church.
Off course there are different ways of saying this, and he could be quite “nice ” about it?
What I do have a problem with is anyone apologising on my behalf for something I did not do, paticularly when those people, that is the ancesters of the protestants being apologised to, were a particularly cruel, wicked, nasty lot, as were their descendents up and into the 20th century. Incidently, when they injured my big sister (I was about two at the time so I have this second hand) in a religious riot near my home.
Now when they admit they were a nasty lot, and apologise to me for injuring my big sister, and the many othetr nasty things they did, then certainly I will shake their hand, and in Christian kindness and love, ask them round to the pub for a pint. In the meantime no apologies.
Here we have Fr Lombardi telling us that the latest interview captures the “spirit” of the conversation between Scalfari and the Pope but is not necessarily accurate in all of the details, or words to that ridiculous effect.
Is nobody in the Vatican telling the Pope that he’s really making a fool of himself (and the papacy) by his off the cuff remarks which are causing widespread confusion and dismay around the Catholic world?
Let’s just hope and pray that nobody asks him what he thinks of today’s decision by the Anglicans to “ordain” women bishops. Oh please. Do NOT ask him that…
Good heavens! Is Pope Francis likely to agree with my notoriously dissenting view on that subject?
Although he’s said “no” in another interview, with every day that dawns, one holds one’s breath.
In any case, he’s never heard of the principle of non-contradiction so he might, who knows, send his congratulations to the CofE after today’s news. Remember, he sought the “blessing” of the non-ordained Justin Welby – and that in front of the world’s media – so why not welcome the non-ordination of sister-“bishops” for dear ole Justin?
Who was it first said LOL ? Prophetic words, for sure 😀
A reader sent me this piece challenging the numbers of priests who are paedophiles given by “Holy Father Francis” to the atheist interviewer, Scalfari (as if he needs more help than he’s already getting from fellow atheists to attack the Church). Anyway, the author of the piece, published on Rorate Caeli, asks the very interesting question, “who is giving the Pope these (2%) numbers?
These interviews with Scalfari are following a format as my Psychologist friend pointed out to me. 1. Scalfari reoprts exactly what Francis said. 2 The Vatican changes that to soothe the laity. 3. a week later Scalfari says he was using his Journalistic licence.
Francis is communicating his intention’s (whatever they are) through La Republica to a specific group of people, and that as its readership is Communist/Atheist, we have to ask why and to what end?
Given the havoc that Francis has wrought on the Church in a remarkably short space of time, my greatest fear now is that he and his minions somehow remove the Ottaviani Intervention, which prevented and still prevents the Modernists destroying the Church. I had heard of this intervention but had no idea what or why it came about. After downloading a copy and reading it, I can only say I was horrified at what Paul VI and his followers intended to do ie to reduce the Blessed Sacrament and the Holy Sacrifice to that of a Protestant memorial service! Francis is already on record as saying he considers himself to be more Christian than Catholic (a truly alarming statement) and you have to wonder how did he ever become Pope? Petrus wonders if he is a Catholic, I share that concern. His remarks on Dogma and Doctrine are not those that are expected from a Pontiff. As our Editor remarks, we wait daily to see what he comes out with next. If he holds to form, it will be worse than what preceded it.
This Pope just does not give up- scandalizing the faithful. I don’t see how it is possible to write off the damage he is causing as unintentional. His off the cuff remarks are not really thoughtless, they are toxic little darts that shoot the poison into the body of the Church, and no matter what the Vatican officials say to soothe the laity, the poison remains to do its work. How else can you explain the eager anticipation with which Catholics await the promised changes in the Church? I am not exaggerating, Catholics and non Catholics, actually believe the Church is going to soften her teaching on divorce, cohabiting and acceptance of ‘alternate-lifestyles’. I’ve heard from Catholic and Protestant friends that they are looking forward to the Pope doing something about the celibate priesthood since he assured the world that this practice could be changed.
Is this part of the new evangelization? To draw people to the ‘new Church’? I’m starting to think it is.
This Pope just doesn’t give up- scandalizing the faithful! I agree with Joseph Hannely’s friend about the Pope knowing exactly what he is doing.
I don’t see how his off the cuff remarks can be thoughtless. They are toxic little darts that he shoots into the body of the Church, and no matter what the Vatican officials say to soothe the laity, the poison remains to do its work. How else can we explain the eager anticipation with which Catholics await the changes in the Church? They actually believe the Church will soften, if not change, her teaching on marriage, divorce, contraception, ‘alternate life-styles’ and the celibate priesthood ! I’ve had Protestant friends tell me they are looking forward to the changes this Pope will make in the priesthood, they of course, knew all along that a celibate priesthood is just something the Church introduced, it’s not scriptural so it’s not God-given, and now, thanks to this Pope, Catholics are finally being enlightened!
Editor, I am looking for the nearest sand-box! 😀
I couldn’t agree with you more. This Pope is really scandalous and I am inclined to agree with Joseph that he knows exactly what he is doing.
It is also disturbing how many Catholics are defending him and looking forward to seeing what changes come after the October Synod. I know he can’t change the teaching of the Church but he has a knack of making it seem that he has.
Sorry, I don’t see how the post that refused to show up the first time I posted it, appeared of its own accord much later 😳
American commentator, Christopher Ferrara, has penned this excellent article on what he describes as this final phase of the crisis in the Church under the most liberal pope ever – and he cites William Oddie’s article as an example of how the “neo-Catholic” world is, at last, coming to grips with the truth of the matter. He concludes, happily, by agreeing that “silence” is not an option for “traditional” Catholics, quoting “It is better that scandals should arise, than that the truth be suppressed”, attributing the quote to St Augustine, although I believe it’s from a homily of St Gregory the Great (but who’s to say they BOTH didn’t say the same thing! Whoever said it, it’s true – with bells on!)
And now that Papa Francis has put the 2% guesstimate out there, abuse support groups are claiming the number is much higher. Laugh or cry, folks?
Thank you for that excellent article. At last people are beginning to wake up to what Francis is doing. The Church he is Building has nothing to do with Our Lord Jesus Christ. Some time ago, after Francis’s remarks about “too much focus on abortion” my Wife said “I never liked that man. There is something about him that is not right. He seems out to overturn what we have had for 2000 years.” Not wishing to be melodramatic, I cant help but recall what St. Francis of Assisi told his followers.
“Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.”
It pains me to say this, but that is the position we find ourselves in today. Its the young people I fear for most. No proper Religious Education at school, leaves the dangerously open to being lead astray ,
Your wife clearly has a good strong Catholic sense. She (and you) will be interested to read this open letter to the Pope written by someone who knew him in Argentina. There are a number of things which jumped out at me, not least her assertion that he seems to want to be “different” from every other pontiff in history. Worrying.
And you are correct about the young people being led astray. I think that’s why more and more families are home-schooling (not always possible, I know) and turning to the Society of Saint Pius X for the Mass and sound sermons.
That is a powerful letter. Very sad but true.
Thank you again for another excellent link I have saved the url and will forward it to other concerned friends. What jumped out of the page was this..”you were the only one there that did not genuflect before the tabernacle or during the Consecration”, Clearly he does not believe in the True Presence, or that such a thing as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is a Dogma of the Faith. Hence his remarks regarding “Too much Dogma.” So it is only a matter of time before we hear him proclaim “Communion for all! God lives in everybody” hear him say “It is whatever you want it to be”
Some years ago I read The Craft and the Cross by Ian Gordon, he renounced Freemasonary and gave an insight to the Masonic Rosicrucian Black Mass, where the “host” used in this abomination is a Cream Cracker! So, it could be a statue of Buddha as placed on the altar by JP2, or a beach ball, or a football jersey! Basically anything you want.
We are racing ahead to whatever lies ahead with each day that passes.
I agree about that open letter. It is very powerful in bits.
I think you are right about us racing ahead to whatever lies ahead. We are in the end times, that is certain. Even Pope John Paul II said so as did Pope Benedict. Things are much worse now, so we should prepare.
I agree with you, we are in the end times. Our Lady said the only weapons we will have are the Scapular and the Rosary. The crisis in the middle east and Ukraine bring us closer too WW 3 each day that passes. Our Lady told Sister Sasagawa that the living would envy the dead if the world did not turn back to God. I need to pray a lot more, and often.
Look at this – Pope Francis telephoning the political leaders in Israel to “ask for peace” – from planting daft trees (nothing personal to the trees) to political activism (which is what these telephone calls represent) this pontiff seems determined to snub Our Lady of Fatima.
Here is another interesting letter and commentary.
It would fit Francis better to sort out his own counties problems before meddling in the affairs of others. Recently he spoke on food wasteage. And he is doing his part in preventing any in the Vatican. Since becoming Pontiff he has put on 20 lbs in weight!
So, Papa Francis has put on weight since becoming pontiff… Interesting. At one time I’d have had that, at least, in common with him, but not now (thankfully!)
Thanks for the tip. I must beware of lamenting food wastage from now on 😀
Here is another report about slum priests:-
The only reports I could find via Google (after checking that your link doesn’t work) were in praise of the “slum priests” – all politically flavoured – but here’s a very interesting extract from a Christian Order editorial (Rod Pead, editor, wrote three, I think, editorials on the subject, devastating to the papolatrist’s eye):
From Christian Order:
Those who cannot countenance a charge of treason would at least agree that it all added up to a simple, devastating equation: linguistic sell out + quizzical one-liner = “mess.” As the Vanity Fair piece highlighted, it gifted the media all manner of tantalising possibilities and conclusions.
Israel’s Haaretz.com, for one,announced that Francis had “departed from the document of his predecessor, Benedict XVI, declaring that men with deep homosexual tendencies cannot be priests.” Neo-conservatives would wave away this juxtaposition of the merciful Francis and the pitiless Benedict as a media caricature unworthy of comment. But the implied return to lax screening of seminarians, déjà vu all over again, is not such a quantum media leap. If the Holy Father’s ‘non-judgemental’ response to the unspeakable Mgr Ricca scandal is not sufficient to raise neocon eyebrows, it is said to “pale in comparison to myriad sex scandals that the Argentine Catholics have witnessed during ‘the Bergoglio era’.” According to the following report, this included blind-eye turning in respect of his much vaunted ‘slum priests.’ In light of what has transpired since, this post-conclave blog rings true:
Francis was the perfect candidate to weaken Papacy to the point of irrelevance. I visited Argentina 2 years ago, when I was working for a Russian news agency and visited some slums in Buenos Aires to cover the work of the “curas villeros” (slum priests) in the many shanty towns of the capital. I was shocked to see that practically all those priests had concubines and had sons with them, others were openly homosexual or had transexual partners and everyone knew about this! I talked with people from the slums and asked them what did they think about this? Their answers were basically the same: “it’s OK, they love each other, they harm nobody.” I also talked with more cultured (and minoritarian) sectors of the Catholic Church in Buenos Aires who were infuriated by the situation but they were unable to do anything about it. They said they were largely outnumbered by the “populist priests.” They also told me that all the high hierarchy of the Church in Buenos Aires, Bergoglio included, were aware of the dubious morality of the slum priests.
The author had more to say about the ruinous Bergoglian social gospel at work in the slums: “a doctrine of sterile assistentialism that leads nowhere, keeps the poor in poverty, the lazy in laziness and the sinner happy with his sins.” But leaving that aside for now, in joining up the above dots to all the rest, English blogger Mundabor concluded:
I have never been in an Argentinian slum, and can therefore not vouch for the truthfulness of what the author writes. But boy, it all makes sense.
[…] Think of Francis’ reaction when the Ricca scandal erupted. Arrogant jokes about the “gay lobby” not having an ID card, the “who am I to judge” mantra, and an astonishingly stubborn attitude in leaving an exposed sodomite at his place – and in the priesthood. Is this not the behaviour of one who has lived in the middle of homosexual priests all his priestly life, and has happily ignored their perversion and sodomitic behaviour? Is this not the behaviour of one who does not care two straws whether a priest is a sodomite, and is even unable to understand the scandal that erupts outside of his cosy world when one of his closest men is exposed as one of them? How can one otherwise explain that whilst I write this, Monsignor Ricca is still a priest undisturbed, and is even still occupying his high place? Read more here
Well? Devastating critique of Papa Francis or what?