Catholics Must Reject Synod Document – Calling UK Bishops To Show Leadershipeditor
In pastoral terms, the document published today by the Synod of Bishops represents an earthquake, the “big one” that hit after months of smaller tremors.
The relatio post disceptationem read aloud in the synod hall, while defending fundamental doctrine, calls for the church to build on positive values in unions that the church has always considered “irregular,” including cohabitating couples, second marriages undertaken without annulments and even homosexual unions.
Regarding homosexuals, it went so far as to pose the question whether the church could accept and value their sexual orientation without compromising Catholic doctrine…
At least one bishop asked what happened to the concept of sin. The word “sin” appears only rarely in the 5,000-word relatio. Read more
Catholic teaching and the natural moral order cannot be compromised. The document proposed as a basis for further discussion by the Bishops of the world is a disgrace and must be rejected outright by all Catholics, everywhere. Nobody who accepts the contents of that “earthquake” document should have the temerity to describe themselves as Catholics. By definition, they are not remotely Catholic.
We call on the bishops of the UK (and, indeed, Ireland) to show leadership in this matter. They (especially the Scottish Bishops) have taken great care throughout the pontificates of recent popes, to wear the mask of orthodoxy, at least on occasion, in public. Time now to speak out, time to demonstrate that claimed orthodoxy. Some of us have never been convinced of it – here’s their chance to prove us wrong.
I couldn’t agree more, Editor.
I also think this Pope is a complete disgrace and an enemy of all that is good.
Is that it? You remind me of the old Scottish song which contains the words: “he’s no a man tae throw a word away…”
C’mon – you must have read some of the detail by now. Let’s hear it. Remember, thou art Petrus!
Why is that? Don’t you believe in the Holy Spirit? Or are you a control freak like most Catholic ultra conservative bloggers who run from God in fear
You’re being very judgemental of others, which would surprise me if I for one moment believed the hype “who am I to judge” nonsense spouted by our Holy Father which you are so set on defending. It just goes to show that you aren’t following his “advice” either. Here’s some from me; we must never presume on His mercy. You SHOULD fear God, for He is just as well as merciful, and which one of us could (in our right minds!) stand before Him without fear? But please God we don’t run from Him, but to Him, even in our fear.
You may be correct but “Who am I to judge?” Sound familiar?
If you go through your life not judging then you are a shallow person without convictions and of no use to the Church or humanity. Petrus observes as we all do – that this Pope, by his words and actions, presents himself as an enemy of the truth; though I’m sure His Holiness might argue that it has actually been the Holy Ghost and all the Popes up to Vatican II who have been the enemies of truth and good, precisely because they judged. I think the word he used to describe the Church before the Council was “narcissist.” What a lovely thing for a Pope to say about the Church of his predecessors!
I think Mikidiki was poking fun, remembering Pope Francis’s infamous reply to journalists asking him about his attitude to homosexuals, when HE said: “who am I to judge?”
I suspect Mikidiki is every bit as appalled as the rest of us, at the antics of Pope Francis & his Merry Men, getting merrier by the minute by the sounds of the hysterical laughter coming from the “liberal” camp at the Synod.
I do wish people wouldn’t do that – I’m extremely naive when it comes to clever humour.
Apologies for missing the funny side of your comment. Please don’t tell me to get a life!
Bearing in mind your (albeit inappropriate and unwarranted) comments regarding my non judgmental shallowness, I shall nevertheless ignore both your (non) apology and your final attempt at abuse.
I will accede to your plea and allow you to remain cocooned in your current virtuous, though indeed impetuous, existence. Happy now?
Crossed wires – I see Athanasius did, in fact, apologise for not recognising the humour in your earlier post.
Let us all direct our ire at the faithless pontiff and prelates who are causing mayhem in the Church right now. They deserve it all 😀
As editor said, I did recognise my mistake and apologise. I now humbly apologise again. I mistook your humour for sarcastic criticism. These things happen, especially when the reader is half asleep, as I was at the time. I had been up to the wee small hours researching for a post on the blog and so I read your comments through swollen eyes. Sorry again.
Thank you for your genuine and sincere apology; however, your snide comment about not being told to get a life cannot be excused by late night tiredness, or indeed, by anything else!
I have decided to judge that you had that remark saved for use on what you came to consider an appropriate occasion — nothing shallow there I trust?
There are few things so ungracious as the inability or refusal to accept an apology with grace. You should have ended your post just before that “however” There should be no “however”, no “conditions” attached to accepting an apology. It wasn’t, after all, High Court defamation stuff, was it?
Your response to Athanasius is a classic example of lack of graciousness, I’m sorry to say. Yet again, you appear to be determined to pick a fight. If so, please do so elsewhere. This is a serious blog for serious and concerned Catholics.
And your “shallow” remark indicates that you hold a grudge – an entirely uncharitable thing to do. My advice to Athanasius is not to waste a second more on this matter. I would add that Mikidiki should gerragrip but that would no doubt cause further offence, so I won’t 😀
I posted my response to Mikidiki before I saw yours.
As I said in that response, I accept that I started this with a careless reading of Mikidiki’s original comment, so I accept a good tongue lashing for that.
I do however appreciate your interventions on my behalf. You’re right of course, but I did ask for it!!
I appreciate your kindness in my regard and I assure you before God that there was no ill-intentioned motive behind my comment about getting a life. I was actually poking fun at myself, although I accept that it may not have appeared that way to you.
I’ll be happy if we can put the matter behind us. Apologies again, it was entirely me to blame for the misunderstanding.
I meant to say in my answer to Mikidiki that this crisis in the Church, with this last (we hope) phase which the Synod represents, is too important for a simple misunderstanding or annoyance to develop into a full blown argument, taking up precious cyberspace. If, therefore, Mikidiki does not accept your now two generous apologies, and if he persists in being silly, please do not respond because I will delete such comments the minute I see them.
As you know I can’t be as vigilant as I would like to be at the present time due to a combination of circumstances, but the minute I see any repeat performances of the “pick a fight” variety of comment I will delete them. Please, therefore, ignore any ungracious responses, which I do not really expect from Mikidiki now. Why? Read on…
Given the several very good contributions posted on this blog by Mikidiki I do not really expect anything now except a serious engagement with the issues here. If my memory serves me correctly, he has a special interest in the Emerald Isle, so may like to share with us any responses to the Synod document available from the Irish Bishops.
Engaging with the topic is definitely the very best way to avoid being exterminated, if you get my drift, Mikidiki 😀
“Engaging with the topic is definitely the very best way to avoid being exterminated”
I have taken your advice and re-copied here my post from another thread. I think it is absolutely vital that we all understand the history that has led us to so serious a crisis in the Church and so terrifying a Pontificate as this present one.
So here it is:
I think under Pope Francis we can now appreciate what Fr. Malachi Martin meant when he said: “If ever a Jesuit becomes Pope run for the hills, for then the Church will really be in very serious trouble”.
It is little known in our time that St. Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, instituted a very strict rule for the sons of his order that stands to this present day; it is that they are forbidden to seek or accept ecclesiastical dignity unless bound to do so by a reigning Pontiff under pain of sin. That rule has been relaxed in a few dozen cases over the centuries, mostly by Papal command, but never to the extent of a Jesuit Papacy. Cardinal Bergoglio knew his founder’s rule when he freely accepted election to the highest dignity in the Church, which must surely raise questions about his fidelity to the rule of the Order to which he belongs.
But it was not merely the possibility of such infidelity to the Jesuit rule that prompted Fr. Martin to declare as he did some decades ago. No, he declared as he did because as a Jesuit himself who had been secretary to Cardinal Augustine Bea SJ during the 1960s, and who had collaborated closely with Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, he was in the best position to recognise the false spirit that had taken hold on Jesuit thought, a spirit so alien to Catholicism, yet now so influential in the Church, that he left the Order and Rome to get as far away from it as possible.
We see this false spirit already creeping into the Jesuits at the turn of the 20th century when George Tyrrell SJ attempted to evolve and adapt Catholic doctrine to modern ideas. He was eventually excommunicated for his determined efforts.
Notwithstanding this censure of Rome, other, more radical, Jesuits soon followed in the footsteps of Tyrrell. Of these, Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Urs von Balthasar and Henri de Lubac stand out as the founding fathers of the “New Theology,” a theology which St. Pius X called “the synthesis of all heresies” but which came to replace Traditional Catholic theology at Vatican II and beyond.
For his part, Pope Pius XII did his utmost to prevent this false new Gospel from spreading. In particular His Holiness severely censured Henri de Lubac, forbidding him to preach or teach and having his most dangerous works placed on the Index of forbidden books. So serious were de Lubac’s errors, in fact, that Pius XII wrote the Encyclical Humani Generis in part to counter them.
As in the case of de Lubac, de Chardin and von Balthasar had also come under Rome’s censure. But all was about to change upon the death of Pius XII.
On ascending the Papal Throne in 1959, Pope John XXIII rehabilitated Henri de Lubac without requiring of him a renunciation of his Modernist errors. Pope Paul VI acted similarly towards him and the others.
Here’s a snippet from Wikipedia telling of this astonishing development: ”In August 1960, Pope John XXIII appointed de Lubac as a consultant to the Preparatory Theological Commission for the upcoming Second Vatican Council. He was then made a peritus (theological expert) to the Council itself, and later, by Pope Paul VI, a member of its Theological Commission (as well as of two secretariats). Although the precise nature of his contribution during the council is difficult to determine, his writings were certainly an influence on the conciliar and post-conciliar periods, particularly in the area of Ecclesiology where one of his concerns was to understand the Church as the community of the whole people of God rather than just the clergy. De Lubac’s influence on Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, and Gaudium et Spes, the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, is generally recognized.”
Now we know why conciliar ecclesiology and the content of Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes were of particular concern to Archbishop Lefebvre and other Traditional theologians!
Hans Urs von Balthasar was a proponent of Universal Salvation, amongst other errors. He also argued that when Our Lord died on the Cross, He died in complete abandonment by the Father both in His Blessed body and soul because He had not merely taken our sins upon Himself but had actually become sin. He further argued that Our Lord, in this state of complete abandonment, descended into Hell proper rather than that part of Hell called the Limbo of the Just. In other words, he was saying that Our Lord (God the Son) lost the beatific vision of His Father for the time between His death and Resurrection. This is clearly a perverse doctrine which effectively denies Our Lord’s divinity.
Here is an extract from Pope Francis’ ‘Urbi et Orbi’ address of last Easter Sunday which bears a striking resemblance to von Balthasar’s doctrine: “…This same love for which the Son of God became man and followed the way of humility and self-giving to the very end, down to hell – to the abyss of separation from God…” I will return to Pope Francis a little further on.
In the meantime, it is worth noting that Pope John Paul II bestowed the honour of the Cardinalate on von Balthasar, though the recipient died a few days before receiving his red hat. Benedict XVI later heaped his own praise on Balthasar, calling him “the most cultured man of the 20th century”.
Teilhard de Chardin’s errors are too numerous to relate here, but amongst the more prominent were his rejection of a literal interpretation of Genesis and his belief in the evolution of man that will one day reach “the Omega point,” at which juncture man will have become divine. The clear implication from these errors is a denial of Creation and the Original Sin. Teilhard was also an advocator of the doctrine that all religions are more or less evolving towards the same “Omega point,” albeit at a more or less advanced pace.
In the 1960s Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) spoke enthusiastically of de Chardin’s Christology in Ratzinger’s famous Introduction to Christianity. He wrote:
“It must be regarded as an important service of Teilhard de Chardin’s that he rethought these ideas from the angle of the modern view of the world and, in spite of a not entirely unobjectionable tendency toward the biological approach, nevertheless on the whole grasped them correctly and in any case made them accessible once again. Let us listen to his own words: The human monad “can only be absolutely itself by ceasing to be alone”. In the background is the idea that in the cosmos, alongside the two orders or classes of the infinitely small and the infinitely big, there is a third order, which determines the real drift of evolution, namely, the order of the infinitely complex…”
Henri de Lubac’s errors are again too numerous to record here. Suffice it to say Pius XII enumerates them in Humani Generis. A closer study of the errors of de Lubac, together with the relevant excerpts from Pius XII’s Encyclical can be found here: http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1993_December/They_Think_Theyve_Won_PartIII.htm
Suffice it to say John Paul II bestowed the honour of the red hat on de Lubac as well as von Balthasar. Every Pope from John XXIII to the present incumbent of the See of Peter has expressed regard for one or other, or all, of these heterodox theologians who were previously condemned by the Magisterium for their heresy.
Interestingly, following Vatican II, the disciples of de Lubac, von Balthasar and de Chardin split into two camps – ultra progressive and “conservative” progressive. Each camp puts out its own propaganda via an international journal. The ultra progressive journal, first published in 1965, is called “Concilium” and its “conservative” progressive nemesis, first published in 1972, is called “Communio”.
Concilium was co-founded by Karl Rahner SJ, Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx O.P., Yves Congar O.P. and Fr. Johann Metz.
Communio was co-founded by de Lubac, von Balthasar, Ratzinger and, wait for it, Walter Kasper, who now appears to have shifted sides with his “Communion for the divorced and remarried” doctrine which is more at home in the Concilium camp, where Pope Francis appears theologically to reside, than in the Communio camp where Pope Benedict XVI clearly lives.
So why am I writing all of this? Well, I am trying to demonstrate how these two camps, both Modernist, have different views as to how Vatican II, whose documents they adversely influenced, should be implemented in the Church.
As far as the Communio camp is concerned the reform should be moderate, a balance between Traditional and liberal thought. For the Concilium people this is unthinkable. They want complete revolution. And so there is great angst between the two camps.
We may well ask the question why so much pressure was put on Benedict (Communio) when he was Pope, yet Francis (Concilium) is welcomed with open arms as a great reformer. Ultimately, both camps are anti-Thomist, one to some degree, the other completely. Both favour a return to Biblical sources and the teaching of the Fathers, exactly the excuse used by Protestants for their Reformation. So it really doesn’t matter which side gains the upper hand, the fact remains that the Church is in the hands of Modernists.
So how does this all fit with Pope Francis SJ and the dire prediction of Fr. Malachi Martin? Well, as I have already stated, Pope Francis is of the ultra liberal Concilium camp which explains his contempt for authority, the Traditional institutions of the Church, his less than favourable view of the Tridentine Mass and his non-committal attitude in regard to the Church’s moral teaching.
If anyone wants to know, then, why that horrendous Synod on the family is taking place in Rome right now, they need only read the following excerpt from Concilium:
“Concilium Journal is deliberately based on Scripture and the history of salvation. At the same time it has the humble courage to confront the new problems arising from the human conditions of today. It seeks, on the basis of our contemporary situation, a better understanding of the Word of God for man and the world of our time. A theological insight of this kind is necessary for anyone who, acting in faith, is actively engaged in the Church and in the world. Concilium’s pages bring a fresh theological breath, creative insights and perspectives. No wonder then that it continues to find support among forward looking theologians, innovative pastoral practitioners and all those Christians who wish to enter into dialogue with diverse societies, with religions and cultures in every part of the world.”
Given that Hans Kung is one of Concilium’s alumni, I think we all know what this statement means.
Lest doubt remains, however, and lest some readers think my association of Pope Francis with this ultra liberal Concilium camp is an exaggeration, just read this abbreviated quote from Wikipedia on another of Concilium’s founders and alumni, Fr. Johann Metz:
“A student of Karl Rahner, he broke with Rahner’s transcendental theology in a turn to a theology rooted in praxis. Metz is at the center of a school of political theology that strongly influenced Liberation Theology. He is one of the most influential post-Vatican II German theologians. His thought turns around fundamental attention to the suffering of others…He levels a fierce critique of what he calls bourgeois Christianity and believes that the Christian Gospel has become less credible because it has become entangled with bourgeois religion…”
Compare this quote with the following address given by Cardinal Bergoglio to the Cardinals gathered for the conclave that elected him Pope.
Presenting juxtaposed images of the Church, one good and one bad, his Eminence delineated which one “must give light to the possible changes and reforms which must be made.”
He continued: “The first image is of the good Church coming out of herself to evangelise at the existential peripheries: those of the mystery of sin, of pain, of injustice, of ignorance, of doing without religion, of thought and of all misery.
The alternative image is of the bad Church which has become self-referent and sick from a theological narcissism, a Church which believes she has her own light, a worldly Church that lives within herself, of herself, for herself, which gives way to that very great evil which is spiritual worldliness.”
No prizes for guessing what the image of the “bad Church” represents!
It only remains for me to say that Pope Francis needs our urgent prayers, while we run for the hills!
One last observation, if I may. Was it coincidence that another Jesuit, Fr. Eduard Dhanis, successfully set about silencing the Message and Third Secret of Fatima just prior to the commencement of Vatican II?
I’ll leave it to others to reach their own conclusions.
As requested, Editor, here is a copy of a post on the “Bishop Fellay: Cardinal Kasper…” thread.
“When ministers are ignorant or neglectful of their duty, then the morals of the people also immediately decline, Christian discipline grows slack, the practice of religion is dislodged and cast aside, and every vice and corruption is easily introduced into the Church.” – Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, 1846
“If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something openly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defence” – Fr. Francisco Suarez SJ, one of the foremost theologians and Scholastic philosophers of the 16th-17th centuries
It’s just about impossible to avoid the thought that what we are witnessing in these days in Rome is open, diabolically influenced, apostasy, whatever the exact number of Bishops involved. If this whole assault against Divine Law was to stop immediately, the damage done already, over the last twelve months and culminating in the evil contained in today’s interim report from the Extraordinary Synod, surely calls for reparation on an immense scale. Our Lord is being mocked before our very eyes, as each passing day brings much of Scripture and Catholic prophecy into ever closer focus.
“They will be fooled by evil spirits and by teachings that come from demons.” – 1 Timothy 4:1
“Well, these ones are false prophets, or false doctors, inasmuch as, raising a doubt without resolving it is the same as conceding to it.” – Saint Thomas Aquinas, Sermon “Attendite a falsis prophetis”
Truth be told, the revolutionaries’ tactic of deliberate ambiguity, which Pope Pius VI so clearly warned against 220 years ago, in Auctorem Fidei, now appears to be considered unnecessary. Seriously, what is left to defend if the sacrilegious reception of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord by those in a state of mortal sin, is to be sanctioned, encouraged and approved by the successors of the Apostles, those charged with leading, teaching and sanctifying the faithful? The gravity of such proposed sacrilege is really beyond words. It’s a truly terrible, painful thing to say, but, based in all the evidence to hand, there can be no doubt on where and with whom the final responsibility lies.
I know, I know, the usual caveat applies: none of us can judge the interior motives of anyone, and judgement of souls belongs to God alone. Actions and words and words are another matter. The Modernists tactic of speaking in “pastoral” rather than “doctrinal” terms has been tried and tested, and documented since Vatican II. The fact that revolutionaries such Cardinal Kasper are prepared to state that doctrine cannot be changed hardly amounts to reassurance on anything. It is only slippery word play, and direct contradiction of reason to say that doctrinal orthodoxy would still be honoured in the face of blatant, unashamed heteropraxis.
“Pastoral” practice, as Bishop Fellay has highlighted in the case of false ecumenism, is really nothing more than a tactic used to run around the bulwark of doctrine. What is taking place in these days conjures the thought of the Modernists’ hubris-fuelled panzers speeding around a doctrinal “Maginot Line”.
Given the diabolical prospect of institutionalised sacrilege, motives are probably of secondary interest. Is it faithlessness, cowardice, craven human respect, greed, blackmail or something more sinister? Cardinal Marx of Munich (the Church’s teaching is not a “static construct”), a member of the Pope’s much publicised consultative group of eight Cardinals has stated that “the majority of German Bishops are agreement with Kasper’s proposal”.
I wonder do these include those shameful episcopal porn barons who have invested large amounts of the Church’s treasure in Weltbild, one of the world’s largest publishers of pornography. I wonder if they include Bishops who have threatened to refuse the sacraments to those Catholics who refuse to pay the Church membership tax in Germany. Sex, simony, and sacrilege now appear to rule amongst the bishops of the lands evangelised by Saint Boniface.
It’s hardly cynical to muse that the German bishops are somewhat insecure concerning the loyalty of their contracepting, fornicating, divorcing, adulterous sponsors. “Church of the poor”: yeah, right. Of course we can’t blame it all on a Teutonic horde of sex obsessed laity with malformed consciences. I notice that dependably disgraceful prelates from elsewhere have, rather predictably, joined the reprobate chorus.
“The bishop should not fear since the anointing of the Holy Spirit has strengthened him: the shepherd should not be afraid since the prince of pastors has taught him by his own example to despise life itself for the safety of his flock: the cowardice and depression of the hireling should not dwell in a bishop’s heart. Our great predecessor Gregory [the Great], in instructing the heads of the churches, said with his usual excellence: ‘Often imprudent guides in their fear of losing human favour are afraid to speak the right freely. As the word of truth has it, they guard their flock not with a shepherd’s zeal but as hirelings do, since they flee when the wolf approaches by hiding themselves in silence…. A shepherd fearing to speak the right is simply a man retreating by keeping silent.’” – Pope Pius VI, Inscrutabile, 1775.
As stated above there is no doubt, frighteningly, about where final responsibility for what is enfolding lies. Remember the Pope laudatory words about “serene and profound theology” in the aftermath of Cardinal Kasper’s shocking address to the February Consistory. Remember the Pope’s very first Sunday Angelus address in which he praised a book penned by the arch progressive. Cardinal Kasper himself has stated that the Pope is the real strategist behind what is going on.
For all his “who am I to judge” line, and talk of “mercy” and “smelling the sheep”, as well as symbolic nods towards the downgrading of the Petrine Office, and talk of “synodality”, Pope Francis has offered abundant evidence that he is very willing and determined in wielding the full powers of the office of Supreme Pontiff. While famously stating in June of last year that he was not a “renaissance prince”, much of his exercising of papal authority might rather suggest the mind set of an oriental potentate. Just ask the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata, or Cardinal Burke.
“The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the Pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility.”
– Father Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, in 1926.
No doubt many very loyal, pious Catholics, who through no fault of their own, and due to the influence of careerist papolatrist opinion formers, are lacking in a full understanding of the Church, are at this moment suffering severe crises of faith. No doubt they include some of those faithful whom the Pope spoke of, less than warmly, as seeking “doctrinal security”.
We can but pray that, before souls are further imperilled, Pope Francis will, by the grace of God and the intercession of Our Lady, consider the grave demands of the Petrine Office, as did a true and outstanding pastor of souls, Pope Saint Pius X:
“With our soul full of fear for the strict account we shall have to give one day to the Prince of Pastors, Jesus Christ, with regard to the flock entrusted to us by Him, we pass our days in continued anxiety to preserve the faithful, as far as possible, from the most pernicious evils by which human society is at present afflicted.” – 1906 Encyclical Pieni l’animo
The words of saints, Doctors of the Church, eminent theologians, and Popes themselves concerning legitimate resistance to Popes have been presented on this blog numerous times, notably those of the Jesuit Cardinal Saint Robert Bellarmine, who can be included under three of those categories. His words written to Clement VIII concerning one of the Pope’s predecessors bear repetition, if only to show that the Church has been faced with problem Popes before, no matter that the present day crisis is almost certainly without precedent:
“Your Holiness knows the danger to which Sixtus V exposed himself and all the Church, when he undertook to correct Holy Scripture according to the lights of his own personal knowledge. Truly, I do not know whether the Church has ever been subject to a more grave danger”- Jesuites: travaux sur les Saintes Ecritures in F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, vol.III, cols.1407-1408
The words of a great 15th-16th century Dominican theologian, Francisco de Vitoria serve to reinforce the point:
“A Pope must be resisted who publicly destroys the Church. What should be done when the Pope, because of his bad customs, destroys the Church? What should be done if the Pope wanted, without reason, to abrogate Positive Law?”
His answer is: “He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension. Consequently, … if he wanted to destroy the Church or the like, he should not be permitted to act in that fashion, but one would be obliged to resist him. The reason for this is that he does not have the power to destroy. Therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing so, it is licit to resist him. The result of all this is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and actions, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandates prevented.” – Obras de Francisco de Vitoria (Madrid: BAC, 1960), pp. 486f.
Or, 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).
I have posted before that this conduct of this papacy has taken on the appearance of a runaway train hurtling downhill. If what we are being presented with in Rome does not shock people into grave concern nothing ever will.
The Barque of Peter is most certainly taking on water from all sides in these days. It doesn’t help that holes are being drilled from the inside. The cackles from Hell can almost be heard amidst the storm. And yet we know with total certainty that Our Lord is still on board. We know with total certainty that in the end the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph.
In the meantime we must pray much for the Holy Father.
Your comments remind us again of the wisdom and holiness of the Popes and saints before the Council, whose writings were so crystal clear. Not like today when we have to read Church documents over and over again to try and get a sense of what is hidden amongst all the verbiage.
I am utterly convinced that there are men high up in the clergy who have either lost the Faith or who are infiltrators whose remit was to climb up the ranks in order to destroy the Church from within. Could there be a few Cardinals and bishops in the service of Lucifer? I’m absolutely certain of it.
Those Cardinals and Bishops in the service of Luther are at this very Synod. Why else would they be doing what they’re doing? It’s the Synod of the Devil. Freemasonry is trying to dismantle the moral edifice of the Church.
As for apostasy, it’s all over Prophecy, which is being fufilled now.
“In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” ~Cardinal Mario Luigi Cardinal Ciappi, O.P.
I agree that there will be some apostates at that Synod, but Our Lord is still in charge of His Church and He will deal with these perverters of the Faith in due course. Satan is like a dog on a leash right now, having more slack than is normal. But he will be reigned in and chained up again very soon, I have no doubt about that. The Gates of Hell will not prevail!
I couldn’t have said it better myself, Athanasius. Soon, Mother Mary will be able to return to Rome…
Many thanks for posting that excellent comment, full of superbly apposite quotes, again.
This jumped out at me and it goes without saying that I couldn’t agree more: If what we are being presented with in Rome does not shock people into grave concern nothing ever will.
There’s not a lot anyone can add to that gem – the original self-evident truth…
I know, folks; it’s déjà vu all over again. As with the previous post the following has been reposted from a previous thread.
The remarkably secretive nature has understandably attracted attention. Given the amount of novus ordo hot air we have been treated to concerning “dialogue”, “listening”, “openness” etc. etc. such covert conduct of proceedings during a Synod is unworthy to say the very least. Are those charged with leading, teaching and sanctifying souls to be considered justified in acting like amoral, back room dealing, Chicago political ward bosses.
Surely the use of word “remarried” in all this discussion is totally, utterly out of order. In the absence of a Church annulment, while the second spouse is alive, there is no such thing as a second “marriage”.
Maybe the issue of Holy Communion for adulterers was seen by most of us as the main issue in advance of the Synod. It now appears that the seemingly ever present sodomite agenda has been well and truly hitched onto the discussion of “pastoral” care for those in “irregular unions”. I don’t know why any of us should be surprised. The promoters of the perversion just will not let this rest. Are we seeing the hand of the sodomite Mafia within the Church, or even of personally compromised prelates at work here?
I believe “personally compromised prelates” goes a long way to explaining what we are witnessing in Rome right now. Without a doubt, as the man said when his wife refused to believe he’d given up smoking…
I am not in the least bit shocked by this. Sitting in a lifeboat watching the Titanic sink, onw would expect to see the odd explosion or five before it goes under.
The remnant will rebuild the Church. Not in my lifetime unfortunately.
Don’t be too sure about not seeing the restoration in your/our lifetime – when the time for retribution and restoration comes, I think it will be soon enough and swift. Then, as the OT priests did after the Babylonian captivity, there will be a round-table “where did we go wrong/how to put this right” discussion – on an entirely different level from the garbage coming out of this dreadful, if not sinful, synod. So, cheer up 😀
The response to my little review of Kasper’s book on amazon
is indicative of the mainstream reaction to Bergolio and Kasper as breaths of fresh air blowing through the dank dreary dampness of the Catholic Church.
Excellent review, Stephen. I tried to answer the numpty who accused you of being more Catholic than the pope (by saying anyone who is NOT more Catholic than this pope is a Protestant) but they wanted me to jump through hoops to get it online and I just don’t have the time right now, but very well said and as you say, the responses underneath only serve to confirm the wonderful “spirit of Vatican II”…
PS whatever happened to your avatar? Remember, avatars are attached to the email address you used when creating your avatar.
I know what it is! Split personality.
Could be 😀
What an oasis of sanity this blog offers to those who are trying to make sense of this brazen mockery of the Faith engineered by the humble Francis. Pope Honorius (thank you Athanasius ) was posthumously anathematized, not for the sin of heresy, but for sacrificing truth for worldly peace, where does this put the scheming bishops and popes of the Church who have made ecumenism a tenet of the Faith?
This Synod is going to cause more trouble for faithful Catholics than Vatican II did. Those who know anything about their Faith are going to be ridiculed as Pharisees, marginalized and painted as uncharitable lunatics.
As for what comes out of this Synod- how many Catholics would know its ramblings are not binding? I know a priest who says the TLM (by the book), but holds that it is simply a different rite, the NO is just as good, and that Vatican II is to be accepted without question! The damage done by the NO is irreparable, I think.
It looks like the enemies of the Church are trying their best to discredit her, the Spotless Bride of Christ, with the charity (of JP II- love, love and more sappy love), the humility (of Francis – who am I to judge- there is no difference between the sin and the sinner, they are to be accepted and loved until they can sin no more ) and the ignorance and arrogance of the “people of God” (God wants me to be happy- in this world first- so I flit from one pleasure to another- until I get to heaven,my destiny) … I know they will never destroy her, but it looks like they have the upper-hand right now!
Many thanks for your kind words about this blog – to which you are a first class contributor yourself
I had a telephone call from a priest this evening who is over the moon about the fact that several cardinals have spoken out to challenge Papa Francis, so I agreed with him that this was certainly a step forward.
And although, of course, you are right to say that it looks like the enemies of the Faith have the upper hand right now we can take comfort in the fact that they’re only winning small battles – the war is already won and victory is ours!
Things are bad, while at the same time “looking up”, when pro-lifers begin to see the light. Until now, they’ve been situated firmly in the “see no evil, hear no evil and definitely SPEAK no evil” camp. Progress at last.
Regarding the interim report from the Synod, I’m scratching my head wondering how any person of God can for one moment, consider anything positive in homosexuality. I mean how do they square that one in their minds? If we must debate using the flavour of the month ‘mercy, then surely to be fair, we must conclude that giving condoms to poor families as merciful, or perhaps giving heroin to addicts as mercy in practice? Is it perhaps because that homosexuality is rife among the Conciliar Church? I don’t know, it is a genuine question.
They have lost the plot. Completely.
I disagree wholeheartedly with Sedevacantism, but you can see why they fall into error. You must pity them for they have walked away rather than cling on to the Church by the finger nails in the face of the scandal and error that is now mainstream.
God help us.
“They have lost the plot completely”.
That very much depends on what plot some of them are involved in, if you see what I mean.
I wonder what Pope Benedict thinks of this synod. He may not have the power of the papacy but he is a bishop of the Church, not to mention a baptised and confirmed Catholic. He could easily speak out. What a powerful thing that would be, although I admit that it would only add to the confusion of having two “popes” living in the Vatican.
We have speculated that the “bishop dressed in white” mentioned in the secret of Fatima is indeed Pope Benedict. If he started speaking out in this then I could well imagine his enemies would want to get rid of him. This fits in with everything Athanasius said earlier of the rival camps “Concilium” and “Communio”.
I’m sure I’ve heard you say before that it has been said that Our Lady will intervene when the Sacrament of Marriage is almost completely destroyed. Surely the time must be close considering Marriage is under attack both in the Church and the secular world?
You took the words out of my mouth. How on EARTH can Pope Benedict, no traditionalist for sure but clear enough on the pro-life and family issues, sit by in silence while marriage is openly attacked within the Vatican itself. The mystery of iniquity – with bells and whistles and getting louder by the minute.
My earlier remarks about Our Lady intervening at the point when marriage and the family are almost destroyed comes from the Quito prophecy (Our Lady of Good Success). I think all the signs spoken of by Our Lady in that prophecy are now visible to us, right down to the part about those who should speak out (the bishops) not doing so.
As regards Cardinal Ratzinger, he will not speak out because he’s a diplomat just like all the other silent ones. There are certainly no martyrs in Rome today, or anywhere else in the Church for that matter. They’re all way too charitable and merciful, not to mention enlightened, to go around offending people with the truth. That’s what the old “narcissist” Church of the past did, remember!!
No, we’ll get some kind of opposition subliminal message from Cardinal Ratzinger and others of his camp, probably a one-liner slipped into a book somewhere. But there will be no preaching from the rooftops or driving the money-changers from the Temple. That kind of teaching authority, the Magisterial authority of the ages, died with Pope Pius XII. All we’ve had since then are Populist Popes with the X-Factor!
What I find very important regarding the current synod is that its musings have relegated Catholics, of ages past, to the level of idiocy. Those Catholics suffered and/or sacrificed throughout their lives in attempting to abide, however failingly, with the tenets of Mother Church and are now, de facto, scoffed by the recent and current holders of papal office and episcopacy.
The Church is becoming Protestant-ised, where individual parishes will follow the proclivities of their, at the time, pastor, which in turn, will attract those of similar ilk. Much like the CofE?
Clergy must stand-up and be counted, which must include the Traditional Orders and SSPX, there exists no longer the excuse for division. If your diocesan bishop has, de facto, abandoned the tenets of Mother Church, how can he be entitled to the rule of obedience?
Yes, the Church of the past has been rubbished by the ever so humble (NOT) Francis and his Merry Men. But the Church has been protestantising for years now – it’s not only now “becoming Protestantised”. That said, you are spot on to exhort the clergy to stand up and be counted.
Trouble is, the traditional Orders set up to counter the SSPX did so on condition that they don’t criticise what is going on in the Church. Will they do so now? Let’s see. The responses (or silence) greeting this scandalous document will tell us who’s who and what’s what.
Yours Para 2: Exactly, that is why they have to be counted – NOW!
Oh, how I agree with the posts already presented here.
This is a little of what Christopher Ferrara had to say in the Remnant newspaper
“The Synod had a very clear vision: nullification of the Church’s censures of sexual immorality of all kinds, including sodomy, and with this nothing less than an effective decommissioning of the Church as moral preceptor of humanity. This is what the aged Modernist cabal Pope Francis put in charge of this sham of a Synod has in view”.
This link has the full article. God help us all. Pope Francis and every Bishop really do require our prayers.
Great article by Christopher Ferrara, as ever, Theresa Rose. Many thanks for posting the extract and link.
This report puts an interesting twist on things:
What that report shows, is that the Pope has completely lost control of his own cardinals and that the maniacs are running the asylum. Anyone’s jaw dropping? Thought not.
Haha – I just used the “jaw dropping” description after you, Editor.
I didn’t think the synod would go well, but even still I am somewhat surprised at what a debacle it is, and at the behaviour of certain prelates.
Maybe I was naive, but even if the event was abused by modernists to push their own ideas, I still thought the proceedings would be conducted with a degree of decorum / dignity. How wrong was I?
It’s exactly what the Pope wants. He is, after all, a Collegiality man!
I read that article earlier, Athanasius, it is jaw dropping and shows what a complete rabble the current Church hierarchy is.
This article is associated:
Cardinal on his own Report’s paragraphs on homosexuality: “Ask him! I didn’t write this, the author must know what he meant!”
What an absolute shambles this synod has turned into, with those responsible for reports rejecting ownership of the content, and individuals being accused of abusing their position to put forward their own pet theories.
And all this from behind a veil of secrecy. Its absurd.
The one positive is to see the various sources of criticism springing up – such as the Patriarchate of Lisbon and the President of the Bishops Conference of Poland – which have laid into the synod and its preliminary document. (Not to mention the lay association which has called the document “a betrayal”).
Sadly most Catholics will be lapping up the secular media reports of the synod, which are of course full of praise for Francis the destroyer.
“shambles” is the word. “Evil” being the adjective.
The confusion is all part of the methodology of the Modernists. They know precisely what they’re doing! This is the acceptance of immorality by the back door.
If they come out with the most outrageous propositions to begin with the Synod Fathers will object and a compromise position, apparently in line with Church teaching, will eventually be reached to the satisfaction of all. Later, they will set off the time bombs in the texts that will result in a “pastoral” negation of the moral teaching of the Church. They will do this by degrees claiming that they act in the name of the Synod. We’ve seen this procedure at work before!
I spent 2 hours last night explaining to the kids why we will be going to Glasgow on Sunday’s for Mass. To my surprise they accepted it readily, given that there is no RE as such in our schools.
Editor:What that report shows, is that the Pope has completely lost control of his own cardinals”
On the contrary, they are doing exactly what he wants. He has taken no action of any kind against the perverts in Argentina masquerading as priests. He has however persecuted Clergy for opposing his New Religon, A full in depth report will appear in La Republica shorty no doubt.
Yes, Joseph, the entire synod has been set up by Pope Francis to take the “liberal” line – no doubt about it. But the fact that anything at all can be written into a document at will, by any individual, suggests to my simple (say nothing!) mind, that the person allegedly in control, isn’t. I speak merely in practical terms, not of the overall intention and thrust of the Synod.
Hope to meet you on Sunday – tearoom after Mass, don’t leave without saying “hi!”
Thanks Pat. As if the Church ever denied that any sinner, even those engaged in sins which “cry to Heaven for vengeance” lacked various gifts and talents. A false dichotomy, with pink ribbons on, if you get my drift…
A very long time ago a joke was going round, to wit, “there are only two things God doesn’t know: how many orders of nuns there are and what the Jesuits are going to say next.” That was well before Vatican II. The situation is too serious for jokes now. I will take to the hills – to pray.
Notice how the BBC (Gay TV) latched on immediately to the implications of the Synod statement for homosexuality:
“Halfway through the Vatican synod on the family, Pope Francis has scored a first quiet victory.
He has convinced many Catholic Church leaders to moderate their formerly strongly critical language about gay unions, and to admit that homosexuals may have “gifts and qualities to offer.”
David Willey (who else?)
“A first quiet victory”? Get a grip! This news is roaring round heaven like the devil and his minions when Michael and his armies kicked their rebellious posteriors into Hell. What “gifts and qualities” for the love of God? Truly, morality is turned upside down, wrong is now right. My sainted mother just turned in her grave. These utterances are straight from the gay lexicon of Stonewall, “Ma Pepinster,” Tina Beattie, the crew cut feminists of academia and their ilk. They are now waiting for Francis to invite them to St. Peter’s to do the tango in front of the altar. Maybe he’ll even join them. No more prosecutions for desecrations of the sanctuary. Anything goes. The wide road just got a lot wider still. Did Sodom really happen, or was it “Sodom and ‘Tomorrow'” perhaps?
Thanks to Athanasius for brilliant comments.
Thank you for your kind comment on my comments, I’m glad you found the information useful.
Your own comments are so true and expressed so well. I liked that wee tinge of humour throughout, especially the joke about the orders of nuns and the Jesuits.
As for the BBC, I remember the late Bishop Canisius van Lierde telling me in the Vatican many years ago that the BBC was the most hostile towards the Church of all the TV networks. He was absolutely right about that. “Gay TV” right enough!
Absolutely loving the hysteria and panic stricken comments. Been ages since I had such a good laugh! Headless chickens running around screaming inanities and showing the tru bigoted colours. If an ‘interim report ‘ creates such all round panic can’t wait for thr definitive version when that comes out. Perhaps the church should offer similar conciliatory words to those afflicted with hetrosexuality, and consider the qualities and gifts they too have to offer and accept these persons into the church also; despite their hysterical rantings and overall lack of charity to others who may disagree.
You really are pathetic!
At least the Synod is attempting to look at the position of the Catholic Church in relation to the Modern world and do something about it.
Editor: the above is the only printable sentence in a rather lengthy post which amounted to nothing more than a nasty ad hominem attack on Athanasius, with a dollop of the usual insulting venom directed at my sainted self. I get the feeling Domchas doesn’t like me… 😯
Ah, yes! The Sin-od accommodating the modern world. And here we Catholics have been believing all this time that the modern world should be converting to the Catholic Church. Well fan my brow and slap my mush with a slippery fish and call me Brenda! I could have sworn that the divinely instituted Church was charged with setting the norms of morality, not the modern world.
It is not Catholic to behave in a way which is demeaning to yourself while attempting to demean others. Those who have read your many single-minded comments are aware of your stance on homosexuality. That isn’t Catholic either. If you could look objectively at your postings you would acknowledge that it is you who appear to be hysterical.
Therese, Athanasius said call me Brenda, so I did!!! The hysteria I have mentioned is exactly that hysterical reaction to a half finished report/synod. No one and I do mean no one, not even the infallible Teaching of ct. Bloggers knows what the outcome will be. They may know what they want the outcome to be, but that is something quite different from what may or may not be. No one as yet knows, the debate continues, but don’t be so foolish as to assume the outcome. Pray ( or as it was PF1 asked the church to pray is that statement to be disobeyed by ct bloggers), even fast for the correct outcome through the Holy Spirit from the Synod. Although I do doubt it , You may be very surprised at the results of Your prayer.
Someone already mis-translated ‘evaluate’ to ‘value’, and I wonder if that’s going to set a pattern for an anything-goes interpretation of the final documents. Maybe I’m just paranoid, believing in the conspiracy against the Church, but the enemies of the church will exploit every weakness in these documents to further undermine the doctrine.
Earth to Dale… Earth to Dale…
Are you being serious? The document is merely a formal statement putting together what Pope Francis himself and individual Cardinals have been saying ever since this Synod was announced (and long before, in fact.)
I’ve seen that claim about mistranslation of “value” – what the heck difference does it make when the sense is exactly the same, i.e. stop condemning sins and start “evaluating” them with a view to accommodating them. Gimme strength.
And, er, “paranoid” may not be the word – out of touch (completely) describes your unbelievable condition of ignorance, more accurately. “Ignorance” here is not used as a pejorative term but, literally, in the sense that you do not have the knowledge of the monumental crisis which has afflicted the Church for the past fifty odd years. Did you read the Akita quote which I posted on our website at http://www.catholictruthscotland.com ? If not, please do and click the link (words in bold) to read a page about the Akita prophecy coming true before our very eyes.
I got the tip on Catholic Answers Live. That’s all I know.
Catholic Answers is one of those groups who’ve had their heads in the sand for ages, they refuse to admit there has been a crisis. It’s like Michael Voris, who runs a TV station (Church Militant) but refuses to acknowledge that the Pope is wrong about anything. I wonder what he’s saying about this document now?
I think I have come across rather harshly in my original response to you, for which I apologise. The reason for my hard words is because we meet with so many Catholics who are “in denial” absolutely refusing to face up to the truth of this awful crisis in the Church, about which our good God took the trouble to warn us in advance, through messages from Our Lady way back in the 17th century at Quito in Ecuador, and later at Fatima in Portugal (1917) and Akita, in 1973.
The trouble with groups such as Catholic Answers is that they have a totally false understanding of obedience in Catholic life. They think it means that a pope is not to be in any way criticised, that he cannot make mistakes or err in teaching in any way. That is NOT – and never had been – the teaching of the Church.
Hence they elevate the reigning pope to the position of being a cross between a cult leader who must be followed without question no matter what nonsense he talks, and a god.
I hope this clarifies a little why I reacted so sharply to your mention of Catholic Answers, as your original source. They attack “traditional” Catholics (at one time there was no other kind!) for being “disloyal/disobedient” where, in fact, it is they who are disobedient to the Faith – which is the highest virtue. Obedience serves Faith, not the other way round.
Archbishop Lefebvre once famously said: “Satan’s masterstroke is to have got Catholics to disobey the whole of Tradition in the name of obedience.” It is through this diabolical strategy that the entire crisis in the Church came into play in the first place and continues to cause mayhem. Thankfully, now that we are reaching the end, some former addicts of the false obedience drug, are coming into rehab! Eventually, they will be completely cured!
I do understand and appreciate your analysis, but my perspective of Catholic Answers Live (just a personal perspective that I think is common) is because they are apologists, they have to “really believe” that somehow it will all turn out good. They claim that the doctrines themselves won’t change now, or after the 2015 sessions. My concern is that this is an extremely critical time in history, when a lot of Protestants for example are taking a new look at the Catholic church, and there’s a powerful desire on the part of church officials to bring them in. Especially gays, because the civil movements to recognize gay marriage all across the U.S. and elsewhere look to be unstoppable.
Every concession on the part of the church, even if it’s totally informal and has zero doctrinal impact, will be exploited to the maximum extent by the media and all opponents of the church, to say that “once again, the church has been proven to be wrong and behind the times”, etc. But you already know that. I’m just commenting that since the most fundamental role of the Devil is as a liar and deceiver, the thing we can anticipate with most certainty is that the new attacks will exploit every single aspect of these synods to twist the truth, well beyond whatever doubts are created in the synods themselves. Lots of people will be overwhelmed by the media reports – those who watch TV and listen to commercial radio especially.
Maybe I’m overly paranoid, as I first suggested, but I see the current synod as opening a small crack in the foundation, and the evil forces, with great assistance of the media, are hitting that crack with everything they have, to try to break it wide open.
OTOH, I have found a lot of value in Catholic Answers Live, as they do make the distinctions between doctrine and people’s assumptions pretty clear. Should I worry that they’re going to be hopelessly corrupted?
I remembered reading a debate between Catholic Answers and The Remnant, a Catholic traditional paper. Catholic Answers were attaching the Remnant. I couldn’t find the first article but this one is very good also.
I thought it might help you to see the problem with Catholic Answers.
I get Bishop Williamson’s newsletters, which helps me understand where the ‘modern’ church is deviating from tradition. He may not be totally correct, but he does at least lay out enough of the issues to get me thinking.
Be careful with Bishop Williamson’s take on things. He makes some good points but with a view to leading people into a schismatic mentality.
If I were you I would keep up to date via the SSPX USA website, here: http://sspx.org/
Alternatively, you can keep an eye on DICI, which is also linked with the SSPX: http://www.dici.org/en/
On that note, it’s interesting that the Pope ordered the documents to be written up in the vernacular, not Latin. The vernacular makes ambiguous words and phrases much easier to insert into texts. That’s how Fr. Bugnini was able to obscure the Sacrifice of Calvary behind so much Protestant meal theology when he created the New Mass in the vernacular.
On the theory of gradualism, the clearest statement that I’ve heard so far is that a person’s spirituality, or spiritual progress, may be gradual, but gradualism has no place in evaluating or accepting sin. What’s being reported of synod discussions is puzzling to me on those points. How can one accept or be forgiven of sin gradually?
What they’ve actually done with this “theory of gradualism” is reverse the Church’s teaching. That teaching has always been that unrepented habitual sin, especially sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments, gradually deteriorates into worse sins. What the dishonest bishops of this Synod appear to be saying is that it works the opposite way, i.e., that habitual, unrepented sin, once embraced as pastorally acceptable, will gradually lead to virtue and amendment of the lives of the enslaved. Of course nowhere in their argument to they actually mention the words “sin” or “grace,” probably because they believe in neither. I think the Latin name for this kind of episcopal doublespeak is ‘Codswallop’!
I’m a bit naive perhaps. It’s hard to understand that they could be so blatantly devious on matters of sin. I assumed that they wanted to address the issue of gays who grow up in the church with their parents, only to be excommunicated when they “come out” publicly. I don’t know if anything can be done differently, if that’s actually one of their concerns, but it seems like they can’t just delay addressing the actual sinful behavior, i.e. gradualism for sin. If they really intend to delay expulsion (or whatever) for unrepentant sinful behavior, without creating a major schism, then they must have something extremely clever up their sleeves.
“…we have to draw a line in what we say about the Holy Father or we’ll end up Protestants like Paisley and half the hierarchy!”
Hilarious! And so true!
Is there anything to say in response to this, other than “and so say all of us”?
And, of course, thank you, Cardinal Burke!
Well, I would like to see it on the front pages of the mainstream press!
The world needs to hear about the growing discontent.
Yes indeed, thank you Cardinal Burke for so clear an exposure of the evil deeds of those who are trying to change the Church’s moral teaching. I hope others speak out also calling on the Pope to make a public statement upholding Church teaching. Cardinal Muller is already on record along with Cardinal Burke, but we need to hear from the others.
“there’s a problem” with the Church, apparently. Who would have thought it? 😉
Not me, that’s for sure!
The one comical (in a sense!) thing about this whole tragedy is the way some Catholics are wide-eyed and expressing amazement at the goings on at the Synod – they really haven’t been paying attention these past few years 😯
I’d be grateful if that half of the hierarchy held similar views to Ian Paisley on the practice of sodomy, at least.
Touché ! Big time !
Now why is this looking a deja vu situation. Remember that Michael Davies (I think it was he) wrote about a similar situation during Vatican 2 when many prelates expressed disapproval about various documents etc., but they were pushed through anyway. Memories of microphones being switched off during appeals by orthodox prelates spring to mind. More of same, I say….
Well said. This Synod is, without doubt, an extension and peaking, if not completion, of the devastation wrought in the aftermath of Vatican II. No doubt about it.
I have less and less respect for Pope Francis. I mean, that’s difficult for me, because I started out with none.
But reading this report from the BBC, just confirmed my (extremely poor) opinion of him. Here’s an extract:
Pope Francis himself has listened attentively to the first week of the synod plenary discussions without making a single major intervention.
At the start of the meeting, he told bishops not to be afraid of speaking their minds honestly and openly, and not to be afraid of saying things which might displease him.
Yeah, well, let some hapless cardinal mention that perhaps a return to the Traditional Latin Mass might ignite a flow of grace into the Church again that would make it less onerous for adulterers and fornicators to admit their sin… then sit back and note what sort of reaction they get from the “humble” Pope Francis.
Could Pope Francis turn out to be one of the worst popes in history?
“…turn out to be”? You kidding?
Pope Francis is, without a shred of doubt, THE worst pope in history. I cannot see any other contender for the title. I really can’t. I used to think that “honour” would go to Pope John Paul II, but now, with every passing day, he seems to be more and more like a … er…. cough… um… saint ! 😀
I agree. I am finding it daily more difficult than ever to pray for the Pope.
It might be that my conscious is telling me that this is a Pope not imbued with modernism and liberalism, but rather a Pope knowingly and consciously dismantling the Church. I don’t know if that is a marxist or a masonic agenda but the effects are the same.
There was a rumor long ago that Fatima 3 might have something to do with a false pope or precursor to the antichrist being appointed to the papacy. The only reason I mention that is to ask whether there would be an intent to split the church, or just use it to lead the people astray.
The only surprise to all of this is the surprise.
Just some quick observations on the Synod document. First, it seems to me they used many words to say very little. As far as “unique gifts”, I was under the impression that, from scripture, as each of us a parts of the Body, we all have our own unique gifts to offer, which have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual preference. I also find it curious that, while Jesus preached a Gospel of repentance, the word ‘repent’ appears nowhere in the document, and the word ‘sin’ appears only once. Since when are love and permissiveness synonymous? How does validating sin prompt one to repentance?
Just like the modern world, these modernist Churchmen confuse love with lust. They are basically just humanists dressed in clerical clothes preaching a perverted Gospel and calling it “pastoral care”.
Kasper…. Africa is totally different from the West. Also Asian and Muslim countries, they’re very different, especially about gays. You can’t speak about this with Africans and people of Muslim countries. It’s not possible. It’s a taboo. For us, we say we ought not to discriminate, we don’t want to discriminate in certain respects.
So, Kasper has a problem with other Catholics who have a problem with sodomy.
How despicable is this Cardinal, a Priest of Christ, who tells us that we should not discriminate against sodomites.
Discriminate means to distinguish between things. For Catholics we distinguish and discriminate according to the Commandments and the Catechism. We use St Thomas as a guide and we should not hide behind circumlocutory verbiage in fear of persecution.
A ‘gay’ (now there is a word that has been hijacked) person is a sinner, end of story.
I also noticed in that interview with Kasper that he attempted to downplay the Sacred Scriptures with the typically Modernist ruse that the four synoptic Gospels differ in their interpretation of Our Lord’s words concerning morality. He then goes on to subtly speak of an evolution of doctrine which helps the Church to come to a clearer understanding of things over time. The man is a complete heretic. St. Pius X condemned this evil twisting of Divine Revelation by Modernists in his Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. A Prince of the Church speaking like the Prince of darkness. The “diabolical disorientation” doesn’t get any more pronounced than that!
And now of course, Kasper is denying the interview ever took place, unfortunately (for him) the journalist has provided both a recording and a transcript, along with two witnesses,
Ah but you see he uses a typical Modernist trick by qualifying his statement with “in certain respects”. If challenged he can say that unlike certain African and Muslim countries we don’t advocate executing sodomites.
You are absolutely right. Modernists are the very epitome of deviousness.
What a beautiful page to hold to at this time…
I just visited your link – it is a really beautiful page to have all those quotes to sustain us at this difficult time. Thanks for posting that.
Cardinal Pell: After ‘tendentious and incomplete’ Synod report, Church must reaffirm doctrine
The balloons taking part in this synod should be held to account and required to explain which of them is responsible for such a dismal document.
The humble Francis shows himself to be opaque, scheming and duplicitous, via the way the Synod is being run.
In the link, Pell says:
“In seeking to be merciful, some want to open up Catholic teaching on marriage, divorce, civil unions, homosexuality in a radically liberalising direction, whose fruits we see in other Christian traditions,”
Indeed. It must take an idiot to suggest rejecting Christs own teachings, and those of the Church, but it must take a super-idiot to suggest the same when you can already see how it turned out elsewhere.
How dispiriting it is, to see so-called Catholic prelates urging the Church to wander down the same paths of destruction where heretics have already dashed themselves on the rocks.
it seems very clear that Francis, Kasper and their minions have no Catholic faith whatsoever.
Look at the comments from Kasper in this link below, for him the Church is a democracy where majority opinion determines doctrine:
Regarding communion for adulterers, this statement was telling:
“The Pope also told me that [such problems exist] also in his family and he has looked at the laity and seen the great majority are for a reasonable, responsible opening.”
“The humble Francis shows himself to be opaque, scheming and duplicitous, via the way the Synod is being run.”
I agree totally. It’s hard to believe we could say that of a pope but it’s true.
It’s also shocking that it could well be because he sees the marriage breakdowns in his own family that the Pope is taking the liberal line at this Synod. If he believed in Hell, he would not be so ready to mislead his own kith and kin.
At last we are seeing some defenders of our Faith and the family with the rejection, frustration and opposition to those proponents of the sacrileges to our faith. I refer to the three English speaking “Relatio – Circulus Anglicus – groups A, B and C.
Follow the links provided below which will start with Group ‘A’ headed by Cardinal Burke (USA), then follows Group ‘B’ headed by Cardinal Napier(South Africa) and finally Group ‘C’ by Archbishop Kurtz (USA). The language is of course couched mainly in diplomatic speech but it is clear they (by that I mean ALL within their groups), are not afraid to stand up and be counted. Cardinal Kasper you cannot silence the African clergy!
Apparently during the delivery of the reports the Holy Father sat stoney faced – I do not think he likes to be reminded of his sacred duty. Interestingly Cardinal Kasper did not attend; perhaps he is trying to keep a low profile – I wonder why??
From La Stamp: author Marco Tosatti
Synod, another censorship, protests
The General Secretariat of the Synod announced the decision not to publish the reports of Dimensio Circuli Minores. The announcement provoked the protest of the card. Erdo, and numerous other Synodal fathers. The Pope mute and very serious. Finally father Lombardi announced that the reports of the committees will be made public.
Another complaint, and the Synod Fathers rebelled.
The General Secretariat of the Synod announced the decision not to publish the reports of Dimensio Circuli Minores.
Erdo took the floor, taking implicitly distancing himself from the report that bore his signature, and saying that if the “disceptatio” had been published then you should also publish those of the Dimensio Circuli Minores commissions.
His speech was followed by a storm of others on the same tone, underlined by applause.
The Secretary of the Synod, Cardinal Baldisserri, watched the Pope as if seeking guidance and enlightenment, but the Pope remained very serious and silent.
Also silent were the Undersecretaries at the Synod, Fabene, Forte, Schoenborn and Maradiaga.
Kasper was not there.
Finally father Lombardi announced that the reports of the committees will be made public.
Sorry for the poor translation but did my best to pick my way through Google translator.
Your post is very helpful, thanks for the translation. I was struck by this from it:
“Apparently during the delivery of the reports the Holy Father sat stoney faced – I do not think he likes to be reminded of his sacred duty.”
It’s astounding to read about this pope’s words and actions, and his silence when he should be speaking out, as at the Synod. I can’t quite make up my mind whether it’s Kasper who is making the balls for the liberal cardinals to fire or Pope Francis who is making the balls for Kasper and the other liberal cardinals to fire.
Whatever the answer, this synod has been a shocker. People are already talking and writing as if the Church has changed her teaching.
Judging by the evidence so far it seems that Pope Francis and Cardinal Kasper are two sides of the same coin, and I don’t think it’s Our Lord’s head on that coin. We must pray hard for both of them.
Reading the quotations on Stephen’s link re-emphasises the massive gulf that lies between the powers that be in the hierarchy today and the faithful Catholic hierarchy of the past.
You can be sure Our Lord’s head is not on that coin! In fact, I’m sure I can see horns on that head….
The more one reads of all this, the worse it gets. The monumental, unprecedented evil contained in the almost certainly pre-prepared 6,000 word relatio presented on Monday ensures that this particular October 13th will go down as a day of particular infamy. The stain on Church history is indelible.
“In the frenzy of their conceited conviction that they know so much these blind leading the blind have even turned upside down the eternally true concepts of truth and religion; they have founded a new system and in their wild, unbridled chase after new ideas they have forgotten to seek the truth where it dwells in safety; holy, apostolic traditions are scorned and in their place other doctrines resorted to which are idle and empty and uncertain and which do not possess the sanction of the Church; and with such things they believe in their delusion that they can uphold and preserve truth itself.”- Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi
Everything that we are finding about this Secret Synod, to use Christopher Ferrara’s very apt term, brings immense discredit to those responsible. And if anyone, even at this late stage thinks that this is not Pope Francis’ show, I’d appreciate it if they would pass their contact details on to Editor. I have another bridge over the river Liffey that I’d like to sell.
The arrogant, manifest, undeniable control being exerted over contributions and proceedings comes across as utterly, shamelessly at odds with the Pope’s words last week about bishops being free to speak their minds, not to mention all the constant talk about “dialogue”, “openness”, “listening” etc. etc. This circus appears to be nothing but one giant, brazen, readyup with any pretence to basic natural standards of transparency, fair dealing and even truthfulness thrown out the window, to say nothing of the almost unspeakable offence against God’s Law. Even ignoring the assault against Divine Law, Natural Law even, this exercise of barefaced and shameless manipulation would leave most hard-nosed, scruple-free political spinmeisters gasping in admiration and taking notes for their own benefit.
This attack has been flagged for a year, with the softening up barrage commencing with the tendentious survey of the “people of God”. Since then this blog and the Newsletter have given everyone fair warning. Eighty year old Walter Kasper, who many had hoped was safely in retirement, has obviously been recalled to the front benches and assigned a “special” task under this Pope. The Cardinal drum major of the Modernist band makes no secret of whose play list he is following.
And what about the statement of Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the Synod’s Secretary General at the Press Conference to present the Extraordinary Synod’s Instrumentum Laboris on 26 June?
“The difficulties that arise in relation to natural law can be overcome through more attentive reference to the biblical world, to its language and narrative forms, and to ‘propose bringing the issue to public discussion and developing the idea of biblical inspiration and the ‘order in creation,’ which could permit a re-reading of the concept of the natural law in a more meaningful manner in today’s world.’ [Instrumentum laboris, 30]”
Well, rather than “re-reading”, ignoring, battering, spitting upon, or trampling underfoot “the concept of natural law” would have offered listeners a more accurate warning of what was in store: not that those with a reasonably well functioning brain and elementary acquaintance with the Faith should have needed such a great big red alert.
If what is taking place at this Secret Synod doesn’t cause a massive outcry from Bishops with any grasp of the basics of the Catholic Faith and a bit backbone, I don’t know what will. I doubt anyone has followed the example of Saint Nicholas, who once punched a heretic fellow Bishop, but reportedly there are Bishops who are speaking up. I think some of the more orthodox Bishops were elected to head the different language discussion groups at the Synod. And yet, surprise, surprise the group of six papal appointees selected ad hoc to help in drafting the relatio was clearly intended to add weight to the progressivists battering ram.
As for another papal selection, the uber leftist Archbishop (!) Bruno Forte (who consecrated him Bishop by the way?), who has now been pinged for the relatio’s support of sodomy, does anybody in their right mind think that he might have decided, on the spur of the moment, to take a chance and run a solo on some personal project? That requires one to be deep into the realms of fantasy.
Cardinal Burke’s request for Pope Francis to confirm the brethren in the Faith is very welcome, of course. Don’t anyone hold you breadth though, going by the Pope’s homily on Monday where he said that “if laws do not lead people to Christ they are obsolete”. In the greater context, I think the message contained in those words appears pretty unmistakeable.
Cardinal Baldisseri’s words quoted above included mention of “more attentive reference to the biblical world”. Here’s a Biblical warning to Pope Francis and all prelates gathered at what may one day be spoken of as the Synod of Sodom:
“Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil.” – Isaias 5:20
“I hate arrogance and pride, and every wicked way, and a mouth with a double tongue.” – Proverbs 8:13
“And if the watchman see the sword coming, and sound not the trumpet: and the people look not to themselves and the sword come, and cut off a soul from among them: he indeed is taken away in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at the hand of the watchman.” – Ezechiel 33:6
I doubt the aid of Our Lady, Saint Joseph and Saint Michael the Archangel were ever more needed throughout the history of the Church.
Pope Francis’ is the architect of this trash. I’m sorry to have to say this, but that is an indisputable fact.
What is worse, he is showing complete cowardliness by not taking the lead on these issues, rather he would let others test the waters and get fried.
God help him.
As a interesting observation over this time, I have noticed on online conversations that those who mark this Synod as a freak show, are accused of being Protestant and picking and choosing doctrine to suit themselves.
I mean, what can you say to that? (rhetorically put)
I agree completely that Pope Francis is the architect behind what is going on at this Synod. The way his placemen have conducted proceedings and tried to control the message that the world will hear allows for no other reasonable conclusion. And “architect” is an appropriate word given that a lot of advance thought and planning obviously took place. It defies logic for anyone to say that the Pope wasn’t directing operations. Remarks have been made about all the notes being passed to Cardinal Baldisseri, the Synod Secretary General, during proceedings.
For all the progressivist-approved symbolic swipes at the unique dignity and power of the Petrine Office, Pope Francis obviously intends to exert full control when his programme is in play.
Once again, leaving aside the evil matter involved in Monday’s relatio, the very methods and tactics used in promoting the Pope’s agenda are scandalous and repugnant to anybody with any natural grasp of the principles of openness and straight dealing. Reportedly there was something more than a mini-revolt amongst the Bishops and Cardinals yesterday when the dramatic divergence between the relatio and what was actually said last week was discussed in full session.
Such resistance is the one good thing to emerge from the Synod so far. Let us pray for a lot more.
“The more one reads of this the worse it gets”.
I’ve just read a report on Cardinal Schonborn’s comments about the Synod and it couldn’t be worse. I’ve copied an extract plus the link to the whole report.
ROME, 16 October 2014: Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the archbishop of Vienna, today added further confusion to the already chaotic Synod on the Family in Rome.
Voice of the Family, an international coalition of pro-family groups, made the analysis following the Cardinal’s comments today from the Vatican Press Office.
According to Vatican correspondents following today’s Vatican press briefing on the Synod, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn said that people should see positive elements in morally defective relationships. He showered praise upon a homosexual couple he knew, referring to them as “marvellous” and the care of one partner for the other as “saintly”. The cardinal that the Church “shouldn’t look into the bedroom, but the living room of a family”. He seemed to call for the experiences of cohabitees to be listened to just as much as those of married couples. He also called for the Church to move beyond the language of the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, which he himself edited. http://voiceofthefamily.info/wordpress/?p=400
I knew he was a liberal but even so I am utterly shocked at this report. There must be people who are losing faith and will leave the Church as a result of this synod. I hope these cardinals stop to think about that before they say anything else on this subject.
Archbishop Lefebvre once said that he had lived through three World Wars, the third being the war against God commenced in the world and in the Church at the beginning of the 1960s. All three wars have been instigated by Germans/Austrians. It is the German/Austrian theologians and bishops together with their brothers in revolution from other countries on the Rhine who stand out at Vatican II as the most heterodox, liberals such as Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, Cardinal Franz Konig, Cardinal Joseph Frings, etc. It is hardly surprising, then, that the German/Austrian hierarchies today are now in a state of undeclared (though certain) schism with the Church. These are Luther’s children, no doubt about that.
I couldn’t agree more, Athanasius. As someone of Irish/Germany extraction it pains me to ask: Has anything good ever come out of Germany (aparr from currywurst and beer, of course!)?
Yes, they make some great cars. Very talented engineers!
I have to say in all fairness that I have some very good Catholic friends in Germany, and let’s not forget the SSPX seminary there (Zaitzkofen). It’s just a pity that the rogue minority always seems to gain prominence in Germany. I haven’t tried the beer or the currywurst, but I’ll bet they’re tasty.
I couldn’t agree more. It’s a beautiful country full of rich culture. It’s a shame, as you say , that the minority have tarnished this great country ‘s reputation.
In the 7th century Pope Honorius I was posthumously condemned, first by Pope St. Agatho, then by Leo II, for not condemning the Monothelite heretics. Honorius was not himself a subscriber to the heresy, which essentially denied the Hypostatic Union (the doctrine of two natures, divine and human, perfectly united in Christ Our Lord). His error was to seek peace with the heretics by silencing those who challenged their heresy. For this he was anathematized as related in this excerpt from the New advent web page on his life and Papacy:
‘St. Agatho died before the conclusion of the council. The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, …and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”‘
What, I wonder, would these holy Popes have to say about Pope Francis and current events?
It’s certainly interesting what’s happening at the synod but good to remember nothing at a synod is binding and we will have to wait and see exactly what is actually said rather than sound bite journalism that serves little purpose in promoting the health of the church
With respect, you are missing – completely – the point. We all know (even the journalists whom you warn against have said repeatedly) that Catholic doctrine cannot change. But if adulterers are told they may receive Holy Communion and if the Pope himself is saying that various sinful ways of living (cohabitation, same sex unions) are not that bad, really, that our merciful God isn’t too bothered, then – as one parent said to me in an email yesterday – “he is making it impossible to bring up children in a Catholic way.
There ARE no “media sound-bites” – no need for them given the shocking stuff coming from senior bishops and the pope himself. The media are reporting, verbatim in many cases, what heretics like Cardinal Kasper (one of Pope Francis’s favourite theologians, if not his one and only favourite) are saying. And, of course, the document released, subject of this thread, speaks for itself. It was not written by any journalist. And all attempts at blaming the translation fall at the first hurdle. For starters, our anti-Tradition pope should have mandated that it be produced in Latin, (as is usual with Church documents) rather than Italian to ensure no ambiguity or dangers in translating. Secondly, the only “mistranslation” on offer has been the possibility that “valuing” should have been “evaluated” which makes not a blind bit of difference. We don’t “evaluate” sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance to see if they still cry to Heaven for vengeance now that more people seem to be committing them and, er, oh, “society” has legalised that particular sin.
So, Steve, it’s not remotely “interesting” what’s happening at the Synod. It’s shocking. And anyone who is not shocked to the core, isn’t much of a Catholic.
Of course, there’s a sense in which we may not be too surprised – things have been bad now for so long. But we should never be so de-sensitised that we are not shocked at this scandalous synod, of which the sum and substance is a complete denial of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, His divinely constituted Church and the natural moral order. THAT is shocking.
Let me tell you, even the most secular of journalists are stunned by the noises emanating from the Vatican right now. Whatever the final outcome of this Synod, they know that for the first time in Church history they have a Pope in Francis who wants to see some of the changes they and the godless world have been agitating for for decades. They can’t believe their luck! So even if Church teaching on morality remains generally untouched at the end of this Synod, as it must because it’s infallible, the ramifications of the debate this Pope has initiated will be great damage to the Church and great harm to many souls. He has begun a new myth, the myth that Church teaching can be altered, abandoned or reinterpreted to suit the whims of a sinful and hostile world.
What troubled times!
The German bishops, who’s pornography business brings in billions of euros have been asked by the Pope to take the lead in their determination to push through their sinful agenda. The Pope leads from the sidelines trying to find a way to push this garbage through and call it God’s will, without causing a schism. When in fact the bulk of the German bishops are in schism already.
The Pope appoints homosexual lifestyle friendly prelates like Card. Wuerl to the synod to push his drivel too.
I thank God for the internet – as these fakes can not get away with their service to satan unnoticed anymore. The bishops in 1968 after Pope Paul’s Humanae Vitae played all their devious games, the Canadian bishops went further and refuted the Truth and now we see the “promotion” of that odious little priest from Salt and Light ( Canadian “Catholic” TV programme) Fr Rossica is now at the heart of this devious garbage, he was in the procession of at the opening Mass of the synod. What fake prelate(s) are behind his elevation to the English communication section in the Vatican. He is a clear heretic, he had an “ex” priest on his show promoting lies and he ( Fr Rossica) was praising his defiance of the magisterium.
All heresy comes from clergy, never a truer word………..
Sadly, all too much of this fake care for the “pastoral care” of sinners, who have no interest in Christ or His Body the Church, it is all about the money, the boys club and watching their friends backs. The Germans bishops are worth billions. What a bunch of pharisees make up all too many of the bishops we have. Hiding behind phrases like – the need to care for same sex couples children. What a devious lot! There is no more interest in same sex couples children from prelates who presided over the child abuse scandal that exposed them then, they have a devious agenda – but now that too is being exposed, thank Almighty God.
They love the dress up, the titles and the money, but as pharisees – they care little for anyone but themselves. Their arrogance is out there for everyone to see. What a joy! At last – honesty from the pharisees!
So now everyone can see ( however slowly – as no one wants to believe it) what a bunch they really are and Our Lord in His Wisdom will sort out this – truly exposed – schism within the body of bishops. The real prelates (some clearly are already) will have to man up (at last)!
Apologies that I am ignorant on this matter – in what porno business are the German bishops involved?
(I agree about the internet).
the German bishops 100% own and run their pornography business ( the biggest in all of Germany) they produce, publish and sell their pornography throughout Germany and it brings in billions of Euros to the German diocese’s every year.
Card. Marx (the pope appointee in the 8 Cardinal group to revamp the curia) owns over 13% of the bishops pornography business.
Look it up if you need more detail, it is from satan.
Which grave immorality, of course, explains his open heresy in this latest report from the Synod:
Addressing a key question raised by the Synod of Bishops on the family, a German cardinal said Friday that church doctrine can change over time.
The church’s doctrine, Cardinal Reinhard Marx said, “doesn’t depend on the sprit of time but can develop over time.”
“Saying that the doctrine will never change is a restrictive view of things,” Marx said at a Vatican press conference Friday.
“The core of the Catholic church remains the Gospel, but have we discovered everything?” he asked. “This is what I doubt.” Read more…
I’m afraid I can’t help doubting your revelation about Germany’s bishops running their own pornography industry. I’m always dubious about websites that make these rather fantastic claims. Perhaps if you could provide some reliable evidence, trusted websites, blogs, etc., that provide indisputable evidence to back these claims. Short of this kind of proof I think charity would forbid us believing, much less spreading, these kinds of horrendous accusations.
Unfortunately, this news about the scandalous German bishops business dealings in the world of pornography has been in the public domain for quite some time. Here’s one report from a very reliable source… And don’t miss this shocking follow up article. These are Godless men. There is no question about it.
Unless my memory is playing tricks, I believe Pope Benedict had a very hard time of it from these same German bishops when he lifted the SSPX (illicit and unjust) excommunications. All the pieces fit together like a jigsaw.
Thanks for those links. I’m in a state of shock right now, so I’ll say nothing. This beggars belief!
You can’t be blamed for your original scepticism. Bad as things have been for a long time now, who would expect Catholic Bishops to be promoting pornography? It truly beggars belief.
Thank you for the links. I doubt I would have believed this had I got it from any other source, it is mind-numbing.
I owe you an apology. Having followed the links provided by editor it is clear that the German Bishops are indeed involved in peddling porn. I would never have believed that Catholic bishops could sink so deep into such a cesspit of filth. God have mercy on the poor German faithful who have these men as their shepherds. Rome needs to act on this rebellious German hierarchy now!
Even Martin Luther would be disgusted!
Here is some information on the vile use to which some German bishops put the Church’s treasure, or the money that comes from their contracepting, fornicating, divorcing, adulterous sponsors.
The first of the following almost unbelievable links dates back almost two years. I don’t know if the prolonged efforts on behalf of faithful Catholics have yet managed to force a total disposal of this investment in the work of satan.
I thought I had lost the power to be shocked by anything these worldly princes of the Church get up to. I was wrong. Words are not enough to express my disgust and anger.
Thank you for informing me of this unspeakable evil.
Thank for posting bringing that scandalous information about Cardinal Schonborn to light, totally repulsive as it is. The Cardinal has being giving scandal for quite some time in various matters. And to think he is a former student and a protégé of Pope Benedict, and a favourite of the Neo Catholics (certainly until recent times). He was even spoken of as papabile following the death of Pope John Paul II.
More and more, I’m thinking that the sodomy agenda is the real end target at this Synod, with the toleration of other grave sins being a prized bridgehead. Given the influence of the devil, the flesh and the world over the last five decades and the global descent into immorality, an immeasurable number of souls are drowning in an ocean of contraception, fornication and adultery. Utterly, completely offensive to God as it of course is, given the immense numbers of so-called Catholics involved, there is a certain evil, craven, money grabbing, hireling-spirited logic involved where Bishops who lack the faith want to be liked by the “punters” in the pew. Don’t anyone misunderstand; there isn’t an ounce of justification in the pastors turning a blind eye to mortal sin and the accompanying unspeakable sacrilege at the altar, but the numbers involved offer some warped explanation of the twisted toleration of evil.
The same explanation quite obviously cannot be advanced in the case of sodomy. By definition, we are talking about a very small number of people. Given the well documented infiltration of seminaries since the Council, no doubt there are priests and Bishops throughout the Church who are guilty of this vice. The strategically placed sodomite mafia might be concealed but is most definitely present and very influential in the Church. That’s been undeniable for a long time, but until now there was no concerted public pushing of the envelope by Bishops, let alone a Pope.
I’m not sure though, that the existence of this sodomite mafia fully accounts, on its own, for what is being promoted right now. Maybe it’s blackmail of individuals on account of this sin, or other matters entirely, but it’s hardly wild speculation to think that there is very powerful coercion coming from dark forces outside the Church, in parallel with what is happening in the secular world. After all how many people in these islands, if stopped in the street even ten years ago, would ever have considered the slightest possibility of a same sex so-called “marriage”.
What a prize for satan to have princes of the Church and even a Pope contributing to the acceptance of a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, a sin that, as Saint Catherine of Siena informed us, made Our Lord nauseous.
Anyway, other bloggers might shed some light on this particular aspect of the Mystery of Iniquity unfolding in these days.
anyone who lives a filthy rich lifestyle like Card Marx is a pervert. What a disgrace living off the proceeds of pornography and claiming to be a defender of the faith. These pharisees make me vomit.
He spews his heretical garbage, he is just another fake prelate.
If what you say about Cardinal Marx is true then he surely is more to be pitied than angrily scorned. I accept without question that His Eminence is a scandal to the faithful by his remarks re the Synod, certainly heretical. But that he is a “pervert” living off the proceeds of pornography? Well, that sounds a bit too far fetched for me. I think as Catholics we need to be very careful in these troubled times not to allow our emotions to obscure sound and objective reasoning. Above all, we have to try to preserve charity and respect for our own soul’ sake. I hope you can see the merit in what I’m trying to say.
Again, having read the stories at Life Site News, I apologise for doubting you. It simply beggars belief that the German hierarchy is into selling porn. They surely are perverted men.
Please be more moderate in expressing your views on this blog. Believe me, I have every sympathy for your sentiments, and I am not known for my “let’s respect these faithless prelates at all costs ” That is NOT my position. I don’t respect Cardinal Marx & Co any more than I respect a negligent surgeon. Five minutes alone with them in a room and they’d be left in no doubt about my contempt for their apparently unconscionable hypocrisy. Demanding, remember, that the SSPX accept Vatican II hook line and sinker, when they don’t accept elementary doctrine! Howzabout THAT for hypocrisy, their porn business dealings aside?
Anyway, let’s take care not to get into name-calling (e.g. “pervert”) as that will only cause the red herring brigade to come on and take us off topic.
Stick to the issues, Graeme. Please and thank you!
You appealed at the top of the thread for the Bishops of these islands to speak out in defence of the Truth.
That might be slightly more than optimistic in the case of Archbishop Diarmuid of Dublin, whose public utterances consistently offer evidence of His Grace’s capacity to offend pious ears.
Below are a few remarks the Archbishop, who is the only Irish participant, is reported to have a made in an interview a few days ago at the Synod.His Grace informed us, less than reassuringly, that “everybody” at the synod is in agreement that the Catholic notion of indissolubility of marriage is “something which the Catholic church cannot change.” Hey, even Cardinal Kasper isn’t going to dispute that. I suppose, as Billy Boy Clinton would say, “it depends on what you mean by indissolubility”. The Janus faced Modernists, as long demonstrated, will happily vouch verbal acceptance to doctrine as unchanging, but then just ignore and contradict it with their evil, so-called “pastoral” action.
“Well, these ones are false prophets, or false doctors, inasmuch as, raising a doubt without resolving it is the same as conceding to it.” – Sermon “Attendite a falsis prophetis”
Those words of Saint Thomas Aquinas not surprisingly come to mind once more when reading other remarks by the Archbishop.
“This synod can’t simply repeat what was said 20 years ago.”
“[The synod] has to find new language to show that there can be development of doctrine, that there has been a willingness to listen to what emerged in the questionnaire that went out, and what was said in the synod itself,” he said.
Of course the big red Modernist-alert warning buzzer should go off when we read of “development of doctrine”; purely as a precaution, pending a fully orthodox, unambiguous explanation from the speaker. If the Archbishop were a regular reader of this blog he would have seen this particular issue addressed numerous times while the following words from the Church’s magisterium might serve as the briefest possible recap for those who might be confused by the his words:
“That understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession (moving away) from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.” – Vatican I, see Denzinger 1800
“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the Apostles and the new deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” Vatican I, see Denzinger 1836
Once again Pope Saint Pius X ought to set Archbishop Martin straight, if required.
Condemned: #59 – “Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.” Pope Saint Pius X, Lamentabili Sane Exitu, 1907
And for good measure here is another example of a Pope doing his God given duty of confirming the brethren in the Faith.
“Those who are unhappily infected with these errors (indifferentism and modernism), hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life.” – Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, #9, 1928
Words about “everybody” agreeing about the indissolubility of marriage appear a bit strange in view of what the Archbishop said on the matter of the schismatic Orthodox churches’ approaches to second marriages — where non-sacramental second unions are sometimes allowed.
“I think in the discussions that everybody is looking at different possibilities,” said Martin. “There isn’t … a simple Orthodox position which everyone would be completely agreed which could be transferred.”
“The idea of looking at it — people are open to it,” he said.
Hardly an indication of clear and unambiguous Catholic teaching being proclaimed, that. I think we can see the agenda driven fog descending there, even though I believe the whole issue was decisively and comprehensively dispatched in advance of the Synod. And remember the words of Saint Thomas Aquinas, above.
Any confused bishops at the Synod might benefit from the clear and unambiguous teaching of another of the pre-Conciliar Popes:
“The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind.” – Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, 1899
How about the following mushy soup of classically indecipherable conciliar speak from the Archbishop on the question of marriage.
“There’s a move away from simply an understanding of the church’s teaching on marriage as something that is taught to people — and a greater understanding of the fact that sacramental marriage is an ecclesial reality,” he said.
“It’s not just a blessing on two spouses,” Archbishop Martin continued. “The couple who are married sacramentally develop an ecclesial status for their own lives, but also, as in every other sacrament, for the building of the church.”
“So in many ways we have to find a way in which the lived experience of this ecclesial reality of marriage … is almost in its own way something that the church learns from rather than simply tries to carry out an external survey of it,” according to the Archbishop. “That’s certainly one of the changes.”
“Ecclesial reality” and “something that the Church learns from”. Wha dat? We’re not talking about those contraceptors who have chosen to have more cars than children, by any chance?
God in Heaven help us, the archbishop also said the synod fathers are struggling to tie together the notions of truth and mercy in their discussions.
“In the long term, I think, there’s fundamental agreement that they (truth and mercy) go together,” he said. “It isn’t that truth is a dogma and mercy is something on the sidelines of Christian teaching. We have to find real ways of bringing these together and it’s not easy to.”
Referring to the interview that Pope Francis gave last year to the Italian Jesuit magazine La Civilta Cattolica, in which the pontiff referred to two poles in the church of rigorist and lax adherence to church teaching, the Archbishop had this to say:
“Most people live their lives in the grey area between those two and we have to exercise our pastoral responsibilities in the gray area, not falling into either extreme,” he said.
So the Archbishop of Dublin isn’t quite sure that the Bishops of the Synod agree that truth and mercy “go together”. His Grace is maintaining that in the Bright New World of novus ordo apostasy, “pastoral responsibilities” should not fall into the “extreme” of rigorist adherence to Church teaching.
In Pascendi, Pope Saint Pius X sets out the revolutionaries approach to dogma:
“In order to be vigorous they (dogmas) must continually be accommodated to an equal degree to both the Faith and the Faithful.”
Again, Pope Saint Pius X offers straightforward and unambiguous guidance to those who are charged with leading, teaching, and sanctifying souls.
“Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. . .” – Notre Charge Apostolique, 1910
I haven’t read of any reaction from the Archbishop concerning the Synod’s treatment of sodomy, although that might constitute a small mercy. His Grace gave grave scandal back in February in an interview with the Irish state broadcaster RTE, when he stated that:
“I believe that there are ways in which, civil registrations for example, in which gay and lesbian people can have their rights respected and legally protected.”
“There can be ways in which gay people can celebrate their togetherness, their love for one another, but it isn’t marriage,” he added. “It doesn’t necessarily mean that a civil partnership is somewhat of less value than marriage.”
Neither in that interview nor in one with the Irish Independent on the following day, did Archbishop Martin make mention of the Church’s teaching on sodomy. Instead he said, “Anybody who doesn’t show love towards gay and lesbian people is insulting God. They are not just homophobic if they do that — they are actually Godophobic because God loves every one of those people.”
In the RTÉ interview, Archbishop Martin was willing to entertain the idea of ‘homophobia’ in the Catholic Church. “People in the Catholic Church may be homophobic,” he said. “Certainly the teaching of the Catholic Church could be used in a homophobic way.”
Taken from the following link:
I wonder if the above is what booked Archbishop Martin’s place at the Synod? Don’t know. Just asking.
I think the following words of Archbishop Lefebvre bear repetition in front of the objective evil that we are faced with in these pivotal days in Church history. They may serve to steady those pastors who will, it looks likely, come under severe pressure from Pope Francis and others over the next twelve months.
“..Truth is not made by numbers: numbers do not make Truth. Even if I am alone, and even if all my seminarians leave me, even if I am abandoned by the whole of public opinion, it is all the same to me. I am attached to my catechism, attached to my Credo, attached to Tradition which sanctified all the saints in heaven. I am not concerned about others: they do as they wish: but I want to save my soul. Public opinion I know too well: it was public opinion which condemned Our Lord after acclaiming Him a few days before. First, Palm Sunday: then Good Friday. We know that. Public opinion is not to be trusted at all. Today it is for me, tomorrow it is against me. What matters is fidelity to our faith. We should have that conviction and stay calm.”
-Econe 18th September 1976.
Those words of Archbishop Lefebvre are the words of a saint. True wisdom! I look forward to the day of his canonisation, which is certain.
I agree entirely. Canonisation is certain, once the madness blows over.
Many reports tonight, from La Stampa and on blogs across the world are saying that certain Cardinals refused to accept the interim report of the Synod, and this was followed by a widespread applause of their stance. This is not an easy thing for Cardinals of the Church to do. They have stood up and been counted. Even against the Pope.
I am thankful that they have.
Yes, I have read about this also. This is the work of the Holy Ghost protecting infallible Church teaching.
Apologies if someone has posted this already. If not, I hate to be the one to break the shocking news. Is everyone aware that at the end of the Synod Pope Paul VI is going to be beatified? Seriously. The runaway train just gets faster and faster. Correction welcome.
Sorry, no correction possible – this latest abuse of the canonisation system was announced quite some time ago. At the same time, I think I’m correct in saying, that the misnamed Synod on the Family was announced.
“Misnamed” is right. Synod of Sodom might be more accurate.
Believe it or not, “Synod of Satan” was EXACTLY the name that was in my mind as I pressed the “post comment” button.
So I’m not sure if this is a case of “great minds think alike” or “fools seldom differ” 😀
Did someone say “Church of the poor”?
Remember Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich, who is going on a major 51 million euro spending spree has enjoyed a remarkable upward trajectory in power and influence under Pope Francis.
Surprise, surprise it looks very like the Cardinal is in Kasper’s legion.
Here are a few excerpts from the above article which give a flavour of Cardinal Marx’s attitude:
“The Church’s Magisterium is not a static collection of sentences, it is a development. Doctrine is in dialogue with pastoral care. Doctrine is evident, it does not depend on the signs of the times, but it can nevertheless be developed. We cannot change the Gospel. But we have not understood everything yet.”
“Cardinal Kasper has not made a proposal, but he just raised an issue. We don’t have a concrete proposal, but certainly the German bishops’ conference goes toward that direction.”
But “not everything can be evaluated in negative terms,” he said.
The cardinal raised the example of “homosexuals who have been faithful, one to the other, for 30-35 years, and they take care the one of the other until the very last moment of life. But they live in irregular situation for the Church… as a Church, can I say that all of this has no value because we are speaking about a homosexual relation?”
“I cannot say: it’s all black, it’s all white,” Cardinal Marx stated. “And we cannot stand behind the logic of ‘everything or nothing.’”
It’s looks alright as though Saint Boniface is going to have to go on a return mission to the northern tribes.
HOW ABOUT THE CATHOLIC MATURITY OF YOUR SEPT 3RD BLOG??? I LOVE THAT. HOW ABOUT BEING MATURE ABOUT THIS AND SEEING WHAT HAPPENs …. first.?
Regardless of what the final outcome of the Synod is, the scandal of what the Pope and his liberal cohorts attempted to achieve by it demonstrates the utter loss of faith at the highest levels in the Church. That, my friend, is a mature observation that simply cannot be dismissed.
The only good thing to come from this Synod is that a number of prelates have been obliged to open their eyes at last to what has been going on in the Church since the Second Vatican Catastrophe. This Synod is the culmination of decades of internal revolt against the Traditional Catholic Faith. Having successfully “evolved” the liturgy into a broad and general Protestantism, they now seek to obscure the Church’s moral teaching by the same deceitful methods. It’s not done by formal decree, it’s done slowly by the back door in the name of “pastoral sensitivity”.
Well said. I just hope all those lay people who have been going along with the revolution in the Church now, at last, begin to act like mature people in the Faith and move out of their parishes – in droves – to the nearest SSPX chapel.
Mass in Glasgow, folks, on Sundays at 9.45.a.m. and in Edinburgh, at 1pm. Tea/coffee etc available in both after Mass. Masses across the UK of course – click here to find a chapel near you.
If you are elsewhere in the world, Google “SSPX” by country and you’ll find your nearest Mass. Unless you’re still worried about imbibing a “schismatic mindset” of course… 😉
I only wish a majority of Catholics had that level of zeal for the Faith left in them. My general experience, sadly, is that the greater number are completely indifferent to the present crisis, mostly as a result of ignorance of Church teaching. It is enough for them just to pray, pay and obey while the rot continues all around them.
Just look at some of the horrendous spectacles the faithful have sat through in their parish churches these past 45 years without, apparently, blinking an eye in disgust. I’m afraid the real enemy now is less the revolutionary cleric than the indifference of the people. In this regard, I am reminded of the wise observation: “Evil abounds because good men do nothing”.
I see your point but notice, whoever said that (Edmund Burke, I think) didn’t mention women 😀
So, c’mon gals, get thee and thy families to an SSPX chapel pronto!
Strangely enough it’s the lay women more than the lay men who are generally more at home in the Conciliar parish, probably because they now get to do all manner of wee tasks in the Sanctuary.
Of course there are good, staunch Catholic women in the Church who are completely opposed to the revolution, but I find that men are more pragmatic than women when it comes to taking effective action, your good self and a few others naturally excepted.
How’s that for setting the cat among the pigeons???
I agree with your general observation, but what I wonder is, where is the “pragmatic action” of these men? Speaking as a “cat”, I would follow them with all claws extended!
I agree wholeheartedly, ” the real enemy now is less the revolutionary cleric than the indifference of the people”.
This is indeed the main problem today, although having just read the report of Cardinal Marx’ comments on the Synod I can state 100% that His Eminence is a heretic. He speaks of a definite evolution of the Church’s doctrine, an assertion that St. Pius X amongst other great Popes has condemned as a great falsehood. Divine Revelation cannot be changed, as I think the Cardinal knows well. It seems he has simply lost the Catholic Faith.
Cardinal Marx, from what I’m reading, ought to be exiled to a remote corner of the world- he should be allowed to take his fellow bishops with him (for added punishment!).
You mentioned the theory of gradualism, and Cardinal Burke referred to it in his letter. How has this theory been used before the Synod? It simply does not make sense to wean the sinner off his sin, gradually. Thank you!.
The theory of “gradualism” is a completely new concept, invented by liberals specifically to circumvent the Church’s moral teaching at this Synod.
This new “gradualism” is not to be confused with the theory of doctrinal “evolution,” which the same liberal enemies of the Faith have employed with great effect since Vatican II. It should be observed, however, that there is a certain continuity between the two theories.
That continuity, as with Darwinian evolution, consists in the belief that the less perfect, given time, becomes more perfect. Here is where I mention again Teilhard de Chardin’s perverse doctrine that all mankind is progressing towards the “Omega Point” where man becomes divine.
What these various theories represent, in fact, is a negation of divinely revealed truths and established laws. They are the weapons of revolt against God as Creator and Redeemer of mankind, as well as author of the laws of nature and science. In effect, it is the religion of Lucifer.
Thank you! As always, your explanation is clear and concise – makes it easier to recall and repeat in arguments! Thank you, again!
Define liberal. I don’t think you know what that is okay I think your Internet or whatever you consider that is based on fear and FOXNews
The liberal is a person who refuses to acknowledge that true freedom has limits, such as the Ten Commandments, Divinely revealed doctrine, dogmas, etc., such as Our Lord referred to when He said “the truth will set you free”.
On the contrary, the liberal argues that true freedom should not place restraints on human belief or activity. In other words, the liberal is a person who promotes license. Or, to use the words of St. Paul, he makes freedom “a cloak for malice”.
The rest of your post I did not understand.
Well I was the middle of breakfast that’s why you probably didn’t understand it and right now I’m spraying for roaches in my kitchen I do have a life. It’s all part of life in Florida I don’t agree with you about liberal I think if you follow the Holy Spirit and have a good spiritual director and follow the word of folic acid catechism go to mass I don’t have to worry about liberal or conservative. I know God loves me and I don’t worry that’s my main thing I keep it simple I like the I like the little way of the Little flower.
I don’t sit there 24 seven and worry about the 10 Commandments all the time spirit of the law versus letter of the law if you follow God in your heart and the sacraments and live the life interior. I listen to God as he speaks in the Holy Spirit because God gave you the Holy Spirit you can realize that he will show you what to do. Francis de Sales said that! Then, you shouldn’t have to worry about whether you’re following everything every single minute because that is that means that your interior life for life I need you not God. This means you have to totally completely trust God that he’s right there and you do you like those two like the cartoon always anxious and always worry. The cartoon I’m talking about is Looney Tunes with a little dog in the big bulldog I don’t know if you believe in laughing you sound like you don’t believe in laughing. I get the impression that a lot of bloggers don’t laugh it’s it’s very as I have to laugh because you think I should laugh the way I should laugh. Quite frankly everybody up north of Florida is uptight. That’s the impression I got 12 years ago when I went to a writing conference
You’ve really made yourself the centre of your man made religion.
How is that done it –myself the center ??? I have a God that loves me he is a holy God but he also made me I love me so I can know him love him and serve him but I know God loves me that that is the center of my wonderful spiritual life with Teresa little flower . I’m not the center God is the center I’m on my face every single morning praising him and thanking him! I am doing my prayer time in the morning what it what are you doing?? I’m writing down what I read I have record of it do you have record of what you read the Scriptures in the catechism every morning that bet not I’d go to make a bet you don’t . Define deism and then define your spiritual life. What is the center of your life? Don’t give me the answer you think I want to hear .
About 90% of you don’t have a confessors and have had never had real spiritual direction.
It doesn’t matter whether you live in Florida or Fife, you have to accept the Catholic religion in it’s entirety, as it has been handed down to us from the Apostles, not as Pope Francis wants to hand it down.
And, for the record, the famous Carmelite saint, Therese of Lisieux, the Little Flower, would be horrified to read some of your comments. She, like St Teresa of Avila, founder of the Carmelite Order, was a “faithful daughter of the Church”.
We all have a duty of fidelity to what the Church has always taught and to resist those who are trying to change the Faith. Pray hard to the Little Flower to send you one of her promised “roses” in the form of the grace necessary to comprehend that truth.
Why do you call it I cannot pray correctly I cannot do anything correctly there is no correctly except what you do. suppose we do everything according to your way for the church for the next 24 hours and I will have an evaluation to see how well you do it! I’m an extremely faithful daughter the church!! I’m also not a frump. Aww come on down here follow me for 24 hours and see what I do . See see what I do correctly okay you have a whole side to find out that you’re wrong honey okay I bet you haven’t going to confession is the last month
Do you believe that you can hear God in your prayer at all? Do you believe that God speaks to his people? Is there any conversation in your prayer? But but suppose I did it your way for 24 hours and acted just like you did it just like you! Answer oh I forgot you for the likely never had a director never had a curricular confessor never had any discernment to know which is the Dublin which is of the devil. I went to Steubenville twice . I have two academic degrees from there I’d be careful about what you say. Ready to show all your answers to a high ranking cardinal somebody like that in Washington DC. Let’s see who you respect. Because obviously you don’t respect the holy father you say holy this and told me that just to pick doesn’t you can so I can say holy this and Holly that
What do you consider faithful daughter of the church? are you even a faithful daughter the church? Do you consider yourself higher than me? Let’s go I’ll give you my phone number we could talk about this out loud but you’re probably one of those people who I couldn’t do that.
Do me a favor: tell me the proper holy way told you not to do don’t worry little flock I think St. John said that it is first letter or maybe it was the second letter epistle you better go look it up I don’t think you read the Bible
Love God w your whole heart your whole mind and your whole self that is the law. Love of neighbor too I have to go something are you worrying correctly? What are you not worry correctly because the devil would like to know and do that! He wants you to worry . God doesn’t want you to worry you have to worry correctly according to you . get right that’s not God
I have Siri . She is awful in a
We are still the church. Those Baptist can’t receive w us . Have been to church with them .
Wrong! We are not “the Church.” The Church is a divine institution endowed with a hierarchical priesthood, Sacraments, dogmas and doctrines. We are members of that Church established by Our Lord, we are not the Church. This is a Modernist perversion of the true meaning of the Mystical Body of Christ.
I have to ask you something before we go any further here! You don’t believe Jesus Christ lives in you do you? You don’t believe that God can actually talk to you? I kind of wonder about where your prayer life is and do you only pray from a book or do you have a conversation with God in the morning I bet it’s a one-sided one! What is your image of the Holy Spirit in your life where is God working? Do you have a director confessor unregular basis? You can’t answer that they’re not going any further here because that’s what we do here in Florida we don’t worry about the modernist things we just know that we have a very alive church year! Our churches are standing room only and the building more. Don’t worry about making a good impression on you and most of us yes, can read Latin
Hello is what you’re saying is that God does not live His people and anything St. Paul wrong in visions or cautions for any other books is snowing void because you said so. Are you more Catholic than the pope? What kind relationship did you have with your father? Did you have a father? What kind of relationship did you have with your parents? This your questions that good priests ask into spiritual direction! I bet any amount of money you don’t have a regular confessor and I bet any amount of money every penance is scrutinized and not donenot only that, you criticize what they give youas not good enough
Hush! You are being very judgemental. You know what the Pope says about that. Naughty naughty.
What back to you when I learned from you! Hey do you guys want to go to the Florida Orchestra concert tonight it’s at Petersburg Florida? It’s free! Please bring your iPhone so we can both use Siri and not use punctuation when we talk
“Are you more Catholic than the Pope? ” It wouldn’t really be hard these days!
I was going to say Ghandi was more Catholic than this Pope but I thought I would get a telling aff!
Frankly, just about anyone is more Catholic than this pope. That’s not a personal insult or anything of the sort – I’m afraid it’s a fact.
I’ve had an email today from a committed Protestant who is scandalised by this pope and telling me (as if I didn’t know) that “this new pope is going to take the [Catholic] church in a liberal/heretical direction.” He adds: “You in Catholic Truth have to be on guard. Something big is going down. Rome wants to take on board liberal Protestants. It is about to happen although slowly. If it does true Christians have no chance as liberal Protestants are gullible people who have no convictions but can take others along with them.”
What’s that saying if not that here we have at least one Protestant who is “more Catholic than the pope”?
Loyal to the pope are you talking behind his back?
Why are you so critical of the church???
Do me a favor and read Ephesians the whole thing that would be nice read the whole chapter that would be Read john 17 that would be nice that’s a homework assignment tonight. Is it modernist to read the Bible?
Do me a favour and use punctuation !
You’re living too close to Disneyland!
Spiritual Disney land instead of Spiritual Direction!
Disney land or Walt Disney World??
Not when I’m using Siri on an iPhone and doing my chores and be a beloved daughter of the church
How much what did you get done this Saturday and your chore list?
Yes, great advice. Like an alternative captain of the Titanic telling the passengers and crew to wait and see if the catastrophic damage done by the iceberg could actually sink the ship,despite all the evidence, and even the most basic intelligence, pointing to the inevitability of it doing so. Let’s all be mature, trust the good intentions of the iceberg, and drown together.
Great analogy. Especially since the majority of the Catholic laity and clergy have been doing the equivalent of moving the deckchairs about on the Titanic for years now, in an attempt to fix things in the local churches. Time to admit that God used Archbishop Lefebvre for a reason – and, therefore, to jump ship… Now!
What? You mean the Pope isn’t chosen by God, guided by God and transmitting the will of God to the Church? Who knew. I didn’t know it was you we should all be listening to.
Ed: I remember you from of old. And I don’t like your latest username. At all. It’s not appropriate for a Catholic blog. I’m letting the two posts just submitted through but will be monitoring you closely and if – as I suspect – you are not interested in serious discussion, but only out to cause trouble, you’ll be getting the boot. With respect, of course. Get it?
This Archbishop is NOT THE Pope. What is your prayer life like?
” Let’s all be mature, trust the good intentions of the iceberg, and drown together”. Describes perfectly, what we see in the Church today.
I am eating at a Waffle House while I discuss this
What do you mean who knew I would’ve brought you bought you breakfast oh I forgot that’s a sin right? Not one of you knows how don’t laugh you laugh kind of like the EW TN guys laugh ha ha Ha ha ha like like a study truncated laugh. You all come off so tight it’s not even funny
I got a question for you. If I kneel on the hard tile floor what do you thinks going to happen???
If you kneel on the hard floor, you will get calluses.
I don’t think many of the bloggers here know of Steubenville University, nor should they, with respect, it hasn’t produced world renowned scholars, has it?
You seem to have come on this blog not to engage in discussion but to teach us how to live the authentic Catholic life, by using your own life as an example, and that is presumptuous 🙄
If you read the comments without bias, you will see, the Editor of the blog does NOT make up rules, the rules are made by Holy Mother Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Who has been active in the Church since its foundation! When sinful men obscure those rules, the Holy Spirit guides and uses those humble enough to listen to Him, to correct error and keep the Faith alive.
I’m not going to be a troll here but I have been asked this question what would you say if I said what ever
The response would certainly be in keeping with the tone of your other responses.
Keeping and told with my other responses? Does this really matter does anybody else know that we’re here discussing this? Why do you say holy mother church? You did that correctly didn’t you??!!!
Are you going to get million bucks or a raise for being so so correct??
I got a question for you why are people of your generation I’m about 20 years older than you such pricks??? I think they know it all they think they well trophies lots of trophies but until your house is paid off honey you’re not a trophy
Being that it’s Monday hey this: I bet she’s pissed a few people off too today
You don’t know my Alma mater Franciscan University of Steubenville?
Next to catholic university of America that’s like the second most popular school next to Georgetown too
What are you saying that? I can either there’s no trust in the church among bloggers I gather that God put you on this earth to bug the living insert word that’s not nice outside every single outside the church when they are not saying mass.
Hey sticking the road again who is this pit what are you so afraid of? I mean what are you so insecure about the church? What are most progress is the care about the church? Why do you feel like you’re the only one that’s right? I don’t have to be right I just have to trust God! why can’t you trust that God is it is church? What is it have to be done right now? What do you feel like every single one of them should have get a good spanking in the woodshed? What is the matter with all the police that they’re doing? What do you see yourself as your holy role in the church
Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognised the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and “teach contrary to the Catholic Faith”, and he instructed, “do not follow him.”
“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)
I believe we are all duty bound, now that the last threads of deceit have fallen away (Deo gratias), to at the same time recognise that Pope Francis is both Pope and Heretic and to be acknowledged, not followed.
I agree entirely with the sentiments you express. It is of course essential, as you point out, that we recognise the authority of the Pope and pray for him, but equally essential that we do not follow him into error. This is absolutely correct, it is precisely what many great saints and Popes have said through the centuries. The Pope has no authority to alter the Faith in any way. On the contrary, his eternal salvation depends on his upholding and defending the deposit of faith handed down. In this respect, Pope Francis needs lots of prayers right now.
I have friends in the Vatican and we need to turn you in. So after lunch here in Florida, I will find you and turn your your heretical butt in.
Where BXVI in respect of this debacle?
Things are getting worse today. This report is from Rorate Caeli
The happenings of the last week have been truly shocking but, as others have said, the positive we take from it is that people , prelates included, must be starting to wake up. I think it’s monumental that an African prelate described Pope Francis as “an agent of disruption.”
What more can we say about this Pope? I now believe that this papacy is theologically evil – there is a clear and obvious absence of good. Of course the most charitable thing to do is to pray for the Pope and honour his office, but I have to be honest and say I am finding it difficult. All I can say is that I hope Cardinal Ratzinger is proud of himself.
Like others, I’m shocked to the core by the Germans bishops links to pornography. They truly are agents of the devil. Things are now so bad. Anyone who goes along with the modem diocesan set up is part of the problem. The only solution is to get to the SSPX.
I pray the Holy Spirit will touch Pope Francis tomorrow at the beatification of Pope Paul VI, as he recalls ‘Humanae Vitae’, and Pope Paul’s fidelity to the word of God contrary to public opinion.
I would also encourage the faithful who post here to deluge Pope Francis with letters addressing concerns regarding the topics presented at this Synod. The Synod on the Family continues. Silence presumes consent. Pope Francis should be bombarded with letters from faithful Catholics around the world expressing the very thoughts that have been shared here. It is highly unlikely he will be reading this website! Our bishops should be also hearing from the faithful.
We commend the courage and fidelity of Cardinals Burke, Pell, and others. We need to stand up with them and make our voices heard, not just to one another, but to those in authority. Our arguments must have their foundations not on personal opinion, but on the word of God, which is the basis for Catholic teaching, and should be the basis for all decisions reached at this Synod.
Well, Linda, I’m reliably informed that this website and blog IS read in the Vatican so let’s hope somebody alerts Pope Francis to our concerns. To date, the only correspondence he’s bothered to answer, as far as I know, is the stuff he receives from “liberals” – in which case they are rewarded with a personal telephone call. I don’t speak Spanish or Italian so, in the unlikely event that he decided to ring me, the chances of moi understanding what he says are nil, but, believe me, he’d have NO problem understanding what I would say. “Tone and style” and all that jazz…
“I’m reliably informed that this website and blog IS read in the Vatican”
Editor, Do think Francis post here and we don’t know it?
I do understand your reasoning, but I can affirm that after many years of writing letters, e-mails etc to various bishops and hierarcy, I have never received any satisfactory answer to any of my concerns (mostly there was no response). I wrote and e-mailed Pope Benedict three times regarding the scandal of the so-called “Soho Masses” without receiving even an acknowledgement. I have NO faith in written communications.
I would be up for a public storming of the citadel, however!!
Meet me at midnight… St Peter’s Square!
St. Peter’s – sounds like a plan!!! Or, how about Philadelphia next Fall? Though I am afraid all the ducks will be in a row by then, so to speak. The time to be heard is sooner than later. I think the ‘questionnaires’ we filled out last year were predominantly returned by those thinking more in the line of Cardinal Kasper.
I send e-mails to my bishop. Occasionally, I do get a response, which is usually more of an excuse.(I have actually gotten more responses from elected officials. Yes – I know votes are important to them.) I am glad to hear that the Vatican is at least aware of this site. I find it curious that this pope chooses to have no email address, unless you know one that I have not been able discover.
Those enemies of the Faith who wear clerical garb already know very well what we think; they despise us. They are waiting for us to die out or become such a tiny minority that they can rest easy.
This is all very shocking but at least, the heretics are now out in the open and there is no excuse for any “good” Catholic not to be aware of the impending schism and the poison being distributed Sunday after Sunday in parishes. The rules are already been broken in parishes with divorcees, co- habitees and active homosexuals receiving Communion even when the priest knows the situation. This synod now wants to rubber stamp these abuse which, to them, is the logical conclusion.
Excellent points, Crofterlady. The poison is seeping out, nay, pouring out, so the healing can’t be too far off, now.
Ha ha ha – apparently, one of the heretics wears read shoes. Last time I logged in here, the EDITOR was waxing lyrical about how we must all obey the man in red shoes…… Now….. Not so keen.
Ed: Don’t remember ever commenting on red shoes and obedience to a pope in the same sentence. But, hey, feel free to remind me – just quote verbatim whatever I said to remind me… Please and thank you…
Pope Francis is the first Pope since the 3rd century to refuse to wear the red shoes of Peter, shoes whose colour represents a readiness to suffer martyrdom for the truth.
I just hope the username you’re playing with isn’t representative of your leader. I speak of course of the one who gets his shoes from a blacksmith!
Athanasius & Others,
Please note that if you use the username “EvilV” your post will go into moderation. If (not recommended) you choose to reply to either of this blogger’s comments, I suggest you address him simply as “V” because I’m off pubbing and clubbing now and won’t be able to release any comments from the moderation box until sometime tomorrow.
Of course, if V sees the light and switches to a more appropriate username and begins engaging maturely in the topics here, then he will be released back into the community. The decision, V, is yours…
EV (I hope you’re not well named)
Arithmetic was never one of my strengths, but I count more than one.
More than anything, I’m petrified that Francis, during his pontificate, will proclaim Ex Cathedra, that which the Church must hold to.
That will not happen. Of that you can rest assured. The guarantee of Christ is that the Church will not defect, not that we won’t have bad popes.
Here he is now, aware of the furore around the world, urging a “middle way” between “doctrine and reality”. Incredible, and brings to mind my own experience of a very bad bishop some years back when he told me to “teach the middle way” – he later gave up being a bishop. Last I heard he was helping (lead souls astray) in a parish somewhere in England…
I thank you for your coincidence Editor. You seem to have the fortitude off Michael Davies on such matters.
….I’m already worrying about the next Synod 🙁
It looks like Pope Francis is getting his own way as the bishops have rejected some of his agenda. I wish they would send him homewards to think again.
“I wish they would send him homewards to think again.”
Pope Francis is Latin American, not English !
Editor, have you never heard of poetic licence?
Yes, I must remember to buy one of those next time I pay for the TV licence.
Ha ha ha, Dorothy Paul had better watch herself.
52. The possibility for the divorced and remarried to accede to the sacraments of Penance and Eucharist was considered. Several Synod Fathers insisted in favor of the current discipline, in consideration of the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church and her teaching on indissoluble marriage. Others expressed themselves in favor of a non-generalized welcoming to the eucharistic table,in certain particular situations and in very specific circumstances, especially in cases that are irreversible and linked to moral obligations towards children who would be subjected to unjust suffering. The eventual access to the sacraments should be preceded by a penitential path under the responsibility of the diocesan Bishop. The matter should still be deepened, taking into consideration the distinction between an objective situation of sin and attenuating circumstances, considering that the “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified” by several “psychological or social factors.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735)
Time bomb alert, in case you missed it. Seen it all before.
See how deceitful they are with their back door double speak? As if the bishops would bother monitoring any such solution, even if it was possible, which it’s not.
It was this kind of betrayal of Church doctrine that caused marriage annulments in the U.S. to rise from around 700 per year in 1962 to more than 50,000 per year by the 1990s. John Paul II was forced to step in to put a stop to the abuse, but too late to prevent countless thousands of bigamous marriages from having been contracted with the permission of the U.S. bishops! It is, as you say, a time bomb alert.
Weasel words from +++Nichols [as usual] on BBC R4 religious programme this a.m. Methinks, Franciscus speaks with forked tongue.
Cardinal Nichols lost the Catholic Faith a long time ago. You may recall his visit to a Hindu temple when he brought flowers to adorn one of the alters of their false gods. That’s the kind of man Pope Francis raises to the Cardinalate!!
The Martyrs of the Holy Church were martyred rather than offer incense to the false gods.
How far we’ve come… These Princes of the Church truly have lost the Faith.
Well, their ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue certainly does not arise from the same spirit that animated the martyrs, that’s for sure.
I am frankly amazed that you good Catholics see yourselves as wiser than the Pope and his cardinals. I’m frankly gobsmacked if you’ll pardon the phrase. Pope Francis is obviously not as worthy as the folk here, and the English cardinal Nichols is a fallen Catholic….. But never mind, here at Catholic Truth reside a bunch of open schismatics who know the right path.
I prefer to put my faith in the clergy and nuns who taught me in 1940s & 1950s, than +++Nichols and his ilk.
Sixupman: Were the 40s and 50s sooo soo great? You had Senator McCarthy and his communist witch hunt. People got divorced then too.
Wiser than the Pope? You better believe it!
Your username says all that needs saying about your sincerity. The very grave subject under discussion here is anything but amusing. If Pope Francis’ antics don’t worry you then I’m afraid there’s something very seriously amiss with your Catholic Faith. Ditto regarding Cardinal Nichols and all those other revolutionaries in cope and mitre.
You’re in the wrong place if you think this blog is where the schismatics reside. Go research the teaching of the Church up to Vatican II, especially the Papal Encyclicals, and then you’ll be in a position to make a more informed and objective judgment. Remember, we’re not the Catholics who have changed the Faith of our Fathers since Vatican II and brought the Church into the worst crisis of her 2000 year history.
“I am frankly amazed that you good Catholic see yourselves as wiser than the Pope and his cardinals.”
Well, you said it.
P.S. Welcome to “gobsmacked world.”
PPS. “..cardinal Nicols is a fallen Catholic…”
Again. You said it.
Agree with all you have said Amused, bar of course the schismatic part.
Why don’t you stick around for a while and educate yourself?
No thanks Stephen, I just read about the latest developments in the press, remembered this little ‘groupthink’ corner from a couple of years ago when I came here by accident, and I wondered how the new Pope’s ideas had gone down. It turned out to be worse than I imagined. Funnily enough, on my previous visits some two years ago (about that) the Leaderine was waxing lyrical about Papal Authority.
I’m puzzled at your comment. You came on here because you wonder “how the new Pope’s ideas had gone down” and then say “worse than you imagined” and then you finish by saying that last time you were here I was “waxing lyrical about Papal Authority” (sic)
I haven’t altered my beliefs one jot about papal authority so I presume that you think that every time the Pope has an “idea” we have to accept it no matter how ridiculous, as with his “ideas” about sodomy and adultery at the Synod, as if they were infallible dogma.
Is that what you believe? If so, I suggest you change your username from Amused to Amusing… (or, better still, “Hilarious”!)
Crofterlady is having problems with her computer right now and texted to ask me to post a link to this morning’s Thought for the Day – featuring the dissenter Clifford Longley – which she describes as “shocking”.
She later texted to say there is also a short interview with the Editor of The Tablet at 8.50 but I’m afraid I just don’t have the time to search for that. Presumably that is also on Radio 4 so anyone who has a mind to listen (or rather the stomach for it) will probably find it without much difficulty.
If anyone is any doubt about the extent of the catastrophe that the Secret Synod of Sodom represents I’d recommend they read the following short but very perceptive blog post by the always worth-reading Hilary White, who also writes for Lifesitenews and The Remnant.
I don’t actually agree with Hilary White on this. I think everyone knows that what she is talking about is a well known method of governments, to “leak” something that is at one extreme and then adapt it if public opinion is outraged. But it’s an “IF” – if they’d got away with the first draft that would have been great in their eyes.
I think what we saw was what those liberal bishops actually believe. I don’t think it was just a strategy. The fact that they hijacked the report so the conservatives wouldn’t see it, shows their true colours. That’s my own view, although maybe I’m being naïve.
I understand exactly what you are saying. I agree one hundred per cent about the Modernist strike force’s determination to achieve what was put forward in the unspeakably infamous mid Synod relatio, and its reflection of their ambitions and those of Pope Francis (By the way the really offensive paragraphs, although not getting the required support, are still, reportedly, to be included in the version distributed worldwide for discussion, with voting numbers included).
If a significant number of Bishops hadn’t cried “enough”, Kasper, Baldisseri, and Forte and others would, no doubt, have been dancing and doing cartwheels out the door in celebration, with Pope Francis beaming and clapping in satisfaction at the success of those chosen to carry out, let there be no doubt, his programme.
What rather struck me about the article was the fact, that although the resistance shown to the Pope’s blatant exercise of papal power has been noted in some quarters as a victory of sorts for orthodoxy (in let’s be honest, a very, very basic element of the Moral Law), unprecedented, indelible shame, and catastrophe are a far more accurate way of summarising matters.
Simply, what caught my eye before posting the above, was Terrence Weldon’s reaction. If he is satisfied, then we are indeed talking about a fully certified catastrophe.
At least the proposals of Cardinal Kasper (supported by the Supreme Pontiff) and other militantly faithless modernists have been rejected as they failed to achieve the 2/3 majority. I knew in my heart that the Pope and his allies would ‘come out’ (if you’ll excuse the pun) red-faced from the Sin-od on the destruction of the Family. Christ would never ever desert His Church or His flock, and we have a scriptural promise for this: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I build my Church and not even the gates of Hell will prevail against it’. We should at least thank God for Cardinal Burke and his faithful cohorts. Let’s all say a Te Deum.
A slight correction/clarification is needed to my previous post which mentioned “the Pope’s blatant exercise of papal power”. That wasn’t very bright at all. “Exercise of papal power” isn’t, of course, a problem meriting the pejorative adjective “blatant”, when directed towards the service of the Our Lord and the good of the Church.
Manifest misuse of that power, directed towards giving scandalous teaching to the laity, in clear breach of the Church’s constant infallible Tradition, with the consequent imperilling of souls, which, objectively speaking, is what we were undoubtedly presented with at this Synod is what demands the term “blatant”.
Apologies for any confusion caused.
Pope Francis’ evident comfort with powers of his supreme office and his determination to use them appear remarkably at odds with the Conciliar novelty of Collegiality and his repeated talk of “synodality”, to say nothing of the Protestant exegesis of the Our Lord’s institution of the papacy in Matthew chapter 16, to which those listening to the Pope’s Angelus address on 24 August were treated.
ONE Q: WHY ARE YOU ALL SO SO INSECURE ABOUT YOUR FAITH AND YOUR practice of it???
And why do I havemore than you?
Why do I have more MORE PEACE THAN YOU ALL? According to you all it is a sin to not not not worry about this 24/7. Worry about this is a sign that you all are powerless and cannot surrender this and must must must micromanage others you would want to boss around. No one else knows you are here and you are no more special than everyone else. Before I eat — yes, I eat my sandwich — and go back to what I was doing , I ask why are you all worried about this? I know I have more peace than you all do. I pray you get that and I pray the Holy Spirit takes over. I know you will eventually.
I’d call it denial, not peace!
1. We are not insecure about our Faith or the practice of it.
2. Why do you keep telling us what you are eating?
3. To the naked eye, death looks like peace. Drugs can make you feel peaceful. Hypnotism can make you feel peaceful. There’s no virtue in feeling peaceful if it is JUST A FEELING and if TRUTH doesn’t justify it.
Read John 14 that’s what I mean. Read all of it
…….’ Just because you feel good about yourself, that doesn’t mean you’re going to heaven’….
Fr Richard Welch, former president of the Population Research Institute.
I have a life and well some of you write like you don’t. I eat sleep and do other things. I don’t worry about everything. Is it my job or your job to worry about everything all the time? What city are you all in? Roll Call. I live in the Diocese of St Petersburg in the Tampa metro area. Do you all ever go out with your families? Or is that a sin? Ok, here goes. What do you call deep peace inside? Read Romans chapter 8 vs 28. Do you ever read the Bible even DouyRheims? Come on down here and meet me in person. Let’s really talk and not behind our priests and clergy’s back. John chapter 14 read the whole thing. Jesus said it or is that not good enough for you all?
I’d take you up on that offer but I live in the North East of England, so it’d be rather difficult to meet for a coffee. Any time you’re over here though you’re welcome to visit, if you can stand the weather,
BTW – I don’t talk behind the backs of priests and bishops – those with whom I have been in contact are very aware of my views.
Also – you keep quoting scripture. The devil can quote scripture too, you know. Why haven’t you stuck to the topic of this thread? You haven’t ONCE engaged with it. Why is that?
To answer your question about deep peace. To have the unutterable privilege of the Catholic Faith and the knowledge that goes with it gives one such peace. It’s worth fighting for more than anything else in this world, which is what most of the posters here are doing. Many millions of martyrs have been tortured to death for it. We want EVERYONE to have that privilege and that knowledge. What it doesn’t give is a false sense of security, which comes from the devil.
Wake up!!! Think. Learn about your Faith. If you knew it you would not be making trite comments and telling other people to get a life. The life we should be interested in is the one that begins after we take our last breath on this earth. Satan wants you to forget that.
One last point. You seem to equate concern about grave abuses and heresy as “worrying”. Have you been confirmed? Are you not a soldier of Christ? What do soldiers do when under attack? Worry – or take up arms and fight?
You’ve SHOT up the pay scale with that reply to FMIF. Well said.
Sorry but I == this Florida American would still buy you coffee and a guava pastry here in Florida. I live in Tampa. NE England??/ You are related somewhere according to Ancestry.com That’s where my people are from. Who knew?
Sorry but all or most of the American fundamentalist Catholic bloggers DRIVE Me nuts. Confirmed in 1976. I am 51. I don’t make it my biz here in the USA to worry wart about everything. I am not God. Satan wants to you worry and get all upset. God is love and it is time to stop worrying and just do what God wants.
I’m not from New England, but England, as in the British Isles, so it’s still too far to take you on on the coffee I’m afraid.
You are quite wrong about Satan. The last thing he wants is for me to worry about the Church; he wants me to feel peaceful on that score.
He DOES want me to worry about the environment though, and anything else that doesn’t concern my immortal soul. I’m so sorry you can’t see that.
Game, set and match!
The questions around the environment are interesting. I see a link between that and our own human bodies. We need to look after, not worship them. But we must not abuse them, that is sinful. God has given our souls both to be good stewards to, for the purpose of His glory.
Cor! Thanks Editor.
I’ve just been alerted to a Michael Voris apology which you just have to see and hear to believe. My first thought when the tape reached under two minutes was “is this guy for real?” I’d love to meet just one of his followers and ask them why they are supporting an outfit which is refusing to report the truth, no matter where it leads. Brace yourself for his tortured apology and notice what he did in “reparation”. You just couldn’t make this stuff up.
Cringe! I thought that was Mike Myers for a minute there.
Anyway here is the lessons we must learn.
1) Don’t criticise the Pope, ever, ever, ever.
2) Don’t listen to anything other than what Papal PR tells you.
3) If in doubt, deny a sacrament and take a sacrament.
I’m still trying to work out if this is a spoof.
I have just reviewed this post and on reflection I wasn’t being kind. The ad hominem tone was poor taste. Sorry.
Michael Voris reminds me of those Catholic ecumenists and inter-religionists, Pope Francis included, who think they do a great act of charity towards their non-Catholic, non-Christian neighbour by respecting their false beliefs when, in fact, they commit the gravest act against charity, which is to deprive their neighbour of the truth they need to know to be saved. As Our Lord puts it: “The truth will set you free”. The ecumenist doesn’t operate by divine truth, he operates by human respect.
Similarly, Michael Voris is at pains in that video to emphasise that it was never his intention to criticise the Pope. Well, I can tell you that his refusing to criticise Pope Francis (respectfully of course) is no act of true charity. The Pope is a man not a divine being; he can err and err badly both in matters of faith and morals, as history amply demonstrates. If and when a Pope does err, which is clearly the case with Pope Francis, subordinates in the Church have a DUTY to criticise him for the damage he is doing to the Church.
St. Paul criticised St. Peter when the latter opened up the possibility of scandal and thereby corrected St. Peter, who accepted the rebuke of his inferior with humility. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas Aquinas and others have treated of such a situation again arising in the Church. All are unanimous that in such a case, the faithful must rebuke, even publicly, an erring Pontiff. Of course there is a great difference between rebuking with charity and respect and attacking, that goes without saying. But Michael Voris is sadly lacking in his understanding of the faith, not to mention his zeal, if he thinks the Pope is above reproach in the present Church crisis, and especially for that Synod which has sown disunity and confusion in respect to the moral teaching of the Church. Give me an Archbishop Lefebvre any day to a Michael Voris!
Another strange thing was his foregoing Holy Communion for something that he says he never intended. Does Michael not know that mortal sin is only mortal when entered into with full consent? I would say that Michael has a problem with scruples!
I agree with everything you say, Athanasius. I would only add that I am embarrassed for Mr Voris. The only excuse for his cringing, and very long apology, for reporting the truth, is that perhaps – off screen – he had a gun pointed at his head.
It’s a business too, you know.
It’s all over Facebook about the Synod, the Pope and Cardinal Burke being sacked etc. Interesting reading.
“This gap between doctrinal and pastoral, which was used as pawn, will continue to have a bearing on the interpretation of the Council and is, in my opinion, one of most important shadows cast on the Council debates…” – Liberal peritus, Edward Schillebeeckx OP in The Real Achievement of Vatican II, 1967, pp. 84-85
There is no doubt that the diabolical disorientation of the Synod of Sodom will be spoken of with shame until the end of time. The voting numbers in the attached article don’t allow for much debate.
Contra factum non argumentum est. Judgement belongs to God alone, of course, but barring miraculous conversions, it is very hard to escape the fear that among those placet numbers are prelates who will burn in the devil’s own private furnace.
There is no question whatsoever that the evil of this Synod (the worst paragraphs of the infamous mid Synod relatio are to be distributed for discussion along with the rest) is a totally predictable, if not, humanly speaking, an inevitable part of the whole manic, Modernist, novelty-obsessed Cult of Man that has engulfed the Bride of Christ in the Conciliar era.
And let’s not try blaming everything on the deadly toxins that were blowing across world, borne on a wind from the very pit of Hell. No, it was the human element of the Church that decided to not alone raze the bastions but open the windows as well.
The apostasy and revolt against Divine Law that is running riot isn’t some sort of massive random, unpredictable, unavoidable, accident, resulting exclusively from cowardice in the ranks of the Church Militant. What we are witnessing in these days is nothing but the ongoing lockstep Long March of the Modernist Revolution.
The continuity between the following extraordinary, unprecedented papal statement and the events of recent days hardly requires elaboration. The soul endangering programme of dialogue, sentiment, humanism, and anthropocentrism was well flagged for all those who cared to see.
“With her very demanding and qualifying dogmatism, the Church hinders free conversation and concord among men: she is, in the world, rather a principle of division than one of union. Now then, how can division, discord and dispute be compatible with her catholicity and sanctity?”- Pope Paul VI, Speech of December 24, 1965, see Iota Unum by Romano Amerio, p. 113.
Compare those words with those of Pope Leo XIII at the start of his encyclical Humanum Genus when writing about the unavoidable struggle between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan, and the compulsory choice each one of us faces in being in one or the other.
Compare them with the same Pope’s words in another encyclical:
“From this it may be clearly seen what consequences are to be expected from that false pride which, rejecting our Saviour’s Kingship, places man at the summit of all things and declares that human nature must rule supreme.” – Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, #7, 1900
And what about Matthew 10:34:
“Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.”
As the then Cardinal Montini, Pope Paul, was one of the main proponents of the novelty of dialogue with the world. The progressivist peritus Fr. Dominique Chenu OP explains:
“Everyone remembers the intervention of Cardinal Suenens at the end of the first session (December 4, 1962), immediately accepted by Cardinals Frings and Montini. Out of a confused agenda he extracted the decisive line of the Council: the Church has to define herself inside herself, but also outside herself in a ‘dialogue’ with the world. This was the launching of the famous Schema XIII (Gaudium et spes), a charismatic shock from which emanates the whole theology of renewal.”
– In the Murky Water of Vatican II, by Atila S. Guimaraes, p. 139. Note 36
If anyone is inclined to make accusation of “traditionalist” paranoia, they should be spared the trouble by reading the following. Whatever else we might say, I don’t think many would be inclined to label Jesuits as gormless observers of events.
“The Council opened some doors. Other doors it left ajar because it saw that the times were still not ripe; however, it did not close them. It only left them ajar, saying: someone who comes after me will to open them.”
-Fr. Giovanni Caprile editor of the Jesuit magazine La Civilta Cattolica, in a 1983 interview with Atila Guimaraes
If anyone has the heart to deny the Conciliar obsession with novelty, or even feels up to making a stab at holding forth on the still unexplained “hermeneutic of continuity” they might first read the following:
Cardinal Suenens quoting Paul VI, comments: “For his part, Pope Paul VI wrote those far reaching words that engage the future: The Councils decrees, more than a point of arrival, are a point of departure towards new goals. The Spirit and the renewing wind of the Council must continue to penetrate deeply into the life of the Church. The germs of life sown by the Council on Church soil must reach their full maturity.” – Cardinal Suenens, L’avvenire della Chiesa, p. 46
Having got rid of the Oath Against Modernism, the Index of Forbidden Books, and having substantially downgraded the Holy Office, as well as disposing of the papal tiara, Pope Paul left no one in any doubt that the Cult of Man was still the order of the day.
“On the other hand, She (the Church) is also trying to adapt herself and assimilate herself to the world’s ways; She is taking off her distinctive sacral garment, for She want to feel more human and earthly… She is tending to let herself be absorbed by the social and temporal milieu. She has almost been seized by human respect at the thought that She is different in some way and obliged to have a style of thought and life which is not that of the world. She is undergoing the world’s changes and degradations with conformist, almost avant-garde zeal.” – Pope Paul VI, General Audience, October 1, 1969
The enemies of the Church knew very well what was happening. The previous year, the Paris journal of the Grand Oreint of France, L’Humanisme spoke in its May/October 1968 edition of “a kind of Copernican Revolution” in the Church, “a gigantic revolution in the Church”.
And here’s something for the Neo Catholic, “conservatives”. The future Pope Benedict obviously saw what had been launched by the Council: what has turned out to be an epically disastrous trek into the desert of New Everything One Can Think Of. Last week we saw many of the shepherds jumping up and down on the only reliable compass.
“Now after the refusals of the last hundred years, the Council has taken the initiative to start the process of accepting this positive encounter to coordinate the Church and the modern world…The fight of the conciliar Fathers over Schema XIII (Gaudium et spes) can be nothing but the beginning of a movement that continues.” – Father Joseph Ratzinger, Problemi e risulti del Concilio Vaticano II, 1967, pp.10-11
It has often been said that the future Pope was shocked out of progressivism, or neo-Modernism and into conservatism by the 1968 student riots. And yet in his answer to a journalist in 30 Dias, January 1994, p.72, the then Cardinal appears to deny any renunciation:
“In my history as a theologian, I see no fracture, but a development.”
Certainly, four years earlier, in one particular oft-quoted statement, His Eminence appeared to be far from perturbed by either the razing of the bastions that had taken place, or by the radical departure into to great Modernist desert.
“…the text plays the role of a counter-Syllabus to the degree that it represents an official attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789…’World’ is understood here, in depth, as the spirit of modern times…it sought(the Church) sought dialogue and cooperation with this spirit.” Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 382
Now, I don’t think anyone would seriously suggest that either Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul would have ever contemplated permitting, let alone manipulating, a Synod of Bishops to endorse such evil as we saw put down in black and white in the interim relatio last week. In fact, the latter’s insistence on the Church’s perennial discipline regarding Holy Communion in Familaris consortio (1982) appears to have been completely rejected by Pope Francis and his appointed placemen.
Nonetheless, the contributory responsibility of Popes John Paul and Benedict in the current diabolical disorientation is above question also. If the Social Kingship of Christ is not going to be spoken about, let alone vigorously defended, if Man is going to be the centre of discussions, as appeared to be case for much of Pope John Paul’s lengthy papacy, the current shameful attack on Divine Law becomes only a matter of time. And by the way, who appointed these forevermore disgraced Bishops? Who appointed the electors of Pope Francis? Does anyone think for one second that either Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict ever considered re-introducing the Oath Against Modernism?
Pope Paul VI’s quotes about the “auto destruction” of the Church and the “smoke of satan” are well known. What is almost as shocking is Pope John Paul’s recognition, 33 years ago of the effects of rampant Modernism:
“Christians today to a great extent feel themselves lost, confused, perplexed,” and “are tempted by atheism, agnosticism, a vaguely moralistic illuminism, a sociological Christianity, without definite dogmas and without objective morality” -L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 7, 1981
And yet pandering to this apostasy appears to be the Big Idea in the Vatican today. The only continuity in the Conciliar Church appears to be the ongoing destruction of the Faith and surrender to the World.
“In the frenzy of their conceited conviction that they know so much these blind leading the blind have even turned upside down the eternally true concepts of truth and religion; they have founded a new system and in their wild, unbridled chase after new ideas they have forgotten to seek the truth where it dwells in safety; holy, apostolic traditions are scorned and in their place other doctrines resorted to which are idle and empty and uncertain and which do not possess the sanction of the Church; and with such things they believe in their delusion that they can uphold and preserve truth itself.” – Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi
The roots of the contempt towards Divine Law expressed at the Synod of Sodom and of the hubris-intoxicated Cult of Man have been recognised and identified and called out by those faithful to Tradition for long enough. If anyone is still in doubt about the role Vatican II played in the “development” process please read the words of one of the revolutionaries.
In an interview published in 1975, the previously mentioned influential liberal theologian Father Dominique Chenu OP was asked about the post-Conciliar turmoil:
Question: “In your opinion, how should one see this whole upheaval? Is it the fault of the priests, the theologians, the faithful?
Answer: “I see its cause in the Council itself, in the logic of its march and its dynamism.”
– Jacques Duquesne interroge le Pere Chenu, p. 191
This morning I found myself wishing I was childless. What lies ahead for my children, I ask myself? One of my daughters phoned to ask: “Can the Pope chang our Faith?” There’s confusion all around. We’ve nowhere to go as there are no traditionalist orders near us.
I go to my Parish every Sunday and read the Traditional Mass as the Novus Ordo is being said. I have no traditional Mass near me either, this is a poor second, but better than nothing. My PP knows I do it, and does not seem to care.
As for all the other stuff, keep your head high. It will be alright in the end, with the help of the Holy Ghost.
Read this it is from John: “perfect love casts out fear.”
St Paul to the Phillipians 2:12
And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.  Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with FEAR AND TREMBLING work out your salvation. [
We Americans here are a bit polarized about the fear . I don’t fear much. Also DEFINE FEAR.
To to go Hell for eternity.
Why are you here FMIF? You haven’t answered any questions, you haven’t engaged in any of the points put forward in this thread; you just endlessly spout psycho babble about feeling peaceful and lurve, lurve, lurve like a 1960’s hippie. The love you speak of does not come from God, because it ISN’T Love; it’s a very poor counterfeit of the real thing, but it seems as if you simply refuse to face that. “Let’s all feel good about ourselves” and to hell with what’s happening outside our own little bubble of self-indulgent fantasy. “The Church? Let it take care of itself, I’m happy, happy, happy. God knows and He will take care of it.” You forget that He expects US to be His hands, His feet, His action, His VOICE.
Until you can comprehend the great gift you have been given, and are willing to take on the responsibility that goes with it, please refrain from these childish and meaningless interjections that reflect so badly upon you and upon your understanding of anything worthy of note.
I’m fine with that except I’ve been sick with the flu for the last four days and don’t know which where the up is so if you going to be so UK British some of us are very happy to be alive today and in God’s love
I hope you’re feeling better. Drink lots of fluids.
I’m not so much “up with” being UK British – more specifically, I’m English, but I am also happy to be alive today and grateful that God loves me. What we must remember, always, is that we must show our love for Him by following His Commandments and staying firm in the Faith. Such a position doesn’t always guarantee happiness as the world judges happiness, and how I fear you do, also. Christ didn’t allow himself to be tortured to death just so that we can feel happy on this earth, you know. Please learn about the Catholic faith, open your eyes, your mind, and your heart. You will then know what TRUE peace is.
Take care and God bless.
Big uK Indian question. Does Indian chai tea help? I’m a naughty girl this morning I’m still getting back to work its 11 am . I feel better. Congratulations for praying for me thank you. We’re getting our first big cold blast of air that you should get into weeks beware ha ha. It’s not a big deal to you, but when we get a big blast of cold air it is a serious deal here in Florida and are blast of cold air is about just above the freezing level.
Do you have a blog number one and number two do you have an email so we can write back-and-forth?
I’m glad you’re feeling better.
I don’t have a blog. I would give you my e-mail address so that we could write back and forth, but as this is a public forum I don’t think it would be advisable to publish it here. I don’t see a way of getting around that; sorry.
It’s not a big American deal here. I name is Jeanne it is as follows people like me I don’t have to open it or do I just delete it okay? firstname.lastname@example.org what is your notably American screaming about the election you’re good
I love to learn too much I don’t have to learn to much more about my faith. I passed every exam. I have a minor in theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville
I have just received a lovely email from one of the regular readers of this blog. He included the following praise for this thread, in particular:
[I wish to] send a big thank you to you and your bloggers on the CT blog on the Synod for all your efforts and splendid contributions to the topic. They are truly a blessing from above to those who wish to know the truth. May God continue to bless all of you in these very trying and tiring days. END.
I’ve only watched a few minutes of the latest Remnant TV video and think it might be an interesting contribution to this thread. I have to say, though, that I find a couple of things irritating.
I find it irritating that Michael Matt won’t name the group about whom he’s talking when it is obviously, it seems to me, Church Militant TV. Is this – in his mind – a “charity”? In my mind, it’s important to warn people about groups like Church Militant TV who have a wrong understanding of any aspect of the Faith and Michael Voris has so many followers who are being led down the wrong path by his silly papolatry. I don’t watch their daily videos but last time I looked Michael Voris was criticising “traditionalists” much as Michael Matt describes, so I presume it is Church Militant TV and Michael Voris to whom he refers, while bending over backwards not to name him. Crackers.
I also wish Michael Matt wouldn’t chat to whoever it is he’s chatting to, off camera – I can’t catch the responses from the off camera pal, so it tends to irritate, and since we are not in Lent yet, I’ve a problem putting up with it 😀
I agree – talking off camera to “Bob” is distracting. I think it’s meant ot make it informal but I prefer a straightforward talk. Apart from that, he talked a lot of sense. Michael Voris won’t like it though! LOL!
Each to their own on that one. I don’t find it bothersome, in fact when you compare The Remnant Undergroundwiththe Remnant Forum you will find that the former has much more of the informal to it whilst the latter is more serious when he is in dialogue with the likes of Christopher Ferrara.
I think Michael Matt gets to the point: it is wrong to misrepresent the Pope and try and sugarcoat his abominable acts to date.
I’ve never read any bitterness on this blog. There is plain speaking but I prefer that to the kind of waffle below in the Remnant TV video. In fact, it’s off-putting to listen to people like Michael Voris and even Michael Matt, because they fall over themselves to be deferential, and it seems so contradictory to me.
I don’t think any of us is disrespectful to the pope. Some are more straight talking than others but I, personally, prefer that and haven’t a lot of time for those who bang on about respect for a pope who doesn’t respect the faith. After his public praise for Cardinal Kasper and the debacle of last week’s synod, I lost all respect for Pope Francis. Does that make me bitter? I don’t think so. I’ve read many times on this blog (and quoted it to others) that we must respect the papal office, not a pope like Francis who is causing so much damage. That makes sense to me. Going round about the houses to criticise him without sounding disrespectful doesn’t.
I didn’t know there was a rule that said we couldn’t comment on a post just because it was answering someone else, so I’m sorry if I caused any offence.
I have never understood this term “person of the pope”. Does it mean that we have to respect him, as a person, no matter what he says or does, or does it mean we have to respect him because he holds the office of pope, which is the same (I think) as saying we need to respect the papal office, not the man necessarily.
Maybe you could define “respect” as it is something you bring up quite often. I definitely don’t respect Pope Francis and nobody can make me feel any differently. Sorry! But I’m not bitter, I know that the Church continue no matter how much damage he does. I just can’t respect a man who inflicts so much damage when it’s his job to do the opposite.
Maybe if Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay had to watch their grown up children abandoning the faith and quoting these past few popes (not just Francis) to justify their choices, they wouldn’t be too worried about showing “respect” for the person of these terrible popes. I don’t follow the announcements from SSPX HQ but a friend who does says he’s very disappointed in the silence from that quarter since the Synod. Maybe Bishop Fellay should stop worrying about sounding disrespectful and speak out.
It’s quite clear from your comments that you know little of Archbishop Lefebvre or Bishop Fellay other than the occasional piece of gossip. That’s a bad education for public commenting.
As regards grown up children abandoning the Faith on the basis of what these modern Popes are saying, I’m afraid that’s way too simplistic. Devout and educated Catholics just don’t get talked out of their Faith. There’s something missing somewhere in their early formation.
I’m rather surprised to see these comments about “respect” yet again. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns! I’m sure we all agree, really, that we must show respect to every human being, created by God. That’s a given. But some Catholics confuse “respect” with “deference”. We are perfectly respectful on this blog without being piously deferential so really, this is the original red herring.
I’m also surprised that you think it’s simplistic to blame the modern popes for the crisis in the Church and the widespread apostasy. Surely, the buck stops at the papal office?
Cardinal Ratzinger, for example, was receiving letters by the truckload, during his 30 odd years at the CDF; he was receiving heretical school books sent by concerned parents and teachers, even ordered at least two bishops to withdraw them from use in Catholic schools (Archbishop Peter Smith and Cardinal KP O’Brien) but did nothing to enforce the orders, and the school books remain in place to this very day, to the best of my knowledge.
And when he was elected pope, he, more than any other cardinal, knew the dire state of things in the Church and yet he did next to nothing about it. He ended his visit to England by praising the hierarchy for the healthy state of the Church there! He knew about the Soho Masses. He knew about the falsehoods they peddled over the years at their ad limina visits, to give the impression that the Church in England and Wales was strong (Michael Davies RIP alerted him to the real situation when he took the statistics for the decline of the Church in England and Wales to one of the meetings he enjoyed annually with Cardinal Ratzinger.) So, I’m more concerned about the lack of respect for the truth which we are witnessing in these modern popes than with any perceived lack of respect for their person.
Parents (and orthodox teachers and priests who were punished for their attempts to teach and preach the orthodox Faith) have every right to lay the blame where it belongs, at the desk bearing the sign which reads “Buck Stops Here”. Again and again the modern popes have refused to enforce their own rules, so it’s a fact that by their neglect, many souls have been endangered and quite possibly lost. It’s not about people having been talked out of their Faith but about not having been taught it in the first place.
Nobody should indulge in childish name-calling or rudeness about anyone. But if Christ requires us to be deferential towards popes who are a danger to souls, I’d like them to quote me chapter and verse.
By the way, I agree that nobody should become bitter. To become bitter shows a complete failure to understand that we are, strange as it may sound, privileged to be living at this particular point in history, with (thank God) sufficient grace to recognise the need for vigilance. I am, however, very sympathetic to Nicky’s comment about parents with children who have abandoned the faith – I have heard many parents say the same thing, that despite all of their efforts, they have been let down by priests, bishops and popes. That’s a fact. I know of one parent who keeps her rosary beads always in her hand, praying for her lapsed family. Those who should have defended the Faith and ensured that the schools and pulpits were doing what they are supposed to be doing, are to blame. Not those parents who are now broken hearted, not least when they witness the utterly scandalous behaviour and statements from Pope Francis.
Anyway, let’s move on – I’m certainly moving on… time to go pubbing and clubbing, folks, so if you insist on continuing to discuss “respect” remember respect for the house rules and no personal remarks, especially about moi, please and thank you!
The ordinary rules of charity are all we need when writing about Pope Francis IMHO.
I hope I’m not out of order giving this link to a Remnant article but I think it’s interesting. I don’t mean to start any animosity, because I respect the blog’s position that we don’t question the pope’s election, but I just thought it was interesting that a priest was asking the question.
Editor, feel free to delete it if inappropriate.
Here again is the comment I initially responded to in respect to Pope Francis:
“…do you mean he is ill? What a shame if he is.
The tone of that comment is self explanatory and therefore requires no further explanation from me.
As regards my response to Nicky’s comment, I would first of all remind you that it concerned adult Catholics who ABANDON the Faith.
Sure, our Modernist Popes, bishops and priests have played a role in so unprecedented a crisis, but let’s not forget either that these are Catholics who do not have a correct disposition of soul, perhaps through neglect of prayer or some kind of sinful lifestyle they have no desire to give up.
There are a lot of other concerned adult Catholics in the Church today who have not given up the Faith. Many, in fact, have researched the teaching of the Church, grasped the truth of things and embraced Tradition as the remedy to this present crisis. So why didn’t they end up as apostates? Could it be because they sought the help of Our Lord and Our Lady in earnest prayer? As I said, it’s too simplistic to blame the hierarchy, negligent as it is, for every apostate.
This is in reply to your post of Oct 26, I:17 a.m, “Sure, our Modernist Popes, bishops and priests have played a role in so unprecedented a crisis, but let’s not forget either that these are Catholics who do not have a correct disposition of soul, perhaps through neglect of prayer or some kind of sinful lifestyle they have no desire to give up”. That is true, almost without exception, for those among my family and friends who are either, lapsed or (worse still) cafeteria-style Catholics.
Jobstears and Athanasius
In response to your posts.
I am trying to find the correct form of words to explain what I mean, so please bear with me.
Speaking personally I can say that there is nothing saint-like in me that makes me worthy of knowing what is right and what is wrong in the terrible situation in which we find ourselves. There are many people in my personal knowledge who are more worthy, and yet who seem to be blind to the danger in which we stand – indeed who have “gone over to the other side”. Indeed, reading many of the posts here I am humbled by the example shown, but I think it is a mistake to think that it is only, and necessarily, because of “neglect of prayer or some kind of sinful lifestyle” that is the cause of the indifference and neglect of what is due from a faithful Catholic. I know of 2 priests, both “White Fathers”, one of whom risked his life on many occasions in Africa, and both of whom lost the Faith. It is a deep mystery to me that they did so. They did so much more for God than I have ever done.
We can only be profoundly grateful (and profoundly fearful) that in these circumstances grace has been accorded to us.
Let me begin my response by saying that I did not rule out the Modernist errors of the Church’s authorities as contributing to the apostasy of so many Catholics in our time. Of course it has played a major role in weakening faith and hope in a good many Catholics, and has contributed massively to general indifference to divine truth.
As regards the other aspect, that of lost faith because of neglect of prayer or of unrepented sinful living. It is the teaching of the saints that faith is not lost suddenly, but by degrees over a period of time. God alone knows what happened to the souls of those two White Fathers you mentioned, but just look at what became of Judas Iscariot. It was not so much his sin that sent him to Hell as his despair of God’s mercy. It is a favourite trick of the devil to convince souls steeped in sin that there is no hope for them. Others he manages to keep away from confession by exaggerating the shame of their sins. It’s a mystery indeed, but prayer, or the absence thereof, plays a major role in the way Catholics behave.
I don’t think God plays favorites, He gives each of us the necessary graces, but we have to cooperate with them, as Our Lady did.
I do think though, that neglect of prayer (St. Alphonsus said, “If you pray, you are positive of saving your soul. If you do not pray, you are just as positive of losing your soul”) and lifestyle are what make it possible for us to refuse to cooperate with the grace given us. According to St. John of the Cross, if I have within myself, a bedrock of unmortified desires and inclinations, it would be sufficient to keep me from responding to the many invitations of grace God sends my soul.
I agree with you, “We can only be profoundly grateful (and profoundly fearful) that in these circumstances grace has been accorded to us”.
I don’t think anyone disagrees with anything you, or Athanasius, has written on this, but if someone has not been taught about prayer and if those who are charged with teaching them, teach them to bring rocks and other new age nonsense to the classroom for meditation purposes etc. then that learner is disadvantaged big time.
Of course God gives every soul the grace needed for salvation but He has largely charged His Church with the work of communicating the knowledge and grace necessary. That is His ordinary means of communicating grace. That’s why we go to Confession, why we want the Last Rites, not because God cannot communicate His grace to us without these means – He can: Christ is not bound by His sacraments. However, that is the ordinary means of salvation and if young people are not properly taught the Faith, about its necessity for salvation, and the efficacious power of the Sacraments, then there is a greater risk of them being lost for all eternity.
In the CCC we read that “God wills that we be saved through knowledge of the truth” (“the truth” in italics in CCC) so it is crucial that sound knowledge of the Faith be taught in schools, homes and parishes. Cardinal Winning (deceased former Archbishop of Glasgow) acknowledged that three generations of Catholics had been lost to the Faith through the failure of the schools to pass it on and it is certainly simplistic to argue that the empty churches around the world are a result of the absentees not praying enough. Believe me, the story about the new age rocks is not something I invented. I’ve met pupils in Catholic schools who were told to bring in rocks for their lesson on prayer. I also met one challenging primary school boy who had been referred to a Counsellor. Her advice to this Catholic school attending pupil, to help his temper, was to carry a small rock in his pocket, so he could grasp hold of it when he felt his temper rising. Not rosary beads, notice, not advised to stop and say a Hail Mary, but a rock. When I explained to him that the rock had not one jot of power, while the Hail Mary did, and could change him, he looked at me as if I were the one needing help. So much, then, for the much lauded “Catholic school ethos”.
The saints you quote are speaking of those of us blessed to have been taught the truths of our Faith and who fail to follow through with the practise. Not those who have not been properly grounded in our religion. We’ve had popes, bishops and priests telling us (not just giving the impression any more) that one religion is as good as another. So, I do not think for a second that lapsation can be placed on the shoulders of those who are victims of the current crisis in the Church. This blog exists to fill that gap, of course, that those who have not been taught or were inadequately taught and who need to learn more now that they are aware of the Church crisis, and for those modern and ill informed Catholics, there can be no excuse. We meet with those who have either not been properly taught or are old enough to know better but prefer to stick with the “reforms” of Vatican II because it makes life easier for them – they, certainly, have something to answer for because their own children and grandchildren will be mal-formed due, in part at least, to their negligence. The modern diocesan Catholics quote the popes and bishops to justify going along with the novelties in their parish.
That’s where the criticism of the hierarchy, from the Pope down, is entirely justified. The fact of the negligence of the hierarchy stands alone, independent of the fact that God will work in souls, despite them. It is the fact that they failed in their elementary duty to teach and preach the Faith in its entirety and with conviction, that will haunt the hierarchy at their judgment. I’m sure I didn’t pray a quarter as much as I should have in my youth, but I was blessed in having some teachers at least who were sound and convinced of the Faith, especially one who told us that we could only learn a certain amount in religion lessons and we had a baptismal duty to keep educating ourselves in the Faith, by reading as much as possible. That advice stayed with me. Youngsters today are receiving contrary advice from teachers and priests, who tell them not to be “homophobic” etc.
That’s the nature of the crisis in the Church. It’s not a one-size-fits-all issue but the larger portion of the blame for the widespread apostasy today, must lie with the clergy and hierarchy, especially with the modern popes. And I think it is clear from many statements from Fatima scholars and from Cardinal Ciappi (“In the Third Secret it is revealed that the crisis in the Church begins at the top”) that Our Lady thinks so as well.
I don’t disagree with you, and in no way was I implying that the hierarchy is not to blame! Far from it.
I was simply referring to one lot of Catholics – the ones who ought to know better.
Well, in that case, you’re back at the top of the pay scale. Those words (“Editor, I don’t disagree with you”) are music to mine ears!
It seems every family has its fair share of indifferent Catholics. I just thought it was important to make the point for balance’ sake.
The more I think about the Synod and how it was set up by Francis to start weakening the foundations of the Church via a direct attack on doctrine, the more it makes sense, when you consider it as a simple continuation of Francis’ attack on the Petrine Office.
By simultaneously eroding public perception and expectations of what both the Papal office and Catholic teaching should look like, Francis is at one and the same time attempting to fast track the expulsion of Holiness from Catholicism and instead produce some kind of happy cult.
There is so much here you might consider as evidence, but the refusal to adopt Traditional Papal custom by staying in an flat says more for than everything else. Why? Well I think that this continual act of belligerence that has set his tone of Pontificate so far as one which is at war with his predecessors. He will not acknowledge Papal authority publicly (but as we have seen he will use the iron fist when he can get away with it, under the mainstream media radar) by refusing to take up the Papal Office materially. He will not acknowledge Papal Authority publicly by coming out with ridiculous “Who am I to judge?’ quips.
In fact everything he does is an act of Laicism. Everything is planned, everything is designed to chip chip chip away.
There is a perception amongst Conservative and Traditional circles that Francis is a loose canon. How wrong you are if you think that, as I previously did. His attacks on the Church are calculated, targeted and hitting home.
I completely agree – Cardinal Nichols is being very dishonest in the way he reports on the Synod to his archdiocese. However, given his support for the Soho Masses, I think we already knew that he does not have a Catholic conscience.
Comments are closed.