Contradictory Teachings: the Papolatrists’ Puzzle…

Contradictory Teachings: the Papolatrists’ Puzzle…

PopeFrancispensivecropped“The Mufti explained things very well to me, with such meekness, and using the Quran…”  – Pope Francis

“I30114_Koran_Volksausgabe.indd went to Turkey as a pilgrim, not a tourist…when I entered the Mosque, I couldn’t say: ‘Now, I’m a tourist!’ No, it was completely religious. And I saw that wonder! The Mufti explained things very well to me, with such meekness, and using the Quran, which speaks of Mary and John the Baptist. He explained it all to me….At that moment I felt the need to pray. I asked him: ‘Shall we pray a little?’ To which her esponded: ‘Yes, yes’. I prayed for Turkey, for peace, for the Mufti, for everyone and for myself, as I need it… I prayed, sincerely….Most of all, I prayed for peace, and I said: ‘Lord, let’s put an end to these wars!’ Thus, it was a moment of sincere prayer.” …Pope Francis at his press conference on board the flight returning from Turkey on November30, 2014.

“Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” …Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos  Pius XI

“Sharing our experience in carrying that cross, to expel the illness within our hearts, which embitters our life: it is important that you do this in your meetings. Those that are Christian, with the Bible, and those that are Muslim, with the Quran. The faith that your parents instilled in you will always help you move on.” …Pope Francis, addressing immigrant Muslims in a Roman parish during the World Day of Migrants and Refugees on 19 January 2014   

Mortalium Animos“They seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy” …Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

“I believe we are moving forward in our relations with the Orthodox; they have the sacraments and apostolic succession … we are moving forward. What are we waiting for? For theologians to reach an agreement? That day will never come, I assure you, I’m skeptical. Theologians work well but remember what Athenagoras said to Paul VI: “Let’s put the theologians on an island to discuss among themselves and we’ll just get on with things!”… We mustn’t wait. Unity is a journey we have to take, but we need to do it together. This is spiritual ecumenism: praying together, working together.” …Pope Francis, during his press conference on the flight returning from Turkey on November 30, 2014.

“All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of Mortalium Animosthe Catholic faith are completely destroyed”…Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

“To dialogue means to believe that the “other” has something worthwhile to say, and to entertain his or her point of view and  perspective. Engaging in dialogue does not mean renouncing our own ideas and traditions,but the claim that they alone are valid or absolute.”  Pope Francis, message for the 48th World Communications Day, “Communication at the Service of an Authentic Culture of Encounter,”June1, 2014 –Cfn>.9: 6

“Unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it. Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, 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. …Pius XI, Mortalium Animos      Source


Above is a glimpse of the problem faced by those Catholics today who insist that fidelity to the Church requires unquestioning obedience to “the pope”.  How can they read the above starkly contrasting statements from two pontiffs, and keep a straight face as they insist that both are speaking the mind of Christ, and are guaranteed to be infallible in their every utterance. We get them on this blog a lot, those who are, by definition, papolatrists – they literally idolise the pope, shutting out their intelligence and reason.  I wonder how they feel reading the above; which of the two popes – Pope Francis or Pope Pius XI was being guided by the immutable, unchanging Holy Spirit, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived?  Is it possible that the Holy Spirit is speaking unchangeable Truth about religious unity through both of these popes?  Or did He, er, change His mind, after Pius XI wrote his encyclical Mortalium Animos? That’s what the logic of papolatry dictates. Isn’t it?  Can we help them to know how to explain the above contradictory teachings? Above all, can we help them to understand why it is that, in the matter of religious unity, we must obey, not Pope Francis but Pope Pius XI? Can we? Let’s go to it!

Comments (196)

  • westminsterfly

    I’ve posted this a 1000 times before, but I think it is very relevant on this thread. Papolators and those who think that “Ecumenism, and inter-faith, dialogue are a work of The Holy Spirit” need to read this.

    On Papalotry

    by Dr. William Marra

    Editor’s note: This is edited transcript of a portion of the speech “Alternative to Schism” given at the Roman Forum Conference in August, 1995. In this presentation, Dr. Marra presents a clarification that will help Catholics to think critically and correctly, when confusing and contradictory statements emanate from even the highest authorities in the Church.

    Belief and Obedience

    My great teacher, Dietrich von Hildebrande wrote four outstanding books on the present crisis in the Church. Recently, his latest book, The Charitable Anathema was published. I wish we could mail a copy to Rome. A chapter in this book contains one of the most important lectures he ever gave to the Roman Forum. It concerns the difference between belief and obedience. He called it the critical difference. It was masterful.

    The point is this: if there is a problem on a question of truth, and there’s a big dispute, and finally Rome speaks (invoking its infallible authority) and says, “This statement must be believed de fide”. Then this is the end of the dispute. Roma locuta causa finita. Rome has spoken, the case is finished. That is the end of it. Therefore, we owe assent of belief to statements of truth.

    However, practical decisions of Churchmen, even the highest authorities; the Pope, bishops, priests are something quite different. We do not say, for example, that a command of a Pope or decision of a Pope to call a council is true or not. We can say that it is wise or not … it is opportune or not. Such a decision in no way asks us to assent to its truth. It asks us to obey the command or commands that pertain to us. This is what von Hildebrande meant by difference between belief and obedience. And we Catholics are never obliged to believe that a given command, or given decision of anyone, including the Pope, is necessarily that of the Holy Ghost.

    The Limits of Divine Protection

    There is a kind of papalotry going around. It acts as if no matter what comes out of Rome, it must have been inspired by the Holy Ghost. This line of thinking holds, for example, that if Vatican II was called, it means that the Holy Ghost wanted to call it. But this is not necessarily the case. Convoking Vatican II was a personal decision of John XXIII. He may have thought God was telling him to call it, but who knows? He has no special charism that guarantees he would recognize such a decision as coming from the Holy Ghost with theological certitude.

    We can say that the Pope has the power to call a council. We can say that the authorities in the Church can call upon the Holy Spirit to guarantee, in a very narrow set of cases, that what comes from this council is de fide. (And nothing in Vatican II was pronounced de fide, Ed.)

    The glory of the Church is that it has supernatural help to define truth. It has supernatural help to guarantee that its sacraments are efficacious and so on. But who said that the decision to call the council was protected by the Holy Ghost?

    Some Clarifications

    Let’s look at certain practical decisions of any Pope.

    A Pope could command the suppression of a religious order. That happened a few centuries ago, the Pope suppressed the Jesuits. He was a little premature, I think they should have waited. This type of suppression concerns obedience, not belief.

    For all practical purposes, Paul VI suppressed the Roman rite. We have no Roman rite. Pope Paul VI thought he had the liturgical power to do this. Von Hildebrande called it the greatest blunder of Paul VI’s Pontificate. So to suppress a religious order, to suppress a rite, to name a bishop is a matter of obedience, not belief, and it is not protected by the Holy Ghost.

    We have 2,600 bishops in the Church. Does that mean the Holy Ghost picked all of those? That is blasphemy, friends. Do you want to blame the Holy Ghost for Archbishop Weakland?

    As already mentioned, to call a council is a practical decision of the Pope. A person may piously believe that God inspired it. But no one can say that this is an object of faith.

    Also, we must not believe that whoever becomes Pope is the man God wants to be Pope. This is a play on words that “this is the will of God.”

    Every theologian has always understood there are two senses to the will of God. The positive will of God and the permissive will of God.

    Now, we know that God positively wants holy people in the Church … “this is the will of God, your sanctification”. But when evil is done, this is through the permissive will of God. It is not something that God directly wills, but something that He permits when men exercise their free will.

    Before any conclave which elects a Pope, the electors are supposed to pray for guidance by the Holy Spirit. Now, if they are truly men of God, and they really pray, it is to be expected that the Holy Spirit will give them the right choice. But if they’re willful, ambitious, carnal men, and they are not truly opening themselves to inspiration, an unworthy candidate of their own choosing may be the result. That doesn’t mean that the man elected ceases to be Pope. That doesn’t mean that he loses the protection of the Holy Spirit when he teaches faith and morals. But it could be that this Pope will end up to be a disaster.

    Now how do I know this? Well, not because I know that any of the modern Popes have been a disaster, this is too controversial. But in Church history, there are many instances of disastrous Pontificates.

    We Learn From History

    Dr. John Rao is a good friend of mine. He is a professor of Church History. He is very unhappy with the so-called conservative people who, when they do their doctor’s degree in history, they will document all of the disastrous decisions of the past Popes. They will write about all the disastrous things that happened. But when it comes to the present situation, they’re mum. They believe that everything must be right. But if everything must be right and perfect in present Pontificates, then why do they write their doctoral dissertation on the disasters of Pope Honorius, Pope Liberius, Pope Alexander VI or anyone else?

    So, Rao insists that we learn from history, and that in no way can we say “ ‘X’ was elected Pope therefore that is the will of God”. No, it may be either the positive will of God or merely the permissive will of God. But it could be that the man selected to be Pope may be the worst candidate for the office.

    It is as if God says, “you carnal electors and you carnal people in the Church who did not pray enough will get what you deserve.” The Papacy is still protected, and will never teach with its infallible authority something as true that is false, but everything else is up for grabs. The given Pope might do every type of abomination … his personal life might be a disaster, he might be self-willed, and so on. It could be that he is a horrible person.

    He can also be a disaster for the faith even if he is a good person.

    The Papacy is not protected from such a calamity. And this is a point on which we ought to have a real dialogue with the so-called conservatives.

    Reprinted from the December 1999 edition of Catholic Family News MPO Box 743 * Niagara Falls, NY 14302 905-871-6292 *

    February 9, 2015 at 9:22 am
    • editor


      Many thanks for re-posting that because it bears repeating over and over again. However, there are, I’m afraid to say, visitors here who appear to be wilfully blind, and no matter how solid the facts presented to them, will not accept the truth.

      Who was it said that some devils are only cast out by prayer and fasting? Of course, we must keep on doing what we can to enlighten the papolatrists but, next to sedevacantists, they are almost impossible to educate.

      Thanks, though – Dr Marra’s clear article is an excellent contribution to this thread (and just about every other thread!)

      February 9, 2015 at 12:16 pm
    • Common Sense

      Westminster Fly

      Many commentators on this blog quote various holders of the Papal Office who reigned prior to 1963, and boldy uphold their every utterance, including private statements on issues like Fatima, as binding, and, indeed, of individual clerics, whose views concur with theirs, as authoritative, and then they condemn those who uphold the consistent teaching of the whole of The Magisterium, including the teaching of The Councils, as Papalotry if they disagree with the said teaching.

      The reality is those who quote particular holders of The Papal Office, and a random collection of Cardinals as clerics, as the last word are guilty of Papalotry, whereas those who listen to the consistent teaching of all Popes, and the Magisterium, and all conciliar teaching – including what Pope Benedict has said is one of the greatest treasures of The Church, as dis his predecessors, and his successor – The Second Vatican Council.

      Those who ignore Conciliar Teaching, and selectively quote a Pope, are surely the ones who need to avoid Papalotry.

      It is note necessary to challenge your selective use of quotes and authors, on every issue above, because they each fall into the same error. Your belief that what you, your favourite Popes, Clerics, and authors, teach as a personal opinion, is binding on the whole Church, which in reply says to you it doesn’t!

      February 9, 2015 at 12:32 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        Ok, here’s a challenge for you.

        You keep insisting that the teaching of Vatican II and its Popes is in line with the teaching of the Traditional Magisterium.

        So, please direct us to all the statements of pre-Vatican II Popes and Councils which even remotely indicate that ecumenism, inter-religious initiatives and religious freedom are good doctrines rather than perverse errors.

        You made the claim. Now back it up! Everyone on the blog, I’m sure, is eagerly anticipating your response.

        February 9, 2015 at 12:50 pm
      • westminsterfly

        “Whereas those who listen to the consistent teaching of all Popes, and the Magisterium . . . “ That’s just it CS. There hasn’t always been consistency since the Council. Some post conciliar teaching cannot be squared with what the Church has always taught from the beginning. If you can bend truth, and say that what was always condemned is now supported, and if that works for you, then so be it. But don’t expect everybody to fall in line. You fail to understand the difference between false and true obedience. “Hold fast to what is good” ! And stop being a tiresome troll on blogs like this one (was Fr Hunwicke referring to you in this post the other day?) Try the ‘Pray Tell’ blog. It’s definitely more up your street.

        February 9, 2015 at 1:51 pm
      • Common Sense

        The Church would disagree, and you are vocal individual and not, as far as I know, part of The Magisterium. That is the important point no matter what links, or quotes, you post.

        Fr Hardwicke a former Anglican,who career and supposed meteoric career stalled, and now an authentic/ overnight Catholic source?

        February 9, 2015 at 2:10 pm
      • westminsterfly

        CS – Where have I seen that distinctive pattern of typos and word omissions before? Hmmmmm, let me think . . . something very familiar about it. Anyway, I digress. I did not quote Fr Hunwicke as an ‘authentic Catholic source’ for anything – this is a classic example of you putting words into the mouth of another. I merely asked whether you had been on his site, as he refers to ‘Common Sense’ in one of his posts about the problems of having a comment box. Although judging by the tone of your last paragraph, you are clearly as sniffy about him as you are most of the commenters on this blog. So why trawl these blogs? Is your life so empty that this is all you have to do?

        February 9, 2015 at 2:40 pm
      • Common Sense

        May I suggest you try to “spot” authentic teaching, from an authoritative source, rather than spend your time on here,. Or is your life so empty that this is all you have to do?

        February 9, 2015 at 2:45 pm
      • westminsterfly

        What does it matter to you, CS, where I spend my time? As Christina (at 2:39) has correctly stated, you are clearly not on here for honest purposes.

        February 9, 2015 at 3:18 pm
      • Common Sense

        It is you who commented on how I spend my time. I merely posed the same question/comment to you. I think it was legitimate, and right, that I do so. You said to me: “Or is your life so empty that this is all you have to do?” If you can’t remember doing that then it is no wonder you cannot remember who The Pope is, and when The Church last met in Council, and offered to the whole Church, and The World, teaching that is binding, and part of the unbroken Tradition of The Church.

        February 9, 2015 at 3:24 pm
      • Jobstears


        Either you have problems comprehending the written word, or you are comfortable making up lies. Who on this blog has ever said the private statements of popes on issues like Fatima are binding? It has repeatedly been said, no one is obliged to believe in any apparition. Bloggers actually know their catechism!

        And please do show us where any blogger on CT has condemned those who uphold the CONSISTENT teaching of the Magisterium.

        Aren’t you selectively quoting a pope when you go on about ecumenism and inter-faith prayer meetings? Show me how this is the CONSISTENT teaching of the Church. When and where, before JP II, did this sort of thing happen? If you can prove this is what the Church has ALWAYS taught- I will attend the next inter-faith prayer meeting in the diocese.

        February 9, 2015 at 4:32 pm
      • Common Sense


        Athanasius, in condemning what he calls Papaltory, but which a truly Tradition Catholic like myself, would call attentiveness to The Magisterium, then, like many others here, preceded to quote the private teachings of pre-conciliar Popes, and their own private revelations, in favour of Fatima, and Quito (?) etc.

        In terms of pre Saint John Paul 2nd, dialogue, and meetings with Anglicans, especially The Archbishop of Canterbury, and the establishment of ARCIC predate him by a long way.

        I think it was sometime before 1950 that Catholics were given permission to pray The “Our Father” with other Christians.

        Since 1965 The Church has been working with a Working Group of The World Council of Churches.

        We cannot pray with non Christians, but they, and we, can pray in each others presence, as has happened for many decades.

        February 9, 2015 at 4:54 pm
  • Perplexed

    Is every page, paragraph, phrase in the bible binding?

    February 9, 2015 at 12:50 pm
    • Athanasius


      All you need to know and believe like the rest of us is that the Catholic Church has declared the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture to be a dogma of Faith. Not being a Biblical scholar, I can’t answer for the methods employed by the Sacred Writers in every page, paragraph and phrase of the Bible. I can assure you, however, that these did not interfere in any way with the conveying of divine truth.

      February 9, 2015 at 1:03 pm
    • editor


      What is your opinion?

      February 9, 2015 at 1:05 pm
    • westminsterfly


      I can highly recommend a great book for you. It has the answers to your questions and much more besides. It’s called ‘Jesus Christ and His Church: A Manual of Christian Apologetics’ by Fr Ferbeck. I have found it to be very helpful in the past, especially for helping converts. It can be bought online here:- God bless you!

      February 9, 2015 at 1:58 pm
    • Common Sense

      The whole of The Bible is binding, but it must be read, heard, and interpreted, within The Household of Faith, that is The Catholic Church, and not by individuals. It is always, however, The Word of God to be adhered to, and read under the inspiration of The Holy Spirit.

      February 9, 2015 at 2:14 pm
  • Christina

    Successive Pope(s) have engaged in inter-faith, and ecumenical dialogue………. But never, ever, praying with non Christians. (CS)

    (The mufti explained it all to me….At that moment I felt the need to pray. I asked him: ‘Shall we pray a little?’ To which he responded: ‘Yes, yes’ (Pope Francis)

    When, yesterday evening, this thread had elicited 83 responses, a rough count showed that 24 were from 3 trolls while 34 were taken up by the replies of a few of the usual knowledgeable and infinitely patient bloggers. This left only 25 trying to address the issues raised by the thread directly. As has already been pointed out on this and other threads, these trolls ignore the responses for the simple reason that they are not here for an honest purpose. And this is only the latest of the recent threads to be highjacked like this. I wonder if I am the only one to look at the blog hopefully night after night, only to give up and hope for better luck next time.

    I may be wrong, but, from a brief reading of the posts so far, I don’t think anyone expressed the horror I felt when I read what Pope Francis said on this flight from Turkey – perhaps the distractions came in too fast and thick:

    …….when I entered the Mosque…….it was completely religious. And I saw that wonder! The Mufti explained things very well to me, with such meekness, and using the Quran, which speaks of Mary and John the Baptist. He explained it all to me….At that moment I felt the need to pray.

    This sounds to me as if Pope Francis is claiming to have had a religious experience, – ‘I saw that wonder’, while an infidel catechised him ‘explaining it all’ – it doesn’t matter what ‘it’ was – from a diabolical source, and this inspired him to prayer.

    I think that this is a truly appalling revelation – coming from any Catholic, let alone the vicar of Christ on earth. How can one give the expected answer to the question ‘Is the Pope Catholic?’ after this and similar revelations?

    February 9, 2015 at 2:39 pm
    • Common Sense

      The Pope didn’t say we pray together, but shall we pray?

      I think he was marvelling at The Building and not the teachings.

      In so far as my postings, I and then reply to responses, That is not trolling, but in most civilised, and certainly Christian, societies be deemed to be considerate, courteous and polite.

      A scatter gun use of the word” troll” because you disagree with the opinions a person, rightly and in good faith offers, is the exact opposite, and reflects badly on the person who fires the shot.

      Further, a discussion involves contrary opinions being heard. The alternative is the blind leading the blind, and something worse than a polemic,

      February 9, 2015 at 2:52 pm
      • westminsterfly

        “The Pope didn’t say we pray together, but shall we pray?” How much more disingenuous can one get?
        My use of the word ‘troll’ was certainly not ‘scatter gun’. It applied to you, specifically, and I am correct in that application.

        February 9, 2015 at 3:21 pm
      • Common Sense

        You are entitled to your personal opinion.

        However, if The Pope prayed with the other person then the Media has been pretty silent about that, and, I think a fellow commentator here, one of your own, has pointed out Muslims do not pray with others. So a silent Media, and no condemnation of a Muslim breaching Islamic rules? I think I am right, therefore.

        I fear it is others here, including you, that is being disingenuous in twisting a simple, plain, statement by The Successor of St Peter, lawfully, reigning gloriously, and holding The Keys.

        February 9, 2015 at 3:32 pm
    • editor


      Believe me, you have my sympathy and I fully understand why you say what you say. I agree with your every word. And the stats are rivetting – thanks for that.

      The fact is, however, as CS’s response below to your excellent comment reveals, the ignorance out there is truly diabolical There are people who bend the truth this way and that way, inside out and upside down, rather than say “Oh I see the wood there, that’s a tree, I see..” It is truly almost impossible to tell the trolls from the genuinely ignorant. I am trying to give the benefit of the doubt, not least because I know for a fact that if they ARE trolls, then, much to their annoyance, I’m sure, they are really helping others who read this blog but don’t feel confident enough to comment. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been told in person and by email, how our bloggers responses to these numpties, really have enlightened the genuinely confused and ignorant. By playing their silly games, in other words, trolls afford us the opportunity to educate – and that’s what we are about! I know it’s irritating for readers suspect the troll-like behaviour but, as a teacher yourself, you will know that it takes time to suss out those who need special educational needs and those who just need a few words in their silly ears…

      For example, look at the first line of CS’s response to you: incredibly, and presumably with a straight face, he wrote: “The Pope didn’t say we pray together but shall we pray?”

      Now, this is someone who is either as thick as mince, or genuinely afraid to acknowledge the truth for fear it makes him a schismatic. I can’t say. I do have an opinion, but would prefer not to share it in public… Be assured, however, that if it became unquestionably clear that someone is taking up precious cyber-space for no other reason than to take us round in circles, then he will end up in moderation. I’ve not had time to read through all of today’s comments, but I will do so before the end of the day and then, if any action is required, moi will move in with ruthless cunning 😯

      Badly taught Catholics are very hard work. Right now, they make building a skyscraper seem like a piece of chocolate cake…

      Which reminds me – I’m off for a break!

      February 9, 2015 at 4:11 pm
      • Common Sense

        I did reply with a straight face. The report says he suggested a pause for prayer.

        No media report has stated that they prayed together, and one of your regular commentators has already observed Muslims are forbidden from praying with Muslims, and, to date, no high ranking Muslim has condemned the Mufti for a breach of Islamic rules and, further, after Assisi, each one of the meetings, The Vatican made clear Catholics cannot pray with non Christians.

        If people don’t have the intellect to connect facts, and read correctly, a factual media report – and indeed even after they quote it directly on their own blog – it is not obvious they have the intellect, or integrity, to stand in judgement of others, or their intellectual powers.

        February 9, 2015 at 4:23 pm
      • Jobstears

        “….it is not obvious they have the intellect, or integrity, to stand in judgement of others, or their intellectual powers.”

        Er….are you now, expecting us to actually ‘stand in judgment of others, or their intellectual powers’? Whatever happened to, “Who am I to judge?”

        February 9, 2015 at 5:01 pm
      • editor


        He was wrong to suggest a pause for prayer. He was wrong to enter a mosque. End of.

        As for the rest – nonsense. Ring the Muslim Council of Britain and they will tell you they are delighted when there are readings from the Koran in Catholic churches and when Catholics want to pray in mosques. Absolutely delighted.

        February 9, 2015 at 5:02 pm
      • Common Sense

        Comment removed

        February 9, 2015 at 5:22 pm
    • Jobstears


      Excellent observation! This thread like the one on Our Lady of Good Success is being hijacked, and it is frustrating.

      For a change, I’d like to hear of this pope offering his support – using the media to broadcast it- to the Christians of the middle east, instead of having prayerful moments in the temples of their persecutors.

      I have taken to using “Is a frog waterproof” instead of “Is the Pope Catholic” XD

      February 9, 2015 at 4:52 pm
  • westminsterfly

    Well said Christina, an excellent comment. Common Sense has made a statement on this blog, Pope Francis’s words and actions have shown CS’s statement to be manifestly false – but he will just go on and on, because, as you said, he is not here for an honest purpose. Although, to be fair, he may have health problems which lead him to behave in such an unreasonable manner, we just don’t know.

    February 9, 2015 at 2:45 pm
    • Common Sense


      Is this comment by Westminsterfly: “Although, to be fair, he may have health problems which lead him to behave in such an unreasonable manner, we just don’t know”, writing of me, what you deem to be Christian and fair comment?
      Even a Village idiot could only read it as an offensive comment, and an attack on those, not me, who may have health problems of the type alluded to.

      It will be a very poor reflection on this blog, if you think it is acceptable.

      February 9, 2015 at 3:55 pm
      • editor


        “Is this comment by Westminsterfly: “Although, to be fair, he may have health problems which lead him to behave in such an unreasonable manner, we just don’t know”, writing of me, what you deem to be Christian and fair comment?”

        Yes, I agree. Very Christian and more than fair. WF is always very kindly and concerned for others. I happen to know him personally and a kinder soul you will never meet.

        But, please, don’t be too hard on yourself. I don’t think you’re a Village Idiot at all. You misunderstood and wanted to clarify. Now you are aware that he is being kind, I’m sure you will want to apologise, but I know that WF is also humble, as well as charitable, and he won’t want you offering him any apologies.

        Wasn’t that awful, Pope Francis asking the Mufti if they should pray together? What if the Mufti said “yes”? With whom would the God of the First Commandment be more angry… Mufti or Pope?

        February 9, 2015 at 4:23 pm
      • Common Sense

        Out of your own mouth, so to speak, you condemn yourself.

        In the past few days you have said comments like those from WF would not be accepted, and, now, you endorse them.

        February 9, 2015 at 4:26 pm
  • westminsterfly

    What type of health problems was I alluding to CS – are you a mind-reader as well as an infallible interpreter of all things ecclesiastical? For all I know, you could well have gout, which could easily cause you to be irascible and try and pick fault in others all the time.
    There are many other health conditions, physical and mental, which cause people to behave strangely. But you seem to think I am alluding to one type. Very interesting.
    You, however, in a previous post at 3:24 said about me: “If you can’t remember doing that then it is no wonder you cannot remember who The Pope is, and when The Church last met in Council, and offered to the whole Church, and The World, teaching that is binding, and part of the unbroken Tradition of The Church”.
    In spite of this comment, implying that I have some form of dementia (which is a mockery of those who suffer from that terrible condition) I didn’t go running to Editor asking if your comment was ‘fair’ or ‘Christian’ and trying to apportion blame for your comment to the blog, so nice try, but I’m sure Editor will be able to see through that one.
    I’m not entering into any further correspondence with you on this or any other subject. You’re clearly getting some kind of warped excitement from this attention. Christina was right. Whatever purposes you are here for, they are not honest – or healthy.

    February 9, 2015 at 4:18 pm
    • editor


      I can testify to the fact that you have an excellent memory. You’ve never forgotten that I owe you that tenner which you lent me ten years ago. Yorkshire-men, they say, are Scotsmen with the generosity squeezed out! 😀

      February 9, 2015 at 4:26 pm
    • Common Sense

      I am happy that God will stand in judgement of you. You spoke of being disingenuous, others might call your latest response a lie.

      I would advise you to check the time of Confessions in a Church in Communion with Rome.

      No I haven’t suggested you have dementia, but that it is odd you cannot remember I replied to a question/comment you posed, and then you suggested I was impudent in posing the same question comment to you. It is odd that you did so. Lets leave it at that.

      February 9, 2015 at 4:30 pm
    • Common Sense


      You wrote of yourself “I didn’t go running to Editor asking if your comment was ‘fair’ ”

      I am pretty sure that in the same post in which The Editor counselled against “ad hominem” attacks, she revealed insiders, like yourself, email her to get non insiders banned, and that that is the best way, as she doesn’t want to appear to respond to the baying crowd of junkies.

      Therefore, I can accept you didn’t publicly go screaming to The Editor. I, however, publicly appealed to her publicly , – as that has more integrity than a snide, hidden email attack , something she prefers – to publicly uphold, her public utterances.

      It is, strangely, something she demands of The Pope, and others, every day.

      I guess it is another of those situations where a truly Christian person might ask What Would Jesus Do?

      February 9, 2015 at 4:41 pm
      • editor


        You are spoiling this thread with you silliness. I must correct you when you accuse WF of emailing me to get people like you banned. I have certainly had emails asking me to moderate people who are manifestly not seriously blogging, but I can not remember a single occasion when WF did so. And how do you know what sort of communication I prefer? I certainly prefer people who are not willing to keep to our simple house rules to get lost. That’s about as straightforward as I can say it.

        Anyway, it’s none of your business who emails me about what, and a red herring.

        Let this be the end of these personal comments. I’m now deleting all comments that are not focused – exclusively – on the topic. And if I take it into my head to start pressing my delete button, an awful lot of the above posts will also disappear. So gerragrip

        Now, to help you re-focus…

        Why, do you think, did God allow Pope Pius XI to publish Mortalium Animos, when He must have known He was going to reveal the very OPPOSITE of its contents to the 20th century pontiffs?

        February 9, 2015 at 4:56 pm
      • Common Sense

        Comment removed – persists in the error that popes cannot err, as long as they are alive – crackers.

        February 9, 2015 at 5:09 pm
      • Common Sense

        I have been banned again.

        Ed: you weren’t “banned” but – since you have made that allegation again, despite my previous explanations that (1) sometimes, a blip of WordPress I presume, this happens and (2) I always give warning of impending moderation before placing anyone in moderation – then “banned” you are, chum. Don’t waste your time posting here again – we get the message… Everything and anything a pope says and does is right and proper, the only rule of thumb being that he has to be alive at the time. Once he’s dead, he doesn’t count. And anyone who says otherwise isn’t a Catholic. Enjoy your new religion. Goodbye.

        February 9, 2015 at 5:25 pm
      • Common Sense

        That is not a fair representation of what I said. I have said it can’t be Papalatory to listen to a living Pope, and not if you quote a deceased Pope, who expressed a personal opinion, just because you agree with him!

        Ed: a papolatrist is someone (like you) who does not understand the nature of the papacy, and who thinks everything a pope says is correct, unless he’s dead. That’s what you have said. What was the term, again… Oh yes, the “dead popes society”. Some Catholic who would refer to past popes in that way. Now, please stop putting in comments as I always feel duty bound to correct your ignorance and I really don’t have the time. Buy some solid Catholic books on the crisis and study up. Then come back and no need to apologise.

        February 9, 2015 at 8:48 pm
      • Common Sense

        I replied earlier to this but the answer, strangely, didn’t appear.

        The basic tenet of this blog is that holders of The Papal Office, primarily since the first one in the 1960;s was elected, can and do err, and, if you apply that same logic to pre-1960 you may have answered your own question. You asked : “why, do you think, did God allow Pope Pius XI to publish Mortalium Animos, when He must have known He was going to reveal the very OPPOSITE of its contents to the 20th century pontiffs?”

        You apply total infallibility to every Pope elected before the 1960’s – something you call papalatory – and then say say after that they seem to have lost that authority.

        Ed: well, the fact that this post went up, should have allowed you to apologise for accusing me of “banning” you (before I actually did so – now you are in moderation because it seems clear to me that you are not in good faith here.) And your continuing inability to understand the basic Catholic teaching that we know if a teaching is authentically Christian when it has been believed by the whole Church everywhere and always, proves my point. Stop wasting my time now. If you take time to type further comments, be assured they will be routinely deleted.

        February 9, 2015 at 5:50 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        That’s not what was said. You have misread and misunderstood Editor’s comment.

        The Syllabus of Pius IX is infallible teaching that can never be altered or recanted, since it is divine doctrine. So how is it possible for you and others like you to state that the Conciliar Popes have the power to change the unchangeable to meet different times and circumstances?

        Are you saying that it is possible for God to contradict Himself; that He alters His doctrine to suit worldly trends and human whim? It sounds like this is what you’re saying and it’s a ridiculous, if not sacrileges, notion.

        I suggest you re-read Editor’s comments, slowly!

        Ed: note, now that Common Sense is in moderation, all posts using his name will go into moderation, as yours just did. Anyone who still wishes to correct his errors, should refer to him as CS.

        February 9, 2015 at 7:04 pm
  • Athanasius

    Editor, Christina & WF,

    I have to say that I am of the same opinion as the rest of you, have been for some time but was a bit reticent about saying so in case others thought me unkind to poor unfortunates who were only trying to get to the truth.

    I noticed immediately that Domchas, David Roemer, Concerned Catholic, Perplexed and Common Sense all appeared at the same time with the same anti-doctrinal attitude. The tactic they employed was exactly the same in all cases; take up the thread space with innate questions and propositions that no genuine Catholic would ever propose. Their manner of writing has been childish to say the least and I have to say that I can’t believe they’re that daft.

    My suspicion is that they are known to each other, at least in a general way, perhaps as contributors to some morally dissenting blog somewhere and they’ve been having a wee bit of fun by coming on here to disrupt the blog.

    The good thing is that if they thought that, then they were wrong. All they succeeded in doing was have us make clearer than ever the Church’s Magisterial teaching for the benefit of all those genuine readers out there who may have had genuine questions. If what I suspect is true, then it is evident that God does in fact bring good from evil. But I think it’s now time to send them away back to where they came from.

    February 9, 2015 at 5:12 pm
    • Common Sense

      Can I say specifically, and without clarification I do not know, or have any other form of contact, with anyone who posts on this blog. I refute the suggestion 100%.

      Ed: OK, thanks for that. Now, goodbye.

      February 9, 2015 at 5:14 pm
    • Jobstears


      I agree. Editor, in giving everyone a fair chance to question, and express his/her doubts on the blog, has helped “to make clearer than ever the Church’s Magisterial teaching for the benefit of all…”

      You would not believe the number of times I’ve had the same questions about Church teaching/doctrine/the binding force of Vatican ii/ecumenism thrown at me! So, whether or not the questions were intended to disrupt, the answers served as a refresher course!

      February 9, 2015 at 5:32 pm
    • Common Sense


      A third attempt:

      I do not know anyone who posts here, or have any other form of contact with anyone who does.

      I refute any suggestion I do outright, and without any qualification of any kind.

      February 9, 2015 at 5:45 pm
    • editor


      As you know – and as it is stated clearly in our About Us section – when we get to the going round in unacceptable circles stage, I will moderate these nuisances. Until then it really doesn’t help for space to be taken up telling me what I already know. I hope that doesn’t sound sharp but I’m really pressed for time and I do get irritated with myself, be assured, for my saintly patience with them… I will need to toughen up 😀

      As you know, I am unusually busy these days and so it is taking me even longer to keep up with the blog. But be assured, those of you who make huge efforts to educate on this blog are doing a great job in countering the evil influence of those who post heresies. The truth speaks for itself, and I have had (actually on this very day) two emails from people telling me that they have been helped by the repetition of the answers to Common Sense and Perplexed. So, whether they are struggling intellectually with the teaching of the Church on the role of the pope, or whether they are trolls, readers are being helped by the contributions of our excellent blog team.

      CS is now in moderation. And I will do my best to be quicker off the mark in future, and not cut quite so much slack to those who do not grasp what is being explained to them in a reasonable length of time. As I’ve learned from experience in such discussion – both oral and written – over the years, those who resist the revealed truth the most, usually do so because they are living what one priest described to me as a “counter-witness” to the Gospel. An immoral life, in other words. Who knows? Certainly, something is making them blind and wilful, and if not sin, what, then? Rhetorical question 😀

      February 9, 2015 at 7:13 pm
      • Athanasius


        Yes, I do understand your predicament and I agree that there’s a fine balance between cutting the ignorant some slack and sticking them into moderation. The good news is that the more slack these folks get, the more they hang themselves with their outrageous claims and demonstrate to others their intransigent dissent from sound doctrine. The teaching of the Church always triumphs in the end!

        February 9, 2015 at 7:26 pm
      • editor

        Exactly, Ath. Spot, absolutely ON!

        February 9, 2015 at 8:29 pm
    • Domchas

      Comment deleted – never pays to say our bloggers – especially Athanasius – are mentally challenged. I tried it once – ouch! For the record, I’m one of the few people in this fair land with a letter from a doctor saying I’m sane. Where’s yours? 😀

      February 10, 2015 at 10:27 pm
      • Athanasius


        I too have a sanity clause written into my discharge letter!

        February 10, 2015 at 11:37 pm
      • editor


        Yes, but you need annual follow-up appointments. I was sent home with firm instructions never to return!

        February 10, 2015 at 11:51 pm
  • Common Sense

    My replies are being deleted as I post them!

    Ed: then, take the hint!

    February 9, 2015 at 5:42 pm
    • Petrus


      Let me ask you this: what are the fruits of the ecumenical movement? I have to say that the Church condemned ecumenism for very good reasons. The fruit of this diabolical activity is religious indifferentism, which inevitably leads to apostasy and loss of Faith.

      I grew up in a very ecumenical parish. Our parish priest exhorted us to attend ecumenical services in order to pray with members of our “sister churches”. He encouraged me to play the organ for the local Church of Scotland, attend Protestant youth clubs and holiday camps. At the same time, the Archdiocese of Glasgow, under the stewardship of Cardinal Winning, played a full part in ecumenical activities throughout the city. Eventually I stopped going to Mass and joined the Church of Scotland.

      If I had grown up prior to the erroneous teachings of the post conciliar popes this would never have happened. The Church, in Her wisdom, knows that to protect the faithful from indifferentism ecumenism must be condemned. She knows that no good fruit could come from it. No pope can change this. The popes since Vatican II have tried and look at the state the Church is in! It has brought forth bad fruit because it is not from God.

      You need to remember that the mission of the Church is to lead all souls to Heaven. It’s not to create a tolerant, caring society, where there is no Divine Truth, only opinions that are all equally respected. How does the ecumenical movement aide the Church in Her mission to lead all souls to Heaven? Quite simply, it doesn’t. It hinders.

      It is a hindrance to the Church’s mission. It’s also a sin against charity. Charity is not affirming someone’s erroneous beliefs. It is explaining the truth and doing everything in one’s power to help another get to Heaven. The ecumenical movement has a Protestant agenda. You won’t find “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” discussed at these events. Our Lady is never mentioned. The Sacraments are downplayed. Protestant hymns are sung. Indeed, ecumenism is an attack on Catholicism, hence the reason it was condemned.

      We must remember that the Second Vatican Council did not have the authority to contradict previous Church teaching. No other Council in the Church’s history did that. This was a Council which set out under the guise of a Pastoral Council and ended up a revolution in cope and mitre.

      It is the only Council to fail to condemn the major error of its day, namely Communism. Its documents are infallible only when they reaffirm Church doctrine. The errors contained in Vatican II have never been declared binding on Catholics by any of the post conciliar popes.

      You need to take all of this into account and simply cling to Traditional Catholic teaching. “By their fruits you shall know them” is the litmus test. There are only bad fruits produced by Ecumenism and the other novelties of Vatican II.

      February 9, 2015 at 7:39 pm
      • Laura


        That’s a fantastic post, very clear. Thank you for it, because it is very helpful to countering the ecumania around us.

        February 9, 2015 at 8:34 pm
      • Common Sense

        I have attended many places of worship, of other faiths, and many ecumenical gatherings, and on a daily basis, almost, have ecumenical, and inter-faith, contact, but not one inch would I alter, or abandon my Catholic faith. It is not sensible to blame, “The Church”, or “a priest” for our poor decisions. The Church is still Catholic, your priest is probably still a priest, if he is alive, and the majority of your fellow parishioners probably stayed as Catholics. It is folly to blame others, as Adam blamed Eve, for our personal choices.

        The Second Vatican Council changed not one authentic teaching. Not one.

        Ed: this is too hilarious not to release. Priceless. CS has obviously never heard of Iota Unum written by a peritus (expert at the Council).

        February 9, 2015 at 9:10 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        attending places of worship “of other faiths” is at best an implicit rejection of the infallible Catholic dogma ‘Outside the Church no salvation’. What your presence at these places of false worship does is give your misguided neighbour the impression that his religion is pleasing to God, which it is not. The Catholic religion alone is pleasing to God, and it alone can save souls, invincible ignorance excepted.

        This is the perennial Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church, whether you like it or not. Hence, you have in fact, by your imprudent actions, abandoned the Catholic Faith. To enter a house of false worship and pray there is tantamount to apostasy from the true Church founded by Our Lord.

        The martyrs sacrificed their lives rather than burn a grain of incense to the false gods of the pagans, yet you say it’s perfectly ok to pray with non-Catholics and non-Christians.

        I’m afraid you really are very seriously misguided.

        February 10, 2015 at 1:29 am
      • Athanasius


        attending places of worship “of other faiths” is at best an implicit rejection of the infallible Catholic dogma ‘Outside the Church no salvation’. What your presence at these places of false worship does is give your misguided neighbour the impression that his religion is pleasing to God, which it is not. The Catholic religion alone is pleasing to God, and it alone can save souls, invincible ignorance excepted.

        This is the perennial Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church, whether you like it or not. Hence, you have in fact, by your imprudent actions, abandoned the Catholic Faith. To enter a house of false worship and pray there is tantamount to apostasy from the true Church founded by Our Lord.

        The martyrs sacrificed their lives rather than burn a grain of incense to the false gods of the pagans, yet you say it’s perfectly ok to pray with non-Catholics and non-Christians.

        I’m afraid you really are very seriously misguided.

        February 10, 2015 at 1:30 am
      • Common Sense

        To visit other places of worship for educational purposes, and engage in dialogue, is to engage in the New Evangelisation. Not to do so, is to deny our mission, and baptismal calling, to take The Gospel to the ends of the earth.

        Every time you buy a product made by a company that makes other products that are morally wrong you risk causing offence, and doing harm, but it a world like ours the consumer has no choice. However, to enter deliberately into a place where others worship, according to a different faith, to engage in dialogue, and witness to your own faith can only do good. That is what The Magisterium says. I think I am wise to listen to them, and not you.

        February 10, 2015 at 6:47 am
      • Petrus

        “To visit other places of worship for educational purposes and engage in dialogue, is to engage in the New Evangelisation.”

        No need to visit. There are multitudes of books and videos that will tell you all you need to know. Where does the Magisterium say we must engage in dialogue? A source would be helpful.

        “Not to do so, is to deny our mission, and baptismal calling, to take The Gospel to the ends of the earth.”

        The Church’s mission is to “Go teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father….etc” Can you provide some evidence that Church leaders, namely the pope, who have entered heretical places of worship and dialogued with heretics, schismatics and pagans, have fulfilled this mission? Please and thank you.

        “However, to enter deliberately into a place where others worship, according to a different faith, to engage in dialogue, and witness to your own faith can only do good.”

        I refer you back to my comment last night regarding the fruits of the ecumenical movement. What good fruits has the ecumenical movement produced? What evidence do you have to show that:

        1. Through ecumenical activities a witness to the Catholic faith is given.

        2. These types of activities can “only do good”.

        If you could provide some answers, along with reliable sources as credible evidence, that would be fantastic.

        February 10, 2015 at 10:45 am
      • Common Sense

        I apologise if it was not you Petrus, but I believe it was you blamed ecumenism for you leaving The Church at one point. However, anyone who did that would be making a solely personal judgement and they cannot blame others.

        It is by encountering The Catholic Church though ecumenical, and inter-faith, contact that many thousands, if not millions, have become Catholics.

        Ed: please quote the statistics for this incredible claim – with source. It was when Michael Davies took a breakdown of the (literal) breakdown of the Church in the UK that Cardinal Ratzinger finally woke up to the fact that the bishops of the UK were being, how can I put it, ecumenical with the truth by reporting thriving Catholic communities where – in fact – the truth was in meltdown. So, facts, please, stats with a record to show the link with ecumenism and inter-faith activity.

        In building bridges The Pope is furthering the work of Christ and his Church.

        All of the questions you pose you can research yourself, but you would need to use Catholic Sources, and not those of breakaway groups who say they are more Catholic than The Pope.

        Ed: again, please name the “breakaway” groups and don’t include the SSPX because you will waste hours and hours of time trying to find a Vatican statement which describes them as schismatic (i.e. “breakaway”.) Which groups then?

        February 10, 2015 at 11:34 am
      • Petrus

        The Classic! I’ve lost count how many times I’ve read that from someone who Loves to make unsubstantiated claims but does not have a shred of evidence to back up their crazy claims. You are nothing if not predictable, CS!

        February 10, 2015 at 7:54 pm
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        Then the Church must have denied her mission for nearly 2000 years by forbidding her children to have anything to do with false religions.

        You’re just making this up as you go along! I’ve told you before, stick to what the Church has always taught and stop giving us your personal opinion.

        February 10, 2015 at 11:00 am
      • Common Sense


        A peritus at The Council was deemed to be an “expert”, but not necessarily the sole expert, and experts disagree amongst themselves. More than once here when non regulars have mentioned theologians you, and others, have retorted but they are not The Magisterium. And so, yet again you show you are inconsistent, if you are with an “expert, they are to be listened to, and, if not, they are to be ignored.

        Joseph Ratzinger was a peritus at the Council, and he offered an alternative/critical viewpoint on some of what was discussed, but overall he, as Pope Benedict, reasserted The Council is part of the unbroken Tradition of The Church. And, from memory, did he not, in his earlier years, did he not once Counsel a pastoral response to the Divorced and Remarried not far removed from the views of Cardinal Kasper. The more one is steeped in the actual teaching of The Council, and responsive to The Holy Spirit, the more a person sees that it is one of the greatest Treasures of The Church.

        Further, every Synod, and Council, will hear from different viewpoints, and experts, as they actually discuss things, but it is the formal conclusions of the assembly, approved by The Pope, that count.

        February 10, 2015 at 6:23 am
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        Such ignorance of historical events! You need to read some authoritative accounts of what these “experts” got up to at Vatican II. Hans Kung, one of the most liberal and influential tells us frankly what he and others managed to achieve by devious means.

        Read “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, a thorough account of the machinations of Vatican II from a priest in good standing who was present at the Council as a press officer. He tells the story as it unfolded without bias towards one side or the other. If you haven’t read these accounts of the Council then you need to keep your mouth shut and act casual!

        February 10, 2015 at 10:50 am
      • Petrus


        You’re a scream. Not at all Catholic, but good for a laugh.

        February 10, 2015 at 7:35 am
      • Common Sense

        As I do not want to share biographical details I will just observe that, as usual, you are far from the mark.

        February 10, 2015 at 11:41 am
      • Jobstears

        An excellent post!

        I couldn’t agree with you more “Ecumenism is an attack on Catholicism”, it is insidious, devious and diabolical. The last, because it flies in the face of what the Church has always taught and with disastrous consequences.

        I will mention one example of the fruits of ecumenism: A friend of mine, a ‘good’ Catholic, held in high esteem in her parish, married a man who was raised Catholic, but who then left the Church to become a Protestant minister. They were married in the Church, my friend wouldn’t have it any other way. The man conducts the Protestant service on Sunday in his church, then trots off to a Catholic church ( a safe distance from his church to avoid giving scandal to his protestant flock) with his wife to attend Mass and receive Holy Communion. And nobody finds anything odd in that, not my friend and not even the priests of her parish.

        Love of our fellowman necessarily flows from our love of God, it cannot replace it.

        February 10, 2015 at 2:12 pm
      • Jobstears

        My comment “Excellent post”, was for Petrus!

        February 10, 2015 at 2:14 pm
    • Domchas

      Comment deleted – never pays to call editor “stupid” 😯

      February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm
  • westminsterfly

    I agree. The ecumenical movement is a threat to the Faith, not a work of the Holy Spirit, as C****** S**** opined, and I can testify to this in my own life, and in the lives of so many others I have encountered. I was berated some years ago by a Mill Hill missionary priest, when I told him that I had attempted to correct an Anglican colleague, who had some devotion to Our Lady, but still erroneously clung to the ‘branch theory’. The priest told me I was a ‘right-winger’ and that I shouldn’t have ‘disturbed my colleague’s conscience’. No wonder the missions are in a state.
    Christopher Ferrara’s book ‘The Great Façade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church’ is a great read and covers all these subjects in a very clear and easy-to-digest way.

    February 9, 2015 at 8:46 pm
    • Common Sense

      Comment deleted.

      February 9, 2015 at 9:11 pm
  • Bless Our Pope

    I hesitate to say anything, but based on recent posts, it seems odd to moderate “CS” as most orthodox Catholics would agree with him or her. Certainly the hierarchy would.

    February 9, 2015 at 9:16 pm
    • Margaret Mary

      Bless Our Pope,

      I’d like to ask you this question, since you chose that username and defend CS.

      How do we know which pope is speaking for the immutable and unchangeable God, when we have contradictory teachings as in the case of Pope Francis and Pius XI ?

      February 9, 2015 at 9:55 pm
      • editor


        Thanks for that. And until your question is answered, I won’t be responding to BOP’s comment and I urge others not to do so either. Then, if we get a papolatrist’s answer, BOP will go into moderation as well.

        No more Mssssss Nice Gal !

        February 9, 2015 at 11:33 pm
  • Josephine

    This is another comparison given on the Remnant blog. I think it is tremendous:

    Francis on a Plane: “That example I mentioned shortly before about that woman who was expecting her eighth (child) and already had seven who were born with caesareans. That is an irresponsibility [said with emphasis]. “No but I trust in God! [mocking the woman’s presumed conviction].” But God gives you methods to be responsible. Some think that, excuse me if I use that word, that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood! This is clear and that is why in the church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors, one can seek and I know so many, many ways out that are licit and that have helped this.”

    Pius XI, Casti Cannubi: ” “Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfilment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing.”

    February 10, 2015 at 12:29 am
    • Common Sense

      At the time of Pius Xl every act of child birth was risky, even in the Western World. Most of those risks have now been alleviated, – but risks remain – and women can be up, and about, within 24 hours nowadays. To compare the two decades, and ignore advances in caring for the health, and welfare, of mother and baby is nonsense.

      The woman who had seven children, by caesarean, was pushing the limits of medicine, and science, and testing God in a way that was not responsible, Pope Francis, as always, was making a sensible point. He was concerned for the health of the woman, and didn’t want to risk her other children being left without a Mother as consequence of her being irresponsible.

      Ed: at least one other mother of several (I think seven) born C-section, challenged the pope but I am unable to find the article at the moment and have to be elsewhere shortly.

      February 10, 2015 at 6:39 am
      • Athanasius

        Common Sense,

        Do you think we came down with the last shower? Away and feed that rubbish to the pagans, they’ll clutch at any old Papal straw to legitimise abortion and contraception.

        Pope Francis said what he said and every Catholic who is a Catholic knows that what he said wasn’t Catholic.

        As regards this daft statement: “At the time of Pius Xl every act of child birth was risky…”

        How much more risky today in our selfish, contraceptive, abortionist culture? Please!

        February 10, 2015 at 10:58 am
      • Jobstears


        At the time of Pius X, every act of childbirth was risky. True, that is why the saint, commended women for their generosity.

        Today women can be up and about within 24 hours, true again! So why was this pope moved to upbraid the mother, publicly, for her generosity? His ‘concern’ smacks more of showing the world he is a responsible citizen, doing his bit to keep the population down. Was it right for him to hold the Catholic mother up for ridicule? Because you know that is exactly what mothers of large families have to deal with.

        One pope recognizes and commends the generosity required to risk one’s life because he trusts God will provide, the other not only does not recognize the sacrifice but insults the mother’s intelligence by asking her to be ‘responsible’.

        The same issue- two different responses . Which one is the right response?

        February 10, 2015 at 2:28 pm
  • Perplexed

    Two different accounts of creation in Genesis; two different genealogies of Jesus in the infancy narratives; Joseph is the interlocutor of the angel in Matthew, whilst it is Mary who speaks with the angel in Luke: are all these texts equally binding, literally and chronologically true and accurate? In the Old Testament God tells his people “an eye for an eye”, whilst in the New Testament, shock and horror (!!!), Jesus “overrules” the precept (You have heard it said, but I say to you…) and asks us to pray and do good to those who hate us. If God can give opposite instructions between Testaments, why not Popes in successive documents (especially when these treat doctrine (subject to change) and NOT dogma (unchangeable)?

    February 10, 2015 at 11:50 am
    • Common Sense

      In each case the ” different accounts” are making an inter-related but differing theological point, and the essential point is made in both.

      God is Our Lord, and Father of all creation.

      Jesus is The New Adam, and a new creation, and the fullness of all the prophecies and The Covenants established by God in the history of humanity.

      Joseph, like his Wife, was given insight into how they, together, could do God’s will by welcoming The Christ Child.

      I suspect that if you ever share the history of your own family, and your part in it, you will emphasis different things at different times, and partly because you want to communicate inter-relating truths to a different audience, or to reinforce something not fully emphasised in the other versions.

      February 10, 2015 at 12:19 pm
    • Petrus


      I would put it to you that what you have in the Scripture verses you have quoted is complementary accounts and not contradictory. The way a Catholic looks at it is these differing texts give us a complete picture. You cannot say that Scripture contains error, only that the Church is the legitimate interpreter of Holy Scripture.

      I would also say that Our Lord fulfilled the law and you cannot at all equate this with different popes openly contradicting predecessors.

      February 10, 2015 at 12:31 pm
    • Athanasius


      Petrus has given you the proper answer to your comment, so I will just add a few words.

      If you are saying that Sacred Scripture is contradictory and false, which appears to be the case, then maybe you should take yourself off elsewhere and not waste your time or ours on this blog.

      If, however, you genuinely think that you’ve latched on to something that the greatest saints and Doctors of the Church missed for centuries, then I would suggest a psychiatrist.

      No, you haven’t stumbled upon contradictory Scriptural texts, just complimentary ones, as Petrus has pointed out and as Catholics have understood for many, many generations.

      My advice is not to become your own authority in matters your clearly do not fully comprehend. The Study and interpretation of Sacred Scripture belongs to the Church instituted by Our Lord and commissioned by Him to teach. Once people start taking that role upon themselves, whether for reasons of pride or to justify a particular lifestyle which is opposed to Scriptural revelation, then they are heading down a road to total confusion and ultimate ruin.

      February 10, 2015 at 1:56 pm
      • Petrus


        I often challenge Protestant friends about their false religion being based on the fallacy of “Sola Scriptura”. How can a “church” that claims unquestioning adherence to everything in Scripture conveniently ignore Scripture on the ordination of women and homosexuality (there are numerous other ways Protestants depart from Scripture but these are the two areas that come up in conversation the most often )?

        Protestants often point to the Old Testament about being put to death for various offences and say “the Bible says this and we don’t follow it anymore”. My answer is that the punishments in the Old Testament were just because they belonged to a the jurisdiction of the time and concerned those who were not redeemed by Our Lord. These matters do not impinge on the Doctrine of the Faith.

        Areas such as homosexuality and ordination of women are completely different as they are part of the deposit of the Faith. Scripture cannot contain error but we are not free to pick and choose. It is for the legitimate authority, the Church, to interpret Scripture.

        I hope these words will help poor perplexed.

        February 10, 2015 at 2:19 pm
  • Perplexed

    Petrus, many thanks for your prompt and enlightening reply. Personally, I see no problem with the contents of my previous post regarding Sacred Scripture: the different (not contradictory!) accounts of salvific events do indeed nourish our faith in a very enriching way (a sign of God’s abundant grace!) and I accept your “complementary accounts” as a satisfactory response. I only hasten to add that I in no way believe Scripture to be false or contradictory because God does not deceive us.
    It is the Word of Life and, as such, I venerate it. Thanks again, God bless you and your family!

    February 10, 2015 at 2:56 pm
  • editor


    Someone asked me today why posts from Common Sense are still being published when he is in moderation and I said his posts would be routinely deleted. To clarify, when someone is in moderation, their posts are read in advance by me and if they are on topic and making a genuine point for discussion, they will be allowed through. Common Sense’s posts since moderation have been in that category. If he “goes circular” on us again, e.g. about the role of the pope, then his posts won’t get through. Simple.

    February 10, 2015 at 11:56 pm
  • Domchas

    Comment deleted. Always a mistake to call the editor “daft” and to say that she “is a hypocrite a nasty minded woman intent on spreading malicious gossip whenever she can.” Also a mistake to suggest that: “She should be publically outed and shamed for the way she has caused harm and hurt to others . Post this [editor] if you have the honesty to do so!”

    Editor: No way! 😯

    February 11, 2015 at 2:49 am
  • Jobstears


    Isn’t it funny how the most low down and nasty personal attacks always come from the resident or wandering troll screaming charity, who pops in to defend the indefensible and when s/he runs out of ways to express the one thought s/he has, resorts to name calling? >:D

    February 11, 2015 at 1:36 pm
    • editor


      It’s really funny. Hilarious, in fact. How dare those low down, nasty trolls make personal remarks! 😀 (couldn’t resist!)

      The reason is, of course, that they don’t have the truth on their side. So, what else can they do but make personal remarks to put us down? Very sad.

      February 11, 2015 at 1:46 pm
  • westminsterfly

    One sees so many strands of research being done these days – particularly with regard to media and newer technologies – has anyone ever done any research into why these unhappy characters frequent blogs that clearly don’t chime with what they believe, solely, it would seem, with the intention of irritating those who enjoy using the blog and who gain from it? It is a very strange and unhealthy pastime, and very baffling.

    February 11, 2015 at 3:01 pm
    • editor


      Occasionally, if you recall, some of the give away their rationale. They think that by commenting against us, they will “save” visitors from our “heresy.” Happily, I’ve got ample evidence that their tactics have backfired big time. Far from convincing readers that we are wrong, they have been convinced that we are in the right!

      So, let them have their fun. They’re losing, and in so doing, are helping us achieve our educational goal – that’s the main thing!

      February 11, 2015 at 6:30 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: