Vatican Priest Threat To Sue Blogger…editor
Blogger, Sixupman emailed me this report from Vox Cantoris blog reporting this astonishing legal letter threatening action against the administrator for his criticism of Fr Tom Rosica, (pictured) a Vatican spokesman.
Let’s hope the blogger under threat sticks to his guns, as expressed in this extract from one of his posts:
Father Rosica “Tweeted” the article with the headline “Cardinal Wuerl’s response to Cardinal Burke (and dissenters)” and a link to the article. His followers cannot be faulted if they just read the headline and take up the believe that Cardinal Burke is one bad guy, after all, he is a “dissenter.”
It seems to it is time for Father Lombardi to make a decision as to whether this Vatican employee needs to be either reigned in on social media or sent packing to preside over the winding down of Salt + Light.
Nota Bene: My colleague Barona at Toronto Catholic Witness and I are resolute. We will not fail in our countering of the assault on the faith and tradition that these men continue to undertake against Holy Mother Church and the Catholic faithful.
Make no mistake Wuerl, Marx, Madriaga, Kasper and Rosica, we will not rest. Source
My own advice to the blog administrator, for what it’s worth, is to ignore that disgraceful letter. I’ve had umpteen legal threats over the years (although none from the Vatican, I must say, with green eyes…) and I’ve ignored the majority of them. That was the end of the matter. We need always to stand up to bullies – that’s the answer, in my humble opinion.
Sorry, but nobody will convince me that Pope Francis doesn’t know about this and has not approved it.
He has show viciousness towards the Franciscans of the Immaculate and I can see him giving the go ahead to this if asked or even the “nod nod, wink wink”.
I hope the blog administrator calls his bluff and lets him sue.
I absolutely believe that the Pope must know about this and (obviously) raised no objection. I mean, with all the talk about the central importance of “obedience” going around, Fr Rosica would hardly disobey or ignore the stated wishes of Papa Francis, now, would he?
He knows all right. I’d bet my copy of the Code of Canon Law on it!
I tackled Fr Rosica on Twitter and he promptly blocked me – charming!
That’s the MO of these bullies. Can’t answer, so won’t try. His action in threatening legal action is indefensible. And I’m sure he knows it.
Fr Z uses exactly the same tactics!
It is good that Fr Tom Rosica is asserting his rights, and seeking to challenge libel and slander. Hopefully the legal letter will achieve its desired outcome, and the blog retracts, and apologises.
Editor: at last! A clear admission that you are NOT the “faithful, loyal traditional Catholic” you keep claiming to be. If you knew anything about Fr Rosica, you’d know that no faithful, loyal, traditional Catholic would stay in the same room with him, without first making sure that it’s been blessed! 😯
I am not surprised. And like Fidelis, I don’t believe Pope Francis is unaware of this. I wonder if the Pope is looking for an excuse to suppress the order.
I hope the blog administrator does not back down. It is undignified and frankly silly to have priests tweeting and twittering! :/
If you think The Pope dabbles in every action, and is consulted about every thing, you do not understand anything.
Editor: who said he did? He only “dabbles” – for example – in the thriving traditional Orders, in order to stop them ordaining more priests (FFI) while leaving the Modernists/heretics to spread their errors. No “dabbling” there, I grant you.
“I wonder if the Pope is looking for an excuse to suppress the order.”
As far as I know, the man who runs the Vox Cantoris blog is a layman Here’s his profile
I think this threat of legal action is a typical Modernist bullying tactic designed to intimidate us all and makes us desist from criticising the Synod ringleaders.
Won’t work, I sincerely hope.
I usually ignore legal threats and the last one I received almost backfired on the nut who sent it. We had just decided not to publish the information we had been given about him (a leading layman in the Church in Scotland) when a flood of letters arrived from a solicitor acting on his behalf and threatening doom and high dudgeon if we published the allegations against him. Given that we had contacted him for his comment, we took response as tantamount to an admission of guilt. It contrasted starkly with the very same approach (for comment) to a priest against whom allegations had been made. He spoke with me on the phone, was courteous and helpful. Understood why we were concerned and asked to set our minds at rest. His explanation made perfect sense and that was the end of that. So, the two cases stood in stark contrast to each other.
Anyway, we had decided not to publish the allegations (with evidence from source) against the layman, because another member of his family would be affected and probably suffer a great deal and we didn’t want to be the breakers of the bad news. However, when those letters came in, I almost decided to reverse the decision and publish as originally planned. We were not short of readers keen to see him exposed for his duplicity.
So, Fr Rosica has taken quite a chance by instructing a solicitor to act against a layman who has done nothing wrong, one of the few, in fact, who has exposed dissent and tried to correct it. Talk about “diabolical disorientation.” With bells on.
If the Pope is anything remotely like the merciful father we keep hearing about, he will move to end this legal threat and send Fr Rosica packing. After all, he won’t be missed. There’s no shortage of people willing to act as a Vatican spokesperson. Me, for starters… 😀
Thank you, Editor!
Talking of bullies and just desserts and the like, I just read this on Rorate Coeli http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/02/breaking-franciscan-friars-of.html 😀
Didn’t a priest sue Lifesite News a while back? Although I heard he died so I don’t know what happened there.
Holy Family was “irregular” — Father Thomas Rosica, CSB – I copied the tweet from Fr Rosica which I think shows where he is coming from in his views about the Synod.
I couldn’t believe what I was reading! And we are to take what they say in obedience!
Incredible statement from Fr. Rosica of Salt & Shake. The kind of comment I would normally expect from a militant atheist. Why was this priest ever allowed to cross the threshold of the Vatican? In fact, who ordained him in the first place?
That’s not the worst blasphemy I’ve seen. I once saw some photographs of a pro-Sodomite rights rally in America that said: ‘Jesus had two dads’. Here is a video from Canada, outside a Satanic Anglican Church in Niagara Falls- http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jesus-had-two-dads-anti-homophobia-sign-at-church-goes-viral/video/gm-5174807
That is abominable.
Perhaps better would have been…
“Post Synodal Reflection. What is A Catholic Bishop? Was any Synod ever more irregular than the one in Rome?
The Pope knew that a slur on his brother African bishops was made by Cardinal Kasoer during the Synod and that Cardinal Kasper was found guilty of lying about this.
The Pope will know that his Apostolic Commissioner has been found guilty of defamation towards the founder of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, and has been fined heavily for this offence.
He will most probably know that Fr Rosica has sent a lawyer’s letter to the blogger at Vox Cantoris.
Lately Cardinal Baldisseri was allowed to reveal that it was on fact the Pope who had authorised the controversial passages( though they did not have the approved majority) to be retained in the final Reports of the Synod.
The Pope is on on everything, just about. Otherwise these men who transgress, would be dismissed, demoted or defrocked( if that
happens any more).
But nothing happens to them because they are of the same genre as the Pope is. Those who are not will know about it.
When the chips are down, sadly the old adage ” There is no-one less liberal than a liberal” is being played out before us day by day.
Editor: Spero, spot on. Got it in one. In case you’re wondering, your post went into moderation because you address Common Sense (who is in moderation) – I suggest your shorten to CS, if you wish to respond to him.
How many lies were told about Archbishop Lefebvre…..he was a real man….never saw him running bubbling to sue [his critics].
I’d use [strong] adjectives to describe [Fr Rosica]…..but my editor wont let me….!!!
Editor: you got that right! Crouchback, you know we don’t allow personal remarks on this blog. We don’t need to – the truth has its own power. So, behave or be gone!
Anybody got a contact for this priest…..lets bombard him with e mails……all in good taste of course…
Just a question, what happened to the editor asking for people to NOT make personal remarks about other bloggers??? Crouch backs comment of 8:42 surely falls into that category, yet it has been allowed through. Something stinks in the Catholic truth camp: when certain people are allowed to make personal and offensive remarks and others are deleted for much less. Is the blogger concerned sleeping with the editor? Makes you wonder!
Editor: firstly, Crouchback’s comments were directed at Fr Rosica, and not any other blogger. But, hey, whatever happened to all the lectures on charity that you and your ilk are so fond of dishing out to me? I’ve only just seen Crouchback’s comment and edited out his very naughty bits before visiting the moderation box and seeing your latest lecture. Crouchback’s post wasn’t “allowed through” – he is not in moderation, so his posts go straight up as do the majority. Most adults can be trusted to write in a respectable manner, and only the few who refuse to contribute seriously to debates and insist, instead, on acting like daft disruptive school kids are moderated. Crouchback only blogs here occasionally and gets ticked off when he publishes posts which breach the rules. The minute I see anything unsuitable, from anyone, I deal with it. So, unless you actually expect me to deal with unsuitable comments before I even see them, stop being so uncharitable – and stop lecturing me. I have absolutely no respect for your opinion on anything, so save your energy for someone who actually cares.
I feel your ( a) pain, let me just say this…..sorree….sorree…..
In fact I’m so sorree that I have asked a prominent person to tell you how really sorree I’am
There, I’ll never, ever utter a single un charitable thing again…..once this €%¥# Papacy is over…..unless we get an even worse loony the next time…..which is just about a racing certainty…..God help us…..( faithful Catholics ) ….the rest can go to
(Editor: we would not wish our worst enemies to be lost for all eternity, so gerragrip, Crouchback. Otherwise it’s YOU will end up in that other place. And I don’t mean the House of Lords!)
The infamous Nick Clegg “sorry”! Very funny.
I paid a visit to Vox Cantoris to see if the comment I’d submitted earlier had been published, but no. I really dislike that system and seldom get it to work, but I tried again and yet again my comment did not record. I notice YOU managed to get published and your comment was short, to the point and coherent.
Just what has Vox Cantoris got, that Catholic Truth doesn’t have, that you write sensibly over there, but not over here?
You are right, something does, as you say, in your gentlemanly fashion- stink, and since you are the only one who noticed it, it undoubtedly came in with you- so why don’t you do us a favor and leave?
For the life of me, I don’t understand why Editor puts up with you. She certainly does not owe you nor any other troll, an explanation; it is a measure of her charity, yes, DC, CHARITY, something you know nothing of- that she allows you to put your feeble two cents in.
Enough is enough, you owe Editor an apology for your viciousness. If I were her, I’d ban you permanently from CT and let you haunt some other unfortunate blog.
I wonder where are actually the “dissents”?
If you want to check out Fr Rosica, pay a visit to the Vox Cantoris website – click here
He’s also on record here supporting the notorious Gregory Baum…
Thank you Patricia!
In fact, I meant: “I wonder who are actually the “dissenters”?”
Dissent this….if you can, Pope Francis……
I’ve looked several times on the internet to find a …”quote”…. From Archbishop Lefebvre, I don’t know if St Marcel ever really said these words, but I think he might have…..and if he didn’t then history surely proves that he either said something very similar at one time…..or his actions and the actions of the SSPX since certainly prove that some where there is just such a “quote”
The “quote” goes something like this……..I’ll give them something that will stick in their throats, they’ll not be able to swallow it down…..or spit it out……
As I say I don’t know if Archbishop Lefebvre really said those exact words, but I do remember years ago the late Queen Mother was rushed in to hospital with a fish bone lodged in her throat….very uncomfortable…we can all agree on that.
I hope One of Pope Francis’s minions will report this post to him…….squirm away Francie, cough, spit…..chew the cud…..Ho…Ho…Ho…
We dissenters couldn’t buy better entertainment than watching you and your minions destroy what’s left of the Church of Vatican ….
Mean while real Catholic can thank God for the real Catholic Church preserved by the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre…..the Saint of Vatican II….
No matter how justifiably angry we may be at what’s going in the Church right now under Pope Francis, who is certainly causing great harm, we must always respect his sacred office when speaking of him or about him. There is no justification for treating the Roman Pontiff disrespectfully – that’s what the liberals do!
Furthermore, the SSPX is not, as you say, “the real Catholic Church”. There is only one real Catholic Church and it has the Vicar of Christ as its head in Rome. The SSPX is but a lifeboat for the Traditional Catholic Faith at a time when the Barque of Peter has been boarded by pirates and thrown off course. Christ Our Lord is still with His Church and He will toss those pirates overboard in His own good time. In the meantime, the rest of us have to wait in patience, pray, offer sacrifices, do our bit to highlight the errors and just suffer with the Mystical Body in this spiritual crucifixion, in patience and charity.
Besides our obvious duty to resist Peter to his face when he speaks or acts to the detriment of the Faith and the Church, we must, as Blessed Jacinta of Fatima admonished, also “pray much for the Holy Father”, bearing in mind another admonition, that of St. James, who said: “The anger of man worketh not the justice of God”.
This comes from the Bully-in-Chief, clearly.
We have not only Rosica’s threat to sue, we have Volpi’s astonishing assertion, reported yesterday, that he hasn’t been found guilty of anything and that he will sue the source that says he has been (Rorate Caeli) – even though Rorate Caeli say they have seen the Court documents!
This is the New Offensive of the Enemy, prior to the second round of the disgrace Synod Against the Family.
With the internet, the Traditionalist voice (and Movement) lives and thrives outside the control of this useless Hierarchy. “Powered by the Holy Ghost, not by Google” is the online Traditionalist’s motto. They want to shut it up, close it down, silence it. They tried first of all through the Bishops, some months ago. That failed. This is the response.
No, you enemies of Christ’s Church! You will not be able to draw a veil of silence over your iniquity!
How does one email Fr. Rosica? I feel a rant coming on. Maybe I can get myself excommunicated by this anti-Church. That surely would be a sign of one’s election to eternal life?
I think I’ll join you in the rant!
I cannot believe Volpi is going to sue Rorate Coeli! This is getting ridiculous, really and truly ridiculous. It is the New Offensive, and a bold one too. They can’t censor the truth, they can only try.
Please be assured that I will offer a rosary today for the repose of the soul of your dear mother, Elizabeth. I know she was well loved and cared for by you and your family, as also by Our Lord who prepared her soul in her last illness. May He now grant her, through Our Lady’s prayers, eternal rest, and may He comfort those left in mourning.
Comfort for Those Who Mourn
“The great and sad mistake of many people, among them even pious persons, is to imagine that those whom death has taken, leave us. They do not leave us. They remain! – Where are they? In darkness? Oh, no! It is we who are in darkness. We do not see them, but they see us. Their eyes, radiant with glory are fixed upon our eyes full of tears. Oh, infinite consolation! Though invisible to us, our dear dead are not absent. I have often reflected upon the surest comfort for those who mourn. It is this: A firm faith in the real and continual presence of our loved ones; it is the clear and penetrating conviction that death has not destroyed them nor carried them away. They are not even absent, but living near to us, transfigured: having lost in their glorious change
no delicacy of their souls, no tenderness of their hearts, nor especial preference in their affections; on the contrary, having in depth and fervour of devotion grown larger a hundredfold. Death is, for the good, a transformation into light, into power, into love. Those who on earth were only ordinary Christians, become perfect; those who were beautiful become good; those who were good become sublime.”
I, too, will offer a rosary for your mother. May she rest in peace.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
My condolences on the death of your mother, Editor. Praying for her soul. Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon her. May she rest in peace.
Sincere sympathies on the death of your Mother. I will arrange that a Mass be offered for The Happy Repose of Her Soul. Be assured of my prayers, too, for you and those others who mourn.
Thank you to everyone for your kind condolences and promise of prayers for the repose of my mother’s soul. Greatly appreciated. I didn’t leave the NOTE thread open for comments as I didn’t want to make anyone feel obliged to comment, so it is very generous of you all to do so. As you will appreciate, I am very busy this week with funeral arrangements so feel free to use the General Discussion thread to discuss breaking news, as I’m unlikely to manage to post a fresh topic until the weekend. Again, thank you all.
Given our sparring history (!) I have to offer a special “thank you” to you for for your kind sympathy and for arranging that Mass be offered for the repose of my mother’s soul.
I greatly appreciate your charity.
God bless you.
Comment deleted… But only because it was a lovely personal message for me, on the death of my mother.
I can see that you are determined to remain with us and I have to admit that your posts – which I’ve only skimmed, for obvious reasons this past week – appear to have been free of all personal animosity, so, as a gesture of good will, I am going to release you from the bonds of moderation and hope that in doing so I am not leading you back into the bonds of sin!
May I also say this: it is not unusual for a couple of us to meet with readers / visitors to our blog in order to drink coffee together and try to iron out some of the issues we keep circling in our discussions. If you would like to do that, let me know, and I will email you with suggested venue. It would have to be a couple of weeks or so hence, as I am still very pre-occupied with my mother’s passing, and you need not feel obliged, but if you would like to meet with us, we would be delighted to treat you to a cuppa.
Whatever, thank you for your two beautiful messages, which I truly appreciated.
God bless you.
Mmm … I have several thoughts on this sorry episode:
1) Sorry to contradict one of the fundamental premises of this article, but it would appear that the priest in question is not a Vatican employee per se, but one employed directly by the Synod of Bishops on an ad hoc basis. This has got absolutely nothing to do with the long suffering Father Lombardi.
2) More importantly, the priest in question would appear to be a religious. Even in these troubled times, I believe that a religious would have to obtain leave from his superior before initiating civil litigation. Was said leave sought and granted?
3) More generally, call me antidiluvian (and I am) but just cannot take to the idea of priests, especially religious, and bishops with Twitter (or Facebook) accounts. These media may have some value as real time conveyors of information, but in general they are in stark contrast with the virtue of humility and should be shunned.
Cardinal Burke deserves a place in our prayers. He has been humiliated because of his attachment to truth and tradition. First he was unceremoniously removed from the Congregation for Bishops. Then he was ousted from The Apostolic Signatura and given what is effectively a sinecure without even a physical office to speak of. But truth will out and I am sure that the good Cardinal will be vindicated. We should all of us pray for this.
While I agree with much of your post, including your admiration of Cardinal Burke and your disdain for Twitter and Mugbook (Facebook), I have to take issue with a few other comments you make.
Firstly, Fr. Rosica is a Vatican employee. He is employed by the Holy See in the Vatican Press Office.
Secondly, Fr. Lombardi is not a “long suffering” victim in the mould of, say, Cardinal Burke. Rather, he is a shrewd liberal cleric who, like Fr. Rosica, is well acquainted with the art of double speak. I have to say in all honesty that Fr. Lombardi’s ilk would not have been allowed within 100 miles of the Vatican during the reign of Pius XII.
Thirdly, although Fr. Rosica is a religious who is bound to obtain leave from his superior to sue someone, this does not prevent him from issuing public threats of his intention to act. It may be that he sees permission from his superior as something which can be obtained effortlessly, given his influence.
At any rate, any priest who threatens civil court action to silence his critics is far, far removed from the spirit of Our Lord.
If a cleric doesn’t have the right to reply, or to a defence, is it not then doubly wrong to libel or slander him? Justice lived, is justice served.
I think Scripture advises people should try to resolve things before getting to Court, and that is what the good priest has tried to do.
Likewise, isn’t unwarranted, and ill informed, speculation about who knew about the letter, and who authorised it, part of the same sinful malaise indulged in by some?
Who is this “good priest” you speak of? Are you saying that Fr. Rosica is a good priest? If so, how do you know he’s good? Recent events seem to suggest rather the opposite.
And whilst I’m asking questions: Where did you get the information that Fr. Rosica tried to resolve anything with the man he has apparently since threatened to sue? I’m not aware of any effort on his part to resolve differences with this Canadian blogger. The story I’m reading is that Fr. Rosica simply tried to silence someone with immediate threats of court action.
As for this statement: “If a cleric doesn’t have the right to reply, or to a defence, is it not then doubly wrong to libel or slander him? Justice lived, is justice served.”
Of course Fr. Rosica had the right to reply, everyone has that right. It’s just that he apparently couldn’t reply to his own quotes being used against him and so decided to attempt silencing his opponent with threats of court action.
As for a defence, it’s the poor guy in Canada who doesn’t have a defence against this kind of Vatican intrigue. You had better believe however that Fr. Rosica will always have access to a top Philadelphia lawyer!
The letter is a request to resolve the matter, and it follows other contact!! Simple really.
To my knowledge there are only two clerics working in the Holy See Press Office. One is Fr. Lombardi, and the other is his assistant, Fr. Ciro Benedettini. My understanding is that Rosica has been used by the Press Office in the past, but only on ad ad hoc basis. In any case, his Salt and Light operation would exclude him from full-time employment.
As for Fr. Lombardi, he does seem to be very much in the mould of the liberal Jesuit.
As for priests seeking legal redress through the courts, I cannot understand why this should be precluded a priori. Priest have rights too, especially to their good names. Unfortunately, the spirit of the age is such that good manners and self-control are often lacking in those who engage on online debate and comment.
At any rate, Fr. Rosica does appear to exercise undue influence in the Vatican Press Office; his every utterance weighed by the world’s media as coming from the mouth of the Vatican’s main English speaking representative.
It’s actually quite interesting to note that the Jesuits have been the leading players in the spreading of Modernism through the Church as far back as the turn of the 20th century with Tyrrell. Once the great orthodox defenders of the Faith, they are today, for the most part, the great proponents of “the Synthesis of all heresies”. The devil certainly got into that order somewhere along the line.
Interesting too that the one who opposed the Fatima Message and Secret so vigorously, resulting in it’s partial suppression, was also a Jesuit, Fr. Eduard Dhanis SJ.
You are perfectly right to point out that the spirit of the age is such that good manners and self-control are often lacking in those who engage in online debate. Sadly, I think many of us would have to put our hands up to the very occasional fall in this regard.
Sometimes, though, the person with bad manners and poor self-control is more honest in his intentions than the one who puts himself forward as a respectful and reasonable man, but who in fact is a dangerous heretic. There are tragically some bishops in this latter category.
Anyway, I agree in general with the point that all should maintain charity and civility when debating. I do try personally to keep to that balance, as most others here do. But, as I say, we all have our rare moments!
I’m just waiting for the official line that Fr Rosita is acting in a ‘private’ capacity and therefore the Vatican has no comment to make on private matters.
And I’m just waiting for blogs, bloggers and journalists to hammer home the line that perceptions of Fr. Rosica as, shall we say, less than impartial on certain matters ought to preclude him being chosen as a spokesman at the coming Synod
You are bang on about the Jesuits, although I do know of individual Jesuits who are very faithful and are doing sterling work, but they are very much tolerated within the order and are not part of its governance.
These are troubling times. If in the seventies and into the eighties it was legitimate to talk about a crisis in the Church, today the crisis is over and what we are left with is a house divided.
Francis, poor soul, just doesn’t get it, theologically, philosophically, historically, culturally, or any other way. The fact that he is such a media darling should send a chill running down the spines of faithful Catholics.
And this brings me to my main point. Francis’ pontificate just kicks further down the road the can of how the Church should stand in relation to modernity. To be fair to Francis, this is a can that the papacy has been kicking to a greater or lesser degree since Vatican II. With Pope Benedict, it seemed that we had at least begun to focus on the dilemma, and many people had begun to feel not only frightened but also threatened by this, hence the Francis phenomenon.
Benedict had begun to develop the idea of a smaller Church, albeit one that would be faithful and zealous in the adoration and propagation of Truth. Francis want’s an all-inclusive Church, even to the point of violating the principle that square pegs into round holes not only won’t go, but don’t go.
I agree with you that there are some Jesuits, few in number, who are extremely faithful to the Church. I would not on their account, however, cease to argue for the suppression of the Jesuit Order, whose members generally are long lost to the spirit of St. Ignatius Loyola.
I think the most recent sign of this deterioration was in Jorge Bergoglio’s acceptance of the Papacy against the strict rule of his Order, still effective, which forbids Jesuits from seeking and/or accepting high ecclesiastical office. I know there have been some exceptions to this rule over the centuries, most notably in regard to St. Robert Bellarmine who was raised to the Cardinalate. But these exceptions were by Papal command and dispensation. By what authority, though, did Jorge Bergoglio think himself dispensed and free to accept the highest office in the Church? It seems to me that the truly humble man should be conspicuous by his obedience, not by his disobedience!
As you very correctly observe, the Church today is a house divided. On the one hand we have the Traditional clergy and faithful, marginalised but militant, who steadfastly reject the dangerous, oft-condemned innovations that have been ushered into the Church under the guise of Conciliar Reform. On the other hand we have the Modernist theoreticians, architects and proponents of that Reform, the men who opened up that “fissure in the walls,” lamented by Pope Paul VI, by which “The Smoke of Satan entered the Church and set her on a path of auto-destruction”.
But within this clear division, Traditionalist and Modernist, there are further divisions. For example, within the Modernist camp we have what I call the division between the ultra liberal ‘Concilium’ group and the conservative liberal ‘Communio’ group. The names are acquired from the respective, competitive international theological journals published by both groups as vehicles by which to spread their various shades of heterodox doctrine.
Now, the ultra liberal group (Concilium) has for its founding fathers such as Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx and JB Metz, theologians whose names should send a shiver down the spine of any orthodox Catholic.
But then we look at the conservative liberal group (Communio) and we find amongst its founding fathers such names as Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, Walter Kasper and Joseph Ratzinger, names, for the most part, which are even more terrifying than those associated with Concilium.
Hans Urs von Balthasar, for instance, was a proponent of the great heresy of universal salvation, as was Henri de Lubac who also effectively denied the supernatural order. And now we have Walter Kasper agitating against the moral teaching of the Church.
Almost all of the theologians of these two groups (during the reign of Pius XII) had their names inscribed in the Holy Office Index of “those suspected of heresy.” Joseph Ratzinger was on that list, and it is said that he was the major influence behind the abolition of the list post-Vatican II.
Henri de Lubac was so heretical that Pius XII wrote the Encyclical Humani Generis in part to combat his doctrinal errors. Lubac was forbidden to publish, speak or lecture in theological matters for ten years under this Pius, yet he became one of the most influential theologians at Vatican II under Pope John XXIII. It is to de Lubac that Lumen Gentium is attributed!
Now, you may ask where I’m going with all this. Well, what I’m suggesting is that these two apparently opposed liberal groups are in fact not opposed in the slightest. They give the appearance of public opposition, liberal against conservative, but in effect they are both liberal and both deadly to the Catholic religion.
Hence, while Benedict XVI may have openly opposed married clergy, for example, a pet subject of Hans Kung and the Concilium lot, he, for his part, promotes the heresy of separation of Church and State. These people are a completely paradoxical. There are many such examples I could quote, but I think the point is made.
And let us not forget that it was Benedict XVI who opened the Church up to the extremely dangerous novelty of Pontifical resignation, a novelty that greatly weakens the office of the Roman Pontiff. Popes do not “resign” or “retire”, they ABDICATE. It is a supernatural monarchic throne they sit upon, not the top table chair of a multinational company!
Right, I had better stop there, Prognosticum. My intention was just to expand a little on what you said about division and suddenly I find myself half way through a thesis!!
The upshot of all of this is that while Benedict XVI is to be congratulated for certain good things he did in respect to Tradition, he is by no means a Traditionalist. In fact, he was and remains a theologian tainted with Modernism, “the Synthesis of all heresies”. This makes him part of the problem in the Church, not part of the solution.
The same can be said of Pope Francis, though he is much more radical in the spirit of von Balthasar and de Lubac. Francis is the first fully Modernist Pope to sit upon the Chair of Peter, as is clearly evident from last year’s Synod and his frequent heterodox utterances. We know things are bad when no less than Elton John is calling for the instant canonisation of Francis. God help us all!
You may not of noticed but, the now, Pope, was a Cardinal, and, in the absence of a Pope, and in the secrecy of The Conclave, he accepted the call of God expressed through the electors in The Conclave. He could hardly get permission to accept the offer prior to The Conclave, and everyone who entered The Conclave, and anyone with a bit of intelligence, would know, most likely, one of them would be elected.
Thus he was Bishop, then Archbishop, and then Cardinal, and along with 120+ he entered The Conclave vowing to seek God’s will and do God’s will. Simple, really.
Jesuits also take a vow to obey The Pope, and The Conclave was, in a limited sense, carrying that mandate. By virtue of becoming a Cardinal he had offered himself, even to the point of shedding his blood, to serve The Universal Church.
St Dominic said neither, he nor his fellow Domincans, should become Bishops. They are now two a penny.
You really do try to limit God, and the work of The Holy Spirit.
And wasn’t Athanasius a Saint from The Eastern Church, much maligned by some? He is a Saint, and a Doctor of The Church! Who said nothing good could come from The Eastern Church?
You appear to be under the illusion that God appoints the Pope – He does not!
What God does is confirm with Grace the decision reached by the Cardinals in Conclave, who exercise their free will to vote for the one they think most suited to the office of Supreme Pontiff.
The will of God in the process of Papal elections is permissive, not directive. You need to understand this. There have been one or two really bad Popes over the centuries who I’m sure the Holy Spirit didn’t appoint.
Now, God’s acceptance of the Conclave’s choice for Pope does not necessarily equate to God’s satisfaction with either the process or the one chosen. On that score it is difficult to see how God could be happy with Cardinal Bergoglio’s appointment given the fact that said Cardinal broke the rule of his Order, still in force, which forbids Jesuits from seeking or accepting high ecclesiastical office.
Make no mistake, Cardinal Bergoglio could very easily have declined his election to the Papacy as others have done in the past. He was not bound to accept and he was not coerced by the Holy Spirit under pain of sin. No, Cardinal Bergoglio chose to accept because he had an fully Modernist agenda to push, the tragic results of which we are already beginning to witness.
So you see, it is not me trying to limit God and the work of the Holy Spirit, as you put it. Rather it is people like you attributing to God and the Holy Spirit certain developments in the Church which are at best questionable.
Let us be clear about this: Francis is the validly elected Pope because he’s the choice the Cardinals made, even though some have since admitted voting for him without knowing anything about him, which is very odd indeed.
So, as Pope, Francis is entitled to our prayers, our respect and our obedience in anything which does threaten the Faith. All Catholics have a duty in this regard under pain of schism.
However, it must be stated with equal clarity that Francis thus far has been a disaster for the Church. He has proven to be a maverick Pope who has caused divisions and is destroying the Faith by his personal heterodoxy.
It would be false on our part before God not to state these obvious truths in light of the facts, and it would be to deny true charity to Pope Francis himself not to resist him when he does wrong.
You need to understand, CS, that there is a higher authority than the Pope. Hence, if conflict arises between what God has divinely revealed through the Magisterium of the ages and the whims and opinions of a particular successor of St. Peter, then our choice of obedience is clear. We obey God before men!
In this regard, you should read up on Popes Honorius I and Liberius as two examples of the dilemma Catholics are sometimes faced with between obedience to God and obedience to His Vicar on earth.
Concerning the other things you said:
1. I am not aware from the life of St. Dominic that he ever forbade his Dominicans from becoming bishops. That’s a new one on me.
2. St. Athanasius wasn’t just “much maligned by some.”
This great saint was deposed from his Episcopal See on a number of occasions, marginalised by a majority of his brother bishops, who had succumbed to the Arian heresy, and falsely excommunicated by Pope Liberius.
Does this sound familiar?
Had you lived in those times, CS, can you see yourself supporting this great saint and Doctor of the Church when all around where labeling him a trouble maker and a schismatic?
I rather think you would have been lecturing our saint on his duty to be obedient and to get back on board with the Pope, the bishops and “the work of the Holy Spirit.”
As it turned out though, it was not a work of the Holy Spirit. It was the work of the evil spirit, whose fruits, like those of post-concilair reform, were lamented thus by St. Jerome: “The whole world awoke and groaned to find itself Arian”.
All we need do today is substitute “Arian” with “Modernist,” a much worse plague because it represents, as St. Pius X said, “the Synthesis of all heresy”.
Exactly how long have you been able to read the hearts and minds of others and know their standing before God.
Exactly when did God give you the right, grace, and wisdom, to second guess a Conclave?
Hear, hear, twice. Firstly, we should indeed all pray for Cardinal Burke and for those other courageous ‘dissenters’ who have at last, thank God, seen the spreading darkness and are prepared to speak up for the Catholic faith. Secondly, I agree about Twitter and Facebook and believe that there is no place for them in the life of anyone, priest or layman, aspiring to holiness. I joined Facebook myself a long time ago, and left almost immediately when I saw the empty prattle, and worse, poured out daily by a priest that I had hitherto respected, and his silly adulatory ‘friends’
There is so much confusion about what is going on that it is advisable to say very little unless you have a lawyer sitting beside you. My understanding is that accusations were made by a Fr Volpi that the Franciscans of the Immaculate were giving away something, was it property or money, to their friends and family or so it is alleged. A Fr Volpi investigated and reported this it is alleged to his superior Fr Rosica who it is alleged closed down the order. The may be true or false. The family of the priest who started the Order decided their name had been slurred and took Fr Volpi to court. In Italy there is some sort or reconciliation attempt before taking a case to court and it is alleged that Fr Volpi admitted he had let us say made an error of judgement and there are some who say he admitted to lying in order to stop the matter going to Court. Again I merely repeat the allegations. Having signed a document to this effect Fr Volpi and the Minnelli family went on their way and the matter was dropped. But then the bloggers began to blog and talk about the matter. Fr Volpi and Fr Roscita got very angry and Fr Volpi withdrew his signature from the document , or so it is alleged. This would mean a Court case would have to be held after all which has really upset Fr Rosita. So the whole matter is a Sword of Damocles hanging over the Vatican. The Vatican is praying for a miracle that the whole thing will disappear or so I allege..
I found this very interesting in light of the present thread:
Cardinal Burke speaks out about this priest’s threat to sue a blogger – click here to read the report.
Comments are closed.