Synod Special: if it takes wrong turning “stay faithful” – Cardinal Burkeeditor
Update – 1/10/15: Synod process a sham – click here to read more
On the eve of the Synod on the Family
On the eve of the Second Session of the Synod on the Family, which will take place in Rome from October 4-25, the petitions, books, colloquiums and articles criticizing the “progressive” proposals of Cardinal Walter Kasper are multiplying—a very fortunate development. Widely different sorts of information are relayed in bulk on the Internet, and documents of uneven value are offered wholesale. The exhaustive treatment of the topics is claimed as a proof of impartiality, but often it serves only to overwhelm the reader.
Given this incessant stream, it is difficult to tell what is truly worth paying attention to. For this reason DICI is now dedicating to the Synod a special column that will feature factual information and essential documents, with commentary explaining whether or not they contribute to the defense of Catholic doctrine and morals about marriage and the family.
As Father Christian Bouchacourt, Superior of the District of France of the Society of Saint Pius X, very correctly remarked in his September 17 communiqué: “The guidelines of the first session, statements by some participants and the preparatory document for this second session cause us to fear great danger for the Church.” In such a serious hour, it is understandable that we do not want to “surf” the Internet about the Synod—from one scoop to the latest buzz!—but rather to distinguish what is Catholic from what is not. Father Alain Lorans
Source and click here to read Cardinal Burke on impossibility of changing Church teaching on marriage. And here to read the Cardinal’s advice on what to do if the synod takes a “strange” (i.e. a “wrong”) turning.
We’re a bit early – we had been planning to launch a “Synod Special” thread on 1st October, but since the DICI column looks good, we decided to go ahead and launch now, instead. As well as keeping an eye on the Dici column, then, feel free to post any articles, videos etc of interest which may help to cast light on what we might expect during the Synod – or as a result of it. Anyone who feels moved to post appropriate prayers etc. or to suggest any fasts that don’t include giving up chocolate and cream cakes, go ahead!
Honestly, I think that what is important is that the Church Authorities know that we are not keen on following their choice of dropping out the doctrine of the Church of whom they would exclude themselves “ipso facto” if they renounce the doctrinal integrity.
Let them go away and keep being faithful to the Faith received for centuries and that the Church has promised to guarantee when we were baptized!
If they betray their promise, they will lose our confidence already well under way and therefore all credibility.
For now, let us pray to Our Lady for the participants in the next Synod!
I’m sure everyone has had the time to watch this video and absorb the blunt and powerful words from the few faithful clerics therein.
Thank you DOTF for that. We need every bit of comfort we can get from hearing the words of these few true shepherds, especially when our own have proved themselves to be wolves.
Yes, there will be a a fight for the Truth at the Synod, but unlike Vatican II where bishops of the world entered like lambs and were unaware of the evil shepherd in their midst this time the faithful are ready. The African Church is ready, the Churches of Eastern Europe are ready, the Churches of Asia are ready, and while the little empty Churches of Germany, Austria and Switzerland roar like a lion in an empty environment, they will be silenced at the Synod.
I sincerely hope you are right but my worry is the modernists have had a year to organise this synod and will have made plans for every eventuality.
Did anyone see what Pope Francis said in New York ” we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus Christ and his life humanly speaking ended in failure the failure of the cross.”
The Pope in the past has made some serious “iffy” statements this must be up with the best/worst of them.
I don’t think there’s any harm in saying that “humanly speaking” Our Lord’s life seemed to have ended in failure – that’s why the apostles deserted him, that’s how it would have looked to their/our limited human intelligence, knowledge and perspective. Only after the Resurrection, did the pieces begin fall into place and the apostles actually came to understand the truth about the life and death of Christ. Think of them in hiding, when Our Lord appeared to them. Hardly the sign of strong supernatural faith! So, while Pope Francis is guilty of plenty of dubious-through-to-downright-erroneous statements, I don’t think this one is any cause for concern.
I’m much more concerned about the Jesuit priest on this morning’s Radio 4 Sunday Worship programme – Mass from St Aloysius, Garnethill – who said he’d never have spoken to HIS mother the way Jesus spoke to His…
I only tuned in, when driving, as they were saying the bidding prayers, so missed the homily, but a friend told me later about that very “iffy” statement (to quote your good self!) from the homily of a Jesuit priest in the Jesuit church here in the heart of Glasgow, only this morning. I also noted a reference to the “bread” (which we break and share) after the Consecration. It’s that T word again – Transubstantiation. Which priests do, and which priests don’t believe that dogma these days – personally, I’d like a list divided into two columns… And I say that, not just because of this Mass in St Aloysius this morning, but I can’t help wondering just how many of the rebel “Synod Fathers” actually believe that dogma – is it possible to believe in Transubstantiation and actually push for adulterers and those in same-sex relationships to be admitted to Holy Communion? Answers on a postcard please… Or am I being too “judgmental”?
Anyway, in the ranks of which Jesuit has made the most “iffy” statement of the week – the one in New York or the other one in Glasgow – my money puts Glasgow at the top of the list!
Further to my reply to you at 9.57pm, I’ve just received this in my inbox – the Pope’s final message to America, which, as you will see, is well beyond “iffy”…
Click here to read…
The ‘Damsel of faith’ video gives us hope but one wonders how the faithful prelates are going to be heard above that nest of vipers in the Vatican. Our Lady will take care of the faithful pastors that’s for sure but its certainly getting late for us. When is the Pope going to obey Our Lady’s request to consecrate Russia?
I think John Kearney may be on to something here, but let us not underestimate the cunning of the Devil and his minions. These enemies within the Church have been gathering in secret over the past twelve months to prepare their second assault on Catholic doctrine, and they are masters at twisting words. Furthermore, they have a sympathetic Pope who is responsible for having opened up this opportunity to them. They will be well prepared in deviousness. I hope the faithful Bishops are granted the divine wisdom to see through it and stand firm in truth.
Thank you Damsel of the Faith for that great video. It demonstrates admirably that Our Lord is still in charge.
I agree that the enemies within the Church are well prepared and cunning. John Kearney is right, as well, in his assessment of those prelates who are fighting to win the Synod battle: since it is taking place in the month of the Holy Rosary, we have good cause to be hopeful, but it is the skill of the proponents of change at “twisting words” (as you describe it) which is a cause of major concern. They will – I believe – somehow find a way of signalling “pastoral” change to allow those living in objective mortal sin to receive Holy Communion, while affirming that the “official” as they put it, teaching of the Church has not changed.
It’s truly diabolical and a major intention for our October rosaries.
I am fairly sure that I have read somewhere amongst the commentaries about the Cardinal Kasper inspired Synod (it may possibly have been on La Porte Latine ) that pope Francis has uttered words to the effect that he is the boss and that he will implement Cardinal Kasper’s wishes on the basis of a pastoral reform regardless of any vote to the contrary by the participants in the Synod.
Possibly my memory is playing tricks on me, but something planted that thought in my head. I sincerely hope that I am mistaken.
It is time for each of us to ask for Our Lady’s intercession that there will be no change and that the pope will not attempt to write any change into his living magisterium, and then to follow up our plea by reciting the Memorare.
I cannot answer your question directly, because I don’t know for certain that the Pope did speak those words. What I can say for sure is that Pope Francis, by pandering to the proposed heresies of Cardinal Kasper, his close ally, has opened the purity of Catholic doctrine to pollution and should be taken to task for it by the more faithful hierarchy. It is the primary duty of the Roman Pontiff to protect at all costs the purity of the Apostolic Faith, not put it at risk by a false and relativist pretence to improving pastoral care.
Whether or not Pope Francis actually sympathises with Kasper’s moral dissent from Magisterial teaching, the fact is he has not the authority to open to question matters touching on divine revelation, which are beyond questioning. The guise is better pastoral care. The reality is a loss of the Catholic Faith.
I hope you won’t mind me using this thread to ask a question, but I think the subject is important enough to highlight here.
Do you have any idea who that woman was who got up and walked out of church during Fr. Brucciani’s sermon yesterday, and if so do you know if she was feeling ill?
I’m not so sure she was ill because the man accompanying her also left and they didn’t come back, so I just wondered if you could shed any light on the situation?
Fr. Brucciani was speaking about the upcoming Synod and liberal attempts to change Catholic doctrine when she left. It was a perfectly sound Catholic sermon that we all expect from a true and faithful priest of God. If she found anything offensive in Father’s words then it is to be feared that she has serious spiritual problems. I have rarely witnessed that kind of rudeness and disrespect towards a really sound Catholic priest, and Fr. Brucciani is such a humble soul. I was really appalled.
Anyway, over to you Miss McMarple. I hope you can tell me that the woman in question was just ill, for her own soul’ sake at least.
I happened to be sitting sideways, listening to Father’s (excellent) sermon yesterday, and so the sudden movement of the two people who stood up to leave behind me, caught my eye and I looked round to see a woman I have, indeed, met. She has been attending the chapel for a number of weeks.
She is a one-time only contributor to this blog, I believe back in July/August, at which time she announced her intention to begin attending the SSPX chapel in Glasgow. I spoke to her briefly on her first attendance, as she was hurrying away, and we arranged to meet for coffee the following week.
I can only describe that meeting as the experience of a lifetime, and I’m not referring to the coffee. I don’t think I have ever met anyone as confused as that woman. In fact, I wrote it up, without naming her, and, if you recall, we discussed that unforgettable meeting under the blog title of what it means to be a Catholic in practice. Click here to read. Her idea of what it means to be a Catholic does not sit comfortably with traditional Catholicism – so I have been surprised to see her in the chapel these past few weeks. Interestingly, when, at the end of our meeting I opined that she was unlikely to like what she hears in SSPX sermons, she snapped that I should not presume her reaction, throwing in another couple of personal insults as she flounced off in righteous rage.
Obviously, I don’t want to be personally uncharitable about the lady but I think it would be fair to say that your question is well-placed on this thread because, given the views she expressed to me, together with her rather “colourful” (great media euphemism!) life to date, I suspect that she will be more in tune with Cardinal Kasper than with Cardinal Burke during the forthcoming Synod debate. If I’m wrong, then she is welcome to come on here and correct me. And, while she’s at it, she might explain why on EARTH she, and the gentleman who accompanies her to Mass, felt the need to leave during Father’s excellent sermon. Apparently, she told a young man in the church porch that “Catholics should not be listening to that…” so she really needs to spell out her meaning because I, for one, couldn’t hear a single word that was not thoroughly Catholic. Father made a slip of the tongue when he referred to the Consecration of the world instead of Russia, but I hardly think she’d have even noticed that, given her woolly, confused and downright erroneous views about the Faith, some of which are published on this blog – here’s the link to our previous discussion again.
All in all, she was rude to leave the church during Father’s sermon, given that he said absolutely nothing contrary to the Faith, while round the corner in St Aloysius, the priest was insulting Our Lord by saying the he, the priest, would never speak to his mother the way Christ spoke to His. Let her go there is she is so offended by faithful Catholic priests preaching Catholicism and refuting error, warning the congregation to be on our guard against heresy. She’ll not have to worry about such warnings in St Aloysius, which I have long described as the House of Heresy. Let her go there, if she wants woolly, confused thinking.
There’s no excuse for insulting a very good priest by disrupting his sermon to make a point (which no-one “got” anyway) but then, as I found out to my personal cost, she’s a very rude person anyway – let’s spare a prayer for her – maybe try St Thomas Aquinas, to see if he can win graces for her to be able to know and understand the true nature of Christ’s Church. Her own version is just so off the wall that it’ll take more than a couple of cups of coffee to put it right.
Since that was Father’s first visit to our chapel as the new District Superior, I hope she has sufficient good manners to apologise for her rudeness in walking out yesterday. She can apologise here (I know she reads this blog) and we will pass it onto Father. However she chooses to do so, she ought to offer a heartfelt apology for spoiling Father’s first visit to Glasgow as District Superior. Not to do so, will show her in a very nasty light.
That woman has some nerve walking out of an SSPX sermon. She’s obviously mixed up if she’s come from the novus ordo to the SSPX and still isn’t happy. I wonder if she ever walked out of a NO church?
Actually, I believe she once instructed a NO congregation to “shut up” or words to that definite effect. She doesn’t discriminate, to be fair, makes her disapproval felt wherever she goes. So, be reassured on that score 😀
“She can apologise here (I know she reads this blog) ”
I notice that on the other thread you say she finished up your meeting by praising this blog.
That all seems to confirm what you say, that she is a very confused person. Nobody who thinks the way she thinks (as reported on the other thread and in what she said to the person in the church porch on Sunday, presuming that the sermon was a truly Catholic one as you say and as I can imagine it would have been, given by an SSPX priest) could really like this blog. So she is obviously a very mixed-up person. God help her.
The lady and gentleman in question smiled and said hello as they passed us on the pavement before mass. I thought I’d seen them before, and was pleased to see them again.
When I saw them leaving I knew that they were…”upset”…but was at a loss as to what had caused such a reaction. I certainly thaught that the sermon was not at fault.
Maybe this will help, if the lady is reading…..the Society of St Pius X is a priestly society of the common life without vows.
There are no lay people in the Society it is entirely a priestly order. It has been known that priests….and Bishops of the society have commited the occasional…. faux pas….
The laity who are attending the SSPX chapels are not graced with infallibility either……except me….but I never sit on my Cathedra as you all know…!!!
Lady Crouchback attended the SSPX briefly but her timbers were shivered by remarks from the pulpit…..I think that sometimes people expect…..”perfection” …when they attend the tridentine mass……but the priests are flesh….and so are the laity…..
If the lady is reading this….dont give up on us….we are only human too
Come again next week…..the coffee is on me….
I’ve met the “lady” – she is no such thing. She is a rude and unpleasant person who hasn’t a Catholic thought in her head. She walked out during a beautiful sermon, TOLD a young man at the back that it was because of the sermon that she (and the man with her) was leaving, so please stop making excuses for her. There are none to be made. She spoilt the first visit to our chapel of the new District Superior and if I ever set eyes on her again, she won’t forget the experience, as I am unable to forget my meeting with her. I didn’t react to her, though, as I felt there would be time to help her in the future, but not so. She disappears quickly after Mass (these past few weeks) unable, I presume, to face me in the tearoom – and no wonder.
As to your comments about the priests etc being “human” (as if any of them may have upset her – making it even more obvious that you’ve never met her) allow me to say this: unless someone is truly thick, they don’t expect perfection from any priest or bishop (or anyone else) anywhere in the world. There should be no need to say that to anyone with half a brain. I have had disagreements with various priests including SSPX priests but always found them humble and ready to resolve the matter, whatever the disagreement, no matter how serious it appears to be, at least initially. Disagree with that “lady” though, and humility will be the last thing on your mind. Surviving is uppermost!
Editor and Athanasius
You are both being very judgemental, and you know very well that only those opposed to the teachings of the Church are allowed to be so. They have the spirits – sorry, Spirit – working in them. Time we all started singing from the same hymn sheet. All together now, Amaaaaziiing Graaace..
I think you’ll find that many of the liberals have moved on from Amazing Grace to ‘The baker woman, she baked her bread.’ I kid you not!
And you’re right, we mustn’t be judgemental according to the new Catholicism. Mental is fine. Judgemental is not acceptable. I can’t help remarking here that all this talk of “the Spirit” makes them sound like a bunch of Pentecostal Protestants, which I suppose is not that far from the truth of the matter.
When I wrote: “I don’t think I have ever met anyone as confused as that woman. I meant to add – “except for our Therese” 😀
Thank you for that explanation, it all makes sense now.
Yes, I believe that woman is more worthy of pity than scorn, although I have to admit that her rudeness yesterday, had I known what I know now, would have resulted in some serious indignation on my part towards her. I can’t stand bad manners, there’s no excuse for it. If she found fault with Father’s sermon, and I can’t for the life of me figure out what kind of fault she could have found, then the correct and charitable course would have been to discuss the matter privately with the priest after Mass. But to behave like that in front of the Blessed Sacrament, just beggars belief. I agree that her behaviour fits better with the mindset of the rank liberals at St. Aloysius than with the Traditional Catholics of the SSPX. What utterly confusing, and often nasty, times we live in.
I felt for Fr. Brucciani because he is such a pleasant and kindly priest who was making his first visit to Glasgow as District Superior. He will not have been left untouched by that horrible public display of dissent from sound Catholic doctrine. I hope God grants her the grace to reflect on her actions and make reparation for her disrespect.
Having read the comments on the older thread you highlighted in your response to my question, I am at a loss to understand what attracted this woman to the SSPX in the first place. She clearly is not a person who is convinced that a crisis exists in the Church, so can’t figure out her motives. Oh well, I leave it all to God.
Yes, Athanasius, let’s leave it all to God – unless I happen to bump into her again! In which case, I will give a whole new meaning to “speaking one’s mind” !
To speak one’s mind is every free man’s right, in war, peace AND IN THE FIGHT. I wouldn’t like to be on the end of that lead-lined hand bag.
Following up a little in what Leprechaun was saying; the procedures to be observed at this Synod are worrying.
The reports each week from the small groups on the Instrumentum Laboris, are NOT to be released. There is to be no mid term report ( which might give the conservatives a space to dig deep if the discussions are being hijacked).
There is to be a final synod report but this is to be less substantial because the Pope will make the final address.( am I alone in thinking this Pope thinks it’s his synod and he’ll do what he wants to)?
I believe there are to be no precise documents with which those opposed can take issue, and as in so much of what is produced in this Papacy, the very vagueness will mean that the Kasperians et al, will duck and dive, and insinuate, until there is no longer any need for insinuation.
The crude manner in which these princes of the Church deal with her truths is breathtaking. The Pope himself has used “etcetera” in giving the reasons there might be for marriage annulments: as if concluding with a casual, whatever,” who cares” anyway seal, betraying the state of mind of those writing such a document.
Yes indeed we need to pray very much for those faithful clergy to be courageous and cunning.
You’ve earned the title Edinburgh’s Miss Marple with that info-packed post. How terrible that we are having to defend the most basic unit of any society, the unit established by God for His good purposes, and not to be distorted to accommodate sin, against the senior hierarchy. Incredible.
And instead of focusing on the key issues, we get the usual pack of numpties, with bells on, looking at the Pope’s every hand movement for signs of Masonic membership. This one (see below) came to me in an email today, with a half dozen pictures of others using the same hand “signal” (politicians, I think – I hardly looked, no time for such nonsense) which, the numpty concerned takes as evidence that Papa Francis is a lodge member. This particular “Masonic signal” is one I’ve used myself – often! Usually when indicating “zero” or “zilch” in a sentence.
You’re right about these conspiracy nutters and their constant misconstruing of hand gestures to bolster their looney ideas.
This having been said, it’s worth noting that while there is absolutely no possibility that Pope Francis is a signed-up member of the Brotherhood, intent on destroying the Church, he is nevertheless proving a very useful instrument by dint of his Masonic worldview.
His entire agenda, from climate change through religious unity in diversity, to refugees, etc., is perfectly in tune with the Masonic ideal. No need for a Papal infiltrator when there’s already an unwitting accomplice in place. P2 and V2 have worked very well together these past 50 years, and the universal Church is in a state of almost complete ruin as a result.
Did you not know that the pope’s hand gesture in the above picture refers to Tuesday?
Thumb to middle finger means Wednesday. Thumb to ring finger means Thursday and thumb to little finger means Friday, which, as any Irishman will tell you, is payday.
So now you know.
And hand to head means “I give up!”
Very good observations. It remains to be seen if the internal enemies of Holy Church succeed in further undermining Catholic doctrine by their cunning. Their devilish tactics worked better than expected at Vatican II. Now they are employing the same methods to undermine morality.
I’ve seen that video before but it is really great so I’m all for watching it over and over.
I hope those faithful bishops stick with their courage and speak out during the Synod.
Great idea….we wont be long in seeing the “Catholic” bishops from the rest…..
Archbishop Lefebvre calls it straight on the DVD documentary of his life, when at a mass in a conference centre in front of 10,000 people he says of himself….”I dont want to be condemned with the rest of them”….I dont have the DVD to hand to check the exact words on the sub titles. ..as I dont do French sadly…….
But if any Bishop or priest who goes along with heretical teachings coming from the synod…..beware….the real catholic faith will be available to all……
And if “the rest” dont smarten up….
They will be condemned. …
And we will be the witnesses to their condemnation….!!!
You are quoting from Archbishop Lefebvre’s Open Letter to Confused Catholics – it concludes with the following words: I’ve italicised that part of the final paragraph which I quote often…
“Even if at the moment he is keeping quiet, one or another of these bishops will receive from the Holy Ghost the courage needed to arise in his turn. If my work is of God, He will guard it and use it for the good of the Church. Our Lord has promised us, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her.
This is why I persist, and if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this: At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me, “What have you done with your episcopate, what have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace?” I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible words, “You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them.”
Simple straihtforward. ….the way things should be.
I originally posted this on another thread, but was advised its Ok to re-post things and so thought it relevant here (apologies if not!).
Fr Z reports that seminarians and novice religious were each issued with special copies of Cardinal Sarah’s new book, “God or Nothing”, at the mass with Pope Francis in Washington. The books were inscribed with a special greeting from the Apostolic Nuncio.
From the sales page of the book:
“The idea of putting Magisterial teaching in a beautiful display case while separating it from pastoral practice, which then could evolve along with circumstances, fashions, and passions, is a sort of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology. I therefore solemnly state that the Church in Africa is staunchly opposed to any rebellion against the teaching of Jesus and of the Magisterium. The Church of Africa is committed in the name of the Lord Jesus to keeping unchanged the teaching of God and of the Church.”
Robert Cardinal Sarah
I hope this is a sign we can take confidence from, regarding the forthcoming synod.
(N.B. Cardinal Sarah has had a hand in the “ten Africans” book too, which is also a contribution to the family synod).
Can we read anything into this gesture during the Popes US tour?
Could this be a subtle signal about the Synod, or could it even be the US Nuncio making mischief during the Papal visit?
Sounds like a very good kind of “mischief” to me! 😀
A very clear petition to the Pope has just been released by Bishop Fellay the week before the second synod.
Really good news for Catholics and Clergy who are struggling against modernism to uphold Catholic teaching.
Thanks for that link John, Bishop Fellays contribution is a good read.
Speaking of petitions, I note the Filial Appeal to Pope Francis has now reached almost 800,000 signatures.
I doubt if the Pope will see it as a good read. Too much “negativity”, too much worrying about “complicated doctrines”.
What on EARTH was Bishop Fellay thinking of, when he wrote such things?
At least there are no ” iffy” sentences in there (smiley face)
Many thanks for bringing Bp. Fellay’s petition to our attention.
I was more than a little concerned at the welcome support Bp. Fellay gave to Pope Francis’s announcement of a Holy Year of Mercy, given how widely the Pope intended that Mercy to be extended, but I am pleased to see that Bp. Fellay has moderated that initial welcome somewhat with a few cautionary words about the Church’s Traditional stance on Mercy and its boundaries.
John, is there an option to sign that petition somewhere?
Gabriel Syme posted the link to the filial appeal. I always thought owls had good eyesight.(smiley face)
Oh dear I now realise what you meant I don’t think there is a petition to sign I believe it was just a private petition sent by Bishop Fellay.
I don’t think it is possible to sign Bishop Fellay’s “petition” – I can’t see anywhere to do so. I think it’s a statement from the Bishop “petitioning” the Pope to be faithful during the Synod and to proclaim the Church’s infallible teaching on marriage, not change it by the back door of pastoral care.
The other petition, linked by Gabriel Syme, CAN be signed, if you look to the right of the page and fill in your name etc. Here’s the link again for ease of reference.
From when Francis was seeking to deny his annullment reforms constitute divorce:
The question of finding some sort of process or “penitential path” to readmit to the sacraments Catholics who have remarried without an annulment is something still on the synod’s agenda, he said. “It seems a bit simplistic to me to say they can receive Communion,” but it is an issue that needs further discussion.
Who knows what he meant by ‘simplistic’?
I still think he has attempted to side step the matter, by introducing what may prove to be “annullment on demand”.
Earlier today, Lionel (Paris) emailed the following bombshell…
September 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The authorized biography of Cardinal Godfried Danneels, out next week, is even more of a bombshell than expected. Not only do the two authors, Jürgen Mettepenningen and Karim Schelkens, reveal that the Cardinal was a regular member of a secret pressure group of Churchmen that met in the Swiss town of Sankt-Gallen, but the Cardinal himself has publicly and good-humoredly admitted the fact.
Danneels even said that what was officially but discreetly labeled “the Sankt-Gallen group” was referred to by its members as “the Mafia”. Its self-imposed aim was to counter the growing influence of Cardinal Ratzinger under the pontificate of Saint John Paul II, serving as a sort of outlet where handpicked cardinals and bishops could express their impatience at the traditional mindset of the Pope and his closest counsellor.
The Belgian press doesn’t hesitate to say that one of the group’s primary goals was the promotion of Cardinal Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) in view of John Paul II’s nearing death – something the book itself, which is not yet available in bookstores, perhaps clarifies. The Sankt-Gallen group certainly aimed to promote the ideas and preferences for which they had found a champion in Pope Francis.
Said Schelkens in an interview this week: “The election of Bergoglio was prepared in Sankt-Gallen, without doubt. And the main lines of the program the Pope is carrying out are those that Danneels and Co were starting to discuss more than ten years ago.”
“They wanted Church reform, they wanted to bring the Church closer to the hearts of people; they moved forward by stages,” commented Mettepenningen. “At the beginning of the year 2000, when John Paul II’s end was becoming more foreseeable, they thought more strategically about what was going to happen to the Church after John Paul II. When Cardinal Silvestrini joined the group it took on a more tactical and strategic character.”
The new climate in the Church after Pope Benedict’s resignation made these things easier to discuss, according to Mettepenningen.“It is only now that the existence of a society of same-minded Church leaders can be made known to the public,” he told the Dutch media KerkNet. “In the international press they were talking about the so-called ‘team Bergoglio’ that promoted his choice as Pope, but the name was badly chosen.
In 2013, it was about the content first, the person came afterwards. Danneels took part in both conclaves. He openly showed his disappointment after the first one. He described the second one, in which Pope Francis was elected, as his “personal resurrection.”
The biography was presented earlier this week at the National Sacred Heart Basilica in Koekelberg, in the presence of Cardinal Danneels who endorsed the two authors’ work.
A short video of the event was published on the Internet: it concentrates on the Sankt-Gallen group whose existence had never been revealed to the public.
Says Cardinal Danneels: “The Sankt-Gallen group is a sort of posh name. But in reality we said of ourselves, and of that group : ‘The Mafia’.”
A voice-over continues: “Cardinal Danneels speaks for the first time of the secret group of Church leaders to which he belonged. The group met every year since 1996, and together they organized the secret ‘resistance’ against Cardinal Ratzinger, who at that time was the right-hand man of John Paul II.”
Then Cardinal Danneels speaks again: “There were some bishops, a few cardinals – too many to name. Things were discussed very freely, no reports were made, so that everyone could blow off steam.”
The journalist explains: “When Pope John Paul II died in 2005, the group already pushed the present Pope to the fore. But it was to be Ratzinger all the same. Danneels could hardly hide his disappointment.”
The video cuts back to images of the cardinal just after Benedict XVI’s election: “The proof of the pudding is in the eating,” he said, unpleasantly, at the time.
The voiceover goes on: “It was not to be long until the Sankt-Gallen group got a new chance, because unexpectedly, Pope Benedict resigned.”
Mettepenningen himself provides the next comment: “In 2013, in a way this group actually achieved its ends, notably through the choice of Pope Francis. You can say that through his participation in that group, Cardinal Danneels has been one of those who were the pioneers of the choice of Pope Franciscus.”
The journalist concludes: “That is why you could see him beaming on the balcony next to the Pope in Rome. Since then he has returned regularly to Rome to speak with the Pope.”
The Sankt-Gallen group – or the “Mafia”, to use the cardinal’s own description – was founded by Mgr Ivo Fürer, one year after his nomination as bishop of the small cathedral town. Cardinal Danneels joined a few years later.
Among the other members quoted by his biographers, Cardinals Carlo Maria Martini and Achille Silvestrini from Italy, Walter Kasper and Karl Lehmann from Germany, and the Dutch Cardinal Adriaan van Luyn as well as Basil Hume from England were prominent. There must have been more, as the book also speaks of members from Austria and France, as well as unnamed bishops. Why are some named, and others not? Did the named prelates give their consent to be “outed,” and if so did they have an objective?
Whatever their aim, Danneels for one has had no qualms about voicing his angry opposition to Pope Benedict and seems to glory in the fact that he has played a role in bringing a more “modern” Church vision into being, despite the fact that the Pope Emeritus is still alive.
Church historians Mettepenningen and Schelkens were given full access to Danneels’ personal archives which still bore the police tape that sealed them in the wake of the cover-up of a child-abuse scandal in which the Cardinal was accused of being involved. This is perhaps one of the clues to the disclosure of the “Mafia’s” existence: Danneels left his Episcopal palace under a cloud when he retired in 2010. Being presented as a “maker of kings,” as the Belgian press now calls him, is a deal more flattering and gives him a prominent role in bringing about the modernization of the Church.
Mettepenningen justified the group’s existence in an interview to the Flemish press: “During the lengthy pontificate of John Paul II there was an increasing tendency to centralize everything that was imposed from the top, with the margin of ‘free speech’ becoming ever narrower. From 1996 onwards, a group was erected in Sankt-Gallen by the bishop of Sankt-Gallen, a group of top cardinals and bishops from Europe who found their ‘freedom of speech’ with one another there. Since 1999, Cardinal Danneels was himself a member; together with Ivo Fürer, he was the member who belonged longest to the group.”
“Nobody knew anything about it but there were suspicions in Rome, where they were ‘not amused’ to know about this group that we called Sankt-Gallen in the biography – and which the cardinal, apparently, calls the Mafia, but it’s a term of endearment, showing a certain mischievousness.”
The Flemish media, Knack, that presented the book in a lengthy article, says the Vatican sent “the sinister Cardinal Camilo Ruini to try and find out who, what and where: he came up with an empty sack. At the same time, the Sankt-Gallen group tried to get a hold over developments in the Vatican. The question that was put more and more emphatically was: ‘What after John Paul II? How can we avoid Ratzinger as Pope?'”
While the group’s existence was known of by some specialists – such as Austen Ivereigh of the Tablet who spoke of it in passing in The Great Reformer, his biography of Pope Francis – what Mettepenningen and Schelkens have published is an inside account, with the blessing of Danneels who remembers the meetings as “spiritual holidays,” a “form of mutual support and comfort in dark times,” as Knack puts it.
Danneels’ biographers show him to be a man who lost favor in Rome over his progressive stances. In 1980, at the general bishops’ synod which he was attending for the first time, Ratzinger expressed pessimism over divorce and general moral decay. Godfried Danneels responded that it was time to find a new “balance between the law and mercy.”
“That was new,” says Knack: when the time came for the synod to elect delegates, Danneels got more votes than Ratzinger. The same Danneels was vocal in his defense of a former fellow student, Gustavo Gutierrez – a liberation theologian who was in trouble with Ratzinger. Later, Rome was to block his nomination as president of the European bishop’s conference.
Saint John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Universi Domini Gregis, 79, clearly condemns the constitution of a “Mafia” like the Sankt-Gallen group: “Confirming the prescriptions of my Predecessors, I likewise forbid anyone, even if he is a Cardinal, during the Pope’s lifetime and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private gatherings.”
Ironically, he published the Apostolic Constitution in February 1996, the very year that the Sankt-Gallen group was formed. Source – Lifesitenews
The authors of the biography have been backtracking on some of this:
”They say their quote in the original article in “Le Vif”, which had said “the election of Bergoglio was prepared in St. Gallen” by Cardinal Danneels and others, was a mistake made “after their approval and correction” of the quote.” source
I think they’re likely to find out the hard way that getting genies back into their bottles is notoriously difficult!
The Swiss bishops have confirmed the Mafia bit
To tell the truth, (for once!) I haven’t yet read the report myself, but since Lifesitenews is a highly respected and reputable source, and since it came from Lionel in Paris (also highly reliable source!) with “bombshell” in the title, I thought I would post it and check it out later. Thanks, though, for the early update.
I checked your link and although it says that they are backtracking on the “St Gallen” bit, the subtitle reads: “But the cardinal’s assertion that the secretive “mafia-like” group existed and opposed Joseph Ratzinger still stands.”
So, I look forward to reading it properly later, quickly followed by your update. Thank you for that.
What a beautifully constructed petition from Bishop Fellay to Pope Francis on the eve of the Synod.
It is respectful, but uncompromising, leaving no room for any reader of it, to infer that anything other than complete fidelity to the deposit of faith, will be acceptable.
After reading such a petition, how can Pope Francis not see that the Church is eminently capable of administering mercy: and with mercy, the justice that renders mercy worthwhile?
How can the Pope fail to be moved by such a disposition?
I agree. A beautiful petition from Bishop Fellay. I hope it all makes the Pope think, presuming that he actually gets to see it, but the following sentence jumped out at me as “saying it all”…
“That which has been subject to a solemn condemnation cannot, over time, become an approved pastoral practice.”
There is a good article on the Fatima website “Pope Francis and the state of the Union and a link to the latest excellent talk with John Venarri and Chris Ferrera
Sorry spelling was not my strong point try
“Unacceptable.” The Base Document of the Synod “Compromises the Truth”
On the verge of the synod, three theologians with the support of cardinals and bishops critique and reject the “Instrumentum Laboris.”
Fr Z reports that Friday will see an announcement regarding changes to the rules of the Synod process.
the method to be employed at this upcoming Synod smacks of what has been called the “Delphi Technique“. I’ve been in clerical gatherings wherein this method was used to drive the majority toward pre-determined outcomes. The method works by isolating resistors to consensus and sequestering negative feedback.
He provides an interesting link explaining the “Delphi Technique”:
I laughed when I read the first comment on Fr Z’s blog about this aspect of the synod. The first blogger is asking why, after decades of “John Paul and Benedict”, are these Germans allowed to remain.
If I thought for a second that my response would get through, I’d reply that it is because of the decades of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict, because of their refusal to act against dissenters, because of their blatant neglect, that’s why.”
But it would never get through, so no point in wasting my time.
About the Delphi Technique – I’ve never heard that term before but I have experienced the technique often, right through my teaching career. It’s used right across the work-o-sphere (I coined that – all praise accepted in the spirit of recognising my genius … 😀 )
Rocky times ahead.
I believe that towards the end of his life, John Paul II lamented he had not governed the Church as firmly as he should have done.
I agree its amazing how some people will simply refuse to recognise scheming by liberal clergy for what it is.
After your post above, I had a look at comments on the Fr Z article – amazingly, another commentator (one who is notoriously harsh wrt the SSPX) is claiming that the synod rules being changed and transparancy ditched simply represnts the Pope indicating that the Synod has no authority to make changes.
The BBC are going to attack the pro-lifers in an obviously one-sided report today, according to SPUC
Perhaps we could all ring in to complain?
I wouldn’t waste a phone call on that Communist channel.
They’re very devoted to the royals for Communists! Whatever side they’re on, left or right, they’re a waste of space I agree, but all complaints are read by those at the top – I was told that when I phoned in to complain a few years ago, what you say is recorded by whoever takes your call and entered in a book or something and it is read every day, so it’s perhaps worth doing knowing that at least one bigwig will read what we say.
I agree – watching the way they are doing everything in their power to turn the public against Cobyn, and have been doing right through the Labour leadership campaign, I think “Fascists” is a better way to describe the BBC and the rest of the media muppets, but I’d best get of the subject in case I’m too close to the bone for editor’s “no politics” rule! LOL!
I do think we ought to make our protests known about this anti pro-life programme but I haven’t seen it advertised yet so didn’t know about it till I read about it just now. I will look for it and phone in if I think it’s biased. They do have to record all complaints, so it is worth taking a few minutes to ring in.
But they do give us Eastenders, so they are not all bad!
We’ve waited a long time for that gem, Petrus – welcome back! 😀
I can’t see anything on the BBC tonight on the subject of abortion, unless it’s on the late night Newsnight programme. I’ve only checked BBC 1 and 2, so it may be on another BBC channel. The Newsnight programme could be covering it – they do conduct “investigations”, often if not always one-sided, with only one commentator on the issue in the studio, generally on the side being promoted by the BBC. So, while I sympathise totally with Athanasius’s gut reaction not to waste time contacting them, from my (very limited, I’m ashamed to admit) experience, they usually take the calls fairly quickly so it really does only take minutes – and it’s always another drop in the ocean.
For the convenience of bloggers and lurkers who wish to raise a complaint with the BBC, here is a link worth book-marking which explains the procedure and the further processes should the complainant not be satisfied with the original response.
It also gives two telephone numbers as a starting point.
We’d like to know exactly when the programme is to be aired and on which BBC channel. Once we’ve seen it, we can complain, so thanks for the link.
I apologise if this has already posted:
Thank you for that shocking report. Hadn’t seen it until now – have placed a link to it at the start of the introductory article above, linked to it on our homepage, and posted a voting poll so see how many visitors think the synod is a “sham” – some, probably many of us have thought that all along, so this is of particular interest at this time, days before the synod is due to begin.
Thanks again – I knew you’d turn out to be useful eventually 😀
There is a superb summing up of all my, and maybe many others’ fears in the Remnant by a Judge Napolitano.
It is brilliant: using ” what if’ ” to confront us with our worst realisations.
This is interesting because this lady, Maureen Mullarkey, has been very perceptive and outspoken about the shenanigans at the Vatican. “First Things” is a very orthodox publication and I’m shocked at the cowardice now displayed in “sacking” this excellent journalist. I am particularly interested in this statement:
“Maureen has a sharp pen and pungent style. Her postings about Pope Francis indicate she’s very angry about this papacy, which she seems to view as (alternately) fascism and socialism disguised as Catholicism. This morning she put up a post that opens with the accusation that the Vatican is conspiring with the Obama administration to destroy the foundations of freedom and hobble the developed world.”
In the light of the gun shoot out in Oregon, perhaps this lady truly has her finger on the proverbial button. Is Obama making a case to ban guns? I have seen a link to Rebecca Sterling; a Protestant ‘visionary’, but who has been right all along. Obama seems to be gearing up for world domination: Anger Americans. Provoke unrest; Enact Martial Law; Suspend the Constitution; Suspend 2016 Election; Extend his term indefinitely. Brilliant. We have, of course, our own visionaries who have said the same thing; everything points to its being imminent. Fema camps, thousands of coffins, guillotines, the works. Look up Deagel.com U.S. Population Reduction; the population of America in 2025 is predicted to be 69 million, as opposed to 330 million at the present. Where have all the people gone? Who are these idiotic soldiers who make this happen; blind as bats, the fools.
Maybe all this seems far fetched, but one wonders. Anyway, herewith:
I wouldn’t call Frist Things “a very orthodox publication”. They are on about Catholics should be “docile” to the bishops and pope and think that now that the Pope has been shaking hands with top politicians, they are in with the “elite”. They don’t care that “the elite” are politicians who are pro-abortion. I know they do have the reputation of being a “conservative” and “orthodox” blog but I’m not so sure about that.
I totally agree with your post. I personally think it is only a matter of time before America enact martial law.
Shame Obama wasn’t influenced by the Pope!
Apparently she has said her recent secret meeting with the Pope ‘kinda validates everything’. But the Vatican has denied it was an endorsement. She is not a Catholic.
All the more to our shame that it takes a non-Catholic to take a stand on same-sex “marriage”.
And what a surprise that the Vatican denied the meeting is an endorsement of her action in refusing to issue “marriage” licences. Since it is impossible for them to issue a denial that the Pope’s meeting with atheists told to follow their consciences and they’d get to Heaven anyway, or any of the other aberrations to which he has given his very clear “endorsement”, I think we can all draw our own conclusions about this “denial”. Personally, I’m just surprised that Pope Francis didn’t tell her off for “judging” those seeking same-sex “marriage” licences. Phew! Relief!
Whatever. But she certainly does not possess your vocabulary.
Here’s the latest in this shameless “cover up” by the Vatican… emailed to us courtesy of Lionel in Paris:
October 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews ) – In an official statement this morning, Fr. Federico Lombardi, head of the Vatican press office downplayed Pope Francis’ meeting with Kim Davis. Meanwhile, English-language attaché of the Vatican press office, Fr. Thomas Rosica, described what he labeled the “negative impact” of the pope’s meeting with Davis and suggested that the pope may not have been properly briefed before the meeting.
“Pope Francis met with several dozen persons who had been invited by the Nunciature to greet him as he prepared to leave Washington for New York City,” said Lombardi. “Such brief greetings occur on all papal visits and are due to the Pope’s characteristic kindness and availability.”
“The only real audience granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family,” Fr. Lombardi added.
The Vatican explained that the “brief” meeting between the Pope and Davis has “continued to provoke comments and discussion” and thus offered his explanation “in order to contribute to an objective understanding of what transpired.”
Fr. Lombardi said, “The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects.”
News that the pope had secretly met with Davis during his trip to the U.S. broke on Tuesday evening, after her lawyer made the meeting public. Davis said that Francis had told her to “stay strong,” giving both her and her husband a rosary. “Please pray for me,” he requested.
Initially the Vatican refused to confirm that the meeting took place. However, after allegations began circulating that Davis was lying about the meeting, Fr. Lombardi subsequently issued a follow-up statement saying the Vatican did “not deny” that the pope met with Davis, adding “I have no other comments to add.”
The meeting has sparked furious discussion in the media, as Kim Davis has become a lightning rod in the debate over same-sex “marriage” and conscientious objection in the U.S.
On the plane ride home from the U.S. Pope Francis was asked about the Kim Davis case. He had responded, “Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right.”
“I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection,” Pope Francis added, “but, yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right.”
However, gay activists expressed dismay at the news of the personal meeting with Davis, saying that it undermined the pope’s reputation as being accepting of homosexual people.
“When I saw this news, my heart sank,” opined Slate’s Vanessa Vitiello Urquhart of the pope’s meeting with Davis. “In one 15-minute meeting, the pope undermined the unifying, healing message that many queer people and our supporters were so eager to have him bring.”
“That simple encounter completely undermines all the goodwill the pope created in downplaying ‘the gay issue’ on his U.S. trip,” Huffington Post’s Michelangelo Signorile wrote. “The pope played us for fools, trying to have it both ways.”
“He’s an artful politician,” he continued, “telling different audiences what they want to hear on homosexuality.”
In a new statement today, Davis’ lawyer, Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, disputed reports circulating in light of the Vatican’s newest statement suggesting that Davis had simply met the pope as one in a line of people.
“There were no other people in the room,” he said. “This was a private meeting between Pope Francis and Kim and Joe Davis. This was not a meeting with other people in which Kim and Joe Davis were a part, but rather a private meeting with no other people in the room except Vatican security and personnel.”
Staver acknowledged that the pope “was not weighing in on particular facts of a legal case,” but added that “his statements about religious freedom and his encouragement to Kim Davis to ‘stray strong’ during a private meeting reaffirm the human right to conscientious objection. This is a right for everyone.”
Staver also said that the meeting was initiated by the Vatican, an apparent response to speculation that the meeting with the pope may have been arranged by a conservative bishop in the U.S., perhaps without the full knowledge of the Vatican or the pope about Davis’ case.
Sean Michael Winters of the liberal National Catholic Reporter had promoted this interpretation of the meeting, writing on his blog that “the pope was ill served by whoever arranged this meeting.”
However, at Breitbart, Austin Ruse cited unnamed sources saying that the meeting between Davis and the pope came at the invitation of a high-ranking official in the Vatican’s Secretariat of State, acting on behalf of the pope himself.
However, Fr. Rosica placed the responsibility for the meeting in the hands of U.S. papal nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.
“Who brought her in? The nuncio,” Father Rosica told the New York Times, saying that such meetings “depend on the host of each place.” “The Nunciature was able to bring in donors, benefactors.”
Fr. Rosica added: ““I would simply say: Her case is a very complex case. It’s got all kinds of intricacies. Was there an opportunity to brief the pope on this beforehand? I don’t think so. A list is given — these are the people you are going to meet.”
Rosica responded to a question about whether the Vatican press office had been unaware of the pope’s meeting with Davis, saying: “No, but I think we may not have been aware of the full impact of the meeting. It is very difficult sometimes when you are looking at things in America from here.”
Why was the Pope meeting with his homosexual former student and his partner
I take it you mean this report – utterly and absolutely disgraceful. This Pope is beyond belief. Literally.
As they’re saying over at Rorate Caeli, given that the Vatican “threw Kim Davis under the bus”, this meeting with Pope Francis’s homosexual friend and his partner, identifying them as a “family” is the “defining moment” of this papacy. No wonder the majority view on our website opinion poll has been, consistently, that the forthcoming Synod on the Family is a “sham”. To say the least.
The actual hugs recorded for posterity.
(Also,click roof terrace to see my tiny roof garden.)
Francis called Grassi personally, saying he wanted to give him a hug.
Yes, quite disgraceful. Thank you for highlighting the fact. Francis is certainly the Pope of confusion and turmoil.
It tells that in the report, plus that he called them a “family”. I find that shocking. What do you think of it? I’m asking because I’ve noticed a few times that you post one liner comments that don’t actually tell us anything new. I don’t mean to give offence, but I wonder if you would give your opinion about this, and whether you think it is shocking or a good think that Pope Francis phoned that homosexual to ask for a hug and talked about his family, that being his homosexual partner?
And if things were not already disgraceful enough Msgr charamsa a senior Vatican priest declaring he’s gay and proud of his identity and he wants to challenge the churches backward attitude to homosexuality is it possible that was the sole reason for becoming a priest I do not presume to know I’m just asking if it is possible.
This is a newspaper report about the priest in the Vatican you mention who has outed himself as homosexual and was immediately sacked but Vatican says nothing to do with his homosexuality and partner!
Despite his dismissal, Mr Charamsa remains a senior priest, just as Mr O’Brien remains a cardinal. He also has a book pending.
And yet Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated just for wanting to preserve the Mass, seeing the crisis we were in even then, and some people still think the SSPX priests are a danger to the faith! LOL!
Cardinal O’Brien, let us not forget, did not make a proud public statement announcing his disgrace; others exposed his secret sins. And even though his sorrow for the scandal he brought on the Church hardly seemed heart felt, he still had enough shame to state publicly that he was sorry. This Monsignor Charamsa has done the opposite. He diefinitely should be “Mr. Charamsa” come Monday morning!
He denied the allegations at first, remember, or was it ‘contested’. Also, at the time, a senior priest described his resignation as ‘a selfless act of self-sacrifice’, which also seems appropriate now in Mr Charamsa’s case.
Hardly “selfless.” If these were selfless men then they would have considered the scandal to so many Catholic souls that their betrayal of vocation would inevitably cause. No, utterly self-indulgent is the term you really want.
Again Athanasius I agree cardinal O’Brien was outed for what were private sins and may not have come to the forefront but for others however that doesn’t mean at all his behaviour was acceptable known or not.
Absolutely right. Cardinal O’Brien’s behaviour was disgraceful, known to men or not. That any consecrated soul could sink to such levels of debauchery is certainly a cause for great grief. But at least in his case he wasn’t for making his secret sins public, unlike that wretched man in today’s news.
MM et al,
I’ve deleted your various attempts to post the video clip of that priest’s interview here because it’s not possible, as far as I know, to copy videos published on newspapers, but you can copy a video from YouTube by right-clicking on the screen and selecting “copy embed code” and then coming here, right clicking and selecting “paste” …then, voila!
This is utterly shocking – listen to what he says; he clearly has no Catholic Faith (needless to say, of course, but that is clearly exposed in the above clip)
He’s been at the CDF since 2003… nobody knew? How many other such scandals are yet to break.
Pray, pray, pray, and when we’ve done that, pray again!
Ugh, what a circus the Church is becoming during this Papacy.
You know, given that various Vatican figures are well kent schemers, It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that high ranking officials had up-front knowledge of, or even a hand in, the staging and timing of this contrived event on the eve of the synod.
Definitely, Gabriel Syme – the timing is absolutely deliberate. We need to brace ourselves for more to come.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
I was repelled and sickened watching and listening to what was said on this video. Sodomy is one of the four sins crying out to Heaven for vengeance. He seems never to have heard of chastity.
It is, indeed, repulsive to see a priest speaking and acting like that. Utterly shocking.
And he’s been at the CDF for 13 years, very likely one of those bent (if you’ll excuse the pun) on chucking letters from concerned Catholics into the bin. We often wondered if our letters got through – indeed, at one point, a contact told us to direct our mail to him and he would see that it got through.
The sheer irony of him, living a life utterly at odds with the Gospel imperative (“Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect”; “if you love Me, you will keep My Commandments” etc) , not to mention the natural law, working at the very Congregation with responsibility for the purity of the doctrine of the Faith. Truly, you couldn’t make this stuff up…
It absolutely sticks in my throat when comments of “it was a tough decision due to the Catholic church homophobic world”. Well if its so homophobic why did fr charamsa become a priest .
It is truly shocking – and the timing is no accident, with the synod about to start. We can expect more of these “outings” now, and in a way, the sooner the better, as the cleansing process can progress, and we can get rid of what Pope Benedict called the “filth” in the Church (although he didn’t, himself, take the necessary steps to make that happen when he had the authority to do so.)
It will also, perhaps serve to make the modernist clergy even more brazen in their “homilies” and waken up more and more laity to the fact that they should all be elsewhere on Sundays – preferably in an SSPX chapel or other traditional Mass haven.
How utterly shocking! Absolutely beyond belief. Surely this cannot go on for much longer?
I’ve said this before and I will say it again: Poor wee Jacinta must have been given a glimpse at these awful things. Remember her cries of “poor Holy Father!” I used to think it was a pope being persecuted but now I think these are cries of desperation and disbelief!
I’m glad you used the word “shocking” as there are so many people out there who think it’s somehow “mature” (or whatever) to say that nothing shocks them any more. Well, that’s a sign of a dead conscience. We may not be as surprised as we once would have been, but we must ALWAYS be shocked at such scandals because they are utterly offensive to God.
Yes, I do wonder what Jacinta saw or knew that made her call out “Poor Holy Father” because I know what I call out when I’m thinking of Pope Francis and it is nowhere near as affectionate as Jacinta’s remark. Not wanting to SHOCK anyone too much, I’ll not say more than that! Of course, as you suggest, it may be that she saw the damage Pope Francis (and even his immediate predecessors) would do by their wrong thinking and apparent popularity seeking and realised that they would be, indeed, be pitiable souls. Especially Pope Francis. Who knows.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for him.
Didn’t Jacinta say that because the Pope in her vision was weeping? Please God he was weeping tears of repentance for what he has and is doing to Christ’s Church. That he should ‘hug’ sodomites, quite obviously to make this vilest of perversions ‘normal’ and acceptable in the Church literally turns my stomach. This surely must be the worst that Satan can do – a Pope who publicly praises and encourages sick perversion and corruption among the sheep of his flock. For how much longer will God suffer it to go on?
I found this translation of the Vatican statement firing this priest on Fr Z’s blog:
“With regard to the declarations and interview given by Msgr. Krzystof Charamsa it should be observed that, notwithstanding the respect due to the events and personal situations, and reflections on the issue, the decision to make such a pointed statement on the eve of the opening of the Synod appears very serious and irresponsible, since it aims to subject the Synod assembly to undue media pressure. Msgr. Charamsa will certainly be unable to continue to carry out his previous work in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical universities, while the other aspects of his situation shall remain the competence of his diocesan Ordinary.”
So, anyone, like me, who thinks that to set up home with a homosexual partner would be sufficient grounds for dismissal from the priesthood, would be wrong. It’s up to his own bishop and if he’s fine with the priest’s situation, he might leave him to say Masses and go about parish business as usual. I am horrified at the thought of that, but also because the people in his home diocese may not think anything of it! They may be quite happy that he has “come out”. The bishop, fine with it or not, may not want to start a media frenzy by dismissing him.
I recommend that we all start saying the Prayer to St Michael every day now if we’ve not been in the habit of praying it already.
Holy Michael, Archangel,
Defend us in the day of battle;
Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host,
By the power of God,
Cast down into Hell,
Satan, and all wicked spirits,
Who wander through the world for the ruin of souls.
I only found out about this Monsignor Charamsa tonight on the news. Shocking, it truly is and absolutely calculated to coincide with the Synod on the Family. My gut feeling, however, is that this outrage will galvanise the greater majority of prelates in the Synod to reiterate stronger than ever the Church’s moral teaching. I think many of them will be utterly disgusted by the behaviour of this fallen priest.
As for the priest in question, he should be instantly laicised without any recourse to his local ordinary or anyone else. Not only has he betrayed his vow of celibacy to God in the most disgraceful way, but is declaring the fact with pride before the world’s media. That action signifies only one of two possible scenarios: he is either a homosexual infiltrator into the priesthood or he has lost all sense of sin and his conscience is dead. Whatever the motivation, he needs to be defrocked immediately and denied the Sacraments unless and until he repents of so great a fall from grace.
This is one time Pope Francis needs to be seen to act decisively. There’s no way that man can continue to function as a Catholic priest in good standing.
Hear hear! I totally agree – he should be dismissed from the priesthood immediately.
I, however,don’t think the Pope will act, I really don’t, not after phoning his homosexual friend and saying he wanted to meet him and his partner for a “hug” during his American trip.
Agreed Michaels. I can’t for one moment imagine it! Note that in the Vatican statement we are nevertheless to ‘respect’ events, personal situations and reflections on the issue of sodomy.
Would you believe it? That predictive text thing on this tablet won’t say your name! Does anyone know how to turn it off???😬
In circumstances like this, the only way I know to bypass predictive text is by typing M-i-c-h-a-e-l-a VERY SLOWLY and then hitting the ‘space’ key equally carefully.
Thank you Spudeater – I’ll remember that.
This scandal is a wee bit different given that Mgr. Charamsa has worked in the Vatican for 12 years at quite a senior level, and considering the gravity of what he has just done in front of the world’s cameras. It is essential that the Pope acts swiftly and publicly in the matter to laicise this priest. In fact, he is duty bound to do so. If Pope Francis, or some senior prelate acting under his instruction, fails to respond appropriately then he will be guilty of permitting a great scandal within the confines of the Vatican itself.
You know, these increasing scandals just press home the message of how the Church’s authorities have neglected their duty since Vatican II, allowing the Mystical Body of Christ to be so publicly humiliated while they speak with forked tongues about human dignity.
I agree wholeheartedly Athanasius this was the question I posed above about what in effect was his motive for joining the priesthood.
Mary Mcaleese also implored Keith O’Brien to write a book, even a memoir on his motivation.
As for Msgr Charamsa, he is wealthy in his own right, but has hinted a book is in the offing which will reveal full details of his 12 years of hidden life inside the Holy See.
That is one book I will definitely NOT be reading. He can keep all the lurid details of his hypocritical existence to himself.
Worthy of note, though, and I think already mentioned here, is the point made on the Rorati Caeli site that the Vatican has dismissed this Polish priest for his “irresponsible” media revelation more than for his grave immorality. With Vatican meetings now taking place with homosexuals and transexuals, not to mention all that talk about “respecting individual situations”, it seems the rot in the Vatican is much greater than any of us really grasped before. But God will not be mocked!
Looking at the truly sickening, barely watchable, video clip of this sodomite priest, I don’t see how it can come as any surprise to his colleagues in the Vatican. No need in fact for this priest to be wearing one of those sodomite lobby “ID-cards” that Pope Francis once so flippantly mentioned.
I expect this priest got a mention in the 300 page dossier about the sodomite mafia within the Church, prepared for Pope Benedict before his abdication.
I don’t expect that stories such as this will come as a surprise to anyone in the Vatican, in fact. It looks like the Swiss Guard need to be, shall we say, “on their guard” inside the walls.
I don’t expect it will come as a major surprise to anyone familiar with the story that broke just before the last conclave that the Vatican owned eighteen apartments in the block which houses Italy’s best known sodomite sauna. Putting two and two together, and getting five? Well it’s a point of view. By the way, the Vatican paid all of €23m for the properties back in 2008, I think.
I don’t expect that anyone who has read the book, Goodbye Good Men, by Michael Rose will be massively surprised. It gives a truly eye opening account of the infiltration of heresy and perversion in the American seminaries after Vatican II. Opening the book at random and spending half an hour reading it is enough to make the point.
It’s worth reminding people how the Church regarded such depravity in saner times. Pope Saint Pius V certainly did not hang about when it came to dealing with perversion amongst the clergy.
Pius, Bishop (St. Pope Pius V)
Servant of the Servants of God
For perpetual memory of the matter.
A ghastly crime, by which the joined (papal) states were polluted enflamed by God’s fearful judgment, flares up our bitter sorrow, and gravely moves our soul so that we lend now our attentions to repress it as much as possible.
1. It was properly denoted by the Lateran Council, that whatsoever Cleric will have been discovered to suffer from that incontinence which is against nature, on account of which the wrath of God falls upon the sons of disobedience (cf. Vulg. Eph. 5,6), is to be ejected from the ranks of the clergy and be reduced to do penance in a monastery.
2. But lest the contagion of such a scourge, from the hope of impunity which is the greatest lure of sinning, more confidently grows in power, We determine that clerics guilty of this execrable crime are to be quite gravely punished, so that whoever does not abhor the ruination of the soul, the avenging secular sword of civil laws will certainly deter.
3. And thus because We have made a decree in this matter at the beginning of Our Pontificate, now in a fuller and stronger way intending it to be followed strictly, every and all priests, whoever they are, and other secular clerics, and regular clerics of any grade and dignity, busy at such a detestable monstrosity, We deprive of every clerical privilege, every office, dignity, and ecclesiastical benefice by authority of the present legal instrument. So it is enacted that once they are degraded by the Ecclesiastical Judge, they be handed over immediately to the secular arm, which will exact upon them the same (death) penalty, which is ascertained to have been constituted by legitimate sanctions against laymen who have slid down into this ruin. Nothing to the contrary withstanding, etc.
Given at Rome at St. Peter’s, 30 August in the Year of the Lord’s Incarnation 1568 during the third year of Our Pontificate.
“I expect this priest got a mention in the 300 page dossier about the sodomite mafia within the Church, prepared for Pope Benedict before his abdication.”
That’s exactly the point I’ve been making since this scandal broke – that Pope Benedict MUST have known about this disgraceful priest and his “partner”. It is unconscionable that he allowed that (and undoubtedly others) to continue without acting to put that duplicitous man in his place – which is right outside, not just the Vatican walls, but the Catholic priesthood. Pope Benedict looms large in this whole “Pope Francis” mess. That he was wrong to “flee from the wolves” instead of standing up to them, is becoming clearer by the nano-second, and I suspect it’s about to get even clearer in the days to come at this horrendous synod. Whoever dubbed it “sin-nod” was definitely on to something.
Here’s what Michael Matt has penned over at The Remnant Newspaper: I think he sums up the situation perfectly…
This just in from Vatican Radio…
“The director of the Holy See press office Father Federico Lombardi on Saturday reacted to revelations by a high-ranking Vatican official that he is in a gay relationship….[etc – link to report given]
REMNANT COMMENT: A Note to Our Neo-Catholic Brothers and Sisters: Do you begin to understand what we’ve been talking about these past fifty years? Can you see that the Church is not in the midst of Springtime but rather bleakest winter? That Vatican II threw open the gates of the Church and allowed theological, moral and liturgical vandals to infiltrate and undermine the Church we all love so much?
Do you begin to see what happened? Can you fathom what’s really going on here? The Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae, was not part of a legitimate liturgical reform. Rather it is the touchstone of a massive liturgical revolution whereby the venerable Roman Rite–which had for a thousand years stood in the path of error and heresy–was torn down and in its place an emasculated, protestantized, “fabricated”, “banal” and “on the spot product” liturgy was propped up. How we pray is how we believe. Catholics began to pray like Protestants, and our doctrine and moral theology soon followed suit.
You see how it worked? They infiltrated our seminaries, our convents, our monasteries, our Catholic universities–and they pulled off the most diabolical revolution in history, complete with a brand-new New Mass, a new catechism, a new rosary, a new priesthood, a new sanctuary, a new orientation—all of which comprises a universal revolution against the social Kingship of Christ, the Altar of Sacrifice, and holy Christendom itself.
Can you see it? It’s the abomination of desolation set up in the holy place. Sodomites in the Holy Office. Liturgical vandals in the holy of holies. Modernists in the Holy See.
For God’s sake and the sake of your soul and the souls of your children, wake up. We’ve all been diabolically disoriented by fifty years of revolution, but this is it–this is the eleventh hour–there’s still time to take back our Mass and our Church. With God nothing is impossible. But the sleeping Catholic giant must stir itself to what is really going on here—and that starts with me and with you and with all of us. We need to open our eyes and stop pretending.
Join the defenders of sacred Tradition and Catholic restoration—and let’s take back our Church! END OF MICHAEL MATT’S STATEMENT…
Underneath, in the comments section, I was just astonished to read the following comment from one Brendan Quinn
Brendan Quinn • 7 hours ago
I read your material. But you guys must realize you need to come home. For crying out loud there are bad and corrupt priests, always has been always will be, but you sound like protestants. You have zero authority. Come back home to the sacraments, we will have need of you in about 4 weeks. END OF MR QUINN’S COMMENT
I mean, folks, what is it going to take to get these Protestantised Catholics to see that, well, they’ve been Protestantised? Just how bad does it have to get, before they wake up and smell the apostasy? Is Brendan following the things Papa Francis is saying and doing? Is he “cool” with it all… What on EARTH will it take to wake up people like him to find some level of Catholic sense? (oops nearly typed “numpties” there, instead of “people” – how uncharitable would that have been?)
I really can’t think of anything else to say about Brendan Quinn except – gimme strength!
However, I have to add that it is – or should be by now – crystal clear to anyone with half a brain, that the foisting of an illegitimate new Mass on us has resulted in this self-evident massive withdrawal of grace from the Church. Serious Catholics should now be returning to the Traditional Latin Mass in their droves – or stop complaining and just accept the new religion for what is clearly is – a great attempt at compromise with the world which, Christ warned, would hate His true followers as it hated Him. “The world” is quite happy with priests who want to “marry” their homosexual partners – so if Pope Francis turns out to be the same and does nothing to end this scandal or rather minimise it by dismissing this priest from the clerical state, well, let the last person to leave the room switch off the light, and/or, let’s stop moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic – you takes your choice and you picks your analogy!
Michael Matt gets straight to the point and says it as it is. Brendan Quinn is as blind as a bat, though I sincerely hope not wilfully so.
Scandal, abomination and desolation in the Vatican:
Thank you for the link to your blog. I love your simple presentation of this awful scandal. In fact, having looked around the internet, I consider it to be the best of all – concise and clear, and above all “Catholic”. So, (drum roll) I’ve refreshed our website homepage to carry a report on this scandal, plus a voting poll (vote YES, folks!) and linked to your report. I’d encourage our bloggers to add to the comment list over at Damsel of the Faith, as well. Damsel supports us and I’d like to return the favour since her blog is so Catholic that Papa Francis would find it a treasure trove on a level with the Catholic Encyclopaedia (that he clearly never read in seminary!)
What terrible scandal as the Synod is opening. We need to prepare ourselves for more shocks to come. So, I repeat: if anyone knows of any penitential fast that doesn’t include giving up cream cakes and/or chocolate, post it here. That’s the penance for me… !
Thank you very much, Editor! I’m honored. May God bless you for your kindness.
Re: the above link – I saw the story in the Telegraph and apart from the scandal itself, was equally shocked to read that “The Vatican said the (priest’s) dismissal had nothing to do with Charasma’s reflections on his personal life, which it said “merit respect”. “Respect?” In what way? Since when did we have to ‘respect’ erroneous views and beliefs? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/11910352/Vatican-sacks-gay-priest-after-highly-public-coming-out.html
Yes, that is shocking. But think how difficult it would be now for Pope Francis to denounce the evil of homosexual activity? He’s gone out of his way to, effectively, give it his blessing.
Here’s one thing that the “outed” priest with the unpronounceable name said that I agree with, from the above article:
Monsignor Krzysztof Charamsa suggested a study be done on how many homosexuals work in the Vatican
Ideally, though, there should be no need for any such study be undertaken; they should all be sacked, now, with immediate effect. None of them should have been ordained in the first place.
To my (many) critics…
You think that’s a tad harsh? Too bad. Tough… Get over it !
‘Monsignor Krzysztof Charamsa suggested a study be done on how many homosexuals work in the Vatican’
I imagine he has already completed the study himself… pending publication. He is also hopelessly in love and even more likely to sing like a canary.
Ed: Constantine, I hope you don’t mind, but I removed the photo you posted. I feel it’s bad enough having to watch his lovesick nonsense when it appears on the video (which we have to choose to watch), but to have to watch him unsolicited, so to speak, on a permanent photo, is just too much for me to (literally) stomach, so although it’s not (strictly) pornographic or anything approaching that, it is (here’s that very useful word again) inappropriate, in my unworthy opinion, for a Catholic blog. I’m sure, on reflection, you’ll agree.
Do not confuse love with lust. There can be no true love in gravely sinful and disordered behaviour. Emotional disfunction leading to breaches of the 6th and 9th Commandments of God, whatever else you may wish to call it, is certainly not true love. True love emanates from God and returns to God in purity and self-sacrifice, not impurity and self-indulgence. Hence, the truly admirable homosexual would be he who, for the love of God, and by God’s grace, resists the inordinate demands of his flesh in order to secure the salvation of his soul. The same applies to all forms of adultery and other mortally sinful scenarios. Love, sad to say, is a greatly abused word today!
As for those other active homosexuals in the Vatican whose existence Monsignor Charasma appears to hint at, they should know that God will not be mocked. They may hide from the public eye, perhaps a sign that at least some of them still retain a sense of sin and shame, but they cannot hide from God, who searches the hearts of all men.
Our Lord died a terrible death on the Cross to pay the price for our sins and to give us the example of true love. The only way we can hope to be with Him in eternity is if we likewise crucify our flesh and die to sin in this life. Any other kind of suggested love is simply delusional.
Spot on. Well said.
The fact that you would try and make an unpleasant joke about this priest’s conduct provides all the response needed for those on this blog who have asked you straightforward questions only to be met by radio silence. “Hopelessly in love”? Don’t make me laugh (it’s O.K., you definitely didn’t).
” Don’t make me laugh (it’s O.K., you definitely didn’t).”
YOU made ME laugh, with that!
Yes, I’m quite disappointed that Constantine has, all too often, always, really, I think I’m correct in saying, failed to answer direct questions.
We’ve had a lot of that, always, interestingly, connected with the homosexual issue.
Now, I’m guessing that this priest will be a hot topic in the radio and TV phone-in shows this week, so anyone who can, might ring in to express the one point of view that will be noticeably absent in these discussions: that this priest knew what he was signing up to when he became a priest, thus he is proving himself to be duplicitous and dishonest, by living a double life and compounding his arrogance by trying to blame God for his sin. After all, it’s not a Church invented rule any more than “don’t steal or don’t kill” are Church invented rules. The Natural Moral Law is what has been broken here, not a Church rule.
So, if you can, phone in, if you can’t blog !
I heard this afternoon from Poland that his diocese is situated in the former Oriental Prussia which is still ruled by the German Bishops’ Conference.
Kidding? Right? No wonder he had the sheer audacity to “come out” as he did.
If he is permitted to continue “ministry” as a priest, then the game is well and truly up in Germany (as if we didn’t know that already…)
I fear that for Mgr.Krzysztof Charamsa night has most definitely fallen. Mindful of that simile ‘as miserable as sin’ and paraphrasing St.Paul in his Letter to the Corinthians, he is truly the unhappiest of men.
St Paul was spot on and I suspect, strongly, that he’d be saying the same thing about Cardinal Kasper – read this shocker…
Just when you thought it was only going to get worse…it did. I think Cardinal Kasper’s philosophy is ‘If I’m going to apostasise, I may as well do it in a big way’ – a bit like if you’re going to tell lies, make them big ones and then more people may come to believe you.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the proceeds from his burnt (it certainly should be) offering of a book don’t go to the German equivalent of ‘Stonewall’. Hopefully, he only sells four copies (all bought secretly by himself) which he then has to offload onto his immediate blood relatives as possibly their most unwelcome Christmas presents ever.
Can’t the name Walter be shortened to Wally? I’m sure there’s the seeds of a pun in there but I just can’t seem to find the right words……
Some readers may have heard of the late Father John O’Connor, an American Dominican who promoted the message of Our of Akita, and who was persecuted by his superiors.
I can recall watching a video, probably still on Youtube, from the 1990’s I think, in which Father O’Connor spoke of the infiltration of sodomites into the priesthood when he was in seminary in the early 1950s. From memory, when he raised this issue and the fact that good men were being forced out with the seminary rector, the latter said he was well aware of this and was trying to prevent it, but superior powers were overriding his efforts. I’m afraid readers will have to do their own searching for the clip, but the point is that the infiltration was underway a long time ago, well before the Council.
I must also mention the late Father Brendan Smyth, who was probably the most notorious clerical abuser of minors in Ireland. He was identified as a problem when he was a seminarian in the forties, I believe. Someone in the Norbertines in Ireland objected to him proceeding to ordination, but was overruled by someone in Belgium, presumably a superior. People can draw their own conclusions. Maybe it was jaw dropping, catastrophic stupidity that allowed this man to ever become a priest. Maybe not. When I heard of the continental influence, I have to say, the dots came into view. I’m not having a pot at the Belgians in particular, but the Modernist revolution was well and truly gathering steam in Europe at the time.
Mention of Belgium should of course remind us of the extremely scandalous Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who recently tried to drag back a claim of his that he was a member of a “mafiaclub” of Cardinals and Bishops who secretly, or maybe not so secretly, opposed the papacy of Pope Benedict, and sought the election of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as Pope.
I remember being incredulous when the Belgian was one of the small number of prelates selected to play a ceremonial role at the inauguration of Pope Francis. I can’t remember the exact details in the inauguration, but I think it involved pronouncing a prayer before the Fisherman’s Ring was presented to Pope Francis. Corrections welcomed. There has to be a book in all this.
And of course the appointment of Cardinal Danneels to the sham synod just adds another layer of stinking scandal to what is to take place in Rome.
I have to say, I must issue a serious warning about some of the content of the following link, even though most of the main the points have been in the public domain for years and will be familiar to a lot of readers. I think at this stage though, all gloves have to come off, all the filth has to be brought out in the open, and all masks have to be ripped off.
The bit in the link about “the Fall of the Church in Belgium”, which I remember reading a few years ago, is beyond words. It really will boil your blood and blow your corks, folks. There is absolutely no intention to cause sensation here, but there are words that used in any other context, would very much be in breach of this blog’s rules about language. There is mention of sexual activity amongst children and male and female genitalia, including slang versions, so please, if anyone thinks they are going to be upset, do not read the part about the “Fall of Church in Belgium”. All I can say is that the Roeach so-called “catechism”(!) was the work of truly sick, perverted minds. I don’t know how there wasn’t a lot of violent parents over this.
And we are supposed to exhibit “respect” (the Vatican’s word) for any of the ladyboys in the Vatican who happen to be “in a gay relationship” (words used on an official Vatican website, according to Rorate).
Third and final warning. Anyone reading the evil filth in the following link should be ready for the red mists to descend. It certainly did with me.
Oh, yes. Cardinal Danneels was ordained in 1957, so it mightn’t be altogether unreasonable and without foundation to question the sort of seminary formation he received.
I can recall watching the same video ( it certainly opened my eyes to what was happening in the church) it was called what ever happened to John O’Connor o p?
He did other excellent video’s on the faith and the new world order.
The link to the top video hopefully is
Editor, et al,
Thanks for all the good posts from the Remnant and Athanasius convictions of faith and your good self.
It is only by reading these faithful comments that I can cope with the appalling attacks on the church and morality from those who should be teaching the faith and upholding the doctrines of the church.
We have to hope that some good will come out of it and God certainly will not be mocked.
It is probably no co-incidence that this Vatican ‘prelate’ should now decide to come ‘out’ of the woodwork just as the sin-od is about to start so that he can advertise this immoral lifestyle in front of the worlds press. Do you think the present Pope didn’t know? Your guess is a s good as mine.
Blessed Jacinta and Francisco (and Lucia), pray for us
Red mist, indeed, Leo. I’ve long thought how pointless it is to write to bishops, sign petitions etc, They don’t care a jot what we think, or believe, or are outraged by. It’s also pointless to write to the pope(s), I’ve tried, no response. The hard, unbelievable truth is that they already know, and knew, about the many appalling crimes being perpetrated, and do, and did, absolutely nothing to stop them. Pope Saint John Paul II among them. Disgusting and shocking though the Belgium hierarchy acted, to me even more shocking is the responses received from the cardinals. Rotten to the core.
God have mercy on us all. We are in for a reckoning, par excellence.
I notice you refer to “Pope Saint John Paul II” – I am a little surprised. I made the rule when he was canonised just to keep calling him “Pope JPII” as I am convinced these fast tracked canonisations will be overturned one day. Sorry if this is off topic, just an observation.
I agree with you that we are in for a reckoning par excellence – this homo issue is going to call down God’s wrath very soon, I’m sure of it.
Sorry – I should have typed “Saint”. When I get angry and vent I often think that people know what I’m thinking! (I think it’s a female thing….) Say nothing Ed….
Very well said, Therese. Petitions and letters are a royal waste of time at this stage. I should think that in the case of some prelates, it’s a bit like trying to enter into a philosophical discussion with a kleptomaniac on the right of private property and the morality of respecting, or not respecting as the case may be, that right.
Nobody can be expected to believe that it is by accident that all these scandalous prelates somehow, by some grotesque diabolical lottery, just happen to find themselves bishops. Whatever exact details Pope John Paul did or didn’t know, and when, he was without doubt guilty of catastrophic dereliction of duty in his governance of the Church. And I haven’t forgotten about Marcial Maciel. Cardinal Ratzinger, to his credit, firmly refused to accept a “brown envelope” as a mark of “gratitude” when it was thrust into his hand on one occasion, after he had given an address to a gathering of Maciel’s followers.
As the concluding stage of the Synod of Sodom gets under way, it might be a good time to recall the following words of the one of the Church’s great prelates and defenders of the Catholic Faith, spoken 26 years ago:
“Besides, the Pope has just named Monsignor Kasper a bishop in Germany. He was secretary of the Synod in 1985 presided over by Cardinal Danneels of Brussels. Kasper was the leader of, the mastermind, of the Synod. He is very intelligent and he is one of the most dangerous of Conciliarists…They are absolutely men of the left, who, deep down link up with the Rahners and Hans Kungs but who take care not to say so. They keep up appearances in order to avoid being associated by anyone with the extremists, but they have the same spirit.”
-Archbishop Lefebvre, in an interview first published in Fideliter, July/August 1989
One notable change has taken place since then, though. The revolutionaries, in their hubris, now see no need to “keep up appearances”. The creepies are crawling out from the rocks, without a care in the world. They certainly aren’t bothered by any petitions.
The creepies are crawling out from the rocks, without a care in the world. How terribly, horribly, true. I remember, as a girl, musing on how impossible the conditions necessary for general apostasy seemed. I thought this could only be true in the far distant future. To see it all come true in my own lifetime is staggering and terrifying.
A close relative of mine has recently been called a bigot by the editor of a “Catholic” newspaper, for merely stating the fact that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church.
A close relative of mine has recently been called a bigot by the editor of a “Catholic” newspaper, for merely stating the fact that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church.
Any bishop (or recent pontiff) could have told her that. She’s had to be told by a “Catholic” newspaper? Whatdyeknow…
It’s the logical (indeed the ONLY) conclusion to which anyone can arrive surely, in this ecumenical age. Didn’t Monsignor Krzysztof Charamsa correct himself in his outpouring of “lurv…” when he changed “the Church” to “or another Christian community” – it’s a wonder he didn’t add “or humanist community… or whatever…” ‘Cos that is what he believes – I’d bet money on it (if I had any!)
Well, he didn’t actually need to be told that, but in a weak moment he decided to challenge the prevailing Zeitgeist. There’s a positive aspect to the story though: I’ve told him I never want to see the rag in my house again, and am using the present edition to polish my windows.
Priceless! When you’ve finished YOUR windows, you can start on mine! Right now, I’m seeing only through a glass darkly, so to speak 😀
I think this is the first spat of many – Pope Francis exhorts the synod to be ready for the “God of surprises”, while a cardinal says there can be NO surprises about Catholic teaching on marriage!
Brilliant! Let many more support him – and show Pope Francis what a surprise is in store for him if he tries to contradict God’s moral law, by the back door of false mercy/pastoral care or any other machination.
Pope Francis is not exactly open minded when it comes to the Traditional Latin Mass and Traditional Catholic Orders so I take his exhortation with a large pinch of salt. What a cheek he has!
Yes, let more prelates speak out. The humble pope is not really very humble if he thinks he can usurp Catholic Tradition!
Given all that has been written in this and other traditionalist blogs and sources, about the ‘filth’ that Pope Benedict spoke of, I have now come to believe that, given his age and temperament, ‘resigning’ in the strange way he did was the only course open to him. That vile creature, a prelate from the foremost dicastery in the Church, proclaiming his sodomy, and pride in it, to the world, has given all the proof I need that the Church is in the grip of Satan and ungovernable without divine intervention. It was a blogger here who said that he fears that ‘God has withdrawn grace’ and I very much fear that this is true. In reading the horrifying link that Leo provided, and being aware that Pope Francis favours such evil men, engineers photo-shoots of himself hugging sodomites, seems hell-bent on establishing the acceptance and praiseworthiness of this abominable vice – well, I ask myself, “Just what IS he?” And I don’t like the answer that suggests itself from all the available evidence.
I am really terrified of what will happen in the next few weeks, and am praying that the few good prelates we have been hearing from will be strengthened by the Holy Ghost.
I do believe, absolutely, that since the introduction of the new Mass, God has withdrawn His grace from the Church – massively. That’s not to say, of course, that individuals are not receiving graces, but there is – I think manifestly – a massive withdrawal of grace from the Church which has resulted in the spiritual blindness of priests and prelates even at the most senior levels – and including the recent popes. This is especially evident in Pope Francis, who could spend a year in Specsavers and still not be able to see – if you see what I mean, so to speak… !
I can’t agree. Pope Benedict’s duty was to stand and fight, yes to the death if necessary. He abdicated that duty and opened the Church up to a new Modernist assault just as Modernism was gasping its last.
By the way, I never refer to Benedict as having “resigned” because he didn’t resign. If you read the transcript of his statement at the time he clearly declares “I renounce the papacy”. That’s not resignation, that’s definite abdication.
Athanasius, re your second paragraph, that’s why I put the word ‘resigning’ in inverted commas, and described it as ‘strange’. I agree with the assessment you and others have made in the past about the wording, and saw no reason to repeat it here. Sorry if what I said is confusing on this issue.
I have come more recently to a conviction that ‘the filth’ consists not of a few in positions of power in the Vatican, who might be weeded out and replaced by a good Pope with the help of his trusted and faithful prelates, but that it is a much bigger and more diabolically powerful monster than could have been imagined before this pontificate. The reason, logic and Catholic faith underlying what you say about Pope Benedict’s plain duty cannot be gainsaid. However I don’t think that he is a coward, and I don’t think that any of us know the size and extent of what faced him in the Vatican, or what impelled him to do what he did in the way that he did it. For all we know he may have received some private revelation concerning how to deal with the Principalities and Powers whose method – widespread corruption of the Church by sodomy – is becoming clearer with every new scandal.
All that we have heard recently – Pope Francis’s false mercy which would embrace sodomites (literally in his case for the world’s media) and praise aspects of their perverted relationships, his autocratic actions in regard to the Synod from Hell, his friendship with and praise of the perverted ‘theology’ of Kasper et al, and the recently-voiced suspicions about the machinations surrounding the Conclave that elected him – all this makes me ask who and what Pope Francis is. I think that in someone or other’s immortal words “We ain’t seen nothing yet”!
I suspected that when I saw the quotation marks, but thought I would just reiterate the position again for readers who may not be aware of the true situation concerning Benedict’s abdication. In other words, I grabbed the opportunity at your expense!! Ha!
You’re always welcome 😁😁😁
Well said. And when I say “well said”, I mean “WELL SAID”!
I was just thinking what the atmosphere must be like at the synod.Is it possible that there is a palpable air of evil amongst some off the most senior churchmen who seem hellbent on destroyingGods laws of which they have no authority to do so .God may have withdrawn his grace but he will never allow his church to be destroyed especially by those who are supposed to be representing him on earth despite these very dark times we live in but prayer as we all know is a very powerful tool which God gave us to fight with during such times.
I guess, if you have not been in a broken relationship, that led to divorce, you might think mercy and compassion have any place in the teaching of The Church on Marriage, or that those experiences might need a concrete pastoral response.
I can say with confidence that countless individuals, not in a second relationship, wrongly believe that their divorce, alone, means they cannot receive Holy Communion, and others recognise that a new relationship has brought about such a change, but they need to still feel welcomed, and embraced, by a loving Church. Sadly, many of them do not.
As for grace leaving The Church, with the change in the Rite of Mass, then The, so called Tridentine Rite was one such change.
Just as you can’t judge a book by its cover surely you can’t judge a Synod before its work is implemented and works towards completion.
The Synod is a sham. I understand that there was to be little preamble, that there will be no reports published by way of documentation of its progress, that no voting figures will be published and that the whole process will be about as transparent as Madame Editor claims her windows are.
When the Synod closes, he who says he must be obeyed will simply announce that, on pastoral grounds, divorced co-habiting Catholics will be welcome to receive Holy Communion.
It will quickly become general practice, just like communion in the hand, and the Bride of Christ will have been dragged another stage closer to disrepute.
Keep fighting, fellow Catholics, Our Lady will sustain us against the foe.
Well said. I’ll overlook the slur about my windows 😀
As The Synod has only just started it is rather silly pre-judging the outcome.
Well, they don’t think it’s “silly” over at The Remnant where they talk of “Bracing for the Synod” and they take a look at the evidence – we don’t want to fall into the categories identified by the writer (see below) of either “displaying wilful blindness to the implications of basic facts, or a stunning lack of imagination” so we are bracing ourselves for the outcome of the Synod. Read on and if you then stick to your “don’t judge the Synod” mentality, so be it. I’ll not be trying to convince you – I never try to convince atheists that God exists and I’m getting very tired of pointing out to modern, protestantized Catholics that they’re in a new religion, and so I’m afraid it will be with those who don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to “pre-judge” the likely outcome of the Synod. Perhaps I should say “goodbye” now, but will wait for your verdict on the evidence below. I’ll be away from my computer for a good bit of the day but I will return – God (and WordPress!) willing …
FROM THE REMNANT…
A few weeks back, I happened upon an article from Catholic Answer’s own Karl Keating in which he speculated upon the possibility that Pope Francis might resign in a year or so in acceptance of his own limitations and suitability to the role. While that is certainly an interesting topic, it was not that part of the article that greatly interested me.
After making fair and respectful critique of Pope Francis’ communication style and general suitability to the role of Vicar of Christ, Mr. Keating makes the following remarks:
“I don’t think it [retirement] would be before October’s synod. He certainly would want to see that project through. Unlike some others, I’m not much concerned about the wayward cardinals and bishops who will be in attendance. I don’t think they will come close to having the votes to force through a less-than-orthodox final statement, and I don’t for a minute suspect that Francis secretly wants them to prevail.
“Nothing in his moral teaching over the years—whether as cardinal or pope— gives any support to such speculation.
“But I do think Francis wants the synod to be a “success” (however he envisions that)…”
With all respect to Mr. Keating, I believe his assertion that there is “nothing” that gives any support to speculation that Pope Francis supports the activities and mission of what Mr. Keating acknowledges are “wayward cardinals and bishops” either displays willful blindness to the implications of basic facts, or a stunning lack of imagination.
I would like to suggest some few “somethings” that suggest at least the possibility that the Pope supports some or all of the agenda of those “wayward cardinals and bishops” and that the Pope not so secretly would like to see them prevail. Further, new information suggests that those “wayward cardinals and bishops” are placing all their bets on the Pope making them prevail.
I take it from the context of Mr. Keating’s remarks that he would wholeheartedly agree that it would be a crime against the Church if the synod produced a “a less-than-orthodox final statement” or in any way undermined the Church’s perennial teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, whether through deliberate ambiguity or changes to immemorial praxis.
To establish the likelihood of this crime being committed, let’s look at whether the potential perpetrators have the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the crime.
You almost missed it! This article appears in the latest print edition of The Remnant. Subscribe today and never miss another article by Patrick Archbold:
So let’s look at some basic facts. It was Pope Francis who called for the Synod on the Family. It is the Pope who is the President of the Synod. It was Pope Francis who selected Cardinal Kasper to deliver the preparatory speech in February of last year, the speech that put the question of communion for the divorced and remarried front and center.
The Pope saw and approved the contents of that speech in advance, according to Cardinal Kasper.
It was Pope Francis who appointed Italian Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, general secretary of the Synod of Bishops, the Cardinal who later publicly bragged about how he would manipulate the Synod to nefarious ends.
It was Pope Francis who appointed the rest of the Synod leadership, the leadership that produced the disastrous and un-Catholic Instrumentem Laboris of 2014.
It was Pope Francis who approved that disastrous Instrumentem Laboris.
It was Pope Francis who reviewed and approved the disgusting and heretical Relatio Post Disceptationem, a document rightly called by the group Voice of the Family “one of the worst official documents drafted in Church history”.
It was the Pope, who allowed the initial attempt by Cardinal Baldisseri to prevent the reaction to that document by the Synod Fathers from publication, before being shouted down by them and relenting.
It was the Pope, who by his sole authority, ordered the publication of troubling non-Catholic paragraphs stricken by the Synod Fathers in the final document of the 2014 Synod.
It was Pope Francis who approved the equally troubling Instrumentem Laboris for the 2015 Synod.
It was Pope Francis who just this past month ordered changes to the annulment process, changes opposed by many Synod Fathers, which will undoubtedly lead to widespread abuse and the continued weakening of marriage.
And now, if recent reports are to be believed, these very same Synod leaders who did all of the above, have entirely changed the rules of the 2015 Synod, eliminating entirely documents and discussions of the Synod being published. Instead, there will be no interim document published (the document which caused all the controversy in 2014). There will be no discussions published; in fact there will not even be any general discussion, but only small groups that cannot communicate with each other. There will not even be a final document voted upon and published by the Synod Fathers. No, instead, there will only be a closing address by the Holy Father.
And that’s it. And then the Pope can do whatever he wants following the Synod.
Why the changes? Why would the very same people with the very same goals as 2014 now change the rules of the 2015 Synod so dramatically and invest all results in the will of the Pope if they did not have at least some confidence that the Pope desires the same ends?
With all respect to Mr. Keating, there are plenty of reasons to suspect that Pope Francis wants the heretical innovators to prevail. There is also good reason to suspect that the innovators have that same expectation.
None of this suggests that I know what the Pope will do. I don’t even know if the Pope knows what he will do.
Further, there is always the possibility of a Holy Spirit moment from out of the blue, for which I pray daily. But there are very good reasons to be suspect about the upcoming Synod and what the Pope wishes to prevail. END.
You should understand that this Synod has no power whatsoever to change Church doctrine, nor even to modify the Church’s pastoral approach. As Leprechaun says above, it is a complete sham from start to finish.
The Church has made her position perfectly clear re homosexuality, cohabitation and Communion for the divorced and remarried. Indeed, this has been excellently reiterated as recently as Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. So, why do you think Pope Francis wanted a new declaration?
The Mass did not “change” at Trent. All the elements of the Mass were there from the beginning and merely “brought together” so to speak at Trent.
This new Mass, on the other hand, is a brand new concoction, described by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict, as a “banal, on the spot production” Some difference! It is absolutely clear from the devastation within the Church since its introduction, that it is not pleasing to God.
As for this “you can’t judge a book by its cover” – sorry, but I frequently do. If it looks like porn, in varying degrees, then it most likely IS porn in some degree, and I always return it to the shelf. So, yes, we CAN and MUST “judge the synod before its work is implement” because it should never have been called in the first place. There is nothing to discuss ESPECIALLY when the agents of change working to destroy marriage have said clearly and often that it is not good enough just to repeat the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage etc. They want change and are determined to get it.
It’s none too intelligent for us to wait to allow them free rein and then rise up to complain when we hear our priests announcing that the divorced and “remarried” and those living in same sex unions, are welcome to approach for Holy Communion.
The wiser thing is to await the outcome. Humane Vitae was unexpected by some, including some of those who advised The Pope!
Humanae Vitae is what some at this Synod are hoping to overturn! Have you not been listening to the likes of Cardinal Burke, etc? You need to grasp the fact that this Synod was completely unneccessary; the Church’s moral teaching is explicitly clear. However, it may not be quite so clear (at the pastoral level) come the end of October.
I don’t know what gave you the impression that the Tridentine Mass was itself a change of Rite, but you are way off course. The word “Tridentine” merely reflects the codification “in perpetuity” of the ancient liturgy of the Church at the Council of Trent, it does not reflect a new Rite. The vernacular Mass of 1969 is the only “New Rite” the Church has ever experienced, and that was mostly copied from the Protestant Reformer meal service of the 16th century.
If you check any official, authentic, source, the latest terminology speaks of one Rite and two forms. The Ordinary and The Extraordinary when speaking of The Holy Mass.
No-one, with any credibility would claim it has never changed. The use of Latin, at all, was a major change/rupture.
However, this thread is about The Synod.
You’re 100% wrong! For almost 2000 years there was only one Mass, in Latin. The New Mass was a break from that sacred liturgy along the lines of the Protestant Reformation. Do not be fooled by the liberal authorities in today’s Church, the extraordinary form is the 1969 form which has no link whatever with the ordinary Latin rite of near 2000 years. Or, as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci put it to Pope Paul VI: “It represents in its individual parts and as a whole, a grave departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as codified at Session XXII of the Council ot Trent.
Maybe you will prefer Cardinal Ratzinger’s assessment: “the New Mass is a banal, on-the-spot fabrication.”
I know this thread is not about the Mass but you have a duty as a Catholic to educate yourself as to the truth of things, not just repeat parrot fashion what you’ve heard others say. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but it’s this kind of ignorance of the faith at laity level, combined with a false understanding of obedience due to superiors, that has allowed the enemies within the Church to alter the Faith and bring the Church to her knees.
Only one person in this dialogue parrots something authentic Church sources, including Pope Benedict, would dismiss with ease.
Your written English isn’t the best but I get the message that you’re not interested in investigating matters for yourself. Well, I did my Catholic duty by alerting you to the present crisis. How you choose to respond to the information is entirely your business.
Quite right. Point well made. There’s none so blind as them that won’t see.
I note you say that this thread is about the Synod, and that is true, but I have indicated somewhere in one of my comments, where I quoted Michael Matt, Editor of The Remnant, that I believe the Mass change (to novus ordo) is key to the crisis in the Church and to what is going on at this Synod.
Just now, I came across the following correspondence between the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen and a layman in the USA on the subject of the Mass in the context of the Archbishop’s condemnation of the SSPX. Again, we have The Remnant to thank for this treasure trove of information. I hope this clarifies the situation regarding the Mass for you – note: there is specific mention made of the changes made in the Mass down the centuries. All emphasis added.
FROM THE REMNANT…
Recently, anti-SSPX apologists have re-published what is reported to be a private 1978 letter from Archbishop Fulton Sheen advising against affiliation with the SSPX.
As luck would have it, this letter did not go unnoticed in SSPX circles at the time. Dr. Eugene McKenzie, a reader of The Angelus (the SSPX’s official magazine), saw the Archbishop’s letter and decided to write the Archbishop in reply.
Dr. McKenzie then sent his reply to the Angelus’ editor, Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, who decided to publish it. What follows is the text of Dr. McKenzie’s letter to Fr. Pulvermacher from 1978. Its contents are as true today as they were then:
Dear Father Carl:
Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter sent recently to a housewife who lives near Topeka, from Bishop Fulton Sheen. You will note the effort encourages one Mrs. Rew to continue her efforts to draw away from our congregation in St. Mary’s at the St. Pius X Chapel, her friend and one of our people. I couldn’t resist answering the good Bishop. I do not know if your policies allow printing this material but if you wish that is fine.
Dr. Eugene F. McKenzie
September 21, 1978
I thank you for your kind letter and I admire you as the mother of eight small children. I am sure you are busy, but happy.
If you have any influence on your friend I would beg you to influence her to leave the so-called Society of Saint Pius X. This group has no ecclesiastical approval, and indeed, it can lead her and possibly her family into schism and even heresy.
The Vatican Council approved the updating of the Liturgy and amongst the changes were those recommended for the Mass. The changes made by Pope Paul VI were not doctrinal changes, they merely changed from Latin to the vernacular. There have been many changes in the Mass down through the centuries.
The Lord never said Mass in Latin; He used the language of the time. Moreover, the change in translation does not alter the meaning of the text. I am always looking for translations that make the Scriptures more understandable and clear.
Since I never write to anyone unless they have written to me I shall not write to Mrs. Richardon. I beg of you to tell her that she should withdraw from that schismatical sect as soon as possible, or suffer the consequence of possibly finding herself outside the Church.
God love you!
+ Fulton J. Sheen
September 30, 1978
Most Reverend Fulton J. Sheen
Titular Archbishop of Newport
Enclosed find your letter recently received by a housewife in this area. I respond because of your sweeping condemnation of the Society of St. Pius X and by inference, its founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. Also, your letter has been copied and distributed by its recipient. I will show that you have affixed your name to a litany of false and misleading statements. If I had not seen this letter I would not have believed that the famous Fulton Sheen could author it. Charity compels me to ask whether in fact the author was some untrained underling? I speak to your letter.
1. (“THE VATICAN COUNCIL APPROVED THE UPDATING OF THE LITURGY AND AMONGST THE CHANGES WERE THOSE RECOMMENDED FOR THE MASS.”)
The Vatican Council never hinted at what has become a revolution. The Council never intended that Latin should be removed from the Mass. The Fathers (were you there?) allowed the option of the vernacular for some opening prayers. They never hinted at the possibility of altering the Canon nor especially the Consecration. As you know, Article 36 of the Constitution on the Liturgy reads: “The use of the Latin language shall be maintained (servetur) in the Latin rites.”
Why do you continue to violate this law? There is not a line in the Constitution on replacing our altars with tables; not a suggestion that the priest should face the congregation. The late English Cardinal Heenan testified that when the Fathers voted for the Constitution they did not foresee “that Latin would virtually disappear from Catholic Churches.”
The late Archbishop Dwyer writing of the euphoric spirit of the Fathers on the day they voted in favor of the Constitution by 2,147 to 4, comments with the sadness and wisdom of hindsight: “Who dreamed on that day that within a few years, far less than a decade, the Latin past of the Church would be all but expunged, that it would be reduced to a memory. The thought of it would have horrified us, but it seemed for far beyond the realm of the possible as to be ridiculous. We laughed it off.”
One prelate, who fulfilled important functions during the Council, expressed himself strongly on this matter in 1969: “I regret having voted in favor of the Council Constitution in whose name (but in what a manner) this heretical pseudo-reform has been carried out, a triumph of arrogance and ignorance. If it were possible, I would take back my vote, and attest before a magistrate that my assent had been obtained through trickery” (Mgr. Domenico Celada).
Finally, the Council took for granted the Bull Quo Primum which guarantees “in perpetuity” the right of any priest to say the Immemorial Mass (Tridentine) and the right of the laity to hear the same. It never even hinted at replacing the old Mass with the Novus Ordo—how could it—the Council closed in 1965. The Novus Ordo was not promulgated until 1969! Why do you then illegally refuse the priests and laity of your diocese the right to this Mass? Please don’t reply like most diocesan papers that the Constitution Missale Romanun issued by Paul VI to institute the Novus Ordo rescinds Quo Primum and thus the Tridentine Mass—that is a lie!
If you have read the original Latin document you found it doesn’t even mention Quo Primum but is merely a “permission” to say the Novus Ordo. The liberals try to make of this “permission” a binding law by “mistranslation” when going from the Latin to English, French, Italian and German. How does it happen, your Excellency, that these “experts” all made the same linguistic error on the fourth from last line of the document Missale Romanum? You haven’t read it? Like the bishops of the nation you took the word of the liberal peritus Yves Congar for this?
2. (“THE CHANGES MADE BY POPE PAUL VI WERE NOT DOCTRINAL CHANGES, THEY MERELY CHANGED FROM LATIN TO THE VERNACULAR.”)
This statement, and from a Bishop, is so unreal as to leave the reader stupefied. We know that Pope Paul did not actually author all the radical liturgical changes which bear his name, but to say that this revolution was essentially linguistic in character, well, this is to ask not to be taken seriously.
According to Dietrich Von Hildebrand, Pope Paul’s Novus Ordo “merely changed” 70 percent of the Tridentine Mass. A grand total of thirty-five prayers have been replaced or discarded. The contrast from the old Roman Missal which you compiled, to the new Missalettes, is so stark as to defy comparison. If your above statement were even partly true Catholics could go right on attending the new Mass and use their old missals by just reading the English section. Try it, Bishop Sheen. It would be like going to see the Yankees play with a program from the Bolshoi Ballet as a guide.
3. (“THERE HAVE BEEN MANY CHANGES IN THE MASS DOWN THROUGH THE CENTURIES.”)
No informed critic of the new Mass has ever suggested that the Missal of St. Pius V was untouchable or that Quo Primum precluded any reform of the Missal by subsequent Pontiffs. Archbishop Lefebvre has made no such claims. The historical evidence is there to show that up to 1969 when the Novus Ordo was imposed, the changes in the Mass for 1500 years were conducted with the utmost reverence and caution. Pope John XXIII’s “reform” is typical of the changes which appeared only rarely. After much research and discussion that Pope allowed the Last Gospel to be dropped on occasion, altered the calendar slightly and timidly inserted the name of St. Joseph into the Canon. You surely know that numerous scholars of late have demonstrated that there is no possible comparison with what Pope Paul VI has permitted and the revisions of the Popes who went before him.
The following lines are from a 1952 edition of a book entitled This Is the Mass: “The Mass became set much as we now know it, insofar as concerns its broad structure, at about the close of the third century. Although this or that part may show some growth or diminution in importance, the general plan of the ceremony is even now just as it was then.”
Those lines—that book was written by two experts on the Mass; their names: Henri Daniel-Rops and Fulton J. Sheen.
You chide us for turning to the Society of St. Pius X for our Immemorial Mass because only these priests of Archbishop Lefebvre have the courage to bring to us what you and the nation’s bishops should be providing.
You know better than I that this Novus Ordo which you defend is shockingly similar to the heretical rite devised by the heretic Thomas Cranmer during Henry VIII’s time. You know that Cramer successfully devised a three-pronged attack to destroy the Mass and the Faith in England. First, he replaced the altars with tables, “Altars for that odious sacrifice, tables for memorial meals.” Second, he replaced “abominable Latin” with vernacular so that later he could gradually mutilate the prayers. Third, came communion in the hand; thus in time the idea of the Real Presence, which he hated would be diluted.
In exactly twenty years Cranmer crushed the Faith in England. In the last ten years you and the Bishops of America have reduced Mass attendance by one half!
Is the pattern similar?
Who is leading whom into “schism and even heresy”?
A few years ago an American Bishop wrote these lines in the preface to his Sunday Missal of the Tridentine Mass. These words sum up the case made by Archbishop Lefebvre and his men:
“There is no communion rail without an altar, For only a Sacrifice leads to a Sacrament.”
by Fulton J. Sheen
Be careful great, great Bishop of the television screen, that your sharp pen does not become your scourge, for you may learn one day, like Paul of Tarsus, that in pummeling the elderly French Archbishop you had, in fact, struck the naked body of the Saviour.
Dr. Eugene F. McKenzie
October 10, 1978
UPDATE: I have just learned that the author of this letter, Dr. McKenzie, passed away in 2013. Please remember to say a prayer for the repose of his soul before you leave this page. Thank you. Source
The cause for The Canonisation of The Archbishop is progressing. I am not aware of one for The Doctor.
The Archbishop was a man of prayer, and a skilled theologian, and a great communicator of the truths of the faith. He wrote and broadcast frequently across various platforms. The Doctor had a letter published by a newspaper that shared his limited understanding of Church History and Theology.
The correspondence highlights the wisdom of The Church. No doubt Archbishop Sheen will intercede for all lacking such insights.
You obviously don’t know that Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s Cause has been suspended indefinitely. Click here to read more.
As for your remarks about the Archbishop Vs Dr McKenzie – Dr McKenzie is actually quoting the Archbishop’s own earlier words about the Mass to show his contradictory position after the introduction of the novus ordo. So, “skilled theologian”? I don’t think so.
You are right in your assertion that the correspondence “highlights the wisdom of the Church” – Dr McKenzie has demonstrated most clearly the fact that just about everything in the Archbishop’s letter to Barbara, contradicts the teaching of the Church. Archbishop Sheen manifestly didn’t even know the most basic facts, did not even identify, correctly, the contents of the Documents of Vatican II but writes as if the opposite were true. Astonishing.
Do, pray for the soul of the Archbishop who may well be suffering in Purgatory as we peruse the contents of his letter, full of errors, and liable to mislead Catholics like your good self. That would be the most charitable thing to do on his behalf, not agree with his proven errors against the easily verifiable facts, and the true teaching of the Church on the Mass. To do so would serve only to make you look like a fool. I’m sure you are not. Can’t be if you blog here – even if only occasionally! We don’t, as the saying goes, suffer fools gladly.
Indeed, for anyone to read that correspondence as an affirmation of the legitimacy of the novus ordo Mass would be to show a wilful disregard for the truth. So, before you affirm any false beliefs about the Mass and the correspondence, recall, if you will, that the only unforgiveable sin is the sin against the Holy Spirit – which is to deny the manifest truth.
Our Lady, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, (whose Feast it is today) pray for us.
Ed, thank you for posting Dr. McKenzie’s letter to Archbishop Fulton Sheen. I wonder if the latter replied to him? I remember in the immediate aftermath of the imposition of the Novus Ordo Missae on shocked and bewildered congregations, parish priests attempted to explain the inexplicable with that self-same lie, “It’s only the translation of the Latin into English”. Unfortunately the majority of Catholics had not learned Latin, and so were unforgivably betrayed by their shepherds. I am shocked to hear that the Archbishop told the same truly damnable lie.
You are right. I didn’t know the cause had been suspended, and most probably because of the squabbling between the two Diocese and for no other reason.
It’s about more than two diocese having a “squabble”. If you read the article carefully, you will see there is a substantial issue directly connected to the canonisation process, at stake.
I was aware of the dispute but not the suspension. At the time the dispute was made public I concluded Cardinal Dolan was right to respect the known wishes of The Archbishop and his family.
Your source is hardly neutral!
The source is full of praise for Archbishop Fulton Sheen and concludes by expressing the hope that he will, one day, be canonised.
So, what on EARTH you mean by “hardly neutral” is anybody’s guess. The source merely pointed out the dangers of these (ridiculous, in my view) fast track canonisations which have brought the whole process, and the Church herself, into disrepute, and defended the traditional practice of venerating the body of the candidate. So, “neutral” has nothing to do with it.
I disagree with the source, in that – given the falsehoods in his letter to Barbara re. the Mass and the SSPX – I hope he’s NOT canonised one day. Saints who were wrong about particular issues at some point in their lives do exist in the Church’s calendar, of course, so my opinion on this is not necessarily going to be shared by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints and/or the Pope of the day. I just hope it is!
There is no question that Archbishop Fulton Sheen was a great prelate, one I have always personally admired and respected. However, it is a fact that in his latter days he embraced the New Mass without question, recommended the teachings of the Presbyterian Professor Bill Barclay to retreatants and poplulated his ‘Mission funds’ offices with mini-skirted secretaries who notoriously spoke in vile disrespect against Cardinal Ottaviani, that great champion of Catholic orthodoxy.
Something clearly changed in him towards the end of his life. Perhaps old age and illness dulled his senses. At any rate, he was not popular within the diocese of rochester and was more or less forced to step down as a result.
As I say, he was a great churchman for so many decades of his life, and one who was devoted to Our Lady. Sadly, having fought all his priestly life against Communist infiltration into American politics and society, he failed to recognise the enemy when it triumphed at Vatican II. That blindness will forever remain an enigma. God love him.
I was thinking last night as to how the recent embarrassing scenes with the homosexual priest from the CDF are likely down to Francis’ own failure to act regarding the “gay mafia” dossier which was compiled at the instruction of Pope Benedict. As we know Francis accepts anything, like a toddler handed a toy, and probably thought that to avoid removing such men from post would win him respect and loyalty – wrong.
I have been encouraged by Cardinal Erdo’s strong remarks at the start of the synod:
Cardinal Erdo was made to look a fool at the 2014 Synod when he was unwittingly used as a patsy to present Bruno Fortes rubbish in the form of the pre-staged mid-term report. I hope this act has returned to haunt the scheming “progressives” and that it has galvanized Cardinal Erdo’s opposition to Kapser and co.
I have also been lamenting how the Church has even gotten itself into this mess in the first place, especially when the teaching of Jesus Christ is resoundingly clear. This pantomime is a great vindication of Archbishop Lefebvre, who stated “Rome has lost the faith. It is certain”.
And is it not absurd that these changes are being touted as “mercy”, when in fact Our Lord taught us that the jews only allowed divorce because of the “hardness” of their hearts. How is a hard heart reconcilable with mercy? It is not – these are complete opposites. This whole thing is a sham, a laughing stock worthy of only contempt.
Wonderful link – Cardinal Erdo has joined the heroes of this Synod.. Let’s hope more and more stand up to be counted.
Thank you very much indeed for posting that powerful interview with Father John O’Connor OP (October 5, 10.09pm). In my opinion, it is required viewing. It just hammers home the point that the tsunami of filth that has been pumped into the Church has been visible and stinking for a long time.
So an early 1950s seminarian in the US gets caught with sodomite pornography in his room, the seminary is closed because of the scandal, and the same individual simply “walks across the highway”, to use Father O’Connor’s phrase, and enters the Dominicans’ seminary. And before he is even ordained he is put on the teaching staff, and made Dean of studies! Everyone should look at this video, which I think, from something that was said in the interview, was recorded in 1990. The creeping, longstanding infiltration and subversion are undeniable, to anyone with a functioning brain.
The presenter quite rightly makes the point at the end, about scandalous episcopal appointments, a point made plenty of times on this blog.
I hadn’t actually seen this video before. The one that was in my mind was of Father O’Connor preaching a sermon in a Church, and may still be on Youtube.
Thank you for that link – I certainly didn’t expect any good news. Deo gratias!
That thank you was to Gabriel Syme. 😀
I think the following magnificent example of courageous, rock-solid fidelity to the Faith bears repetition in these days of threatening catastrophe. They should stiffen the resolve of any truly faithful Bishop or priest.
..Truth is not made by numbers: numbers do not make Truth. Even if I am alone, and even if all my seminarians leave me, even if I am abandoned by the whole of public opinion, it is all the same to me. I am attached to my catechism, attached to my Credo, attached to Tradition which sanctified all the saints in heaven. I am not concerned about others: they do as they wish: but I want to save my soul. Public opinion I know too well: it was public opinion which condemned Our Lord after acclaiming Him a few days before. First, Palm Sunday: then Good Friday. We know that. Public opinion is not to be trusted at all. Today it is for me, tomorrow it is against me. What matters is fidelity to our faith. We should have that conviction and stay calm.
Econe 18th September 1976.
Itineraires No. 208, pp.136-154.
Brilliant quote from Archbishop Lefebvre. Let’s hope he is able to obtain a miracle for us during this Synod – the conquest, if not conversion, of the “liberal” prelates.
As expected the scheming has started already, with the faithful being lied to by clergy as to what is being discussed inside the synod.
Fortunately journalist Edward Pentin is on the case and, via sources, has managed to highlight the stark chasm between what is really being discussed and what english language attache Fr Thomas Rosica has (at press conference) claimed is being discussed.
Fr Rosicas press report focused on homosexual persons and the need to “welcome” them and avoid “exclusionary language”.
Pentins sources however present a different picture. Here is what Rosica didnt mention:
* A number of synod fathers spoke in support of Cardinal Peter Erdo’s introductory speech, including one who underlined the importance of keeping fidelity to truth about marriage, the family and the Eucharist.
* A synod father asked “What are we doing here?” and stressed the synod is about the family, not other relationships such as homosexual ones. He also stressed that if the synod accepts the divorced-remarried issue, the Church effectively “supports divorce”.
* Another said the emphasis should be the sacrament of marriage, so the spiritual beauty of marriage is brought to the fore. Often the Church is not united around the “positive vision” of marriage and family. He said instability around marriage is “against its nature”.
* A synod father referenced St. Augustine, saying some of the baptized living in “irregular situations” don’t want to approach the Sacrament of Penance; he said the crisis of the family is a crisis of faith. He quoted 2 Timothy 4:2-5
* Another intervention noted the flock are too few, and that one should show respect for families which battle and try to remain faithful, those who in particular remain faithful to their marital vows given before God, although there are controversies and difficulties.
* A further intervention stressed that the Church has to defend that which God revealed about marriage and family and that the work of prelates is to support healthy families. A danger for families are “certain cultural currents,” as well as a sociological approach. In order to serve the family one has to take point of departure the word of God.
Apparently most other-language press reports were equally as shabby as Rosicas effort, with the French and German ones being the best of a poor lot.
The U.S. District of the SSPX held a rosary procession for the synod and here’s a video about it.
Great crowd, looks good with all the candles etc. but they don’t seem to be praying or singing hymns. Maybe the voice-over is blocking that out, but I would have liked to hear the hymns. I’m a “hymn person”…
Editor, we are only seeing a small part of what would have been a long procession so I assume they did pray and sing hymns (though not the words we know, lol.)
Vianney, where exactly in the USA did that procession take place?
It was the town of St. Mary’s, Kansas. The town is named after a Jesuit Mission and a few years ago the SSPX took it over. I believe over half the population are Traditional Catholics.
HA! You spotted my deliberate mistake! 👏
That’s very kind of you Frankier – I should engage brain more. I wasn’t thinking too clearly after seeing that sickening performance.😷
Here’s the latest from Damian Thompson at The Spectator – I’ve put a few comments under the article, so maybe others will take a minute to do likewise.
Yeah, you’re right, there’s something rotten in the state of Denmark with that one. Can’t put my finger on it exactly… but I expect his “children” are… well, you know, stepchildren, if you know get my meaning. His vocabulary is also rather limited compared to yours. Only Vanessa Feltz could outdo you on that score.
1) To whom is your comment addressed (at 11.28pm October 8th) ?
2) What is “that one”?
3) Whose “children” are really “his stepchildren”?
4) Whose vocabulary is limited?
5) by comparison to whose vocabulary is (4) vocabulary “rather limited”?
6) What is so special about Vanessa Feltz’s vocabulary?
7) Who is the “you” in your final sentence?
That’s that fourth whiskey talking. Again!
A bishop is arguing for women deacons now – I just can’t imagine a woman presiding at a wedding or funeral. I will never accept this if it comes in. If a priest isn’t available for the sacraments, there has to be something else we can do. Am I the only person to find this absolutely unacceptable?
I saw that Margaret Mary, but I think it is just misdirection, a distraction technique from liberals to make opponents of proposed changes lose their concentration.
After all, why the blazes are women deacons being raised in a family synod?
And I agree with you – such would be totally unacceptable. It wouldnt satisfy critics of the clergy – they would just change their argument to be “women are already deacons, why not priests?”.
I didn’t even think of that – it being raised at a synod on the family
It looks like there are people making full use of the chance to be liberals out in the open.
Also, you are so right about the slippery slope – if women can be deacons and do all those things, why not priests will be the next argument.
After his adverse reaction to Cardinal Erdo’s opening speech, Pope Francis has now ‘had a go’ at Cardinal Pell (according to Fr Z).
Cardinal Pell has criticised the composition of the committee due to write the final synod report, (its stacked full of Francis’ liberal yes-men), which has apparently not gone down well with Francis.
On the other hand, Cardinal Napier has stated that worries about the synod being rigged have been “allayed”.
If it was someone like Nichols, Marx or Schonborn saying that, I would think “aye, right” and be very suspicious.
But I am more inclined to trust in Cardinal Napier. He was a vocal critic of goings on last year, and – being an African prelate – actually has a bit of Catholicism about him, unlike so many of his lamentable European and North American brothers.
Archbishop Coleridge – whom I have never heard of, but is supposedly liberal – has claimed that the Bishops are against the Kasper proposal, by a margin of 65% versus 35%.
(Cardinal Erdo had previously said something very similar).
I am encouraged by that margin, but isnt it a scandal that 35% of a gathering of Catholic Bishops are prepared to go against what Jesus Christ taught personally?
The problem is, Pope Francis appears to be numbered among the 35%, at least according to this report…
After listening to Fr O’Connor, I’m grateful that 65% are on the right side. Obviously you are right about the truly scandalous 35%. I want their names and addresses.
If Archbishop Coleridge is correct in his claims that 65% are against the Kaspar proposal that is something. Even so I agree that 35% is truly scandalous. Going against what Our Lord Jesus Christ taught shows a lack of concern for the salvation of souls.
N O T I C E . . .
As we will be closing the September threads very soon, and this one is now rather lengthy, we have opened another Synod thread, following receipt of a short report from Joe O’Connell of the Fatima Center in Cork, who is in Rome. Click here to reach the new thread. This one will remain near the top of the page for ease of reference, until after the synod.
Thank you to all who contributed to this thread – looking forward to your comments on the new thread Our Lady of Fatima Arrives for the Synod…
Comments are closed.