Pope Mocks Traditional Masseditor
It appears that a children’s book titled Dear Pope Francis [was] released on March 1.
Rorate Caeli obtained and posted a section of the book that is not only disturbing, but provides a snapshot into the mind of Francis concerning the ancient Mass of the Church.
This is the excerpt:
“Dear Pope Francis,
Were you ever near the priest as the altar boy?
Greetings from Alessio (Italy, age 9)”
“Dear Alessio, yes, I was an altar boy. And you? What part among the altar boys do you have? It’s easier to do now, you know: You might know that, when I was a kid, Mass was celebrated different than today. Back then, the priest faced the altar, which was next to the wall, and not the people. Then the book with which he said the Mass, the missal, was placed on the right side of the altar. But before reading of the Gospel it always had to be moved to the left side. That was my job: to carry it from right to left. It was exhausting! The book was heavy! I picked it up with all my energy but I wasn’t so strong; I picked it up once and fell down, so the priest had to help me. Some job I did! The Mass wasn’t in Italian then. The priest spoke but I didn’t understand anything. and neither did my friends. So for fun we’d do imitations of the priest, messing up the words a bit to make up weird sayings in Spanish. We had fun, and we really enjoyed serving Mass.”
What, then, has Francis effectively taught this nine-year-old altar boy, and any youngster who reads the book?
1) The protestantized Novus Ordo is superior to the old, stodgy,“other-worldly” Tridentine Mass, where the priest faced the altar and not the people, and where the faithful allegedly could not understand what the priest said.
2) The Mass and things pertaining to the Mass can be the object of cheap amusement even by altar boys while they are serving. How contrary this is to the spirit of Catholicism.
The Gifts of Piety and Fear of the Lord, two of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost, instill in us a reverential fear of God, which recognizes God’s greatness and our littleness, and a deep respect for those things that pertain to God, which must be treated in a reverential manner. These Gifts do not appear to be manifest in Francis. There is also no sense of the supernatural when Francis speaks of the Mass.
Francis, the modernist Jesuit, boasts to a nine-year-old youngster, and thousands of other youngsters who will be given a copy of this book, that, “messing up the words a bit to make up weird sayings” is an acceptable practice for an altar server. What really matters, “We had fun…”. The excerpt from the book reminds us of the episode – captured on video – where Francis poked fun at the little altar boy properly folding his hands in prayer. “Are your hands stuck together?” asked Francis, grabbing the boys hands and moving apart and back.
For Francis, some of the most sacred aspects of Catholic practice can be the object of sport: “We messed up the words” of the Mass, “We had fun,” “Are your hands stuck together?”
Who is this vulgar little man that our contemporary Cardinals elected in 2013?
One month into his papacy, I stated publicly I would never allow Pope Francis to teach religion to my children. After almost three years of this tumultuous reign, I reconfirm that statement with greater intensity.
Francis’ vulgar mockery of aspects of the Mass (which reminds me of the Novus Ordo priests of the early 1970s trying so hard to be ‘cool’ and ‘one of the guys’), his public praise of the abortionist Emma Bonino, his guilty silence in the face of his duty to oppose Italy’s same-sex Civil Union bill (that passed due to his silence), his recent Situation Ethics approach to contraception, wherein he recently indicated that use contraception may be an option as a shield against Zika infection, and his countless scandalous words and actions wherein he sounds worse than a 21st Century combination of Cardinal Bernadin and Leonardo Boff, further and further erodes his moral authority. Faithful Catholics run for cover almost every time he opens his mouth.
This is why I am afraid when Francis appears ready to get his hands on anything else Catholic that I love, for he seems to subvert all he touches.
St. Alphonse Liguori tells us in a Letter of October 24, 1774, that it is possible for a Pope to be elected who does not have the greater glory of God as his main concern, that such a Pope will not receive the help from God that he needs, and that things will go from bad to worse.
St. Alphonsus writes at the time of a Papal Conclave, “As regards the bishops, very few of them possess genuine zeal for souls … So we have to pray to Jesus Christ that he would give us as head of the Church one possessed of more spirit and zeal for the glory of God than of learning and human prudence. He should be free of all party attachments and devoid of human respect. If, by chance, for our great misfortune, we should get a Pope that does not have the glory of God as his sole purpose, the Lord will not help him greatly and things from their present condition will go from bad to worse.”
We are now in a state where we have a Pope who seems to manifest some of the worst aspects of modernist Jesuitism, does not seem to be guided by the spirit of God, and where things are going from bad to worse. The Message of Fatima tells us to “pray a great deal for the Holy Father,” and likewise St. Alphonse Liguori urged Catholics to pray that the Lord remedy such a situation.
In the meantime, we continue to publicly resist the words and actions of Pope Francis that appear contrary to the Faith of all time, and promote the traditional Catholic Faith to all those in our sphere of influence.
We close by quoting the renowned Father Francisco Suarez, one of many who remind us of the need to resist: “If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense.” Source – Catholic Family News
How can it be, that Pope Francis has come to detest the ancient Mass to the point where he would apparently seek to poison the mind of a child against it? This is one book I most certainly won’t be recommending to anyone, nor will I buy a copy as a gift for any of my nephews/nieces. – especially my 10 year old and 13 year nephews who serve at the Traditional Latin Mass. What about you?
A this Pope never genuflects at the consecration, I am no longer surprised by anything he says or does. Saint Francis said that God would send a Pope who was a destroyer not a shepherd. “St. Francis of Assisi Prophecy:
“A Man, not Canonically Elected, will be raised to the Pontificate… In those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a Destroyer.” “Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.” This man fits the bill too a T. An excellent article on The Remnant today a must read
I’ve heard this, about the Pope never genuflecting at the Consecration – is there a physical disability such as arthritis, perhaps? If so, an explanation should have been given by the Vatican, to prevent what might be interpreted as an apparent lack of belief in the Real Presence scandalising the faithful.
As for the quote from St Francis – well, we can’t make that judgment, we must just continue to resist and refuse his false “teachings” and keep repeating the truths of the Faith, as well as, obviously, praying for him and for those who are being misled by his words and actions.
I take it you mean Christopher Ferrara’s article here which I agree is excellent.
is there a physical disability such as arthritis
He managed to wash and kiss feet recently without any apparent difficulty.
True. I didn’t think of that. WOW!
Chris Ferrara’s article is really packed full of stuff that is very concerning indeed. I was horrified to read what the Pope says to children who are suffering, about suffering. I’ve copied a chunk to post here –
“Why do children suffer?” And there are no answers. This too is a mystery. I just look to God and ask: “But why?”. And looking at the Cross: “Why is your Son there? Why?” It is the mystery of the Cross.
I often think of Our Lady, when they handed down to her the dead body of her Son, covered with wounds, spat on, bloodied and soiled. And what did Our Lady do? “Did she carry him away?” No, she embraced him, she caressed him. Our Lady, too, did not understand. Because she, in that moment, remembered what the Angel had said to her: “He will be King, he will be great, he will be a prophet…”; and inside, surely, with that wounded body lying in her arms, that body that suffered so before dying, inside surely she wanted to say to the Angel: “Liar! I was deceived.” She, too, had no answers…
Do not be afraid to ask, even to challenge, the Lord. “Why?” Maybe no explanation will follow, but his fatherly gaze will give you the strength to go on…. Do not be afraid to ask God: “Why?”, to challenge him: “Why?” May you always have your heart open to receiving his fatherly gaze. The only answer that he could give you will be: “My Son also suffered”. That is the answer. The most important thing is that gaze. And your strength is there: the loving gaze of the Father.
Compare Francis’s liberal Jesuit rubbish about a clueless Mary at the foot of the Cross with the teaching of John Paul II on the same subject in Divini redemptoris (Mother of the Redemeer):
At that moment she had also heard the words: “He will be great…and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Lk. 1:32-33).
And now, standing at the foot of the Cross, Mary is the witness, humanly speaking, of the complete negation of these words. On that wood of the Cross her Son hangs in agony as one condemned…. How great, how heroic then is the obedience of faith shown by Mary in the face of God’s “unsearchable judgments”! How completely she “abandons herself to God” without reserve, offering the full assent of the intellect and the will to him whose “ways are inscrutable” (cf. Rom. 11:33)!….
Through this faith Mary is perfectly united with Christ in his self-emptying… This is perhaps the deepest ‘kenosis’ of faith in human history. Through faith the Mother shares in the death of her Son, in his redeeming death; but in contrast with the faith of the disciples who fled, hers was far more enlightened.
It seems unbelievable that Francis could say such things to sick and dying children, leaving them only with a vague reference to God’s “fatherly gaze” and the statement “My Son also suffered,” as if children had to suffer merely because Christ did—a kind of divine tit-for-tat. Evidently, “the people’s Pope” did not wish to offend the people by mentioning the redemptive power of suffering from the eternal perspective, exemplified by Christ Himself, or the revealed truth that “the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us (Romans 8:180.” No, that is not what the people want to hear. They want to hear that they have the right to “challenge” God over their suffering, to be resentful about it as Mary supposedly was at the foot of the Cross. They want to think that perhaps God could have done better on their account, and that the inscrutable workings of His providence ought to be other than what they are.
Francis is nothing if not persistent. Hence his theme of “no answer” to the suffering of children appears in his latest populist initiative: “Dear Pope Francis: the Pope Answers Letters from Children Around the World.” Much of the advice in his answers is perfectly sound, but as always with this pontificate there are poison pills. For example, in answer to the question “If you could do 1 [sic] miracle, what would it be?” Francis gave an answer one feels safe in saying would never have flowed from the pen of any of his predecessors:
“I would heal children. I’ve never been able to understand why children suffer. It’s a mystery to me. I don’t have an explanation. I ask myself about this, and I pray about your question. Why do children suffer? My heart asks the question. Jesus wept, and by weeping he understood our tragedies. I try to understand this. Yes, if I could perform a miracle, I would heal every child…. My answer to the pain of children is silence, or perhaps a word that rises from my tears. I’m not afraid to cry. You shouldn’t be either.”
Oprah Winfrey could have given the same “spiritual advice” to this poor child, who is told nothing of God’s providence or the eternal happiness that awaits the blessed departed and is offered the stupefying suggestion that even God Incarnate weeps over the suffering of children that He Himself allows to occur, but Francis would remedy. Yes, Francis would end the intolerable situation God has allowed to fester in the world since the Fall by healing all sick children regardless of the unforeseeable consequences for their temporal and eternal welfare. But then why not repair all of the innumerable “defects” in divine providence by miraculously ending human suffering as such?
If Francis cannot understand the suffering of children, how can he understand the suffering of anyone, much less the suffering of Christ? Has he never thought of the possibility that a death in childhood may be the doorway to eternal felicity as opposed to a life fully lived but ending in final impenitence and eternal damnation or at best eons of purgatorial suffering worse than any earthly disease? Who is Francis to read the inscrutable designs of Providence regarding suffering and tell a child that he would wish it all away? What do we make of a Pope who has no answer to the question why people suffer when the constant teaching of the Church has always given the answer that leavens grief and fills the grieving with hope for the one they have lost?”
It’s painful to read all that, thanks to Chris Ferrara putting it all together – I was just dumbfounded to read it, though, and hope the above extract is not too long. The whole article is worth reading from start to finish, although hard to stomach.
Surely God will do something about this pope soon?
“Pope never genuflecting at the Consecration” I read somewhere an Argetinian lady who new him since he was a priest asked him why he never Genuflected when passing the tabernacle as all the other Bishop’s who were attending a High Mass did. She did not get an answer. He was much younger then. Others noted
“He never genuflects at Mass, during the consecration or before the Tabernacle when he enters or leaves the chapel.
So, Francis cannot kneel? But he could kneel to pray at a eucumenical meeting with Protestants. Or to wash the feet of a muslim women.”
I would like to think that it is infirmity. Perhaps he will have a Road to Damascus Epiphany. I do hope so.
I noticed elsewhere on this thread that your having problems re windows 10 unsolicited installation on your PC.
If you are not already aware, there is a solution:
Hope this helps.
Do you know why Pope Francis does not genuflect? It is only because he has a sciatica.
That is what I was told.
I have scoliosis and a damaged right like. It does not stop me from genuflecting. and I’ only a few years younger than he. If you read the other posts he never genuflected when he was a priest.
Thank you for this precision, jimislander!
Lionel. I have scoliosis and a damaged right like. It does not stop me from genuflecting. and I’ am only a few years younger than he. If you read the other posts he never genuflected even when he was a priest.
“In those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a Destroyer.”
The obvious (and frightening) question that has to be asked is, WHY? WHY would Our Lord send us a destroyer?
Possible answer: We get what we deserve (hence frightening) because not enough of US, i.e.the Laity, complied with the request of Our Lady of Fatima.
Here’s another: Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies, is therefore the greatest danger the Church has ever faced. Consequently, St. Pius X excommunicated all modernist heretics. So it seems likely that only Divine intervention will rid the Church of those “men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith” in those “perilous times” mentioned by St.Paul.(2 Timothy 3:1 )
Gerontius: “So it seems likely that only Divine intervention will rid the Church of those “men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith”
Yes indeed. Our Blessed Mother told Sister Sasegwa at Akita that the greater part of humanity will perish. The chastisement will “spare neither priest nor faithful” . She also said “all you will have left is the sign my Son left and the Rosary” How we need another Pope Saint Pius X today, not only what is happening happening now, but for what lies ahead.
Here’s another relevant,and indeed urgent, reason to “watch and pray” at this time.
Douay-Rheims Bible (1 Peter 4:17)
For the time is, that judgment should begin at the house of God. And if first at us, what shall be the end of them that believe not the gospel of God?
I have to correct your statement that St. Pius X excommunicated all Modernist heretics. St. Pius X issued no such blanket edict against Modernists. And neither could he, for that would have been unjust. Everyone ahs the right to be confronted with their errors and given a chance to recant before being censured.
Thankyou for your correction. It seems that I have misinterpretated that section of PRAESTANTIA SCRIPTURAE where we read “adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter “Docentes” of the constitution “Apostolicae Sedis,” which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff.
The above seemed to me to be indeed, a grave warning to those who in future times, would knowingly persist in their error.
Ipso Facto (by the fact itself) – they incur Automatic Excommunication – latae Sententiae (Effective from the time the sin was committed)
Anyway, iv’e posted a paragraph of said document below for contextual purposes if you are interested.
Moreover, in order to check the daily increasing audacity of many modernists who are endeavoring by all kinds of sophistry and devices to detract from the force and efficacy not only of the decree “Lamentabili sane exitu” (the so-called Syllabus), issued by our order by the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition on July 3 of the present year, but also of our encyclical letters “Pascendi dominici gregis” given on September 8 of this same year, we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter “Docentes” of the constitution “Apostolicae Sedis,” which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents, as propagators and defenders of heresies, when their propositions, opinions and teachings are heretical, as has happened more than once in the case of the adversaries of both these documents, especially when they advocate the errors of the modernists that is, the synthesis of all heresies.
What an example to little children! Our Lord had something to say about scandalising the little ones.
I think that Pope Francis words are a cause of scandal. He sure needs prayers.
St Alphonsus, pray for us.
“Who is this vulgar little man that our contemporary Cardinals elected in 2013?”
I couldn’t agree more. “Vulgar little man” sums up this terribly concerning pope.
I see John Vennari also says he wouldn’t let the pope teach his children – I again couldn’t agree more. Imagine that, we can’t trust even the pope these days to teach the faith!
Despite the litany of scandals Pope Francis has thus far racked up, I still don’t think we serve charity or justice by bitter name calling. I regret that Catholic Family News used the term “vulgar little man” to describe the him.
I may well be just squirming under the weight of the consequences of my own sins and the sins of humanity, for which we are now paying, but this pontificate is actually worse than having the Chair of Peter empty, much worse. Because in that Chair sits an enemy of the Faith, actively attempting to destroy it, belittle it, sow confusion, and reduce the mystical majesty of the Church to a pile of meaningless secularized heretical gibberish and clever sound bytes. A Judas elected by Judases, for 30 pieces of human respect.
If this painful process is the required parallel to Our Lord’s Passion, I wonder where we are in the Holy Triduum? I have a sinking feeling we are still at the Scourging.
Excellent reply which encapsulates the lot !
RCA Victor….google “neuro linguistic programming” there is your answer.
RCA Victor: Someone asked Fr. Hanford “why was there a Judas Iscariot?” ” To prepare the way for apostate Bishops” he replied.
To be honest, I would love to build a bonfire and burn the book.
How in reality can one hate the ancient Mass? Such a difference when you see the Mass below:
Diabolic disorientation certainly. The lack of love and care for the salvation of souls is a prominent feature nowadays. How few Bishops today are solicitous about that care.
How would Pope Francis answer today in regard to this link – where it is shown the difference between the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Missae.
I have just discovered on the internet that Thomas E. Woods and Chris Ferrara have written a second edition of the Great Façade: The Regime of Novelty in the Catholic Church from Vatican II to the Francis Revolution.
“Francis Revolution” that says it all.
Thank you for posting the link to the TLM above – beautiful. I hope you don’t mind, but I copied the embed code to replace your link with the actual video. That may encourage more readers to view.
For your information, all you do is go to the actual video and right click, then select “copy embed code”, come back to the blog and right click to select “paste” and voila! The video appears in the comment box.
I didn’t know about the second edition of the Ferrara/Woods book. That will be worth reading – the first edition was excellent.
Dear Ed thank you for embedding the TLM. I do not need to search online now for the TLM
Theresa Rose Thank you for the link and the TLM. Wonderful
The Pope was writing of his experience as a child, presumably to show to the reader he understands some of what they may think, and feel now. We know for certain his life changed for the better when as a young Man he went to Confession, and took to heart a particular passage of Scripture. It is perhaps unfair not to read the excerpt in context. (It might be commentators here never ever misbehaved at Holy Mass, and that they have never ever encountered a mischievous altar sever. How lucky, and blessed they are, if they didn’t, or perhaps it might be legitimate to ask how honest they are!)
Pope Francis was writing for children. He should be trying to edify them and teach them about holiness. Mocking the ancient Mass is not the way to do that. Teachers don’t tell stories that belittle their subject and make it seem unimportant to children. They try to encourage children to love their subject. I don’t know what it is with priests including this pope that they have to reduce everything to the level of cheap entertainment. This pope has made clear he hates the old Mass and it seems he wants to belittle it at every turn.
At the novus ordo I’ve seen altar servers misbehaving by chatting to one another and laughing, making faces across the sanctuary etc. It is very bad to watch and it should not be tolerated as “naughtiness” – they should know that Christ is truly present in the Tabernacle and if they can’t control their behaviour they should not be serving.
I don’t think he was mocking the ancient Mass. He wrote of what he experienced as a child, and the point is he was a child. I note you didn’t answer my question: are you saying with absolute certainty that you never misbehaved at Mass as a child, and that at times your mind didn’t wander, or that you always had the mature faith, and understanding, you have now. Further, if you are talking to anyone on the basis of truth you need to be honest about what you did, and what you experienced, when talking about whatever it is. That is what The Pope has done. Would you prefer he wrote as if he were St Dominic Savio, if that is not what he was like?
Actually, no, I don’t think I did misbehave at Mass as a child. I suppose there’s always a chance I can’t remember and my parents would say I did, but that is not the point. I wasn’t an altar boy. Nobody should be allowed to serve Mass unless there is an understanding of what it is that they are doing. It’s not the same as a child misbehaving – altar boys are usually at least ten, I think, and so able to understand that this is a place to be serious and show respect. I bet they don’t misbehave in SSPX chapels where they are properly taught.
I can say, though, that even if I had been naughty at Mass, I wouldn’t be using that to teach a child as if it is OK to be badly behaved at Mass.
I’m sorry but if the pope has chosen to write a book for children, it’s important that he know why he is doing so. If it’s to make himself look “cool” and “just like them”, then I suppose he did a good job. If I was the Pope, I would feel obliged to write in such a way that would encourage children to love their faith. Knowing that the pope had been making fun of the Mass while serving would not have encouraged me to think well of him or the Mass.
Truth to tell, I think Pope Francis should not be writing books at all, as he is doing incalculable harm to the Church as it is, with what he has already written and said.
Frankly, I just wish he would go away!
“I bet they don’t misbehave in SSPX chapels where they are properly taught.”
Correct. I have two nephews who serve the SSPX Masses in Glasgow, and they are aged 10 and 13 years respectively.
The ten year old is a bit of a day-dreamer and sometimes forgets to ring the bell at the Sanctus, so his brother has to signal and we can laugh about it afterwards privately, but not in front of him. We never make him feel that it is right, that he is entertaining us. He knows that he has to make more of an effort to pay attention, while receiving plenty of praise for his willingness to serve (which he loves doing) and always reminding him that he is privileged to be able to do so.
The 13 year old LOVES the Mass. He absolutely LOVES serving. and, in fact, loves the Faith; he is home-educated and has already read a good number of lives of the saints. Interesting, Fr Arthur? He’d much prefer to read an account of a Pope’s childhood where the pope, as a boy, also loved the Faith. Oops! He’s read one and was thoroughly edified – Pope Saint Pius X.
Regarding my “server” nephews – I’ve just remembered something comical about the younger of the two, who is of slight build, small for his age (10). Some weeks ago, after Mass, he said “I’m sure that book gets heavier every week”! Which did, of course, make us all laugh. In the past, I have worried that he might drop it, and suggested he should ask not to have that duty, but he was indignant and said it wasn’t that heavy and anyway it only takes a minute. It was watching him genuflect en route to the left hand side of the altar, that put my heart in my mouth on occasion! He was keen to reassure me that he was fine with it.
In any event, that’s quite different from what the Pope describes taking place during Mass when he was a child serving. If he’d said something similar to what my nephew said (!) – perhaps quoted something he’d said or thought as a child, that would be one thing; but in the context of his well known opinions about the TLM, and knowing the agenda behind his words, I’m of the opinion that there is just no excuse at all for what he wrote in response to 9 year old Alessio.
In our chapel, boys have to be eight before being trained for serving. Not ten, as you suggest.
It’s hard to believe they’re that age already. I’m beginning to feel old! They two boys are a credit to their family and a great example of how youth can be moulded in the right way when they have the grace of God and are raised in a strong Catholic environment. It is so sad that many others of their age know nothing of God or grace, and it’s not their fault.
Pope Francis has made it very clear that he hates the Traditional Latin Mass. It could not be any more clear.
I think he has said he dislikes a particular type of traditionalist.
Yes, his name calling and disdain has been reserved for those of us now dubbed “traditionalists” (what every Catholic used to be, without need of the label)
We are the “rebels and idolators” who refuse to go along with his new teachings. Pity really, I might have wangled a top position in the Vatican, otherwise…
Which “particular” type would one be referring to ?
I think Pope Francis has made his position on Tradition perfectly clear. He has many times stated that Traditional Catholics are narcissists, closed within themselves, interested only in rules (dogmas), etc. That pretty much takes out all of his predecessors up to Vatican II. Perhaps that’s why neither they nor their teaching got a mention in his Encyclical Evangelii Gaudium. It is a document solely dedicated to conciliar teaching, as if the Church began with Vatican II.
does the idea floating about by Ann Barnhardt “Having this Pope DEPOSED” have any credibility or is that a bridge too far?
We discussed this recently on another thread – it’s not for us to depose the Pope. Several bridges too far, in fact…
So why would he remotely wish to make things right with SSPX? Got me puzzled.
Would you please cite your source for this.
I have not been able to find a quotation which mirrors this.
Editor: much later, I’m afraid, I’ve just seen this question. This article from The Remnant might help.
I can say with CERTAINTY that I NEVER misbehaved at Mass and NONE of my siblings did either….so THERE !
I didn’t misbehave at Mass as a child, although of course I’m sure my mind frequently wandered and of course I didn’t have the understanding then that I do now. However, nobody was talking about wandering minds or childlike understanding, were they?
Compare what the young Jorge thought with his more mature/adult response later. He has told us that at 17 when he went to confession, and began to understand things much differently and started earnestly on the path to become a priest.
” [he] started earnestly on the path to become a priest…”
Did somebody forget to teach him to genuflect before the Tabernacle and at the Consecration during Mass?
Everything we know about him – certainly his time in Argentina and now as Pope – suggests that he has a very impoverished understanding, not just of the priesthood and the Mass, but of Catholicism itself. This book for children, only adds to that impression.
Firstly can I repeat that I said I believe he dislikes a certain kind of “traditionalist” with a small “t”. He seems wedded to Tradition.
It seems clear to me, evident from the day he was installed that he has mobility issues, in addition to other physical issues, and that he seems to require more assistance that even Pope Benedict did. I assume that explains why genuflections are not done.
Forgive me for this, but I thought Bishops were consecrated – only Freemasons are “installed”
The masonic term “installed” is becoming ubiquitous in the Catholic Church… hmmm ….wonder why?
The Bishop of Rome was already a Bishop when he took over The See of Peter, and a Bishop who is translated to another Diocese, or even a Bishop who didn’t have a diocese, is installed when they take up their new role. However, I think we no longer say consecrated but ordained or the person is becoming a Bishop.
Strange that. I can genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament, but I’m not quite up to these prostrations.
I think your choice of article points to why I mention confession to you, although one commentator here, if not you, said they hoped The Pope had repented for his actions as a child. Your choice of article speaks of what I think is your motive: calumny. That is why I mention confession to you. The Pope in visiting in a Prison is undertaking a Corporal work of Mercy. You seek to twist it by using an article with a potentially, misleading, salacious headline. Are Prisoners also offered redemption, through the suffering and death of Christ, and is that not we celebrate during Holy Week? I rarely watch T.V. and so do not often see moving images of The Pope but I know when I have seen him use steps, or even rise from an act of prostration, he has more people assist him than a person in a geriatric ward. Further even in the still photo, in your wickedly chosen illustration, the people whose feet he is washing are significantly higher than him, and he is not properly kneeling down, or even genuflecting. Confession anyone?
Editor: again, you insult Christina with your publicly accusation of calumny and your “mention of Confession”. Outrageous.
Pope Francis had no business washing the feet of a Muslim woman during his prison visit Mandatum on the first Holy Thursday after his election. That was not an act of mercy by the Pope, it was an act of religious indifference and quite possibly heretical. Please, do not attempt to defend the indefensible. Pope Francis is grealy harming our holy Catholic religion and calling it “mercy”.
Do you approve of the Pope washing the feet of a Muslim woman?
Do you like the new rule that women can be included in the mandatum from now on?
The issue of whether the woman was a Muslim or not is irrelevant. In a recent interview, with Rorate Caeli, I think, Bishop Schneider (?) pointed out that until 1950 (?) The Mandatum was not part of The Mass, and that it was before then, and remains, optional.
The title of the article wasn’t salacious it was just factual.
I also think it is disgraceful to make excuses for the Pope never kneeling at the consecration. I read this on the Eponymous Flower blog and it is an eye-opener:
When Did Pope Francis Kneel?
“In fact, since the beginning of the pontificate, there is a question of when Pope Francis kneels. An official explanation as to why the Pope does not genuflect at the consecration of the Lord, has not been offered up until today. Francis knelt during personal prayer when he visited the miraculous image of the Virgin in Santa Maria Maggiore, he knelt in prayer on June 1 in the football stadium in Rome, when he attended the meeting of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal and he knelt on Holy Thursday at the washing of the feet of people of different creed and religion. He does not genuflect at the consecration and does not kneel before the Eucharistic Lord. The only exception is for the prayer vigil for peace for Syria previously on September 7, 2013. There was a Eucharistic adoration on St. Peter’s Square, at the first part of which Pope Francis participated. To this end, he also had the Salus Populi Romani, the miraculous image of Santa Maria Maggiore brought out, before which he prayed kneeling.”
On this blog somewhere, I can’t remember where, someone said that a woman had asked the Pope when he was a young priest, why he never knelt at the Consecration but he did not reply. Well, to the best of my knowledge, if he had had some sort of medical condition that prevented him from kneeling, that would have been reason to refuse him entry to the seminary. It is so important for the priest to kneel at that part of the Mass, that nobody who was disabled could have been ordained.
It may indeed be that when there is a kneeler The Pope does kneel for a limited time, but as I pointed out in the newspaper photo, of The Mandatum, he is neither kneeling or genuflecting. I have also pointed out that when he has climbed steps, especially in vestments, and when getting up after prostrating himself he has more help than a patient in a geriatric ward.
There are a significant number of men who, from the outset, cannot kneel or genuflect that have been ordained and who minister in Parishes. I doubt God would worry about such externals, if their heart and mind is centred on him. Are you saying disabled lay people with mobility issues are less near to God, or less pleasing to God, than you?
The Mandatum is part of the Mass NOW so it does matter. You are, yet again, being disingenuous and treating our bloggers as if they were a bunch of village idiots.
I would insist you answer the question but you have done. You think there’s no problem with women having their feet washed. Why not just have the courage of your convictions and say so instead of writing baloney? The Mandatum is part of the Mass now. There is a clear tradition of men only having feet washed in imitation of Christ’s action at the Last Supper but Papa Francis, as ever, thinks he knows better than Christ. Disgraceful.
You will always side with the Pope over Christ. Why not just say so openly? I know what you are. You know what you are – an outright Modernist.
Whether or not you really are a priest, I’m not sure, as I only have your word for it, but if you are, then you are a danger to the souls in your care. Just like the Pope. You’re in lofty company, if that is any consolation – but note, it won’t be any consolation at all at your judgment.
I think in this reply I am responding to more than one posts of yours, and I am not sure on what thread they were originally posted.
On the contrary I have not said anything about women and The Mandatum. Not one thing.
Further, perusal of any Church Document both before, and after, The Council will show that:1 The Mandatum is optional. 2, That until 1950 (?) it was not part of The Mass.
The great High Priest, of arch “Traditionalists” confirmed 1 and 2 in Rorate Caeli interview, which I think you reposted here.
Further he also said that The Mandatum distracts from two central themes of Holy Thursday (which is not called Maundy Thursday outside The UK) which are The Institution of Priesthood, and The Eucharist.
You cannot selectively promote the thinking of one man, Bishop Schneider, and disown him when it suits you.
With regards your first paragraph in your original post you said The Priest said the ideal of marriage was impossible to realise, as he was scarred by his own parents marriage. (Which I read to be mitigating reasons for his views.) You definitely did not share the rest of the story, and, therefore I cannot be expected to be aware of it, or comment on it.
With regards celibacy, we were taught at seminary, and it says the same in Church documents, that it is a gift from God, but secular priests make promises (which are not binding for life if the discipline changes). However, we should not live in expectation of change, and embrace the gift. Religious, however, take perpetual vows of chastity – which is wholly different matter.
The Eastern Church has married clergy, as do we in many of our Parishes. (As The Church in The East has different rules, and Rome, can and does, dispense of the rule in certain cases. We have many former Anglicans, who are now Priests, who are married.)
We have talked about the disappointment with Bishop Schneider in the past, because he is is as much into ecumenism as the other bishops so I don’t think anybody on this blog thinks he’s The great High Priest, of arch “Traditionalists”. In fact, one thing that I have read often from Editor is that it is a sorry day when we are so delighted when a priest or bishops just says something that is basic. Just because Bishop Schneider spoke out at the Synod on the Family to defend traditional marriage, doesn’t make him a “traditionalist”.
To quote you just on one day:
“Margaret Mary says:
February 8, 2016 at 10:11 pm
That’s a fantastic interview with Bishop Schneider. Thank God for him. I just wish others would follow his good example and speak out without mincing their words.”
I also meant to say that the exception for married priests from Anglicanism, was put to Rome as an exception, not as paving the way for a change. It’s not attractive, seeing a priest with a wife. I would hate it if that change came about.
Jealously is a terrible sin.
I do admire Bishop Schneider for speaking out when he does in this crisis, about marriage, about Communion in the hand. I think he’s wonderful to do that. However, he is going along with ecumenism and that is a major heresy of our day. No “traditionalist” would do that. That’s all I’m saying.
It isn’t what you wrote under his recent interview. He spoke about many topics.
You can’t have pick and mix Church leaders. They are either the Shepherds’ of The Church, or your celebrity idol. They can’t be both.
You can’t nail your flag to any mast. It is either on the Barque of Peter, and The Successors of The Apostles, who your darling of the month. It can’t be both.
“Jealously is a terrible sin.”
No way would I want to be a priest’s wife! LOL!
Priestly celibacy is exemplified by St. John the Evangelist, the only Apostle who remained steadfast at the foot of the Cross with the Blessed Virgin, to whom Our Lord addressed those great words “son behold thy Mother”. This was first of all an address to the celibate priesthood, which, like its Master, is called to purity and chastity.
It is upon these considerations, and others, that the Church does not permit priests to marry. Besides, there are practical implications such as split loyalties and time.
But note that all heretic priests, as soon as they abandon the Holy Church, go straight for sex. It stands to reason that if God does not fill the soul, someone or something else must.
That’s not to say that marriage isn’t a great Sacrament blessed by God for those called to that state. “Better to marry than to burn,” said St. Paul. But it is not for the disciples of Our Lord, who are called to the complete sacrifice of themselves like their Lord. If you can’t see this then you are truly to be pitied.
Married priests in the Eastern Church, and there are not that many of them, and married Anglican convert priests, are the exception rether than the rule. They are, in fact, an aberration. Incidentally, Married Eastern Catholic priests cannot become Bishops. Why do you think that might be?
I never misbehaved at Mass either – but that’s because I grew up Protestant! However, as a young member of the choir and an “acolyte,” if I had misbehaved, my piano teacher, who was the organist/choirmaster, would have smacked me upside the head! He was very insistent on performing our duties with dignity and decorum.
(Note: a Protestant “acolyte” is a boy – though I’m sure they use girls these days as well – who solemnly lights the two candles on the “altar” (that is, table) before the service begins. And we had to bow each time we passed in front of the cross.)
This isn’t about young altar boys misbehaving while serving Mass, it’s about the Pope actively encouraging them to do so by telling them of the “fun” he had when he did it. That doesn’t sound like one who regrets a thing.
He wrote from his experience of a child for the benefit of children. I guess those same children will see that he obviously matured. Further, any decent person might at least read the whole book, and read it in context within the book, and in terms of his lifelong dedication to Christ and His Church.
Part of the problem is surely Bergoglio’s unabashed populism. One is left with the feeling that he would do and say anything to be popular. This, in my opinion, does not sit well with one called to fulfil a prophetical office like Bishop of Rome.
Oh for goodness sake, WHY are you pretending to be so obtuse? Have you no elementary knowledge of child psychology, or at least any remembrance of your own childhood? Young children haven’t any notion of maturity, of how a mature person feels or acts or even that any state called maturiy exists. YOU know he matured (whether he changed his ideas about the immemorial rite of Mass is arguable), I know he matured, a young person may know he matured, but a young child does not know anything about this future maturity, and to the young child he has given only a bad example to be imitated. Apart from one thirteen-year-old, the children whose questions are in the book are aged from six to ten. People who will know all about Pope Francis’s future maturity are not the target readership. So you are maintaining that six to ten year olds will see that ‘he obviously matured’. What nonsense!
I think a child who writes to The Pope must be doing so because he knows he is The Pope, and even the most challenged child will appreciate the boy who played at Mass, and is now a priest and celebrates Mass properly. True they may not understand “maturity”, as such, but I don’t they can’t understand The Pope is the Pope, and that adults often behave differently!
I hope that Fr. Arthur doesn’t teach children, if he is able, so glibly, to excuse/explain away this recent outrage of Pope Francis. Considering what Christ said concerning the fate of those who scandalise His little ones, the subject is too serious for the reflex replies of a papolatrist to be considered in a serious discussion of this matter.
As a Catholic child, fully catechised as to the theology of the Holy Mass, and the meaning of the words and actions of the priest in the rite that Pope Francis found incomprehensible and oh, so hilarious, I was sometimes, during my teenage years, subject to fits of helpless giggles during Mass. I was not proud of this, and, being well-catechised, understood and recognised the ultimate source of distractions. Obviously Pope Francis was younger than I, and even later did obviously not have my advantages, and so his childish ignorance is excusable, and his teachers, and the priests who ignored or failed to notice his childhood’s spiritual needs were blameworthy.
As a Catholic teacher, I would therefore have understood the problems of childish distractions during Mass, and I might have recounted these, my own experiences, while teaching young children. However, leaving it at ‘What a lot of fun I had!’ without proceeding to instruct and educate would have been irresponsible and stupid. If Pope Francis later saw the error of his ways (and I doubt he saw any error vis-a-vis the venerable ancient rite of Mass) then, as shepherd and teacher of all faithful, including children, he should have said so in suitable language instead of leaving it as ‘What fun we had!’. Certainly he is mocking the immemorial rite of Holy Mass, and it is naive to think or say otherwise. This is a very grave error, with potentially the gravest of consequences, and Pope Francis needs our prayers.
I think Fr Arthur and the Pope don’t see the problem, because the strategy now is to make the Mass itself “fun”. Pope Francis’s story about his altar boy experience, just helps to keep that image of the Mass as “fun” going and reinforce it. That’s really what I think was going on there, in the Pope’s comment to the 9 year old Italian boy.
Thank you Margaret Mary, I think you’re right, and I failed altogether to get it! I should have done, because my very last attendance at an NO Mass was in Scotland, two years ago and the fun was really too much for me. After several youngsters had been invited up at the Offertory to be quizzed aloud on where they’d been on Saturday, what TV they’d watched and what they’d had for tea, and the guitars had entertained the audience with several discordant ditties, my ribs couldn’t bear the strain, and I staggered out with tears streaming down my face! 😂 Now at last I understand what St. Francis de Sales and St. Teresa of Avila were on about with all that stuff about sad saints and bad saints! 😇
Please provide at least one direct quote, from any source, where Pope Francis has said “Mass should be fun!”.
Explain, too, whether as a teacher, or a parent, you would say to a child “I am going to talk you honestly about my life – never mind my faith- as as child”, and then lie.
Further, the life of many Saints show how they overcame childish, and even adult experiences that were immature/sinful, and then matured, and grew in holiness. It is that journey that contains the lesson others should hear.
Are you saying that books claiming to speak of a journey should only show the truly remarkable, holy, exceptional, and, if so, where comes the encouragement to trust in Jesus, and persevere.
Are we no longer to share the life of St Augustine, who fathered a child outside of marriage, because his conversion has no relevance?
Frankly, I think people who think like that should not homeschool or teach in a Catholic School. It doesn’t help anyone.
Nobody needs to lie. Pope Francis was asked if he had been near the priest during Mass as a server. That was the question, not was Mass fun. All he had to say was that he had been and that it was an honour. He could even say he didn’t think of it like that at the time but he knows now it was an honour. He could have added that he sometimes made mistakes and even misbehaved at times, but that he came to realise that God would not be pleased at the bad behaviour although he doesn’t mind mistakes. As it is, he didn’t teach the child a thing. The signal went out that Pope Francis was badly behaved at Mass and didn’t have much respect for the priest.
The Pope said to the 9 year old boy “So for fun we’d do imitations of the priest, messing up the words a bit to make up weird sayings in Spanish. We had fun, and we really enjoyed serving Mass.”
What’s that saying if not that Mass was fun?
May I suggest you read the whole book, and then comment, and not misrepresent what was said even when it is quoted in full. And again source a quote from the adult Pope, and not Jorge as a young boy, where he says “I try to make Mass fun”. Perhaps, too, find out the times of confession locally.
Perhaps, too, find out the times of confession locally.
Priceless! When you do, Margaret Mary, perhaps you can do as the pope suggests and stay mute…
You cannot talk around Pope Francis’ irresponsible words to that child. He spoke of making Mass fun and aping the priest when he was an altar boy. In other words, he was encouraging this young lad to go and do likewise, or at least not encouraging him to pious attention when serving Mass. You can twist that whatever way you like to try and make it look like a “journey” or whatever, but it will remain in the final analysis a shocking declaration from he who sits upon the throne of St. Peter. It is casual conversation about holy things that is unprecedented from a Roman Pontiff.
It is ridiculous to suggest that we cannot comment on any quotation from a book without reading the whole book. How many Degrees would be awarded to students if that were a stipulation at any university. Certain statements must be read in context, of course, to properly understand them, but others stand alone. This one stands alone, with bells on.
You are right. It stands alone as the observation of what a child thought and experienced: a boy called Jorge. However, even then it has to be read in the context of the whole book, and its intended purpose.
Statements from important figures like the Pope should not have to be read in the context of an entire book to be understood correctly. That’s just plain ridiculous. Our Lord said: Let your yes be yes and your no, no. All else comes from the wicked one.
Ever since Vatican II, every document and statement from the Vatican has had to be read and re-read in an effort to understand what is being said, so ambiguous are our shepherds in these dishonest times that they no longer speak frankly. There always seems to be two or more ways of understanding their comments. Pope Francis’ statement to that altar boy, using your own criteria that it must be read in context of the whole book, is just another example of this. It is shocking behaviour from men who are supposed to represent divine truth itself, Our Lord.
Before Vatican II one was never left in any doubt about what was being said by the Pope and the hierarchy. They spoke clearly and in a way that all could understand without ambiguity. Changed days indeed.
Comment removed – off topic.
I am a retired teacher (early retired, which explains the glamour, fashion sense, blah blah 😀 )
Your remark about those who seek to “only show the truly remarkable, holy, exceptional….” should not be home-schooling or teaching, is interesting, because it suggests that you see this issue as two separate matters, where I see them as intertwined. If the Pope had moved on from divulging that he was less than saintly as a child in order to raise Alessio’s mind and heart to aspire to holiness, that would have been what we call a “teaching moment”. He did no such thing.
Today’s BBC TV and radio news has (incredibly, in my view) been led by reports of the death of the Beatles producer, George Martin. I mean, the world’s in turmoil, and this is the lead story on the BBC?
Anyway, it reminds me of an occasion in my teens (fourteen, I think I was at the time) when I, a committed Beatles fan, led, I have to insist, by a school friend, Agnes, not my idea, wasn’t my fault, I blame Agnes …skipped afternoon lessons in order to go to the Odeon cinema in Renfield Street where the Beatles (and other famous pop singers from Liverpool – e.g. Gerry & the Pacemakers) were to perform that day.
It was an impulsive decision and I was very conscious of being in school uniform so I imagined that every horseback police officer – and there were plenty of them in Renfield Street that day – was looking for the two of us, novice truants.
Well, I won’t bore you with all the details, but if I told one lie that day, I told a dozen (all of them to the usherettes working at the Odeon) and only thanks be to the fact that my parents were very trusting and innocent and that nobody seems to have noticed our absence at school, I /we managed to get away with it.
Later, as a teacher, in a particular context, I’ve told that story to pupils, when talking about truthfulness, trustworthiness or even being addicted to pop singers – it was Paul McCartney who caused me to lose sleep in those days although now, can’t think why – I made a lucky escape; if I’d married him, I know now I wouldn’t have been happy. Richer, of course, but not really happy…
I did not, however, at any time, tell pupils that it was fun skipping school, or that it was worth it to be present in that electric atmosphere, with teenagers all around me screaming their heads off, including my school friend yelling “George! George! Ringo! Oh Ringo!”
No. The story did make for a bit of fun, of course. Generally speaking, it’s unprofessional for teachers to talk about themselves, their personal lives etc. But occasionally, a personal story can be a means of teaching something important. In the case of my bad behaviour in skipping afternoon lessons and telling lies to justify being caught in someone else’s seats in the cinema (don’t ask! I blame Agnes!) I used the story, not just to create some fun but to emphasise, and get pupils talking about, the importance of always telling the truth, even if it looks like we could be landed in hot water, as a result. If I’d told the truth right away on that occasion, the ordeal would have been over in seconds as we’d have been thrown out instead of having to endure a Gestapo-like interrogation before heading for home…not having seen a single Beatle all day!
You are right to point out that the saints were sinners and did not hesitate to publish their failings in their various writings, either by their own hand or through a biographer. We know that we read about the sins and faults of the great saints in their biographies, but we don’t read smart alec quips about being a sinner, in the life of any saint. At least not in any that I’ve read. I cannot think of a single saint who has not expressed repentance for his/her sins, and whose account of the steps taken to overcome faults and sins has not been edifying and inspiring. The point, remember, of revealing sins and faults should always be so that God’s mercy and goodness shines through. Not to make ourselves look humble or “human” (not sure which is worse) but to give glory to God for the graces he gives us, in great abundance, when we acknowledge our sins and need of his grace to overcome our tendency to do evil.
I doubt if my revelations to pupils about my truancy/lying, will have been either edifying or inspiring, but I do know that – whatever else they might have taken away from that story – they should have been clear in their minds that I was not proud of my behaviour and that I was in the wrong – with bells on. Where possible, too, the “bigger” theological picture must be impressed on young minds; that what seems like a small lie, for example, to us, is very offensive to God, who is Truth itself, and although our finite minds cannot really grasp the full gravity of that, it is important that we simply believe it and resolve never, EVER to lie.
As you can tell, that’s the lesson I learned from my own dishonest behaviour that day. I resolved, having sweated buckets for fear of being revealed as a truant and a liar, never to do either of those things again, and I kept my word, assuring my pupils that always being truthful is the best thing ever because (a) then you don’t have to have a good memory and (b) it’s one thing less to include in Confession. I made that resolution that day, that I would never EVER tell a lie again.
That’s why when I tell you all (often) that I’m slim,glamorous, fashionable, witty and highly intelligent, you know that I must be telling the truth 😀
In short, whether he intended it or not, Pope Francis has sold his childish audience short by merely recounting what, in his eyes, is an amusing story about his time as an altar server, when he misbehaved by making fun of the priest/Mass. It would have made all the difference in the world, if he had added a note of repentance and used his story to impress on Alessio and the rest of his readers, how spectacular is the Mass, the holiest action on earth. An opportunity missed, sadly. I’m surprised that you cannot, it appears, see this.
Your final paragraph says it all.
You were naughty though, weren’t you? I remember begging and pleading with my mother to allow me to go and see the Beatles when they came to Newcastle, and she simply wouldn’t be moved, “no daughter of hers was going to make an exhibition of herself” etc, which I thought was most unfair as I had no intention of doing any such thing. I was always right when I was 14. Alas, I didn’t have a wayward friend to show me the way, or I’d have fought you for Paul.
Thank God for older, saner heads, eh?
“I was always right when I was 14”
That reminds me of a poster I used to have in one of my classrooms: “ask a teenager, while he still knows everything…” !
The fact you omitted to say your beatles outing was “fun” would not, surely, mean that those listening didn’t believe it was a fun moment for you, or that a similar outing for them would have been fun.
Further, like it or not I suspect a book about your views, and experiences, would not be of interest to most people, and nor, dare I say, most people would not be looking for insights into your growth in holiness.
I see another commentator has said it should not be necessary to read the whole book to get the whole message, and that every statement made by a Pope should be, as it were, popelike. However, it must be evident to most people that The Pope has not always been The Pope, and he had a life, that may at times have been mundane, and to others unimportant, before he became Pope.
Only a person with an agenda of their own would seek to suggest anything in the quote given is about deep theological truths. It is a glimpse of the life of a child, and a childish reaction to something.
People are kidding themselves if they think every Catholic, no matter outwardly devout they now seem, and no matter how long they have been wedded to tradition, have had, at every stage of their lives, the same insight into divine truths.
The views given in the quote are not a statement about his faith, or the faith, but an insight into his childhood.
It is silly not to read it in context within the book, or within the context of his life.
I didn’t “omit” saying it was fun – it was NOT fun. However, I tell the story in such as way that it does amuse, and the pupils laugh at the idea of a teacher skipping school to see a pop group. That wasn’t my point. My point was that to make the story have some educational benefit (since any idiot can play truant for whatever reason – happens all the time) there had to be some substantial reason for telling the story that would take pupils forward. THAT was my point. The Pope merely recounted his bad behaviour and left it at that. Not good.
As for your continual insistence on “context” – the Pope’s book is a reply to a series of letters. The letter FROM Alessio is given in the article above THEN the Pope’s reply. You surely don’t think we have to read every letter and every reply to understand what he is saying in a particular reply to a particular letter.That’s ridiculous. If you imagine that little Alessio will read the Pope’s reply to him and then think “That’s funny, the Pope doesn’t say anything about Mass being important, or it being wrong to misbehave as he did, so I’ll read the rest of the letters to see if he says something about the Mass in those.” The boy is 9 years old. Gerragrip! If someone writes something in a letter to you that takes you by surprise, do you insist on reading every letter he’s ever written to anyone else to “contextualise” his letter to you? Gerranothergrip!
Anyway, we’re not going to agree on this, obviously, so let’s leave it there. Just don’t tell anyone that I ever dodged school to go to a Beatles’ concert. I’ll deny it outright.
N O T I C E
I am heading off now to attend the 40 Days for Life vigil again, since today, we’re told, there will be a pro-abortion “vigil” as well. Apparently some doctors and I presume other staff from the hospital are staging their own pro-abortion vigil from 7am to 7pm this evening, so if others can get along there to support the pro-life activists, let’s do it.
No one is interested in Pope Francis’ life (including sins) when he was a boy. That much you got right. Where you went wrong is in stating that his now glorying in a particularly sinful episode in his childhood (making fun of the Mass and the celebrant) is harmless. It is not harmless, it is dangerous and it is sinful. The Pope should now be ashamed of that episode and keep it to himself.
As has already been remarked on this thread, you are making a valiant and persistent attempt to defend the indefensible, which is perhaps why I cannot follow the reasoning behind any of these questions and why I cannot see how they follow on from anything that I said in my post. However, I’m always willing to oblige, so here goes.
1. Please provide at least one direct quote, from any source, where Pope Francis has said “Mass should be fun!”
Asking for a ‘direct quote’ is a rather silly attempt to confuse a simple issue. One teaches ‘by precept and example’. Pope Francis, from the most exalted position in the Church, has unambiguously given this appallingly bad example to impressionable children. The last nine words are a direct enough quotation for anyone lacking scales before the eyes.
“So for fun we’d do imitations of the priest, messing up the words a bit to make up weird sayings in Spanish. We had fun, and we really enjoyed serving Mass”.
2. Explain, too, whether as a teacher, or a parent, you would say to a child “I am going to talk you honestly about my life – never mind my faith- as as child”, and then lie.
I’m not sure why you say ‘and then lie’. it’s a complete non-sequitur. My original post already contains my ‘explanation’. One should always talk honestly to children, but if, after thinking long and hard about it, I saw fit to give a ‘confessional talk’ about my juvenile irreverence, I would, as a teacher or parent, use the occasion positively and morally, and point out why that childish irreverence was reprehensible under such circumstances. To do otherwise, to recount it as a ‘jolly jape’, is to ask to be imitated, as an adult who is admired and looked up to by the child. It is, as I have said, to scandalise the child.
3. Further, the life of many Saints…because his conversion has no relevance?
This remainder of your post serves, by contrast, to show how dreadfully wrong Pope Francis is to have written as he has done. In the autobiogaphical lives of the saints repentance is inherent in every word of a saint’s description of his/her past failings. In the case of the biography of a saint, the reader, already knows the outcome, no matter how grave the early sins. Pope Francis, on the other hand, does not give any hint that he has repented of his childish irreverence – he is, in effect, courting imitation by this omission.
4. Frankly, I think people who think like that should not homeschool or teach in a Catholic School. It doesn’t help anyone.
Agreed, but one wonders, also, as to the relevance of this remark. Certainly nobody here has said anything to imply that they ‘think like that’.
Excellent post Christina!
Editor, honest I hadn’t read your post when I tapped out the above. As usual, you said it all better, but I’m not jealous.
Your post complements mine – between us, I think we’ve gotten the message across, if you’ll excuse “gotten” ! I just LOVE breaking the rules of the English language/grammar now and again. More now than again, these days!
Laughed heartily at the image – that should have shown on the page here. I think I’ll have a bash at doing that for you, just to show you that I’m not jealous either!
Some time later… I ouldn’t get the image to post on the page. Sorry! One did try. One really did!
In the last few weeks alone, The Pope has been seen to go to Confession. So the notion people might think he has repented of past sins can be disputed.
The book was probably suggested to him and he is responded to letters. It may be he is kicking himself that he didn’t respond differently to a different letter, who knows? However, the book would have no value if he wasn’t honest.
The statement is Not about The Mass but how he, at sometime, felt about The Mass, and serving, as a child. It is not a theological treatise.
The comments share the world view of a child who later told the world he had a major spiritual awakening at about the age of 17.
The book is neither a biography, or an autobiography. It is a series of answers/reflections to questions.
If I am honest, I would expect a loyal, traditional Catholic, concerned about The Church would challenge any secular media outfit who tried to make something out of nothing to attack The Pope, and The Church.
I would say anyone here who claims that they never, ever, as a child failed to fully appreciate the mysteries we celebrate, and may be even once do something that wasn’t exactly right at Mass has a bad memory, or a conscience that is lacking.
I wish to correct a comment above and highlight it:
“In the last few weeks alone, The Pope has been seen to go to Confession. So the notion people might think he has not repented of past sins can be disputed.”
Eh, Fr. Arthur? I don’t know what this means. The posts get hopelessly muddled by insertions but you’ll have to remind me where I mentioned Confessions
Given what we are now reading,I cannot see how the situation will improve either..so we sit this out? What can we do (legitimately that is), given that petitions and so forth have been ineffective and may even have emboldened this Pontiff….I must say we have come a long way in 3 years for this blog to define the Pontiff as “this vulgar little man”!
What can we do (legitimately that is)
How about saying the Holy Rosary and asking for Our Lady’s help!
You identify yourself by an interesting name, so I looked it up and guess what?
lupine – Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
A lupine person, animal, or thing shares some of the characteristics of a wolf.
You will actually find that it is a PLANT or flower “lupinus” commonly known as Lupin or Lupine, higher classification Faboideae a genus of flowering plants in the legume family. The genus includes over 200 species with centres of diversity in North and South America. For example European Yellow Lupine……why don’t you look that up ?
What makes you think I didn’t?
I did indeed, and I also noted the PLANT references you mentioned above, but as you can see here (again) what I posted above:
lupine – Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
A lupine person, animal, or thing shares some of the characteristics of a wolf.
and also this:
Canis lupus 101: Wolf Species
Genus: Canis (Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals). Species: lupus (GRAY WOLVES). NORTH AMERICAN GRAY WOLVES…..why don’t you look that up ?
You never mentioned CANIS lupus to begin with….wonder what you are referring to here….especially the incorporating the word “jackal”…….in your own words Hmmmm……
Hmmm I wonder if you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing? One for the Troll Hunter to keep an eye on.
So you think I may be a Troll….based on a possible Latin name used by moi……?….Hmmmmm……can you state anything remotely Trollish that I have said on this blog?
I can’t question the content of your contributions, but I am still a little uneasy about your use two names on the blog, Lupine and Misha. Misha also has an interesting lineage, but that’s beside the point.
I discovered this twin-name usage the day you claimed use on a thread of the term “shoogly peg,” or something similar when, in fact, it was Misha who used the term. And I have noted how your and Misha’s comments regularly appear together on threads. You have to admit that this is odd.
Its your user name I find very odd and CRAFTY. Freemason’s never sign in with Yabulon666 or Mahabone33 or Keeper of Master Hiram’s Chamberpot, that would be a give away. In other Trad sites, numbers are always looked on with suspicion for the reason’s given below. Lupine-Stealthy Predator etc In Masonic Numerology 22 signifies “Enlightened” “Gifted” Intelligent”
masons and other occultists revere the number – The Cutting …
Masons and Mystery At The 33rd Parallel, Day Williams. … and potentialities of the person … in Spiritual Numerology, the numbers 11, 22, and 33 are the … The ’33’ symbolizes the highest spiritual conscious attainable by the human being.
Dates 21 And 22 – Illuminati Freemason Symbolism (Video …
Maybe you just picked a bad user name?
I don’t have time to watch that video, right now, but I hope it is not taken from a sedevacantist source – it states clearly in our T & C section (About Us) that anything sedevacantist will be deleted.
I find the title suspicious (to be frank, I don’t like the look of it) and so, please understand that when I get time to watch and discover, or if I’m informed by some of our bloggers in the interim, that it is not sound, it will be removed.
If I might offer a word of advice – I see that you are spending quite a bit of time and energy researching the username of a particular blogger and drawing conclusions or possible conclusions about him on the basis of his name.
It is a waste of precious time to do that, with respect. Our work here is to permit discussion and correct errors, to promote and defend, our Catholic Faith.
Unless Lupine expressly states himself to be a Freemason or promotes the principles of Freemasonry, therefore, the possible origin of his username is irrelevant.
Sorry Ed. It might be sede from the content. forgot about that. Maybe Lupine has copied it? Take it off anyway to be safe
i did not say he was a mason. I pointed out that the user name could be mistakenly interpreted as one.
Thank you Jimislander – I’ve removed the video.
I think Athanasius is saying that he thinks both Misha and your good self are one and the same person.
Both you and I know the truth here.
Think, Lupine, think, think. and when you’ve done that, think again.
If YOU think there’s any truth in what Athanasius is suggesting – and he’s not the only blogger to notice a pattern with your posts and those submitted by Misha – perhaps it’s time to send Misha for a long holiday?
Yes I understand where your coming from. But apparently he is a Priest, and has his views as well
And Fr Arthur is to be commended for being willing to discuss the key issues with us, when the majority of the diocesan clergy ignore us, the policy in Scotland (and probably the rest of the UK) being to pretend that we don’t exist, in the hope that we will go away.
Priests are busy people, so it is good that Fr Arthur is spending a fair amount of his time discussing the crisis in the Church with us – as I know from my own personal experience, it’s a very true saying “if you want something done, ask a busy person.” Don’t make the mistake of thinking that those of us who blog – whether ordained or lay – have too much time on our hands. Some of you may recall that when I was thus accused, I typed out my entire schedule for that day, to demonstrate that it is, indeed, the busy people who get things done – including blogging.
Clearly, Fr Arthur’s contributions do not get filed under the category “traditionalism” which is all the more reason to welcome him and respond as best we can to the points he raises.
Now, may we return to the topic in hand?
I’m sorry to seem to be getting at you today, but if you check our About Us section you will see that I have stated clearly that any decisions about who may and who may not be a troll, and what to do about them, is to be left to the administrator, that is, my unworthy self, to avoid unpleasantness on the blog. We do not permit personal remarks because they lead, inexorably, to bickering and nastiness and up with that,I’m afraid, we will not put!
Concentrate on the issues. If you suspect a troll, ignore that person’s comments and discuss with others. It really is that simple. Please and thank you!
I see you’ve disappeared, you and your beautiful avatar, from the sidebar – I hope you’re not mad at me. I really do. I’d be heartbroken.
Come back and make all the personal remarks you want to make – about me! I’m thick skinned ( as well as slim, glamorous, fashion plate, witty, intelligent etc) so I can take it on the chin (both of them!)
I miss you! Come back! All is forgiven!
PS now that I’ve crawled and begged, you’ll come on to say you were only out of a walk with the dog… 😀
LOL no! With a solid fuel stove on all the time means you have a lot of dust, not just on the floors but the walls also. So washing the walls down and painting them. Hard work.
Phew! That’s a relief! It’s a few steps above walking the dog, so you’re off the hook!
But it’s called a lupin because it gobbles up the soil around it! Just sayin’. (silly grinning smiley)
Nobody on this blog defined the Pope as “a vulgar little man” – that’s in the article by John Vennari published on HIS blog. If anyone has quoted it, they’ve taken it from John Vennari’s article, not from my blue comment.
Fair comment, but I was surprised that such a comment in any article would appear on this blog. Harsh expression from John Vennari indeed which no doubts is borne from sheer exasperation. This Pontificate is surely beyond the pale and seems to be as Jorge has intimated a Reformation……continual reforms from him on a regular basis.
It is a tall order to expect me to only publish leader articles which are perfect. I agree that the description “vulgar little man” is undoubtedly born of exasperation, which I’m sure we can all understand. John Vennari is a married man with a young family – he’s probably more impatient by the day, that he’s not off somewhere earning big bucks instead of reporting on the day by day scandalous utterances of this Pope.
So, we might cut him a bit of slack, recognise the exasperation for what it is without being too harsh on him, but try our best not to do the same thing, even if the names we would choose are, in fact, perfectly accurate. It’s a temptation to resist but resist we must. Trust me, it’s not easy!
Not only does Pope Francis hate the Traditional Latin Mass, but says, that it is a backward step to return to it. This video link from John Vennari of Catholic Family News says much in this area.
The pope has also fallen out with the Mexican bishops for trying to uphold the faith. The modernists are really escalating the fight against those who are trying to maintain the traditional Catholic faith.
That’s very interesting indeed, from Rorate. I’ve copied the closing paragraphs to post here::
By the way, Spanish daily El Mundo adds to the information provided by Sandro Magister above:
“The truth, according to what EL MUNDO could learn, which in any event is an open secret, is that the relations between Pope Francis and Cardinal Rivera are terrible, that the Cardinal, by feeling neglected in the trip created difficulties, especially by not mobilizing volunteers, and that the next chapter will be the upcoming renewal of the top of the Mexican Church, in which it is probable that the clash will be made more evident.”
We think we know why Francis hates the Archbishop of Mexico, Cardinal Rivera: Rivera was one of the 13 Cardinals who signed the letter in defense of marriage; and the Mexican bishops are, on average, as Magister recalled, doing a reasonable job of keeping the flock from abandoning the Church from becoming secularized or joining Evangelical sects in droves as in all other Latin American nations. So, instead of just chastising the Bishops of Mexico in his address to them, a reasonable Pope would have praised them and asked them to help their fellow Latin American bishops and Bishops in the United States to share their secrets to keep Catholics inside the Church. Instead, it seems he despises them. END.
Despises ? Is that not a kinda “judgemental” statement…but I can see the point, the Roman Pontiff can certainly be somewhat judgemental….the woman with the expanding family…told she “was tempting God”…..no talk of Divine Providence…and then Who am I to judge? I am fed up with all the contradictory statements coming down the pipeline, never mind the ambiguous stuff.
To clarify my point….many learned people can see quite clearly and unambiguously that the current Pontiff can quite clearly Judge !
I have to say I struggle to see where the Pope was mocking the traditional Mass.
He was talking honestly to a 9 year old altar boy about his own memories (at 7/8/9 years old?).
Would you rather he lied? Is that the example the Pope should set?
Perhaps indeed everyone on here was a perfect altar boy and indeed have children that are similarly perfect. If so, perhaps a very selective memory coming into play and/or a tendency to believe in the perfection of one’s offspring?
Speaking as the father of altar boys (and hopefully a future one) I can only see that they will be encouraged by the fact the Pope was one and, more importantly, that he is honest and real. They are well behaved at Mass and I am proud of them, but I’m not naive enough to think they don’t have their own boyhood jokes and sniggers. In fact, I’d be kind of disappointed if that weren’t the case.
I strongly suspect that what the Pope said is more likely to keep them in Church (bearing in mind the drop-out rate on reaching teens is depressingly high).
No, the Pope will not keep your boys in Church because of what he said. They are much more likely to leave it when they are old enough. If the banality of the Novus Ordo liturgy doesn’t rot their faith over time, their memory of the Pope telling them to have “fun” during the Holy Sacrifice will certainly take its toll in the future.
Frankly, I am appalled by these words from a Successor of St. Peter to a young altar boy. In any other era this boy would have been encouraged to great piety when assisting at Mass. The Pope would have explained the solemnity of what was happening at that moment and how important it was to keep attention and devotion as best he could to what the priest was doing. But no, Pope Francis says it should be “fun” and you don’t see anything wrong with that. Such is the deep rot that liberalism has already succeded in inculcating into Catholic souls. It’s like a blindness.
I was taught by me teachers that it was a SIN to NOT pay attention at Mass..and it was a SACRILEGE TO MAKE A FOOL OF THE MASS.
It shouldn’t be a choice between “lying” and refusing to scandalise Alessio and the other children who may read his book.
Alessio merely asked if Pope Francis had been “near the priest as an altar boy” . There was no need to say anything except that yes, he had been, and it was a great privilege to serve Mass and be so close to the priest when He brought Jesus down onto the altar. Good teaching takes place in small chunks, especially for children of that age, so that would have been sufficient to edify Alessio and to remind him of the great mystery at the heart of the Mass.
The drop-out rate of teenagers is, as you say, depressingly high, but this sort of “cool…. I’m just like you” doesn’t change that.
I remember once having a young Bishop come to see my senior students – he wanted to spend time alone with them to chat. In preparing them, we discussed various matters, including the fact that they all felt they’d learned nothing of the faith or next to nothing, in their secondary schools. They resolved to let the Bishop know this and several other matters of concern to them. I introduced them all and left the room. Later, when I returned after seeing the Bishop off the premises, I asked the students how he had reacted to the various points of concern they had raised.
They informed me that they hadn’t asked him a single thing because all he wanted to talk about was TV shows, sport, all secular stuff. I was astonished and asked the students why they thought he had avoided talking about religion. Their reply: he probably thought we would like him better if he talked about other things.In other words, they saw through him. I pressed them as to why he would want them to like him and they responded “so we would go to church more often”. I turned to Michael, who was lapsed, and asked him if this meeting with the “cool” Bishop would make him want to return to church and he – without a second’s hesitation – replied “no way”.
So, it is not just a wasted opportunity to play this “cool” game with young people, it’s downright stupidity. That will, without doubt, have been Michael’s first and last conversation with a Bishop. It’s probably Alessio’s first and last exchange with a Pope. Total waste of time.
Just for the record, I’ll delete this later, but I’m struggling to find my way around Windows 10, which began to install itself, unannounced, on my computer late last night so I’m probably overdue to respond to comments directed at my unworthy self – will hopefully get to them all, in due course.
Here is my theory…we have, as humans, been programmed with what we were taught, based on 2,000 years of tradition…then in comes VAT 2 a new “software programme”, attempting to overwrite our existing programme, the previous software which is now going to be “unsupported”…we..the awkward squad…will not accept the new software written by programmers supported by the Galen Mafia , Kasper et al…we are therefore redundant as our hardware (our conscience) will not accept these continual “software patches” as in soundbites on Shepherd 1….these are the patches coming down the line…(for folks running on the new software) most modern folks are running on this new software…..the Synod of the Family was a major software upgrade….Just compare Windows 10 to the now unsupported Windows XP and that will illustrate my theory…the same stuff is coming down the line with the Named Person caper…..rewind to Equality and Human Rights etc..all of this is programming and we (well folks like me, will not be repgrogrammed) Pope Francis’s REFORMS are software rewrites and are NOT reverse compatible.This again is all part of Neuro Linguisitic Programming..if we will NOT accept the new software we are to be demonised and marginalised..if someone out there can debunk this theory please do so….!
Just one problem, Misha, we weren’t ‘programmed’ quite like that before the computer age and Messrs. Bandler & Grinder invented NLP. We prayed, read, listened, studied, discussed, and used our God-given reason and faith to recognise immutable Truth.
Exactly right! Our minds and souls were formed, not programmed.
You are not all wrong.
Vatican II was an exercise in window dressing, the thought being that the Church only had to communicate her faith better to the world in order for the world to embrace her and her faith. 1968 nipped that pious illusion firmly in the bud. But by then the genie was out of the bottle and so it has remained ever since.
How people can look at the state of the Church and the world and still speak in mystical terms about ‘the’ Council is beyond me. It must be the greatest collective delusion in the history of mankind.
Absolutely spot on!
Thank you and the other blogger (name escapes me, think it was Jimislander) who posted links to help me to get rid of Windows 10.
However, I checked with our webmaster and he reminds me that there will come a time when Windows will not support the older software, so I’ve decided just to keep Windows 10. So far, I’m managing with it OK.
Christina. I agree with you. We are living in strange times.
Christina. I agree with you. Misha does have a point though on the IT industry intruding more into peoples lives and the Media were not slow too capitalise on it. From Opinion Polls on referendums too politicians saying one thing, then after a bad review change their mind.
I agree that these latest unfortunate comments from Francis are sad – but then, by now we know what to expect from him as regards Catholic tradition.
Back then, the priest faced the altar, which was next to the wall, and not the people.
“Back then”!? Funny, I am sure I was a latin mass only a few days ago?!
The above statement is economical with the truth, the priest is really facing the tabernacle where Our Lord resides, not simply “the altar”. It is not remarkable or odd that the priest is doing this – everyone else present is doing it too.
Why should the priest face the people? Whats interesting about us, that has particular relevance to the mass?
Facing the people creates a “closed circle” (as Joseph Ratzinger put it) with the tabernacle on the outside of it.
The priest spoke but I didn’t understand anything. and neither did my friends.
I am hesitant to call the Pope a liar, but this is surely dishonest. He is repeating the old Protestant myth which sought to portray the Church as cold, aloof and secretive and Catholics as subservient simpletons, who attended religious services without understanding one iota of what was going on.
I have expressed interest in learning to serve the traditional mass (I was never interested in being a Novus Ordo altar boy – or girl, as they mostly are now). And so I have seen the training materials and know that, like missals, they give the latin and vernacular language side-by-side. And although I have not been trained yet myself, I know the training is very rigorous.
It would be a remarkable feat, if someone was trained to serve mass, but somehow afterward did not understand even a single latin word or phrase by heart.
So it is very difficult to believe that someone attending the traditional mass, let alone someone with an actual role to play during it, “didn’t understand anything”. Anyone who attends the mass regularly cannot but help pick up bits of it – especially, short, unchanging phrases, but also prayers like the Gloria, Creed and Pater Noster (not to mention the last Gospel).
Maybe Jorge was too busy carrying on with his friends to concentrate? Just a thought.
I have actually started to take comfort from this type of comment from Francis and Bishops. If the popularity of the mass was not growing, if it was not drawing more and more people, if it was not becoming available in ever more towns and cities (even if only irregularly, at first) then they would not waste one syllable discussing it.
Yet repeatedly they return to the topic with put-downs and veiled digs. Interesting. To me this seems to indicate an awareness / perception of the vitality of the mass, which they dislike so and try to derail by putting people off. I have never known anyone to actually give the mass a chance (ie go more than once and make even a modest effort to be familiar with it) and not like it.
The very fact that the Pope subscribes to this ‘back towards the people’ nonsense speaks volumes. He comes across as approximative and slightly superficial in most of the things he says. Paradoxically, the first Jesuit Pope belies the popular image of the Jesuit as highly cultured. Francis is the most uncultured Pope in at least two centuries.
I agree with you. I don’t understand how anyone can be trained to serve the Mass and end up not having the remotest idea of what’s being said or what’s going on. That just doesn’t add up.
It has always struck me that when Our Lord died on the Cross, the first Mass, there were no words spoken by the faithful present, no activities going on to make them and the sacred event “relevant”. There was only silence, adoration and mourning. This truth all by itself demonstrates that the Novus Ordo is not a true child of the ancient Latin liturgy. On the contrary, it follows the errorneous precepts and innovations of Reformation Protestantism in almost every detail, and they can’t see it.
I can recall several years ago having a conversation with a priest acquaintance. He was telling me about his years in the seminary and how he was told not to kneel at the consecration or after receiving Holy Communion and was actively discouraged from saying the rosary he was told it was a backward step.
I would suggest that the Pope had similar training who knows?
I would be interested if Fr Arthur too had similar experiences in his seminarian day’s.
I’ve just seen this in the latest Ite Missa Est, and was very struck by this extract from a letter written in 1992 by Fr. Hervé de la Tour (SSPX) to the then District Superior of the U.S.A., Fr. François Laisney, quoting from an article about vocations in a 50s periodical for priests. It is well worth a read and certainly gives one to think in the present context, contrasting the full seminaries of the period to the emptying and closures of today.
“We should explain the ceremonies of the Mass to children (and especially to our altar boys). In Summer Camps or Catechism Sessions, lessons about the Vestments, Sacred Vessels and Linens were alwas appreciated. Children enjoyed learning about the great mystery of our Faith. It is in doing this that we will plant in their hearts a love for the Mass and in some boys a desire to be priests.”
Well I remember how primary school children (5 – 7 in those days) loved to handle the tiny model altar with all the little ‘vestments’, etc., that we used in lessons on the Mass, before they were taken to the church. Their wonder and interest were palpable. Children are so impressionable at this age, and the lessons and impressions they receive are of crucial importance.
With respect to Fr. Arthur, he is becoming something of a nuisance. I have noted that he refuses to answer almost all contributions save yours, Christiana’s and Margaret Mary’s, and only then because he has led you all into the classic troll distraction of multiple exchanges over side issues while avoiding the more serious issues of the Mass, etc. I don’t mean this in a nasty way because I have been led down that road myself in the past, I’m just saying what I observe.
What is the point of him being here if he refuses to engage in exchanges that actually matter to the faith and salvation of souls? Are you sure he’s a Catholic priest? I’m not convinced; he seems too indifferent to the really important stuff. I sure hope he’s not one of those liberals G K Chesterton referred to when he wrote:; “only dead fish flow with the current”!
I understand your frustration.
I have no evidence that Fr Arthur is a priest beyond his own word, which, in charity, I have to take at face value. We’ve had some email correspondence today on the subject but he doesn’t trust me sufficiently to identify himself, so we must simply accept his word, at this time.
He seems to interpret the comments on this blog as being uncharitable and abusive towards the Pope – while he may not support everything the Pope says and does, I suspect that he is of that school of thought which thinks we should keep silent about him. A sort of “loyalty” at all costs – now, that’s not what HE’s said, it’s what I suspect, reading his comments.
I suggest that, at this stage, we simply respond if we choose to do so, in a particular topic, but only in short replies, and leave the readers to notice the unanswered questions and gaps, as I have noted, reading down this thread a few minutes ago.
I’m going to have to disappear for a bit since I’ve had a hectic day and spent a fair bit of time catching up with emails, so I need a break. Oh for the days when I could rely on Columbo to rest my weary bones, so to speak. We’ll never see his like again… 😀
Dears Ed xxx I am surprised that “Fr.Arthur ” Has so much time on his hands to be here constantly to reply to any of his posts. i just wonder when he entered the Masonic lodge. Was it with JP2’s statetment that “Catholics must look too their “conscience” before joining “. Or was it earlier? If so How the hell did you ever get yourself into such a state? Give answer
I never wonder about anyone having time to blog, since I know from my own experience that it is the busy people who get things done. Always. So, that’s really not the issue.
The issue is that Fr Arthur seems to be beyond Modernism. I really can’t understand why he blogs here because he clearly doesn’t agree with our concerns about the Church.
I spoke on the phone this evening with a sometime blogger and she mentioned him… why? She said she now included him in her daily rosary. I suggest we all do the same.
Good advice, thank you.
Now, whatever happened to Miss Marple? Have you traded her for Columbo? I had you down as a Hetty Wainthrop person myself!
I love them all !
Comments are closed.