Pope’s PC Prayer Intention For May…

Pope’s PC Prayer Intention For May…


This is the same PC message that any self-respecting radical feminist could have written.  What sort of message in support of women do we expect from a pope – any pope – especially one that is published in the month of Mary?

Comments (69)

  • jimislander

    Why should any true Catholic be surprised by this?

    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.”

    Free Masons are excommunicated, and as such can never be elected to anything, least of all the Chair of Peter. As a Freemason Bergolio could not in any circumstance be consider worthy of the Office. I am now sedevacantist. Loyalty is too the chair of Peter provided he adheres to the Dogma and Doctrine of the Faith. I pray each day for his removal, and frankly, I dont care how he goes as long as he is gone

    May 6, 2016 at 9:52 pm
    • RCA Victor


      On what evidence have you concluded that Pope Francis is a Freemason?

      May 7, 2016 at 12:18 am
      • jimislander

        RCA Victor

        Its quite simple really even for people of limited intellect to grasp. “https://www.rotary.org/myrotary/en/news-media/register-special-jubilee-rotarians-celebrated-pope-francis” This organsation is an Masonic invention, according to my cousin who is in the Rotary Club

        Thing I like about this blog is that whenever someone posts on Bergolio’s heresies and and blatant apostasy, somebody always comes to his defence in one way or anther. Make me wonder

        May 7, 2016 at 1:16 am
      • editor


        Nobody, except a modernist priest visitor we had for a while, defends this pope’s actions, EVER Nor did we defend the previous post Vatican II popes – it’s comical to see an article on 1P5 this morning, writing as if giving us breaking news, because the author of that blog has, at least, had the scales fall from his eyes as he realises Pope Francis is just the latest in a line of bad popes, some worse than others, he the worst.

        If you are a sedevacantist (which I find hard to believe – you seem to be too intelligent) then you are forgetting that Our Lord promised to be with His Church until the end of time and that Our Lady always spoke of the Holy Father at Fatima when she warned of the diabolical crisis in the Church, ditto Quito in the 17th century.

        It’s the easy route to take, acknowledge that we’ve had bad popes in earlier ages but now that we’ve got one in our own times, throw in the towel and say he’s not a pope at all. Easy. I’m having to abandon my computer for most of the day but I urge you to make an act of pure faith in Our Lord’s promise to be with His Church despite all appearances to the contrary – don’t follow the tragic example of the first apostles who abandoned Our Lord when the cross loomed large.

        May 7, 2016 at 9:14 am
      • RCA Victor


        A few points in response to your ad hominem response insinuating my limited intellect:

        1. To ask for evidence of your claim that the Pope is a Freemason is not to defend him (as Editor has already indicated), but merely to ask for proof.
        2. The event you cite – the Pope’s speech before the Rotary Club – proves nothing, even though the Rotarians are indeed an offshoot of Freemasonry. Would you also claim that Obama is a Catholic because he gave a speech at Georgetown University (a Jesuit college here in the USA)? Absurd.
        3. As you are no doubt well aware, this Pope has “reached out” (translation: debased the Papacy) to every group representing every form of perversion known to fallen man: Masons, Protestants, atheists, Marxists, homosexuals, abortionists, public adulterers, etc. It is his standard modus operandi, not some unique event.
        4. Your descent into sedevacantism, which is a form of Protestantism (i.e. private judgment) seems to have been triggered by your emotional reaction – an understandable disgust and contempt – to the words and deeds of this Papacy, including your unproven claim that Bergoglio is a Freemason. Which causes me to ask: would you also have denied the Divinity of Our Lord because there was a traitor among His Apostles?

        It seems reasonable to conjecture that Pope Francis is to the Mystical Body what Judas Iscariot was to the Incarnation – i.e. the catalyst for the Passion. However, to leap from that to “Francis is not a Pope” is unsubstantiated – and, as others have pointed out, this is not our place to decide. Our place is to pray, make reparation and resist the heresies and errors emanating from the Vatican.

        May 8, 2016 at 7:13 pm
    • Lionel

      As far as I know a Pope cannot resign; I wonder to whom he may submit his resignation?
      Therefore I think that there are either two Popes or one of them is a fault Pope.
      Anyway I am still furious against Benedict XVI on this subject…
      A Pope who resigned reveals ignorance and contempt of the papal dignity.
      The Pope is not an ordinary functionary, he is the Supreme Pontiff, Vicar of Jesus Christ.
      This really is a devaluation, a desecration of the pontifical function and I think it is serious because it casts doubt on the validity of the election of the successor.
      There cannot be two Popes at the same time.

      May 7, 2016 at 9:16 am
      • editor


        I suggest you read the post by Athanasius below – he gives solid quotes from two great saints on this subject and reminds us that we are not authorised to make these judgements about the pope. Of course we cannot have two popes at the same time so we must take the situation at face value – since, I repeat, we do not have the authority to make judgements about this matter.

        We are to be faithful and suffer the situation, correcting the errors of this pope and lamenting his failure to preach the faith fully – as in his daft monthly prayer intentions. He is damaging, hugely, the office of the papacy and for that he will be called seriously to account in due course.

        We will lose our soul – and effectively embrace Protestantism – if we take the sedevacantist route.

        May 7, 2016 at 9:24 am
      • Lionel

        Thank you Editor! I apologize.

        May 7, 2016 at 9:39 am
      • Athanasius


        Contrary to the prevailing myth, Benedict XVI did not “resign”. He abdicated! Read the official statement at the time where he says “I renounce the Papacy”. This is clearly a statement of abdication, not resignation.

        I agree with you that he should not have abdicated the Papacy anyway. Nevertheless, it was abdication.

        May 7, 2016 at 12:47 pm
  • crofterlady

    Jimislander, I completely understand why you have taken your present position but, please reconsider your position. Despite the awful provocation, the present incumbent in the chair of Peter is still the pope. A terrible pope, even possibly a heretical pope but the pope nevertheless. Yes, keep praying for his removal but please do not be a sedevacantist. We are in the valley of tears.

    As a matter of interest, why do you imply that the pope has not been canonically elected?

    May the good Lord protect and may the Holy Ghost direct you.

    May 6, 2016 at 11:29 pm
    • jimislander

      “Even to deceive the very elect” This man is no Christian, he never was. Doubts were cast over him by the Argentinian clergy before he was actually ordained. You do not understand. Loyalty is too the CHAIR of Peter. Not to one who is opposed to the dogma and doctrine of the Faith. That is all that man has done since his un-canonoical election, and if you think its bad now, wait and see whats on its way.

      May 7, 2016 at 1:05 am
      • editor


        Yes, our loyalty is to the papacy, but it is not YOUR job or MINE to decide that this pope is not a canonically elected pope. That’s way above our pay scale. Our job is to be faithful and offer our sufferings for souls, especially our own (!) and leave those decisions to a future pope and probably a future Council. The secevacantist route is the work of the Devil.

        May 7, 2016 at 9:17 am
    • Gerontius


      You ask Jimislander this very pertinent question:

      As a matter of interest, why do you imply that the pope has not been canonically elected?

      Firstly, Jim is my brother and accordingly, I think I know him pretty well. His love for Our Lord, Our Blessed Mother and Holy Mother Church is manifest to all who know him.

      Now, to the question you asked him.

      Although he hasn’t written anything about Pope Benedict xvi, I am of the opinion that he holds Pope Benedict to be the legitimate Pope. For example, see this link for relevant information:


      Note in particular those members cited in the article as being members of this “mafia club” and equate them with the carnage currently being inflicted on Holy Mother Church.

      As for Jim being a “sede,” I don’t think he is. I am however, of the opinion that he, via the Blog, is promoting a much needed serious discussion which hopefully, will lead those in authority to carry out a thorough investigation.


      “May the good Lord protect and may the Holy Ghost direct you.”

      Very, very kind words Crofterlady. I KNOW Jim appreciates them.

      And may the good Lord protect and may the Holy Ghost direct you too dear lady.

      May 7, 2016 at 11:45 am
      • Athanasius


        The entire Church has accepted Francis as the legitimate Pope due to Benedict’s abdication, which means that we, despite all the conspiracy theories, are bound to acknowledge him. Benedict XVI has never offered the slightest indication that he was coerced into giving up the Papacy. Quite the contrary, in fact. Therefore, it remains only for us to accept Francis as the legitimate successor of St. Peter unless and until the competent authorities declare otherwise, by which I mean some future Pope who becomes aware of interference in the canonical process at the time of Francis’ election. But that is for them, not us, to decide.

        This nonsense about Benedict’s abdication has to stop. It’s all half truths, gossip, rumour and vain speculation. We are not qualified, nor are we in any way bound, to decide these very serious questions. We leave these matters in God’s hands and just do what we’re doing, which is clinging to Tradition during a confusing crisis. It is very ill advised for any of us to add to the confusion with these stories that are beginning to take on a very destructive life of their own.

        May 7, 2016 at 12:54 pm
      • Gerontius


        Your remarks follow on from my post to crofterlady where I tried to discern the reasoning behind Jimislander’s post.

        You state, This nonsense about Benedict’s abdication has to stop. It’s all half truths, gossip, rumour and vain speculation. Really?

        This is from Cardinal Daneels own mouth:

        STUNNING ADMISSION: Hyper-Progressive Cardinal Danneels Admits Being in Mafia Dedicated to Unseat PBXVI. (SEE LINK IN POST TO CROFTERLADY)

        Next, you state that, We are not qualified, nor are we in any way bound, to decide these very serious questions.

        I agree, which is why I wrote of a much needed, serious discussion which hopefully, will lead those in authority to carry out a thorough investigation of the FACTS.

        Then you state that It is very ill advised for any of us to add to the confusion with these stories that are beginning to take on a very destructive life of their own.

        No it’s not! We’re dealing with facts here not stories. The auto destruction of the church spoken about by Pope Paul VI has now moved up a gear, and the disgraceful silence from the hierarchy necessitates the laity to prompt for an investigation of FACTS, not stories.

        With respect Athanasius, I am fully aware of my responsibilities before God, which in this case, requires me to defend Truth and refute error in all charity, at all times.

        May 7, 2016 at 4:55 pm
      • editor


        One of the commentators on the “Dallas” blog to which you refer, wrote this: … My own take at this point is that Francis is a valid Pope until the proper authorities say otherwise.

        That, in a nutshell, is the only position for any Catholic to adopt.

        You are right in your conclusion that we must defend truth and refute error, but that applies to dogma, morals etc. When we KNOW the truth, and have our Baptismal and Confirmation obligations requiring us to defend the Faith and Morals, that is what we must do. What we are NOT and CANNOT be obliged to do, is enquire into and seek to correct, something over which we have no authority, such as whether this or that pope has been validly elected. We cannot possibly know that, and I say that having read all the articles, commentaries on Edward Pentin’s book etc. Those who argue that there was a “mafia conspiracy” may be right. I don’t care. I don’t care because there’s nothing I can do about it and if I want to save my soul, I need to stop wasting precious time worrying about something over which I have absolutely no authority upon which to pronounce, and no power to change.

        The people who are pursuing this business are only causing more confusion, and I, for one, do not believe it is love of the faith that drives them. It can’t be. What will the sedes do if Pope Francis, tomorrow, or any time before he dies, expresses remorse for his lax governance of the Church (as did Pope John Paul II, in the last book he wrote before he died; admitted that he should have been more firm in dealing with dissenters.) Suppose this Pope publicly retracts his modernist errors and begs forgiveness and expresses a desire that his successor will restore the Church by removing the very people he has appointed etc? Will he then – suddenly – be pronounced a validly elected pope by the sedes? I doubt it, because, frankly, in my own experience of speaking to a few, they’re quite happy with the situation in which they can pick and choose if and when they attend Mass and blame the fact that, in their anything-but-humble-opinion, the Pope is not the successor of Peter. A view held also by our Protestant brothers and sisters.

        I think (and hope) that you are right in your previous comment somewhere up there, that Jimislander is not really a sedevacantist but I distinctly remember him posting a link to a sedevacantist website on here, at which time I warned him to steer clear of those sites. The Devil knows how to get into our souls and those sites – precisely because they contain so much sound material – are a very dangerous occasion of sin. Remember, our conversation about Modernism, and how a drop can poison the soul? Same applies to those sede sites. They have plenty of good material and I’ve often retreated in disappointment on realising it was a sedevacantist website, after thinking I’d found great stuff to quote in the newsletter, because I’d sooner jump off the Erskine Bridge than risk that drop of poison. The only people I know who have fallen into sedevacantism, are bitter people who are no more Catholic than the nearest Protestant who shares their “no pope here” belief. Tragic, but true.

        So, I sincerely hope that Jim has only had a bad day because if, in fact, he has chosen to embrace this grave error, despite being made aware of the dangers of those sites (and dwelling too much on some of the nonsense abroad on the internet) then he will be found culpable. There’s no excuse for anyone becoming a sedevacantist when Our Lady came to warn us over time, beginning in the 17th century at Quito, in remarkable detail, that the Church (and world) would take a diabolical disorientation. If the pope were not really the pope, I am certain she would have mentioned it. She referred always to “the Holy Father” – despite knowing that these modern popes would, one after the other, ignore her request to consecrate Russia – so, the very least we can do is to follow her example and accept that – bad as he is – Pope Francis is the pope; if we’re mistaken, we have no guilt to bear, because we have no duty to investigate and pronounce on the matter. If, however, we arrogantly assume a responsibility not given to us, we’re in great spiritual danger.

        Pray for Pope Francis. Resist his errors and make others aware of the fact that he is not a good pope. Beyond that, none of us is authorised to go.

        Now, what do you think of that ridiculous video prayer intention? Is there a feminist in the land who couldn’t have written it?

        May 7, 2016 at 7:21 pm
      • Athanasius


        You comment of 7:21pm is exactly what I was trying to say. Spot on!

        May 7, 2016 at 10:36 pm
      • Lionel

        Très juste!

        May 7, 2016 at 11:10 pm
      • editor

        Athanasius & Lionel,

        If you mail me your autograph books, I’ll return them duly signed by return of post! 😀

        May 7, 2016 at 11:31 pm
      • Athanasius


        I’d love to send my autograph book but it’s full of my signatures right now. I’m my greatest fan, you know! How’s that for humility?

        May 7, 2016 at 11:54 pm
      • Athanasius


        If I came over as a little terse earlier, it is only because I have seen so many Traditional Catholics lose their way over these fruitless questions about the validity of the various conciliar Popes. I have also seen many friendships end as a result of discussions that very quickly turn to arguments.

        Frankly, I have heard the sedevacantist theory for nigh on thirty years and I’m tired of listening to it. I have researched the issue in depth, as have others more skilled than I, and the bottom line is always the same. Sedevacantism, like liberalism, is a destructive error.

        It is a pointless subject to debate because we are NOT QUALIFIED before God to decide so serious a matter on the basis of one-off statements by Cardinals backed up by half truths and rumours. Remember, a half truth is more dangerous than an outright lie because it contains a half truth. The devil is extremely clever!

        Don’t you think that if there was any substantive proof to support Cardinal Daneel’s statement that certain more Traditional prelates in the Church would have raised public questions by now? The fact is that the entire hierarchy acknowledges Francis’ election and we are not permitted to call that into question.

        Hence, I suggest we leave the matter of Francis’ election to the Church’s future authorities and concentrate our efforts on combatting the errors affecting the faith, while praying for the Pope as Our Lady of Fatima requested. It’s easy to get angry with a bad Pope but not so easy to pray for him. The latter course requires at times heroic charity. We have no idea what is in this Pope’s soul, so we cannot judge it. That’s for God alone.

        This is how Archbishop Lefebvre dealt with the issue of the modern Popes, and his wisdom is good enough for me. Sedevacantism is as poisonous to souls as liberalism. Both extremes end in separation from the Church.

        May 7, 2016 at 9:05 pm
  • Athanasius


    Such are the confusing times in which we live that otherwise good Catholics like yourself are being led astray into unsupportable and gravely sinful sectarian positions. Unable to bear the scandal of a bad Pope you declare him to be no Pope at all. You have no personal authority to make such a judgment. Your Catholic duty, like the rest of us, is simply to keep the faith in a time of crisis without resorting to a forbidden and unqualified judgment of souls. Give me one example from Church history where any Catholic, clerical or lay, dared to make so grevous a condemnation of a Pope, bearing in mind that there have been one or two very scandalous Pontificates in the past, mostly related to immorality.

    When Pope Paul VI died, world Freemasonry lamented his loss. It did so not because Paul VI was a Freemason, but because Paul VI aided, however unconsciously, the Freemasonic vision and agenda by his liberalism. So praise for Francis from the Rotary club, a much less convincingly Masonic group, depsite what your friend claims, is hardly testimony to the Pope’s Masonic initiation. He’s not the kind of man to join secret organisations, following ceremonies and protocols. That just isn’t Francis. Whatever else we think of him, he is no lover of powerful institutions he sees as marginalising the greater, needier, part of mankind.

    I’m sorry to state the obvious, Jimislander, but you have just taken a wrong turn down a dead end street, and without the remotest justification before God. As I said, our business as subordinates is to keep the faith, sanctify our souls and respectfully but forcefully challenge the errors of our shepherds while praying for them.

    Here are two paragraphs from my Angelus article ‘Fiddling while Rome Burns’ that should serve as the model for every Traditional Catholic today in respect to abused authroity:

    St. Thomas Aquinas writes: “There being an imminent danger to the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith…” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4).

    St. Robert Bellarmine concurs with St. Thomas in this matter and distinguishes for us between legitimate resistance and forbidden judgment. He writes: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the soul or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.” (De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 29, Opera omnia, Paris: Pedone Lauriel, 1871, vol. 1, p. 418.)

    One final thought, Jimislander.

    When those of us who refuse to declare the Pope deposed or canonically unelected (same thing) go to our judgment, Our Lord will certainly not condemn us to Hell for exercising prudence and charity in a matter that we were ill-equiped and forbidden to make. So what is the point in you risking your eternal salvation on a position that you can neither prove definitively nor declare with authority. That’s a blindness you need to shun immediately. It could cost you your soul if you’re wrong, as I know you are. Please reconsider!

    May 7, 2016 at 2:23 am
    • Margaret Mary


      That’s a great post, very clear. Thank you so much!

      May 7, 2016 at 4:09 pm
  • pew catholic

    Returning to the topic itself, this papal utterance is relatively mild, and a lot more straightforward than the usual incomprehensible bumblings we hear. He’s even right on a couple of points, about slavery and sexual violence.

    Bit it’s all so very patronising, and the sloppy music is just dire – ugh!

    May 7, 2016 at 10:58 am
    • Michaela

      Pew Catholic,

      It’s not just patronising, but it’s completely off the scales. What a terrible so-called “prayer intention” for a Pope to make publicly, on video in the month of Our Lady without even mentioning her who is “the highest honour of our race” yet saying his intention is to pray for women’s rights. Men are also enslaved and subject to violence (is sexual violence the only kind that matters to the Pope?)

      Obviously, I cannot get into this man’s head to see how his mind works but it is definitely not a Catholic mind.

      I agree, though, about sedevacantism. That’s not the right way forward. We need to pray for this bad pope and hope that he comes to his senses before he dies.

      The good news is that many many more neo-Catholics, who wouldn’t say a word about him before, are not wakening up and seeing the truth about him, not before time.

      May 7, 2016 at 4:06 pm
      • Michaela

        Sorry “not wakening up” should be “now wakening up”.

        May 7, 2016 at 4:07 pm
      • Margaret Mary


        I think that is very true about neo-Catholics wakening up. I notice a lot of people who used to come onto this blog creating merry hell because we were “attacking” the pope have gone silent. I think people are beginning to realise they are not supposed to treat the pope like a god. When he is obviously in the wrong, as this one seems to be all the time – LOL – they have to have the intelligence to say so.

        The May intention prayer is really poor – as it says in the intro, any feminist could have written that for him, no need to be a Catholic or any religion at all. Shame on Pope Francis.

        May 7, 2016 at 4:13 pm
    • Margaret Mary

      Pew Catholic,

      I agree about the music – LOL!

      May 7, 2016 at 4:10 pm
      • editor

        Pew Catholic et al,

        Here is something to make up for that “sloppy” music and, in honour of Our Lady in her special month of Mary, to make up for the Pope’s shameful failure even to give her a passing mention in his prayer intention for women…

        [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85q75k7S8p4&w=854&h=480%5D

        May 7, 2016 at 9:22 pm
      • Petrus


        That’s a wonderful rendition of a wonderful hymn. How on earth did you manage to find a recording of it ?

        May 7, 2016 at 10:03 pm
      • editor


        Very funny! And thanks again for the organ accompaniment!

        May 7, 2016 at 10:10 pm
      • Petrus

        I tend to think the icing on the cake is the additional voice during the chorus! As the hymn says, “there’s music in the heavens, the birds are singing there”.

        Well, the birds might be singing in heaven, but I think it’s the cats (choir) that’s singing on earth!!!

        May 8, 2016 at 8:17 am
  • RCA Victor

    I just viewed this video of dreaded drivel at the risk of losing my lunch, and I guess I was not disappointed (my lunch did stay down though). Given the completely secularized – no, <radically secularized Marxist agenda of this pontificate, I had to wonder whether this was some sort of prelude to calling a Synod to “allow” women into the priesthood.

    If this Pope had a clue about defending the Faith, he would have mentioned the reduction into slavery of women within the false religion of Islam. But no, that would have been an insult to his “dialogue” partners.

    That aside, the ploy of these modernists is shamefully obvious: appeal to “feelings” and “sentiments” to justify and rationalize sin, in order to justify undermining and destroying the Faith. So in order to allow public adulterers to the Communion rail, they appeal to a sentimentalized “mercy.” In order to legitimize religious indifference, they appeal to a sentimentalized version of “love,” a version which the Beatles would have approved of at their first drug-free moment.

    Now with this, Our Glorious Lady has been replaced by a Marxist caricature of women, designed to provoke not only feelings of sympathy but perhaps even resentment of men (what the heck is “gender violence”?), that could have come straight out of the propaganda bowels of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, and her month of May turned into a sleazy affirmation of leftist lies.

    It certainly fits the disgraceful pattern of this pontificate…which I hope and pray ends soon, as it has already taken its place in the forefront of utter depravity.

    May 7, 2016 at 7:40 pm
    • editor

      Well, RCA Victor, one thing we have to acknowledge in the spirit of being grateful for small mercies, is that even this liberal-with-bells-on Pope has ruled out, definitively – women priests. He cannot do otherwise, since male-only priesthood it is a matter of the deposit of faith and cannot, will not change.

      Eat your hearts out members of the daft women’s ordination groups. Away home and tidy the hoose (tr. house (n) home (n) )!

      May 7, 2016 at 9:14 pm
      • Margaret Mary

        “Eat your hearts out members of the daft women’s ordination groups. Away home and tidy the hoose (tr. house (n) home (n) )!”

        LOL !

        May 7, 2016 at 9:33 pm
      • pew catholic

        No, I don’t think he will change that particular ruling, although he goes as close to it as he dares. Pity.

        May 7, 2016 at 9:58 pm
      • editor

        Pew Catholic,


        Not again! Please PLEASE book a ticket for our conference, if you haven’t yet done so.

        Which reminds me. I think some people may be afraid that I will quiz and question them to nail bloggers, but I wouldn’t dream of doing so (well, I might dream but…) In fact, these conference days are so hectic that it takes me all my time to say “hello and welcome” to everyone.

        So, please do not hesitate to book a ticket; use a false name if you wish, doesn’t matter to me, one bit. Doesn’t mean I don’t care, don’t be hurt, wounded, whatever. I just mean, don’t let any fear of being identified as YOU, stop YOU from booking a ticket! Honestly, we’re not MI5. Nobody will be investigating anybody. But, when we open a thread to discuss the conference (which we will undoubtedly do after the event, all other things being equal) wouldn’t you like to be able to offer an informed opinion?

        Pew Catholic – male only priesthood is of the deposit of the faith. It cannot change. Stop pining.

        See you on the 18th June – and remember, your username doesn’t even give away your gender so there’s no way I could identify you even if I set about it. I mean, why on EARTH would I think you’re probably female?
        😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

        May 7, 2016 at 10:18 pm
      • pew catholic

        Editor, you should know I’m female, after an email exchange in which Google gave me away. But you’ve probably forgotten, having to deal – most efficiently, may I say – with so many comments and commentators, not to mention trolls.

        I can’t be persuaded that the ordination of women would be wrong, but I would hope that when it eventually took place it would be authorised by the Church under a sensible and worthy pontificate, which I don’t think we have just now, in spite of all the video rubbish about ‘las mujeres’.

        You will say that no sensible pontiff wiould ever allow the ordination of women, and in that case, so be it. But I won’t give up hope, although it is unlikely to happen in my lifetime.

        Will I now be moderated? 🙁

        May 7, 2016 at 10:55 pm
      • editor

        Pew Catholic,

        I’d completely forgotten about that Google correspondence. What am I LIKE?! Strictly rhetorical question.

        And no, of course you won’t be moderated. What, deprive our bloggers of that cheery avatar a second longer than necessary – you kidding me?!

        However, you need to be clear about the status of the teaching on male-only priesthood. Not sure if you told me anything about yourself during our correspondence, but I have a terrible memory and unless it happened five minutes ago, I can’t remember it! So, allow me to say that if you are a post-Vatican II baby or someone born in and around the time when all this chaos broke out in the Church, you just cannot have been taught the Faith as it should be taught. You’re in good company – we have priests and bishops who were born in the sixties, who haven’t been taught the Faith to begin with and then were subjected to crazy seminary professors who don’t know their right wing from their left wing, so to speak. The best of them have self-educated to get a handle on the nature and purpose of the Church and on the status of Catholic teaching and discipline, so they have come to understand that while there can be a development in doctrine, there can be no contradiction. The Church cannot teach male-only priesthood for 2,000 years and then say in the 21st century that women may be ordained. Can’t happen, won’t happen.

        And Pope John Paul II decided to make that teaching, which has always been accepted and never challenged until our times, clearly and formally binding, when he wrote:

        “…Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” Source

        That’s about as clear an infallible statement as you’re likely to hear for a long time. Church has no authority to change the teaching. And it’s binding on the faithful. Infallible? You betcha!

        So, Pew Catholic, it’s not about a “sensible pontiff” or any other kind of pontiff being for or against women’s ordination. No pope has the authority to ordain women. None. And never will have that authority. If any pope would love to do so, it’s this one. He’s on public record with his desire to turn the Church upside down and no holds barred – yet even he has stressed that women cannot be priests. Holy Spirit, at work. In one way or another, for whatever motivation might drive him, Pope Francis will be prevented from making any false teaching binding on the Faithful and from teaching, formally, anything that is contradictory to the Faith as it has been handed down to us from the apostles. I know he’s come close, especially in Amoris Laetita, but that will, without a doubt, be withdrawn sooner or later. It’s not being received well at all; in His own way the Holy Spirit will correct this scandal and from the outset, really, He has been doing this in the proclamations from the “liberals” (through gritted teeth) that there is no change to the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. A lot of damage is being done through the emphasis on “pastoral care” by local priests etc, but the bottom line is that the Church’s teaching on marriage has not (and will not) be changed. Ditto, every other dogmatic teaching, including male-only priesthood.

        Consider this awful thought, Pew Catholic. A “priest” who is due at the local Maternity Hospital any minute. No way! Totally unnatural. Not going to happen. And I can say this without any fear of contraception!

        Now, are you, or are you not going to book that ticket for our conference. Scrub that. No need to tell me. Just book. Immediately, if not sooner!

        May 7, 2016 at 11:15 pm
      • Athanasius

        pew catholic,

        Under the old dispensation, the Old Testament, the priesthood was male only. Under the new dispensation, the New Testament, the priesthood has bee male only since the foundation of the Church. As far as I’m aware, only pagan religions ever admitted women as priestesses.

        What in the good God’s name makes you believe that female priests could ever form a part of the divine plan? The very thought of so heathen an innovation is nauseating to the Sensus Catholicus of most people.

        If Our Lord had envisaged female priests, then undoubtedly He would have established, by singular ordination, the Most Blessed Virgin as a model for a female priesthood. He clearly did not do this, so I am at a loss to understand why greatly inferior women to her think themselves worthy to be exaulted above her by priestly annointing. Something very sinister lies at the heart of the female ordination agenda, a spirit that decidedly does not originate in heaven!

        Female ordination will never happen in the Church, ever. It is a pagan tradition, not a Judeo or Christian one.

        May 7, 2016 at 11:19 pm
  • editor

    I’ve been listening to this May hymn as well – a beautiful rendition of Bring Flowers of the Rarest which I remember we posted last year – enjoy!

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld4FNjK4IEQ&w=854&h=480%5D

    We usually post a thread in honour of the Month of Mary but didn’t this year for reasons I won’t go into (you wouldn’t believe me anyway) so we can use this thread to make reparation for the Pope’s prayer intention for May not even referring to Our Lady, which is bad enough, but that it is a petition allegedly to gain heavenly assistance for women, makes it twice as shocking. So, let’s try to repair that neglect by posting favourite prayers, hymns, thoughts, stories about Our Lady: sure beats going round in circles about the error of sedevacantism!

    May 7, 2016 at 9:34 pm
    • Petrus


      So much for Pope Francis being a “Marian Pope”! His prayer intentions are completely off the wall.

      May 7, 2016 at 10:04 pm
      • editor


        I agree – but did you listen to Bring Flowers of the Rarest? Isn’t it beautiful? Did it touch your hardened soul? 😀

        I just LOVE it! If I had to pick one month out of the entire year to have every month, it would be the month of Mary. And I say that despite my own birthday month being June. think about it. If we only had the month of May all year round, I’d never have been born and not had all this hard work to do. WOW! What a brain!

        May 7, 2016 at 10:22 pm
  • Nicky

    They’re two beautiful video hymns. I found this song about Fatima that I think is also nice. Maybe it’s a bit too sentimentalised but since today is the first Saturday of the month and it mentions the first Saturdays, I thought I’d take a chance and post it. Hope you don’t all blow me off – LOL!

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY4F1EHuNbo&w=854&h=480%5D

    May 7, 2016 at 9:48 pm
    • editor


      That’s very nice. If you don’t mind me saying so, it doesn’t beat the other Fatima hymn, “O Come to the Throne of Grace” but it’s very nice just the same. Not too sentimental, at all. I’d never heard it before, so enjoyed it.

      May 7, 2016 at 10:12 pm
  • Athanasius

    Just listened to Pope Francis’ Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Feminist Fascist Party. What a disgrace to the Papacy! Not a single supernatural word spoken, not a mention of Our Lady, the model for all women, in the month of May. I’m only surprised that there was no image of Emily Pankhurst in the Pope’s presentation. Absolutely shocking stuff!

    May 7, 2016 at 10:44 pm
    • editor


      “I’m only surprised that there was no image of Emily Pankhurst in the Pope’s presentation.”

      Priceless! So true! Priceless!

      May 7, 2016 at 11:33 pm
      • Christina

        From my favourite poet, who, as a holy Jesuit, could never have imagined this May prayer of a future Jesuit and Pope. Hope you enjoy!


        ‘The rose is a mystery’–where is it found?
        Is it anything true? Does it grow upon the ground?
        It was made of earth’s mould, but it went from men’s eyes,
        And its place is a secret and shut in the skies.
        In the gardens of God, in the daylight divine,
        Find me a place by thee, mother of mine.

        But where was it formerly? Which is the spot
        That was blest in it once, though now it is not?
        It is Galilee’s growth: it grew at God’s will
        And broke into bloom upon Nazareth hill.
        In the gardens of God, in the daylight divine,
        I shall look on thy loveliness, mother of mine.

        What was its season then? How long ago?
        When was the summer that saw the bud blow?
        Two thousands of years are near upon past
        Since its birth and its bloom and its breathing its last.
        In the gardens of God, in the daylight divine,
        I shall keep time with thee, mother of mine.

        Tell me the name now, tell me its name.
        The heart guesses easily: is it the same?
        Mary the Virgin, well the heart knows,
        She is the mystery, she is that rose.
        In the gardens of God, in the daylight divine,
        I shall come home to thee, mother of mine.

        Is Mary the rose then? Mary, the tree?
        But the blossom, the blossom there–who can it be?
        Who can her rose be? It could but be One
        Christ Jesus our Lord, her God and her son.
        In the gardens of God, in the daylight divine,
        Show me thy son, mother, mother of mine.

        What was the colour of that blossom bright?–
        White to begin with, immaculate white.
        But what a wild flush on the flakes of it stood
        When the rose ran in crimsonings down the cross-wood!
        In the gardens of God, in the daylight divine
        I shall worship His wounds with thee, mother of mine.

        How many leaves had it?–Five they were then,
        Five, like the senses and members of men;
        Five is their number by nature, but now
        They multiply, multiply–who can tell how?
        In the gardens of God, in the daylight divine
        Make me a leaf in thee, mother of mine.

        Does it smell sweet, too, in that holy place?
        Sweet unto God and the sweetness is grace:
        The breath of it bathes great heaven above
        In grace that is charity, grace that is love.
        To thy breast, to thy rest, to thy glory divine
        Draw me by charity, mother of mine.

        Gerard Manley Hopkins

        May 7, 2016 at 11:49 pm
      • Christina

        You should both be grateful she wasn’t plasrered electronically all over the facade of St. Peter’s 😁.

        May 8, 2016 at 1:29 am
      • Athanasius


        Yes, you have a very good point there! Mind you, it would have clashed with the rock concert the Pope attended in the Sistine Chapel. I kid you not:


        May 8, 2016 at 1:43 pm
    • Petrus


      I agree. Surely Pope Francis is now part of the chastisement for the Consecration of Russia being late!

      May 8, 2016 at 8:14 am
      • Athanasius


        Absolutely! Without a shadow of a doubt!

        May 8, 2016 at 1:43 pm
  • Therese

    I wonder if Papa Francis is extolling the virtues of womankind to his Muslim guests? Seems like a wonderful opportunity. Or would that be proselytising?

    May 8, 2016 at 11:03 am
    • Athanasius


      If only the Pope were extolling the virtues of womanhood after the example of the Blessed Virgin. Alas, he was extolling women’s liberation, turning the God-given complimentarity of the sexes into a gender conflict over a perceived inequality of rights. This is clearly not a Pope who esteems the woman in her role as wife and mother, the heart of the home.

      Had his words been for Muslims then he would have to have made a direct reference to Islam as viewing and treating women as chattels. No, this was a choreographed piece for the liberal West, a perpetuation of the secular liberal Gospel that women are unfulfilled unless and until they get some tattoos and start driving tanks, buses and lorries.

      May 8, 2016 at 2:08 pm
      • Theresa Rose


        Amen to what you say. A pity indeed that Pope Francis did not mention Our Lady at all during this month of May, especially as the 13th is the anniversary of Her first appearance at Fatima, 99 years ago. Terrible to think that the Consecration of Russia is still to be done.

        I hope that everyone will be happy with this rendition of O Come to the Throne of Grace.

        May 8, 2016 at 4:15 pm
      • editor

        Theresa Rose,

        Thank you for that video of Throne of Grace but it doesn’t beat our own which we’ll post on the 13th! Stand by!

        May 8, 2016 at 6:21 pm
      • Therese


        Exactly. Based on the evidence of his own words and actions, one has to doubt his sincerity (or at the very least, his mentality and understanding).

        May 8, 2016 at 6:49 pm
  • RCA Victor

    This is the second time in a matter of months that Pope Francis has directly insulted Our Lady, both by commission (the obscene pagan light show on Dec. 8th) and by omission (this pathetic video). As a result, I’m going to make every visit to the Blessed Sacrament a reparation for the blasphemies and sins committed against her Immaculate Heart.

    Who would ever have thought that reparation would be needed for the words and actions of a Pope!

    May 8, 2016 at 6:51 pm
    • editor

      RCA Victor

      I suspect Our Lady herself may have thought that reparation would be needed for the words and actions of this Pope – hence the First Saturday devotions, specifically to MAKE reparation to her immaculate Heart.

      You heard it here first, RCA Victor.


      On the other hand, maybe not! 😀

      May 8, 2016 at 7:24 pm
  • Christina

    I posted a lovely poem to Our Lady by a Jesuit as an antidote to Pope Francis’s shameful neglect of her, but it got stuck in Ed’s spam tin and has surfaced in the middle of Emily Pankhurst! Currently about 12 posts back, I hope some bloggers find time to have a look at it – I think it’s beautiful. What a dreadful fall from grace the Jesuits have had!

    May 8, 2016 at 10:53 pm
  • editor

    N O T I C E . . .

    Several times yesterday, Christina tried to post a lengthy poem and each time, the post disappeared.

    I eventually found all of them in the TRASH folder in my admin section. I released one, which is dated May 7, 2016 at 11:49 pm – see above, as, due to the lateness of its being released, I’m afraid bloggers may miss it. Enjoy!

    Christina spent an awful lot of time on this yesterday and had presumed her efforts were in vain, so I was pleased to be able to reassure her by email that the poem was in the system. So that nobody else wastes time, however, who may suffer this unhappy experience, allow me to explain why this may happen.

    Sometimes, if a post is very lengthy, there may be a word in it which is on our blacklist. In which case the comment will automatically go into SPAM. Or (I suspect) it may simply be the length of the comment, although this shouldn’t really happen. Occasionally, I’ve had a comment disappear and it was nowhere to be found. I quickly got into the habit of always copying my comments, so that if it should disappear, I can re-submit, and 100% of the time, the second attempt worked. The only other reason a comment might disappear is if there are too many links (I think 5 is the limit in one comment, but sometimes a post goes into SPAM if there are 3 links, in which case it may be the combination of the length of the comment and the string of links. I’m merely guessing here, not sure.) I have recommended in the past that, to avoid your comment disappearing, it is better to divide up your comment to spread the links. Post Part One and Part Two – something like that…

    The key thing is this; if you type a comment, take a second to copy it before pressing the “post comment” button. However, if your comment DOES simply disappear, don’t waste time re-typing if you have not copied it, because there is every likelihood that it is languishing in the SPAM or TRASH folder and just awaiting release. As soon as I report for my admin duties, I check all the folders and release comments that have slipped through the net, so be assured it will be published as soon as I see it. Feel free, in any case, to alert me by email, if your comment has disappeared into thin cyberspace!

    Hope this is all clear enough – let me know if you have any questions (that I can answer. I don’t like the other kind… !)

    May 8, 2016 at 10:54 pm
  • Elizabeth


    I have never seen that beautiful poem before. Thank you so much for posting it. So glad it was not lost in the system.

    May 9, 2016 at 7:25 am
  • editor

    Well, it seems that the best way to catch Pope Francis’ attention is to somehow get into his presence and ask him an (apparently) off the cuff question, because that way he will promise to do whatever you ask. Crackers.

    That’s what happened when some Religious Sisters asked him to study the question of women deacons. Voila! No problematics! Read the Zenit report here and the Mail Online here

    Have we EVER had such a headline-grabbing, microphone addicted pontiff? I mean, HAVE we?

    May 13, 2016 at 1:06 am
  • Michaela

    Zenit has the Pope’s Q & A with the Sisters today.

    He thinks they could preach at a liturgy that is not the “Eucharistic” liturgy – I presume he means Holy Mass!

    May 13, 2016 at 8:35 pm
    • Christina

      Another priceless example of bergoglian waffle!

      May 17, 2016 at 9:06 pm
  • editor

    Fr Lombardi launches the latest damage limitation campaign

    Women deacons – oh, no, he didn’t mean that, not really….

    Perplexed, my friend, eat your heart out! The fact is, Papa Francis wishes to please whoever is in front of him at the time. He’ll say anything to get the desired good press. I’m trying desperately to organise an audience (for him…!) 😀

    May 16, 2016 at 9:35 pm
    • crofterlady

      Oh dear, where will it all end?!

      Even my Protestant friends are picking up that this pope is not Catholic in the real sense of the word. I don’t even pretend to try and defend him as I once would have done. I just say that he is a bad pope and explain why. I also (try and) explain what papal infallibility means.

      May 17, 2016 at 12:31 pm
  • RCA Victor

    Once again, the anonymous Spanish priests at Denziger-Bergoglio have hit the nail on the head – here is their analysis of the Pope’s prayer intention video: https://en.denzingerbergoglio.com/2016/05/14/a-new-video-and-new-profanations/

    Thank God for these priests!

    May 17, 2016 at 3:23 pm
    • editor

      RCA Victor,

      I think their blog is terrific but I DO wish they would stop being anonymous. The time for that sort of thing is long past…

      Now, where DID I put my raincoat and sunglasses… !

      Seriously, time now for everyone to stand up and be counted. At the Catholic Truth conference in June!

      May 17, 2016 at 8:13 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: