Pope To Youth: Find Jesus In Ecumenismeditor
Click here to read Zenit report
All the blether about youthful “restlessness” reminds me of the assumption, commonly heard in conversation, that all teenagers are rebellious. I questioned it when I was a teenager myself and I question it now. It seems designed to ignite rebellion in young people. And sadly, only a minority, seem to be mature enough to not want to be “restless” or “rebellious”. The Pope peddling the propaganda, really doesn’t help parents trying to convince their young offspring that “Thou Shalt Rebel” really isn’t the eleventh commandment. And the Pope encouraging young people to look for or find Jesus at an ecumenical gathering, really doesn’t help them to understand the unchanging and unchangeable teaching from Christ that “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.” Does it?
Our parish offered to fund 2 of our children to attend this event. They refused saying it was not catholic.
Brilliant! Your children clearly have a sound Catholic sense. Long may that be the case, despite the stranglehold of Modernism within the Church – including in your parish. .
If “restlessness” is a determinant of “yoof”, then I must be a lot younger than my years!
I find myself increasingly restless about a Pope who teaches error, and praises sin. I find myself increasingly restless about spineless bishops who will not stand up and defend their flocks from this wolf in Rome. My urge to vomit over all their relativism, ecumenism and modernism grows stronger by the day. In fact the older I get, the greater the temptation to rebellion, anarchy and restlessness becomes.
The sad thing about the “yoof” of today is that they are not rebellious enough. They have largely conformed to the spirit of this age. They are mindless lemmings who drink in the liquid fertilizer which the modernist baby-boomers feed them and can’t see beyond the propaganda pushed out by facebook into their iphones. They are so reactionary that they listen to the failed old hippy in white and actually believe he is offering them something new – not realizing that what he offers, what he stands for, is as old as the hills, is deadly and lifeless in its predictable tedium, and has always failed to live up to its promises since the day the serpent said to Eve: “Did God really forbid you to eat from any of the trees in the garden?”
The world has become so dull, grey and barren since Francis came to the throne. The life and the colour are being drained away by listless conformism to spiritual drabness.
“In fact the older I get, the greater the temptation to rebellion, anarchy and restlessness becomes.
The sad thing about the “yoof” of today is that they are not rebellious enough. They have largely conformed to the spirit of this age.”
Spot on. Absolutely insightful. Just don’t despair, We all share your horror at the nonsense and errors spouted by Papa Francis, but this, too, will pass.
Love your post, especially your final sentence. How true it is – spiritual drabness where our glorious Catholic Faith and spirituality once sanctified souls. God help us all.
I share your feelings about this pope and about the spineless bishops who are going along with him especially those who spoke out at the Synod on the Family and are now nowhere to be seen or heard. Where is their faith and courage? Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Burke in particular – all of a sudden, they’ve disappeared from public view.
Sorry, but I hold the lot of them in utter contempt.
That is an extremely perceptive post. As a former rebellious hippie, I have to admit that your last paragraph reminds me distinctly of the old Beatles movie “Yellow Submarine” – that is, the colorless/gray state of Pepperland and all its inhabitants after the invasion by the Blue Meanies, and its restoration to its former colorful state by Beatles music.
In terms of reality, I’d say the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King will restore the colorful life of our dreary politically correct world.
I wonder what Pope Pius XI would think of this?
“Anathema sit!” ?
Fidelis 😂😂😂. With bells on!
I second that!
I, too, would love to be able to read the mind of Pius XI, the Pope who wrote this about ecumenical events:
7. And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favour this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: “That they all may be one…. And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,” with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfilment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. This, Venerable Brethren, is what is commonly said. There are some, indeed, who recognise and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honour or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.
8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.
I think it is very clear that he would not approve of Pope Francis’s encouragement to young Catholics to attend the National Mall event in Washington DC. It is really shocking. No wonder young people are confused and think one religion is as good as another. That’s actually what this pope is telling them!
Father TM & Michaela
Tut tut. We’re not going to put up with such “rigidity” on this blog. Not a good sign, this looking for “security”, it’s really being backward looking, whereas we have to move forward! Get with the Vatican II programme! As I say, up with this backward looking rigidity, we will not put!
There have been a number of occasions when I pointed out the Pope’s scandalous criticism of “those who seek excessive doctrinal security”, but generally most people don’t seem in the least appalled by it. Yet if you think of the consequences of having no doctrinal security, there would be no substance to the faith whatsoever.
One cannot charge him with heresy for this expression as there is no clear refusal to believe a dogma of the faith. However, what is the appropriate theological note to ascribe to his words? Would they be “erroneous”, “offensive to pious ears”, “ambiguous” or what?
Since the key reason why God gave us a pope in the first place, is to defend and teach the faith as it was handed to us from the time of the Apostles, the phrase which I consider to be most appropriate and accurate is “dereliction of duty”. An uncouth joke might be “offensive to pious ears”; any of his many ridiculous statements about traditional Catholicism might be termed “erroneous” (if not heretical) although I’m not sure about “ambiguous” – he seems pretty clear to me, in what he says, all the time, and it’s never “Catholic” or in keeping with his God-given office. So, in my book, he is guilty all the way of a manifest dereliction of duty. He betrays the papal office in so many ways that it is almost impossible to keep track of his nonsense. Dereliction of duty – that’s been my opinion from the very beginnings of this awful pontificate.
There is, after all, no requirement on any pope to be a diplomat or a celebrity; but there is a clear obligation to teach and preach the Catholic Faith and to refute error, and that “in season and out of season” whether popular or not. That’s his duty and I see absolutely NO evidence of him even attempting to fulfil it.
Contrast Pope Francis’ populism with the words of Pope Saint Pius X, in his very first Encyclical Letter where he sets out what has to be the programme for any pope: We proclaim that We have no other program in the Supreme Pontificate but that “of restoring all things in Christ” (Ephes. i., 10), so that “Christ may be all and in all” (Coloss. iii, 2) …The interests of God shall be Our interest, and for these We are resolved to spend all Our strength and Our very life. Hence, should anyone ask Us for a symbol as the expression of Our will, We will give this and no other: “To renew all things in Christ.”… Source
It cannot be “in the interests of God” to promote false religions. It cannot be “in the interests of God” to encourage young people, born into the chaos of the current crisis in the Church and un-catechised as a result, to attend the Protestant ecumenical events of which the Washington DC gathering is but the latest in a long line of similar get-togethers, designed to cultivate and encourage religious indifferentism. Even the messages delivered at the equally appalling World Youth Days do not exhort the young to fidelity to Christ and His Church. Instead, they’re told to go out and make a mess in their dioceses – as if Pope Francis isn’t making a belting job of that all by his little ole self.
We must pray for the scales to fall from the eyes of Pope Francis – for his own eternal sake as well as for the sake of Christ’s Church.
We will now stand and sing forty verses of Faith of our Fathers 😀
“We must pray for the scales to fall from the eyes of Pope Francis – for his own eternal sake as well as for the sake of Christ’s Church.”
That is the whole problem with this Pope – nobody seems to be “in the least appalled” by him. Nothing he says seems to faze most Catholics. I’m genuinely astounded.
With respect, though, I think he does say heresy when he rubbishes “doctrinal security” because if we cannot be secure in the doctrines of the Church, that can only mean that we cannot be sure that what the Church is teaching is true and from God.
I have no respect for this pope. I’m sorry. I know we don’t have the authority to do anything about him, but I think he will be denounced as a heretic in the future by an Ecumenical Council called for the purpose of examining his statements and calling out the heresies and errors.
I certainly agree with you that it seems heretical, but what I was getting at is that there several definite “theological notes” ascribed to propositions in traditional Catholic theology (before scholasticism was given the boot.)
Each theological note has a corresponding “censure” which is the penalty or effect of contradicting a teaching which has that theological note.
Strictly speaking the censure of heresy only applies to the contradiction of dogmas of the faith, or doctrines which are termed: de fide, de fide Catholica, and de fide divina et Catholica.
There is also the censure of “heresy against ecclesiastical faith” for the contradiction of “doctrines of ecclesiastical faith” such as the legitimacy of receiving Holy Communion under one kind only.
Lower grades of censure include: error (in faith), proximate to error. error (in theology), temerarious, and unsafe/temerarious.
I was really trying to work out where it would lie on the scale of censure. I agree with you that it seems to imply a denial of the indefectibility of the Church, but I imagine Canon lawyers would want more than an implied denial of a dogma where such serious censures as heresy are concerned.
I am tempted to define it as “bloody-minded ignorance and stupidity”, but as far as I am aware that is not a traditional form of censure!! 😉
“I am tempted to define it as “bloody-minded ignorance and stupidity”, but as far as I am aware that is not a traditional form of censure!! 😉”
Well it blankety blank SHOULD be! 😀
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I don’t think that so much of what Pope Francis says “seems” heretical; I think it is heretical.
Therese, but here’s a little glimmer of hope. The Scottish Catholic Observer reported his “let’s apologise to ‘gays’ ” comment, and his rebuke to “the Church” for discriminating against them in the past, but then quoted him as saying “when I say ‘the Church’ I mean us, Christians… because the Church is holy”
That’s a start – Alleluia! He must be reading his copy of Catholic Truth after all 😉
“As I say, up with this backward looking rigidity, we will not put!”
“This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.”
Pope Pius XI could not be clearer. How can the post-Vatican II popes say the exact opposite? Pius XI says we cannot take part in ecumenical assemblies, and all the popes since Vat2 say we can. How do you square that circle?
The Conciliar popes can say the exact opposite, or anything they want, in fact, because their church didn’t exist before 1962, and the Church which did exist before that was just an embarrassment to them (and, according to them, to the world).
“Sorry, world, for having foisted the truth on you for 1950 years! Please forgive us and our triumphalism! We’re mending our ways now, though!”
I am lost for words. The more I see and hear Pope Francis the more I wonder if I was taught the wrong thing at school about the Church, but I’m afraid to put it into words and I know anyway that I’m wrong – LOL!
It is very hard to watch the papacy and the Church being made to look ridiculous more so and more so under this pope. Watching him hold up that T shirt, goodness. What on earth is going on in his mind? Does he really think he is preaching Christ?
Now, now – you know better than to doubt. Not even a hint of doubt, at this time in history when we need, more than ever, to exercise Faith – the real thing. Not just this “I trust you”.. blah blah, not just trusting, but knowing that God is above it all and that the Faith will be restored to its former beauty and glory, in due course. Faith isn’t just “trust” – it’s a form of knowledge and we know for certain that what we are witnessing is a diabolical attack on the papacy, priesthood and the entire Church.
That’s why – you are correct in what you imply – that there is a failure to preach Christ (and Him crucified) when such preaching is necessary more now than ever before. It is a scandal to see a pope in the role of a PR Consultant for an ecumenical business, for that is how he comes across.
What would Pope Pius XI think? He’d think what every pope prior to Vatican II would think – scandalous, scandalous, scandalous, scandalous. And then some.
“It is a scandal to see a pope in the role of a PR Consultant for an ecumenical business, for that is how he comes across.”
I couldn’t agree more. How ridiculous did he look holding up that T shirt? It’s a wonder he’s not being offered a job by some high flying Company.
You can’t square that circle. You can only refuse to take part in ecumenism and correct other Catholics who do.
I don’t which is scarier: the tip of the iceberg, i.e. Pope Francis, or the rest of the iceberg, i.e. the Cardinals who conspired to elect him, the corrupt members of the hierarchy who approve of his agenda and who are standing in line eager to implement it, the corrupt priests who have been waiting for the signal, and the laity who think this is all just wonderful…
That’s the thing: if the tip of the iceberg were a giant pimple, disfiguring the rest, it would be lanced. But the rest of the iceberg appears to be largely infected with the same pus, and is proud to be represented by it!
That is what is so frightening. The landscape now is truly dark and barren. The bishops who spoke out during the Synod, have disappeared into thin air. There’s an ominous silence hanging.
Something will have to give soon. Things really can’t go on like this much longer with a pope who seems to be losing his mind.
I’ve just started reading True or False Pope? and I’m finding it extremely helpful in understanding the crisis as the Passion of the Church, Our Lord’s Mystical Body, as well as thoroughly refuting sedevacantism. If you haven’t already bought it I highly recommend it!
Not meaning to interrupt your chat with Fidelis, I was intrigued to find our more about the book you mention (I once heard John Salza speak at a Fatima Conference in Rome) so Googled and found the following video – I’ve not had time to view it myself, but it looks interesting (refuting sedevacantism), and less than an hour long, so it may be of use…
Thank you Editor – I notice that the host is from the St. Benedict Center of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which is devoted to the TLM: https://www.saintbenedict.com/
I am disgusted at that video. Just imagine the Pope saying young people can find Jesus at a Protestant event (that is what ecumenism is, I’ve never known a Catholic ecumenical event) and then saying it is worth a try as if they can’t find him in the Catholic Church!
If anyone can name a worse pope, I’d love to know his name because I can’t imagine any pope ever being as bad as this one. I know there were public sinner popes in the past, but that’s another matter. I’ve never heard of any pope to encourage atheists not to convert and young people to attend Protestant services. I’ve never heard of such a thing, ever.
Well said. Pope Francis is, to date at least, about as bad as it gets. Sadly. He has nothing but praise and respect for Islam, Judaism, every “ism” you care to name, while belittling Catholicism at every turn.
He does need our prayers. Urgently.
This video is literally insane. As if that wasn’t enough, it features the “Washington Monument,” which is well-known as a Masonic symbol! And would someone please tell me what “The heart of Together” means?
This Pope was catechized on Madison Avenue and Hollywood, not in the Church.
” And would someone please tell me what “The heart of Together” means?”
LOL! Who knows?!
If you think encouraging our youth to partake of the ecumenical poison is bad, then take a look at the latest drip of cyanide currently appearing in the media.
More Sacrilege: Propaganda arm La Civilta Cattolica says Francis moving toward Holy Communion for Protestants.
Probably to be promulgated in October, in commemoration of “st. martin luther”
Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, I adore you profoundly and I offer you the Sacred Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, truly present in all the tabernacles of the world, in REPARATION FOR THE SACRILEGES, OUTRAGES AND INDIFFERENCE BY WHICH HE HIMSELF IS OFFENDED and by the Infinite Merits of His Most Sacred Heart and of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of you the conversion of poor sinners.
Thank you for that (shocking) report. The following sentence sums up Papa Francis’s MO, as he encourages Protestants to receive Holy Communion, in the way way that he has encouraged the divorced and “remarried” to do so:
“He is doing so, as always, in a discursive, allusive way, not definitional, leaving the ultimate decision to the individual conscience.
It is, of course, essential to “define” teachings to make them binding, so he’s off the hook on that; the prescriptions of Canon Law on the reception of Holy Communion are bound up with the doctrine of the Church on the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. It is unthinkable, therefore, that any pope would – in such cavalier fashion – open the door to inter-communion. However, the practise at parish level will be devastating with so many weak and ignorant bishops and priests, whose own faith is not strong and who lack clarity of theological mind. Indeed, many of them are out of their theological minds, if you know what I mean and I strongly suspect that you will know exactly what I mean!
I agree that “encouraging our youth to partake of the ecumenical poison is bad”. They are being led up the proverbial garden path without having being taught the Catholic Faith.
Thank you for the link, Yes it is indeed “the latest drip of cyanide currently appearing in the media”. It is an encouragement to spiritual suicide by committing Sacrilege.
Thank you also for the prayer of Reparation, a timely reminder.
Comments are closed.