Pope Francis Confidence Vote – Yes? No?editor
The Pope’s Council of Advisors Declares that it supports “His Magisterium”
But what about the Magisterium? Not so much.
by Christopher A. Ferrara
February 17, 2017
One of Francis’ first acts as Pope was to create a Council of Cardinal Advisors, commonly known as “C9”, to advise him on ecclesial affairs. The “advice,” however, appears to constitute little more than an echo chamber for whatever Francis wishes to say.
To recall, the members of the Council are: Chilean Cardinal Francisco Javier Errazuriz Ossa; Italian Bishop Marcello Semeraro, secretary to the Council; Indian Cardinal Oswald Gracias; German Cardinal Reinhard Marx; Honduran Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga; Italian Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello; U.S. Cardinal Sean O’Malley; Australian Cardinal George Pell; and Congolese Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya.
All of the nine, with the exception of Pell, are radical progressives by any historical standard of Catholicism, whereas Pell, a “moderate” progressive, appears to be hanging on to his position by his fingernails. Meanwhile, he has already been removed from the Congregation for Divine Worship, which oversees the Church’s sacred liturgy, along with Cardinal Burke, the de facto spokesman for the four cardinals who have published the dubia concerning Amoris Laetitia. (Burke has just been shuffled off to Guam.)
The C9 has leapt into action as opposition to Francis’ relentlessly progressive agenda mounts among concerned clergy and laity throughout the Catholic world, including protest posters plastering Rome and a spoof of L’Osservatore Romano wherein “Francis” answers ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ to each of the four cardinals’ dubia. The C9 have issued an extraordinary “vote of confidence” in Francis, as if he were the head of a parliament, in the form of a Note published as part of the Vatican press briefing of February 13. The pertinent portion (my translation from the Italian) is quite striking:
“In relation to recent events, the Council of Cardinals expresses full support for the work of the Pope, assuring at the same time its adhesion to and complete support of His person and His Magisterium.”
“[In relazione a recenti avvenimenti, il Consiglio di Cardinali esprime pieno appoggio all’opera del Papa, assicurando al tempo stesso adesione e sostegno pieni alla Sua persona e al Suo Magistero.]”
Note first of all the curious typography in the Italian original, not present in the Vatican’s own English translation: “His person and His Magisterium.” In contemporary Vatican usage the pronoun “his” is no longer capitalized even when used in reference to God. (See, for example, this section of the Catechism at the Vatican’s website.) But the traditional usage in reference to God suddenly reappears in reference to Francis!
More significant is the reference to “His Magisterium.” Why not “the Magisterium,” which is the teaching office of the Church, not of a particular Pope? The Church does not have a different Magisterium with each Pope, but the same Magisterium to which all Popes are bound. Thus, on the very day he was installed as Pope, Benedict XVI declared his intention to subsume his personal ideas to the Magisterium of all time:
“The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism….”
So, again, why “His magisterium” rather than “the Magisterium”? The answer should be obvious at this point in the crisis provoked by what Antonio Socci has aptly termed “Bergoglianism”: the Magisterium and the teaching of Francis are not one and the same thing. That is why the four cardinals have posed their dubia. That is why alarm is spreading throughout the Church. That is why protest posters have appeared in Rome, along with the mock edition of L’Osservatore Romano. And that is why the Council of Cardinals has issued its “vote of confidence” in a Pope who is clearly eliciting a vote of “no confidence” from a growing number of the faithful.
The liberal John Allen frets that “one could ask whether such a statement lends a significance to the anti-Francis blowback that heretofore was debatable. From the beginning, most commentators have been cautioning against exaggerating the dimensions of such resistance… By engaging it in such a high-profile way, it’s at least worth mulling whether the cardinals have inadvertently done it a favor.”
Liberals like Allen, along with the members of the C9 echo chamber, would like to bury the “anti-Francis blowback,” which is just a pejorative for “Catholic defense of orthodoxy.” But as Our Lord said when the Pharisees demanded that He rebuke His disciples for praising His “mighty works”: “I say to you, that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out.” (Luke 19:40) That is, the truth of the Magisterium cannot be silenced even if the hierarchy fails in its duty to defend it.
As for Francis and “His Magisterium,” in God’s good time it will pass from memory just as surely as the errors of Honorius, who was posthumously anathematized by an ecumenical council and a successor Pope, and John XXII, who was denounced for preaching heresy from the pulpit before he retracted his error on his deathbed. Both of these Popes, though validly elected, nonetheless transgressed the limits of the Magisterium. Much the same thing, but far worse, is happening today at this turning point in the history of the Church and the world.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
How would YOU vote, if the faithful were given the chance to show confidence or no confidence in Papa Francis? There’s no shortage of reasons to vote “no confidence”, but if you can tell us the MAIN reason for your decision, that would be interesting. If, on the other hand, you’d vote “yes, confidence” – choose your words carefully… We’re jes dyin’ to hear from you…
I am surprised and disappointed to see the name of George Cardinal Pell there. I do also remember quite clearly that Raymond Cardinal Burke said at the time of the publication of Amoris Laetitia that it is not part of the Magisterium of the Church. No doubt Cardinal Pell has a similar view.
There are so many reasons but mine is the assurance to atheists that they are going to Heaven despite the fact that they have no faith nor (many of them) baptism – both explicitly required by Our Lord Himself – have no recourse to the Sacraments or to prayer; can hardly avoid the committing of at least one mortal sin during their lives and finally do natural good works which have no Salvific value at all.
If Bergoglio is right with this claim of this, then it means that:
1. We don’t need to be freed by baptism from the stranglehold of Original Sin, which means that:
2. There was no need for the Second Person of the Holy Trinity;
3. Nor His Incarnation, Passion, Death and Resurrection;
4. and that St. Paul was talking nonsense when he tells us to put off the natural man and put on Christ;
5. Bergoglio with this teaching is indeed telling us that the ‘natural man’ is good enough.
Logically, it is the complete destruction of our entire religion.
No confidence. Francis is a Marxist, shows no sign of being a Catholic, but every sign of being an enemy of the Faith – and, as the Washington Post pointed out recently, he has become the de facto leader of the international left, which is a euphemism for the New World Order…which is itself a euphemism for Satanism. His agenda is virtually identical to that of the United Nations.
Interesting statement from C9. In the world of politics, such votes of confidence are frequently followed by resignations…
Choosing my “main reason” is proving to be extremely difficult. I have so many “main reasons” that I could write a book.
Forced to single out one, though, it would have to be his denial of the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation” – e.g. discouraging Evangelical Protestants from converting to the Faith – and going to far as to apologise for “mistreating” them in the past.
I mean, is there anything left, if a Catholic thinks one Church, one religion is as good as another? So, I repeat… No confidence!
No Confidence. Like you, there are too many reason. Amoris Laetitiia is a big problem. However, The pope’s statement about Our Blessed Lady at the foot of the cross, thinking “Lies I was cheated”. totally did it for me. What was he said about wanting to punch someone on the nose if that someone insulted his mother?
I didn’t give a vote of either Confidence or No Confidence. Since you ask for such a vote I would have to declare my vote as No Confidence. I really do believe that Pope Francis is a heretic and I pray for him to be gone asap.
No confidence, Fatima News Letter say enough I reckon.http://www.fatima.org/
lots of stuff on that link.
St Miguel – that’s the link given in the blog article; it’s the source OF the article by Christopher Ferrara.
The link I posted has other links within and the second one is “Advice to Pope Francis..”Crush your Enemies”.”…..now just who would those enemies be? Certainly US as a starter for ten
It is a sad day when a Cardinal has to express a vote of confidence in the reigning Pope. If it was asked for, it was beneath their dignity to acquiesce. If it was their initiative, it is nothing more than political grovelling of the lowest level.
Could you imagine what would have happened had Cardinal Pell dissented? He would have been on the next plane to Guam together with Cardinal Burke.
If there were only more like Cardinal Burke, prepared to accept persecution for the truth. Sadly, there are too many feathering their own nests and to Hell with souls, literally!
These are truly dark days for the faith. The recent interview with Kasper, in which he seemed to think that the world and his wife should be admitted to communion, the Coccopalmerio intervention, the intervention by the Bishops of Malta … one has the impression of assisting at a train crash in slow motion, and there is not one thing one can do about it.
But yet there is! Pray! Fast! That the Truth may be defended and propagated in the Holy Church of Christ. There is great evil abroad and the chickens of decades of unprudential government –to put it kindly–are coming home to roost. In particular, The continued and systematic appointment of unorthodox men to the episcopate and cardinalate by Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI is now bearing fruits which are precipitating the Church towards schism.
Theology and doctrine no longer count for anything. What is the naked and crude exercise of episcopal power against what has been tought in the Church for centuries. Is this the moment of the anti-Christ?
“one has the impression of assisting at a train crash in slow motion, and there is not one thing one can do about it.”
Exactly why I vote no confidence!
It’s heartbreaking really. Imagine being asked to vote whether or not one has confidence in the Pope! And yet, it has come to this, tragically. There are so many shockers about this pontificate that one hardly knows where to start however, it seems to me that the apparent abolition of sin is the biggest crime of all. It insults Almighty God and the Sacrifice of His son, Jesus.
The highest law of the Church is the salvation of souls. Any Pope should understand that a thousand times better than me. Pope Francis’ top priority is the environment and climate change, so I vote no confidence.
My main reason for saying no confidence, is “outside the Church there is no salvation”.
With shockers like Amoris Laetitia that gives an open invitation for Catholics to commit mortal sin,
there is no carry or worry about salvation if people die unrepentant of sin.
As I have said many times, it is more than mortal sin, it is sacrilege…but that means zippo these days….it is obvious that they no longer believe in the SOUL, therefore mortal sin is out of date.Can you imagine the SSPX trying to unpick this mess post Regularisation? This is now so entrenched and traditionalists are public enemy #1 and this Pope cannot but see the Society as an Anathema.
No, this Pope does not see the SSPX “as an anathema”, which is quite remarkable given his track record to date. For me, this is a clear sign that Our Lord is still in charge of His Church.
I take the opposite view to you. Mine is the hope-filled vision of Our Lord bringing the SSPX right to the heart of the battle just as the enemies of the Faith appear to be gaining the victory. By the grace of God the SSPX will be regularised and will “unpick” the mess alongside other Traditionalist Catholic forces.
While I have no confidence in Francis’ Pontificate, I do think the Pope’s action to regularise the SSPX, should it come to fruition, will prove to be a positive step towards the restoration of all things in Christ. If nothing else it will silence the lies of the liberals who say that the SSPX is a schismatic group not in communion with the Church. And the silencing of that lie will prove very useful as Francis’ revolution convinces more and more Catholics that Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX were right all along.
What other Traditionalists forces are there in the Vatican to aid and assist the Society and what are they doing or not doing just now,as i don’t see any of them coming to the aid of the party? I believe from life experience that we are dealing with sociopaths in Rome who will NEVER ADMIT to being wrong and will never back down. Pope Francis’s Revolution will only embolden the Anti/trad movement.
I really dislike, strongly, this idea of a “trad movement”. There is a crisis in the Church, foretold at Fatima (and Quito, 17th century) when Our Lady made no mention of new titles for Catholics.
Thus, in this crisis, there are Catholics who adhere to the Faith in its entirely, as handed down to us from the Apostles, and there are those who have gone along with the modernism of the post-Vatican II era.
I never describe myself as anything other than a Catholic. Question me about what I believe, and you will find that I adhere to the traditional Catholic religion. I do understand that these labels are in use due to the extent of the confusion around us, but my own rule of thumb is never to use the term “traditionalist” unless absolutely necessary, not to give currency to the idea that – as with the Anglican community – there are various legitimate “wings” of the Church or “types” of Catholic.
That’s because I am a simple Catholic – and I presume you are, too –
simpleI mean, a Catholic 😀
Editor, spot on!
All these “conservative”, “liberal”, “Traditionalist” and “mainstream” labels distract from the reality (and also take us in a political direction, which is playing the Modernists’ game for them).
There are Catholics, heretics, schismatics and heathens (and atheists too I suppose we have to add nowadays) and nothing else.
I agree. These labels are a distraction.
Yes, but ALL traditional leaning Catholics and in particular Latin Mass attendees are lumped in to a media hack worn phrase (lazy and sloppy journalism) as Trads, Rad Trads, Neo Nazis, Right Wing extremists, Radicalised Catholics ( as often described in the meeja, The ULTRA orthodox, Holocaust denying right wing SSPX blah blah, who bury nazi war criminals etc)…This suits Rome as they only see THEIR brand of Catholicism as valid and we are renegades and do not think or wish to correct this misnomer.
Wrong – with respect. The media usually describe believing Catholics as “fundamentalists” or “extremists”, believe me, I know; it’s how Catholic Truth has been described for years. I find that it is generally those who are keen to speak of “Modernist Rome” and such like who love to ram home their belief that they are “trads” or “rad trads”. I find it very unattractive, totally unappealing.
In recent weeks, I’ve had the privilege of meeting with a young man who has no religious background, but is drawn to the Church. He said he did wonder about the “modernising”, didn’t like it at all, and understood right up that the modernisers were not fully believing Catholics. The two of us who met with him initially, and later in our church tearoom, ARE fully believing Catholics. That’s the simple distinction to make. No person of average intelligence should struggle with that.
As I’ve posted elsewhere, the SSPX should not even THINK of regularization until the next pontificate.
We’ve seen what has happened to Cardinal Burke et al (demotions, insults, etc). The bishops and priests of the SSPX should not expect to be treated any differently than CB.
God forbid that they (or any bishop/priest/deacon for that matter) should give the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ to public adulterers!
May the Most Holy Mother of God shield the SSPX under Her Holy Omophorion!
In Christ the King,
I agree with that summation. Also can anyone seriously believe that the SSPX can unpick this mess post Regularisation, when Rome will be picking fights daily with the Society. Can you imagine Bishop Fellay being TOLD to attend a conference to listen to Paul Ehrlich, or Emma Bonnino,TOLD to accept and implement AL by none other than their new Godfather Cappo di Tutti Cappos . Remove those altar rails and give the Holy Eucharists to known and proud to be known sinners.They will be TOLD to OBEY and as was suggested, this does not work out they can have an annulment and go back to the drawing board……and the band played on…Don’t think so. They will be drummed out, called schismatics, excommunicated and all future credibility null and void….all because of what? An Imprimatur from THIS man, saying that the SSPX is OK to EXIST.
when Pope Francis, in the Jubilee Year of Mercy,declared the SSPX a permission to validly hear confessions, he, for all intents and purposes, recognised their Catholicity. In order for priests to hear confession, men have to receive training and ordination as Catholic priests; not incomplete Catholic priests. Has this stated faculty hurt the Society in any way? If the pope decides to go even further and pronounces that the Society are recognised with a canonical regularization would this not simply be a matter of justice? The SSPX are of course, an order in the Church and have recourse to a supplied jurisdiction. They have been very unjustly treated from the beginning. Is it not time to rectify an obvious miscarriage of justice?
Unfortunately, there are many Catholic cardinals, bishops, priests and laity too timid to declare their support. They are cautious and are waiting for the day when this “Traditional” Catholic order of priests are declared canonically regularised. Don’t forget the Societies one condition is “accept us as we are”; and they mean it.
I am a little confused about waiting for the next pope. What in the world makes you think that the next pope will be any better than the current pope.. It might be Cardinal Cupich. Who knows?
I have watched an interview with Bishop Schneider regarding the SSPX and other considerations regarding the crisis in the Church. It is very interesting, and to the point. I will send a link.http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/02/new-bishop-athanasius-schneider-video.html
I think that we should remember the Society Rosary Crusades and the fact that Our Blessed Lady appears to give them what they implore Her for. We must always trust in Divine Providence.
May God bless and protect you.
Apologies – for some reason your posts are going into SPAM. I cannot see any word that might trigger that to happen, nor links since you’ve only posted one. If there are five or more links, that would send a comment into SPAM. I do check regularly and release as soon as I see genuine comments, so please accept my apologies for the delay in your most recent (and previous) comment appearing on the blog.
I will keep checking when I’m here, so be assured any comments will be released immediately I see them – if not sooner! 😀
Thank you for gracious apology. I did wonder why my comment did not appear. I thought that I had committed a cardinal sin. It can be confusing; with so many abounding cardinal sinners attacking the teaching of the Church, SPAM would appear the best place for them to go. I am happy that I have been released.
Amoris Laetita was the last straw for me.
I agree with you that AL is the last straw.
Re vote of no confidence: I have confidence in Our Lady. The only thing which stops me from voting “no confidence” is that eventually he will release the Third Secret of Fatima and order the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
In Christ the King,
I have a suspicion that the Third Secret was destroyed many years ago. Our Lady promised that in the end, the Holy Father would do the Consecration with no mention of the Bishops. Our Lady also said that a “certain” period of peace would be granted to the world. That is a further indication to me, that the Consecration as requested, will never take place.
Our Lady promised to return to Fatima a seventh time. Will Our Lady have to reveal the Third Secret herself?
Our Lady said that the Holy Father would consecrate Russia but it would be late – that he would do so as instructed, with the Bishops, is implicit.
I don’t understand your logic – from the beginning Our Lady said that once the consecration had taken place “a period of peace would be granted to the world” – that was always the case. For you to say that “it will never take place” is to suggest that Our Lady got it wrong or lied when she said it WOULD take place but “late”.
What… you CRAZY?
Pope Pius XII did Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart on July 7, 1952. The Pope did not have the Bishops of the world join him. It was late, coming 23 years after the formal request.
Our Lady promised a period of peace if the Consecration was made by the Holy Father in union with the Bishops of the world. Later on, Our Lady states that the Pope would do the Consecration, that it would be late and a “certain” period of peace would be granted as a result.
Our Lady also promised to work a miracle so that all would believe. Then the seers were kidnapped and we found out that the Miracle of the Sun would have been even greater, had the Mayor not stolen the children. All speculation aside, we can be certain that in the end, The Immaculate Heart of Mary will Triumph!
Your interpretation of the Fatima events is a first for me. The fact that Pius XII did an incomplete consecration means that God still awaits the Consecration as originally instructed. They don’t go in for changing their minds up there in Heaven! And, unless I have gotten the wrong end of the stick about world peace, I think we would have to admit that we ain’t enjoying that period of world peace yet! Not remotely.
I suggest you leave the speculation aside (as you say yourself!) and instead study the only reliable website on the subject, which is http://www.fatima.org
Fatima is thoroughly documented there; I do, of course, agree with you that, in the end, as Our Lady promised, her Immaculate Heart will triumph.
Totally agree Editor, and WHERE is the Era of peace, good grief the 50’s kicked off with the Korean War and the world has been at war ever since…PEACE, you have got to be joking !
“About 14 million people were imprisoned in the Gulag labor camps from 1929 to 1953 (the estimates for the period 1918–1929 are even more difficult to calculate).” -Wikipedia
No confidence, none at all, for all the reasons already given plus the treatment of the FFI and comments about people who attend the traditional Mass. What a disastrous pope!
I would vote “no confidence.”
Let me count the ways.
Because Pope Francis the Merciful has undermined almost every aspect of the Catholic Church: from his disparagement of the Traditional Latin Mass to his “pastoral” teaching that adulterers should be allowed to receive Holy Communion.
I also vote “no confidence” because of what I feel is coming next: “discernment” and “accompaniment” for those wishing to practice contraception and abortion. And after that? Of course an attempt to legitimize the ordination of women to the priesthood.
Our Lady of Fatima? Yes, and with regard to Satan – and probably Pope Francis as well, from all we can tell – “she shall crush thy head” (Douay-Rheims translation).
By evolved thinking (a term used by USCCB when it suits), Abortion is coming down the line, firstly by Bergoglio saying to us to stop obsessing about Abortion, secondly downgrading the gravitas of the sin to any other old mortal sin, thirdly the climate change/overpopulation (catholics breeding like rabbits) meme,rabid pro aborts are welcomed to communion (Biden/Pelosi et al) and always have been. Fourthly, he already has sanctioned abortion viz Zika virus nonsense (and that include abortifacient drugs)….notice all the hype about Zika is forgotten as the hype then was to NOT stop people going to the Olympics….it is only a matter of time, why do you think Ehrlich is a guest speaker at the Vatican and the Pontifical Academy of Life has been cleared out? So does anyone honestly think that the SSPX will get a fair crack of the whip post Prelature when the gang of 9 can easily influence Bergoglio and his successor. In the US it is known as a slam dunk.
Pope Francis is inviting people to the Vatican to speak officially, who are opposed to Catholic teaching on sexual morality, including abortion. That’s just one of many reasons why I have absolutely no confidence in this pope.
In view of the unprecedented tidal wave of confusion, heresy and sacrilege crashing over the Church because of this pontificate, I would say that the devil knows he is running out of time, and is pulling out all the stops to capture as many souls as possible before he is crushed under Our Lady’s heel.
So besides my earlier vote of “no confidence,” I would like to add that I have complete and unequivocal confidence in Our Lady to bring about the victory of her Immaculate Heart.
His manifest indifference towards the Blessed Sacrament which he displays in so many ways, is for me a very, very ominous sign indeed.
He will kneel with Protestants to pray but cannot genuflect..go figure.
What I see by their very words, deeds and omissions is that they do NOT believe in the Blessed Sacrament. honestly it is THAT simple, ergo communion to adulterers and pro aborts and so no problem with communion in the hand and get the Tabernacles moved out of sight, gets rid of that old genuflecting (irksome) caper. They do not want expression like Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, anything about Calvary etc .as it may ‘annoy’ their ecumenical cousins, eg the Moderator of the Kirk visiting a catholic cathedral for an ecumenical prayer fest.No Holy Water fonts at the door, (people,are an embarrassment, Blessing themselves in front of non-catholics) and people genuflecting and annoying priests who cannot be bothered to do the same.Any chance of non-catholics taking part in the Stations of the Cross or a Rosary (just to humour us even)…not a snowball’s chance in Hell
I see that the latest post on Rorate Caeli is “I’m tired of Francis”
I have lost confidence utterly in Francis the First. He has taken a wrecking ball to the Catholic Church. He has caused mental anguish to some of my dearest friends. The worst for me? His apparent hatred for traditional families who are “like rabbits” Yes, that did it for me. That was the turning point. His potty mouth expressions make me sick. I have many many great grand children. I feel like I felt when my own children had to go through the ‘Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal. I know he is still the Pope, but he is not even decent. I can’t wait until the Council of Cardinals proclaim that we Catholics don’t have to listen to him anymore.
I am sorry.
We’ll take that as a “no confidence” vote, then!
Seriously, you have my utmost sympathy. Francis is easily the worst ever pope in the history of the Church and his every word truly tests our Faith – when it’s not easy to remain faithful, as in this period of trial, we have to remind ourselves of St Paul’s words of triumph: “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith…”
To that end, we stay the course, by the grace of God.
Thank you, Editor. My refrain of late is “How long O Lord … how long?”
It’s a well-worn refrain on this blog!
My reason for no confidence is cumulative – it’s a bit like a huge malodorous rubbish tip. It’s been there since my first sight of him, but it keeps getting bigger and bigger with each shovelful of heterodox rubbish he piles on it as expressed in his gobbledegook streams of consciousness. The latest shocker for me was this one. How he hates all that remains good and holy in the poor ailing Church, and wants to destroy it.
P.S. Any suggestions (unless Editor objects) for a caption for the pic at the head of the above link? 😉
Here’s my caption: [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_9k&w=854&h=480%5D
RCAVictor, LOL! You win a banana. I had a few suggestions from a guest. The printable ones are:
“When I’m not pontificating I like to model cutting-edge designer headgear”
“My acolyte appears to think it’s just a trick of the light”
“He thinks I should have it surgically removed but I’m getting used to it”
“I found it under a bushel”
No objection! “Fun” is my middle name!
Yes and read this one too…we are deemed of a “certain mentality for nostalgia” and Benedict made a magnanimous gesture with Summorum Pontificum. He made an EXCEPTION…..which translates to Benedict pandered to the Rigid Group.
All I can say is we need to pray for the conversion of Pope Francis to the Catholic Faith, for the sake of his soul and the entire world of Catholic souls entrusted to him that are led astray by his heresy.
Mental when you think about it, praying for a Pope to CONVERT to Catholicism!
Seen a good cartoon the other day…the Pearly Gates….caption was “Heaven has walls and yes vetting is extremely serious!”
Cartoon – love it!
Bringing up children as good Catholics is difficult enough without the boss undermining that same Faith at every turn. He’s a disgrace and I certainly wouldn’t give him a vote of confidence!
Our Lord told us what awaits anyone scandalising His little ones and what I’d like to know is: What happens to the little ones then? Why does he allow them to be scandalised and especially by His very own vicar? How can a loving God allow His children to perish because of a bad pope?
We have a truly bad Pope because Benedict deserted his post. This is a war zone now and in the First World War, Benedict would have been court martialled, found guilty and shot at dawn for desertion and dereliction of duty. Not a correct example I know, but nonetheless we have this character with the levers of power destroying 2,000 years of our Faith and surrounding himself with like minded creatures of the night.Despicable and YET, we have Benedict to thank for this and I will NOT entertain any thoughts of poor man, he was/is unwell, too much for him blah blah. Benedict has not lifted a finger to sort out Pope Francis and never will. Pope Alexander VI was a saint compared to Francis. We now have untenured Popeships from now on. If it was not so tragic it would be funny.The damage wrought by the former head of the CDF Joseph Ratzinger is beyond our imagination now.
Helen, it is too easy to blame God. Every time you say “How can a loving God allow…..?” Jesus has already said “My grace is enough”. If you really believe in his word then you have the answer to that question. We are all called to take up our cross and God’s grace is enough to enable each of us to do just that. What he suffered is far more than what we are called to do.
I agree, but would add that in times of crisis more graces are on offer. No one perishes by accident or because of someone else, we all have free will and free access to grace.
Helen, God has given your children a good and loving mother to keep them safe, in spite of anything this terrible Pope may say or do. I am sure you will do a better job than I did, precisely because he is a terrible Pope and you are aware of it and vigilant for your little ones. In happier times it was assumed that one’s children were safe, because in their parish churches and schools they were taught the Catholic faith by faithful priests and teachers. Many parents took too much for granted and failed to see the clouds that were gathering on the eve of that Council. You won’t make so fatal a mistake.
Isn’t this a hoot?
Christina, thank you for your kind and uplifting reply. I was a bit down when I wrote that comment. Thanks also to other bloggers.
Yes – total confidence in Papa Francesco.
He is the best chance we have had in 50 years of seeing the post-conciliar modernist experiment utterly destroyed and he is setting about it with gusto. Many, many souls will be casualties of this great conflict, but that tends to pertain to the nature of divine chastisements.
Remember how Pope Francis destroyed vocations in B.A.? Over 200 men in seminary at the start of his stewardship – only 28 at the end. He is already causing vocations to drop on a worldwide basis and I am sure they will fall off a cliff soon. Doesn’t look good for nuchurch, but traditional societies will prevail.
Men will not sacrifice their lives in celibacy for a church that doesn’t believe in anything or stand for anything. Francis is delivering that church with real panache and thus we may look forward to its hastened demise.
He will be the Pope that puts paid to the ultramontanist interpretation of Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus. When he has finished his work, never again will faithful Catholics put their trust in the papacy in the same way, never again will they put the words of a mere man above the Word of God. The new papacy will be seen as being the servant of the Word of God and the servant of Sacred Tradition. Never again will the papacy be trusted to meddle with the sacred things that we have received from our Fathers in the Faith.
He will be the Pope who puts paid to Vatican II being seen as a touchstone of Catholic orthodoxy. In this regard the full regularization of the SSPX without them accepting the novelties of Vatican II is essential. Once this is done by papal mandate, then the whole Church, by virtue of papal mandate will be on notice that acceptance of Vatican II is not necessary for full Catholicity – henceforward it will be a debatable, optional, pastoral extra. It will wither and die like the nuchurch it spawned.
The Church which rises like a phoenix from the ashes of Francis’ destruction will once again be a Church which looks to God and His Law rather than man; which follows the Way of Jesus Christ rather than the way of the world; which will be a Church which understands itself as the sole repositary of the means of salvation granted to us by Christ, and which will henceforward be serious about its mission to restore all of humanity to union with Christ in order that all men may be saved and come to the full knowledge of the Truth.
So yes, Papa Francesco, this is your time and this is the work to which you have been called. You are the destroyer who has been sent in the place of a shepherd as prophesied by St. Francis. Do what you must do and do it quickly – Va hagan lio! The church must die in order that the Church will rise.
I think your assessment is what we call inverse logic, but you do have a point.
If “inverse logic” is a polite way of saying “bl@@dy-minded contrarianism”, then I think you are correct, Athanasius. 😉
“When [Pope Francis] has finished his work, never again will faithful Catholics put their trust in the papacy in the same way,”
Thank you for spelling out what I have been thinking for quite a while now. In fact, only a day or two ago I was explaining to someone that, prior to the manifestation of this crisis, we were taught that when a pope is teaching on Faith and Morals, he is infallible. That is why so many modern Catholics have been so slow to recognise the truth about the recent popes, and especially confused about the current pontiff.
Teachers and priests could get away with that sloppy teaching then, but never again. From now on, teaching has to be crystal clear about the limits of papal authority, and the key distinction made between true and false obedience, so that the same silly cult-like attitude towards a pope never again holds sway. In the past, teaching about obedience only ever allowed one (obvious) exception: “if a pope tells us to commit a crime, we don’t obey…” – again, a mere shadow of the truth about the limits of papal authority. Of course, prior to Vatican II it was unthinkable that a pope would teach contrary to Catholic Tradition and Scripture, but now, for generations to come, our experience will be used to teach correct Catholic attitudes towards the papacy, rose-coloured specs removed for the duration of the lessons!
So, if nothing else comes out of this period of disaster for the Church, accurate and sound teaching on the nature of the papal office will mean that, as you say, never again will popes, bishops and priests be treated so trustingly.
“Of course, prior to Vatican II it was unthinkable that a pope would teach contrary to Catholic Tradition and Scripture,”
I wasn’t a Catholic then, but I am sure you are right. However, that was a dangerously presumptious attitude then and it is still rife among many good Catholics now.
It has contributed no end to the papolatry which we see all around us and is just plain ignorant of Church history. Not only are there the obvious examples of Honorius I and John XXII, but there were several Popes like Liberius who failed to teach the full Catholic faith at a time of necessity, or who taught ambiguously and threw the faith into doubt. I personally believe that Pope Francis is the most destructive Pope in history – so far – but there is no guarantee that all his successors will not be worse.
There is a good reason why only a minority of popes have been canonized. It is very unusual that a majority of popes involved with the Council and its aftermath either have been or are in the process of being canonized.
Not so surprising when you realise that those of us brought up at a time when the Church was strong (I was a child when Pius XII was pope, but old enough to remember him, if only just) had no reason to study the history of the popes in a critical fashion. It took time for the reality of Vatican II to hit home.There was no reason for us to study Church history in that critical way, as lay people living and working at a time when the Church was strong, with converts lining up to be received into the Church etc. We were served by priests who offered the old Mass, preached sound sermons and we never heard of anything remotely like the scandals we are suffering today. There was no need for suspicion.
Or maybe I should speak for myself, and admit that I was just as thick as two short planks. Whatever. I know better now!
I have to take issue with you regarding papolatry, which is a wholly modern phenomenon in the Church.
There have been 266 Popes in the Church of which only a tiny number have proved problematic in terms of personal morality or orthodoxy. As regards orthodoxy, Honorius I and Liberius, though weak, were not in themselves heterodox Popes. It should be remembered that their fault was primarily vascilation in the face of error, which, in the case of Liberius caused chaos in the Eastern Church during the Arian heresy.
Of the remaining number, 81 Popes have been canonised, 10 are Blesseds and 1 is Venerable. The others, while not perhaps in the heroic virtue category, have by and large been perfectly orthodox Pontiffs who admirably defended the deposit of faith handed down. That’s how Catholics came to have such implicit trust in the Supreme Pontiff, a trust that was only exploited after Vatican II.
I should say that it was only following that Council that the Popes diverted from the Traditional authoritative teaching of their predecessors and began to put out writings that were not only much lengthier than previous documents, but also conciliatory towards the world and its errors. For this reason they were not straightforward and easy to understand, as previous Encyclicals had been for the average Catholic. Rather, they were/are convoluted, ambiguous and for the most part cryptic attempts to justify damaging post-Vatican II innovations.
That’s the one thing that stands out for me with the writings of the post-conciliar Popes, they are too lengthy in words, not clear in explanation and dubious in intention. I prefer Popes who speak the truth simply, as did Our Lord, so that all can understand. This was the way the Popes communicated right up to Vatican II, but all changed with the new orientation which has proved to be an orientation of utter Modernist confusion. Sadly, our modern Popes have gotten away with a lot on the back of the entrenched trust that Catholics were so accustomed to placing in the Successor of St. Peter. People are now beginning to re-evaluate that trust in light of the openly destructive and heterodox reign of Pope Francis.
In the context of Deacon Augustine’s post, which arouses some long-experienced gut feelings I try hard to suppress as temptations, what do bloggers think of this?
Tree hugging is one of the oldest Pagan religions:
Ruth Tongue writes that in 1945 her chauffeur refused to drive past a grove that had been felled in the Second World War. A local story also told of Carming family that came to grief because of disregarding the power of Oak: Carmer and his oldest son were greedy and cut down oaks in a nearby coppice, although they had plenty of wood of their own. The story continues:
‘Trees didn’t say nothing – which was bad. If they do talk a bit you do get a warning, but if they’m dead still there’s summat bad a-brewing. And zo t’was. Be danged if gurt oak didn ‘t drop a limb on can and timber and farmer and eldest son. Killed they two stark dead outright, but when the youngest came to rescue the dead the tree rustled fit to deafen he. ‘
The youngest son was spared because he was always respectful to trees, being sure to ask the ‘great oak by the gate’ if he might go past when he entered the forest, and after he inherited the farm, ‘trees never followed ‘n nor closed about ‘n, nor let drop branches.’ – Ruth L. Tongue Somerset Folklore London The Folk-lore Society 1965.
OOer! I’ve had some of my trees pruned – must go out and apologise toot sweet – I won’t get close enough to hug them and will wait until the wind drops – don’t want to give their pals next door any excuse to teach me a lesson…
Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but I’ve just come across a detailed analysis of the Divine Mercy devotion on the TIA website: http://traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f072_DivMercy.htm
Apparently the writer, Msgr. Perez, attributes the bulk of his article to Fr. Peter Scott, SSPX, in his 2010 Angelus article.
In view of Pope Francis’ unrepentant and constant abuse of “mercy,” I thought this passage was especially relevant:
“Now [comparing the traditional image of The Sacred Heart of Jesus with the Divine Mercy], consider the image of Our Lord representing the Divine Mercy. It is an imitation of the Sacred Heart without the heart. When you pay attention, you notice that in the image there is no heart. There are simply rays coming out of a point above His waist. This symbolizes the error of the Divine Mercy devotion. It preaches that we can expect an unconditional mercy with no price to be paid whatsoever, with no obligations whatsoever. This is not the message of Christ.”
and: “Unfortunately, this corresponds very much with what Pope John Paul II wrote in the Encyclical Dives in misericordia.”
In other words, as bloggers here have pointed out numerous times, the road to Francis has been well-paved by the erroneous acts of his Conciliar predecessors.
In addition to the image, there were problems with Sister Faustina’s Diary:
By Fr. Joseph Roesch, MIC (Jul 5, 2005)
St. Faustina had less than three winters of education. She wrote her Diary at the request of her confessor but it contained a number of grammatical errors. During her lifetime, she kept the notebooks of the Diary in her own possession. After her death, the Mother Superior asked one of the sisters to rewrite the Diary. In rewriting St. Faustina’s hand-written Diary, this sister chose to add or delete certain little words and made grammatical changes. She also accidentally left out some words, sentences, and even entire pages. Then an Italian translation was made of this inaccurate copy of the Diary. This was part of the reason why the Revelations to St. Faustina were banned for a time. – http://www.thedivinemercy.org
But Sr Faustina said some very questionable things in her diary, such as praising herself (quoting Our Lord praising her) saying she was the most perfect human being who ever lived, or something like that, which would place her above Our Lady!
I’m not drawn to that devotion at all. There’s something now right about it, IMHO.
Yes, the Divine Mercy devotion promoted first by Pope John Paul II is dubious to say the least. The Traditional Sacred Heart devotion (and image) is what all Catholics should stick with until the Church returns to health under a trulyorthodox Pope.
Yes, Sr. Faustina’s lack of education was definitely not the problem, and quite beside the point. Sr. Lucy’s education, or lack thereof, by contrast, was certainly never an issue…
I am adding my “no confidence” in Francis belatedly! (I don’t think I did so before).
Look at this latest news, from the zany world of Pope Francis:
He recently gave a 45 minute speech at a University in Rome, and managed to completely avoid using any of the following words:
God, Jesus, Church, faith, Christianity.
Instead he rambled on about immigration, youth unemployment, suicide, multiculturalism and dialogue.
Amazing, eh? Its almost funny, in a perverse way.
However, Edward Pentin reports that the Vatican then published a completely different speech, (the speech he was meant to deliver), claiming this is what he said:
Edward Pentin@EdwardPentin 12h12 hours ago
Edward Pentin Retweeted Edward Pentin
Vatican has only published #Pope’s prepared remarks, not speech he gave that made no mention of Christ, Jesus etc.
It has long been realistic to query where Francis actually holds the Catholic faith, but incidents like this could give rise to wonder if he is not completely faithless.
I wonder if the Vatican publishing a different speech is an example of the Curia trying to “cover the nakedness” of Pope Francis, like (drunken) Noah’s sons in Genesis.
“…immigration, youth unemployment, suicide, multiculturalism and dialogue…” – that is, the stock-in-trade of the Marxists who operate the satanic United Nations. I’m surprised he left out “climate change”!!
I don’t know how anyone with beliefs such as Francis holds can consider himself a Catholic, but apparently he does – and not only that, a Catholic greatly improved over the traditional, orthodox version! An improvement which includes, btw, not genuflecting before the Blessed Sacrament. He probably thinks such an action would be “divisive” and harmful to “dialogue” with other “religions” – which is what he said at first, apparently, to the faithful in Sweden who requested he say a Mass with them while he was there.
It beggars belief, it really does. As you say, it would be hilarious if it were not so tragic.
Is Cardinal Muller leaving us?
Pope Francis has been lampooned as “Communist Pope” at a major Italian Carnival, with an attendance of some 300,000. There was a large figure of Pope Francis atop a float:
The Catholic Church’s chief was portrayed with a radiant face, Che Guevara cap and red star. His shepherd’s staff in his right hand was not decorated by a cross, but by hammer and sickle……The left hand was clenched to the fist, the battle salute of the workers’ movement, which is still practiced by left-wing groups. The pope was surrounded by putti-like gold figures depicting Marx, Lenin, Mao and Fidel Castro.
Rorate are now covering this too. They are calling Francis “Che GuePapa”.
The Divine Mercy thingy … it is Polish patriotism in sacred form and not much else in my opinion: the rays coming out of Our Lord are the two colours of the Polish flag. Very useful to JP II therefore in the effort to support Solidarity against the Communists. That’s what it’s all about.
I think the most striking thing for me was the description I read of the divine mercy image being an image of Our Lord without His Sacred Heart, as in the Traditonal devotion. That’s highly suspect.
I hadn’t thought of that before; thanks for pointing it out Athanasius.
At it again!
Thank you for that – I look forward to reading it asap.
According to the Times of London, not even the Cardinals who previously supported Francis have confidence in him anymore.
One Peter Five covers the news here (The Times has a paywall):
Apparrenty EWTN-UK covered this Times report at first, but have since “bottled it” and removed mention of it from their website.
Its is claimed some Cardinals want Cardinal Parolin in place of Francis.
I don’t know what truth is in any of this, but at the very least its another embarrassing news report highlighting the chaotic and divided state of the Church under Francis.
From The Times:
A large part of the cardinals who voted for him is very worried and the curia . . . that organised his election and has accompanied him thus far, without ever disassociating itself from him, is cultivating the idea of a moral suasion to convince him to retire.
It was the latter faction who now believed that the Pope should resign and who would like to replace him with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican secretary of state, Mr Socci said. He believed that the group numbered around a dozen, but the importance of the members counts more than their number. Four years after Benedict XVI’s renunciation and Bergoglio’s arrival on the scene, the situation of the Catholic church has become explosive, perhaps really on the edge of a schism, which could be even more disastrous than Luther’s [who is today being rehabilitated by the Bergoglio church].
The cardinals are worried that the church could be shattered as an institution. There are many indirect ways in which the pressure might be exerted.
Interesting how even a secular newspaper refers to “Benedict XVI” in contrast to “Bergoglio”.
“I don’t know what truth is in any of this…”
Well you know what they say, that “there’s no smoke without fire”. I’ve heard various rumours recently suggesting a curial coup against Pope Francis. I suppose if the story is true then they will be trying to encourage the Pope to step aside gracefully. I don’t know about Cardinal Parolin as a replacement, though. Cardinal Burke might be the refreshing choice the Church needs right now.
I’ve noticed that Christopher Ferrara is now writing columns for “Fatima Perspectives” on an almost daily basis. He has written two in a row about the “conversion” of the papal cover-up apologists like Dr. Mirus and Phil Lawler to the realization that Pope Francis would be more aptly named Pope Judas.
I think there will be a secondary result of this withdrawal of mainstream lay support for Francis. Namely, the apostate bishops have been using all these phony apologetics for years to shore up their subversive opinions and maintain the Great Facade (esp. their power and influence) among the faithful.
Now, however, there are very few of these papolotrist apologists (Editor, try saying that 10 times quickly!!) left, as most of them are waking up. This will leave those derelict bishops closer to being unmasked for what they are. One fig leaf at a time is being removed, and pretty soon the emperor will have no clothes…
Pretty soon a fair number of the emperors men will also find themselves without any kit and the naked truth will be visible to all, except of course to the denuded liberals. Did I say denuded? I meant deluded!
Phil Lawler, news editor at catholicculture.org, has panned Francis’ pontificate in a new article called “This disastrous Papacy”:
For over 20 years now, writing daily about the news from the Vatican, I have tried to be honest in my assessment of papal statements and gestures. I sometimes criticized St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, when I thought that their actions were imprudent. But never did it cross my mind that either of those Popes posed any danger to the integrity of the Catholic faith. Looking back much further across Church history, I realize that there have been bad Popes: men whose personal actions were motivated by greed and jealousy and lust for power and just plain lust. But has there ever before been a Roman Pontiff who showed such disdain for what the Church has always taught and believed and practiced—on such bedrock issues as the nature of marriage and of the Eucharist?
Pope Francis has sparked controversy from the day he was elected as St. Peter’s successor. But in the past several months the controversy has become so intense, confusion among the faithful so widespread, administration at the Vatican so arbitrary—and the Pope’s diatribes against his (real or imagined) foes so manic—that today the universal Church is rushing toward a crisis.
It is encouraging to see further spread of open contempt for this pontificate, but I had to laugh at the end remark in the section I quoted.
The Church is only today rushing towards a crisis? Err, maybe lets review what has been happening over the last 50-odd years……
Some of the comments in response to the article are typical of the pollyanna approach of the novus ordo crowd, but fortunately 1 or 2 do make the point that Francis is only bringing into the open what has been festering for decades now.
I have just read the above quote on the blog Rorate Caeli. Indeed there is an increasing groundswell building of those who want rid of this Pope. I am one of them. Indeed my opinion of Pope Francis has not changed since I first summed him up as being a disaster, right from his first few weeks in office.
I saw that report earlier and laughed, literally, out loud when I read this:
“… today the universal Church is rushing toward a crisis.”
Breaking news – NOT! the Church has been IN crisis since the Vatican II revolution began.
And don’t let’s forget that for years now, Phil Lawler and Catholic Culture were leading papolatrists, refusing to recognise the crisis, so forgive me if I’m not about to fall over myself to praise their “insight” into what has been blankety blank obvious for years now – even the modernist Pope John Paul II used the word “crisis” in paragraph 5 of Veritatis Splendor years ago, so it’s not exactly breaking news that the Church is in crisis…And one of the reasons that this crisis has developed and spread so far and wide and so quickly, is because of all those publications, websites and blogs like Catholic Culture (a leader in the field) which effectively covered up, played down, or suppressed the truth from their readers for years now.
Yes, it’s good that they are now wide awake and speaking out, but it’s a case of better late than never and thank the Lord for small mercies – hardly knights in shining armour to the rescue. If only!
There is more on Pope Francis ‘Disastrous Papacy’ in Christopher Ferrara’s article in the Remnant Newspaper, dated yesterday.
I have complete confidence in the Pope. For several reasons; but when I draughted a post explaining why, it became too long. Every objection to the Papacy in general, or to this Pope in particular, makes me all the more convinced of the need for complete and sincere submission to the authority of our Holy Father Pope Francis, and of whole-hearted, ready and loving obedience to his will. Precisely because there is ample temptation to object to him, ISTM that it is our duty and our joy to go the other way, and to insist, even against ourselves, on his legitimacy, his authority, and his right to our love, our veneration, our respect, our prayers, and our obedience to him, in thought, and word, and act.
There will always be ‘reasons’ to reject the Papacy or the reigning Pope; but then, there are always ‘reasons’ to reject God. If we know that there can never be sufficient reason to reject God, how can we imagine that there can ever be sufficient reason to reject Christ’s Vicar ? Whoever said, ‘The Pope is our only link to Christ’, was on to something.
Your fidelity to the Pope is admirable, if misguided. The Pope, as the successor of St. Peter, has a duty to uphold and defend the Faith handed down. No Pope is at liberty to place his own interpretation on the Faith and set about confusing truth with error. Popes have personally erred in the past, most notably Liberius and Honorius I, the latter being posthumously condemned and excommunicated by his successors. It is also true that Pope John XXII personally held to a heretical proposition right up to before his death, at which time he recanted.
So while you are right to say that we should maintain respect for the Supreme Pontiff and pray for him, you are absolutely at odds with the teaching the Doctors of the Church in the matter of blind obedience to the person of any particular Pope.
We are obliged to resist a Pope who offends against the Traditional teaching handed down and to frustrate his will whenever he attempts to introduce dangerous novelty into the Church. Fidelity to the Pope is not absolute; he must first display fidelity to God and the Faith handed down. Let us not forget that the highest authority is God, not the Pope, who is His Vicar on earth. So if the Pope contradicts the faith or places morals in danger by his departure from Traditional (infallible) teaching, it is not only our right but our duty before God to respectfully resist his errors publicly, lest by obeying men we disobey God. I hope this clarifies matters for you.
Your mistaken belief that Catholics are bound to blind obedience to the Pope is, I think, further corrected by the following extract from an article I wrote on the subject a few years ago. Here are the relevant passages:
“How far this mistaken belief is from the teaching of the Church, however, is exemplified by St. Paul in Galatians II: 11-13, who recounts how he “withstood Peter to his face because he was to be blamed.”
Commenting on this Scripture passage, 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.
In his Encyclical Letter Pastor Aeternus, Pope Pius IX gives a certain rule by which the faithful may gauge the fidelity of Popes to the primary duty of their sacred office. He writes: “The Holy Spirit has not been promised to the successors of Peter to permit them to proclaim new doctrine according to His revelations, but to keep strictly and to expound faithfully, with His help, the revelations transmitted by the Apostles, in other words the Deposit of Faith.”
I’ve been thinking about the parallels between Our Lord’s Passion and Death, and what has been repeatedly described as the Passion of the Church, which we are now undergoing, though the Church’s Passion is obviously unfolding on a much slower and broader time scale (one week vs. 50+ years). This is really speculation, but:
1. Palm Sunday = Vatican II. The Church enters the world in triumph (only to be reviled, condemned and taken down by her enemies).
2. The Last Supper = The founding of the SSPX in 1970?
3. The betrayal of Judas = Currently and at its most overt, Pope Francis delivering the Church into the hands of the satanic UN and its agenda. The betrayal actually began before Vatican II, with the shelving of the Third Secret and then the behind-the-scenes collusion of John XXIII with the progressivist Cardinals, who subsequently hijacked the Council and replaced the draft schema.
4. The Agony in the Garden = the “buyer’s remorse” allegedly experienced by many Cardinals who voted for Francis, and the “dubia Cardinals.”
5. The condemnation of Jesus by Caiaphas = Francis’ condemnation of doctrine and exp. of those who are faithful to it. We faithful Catholics have blasphemed!!
6. Sentencing by Pilate – ?
7. Crucifixion and Death – ?
It seems we have a ways to go….
One more comparison to Our Lord’s Passion, based on this famous verse from Isaiah:
He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth.
I thought of this passage after reading Volume II, Chapter 2 of Atila Guimaraes’ 11-volume set Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani? – called Animus Injuriandi I. This chapter spells out, with numerous quotes and footnotes, how the Conciliar Popes and the theologians of “La Nouvelle Theologie” (i.e. the progressive peritii at the Council) have offended and insulted the Church Militant at and since Vatican II, and rendered her THE CHURCH MUTE AGAINST HER ENEMIES, both within and without.
(I would highly recommend this set to all the bloggers – Vol. II is every bit as excellent, and damning, as Vol. I. Only 9 2/3 volumes to go!)
Comments are closed.