Real Presence: What Does Pope Francis Believe About The Blessed Sacrament?editor
(Milan) In the context of his visit to Milan today and the meeting with the clergy of the Archdiocese in the Cathedral of Milan, Pope Franziskus spent some time before the Blessed Sacrament. “He does not kneel, but sits down on a beautiful chair surrounded by other prelates who stand …”
Thus, Antonio Socci criticized the scene, which provoked criticism from different sides. The traditional page Messa in latino added some comments. Its author criticized Francis’ attitude before the Blessed Sacrament, as had not yet been voiced by him in the four years of this pontificate. “The Pope did not visit the Blessed Sacrament on the main altar (which would have been a good and proper opportunity to provide visibility to the worthy worship of God, the climax of the liturgy and the cult), but in the crypt, almost as if it were a private act that is made in secret and in a hurry.
A prie dieu was not even provided. That is, the master of ceremonies of the cathedral had instructions not to set him one up at all. The pope does not want to use the prie dieu and apparently does not even have one on hand. Francis did not even remove the white pileolus on his head before the Blessed Sacrament. It was once named Soli Deo because it is only removed for God in the Sacrament. Expression and body language, the folded hands, indicate that the pope is not taking a prayerful disposition before the Lord in prayer and worship, but just as if he were in a program and had to make an intermediate stop in the crypt which had annoyed him. The look seems apathetic as if he did not see God in the Most Blessed Sacrament.
Pope Francis does not seem to have the intention of wishing to foster acts of worshiping God, as they are only due to God. He does not kneel down, as is known (he suffers, it is said, but not officially). But he sits instead of not taking the pileolus off and not to fold his hands? No, I believe he does not believe in the real presence! On Holy Thursday we will see it. It is pointless: I am told that I must love and respect this pope. I just do not succeed in loving him. It is hard for me to respect him. He is Pope by right, but he does not sanctify and teach it in his office. Visit Eponymous Flower to read entire article
Apart from comments relating the Eucharist to “community” (Pope Francis said: “The Eucharist is the sacrament of the communion that takes us out of our individualism so that together we live our discipleship, our faith in him.”) I’ve not been able to find any quotes to reassure me that Pope Francis holds to Catholic dogma on the Real Presence in its entirety. His behaviour in the presence of Our Lord, including his focus on the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday each year since his election, with no mention that I can recall of the institution of the Mass and the Priesthood – traditional sermon topics for that day – have caused me to question whether or not he really does hold to belief in the Blessed Sacrament. What about you?
I just watched a video wherein Cardinal Bergoglio celebrated Mass. He made an attempt to kneel after he elevated the Host and it did appear that he had difficulty in doing so. The flip side of the scene was the ‘Tango’ which followed the Mass. It was performed in the sanctuary directly after Mass with Cardinal and Priests sitting to watch. Let us say … there was no modesty whatsoever in the dance.
Some people clapped but quite a few sat with folded hands, appearing stunned, after the ‘dance’ was done!
Unbelievable! Hard to swallow indeed! His position in the above story gives such scandalous behaviour ! As did the Tango.
We are all victims of Modernistic Astheistic thinking constantly foisted upon our minds from Rome in a stream of “pernicious poison” (old papal expression) It is a grace indeed to be able to ‘see’ … and even to talk about it. Dear Lady of the Miraculous Medal please shed the graces upon us which nobody asks for, as you promised to those who wear your medal. O Mary conceieved without sin pray for us who have recourse to Thee!
Early in this pontificate a story was posed on the internet about a woman from Argentina who approached the Pope with a problem. She said her pastor told her she couldn’t receive Holy Communion because she is divorced and remarried. The Pope told he, “Go ahead and receive. What’s the harm in a piece of bread and a little wine?”
That tells me all I need to know about whether this Pope believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
As to his kneeling before the Sacrament, he has no trouble kneeling to wash the feet of women and Muslims on Holy Thursday.
” …he has no trouble kneeling to wash the feet of women and Muslims on Holy Thursday.”
Nor had he any problem kneeling to receive a “blessing” from a Protestant minister – widely reported at the time, soon after his election.
All very sad and troubling.
He is an enemy of Catholics.
He is on the record as saying transubstantiation is just a theory. I won’t even try to find a link for readers. How do you find a tall tree in a forest of thousands of tall trees?
I saw a headline yesterday in the Scottish Catholic Observer which said:” Pope says priests should hear Confessions every day” or words to that effect. Now if he means that, surely he must have some belief in the Real Presence?
I’m afraid that doesn’t scan, Helen. Pope Francis says a lot of things and most contradict something he said previously. He has no belief in the Real Presence nor in the Gospels. He is a disaster for the Catholic Church.
I’m guessing his attitude and posture (or lack thereof) before the Blessed Sacrament are a sign that his mind has been so poisoned by ecumenism that he thinks it is harmful to “unity” to comport himself as a Catholic – let alone as a Pope. That is, I think he is a tool of the “let’s replace the Catholic Faith with a pseudo-religion that fits nicely into the One World Religion” group-think.
For example, I recall his scandalous trip to Sweden last year, when he was extremely reluctant to celebrate Mass for the Swedish faithful because it would have been “divisive.” Yes, Pope Francis, the Catholic Faith is indeed divisive for the school of darkness whose agenda you obey.
I also consider the banal nature of his daily “tweets,” which never make reference to the Catholic Church, and which could be uttered by any Protestant.
As for whether he believes in the Real Presence, I couldn’t say, but the pattern of his words and actions certainly don’t indicate any such belief. He is so deluded that he may have actually convinced himself that “unity” is more important than the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord.
Perhaps the key is that Pope Francis is an actor, someone who is perpetually on stage and obviously addicted to the limelight – and as such, he has determined that his public actions must display an ecumenical orientation, not a Catholic one. From that perspective, I thought it was revealing that he made his pseudo-visit in the crypt.
While it is terrible that a pope would be so wedded to ecumenism to try to play down a major doctrine like the Real Presence, doesn’t that make him guilty of weakness of character and even weakness of faith, but not necessary meaning that he doesn’t believe in the Real Presence?
That is indeed what I suspect, but I can’t prove either side of the argument, despite, as I said above, the lack of indicators regarding this belief. In fact, if the Church ever gets down to trying this Pope for the crime of heresy, I hope that is one of the questions he is asked! Even Father LaRocque suggested a test of Faith, in that recent Remnant article of his about regularization, which was otherwise full of red herrings.
It is quite incredible that we find ourselves in a situation where such questions regarding the fidelity of a pope to basic Catholic doctrine are being asked. Yet, they are serious questions. If Pope Francis does not believe in Transubstantiation then he has clearly lost the faith. How can we be sure that he does or does not believe in the the Divine Presence of the Blessed Sacrament? There are indicators for certain that may help us to understand his beliefs . He does not appear to kneel before the tabernacle; but he does kneel in public in other circumstances. His encyclical, Amoris Leatitia,has created enormous confusion and undermines the Church’s teaching with regards to the Sacrament of Marriage and the necessity for confession and an amendment of life, prior to receiving the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, if one is in a state of mortal sin due to an irregular “marital” relationship. He is understandably accused of attacking Traditional Catholic practices and suppressing Traditional Catholic religious orders. But in contrast, he has an affinity towards Lutherans and non Catholic Christian groups including, secular celebrities that historically favour a hostile mentality towards Catholic teaching against contraception and abortion. Pope Francis serves the impression that, under the guise of mercy, he cares primarily about social issues and secular agendas, such as climate change. In so many respects he does not appear to be very Catholic; unless it suits him at a particular time. All in all, this is a very distressing situation for faithful Catholics to find ourselves in. The only solution that I can see as meaningful is a continuation of Church militant by the laity. Holy Mass (Traditional) and the constant recitation of the rosary.
Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.
What would Pope Francis say about this sermon – “From Luther to Bugnini”, on Laetare Sunday.
As has already been said, Pope Francis was reluctant when in Sweden to celebrate Mass for Catholics last year.
Pope Francis is a Protestant. I’m not being funny or flippant. I mean what I say. The man is a Protestant, not a Catholic. His allegiance is to Martin Luther and his lies, his heresies and his corrupt Lutheran progeny. He must be removed from the Chair of Blessed Peter.
Well you just leave that to God. It’s not for you or for me to remove anyone from the Chair of Peter.
And if you’ve not checked out our House Rules, please do so because we do not call the Pope by any other name than one of his allotted titles. Please read the House Rules to avoid giving me extra work by having to edit your comments. Please and thank you!
“we do not call the Pope by any other name that one of his allotted titles.”
I called him ‘Pope Francis.’ I didn’t say you and/or I should remove him. I said he should be removed. Do you not agree?
As to saying he’s a Protestant, I base that on the evidence. What did I do wrong?
You called him “King Francis of Argentina”. As well you know – is that your clever way of getting that strange title out there, anyway? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. 😀
As for my opinion on whether or not Pope Francis should be removed from office – what difference does it make? I can have all the opinions in the world, but it doesn’t change the fact that I have no authority to remove him and so why waste my time talking about it?
What is NOT a waste of time is to correct his errors, for the benefit of our brothers and sisters in Christ who may be misled by his contradictory and sometimes downright crazy statements not to mention his entirely UN-Catholic behaviour, including in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.
Leave the rest to the powers-that-be – and, of course, our good God, who may well turn out to have a big “surprise” for Papa Francis sooner rather than later. Indeed, the God of Surprises may turn out to be the God of Shocks, and that soon enough!
So, rest easy and leave that side of things to Our Lord.
You know it makes sense 😀
Marvelous post, Madam Editor. May I repost it on another blog? (Obviously, giving you and CTS full credit. 😊) I need some verbal support against a SV.
I took the article from Eponymous Flower, but of course, feel free to re-post – readers will see the link to the source.
I remember calling the Pope what you said I called him, but I don’t find it on this thread. Was it on this site in another thread?
Obviously your message was more charitable than mine and more reasoned. I agree with it and will try to do better.
Doesn’t “downright crazy statements” make one crazy? Just asking. 🙂
I can’t remember which thread, but I removed “King…” and replaced it with “Pope…”
Yes, of course Pope Francis makes us all crazy! However, nothing is to be gained from name-calling him. We ought to pray very hard from him and robustly resist his errors. It’s actually more powerful, minus the “name-calling”. Honestly. Something is lost with “Pope Bergoglio” or “King Francis” – and what is lost is – in fact, perversely – the impact of the seriousness of whatever he has said, because the reason his “crazy” statements ARE so serious, is because he is, in fact, Pope Francis the First (and, we sincerely hope, the Last!)
Not sure if you’ll get my drift, but I must thank you, anyway, for your humble determination to “do better” – you are a STAR, Winslow! The more usual response to my attempts to keep order on this blog is the cry: “I bid you all farewell” and/or “I won’t have anyone editing MY posts, so I won’t be back” and then the bang! wallop! of toys being thrown out of the pram. You are, therefore, a breath of fresh air! Thank you for your co-operation.
A star. Hmmm… There goes my reputation.
Whereabouts did John R call the Pope “the King of Argentina”? I can’t find it anywhere and it sounds such an interesting comment.
I’ve just explained that I can’t recall which thread, in my post above, replying to Winslow. It was Winslow, not John R, who made the “King of Argentina” remark. He has very humbly acknowledged that this is not quite appropriate, so all’s well that ends well.
I have come to the opinion that the present Papacy is a trial of us and our Faith. The Pope himself has said that he may go down in history as the divisive Pope.
When Catholics faced persecution the persecutors sorted us out. But now it is far more subtle. Now we have a Pope who treats divorce as if it is no problem, He lets it be known (not by words from his own mouth) that a couple who are in an “irregular” union may receive Holy Communion “if they feel at peace with God”. Sacrilege! What’s that?! I have read that he would have liked to re-instate the divorce that was permitted by Moses. Unfortunately Jesus actually spoke about that very problem and so Pope Francis did not dare since it would be very hard to explain how it would be possible for him to reverse the very explicit teaching of Jesus. Hence we now have Amoris Laetitiae!
Because of this division within the Church there now are those who begin to question whether Jesus meant what he said that he would be with his Church until the end of time!!
Where is Jesus now?
Did he really say that he would be with his Church until the end of time? Maybe the Church has got that wrong!!! What else has the Church got wrong?! Can you not see it folks?
We are being tested in a way far more subtle than when we faced open persecution! Our Faith is being tested.
That is why we have the Pope that we now have. God is using this situation to test us all.
Dear fellow Catholics, please see that we are undergoing a very real trial. Right now!
You pose some questions in your post.
Yes, Christ really did say He would be with His Church until the end of time, so no,the Church has not got that wrong.
Yes, we can see that we are being tested – although I wouldn’t describe it as “subtle” by any means. There may be those who begin to question “whether Jesus meant what He said…” I’m not one of them. Are you?
Forgive me, I don’t mean this to sound judgemental at all, but I was taught not to use the name of Jesus lightly – it being such a sacred name for which every knee should bend on hearing it – and your use of it is very modernistic. That probably sounds very old-fashioned, and perhaps it’s just me, but it does offend me as it sounds very Protestant, and I hear it used so often, unnecessarily. I hope you can understand my feelings.
We here all know that the Church is undergoing a very real trial. Many of us have known that for a long time.
What is the point of your questions?
Well said – thank you for clarifying some key points for John R.
PS For your interest, the ticket orders for the Conference are flowing in again (after a quiet spell early in March) and among the orders today is one from a couple in your neck of the woods. We’ll make sure you meet on the day.
You haven’t understood his post at all. Perhaps you should read it again.
That’s because there was a certain ambiguity in John R’s post – it is wise to always spell out meaning to avoid confusion. We know now that John R didn’t mean that HE wondered if Christ had failed in His promise etc. but that such doubts might afflict others.His “Consider this”… followed by his list, did not make that clear.
You have my full name now. I used to post as JohnR. I have a new computer so I was not recognised.
Editor: I have changed your name as it appears on the blog. You can do that on a more permanent basis next time you log in, and before you post a comment, by going to “My Profile” in your dashboard and scrolling to where it says “Display name publicly as” and remove your surname to put “R” instead. Then click “update” and that’s you got your username back.
Thank you Benedict. You clearly have understood my post.
The whole point of my post is to explain why God has permitted the election of the Pope which we now have. I am trying to show why we now have this division within the Church and that the Church is really still the One, True Church instituted by Jesus himself.
Thank you for your clarification. At first reading, it might seem that you are expressing doubts about the matters you raise, so it is clearer now that you were not meaning to cause doubts but to underline the nature of the crisis.
I thought that my rhetorical questions might be understood as being what they are i.e. not a question which I was asking but a question which others are now being driven to ask, as a result of the division which our dear Pope has now caused .
Thank you for the clarification of your post, John R. I thought it was blindingly obvious (for those with eyes and ears) why we have this division within the Church, but it seems it’s not to everyone, if others are asking such questions.
It sure is “blindingly obvious” that this pope is a real trial – Therese got that right!
The big question is, when does the trial end?
Everything he’s said and done so far has been horrendous, but the very idea that he may not even believe in the Real Presence is a shocker too far.
Is there any other explanation for his un-Catholic behaviour in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament? Could it be something “Latin American”? I’ve heard, for example, that the Latins don’t think anything of missing Sunday Mass but would go crazy if anyone suggested they were not good Catholics. Maybe it’s a “national” thing?
As I said previously, the Pope is a de facto Protestant. His friendship with Protestants in Argentina who he placed on an equal standing with him and other Catholic bishops, his trip to Sweden to worship with Protestants, his calling a Protestant priestess ‘my esteemed sister,” his kneeling to take a ‘blessing’ from a Protestant minister, his praise of all religions except the Catholic Church and, above all, his failure to preach the primacy of the Catholic Church as the true faith of Jesus Christ make it clear to me he is a Protestant. He’s definitely not a Catholic.
It’s very hard to take issue with anything you’ve written. It does seem that Pope Francis has more the Protestant spirit than the Catholic one. God help us!
This is good news, but will likely just be arrogantly ignored as with everything else:
Rome Conference of Laity to Call for Clarity on ‘Amoris Laetitia’
Speakers from 5 continents will address the “urgent need” for clarity on the apostolic exhortation’s controversial chapter.
And, hot on the heels of his supposed orthodox account to the Bishops of Chile, its now reported that Francis has had one of his lackeys write to thank the Bishops of Malta for their guidelines implementing his heresy.
Indeed, Gabriel Syme, and here it is:
Comments are closed.