Catholic Crisis: Who Shoulders Most Blame – Pope Paul VI Or Pope Francis?
February 9, 2018 Il Giornale Interview with Father Fausto Buzzi, SSPX (pictured) – Taken from Catholic Family News…
Tradition represents the only possible future for the Church. Fr. Fausto Buzzi has clear ideas. A priest of the Society of Saint Pius X, founded by Marcel François Lefebvre on November 1, 1970, following the Second Vatican Council, Buzzi is today the assistant to the superior of Italy.
He fought for several years, in the Association Alleanza Cattolica (Catholic Alliance). Then, in 1972, came the meeting with Archbishop Lefebvre and his entrance into the seminary at Ecône. In this exclusive interview, the priest of the Society of Saint Pius X spoke about the doctrinal reunification with the Vatican.
What is still dividing the Society of Saint Pius X from the Catholic Church?
It’s good to clarify that the Society of Saint Pius X doesn’t have anything that separates it from the Catholic Church. We are united to the Catholic Church, and we’ve never been separated from her, despite the divisions with the authorities of the Church. Now, these divisions do not come from us. Archbishop Lefebvre always said that they condemned him, he who was the first to be praised by the Popes, especially Pius XII. It is Rome that changed, and with the Second Vatican Council distanced herself from the centuries-old Tradition of the Church. To be succinct, one can say that what separates us from Rome are grave and fundamental doctrinal problems.
A Catholic parish priest once told me: “They talked a lot about schism, but they never had the theological caliber of Archbishop Lefebvre.” Is that so?
Many criticize or condemn the Society of St. Pius X without knowing it, and without understanding the grave reasons for which place it in hostility with the ecclesiastical authorities. Today many people, priests and lay persons, are starting to ask themselves what is taking place in the Church, and are opening their eyes to the fact that those who have been labeled for many years as schismatics, are perhaps those who have remained the most faithful to the Catholic Church, and paradoxically, the most faithful to the Papacy. In our seminaries, Archbishop Lefebvre wanted us to study the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the other classical theology texts. I assure you, that it was a great grace for us to receive such a profound and solid formation.
What is your opinion on Pope Francis?
For us, Pope Francis isn’t any better or worse than the other Popes of the [Second Vatican] Council and the post-Conciliar era. He works “on the same building site” begun by John XXIII, that of the auto demolition of the Catholic Church, to construct another that conforms to the liberal spirit of the world. Actually, I’ll say something further: the current Pope is not as responsible as was Paul VI. This Pope saw the Council through, he finished it, he made all of the reforms. Now, all of this is the cause of the gravest crisis which we see in the Church. Certainly, these actions and words of Pope Francis seem graver than those of his predecessors. But that’s not the case. Today, it’s the media effect that makes things much more evident, than was previously the case. In substance, however, the actions of Paul VI were much graver than those of Francis.
But Bergoglio seems to have taken more steps forward, in your (the SSPX’s) regard…
Certainly he has not taken doctrinal steps forward, in our regard. Rather he considers us as an institution of the “periphery.” As such, we are the recipient of certain kindnesses on his part. When he was a cardinal in Buenos Aires, one of our priests brought him the life of our Founder to read. He read it, and was left with a serious impression; perhaps this, too, contributed to him having special consideration for us. Many ask themselves, however, why he wasn’t so kind to the Franciscans of the Immaculate who had been decidedly embracing Catholic Tradition. Instead, he treated them harshly, with extreme severity, to the detriment of mercy.
Many consider you “extremists” of the Faith…
Look, Faith is a theological virtue, it’s a theological virtue that can grow infinitely, because the object is God Himself, so there’s no limit to faith. In this sense, being extremists would be something virtuous. That said, I can quote the words of Our Lord when He said, for example, “He that is not with Me, is against Me” or the words of St. Peter: “there is no other Name under Heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” Tell me if these aren’t “extremist” words. If we then consider the Martyrs who died rather than betray their Faith, how do we judge them? As extremists? It seems to me than the sense of the Faith is being lost.
What do you think of the doctrinal debate surrounding Amoris Laetitia?
You’re causing me to repeat myself, with this question. If on one hand, all the initiatives to correct this document and to defend the Christian family (indissoluble and sanctified by a sacrament) have been praiseworthy, the true problem is upstream. Do you know where the root of Amoris Laetitia lie? We find them in the Council document Gaudium et Spes. Therefore, as I said the terrible crisis in the Church is traced back to her DNA, that is, Vatican II. Think about it: if, instead of Gaudium et Spes, Pius XI’s encyclicalI Casti Connubi was published in its place; would we have the catastrophic Amoris Laetitia today? I don’t think so.
What about the rehabilitation of Luther?
What do you want me to tell you? To rehabilitate the biggest heresiarch in history, he who laicized the whole Christian Religion, who caused the Church to lose entire nations, is a doctrinal suicide and the falsification of history. The rehabilitation of Luther is part of the ecumenical utopia of the past 50 years. A utopia which leads Catholics to apostasy, which is no longer silent but deafening. I suggest reading a new book on Luther published recently: Il vero volto di Lutero (“The True Face of Luther,” Edizioni Piane) written by one of our priests, a professor of ecclesiology at the seminary of Ecône. One will understand the absurdity of this false rehabilitation, reading this book.
Do you think a future doctrinal reunification between you and the Vatican, is possible?
I am not a prophet. I wish that this would take place, above all for the salvation of many souls who risk losing themselves for eternity. But if you’ll allow me, I want to tell you what we can do today to contribute to the triumph of Tradition in the Church. We must ourselves – each Catholic – bishops, priests and [lay] faithful, return to the Catholic Tradition of all time, and nobody must fear feeling themselves to be against the authorities of the Church. Because, in fact, this isn’t going against them, but on the contrary, it’s the most effective way to help them understand that returning to Tradition is the one and only future of Holy Church. Source – Catholic Family News
Comments invited…
Comments (48)
“Certainly, these actions and words of Pope Francis seem graver than those of his predecessors. But that’s not the case. Today, it’s the media effect that makes things much more evident, than was previously the case. In substance, however, the actions of Paul VI were much graver than those of Francis.”
This man is living in cloud-cuckoo land. Sure Paul VI was a disaster, but at least he had some inkling of the immutability of Catholic doctrine even while he trashed Tradition. He came to see that the smoke of satan had entered the Church and he promulgated his Credo of the People of God to try to shore up Catholic doctrine against the post-conciliar destruction.
In contrast Francis is setting out to destroy everything in the name of his “god of surprises”. He is taking the Church to a whole new level of corruption and depravity, the likes of which have never been seen before under any papacy. Paul VI set out on a false path, but Francis is trying to ensure that the Church can never turn back.
Deacon Augustine,
But surely the point is that if Paul VI had not set out on that false path, Francis would not be able to do what he is doing? Wasn’t the bar set low by Paul VI so that things only got worse after his pontificate? He complained about the smoke of Satan but it was his fault that the smoke arose in the first place. He set the fire which led to the smoke entering the Church!
By the same method of reasoning one could also lay the blame at the door of Bl. Pius IX who enshrined papal supremacy in dogma in such a manner that his successors had absolute power to do whatever they wanted by virtue of their authority which was henceforward unaccountable to Scripture, Tradition, Canon Law or prior Magisterium.
Admittedly he never conceived of any of his successors having the temerity to abuse their power in such a way or to take the view that they could lord it over Tradition in the way that the last 5 popes have done. He actually indicated after Vatican I that this was precisely not his intention. However, the way that the ultramontane party succeeded in manipulating the Council meant that it was open to be interpreted in the way that the present dictator pope has done.
“Papal infallibility” laid the groundwork for Vatican II starting from scratch. With hindsight the limits on the power of the papacy should have been much more clearly delineated. It is just as important to impede an evil pope as it is to empower a good one.
Deacon Augustine,
There are no “new dogmas”. When the pope defines a doctrine he solemnises, ratified and declares a teaching that has always been believed.
Dogma can never be “unaccountable”.
Of course there are no new dogmas, but all the rationale surrounding the actual definition of the dogma of papal infallibility can too easily be interpreted to imply that the pope is incapable of teaching error even in his ordinary magisterium. It strays into the bounds of “papal impeccability” and many people – even “traditionalists” – believe that the pope is incapable of teaching heresy at any time under any circumstances.
This flies in the face of history as Newman et al. warned in the lead up to the definition of the dogma.
This pope seems to think he can teach anything he likes without reference to what has gone before – so convinced is he that he is personally inspired by the Holy Ghost who apparently changes His mind over time and changes what Christ taught. There is absolutely nothing that anybody can do to stop him – legally.
IMHO the fathers of Vatican I did not have a sufficiently black and pessimistic view of the tendency to psycopathy and evil which lies at the heart of every man. (I speak as one who long ago recognized that the grace of God alone is what separates me from the beast.)
Deacon Augustine,
Any properly educated Catholic knows that papal infallibility has its very definite and clear limits. For those Catholics who don’t know that no pope has the authority to change dogma and moral imperatives, I have no words. They really do need some elementary instruction in the Faith. That includes all of those victims of so-called Catholic education since Vatican II broke upon us – take a look at the video clip of the young people in Dublin mocking the Faith on the Irish abortion referendum thread. Shocking beyond words.
Prior to the Council, as you intimate, we didn’t really need to know that much about the limits of papal authority, because we were blessed with good popes, but even so, we were taught about our “Catholic sense”, which should trigger an alarm bell when necessary. A bad pope is about as “necessary” as it gets, and although I have some sympathy for those of a certain age who are, in fact, victims of this crisis, I’ve absolutely NO sympathy for the older generation who should by now be packing out the traditional Mass chapels across the UK. Anybody with a properly operating Catholic sense should have had them sussed out long ago…
I also have very limited sympathy for younger priests. They have the same access to information and the history of the Church as any of us, and they SHOULD have an innate Catholic sense, so my sympathy for them is, as I say, very limited – they should be leading US in the battle to restore the Faith, not leaving it to the poor old laity who would sooner be curled up with a murder mystery and a box of chocolates.
Oops! Not in Lent, of course 😀
“For those Catholics who don’t know that no pope has the authority to change dogma and moral imperatives, I have no words.”
I do, but its Lent. 😉
Deacon Augustine,
Love it!
Well, I didn’t think of it like that before, who is mostly to blame, but come to think of it, yes, Paul VI has a huge chunk of blame on his shoulders for continuing with the Second Vatican Council in the first place. That’s led to the admission by a top cardinal that we have “a betraying clergy”
https://onepeterfive.com/cardinal-sarah-denounce-crisis-faith-betraying-clergy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Onepeterfive+%28OnePeterFive%29
I still think, though, that Francis is the worst pope ever because, as the Deacon says, he is openly undermining the faith and especially sexual morality. He’s a total disgrace.
I never thought of it like that either but, when all is said and done, it was Pope Paul VI that put the match to the fire which has now got out of all control, bar Divine intervention. However much he bemoaned “the smoke of satan” etc., it was he who caused that smoke to cloud the faithful’s intellect and singe their Faith to the point of extinction in some cases. If he is canonised the whole process will be in even more doubt than it is now. May God help us!
Many thanks for this article! Concise, straightforward, unambiguous and a pure joy to read. We must continue to work for the rebuilding of the church as witnesses to our fellow catholics, solely through tradition. In resisting the current confusion through the true practice the faith. We cannot do this however by boxing ourselves into our own little corners but by openly and clearly making ourselves heard by all in our resistance to these modernist heretical and destructive trends.
Patrick,
You won’t find anyone here disagreeing with that!
It is tempting to lay this mess at Francis’ feet, since he is so obviously corrupt, but I think Father’s reasoning is correct, though he left out an important personage: John XXIII built the battering ram, Paul VI used it with devastating effect (there are claims that he actually ran Roncalli’s papacy behind the scenes, and Roncalli even stated that he was merely “keeping the seat warm” for Montini)), and Francis is leveling the abandoned site with a bulldozer to make way for a Masonic temple.
But to respond to the lead question, from a secular perspective, I don’t think either Pope is to blame. I think the blame rests on the Cardinals who elected them.
From a supernatural perspective, however, we are to blame, because the crisis in the Church is a punishment for our sins. A worse punishment than the Flood, I think.
RCA Victor,
I have to say that your concluding thought partly echoes my own guilty conscience because I will never forgive myself for going along with so much of what I didn’t realise was a “revolution” before turning back to the Faith of our Fathers. When I attend any novus ordo parish, attend the new Mass and converse with (some, not all, thankfully) diocesan Catholics, I just cannot believe that it took me so long to “get there”.
In short – I’M to blame!
http://www.michellehenry.fr/future2.jpg
Editor,
I don’t know how you manage to find these hilarious pix, but LOL! Anyway, if I had not been removed from the Church at age 5, I’m sure I would have been a well-behaved Novus Ordo Catholic (if they are really Catholic, that is) by now….if I even attended Mass at all.
Just to clarify, though: I don’t think we are to blame for the crisis in the Church. That is the effect. I think we are to blame for the cause: sin. I’m guessing there would have been a crisis no matter how many of the faithful refused to go along, but I suppose there’s no way of telling.
RCA Victor,
If only you were my confessor!
Editor,
Let me go get my stole on….don’t worry, it wasn’t stole-n….(argh)
Just to refine my first comment a bit, the construction of the “battering ram” was only started by John XXIII; Paul VI finished the construction after Roncalli’s death and then applied it, not only from his liberalism, but also from his own personal weaknesses.
In fact, there is a perhaps apocryphal story about John XXIII crying out “Stop the Council!!” on his deathbed. I wonder if Our Lord showed him, as he lay dying,the bitter fruits of what he had set in motion….
I realise that I am something of an outsider for several reasons, one being that I seldom contribute to the arguments here, another being that I am not one of those who have little or no time for the late Pope Paul VI. He is accused here of being a weak pope but I remember the outcry which echoed around the world when he published Humanae Vitae. He well knew that he was going against popular opinion when he published it but he stuck to his guns and published it anyway because he knew that it was the right thing to do regardless of public opinion. Such is not the action of a weak man, such is the action of someone who knew exactly what he was doing and exactly what the world needed to hear because he was expounding Catholic truth. In that action alone he has my admiration and I am sure that God will have commended him when finally he gave an account of his stewardship to Jesus Christ.
As to that “apocryphal story’ of John XXIII crying out on his deathbed, it so happens that a very dear friend of mine, a priest, now long deceased, told me much the same about John XXIII but my friend used rather more colourful language when he related the story to me.
John
As we’ve pointed out before, that fact that Pope Paul VI produced Humanae Vitae, albeit that he caused scandal by giving the impression that the teaching on Birth Control might be changed when he created a Commission to look into the matter, and that the document is flawed – it is often interpreted as allowing natural family planning to be almost a “Catholic contraceptive” – but even taking it at its best, that it repeats the moral law, Catholic teaching on the evil of contraception, that does not change the fact that Paul VI created a brand new Mass for the express purpose of making it pleasing to Protestants, when the Mass we had was manifestly pleasing to God and that is all that matters. And that he presided over the spread of the chaos in the Church while doing nothing to stem the tide.
If only one good action were sufficient for our salvation – well, as I say, if only
The fact is, if we die with even one unrepented mortal sin on our souls, we are damned. So, instead of canonising Paul VI, the Church authorities should be reminding us of the need to pray for his release from Purgatory, hoping and praying that he has, indeed, been saved – there ARE signs (his “smoke of Satan” remark and “auto-demolition”) that he did realise the gravity of what he had helped created, so let’s hope and pray that he has, indeed, been saved. I hope I’m saved myself, when the time comes but I can tell you here and now that a canonisable saint, I never will be and neither is Paul VI.
John,
Further to my previous response to you, I found the following article by John Vennari, RIP of Catholic Family News. He quotes:
“Journalist Jean Guitton, a close friend and confident of Pope Paul VI, confirmed that it was the aim of the Pope to protestantize the liturgy.
Read the entire article here http://cfnews.org/page10/page73/paul_vi_canonized.html
After detail Paul VI’s appalling ecumenical contribution, John Vennari writes:
“The Conciliar revolution thus must be imposed by intimidation; not an intimidation at gunpoint, but an intimidation that overwhelms Catholics by proclaiming the alleged saintliness of its most determined innovators. “Blessed “ John XXIII, “Venerable” Paul VI, “Blessed” John Paul II, new saints for the new religion, all elevated to their exalted status by a new canonization process that dispenses with the devil’s advocate, and no longer insures the miraculous beyond all natural explanation. “
Do you REALLY think that one (flawed) encyclical trumps all of that damage inflicted on the Church by Paul VI? Really? Seriously?
In. 20009 edition of Fatima Crusader Pope Benedict was quoted as. Saying. The secret of Fatima was not to change the mass! All the popes knew this!
Jacquelyn,
I don’t remember reading that. Do you have the link to that edition of the Fatima Crusader – I’d like to read the entire context of that remark, if possible.
Editor,
I am not sure if the May issue of the Fatima crusader of May 2009, is quite the one that Jacquelyn Idzior meant.
http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr92/cr92pg7.pdf
In which –
“Cardinal Ciappi stated in his letter to Professor Baumgartner that in the Third Secret it is revealed, among other things, that the great apostasy will begin at the top”.
I do not mean to imply that Pope Benedict did not say “The secret of Fatima was not to change the Mass”. It is just that I haven’t found that quote.
On the subject of Paul VI being exculpated on the basis of one encyclical. I think it is important to remember that the Devil always mixes good with the bad, in order to disguise his aims. It is also interesting that Paul VI’s nickname in Rome was “the weak one,” I believe.
If I remember correctly, someone once asked Abp. Lefebvre if he thought Montini was a Freemason, to which he replied, “It doesn’t matter, he thinks like one.”
The Protestantization of the liturgy was alone enough to condemn his Papacy. Sadly, that was just the tip of the iceberg. I hope bloggers who are eager to defend him have not adopted the faithless opinions of the apologists for the revolution, like the magazine “First Things.
From what I remember from previous research was that the Humanae Vitae Encyclical was in such an ambiguous state (viz AL) that Cardinal Ottaviani was shocked by the content and edited/corrected it AFTER Paul VI had SIGNED it and before it actually got published. If that is correct then a God Fearing Cardinal is the true person behind HV.
St Miguel,
I’d welcome a (reliable) source for that – any chance you could post a link here?
yep, here’s one of many out there.
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2015/09/22/something-for-the-catholic-wonks-ottaviani-not-paul-vi-probably-wrote-the-good-bits-of-humanae-vitae/
St Miguel ,
I said “reliable” source – Ann Barnhardt isn’t that, by any objective standard. She’s on record calling Pope Francis an “antipope” which, true or not, isn’t for her (or any of the rest of us) to judge.
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/aresponse-to-ann-barnhardt-by-paul.html
In any case, she merely says in that article that she heard this story about HV – well, so have I heard it but that doesn’t make me a reliable source. All that she/we have now established is that this rumour about Paul VI / HV / Ottaviani has done the rounds!
Goodness, think of the rumours about me doing the rounds – that I’m tall, slim, glamorous, fashionable… all from the same utterly reliable source – MOI!
Fair point, there are so many sources out there. I just picked one…but in future I will avoid Ms Barnhardt and Hilary White !
RCA Victor,
Very interesting – I didn’t know Archbp Lefebvre had said that.
I don’t read First Things but some years ago, when I was in email correspondence with a Scots Bishop, he made a comment to the effect that there was a need for a publication to cover the Church in Scotland, so if Catholic Truth could only become like First Things, all would be well.
I went straight onto the First Things website and the headline at the time was extolling the joys of Ecumenism. I replied “thanks, but no thanks”. Never heard from him again. 😀
RCA Victor,
“On the subject of Paul VI being exculpated on the basis of one encyclical. I think it is important to remember that the Devil always mixes good with the bad, in order to disguise his aims.”
I think that’s what Pope St Pius X said in his encyclical on Modernism (Pascendi) that on one page, the modernist will say something orthodox, and on the next he will say something unorthodox. That’s the problem with them, you can’t help getting confused if you are listening to modernist priests and reading the encyclical of the modernist post-V2 popes. They all do that.
Correction about Paul VI being called “the weak one” in Rome – I believe it was “the sad one,” not “the weak one.”
I believe his nickname was Hamlet.
RCA Victor,
If he was weak, then he was also sad, IMHO!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention
This may be of interest…when you think about the 1960’s and compare today….we can compare Cardinal Burke with Cardinal Ottaviani…….we can’t even get the Dubia moving, this is March 2018 !
St Miguel,
I heard somewhere that although Cardinal Ottaviani said what he said about the new Mass, that is was a grave departure from Catholic theology on the Mass, he did say it in the end.
I would like that to be confirmed, though, so if anyone can do that, gracias!
Perhaps someone else could answer that?
At least that Cardinal had a spine, as did Marcel Lefebre, unlike the gutless wonders of today. In particular I am astounded at this now BEYOND pathetic Dubia caper!……Has no one got the ability to go and wipe the floor with this so called Curia, CDF, alphabet soup anagrams of Congregations of this that and the next….?? As I say…Cardinal Burke does not have a mortgage,council tax,a family to feed and clothe, school uniforms, car repairs, fuel, school trips,heating, electricity, wedding gifts to buy, birthday parties to pay for, elderly relatives to look after….he does not need to cook, wash clothes (a house keeper does all that)….he CANNOT wake up on a Friday to watch the TV news to discover that he is being made REDUNDANT by text in the next few hours and his works pension is worth squiddly squat.
He has to do HIS JOB and get the finger out once and for all and get wellied in to this crowd masquerading as our current “Leaders in Thought”…aka programming ‘US’ through sophistry, now known as Neural Linguistic Programming.
Just seen an advert recently for a ‘Practitioner of Neural Linguistic Programming’…..remit…’to change employees habits and work practices’ salary circa £110K plus bonus and benefits.
Rome is now programming the Novus Ordo Catholics….AL is just a trial, Communion for NON Catholics is version .2
Humanae Vitae is download version .3
Transubstantiation, version .4
And so it goes on.
I agree with Michael Davies who said Pope Paul V1 was a worse Pope than Pope Francis
“If you look at the state of the Church when he took over (1963), and then look at the state of the Church when he died (1978),” said Davies, there has never been such a wholesale devastation of the Church in so short a time period. It all took place on his watch and was due to his revolutionary Conciliar policies”
.
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/c5ce63b93ff1c0cf9607db1c1654ce31-285.html
As for his Humanae Vitae Encyclical, why was this needed as the one thing that everyone knew about being Catholic was that contraception was against Catholic teaching, so to review this non-negotiable truth was putting it up for question.
It also encouraged Contraception as “Far from helping “modern man” to embrace Church Morals, the Encyclical’s subjectivism produced a disaster: Over 80% of Catholic married couples either continued or began to use artificial birth control”.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/k019rpHumanaVitae.html
Chloe,
“s for his Humanae Vitae Encyclical, why was this needed as the one thing that everyone knew about being Catholic was that contraception was against Catholic teaching.”
I totally agree with you. There was no need to set up that commission and write the encyclical. It caused chaos and continues to do so. You are right.
I think that I might toss this thought into your deliberations. Already there are those who are saying that when Pope Francis canonises Paul VI, they will not recognise that canonisation as valid. Hence Pope Francis will have done a master-stroke by this canonisation. He will have demonstrated that the act of canonisation is not an infallible act and hence the Pope is not infallible! What a master-stroke, he has wiped out one facet of belief in the Magisterium of the Church! Where now Papal Infallibility?!
As I read, Pope Francis has canonised at least five as being Saints without any miracle being credited as proof of their sanctity! I read that he has already outnumbered Pope St. John Paul II in the number of canonisations which he effected!
John R,
I think you must have missed the various discussions we’ve had on the status of the fast-track canonisations, so I’m copying my reply to St Miguel on another thread recently. Hope it helps to clarify the issues for you – teaching on papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church are not affected by these highly questionable canonisations:
PREVIOUS COMMENT ON THE RECENT CANONISATIONS…
The Fathers of the Church considered canonisations to be infallible BECAUSE of the strictness of the process which included a number of required irrefutable miracles and the work of the Devil’s Advocate to investigate the life of the candidate – any question mark over the candidate would immediately end the process. Not the case now. Pope John Paul II did away with the office of Devil’s Advocate. Interesting.
Below are links to the three discussions we held on this subject – I urge you to study them, as I’m sure you will find them helpful… Will save us reinventing the wheel here, so to speak albeit we know that, as the adage goes, repetition is the mother of education…
https://catholictruthblog.com/2014/04/27/canonisations-what-canonisations/
https://catholictruthblog.com/2013/10/18/a-tale-of-two-canonisations-safety-of-the-infallibity-in-doubt-sspx/
https://catholictruthblog.com/2013/10/05/a-tale-of-two-canonisations-church-in-future-will-question-their-validity-sspx/
END OF PREVIOUS COMMENT
I urge you to read through those previous discussions because that way you will see why it is anything but charitable to speak of “St Pope John Paul II” who may, for all we know, be languishing in Purgatory and in much need of our prayers.
John R,
This article from the Remnant website will probably answer your questions about infallibility. It’s in two parts and this link is to Part 1.
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3753-the-canonization-crisis-part-1
These two links are pertinent I believe….#1 is Wuerl, unchecked NO DUBIA and now TOO LATE to sort AL out….chances blown now.
http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2018/03/04/cardinal-lays-out-plan-for-parishes-to-implement-amoris-laetitia/
#2 is the latest Italian caper…..no crime..only a SIN.
http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2018/03/05/male-escorts-allegations-about-40-gay-priests-sent-to-vatican/
Remember all of this on Francis’s watch and not a Churchman with a smidgen of guts to to lift a finger on any of this.
If you read this one you might choke on your cornflakes.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/german-bishops-website-sexualizes-vaticans-new-easter-stamp-of-risen-jesus
St Miguel,
In 2015, even before the Synod on the Family which brought us Amoris Laetitia, the President of the German Bishops Conference, Cardinal Marx (well named) declared independence from Rome, saying they were “not a subsidiary of Rome” and so would be doing their own thing regarding “pastoral care” for the divorce/”remarried” etc. Since then he’s called for blessings for “gay” unions and goodness knows what else.
Thus, I feel empowered (to use the feminist buzz word) to repeat my oft-stated belief that this kind of behaviour/statements from the ordained, seems to me to indicate something wrong (to put it mildly) in their own personal life. I put it no more strongly than that but remember….
I said the same thing loud and often about our own Cardinal O’Brien, when he was the darling of the pro-life movement and the “Vatican hardliner” of many a headline.
Humble? Me? What possible reason could I have for being humble? I mean, I might not always be right, but I’m never wrong – AND I’ve got the T shirt to prove it…
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/2b/f5/71/2bf5713751a8fd365c770f0f3d3b94bc.jpg
PS photo taken a few weeks ago. I need to stop dieting or they’ll soon be able to legally declare me missing…
Yes and I am having a break from my modelling just now !
This is the only Pope Francis thread on the sidebar, so I hope I’m posting in the right place.
I was gobsmacked to see this headline on Zenit – “the theology of Pope Francis”
https://zenit.org/articles/vatican-issues-series-on-theology-of-pope-francis/
I don’t remember ever hearing about a “theology” of any other pope!
Comments are closed.