Pope Francis – YOU’RE the Schismatic!editor
How many times will I have to say "don't be rigid"?... read more
Comment: Note: the video originally at the top of this post, has... read more
Former Irish President Mary McAleese has described the Catholic Church's teachings... read more
Reader, Jim Paton from Perth, submitted the following extract from the text... read more
Pope Francis 'snubs' pomp and ceremony of Vatican Beethoven concert Pope... read more
From the Catholic Herald: Granny’s lace – why is Pope Francis so... read more
Editor writes... Most of the anger over on the YouTube platform is... read more
From the Editor... The following email arrived in my inbox this morning: "I... read more
From YouTube Platform... 1: Frighten the population 2: Convince them a temporary sacrifice... read more
Comment: The "green" movement has been so successful in spreading its propaganda,... read more
I am reserved in my criticism of Pope Francis and I am suspicious of neo-conservative Catholics who heap criticism upon Pope Francis but speak nothing of John Paul II. Where have they been for the past fifty years? Pope Francis is a product of his generation, a child of the Council, a Jesuit who received his formation during the revolution of the 1960s. Pope Francis is not a surprise, he is an inevitability.
Pope John Paul II on the other hand was formed in the Traditional Rite of Mass, and had for his doctoral supervisor the eminent Garrigou-Lagrange, a traditional Thomist and critic of the modernist ‘Nouvelle Théologie’. So John Paul has no excuse. John Paul didn’t merely inherit the concilar disorientation, no, he was a Council Father who assisted in creating the disorientation, and perpetuated it during his 32 year reign. Pope Francis has merely inherited the destruction that was completed when he was only a young man.
The same folk who now criticise Pope Francis are the same ones who only a few years ago were calling John Paul II ‘the Great’ and were proclaiming “Santo subito”. They’re fifty years too late.
The Novus Ordo had only existed for eight years when Cardinal Wojtyla ascended the Throne of Saint Peter. He could easily have abrogated it. He appointed many evil and apostate bishops and cardinals, some of the worst to ever have afflicted the Church. He is more culpable than Francis in my opinion.
Pope Francis in some regards is a mercy. Many Catholics, and not just Traditional Catholics, have been able to discern that Pope Francis is disorientated. But much far fewer felt the same about Pope John Paul II. This is because Pope John Paul II’s modernism was less overt and more insidious, and in my opinion far more dangerous. Let me allude to the practice of homeopathy whose central tenet is that the more diluted the active ingredients of a concoction, the more efficacious it is. It’s the same with modernism. The more diluted the modernism the more dangerous and insidious it is. The architects of the crisis were not overt about their intention to destroy the Church. No, they have destroyed the Church incrementally. This was their master plan. If they were open about their intentions from the beginning then they wouldn’t have succeeded, they would have been stopped. The theological foundation for the Amazon synod was laid by John Paul II, just look to the blasphemy of Assisi. The neo-conservatives do not remember this atrocity, they are suffering from a collective amnesia.
I do not believe that these neo-Trads like +Burke and +Schneider fully understand the crisis in the Church. They hold to a very diluted form of modernism, and I think they’re dangerous. I feel that primary motivation is to delude Catholics into believing that the crisis is all about morals and liturgy. But the crisis is only secondarily about morals and liturgy, and is primarily about doctrine. If the new generation of Traditional Catholics forgets that the crisis is primarily about doctrine then the modernists have won. Their strategy was to plant doctrinal time bombs in the concilar documents. They knew that liturgical and moral chaos would occur later without very little effort. I know young traditionally minded Catholics who have been fooled by -+Burke and the ecclesial faction that he represents. They have been short-changed and have not received the whole of the truth. I disagree with Michael Matt. We can only unite the clans when all the clans come to accept the tripartite nature of the crisis in the Church: morals, liturgy, but above all, the doctrine of the faith.
There is a lot of truth in what you say, although I would not be the slightest reserved in my criticism of Pope Francis. He was born in 1936 and grew up with the traditional Mass, only being ordained priest in 1969, so as the new Mass was being introduced. He has no excuse, therefore, for trashing that with which he grew up and for which, he would have been taught – as were we all – countless martyrs gave their life’s blood.
You are right, of course, to point out that Francis should come as no surprise after the series of bad popes we’ve had in the past 50+ years, a fact which Michael Matt does acknowledge in his talk.
However, selective memory, poor memory, whatever, Michael Matt’s claim that he immediately recognised Pope Francis was what he is, doesn’t chime with my own memory of that first year of the Francis’ pontificate when both Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara took the position that he (Francis) had to be given a chance, that there would be no criticism of him until he had had a chance to prove himself.
We couldn’t keep up with the new Pope’s utterances and scandalous behaviour, so rather than keep reporting them in separate threads, I posted a dedicated thread
On one occasion, I recall a rather sarcastic remark (made, I think, by Chris Ferrara) to the effect that they (at The Remnant) were not like those gossipy types jumping on Francis’ every word – which, rightly or wrongly, I took as a swipe at our “Latest” thread. So, in his talk in the above video, where Michael Matt claims to have recognised Francis’s modernism right away, I think his memory has become clouded. Unless, of course, he really DID recognise him for what he was but decided not to speak out. Either way, his initial response to the new pontiff was something of a disappointment.
I take your point, too, about his call to “unite the clans” (I suppose we should be glad of some kind of little recognition of Scotland which has been studiously ignored by the so-called traditional publications in the USA (see if I care 😀 ) and certainly some of our elderly readers, who have suffered this crisis first hand from the outset, get impatient at the likes of Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider for not following through on their promise of a public act of some kind, to call the Pope to account. Having said that, I take Michael Matt’s point that better the crumb of comfort, some sign of fightback from the hierarchy, than nothing at all. I suppose it’s about where one sets the bar. As one of our elderly readers keeps pointing out, though, these men are celibates so that they are free to openly fight for the Faith. He, a married man with a divided family (caused by this crisis) is limited in what he can do. It’s a matter of eternal shame for the Church in England that only one bishop fought back against the King at the Reformation, while a married man with a top legal career and government position, not to mention a wife and family, accepted martyrdom rather than deny the same papal supremacy which this horrendous pontiff is doing his best to destroy.
You are also right about the limitations of the fightback “content” – orthodoxy of Faith comes first; as I keep saying, when the faith goes, the morals quickly follow, which is why we have had so many unfaithful priests (not) gracing the front pages of too many seedy tabloids in recent years.
One last thing – I don’t think we should be too hard on Michael Matt because I notice he does swing from being apparently dispirited, depressed about the ongoing crisis, to being back in fighting mood. We’re all struggling with our Confirmation duty to be Soldiers of Christ, and so we should understand that it does, sometimes, overwhelm. His desire to “unite the clans” and be grateful for the small mercies of at least SOME hierarchical and modernist Catholic lay fightback, is evidence of this. That he keeps speaking out despite it clearly being a struggle (I think he looks very tired in the above video) is to his credit.
I’m not sure I’ve covered everything in your very thoughtful post – if not, I WILL be back!
I agree with everything you say. I’ve never really been that keen on Michael Matt, but I think the above video is very good.
Like Miles, I’ve never really been one to buy into this “unite the clans”. However, I think I’ve become more realistic. Rome wasn’t built in a day. The fact that some people are waking up is to be welcomed, even if they aren’t quite at our enlightened state yet! 🙂
Editor, you are spot on here. Rome has lost the faith. It has happened over a period of time. Thanks for this refreshing overview.
Thank YOU, Brendan. Flattery will get you everywhere!
You make a very good point about Pope John Paul II, the Great(ly over-rated).
His reputation is certainly due a thorough reassessment.
He is widely regarded as some kind of superman, and yet he is the Pope who kissed the Koran, the Pope of Assisi, the Pope of Communion in the Hand, the Pope of Ecumenism, the Pope of weak discipline, the Pope of sweeping things under the carpet, the Pope of appalling episcopal appointments, etc etc
In short he was actually pretty poor – the evidence offers a very different picture to his reputation.
The erroneous image of him which is held onto by so many is a major barrier to them understanding or even recognising the Church crisis. Such people cant fathom how we went from JP2 to Francis, but the confusion is down to their own incorrect view of JP2.
I think that John Paul II was a either an evil man or a profoundly weak man. It has been claimed that John Paul II was informed directly of Marcial Maciel Degollado’s crimes and was advised to juridically act against Maciel. Maciel is one of the most evil men ever to have been ordained in the history of the Church. It is alleged that John Paul II personally protected Maciel. Maciel’s illegitimate son has said in a television interview that Maciel had said to him “I am going to be in a lot of trouble when the Pope [John Paul II] dies”. Neo-conservative Catholics have defended John Paul II by saying that John Paul II believed the allegations made against Maciel were false because the Communists in Poland would often fabricate tales of clerical sexual scandal in order to undermine the Church. I don’t know what the truth is because I have not seen the evidence. But it’s absolutely scandalous that Pope John Paul II was canonised considering the claims that have been made. John Paul II was manifestly doctrinally and liturgically modernist, and additionally he was either morally corrupted or at the very least a morally weak man. He is not a saint.
And contrary to the opinion of neo-conservative Catholics, I do not believe that John Paul II was a remarkable intellect. I think that his writings, notwithstanding their modernism, are tedious banal rubbish.
The neo-conservative Catholics also claim that John Paul II was a man of great spirituallity. What man who loves Our Lady would ammend the Holy Rosary? The luminous mysteries are a wicked blasphemy.
Prior to John Paul II’s canonisation an unapproved shrine to John Paul II was erected in Turnbull Hall, Glasgow. The cultic devotion to John Paul II that was practiced there baffled me, and I wasn’t even a Traditional Catholic at the time.
How terrible a state the Catholic Church is now in that John Paul II, an archmodernist, is now regarded as an orthodox and conservative pontiff! Catholics who criticise Francis but who practice devotion to John Paul II are deluded.
I have never liked John Paul II. I always had an instinctual bad feeling about him, even before I became Catholic. There was something very off about him. Were people really impressed by his grandiosity? He comes across to me as narcissistic. I never thought that he was remotely charismatic, I actually found him extremely annoying, the kind of person you would make effort to avoid if you knew them personally.
I didn’t mention in my post that I had to resist the temptation to knock that statue of John Paul II off its pedestal. It was very creepy and smiling like a lobotomy victim. But what kept me from knocking it off was that I knew the parish priest would know it was me. During the first time I met him the first think he asked me was “Are you a John Paul II man yourself?” To which I replied “no”.
Turnbull Hall had acquired several hundred celebratory tee-shirts for the occasion of John Paul II’s beatification. The text on the tee-shirt had misspelled it ‘beautification’, and this arose in me a strong feeling of morose delectation.
Boy ,Miles your really putting the Boot into John Paul at least as far as am concerned he was a Catholic ,something that we cannot say of Francis who is an out and out Marxist. Miles one cannot be A Marxist and a Catholic at the same time . By all means I agree that there was deception before Francis but this Man is a wrecking ball who is a complete Heretical Dictator.
Faith of our Fathers,
Pope John Paul II was the pope who started the disgraceful Assisi events in 1986, where he placed a Buddha statue on top of a tabernacle, and was an ecumaniacs to his fingertips. I wouldn’t call him a Catholic, not at all. Here’s an article about it on The Remnant site
If you can’t be a Marxist and a Catholic at the same time (and I agree with that) you can’t break the First Commandment to encourage the worship of false gods and be at Catholic at the same time, either.
I don’t think we can ever say any individual is “evil”. That is making a judgment on a person’s soul because if that is true, then we are saying they are going to Hell or in this case of Pope JP II, that he is actually in Hell and we are never permitted to say that.
I agree that he did evil things and the Maciel case and the Luminous Mysteries are good examples of this. But, for all we know, he repented of these before death and so we cannot say that he, himself, was evil.
I was no fan of his either, and I knew that people who thought him a great pope were only going by his pro-life pronouncements but, as was pointed out in the Catholic Truth newsletter and blog loads of times, what sort of pope wouldn’t be at least pro-life?! That’s the least to be expected of any Catholic, let alone a pope.
That’s disgraceful about Turnbull Hall putting up a statue of him before permitted – I’m presuming it was a statue as you say a “shrine” and I’ve heard of at least one other place, a parish, that did that.
I think it was me you intended to reply to rather than Petrus.
I meant to say that Pope John Paul II did evil things, and I agree with you, I cannot possibly say that John Paul II was evil, because that would imply, as you say, that he was in hell, which I could not possibly say and I sincerely hope it is not the case that he is in hell. I think it is far more likely that Pope John Paul II was a weak man rather than an evil man, a man who was disorientated and who lacked the authentic sensus fidei.
However, in the case of Maciel I think it is probable that he was evil. He never repented for his sins and on his death bed he was admonished to repent, but he resisted, and he was even given the rite of exorcism, but he still refused to repent. I suppose he could have had a brain abnormality that was the genesis of his psychopathy, in which case he was very mentally ill and his conscience may have been so repressed that he may not have been culpable. I suppose we must hope for this and still pray for his soul.
In the case of Turnbull Hall, it was not a shrine in the literal sense because I believe a shrine must be canonically erected. But it was also more than just a statue. It was placed upon a linen cloth appliquéd with his coat of arms which itself was placed upon a pedestal in the nave of the chapel, and if I remember correctly there was also a stand before the statue for votive candles. Fortunately, the statue has subsequently been moved to a less prominent part of the chapel. The new priest made an effort to make the physical organisation of the chapel more traditional and reverent, which is commendable.
Even had John Paul II been canonised at the time the statue was displayed, it annoyed me that the parish priest was forcing his private devotion onto the whole of the parish. The patronal saint of the chapel is Saint Mungo but there was no statue of him, and there was no statue of Saint Joseph either. These would have been a more suitable choice of statue, or even a statue of one of the patrons of students, such as Saint Thomas Aquinas. The parish priest was fanatical about John Paul II. There is nothing wrong with having a zealous devotion to a particular saint, but to John Paul II, really? Even before my ‘second conversion’ to Tradition I didn’t find John Paul II interesting or inspiring. I struggle to understand why he is so popular among neo-conservative types of Catholics. The parish priest seemed to think that John Paul II was the best pope in history. I just hope they don’t make John Paul II a doctor of the Church. That will be the next thing.
If we use the theological definition of evil – the absence of good- I would say the pontificate of Pope Francis is evil. I don’t think you could say the same about Pope John Paul II’s pontificate. Certainly I was no fan of his, but he did SOME good. There wasn’t an absence of good.
This is a flying comment, as I am in the middle of A.N. Other task 😀 but I just want to add something to your point, which is essentially correct. Not having read all of the comments on this yet, been away from my computer most of today, I would just say that I think I’m correct in saying that St Thomas Aquinas defined “evil” as – yes, the “absence of good” but more, the absence of the good we can rightly expect….
I think that makes a bit of a difference. I certainly have no intention of claiming that JP II’s pontificate was, of itself “evil” but as Catholics we had a right to expect a heck of a lot more from him than he delivered. I’ll leave it there, for now!
Thanks for that. I did not realise there was that caveat, which certainly adds a different dimension.
I agree with what you say.
While not wishing to be uncharitable, I tend to think he was something of a showman who was “winging” the role, flying by the seat of his pants.
I have heard it said that, in another life, he would have made a fine actor.
Where Ronald Regan’s acting background no doubt helped him ‘work an audience’ as US President, I think JP2 also understood the power of grand gestures and used this to his advantage (think of him kissing the ground as he disembarked from aeroplanes etc).
As stated, his record does not support the notion of a solid Pope – I forgot to include “girl altar boys” in his litany of errors I posted before.
I think his great popularity was down to the fact that a beleaguered Church was desperate for anything resembling stability and orthodoxy, following the tumultuous years prior to his election. And his knack for ‘working the audience’ reinforced this.
There is a Youtube video of him chanting the Pater Noster in a packed Vatican. Even though he stands versus populum, his chant is very good and you can almost imagine the congregation reassuring themselves: “See? He is doing the latin and everything. Everything is fine. This is a great Pope”.
When I first returned to the faith, the video was a favourite of mine – for the same shallow reason, that it seemed to smell a bit like Catholicism.
Bizarrely that same video you mentioned has recently appeared in my YouTube recommendations.
I am pleased that Francis has been elected. It has forced the conservatives off the fence and they are now beginning to question and wonder about JP2’s and B16’s pontificates. Read the comments section at T&T and Church Militant TV. At least Francis is not the lukewarm and a coward. He is one crazy, evil modernist and wears his heart on his sleeve. Hopefully enough people will be “woke” that a battle for the soul of the Church can commence.
I do wonder, however, what the SSPX are up to. They have been extremely silent while pundits like Michael Voris and Taylor Marshall are getting thousands of views.
Is their silence a deliberate policy? Or are they scared to stick their head above the parapet?
They surely cannot be seeking a rapprochement in Francis’s term. Even if he was crazy enough to admit them (and he might be because he is pretty random), they would lose 90% of their membership. So why not turn their guns on Francis, throw their hat into the ring and expand their support by all of the woken up people who now realise that the church in Rome is supporting the United Nations, the Green Agenda, Paganism, Earth Worship and continued clerical faggotry.
Bishop Fellay said right at the beginning of the Francis pontificate that “we are looking at an outright modernist.” There’s not a lot to say after that. The Society does report on relevant events – such as the Archbishop Vigano testimony – having said that, given their irregular status and how easily it can be used against them, they prefer to leave the diocesan bishops/cardinals to speak out, as that has more impact.
Michael Voris, on the other hand, is one of those who persistently supported the previous pontificates based on his ridiculous theory that you may criticise priests, bishops and cardinals but never popes. He was forced to review that nonsense when it became absolutely clear that Francis HAD to be criticised, but it took him long enough to get with the programme. Still, were the SSPX leadership to issue any statement of condemnation about Francis now, Voris would be among the first to condemn them out of hand. He insists that the Society is in schism; he is one mixed up lad. I’ll never forget having gone to hear/see him speak when he came to Scotland. Hall packed, and his first words? The Church has had terrible crises before, this is just another one, don’t worry… I couldn’t believe my ears, so he may be one of your heroes, he’ll never be one of mine. Because…
One thing about which Voris has NOT changed his mind is his false belief that the SSPX is in schism. That’s taking a bit longer. He’ll probably get there in the end, notwithstanding the damage he is doing in the meantime by clinging to that error and publishing it.
Don’t know much about Taylor Marshall but I like what I DO know.
The SSPX most certainly do report and speak out. They don’t do it in the same way as Michael Matt and Taylor Marshall, but it is unfair and inaccurate to say that they remain silent.
I am also pleased that Pope Francis has been elected. He is unambiguously modernist and in this sense he is less dangerous than his recent predecessors. John Paul II on the other hand was far more insidious, like a drop cyanide in an otherwise pure glass of water. Consequently John Paul II ruled for several decades without resistance. The only bishops who resisted him were +Lefebvre and +de Castro Mayer. And John Paul II crushed then like worms underfoot. John Paul II could be disciplinarian when he wanted to be, but he chose to treat evil hierarchs with kid gloves.
Outright modernism is far less poisonous, in my opinion, than that idea held by neo-conservative Catholics that resembles a kind of papal Führerprinzip. It is legal positivism, and it’s insidious and profoundly destructive because bishops are able to assent to heresy under the guise of false obedience and all the while pretend to be orthodox and faithful Catholics. It’s the idea that the Pope says jump and the neo-Catholics say “off which cliff, Your Holiness?”. It’s papolatry. Francis has caused some Catholics to question their long-held papal positivism and it’s leading them to Tradition. This is good news. Unfortunately, these sincere Catholics have been led astray by wolves in sheep’s clothing such as +Burke who is a dyed-in-the-wool papolator. For him the Church reached a state of perfection during the reigns of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Papolatry means that modernist heresiarchs are able to destroy the Church in increments, without resistance. Whereas if they were outright in their intention to destroy the Church then people would resist them.
This is the reason I think John Paul II was far worse a pope than Pope Francis. And let’s not forget that Pope Francis has been more friendlier to the SSPX than John Paul II ever was. The society is closer to regularisation that it ever has been. I am much more happier that Pope Francis is pope than I would be if John Paul II or Benedict were still Pope.
I’m sorry to say that this video is a prime example of why I no longer pay attention to traditionalist talking heads whose analyses I used to devour like…well, like chocolate.
I see that MM and his confreres are still consistent in treating this crisis as though it were some sort of political situation, even though their theological commentaries are accurate. Political, as in, “Let’s join forces and throw the bums out!”
Sorry Michael, it doesn’t work that way. This is above all a spiritual crisis and Passion. We do not have the power to “unite the clans” for any such purpose. We do, however, have the power to pray and do penance, just as we were instructed at Fatima, including praying for prelates such as Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider.
The other thing that has bothered me about these brilliant minds is that they fail to mention that Pope Francis is the culmination of an entire era (almost 60 years, so far) of chastisement. Has anyone here ever heard him, or Ferrara, accept that? I haven’t. Expose and analyze the errors and the corruption, fine, but let’s put this in the proper perspective: the Church has been betrayed, even as Our Lord was betrayed. Why? Because we are being punished – St. John Eudes pointed out, long ago, that the worst form of God’s wrath is corrupt clergy, wolves in lambs’ clothing, revolutionary men.
But all MM does is to focus on the corruption, rather than on the reason for it. That’s the easy way out, in my opinion, and a failure of self-examination. It sure sells newspapers, though.
I’m sorry to disagree with you, but I find it depressing that in the midst of the worst (and possibly the last) crisis in the Church’s history, there is still a tendency for faithful Catholics to criticise other Catholics who are doing their best to teach the Faith and make a stand. I’ve been watching the Remnant videos for years and I’m astonished that MM should be criticised for not expounding on the “spiritual crisis and Passion” in the Church and in society (and specifically Catholic society). That is not my experience of his opinion, and I’m sure that Michael Matt knows very well that we can’t just get together and “throw the bums out”. Of course we have the power to pray and fast – these are actions which he has frequently commended.
He’s not asking for group hugs – just a little mutual charity.
I’ve just finished posting my brief experience in one of the Glasgow parishes (where I made my First Holy Communion, as it happens) where we are invited to venerate the relics of St Therese of Lisieux.
I pointed out in my comment that it was great to see some of the people who attend the TLM in the Glasgow parish in the north of the city, precisely because they were all wearing head coverings, mantillas, and so our pew stood out for that reason – a minimal sign of the fact that there’s still life in the “old Faith” yet…
However, these same mantilla-wearing ladies participated in the applause called for by the Archbishop at one point. Just a relatively small thing by today’s standards, I know, but, as my niece said, she had to clasp her 6 year old daughter’s hand to stop her from joining in the clapping. The mother, of course, later used the aberration as a means of reinforcing her child’s appreciation of the Tabernacle, of the Real Presence, but this situation just would not arise in an SSPX church. So, while I get it, I really do, when I hear Michael Matt call for “unity” – his “unite the clans” crusade to encourage the different “traditional” groups to stand together, so to speak, we do need to be realistic and understand that if such “unity” is compounding the difficulties already faced by a young parent(s) trying to teach their offspring how to behave in church, just to stick with this example (there are others), then it’s not quite so clear-cut. Michael cannot lose sight of “the big picture” in his laudable attempt to “unite the clans”. That’s why, although I will make enquirers aware of the provision of traditional Mass where they are available, I do, always, encourage first-timers to attend the SSPX church if possible. It’s not perfect – anything but – but even attending for a few weeks before moving to a diocesan-provided TLM will help people to recognise aberrations when they see them.
I am in complete agreement with every sentiment in your post. I have been today to exposition (not SSPX) and not for the first time I have been angered by the behaviour of a lady (I believe she is an “Extraordinary”) who merely gives a slight bow of the head to the Blessed Sacrament, and insists on standing when the priest removes the Sacrament back to the tabernacle. I have just re-read the Story of a Soul and am attempting to curb my unfortunately natural impulse to rage. I should have immediately prayed for this unfortunate soul, but instead my feelings were not so charitable. No doubt Michael Matt is onto a “loser”, but I hate to hear him criticised for trying.
You may have missed my point, which is that MM and his school of related commentators consistently fail to mention what is, in my opinion, far and away the most important aspect of this crisis: it is our chastisement.
If that aspect were uppermost in their minds, I think their videos, articles and speeches would take on an entirely different tone. That is, the focus would not be so much on hierarchical corruption, but on our duty in the face of it. Not detecting said tone, I have stopped paying attention to them.
On the other hand, if you have seen evidence of it, please post some.
I am always a bit puzzled when you insist that this crisis is “our chastisement”.
How does this apply to us as individuals? I went along with all the so called reforms of Vatican II with the best will in the world, assuming that the Pope knew what he was doing and that obedience to the changes was God’s will for me. I wouldn’t see it as just and fair if I was being punished for that, although I was wrong and should have been more astute to see that there couldn’t be a new Mass etc.
I know it’s true that bad priests are a punishment – some great saints like St John Eudes said that – but although it would be useful to hear people like Michael Matt say that from time to time, it isn’t essential to understanding that the Church is upside down, and we have to use our intelligence to see how different people, including popes, have played their part in causing this crisis, right up to the present day.
Michael Matt does mention the need for prayer and sacrifice – he did in this video above – but, with respect, can we say that it is a fact that the crisis in the Church is “our chastisement”, as opposed to it being your opinion and no doubt many other people’s opinion? I’m thinking of the reaction if I said to some friends of mine that this crisis is our chastisement, they would immediately be indignant and say “what have I done to deserve this” (LOL!)
I’m not sure if I’m making myself clear, but I’d be interested in your thoughts.
I know that RCA Victor has explained this more than once for my sake, although for the life of me I can’t remember the details, but I think it’s safe to say he’s not blaming individuals like your good self, for causing the crisis! That’s not it – thankfully!
Thinking of it just now, afresh, it may be that – given that God sent Our Lady to warn us of the forthcoming diabolical disorientation as far back as 1917, and before that, to Quito in Ecuador centuries ago, warning of a crisis in the Church to come in the 20th century – that there is a sense in which, by ignoring her warnings, which are actually warnings from God, we are reaping what we have sown; the negligent popes, in particular, by ignoring the call for the Consecration of Russia, have brought this chastisement upon us.
Help! RCA Victor – am I on the right lines? 😀
(Your reply to Josephine appeared when I posted mine)
“We are reaping what we have sown” is a good summary of what I am trying to say. In fact, it throws a somewhat intriguing light on the role of the Church in salvation history: it would appear (I’m speculating here) that not only is the Church the Ark of Salvation for the fallen human race, but she is also the most powerful instrument of punishment!
It applies to us as individuals because we are individual members of the Mystical Body of Christ. Everything we do affects the other members.
I don’t think I can explain it any more clearly than with this equation: (a) St. John Eudes warns that the worst form of God’s wrath and punishment (i.e. chastisement) is corrupt clergy; (b) the modern Church is full of corrupt clergy.
(a) + (b) = (c): we are under chastisement. This is St. John Eudes’ statement, not my opinion. As to whether it is a fact, it’s staring you right in the face!
About the term chastisement, I’ve heard it used numerous times from many traditional priests – frequently in the context of “we are in the period of the Minor Chastisement.” That is, a preview of the Major Chastisement, i.e. the time of the antiChrist. God always gives us previews and types of things to come.
The problem with “What did I do to deserve this,” which is the same as “This is not just or fair,” is thinking that we are exempt from punishment because (fill in the blank: we say our daily Rosary, frequent the traditional Sacraments, obey Church teaching, etc.). Did Our Lady of Fatima tell us to do penance – oh, except for those Catholics who don’t deserve to be punished? Did Our Lord protest, when he was being scourged and executed, that it wasn’t fair, that he was innocent? How about the first phrase of “The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be destroyed…”?
Where did you get the [mistaken] idea that you are exempt? I’m not sure you actually have that idea, and please forgive me if I’ve jumped to the wrong conclusion, but if you do, odds are that it has been nourished by the daily finger-pointing of trad authors and their indignation.
Speaking of MM & Co., as I said earlier here, I used to devour everything the trad authors wrote, even Voris, before I realized he was a self-serving fraud, and even Verrecchio, before he went off the rails. That is, until I noticed what was missing. Furthermore, I think that a steady diet of these people creates and/or enforces this very attitude of “This isn’t fair – it’s all the fault of these corrupt clergy.” It is very dangerous, and I think “I should not be chastised” leads directly to “I will not serve.”
PS: I apologize if my first response sounds too heated or blunt, but I was rushing through because of a pending phone appointment with , as Editor would say “A.N.Other.” Anyway, I hope what I wrote makes sense, without any emotional overtones.
It is more than possible that I have missed your point, and I’m sorry if I have misjudged the context of your post. I can only say that I have always assumed, from listening to Michael Matt, and to his frequent admonitions to ask us to pray the rosary, make sacrifices, and to fast, that he is aware that we are reaping what we have sown in going along with the modern world; he has made mention over the years of the laxity of parents and grandparents in “going along to get along” with their family in matters such as sexual morality/second “marriages” etc. He has made frequent reminders of correct teaching. He has urged parents to protect their children from the influence of false teaching.
We must remember that his audience is not just of traditional Catholics; there will be many who have absolutely no idea of what has occurred and who are deeply infected in Modernism – indeed we are all infected to some extent by this insidious virus – but many are affected much more than those who have been fortunate (and blessed) to have been spared.
What possible harm can it do to reach out to our benighted brothers and sisters and offer to stand together with them against the pernicious statements of this Pope?
I thought this interview with the leader of the SSPX would be of interest to bloggers
Many thanks for that link – will hopefully get to read it tomorrow, at some point.
Thank you for posting that link, I enjoyed reading the interview.
I think Fr Pagliarani makes a number of good points.
I like how he highlights how erroneous it is that conservative Catholics are always harking back to John Paul II, who seems to be a comfort blanket for them. When, in fact, he is part of the problem, a step on the pathway to Francis.
I also hope Cardinal Mueller will be given pause to reflect by the interview, given Father Pagliarani points out the obvious dichotomy between his strong criticism of Amoris Laetitia and his insistence that the SSPX accept Vatican II novelties. This is obviously a stance of complete confusion, given Amoris Laetitia is only the natural development of the seeds of Vatican II.
I thought it was a very interesting and measured interview.
I agree that Michael Matt often looks weary in his videos and this is another one. However, no wonder. This crisis shows no sign of ending, just getting worse. A few elderly bishops and cardinals speaking out isn’t enough, although I agree it is better than nothing. Younger bishops and priests won’t speak out, as they are too career driven, IMHO.
I did like the way Michael Matt called out the Pope for being “the schismatic” at the end of the video. Needed to be said, not that Francis will care.
Here’s another thought regarding our exchange above: this chastisement is not only for Catholics and our various failings. It is for the entire human race, which has fallen into a state of depravity that is possibly even worse than conditions that prevailed at the time of Our Lord’s birth.
Keeping that in mind, what do you think of this analogy: God, Innocence Himself, took flesh in order to be chastised for the sins of the fallen human face. Likewise, it seems fitting that good Catholics should be chastised for the sins of same. Moreover, our response to this chastisement should not be to complain about it, but to accept it and do penance, to temper God’s wrath.
Also, I have in mind the beginning of the daily renewal of St. Louis de Montfort’s the Consecration to the Immaculate Heart: “I [name], a faithless sinner, renew and ratify today in thy hands the vows of my Baptism.”
In other words, are we really so innocent?
Just a few points to make on this for clarification, because your concern about Michael Matt & Co appears to centre on the perception that he does not recognise this chastisement or speak about it often enough. I think the same criticism might well be levelled at my unworthy self. So, with that in mind, allow me to throw the following points into the mix – always aware that we may be a cross-purposes again. We should, by now, be the proud owners of trophies marking our expertise in this field 😀
So, here I go, albeit into the valley of death, (to paraphrase Alfred Lord Tennyson):
1) Nobody can constantly speak or write about the same thing, make the same point repeatedly, however, important, in the space of every short article or video talk. I’m sure Michael Matt will have pointed out the chastening nature of the current crisis more than once, as I know I’ve done myself; but with limited space and so much evidence of said chastening crisis to report, it should not be necessary to mention it every five minutes. I note you mention that the “chastisement” is mentioned by your priest often, but we need to remember that (from my own experience, and from the dire state of both world and Church) the majority of priests are smitten with, if not steeped in, clericalism and tend to want to keep the laity praying and doing penance, to the exclusion of participating in the active lay apostolate. We need to do more than “just” prayer and penance, albeit that these supernatural actions are of central importance. Of course, I know that you know that or you wouldn’t be here 😀 How many others listening to the same sermons, though, are in your enlightened state? How many of them have even heard of Scotland? 😀
2) Throughout history, God has chastised His people – this is far from being something new. Always, though, His chastisement springs from His love for His people – there is copious evidence of this in Sacred Scripture, both Old & New Testaments.
3) However, not so fast. It’s not simply a case of “you have sinned, so I, God will chastise / punish you.” More accurately, anyway, when He chastises, God is disciplining us – something a bit different from “punishment” as we generally define it, and when we think of the chastisement, we tend to equate it with being punished.
4) In the account of Our Lord’s cure of the man born blind (St John’s Gospel 9:2-3) Jesus corrects the disciples who ask if this man was born blind because he or his parents had sinned. Our Lord replied: “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”
So, in summary, I think we need to acknowledge that, of course, there is a sense in which we have brought this crisis on ourselves and are paying the price (and this applies in a particular and unique way to the 20th/21st century popes) but as long as any particular “orthodox/traditional” commentators are trying to live and spread the Message of Fatima, we can assume that they do, in fact, realise the chastening nature of what we are suffering in the Church today.
I do hope you get my drift, RCA Victor; just in case, however, my advice is as follows – and I’ll finish with this…
Don’t mess with me. I know Karate, Judo, Taekwon-Do, Ju-jitsu, and 28 other dangerous words!
I really thought I’d got the months and dates mixed up and today was 1st April – now I really HAVE heard it all.
The nutty Sister behind this suggestion is up to her eyes in academic qualifications. Just shows, they mean nothing – NOTHING – in the light of her spiritual blindness, if you’ll excuse the [light] pun 😀
That’s so unbelievable. I am lost for words!
Maybe it would turn out that the robots were better than the human priests, LOL! It’s one answer to the child abuse problem, I guess!
Editor, Therese and Josephine,
Whilst I brush up on breaking planks with carefully aimed karate chops, and on the other hand, apologize once again for my excessively blunt opinions, here are a few more thoughts on my previous posts:
This discussion has expanded my perspective on the current crisis and our culpability in same. Especially, as I posted somewhere above, having to do with this analogy: Our Innocent Lord took flesh in order to be chastised for our sins, i.e. the sins of all humanity; therefore it seems likely that faithful Catholics, taking up our cross after Him, are being/will be chastised for the sins of the world. One major difference being, of course, that none of us, no matter how faithful, is innocent.
In other words, I have begun to think of this not just as a crisis in the Church, but a crisis for the whole world – which must be expiated for by faithful Catholics. I’m reminded of the Carmelite martyrs of Compiegne – not that we will all be martyred, but who knows….
Regarding the services of the traditionalist authors and bloggers, I really don’t expect them to constantly repeat the chastisement perspective, but I would like to read it just now and then, and I don’t recall ever having had that satisfaction. Senility? Perhaps. Furthermore, I think their constant focus on exposing doctrinal errors and corruption, as though everything is all the fault of clergy whom we must resist, is very dangerous, and cultivates the delusion that we [faithful] [traditional] Catholics are innocent in this mess. Resist the errors, certainly, but don’t resist legitimate authority. That is a lay apostolate that has gone off the rails.
[Sidebar question: has Pope Francis, so far, actually issued any erroneous teaching which he has commanded us to obey? Doesn’t seem like it.]
On that same note, last year I had a brief commbox exchange with the owner of the 1P5 blog. His concluding post was that he didn’t think he should have to be chastised/suffer because he hadn’t done anything wrong, he was trying to defend the Church, and it just wasn’t fair. At that point I said good-bye to 1P5 and to all other bloggers who were making a living off this crisis…of whom there are quite a few.
Finally, Editor, I wasn’t clear on your distinction between chastisement and punishment. Could you elaborate, elucidate, expound, enlarge, and exhaustively and extensively explain?
I think I said there is a distinction to be made between punishment and discipline, not chastisement and punishment, although I can see how one might accuse me of ambiguity in this matter. However, I would avoid accusing me of anything right now, because, having had one of those days, I, nevertheless, devoted quite some time typing a reply to your latest post and then,no idea how, I accidentally deleted it. I am not a happy person right now.
In essence, let me simply say that one of my punch lines was that ALL evil in the world is ALWAYS caused by our sins; our tendency to sin is a result of Adam’s and Eve’s Original Sin, as you know, and throughout history God has used various means to discipline us and bring His people back to heel.
However, that doesn’t excuse our duty to deal with the immediate causes of evil, whether we are policemen, judges or doctors. None of these professionals can dismiss the evil with which they are faced by reminding crooks and the sick that their condition is, ultimately, a result of human sin.
There was more – that was my punch line… I hope it suffices for now. Oh, and the distinction between punishment and discipline is simple. In teacher in-service events, they are reminded that punishment only tells the culprit what is bad and should be avoided, whereas part of the discipline process is to encourage the culprit to behave better in future.
That’s why attention to the Fatima Message is crucial. If we live the Fatima Message, we are seeing it as a means of discipline to avoid the punishment which is sure to come if we do NOT attend to Fatima. That’s what Our Lady Herself said: “if my message is heeded, Russia will be converted …..If not, nations will be annihilated, many souls lost” etc (quoting from memory, but I think that’s the gist of what Our Lady said.)
Think, for example, of the Jesuit community of priests who were spared when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in Japan. Despite the destruction all around, they suffered no ill effects, and when asked about this, they said they believed it was due to the fact that they were living the Fatima message.
I am not sure if this is all making sense but if not, come back for more – I will keep trying. If there’s one thing I really am, as you know, it’s “trying”… I really AM very trying. 😀
If you have 3 sides, does that make you an isosceles triangle??
Seriously, your post clears things up a bit. I would like to add, however, that it seems clear that we have not avoided the punishment which is sure to come. It came, alright, and it’s been gathering steam since 1960, when John XXIII decided to do the exact opposite of what Our Lady asked: he compromised with Russia for the sake of his Council.
I’m sure there is more punishment in the pipeline, though, the way things are going.
An indirect slap in the face to Pope Francis:
Notice the difference between Pope Francis’ exhortation to us all to “obey” the UN and President Donald Trump’s address to that scoundrel body today. Watching the leaders of the listening nations, open mouthed and shocked at his fearless speech is a breath of the very freshest of air… No wonder the so-called “liberals” hate him…
Comments are closed.