Traditionis Custodes…God’s Sense of Humour?editor
“Truth be told, though, when I learned of Traditionis Custodes I became overwhelmed with joy. The Holy Ghost is working among men, God be praised, and Francis is His unwilling agent.” Click here to read more…
Thanks ED for putting that piece from the Remnant on . Just one thing when I clicked on ( HERE ) my IPad would not take me to the Link and I had to use My Phone. Not that that bothers me it’s just Has Apple now moved in on Frankies Orders to Block Traditional Catholic Sites.
As for the Article itself Mans Will cannot nor never Will Triumph over Gods Will . Even Ghandi said that . There Have been Tyrants all down through the Centuries but Gods Will wins in the end.
Ad also like others opinions on This Communist Manifesto of Francis. I personally don’t believe that He wrote it as He’s not even Educated Theology Wise to write even that Garbage.
Also the whole document reaks of Narcissism and we know which Sex in this Fallen World of ours are the most Narcissistic People on Planet Earth.
As for Gods sense of Humour He most certainly has put the Cat amongst the Pigeons Here .
But I sense that Bergoglio isn’t out just to Ban the TLMASS , He is out to Ban Catholicism itself. As you probably have now read Archbishop Viganos Letter when at last He says Bergoglio is not a Catholic and that’s the end product. As it says in your article the Reprobates. Freemasons and Communists have been infiltrating Our Catholic Faith for many decades and Bergoglio is just the Message Boy. An Evil Message Boy but a Message Boy just the same .
Also the reason that He will not meet with Catholic Men of Faith is He only meets with The Likes of Biden the Horrifying McCarric ,Greta Thunberg and of course Bergoglios Boss, The Leader of The Communist Party in China. Xi Jinping.
Can anyone on Here actually say since this Terrible Man became Pope has he given an Audience to a Catholic. And I don’t include Jimmy Martin in that last sentence.
“But I sense that Bergoglio isn’t out just to Ban the TLMASS , He is out to Ban Catholicism itself.”
As Editor might say (without the American accent she keeps trying to imitate), “You got it in one.”
My American accent works best when I say You gotta be kidding me!
You can even hear the exclamation mark!
As RCA Victor says that I would say, allow me to say… you got it in one!
This is a great analytical article on the Remnant, very well put together to give the historical context of how the Church came to have such a wilful and dangerous Pope on the Throne of St. Peter. However, I would caution anyone reading the article over at the Remnant to be careful of one suspiciously-worded offering from the author. It has to do with Papal infallibility and it looks like he has a problem accepting that dogma of the Faith. I have commented on this at the Remnant and now I want to warn readers here of this single issue Ihave with the article, which is, however, serious enough to discount his entire offering.
I have asked that the author clarify what he means when he says he has difficulty with Papal infallibility and goes on to observe that, for him, it’s skirting dangerously close to encroaching on God’s prerogatives. At best, I think this author completely misunderstands Papal infallibility.
Glad you pointed that out, I was stumbling over that myself but ran out of time (and knowledge) to post about it…..!
Athanasius for what my 2 Pence is worth I read it to mean that a Non Catholic Pope cannot make an Infallible Dogma of Faith as with Him being a Non Catholic He disqualifies Himself.
So Bergoglio Cannot make an Infallible Statement of Faith. In fact He cannot as far as Scripture is concerned make any Statements concerning the One True Apostolic Faith as He is in noway connected to it .
Again I would like to ask the good People on Here IF the Cardinals and Bishops who stop the TLMASS are committing Sins against The Holy Spirit as without a doubt they are Stopping or trying to Stop Worship to Almighty God .
Also it’s no use those Cardinals . Bishops and Priests saying their only being obedient . Am sure lots of Nazis used that same Excuse at Nuremberg. If am not mistaken.
Actually, Pope Francis still holds the authority from Our Lord to declare infallibly because that special charism of the Papacy is not dependent upon the fidelity of the one who sits on St. Peter’s Chair. We are speaking of a supernatural assistance guaranteed to the Church at all times when it comes to dogmas of the Faith, regardless of whether or not the Pope is personally faithful or not.
As for the Cardinals and bishops sinning against the Holy Ghost by suppressing the TLM, I guess it all comes down to culpability in the soul. If they act to suppress the true Mass knowing it to be the true Mass then there is an argument to say that they are resisting the known truth, which, if carried on till death, would constitute a sin against the Holy Ghost. If, however, they act against the TLM genuinely believing in their material heresy that it is no longer a valid rite of the Church, then I’m not quite so sure that they could be said to be resisting the known truth. More like they are lost to the known truth. It gets a bit dodgy when judging sins to be against the Holy Ghost because it is a sin that cannot be forgiven in this life or the next. It suffices for us to know that those prelates who act against the TLM commit a very serious sin before God, for which they will answer in eternity, most probably in eternal damnation.
You are of course free to disagree with me, but not with the Church. I have quoted the teaching of the Church, not my own opinion in the matter of both the legitimate office of this Pope, which he does not lose as a result of material heresy, and infallibility which, incidentally, he has never invoked.
Lots of people say Francis is not the Pope, some say it because they think he was elected by fraud, others because they think he loses office by heresy. Neither opinion is consistent with the mind of the Church and the teaching of the saint theologians. Hence, I always personally err on the side of caution lest dethroning the Pope leads to my eternal damnation. I don’t see the nedd to take such a risk with my eternal destiny.
Thank you for that warning. To be honest, I haven’t read the entire article through, but I will do so later and add my support for your comment over on The Remnant site – assuming that you are correct. I mean, there’s a first time for everything, so who knows… 😀
I would be glad of your input on this, that is, when you get the time to read the full article. RCAVictor has already said that he was a bit perplexed by the infalibility comment of the author, so if you think the same then I’m in the clear. To be honest, I wasn’t sure if I was reading him right, though I’m fairly sure he’s struggling with the infallibility dogma.
I await your wisdom!
I’ve just returned from The Remnant where I posted the following in reply to your cautionary warning…
I take it you refer to the following extract:
One of the greatest obstacles to the unity of Christendom is papal infallibility. Elevating an officeholder (a sinful man, just like me) into a kind of oracle is, for many (including me), downright off-putting. Popes certainly have graces beyond what the run of pew-warmers receive. They also come under relentless attack—the devil hates no one, except Mary, so much as he hates the Holy Father. As a Catholic, and also as a human being with some experience in the ways of the world, I can testify that rolling the dice on fallen man is a losing proposition. No matter how holy the man, in the end infallibility skirts dangerously close to encroaching on God’s prerogatives.
If so, you are correct to offer a word of caution. To consider a pope “a kind of oracle” because of the gift of infallibility, is to totally misunderstand the nature of the papal office. As for his final sentence in that piece… unbelievable. Breaking News for Jason: God decided to share a major “prerogative” with His pontiffs, to give us confidence that when a Pope pronounces a teaching to be held by the whole Church he speaking the mind of Christ. We know that because the dogma of infallibility excludes the possibility that any pope will make binding on the faithful, any new doctrine. Won’t happen.
Jason clearly does not understand that the dogma of papal infallibility is actually a guarantee against false teaching being passed on to members of the Church. He does not believe that the Pope, by virtue of his office, is the Vicar of Christ on earth, and that the dogma of infallibility is a protection against bad popes like Francis. It is perhaps worth noting two things: (1) Pope Benedict told one of his interviewers that he had no intention of calling on the gift of infallibility and (2) Francis has not done so either. God knows what He is doing. The very liberalism which drives these bad popes issues from the same blindness which prohibits them from defining their false teachings, making them binding for Catholics under the grace of infallibility. God, as I have already said, knows what He is doing. Since this is actually a key theme of Jason’s article, it’s puzzling the he doesn’t apply it to infallibility.
Finally, I’m somewhat dismayed on reading this error because, for the first time in a long time, I paid a visit to see if there was anything of interest to post on our Catholic Truth blog (in Scotland) using it to kickstart a discussion. Now I need to go over there and point out that your cautionary warning is absolutely necessary to avoid our bloggers (and Remnant readers) from falling into serious error about this key dogma.
I agree with you that the author needs to confirm that we are interpreting his statements about infallibility correctly – if I have misinterpreted, I apologise in advance, but I can’t see any Catholic interpretation of his apparent rejection of the dogma.
Thank you Martin, for this alert. Ends…
Will be interesting to see if Jason responds.
Martin I disagree with you as I Do Not Believe that Bergoglio is a Legitimate Pope on that I have stated my reasoning ,as to me He is the Original Bull in a China Shop, and unfortunately a so called Papal Bull at that. Going to your answer about His Puppet Cardinals. Bishops and Priests and my question about the Sin against The Holy Spirit. Ignorance will not be an excuse to them come Judgement Day ,just as it will not be an Excuse for me. For Example. I have only been attending the TLMASS for approximately 5 Years. There were 2 main things that took me to the TLMASS this site as I have said, and a Priest of whom will remain anonymous of whom av also said that ,and I quote.
” All of those Traditional Catholics are Nutcases “. I remember on another article you and I more or less saying that we were glad to be numbered amongst those nutcases. What am actually getting at is any Catholic worth their Salt who goes back to a TLMASS and doesn’t see the complete difference between both Masses is either Spiritually blind or knows nothing of the Faith. Now I am in noway saying I am a Better Catholic than anyone else
take Note Bishop Arthur Roche if you are reading this. But what the TLMass has done is make me look differently at the whole Mass in its entirety.
It’s also ( again take note Arthur Roche ) got me trying to learn some Latin.
I am and never was a great scholar but I think am doing — No To Bad —
I’ve just read your comment on the Remnant and it expands excellently on what I have said. I have left my own comment in response, culminating in the hope that Jason will clarify his comment and prove us both wrong in our interpretation. Now we wait and see.
Martin I disagree with you.
Do you want me to delete this? I mean (to quote the famous tennis player, John McEnroe)… “You cannot be serious!”
“…in his fatuous homilies Francis ventriloquizes, as asides, the voices of those who dislike his policies. He mischaracterizes their arguments, presenting ridiculous straw men which he proceeds to clear away with platitudes and meaningless gibberish, off-the-cuff theological claptrap of which even atheists are ashamed.”
Just wanted to chime in and say, first of all, that this article is a work of genius, and may God bless Jason Morgan, whoever he is.
Second, in pursuit of Abp. Vigano’s “Deep Church = Deep State” analogy, the dual track to hell of the NWO, it’s interesting to note that the marionette on the other dual track, Joke* Biden, is also a practiced generator of gibberish, a liar, utterly corrupt, and an attempted practitioner of the Nazi will….which, Jason Morgan fails to mention, is an imitative shadow, or a reflection, of the original rebellion of the will by Lucifer.
Perhaps Our Dearest Lord will cut the strings of these two marionettes at the same time. And yes, I believe Francis is an NWO marionette, though he clearly doesn’t seem to realize, as Jason Morgan points out, which Hand is ultimately pulling his strings…
I think you made the same mistake as I made – either not reading the article through or skimming it – because Jason’s “work of genius” contains a clanger of a theological error. See Athanasius’s warning above and my “work of real genius” response, posted over at The Remnant, where the pay is even worse that it is here…
I’m still looking for the problematic passage you quoted above, but at first I thought said passage was this one:
“To understand Vatican II, one must understand Vatican I. Vatican I was the council at which Pastor aeternus (1870), the bull of papal infallibility, was decreed. At the time, the Papal States were under literal bombardment by the armies of the Enlightenment. Pope Pius IX felt very strongly that ratifying the traditional primacy of his office by imbuing certain papal pronouncements with the same charism as the Magisterium itself would help the Catholic Church continue to save souls despite the loss of Christendom to the forces of darkness. The Church had lost the culture, in other words, but the pope became in his person powerful enough—so the thinking went—to counter the outrages of the Enlightenment devils and keep the faithful strong worldwide.”
I don’t know if (a) “imbuing certain papal pronouncements with the same charism as the Magisterium itself” was indeed Pius IX’s intention – this does not sound like the correct definition of either the Magisterium or papal pronouncements; or (b) the bull made the pope powerful enough “in his person” – which contradicts Church doctrine, since the pope only has “power” to pronounce ex cathedra, his “person” having nothing to do with anything.
In fact [sidebar], if Pope Francis, for example, has “power in his person,” then we are all truly up a certain creek without a paddle…..
I’d say that Jason Morgan doesn’t, in fact, understand Vatican I at all, but I’m in no position to decide if that is true.
I have to admit that, unlike Athanasius and Gabriel Syme, when I read the article right through, I didn’t / don’t share their opinion that it’s a brilliant article.
Indeed, what you quote above reflects the kind of nonsense modernist “scholars” inflict on students in teacher training colleges and seminaries. The key tell-tale giveaway is the interpretation of infallibility as being all about making the pope more powerful. The supernatural, the fact that it is a grace from God, is either never mentioned or laughed away. The idea that the pope wanted to strengthen his position in light of the geo-political situation, is very typical of the alleged Catholic intelligentsia.
So, sorry, folks, but on reflection, I would not be choosing that article again, and Jason is not on my list of “writers to watch” – at least not in the sense that I watch for Archbishop Vigano’s latest offering, or, dare I say… Athanasius’ latest… Well, he’s written more letters than St Paul, gimme a break!
I enjoyed the (very good) remnant article, however I agree with the point of caution raised by Athanasius as regards the authors view of Papal infallibility.
I like to think my own understanding of Papal infallibility is basic yet solid; in any case, surely it would alarm any serious Catholic to hear the concept being described in terms of the Pope being “a kind of oracle”.
I had not heard of the author, Jason Morgan, before – but he certainly has a very interesting bio.
Aspects of the article reminded me of another piece I had read, this time at New Liturgical Movement, by its Editor Gregory DiPippo. An irritating reference to “St John Paul II” notwithstanding, I liked these parts at the end, in particular:
Regarding the motu proprio, he writes:
There can be no clearer sign that the post-Conciliar revolution is totally uninteresting to the rising generations, and knowing this, grows deathly afraid, and resorts to doing by force what it cannot do by persuasion
A dying revolution is not a dead revolution; it can still strike out and cause pain, and will likely do so. But in the very act of doing so, it confesses that it has failed and is dying. Do not be afraid. The revolution is over.
I agree about that rather irritating reference to St. John Paul II, but the quotes about the Vatican II revolution are brilliant. The truth in a few words!
Meanwhile, back at the passage you cited above, I got the impression that Mr. Morgan was giving the world’s perspective, and the perspective of false religions, on papal infallibility – not the Church’s perspective – and that he was trying to sympathize with these alien perspectives by identifying with his fellow fallen creatures.
However, this could be a case of my rarely manifested charity overflowing into a sieve….I hope Mr. Morgan clarifies himself post haste.
It’s quite possible the author was trying to express papal infallibility according to the perspective of the world, so I wouldn’t accuse you of being overly charitable. If this was the intention, however, it was very awkwardly done, unlike the crisp writing in the rest of the article. As you say, though, we need the author to clarify.
RCA Victor / Athanasius,
I think it’s crystal clear that Jason was expressing his own (ignorant – sorry) opinion about the dogma of infallibility.
When are you men/guys going to stop being so charitable and agree with me? How could I possibly be wrong – have I ever been wrong before? Don’t answer that…
You’re trying to abolish our wriggle room! Ok, it certainly looks like he doesn’t believe in the dogma of infallibility – I just want him to confirm the obvious.
Not only has Jason not commented on our concerns, but neither has anyone else over there on The Remnant platform. I am amazed. I just do not know what to make of it – don’t they think it’s significant if a writer – billed as a contributor to a site widely regarded as “the” most traditional site/newspaper on the scene – doesn’t accept the key dogma of papal infallibility?
Not for the first time, I’m afraid, am I disappointed (to say the least) in The Remnant.
Yes, I have noticed that no one has commented, not even the Remnant Administrator. I allowed for a bit of a delay in responses given time differences but I would have thought someone would have said something by now. It is quite worrying given the gravity of the error in this columnists article. Still, I suppose there’s time yet.
I meant to ask a question about the image atop this thread: does anyone know where that came from? Are these two idiots trying to express their solidarity with “indigenous peoples”?
I don’t know the source of the picture but I suspect that it dates from the Amazon Synod or some “with it” priest marking April Fool’s Day or whatever. Probably “whatever”…
Regarding your overall opinion of the Remnant article, I am now eating part of my hat – stopping at the brim until we hear from Mr. Morgan.
Oops – Editor, my above post was addressed to your infallible self…
Actually, I think the point was made on another Traditionis Custodes thread, that God would use this evil Motu Proprio to empty the novus ordo pews, so in truth, I don’t think the author of The Remnant article is saying anything much that is new.
Looking at the picture in the introduction, I wonder what else goes on at novus ordo Masses around the world? I’ve never seen anything ridiculous like that in any Scottish parish but then I don’t get out much, LOL!
For some reason known only to himself and his Guardian Angel, FOOF chose the “teens vaccine” thread to let us know that the first Scottish Bishop to break ranks and ban the Sunday TLM in his diocese is Bishop Toal of Motherwell. Below, my reply to the news…
That’s a disgrace, not least because that same bishop continues to support the LGBT+ promoting priest, Father Paul Morton PP of St Bride’s Cambuslang.
[In answer to your question] I attend the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) in Renfrew Street, Glasgow. I attend the 11am Mass (which is a sung Mass) but there is a low Mass in the church at 9am, attended by His Holiness Athanasius. Unfortunately, there is no car park, but vouchers are available – if you plan to come, let us know here and we will give you more details.
One priest today told me that there are still a number of Masses in Glasgow – the TLM in the Sacred Heart, Bridgeton, St Bridget’s, Toryglen, and several in the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Balornock.
I do hope you will write to your bishop to let him know that you WILL be seeking another TLM to fulfil your Sunday obligation – that will drive him nuts, especially if you tell him you’ll be attending the SSPX!
If you’d like a trial “run”, there will be First Friday Mass and Benediction tomorrow in the SSPX church in Glasgow at 6.30pm, and First Saturday Mass at 11.a.m. Confessions before Mass every time.
Just think – we could meet as soon as tomorrow evening after Mass! WOW! Can’t wait! You’ll pick me out in the crowd easily enough – I’ll be the slim, glamorous etc gal-about-town
Editor, FOOF et. al,
Don’t get too comfortable with the remaining non-SSPX TLM’s in Glasgow. The Vatican Stasi on are their trail:
WOW! That is truly astonishing. I copied this short paragraph – although the entire report is horrifying…
As one well-experienced Vatican observer who asked to remain unnamed puts it: “I think the pope will punish in every way possible any bishop who defies him directly. He has used his spy networks to good effect during his entire career, and he has never ceased.” This source thinks that the Pope might even use accusations of cover-up of sexual abuse as a tool to silence the resistant bishops.
Talk about The Dictator Pope – to put it mildly… “tyrannical and unprincipled” – shamefully so…
In case you took me up on my suggestion and went to the SSPX First Friday Mass this evening, I have to apologise for not being there, after all. I travelled into town with family members, to attend the FF Mass and Benediction (to which I was greatly looking forward – ages since I’ve been to Benediction.)
However, one of my passengers became ill and we had to turn back.
I kid you not, one of these days I will write a book about the various unexpected occurrences which have kept me from getting to weekday Masses for about a million years, or so it seems.
I plan to be at First Saturday Mass tomorrow but you know what they say – if you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans…
Editor, FOOF, et al,
Here’s the letter I have just sent to Bishop Toal via the Chancellor of the diocese. I didn’t have a lot of time to prepare this letter so it’s probably not as erudite as I would have preferred. Still, it’s straight to the point!
Dear Bishop Toal,
It was with the greatest sadness that I read of your decision to abolish the Sunday morning Traditional Latin Mass in your diocese, moving it instead to a Thursday evening as if to salve your conscience in respect to your unjust and reprehensible obedience to man rather than to God.
I attach for your information web links to the responses of a number of senior clerical figures in the Church who have already described Pope Francis’ Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodis as an ill-informed and vindictive act that seeks to impose his will, not Our Lord’s, on the Church, irrespective of the division and harm that may result from such a wicked imposition.
Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ on earth yet he writes in this matter of the sacred liturgy as though he were God, declaring with impertinence, backed by an explanatory letter which is so full of bitterness and outright lies that it could have been penned by Lucifer himself, his decision to suppress the Mass of the saints and martyrs.
Insult is further added to injury by the very title of a Motu Proprio which, rather preserving Catholic liturgical Tradition, orders its eradication.
Your duty as a Catholic bishop was to publicly resist this abuse of authority with respectful firmness, as did St. Paul when he challenged St. Peter’s overreach – “because he was to be blamed”. Instead, you have made yourself a willing co-conspirator with Pope Francis in this attempt to suppress a venerable and perfectly legitimate (see Summorum Pontificum) liturgical rite of the Church, a sacred rite codified in perpetuity by no less than St. Pius V in his Bull Quo Primum.
What you should be doing is praying for this Pope, arguably the most controversial and destructive pontiff in the history of the Church, not indulging his vindictive and divisive self will.
I sincerely hope you will reflect on what you’re doing and change course immediately, as is your bounden duty before Our Lord, not to mention the saints and martyrs who were sanctified by the very Traditional rite of Mass that Francis now seeks to unlawfully suppress.
Be under no illusion, my Lord Bishop, that those within the Church who hate and detest this venerable rite of Mass, seeking every opportunity to undermine it and deprive souls of its magnificent fruits, have a very severe judgment awaiting them in eternity. I pray God you will recognise and acknowledge this infallible truth while there is yet time to undo the damage.
Be assured of my urgent prayers for your priestly soul.
It’s a first class letter and I’d love to be that fly on the wall when he reads it.
Having said that, and knowing the amount of correspondence he has ignored on grave subjects such as his persecution of Father Despard and his support for the LGBT+ priest, Fr Morton in St Bride’s Cambuslang, I don’t expect any about-turn from him any time soon.
Still, you’ve done your duty, and in the economy of grace, who knows how your excellent points just might affect his conscience. At the very least, if he has a shred of Catholic sense left in his soul, it should leave him feeling very uneasy.
I agree with Editor, that your letter is very good.
Unfortunately I cannot find or recall a source, but I did hear that – long prior to the motu proprio – that Bishop Toal was circulating an anti-Mass article by Arthur Roche in his diocese.
He must have been dismayed to see that the results of this in his Diocese were the continued flourishing of tradition at St Marys, Cleland, and the introduction of new Masses at St James, Coatbridge, and also Carfin Grotto.
Still, the Diocese was hardly a hotbed of traditionalism. What threat was a small congregation at their 8am Sunday Mass? They would not have had much contact with the novus ordo lot, at their Saturday afternoon “get it out the way” Mass.
Bishop Toal’s approach seems to be that he will tolerate the Mass but not on Sundays, which does not make a whole lot of sense. (Maybe he likes the financial donations which these faithful make, but wishes to deny them spiritual fruit on a Sunday).
The worst Novus Ordo Masses I ever experienced were always in the Diocese of Motherwell, matched only by the occasion (years ago) when I had the great misfortune to unwittingly attend one of Fr Jim Lawlor’s Masses in Glasgow.
And so Bishop Toal would have done well instead to foster these green shoots of tradition in his Diocese and seek to expand their benefits across his whole territory.
I have heard recently that the Bishop has decided to permit a Traditional Mass at Carfin grotto on two occasions per year. Maybe his tolerance here is due to Carfin meeting Francis’ remarkable stipulation that the Mass should be not be held in Parish Churches.
I recently attended the first of these Carfin Masses, which was a great success (I reckon nearly 300 people attended) which makes his decision all the more baffling.
For any interested party, the next Mass at Carfin Grotto is on September 11, a Saturday, at (I think) 11am. I will go along again and will be able to take my children this time (the first Mass was in the evening) as I am sure they will enjoy looking around the Grotto with the various statues etc.
I would encourage as many people to go as possible, as a response to the Motu Proprio and Bishop Toal.
And also as a show of support for Fr Liam O’Connor (the parish priest whom Bishop Toal’s action targets and who said the first Carfin Mass). He must be very deflated to see his efforts curtailed thanks to the hierarchy’s insistence that everything must be rubbish and in decline.
That’s a great letter. I hope you will publish his reply, if you get one.
Editor, Gabriel Syme & Lily
Thank you one and all. I have a very bad feeling, as you have already intimated, that my letter will make no difference to Bishop Toal. If it doesn’t, given his link with this LGBT priest and his distribution of Arthus Roche’s anti-TLM literature even before Francis’s MP, then I think it would be fair to conclude that Bishop Toal has lost the Catholic Faith and is now, in fact, an apostate.
We shall wait and see if he does re-think the road to Hell he has just embarked on with his abuse of office. I have always believed what the saints have said about those who hate the Traditional Latin liturgy and seek to eradicate it – they are without a doubt evil men and haters of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Here’s an interesting development: it would appear that Francis, in breaking the legs of the crucified Traditional Mass, also cancelled his own decree:
“Concerning the decree Cum sanctissima (22 February 2020): The decree permits a Mass in commemoration of a Saint canonized after 1962 to be offered in the Extraordinary Form on a “Class 3” date in substitution for the Mass shown in the ordo for that date, except during Lent or Passiontide…etc.”
Sorry, Saints canonized of late, you’re a victim of the ecclesiastical cancel culture.
(Scroll down a bit)
He’s so full of hate, this pope, that he doesn’t know whether he’s on foot or on horseback, as the old saying goes. Or, as Sister Lucia put it, he’s so completely and diabolically disorientated that he’s no idea what he’s doing.
Cancel Culture Comes To Mass – might make a good thread in its own right 😀
I am very pleased to report that I have, this morning, received an email from Jason Morgan, author of The Remnant article which is the focus of our discussion on this thread. It speaks for itself – and, I’m pleased to say, proves me wrong, big time. Jason writes…
Dear Catholic Truth Scotland Editors,
Greetings in Christ! Thank you for your attention to my little article at The Remnant. I am truly grateful to you for your reflections and charitable corrections.
I am thrilled to learn of Catholic Truth Scotland and will be returning to your site often. Many years ago I had occasion to spend very happy days in Edinburgh, one of my favorite places on earth.
In response to the concerns raised in the above-linked piece, please allow me to assure you that I believe fully in the dogma of papal infallibility. My article was an attempt to show that God is in charge of His Church even when fallen men abuse their authority. Infallibility stands, despite the best efforts of certain Argentinians to convince us otherwise.
As for Vatican I, I have deep respect for Pius IX. I wanted to contextualize the First Vatican Council as both the work of the Holy Ghost and a historically-bounded response to a particular set of cultural and political problems confronting the Church Militant. God sees all and all will be well in the end.
Please keep reading The Remnant! Let us help one another to keep our Holy Faith entire.
May God richly bless you all,
And yes, he speaks of Edinburgh being one of his favourite places on earth, but c’mon folks, nobody’s perfect 😀
This is a wonderfully charitable and humble clarification from the author of the Remnant article and I share your joy at being proved wrong. The article itself, in my opinion, was brilliantly written apart from that one little area of uncertainty. I am delighted to know now that I was in fact misinterpreting that part. God bless Jason for taking the time to clarify. He could certainly teach a few in high places how to behave towards those who respectfully raise legitimate questions!
Jason Morgan is a man of true Catholic character. I hope he comes back to blog here!
The blog “Vox Cantoris” has posted the following information regarding Pope Francis, claiming it comes from Vatican sources:
“We have our own sources in the Vatican and will report the information now for your consideration. The recent surgery was not for diverticulitis but for colon cancer and he is wearing a colostomy bag and is in his last months. Hence, the rush to destroy before he is gone. “
Who knows if this is accurate or not? I suppose we will know soon enough.
A number of comments on the article add to discussion of this point, although this does not affect the veracity of the claims of course.
If Francis will soon leave us, I wonder who might replace him? The College of Cardinals is hardly overflowing with suitable candidates – indeed they are mainly perverts, thieves, crooks and liars from what I can tell.
Given what we know about the extent of the Pope’s surgery, not to mention his age, it is very likely that the official line is untrue and that he does, in fact, have cancer. A few people I know who are medical suspect it’s much more serious than we were told.
Should this prove to be true, and should the few months to live scenario also be true, then what a way to prepare for your judgment – trying to destroy the Mass of the Ages, of the saints and martyrs. That would definitely be a one-way ticket straight to Hell. I sure hope Pope Francis is not trying to destroy the Mass with deliberate evil will, though it does look that way, and I certainly hope he’s not doing it in a hurry before he dies – that would be tragic for him.
As for who will be the next Pope, I think “the God of surprises”, as Francis likes to say flippantly, will definitely spring one on all those who think they can manipulate conclaves through the actions of evil prelates. The Holy Ghost may have something to say about their wicked plans. As the old adage goes: “man proposes but God disposes”.
I am now happy to report that my comment has indeed been posted on this site, so there’s hope. Of course I’ve already had a few sedevacantists taking issue with me – one going so far as to say that I’m calling Our Lord a liar. Typical of bitter and judgmental spirit of sedevacantism.
I saw your comment on the site and also the blog owners response which – thankfully – agreed with you and praised your comment.
Remarkably when I was posting this, in the “related posts” section below, an article about the Vox Cantoris blog appeared. Its from 2015 and relates to the trouble the blog owner had from Fr Thomas Rosica, as I had mentioned:
I went to that blog and read the article you refer to. It’s sadly a sedevacantist site full of vengeful hatred against this Pope (what we call bitter zeal), so I take what they say with a pinch of salt. No good ever comes from sedevacantism, which is just another form of Protestantism disguised as fidelity to Tradition. If only these people realised that in judging the Pope as they do, even wishing him off the face of the earth to meet with eternal damnation, they are damning their own souls. No subordinate in the Church, however exalted, knows what is in the soul of this Pope. God alone has this divine insight which is why God alone will judge Francis. All we can do in the meantime, all we are permitted to do, is resist his assaults on the Mass and the Faith of the martyrs while hoping and praying that he does not die in his present apparent determination to eradicate anything and everything of the Traditional Faith.
I’ve put a response on that blog saying something to this effect but it’s a moderated site and I am not hopeful that the comment will be published. If it is published then just wait and see how bitter the response will be. Bitter zeal is not from God!
I completely agree with you regarding some of the off-colour comments expressed by sedes in the comment section, but I don’t think the site itself is a sedevacantist site.
Apologies If I am wrong, but (for example) it lists Fr Z and Fr John Hunwicke as recommended blogs – sources quite far removed from the usual sede circles.
I think the (canadian?) blog owner previously had legal threats from Fr Thomas Rosica before his disgrace for plagarism, which may explain an embittered edge to the site (not that it justifies it).
I have noticed sedevacantists coming out the woodwork all over the place recently – they recently descended on Fr Ray Blakes twitter page, after his excellent tweet regarding the motu proprio.
Their comments on the web probably give an illusion of higher numbers. In any case I totally agree that we should avoid them!
I’ll keep my powder dry on this for a while yet since I have just noted that my comment against sedevacantism is still not posted after many hours. If the site is not sede then I would expect the moderators to post my comment as well as the sede ones – at least for balance.
You’re right about sedes coming out of the woodwork all over the place recently, their numbers no doubt swollen by this horrendous Pope. I only wish more Catholics would see the very grave danger sedevacantism represents to Catholic souls instead of just thinking that Modernism is the only threat. The devil is very clever, he’ll use Modernism and Tradition to his advantage whenever and wherever careless Catholics open the the door to him.
This is a lovely article in Crisis Magazine about a Protestant woman’s experience at the last TLM in New York after Traditionis Custodes. We should pray for her.
Here’s a great piece by Michael Brendan Dougherty in the New York Times, published today.
“Pope Francis Is Tearing the Catholic Church Apart”
Various Jesuits are having meltdowns on Twitter thanks to the article, which is both testament to its quality and deeply satisfying.
Unfortunately, the FSSP & Co. have responded in a very meek manner to Traditionis Custodes and the nasty remarks of the Pope in the accompanying letter.
Comments are closed.