While the Synod of Bishops on the Family was being conducted in Rome last October, the revelation of a letter expressing the concerns of 13 cardinals over the proceedings marked a turning point in the event. As I reported at the time, it was on 8 October, 2015, that a close friend of the pope himself – the La Stampa journalist Andrea Tornielli – first publicly mentioned the existence of the 13 Cardinals Letter, which had been given to Pope Francis three days earlier by George Cardinal Pell. The cardinals’ main concern was that the Synod was being manipulated in an unorthodox direction with the help of new Synod rules and the placement of questionable prelates in important synodal positions. Tornielli’s own treatment of the letter was dismissive, implying that the cardinals’ concerns were unfounded, and thus, little better than conspiracy theories that should be ignored.
On 12 October, the well-informed Vatican expert Sandro Magister published a full version of the letter in order to give the public a just assessment of what these prominent cardinals – among them the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith himself, Cardinal Gerhard Müller – were saying, and whether or not their concerns were valid. (At the time, Magister’s Vatican press credentials were revoked; it appears that his contacts within the Apostolic See were not.)
Word soon spread that the same day the letter was made public, Pope Francis unleashed an angry public outburst against its authors. The first reports of the spectacle were published by journalist Roberto d’Agostino, founder of the Italian tabloid website Dagospia. The site — known for interspersing news with salacious gossip and lewd pictures — is not fitting to receive a link from a Catholic publication. But the story was soon picked up by the more reputable Italian daily, il Giornale. These early reports indicated that during the evening of 12 October, after learning of Magister’s publication of the letter, the Holy Father fell into a fit of rage at his residence at Casa Santa Marta — in front of some priests and bishops then present. He was said to have shouted, “If this is the case, they [the 13 cardinals] can leave. The Church does not need them. I will throw them all out!”
At the time of this report, I contacted one of the editors with whom I was then working, and his reaction was that it came from a gossip website and that he did not believe the story. With nothing further to go on, I dropped it.
Last December, however, several other incidents brought this topic back to mind. First, I received an email from a priest friend who, after a recent visit to Italy, shared with me that during his visit he had heard from several sources about the incident at Santa Marta. This priest then put me in contact with another priest — an Italian — whom, for the sake of anonymity I will call Fr. Giuseppe. It was Fr. Giuseppe who had personally told my priest friend about the incident. Fr. Giuseppe responded to own my inquiry as follows:
Greetings! The incident certainly appears to be true. I have heard from several second-hand sources who know people who were present that the Holy Father had a terrible outburst in the dining room at Santa Marta in front of bishops, priests, seminarians and many others. He was apparently screaming “Full power has been given to me! I run the show around here. Who do these cardinals think they are? I will remove their [red] hats.” He was so angry that he almost fainted; some say he almost had a heart attack. People were shocked, and the news spread like wildfire in certain circles in Rome.
As a journalist, I wanted more to go on, so I asked if Fr. Giuseppe would contact those those with whom he had spoken who had first-hand sources. Would any of them, I asked, be willing to write down carefully and accurately what they had witnessed, even if only anonymously?
The unanimous response was a resounding, “No.” All of these eye-witnesses appeared to be too afraid even to write an anonymous account of what had transpired! Father Giuseppe was unwilling to let it go. He also had several contacts who live at Casa Santa Marta. Surely, these must have been present in the dining room when Pope Francis spoke, or had at least have heard about what happened? Their response to his question was not to deny it, but only to change the topic. Their unwillingness to confirm it was telling, but their refusal to deny it even moreso.
Father Giuseppe assured me, however, that the story about the papal outburst of anger is now known everywhere in Rome, a city “where there are no secrets; it is too small a place for that.”
I later mentioned the story to a nun of my acquaintance who lives not far from Rome, who has many important and trustworthy contacts in the Vatican. She immediately responded affirmatively, saying: “Oh, yes, I have heard about it, too.” She said that yet another priest had related the story to her, “just after the Synod was over.”
Before publishing this article, I sent a draft of it to two well-informed sources in Rome whom I very much respect. One of them confirmed that he, too, has heard of the story from different people but that he also could not find anyone willing to give a first-hand account. He considers this story to be probable and in line with Pope Francis’ character and conduct. He said, and here I quote him anonymously, but with his permission:
I have heard the same kind of things, from different sources; but I have not been able to find somebody who witnessed the event and was willing to speak about it. Confidentially: I think that it is very likely that the accident was true, considering the character of the Pope and the kind of public reactions he had later.
The other source, Marco Ansaldo of the Italian liberal newspaper La Repubblica, thought the article was accurately written, but he doubted the words of Pope Francis as quoted by Father Giussepe, saying that it does not sound like Pope Francis and adding that Pope Francis would not act like this even when angry. (Father Giuseppe, as we know, had the words from second-hand sources, so it is probable that even if the story is true, they were not an exact account of what was said, but merely descriptive of the tone.) Ansaldo wrote:
I read your article, which is interesting and accurate in the way is reported. The story on the discomfort of the Pope regarding the letter written by the 13 Cardinals could be reliable. But what seems untrue to me are the words of Francis quoted by Father [Giuseppe]. Bergoglio is not expressing himself in that manner. Those are not his common words. Never. And, that the one that is now described is not his way of behaving, even when he could be angry.
This entire story, though widely corroborated through various sources in a position to know, has been impossible to verify definitively. It seems that once again, an atmosphere of fear, and of concerns over papal reprisal, keeps people unwilling to go on the record about what they witnessed. We know that Pope Francis is unafraid to make enemies; he has been described as deeply autocratic; his removal of Cardinal Burke in the wake of the latter’s defense of traditional Catholic teaching on marriage has been described by some as “punitive”; and we have of course seen the atmosphere of fear of papal retribution described elsewhere, perhaps most memorably in the recently-published Open Letter to Pope Francis, composed by a former high-ranking member of the Curia. Another important witness which Sandro Magister recently published was also released by an anonymous author, out of fear for reprisals against the his testimony.
What is the whole truth about this matter? Why has there been so much fear and timidity, so much self-censorship and reticence?
The Vatican has ever been a source of rumor and intrigue, where matters of politics obscure the very fullness of truth that is, perhaps ironically, found only in the Catholic Faith. The answers to these questions are worth knowing, not for satisfying a need for idle gossip, but because they directly indicate the direction of the Church under the present pontificate, and offer insight into just what the Synod agenda truly was, and who was behind it. They may very well also help us to understand why so few bishops have spoken up against the more troubling things that have taken place in Rome since 13 March, 2013.
For the truth to come out, men of courage must come forward. Are there any such men left in Rome?
Editor’s note: the original article has been updated to include two quotes (the first from an anonymous source, the second from Marco Ansaldo), as well as an additional link to a recently-published article by Sandro Magister. The rest of the text remains unaltered.
If we abstract for a moment from the question of whether this particular rumor is true or not (about which I have no opinion), there have certainly been many stories of a “climate of fear” associated with this papacy. Which makes me wonder: what exactly are they so afraid of? This isn’t a mafia operation (so far as I know); no-one’s going to end up in a pair of concrete shoes at the bottom of the Tiber. I expect they’re not even too concerned about falling afoul of some Swiss Guards with blackjacks in a dark alley. (And what, pray tell, would an upstanding member of the Curia be doing in a dark Roman alley anyway?) Do Freemasons have particularly lurid torture chambers? Not that I’d put it past them, but really: Freemasons in the heart of the Catholic Church? Unthinkable!
Seriously, assuming the “climate of fear” actually exists, are these men such pathetic, snivelling careerist cowards that they would put their job security over the truth? They don’t have (officially acknowledged) wives and children to worry about and their retirement income is assured. What’s the worst that could happen? You get assigned to a backwater parish in Burkina Faso? Well then, preach the gospel, baptize, and take comfort in a clear conscience.
Good questions
“…are these men such pathetic, snivelling careerist cowards that they would put their job security over the truth?”
I’m guessing that’s a rhetorical question.
For sure and the answer is obvious based on the actions and comments of PF since March 2013
Yes indeed, we got , many sniveling careerist cowards. They not only exist in the Roman Curia but in all Curia in the Western First World Countries.
But it is not only that they are afraid of being derailed from their career paths, but also being defrocked, falsely accuse of Pedophilia, or Pederasty, taking away their parishes, etc. There is some real diabolical happenings going on throughout the Church.
Oh, come on. People don’t just get convicted of pedophilia with no evidence.
No, but they do get falsely accused of it. I’ve seen it happen. It destroys their priesthood, and it’s easy to do.
All they need is a family who is willing to lie, or to bend the truth just enough that it could be interpreted as something inappropriate.
Father Gordon MacRae is one such falsely accused priest who has spent the past 21 years in prison….an innocent man, unjustly imprisoned; Father MacRae’s bishop and fellow priests abandoned him. In this year of mercy, may God have mercy on Father MacRae and may he finally be released from prison.
Convicted of a major felony with no evidence?
Testimony of a putative victim IS evidence. If the jury finds it credible beyond a reasonable doubt, they will find the defendant guilty. That’s all it takes.
or, as is so usually the case, the judge is a political bag-man, nothing more
????????
True. It is all so Alice in Wonderland – Verdict first. Trial later. Or to use a more contemporary phrase, “The process is the punishment.” Yes, you will be found not guilty. But, only after a lengthy trial ($100,000 in defense costs), public humiliation, and an end to your vocation.
I saw it happen to one of the holiest young Priests walking the face of the earth. Very Marian. Destroyed by a rumor and defrocked on Good Friday by an evil bishop. Words cannot explain the depth of his suffering. He cherished and loved his Priesthood more than life itself. How many holy masses confessions and homilies lost. As a young Priest he already drew several men to the Priesthood. I just think we cannot comprehend the level of evil that has infiltrated the Western Church. Surely the Lord will prune it down to the root and throw everything else into the fire.
“Words cannot explain the depth of his suffering?”
People with wives & children to support, and mortgages to pay are betrayed in the workplace and fired. This man is still a monk, gets room, board, and medical care from the Church. He can still pray, and find ways to do God’s Holy Will. Maybe he should count his blessings, that he can imitate Jesus in a deeper way. What is his innocence compared to that of Jesus?
Have any of the people you mention gotten a 108 year jail sentence on trumped up charges based on supposed recovery of memory, like Fr. McRae?
Mr. Gannon, and Mr. Skojek, I have to disagree with both of you. At least one priest, already named here by billinlv, Fr. Gordon MacRae has been convicted of pedophilia with no evidence, and has already served 21 years of a 33-67 year prison sentence. Fr. MacRae refused to plead guilty. The person who accused him was after the money given out by the Catholic Church,…. a long convoluted story, but available to any one who wants to get at the truth of what’s been happening in the Catholic Church in the USA at the ‘These Stone Walls’ blog. This blog maintained voluntarily by supporters of Fr. MacRae who, being in prison, has no access to the internet .
Some facts: The The National Center for Reason & Justice, a not -for- profit organization for the unjustly accused and imprisoned has taken up Fr. Gordon’s case and appealed his conviction; but the appeal dismissed by a Catholic Judge, – Judge Laplante – who did not even listen/hear the evidence.
A Catholic Criminal Lawyer, Vincent James Sazone, has researched Fr. Gordon’s case, and concludes that Fr. Gordon is innocent. Mr. Sazone even wrote Pope Francis, but to no avail. His post on the trial and the bishop’s role in getting the conviction of Fr. MacRae can be found here:
http://thesestonewalls.com/gordon-macrae/vincent-james-sanzone-a-criminal-defense-expert-unfurls-father-macrae-case/
Furthermore, the person, a Monsignor in the Bishop’s office who tainted the media and public perception of Fr. MacRae is now in prison himself, for having stolen funds from the diocese to support his (ie. the Monsignor’s) homosexual lover.
Mr. Skojec, it is not my intention to hijack your com box with this. However, I am appalled, and beyond scandalized, at the Catholic hierarchy with respect to their laxity in allowing men with homosexual tendencies into the priesthood. Innocent priests are suffering because of these men- and by the bishops who have sold them out with the Dallas charter.
Vox Cantoris yesterday posted an article about an openly homosexual man who is being ordained into the priesthood – in the Jesuit order. (note do not mix him up with another priest of the same name).
http://voxcantor.blogspot.ca/2016/01/so-who-is-this-jason-welle-
essjay-and.html
Furthermore, today Eponymous Flower blog says, even though Pope Francis does not want it, throngs will oppose gender ideology (including gay marriage) in Rome. I’d have thought a Catholic pope would be speaking clearly about this (according to Church teaching) and urging Catholic laity to oppose gender ideology, – a pressing topic that Cardinal Sarah brought up at the Synod.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.ca/2016/01/even-though-pope-doesnt-want-it-throngs.html
I urge your readers to go to These Stone Walls and read the ‘About’. I used to think as Mr. Gannon does, but I now realize that there are not only unjustly accused priests, but unjustly imprisoned ones as well.
You could add the recent Newsweek report on the travesty of justice against 3 Philadelphia priestas and the perpetrator is living high offf the hog on his million dollar settlement. Did you know that 46% of the accusations of sexual abuse of minors by clergy are now against dead priests? What about the bishops who handed over confidential files to the press?
I am deeply saddened by all these false accusations and am praying for priests. They are in a terrible position given the caliber of some bishops. Especially those who signed the Dallas Charter.
Fr. MacRae just lost his second appeal. He mentioned that in one of his posts. Please keep him in your prayers.
I recall that the final report of the Chief Police Investigator of the Boston scandal concluded that 95% of the claims against the Boston Archdiocese over a 20 year period that were paid out to victims for actions that were not able to be prosecuted because there was no evidence or the proof of the victim’s claims that any criminal activity involved that would stand up in even the most lenient court.
That didn’t stop the Boston Globe from publishing the claims or the conviction of a number of priests not just the notable ones like Porter and Shanley
Massachusett has a long history of witch trials and false imprisonment.
Are you sure? Check out this website http://www.thesestonewalls.com and this one http://www.themediareport.com/2013/11/26/false-accusations-catholic-priests/
You’re making one very large assumption…their actions were based on Faith & Truth.
Maybe not mafia, but “Saint Gallen Mafia”. Every day is a nightmare in the Church until this papacy ends.
So if the 13 Cardinals write another letter, Francis is likely to drop as if struck by lightning.
Anyone have an extra piece of paper?
But he’s so HUMBLE!
He has said so himself…
This is how arrogance is disguised.
How can a heretical thus schismatic pope defrock cardinals of the very Church he’s not even in?
How can a heretical Pope be head of a Church he is not even in?
Dude, don’t go there! I went there, it led down a brief path of sedevacantism, and I’m not going back there! All you need to know that this pope is not Catholic, neither are most of his cardinals, neither are most of the bishops, and neither are most of the priests. They’re in schism from their own offices. Just leave it there.
I agree. As long as we remain faithful to the Church and love the papacy, we must wait and pray while this lame-duck pope’s tenure bounces off the walls until his or our time is up. Leaving is never an option. My prayer is that Satan be bound and his works undone that God’s perfect Will be done. Mary, pray for us.
This is a more serious and deeper war than that, brother. he’s appointing enough Liberal and Modernist Bishops and Cardinals to swing the next conclave towards the False Prophet.
What’s to do then? Satan takes care of his own
Pray for the Pope, that God opens his eyes…or closes them, permanently.
He is the False Prophet!
I think this comment is unhinged.
Good grief.
You thinking this comment is unhinged and this comment really being unhinged are 2 completely different things.
I think you need good spiritual direction.
Best wishes.
What would you recommend? Those pseudo “Traditionalists” from the Fraternal Society of St. Peter? No thanks. When you want True Catholic teaching, find the Society of St. Pius X. All others of the Roman Rite are schismatic.
The Hierarchy is populated by Prelates who do not publicly object to what has happened to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass since 1969 even though The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the single Holiest action taking place on this earth at any moment of any day and yet they can not bestir themselves to correct the monstrous and disastrous destruction of the Roman Rite, so what makes anyone think they would publicly oppose the surprises advanced by Our Pope and Our Cross?
They know they can not outlive Jesus and they know, each of them, that they will have to stand before the judgement seat of Christ and have to explain why they let Him be so cavalierly treated in His most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and yet even that does not cause them to act and that is, one must assume, because they are all part of a new revolutionary anthropocentric cohort and so whom is there to fear if not Jesus?
The man.
Fear the man with the power on earth.
Franciscus is that man and those in the Hierarchy can prolly outlive him and wait for their shot at the power he now holds whereas to oppose him is to court catastrophe.
Why oppose him and risk one’s position with all of its perks and prestige; so what if owing to the Lil’ Licit Liturgy, they preside over a crummy rite, they get to jet around the world and participate in this or that conference advancing Ecumenism, the Universal Solvent of Tradition, and they can get the attention of the media virtually any time they desire and they know what to say to keep their position and perks.
Most of us are, similarly, cowards, and few of us would risk our jobs to publicly oppose a boss who could can us and so let’s not think ordination erases that same fear in the Prelature.
And, come on, we know that many (majority?) within the Hierarchy are sodomites and sodomites are naturally subversive, especially subversive of Catholic Tradition, and one presumes Franciscus knows which of the fathers has had/is having perverted sexual relations with a catamite or cuddly clerical queer and does not want the spotlight shined into their delicate dungeons and so they can easily be controlled without even a direct threat being made.
Oppose the man with the power?
Cui bono?
Not the one who does the opposition for it is always the case that even amongst the Hierarchy the Four Last Things have been forgotten and they are very last things now considered.
There are a million reasons not to act and most men are followers , men who are dutiful disciples of the revolutionaries who have successfully made the long march through the Catholic Institution and those of us who desire action in the Hierarchy are usually the last ones to publicly oppose cultural marxists.
Most of us are sheep without a faithful masculine shepherd on earth.
As Saint Bill Belichick says, it is what it is
What relevance have the Four Last Things in a Church which de facto believes in universal salvation and an empty hell?
One must be careful in what they say in order that they may be free of serious sin. From the CCC: 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
– of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
– of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
– of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
Fr. Bergoglio [as he likes to call himself] should return to his old job as a bouncer.
The 13 Cardinals sent the letter. Apparently they were not intimidated. They were not too cowardly to challenge the Pope and directly call him out for his rather blatant attempt to rig the synod. I think that was the boldest action I have seen by a group of Cardinals in, like, forever. No matter who is Pope, if you sign your name to a letter like that you are definitely putting your career on the line.
I am particularly pleased to have seen Cardinal Dolan on the list of signatories and that he admitted right away when the matter came out that he had signed it. He is a man that I have been critical of for buddying up to politicians and currying favor with the “enemies of the Chuch.” But when the chips were down he was apparently willing risk everything to challenge the Pontiff’s clerical machinations. To use a phrase that I normally would not associate in a positive way with with Cardinal Dolan, “I say bravo!”
The Pope, on the other hand, first had his people leak the letter in an attempt to gain sympathy and discredit the Cardinals. And when it was clear that didn’t work, he issued an an obviously disingenuous denial that he was trying to rig the process and lashed out in anger in the synod hall.
Not pretty.
I suspect Cardinal Dolan simply blows which ever way the prevailing wind is blowing at the time. I suspect he regrets his signature on the bottom that letter and consider it one of his greatest mistakes. Much greater this his infamous ‘Bravo’.
Bravo ??
I think Dolan is just a useful idiot that both the conservatives and the liberals can play with. He seems to be too inept to have a clear weltanschauung one way or another.
No surprise, this guy’s an enemy of the Faith. Just look at all the perverts he continues to promote. He is doing his best to remake the Church in his warped image, imposing his false doctrine. Satan is pulling the strings in the Vatican at this moment.
The problem with this article is that as energetic as it tried to verify the authenticity of the rumor, following every lead doggedly, it still fell fairly well short of a substantiated report, and yet it still perhaps owing to all the momentum it self-built tipped over on the side of “likely”.
That’s the problem. The author wants it to be true, and yet the data shown don’t compel.
The story is the fact that nobody who knows the truth will talk about it. It’s not as though they are saying, “Nope. Never heard about that.” They’re not denying it. They’re refusing to go on the record.
That’s evidence of fear, and it isn’t the first time we’ve heard it.
might it be that these other people are honest and a bit calmer and more just, who themselves don’t have sufficiently compelling data, so they stop short of passing on 3rd hand rumor?
And the author here however uses that very hesitancy as EVIDENCE that it’s true!
That’s really the sum and substance of your point.
That may get clicks, but it’s a sign of a lack of both prudence (the charioteer of virtues) and intellectual temperance.
More salt (a slightly mortified pen in this case) will yield more light.
3rd hand rumor? None of the actual witnesses would make a statement, either confirming or denying the story.
As with most scandals, it’s the coverup that causes the problems. Am I saying this is a cover up? No, but when people won’t go on the record and speak about something…
don’t know much about investigative reporting do you, or have much experience in the all too frequent willingness of human beings in a power structure to not go against the skipper, even when its certainly true…there were too many witnesses NOT denying it…how many whistle-blowers are there in an absolute power structure like the Vatican? not too bloody many!
Thinking out loud, I wonder if the people who witnessed the outburst could have been talked to – in a Voris type fashion.
Yes, I agree, it’s trying to substantiate gossip.
“Bergoglio is not expressing himself in that manner. Those are not his common words. Never.”
Sounds like somebody swallowed the whole “Francis the humble” scam. His treatment of the FFI and the words he spoke to a meeting of seminarians suggest that he is quite capable of saying what has been alleged. It really is time this Argie conman retired.
and i declare that there are still good questions remaining about the potential willingness of bergoglio to see fellow catholics whom the junta didn’t like dropped from helicopters into the atlantic…as one jesuit said of him that those in the know in argentina knew that bergoglio was a “real piece of work.” that would frighten many of the vatican panty-waists…
Fear and intimidation are hallmarks of Marxst regimes.
And ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical dedication to the Pope. Cardinal Biggles, read the charges!
I recently was banned from Church Militant for asking them why they have ignored the recent spate of scandalous words by Pope Francis. Not to mention the Vatican’s repudiation of the Great Commission towards the Jews, the Vatican blessed interfaith worship service with the Lutherans to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation…. so on and so forth. Now, I guarantee they will brush this under the rug. Church Militant would have badgered Pope Francis relentlessly if he had still been Archbishop Bergoglio.
I absolutely refuse to donate to Church Militant. They are a depressing failure of journalistic integrity.
Welcome to the “CM banned club”.
It’s a big club. I’m a charter member.
Religious orders, even contemplative ones, have been knowingly ordaining the lavender mafia, who, like michael rose in “few good men” said, wangle their way into jobs like “vocation director,” “guest-master” “director of novices” etc etc – all positions where they can influence the rejection of good wholesome orthodox candidates and admit more lavender ones!
Something more sinister, incredibily evil behind them.
I was just banned by CM a few days ago for objecting to the Moderator for censuring 2/3 of my post that criticized Pope Francis for inconsistently citing Church doctrine. Apparently, I’m not qualified to criticize papal behavior.
Their rebuttal to me seemed self-righteous and just out right weird.
Esp. since they are going after American bishops/Archbishops/Cardinals all the time…and doesn’t Voris have videos attacking PF and the Vatican on YouTube ?
What gives ???
ANOTHER !!!???
Why are all of us on the same side having a problem playing in the same sandbox ?
I would like to thank you @FMShyanguya as one of the few that came to my defence last year when CM attacked me for pointing out the truth.
I did that? You are most welcome! We are in this together. God bless and keep up the good work.
*
There is a Messianic Jewish Rabbi by the name Jonathan Cahn who says in times like these, they are no grays [greys] it is either black or white. We are getting to know where many stand.
yes, we are literally in the great “last spiritual war” that john paul ii predicted when he was cardinal, speaking on his tour of the USA.
Yes, you came to my defence and thank you again and God bless you for it. It was about 7-8 months ago. I questioned their stance on non-criticism of Pope Francis and they went ballistic, with other posters joining in attacking me. The Truth needs to told warts and all about what Pope Francis is doing and if courageous apostolates like; One Peter Five, SPUC, Lifesitenews,Voice of The Family, and many other good sites can do so, so could CM, but for spurious reasons they choose not to. As far as I am concerned, CM continually ignoring and side-stepping Pope Francis’ damaging to the faith statements and gestures, proves they have no journalistic integrity. You are right that the Devil’s favourite colour is gray. God Bless.
@Chris Piotrowski Thank you and God bless!
I disagree. There are many greys for us. God sees the black and white though.
Another ?
That was awhile ago. Banned and all my prior comments there deleted. I do not miss the site that is slanted [castigates Bishops and not the Pope] and with an untenable position as regards the Pope.
Yep, I crossed swords with them early last year about always giving Pope Francis a pass, and received a hostile response. They should rename their apostolate to “Church Elephant” because there sure is one in the room over there.
I was banned for life from CM for calling out Pope Francis and Michael Voris’ blindness about him. I am now giving my $1300 yearly donation to One Peter Five. Suggest others do the same.
Wow, that seems a bit severe.
Same here, sir. I was banned after I pointed out how a mod was calling some poor sap names without any provocation… then the mod somehow twisted it into a tirade about the SSPX; when it had absolutely nothing to do with ’em. Anyway, I’m still unsure of what I was banned for 🙂
Maybe it’s because I followed the mod’s lead and replied on the subject of the SSPX.
/shrug
may i also witness about voris venting his spleen out on, whom i may call potential orthodox thinking protestants…he is always in an apoplexy about them, when many of our best converts were such protestants once…and who still would be our allies if we could drop our over-venting against them…many of them are at war with their own liberals and modernists you know…i was, myself, once upon a time, but voris would rather put them in with the devil and choose to kiss dago’s butt.
Check out this great article by John Lamont –
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/01/luther-and-holy-roman-church-in-his-own.html#more
Truth will out.
Church Militant TV? They have sold their soul
In exchange for what? Lentil stew? A bowl of rice?
We need a modern day Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican priest in Florence during the reign of another questionable Pope, Alexander VI. Savonarola was eventually burned at the stake for his efforts of resisting the Pope. I guess this is what makes saints so singular and why there are so few. Can such a person be found today?
Careful here. Savonarola did well to preach against corruption, but his preaching was mixed with wild and weird ideas and supposed prophetic visions. He is not venerated as a saint in Holy Mother Church, but his ideas certainly gave impetus to the Lutherans.
My point was that he was willing to stand up to a corrupt Pope.
And it is my understanding that his cause for canonization was introduced perhaps five or ten years ago.
Let’s hear it from Ann Barnhardt on this subject in her own sweet way. http://www.barnhardt.biz/
“A general condition is this,” the pope said. “Speak clearly. Let no one say: ‘This you cannot say.’ ”
“You need to say all that you feel with parrhesia,” he continued. “And, at the same time, you should listen with humility and accept with an open heart what your brothers say.”
Mr. disqus_Qmc7pDyHTl:
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” – Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; Matthew 28:18-20
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Ms. Hickson:
Thank you for this article. As with anything you write I enjoyed reading it. However it appears to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the foundation of your article is made of hearsay from anonymous sources. IMO this type of foundation never survives the hammer blows that will inevitably fall on it.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
You are to be applauded for making this story available. Doubtless there are inaccuracies, given the timidity, the cowardliness, of the clerical class when they must risk their position to shed light on uncomfortable truths.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been known from the beginning as a temperamental individual with a personal agenda. Now out of the stall of clerical constraint for three years this is in all likelihood essentially true. All the known events, statements, maneuvers of the last three years support such a demonstration by him. And surely, even if this event were to prove entirely false, there is no doubt the man is essentially emotionally and intellectually fragile. He need find another place to lay his head, along with the cartel who maneuvered his election.
antipope dago damned by dante…
As Pope Pius IX screamed when confronted by the traditionalists of his day, “I AM Tradition!”
The 13-Cardnals letter seems like much to do about nothing. When parish priests can declare annulments in the context of confession (as they should) the Cardnals can write another letter about their concern for appearances..
This guy may be bonkers, as Regis Philbin used to say.
Er … it is worse that that …
I’ve read from a column by Austin Ruse that Cardinal Kasper allegedly shouted at Cardinal Burke in the hall during the first Synod in 2014.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/the-africans-will-save-the-synod-the-church-and-the-world
I think the credibility of 1 Peter 5 would be better upheld by publishing only confirmed facts. For you to remain credible would be a good thing.