Yesterday, I had the misfortune of reading yet another of the propaganda pieces seeking to burnish the reputation of a papacy under constant fire. Its author, British “teacher”* Stephen Walford — who was recently rewarded with a papal audience for his previous efforts attempting to deflect criticism from Amoris Laetitia — absolutely gushes with admiration for a pope he repeatedly calls a “prophet” — in particular, a prophet of mercy.
Because unlike Walford, I believe in authentic mercy, I’ll spare you many excerpts from the strangled prose in his premature hagiography of the pope. And yet, while Walford qua Walford doesn’t really matter, he is emblematic of a certain strain of sycophantic thought that has been bubbling up out of Rome, seeking to counter the narrative of orthodoxy and place the whims of a single pope above the teaching of all of his predecessors — or more importantly, God Himself. It will serve a certain purpose, therefore, to briefly examine his bizarre analysis:
Amoris laetitia is the obvious case in point. The opponents of the Holy Father, it seems, have not considered the idea that maybe Jesus actually desires union with the civilly remarried who love him dearly yet feel trapped by circumstances. For them, adultery is adultery, and it matters not if the perpetrator is a man who cares for nothing except self-satisfying lust, or the betrayed and lonely woman who has found a deep love with a man who has treated her children as his own. The Pelagian sees Jesus acting like an algorithm who has a fixed judgment based on the sin; but that “Jesus” would not be fully human.
For Francis the prophet of divine mercy, Jesus doesn’t look to the past or just the present moment. No, his real interest is in future possibilities and his grace and patience work on that basis. But, some argue, how can there be true repentance if sexual relations continue? Of course, what these people should really be considering is how does Jesus weigh on the scales of justice these sins with the considerable amount of virtue and love possibly displayed in other areas of their lives? “Charity covers a multitude of sins”–as St. Peter, the first Pope, infallibly taught– and unless a soul is in a state of mortal sin, it is entirely possible that a path of sanctification is under way despite the irregular situation.
After reading the above, you might find yourself as surprised as I was to know that Walford thinks he has the standing to label as “utterly wrong” the logic of renowned Austrian philosopher Joseph Seifert in pointing out certain obvious consequences that will follow from a literal reading of Amoris Laetitia. As in his other essays on the topic, Walford never bothers to address the concerns presented, but instead contents himself with the assertion of his own subjective interpretations in lieu of an argument. “The Pope is simply teaching,” Walford positively beams, “that the soul does not have to be in despair, and that God understands the complexity of the situation.” Which situation? Adultery, of course. As though somehow complexity absolves us from the life of virtue and the obligation to remove ourselves from grave sin. After all, “Jesus is not a wizard who magically makes the complex family situation disappear.” (If He can’t do it, how can we be expected to, amirite?!)
Perhaps more peculiarly, Walford also never bothers to explain why in Francis’ new Church of “mercy,” it is morally justifiable for a Catholic thinker of Seifert’s stature to be fired for asking a sincere and respectfully-worded question about a papal teaching. After all, if people are too stupid to be able to know that a sin like adultery is grave or too mired in complexity to ever give consent to it, how can a man be guilty of a fireable offense simply by asking questions about proposals for dealing with that complexity? And for that matter, why doesn’t this “prophet of divine mercy” in Rome intervene on Seifert’s behalf, asking his subordinate — the Archbishop of Granada — to restore Seifert to his position at the Dietrich von Hildebrand Chair at the International Academy of Philosophy? If the divorced and remarried can have recourse to the sacraments, can’t Professor Seifert have recourse to his job?
How is it that this “mercy” is supposed to work, anyway? Is it selective, or is it for all?
If mercy is, indeed, for everyone, then why has the “prophet” of this mercy not deigned to grant an audience to those four cardinals who have carried the hopes and fears of the faithful with them as they seek theological clarity and doctrinal truth from Christ’s vicar through the dubia? So long, in fact, did “the prophet of divine mercy” delay in granting this request, that two of the four cardinals who asked the questions have actually died just waiting for him to acknowledge their request to speak with him. One would think, since Francis is (as Walford assures us) THE “prophet of divine mercy,” he would have realized immediately the injustice he had committed in failing to show paternal mercy toward these concerned successors to the apostles when he learned of the passing of Cardinal Joachim Meisner in July, and sought out the other three dubia cardinals with all haste to assure them that their concerns were being heard — at least before the passing of Cardinal Caffarra in September.
Strangely, His Mercifulness — who found the time to bless Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos and his ‘wife’, both of whom were previously married, during his recent trip to Colombia — couldn’t pencil them in in the past 12 months since they first sent him the questions privately.
Instead we read about something that sounds…different than mercy. A personal account from the Italian journalist, teacher, and pro-life leader Francesco Agnoli about how the late Cardinal Caffarra was ignored for months by “a pontiff who never misses phone calls or the reception parties”**:
“One day he [Caffarra] confided in me and in our common friend, Lorenzo Bertocchi, who slept very badly during the recently concluded Synod on the family; who suffered greatly to see someone trying to throw Familiaris Consortio, Veritatis Splendor, and Humanae Vitae in the shredder: “I would have liked to take the train,” he said, “and to escape to Bologna, leaving the Synod.”
I pressed him, asking how it was possible for the Church to debate what was not debatable (the indissolubility of marriage) and how it had come to the point of having cardinals and bishops favorable to gay marriage. He was also astonished, but confident. But, I asked him, are you at peace? “Humanly speaking, no: I do not see a solution to the crisis. From the spiritual point of view, I am at peace, for the Church is Christ’s, and He does not abandon it.”
Still on that occasion, he told us that during the Synod he had asked for an urgent meeting with Benedict XVI: “His secretary told me that it was impossible to have him immediately, but I insisted. Then he told me yes for the following day, and I could meet with Benedict. “
Imagine our curiosity, dear reader: We asked him what the German pontiff’s opinion was about the direction taken so far by the synod fathers, Kasper first of all. But Caffarra stopped. He had a great modesty, the reticence that is natural in great spirits. He loved to speak at conferences, in catechesis, but he knew to keep incredible self-control on other occasions. And yet, his face revealed enough to understand that his meeting with Benedict had given him the courage to continue in his battle against the innovators.
Thus, after the Dubia and all that happened afterwards, it was enough for me to get out of him, on another occasion, almost by force, an admission: Caffarra continued to see Benedict even after the Dubia. And certainly he was not “rebuked”, quite the contrary!
When I heard the news of the audience denied by Francis, I asked Caffarra how it was that a pontiff, who never misses phone calls or the reception parties, after months had still not yet met with the four cardinals who also asked for an audience, also on behalf of thousands of priests and faithful. It seemed to me a very strange lack of respect. Caffarra only reminded me that the Church’s Tradition and Law provide that cardinals “are not merely personalities who wear red slippers”, but they are called by God to be “at the side of the pope”: “That is why we have acted according to the laws of the Church, according to procedures not invented by us, but provided for, and we wait … “. Nothing more.
So it seems, then that at least one of the two living men we have called “pope” had respect and kindness for this man of God. Too bad he’s not the real “prophet of divine mercy” — or for that matter, the reigning pope! As for the one who is currently running the Church, veteran Vatican watcher Sandro Magister recounted for us how he again snubbed Cardinal Caffarra (whom Magister described as the “driving figure” behind the dubia) at a meal shared by chance near Bologna in April:
During the lunch he sat beside him, but the pope preferred to converse with an elderly priest and with the seminarians who were sitting at the same table. “Unfortunately, no hint of encouragement,” the cardinal confided after the meeting. And to someone who pointed out that in the photo of their embrace released by the Vatican press office (see above) he appeared “with a serene and firm expression” while the pope had a “scowling” face, he replied: “You have correctly interpreted the exchange of glances.”
Indeed, the image in question shows not the countenance of mercy on the face of the “prophet”, but of discomfort and consternation, while Caffarra’s own gaze is one of piercing intensity and purpose:
The telegram from this so-called “prophet of divine mercy” conveying condolences to the people of Bologna on their beloved cardinal’s passing was polite and professional. It made no mention, however, of the question that so deeply bothered Caffarra, that weighed upon his heart as he waited for an answer from his pope in vain until he drew his final breath. Adding insult to injury, this week we read rumors, not yet sourced, that when “the prophet” learned of the passing of Cardinal Caffarra during his journey to Colombia, he informed the journalists accompanying him that he would not be answering any questions about the late cardinal during his usual in-flight press conference, where no other topic has ever appeared to be off limits. As we await confirmation of the truth of this report, we cannot help but note that when it comes to the dubia cardinals, this “prophet” never seems to have any answers.
And yet, we are meant to believe that this is mercy?
Let me rephrase Walford’s words so that they better reflect reality:
The Holy Father, it seems, has not considered the idea that maybe Jesus actually desires those who question what His servant has done to His teaching receive an answer from that man, inasmuch as he has been solemnly charged with guarding His Church. For them, divine truth is divine truth, and it matters very much indeed if the violator of that truth is a man who cares for nothing except obtaining self-satisfying power over the Church, even as he sits upon the very throne of St. Peter. The Modernist sees Jesus as a means to an end; a divine rhetorical device who can be used to admonish the insufficiently enthusiastic to fall in line with the official agenda; but that “Jesus” would not be fully divine.
In fact, he wouldn’t be Jesus at all.
Still, if this “prophet of divine mercy” so clearly sees that “Jesus doesn’t look to the past or just the present moment” and that “his [sic] real interest is in future possibilities and his [sic] grace and patience work on that basis”, why can he not also see that these men who have stood up and asked simple and forthright questions about his teaching are at least as guiltless in their sincere concern as the adulterers he so enthusiastically coddles and excuses? Why can he not see that these men in fact display a “considerable amount of virtue and love in other areas of their lives” that “covers a multitude of sins” — including the apparent sin of asking questions in order to obtain clear and authentic teaching from the Church?
Why can he not see then, that it is his obligation to “accompany” them, not ignore them?
Could it be, perhaps, because the “mercy” touted by this “prophet” and his sycophants is anything but authentic? Could it be that it is of an entirely different kind?
(**Translation by Andrew Guernsey)
Correction: the original text stated erroneously that the pope had blessed “Argentinian president Mauricio Macri and his remarried ‘wife'” . While Francis did receive Macri and his “wife” at the Vatican in violation of protocol last year, in fact, the blessing bestowed during this trip was upon Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos and his ‘wife’, both of whom were previously married. Also, Stephen Walford contacted us to say that he is not a “school teacher”, as we originally said, but refused to tell us what it is that he does teach. So, we have put “teacher” in quotes above, pending any further information.
Steve Skojec is the Founding Publisher of OnePeterFive.com. He received his BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville in 2001. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Crisis Magazine, EWTN, Huffington Post Live, The Fox News Channel, Foreign Policy, and the BBC. Steve and his wife Jamie have eight children. You can find more of his writing at his Substack, The Skojec File.
Okay so just catching up from being out of pocket for a week since the hurricane came through. I see Francis got punched in the face so that’s a prayer to Pius X answered
. I guess Francis want’s to keep challenging God, maybe he should quit while he’s behind
Francis got punched in the face? Hadn’t heard or seen that. I’m serious when I say that’s too bad. A prayer for harm to another is an offense to God because it violates His fifth commandment. Such prayers are always abswered with”No!”
In a manner of speaking yes Mike he was punched in the face and my prayer was actually that he (francis) would be knocked off his horse and if his car is the modern day horse than yes, prayer answered. SAINT Pius X recommended punching modernists in the face because of the GREAT damage they do to the Church and to the faith, unfortunately I won’t have the opportunity to do so in this life but that doesn’t matter, God will punch them in the face or break their teeth in another way, always happens that way to those that persecute the Church or the faithful.
I’ll go along with a spiritual “punching in the face.” I thought you were speaking more litterally.
Saint Pius X meant literally punch modernists in the face and I agree, the opportunity for such a thing has never presented itself to me nor am I looking for it but a saint makes it clear what should be done to those that attack the faith and mislead the faithful.
Even those who are canonized have committed sins. No one is sinless. And, if Pius X meant literally, then he has committed and was promoting the commission of a sin. The words of a saint NEVER supercede God’s word, which is unalterable and allows for no exceptions. This is a concept that is part of basic catechesis and is central to the Faith.
Whenever someone in this forum starts giving out catechism lessons I know it’s time to put the hip waders on.
You are correct though, the words of a saint can never and will never supercede God’s word otherwise they would not be a saint though I can’t guarantee any saints francis has “canonized”.
Here is God’s word:
Psalm 3:7: For thou hast struck all them who are my adversaries without cause: thou hast broken the teeth of sinners.
Psalm 58:6: God shall break in pieces their teeth in their mouth: the Lord shall break the grinders of the lions
Yes, I am quite familiar with the psalms. However, those you quote do NOT say that WE are permitted to assault anyone or even to ask God to do so. That is God’s perogative for, as Scripture also tells us, “Vengence is Mine, says the Lord.” BTW, it is also improper to insult someone who offers a word of correction. Scripture also tells us to respond with a blessing, not an angry retort. Is it not a sign of your own pride that you think you know more about the Faith than others on this forum? If you love God, you should want to please Him at all times and in every way, including obeying His commands.
Who said anything about assaulting anyone Mike, what the hell are you blathering about?
The forum does NOT have to forgive you, but I do, even though I and no one else appreciates your inappropriate language. BTW, it was YOU who talked about punching soneone in the face, which would be physical assault, just as your language and insult was a verbal assault on me. This conversation is over..
Who is requesting your forgiveness? You certainly have a vivid imagination Mike. Keep blathering, it must be therapeutic for you. I tried to flag but I didn’t see the category for self aggrandizing blatherer.
This gives me the impression Pope Benedict is informed and very much aware of the situation the faithful are facing.
Yes, but he is at fault for abdicating rather than suffering for and with Christ.
PF knows that the dubia cardinals are right; that’s why he will not meet them.
He knows they’re right, but he hates the fact, because they are a roadblock, and he can’t find a convenient detour. So, his best option is; “If I ignore them, they will eventually disappear. Two down; two to go!” Such is the psychopathology of Jorge Mario Bergoglio; Prophet of Mercy!
And which is why the CORRECTION must be given immediately.
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” 2 Timothy 4:3-4
“but that “Jesus” would not be fully divine”
Nice link to Arianism.
My response to Walford:
Amoris laetitia is the obvious case in point. The opponents of the Holy
Father, it seems, have not considered the idea that maybe Jesus actually
desires union with the civilly remarried…
Um, yes we have considered it. Jesus desires union with all sinners, not only the “civilly remarried”. Jesus wants nobody to be condemned to hell fire but he won’t force himself on us. If we turn our backs on him, then that situation will continue in eternity. Are the “civilly remarried” a privileged or special class of sinner which separates them from the rest of us and demands some special treatment?
…..who love him dearly yet feel
trapped by circumstances.
They “love him dearly”? Pure supposition. An emotive appeal posing as fact. Sez who? Love is shown by actions. If they “love him dearly” they will embrace Familiaris consortio and attempt to put its teaching into practice. There may be times when they fail but Confession is the remedy for these failings.
For them, adultery is adultery…..
Uh…..so sometimes adultery is not adultery? Is that your argument? When would that be? When our “discernment” decides it isn’t? Good luck with that. Sorry, adultery is adultery. It’s s sin committed when one has intimate relations with a partner to whom one is not married.
and it matters
not if the perpetrator is a man who cares for nothing except
self-satisfying lust, or the betrayed and lonely woman who has found a
deep love with a man who has treated her children as his own.
Yes, it matters but adultery is still adultery. The degree of guilt may vary but it’s still adultery, dufus. Murder is murder. If I kill a man in a moment of blind rage after being provoked and then I’m remorseful, I’ve committed the sin of murder just as much as a man who coolly plots for months in cold blood to eliminate a victim. The degree of guilt may differ but it’s still murder.
Pelagian sees Jesus acting like an algorithm who has a fixed judgment
based on the sin; but that “Jesus” would not be fully human.
But we’re not talking about “judgment”, Stephan. That’s for God. That comes when we die. We’re talking about the reception of Holy Communion by those living in a state of mortal sin in this life. Denial of Communion is not a judgment. That is why Pope John Paul II (among others) in Familiaris consortio, said that those living in irregular situations must live as brother and sister. It’s for our own good to avoid the sin of sacrilege.
Underlying all of this emotive claptrap is the idea that sometimes, the Gospel can be bent, twisted and changed a little….to suit us, to fit our particular circumstances. That is flat out wrong! That is not mercy. Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever and so is his Gospel. We don’t change the Gospel, it’s the Gospel which changes us and the faithless rogues who push this nonsense, deep down, don’t really believe that. That’s the top and bottom of this.
You see, Stephan, if the Church has been wrong about this for 2,000 years before the advent of the enlightened Francis, then the Church is not whom she claims to be. And if the Church is not whom she claims to be, that raises the obvious question….what else is the Church wrong about? And if the Church has been wrong about Communion and who knows what else (maybe the teaching on contraception?), that in turn raises the obvious question; what’s the point? Why even go to Church or to Communion? It’s all just crap shoot theology, anyway.
Pull away one strut and the whole house collapses.
As logically ludicrous as it is to say that adulery is ever not adultery, Fr James Martin established that precedent of the nu-Church a long time ago when he said that 2 + 2 can equal 5 in theology!
The author of that adventure in theology was Fr. Antonio Spadaro, S.J.:
Theology Isn’t Math; But It Is Theology, by George Weigel, for First Things.
Oh yeah, sorry, I get all these numerous heretics confused, but I’ll edit it.
Thank you, and I agree that the ideas of all these ordained heretics are often difficult to attribute correctly.
Your last paragraph — “why go to church?” Why, in fact, believe any of this religious nonsense, or even in God? And, then, if all this “stuff” is not believed, then why practice it. After all, there is no sin, not even Originsl Sin, there is no hell, no Satan and his fellow demons. There is only the world and death is the end. So, take whatever pleasure you can while you are in the world, no matter how degenerate or depraved because anything and everything is permissable. THAT is the entire purpose of this papacy and the “new church” he is erecting.
Well Pope John Paul should have told the two to separate altogether. And not live as brother and sister. He made it more confusing and complicated. Because two people cannot really live as brother and sister. Marriage is more than just having sex. By raising their kids together as man and wife they are still committing adultry.
These sycophants completely baffle me. What fantasy world do they live in, where some bizarre filter seems to prevent them from seeing the dozens of ways in which this man’s words and actions so clearly conflict with everything that the Church of Jesus Christ has always, infallibly taught? I keep looking for some common denominator that could explain where people like this guy Walford and his co-sycophant Mark Shriver are coming from. Is it simply that they don’t believe themselves in the fundamental truths of the faith, but are so immersed in modern Leftist “social justice” that they can’t see anything else going on, and can’t see how phony this whole show has been from day one? What is it that blinds them to what seems so obvious to us? Where do they come up with these off-the-wall rationalizations? I just don’t get it. But then, I’m a rigid, neo-Pelagian Pharisee who believes in the silly notion that Jesus actually meant the things he clearly said, and that the Ten Commandments are not the Ten Suggestions For Unattainable Ideals.
I have been praying daily for bishops and cardinals to stand up and finally say that the emperor has no clothes. But maybe they are afraid that if they do, no one will listen. It’s so frustrating. I know I’m thinking in human terms and we have to trust God to preserve His Church, but this pathetic excuse for a pope makes it a daily grind.
Lord Jesus, protect our Pope Emeritus. I can only imagine what Benedict XVI goes through on a daily basis thanks to Pope “Bringer of Mercy” Francis.
He brings *something* to our beloved Church all right, but it sure isn’t mercy.
I don’t think Benedict goes through much of anything on a daily basis….unless he’s still strenuously looking for the ever evasive black cassock.
My thought is that if he’s still inspiring souls to hope, he’s still being attacked. I’m just surprised he’s still alive..
Hope in what exactly? The guy is part of the problem….
Oh boy, giving back all the money I’ve stolen would be such a complicated mess! My whole family is thriving thanks to that money, and I’m sure the Almighty is pleased with the good things I was able to make with it: after all, He looks at the future, not the past. I understand that it would be different if I had actually committed a mortal sin (which isn’t the case, since my conscience is quiet); in any case, I’m sure the Lord doesn’t want for me to be sad and tense, He’s the Lord of joy!
I also love the mercy showered on the Chinese bishops. Or the founder of the Francescani dell’Immacolata – who still languishes in forced retirement, his pleas for a meeting with the Pope unheard. Or the families of the political prisoners in Cuba. Or Asia Bibi.
Oh come on now, you guys! Be fair! Albrecht von Boeselager thinks Francis is the very embodiment of mercy!
We should fear that worse is to come. PF and his heterodoxical lickspittles are positioning themselves for the next stage of this decadent zeitgeist.
Mercy and the public square demands that Catholic marriage be more inclusive. Legislation in many jurisdictions for this religious inclusivity is not that far away.
These churchmen will go with the flow.
PF will claim that marriage is for one man and one woman. But the autonomous bishops conferences aided and encouraged by Fr Martin and his like minded prelates will dictate otherwise.
PF will not object. Mercy is paramount.
Francis says that marriage is between one man and one woman. But being the clever Jesuit sophist, he says that civil unions of whatever type are OK. Just don’t call them marriage. From a new book titled Politics and Society:
Marriage between people of the same sex? ‘Marriage’ is a historical
word. Always in humanity, and not only within the Church, it’s between a
man and a woman… we cannot change that. This is the nature of things.
This is how they are. Let’s call them ‘civil unions.’ Lets not play with
the truth. It’s true that behind it there is a gender ideology. In
books also, children are learning that they can choose their own sex.
Why is sex, being a woman or a man, a choice and not a fact of nature?
This favors this mistake. But let’s say things as they are: Marriage is
between a man and a woman. This is the precise term. Lets call unions
between the same sex ‘civil unions’.
Where does he say ‘civil unions’ are okay? I read that quote as a rejection of even referring to civil homosexual marriages as “marriages.” I don’t see any approval of civil unions in the quote.
He said so in a new book-length interview of him by Dominique Wolton.
How easily you are fooled. Read it again. Why does Francis call sodo-unions a “civil union?” Why doesn’t he say that no such unions are ever allowed?
Just like all deceivers, Francis and his friends redefine the word mercy to mean that “discernment” can result in approval of sin. It’s just the opposite of God’s Truth, as always proposed by the father of lies and his sycophants. God is punishing the mostly apostate Church with the leader that is deserved.
At the start of this papacy we were told that some of us are semi-Pelagians and now Walford comes out calling critics of Pope Francis “Pelagians”. I am not a theologian but wikipedia tells us:
‘Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special divine aid.’
I cannot for the life of me see how this applies to those critics of Pope Francis. Nowhere have I seen anyone saying that grace is not necessary but rather the contrary that with the help of grace we are able to avoid sin. Charles Journet in his book “The meaning of Grace” tells us “… Pascal maintained that there were no sufficient graces, only efficacious graces, and that these are not given to all men. Here we have the Jansenist error.”
Is that not the position adopted in Amoris Laetitia that people do not get sufficient graces to resist sin but that they can only do their best which presumably depends purely on will-power? Is that not Jansenism then or indeed a form of Pelagianism where neither grace nor will is sufficient to avoid sin?
I suspect though that the term Pelagian is just an insult which people throw about without having any idea as to what they mean. But then Walford says he is a theologian!
It’s typical Modernist/Leftist projection. They always are quick to accuse others of the very things they themselves do, and the more regularly they do such things, the louder the accusations become. So this Pelagian, or at least semi-Pelagian Pope and his sycophants maintain that it’s impossible for man to follow the Commandments, so whatever man chooses to do after “discernment” is by definition no longer sinful. And if you don’t recognize that, then you’re the Pelagian. Simple!
Don’t work too hard at it.
Like much of what the Pope spouts, the whole “Pelagian” thing is gobblygook, a theological empty set.
Indeed, it is intentional obfuscation, much like “doublespeak” and “doublethink” in the novel “1984”.
If that is the case and I tend to think you are right, then one can only see every utterance and action of his Holiness as leading to utter chaos.
Francis may think he is pulling a fast one over on the observing world, but the cumulative effect is one of monstrous chaos in both doctrinal and practical matters. But of what concern is that to one who simply enjoys power?
As my wife says with her fake Argentine accent, “quoting” Francis: “Eet Ees Guud to Bee Pope!!”
And I heard your last line just a bit differently in South Africa!!!
“I suspect though that the term Pelagian is just an insult which people
throw about without having any idea as to what they mean. But then
Walford says he is a theologian!”
Indeed and it seems to a common thread running through people who share a particular viewpoint. To wit, think of the simultaneous hilariousness and ominousness of a group of people referring who are trying to silent dissenters through the courts, congress and finally by violence referring to themselves as “anti-fascists”.
The title a New Oxford Review article is “The Pontificate of Mercy or a Merciless Pontificate”
A must read.
Unfortunately you need to subscribe to read the full damning article.
A good chronology of the hurricane that swept in in 2013.
“The Pontificate of Mercy or a Merciless Pontificate”
Thank you for posting that. I think it is a must read.
Thank you to angelqueen.org
Could it be that Pope Bergoglio isn’t interested in Jesus at all, but in subjection to his own self? The version of “mercy” described in this article makes perfect sense that way. Those who submit (to Francis, not to Almighty God) are eligible to be excused from just about anything (including the orgy on Vatican grounds), while those who refuse submission–even by merely questioning–are out, period.
This is not the “exercise of the Petrine office” in any way, shape, or form, and you don’t need to be an accomplished canon lawyer to see that or to say so.
Think Shift in C. S. Lewis’ The Last Battle: “I want . . . I mean, Aslan wants . . . more bananas!” Only most of the time, Pope Bergoglio doesn’t even bother with the “Asian” qualifier any more. He simply says, “What I would like to see is (fill in the leftist bullet point du jour)” and leaves it at that.
The Church has never held people bound to merely human obedience, but has clearly enjoined all disciples to obey God rather than man. A pope is a man, as obliged to obey God as the rest of us, and indeed especially so. If there is a conflict, man comes second–which is precisely why the Bergoglian contingent is so invested in making sure there can be no detectable conflict at all.
It certainly appears that way. In an exchange I had with Walford on Twitter, he actually said this:
“Your work at present is about trying to turn people away from love of this Pope. That is not caring for their ultimate good.”
Not from love of God. From love of this pope.
It’s truly astonishing.
How often this tactic has been used upon the good and humble clergy. And the laity.
Fraternal correction *is* love.
The Dictionary of the Reasoning Man describes liberalism as follows:
The notion that mankind is not to be guided by well thought out positions but by feelings. When feelings based notions for governing mankind cannot be justified–even by tortured attempts at twisting philosophy, theology and politics–and it appears that reasoning person will gain the upper hand, the reasoning person is to be attacked as hateful in order to win the appeal to feelings.
Synonyms: inane, mentally challenged, sophistry, irrational, satanic.
Antonyms: intelligent, normal, Christian, reasonable.
Francis was ordered by the Lord to decide whose vicar he is. And he has made his decision.
Coming from the same fellow who refuses to get all judgy about Nazi executioners, it’s not *that* surprising.
I have long been of the opinion that Cardinal Burke (with all due respect, which is an awful lot) made the wrong call on this point. In an interview with the National Catholic Register entitled “‘Amoris Laetitia’ and the Constant Teaching and Practice of the Church” (April 16, 2016), His Eminence calls attention to AL #308, in which Pope Bergoglio states: “I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows,” et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. His Eminence interprets these remarks as follows:
“In other words, the Holy Father is proposing what he personally believes is the will of Christ for his (sic) Church, but he (i.e., Pope Francis) does not intend to impose his point of view.”
It is essentially upon that interpretation of AL #308 that Cardinal Burke based his conclusion that the divisive apostolic exhortation is not magisterial and therefore, not binding in conscience.
Would that it were so. But alas and alack, post Seifert in any case, some other resolution is going to have to be found.
For there has always been another possible interpretation of the #308 “Sincerity” Assertion; namely, that Bergoglio believes that his own private viewpoint BECOMES (pardon the internet shouting), by virtue of his being Pope, the will of Christ for the Church. If Pope Francis never intended to impose his point of view, and to impose it as the view of Our Savior Himself, why would he have argued, in Amoris #304, that those who hold to inflexible “rules” (read: the teachings of Catholicism from its very inception) demonstrate an “intolerable casuistry” (#304)? There was never any intention, on the part of the Bergoglians, of putting up with disagreement–disagreement with any savor of Tradition or orthodoxy to it, that is.
Moreover, in #300, the model discussion of what constitutes appropriate Amoris discernment contains the following telling modifier: those seeking to put into practice the exhortation’s “merciful” guidelines need only engage in “a sincere search for God’s will;” there is no requirement of actually finding it. Sincerity suffices; just as the Almighty is made to bend to the preferences of Jorge Bergoglio himself, Jorge Bergoglio believes himself capable, as Pope, of extending this privilege to any who demonstrate conformity not with Christ, who obeyed the Father, but with himself, who obeys himself. According to Amoris, if you are sincere as our Argentinian leader is professedly sincere, then you need no longer seek to be perfect, as Our Heavenly Father is perfect (Matt. 5:48).
Why else would those who doubt Pope “Shift” (in a desire to stand with and for the real Aslan instead) be execrated not as “wrong,” but as “insincere,” not of “good will,” and the other host of other subjectivist hailstones that have been rained down on the Dubia Cardinals’ heads?
Yes – he spreads error – as in the Last Battle, we all long to hear him preach the TRUE Christ, but his inspirer appears to be a false Christ.
Long ago I said to a friend – we are in the middle of CS Lewis’s Last Battle. Aslan is no longer “Aslan”, this new Pope “Shift” (I smile to see you call him that) calls for us to be obedient to a new Aslan, one that we don’t recognise, a blend of other unknown deities, none of them Catholic. A false Christ that we do not know. Those of us whom remember Narnia wait with joy for the real Lord, the REAL inspirer of CS Lewis, the none Fictional Lion of Judah to return.
May God Bless you. Thanks for reminding me of the Last Battle – Douglas Gresham’s Focus on the Family have done a new audio theatre version?
PS By the way, Lewis seems to have detailed the “Diabolical Disorientation” prophecised by Our Lady of Fatima to Sr Lucy, in the Silver Chair. Lewis wrote of a vast army working behind the scenes to supplant “Aslan” and to force all by acts of sorcery to believe “Aslan” and Narnia, do not exist, and are simply a “childish fairy tale” The Silver Chair mainly foretells the occultism, the use of Mind Control, the false education of children brainwashed to never hear truth, but are victims (like in the Silver Chair)of lies, misinformation, Harry Potter type occultist Sorcery. Today, also, the forces of evil offer a substitute world, not Christ’s world, but the Devil’s hopeless lie, prevalent through the black arts becoming a common theme in so-called CHILDREN’S Films. Films, through which they enslave all making them doubt the Truth of Christ, through practices oh-so prevalent today – lies, witchcraft, and the glorification of sorcery
Remember Puddleglum’s speech to the serpent witch in the Silver Chair. That is horribly realistic today as well.
By continually educating the young to not believe in Christ, those “in control” formulate in countless victims a spiritual blindness where lies are continuously, dogmatically fed them, through the media – denying the reality of the Lord Jesus Christ their ONLY hope of Salvation the only one who can rescue them from the enslavement of diabolical disorientation.
Akin to the original sin, elevating oneself to the level of a god, “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Gen.3:5, deciding one doesn’t need God and going it on your own.
Well done! “The Last Battle” “Are Tash and Aslan not the same God?”
You’ve hit the nail on the head.
“Please,” said the Lamb, “I can’t understand. What have we to do with the Calormenes? We belong to Aslan. They belong to Tash. They have a god called Tash. They say he has four arms and the head of a vulture. They kill Men on his altar. I don’t believe there’s any such person as Tash. But if there was, how could Aslan be friends with him?”
All the animals cocked their heads sideways and all their bright eyes flashed toward the Ape. They knew it was the best question anyone had asked yet.
The Ape jumped up and spat at the Lamb.
“Baby!” he hissed. “Silly little bleater! Go home to your mother and drink milk. What do you understand of such things? But the others, listen. Tash is only another name for Aslan. All that old idea of us being right and the Calormenes wrong is silly. We know better now. The Calormenes use different words but we all mean the same thing. Tash and Aslan are only two different names for you know Who. That’s why there can never be any quarrel between them. Get that into your heads, you stupid brutes. Tash is Aslan: Aslan is Tash.”
CS Lewis was a GREAT Prophet. http://pdbooks.ca/pdbooks/english/L/Lewis-C-S–The-Last-Battle/_iq7qd_files/text/part0002.html#filepos39590
“Blessed are the pure of heart for they will see God.”
May God shine upon them and keep them.
Walford and Luther would have been great friends….only difference, Walford is invited in to do the damage within the Church while Luther ran out and started his own heretic movement. What an upheaval P. Francis Bergoglio is causing in my beloved Church…..I am not happy.
PF is a ” prophet”?! Interesting he would use that term because it is very possible that he is the False Prophet!!!!!!
Walford:- “… and unless a soul is in a state of mortal sin, it is entirely possible that a path of sanctification is under way despite the irregular situation”
So Walford is saying unless someone is in mortal sin, they are being sanctified despite their mortal sin.
LOL, LOL and did I say LOL… Liberals and their mad words games… ..funny but also sad.
Teacher Walford needs to be schooled by the Mind of Christ.
“The opponents of the Holy Father, it seems, have not considered the idea that maybe Jesus actually desires union with the civilly remarried who love him dearly yet feel trapped by circumstances.”
I recall that Christ encountered a man who felt trapped by circumstances. Christ told he to escape those circumstances in order to be saved, and then the Lord explained to his disciples that, with God’s help, people are able to overcome any circumstances:
And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith to him: All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me?
Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me. And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions. Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved? And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.
John 14:15 ” If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”
The proposition that the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace was solemnly condemned by the Council of Trent, but Amoris Laetitia seems to say that it is not always possible — or even advisable — to follow the moral law.
“Tolerance is the virtue of man without convictions.” – G.K. Chesterton
“The more a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” – George Orwell
“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is, to a large extent, due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” – Pope Benedict XVI
St. Athanasius who was excommunicated by Pope Liberius became the 1st Doctor of the Catholic Church and who was known as the Father of Orthodoxy stated “The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops.”
As I have pointed out elsewhere, mercy is a one sided virtue. You have mercy on the criminal. You cannot have mercy for the victim; you might have compassion or sympathy. Mercy for the paedophile priest, as Francis generously bestowed on the defrocked priests such as Father Inzoli earlier in 2017. No mercy for the violated child.
Shakespeare showed his psychological genius in The Merchant of Venice. The most famous speech on mercy in the English language is put in the mouth of a woman disguised as a fake lawyer.
It’s impossible to read anything that comes from Walford’s keyboard without cringing in profound embarrassment for him.
Logic doesn’t work with these people, because they are simply trying to destroy the Church. Isn’t there a better way of dealing with them? Punching them in the head, for example?
That picture is chilling. That is all I need to know, right there.
Most things regarding this Pontificate is fraudulent, especially the relentless focus on ‘mercy.’ We all know that the mercy preached by Pope Francis really means licence to sin without correction and that mercy is shown only to the Left, never to the orthodox. When this Pope is eventually judged by Christ he will receive real mercy – and he will need it after his many atrocities.
It seems to me that the most unmerciful act imaginable is to allow someone in mortal sin to continue along that path without repentance; and crueler yet to endorse committing another mortal sin (unworthy reception of the Eucharist). Agenda of Mercy, you say?