Last Sunday’s Gospel reading, taken from Matt. 13:24-30, struck me — as the readings so often have in recent months — as eerily applicable to our present moment:
AT THAT time, Jesus spoke this parable to the multitudes: “The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came, and oversowed cockle among the wheat, and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the good man of the house coming, said to him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them, An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him, Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said, No: lest perhaps gathering up the cockle you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest, I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.”
There’s no point in drawing out the metaphor; ours is a Church obviously oversowed with cockle. The enemy has done his work. St. John Chrysostom saw in this parable precisely the meaning most apparent to us now — it is a warning about wolves among the shepherds:
What is the difference between this, and the parable before it? There He speaks of them that have not at all holden with Him, but have started aside, and have thrown away the seed; but here He means the societies of the heretics. For in order that not even this might disturb His disciples, He foretells it also, after having taught them why He speaks in parables. The former parable then means their not receiving Him; this, their receiving corrupters. For indeed this also is a part of the devil’s craft, by the side of the truth always to bring in error, painting thereon many resemblances, so as easily to cheat the deceivable. Therefore He calls it not any other seed, but tares; which in appearance are somewhat like wheat.
Something like this took place even at the beginning. Many of the prelates, I mean, bringing into the churches wicked men, disguised heresiarchs, gave great facility to the laying that kind of snare. For the devil needs not even to take any trouble, when he has once planted them among us.
And how is it possible not to sleep? One may say. Indeed, as to natural sleep, it is not possible; but as to that of our moral faculty, it is possible. Wherefore Paul also said, “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith.” 1 Corinthians 16:13
After this He points out the thing to be superfluous too, not hurtful only; in that, after the land has been tilled, and there is no need of anything, then this enemy sows again; as the heretics also do, who for no other cause than vainglory inject their proper venom.
And not by this only, but by what follows likewise, He depicts exactly all their acting. For, When the blade was sprung up, says He, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also; which kind of thing these men also do. For at the beginning they disguise themselves; but when they have gained much confidence, and some one imparts to them the teaching of the word, then they pour out their poison. [emphasis added]
Have we not all wondered at the confidence with which the current corrupters of Church doctrine operate? The hubris of doing so right out in the open? They have been given offices of teaching and governance, but they hand their sons serpents instead of fish and scorpions instead of eggs.
St. John Chrysostom speaks also to our present suffering — the seemingly endless question of how long our Lord will ask us to endure these wicked men in high places, and what He forbids:
What then does the Master? He forbids them, saying, “Lest haply ye root up the wheat with them.” And this He said, to hinder wars from arising, and blood and slaughter. For it is not right to put a heretic to death, since an implacable war would be brought into the world. By these two reasons then He restrains them; one, that the wheat be not hurt; another, that punishment will surely overtake them, if incurably diseased. Wherefore, if you would have them punished, yet without harm to the wheat, I bid you wait for the proper season.
But what means, “Lest ye root up the wheat with them?” Either He means this, If you are to take up arms, and to kill the heretics, many of the saints also must needs be overthrown with them; or that of the very tares it is likely that many may change and become wheat. If therefore ye root them up beforehand, you injure that which is to become wheat, slaying some, in whom there is yet room for change and improvement. He does not therefore forbid our checking heretics, and stopping their mouths, and taking away their freedom of speech, and breaking up their assemblies and confederacies, but our killing and slaying them. [emphasis added]
How many times have we asked why God waits to right His ship? How many times have we wondered at the forestalling of a justified chastisement? St. John Chrysostom seems to think that Our Lord only forbade the killing of heretics, but one wonders at this interpretation. Certainly, the Church did not hold to the line that heretics could not be slain. In Exsurge Domine, the 1520 papal bull of Leo X on the errors of Martin Luther, the following proposition was condemned as an error: “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” Such drastic measures are, of course, no longer taken.
But I wonder, too, if St. John would have looked at our present situation, where the esteem and power of the papacy has been so built up in the minds of the faithful that they are afraid to believe that it can be infiltrated by a wolf, that he might not say that too aggressive an action — of formal correction, of denunciation — taken at the wrong time, might in fact scandalize the faithful in such a way that the wheat would be rooted up with them?
The time and caution that has been taken by those few faithful prelates in their presentation of the dubia and the possible formal correction are very likely the result of an awareness of this parable. Even so, as St. John said, Our Lord does not “forbid our checking heretics, and stopping their mouths, and taking away their freedom of speech, and breaking up their assemblies and confederacies”. It is not outside the realm of probability that even now, the formal correction has already been issued, but done first as Cardinal Brandmuller has said, “in camera caritatis” – which literally means “in the room of charity”. In other words: in private.
It is impossible to say. What is certain, however, is that the cockle has grown, and is even now in flower. The time for the harvest cannot be far off.
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.
Perhaps this is the great sacrifice of the faithful……to wait…to stand, even though it feels as though the weeds are choking us to the bitter end. To stand steadfast…..out of love for each of God’s children, while remaining, always remaining in His Truth. Yes, I do believe the four Cardinals are patiently waiting…..hoping……praying that conversions are taking place as we post. This is why I do hope and believe that great prayer is needed by the faithful in a concentrated manner if you will. How wonderful it would be that through this apostolate and in union with others, we could all offer a Mass up, on the same day for the Church, and Pope Francis, and in adoration to the Holy Trinity?
There will come a time however, after much patience, and with growing divisions in the Church, when the correction must come and the laity must be given holy direction.
For people are not weeds, but living and breathing human constructs, who may whither away before the harvesting. And lest there are fewer of new seedlings of wheat to be planted. This would be a great injustice done! I am trusting Cardinal Burke and the cardinals who support him recognize this as well.
Wonderful article Steve. God bless you.
I have to agree. I’ve had my times of doubting, but in the end, I’ve come to accept this burden as a great gift.
When everything flowed toward God, it was easy to go with the flow. Now the waters churn. We must fight to stay afloat.
It’s actually a blessing to have the opportunity to prove our love of God, when all looks lost.
Amen. This suffering will seem to have been but a trifle to offer to our Lord when we see it from the perspective of Eternity. Our vocation is that of St. John the Apostle, staying by the side of our Lord and Lady at the crucifixion of His Body the Church. If anyone hasn’t read this homily, I couldn’t recommend it highly enough:
Yes, agree. God bless.
And a wonderful comment by you, cs. Thanks.
I don’t follow things as closely as perhaps you do, Steve, but even so I sense a dramatic change has come over the Church these last few months. Laymen and clerics seem, many of them anyway, to finally have overcome the papolatry afflicting Catholics for some time now. Many more are speaking to one another and printing in Catholic journals and at Catholic sites, criticism of this pope and his governance. Francis remains popular among Catholics who pay little or no attention to Church matters, I believe, but his attractiveness has diminished considerably among those who DO pay attention. Journals that were once part of the Praetorian Guard now routinely print questioning when not outright condemnatory articles concerning his words and actions. Do you sense a change in the wind as well?
Following the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, many Communist moles were consecrated to the priesthood and many allowed to enter Catholic Theological Colleges over a period of many decades. The spiritual discernment of those within the Church hierarchy who were responsible for vetting entry into seminaries and colleges has been decidedly poor. The weeds (the moles) have grown to the point where the Faith is seriously threatened.
However, now well and truly grown, it’s a lot easier to recognize and identity these weeds. I’d venture to say that not much more time will elapse before the ‘mature’ weeds are rooted out – or sprayed on the spot by the angels of The Lord.
The Holy Spirit is the change in the wind. He is preparing the faithful, hoping to gain more and more of steadfast soldiers for Christ, so that when the time comes, the remnant will remain faithful and resolute, with only one care in their soul, at ANY cost: Love your Lord with your whole heart and whole soul and your whole mind and being!
Unfortunately, there still are some who keep their heads in the sand. They say that the problems people find with Pope Francis are just conspiracy theorists and bitter, maladjusted traditionalists. They gleefully point out how Amoris Laetitia doesn’t say what its critics say it says. In a way, I agree with them. Personally, I have not seen anything that controversial in Amoris Laetitia. It doesn’t matter what I have or have not seen though. Lots of people DO interpret it to mean that a person who is divorced, civilly remarried, is sexually active with their new partner, but has not had their marriage annulled and the new union blessed by the Church may now receive the sacraments while continuing to commit adultery. Whether it actually says something wrong or not, charity requires clarification due Amoris Laetitia being understood by many as an endorsement of sinful behavior.
If a good teacher is instructing his students on something, he makes sure he knows whether or not the students are getting the message he is trying to convey to them. If he
finds that they do understand, he affirms them in their understanding. This is not to make them feel good, but rather to give them assurance that they are learning the material correctly. If he finds that the students are arriving at wrong conclusions based on how he is teaching, however, a good teacher stops for a moment, explains things again in a more precise way, and makes sure that people understand. POPE FRANCIS IS NOT DOING THIS. Whether or not people should be reaching the wrong conclusion is irrelevant, the point is that they are, and Pope Francis doesn’t seem to care.
What the pope does and says every day is no less important than his (or Kasper’s) footnote in AL.
He boldly departs from Church teaching in most of his homilies Last week he called adherence to God’s commandments – cowardice that obstruct progress.
I could make a very long list of similar offences, but many have done it before me. If they have not opened your eyes yet, I won’t manage either.
I have compiled a list of Pope Francis’ heresies and idiotic comments which runs to 7 pages. It is a sign of how much the Powers of this world and the secular media love Pope Francis that he has not been subject to more merciless derision.
Would you consider posting the list? I’d like to see it.
Yes, Bergoglio is very much a man of the world and not a man of God.
Here it is, a very rough and ready document. I doubt that it is comprehensive, but life’s too short.
Church doctrine might be devolved to bishops’ conferences (Para 32 of Evangelii Gaudium); idea vigorously opposed by Cardinal Muller, as it would obviously lead to the very quick disintegration of the Church into national sects.
Understanding of conscience as discussed in 2013 interview with Scalfari.
Constant emphasis on mercy with no reference to justice.
Phone call to Argentine woman living with divorced man advising her to ignore her priest’s advice not to go to communion.
Doctrinal confusion on communion for remarried – endless speculation in run-up to Synod 2014 and 2015, followed by the ambiguous exhortation “Amoris Laetitiae” in April 2016.
Stating that proselytism is solemn nonsense – interview with Scalfari 2013.
While Archbishop of Buenos Aires, permitted communion to be given to any and all cohabitees.
“Who am I to judge?” remark ignores the basic function of the Pontiff as given by Jesus to St Peter “Bind on earth, bound in Heaven”.
Views on salvation needed 2,300 word clarification by Fr Thomas Rosica in 2013.
At audience on 26-11-2014, seemed to declare universal salvation for all.
Stated “There is no Catholic God” in interview with the atheist editor Scalfari in 2013.
In speech of 25/1/2015, he seems to have abandoned any call to evangelisation, especially from Protestant sects. (Note earlier quote that “Proselytism is solemn nonsense”). http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/no-more-apologetics-then-pope-francis.html?m=1
Further editorial from Scalfari in 2015 which quoted Francis as believing in annihilation of those souls not destined for the heavenly vision. Again, difficult to prove as there was no independent record of this conversation.
14. New annulment procedures announced on 8th Sept 2015 seem to totally undermine indissolubility of marriage in practice, if not in theory.
15. Document issued at end of 2015 Synod seems to be Lutheran in its acceptance of the inevitability of sin.
16. Encyclical “Laudato Si” is full of anti-Catholic theology, seemingly heavily influenced by Teihard de Chardin’s repeatedly condemned writings.
17. Address to jurists in 2014 condemned both the death penalty (in contradiction of long time Catholic teaching) AND life imprisonment. Further compounds this basic error in June 2016 by declaring the ban on capital punishment is absolute.
18. Address in November 2015 where he describes all the baptised as members of the Church.
19. Phone conversation with Scalfari in October 2015 where he describes process by which Communion will be open to all the divorced and remarried – denied quickly by Lombardi!
20. Visit to Lutheran Church in Rome in November 2015 where he leaves question of Lutherans receiving Catholic Eucharist up to the individual conscience.
21. November 2015 – letter to Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I declaring:
“there is no longer any impediment to Eucharistic communion, which cannot be overcome through prayer, the purification of hearts, dialogue and the affirmation of truth.” Thus ignoring the 2014 statement by two eminent Greek Orthodox archbishops urging Francis to repent of his many mistakes and convert to Orthodoxy. This letter compounds the ludicrous statement in Laudato Sii that he soon hopes to enjoy full communion with the Patriarch.
22. December 2015 – description of God as both father and mother.
23. December 2015 – Concerning Mary and Joseph finding the 12 year old Jesus in the Temple; Francis comes up with the totally unsubstantiated idea that Jesus was afterwards in serious trouble with His parents.
24. Jan 2016 Monthly prayer message delivered in video form with Hindu, Moslem, Jew and Catholic delivering baffling message on Love being the one essential feature of the religious life uniting them all.
25. April 8th 2016 Papal Exhortation Amoris Laetitia issued with numerous anti-Catholic statements: insertion of situation ethics, minimisation of mortal sin, principle of gradualness, statement that the logic of the Gospel is that no one should be condemned for ever, admission of divorced and remarried to communion.
26. 24th April 2016 Statement to youth at Villa Borghese that it does not matter what religion you are, just do good.
27. April 2016: Hans Kung reopens discussion on Papal Infallibility with Francis’ blessing.
28. Address in Sancta Martha chapel in June 2016, explaining that the Church does not teach that is right and this is wrong.
29. Bizarre speech in June 2016 condemning rigid Catholics as heretics:
30. When speaking to the pilgrims at World Youth Day in Krakow, he declares that God prefers us weak and sinful:
31. Para 161 of Evangelii Gaudium declares that loving your neighbour is the greatest commandment – not loving God, which has always taken priority.
B Prudential errors
Remarks on food shortages being linked to profit motive.
Indian economist disputed Francis’ understanding of best way of helping the poor of the world.
Remarks on helping refugees as Christ himself at Lampedusa in 2013; follow up remarks at European Parliament in 2014 and further exhortations in the autumn of 2015.
Islam is religion of peace – Evangelii Gaudium, para 253. (NB – the Koran is a prophetic document of peace, November 2014 – was an erroneous quote).
Prayer for peace with rabbi and iman where the iman prayed for the triumph of Islam.
Remarks in 2014 on it being a Christian duty to work for abolition of death penalty and life imprisonment.
Remark that Europe was haggard.
Beatification of sodomite Pope Paul 6th.
Canonisations of two Popes, when plainly neither was worthy.
Refused to meet victims of clerical abuse while archbishop of Buenos Aires.
Summoning Synod on Family whose purpose was unclear at best and undermining of Church teaching at worst.
Blatant manipulation of 2014 Synod to get his viewpoint accepted.
Appointment of Cardinal Maradiega (aka “Mad Dog Maradiago”) to his council of eight when it was notorious that Maradiaga was a blatant promoter of the Medjugorge fraud AND had declared that the priestly paedophile scandal had been exaggerated by the Jewish controlled media.
Appointment of gay priest Monsignor Battista Ricca to be his overseer of the Vatican bank and retaining him in post AFTER the scandal broke – the priest had been caught with a man in a broken down lift in Montevideo AND been beaten up while cruising a gay area of that city and moved his Swiss Guard boyfriend into the Montevideo nunciate.
Taking part in interviews in 2013 with the atheist editor Scalfari when no notes or audio recordings of their chats were made.
2013 interview with Jesuit magazine where he seemed to minimise the importance of abortion issue (followed by ferocious denunciations of abortion once worldwide uproar broke out after the interview was published).
Sermons within the Casa Santa Marta chapel are not secret, but are not fully recorded or published – only edited segments are released.
Archbishop Doyle of New York declared that Evangelii Gaudium could not be regarded as a part of the Church’s magisterium.
Use of Exhortation (such as Evangelii Gaudium) as a communication tool when its doctrinal authority is unclear.
Cardinal Maradiaga fury at cardinals who declare that they made a mistake electing Francis.
Bowing to receive blessing from Greek Patriarch, November 2014, thus seeming to acknowledge the authenticity of this schismatic church. Various Greek Orthodox tweeted the image of apparent submission.
Appointment of Jesuit Father Robert Geisinger from Chicago to the key Vatican position of prosecuting sexual abuse. Unfortunately Fr Geisinger had covered up fellow American Jesuit Donald McGuire’s massive abuse of boys for years! (Even the “saintly” Jesuit Fr John Hardon plainly excused McGuire’s abuse, suggesting massive corruption throughout the Jesuits).
Rabbitgate fiasco where he plainly contradicted long established Catholic teaching on heroic motherhood and the beauty of large families AND he discussed the case of an alleged Catholic woman (did she exist?) who tempted fate by having 8 pregnancies resulting in C-sections. This was, of course, followed by a hasty and totally unconvincing reversal after the worldwide uproar.
Cardinal Pell appointed as one of Francis’ 8 cabinet members shortly before it was revealed that he colluded in a massive legal offensive against John Ellis, a victim of child abuse in Australia, with a view to deterring others from taking legal action. Worse, in 2012 he was completely embarrassed in a TV debate with Richard Dawkins where it was plain that he could not defend Catholic teaching on Adam and Eve or the Eucharist and, worse still, seemed to have a totally unorthodox understanding of the Genesis story and transubstatiation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EzIZ3KwfFA Not to mention another expose of a typically bungling coverup of abuse on his watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajWT4BERoHc
Cardinal Marx (of Munich and Freising) is another member of Francis’ cabinet of 8 even though he plainly believes in universal salvation.
Cardinal Francisco Ossa (formerly of Santiago, Chile) is another dud member of the cabinet – refused to meet abuse victims while Archbishop of Santiago AND refused an investigation into the paedophile Father Fernando Karadima.
Appointment of 20 new cardinals in February 2015 when it was obvious that he knew next to nothing of their backgrounds – thus paving the way for yet another series of embarrassments once discreditable events in their careers surface. http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/02/13/pope-francis-is-poised-to-change-catholicism-forever/
Cardinal Woelki promoted by Francis to the more prestigious see of Cologne after making remarks in 2012 in favour of gay partnerships.
Remarks in February 2015 that the issue of married priests is on his agenda. Guaranteed to maximise confusion. Is he for it, against it or open to persuasion in multiple directions?
Remarks to young people in June 2015 that no Christian can be involved in making arms and that being a gun owner is a sign of lack of trust in God. No sign that he is going to abolish the armed Swiss Guard. What about the long standing Catholic teaching on the right of individuals and states to self-defence? And shortly afterwards he criticised the Allies for not bombing the railways to Auschwitz. How were they going to be bombed unless some British/American weapons makers (almost entirely Christian at that time) made the bombs and warplanes?
In Laudato Si, he declares that there is a good hope of intercommunion with the Orthodox. How???
In Laudato Sii, he quotes at length from St Francis’ Canticle to the Sun, but omits a huge chunk which contains embarrassing stuff like references to mortal sin. No wonder than secular Jewish feminists like Naomi Klein were so happy to endorse its ecological message.
Laudato Sii’s teaching is heavily dependent on the reliability of future forecasts of global warming – which are based on dodgy computer models.
Laudato Si’s recommendation of a world authority to direct resources, migrant flows and much else – huge impact on human liberty and national independence. Flat contradiction of Catholic social teaching.
35 Speech in Ecuador in July 2015 is obviously heavily skewed by the Black Legend of how South American countries were liberated from the dead hand of Spain.
36. New annulment procedures September 2015, effective from December 2015, undermine marriage; the list of grounds for declaring a marriage null include the meaningless “etc”.
37. “Gossip is worse than terrorism” – bizarre and ridiculous remark.
38. June 2016 – Declares that most Catholic marriages are probably invalid – his verbal remarks are hastily edited in the transcript prepared by the Vatican.
39. After the disaster of mass Muslim immigration to Europe in 2015/16, in June 2016 he again urges Europeans to accept all refugees.
40. During visit to Armenia in June 2016, he refers to the WW1 massacre of Armenians as a “genocide”. Use of such an inflammatory word is guaranteed to enrage Turkish opinion, undo any alleged good achieved by his earlier grovelling to Islam and and quite likely endanger the tiny Catholic community in Turkey. He might also imperil the remaining Orthodox in Turkey, because in 2015 he was on conspicuously friendly terms with the Constantinople Patriarch Bartholomew, who endorsed Laudato Sii and was one of the few eminent Orthodox clerics willing to pursue ecumenical initiatives.
41. Francis sends observers to the Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete in June 2016. This Council took 50 years to arrange – the Orthodox don’t rush things. Unfortunately the Bulgarian Orthodox refuse to attend if any non-Orthodox observers are admitted. The Russian Orthodox won’t attend unless all Orthodox agree to attend (they may have been using the Bulgarians as a proxy to have an excuse not to attend). So an ecumenical gesture pushes the dim hopes of Christian reunion even further away.
42. In another airborne interview disaster on the way home from Armenia in June 2016, Francis seems to say that the Church should apologise to gays for any past oppression…ditto, should apologise of any poverty and oppression of women for which it was responsible:
43. Another airborne interview in July 2016 (trip home from Krakow after World Youth Day).
An elderly French priest in Rouen had had his head cut off during Mass by jihadis earlier that week.
In answer to a question on Islamic violence Francis declares that Catholics can be violent too. This immediately invited mockery from Catholic and non-Catholic commentators. No surprise as the Pope was equating failures by individual Catholics to follow Catholic teaching on murder with systematic Islamic killings of Christians which are specifically approved by the Koran.
44. August 2016: ISIS come back with a ferocious response to Francis’ drivel on the flight from Krakow and insist that their struggle is a religious war!
45. Visit to Lund, Sweden in October 2016 to mark 499th anniversary of Matin Luther’s starting the Reformation. This prompts a mixture of rage and confusion as to why a Pope should be apparently joining in celebrations of one of the greatest disasters in the history of Catholicism.
46. September 17 2016 and Francis is advising a conference of Jesuit alumni that the best way to fight terrorism is to warmly welcome refugees. This was more than a year after Germany had first welcomed all migrants in this way and after a year of clear demonstrations that it was a disastrous policy for the welcoming country.
47. On flight from Lesbos Francis confirms that Amoris Laetitiae opens new possibilities for divorced and remarried – thus contradicting long-time Catholic teaching.
48. Sept 2016 More false alarmism on climate change and refugees:
49. In “Laudato Si”, Francis explains that we need to respect the ecology of our bodies. On the plane home from Azerbijean on Oct 2, 2016 he explained the need to accompany people with gender disorders and referred repeatedly to a person born a woman who had undergone a sex change as “he”.
50. In speech during visit to Sweden at end of Oct 2016, links refugee crisis to climate change – not a shred of evidence to support link.
51. Autumn 2016: 4 cardinals ask dubia to clarify ambiguous teaching in Amoris Laetitiae; no response from Pope. Bishops in different countries (Argentina v. Poland) and even within countries have interpreted its guidance in different ways.
52. In December 2016, Pope Francis’ arch buddy, Patriarch Bartholomew of Istanbul, writes a leader for the Vatican paper Osservatore Romano where he explains that God does not issue commands for human conduct. “What has undoubtedly smothered and hampered people in the past,” he says, “is the fear that a ‘heavenly father’ somehow dictates human conduct and prescribes human custom.”
53. Interview with Belgian magazine in December 2016 results in cringes all round when he compares those who read fake news with coprophagics.
54. Message for the Fiftieth World Day of Peace in December 2016 mentions nothing abut Just War Theory, but calls merely for non-violence and justice.
C General howlers
1. His press officer, poor Father Lombardi, explaining that Italian was not Francis’ mother tongue (his mother was Italian).
2.Parade of phoney poverty: moving from palace apartment to luxury hotel, ostentatiously using small cars while on multi-million pound visits. Emphasis on poverty while paying tens of millions of dollars to four expensive firms of consultants to reform Church finances and communications.
3. Lombardi is only a part-time press officer when a Pope needs a full time press person more than ever.
4. His “Make a mess” remark to young people at Rio 2013.
5. His remark that young people know what the Church teaches.
6. Comment from “First Things” magazine: “Also curious is His Holiness’s observation that among the apostles “Judas was not the one who sinned the most,” since it avers that either St. John or one of the martyred apostles committed sins more egregious than betrayal & suicide.”
7. Remark in Jan 2015 about large Catholic families and that Catholics are not required to breed like rabbits. Thus enraging everyone from rabbit breeders to mothers of many children. At the same time referred to mother of 7 children by C-section that she was risking making these 7 children orphans by her 8th pregnancy. This was, of course, followed by reverse-spin explanation from Vatican of how his remarks were supposed to be interpreted.
8. Being photographed holding up a “Ban fracking” T-shirt.
9. Claiming that inequality is increasing when it has in fact been decreasing globally for decades.
10. In Evangelii Gaudium he criticised people for having a gloomy attitude as if it was the end of the world…then in Laudato Sii he adopts an attitude that doomsday is coming if we don’t mend our ecological ways!
11. Both Evangelii Gaudium and Laudato Sii are the work of one or more ghostwriters – accounts vary as to how many chefs contributed to the final meal. No reference in the printed version of either document to any ghostwriter, as is normal with such “cooperations”, e.g. celebrity autobiographies by illiterate celebrities. But a major contributor is most likely Archbishop Ramirez – author of the strange advice book: “Heal me with your mouth”
12. Laudato Sii makes wild and unsupported assertions about the deteriorating state of the world’s ecology, which flatly contradicts evidence from other writers.
Wow! Quite a list. Thanks very much.
This is only the first seven pages – the following 19 pages were coped and pasted from people like Sandro Magister. Veteran Vatican watcher Sandro compiled several pages of his own on Francis’ howlers.
You don’t see anything controversial in AL, but there is much controversy caused by it. If it doesn’t exist, where did it come from?
What you must not forget is, Bergoglio is a Jesuit. Mendacious Jesuits are truly evil men whose methods are sly, devious and diabolical. Bergoglio is devious enough to know he cannot say, write or approve of anything overtly heretical. He knows he would lose his office if he did. What he has done in AL is create ambiguities, blatant in their intent, which provide loopholes through the Church’s settled doctrines to allow those so inclined to reject Christ to creep through and do his dirty work for him. That dirty work is now being practiced in Germany, Argentina, Malta, parts of Italy, in San Diego, CA, Chicago, IL and elsewhere. Schism has arrived in Holy Mother Church.
The controversy in AL is deliberate. It is the work of Satan and his favorite son.
“Not a true pastor but a destroyer” Saint Francis of Asissi gave us the heads up hundreds of years ago.
The parable, as Jesus explained it says the field is the world, not the Church. To claim that we should passively sit by while evil people destroy the Church from inside it is a false reading of the parable. St John got it wrong.
1 Corinthians 4:9-12 …drive out the wicked person from among you.
A lot of people today consider the weeds are sinners in the Church, and so believe Jesus is saying, “leave the weeds alone.” This is wrong. This would entail requiring sin and error to flourish in the Church. This interpretation is very common, almost unquestionable today, yet other texts in Matthew and the epistles directly contradict this.
The weeds are not your ordinary sinners, they are the sons of the devil and they do not belong in the Church. The wrong interpretation of this parable has morphed into an excuse to relativize the Church. As the identity of the weeds changed from outside oppressors, the sons of the devil, to sinners, to sins, to sins of Christians, to Christian sinners, so too the lesson of the parable has twisted from “stand and fight!” to a passive “bygones!”
The “let the weeds-in-the-Church alone” interpretation has dire consequences because it is never a good thing for us to view the Church as a mirror of the world, instead of an army of soldiers bearing witness AGAINST the world. The interpretation allows the accommodation of sin and error in the Church. This is not what Matthew says on the same subject later:
Matthew 18:15 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
In the parable, it is the servants of the householder, the harvesters, the angels, who are being told to wait and hold off, NOT the wheat. The wheat, the faithful Church, will have to continue the struggle, knowing full well of their eventual victory. In the meantime, they can kick the wicked weeds out of the Church.
This parable has been twisted over the centuries so that the Church now finds itself with no will to resist evil within itself, a very dangerous thing, an invitation to surrender both the Church and the world to the sons of the devil.
I take your point, although we are not all sitting by passively, exactly. I do think, though, that the matter of God’s timing is still relevant in this dark time in the Church.
Sin must always be rejected. Truth must be told and the faithful must resist evil.
We cannot turn our heads or hide them under the sand. Our love for our Lord and His Church will not permit this. We pray God uses our anguish in these days as He sees fit, for our soul and the souls of others.
“Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control.” (2 Timothy 1,6-7)
“Do not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but take your share of suffering for the gospel in the power of God,…” (2 Timothy 1,8a)
“Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
You are aware that all who are in Asia[b] turned away from me, and among them Phy′gelus and Hermog′enes.” (2 Timothy 1,13-15)
Hmmm… I see your point, but between an internet comment and a doctor of the Church, I’m gonna have to go with the doctor. St. John’s interpretation is not nearly as passive as you imply either. There is this: “He does not therefore forbid our checking heretics, and stopping their mouths, and taking away their freedom of speech, and breaking up their assemblies and confederacies”
The Catholic Church is being undermined by the heretical teachings of a band of criminals who have infiltrated the seminaries, the Cardinalate, and the Bishops. These are not simply weak, errant, confused sinners.
” But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
And many shall follow their riotousness, through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
And through covetousness, shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their perdition slumbereth not.” 2 Peter 2:1-3
We are expected to do more than pray, and meditate on these events in the Church. St. Bernard testified so, as did St. Peter: ” Be Sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour. Whom resist ye, strong in faith: knowing that the same affliction befalls your brethren who are in the world. But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto His eternal glory in Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a little, will himself perfect you and confirm you and establish you. To Him be GLORY and EMPIRE, for ever and ever. Amen.” 1Peter5:8-11
I’m sorry but I don’t follow the logic between my comment and your reply. Maybe I’m just slow? Help me out? 🙂
I am not disagreeing with your interpretation. I am supporting this view with that of St. Peter.
I don’t agree with Mike P that this parable only applies to external heresies, whatever that means., because 99% of all heresies originated with Catholic priests, bishops or laity. They all relate to the internal workings of the Kingdom of Heaven.
In the Catholic Encyclopedia, under Parables, it says for the Parable of the Weeds, “Historically, the moral which recommends sufferance of disorders among Christians when a greater evil would follow on trying to put them down has been enforced by the Church authorities against Novatus, and its theory developed in St. Augustine’s long disputes with those hard African Puritans, the Donatists. St. Augustine, recognizing in Our Lord’s words as in the spiritual life a principle of growth which demands patience, by means of it reconciles the imperfect militant state of his disciples now with St. Paul’s vision of a “glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle.” (Eph, v. 27)”
The Problem is that the situation of modern heresy in the church is unique. We’re not dealing with a heretical group like the Cathars, Novatists, or Donatists but rather with those who knowingly keep secret their heretical allegiances until they feel at liberty to impose them on the faithful without fear of sanction. I have been convinced that the efforts and example of St. Bernard and St. Norbert in the fight against Anacletus II is the example case that most closely applies to this modern heretical dilemma. If Any cleric is found to be a heretic after consecration to high office they automatically should be suspected of having been so prior to election. St. Peter offers the understanding that suffering is involved in this but Jesus Himself can perfect, confirm and establish our efforts to His glory and empire.
Ah, ok 🙂
As I said, I just didn’t follow. It’s been a rough week =P
Sorry but St John Chrysostom wanted to have it both ways. He wanted the weeds to represent bad Christians or heretics, but also wanted to reserve the right to “stop their mouths, take away their freedom of speech, and break up their assemblies”. But how would this be consistent with “Let them grow together until the harvest” ? It isn’t consistent. So there’s the problem – St John’s position is illogical.
If the weeds are going to represent an internal problem of the church (rather than an external one as the evidence requires), and the instruction not to uproot is given to everyone (rather than to just the angels as the evidence requires), then how do we avoid the conclusion that the “weeds in the church” must be allowed to thrive? On what grounds may we molest them?
The solution is to stop trying to apply the Parable of the Weeds to the internal problems of the church, to which it was never meant to be applied and upon which it has no bearing. Other passages, such as the ones noted, DO have bearing on the internal affairs of the church, and leave no room for doubt as to what to do with bad church members.
Argument via name-dropping is no argument.
I have no interest in trying to win an argument here because St. John Chrysostom has already made an argument. I’m making no accusation, or do not intend to. However, whenever you’re disagreeing with the saints about matters of biblical interpretation, especially Church Fathers and Doctors, you have to check your own humility… especially when no saints, doctors, or the magisterium have corrected the issue in the 1600 or so years since his life. Perhaps there is more than one way to interpret it?
Yours is a typical Catholic response .. I am going to ignore the evidence in favor of some authority figure..
Saints and Doctors and Pope’s opinions are given precedence over Jesus Christ’s very words.. You elevate the opinions of mere humans as if they are oracles from God Almighty. How very sad.. .does it ever enter your heads that these people may actually be wrong? Unquestioning obedience to authority figures is typical cultic behavior.
Another example: Jesus says in effect: ” I hate divorce , don’t do it and don’t remarry or else you commit adultery.”
Yet now your so-called “Pope” has put in a damned express lane,,.but…. (wink wink) we call it annullment, so it’s all OK because he’s God’s mouthpiece.
Scripture says Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes miraculously, yet your so-called “Pope” says it was an instance of “let’s all share.” a clear denial of Jesus’ Divinity.. Yet the pathetic Catholic sheep follow this idiot because he’s an “authority”
Ah, Mike P, in my two comments below I tried to address this issue with quotes from the Gospels as well as from the Catholic Encyclopedia by the Knights of Columbus from the early 20th Century. I don’t know if that will satisfy you. But the examples do deal with actual historical applications of this parable. I agree with you that this parable is not applicable to the current heretical situation in the church due to it’s occult nature over the past number of years.
“Yours is a typical Catholic response…” Thank you, I’m very glad I sound like a typical Catholic! I’m proud of that! I realize that you meant this in the pejorative, of course, but I wear such an accusation as a mark of pride. In my response I assumed you also were Catholic (my mistake I guess!) since this is, you know, a Catholic website. As such I thought I might appeal to your humility and sense of obedience to God given authority. I also realize that heretics and schismatics have no such sense, so now that I’ve been corrected, I’ll answer you a bit more.
Regarding the parable, is it not possible that there is more than one interpretation? As we read in Hebrews, the Word of God is Living and Effective. Sure, Jesus gave an interpretation to the disciples. That interpretation is obviously not wrong. It was given by the Logos, the Word of God, and is thus true. No authority can contradict this as there is no greater authority than the King of Kings. But, as the Word is Living, can He not enlighten the mind of another of His disciples, this time a bishop in the 4th century, who is dealing with heresy and is tending to the flock he was given? Or is your interpretation so strict and so rigid that you deny the Living aspect of the Word, who is Jesus? I see no contradiction between the above interpretation of the situation given by St. John and that given by Jesus. Heretics fall into the same category of the weeds.
Think of the parable itself and what’s going on. A field is sown and wheat is planted. Then, an enemy comes, and sows bad seed. The weeds start growing up. The fact that they are growing up together seems to indicate that this is an internal matter, does it not? The weeds start taking root, they start choking out the good wheat. Think of another parable of the same sort. The weeds and thorns come and choke the good seed that begins to take root. The wheat and the weeds grow up together and take good soil away the the wheat. So, what is to prevent a worker in the field (be they angel, clergyman or layman) from seeing a weed growing up and stomping on it, to inhibit its growth? He’s not tearing up the weed, and potentially with it the roots of the wheat that is good. He’s simply stomping on it, perhaps trimming it, to prevent it from harming the good wheat too much. And perhaps, at the time of the harvest, because of that good care of the field, the wheat is able to grow up and bear much good fruit.
You see, when you look at the parable itself, there is no problem with the interpretation. Part of the reason for the parables, I’m certain, was to give a picture, and to allow all of the implications that come with that picture to become clearer as time comes. At the time, all the disciples needed to know, and what was most applicable at the time, was what Jesus told to the disciples. He by no means prohibited other possible interpretations.
Now, for your other statements:
Oh, it enters our heads. It absolutely does. We’re actually challenged to question these things. The thing is, when we do, we usually find the original to be right when that authority is high. With a saint, there are definitely places where something could just be the opinion of the saint and they could be wrong. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest theologians of all time and esteemed doctor of the Church who has influenced Christian thought for the last ~750 years went back and forth a bit on the matter of the Immaculate Conception. I don’t recall where he ended on the matter, but he changed his opinion about the truth or falsity over time. In 1854, the Pope declared definitively through the special grace given to him by God to do such infallibly (under very specific conditions which he fulfilled there) that Mary was indeed immaculately conceived. St. Thomas’ opinions at certain points are wrong. So, sometimes saints are wrong. But when the authority is good, you can trust it. Just as most people acknowledge the earth is round and revolves around the sun. I don’t have any solid empirical evidence to back that up I suppose. But I can look it up. I may not understand everything, but I trust the guys that figured this out knew what they were doing. This actually brings us rather nicely to your next point:
Oh boy, so much to unpack here. It’s really quite hilarious. Have you even read articles on this site? A huge reason for the existence of this website is to help educate the faithful about all the ways the authorities in the church have abused the trust placed in them, and proceeded to destroy the Catholic faith primarily since the 1960’s and the Second Vatican Council. This is not to say that everything that happened during and after this time was bad, but that a huge disservice has been done and many sacrilegious practices and teachings and spread about. The current pontificate of Pope Francis is extremely problematic. Francis has indeed taught wrongly. The fight in the Church right now is over the indissolubility of marriage and we are fighting for it. Hard. Pope Francis “let’s all share” teaching was absolutely wrong and heresy. You and I are right there.
Annulment is a slightly different beast, but you clearly think it’s just Catholic divorce and, rightly understood and implemented, it’s not. Annulments exist to exercise justice. There are certain criteria that need to be met for a marriage to be valid. For example, both spouses need to enter the marriage freely of there own will. If one or both parties were coerced through some means, then they were not able to enter freely. Perhaps economic deprivation or harm to reputation are used to pressure the couples to enter the marriage against their free will. I don’t know any Christian who would call this valid. Or perhaps one party had no real intention of staying in the marriage and signed a pre-nup “just in case” clearly not meaning the words of the vow they said. In the Catholic Church, Canon Law mandates certain forms and in some cases permissions from proper authorities are required in odd cases, otherwise the marriage is not valid. If such is the case then justice demands the spouses wronged to be set right. In those cases, a true, unbreakable, sacramental marriage that “God has joined together” did not occur. The Decree of Nullity or Annulment is simply a statement from the church saying that the marriage, though it existed apparently, was in fact found to be faulty and therefore never occurred. You probably disagree that much of this is a possibility, but that’s neither here nor there. It is not a free pass.
Now, regarding how it’s applied today, yeah, that’s horrific, and Pope Francis did in 2015 make the issue much worse. I would venture that perhaps 10% or so of the annulment inquiries sent to diocesan tribunals are actually worthy of really considering for annulment. Annulments are granted far too frequently and far too easily. And, with Francis’ reforms, it does have the danger of appearing to be Catholic Divorce. The guilt for this, though, lies with the perpetrators – the priests and judges of the tribunals and the bishops who permit these abuses – not the faithful, since they believe they are free. It’s terribly sad. As Our Lady told us at Fatima, more souls go the hell for sins of the flesh than for any other sin. This is a grievous offense, and Our Lord will deal with it in due time and in His way, this I trust.
And yes, it is very, very sad that so many of the Catholic sheep follow this idiot. The problem is, they don’t know better. That’s something that we here, as well as in many other places in the Church, chief among them being certain cardinals and bishops, are doing our utmost, by God’s grace, to fix.
Now stop being so angry, and stop advocating for heresy (aka protestantism or anything non-catholic). That’s against our comment policy (you can find a link to that in the menu at the top of the page). I have a ban hammer and I’m not shy about using it.
I am afraid I disagree and I am with Mgr Knox and others in disagreeing vide:
But whether Christ was talking about the Church or the world he was warning that pulling up the cockle risked pulling up the good wheat at the same time and thus losing more souls. I think the comment by RodH above is very relevant to this point.
“What do you think? How many of the inhabitants of this city may perhaps be saved? What I am about to tell you is very terrible, yet I will not conceal it from you. Out of this thickly populated city with its thousands of inhabitants not one hundred people will be saved. I even doubt whether there will be as many as that!” – St. John Chrysostom (347-407)
“Where the esteem and power of the papacy has been so built up in the minds of the faithful that they are afraid to believe that it can be infiltrated by a wolf.” Wouldn’t he cease to be the pope then? If the pope cannot err, and a wolf has ascended to it, wouldn’t he no longer be the pope? Either way (because I’m sure its an issue of semantics) if a correction has been issued in camera caritatis, then it needs to be proclaimed sooner rather than later. The ambiguities of Vatican II continue to infect the church.
“If the pope cannot err” – of course he can err. The doctrine of infallibility has specific limits.
And that’s exactly why the errors of this one never happens ex catedra!
He is full of errors as as pomegranate is full of pits… It is not just that one thing “AL”, but rather every preach, almost every single word that he say, – or when he not say but must to say…
Exactly, Ivan. Bergoglio and all his servants are rotten fruit and there’s no way to hide it. It smells to high heaven.
“He is full of errors as as pomegranate is full of pits…” Well said, what a perfect analogy.
You only quoted part of my statement. I don’t get the point of your response or you didn’t get what I said. Pope Leo XIII called the Roman Pontiffs “the Gates of the Church” in his 1894 encyclical letter Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae. If they’re the gates of the church, can they also be heretics?
Pope Leo XIII stated in Satis Cognitum (June 29, 1896) – “From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest” … and “No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”
Pope Leo X stated in Lateran Council V, Bull ‘Cum postquam, “You will firmly abide by the true decision of the Holy Roman Church and to this Holy See, which does not permit errors.”
Finally, Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (June 29, 1896) “…But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”
So my point was that the Pope cannot err, because the pope then would cease to be Pope. I was not saying the Pope can’t err, but instead when the pope errs then at that point he would cease to be Pope. You hear so many people saying, “Pope Francis is a heretic” or “Pope Francis is in error.” Why do they still call him “Pope” then? If the Pope is abiding in the chair of Peter and holding to the 4 marks of the church and the apostolic succession, he retains his chair and office. In that stead then, he cannot err. However, if he strays from the path of the church, and goes into apostasy and commits error, he leaves the chair of Peter, he leaves the Path of the church and her 4 marks, he denies the faith and he is no longer Pope. One cannot be Pope and Heretic at the same time.
Give this a look. It’s a scholarly approach to this issue. http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1284-can-the-church-depose-an-heretical-pope
Part of the issue is that the pope isn’t just any bishop. He’s Peter. That complicates and increases the gravity of all of this.
Interesting article, raises some good points. It starts out early on asking, “If it is possible for a pope to be a heretic?” This is my argument as I understand it. The pope cannot be a heretic and a heretic cannot be pope. This is where the term “Anti-pope” comes in. Sedevacantist use this term, so that they say things like, “Pope Pius IX, Anti-Pope John Paul II.” It is how they distinguish who is a pope and who is not. There are, in my opinion, sound arguments made on both sides. I think the sedevacantists who have appointed their own popes because they say the chair cannot be vacant have committed the biggest error. There are other sedevacantist who say the chair is just empty. Then of course there are the traditionalists who call Francis the pope and say he is in succession, but have grave concerns about his pontificate to this point. Then there are the run of the mill Novus Ordo Catholics who do not think about it at all, to them the pope is the pope no matter who it is and probably don’t even know there was ever a Vatican II council or that there is even a canon law.
Does the pope becomes anti-pope when the he stops believing or practicing infallible Catholic doctrine? The argument many advocate is that it has to be made public. Public defection of faith would be considered a resignation from office according to Can. 188.4. Can an anti-pope be pope again if they repent of their error? If he recants and is universally accepted as pope then yes. The Chair of Peter becomes empty when a pope dies, resigns from office, or becomes a heretic/schismatic/apostate. Sedevacantists will tell you the last 6 antipopes never had the office of pope to lose it. According to their argument , they were public heretics beforehand and thus the Chair of Peter has been empty since Pope Pius XII.
So I think this is the argument, if someone is in the Chair of Peter and is legitimately Pope vs. if someone never had the chair because they were a heretic before being decreed as the pope, which appears to be where the sedevacantist stand. I think even they, like all Catholics, hold the Chair of Peter and one who sits on it in high regard. So again, my argument is that people in one hand call Francis the pope but at the same time loosely through around attacks and accusations at one they say legitimately sits in the chair. So going back to my very first argument I made on this thread, “wouldn’t he cease to be pope if he was a heretic.” I have not gotten into the issue of deposing him. My comments are along the line of how people understand the seriousness of the office.
Sorry I didn’t respond to this earlier! I must have missed it in my Disqus notifications. I’ll respond with a more robust response later when I have time, but I wanted to address one of your first points: that a heretic cannot be pope and a pope cannot be a heretic. History proves this to be false.
There are 3 accounts I know of where a pope was a heretic, all of which are in the article: Marcellinus, John XXII, and Honorius. Marcellinus offered incense to idols, lost the papacy but then repented so honestly that he was re elected, and died a Saint and martyr. Honorius in condemned in the 4th council on Constantinople as a heretic and by his successor Pope Leo II. John XXII believed that the beatific vision was not seen immediately after death and taught it. He was strongly rebuked, repeatedly until he recanted.
I may have more to say later when I can read more thoroughly what you said!
Great, I will look forward to your reply Jafin. I am aware of these three examples you cited. I think it may be a matter of semantics, but I notice where you stated Marcellinus, “lost the papacy” i.e. he ceased to be Pope until he repented and then was Pope again. He did not remain pope while he was in heresy. I think that is my point. However, I’ll await for your reply and look forward to a deeper discussion. I think more people in the church need to not only be having this discussion but fully understand all the repercussions.
“An enemy has done this ……” It has long been customary for some of us, when praying for the (the intentions) Holy Father during the Rosary, to include an invocation which, if I’m not mistaken, originated with the Cenacles of the Marian Movement of Priests: “May the Lord preserve him, and give him life; make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not up to the will of his enemies.” After Mass today, I asked those who pray the Rosary with us if they would object if we changed this invocation, or rather, omit certain parts of . Firstly, I cannot bring myself to pray for “the intentions” of the Holy Father, because it seems that his intention, indeed his determination to build a new church “in his own image and likeness”. And all on the false pretext of “mercy”. In order to accomplish this, he is “stacking the deck” with fellow-travelers who will continue his “building project” after he is gone. And, as for “deliver him not up to the will of his enemies.”; Pope John Paul II, and Benedict XVI after him, were beset by enemies, (human enemies) and increasingly isolated in the Vatican, by those in high places who likewise wanted a church in their own image and likeness, and their own choice of pope who would help them to accomplish it. I still in my heart pray for Pope Francis’ deliverance, but from the infernal enemy who seems to direct so much of what he says and does. May God forgive me if I speak as I shouldn’t.
I have to admit, I’m with you. I no longer pray for the “intentions” of the Holy Father when saying the rosary, but simply for Our Holy Father.
We should not pray for intention of pope, when those are not clearly mentioned.
What is “intention of the Pope”?
Before the reform of discipline of forgiveness (1967th-1968th), there was a very clear answer to that question.
Congregation for indulgences in 1847, gave us a clear definition:
“Intentio pontificis est exultatio sanctae Ecclesiae, extirpatio haereseum, propagatio fidei, peccatorum conversio, pax et concordia inter principes christianos.”
“The intention of Pontiff is the exaltation of the holy Church, eradicating of heresy, expansion of faith, conversion of sinners, peace and concord between Christian rulers [monarchs].”
This prayer was always repeated and mentioned in their full words, in theological books – until the 1960s!
See here an example in the book of a prominent jesuit Arthura Vermeersch:
– “Theologiae moralis principia – responsa – consilia” (tom. III., Rim, 1948., page. 377.):
Well, one of the requirements for a plenary indulgence is to pray for the pope’s intentions… so you can’t really get out of it if you intend to do so…
O yes. But you pray than for exact intentions which each pope should have.
Yes. You can use the exact words.
That’s still praying for the pope’s intentions. But I get your point.
I cannot pray for ‘the intentions’ of this pope because they seem evil to me and destructive. I pray sometimes for the ‘holy’ intentions of the pope as are aligned with the age-old holy intentions of Christ and His Church …but if he has such, I do not know. There is NO good news coming from the Vatican. All I can see is double crossing, lies, corruption, the persecuting of the faithful with name calling to begin with and then the demoting, exiling, and more of them. Vindictiveness, retaliation, rewarding unworthy ones, inviting heretics and others opposed to the Truths of the faith. Lies! The attack against moral teachings, the confusion, the division, the corruption all the way to the top!!!! Where is our holy Church? Where is a shepherd after the Heart of Christ who cares for the salvation of souls?
Thank you, Maggie; you have beautifully articulated what so many of us feel with increasing intensity. We have been raised in the Church to rightfully expect that, when darkness gathers, we can look to Rome, to the Rock, the successor of St. Peter, to be the guiding light that will illuminate our path through the gloom and confusion that surrounds us, believing, as we do that, “Whoever hears you, hears Me.” But when we hear Francis, it doesn’t seem possible to us that it is truly Christ Whom we hear.
I pray for his ‘good intentions’ on the assumption that he has some!
If the Cardinals did indeed correct Jorge Bergoglio the pope in private, I stand in awe of their charity..
He has caused so much pain to the faithful, so much injustice and damage, in my eyes he is deserving of a public rebuke.
But if the Cardinals did what you suggest they might have, I would have to admit – theirs would be a true Christian way
I have been hearing the” weeds and wheat parable” applied, or perhaps misapplied to heretics and abusive clergy for decades. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that heretics could be executed after being declared so by competent Church authority . St. Don Bosco admonished a priest of his order severely, warning him of his responsibility to find out who was ruining his boys.
Bergoglio’s assaults on the truth, and acts of tyranny, have been almost entirely public acts.
There is no reason, in charity, for the act of correction to be done in private, or, if already done, for it not to be made public. Otherwise, the scandal and the injustices cannot be even partially undone. Charity for the Church as a whole requires a public correction and a public conversion.
This is a remarkable article, true to every word.
“He does not therefore forbid our checking heretics, and stopping their mouths, and taking away their freedom of speech, and breaking up their assemblies and confederacies.”
This is what should have happened long ago but our prelates & clergy in general seem to support PF’s agenda for a NWO Church & Government, despite the public distaste for travelling that path. Apart from the Dubia, which only asks certain questions to be answered by the pope, no public correction has yet been made. Public heresy needs public correction, otherwise such heresies spread like wildfire & poison everyone, particularly the innocent.
Not so long ago 1P5 carried an interview with Leonardo Boff in which he stated that: “You know, as far as I understand, the center of his interest is not any more the Church – and certainly not the internal operation of the Church – but, rather, the survival of humanity, the future of the earth.” No-one in authority has attempted to stop this man from speaking publicly at universities worldwide, or to hinder Catholic universities from employing secular staff & inviting atheist guest speakers to their campus. This has been occurring long before PF came to power so it is to be presumed that even those now who would try to soften the effect of their treason to the Catholic faith were formerly ‘soft’ on their admonishment. They must now answer the questions – what is the first duty of a CC prelate & why haven’t they carried out the responsibility of their Office?
Think here on ‘Liberation theology’. Which is combination of liberalisme, equality, brotherhood (‘liberte, egalite, fraternite’), humanisme (which is modern paganism), communism, budhism, utopia, newage-ism, etc,… He, who likes Herman Hesse and read his books, even 3 times some of them, if not all of them,… he, who said ‘mother earth is the one who gives us life’ (See here:- https://plus.google.com/+DonQuijotNL/posts/Yqv84CE8NXo), he, who set a human conscience above the Law of God,… he who is praising one luther as a ‘good reformer’ instead a deformer,… he, who pray together with the greatest heretics,… doing all that in the name of false mercy…
can only be a destroyer.
The time of the harvest is near. That is why when the final harvest begins, there will be little doubt as to whether we have chosen to be the wheat or the cockles. Divine Justice demands that when the time of Mercy ends, our wills will be set as in stone, just as it was in the time of Noah. Irredeemability will be the state of the cockles when the Harvester begins the harvest. The field is almost there now..
Seems to me Our Lord would have no problem with spreading a little weed killer around. Kill the tares but not the chaff. Anyway, it is clearly time for a wake-up call to our Novus Ordo brethren. The more alarms that are set off the better. Go get ’em Steve!!
One Pope is playing the piano while another spews insults and ridicule at those who defend the faith.
We’ve been left as orphans in this world that we might become closer to God.
If the public correction does come and causes the open division I expect, most will cave in to the Bergolian side. I never hear a peep from local clergy against anything that he says or does, only praise and adulation. But this makes me think that when the s**t hits the fan, most priests and pewsitters will continue to be duped. It would be a good idea at this point, then, that preparation be made for a single well constructed document that could be distributed widely in the event of this division; a document that outlines the history and import of what is going on, and where things really stand, so that the Catholics in the know can get the facts to their fellow pewsitters before the inevitable media blitz against them.
You wrote that they will be duped, no, they want the easy painless way the Pope fracis offers them. But as you wrote, a well written document, and i add, using Jesus words to condemn this heresy.
Father Richard Cipolla posted a sermon on Rorate Caeli on 2-7-17 on being patient. It coincides well with this article. “For the deepest part of patience is an acceptance of things that causes suffering that cannot be explained.” Waiting patiently for God to help us as we suffer.
Fifty years is too long to be called patience, especially when we have been subjected to moral & spiritual violence which the outcome of that ‘pastoral’ council VII has produced. Inaction is taken as complicity with a regime that only wants to destroy the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church which Christ instituted on the First Apostles. There is no other church/faith/religion that can compare because all others are man-made. They don’t count. Satan knows this only too well & has taught his minions accordingly. Make the Ten Commandments appear old fashioned, unreasonable & not cool. Demean the Sacrament of Matrimony and the rearing of children. NWO ethics deem that modern man needs his/her freedom to live life to the full & not be constrained to life-long vows. Neither should they have the burden of large families which only pollute the world & cause financial strain, hence it is now perfectly alright to use contraceptives/abortion as control methods. Also, the elderly have lived their useful life so best to release them quietly from the world before they become a financial burden on their families & taxpayers.
The moral outlook of the present CC leadership is not God-centred, it is Man centred, & does not offer its followers anything pertaining to the salvation of their souls. They don’t believe in Hell so no need for Confession or Last Rites. If infidels can get to Heaven (if there is one) then no need for Baptism or Confirmation either which brings the total so far to five Sacraments to be ditched. The next Sacrament to be dispensed with will surely be Holy Orders unless they need to keep it as a cloak for the sodomites their NWO Group attracts.
This is the road to ruin & I cannot imagine that well educated & informed men of character can any longer submit themselves (& us, the laity) to such demonic inculcation for the past fifty years & feel at peace with God. But who am I to judge? God will though!
“A day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day.” Over a 2,000 year history of the Church, 50 years is less than a footnote. It’s a crisis to be sure, but we can wait on the Lord. What other choice is there?
“Waiting patiently for God to help us as we suffer” – yes, but doesn’t mean just seating and doing nothing (except to pray).
I cannot understand why people don’t understand, and even some good priests neither, that every one of us must talk, speak, preach clearly and loudly to others. Always.
By that I mean, if someone says “we must be patient”, – that is not enough to be said. And yes, we certainly should be patient, and have trust in God, but – at the very same time we should preach from the rooftops to all our neighbors. Especially to those who are some kind of dummie catholics, because they think they ‘know’ and understand everything very good what they should and must know about God and His Catholic Church, Commandments, etc. But they just think they know. Because, in the same time they live in adultery, or they courage their own kids to live in adultery, or to kill unborn child,…just to give two, but very bad and very common examples of ‘catholic way of’ living in a grave sin.
Can we just watch these kind of our catholic neighbors, and just be patient with ‘his situation’ too?
No. We can’t. So, we should be patient, have TRUST to GOD, PREACH and DEFEND the TRUTH as long as we exist.
Nobody ever said that the Great Apostasy was going to be an enjoyable experience for the Faithful, and if this isn’t it then it’s the dress rehearsal for sure. According to God’s permissive will, it befalls us that our own Pope has to all appearances failed us at this late hour. God knew that he would, and has given us all the graces we need to survive these unprecedented times. Hold fast.
Amen. In caritas.
And this IS painful, acutely so. For some of us — specifically, me — it’s hard to bear the smugness, the hypocrisy, the deceit, the pharisaical lectures that emanate from Rome these days without exploding, without offending temperance; my tongue is bitten raw. As you indicate, if this isn’t the Great Apostasy, it’s a damned good imitation of it. And again, if it’s not, I cringe to think what the real McCoy will be like!
Yes, and I just went to Confession today precisely because of my own intemperance over this issue.
Our Lord’s words are a treasure in times like this: “And will not God vindicate his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will vindicate them speedily.”
A question relating to the Pope’s repression of the truth and the need for his correction: I read on a Spanish blog that the Roman police immediately opened a criminal investigation aimed at finding the persons responsible for the posters in Rome last week, being ordered to do so the civil authorities in enforcement of the provisions of the Lateran Treaty of 1929, which was modified since its signing by Mussoliniin1929 but never revoked. This is the treaty that gives the Vatican the status of a separate state, and one of the other things it does is criminalize insults against the Pope. So the police were not looking for people who stuck up unauthorized ads on public notice boards, which would be akin to littering, but for people who had committed the criminal offense of insulting the Pope. Does anyone know if this is true? And, if so, whether it was the civil power that took this move on its own, or the Vatican that invoked the treaty and requested the civil power to enforce it?