Earlier this year, a petition was started. It’s purpose was simple: it asks the Holy Father to calm the fears of Catholics around the world with a simple public assurance that those forces which are seeking to undermine Christ’s teaching on marriage will not prevail at the conclusion of the two-year Extraordinary Synod on Marriage and Family.
The text of the petition reads, in part:
Your Holiness, in light of information published on the last Synod, we note with anguish that, for millions of faithful Catholics, the beacon seems to have dimmed in face of the onslaught of lifestyles spread by anti-Christian lobbies. In fact we see widespread confusion arising from the possibility that a breach has been opened within the Church that would accept adultery—by permitting divorced and then civilly remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion—and would virtually accept even homosexual unions when such practices are categorically condemned as being contrary to Divine and natural law.
Paradoxically, our hope stems from this confusion.
Truly, in these circumstances, a word from Your Holiness is the only way to clarify the growing confusion amongst the faithful. It would prevent the very teaching of Jesus Christ from being watered-down and would dispel the darkness looming over our children’s future should that beacon no longer light their way.
Holy Father, we implore You to say this word. We do so with a heart devoted to all that You are and represent. We do so with the certainty that Your word will never disassociate pastoral practice from the teaching bequeathed by Jesus Christ and his vicars—as this would only add to the confusion. Indeed Jesus taught us very clearly that there must be coherence between life and truth (cf. John 14:6-7); and He also warned us that the only way not to fall is to practice His doctrine. (cf. Matt. 7:24-27)
Since the petition was launched, over half a million Catholics around the world have signed it. Not just laymen, but priests and prelates as well. Among the notable ecclesiastical signatories are Archbishop Pagotto of Paraíba, Brazil; Bishop Vasa of Santa Rosa, California; Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana, Kazakhstan; Cardinal Medina Estévez of Chile; Cardinal Raymond Burke, former prefect of the Apostolic Signatura; Cardinal Pujats, Archbishop Emeritus of Riga in Latvia, and so on. In fact, the list of notable persons in the Church and in the secular world who have put their name on the document has become quite lengthy.
And yet, there has been not a word from Pope Francis.
The very same Pope Francis who advises his priests to be “shepherds living with ‘the smell of the sheep’, shepherds in the midst of their flock, fishers of men.” The same Pope Francis who speaks always of those people on the “peripheries”; who very publicly meets with the disaffected and marginalized, who holds private audiences with Marxists and the transgendered, who meets with gay and transgendered inmates, who graciously accepts Communist Crucifixes without a word of condemnation, who invites movie stars from the far left of Hollywood to meet with him in the Vatican, and so on.
Fine. The Pope should spread the Gospel to everyone, no matter who they are. He should share the truth and necessity of the Catholic Faith wherever he goes. I agree.
But is it too much to ask that he make time for actual Catholics, too?
Are the faithful — like “abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods” — something that requires “a context” in order for him to feel comfortable speaking to them? Does Pope Francis not want to appear “obsessed” with them, since “the teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear” and “it is not necessary to talk” to these people “all the time”?
Does he feel that “the Church has already spoken quite clearly” to faithful Catholics, and thus, “it was unnecessary to return” to them?
When Fr. Raymond De Souza asks, “Does Francis think Cardinal Kasper is right?” – how do we answer him? More to the point, how do we answer all the people in our homeschool groups and parishes and families and circles of friends and Facebook communities who are asking the same thing?
How do we tell people, “Yeah, the pope’s totally going to go save the day on this, don’t worry!” when he won’t even say a word about a petition with half a million signatures – many from his own bishops, who are trying to figure out how to hold the line if he won’t?
I’ll no doubt be characterized as the crazy one for asking the question. How can I doubt him? Do I honestly think he’s OK with the Kasper Agenda? What do I expect? He’s a busy guy. I’ll also be reminded a 4,037 times that “the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.”
I got it. I know. I’m Catholic. I’m up-to-date on my Catechism.
But if Pope Francis intends to uphold Church teaching on this, why is it so hard to just come right out and say it? He’s not smoking any lurking villains out of the shadows. They’re already basking in the spotlight. A spotlight that he himself has shined on them.
We are entitled to expect this from the Vicar of Christ. He has a duty to the faithful to guard the faith, not leave them wondering if he will falter, and if that means everything they believe in is a lie. Does that sound drastic? Because it’s exactly the kind of thing I’ve seen people speculating about. You can blame them all you want, you can call them unfaithful, poorly catechized, or lacking in trust. You can accuse people of schism because they lose faith with Rome and go seeking moral certitude elsewhere. On some level, you may be right. But they’re like children asking their father for bread, and being handed stones. (Mt. 7:9-11) Why must we beg him for reassurance? Why must we petition the pope to preserve and defend the faith?
There’s no more time for excuses. There’s no more benefit of the doubt in the reservoir. We’re a little over a month away from the Synod.
Please, Holy Father – answer the question.
UPDATE (8/24/2015): Some readers have asked us if we know for certain that Pope Francis is aware of this petition. I reached out to my contact at TFP — the organization that created the petition — to ask the question. This is what I was told:
The petition will be physically presented to the Pope on the 29th of next month [September]. However, the “Preferential Option” book and the petition were sent to over 90% of the bishops around the world. The TFP in Rome has also done a significant amount of campaigning for the Filial Appeal. The likeliness that he’s not aware of it is very low.
For good measure, I tweeted the petition over to @GregBurkeRome (Senior Communications Adviser at the Vatican), the papal Twitter account, and emailed the Vatican Press Office. I’ve reached out to my other Vatican contacts to see if there’s an awareness of this. With over 100 bishops as signatories, it’s not unreasonable to assume that the Holy Father has been briefed.
Of course, he doesn’t need to respond to a petition. Stating clearly that he won’t let the Synod go off the rails is something he should do of his own initiative. It looks like we’ll just have to wait and see what happens.
UPDATE 2 (9/29/2015): We have confirmation that the appeal, which reached over 800,000 signatures — including 201 cardinals, archbishops and bishops — was submitted today to Pope Francis.
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.
“The Pope should spread the Gospel to everyone, no matter who they are. He should share the truth and necessity of the Catholic Faith wherever he goes.”
Is that really what you think he is doing at these meetings?
Of course he isn’t.
Ok. The “fine” and “I agree” seemed to suggest otherwise.
I’d love to discuss what I think Francis really is, but I don’t know how far you allow comments to go in that regard. So I’ll wish you all the best for now, and hope that you see what I see as things inevitably get worse.
I’m answering the obvious rhetorical objection, giving Francis the benefit of the doubt. We don’t know for sure that he isn’t sharing the Gospel or truths of the faith at these meetings, so we can only surmise.
So I granted the objection.
But in the question you asked me directly, you wanted to know what I think. I don’t think he is doing any of that. There’s no evidence of it.
As for speculation on who and what he is? As far as we are able to know, he is the pope. That’s enough. We focus here on whether he’s executing that office, and what it means to us if he is or isn’t.
Well, I’m sure you know all about sedevacantism, manifest heresy, the loss of office, etc. And so I am curious as to where people put their “line.” Like, if Francis were to say or do x, then he would be a manifest heretic and lose his office. I think that ship sailed along time ago and I am coping with it in my own way. I know others who are hanging on but who have their “line” at which they’ll basically denounce and reject him. And there are many more who will never do that, and find a way to continue regarding him as a legitimate authority no matter what he says or does, because they think the faith depends upon it.
I think that view is mistaken, but I’m not here to start WWIII. You replied, so I replied, and I will quietly go away if you prefer – I know how heated and sometimes nasty these discussions get. I’d be happy to discuss more, or take a walk – your site, your rules.
I know that neither you nor I have the authority to make such determinations. Bellarmine and Suarez both made that clear.
Among Bonchamps well considered comments, these are key, that Catholics will “…find a way to continue regarding him as a legitimate authority no matter
what he says or does, because they think the faith depends upon it.”
We find ourselves and our brethren, already horrendously catechized, now at the mercy of dreadfully complicated circumstances. The sheep are induced by way of propaganda to attach their faith to Jorge Bergoglio the man, who happens also to be Pope Francis. By the way, has anyone noticed that since 2013 there seem to be two popes? What canonical or scriptural basis is there for a pope to resign (read the text, it’s more like a refusal to resign than a resignation) without renouncing his papal name and taking up once again the title of Cardinal first name and surname? Two men in white, two popes (don’t be fooled by the fabricated Emeritus). I know that one of the two has the charism of infallibility, but can someone identify which? Please don’t tell me that it’s both. That won’t fly.
We need to explain to our brethren that the love of Our Blessed Lord plumbs the depths of this madness and comes up in greater glory, and that devotion to the Blessed Virgin will keep us Catholic. Let’s spread devotion to the Rosary, and pray it with those who need it most. Only She can help us.
I don’t think anyone who claims to be a sedevacantist is “claiming authority.” There are distinctions to be made between crimes and sins. Crimes can only be judged and punished by lawful authority. Sins can be seen for what they are when they are public/manifest, and in the case of manifest heresy, schism or apostasy, those who commit them can and should be avoided as the heathen and the publican. So, here’s the rub: if your conscience leads you to conclude that Francis is a heretic, certain conclusions follow from this.
Bellarmine is clear: “for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.” — De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30
Yes, even laity can and should avoid a manifest heretic. A formal declaration could come at a later date, if one holds that a restoration of tradition and orthodoxy will one day occur (I think the seven trumpets are going to blow before that happens). But it isn’t necessary. As Pius XII tells us in Mystici Corporis Christi, heresy, by its very nature, severs a man from the body of the Church. (#23) And someone who is not even in the Church, cannot be the pope.
There is a free book on Google Books, “The Life and Life-work of Pope Leo XIII” by James Joseph McGovern. On p. 241 it covers a discussion that was held during Vatican I, though off the record I suppose, wherein the cardinals discussed what ought to be done with a pope who begins speaking heresy.
“[T]he council of bishops could depose him for heresy, for the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself… If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.”
So there “could” be a formal dethroning by the bishops, but we aren’t obliged to sit around and wait for it before we guard our own souls. The very “moment” he begins spewing heresy, he is no longer pope. And in the case of the current claimaint, his election may be invalid in the first place according to article 6 of Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, which stipulates that a heretic’s election – even with the unanimous consent of the cardinals – is null and void. By these means, and not blind fidelity to obvious heresy, is the Church spared from the gates of hell.
So yes, we absolutely lack the authority to depose a sitting pope. But no, we do not lack the moral right to recognize, avoid, and condemn manifest heresy and apostasy, or to recognize the implications of these manifest words and deeds.
On the other hand, if you DON’T think he’s a heretic, well – then sure, you would have to defend him as a legitimate pope, and we’d have to have a different discussion.
But it is only a council of bishops or a legitimate successor that can state with finality that a pope has excommunicated himself. Deciding that such a thing is true (as opposed to merely suspecting it) is beyond the competence or legitimate judgment of a layman or even of any particular prelate.
I think Michael Davies handled the topic admirably here:
Will read. Thanks 🙂
I did read the link in full. And I believe that he was essentially saying the same thing I am saying.
Here’s the crux: “What all those who accept the hypothesis of an heretical pope are agreed upon is that for such a pope to forfeit the papacy his heresy would have to be “manifest”, as Saint Robert Bellarmine expressed it, that is notorious and public (notorium et palam divulgata). A notorious offence can be defined as one for which the evidence is so certain that it can in no way be either hidden or excused.”
On this, we agree. I do however disagree with, or at least remain suspect of pending further study, this assertion of Davies’: “If a doctrine is not de fide divina et catholica, a person is not an heretic for denying or doubting it”
That is really quite a bold statement, and one I believe can be proven false. Let’s take a look at this source, for instance: http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html
Here is what it says of doctrines that are one step below “de fide divina et catholica”, which are called “De fide ecclesiastica definita”, or as Davies has it, “those which the Church has infallibly declared, but which she does not present formally as having been revealed (de fide ecclesiastica)”:
“Effect: Mortal sin directly against faith, and, if publicly professed, automatic excommunication and forfeiture of membership of Church.”
So in sum, I believe Davies and Fr. Cartechini were looking at the same category of deviation from the faith, and coming to different conclusions about their effects.
I will definitely be pursuing this line of study – and will happily reconsider my position if I am convinced Davies is correct. I thank you for the link, and for bringing this to my attention.
Will read. I’ve read some of Siscoe’s other writings on sedevacantism, but I haven’t seen this one yet. Looks interesting.
It is very good and demonstrates the Pope can’t lose his office for heresy until the cardinals or an imperfect ecumenical council depose him. He has another article on can the church depose an pope which is good. Long story short even if Pope Francis is a heretic we are stuck with him until he is deposed.
See my edit above. If I’m totally missing something, help me out. I see Siscoe contradicting Pius XII.
A point worth clarifying is that the Holy Ghost deposes him for his heresy. The Council simply affirms the reality and ushers in the temporal effect, i.e. declaring him a manifest, pertinacious heretic, anathema, and the Divine deposition as a fait accompli. The result, however, is just as you present it. The important distinction is to affirm that God alone judges the pope, and neither man nor council can even attempt such an act without themselves falling into the Conciliarist Heresy.
Indeed. I assume the reader knows that but I probably shouldn’t assume.
An important distinction.
Thank you for this.
Heresy does sever one from the church as pius xii said but this is jn regards to the spiritual aspect of the church not necessarily the material or visible aspect of the church. That is why a person who has been severed from the internal life of the church maintains jurisdiction until they are cut off from the visible aspect of the church. The church, like Christ, has a visible and invisible aspect, a body and a spirit if you will. Pius x teaches as much in his catechism and I’m pretty sure siscoe addresses that so Siscoe is talking about the visible part of the church and pius xii is talking about the invisible aspect. Thus there is no contadiction and pope francis even if he is a heretic maintains his jurisdiction.
Well here’s the thing. Pius XII in his encyclical specifically says that heresy severs a man from the body. He uses that word. If you are out of the body, you are out of the Church. See Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, #10. With all due respect to the Catechism of Pius X, it does not carry more weight then two papal encyclicals.
If we were talking about a heresy like the one held by John 22 about the beatific vision, well then you might have a point because he was willing to recant that when he was shown that he was wrong. I’m not sure you can say the same about Francis.
Heresy does sever one from the body, that is the invisible aspect of the body, as I already stated. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate he was speaking about the visible aspect of the body. Until there is an actual declaration of loss of office or excommunication then the person is still part of the visible aspect of the church. However it is necessary to be part of both to be saved.
You said: ” The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate he was speaking about the visible aspect of the body.”
I’ll quote Pius XII again: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” (MMC, #23)
He says “the Body of the Church.” That is the visible Church. The soul of the Church is the invisible aspect, and it is not separate from the body. One cannot belong to the soul without also belonging to the body.
Pius XI: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it” (Mortalium Animos, #10)
So unity with the body is the same as “membership in the Church”, i.e. membership in the “mystical body of Christ.”
So if heresy severs a man from the body of the Church, it severs a man from the Church altogether – the soul as well. That is the teaching of the Magisterium, which has the final word over a catechism, wouldn’t you agree?
” Until there is an actual declaration of loss of office or excommunication then the person is still part of the visible aspect of the church.”
Manifest, public, external heresy – call it what you will, heresy that is visible and known to all – does not require a declaration. It is self-declared. As Bellarmine says, we are not bound or able to read hearts, but when a man openly acts like a heretic, we must judge his actions and condemn them.
I think we both agree that no man or council can actually pass judgement on the Holy See. That would be the heresy of conciliarism – whether you or I do it, or cardinals try to do it. Cardinals can’t judge the pope either. No one can. They would be doing the same thing sedevacantists are doing – recognizing a fact, not issuing a judgment.
So there is a difference between a formal judgment, which no one can issue, and a mere recognition. The Church does not require that a man say the exact words, “I am a heretic.” I can’t imagine any heretic in history has done that, or very few if any. Someone who publicly denies a truth of the Catholic faith with full knowledge and consent, which all prelates and popes are presumed to have (as opposed to laypeople who can err in good faith), is a self-declared heretic.
So we can debate over whether or not Francis or his predecessors ever actually did this but if you were to come to the conclusion that they did, well, then it follows that they have been deposed by God. It would be wonderful if we had bishops who would join us in this recognition, but the facts are the facts regardless of who recognizes them. In my view the Assisi event of 1986 was the defining moment, a public declaration of a new religion of Freemasonic universalism and a definitive rejection of the Catholic faith. This was the event that set Archbishop Lefebvre into action, whereupon he issued a statement declaring all acts of modernist Rome “null and void.” It was the moment at which, according to Fr. Johannes Dormann’s masterful study of Assisi, the faith and conscience of all true believers was shaken to the core and put to the test.
I understand the caution of those who don’t want to recognize the loss of office. I certainly don’t condemn such people. It has grave and terrifying implications. It is where my conscience leads me, however, and others too.
I see where the confusion lies now. The use of the term “body of the Church” is not identical with the visible body of the church as there is an invisible body of the church and visible body of the church. The two are the same insofar as they are not separated but distinguishable as Christ’s actual body can be distinguished but not separated from his soul.
So when he uses the term body of the church here I understand that to be the invisible body of the church not the visible body of the church.
Mortalium animos is refuting the Protestant view of the church which separates the visible and invisible body of christ by saying you can be part of the invisible body without being part of the visible body.
“The two are the same insofar as they are not separated”
Right. Which is why you can’t belong to one, but not to the other – contra Siscoe. Again, Pius XI is clear: if you do not belong to the body, you do not belong to the Church. Again, Pius XII is clear: heresy, by its nature, severs a man from the body.
“So when he uses the term body of the church here I understand that to be the invisible body of the church not the visible body of the church.”
I don’t think that is correct, but even if it were, it wouldn’t matter. The distinction between visible and invisible has nothing to do with Church membership.
Where does the Church teach that if you don’t belong to the invisible aspect of the church then you are automatically severed from the visible aspect. I would be interested in seeing documentation on this since your entire argument hinges upon this claim, which, to my knowledge, is not taught by the church.
I hope you don’t take me as being argumentative, I’m just sincerely trying to see where you may have learned this information. JMJ
You said it yourself: the body and soul are one. Pius XI teaches it: if you are not connected to the body, you are not a member of the Church. It isn’t possible to belong to the soul, but not the body, because the soul is not outside the body, it isn’t larger than the body, encompassing a “space” for people to dwell who are not connected to the body; it is in unity with the body.
I know some theologians thought it might be possible for a person to belong to the soul, but not the body, but the Magisterium has settled that issue.
I did say that the body and soul are one. However, this is the case in the sense that there aren’t two churches, one invisible and one visible, as the Protestants claim.
It does not logically follow, that to be cut off from the invisible church automatically severs you from the visible church, insofar as you can be part of the visible structure of the church, while not participating in its interior life. I know plenty of people who are “on the books” in Catholic churches, but they don’t appear to be participating in the interior life of the church. In the same way, the Pope may not be participating in the interior life of the church, if he is a material heretic, however, this doesn’t mean he loses jurisdiction.
As to the Theologians, it is possible to be part of the soul in reality and part of the body in desire alone, even though not in reality. But that is a different matter.
“It does not logically follow, that to be cut off from the invisible church automatically severs you from the visible church, insofar as you can be part of the visible structure of the church, while not participating in its interior life.”
The matter is simple, in my view.
Heresy – the sin, not the crime – separates you from the Body of the Church (Pius XII)
Being separated from the Body of the Church, separates you from the Church completely (Pius XI)
Heresy therefore separates you from the Church, completely (Pius XI + Pius XII).
Throwing in visibility and invisibility doesn’t really help. But it ought to be clear that if we’re going to distinguish Body and Soul, the Body would be the “visible” aspect and the Soul would be the “invisible” aspect.
“I know plenty of people who are “on the books” in Catholic churches, but they don’t appear to be participating in the interior life of the church. ”
I don’t know what you mean by “on the books.” On the parish registry? As manifest but undeclared heretics?
“In the same way, the Pope may not be participating in the interior life of the church, if he is a material heretic, however, this doesn’t mean he loses jurisdiction.”
So here is the problem with this: the pope cannot be a material heretic. A material heretic is someone who errs in good faith on a point of doctrine. Bishops are presumed by the Church know what they are supposed to believe, and held to that obligation. In other words, there is no excuse for heresy on the part of a higher clergyman as there would be for a sincere layman.
“As to the Theologians, it is possible to be part of the soul in reality and part of the body in desire alone, even though not in reality. But that is a different matter.”
I don’t think it is, because that terminology is what Siscoe uses in his article. He takes that from a catechism, as do others. But as Pius XI teaches, one must be united to the body to be a member of the Church. So according to the Papal magisterium, to lose one’s membership in the body (as one does through the sin of heresy), is to lose membership in soul and body. You have both, or you have neither – theological speculation aside.
I think were spinning our wheels a little here 🙂
I understand where you are coming from here but I think I’ve demonstrated that the invisible visible distinction does answer the objection. However, I suppose a combox is not the best avenue for such discussions as it does require alot more definitions, distinctions and explanations.
Well, the demonstration isn’t clear to me. But you are right – this is a limited venue, so clarity will not easily be achieved here.
I wish you well. God bless.
No, Francis is spreading the “gospel” of climate change and socialism.
True. I have yet to hear him actually preach the real gospel found in sacred scripture and sacred tradition.
Does Christ and His Vicar teach error and immorality? Or does Satan and an hireling teach error and immorality?
I just finished reading Windswept House by Malachi Martin. In it, “The Slavic Pope” is about to be forced to resign by forces in the church who want to destroy the papacy. He has allowed this situation to fester and worsen in the name of ‘unity’. Of course, it’s a false sense of unity, and becomes a kind of wimpy allowance. (I’m speaking of the pope in the novel, not a real pope.) It does seem to me that Francis is focusing on inclusion to the exclusion of all other teachings of the church. The novel strikes me as kind of prophetic.
Have you read the ‘Jesuits’–The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church by Malachi Martin. It’s a real eye opener or a prophetic confirmation about the Pope Francis disaster.
I haven’t read it. I prefer his novels. The Vatican is another book I think is prophetic.
I am a recent convert from Protestantism to Catholicism (April, 2014). For the first few months, following conversion, I felt like I was in the Twilight Zone as the church I read about and the church I am confronted with my suburban community have pretty much nothing in common.
Reading books on early church history, the Reformation and contemporary Thomism lead me to believe that the Catholic church was the place for me. However the actual practice of being a Catholic in the suburbs means participating in the N.O. rite, being in ugly churches, and praise choruses. The historically respectful Catholic church that thrived on continuity and organic development, as she existed prior to the wholesale changes of V II, is nowhere to be found. I was looking for intellectual rigor and a rite of worship based upon something other than sentimentality. Unfortunately, I am 50 years too late.
Reading books by Malachi Martin as well as Italian journalist, Antonio Socci’s “The Fourth Secret of Fatima” have provided insight. As has Roberto de Mattei’s “Vatican II: The Untold Story”.
Here is a key to the persons some of the characters in “A Windswept House” are based upon:
Get to an FSSP parish. Don’t subject yourself to a lifetime of having to “offer up” what you will experience at the typical suburban Novus Ordo Mass. Mass is not something we should have to “endure.” We shouldn’t have to sit there day after day reminding ourselves that it IS valid. Yes, it might mean a long drive, getting up early, and some inconvenience, but the graces you receive will be more than worth it. I know families who have been driving over an hour to FSSP parishes for years. It can be done.
Thank you for your response. Yes, Catholics have suggested that I make the effort to drive great distances to attend a Tridentine mass. However, I limit myself to biking to work and errands. I will not drive vast distances to obtain such graces.
The Catholic church was built on the parish system. This guaranteed that Catholics would have relatively convenient access to churches within their vicinity. Until the church degenerated into the present hodgepodge of grave aesthetic assaults and sentimental inanities, this worked quite well. The parish system fostered community solidarity and social support systems until the postconciliar changes messed everything up.
As a Prot I admired the Catholic church as the creator and repository of Western culture. I did not realize until I got inside that she sold her inheritance for a mess of pottage some 50 years ago.
I just cannot live with the cognitive dissonance that arises from attending a Catholic church that is ugly, even though it is convenient. In fact, I have several equally abysmal churches to choose from if I abolish any aesthetic standards.
My bottom line: if it’s ugly it cannot be Catholic. Yes, I know, Catholics tell me that I am a snob and who am I to make aesthetic judgments? Who am I to place my judgements above Mother Church? They tell me that after all, the only thing that really matters is valid sacraments. This is a woeful reduction of the Church, which consists of doctrine, practices and liturgy. It can’t be reduced to obtaining valid sacraments in a big-box store edifice.
I think it terribly nervy that the Church requires of me a Sunday obligation when they themselves destroyed 1965 years of organic liturgical development. They systematically destroyed almost two millenia of transcendent beauty and yet they demand that I kow-tow to their hodgepodge of warm-over, postconciliar swill.
Several months ago I stopped attending the N.O. rite — I feel much better now. Whatever spiritual graces may be obtained from valid sacraments were counteracted by the debased context and my anxiety and agitation at having to participate in a rite that was so beneath the dignity of Our Lord and those made in his image. I just could not make it through another Responsorial psalm or another round of “Here I am to Worship” and other Protestant praise choruses.
I know that reverting to my own conscience and honoring my aesthetic judgements, instead of participating in the N.O. rite or making the considerable effort to drive to something more palatable makes me a Protestant or a sedevacantist or something other than a Catholic in good standing. I am OK with that. I have also been called a Donatist lately. I’m OK with that, too.
Yeah, that Sunday obligation is actually a very serious thing, not something you should turn your back on. I recently had to attend a Novus Ordo funeral Mass (at which the deacon giving the homily both canonized the deceased and said that we were ALL going to be in heaven someday). I got through it by bringing my 1962 Missal and reading through the Mass for the Dead in that, which actually mentions sin, God’s judgement, and the need for forgiveness.
Before finding the TLM I had roughly forty years of Novus Ordo Masses. I know that one can find graces within them, and that they are valid. It’s a dangerous route to leave the guidance of the Church.
Also keep in mind that Catholics have never limited themselves to relationships and community with those who are in their parish. I have close friends who attend several different parishes. I’d love for them all to make the change to the TLM, but for some it may never happen. If you’re going to call yourself a Catholic, then you must commit to making the drive or attending another Church-sanctioned rite in your area. It’s a non-negotiable. A vegetarian who eats meat is not actually a vegetarian.
Many folks refer to themselves as non-practicing Catholics. But if you prefer I will refer to myself as an ex-Catholic. My soul is truly better off to not be under the authority of heretics and leaders who directly oppose the teaching of the Church. It’s not just the substandard aesthetics I object to. Though I think there is a case to made for rejecting the church on those grounds.
As a convert, I understand you perfectly. I try (and sometimes succeed) to find the spiritual beauty and strength of living as a Catholic in this time. My heart yearns for the Church before the devastation. She is still here, but as the mustard seed. Sow your seed. It will grow, both in your heart and soul, and in your circle of family and friends. The true Church cannot be destroyed.
Go SSPX Chapel if nearby. Ther are one of the remnants retaining the true Faith. They have never been disrespectful in their criticisms of the current hierarchy, they simply point out their erroneous teachings and give you the Truth based upon orthodox Church Doctrine.
You cited a good source to find a true, Catholic Church where the valid Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is available and the true teachings of the Church are still believed, taught, and defended.
It may be very difficult for you to get to one of the parishes they list on their website but if you truly believe the Catholic Church is the Church instituted by Christ, isn’t it to your benefit to make some sacrifice to worship Him properly, and more importantly, as He commanded?
This can’t apply to Francis because there are no forces in the church who do not support him, except a few prelates who somehow have kept a remnant of the true faith in their minds.
Pope Francis either for a lack of faith or a non-existent faith at all, or a misconception about God’s teachings and commandments due to a bad formation, or feeling important being in high positions in the Church for a while, or his communistic or socialistic background and environment and beliefs, or the influence of his surroundings in the Vatican, or his personal conviction that because he bears the name “Francis” then he must act like a “Francis of Assisi” since people will compare him to Francis of Assisi or all of the above combined (I would prefer he complete lack of faith in God, like most of the current Roman Catholic hierarchy), Pope Francis is a unique figure in our modern times because he personifies exactly what Jesus warned his disciples about: The hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the false prophets.
Earlier I posted a comment on your latest podcast page. Allow me to repost it here since it has to do with the same individual and another one.
Michael Voris (and his group of immatures) is becoming so radical and arrogant.
You can tell by the way he handles his critics or the Church’s. I think he is mentally disturbed and should seek a psychologist. The arrogance of power and authority is blinding him.
We have seen in history people like him. Hitler comes to mind.
His excuses of banning any voice that speaks against the Church or this Pope are lame and are just what they are…excuses. No substance in them.
It is amazing his hypocrisy….He always stops short of criticizing the Pope by name, yet he criticizes on a daily basis everything that comes from this Pope, from the Vatican, through his (the Pope’s) Cardinals, Bishops and Priests!!
Hypocrisy and arrogance are the two sins that Jesus spoke about describing the Pharisees…or should I say….Michael Voris.
I agree with you on some points concerning CM but compering MV to Hitler is a bit OTT. What I have found with CM is that they introduce a topic and when you comment and your comment is not in line with their opinion you can be sure that your comment will be deleted. They only allow a one sided conversation. In general I think their reporting is excellent, but its not open to debate.
Comparing anyone who is acting like a dictator to Hitler is perfectly suitable. I could also compare Michael Voris to Stalin or Mao or Castro. It is the same thing as comparing him to Hitler. Dictators are dictators whether they use mass-murder or not. It is the style that I am talking about.
I understand what you mean by his style but it is his forum and we can either take it or leave it. Because of his attitude towards debate I choose to leave it. If you agree with him then you’re welcome if don’t then butt out, its not a choice way to get your point across, he is dogmatic I agree.
My previous reply to you was because I compared him to Hitler and you didn’t like it. So I justified it. Yes he can do his craziness as he wants on his web page but he goes out of his way by attacking other people in his videos which he publishes on YouTube for the whole world to see, and he attacks especially those who don’t agree with him and therefore he should be exposed as a hypocrite and arrogant as he is. He is deceiving his viewers and his readers and they should know about it.
Prove that anything Voris has posted is UNTRUTHFUL, by providing a link – and add your explanation for your personal opinion.
CCC: ” 2467 Man tends by nature toward the truth.
He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it:
It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons . . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth.
They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth.”
Father Nicholson’s garbage about how attending an SSPX Mass is worse than attending a black mass is untruthful, for one. Completely destroyed CMTV credibility.
Voris’s continued assertion that the Society is in schism is UNTRUTHFUL.
I’m not surprised he said that. I have a visceral reaction to that person.
Many of us have chosen to simply leave it. Apparently that doesn’t really bother them.
I think you should be able to understand the difference between a Hitler or a Stalin and a Voris or your average HOA president. The association carries with it something more sinister – a difference only of degree and not of kind.
No website is obligated to provide a forum where chaos reigns and all opinions are treated as equally valid. I do try to offer more room for that here, but I’ve banned people before for being unduly disruptive and I’ll do it again.
CM has a business model, even though they deny they even know such a thing exists. Included in that is a very tightly controlled discussion. I think their managerial style is imprudent, but hardly dictatorial. Nobody is being held in the comment boxes there against their own will. A dictatorship keeps you within a system and then shuts you up. CM visitors are welcome to come here and have freedom to discuss their concerns honestly and openly.
And I am SO appreciative of at least the freedom to express and opinion here Steve! I can understand banning someone for foul and disrespectful discourse, or for disrupting a fruitful discussion, but because you don’t necessarily don’t agree with every jot and title of the moderators is (to me) quite counter productive. Thanks for your ministry!
Dictatorship is not jut physically. There is something called “thought-control.”
As I mentioned in my reply down there to a commentator, Michale Voris does not only use his website to attack his opponents, but he goes out of his way publicly, in a much open forum which is YouTube to attack and launch smear campaigns against those who disagree with him.
The guy claims all the time that he is charitable and that he wants to preach the Gospel and call souls to lead them to Heaven. Yet, as I said and I repeat, he is a hypocrite. In reality, he doesn’t care about souls nor Heaven. How can you attack people for 10 minutes in a YouTube video and at the end of it you ask people to pray for those you just attacked?? You think that your followers and viewers will really pray for them after the highly, intensified dose of hatred you just spewed by telling your viewers that these people are going to Hell? Really?
On the other hand, as I replied to the other commentator, there are a lot of naive Michael Voris followers who take what he is saying at face value, trusting him blindly and are not really aware of his hypocrisy.
I’d personally like to believe without being told that no one prays harder for or will be happier when relations between Rome and the Society are regularized. Methinks CM dost protest too much.
But something is definitely not right upstairs when CM Moderators will state, “Of course, considering the Bishop Schneider’s stature, it would be foolish to ignore his prudential statements!” Only to have it said that it takes far more to judge the Societies submission to the Pope than a couple of pictures hanging in the sacristy and a few mumbled prayers. It’s as if these folks don’t even read what they’re writing.
When SSPX teaching videos state that it would be better to miss Mass on Sunday rather than attend an OF Mass and that the OF Mass is sinful, that is heresy.
I would bet Archbishop Schneider never saw/reviewed the SSPX video’s on the SSPX web site.
CM linked the SSPX’s own teaching video for documentation.
MIKE, you would bet that nobody knows anything except Michael Voris. Why? Because you have been programmed to think so.
Your shock is only due to the fact that you are not educated thoroughly. Please, disabuse yourself of the notion that CMTV is now the grand poobah of what everybody really teaches.
The Society has had a consistent position with regard to the Novus Ordo Missae. The video you saw was nothing more than the Societies putting what they have always held to be true on video. CM’s sensationalizing for the benefit of those it willfully keeps in the dark is no real news.
As for heresy, YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. That is why both Bishop Morlino and Bishop Schneider are calling for prudence, and the cessation of the erroneous tag of schism.
Voris provides documentation for his statements.
For TRUTH it would be good if all web sites, and all posters did the same thing. Rather than letting error stand.
CCC: ” 2496 The means of social communication (especially the mass media) can give rise to a certain passivity among users,
making them less than vigilant consumers of what is said or shown.
Users should practice moderation and discipline in their approach to the mass media.
They will want to form enlightened and correct consciences the more easily to resist unwholesome influences.”
….thank you for the invitation. Honest and open goes hand in hand with actually how lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed. Otherwise, it’s just another brand of spin.
We all have had enough of that.
This pope concelebrated the Mass with a notorious pro-homosexual activist priest. If he has no problem with this priest confecting the Sacrament Of The Altar then why would he have any problem with someone in an adulterous relationship being encouraged to partake of the Sacrament Of The Altar?
One bad act, does not make another bad act good.
The invention of the concelebrated Mass in the Second Vatican Council is itself and abomination. Its invention was to help undermine the priesthood itself which was one of the primary purposes of this council.
There is no “confecting the Sacrament Of The Altar” in the New Order Mass, which is not Catholic, not licit, and an abomination of desolation.
The Church has NEVER been a democracy. You don’t write letters to the Pope and expect him to respond like a Congressman or Senator. The Church moves slow, is not of the world, but in it. I agree with the Pope and his caution, since his words carry so much weight and importance.
We learned from this Pope that he does not receive criticism because he is under control of a group of people who run him and this Vatican, and when he does receive the criticism, it is because he was told that some people object his views and he needs to issue a rebuttal or an encyclical, such as the “global warming” one in which he attacked all those who denied and objected the existence of this lie called “global warming.”
Let’s avoid undue speculation. There is no evidence that he is “under control” and there is more than a little evidence that he is in control. Whatever the case, we may be critical of actions, we should be wary of ascribing motives, and we should tread lightly. By our public words and actions, wherever possible, we should demonstrate a respect for the papacy that even its inhabitants do not always evince.
We know who are his entourage from a simple search on the Internet and from people who had their personal experiences at the Vatican:
His entourage are Communists, Atheists, Homosexuals and Homosexual Advocates, Earth-Worshipers, Pagans, etc. Either he appointed them, agreed to meet with them, befriended them, knew them before being Pope, it is not the question. They are there and we know it.
The thing we know is that he is not acting like a Catholic Pope.
This papacy may be characterized by many things, but caution is not one of them.
That’s for sure!
I have to second Steve and take it a smidge further.
It took the current Pope less than two years to call and control one half of a synod that essentially opened the door and paved the way to reverse nearly two thousand years of settled doctrine that was uttered from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself, I would hardly call that “slow.”
Perhaps the Holy Father was not made aware of the petition? Just another perspective.
Sadly, the Holy Father will not respond to this request since it is morally certain he is behind the Kasper proposal. Here are some possibilities of what may happen after the synod. http://restoringcatholicism.com/2015/08/21/after-the-synod-on-the-family-three-possible-scenarios/
“Are half a million Catholics wrong?” The answer is “YES”.
Do tell…. see the article above? It has what is called, information. Perhaps you could provide some? I apologize for the sarcasm but please provide evidence so that the conversation may be furthered on both sides.
Unless and until you people get out from under the Fox “News”, Newsmaxx etc bubble there are no facts to be discussed.
When so called “Traditional Catholics” sold their souls to the Republican Party then they denied everything that Jesus (remember Him?) preached. See the New Testament.
Ouch. Burn. I am sorry I am not a democrat. I apologize and I will bring it up in confession. Until you provide any evidence or facts contrary to concerns above I will assume you are just trolling. I will pray for you, and yes to Jesus, not the GOP. Have a blessed day.
Were you going to make a point based on reality? Baseless accusations aren’t a welcome part of the discourse here.
You offer nothing.
Propaganda is a weapon for those who purvey it. For those who gobble it up, it is delusion.
I think you’ll encounter less nastiness if you just get off Facebook altogether and join the exclusively Catholic social network, Awestruck: http://awestruck.tv/junction/
I don’t think Pope Francis believes what we believe. He is more of a political than religious figure. His aim is to compromise with what most of us consider evil. Pope Francis is a Modernist who believes in the evolution of doctrine. He believes in making a heaven on earth. Pope Francis is much more a socialist Protestant than an orthodox Catholic. Should anyone be surprised about not hearing from him on the petition.
❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦ my neighbor’s ex makes 86$/hour on the net……last weekday I got another McLaren F1 from obtaining four9948$this latest 4 weeks and-in wealth of, ten/k last-munth . with no vulnerability it is the most fulfilling work Ive ever done . I started this 10-months back and basically startad bringin in additionalthan 76$ for faithfully . check up on this website……
===LOOK AT THIS=== > tinyurl.com/Bio2dTiptop2dCareers ➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽ ➽➽➽➽➽➽ have a look and find more help clicking any link
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Michael Dowd.
I always look forward to reading your ideas because I know you are a true Catholic.
You are an awesome example to us all.
I don’t know, but I have prepared already the worst of the worst.
He is the pope the Modernist revolutionaries dreamed of. Their success was guaranteed when Pope John XXIII and Paul VI almost tripled the number of cardinals from 70, which was the norm since 1586, to 209 today. They certainly didn’t elevate orthodox bishops.
In fact, Paul VI was elevated to cardinal by Pope John XXIII when he added five more to the traditional 70.
Thank you lwhile. You make an excellent point that the College of Cardinals was expanded to guarantee victory to the Modernists.
It is not PASTORAL, or CHARITABLE, or MERCIFUL to:
ignore Mortal Sins of others, or appear to condone them.
This is not love of neighbor, since Mortal Sins send Souls to Hell for eternity.
And can cause Scandal – losing additional Souls.
In fact any Clergy (or other person) that knowingly does so, remotely participates and is responsible for the continuing Mortal Sin.
CCC # 1868, & # 2285.
Please sign the petition, and pass on the link to all other Catholics within your email address book.
Ask them to sign as well – and also pass it on to the Catholics in their email address books.
If the petition is good enough for SIGNERS –
Cardinal Raymond Burke and Abp Athanasius Schneider
it is good enough for all of us.
They are leading by their example.
Let the Pope know that we know the Doctrine of the Faith, and that we care !
“ The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing. ”
….which is another reason why we should be heartened by such as Cardinal Raymond Burke and His Excellency Bishop Schneider.
You are right, MIKE, in that they are leading by their example.
Thank goodness Catholics are encouraged to follow their example here, and not discouraged into believing that Bishop Schneider, in particular, is not worthy of emulation as expressed on CM. Because, as you state, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing….or are inconsistent in supporting the good and good men.
I have never read any web site where the owner disses Abp Schneider.
Please provide a link to support your statement.
CMTV disrespected His Excellency Bishop Schneider when VORIS and c
CO. negated to include his observation concerning the SSPX by editing them out. CMTV further disrespected His Excellency and wasted his valuable time by troubling him with an unnecessary request for clarification wherein the initial statements were reinforced a second time without any change in meaning.
Why Voris and co would be so fearful about reporting without bias from Bishop Schneider is beyond me if, in fact, their objective was to end lies and falsehoods. But I doubt the obvious twisting and malicious misinterpretation of Bishop Schneider’s prudential statements followed up by a CMTV sensationalized smear of the Society, making His Excellency out to be a dupe was well received. Not by the faithful and absolutely not by His Excellency Bishop Schneider whose admonitions were clearly directing all parties (to include VORIS and CO) to cease the circular firing squad.
Take off the blinders, MIKE. You are being farmed and deceived.
I’m starting to believe that the resignation of Pope Benedict was not a real resignation. I think the fact that he retained the white cassock and other clothing reserved for the papacy is telling. The fact that he has continued to live in the Vatican is another clue. He did not “flee because of the wolves.” He is unseen to us, but I believe he is still a validly elected and reigning Pope. Francis is exactly what he seems to be, a public and political figure working in al;alignment with the lavender mafia in the curia and the rest of the clergy who lean that way.
Pure speculation. Until you get some proof, its not worth stating.
Stick to your guns, RantingCatholicMom, you’re onto something. I wanted to refer you to a posting from July 01, 2014 from the Remnant, but they no longer have an archive or search bar on their site. Essential to your inquiry is the following: is the papacy constituted in such a way as to be bifurcated? Is the charism of infallibility transferable, like the title on a pickup truck? Can the beautiful, virginal and mystical Bride of Christ suddenly sprout a second head? Only in the bizarro-land of (un)Catholic progressivism.
I read that article at the Remnant. I wrote a piece for them about Catholic Education for that issue. I know that Mike is write that it is pure speculation, but it has some basis in fact. As does the concern about the Synod in the fall. I really want a Deus ex Machina ending to all of this!
Until the cardinals or an imperfect ecumenical council declares Pope Francis deposed then we must assume Pope Francis is the legitimate Pope. Otherwise we may end up in schism.
Yes. I mention it only as speculation. When I pray for the Pope, I pray for both. Only time will tell what the truth is. I want no schism, and am not a sedevacantist.
I agree with you completely. That said, the speculation on this issue is widespread. Personally, I’d prefer to see it discussed in the open, where the boundaries can be clearly laid out, rather than hushed into fearful silence, where conspiracy theories can more easily grow unchecked.
Indeed. It is important to discuss this.
True, but speaking purely objectively here, conspiracies do occur; there was this Judas Iscariot fellow….
Yes, and unfortunately so. We cannot deny the fact of Francis’ papacy, despite the disoriented air about the whole thing.
I wish it were as simple as to say that he is not the Pope, but sadly, it isn’t that simple.
It is that simple. Confusion if of the devil.
Simply saying so doesn’t actually make it so. Confusion is of the devil but it doesn’t logically follow that Pope Francis isn’t the pope from that.
There are other, more learned people who’ve commented below and who make the case very well, that Francis either has lost his office, or could never be duly elected, due to his manifest heresies before and after his election. (I can’t say ‘elevation’ since he never ascended the throne, or accepted the tiara, which Paul VI surrendered to the U.N. along with his papal cross and ring. The tiara is now housed in the District of Columbia, that bastion of freemasonic liberty, equality and fraternity.)
It’s funny that the Vatican said that there was no medical reason for the Pope to resign. And hours after he did, the Vatican was struck by lightening TWICE! Methinks the King wasn’t too please about the resignation.
It’s part of the dual mind which the New Age promotes. It’s to keep orthodox Catholics on their heels –hoping for a return of the ‘real’ pope. It’s theater.
One has to learn from the politicians. And since we are dealing here with a Satanic Vatican that is using political tactics to achieve its goal, then here is what I think it might happen:
The Synod will keep everything as they are, it will not cause too much disturbances. It will calm things down and will use soft, conciliatory language approved by all, proponents and opponents.
So, everybody will come out happy.
The trick is, as I said since it’s a political Satanic Vatican, things will not be conciliatory in reality, on the practical level, or as the Vatican Satanists say, “on the pastoral” level.
You will see, as you see in many places now in the Catholic world, changes and these changes are exactly what the Satanists wanted to achieve through the Synod, not in writing but in practice.
Always look at the other hand, don’t be distracted by nice, so-called “biblical” references they put out for you to fool you.
There may in fact be satanists in the Vatican. It wouldn’t surprise me. There also may not be. What alarms me is seeing you say it with such certitude. Do you have some special charism for determining this? If not, perhaps hedging your assertions is the more prudent course?
Let me tell you something. A house divided among itself cannot stand. When Catholics are divided, and I don’t mean between sedevacantists or other group and the mainstream Vaticanistas, but I mean between the Vaticanistas themselves who some of them are blinded through ignorance or lack of faith and others who see something wrong with the leadership. And I think this rift is more dangerous and significant than a disagreement between the Sedevacansits and the Vatican.
Let me put it plainly, when a large number of faithful Catholics see that something is not right, then surely something is not right. When there is a high level of anxiety, of uneasiness, of discomfort, of worry, of uncertainty, then surely something is not right.
When in our lifetime have we ever mounted such an attack on the Vatican? When in our lifetime have we felt that our Church is sinking day after day? When in our lifetime have we ever thought that we will attack a Pope, any Pope, and rightfully so, in such a way as we are doing now? When in our lifetime have we ever thought that we could be worry about our Church from those who suppose to be Her guardians, servants and leaders?
Granted, I understand that Christ will not abandon His Church, but still, as humans, we are responsible to safeguard His Church. He gave us this responsibility.
Unfortunately, Satan is controlling the leadership of Christ’s Church. For the moment.
We have to learn from the past. Take for example last year’s Synod. Yes there were controversies, but how it ended?
As I said, this one will end the same way, maybe slightly different, but still in a conciliatory way. The changes will not be on paper. They never were. Not in politics, not in religion, especially if your intentions is to make drastic, controversial changes. You don’t change things that lasted for a long time overnight. The Satanists know it and they are plotting accordingly.
Putting the ‘Satan’ issue aside (and I am with Steve, it wouldn’t surprise me but there are no hard cold facts of Satanists in the Vatican) I did read an article, and I apologize for not remembering on which site, that indicated this is pretty much how it MAY play out after the Synod. Everything will look on the surface to be quite in line with Catholic Doctrine, but behind the scenes, the ‘Pastoral Practice’ will be an entirely different matter. They will quietly begin to ‘Pastor’ the flock in such a way as to entirely strip the Doctrine. The Synod itself will be quite uneventful. Now, whether or not this comes to pass, is another question, but this was the crux of the article, and it did make sense to me. The German, Swiss and (I believe) French Bishops are only too aware of the alarm they have created in the Catholic Community. They probably want to tamp down all the hysteria and just go ‘behind the scenes’ to carry out their ‘Pastoral’ practices. We won’t even know what hit us until it one day DOES.
I think it is common sense the nonsense that they are trying to and WILL do, as I said, not on paper, but in practice. Common sense in the way they are plotting it, that’s what I mean.
Dear Mr. Skojec,
It is now nearly 32 years ago, that other “saintly gentlemen” made a similar plea to the “reigning Pontiff” for help.
May Your Holiness permit us, with an entire filial openness, to submit to you the
following considerations. During the last twenty years the situation in the Church is such that it looks like an occupied city.
Thousands of members of the clergy, and millions of the faithful, are living in a state of anguish and perplexity because of the “self-destruction of the Church.” They are being thrown into confusion and disorder by the errors contained in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the post-conciliar reforms, and especially the liturgical reforms, the false notions diffused by official documents and by the abuse of power perpetrated by the hierarchy.
In these distressing circumstances, many are losing the Faith, charity is becoming cold, and the concept of the true unity of the Church in time and in space is disappearing.
In our capacity as bishops of the Holy Catholic Church, successors of the Apostles,
our hearts are overwhelmed at the sights throughout the world, by so many souls
who are bewildered yet desirous in continuing in the faith and morals which
have been defined by the Magisterium of the Church and taught by Her in a
constant and universal manner.
It seems to us that to remain silent in these circumstances would be to become accomplices to these wicked works (cf. II Jn. 11).
That is why we find ourselves obliged to intervene in public before Your Holiness
(considering all the measures we have undertaken in private during the last
fifteen years have remained ineffectual) in order to denounce the principal
causes of this dramatic situation, and to beseech Your Holiness to use his
power as Successor of Peter to “confirm your brothers in the Faith”
(Luke 22, 32), which has been faithfully handed down to us by Apostolic
To that end we have attached to this letter an appendix containing the principal errors which are at the origins of this tragic situation and which, moreover, have
already been condemned by your predecessors. The following list outlines these
errors, but it is not exhaustive:
1. A latitudinarian and ecumenical notion of the Church, divided in its faith,
condemned in particular by the Syllabus, No. 18 (Den. 2918).
2. A collegial government and a democratic orientation in the Church, condemned in particular by Vatican Council I (Den. 3055).
3. A false notion of the natural rights of man which clearly appears in the document on Religious Liberty, condemned in particular by Quanta cura (Pius IX) and
Libertas praestantissimum (Leo XIII)
4. An erroneous notion of the power of the Pope (cf.
5. A Protestant notion of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments,
condemned by the Council of Trent, Session XXII.
6. Finally, and in a general manner, the free spreading of heresies, characterized by the suppression of the Holy Office.
The documents containing these errors cause an uneasiness and a disarray, so much the more profound as they come from a source so much the more elevated. The clergy and the faithful most moved by this situation are, moreover, those who
are the most attached to the Church, to the authority of the Successor of
Peter, and to the traditional Magisterium of the Church.
Most Holy Father, it is urgently necessary that this disarray come to an end because the flock is dispersing and the abandoned sheep are following mercenaries. We beseech you, for the good of the Catholic Faith and for the salvation of souls, to reaffirm the truths, contrary to these errors, truths which have been taught for twenty centuries in the Church.
It is with the sentiments of St. Paul before St. Peter, when he reproached him for having not followed “the truth of the Gospel (Gal. 2, 11-14), that we are
addressing you. His aim was none other than to protect the faith of the flock.
St. Robert Bellarmine, expressing on this occasion a general moral principle, states that one must resist the pontiff whose actions would be prejudicial to the salvation
of souls (De Rom. Pon., I.2, c.29).
Thus it is with the purpose of coming to the aid of Your Holiness that we utter this cry of alarm, rendered all the more urgent by the errors, not to say the heresies,
of the new Code of Canon Law and by the ceremonies and addresses on the
occasion of the Fifth Centenary of the birth of Luther. Truly, this is the limit!
May God come to your aid, Most Holy Father.
We are praying without ceasing for you to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Deign to accept the sentiments of our filial devotion,
H.E. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
H.E. Bishop Antonio de Castro-Mayer
Open letter to John Paul II on November 21, 1983
There are over a billion Catholics worldwide, gathering a million signatures are a drop in the ocean especially regarding all the petitions that must flood the Vatican daily from around the world. Maybe we should refrain from speaking down to the Holy Father and with humilty accept that it is his right to make his own decisions for reasons unknown to us regarding the Church the Holy Spirit placed in his hands.
Nope. You can’t blame the Holy Ghost for the failures of Franciscus.
If Franciscus is a catholic IANS is typing this in the space station.
This Pope appears to be a a secular, pluralistic, western leader and not a steward of The King’s Realm. He’s more concerned with the temporal than the spiritual and the salvation of souls. Diabolical disorientation of Modernism.
“Thus I make it known to you that from the end of the 19th century and shortly after the middle of the 20th century…the passions will erupt and there will be a total corruption of morals… As for the Sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ with His Church, it will be attacked and deeply profaned. Freemasonry, which will then be in power, will enact iniquitous laws with the aim of doing away with this Sacrament, making it easy for everyone to live in sin and encouraging procreation of illegitimate children born without the blessing of the Church… In this supreme moment of need for the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent.”
– Our Lady of Good Success, Quito, Ecuador, 1610 A.D
GO HERE: wwwfathersofmercy.com They always preach the truth!
Francis is to the Catholic Church what Obama is to America…a complete disaster who is doing more harm than good.
How many of the ‘Catholics in good standing’ over at EWTN and Catholic Answers have signed the petition? Ya.
So, it is not a certainty that the Holy Father knows about the petition. I think it shows a bit of bad judgment to go off on a rant about the Pope personally if you don’t bother to find out if this has been presented to him.
Well, I was under the impression that he had been made aware months ago. It’s difficult to believe that 117 bishops know about it, but he doesn’t. Smell of the sheep and all that.
The larger point is this: the Synod is completely under his control. A petition like this should be entirely unnecessary. It’s his job to ensure (and reassure) that Catholic teaching will be upheld.
All this nonsense for naught.
Where was the uprising against the destruction of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the changes in Church teachings coming out of the Second Vatican Council which are the primary reason we are at this point of even questioning allowing the divorced and remarried to complete the blasphemy and sacrileges already the norm in the Novus Ordo Mass?
I wasn’t born yet. Clearly, if it had happened in 2009 rather than 1969 I would have been involved in an uprising. I suspect many of us would.
I don’t doubt your sincerity but hindsight is better than foresight. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of Catholics at the time of the Second Vatican Council who were the first to be exposed to the beginnings of the destruction of their faith did not seem to worry.
What does it say about this papacy when half a million catholics have to ask the pope to be catholic and do his job.
“But is it too much to ask that he make time for actual Catholics, too?”
Apparently, it is.
The issue at hand for this council, is not whether or not they’ll change unchangeable doctrine, (they won’t dare) but whether or not, the diabolical elements will cunningly assist them in bypassing that same dogma in the name of pastoral care, mercy, welcoming sinners, praxis, gradualism babble, or whether or not they will strongly re-affirm the faith as handed down by the apostles and stop the bleeding in God’s holy church.
Can half a million Catholics be wrong? Of course they can! A large majority of Catholics are A-OK with contraception after all.
Truth is what matters, not numbers, and I’m sure you’re well aware of that. Sometimes I cannot but wonder, though: Hasn’t the Enemy already won when we resort to democratic means to influence the voice of the Church so that it remains faithful to God’s Word, as though Divine Revelation was just one equal option among others?
No, not “can they be wrong” – ARE they wrong? Truth is a matter of semantics.
Well, of course they are not wrong, but it still doesn’t depend on there being over half a million of them. My aim was to point out the danger in framing the debate in terms of the number of supporters as if it had any real significance. That the Pope is not consistent in his democratic/smell-of-the-sheep approach is noteworthy, though I think it should not overshadow the fact that the approach itself is inappropriate in the first place (at least in this case of doctrinal questions).
There’s an art to writing headlines that get people to read. I understand your concerns, and I share them. But we traffic in niche theological topics. Getting people in the door is half the battle.
Fact is, nobody should ever have to petition the pope to uphold the faith. And yet, here we are.
True, the remark by Jeff of TRC Thoughts comes to mind:
“Remember the days when the only people petitioning the Pope were the ones asking him to change Church teaching? These days Catholics have to petition the Pope to uphold Church teaching.”
It would seem that there are “catholics” and there are other “Catholics,” faith–filled, working out their salvation with the help of the sacraments, and above all, doctrinal truth as their guide.
It is the latter that petition as they stand in shock at the confusion and lack of clarity in the utterances and machinations of this pope–not the “catholics” of luke-warm or non-existent faith (in other than their selves.)
It is against the faithful’s very nature to criticize a pope, otherwise the petition would overwhelm the Church with its numerically massive cry of “help!’
To ignore the crying sheep, even as the diabolical wolves are grinning with joy at the confusion, leaves far to much destruction for a shepherd to ignore.
Can this all be the work of the Holy Spirit, or is it the smoke of Satan that has entered the tabernacle, confusing God’s message? We will see, one way or another.
When people like my former Episcopalian, now self-proclaimed atheist, homophiliac brother-in-law have praise for Bergoglio, one realizes the ‘message’ that is being sent is far from Catholic.