Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

As Papal Criticism Mounts, Vatican Insiders Fire Back

A thrown knife plunges menacingly into the wall. A handgun slides in from off-screen to fire a warning shot. Words of caution appear on the screen: “The only thing I can tell you is to watch your step.” When I was a young boy playing Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?, silly warnings like these told me I was hot on the trail of the villain. And now, thirty years later, these same images come immediately to mind after reading Andrea Tornielli and Giacomo Galeazzi’s flailing, indignant riposte to papal critics in the October 16 edition of Vatican InsiderTheir tacky, “hit list”-style screed comes off as little more than comical bravado from the hired thugs of some noirish, two-bit criminal organization who have found someone they don’t want sniffing around their turf.

This duo of vaticanistas — Tornielli the more notable of the two, particularly since he and Pope Francis have now published two book-length interviews together — don’t waste any time bothering to select a target. The first sentence is a shot from the hip, an indiscriminate accusation against anyone who dares speak a questioning word about the current pontificate:

The glue that holds them together is their aversion towards Francis.

From the word go, we are treated to an ad hominem argument — not business, but personal. But who is the “them” in that sentence? Unlike other recent examples of more diplomatically vague smackdowns of papal critics, Tornielli and Galeazzi name names. A whole litany of them. Among them we find such wide-ranging figures as Professor Roberto de Mattei, fellow top vaticanista Sandro Magister, noteworthy Italian journalist and author (of “Fourth Secret” fame) Antonio Socci, Italian traditionalist blogger Maria Guarini, and even an entire alleged conspiracy “between Hong Kong circles, sectors within the US and Europe’s right-wing” who have raised vocal objections to the Vatican’s dangerous Ostpolitik with China. The 45 theologians who wrote up a list of censures against Amoris Laetitia get an honorable mention.

Later, ecclesiastical figures like Cardinals Robert Sarah and Raymond Burke make walk-on cameos as opposition forces, as does Bishop Athanasius Schneider. Lest the presence of episcopal spine unsettle anyone expecting a Bergoglian fait accompli, the authors are quick to cite Italian sociologist (and — I’m not making this up — international vampire expert) Massimo Introvigne, who reassures:

“There are more than 5000 Catholic bishops in the world, only about ten of them are active in their opposition, many of whom are retired, which shows that it is not substantial.”

Introvigne claims that this opposition “is present both on the web and in real life and is overestimated: there are dissidents who write comments on social networks using four or five different pseudonyms, to give the impression there are many of them”.

For such an easily-dismissed threat, there are a staggering number of fingers pointing in every direction. Lefebverites and sedevacantists lumped into the same category with breathless angst, along with those who believe that either Pope Benedict’s resignation was invalid or Pope Francis’ election was. The authors spare some token harsh words for a couple of “disappointed ultra-progressives”, but the main thrust is, unsurprisingly, aimed at conservative and traditionalist figures in the Catholic world.

Perhaps the most outlandish thing of all is the title of the authors’ pearl-clutching outburst: “Catholics who are anti-Francis but love Putin.” There is, of course, not even the slightest effort made at substantiating such a charge in nearly 2,000 words of mudslinging, save this throwaway conjecture buried at the very end of the piece:

Introvigne pointed out a surprising trait that many of these circles share: “It is the mythical idealization of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is presented as a “good” leader in contrast to the “bad” leader, the Pope, because of his stance on homosexual people, Muslims and immigrants. Russian foundations that have strong ties with Putin co-operate with the anti-Francis opposition.

This, from the same analyst who stated dismissively that this anti-Francis movement “is not successful because it is not united.”

Well, which is it? Are we all ecstatic Putinistas held together by hate glue, or aren’t we? (The more one ponders this accusation, the funnier it gets.)

One target of the smear campaign has already responded. Fr. Bernardo Cervellera, editor-in-chief of AsiaNet, an official press agency of the Roman Catholic Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions, objects to being included in the roundup of suspects:

Not a day goes by without AsiaNews publishing reports of the Pope’s homilies, speeches, audiences, summaries of encyclicals. We are among the fastest agencies to offer what the Pope teaches on-line with translations into Italian, Chinese, Spanish and English. Many Chinese, Indians, Latin Americans are grateful for the speed with which they can access the Pope’s words, particularly since the official sites are too slow. We chose to offer this service, which occupies us every day, even on Sundays, to help the Churches in Asia to receive the words of the Pope as soon as possible. We did this with Pope John Paul II, Benedict XVI and now with Pope Francis.

[…]

Given this experience, we are very sorry – for their lie, rather than for ourselves – that two Vatican experts have cited AsiaNews among “those Catholics who are against Francis and worship Putin.” Because both statements, regarding the Pope and Putin, are false. I’m not here to list proof of this: all anyone has to do is actually read the articles we write. For us it is a point of honor – and professionalism – never to comment on what we like most about the powers that be, but all aspects, be they complex or contradictory, of a given event. This, for us, means being of service to the truth.

In another analysis by Italian Catholic scholar Francesco Colafemmina (as cited by Robert Moynihan in his most recent letter), a certain ancient parallel is observed:

It gives the first and last names of all of them, in a sort of mediatic ‘proscription list’ worthy of Sulla [Note: In 82 BC, when the Roman leader Lucius Cornelius Sulla was appointed dictator rei publicae constituendae(‘Dictator for the Reconstitution of the Republic’), he proceeded to have the Senate draw up a list of those he considered enemies of the state and published the list in the Roman Forum. Any man whose name appeared on the list was ipso facto stripped of his citizenship and excluded from all protection under law; reward money was given to any informer who gave information leading to the death of a proscribed man, and any person who killed a proscribed man was entitled to keep part of his estate (the remainder went to the state)… Many victims of proscription were decapitated and their heads were displayed on spears in the Forum.

It indeed appears as though critics of the Bergoglian regime are hitting closer to the mark than can be tolerated. When one’s grip on power is sufficiently firm, acknowledging the arguments of one’s enemies is ordinarily a tactical error. One friend of mine noted this morning that “all tyrannies are filled with paranoids”. Hilary White, who has lived in Italy for some time now — including several years as a Rome correspondent for LifeSiteNews — offered me her own take on the rationale behind lashing out:

The question fundamentally misunderstands the motivations of the arch-narcissists. They don’t think about the long term; they react with narcissistic rage any time they’re crossed. It’s an intimidation tactic. It’s also very typical Vatican who start every day with the assumption that they can do and say anything they want because of their position. This arrogance is the one main governing principle for dealing with them. They can do no wrong because they are the Vatican, and anyone gainsaying them simply has to be crushed. Optics. Really. Isn’t. A. Thing. with these people. They absolutely, utterly and completely DON’T CARE what it looks like from the outside. There is no outside. Nothing outside matters…and most especially “anglo-saxons” don’t matter. The contempt they hold all Anglos in is a thing to behold. Really shocking when you meet it.

Still, I wonder if their power and influence is more precarious than it superficially appears. They have total control of the Vatican and are stacking the ranks of the curia, yet I’ve received reports from Rome on more than one occasion indicating that the reigning cabal have been surprised, angry, and even somewhat fearful about the potency of their opposition. They expected the Synod to be a cakewalk. Instead, they had to settle for a Hegelian outcome and a revolution constrained to footnotes. They faced the opposition of 13 prominent cardinals, and the pope was reportedly none too happy about it. Yes, they’re still getting what they want, but they’re actually having to work for it.

But if Hilary is right, and this is simply an intimidation tactic, it’s a spectacularly ineffective one. I can’t imagine anyone mentioned backing down in the face of this too-precious tirade; as Fr. Cervellera has already proven (and no doubt others soon will), the reality is quite the contrary.

It is also important to view Tornielli in context; once known as a Ratzingerian, there is a sycophantic air in his new and close collaboration with the very different style and message of Pope Francis. A longtime Vatican observer I know confided, “I’m reasonably sure that Francis and his team don’t trust Tornielli, but are ready to use him.” And he does seem useful. He is considered by many to be one of three media figures of particular use to this papacy as unofficial mouthpieces — the other two being La Repubblica co-founder and L’espresso editor Eugenio Scalfari; and the fellow Jesuit and close friend of Francis, Fr. Antonio Spadaro, La Civiltà Cattolica‘s editor in chief. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to surmise that this naming of names is a not-so-subtle message sent from the Holy Father himself, or at the very least, his closest allies: “The only thing I can tell you is to watch your step.”

Catholic Culture‘s Phil Lawler makes note of the same:

Most disquieting of all, it seems likely that what Galeazzi and Tornielli wrote reflects what they have heard from their contacts in the Roman Curia. If that is the case, then some of the people surrounding Pope Francis believe that the Pontiff is the victim of a budding conspiracy. Having adopted the paranoid style, they see enemies wherever there is resistance to their agenda.

Colafemmina, too, recognizes this as an attempt at a consolidation of power:

In any case, there is no precedent for this use of journalism to marginalize, ghetto-ize, criminalize, these admittedly sometimes irritating minorities who do not conform to the unconditional assent regarding Bergoglio… It is unprecedented because this use of the press for geopolitical purposes, in order in the end to cancel all freedom of expression, through the ridiculing of dissent, shows what power such journalism is serving.

I believe that part of what we’re seeing here is a Vatican that is trying to look in control while quietly panicking over its inability to comprehend the sort of asymmetrical information warfare they are faced with. They cannot accurately gauge — let alone neutralize — the expansive influence of critics who operate almost entirely outside of established structures, instead building audiences predominately online and across a broad spectrum of social media platforms. To use an example with which I am personally familiar, what, other than fear of an out-of-control counter-narrative, could have caused the Vatican Press Office to issue a statement in the name of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (breaking his silence on current matters facing the Church) to address a decade-old story that merely found new life in the pages of this website? Similarly, not only did Cardinal Pell publicly acknowledge and respond to a Synod walkout petition co-authored by several online Catholic writers (myself included), but reports came to us through back channels that the very effort itself upset top officials in the Vatican. I know of these instances because of my involvement; how many other such stories are out there?

Whatever the motivation, the result, rather than being a substantive rebuttal or show of control, is instead a petulant and amateurish tabloid piece that seeks to discredit and demonize those who — for various reasons, and in various ways — refuse to simply knuckle under to one of the most novelty-obsessed and disruptive papacies in Church history. It is an unserious effort, and should be treated as such — much like so many of the actions of the pontificate it seeks to defend.

For Catholics from all orthodox perspectives who are troubled by the Francis papacy, it is in fact the love of Christ and His Church that is the glue that holds them together. Any aversion they may feel to the man who holds the office only exists in relation to how far he places himself — and the souls under his care — from that reality.

141 thoughts on “As Papal Criticism Mounts, Vatican Insiders Fire Back”

  1. Somebody should alert Mark Shea to these people. He could have a job that will allow him to remain “Catholic” while doing what he does best: stalking those who disagree with him.

    Reply
  2. Ooohhh! If they’re soooo concerned about Vladimir Putin, then why don’t they consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary then, eh? Eh?

    Do those fools in Rome watch the news? Heck even the tabloid Western propaganda outlets? Do these worldly men even understand world events?

    The Holy Mother of God had their number and called them out on their conspiratorial stupidity 100 years ago.

    Their grand experiment is a FAILURE. And the grand Conspirators were checkmated by 3 little shepherd children.

    May the days of the FrancisChurch be shortened. And may their bishoprics be given to another. And as the 100th Anniversary of Fatima approaches, it looks like that might happen very quickly and swiftly as certain military generals believe.

    Reply
      • Never done. And Heaven’s warnings and punishments have come true. – The spread of communist errors worldwide, apostasy, denial of Hell, infiltrationof the Church, attacks on the Dogmas of the faith, world war and soon Russia as the vehicle of God’s chastisement upon an evil and corrupt world. Time’s running out.

        EWTN refers to a fake letter from Sr. Lucia that contains factual errors she’s never make, a forged signature, and a nonsense argumentation that Sr Lucia’s years of testominy has long refuted.

        John Paul II only did world consecrations, and never had the bishops of the world join him. He only put in an informal request and they ignored him. John Paul II himself also stated after 84 that he didn’t accomplish it and attempted it again several times after, then gave up.

        Get the facts – http://www.fatima.org/essentials/opposed/croncover.asp

        Reply
          • The same congregation for the doctrine of faith that was led by a man who covered up sexual abuse and the Maciel affair is more credible to you huh? Especially given the scandals that still follow Cardinals Sadano and Bertone that crafted the CDF document you cite?

            Please find for me in the vatican CDF document the lines following the words “In Portugal, the dogmas of the faith will always be preserved…” Long documented as the opening lines of the 3rd Secret? Even Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI changed his testimony indicating there was more.

            The only thing ridiculous here is that there are still people like you that blindly follow corrupt leaders without knowing the facts and just toss out links without knowing what you’re talking about.

            We don’t need to wait to see who is right. You are already factually wrong, and the clock is ticking until full scale war with Russia begins.

          • Right back at me… what?

            Confirming what I stated? That the Consecration of Russia was never done and that Communist and anti Catholic and immoral errors are spreading everywhere over the whole world, including Portugal?

            Where are the words following “In Portugal, the dogmas of the faith will always be preserved…”

            Where are they ‘FMShyanguya ‘?

            What follows the word “preserved…”?

            Where are the words of the Virgin Mary Pope Benedict XVI said were spoken in the secret?

            Where are they in the Vatican 2000 document drafted by the conspirators Cardinals Sodano and Bertone that you cling to?

            What if the statement reads… “In Portugal, the dogmas of the faith will always be preserved… IF…”?

            What then FMShyanguya? Do you have anything to contribute? Or are you just blowing the smoke of Satan around?

        • your facts and the reasoning from the Fatima crusader are wrong. Bl Mary said all the Bishops of the world. See the Portuguese book by the appointed priest who interviewed Lucia repeatedly. Read in both the words all the bishops of the world, Read the greatest English version on Fatima by William Walsh the acclaimed American historian. Who would the bishops be, who would Bl Mary recognize as Bishops. She would surely include the Byzantines who can trace back their antecedents to the Apostles. Do you really think in the morass of your writings that Our Mother, the purest of creatures would instruct anyone to go against catholic teachings. The consecration of Russia would be a great act of charity. Would the Mother of the Divine not include her Russian bishops? Only fools would say yes. The consecration of Russia is not perfect. If you consider the teachings of the Church on the merits given to acts of charity then the consecrations already done are close to perfect maybe but because of human frailties of man the consecration is not perfect and those who call the Popes liars and so many have are destined to meet the implacable judge at their particular judgement. Convert the Byzantines back into the church and they acknowledge the Pope, the bishop of Rome as the primary and logical descendant of Christ’s headship and we have a start. I wish that all you so very knowledgeable folk to whom Bl Mary has confided her information or make a claim She has, would just shut up and learn properly the Church’s theology this wonderful mother of ours uses. When she confirms to any of you this comment is wrong let me know. Why not before you squeal with anger pray and ask her.what is her truth, Bl Mary will tell you I know. This Mother of ours says, “WE would talk to so many but so few listen”
          A very proper comment from the Mother of Perfect Truth and is about right I think.

          Reply
          • Really? Please point out what is ‘wrong?’ Or do you tihnk you can just say things and imagine anyone knows what you are talking about so you can give the impression that you’ve made an argument when you’ve actually stated nothing?

            Of course Mary said all the Bishops of the World. Naturally that means the only ones she recognizes, in communion with the Holy Father – the Pope. Do the other schismatic Bishops obey or follow the Pope? NO. They are in schism and are outside of the One True Church of God. Are you silly enough to think she meant the women bishops of the Lutherans? NO. here is only one head. Sr. Lucia states that the Queen of Heaven gave that responsibility to him to do – the Pope and the the worlds Bishops in UNION with him to perform the Consecration. The schismatic ones who do not follow him are not true bishops but belong to a false Church.

            If the Russians want to join in, they can go ahead and OBEY the Pope, thus showing they are in union with him and acknowledge his command over them. Otherwise they are not necessary and show themselves to be in schism from the Church of God and His Blessed Holy Mother.

            “The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to make, and to
            order that in union with him and at the same time, all the bishops of
            the world make the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart,
            promising to convert it because of this day of prayer and worldwide
            reparation.”

            That’s the Pope and Catholic Bishops IN UNION with him. Not those NOT in union with him.

            You are one of those who does not listen to her.

            Given the Popes themselves have said they never consecrated Russia and only the world, the only liar here is you. Either you are lying, or you are ignorant and don’t know what you are talking about. Spend more time studying the facts and less time thumping your chest because if you truly understood what you just said above you would then be accusing the Mother of God of delivering to the Holy Father an IMPOSSIBLE task because the excuse would be that there are always human frailties getting in the way of the promised miracle and conversion of Russia so the Popes, not matter what they did could never accomplish it because you accuse the Mother of God of requesting of them a vague unspecified task that is inhumanly possible. NO! it is you. Mike, making excuses for the openly acknowledged failures of the Popes to fulfill this task. Let them answer to God for it, it’s not my duty. And as for you, given you don’t understand such simple logic, you are not one to discuss theology, nor are you to call others to “shut up” when you demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about and instead slander the Holy Mother by saying she granted poor instruction to the Pope.

  3. Their making a list, checking it twice… and going to add names overtime, all tyrannical despots do this in order to intimidate and if that doesn’t work eventually eliminate those who dare to disagree with them.

    Reply
    • And this list so kindly assembled by them shows us who we need to make sure and name in our prayers! So nice of them to put it together for us!

      Reply
    • The writers of that foaming-at-the-mouth Vatican Insider article think they’re hard men – I think they’re a joke – just a pair of sponge cakes destined to come a cropper on the Cornerstone Who is The Christ.

      Reply
    • This is precisely why, Father, it is critical to not over criticize the tone of those on the side of truth. For the gathering of names and eventual “elimination of those who dare to disagree with them” is a human trait. One that we all suffer from whether we are in the Vatican or on a website, etc

      Reply
      • Oh for heaven’s sake. Criticizing a tone that alienates more than it persuades when we’re all on the same side is constructive criticism. Particularly when one is part of an unwelcome minority, disagreements about the way some members of the group represent the whole are to be expected. This is not the same thing as a witch hunt or enemies list.

        Whenever a group is faced with ideological opposition, one can expect that they (the opposition) will always seek to identify the most extreme or easily exploited behavior of any individual member of the group, and attack it. Internal, friendly criticisms about tone, if heeded, can serve two important purposes: bringing new members into the group while simultaneously making it a smaller target. The end result is to make it stronger and more effective in general.

        Distinctions matter. Let’s make them appropriately.

        Reply
        • Distinctions do matter, Steve, that’s why looking to others that call a certain group “them” only to be guilty of doing so themselves is not helpful. Not for personal growth and not for building up.

          The key is “internal” and “friendly” criticisms. Sadly, those two qualifiers are not often followed even though some have the best of intentions.

          “…Particularly when one is part of an unwelcome minority, disagreements about the way some members of the group represent the whole are to be expected.”

          Of course this is to be expected. Sadly, there has been evidence of a witch hunt of sorts as those deemed troublesome, albeit polite, are put on the list and summarily shunned or cut off from legitimate conversation and “friendly” critique.

          So let’s do make them appropriately. That’s my point ;^)

          Reply
          • I think Ann that you see “dialogue” as the key to solve the crisis the church is in. And dialogue has its place.

            But in a more honest society/church, it’s understood, and it’s certainly biblical, that good communication between individuals, between groups, includes a range of “tones” including calm reason, righteous outrage, and everything in between.

            It’s easy to be seduced by the “church of nice”. That’s an expression I learned from ChurchMilitant.Com. And it’s true. There’s always the danger of “going along to get along.”

          • Actually, Tom, I know that truth is the only solution for what ails the Church. Truth spoken. Truth understood.

            I prefer a more robust conversational style. The same that is denigrated as being off putting.

            But such a style is rebuffed by many Catholics who would describe themselves as being robust in defending the truth while castigating others for word choice. (In other words, we all must be wary of castigating others for asserting a “them” mentality when guilty of doing the same thing. As in, we can be tough, but only in the measure “I” set because going past that will be damaging.)

            Sadly, there are those who were black balled from ChurchMilitant who have been summarily black balled in other areas for being polite, but very clear in supporting a multiple of tones – so long as those speaking are clearly on the side of truth. (If only the mentality of a blackball list representing allies was engaged at an earlier date. That is a point that was made here years ago. One that was forgotten. The result is that other voices, allies in truth, wouldn’t have been blocked here.)

            The reason, sadly, is that many who fancy themselves on the side of truth do not see the hypocrisy in promoting the high road while using the tactics of the low road in dealing with those who do not adopt their chosen tone.

            The time has come to stop vying for “my style” and opt for the truth as spoken by those individuals God moves to use as He wills. Not as as we would like Him to will.

            So dialogue for the sake of dialogue will do nothing. But similarly castigating the Vatican for attacking those who attack their “position” without acknowledging our own penchant to do the exact same thing, doesn’t help the truth. It just perpetuates our own sense of superiority. And that is often what gets in our way.

          • I’m trying to get the full gist of your thoughts, to do justice. One thought that comes to mind – that no matter what one does or says, it’s impossible to please everybody.

            Another is that Original Sin is real. No one of us escapes its pernicious influence in every facet of our lives. So, I agree, that OS inclines us to only see the “splinter” in someone else’s eye. And only a serious commitment to prayer makes us more honest with the aid of Sanctifying Grace.

            Since my introduction to the internet 4 years ago, comboxes have helped me to see my impulsive Irish nature in action. For three of those years, CM was one of a few blogs I visited daily. And I remember about 5 occasions when I apologized for reacting rather than reading more carefully. Not that I was malicious. Just jumped the gun.

            I have two drives that play their part regarding this conversation and the points you raised. My father was a humble fisherman with Grade Vlll education. A fiery Irishman with a keen sense of injustice. So he was inclined to shoot first and ask questions later. But he had no meanness or self-pity in his soul. My mother was an intellectual, very smart, dispassionate, calm, yet caring.

            So my personality was shaped by both my parents. Hence, I am inclined to react vehemently against betrayal of the church, yet I’m also compelled to see beyond my outrage. This also explains why I never settle for one exclusive way to communicate, as I mentioned above.

            I’m not sure if I agree with all your points, since you spoke generally without specifics.

          • My point is that, as exemplified by the story of your childhood, both of your parents obviously loved you. And it is undermining to the truth of that to, at any point, have had to experience your mother lecturing your father in your presence that he must change his tone.

            To do so, especially in front of you, would have only succeeded, in my view, to encourage you to resent (or perhaps imitate) the posturing of your mother and, in some instances, avoid the truth of what your father was saying because “according to mother” he must not use such forceful language with you.

            This is especially so if your mother had always dismissed her own divisive, and erroneous behavior by stating she was only concerned with reaching you. Not fixed on the fallacy that her way was best and, indeed, the only way. Especially when she is regularly seen shouting “kind” words to reinforce her position.

            It is especially sad when others who love the child attempt to discuss the mother’s unchecked and rather misdirected zeal only to be informed that “they” are no longer welcome in the house.

            That’s not loving truth, that’s loving to perceive oneself as being in the right. Big difference.

          • Your response to Mr. Healey’s post is way off the mark. I read nothing of his mother lecturing his father in front of him or shouting “kind” words to reinforce her position. He seems to have been brought up in a well balanced household. Are you sure you took your medicine this morning?

          • Ana, I implied that it would have been different for Mr. Healey had his mother responded in that way to the difference in approach. That, in turn, goes back to what I was originally saying to Father and then to Steve.

            While it has been implied that tone is critical, what others have ascribed to constructive criticism of those on the same side has actually resulted in others previously being marginalized here and subsequently banned for their supposed tone. (We should all seek to be allies, even with those whose tone doesn’t quite match our standards ;^)

            In other words, kindness is called for all around, Ana. Not just with those who may otherwise marginalize Catholics who want merely to be Catholic.

            You may want to see about taking your own meds…. or perhaps asking a question first.

          • While it has been implied that tone is critical, what others have ascribed to constructive criticism of those on the same side has actually resulted in others previously being marginalized here and subsequently banned for their supposed tone.

            People like you, PGMN? You can change your screen name, but not the way you talk to people.

          • People like you, Steve, like to use ugly words and cruelty to tell others to supposedly not be ugly and cruel. And when you can’t handle the mirror put up to your own behavior, you ban people and pretend that you take the high road.

            You fool nobody. Not even yourself.

            Too bad your “apology” meant so little, even though it was couched in seemingly kind words.

            That said, I’m glad you figured out who it was. Others have been banned by you, too, Steve. For having the temerity to offer you constructive criticism. Would that you could take what you dish out.

          • I’m sorry that you don’t like having your condescending tone (yes, I used that word again!) and contrary approach called into question. If you could keep it in check, and avoid being a combox agitator, I’d be happy to have you stay. I know that we’re on the same side. Still, when a person’s approach starts lots of arguments that they never seem to know how to drop, it gets tiresome. Substantive debates are one thing; it’s all the petty bickering that I don’t care for.

            If saying that is cruel and ugly, so be it, but the bar is pretty low.

          • Steve, we all must take constructive criticism.

            My only issue with you has ever been that you not brow beat traditionalists on a public forum in order to seemingly curry favor with another demographic. That still stands. (We are to build on all sides, not offend others by publicly chastising them. That includes those tagged as “Trads”.)

            Look to the mother/father difference in approach that I wrote previously on this thread. To do what you have in the past is to publicly excoriate others who, despite how you feel, have a value added. Even though their fervor exceeds what you feel is the best way to approach issues. That’s not condescending, but offering constructive critique.

            That’s why kindness all around is the order of the day. That way we can explain to those who may be put off by a firmer tone that what they witness is the result of a true love of God and a temperament that is, perhaps, just different from their own. Not bad, not misspoken.

            So, while you may think I have a problem with your calling me “condescending”, I’m sincerely at a loss how to express to you the fact that you regularly do exactly that in expecting kindness and generosity while offending against the same. Even if you don’t realize it.

            That’s not agitating, but a true call to being on the same side. If you’ll note, I commented to another poster who stated you should stop judging Francis and pray for him, that he/she was “assuming” you didn’t pray for Francis and that pointing out error was bad.

            In truth, pointing out those areas of misunderstanding or false assumption is a help. I think so. That’s the only reason I’ve ever posted here, Steve. To help in the truest sense, not just join the cheer squad.

            As to “not knowing how to drop an argument” understanding helps. That and fairness from the referee. Not just frustrated exhaustion. Although I understand that. But then we are battling powers and principalities, Steve. And that, again, is why kindness all around is a good idea.

          • Do you see what I mean? You always have an answer back. Usually, I don’t spend that much time in the comments, but I watch you do this to virtually everyone you interact with. Always correcting, always chiding.

            I am in a position to offer constructive criticism because I understand what it takes for a message to be effective in the 21st century. I started studying communication methods almost 20 years ago and have been actively engaged in them since, both in the non-religious workplace and in my writing online. Of course my method is not the only approach that has ever succeeded, but there is a reason why professionals in every industry study “best practices” – because they exist, and consistently employed, they tend to increase effectiveness.

            And the thing is, I’m always learning. I’m always reading, studying what others are doing, analyzing results. I am not coming at this from a position of arrogance. I learned what I know from people who knew more and were more successful than I am. And virtually every time I fail, it’s because I think I know better, because I allow my anger or frustration to supersede my experience and understanding, because I justify my outrage, etc.

            There will always be a group of people who are angry and to whom anger — however we seek to justify it, and believe me, I sometimes do — will always appeal. But the Great Commission was not, “Going therefore, teach ye the choir of people who already agree with you”; it was “Going therefore, teach ye all nations…” This is a universal call, and we have an obligation to strive for it.

            So I’m sorry, but while nobody likes to be corrected — including me — I am constantly striving to identify my failings and improve. That doesn’t mean I take unqualified criticism from just anyone. That would be indiscriminating and imprudent. I look instead for teachers who have a command of things I have yet to grasp.

          • “Do you see what I mean? You always have an answer back.” Yes, Steve, I do. But the words you just used make you sound more like a parent seeking to teach an underling, or correct a stubborn child, not engage with a fellow adult, and devout practicing Catholic.

            You consider yourself in a position to understand how to get a message across in the 21st century. And in a secular sense, yes, you do. But in the sense of touting “credentials” in lieu of actual experience, no. You do not see how condescending you actually sound.

            Being a former Silicon Valley professional, I am well aware of “Best Practices”, Steve. I am, however, as a wife of 30 years, mother, and home schooling parent aware of best bedside manner. And business models are often just that. Business models. They are cold and, in close engagements, lack that personal touch. The combox is personal, Steve. It goes beyond the high concept. It is meeting people where they are.

            So while you may indeed be focusing on learning, growing, reading, etc about how to motivate on a large scale, to get into the combox and engage as you have done, is too often to hurt individuals on a very personal level. That is a mistake. In truth, if you want to remain high concept, stay out of the combox. Let your words stand. That is let your article speak to its own merits. Let your commentators sustain their own positions.

            Getting in the trenches requires a shift from high concept to something you seem unwilling – or ill equipped due to onerous time constraints – understandable considering what is on your plate – to give. A personal touch. The willingness to listen and understand a position, not just slot it into a preconceived envelope in order to just move on or put a period on something.

            The idea too that you would state “unqualified” criticism is another slight, Steve. That said, you do yourself a grave disservice to presume that those who could teach you must come from some mystical place of “success”. Good teachers are those who are humble enough to learn, and often the best of lessons, from their students. Or from the poor farmer down the road.

            You may want to read Francisco de Osuna who wrote the Third Spiritual Alphabet. We can learn from everyone, Steve. That’s why God puts many folks into our lives. To learn what it is we “need” to grasp in order that we may actually learn what we say we want to know.

          • In order to teach, which you seem desirous to do, the person you’re speaking too needs to be inclined to learn. If a person doesn’t want to hear from you, then you can’t teach.

            You’re continuing to do what Steve just said you’re doing. Look back on this thread. What point have you managed to get across? Basically, “You should be nicer more often. But not all the time.” That’s it. Said and done. And yet you’ve managed to write an essay on the matter. You ALWAYS have something to say back. Sometimes it’s best to just stop. Or just say “Ok, I see where you’re coming from. Thanks.” Note that Steve mentioned his own failings. After which you tout your own credentials.

            Look, I’m here to see what’s going on in the Catholic world, to understand the crisis we’re in, help those I can, and spend some time with those who see the same issue. And what do I see? Paragraphs (mostly from you) talking about how important “tone” is. And the only tone I’m getting is arrogance from you! How is this helping to solve the crisis? How is this related, even a LITTLE bit, to the article you’re commenting on? It’s not! So drop it! IF you have a legitimate good point to get across, which you may though I’m not entirely sure I’ve seen a point except for what I illustrated early, then it’s clearly not getting through, and it’s not going to get through because of your monotonous, condescending drone!

            Just STOP! Please… so we can get on to dealing with the important matters. Sheesh…

          • I find your comments tiresome. If you’re so invested in prattling on and on, why not have your own blog to indulge yourself?

          • Your attitude reflects that of Vatican officials, Phoebe, who apparently find it tiresome to be naysayed by those whom they deem beneath account, without credentials or the grace of office to make comment on their chosen methods.

            But at least you’ve found a place to indulge your own sense of the high road. Best to you.

          • You sound like a troll. We have already got rid of one that actually closed the comment boxes of a well-known traditional catholic website & was in the process of doing the same on another. He did this by using numerous different names, both male & female. Yours could be another one. Commenters beware.

          • Ana, suggesting that one hasn’t taken one’s medicine is unkind. That said, next time you ask me for an explanation or help as you have in the past, I will reconsider for you seem to not want it.

          • I don’t recall asking you for help & cannot think why I would. Your name doesn’t come readily to mind but it could, of course, be one of many used by trolls. Website owners should note that many start in the North West of the UK (as we have been kindly warned by Deacon Augustine) so the time line for such posts would be a UK one. That apart, I think reading situations into a post made by another that were not implied is bordering on the dangerous.

          • “…That apart, I think reading situations into a post made by another that were not implied is bordering on the dangerous.”

            Might want to follow your own advice.

          • Hi Ann, It did not occur to me that our comments would generate so many heated responses. However, I disagree with Ana Milan and Steve. I don’t think you are a “troll”. Even though I think you read too much into my remarks about my family background. Or to use a hypothetical idea about my mother leading me to disrespect my father.

            First of all, their Catholic faith was the bedrock of their lives even though neither was especially holy. But honestly, it’s probably difficult to grasp how self-effacing both my parents were. Their grandparents had immigrated to North America during the great potato famine and settled on the east coast of what came to be Canada, politically, many years later.

            They brought with them the poverty stricken life that was the lot of most Irish in the mid-19th century. And the island/province of Newfoundland, due to being stuck way out in the North Atlantic, has a history of economic depression. My parents never completely let go of that mental attachment to poverty. And truth be told, neither have I, although for different reasons.

            Both my parents were gifted, but in different ways. My father was creative and had a capacity for hard physical work that was astonishing. And since we were mostly self-reliant, there was always plenty of chores. He was compelled to be his “own man”. What today is called a Type A personality. My mother was much too refined and tactful to ever contradict him even though I’m sure she sometimes disagreed because he was driven, a risk taker. Whereas she was not. She was at home with abstract ideas. And I would not have gotten through school without her devoted assistance.

            However, neither ever escaped from their downtrodden Irish heritage. It would have made no sense to them to say that he was creative and she an intellectual. They would have seen that kind of talk as “putting on airs”. Or trying to be “grand”. Those are middle-class concepts, and their preoccupation was survival, a never ending struggle governed by the changing seasons of the year. In a world with little or no social support. Still it was a good life. We were poor, full of hardships, but we had dignity grounded in the everlasting teachings of the church.

            I mentioned that I got my father’s passion and my mother’s dispassionate nature. True enough! I also got my father’s drive. However, the Holy Spirit gave me a spiritual calling, and my drive to emulate him, to be a success by the world’s definition of success, was destined to fail which I had to learn the hard way.

            One more thing Ann, I believe you hang on too tenaciously to this idea of double standards(my word) because it’s impossible to escape them completely, yet we can’t be put in straitjackets spiritually. The spiritually wise Catholic knows he has to act, knowing that everything he does for the Catholic faith, no matter how sincere, will always fall short. Why? Because Original Sin is alive in our souls. So, we must act, and we must also pray for the Sanctifying Graces to purify our wounded souls.

            God bless you.

          • “…Both my parents were gifted, but in different ways.” Exactly, Tom.

            Same goes for, “…The spiritually wise Catholic knows he has to act, knowing that everything he does for the Catholic faith, no matter how sincere, will always fall short.”

            I am just loathe to see OnePeterFive flirt with becoming that which they deride. Folks have been banned here, Tom. And for doing nothing more than stating what you just did. We may not be able to escape a double standard entirely, but we can avoid it more easily by watching ourselves. All of us.

            As to the rest of your post, the background you describe is all too familiar. My forebears are from Sweden, however, peasants all. Save the roving Irish/English bootlegger who eventually found himself a place by making himself handy when my great grandmother needed to roof the old homestead.

            Thanks for sharing. And for taking the time to understand an otherwise condescending third generation American. Here’s to a grace-seasoned melting pot ;^)

            God bless!

          • Our comment policy is very clear:

            8. Trolling/arguing/being a sophist in the comment box without contributing in a meaningful way to the discussion will not be tolerated.

            And also:

            In an attempt to create an environment where all readers feel comfortable taking part in a productive discussion, we will remove any comment that violates the rules or in our judgment detracts from a productive discussion. Exceptions will be made solely at moderator discretion. Repeated violations of the rules will result in the offending party being banned.

            https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/comment-policy/

            You were banned because you argue incessantly, scold and chide, which detracts from productive discussion. If *I* find your comments irritating enough that it makes *me* not want to participate in the discussion here, then it is well within my right to assume that others feel the same.

            And as several commenters have pointed out above, that is exactly how they feel. Considering how many more people read than comment, I’m certain there are more.

            I have little doubt that we agree on the majority of things, Ann. Nevertheless, you have a very patronizing tone. You sound like you’re lecturing a child when you offer your lengthy and frequent rebuttals. It insults the intelligence of our readers, and I’d very much like you to stop. So for the last time: it’s a less about what you say and a lot more about how you say it. My insistence on the importance of tone and rhetoric is a lifelong theme; you’re not going to force me to back down from it.

            Because I run this website, I’m entitled to the last word. Because you are consistent, I fully expect yet another one of your usual responses. But if we’re going to continue going around in circles, be warned that I’ll just remove you again. Thread hijacking is also a violation of our comment policy, and this article had nothing to do with your ongoing need to prove your point against Fr. RP, myself, or whoever else you imagine needs to hear a piece of your mind.

          • I was banned because I said what you didn’t want to hear about yourself and your own harsh tone, Steve. (Remember, being ugly isn’t a charism.) Especially comical when you *chide* others for their shortcomings.

            Take it or leave it.

            As to your policy, best of luck since you regularly break your own rules of engagement. Do as I say, not as I do doesn’t work in the long term, friend. Especially when dealing with adults and not would-be acolytes.

          • Your ability to wear out your welcome is really impressive. I offered you an out: treat others with respect. I’m sorry that doesn’t appeal to you.

            Pride goeth before the fall…or in this case, another ban.

  4. No surprise here. Marxists and Nazis got names for later action too. ChurchMilitant will also use this list for banning articles and comments.

    Reply
      • Indeed, I wish others would release their “banned” commentator’s list. They are true allies. Unfortunately, many were not perceived as such because it is easier to conclude that others are guilty of a witch hunt.

        We all need to be watchful of the inclination to parse ourselves out at the top of the heap. Why? Because it is the mass of those considered beneath us that have facilitated the position in which we think we are.

        Reply
  5. “For Catholics from all orthodox perspectives who are troubled by the Francis papacy, it is in fact the love of Christ and His Church that is the glue that holds them together. Any aversion they may feel to the man who holds the office only exists in relation to how far he places himself — and the souls under his care — from that reality.”

    Yes. Yes indeed.

    Reply
  6. The reports out of the Vatican that I have become aware of in the past few years discourage me greatly. Are these men Christians? Are these men followers of Jesus Christ? Do these men pray and strive to live holy lives? If so, why do these reports sound like every secular organization on earth? If not, why are these men elevated in position in the Church founded by Jesus Christ and supposedly handed down to us to us who naively (?) believe that we have been given truth itself?

    Reply
    • Most of them aren’t followers of our Lord. These times have been prophesied. Pray the Rosary, nothing else will work, Rome is apostate.

      Reply
  7. Could it be, that they overestimated the grip they were sure they had on the public, with all the”tenderness” religious indifferentism, moral permissiveness, denial of Christ’s own words whenever too strong for the delicate tastes and prozac-induced serenity of the misled flock? Are they shocked, that not everyone fell for the sham of false mercy and no hell? I think so. They take the easy road, that of compromise and short-term gains. They sell demagoguery and consistently demonstrate indifference to the plight of souls, including their own. They attack with disbelief and anger: Who are you to judge? Just who do you think you are, loving your silly old beliefs more than our ONE world, our peace and security the Humble one is working on so hard, photo-ops, feet kissing, light shows, and all the rest? Who are you to interfere with our not so self-forgetting sodomy embrace?

    Reply
    • They have a massive heresy to attend to on about a week and don’t appreciate distraction. Especially from Catholics and about Catholicism.

      Reply
  8. It’s all school yard stuff – and more. Don’t you remember? There is the bully. Then there are his followers. The bully is really a coward and so he seeks to dominate. The followers are even bigger cowards so they connive with the domination. To stop all of them you have to stand up to the bully himself. Someone has to lead the charge against him.

    Is there a soul amongst us who is leading this charge through prayer and fasting?

    I hope there is.

    To think, a pope could lose his soul because of my failure to pray for him!

    Domine, miserere nobis.

    Reply
  9. “[6] I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. [7] Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. [10] For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”

    Reply
  10. For Catholics from all orthodox perspectives who are troubled by the Francis papacy, it is in fact the love of Christ and His Church that is the glue that holds them together. Any aversion they may feel to the man who holds the office only exists in relation to how far he places himself — and the souls under his care — from that reality.

    Well concluded and said.
    *
    Cf. Pro Domine et Ecclesia et Pontifice … [http://wp.me/p2Na5H-HO]
    *
    PS Er … I admit that I oppose the inimical works of Pope Francis and the innovators and I respect, admire, and like Putin, what a leader!

    Unlike almost every other country in the world, Russians have rising birth rates and growing families; unlike almost every other country in the West, Russians are undergoing a religious Renaissance. Putin, who is baptized, is arguably a greater defender of traditional Christian values than the Pope, who has been tolerant of divorce, abortion, gay marriage and the transformation of what was once an unabashedly Holy Christian Europe into a part-atheistic, part-Muslim continent.Lawrence Solomon: In Russia’s religious rebirth, Putin is a new Pope

    *
    Cf. Six Points About the Attempt to Destroy Syria Everything the United States in doing in Syria is illegal, while everything Russia is doing is within the law
    *
    Cf. Stop this stupid sabre-rattling against Russia.
    *
    Cf. Putin warns Americans: You’re being distracted!

    Reply
    • I don’t think it’s wise to trust a psychopath. But it is fascinating that in geopolitics we are left looking to freaking Russia to set aright evils that our own leadership does. It’s like Assange being the most important journalist of the time. Who could have foreseen that much upside down?

      Reply
        • The one who ordered his enemies and allies murdered and had journalists thrown from windows in tall buildings. I am talking about putin.

          Reply
          • Any chance to back up what you say? You may have fallen for the spin of the Western leaders and their media. They demonize, if they cannot destroy, whoever does not kowtow to them and support their evil agenda [e.g. Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.]. Our western leaders are instruments of the devil himself. I have a very different perception of President Putin cf. links I have provided above.

          • This stuff was out there before the “reset”. But look, at worst, we’re proving that we are not united by/in our love for the guy.

            I will give you this: he’s the only force of light in the me. We are definitely on the wrong side and have been for the past… Oh.. 7 or 8 years at least.

  11. They must be losing money, right? People are waking up to the soul-destroying agenda and Soros isn’t going to single-handedly keep them in the black. The petty attempt to attack en masse fails–a limp wristed torrent of school girl tactics. A hissy fit. They can’t compete with or destroy what they can’t control, authentic Catholicism unleashed via the internet and social platforms. And the ridiculous comments regarding Putin! Channeling Mrs. Clinton much??

    Reply
    • Their army IS a limp wristed effeminate bunch of perverts and pervert enablers. There’s really nothing to fear – on top of which, our side is stronger.

      I keep waiting for the real attack to come… If it can. Something like a motu that invalidates mass and confession. I imagine that it’s in the works.

      Reply
      • It amazes me that the rot has gone so deep, wide, and high — but the old saying is true: evil succeeds because good men do nothing. I think, however, we are seeing the whispering of a change happening, first in politics (the rejection of globalism in Britain and USA) and it is spilling over into the Church. Political correctness is beginning to break down, as well. Evil always overreaches, and the insanity of unrestrained immigration with all that entails was the last straw, I think, for many European Catholics/Christians. Their nations are being overrun and Bergoglio (tone deaf to the point of disorientation) merrily advocates for more immigration while those of his own flock are being raped and murdered. Once the mental dam breaks the people are unstoppable.

        Reply
        • Political correctness is far from being overcome. Yet it is a crucial victory and truth requires being said, not squelched by satanic speech control. Unfortunately, the price of fighting it is often high, losing a job and friends who fear losing a job. In England you can go to jail for saying the truth. Facebook is threatened with a $55000 fine by Germany per instance of connecting Islam to terrorism.

          We are not winning yet.

          Reply
          • I try always to see the victory in spirit, by faith, before it is evident materially. The very fact that Brexit happened was a signal to me that victories are being won in the spiritual realm. Prayer works. The Rosary is the weapon! to quote Padre Pio.

  12. Today Pope Francis announced that his Papacy is the Second Coming of Christ.

    Yes, the Vatican claimed today that based on the highly scientific historical-critical method of Biblical research scholars have concluded that Pope Francis is the personification of Christ who has come back to earth in spirit to bring peace. The key to peace Pope Francis said is sexual freedom. Accordingly, all Catholic doctrine having to do with the morality of sex is hereby abrogated. Further details will be available in the near future.

    Reply
    • Sadly, the satire of this didn’t occur to me till later. Not sad for my diminishing mental acuities, but for the current ecclesial environment which encourages it.

      Reply
    • What homily or talk or document are you quoting from when you say “his Papacy is the second coming….”; “key to peace is sexual freedom”. ??????

      Reply
      • This is something of a spoof my dear but basically captures the demonic narcissism of Pope Francis who is the worst thing to happen to the Catholic Church perhaps ever. Perhaps you do not share my insight. But like it or not what I suggest is true.

        Reply
        • Well unfortunately with the nonsensical things which are said in Rome, I have learned to never exclude any ‘report’ mentioned in a blog and I usually try to hunt it down specifically because there are still a lot of people I know who hold to ‘blind faith’ about what the Pope says. I would hold back on writing spoofs as there is enough silliness that is real.

          Reply
    • Well, the truth is the Vatican IS promoting the immoral sex-ed program for teens (the program titled “The Meeting Point: Course of Affective Sexual Education for Young People” – check out Lifesitenews). The program has already been condemned by many moral theologians, so your spoofs is based on the truth!

      Reply
  13. I hope nobody is quaking in their boots about this attack on those who oppose this Borgia papacy – the only rational response to it is to roll on the floor laughing. They may control the levers of power for now, but they have absolutely no authority. Their very infidelity toward Our Lord Jesus Christ has robbed them of all claim to authority and if sufficient numbers of Catholics simply avoid, dismiss and ignore them, then this whole corrupt regime will be deposed by Our Lord Himself. A pope who serves diunity and infidelity is no real pope at all irrespective of the mere canonical niceties.

    I find it particularly hilarious that they should lump Asia News in with all the other alleged malcontents. All they do is faithfully report the words of Frankenpope, but I guess that when his own words constantly contradict themselves, spread confusion and chaos, and carry the weighty authority of an amoeba, then the very act of reporting them can be construed as an attck on this odious papacy.

    The only Rock and source of unity in this current state of the Church is Our Lord. His alleged earthly representative is a Judas and it is becoming easier by the day for Catholics to see where our true choice lies. “As for me and my house, we are with the Lord” and as for all those who would try to foist a different Gospel upon us, may they be anathema.

    I think a short parable perfectly describes the current situation of the Church:

    Luke 20, 9 “And he began to speak to the people this parable: *A man planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen: and he was abroad for a long time.
    10 And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard. But they beating him, sent him away empty.
    11 And again he sent another servant. But they beat him also, and treating him reproachfully, sent him away empty.
    12 And again he sent the third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out.
    13 Then the lord of the vineyard said: What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be, when they see him, they will reverence him.
    14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they thought within themselves, saying: This is the heir; let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.
    15 And casting him out of the vineyard, they killed him. What, therefore, will the lord of the vineyard do to them?
    16 He will come, and will destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others. And when they heard this, they said to him: God forbid.
    17 But he looking on them, said: What is this then that is written, *The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
    18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone, shall be bruised: and upon whomsoever it shall fall, it will crush him to pieces.”

    Reply
    • “….the only rational response to it is to roll on the floor laughing.” Yeah, but these people are in control of the parishes, the schools, the chancery offices, and yes even the Vatican.

      Reply
      • Absolutely, the enemies of God seem to be in control nearly everywhere. But they will never be in control of me and they will never be in control of you. The Truth has set us free, and that Truth has a name – Jesus Christ. So long as we remain under His control the rest are welcome to chance it with what is coming to them. They are free to choose for Him or against Him too.

        Reply
  14. The more glaring the cracks in the facade of humility ‘n’ mercy the better. I’m puzzled about the assertion of animus against the Anglo-Saxons, however. Is Bergoglio still snippy about the Falklands kerfluffle of 1982? Ah, well. I would not discount the seriousness of an opponent who enlists an international vampire expert, however.

    Reply
    • It was the Roman/Vatican animus against Anglo-saxons (yes, that’s what they call us, for real) that I was referring to, and it is brazen. But yeah, obviously it’s not too far off with Bergoglio too. Certainly his outrageous comments about the Falklands is the most obvious indicator.

      Reply
  15. The very day that my parents told me in a very sad mood that they kept praying for the Pope, but not anymore for his intentions I realized that the opposition to this man is huge.
    My parents, as the majority of their generation (born in the forties, young on the CVII euphoria) were raised and educated to follow the Pope no matter what, and their motto has always been “Roma Locuta, Causa Finita” (Rome has spoken, the case is closed). They don´t surf the web, they are not Putin followers, they don´t know much about geopolitcs, they dont´like the FSSPX, they go to a Novus Ordo parish. Common good people, with a Catholic instinct. Enough to realize that this is wrong. And a lot of questions started to rise in them about the last 50 years. I guess that is why God permitted this Papacy, that is a punishment for our return to the true Church.

    Reply
  16. I believe, Steve, that your comments are right on target–but don’t go far enough. The fault is not in your analysis, but in our (by which I mean the “Putin Lovers,” collectively) failure to appreciate fully the nature and extent of the threat which Bergoglianism poses to ecclesial life (I don’t say, “to the Church,” to avoid the impression of denying indefectibility). What we have here in the Hit List is not only the pitching of a totally hilarous, intellectually indefensible narcissistic/paranoid hissy fit, but also another entirely calculated, cold-blooded, and scripted step towards the end game of their ilk. (As Pope Francis likes to put it, “Forward! Forward, always!”) The Hit List is an ideological Kristallnacht–not simply a lashing out at “the Enemy,” perceived or contrived, not simply a putting-on-notice to watch one’s step; but an inversion of the accepted order that has long been planned and is necessary for the consolidation of power by the cabal. (Uh-oh. Broke the “no Nazi allusions” rule again. Sorry! It’s just so hard to discuss the totalitarian mindset without them!)

    Reply
    • Yes, Helen, I agree with what you say. In my opinion they are so bold as to name names because they have already won. In Canada there is complete silence about the crisis. In the U.S. one can number faithful, courageous bishops on one hand. In Europe the situation country by country is not much better.

      The darkness is not going to be dispelled. It is here. However there are three lights that are still burning: The first is The Light (Jesus Christ), the second is The Faith kept alight in the Remnant like us, and the third light is the Sanctuary Light. When I saw that red light, that burning, shining light in my Church this morning, blazing out during Mass, and always, I knew the darkness was pierced but it’s still the darkness.

      Reply
      • Where are the courageous bishops? The ones who have spoken do nothing but offer “softy” critique of the neverending heresies coming out of Rome. The one thing that has been made clear, is Archbishop Lefebvre was one of the few left who faithfully fulfilled his duty as a bishop. He taught the truth handed down to him without error. There are a handful of priests who speak out, but the most “orthodox” of today’s bishops have done nothing to refute the the papal bucket of waste coming from the Vatican, nor the trash coming from his trash pile of losers like “Bishop” Martin, and “Cardinal” Cupich.

        Reply
  17. The band of Christ loyalists that Bergoglio and his cronies detest are held together by nothing but love. And it’s not the bergoglian I love my cheeseburger type love either.

    That he and his army attack is an excellent sign. Their Gaslight responses are good too. It shows that the diabolical knows that it is vulnerable and your (Steve and the rest of the remnant’s) dismissal of their Salvo shows that you are not (vulnerable) to their tactic.

    Reply
  18. “It is also important to view Tornielli in context; once known as a Ratzingerian, there is a sycophantic air in his new and close collaboration with the very different style and message of Pope Francis. A longtime Vatican observer I know confided, ‘I’m reasonably sure that Francis and his team don’t trust Tornielli, but are ready to use him.’ And he does seem useful.”

    Of course that little bird, my docile dove Tornielli, is useful.

    He recognizes whose church it is.

    Mine.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/437fd686780106d9a41076182382bb64f8cde3850ea00ebe30a60e010c86b9dc.jpg

    He also recognizes what happens when he fails to recognize whose church it is.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/48ce20a20c1669db392987c49f92a480e3e8e8eec3cbac4d4e65f7b51992c999.jpg

    Reply
    • These photos are of Francismiracles…. Notice the gathering of raptors too. I keep seeing scripture around this guy but it’s not the parts describing light and Truth and Heaven.

      Reply
  19. I can see the Pope’s dilemma, it is difficult to get around the unchanging teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church when trying to advance an unholy agenda. Thanks be to Jesus Christ and those who refuse to blaspheme the Holy Spirit because of the Words Jesus spoke on the issue of the unforgivable sin. In the end those who fear offending men more than they fear offending God, are quickly exposed for who they really are by those who trust the Holy Spirit. The spiritually unsound man can not withstand the scrutiny of the spiritually sound man. For those who refuse to see Francis for who he really is, the hired man, who labors to undermine the Sacramental Church, may God open your eyes and deliver you from the evil you refuse to acknowledge. There is no way to avoid the true agenda of the hired man – Catholischism – so everyone needs to prepare for the day of decision. Chose one for you can not choose both – the Word or the World, that is the choice the Apostates place before those Baptized into the Truth. We must never lose sight of our Baptismal Promises, especially our vow to reject the works of satan..

    Reply
  20. Steve. This is a really well-written response to those who are fully in favor of religious liberty and frank and full discussions and, yes, making a mess as advocated by Franciscus his own self.

    Look, even even-keelers like Dr Mirus have begun to speak openly of the situation:

    Confidence in the Church: What do we do when we want to cry?

    By Dr. Jeff Mirus (bio – articles – email) | Oct 14, 2016

    It’s been a difficult year for deeply-committed Catholics, by which I mean those who accept all that the Church teaches and who sincerely try to conform their lives to Christ in accordance with Divine Revelation and natural law—of which the Church alone is the custodian. This is the year in which doubt has hardened into certainty on the question of Pope Francis’ apparent lack of commitment to the Church’s “hard sayings” (Jn 6:60).

    http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=690

    And now we have learned that Pope Francis has called Jesus retarded.

    Well, I suppose that. in least in part, offers him a partial excuse for what he has been doing as Pope; I’m the vicar and if what I do seems retarded to you, please remember that I am supposed to imitate Christ and He is retarded.

    Reply
  21. In describing the episode of Jesus and the adulterous woman, Francis is supposed to have said, according to the official transcription: “And Jesus sort of plays the fool, he lets time go by, he writes on the ground. . . .”

    But in reality the pope had said: “And Jesus sort of plays the ‘scemo‘…,” an expression that sounds rather harsh in Italian (comparable to “retard”).

    http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351393?eng=y

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

    The Vicar of Christ calls Christ retarded and The V.I. is worried about the critics of Franciscus. That alone tells you what you need to know about just how far off course and how far deep in unchartered waters is the Barque of Christ.

    The V.I. is defending the indefensible and remaining silent about the Pope blaspheming Jesus Christ.

    Reply
  22. Caligula is reputed to have said ‘Utinam populus Romanus unam cervicem haberet’ (‘Would that the people of Rome had but one neck’). I would not dream of suggesting that thought or something similar would have crossed the Pope’s mind when he was presented with this list of dissidents.

    Reply
  23. Sounds like “Team Clinton” at work in the church. It makes me wonder if the “Catholic Spring” comments in the Wikileaks expose of John Podesta, and the DNC’s creation of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United, are part and parcel of what the Vatican is doing since Pope Francis’ election. Podesta, if you recall from the emails, was patiently waiting for the right kind of leadership to launch, in the church, a “revolution” from “the bottom up.” Perhaps, to their delight, they got everything they needed from the top down.

    Reply
  24. Do you notice something curious here? Francis and other Catholic liberals (that IS what he is) are always talking about the importance of the laity, about its important role in the revivified Church; they even assign duties to some of this laity…till they dare become too “empowered,” that is, and start challenging the clerical establishment effectively. But now suddenly, the opposition to Francis’ many gaffes is merely a few retired bishops and the hoi polloi who don’t wear a Roman collar! To put their argument in terms any good “Anglo-Saxon” would understand, “These unwashed peasants who understand nothing are making noise, but who cares about them? The bishops still know THEIR place!”

    Reply
  25. Much to absorb here, and much upon which to comment, but for the moment are others struck by the equivocation of the perceived opposition to “Putin fans” in much the same manner that the Clinton party does with their opposition?
    There appear to be multiple levels of irony here.

    Reply
  26. These clerics of the leftist stripe hold the groundling laity as useful idiots in the same manner the Soviets did the masses. Deny them catechesis, give them some guilt free sex ala “Amoris Laetitia” and shut them up. The secular materialist clergy class keep their prestige, paycheck, pensions and other perks and we get a long leash to hell — in which they don’t believe do to their superior theological insights.

    Reply
    • Who said folks weren’t praying for the Pope?

      As to that we are commanded by the Lord to judge the signs of the times and the subsequent fruits of actions. To just ignore obvious problems and feign that all is well is to aid one in losing their soul…. and not watch over our brother as Christians are supposed to do.

      Reply
    • Observation of behavior and utterance, commenting on its context and significance,
      is not judgement. At its best it is critique, founded on prudence and Christian
      discernment. No one is sending the Pope to his eternal consequence.
      He has a place in my prayer.

      Reply
  27. All of this means we are winning! So let us rejoice. If there are corrupting influences abroad it is Pope Francis himself who has raised tolerance and promulgation of evil to a new level in his stance towards barbaric Islam, Communist dictators, sexual immorality, etc. Let us pray that this troubled man come to his senses, resign or be replaced as soon as possible as he is in league with the devil.

    Reply
  28. Sounds like the typical approach used by public figures these days:
    Mischaracterize your opponents and their words/arguments/critique, and then proceed to demolish the mischaracterization you have just falsely proposed. It spreads doubt and shifts attention.
    There must be something to this approach, because it is in constant use.

    Sadly, though, it is terribly destructive and divisive, and leaves a lasting residue of muddy waters.

    Scandalous, too, that somebody so close to the pope is the one employing this vulgar tactic. Scandalous that the pope does not come out and divorce himself from it.

    Reply
  29. “There are more than 5000 Catholic bishops in the world, only about ten of them are active in their opposition, many of whom are retired, which shows that it is not substantial.”

    Closer to the truth than not. How about 50? (rumblings) or 500? (no evidence) or 1000? (Not a chance). The fact is 55+ years of active apostasy aka modernism has destroyed the human hierarchy of the Church. It is inhabited and directed by the occupying forces of evil.

    Reply
    • Hi jocobum – Sounds like the situation right before Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by the God who searched in vain for righteous men then as well. When Jesus returns, will he find Faith on earth?

      Reply
  30. Many faithful Catholics, including clergy, have simply ceased listening to anything Bergoglio says and are waiting for the end of a pontificate that is considered to have been a mistake and very damaging to the unity that the Petrine ministry is intended to effect.

    Reply
  31. Johnno, you need to know more of the history of the Church and her doctrine, of who are recognized as bishops and how their pedigree is delineated or justified. How Charity works and how merits are described and received as adding to our charitable acts and moves us towards perfection.. Then you might be able to make a point. I have just added a reply to one of your comments go read it and pray for guidance

    Reply
    • Read and replied. You have said nothing of significance to what I posted except to invent excuses and entirely make up a ‘theology of perfection’ that cannot humanly exist nor be relied upon.

      One need only crack open their Bible to see that when God commands someone to perform an action all that is necessary is they perform that action and therefore that God delivers on His promise. God tells Moses to lift his staff over the Red Sea. Moses does this. God parts the waters. God tells Elijah how to handle the priests of Baal. Elijah does what He says. God delivers his end. Nowhere ever are God’s promises dependent on the vague unspecified actions of others outside of those He commands. Following your false ‘theology of perfection’ not even the sacraments could be relied upon because the people being baptized or going to reconciliation or receiving holy Orders would not be granted their effects due to your excuses of imperfect scenarios. In fact one could not even have a Pope! So all you’ve spoken is entirely nonsense.

      The same logic as with the miracles of the Bible is true for Fatima. Mary says a miracle with occur at a specified time if the children go there. They perform the action. God delivers a miracle. Mary tells Juan Diego to do something. he does it. A miracle happens. So what the excuse for the Consecration of Russia? Especially given it id factually documentable that the Popes never consecrated Russia with all the Catholic Bishops of the world under his command? Only world consecrations and never with all the Bishops at the same time? or are you going to accuse God for not holding up His end of the bargain? Or maybe you’d like to accuse Mary of lying? Or Sr. Lucia of lying? Especially when it is clear the Popes never followed the instructions given to them unlike the Fatima children, Juan Diego, Moses, Elijah or Abraham? Instead you deflect and blame… what…? Human frailties…?

      No Mike, it is you who does not know what he is talking about. I advise you to seek further instruction, think logically and pray for guidance that you like many others are lacking which is why we are all in this situation, because we would rather invent excuses for ourselves than accept responsibility and face hard truths. The situation of reality in the world and the Church today are the way they are precisely because we have done the opposite of what Mary at Fatima told us and the Church to do. Now we are seeing the chastisements, just as Christ warned of when he compared the Pope’s disobedience to that disobedience of the Kings of France who never consecrated the nation to His Sacred Heart when He asked them to.

      Go and reflect on this.

      Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...