Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

The Bishops Enter the War

The week of November 14 to 21st, 2016 will be remembered as the one in which open war was finally declared between the two long-contending factions in the Catholic Church. And while this has caused a lot of wailing and lamenting, the truth is I have never been so happy and contented to be a traditional Catholic than I am under this pontificate of madness. Everything I thought about the modern, post-conciliar Church is being demonstrated to be true every day.

Four senior cardinals revealed to the Catholic world the fact that Pope Francis has refused — in essence — to say whether he is a Catholic or not, or wants to continue to be the pope of the Catholic Church. Francis Bergoglio has refused to answer their five excruciatingly canonically correct questions about the larger implications and interpretation of his bombshell exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.

People are in a panic. But the reality is that in this pope and this document and this conflict, we have, at last and thanks be to God, finally moved past the point where the revolutionaries that have long controlled and manipulated the Church are pretending to be good Catholic men. They have — in just the time since the four cardinals have released their questions to the public — thrown off the mask, and are insisting that from now on their new religion — that they at last openly admit is opposed to Christ Himself — is the only one allowed in the Church. Anyone who doesn’t like it, from Cardinals to pewsitters, are being shown the door. The hard choice is now immediately before us; Christ and the religion He gave the world, complete with its persecutions, or this developing and increasingly triumphant sect that controls the institution of the Catholic Church.

Since November 14th and the Silent Consistory, we’ve had quite the whirlwind, so much that without actually gluing one’s smartphone to one’s head, it would be close to impossible to keep up. Cardinals and newly-created cardinals, bishops and bishops, are contending in open, public conflict over whether the Sacraments can be extended to those in objective states of mortal sin, whether, in essence, the Church still believes and teaches as she has always taught that sin and virtue are not the same, and that there cannot be a comfortable middle ground between them. The sides — that of Christ and that of Belial — are, in short, lining up for war; and indeed, opening salvos have already been launched.

We have had the pope’s chosen men – his proxies – launching sophomoric attacks on Twitter (of all things!); we have seen the newly created Cardinals Cupich and Farrell berating and publicly chastising their seniors for having dared to ask for clarity. In the last couple of days we have had two Polish bishops formally supporting the four cardinals, and a bishop in Germany issue a statement that he would also like the pope to clarify his intentions. Earlier this week, Cardinal Hummes – one of the New Paradigm’s old guard – embarrassed himself publicly by making the outrageous claim that not a single member of the college of cardinals is against the pope’s intentions (whatever they are; he seems to know while the rest of us remain in doubt).

The latest came yesterday; the pope’s underlings dragged out a howitzer in the form of Archbishop Pio Vito Pinto, Dean of the Roman Rota, who told a conference in Spain that the four querying cardinals risk the loss of their red hats for having dared to ask for clarity. At the same time, Archbishop Chaput has joined his name to the small list of bishops formally asking the pope to say once and for all whether priests may or may not give Holy Communion to those in objectively sinful states. Chaput, answering a reporter’s question said, “If the document contains elements that any serious Catholic scholars see as ambiguous, the problems they raise need to be addressed in an honest and straightforward manner.”

So, we’ve got open warfare between men who want to remain faithful to Christ and the teaching of the Church and the pope on a matter of dogma. Pretty much the worst case scenario, previously only speculated on as a theoretical possibility by the greatest minds of the Church. And who knows what is coming tomorrow; with this pontificate, it’s been a laugh-a-minute.

Many, many people are deeply upset by all of this. But I believe their lamentation is ill-placed. In fact, Bergoglio is the pope of my joy — and I believe the best hope we have of ending the de facto schism that has existed in the Church for the last five decades. For the first time since I re-entered Catholic life in the late 1990s, I have some real, concrete hope for the future of the Church. I did not have this hope under the “conservative” pontificates of Benedict XVI and John Paul II.

At long last, the “third way” of comfortable “conservatism” is being demonstrated to be false. “Conservative” Catholic bishops are being handed a long overdue lesson in the third and most neglected of the Laws of Rational Thought: that there can be no third thing between yes and no. It gives me hope that this pope is forcing these bishops out of their conservative no-man’s land. The cloying, mendacious happy face of JPII conservatism has fallen into the mud of battle. Francis is forcing everyone to pick a side, and even the most determined of the nothing-to-see-here episcopate can no longer deny that there is a war.

I will go further and say that I think Jorge Bergoglio was God’s own choice for our times. As I have said over and over, another “conservative” pope, one who maintained the false status quo in the post-conciliar Church of happy contradictions and kept everyone comfortable would have been a much greater catastrophe. As the US housing market learned in 2008, not facing up to concrete reality — no matter how comfortable it might make you now — will do nothing more than build up a greater catastrophe later.

Under the “great” conservative pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, denial allowed this festering cancer to grow unchecked in every corner of the Church. The effects of the effeminate terror of confrontation demonstrated by so many churchmen – their decades of refusing to stand up for the Faith out of fear of looking “divisive” – have come home to roost. It is not the so-called “liberals” who have created this situation; it is the good men who have spent fifty years doing nothing.

I am rejoicing because it is clear that the time of painful cognitive dissonance is over. The period in which we tried to smile and pretend that there is no such thing as a contradiction, while the forces of irreligion stamped about trumpeting its evil, is done. Hallelujah! For 50 years, we have attempted to contain within one body both Church and anti-Church; the insane notion of the “big umbrella” that refuses to speak the truth against error. That, and not Bergoglio, was going to be the death of the Church.

It was that corrosion that was destroying the Church, dissolving it like acid. It is Bergoglio the papal wrecking ball who is the solution to this false Nuchurch that we have allowed to grow and almost eclipse the Church of Christ. He is taking these “conservative” bishops by the shoulders and – almost literally – shouting fashionable heresies into their faces and daring them to deny them. The joke is that the things he is asserting every day are nothing more than the same heresies that these bishops have winked and smiled and nodded at for all these years. Bergoglio is simply daring them to either oppose him or oppose Christ, and not allowing them to continue to fudge.

Once, a very long time ago, I went to a bookshop run by the Daughters of St. Paul. On the shelves I saw a mishmash of saints and heretics, all with nice shiny covers. I asked the nun why in a Catholic bookshop there were so many authors on their shelves that contradicted the Catholic Faith. She answered, “Well, we have to give room to every opinion.” This incredible statement perfectly encapsulates the “conservative” approach – essentially a political one – that amounted to an attempt to posit a third neutral thing between “yes” and “no’ and then claim that it represented “balance”.

Essentially, a denial of reality.

It was not the so-called “liberal” Catholic Church that lulled the great majority of lay Catholics into vice and error and indifference. It was these “conservatives,” including popes, who tried to convince everyone that we could all just get along, that reality was something we didn’t have to face, that there could be harmony between Christ and Belial. They were the ones who perpetuated the most dangerous lie of all.

Well, that illusion is now at last being shattered, and Francis Bergoglio has said, in essence, “Tertium non datur.” There is no “third way”; there is only my way or you’re out. At last the true landscape is before us all — plainly and undeniably. To the bishops and priests lamenting the loss of the comfortable John Paul II “conservative” paradigm, I would say, “Gentlemen, welcome to the desert of the Real.” It may not be pretty, but it is only in the Real that anyone can function as a minister of Christ.

I think that really, the only people who are lamenting are the ones who have not been in the war before. For us English, living on short rations in our bomb shelters, it is like hearing that the Americans have finally decided to join in. This battle is simply what it has always been: between Catholic orthodoxy and the “New Paradigm” of Neomodernism. This reality, this misery, will now have to be faced by the only men who have ever had any real power to turn the war around. It means, in short, that it’s almost over, that very soon rebuilding can begin.

Maybe the lamenters are just now starting to understand how little of the Church is left already, and are fearful about what it is going to look like when it’s over. Until now we’ve had the comforting illusion of buildings and art and liturgy that make it look as though the Faith is alive. The wasteland of post-Christian Catholicism is just now becoming clear to them. And it’s ugly. It’s certainly nowhere anyone wants to live.

Very, very soon, however, I believe the long exile of the Catholic religion from the Church that bears its name will be over. The persecution of faithful Catholics by their own bishops will stop. Priests will be able to preach the Faith once more, unobstructed by a Neomodernist hierarchy more interested in currying the favour of the world. Vocations will flourish, the religious life will flower again. These are the prelates and clergy who will go with the Bergoglian sect. The work of the Church to convert the world for the salvation of souls can finally be restarted after half a moribund century of silence and fear. The New Paradigm is about to be defeated, brought down by its own arrogance. I see nothing whatever in this that would prompt me to lament.

504 thoughts on “The Bishops Enter the War”

  1. This commentary is as unhinged as Francis. “Pope Francis has refused — in essence — to say whether he is a Catholic
    or not, or wants to continue to be the pope of the Catholic Church” and ” they at last openly admit is opposed to Christ Himself.” Where on earth did he get that?

    • Where have you been the last three and a half years, friend? For anyone willing to actually acknowledge what we see before our eyes, the evidence to support Hilary’s assertion is overwhelming.

      • OK, kindly document the assertion that “they” (“the revolutionaries”) meaning (I take it, the Pope and his cronies), “at last openly admit [their new religion] is opposed to Christ Himself.” When and where and with what words did the pope “openly admit” that he is opposed to Christ Himself?

        • Have you actually read AL? Everything you are asking for is right there. I’m not going to do your homework for you. No one did it for me when I used to believe as you do; only by actually doing my own research did the scales fall from my eyes.

        • Here’s an example where Francis tells a little girl not to speak about her faith:

          “The first question, the one that was posed in the context of the region having 80% of the population without a creed, is: “Do I have to convince these friends – good ones, who work and who are happy – do I have to convince them of my faith? What must I say to convince them?” Listen, the last thing you must do is to “speak.” – Francis

          Contrast that with the instructions of Jesus our Lord himself:

          “Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” – Jesus, quoted in Matthew 28:18-20.

          Is this not an open admission that Francis is opposed to Christ? Francis has basically called Jesus a “great sinner.”

          • No, it is clearly not “an open admission that Francis is opposed to Christ.” An “open admission” would look something like this: “I am opposed to Christ.” Had you personally CONCLUDED that this statement of his IMPLIES or SUGGESTS that he is “opposed to Christ,” you would have been well within the bounds of rational discourse. As it is, I am sorry to say you have simply told a lie.

          • How did I lie? I even posed it as a question “Is this not an open admission that Francis is opposed to Christ?” To me it is. I guess to you it isn’t. That’s fine, but your contrary conclusion doesn’t make me a liar.

          • Jeeeessssshhhhh! Isn’t that bad enough for you? Unfortunately Francis is too wily a fox to state anything plainly or clearly.

        • Here, I’ll give you one.The Pope opposes the Sacred Scriptures and you can clearly see this in his work Amoris Laetitia. THEREFORE, JORGE IS OPPOSE TO CHRIST, BECAUSE CHRIST SAID:

          “Think not that I am come to destroy the law [the laws come from the Scriptures], or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” – Matthew 5:17:20


          “Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a cer­tain moral security [?????} that it is what God himself is asking [God is asking me to remain in my sin? SATANIC VERSE ALERT!] amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal (No. 303).


          “And say not: The mercy of the Lord is great, he will have mercy on the multitude of my sins. [7] For mercy and wrath quickly come from him, and his wrath looketh upon sinners. [8] Delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day. [9] For his wrath shall come on a sudden, and in the time of vengeance he will destroy thee.” – Sirach 5:6-9


      • Doesn’t seem like he’s Catholic. We Catholics love Jesus and love to live as He said to live – whether we’re rich or poor, intellectual or simple, happy or sad, fat or skinny – Jesus knows no bounds to whom He loves – so long as they Love Him from the Heart, He’s Happy and He really loves it when we’re in Holy Communion with Him which you can’t be if you’re persistent in a sinful situation…..I’m thinking this drama will really put Catholics on a stench with the world governments and phhhtttp! There you have it – because of this situation which seems to be only in the Church, but in reality Satan is licking his chops to oust True Religion from the World. Like, outlaw it worldwide. Why not go big in our thinking here?

  2. I totally followed what you were saying (great article!) until I read in your last paragraph: “These are the prelates and clergy who will go with the Bergoglian sect”. Not sure what you meant. (?)

  3. I’m with you, but what does the end-game look like? We’ve been stuck in the opening for decades, we’ve now been thrust into attacks and counter-attacks of the mid-game. But how does this look when it’s all over? What’s to stop Francis, when mated, from up-ending the board?

    If he’s proven, beyond a doubt, to be a formal heretic, and he says “so what, I’m still pope, and you’re excommunicated!” What do the small number of faithful bishops do then? There’s no way to depose them. If he dies, he’ll likely be replaced by another of his stripe.

    In the case that it’s found he’s not a validly elected pope, but the majority of the Cardinals support him, then what? Is there a procedure to elect another pope with a minority of the cardinals?

    I’m sure Burke has more concrete knowledge about what the procedures are, being a canon lawyer. I’m confused as to what the next steps look like?

    I think it’s no coincidence that most modern philosophers reject the principle of excluded middle, if not other important first principles.

    • That’s not how it works, Aaron. If he outs himself as a pertinacious formal heretic, he isn’t pope any more. Anyone who follows him is in schism. They may have all the buildings, the approval of all the world, but they’ll be a schismatic, heretical sect. It won’t matter what it looks like.

      • I disagree that it doesn’t matter what it looks like. What it is is more important, clearly, but what it looks like matters. One of the biggest issues I have with the Francis papacy is how hard it is to evangelize to family and friends. They all see what the pope is doing and saying, and say that if the pope says it, that’s the church’s teaching, end of story. They are wrong, but I’m concerned for their souls, and want them to come to Christ’s church.

        This could end up looking like an anti-pope and the multitudes of bishops, priests, and pewsitters claiming to be the real church, and the sane small remnant also claiming to be the real church. In the eyes of the person you’re trying to convert, it looks like we are the crazy fringe sect. We look like the “Not my president!” idiots during the Bush administration or the birthers under Obama.

        I’m totally fine looking like a loony. I’m an INTJ. I’m used to it. But lacking any sort of authority recognized by the common man is an impediment to the common man’s conversion.

        • This is precisely why I think we so desperately need this clarity that the split is going to provide. It might take a little more work to explain it to relatives and friends, but the current situation is much much worse.

          It sounds from what you say like the job you have with these people is explaining the error of papal positivism that has become pervasive, and upon which much of Bergoglio’s success has rested. For which, moreover, we can mostly thank John Paul II. It is an opportunity, isn’t it, to explain that the pope does not make up doctrine, that there are lawful limits to the dogma of papal infallibility and that the office cannot include contradicting Christ or any other doctrine of the Church. That the job of the papacy is not to hear “the spirit” and make up new stuff or reverse and negate old stuff, but to defend the deposit of the Faith.

          it sounds to me like you’ve got a good teaching moment there.

          • I agree that the current situation is probably worse. I personally found evangelization much easier under Benedict. He was far from perfect, but nobody could take what he said and did, and argue that the traditionalist position was not Catholic.

            The fact of the matter is, most people don’t have the philosophical chops, nor the desire and/or ability to obtain them, to parse most of this stuff. We’re supposed to be a religion that the average illiterate peasant can believe. It seems today that in order to believe what the Church actually teaches today, you need an IQ that’s at least 1 standard deviation above the median, and a strong grasp of formal logic.

            Perhaps I’m being thick-headed or defeatist.

          • There’s something people tend to forget when you’re telling someone the truth: the will. The Catholic Faith in its fullness implies an obligation on one’s behaviour. Very often when I was
            teaching high schoolers, the lower grades understood and accepted the
            Faith instinctively because they could see that it was just and true and
            beautiful. Logically and morally coherent. The upper grades, however, had started to think about what they would have to give up, and rejected it because of its implications.

            You can’t force someone to accept reality. But this situation will present us all with a unique teaching moment. It won’t be about convincing them which side is right. It will be about the Faith. Once they know what the truth is, which “side” is in schism will become obvious.


          • I teach high school catechetics. I believe it will take a singular Grace for any student today to recognise and love the truth they hear in their class. And it will need to come from ‘gut instinct’ without having a hope of joining the dots till the future.

          • “Once they know what the truth is, which “side” is in schism will become obvious.”


          • I teach 6th and 8th grade Religion classes at a Catholic school. The 6th graders are still very receptive, and the 8th graders almost completely lost to the Faith. They do not love the Church, but view it with disdain and hostility. Couple that with an almost complete ignorance of the Faith. I’m hearing the same from a lot of teachers. Something is happening as they hit late middle school and early high school.

          • Existence of Iphones don’t help anyone evangelise middle school student group because facebook and twitter fill gaps formerly occupied by thinking, and discourage reflection. Vocab. and comprehension are down. I wish schools mandated iphones in lockers all day.I teach government primary and high schools – yrs 6 and 8!

          • Agreed about the iPhones. The response I’m getting to every moral scenario imaginable (be it abortion, transgender, you name it) is a shrug and “Well, they have free will”. Total moral vacuum. No ability to judge the rightness of an action and stonewall resistance to learning it. Every depravity is accepted without question. I expect my students will be defending bestiality within the next ten years. Attempts on my part are typically met with blank stares and stopped ears, and are immediately forgotten when the iPhones come out.

            Sacramental participation among the students is way down. Fewer and fewer confirmations. They’re not excited about the direction Pope Francis is taking the Church. They’re not worried either. They couldn’t possibly care less. They’re already half out the door.

            The Church in America won’t know what hit it. We think catechesis and sacramental participation are bad now. When these kids hit their twenties and thirties, it’s gonna whack us like a two-by-four.

          • They hit puberty and soon realize how their novus ordo parish is so infantile. The real men have abandonded the parish becuase of the homosexual pastor and lesbian nuns running the parish council. The real males either left the church or joined FSSP, SSPX, or another independent trad community. The true faith challenges everyone and young teens need to be challenged not coddled like 8 year olds.

          • Agreed. I think it’s the combination of an infantile experience of the Church and the discovery of pornography, myself. One pushes them out as another draws them in.

          • Aaron, I totally understand where you are coming from. My five sons all fell away from the Church the minute they moved out and I wasn’t there making them go to Mass. While I can understand why they left (i myself had a hard time; I fell in and out of attending Mass), I realize i hadn’t been catechized. Once I did it for myself (which involved a LOT of hours of reading online) I was like – WTH!! WHY DIDN’T ANYONE TEACH ME THIS STUFF???!!! I was furious. So I try to talk to my boys and they say, I’m glad you believe, Mom, but I don’t and you can’t force someone to believe. Also they have no interest in learning the truth because it involves hours online reading some pretty hard stuff. I can’t talk to them about it at all. If I bring it up, the room goes silent and then the subject gets changed. So I say 15 decades every day. I try to fast and offer up penances and lots and lots of tears. I can’t for the life of me figure out or even imagine how they will ever be converted. What with the fags, climate change, and forced attendance on sleep-in Sunday mornings there is no way they will voluntarily look into the Latin Mass I attend. They’ve been and think it takes forever. Our Lady of Fatima convert us!!!

          • I am asking St. Monica, my Confirmation patron, to intercede for you. May your prayers and penances move the Holy Ghost to convert your sons. Don’t ever give up! (From another Mom, in admiration)

    • Bishop Schneider called this in 2014:

      Q. Can you see a split coming in the Church?

      BAS: ‘Unfortunately, for some decades some clergy have accepted these ideas of the world. Now however they are following them publicly. When these things continue, I think, there will be an interior split in the Church of those who are faithful to the faith of their baptism and of the integrity of the Catholic faith. There will be a split with those who are assuming the spirit of this world and there will be a clear split, I think. One can imagine that Catholics, who remain faithful to the unchangeable Catholic truth may, for a time, be persecuted or discriminated even on behalf of those who has power in the exterior structures of the Church? But the gates of the hell, i.e. of the heresy, will not prevail against the Church and the Supreme Magisterium will surely issue an unequivocal doctrinal statement, rejecting any collaboration with the neo-pagan ideas of changing e.g. the Sixth Commandment of God, the meaning of sexuality and of family. Then some ‘liberals’, and many collaborators with the spirit of this world, many modern “thurificati et traditores” will leave the Church. Because the Divine truth will unresistingly bring the clarification, will set us free, and will separate in the midst of the Church the sons of the Divine light and the sons of the of the pseudo-light of this pagan and anti-Christian world. I can presume that such a separation will affect each level of the Catholics: lay people and even not excluding the high clergy. Those clergy who accept today the spirit of the pagan world on morality and family declare themselves Catholics and even faithful to the Pope. They even declare extremists those who are faithful to the Catholic faith or those who are promoting the glory of Christ in the liturgy.’

      So what does it look like? If they attempt formal correction and he persists, then some form of declaration will have to be made. How that happens remains to be seen, because it’s never been done, and there is no established procedure (in canon law or otherwise.) [Edit: Hilary posted a link to the most likely path as I was writing this.]

      But we know this:

      “You must resist, therefore, to his face a Pope who openly is tearing the Church apart… There are also many ways by which, without rebellion, the secular princes and the prelates, if they wish to use them, could offer resistance and impediment to abuse of power… Let them meet with fitting remedies the destructive abuse of power by not obeying the wicked, not flattering, not being silent, by accusing, arguing, summoning the princes to rebuke, following Paul’s example, and his command: ‘And say to Archippus: heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfill it’ (Col. 4:17).”
      – from “The Authority of Pope and Council Compared”, by Tommaso de Vio, Cardinal Cajetan, chapter 27.

      • I answer that the pontiff cannot be deposed and lose the pontificate except if two conditions are fulfilled


        That the heresy is not hidden, but public and legally notorious;

        Then that he must be incorrigible and pertinacious in his heresy.

        If both conditions are fulfilled the pontiff may be deposed, but not
        without them; and even if he is not unfaithful interiorly, however if he
        behaves externally as a heretic, he can be deposed and the sentence of
        deposition will be valid.

        Concerning the first requirement, some among Catholics are of a
        different opinion, saying that even for an occult heresy [Editor:
        occult = “hidden”, “not visible”], the Pontiff loses his papal
        jurisdiction, which is based on the true Faith and right confession of
        Faith; supporting this opinion we have Torquemada (1, 2, 2 p. from v. 18 and 1. 2, c. 102), Paludanus, Castro, Simancas, Driedo […]

        Others think that it is necessary that the heresy must be external and proved in the external forum in order that the Pontiff can be deposed of the pontificate; thus Soto (4 Sent. D. 22, q. 2. 2); Cano (from Locis, 1. 4), who believes that the contrary opinion is not even probable; Cajetan (On the Pope’s power, De Comparatione auctoritatis papae and concilii cum apologia eiusdem tractatus; Rome, Angelicum, 1936; c. 18 and 19), Suárez, Azorius, Bellarmine (On the Roman Pontiff, c. 30).

        The principle is that occult heretics, as long as they are not condemned by the Church and being separated [by her], belong to the Church and are in communion with her, as like being moved from the exterior,
        even if they do not receive any more interiorly the vital movement;
        therefore the Pontiff, if he is an occult heretic, is not separated from
        the Church; therefore, he can still be the head, since he is still a
        part and a member, even if he is not a living one.

        A confirmation of it is that the priests of a lower order can
        exercise the power of order and jurisdiction without Faith because a
        heretical priest can confer the sacraments and give absolution in cases
        of extreme need […]

        The second condition, in order to be able to depose the Pope, namely that he is guilty of incorrigible and pertinacious heresy, is evident, because if someone is ready to be corrected and is not pertinacious in heresy, is not considered to be heretical (Decree of Gratian, No. 24. 3. 29 “Dixit Apostolus.”); therefore, if the Pope is ready to be corrected, he should not be deposed as a heretic.

          • Of course. This is why we now wait the next step. The pope does not hold his heresy privately. That’s the whole point of the dubia; they are asking if he really meant what he seems to have meant in a very public document that he or his proxies have said is “magisterial”. The break becomes real when a “declaratory sentence” is given by the competent authority. Do the background reading before posting. It helps.

          • No need for snark, Miss White. Not every request for further clarification is meant as a challenge. Doing my background reading from a link you posted is why I quickly amended my response to a polite “Never mind”. At any rate, I enjoy your writing and your thoughts. Keep up the good work.

    • Ultiimately, Aaron, what it will look like on the ground is the Church being greatly reduced, indeed, a tiny fraction of her former numbers, shut out of their parishes and institutions by the Bergoglians and going back to the beginning, while being denounced and calumniated by the Bergoglian sect, the sect that all the world will call “the Catholic Church” because of its size and material wealth. We’ll be back in the catacombs… or more likely the hotel conference rooms.

      • Letter of St. Athanasius
        to Catholics Suffering at the Hand of Arian Heretics

        May God comfort you. I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you,
        but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence,
        you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but
        you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside
        of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith,
        within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith.
        Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He
        who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith? Good indeed is the place,
        when the Apostolic Faith is preached there, holy is it if the Holy One dwell
        there. (After a little:) But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church,
        dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even
        the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken.

      • Or the basement of an office building, like the Boston SSPX chapel. I like to think of it as heading down into the Catacombs each Sunday.

        • Or this…


          or this…


      • Isn’t that what the SSPX has been doing all along? In the “de facto schism” you describe, the only group not embracing the new paradigm has been the Society, so they have been in the true Church since their beginning.
        I don’t see the scenario you have described coming to fruition because you’re asking a lot of the “conservative” NO bishops and Cardinals, who have certainly all compromised with NuChurch, to now change their ways and become completely Traditional. They must be willing to throw the whole V2 council and its documents in the dustbin. Is that what you see happening?

      • Looks like prudence on the part of Bishop Fellay to not rush into any agreement with Rome; not that they really need it since most honest observers will admit that they have always been part of the Church. Neo Conservative Catholics excepted, of course.

    • end-game = Liberty and exaltation of Holy Mother Church via Divine intervention. Very close now as the article indicates but I also believe the low point [persecuction and suffering upon Christians and the World] is yet to bottom out. Pope Francis though is on the downhill.

  4. A few hierarchs may be waking up , Hilary, but I still think the vast majority are living in denial. They will keep singing their “unity, unity, don’t be divisive” mantra while Bergoglio leads them by their terrified noses to the gates of hell itself.

    They are blissfully unaware that if the errors in AL are taken on board by the Church then the rational basis for the entire Catholic religion will be destroyed. They really are as clueless as the dupes that went along with Arianism for a quiet life. We can only watch and wait to see how many have any vestige of grace left in them.

    • That’ll be for God to judge then. For our part it is much simpler. If Bergoglio persists in his public heresy after being challenged and corrected, he won’t be pope. Anyone who follows him after that, will objectively be schismatics, whatever their muddled brains might be thinking.

      • Yes, once he is declared as deposed by those with the authority to make that declaration. In the meantime this internet thingummy is a very useful tool to spoil their monopolization of the newsflow and media – the trads have all the best blogs. Perhaps the social media will play a part in Bergoglio’s “Brexit”.

      • I’d venture to say that until recently, the average NO Catholic in the pew never heard the word “schism”. I’d further bet that most of them don’t even know the definition of schism.

        Otherwise, fantastic article.

      • It will be interesting when the future schismatics rule all of the temporal goods of the Church. That would mean the true Christians would be a small, faithful group of persecuted as they were in the first three hundred years of Christianity. I really don’t think this is what B16 pictured in that overused quote of him thinking of a “small Church.” I don’t think B16 imagined it would get as small as it’s about to get. But…we will grow bigger than the progressive parasites on the body of Christ because a parasite can’t live without a host. That “host,” the purified mystical body, will be the sacrifice of life that will lead to true and many vocations, but the big group with the power and Churches (those with the temporal resources) will dry up, if for no other reason than lack of inspiration for young men to follow old gay men. The small group will grow rapidly, if we are given that much time. Maranatha!

  5. While JPII maintained a scant orthodoxy on paper, he did next to nothing to ensure it’s integrity in the life of the Church. And frankly, pious talk about the truth is of little use unless there’s a will to enforce it; if JPII had one great failure it’s that he disciplined almost no one, preferring instead — for reasons God only knows — to let the modernist cancer run rampant.

          • He is a saint and if you say he isn’t, you are in the same sect of Pope Francis and the innovators, the sect you decry, i.e. the sect of unbelievers.
            Borrowing from you, no “third way” here.

          • This is the whole problem with the whole glassy-eyed fangirl schtick of “Saint John Paul The Greatest Poap Evaahr”… no one praying for the poor man.

          • When one is declared a saint by the Church, my understanding is we pray to them for their intercession – they already are in Heaven. If we pray for the repose of their soul, then it means they are not yet in heaven. On what authority are you claiming that JPII is not in heaven?

            By the way, I don’t think he was the “Greatest Poap Evaahr” …I am however, quite taken aback by your seeming certainty that he is not in heaven, when the Church has declared he is.

          • Compare her position and those of the same thinking with that of the ninth article of the Creed is, ‘[I believe in] the Holy Catholic Church; the Communion of Saints’.

          • So you deny the miracle of the nun who was completely cured of Parkinson’s disease through John Paul’s intercession that led to his beatification? She is alive today. Why not interview her Hilary? It is so frustrating to see such arrogance and cynicism.. Just as we all need to follow the example of the serene behavior of the four cardinals, journalists or bloggers should follow the example of Edward Pentin.

      • I am completely content with God’s discernment as to whether he served Him well. It is much too easy to be so self assured and ramble off things and yet potentially be very far from the Heart of Christ.

    • That’s a great and saintly Pope you malign.
      scant orthodoxy on paper you write? The 5 dubia of the 4 Brave Bishops who are Cardinals based on Familiaris Consortio, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, Veritatis Splendor, and Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000 by and under the great and saintly Pope and also on Sacramentum Caritatis by Pope Emeritus BXVI.
      A plain conclusion follows. If Pope Francis and the innovators can’t get past Pope St. John Paul II, then the latter and his teaching are rooted in orthodoxy and he is not a modernist as they appear to be.

      • Regarding the canonization of JPII “Joaquin Navarro-Valls, who served as Vatican spokesman under Pope John Paul, told the conference…people must remember that beatification is not a judgment on a pontificate, but on the personal holiness of the candidate.”

        Additionally, Cardinal Angelo Amato, prefect of the Congregation for Saints’ Causes, stated: “Pope John Paul II is being beatified not because of his impact on history or on the Catholic Church, but because of the way he lived the Christian virtues of faith, hope and love.”

        So, yeah, he was canonized in spite of his pontificate, during which time — as he himself admits — Catholic Europe underwent a silent apostacy.

        And why would that be? Oh yeah, because he didn’t discipline any of the apostates who were ravaging the flock.

        • This thing is just crazy. So he was personally holy – holy to a heroic degree? Since when is it holy to allow ravening wolves to scatter the flock with nary a word. He MUST have known what Francis knows. The Pope has the POWER to give orders. The Pope has the POWER to forbid. The Pope has the POWER to get rid of bad priests and bad bishops. John Paul II either did not see after all, or was blinded by modernism or was afraid to lose a few people who would resist in order to save millions of souls.

          Show me a pope who is also a Saint in the Catholic Church who allowed such awful things to happen on his/her watch – just show me.

          • Thank you, Barbara, for the logical thinking. JP II was canonized for one reason and one reason only: to certify and legitimize the Revolution that was spawned by the likes of him at the Council and after (he wrote the section concerning the change in the language regarding the ends of marriage in GS; he was the papal architect of universal salvationism; and he turned the papacy into a personality cult).

            A Restorationist Pope will eventually, more than likely, have to annul the canonization (and perhaps those of others, i.e. the greasing of the canonization skids of Escriva through the money of Opus Dei).

          • So I guess the miracle of that nun who had Parkinson’s disease being completely cured due to the intercession of John Paul is a hoax in your eyes too. Let’s get a grip here.

          • You should read the life about St. John Paul II , I thought the same way you did but when I read about his life, I was surprised on things I never heard about, he was a saint.

          • Really when I think this through what does it matter now? Is the Church better off now? No. Are more people being saved now? No. Do we have more priests? No. Do we have more nuns? No. Do more people believe 100% what the Church teaches? No.

            That’s my criteria. That was all on JP’s watch and I see no excuse for it.

          • How do you explain Judas betraying Christ? Didn’t He have the “Power” too? People have the ‘power’ to say “no” non serviam.

          • What “people” have is free will. By the way, John Paul II had free will too – along with all the power he had by virtue of his exalted office. He freely chose to ignore bad teaching and preaching, and bad actions. This he did freely knowing the result that would follow. And his papacy was so long that he had plenty of time to see the fruits of his leniency. Was he a nice guy? Maybe. What he a good shepherd? No. Is his behaviour worth of emulation? No.

        • Catholic apostasy in WESTERN Europe began long before Pope John Paul II. Wake up and realize that. The Catholic faith NEVER died out in Poland…not during their constant wars against Sweden, the Ottomans and Russia in the 17th century, not during nthe 123 years of partition by Protestant Prussia, Orthodox Russia and all rad trads’ favorite monarchy, the Austrian Hapsburgs, and not during World War II and Communism. The Church was a mainstay against Communism and helped bring it down.

          Western Europe created its own problems. John Paul II was not the Pope during Henry Tudor’s reign, not during Luther’s heresies, not during the French Revolution, not during the Franco Prussian War, not during the wars of Italian unification and not during the Spanish Civil War. So John Paul II did not fix the crisis of faith in Western Europe that has its roots in all of these historical events? What Pope could?

          The Jesuits have been a mess for decades. They ought to be suppressed. Oh, that’s John Paul II’s fault, too.

          John Paul II was far from a perfect Pope but I am sick and tired of so called Catholics blaming him for everything that went wrong with the Church. At some point the bishops of the dioceses have to accept responsibility for what happened.

          I want to see those who point fingers and complain about that Pope John Paul II did or did not do have to walk a lifetime in his shoes. Some smart aleck replied to me to “give the KGB a break”. They only tried to kill him and almost succeeded. Leftists hated John Paul II. Atheists like Ted Turner and Catholic leftists like Gary Willis hated him, too.

          • Just view the videos where JP II is practicing ecumenism with outright pagans and read the crazy things he said and did at these occasions and you’ll know that he was a modernist.

          • So according to you, we cannot even pray with people of other faiths? We cannot even affirm our commonality.
            No wonder there is a term: rad trad.

          • What commonality is there between pagans and Christians? As St. Paul said: “The things which which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils” (I Cor. 10:20).

          • You think Jews and Muslims are pagans? You think we have no commonality at all with other people who are not Christian? That is just plain stupid.

          • I’m not speaking about Jews and Muslims, since they are monotheists and I supposed that you knew that. I’m speaking about JP’s ecumenism with outright pagans.

            The commonality we have with pagans is the commonality of sharing human nature and being fallen, sinful beings, who must be saved by Christ in order to be reconciled with God and obtain eternal life. So our duty towards pagans is to bring them the message of the Gospel, not to confirm them in their idolatry. It is a very big sin to withold the message of the Gospel from them. Yet this is what JP II did.

          • It’s an outright lie to say that JP2 withheld from them the Gospel. To try to find a commonality first AND THEN call them to the Gospel is a very sound evangelizing practice.

            Bashing people with the Gospel is not a good idea. And neither is isolating yourself from them because they are pagans.

            I work with a Muslim and instead of preaching Jesus to them directly I talk about God with them. Then I slowly bring in Jesus.
            There are converts to the faith who testify that their conversion process was in such a way. You should read Night’s Dark Brightness.

          • And you should read St. Paul’s sermon which he held in Athens (Acts 15:22-34), where he introduced the resurrected Messiah in a couple of verses, starting from the inscription to the unknown God. In one and the same speech he introduced the concept of the one true God and the Lord Jesus Christ to the Athenians.

            To my knowledge JP II never in any ecumenical meeting made clear that eternal salvation is only by faith in Christ. He even performed such blasphemous acts as kissing the Quran and handling it as if it were Holy Scripture. If one just considers that according to Muslim theology the Quran was given because the Jews and the Christians had falsified the Holy Scriptures and thus a new revelation was necessary, this makes clear how wicked Islam is, as it is rooted in a radicalized form of Replacement Theology based on envy against Judaism and Christianity.

            Such acts of participating in other religions are despicable for a Pope. My point is not that one should be unfriendly or harsh but there are clear ritual distinctions to be upheld in order to avoid confusion.

          • The Messias-Deniers and the followers of the psychotic pedophilic murderer who drank camel urine have no commonality with Christians other than the fact they are all creatures of God

            The Messias-Deniers, the synagogue of Satan, and the Mahometans do not worship the same God as do we and the Messias-Deniers and the Mahometans are rank racial supremacists every bit as execrable as the nazis/skinheads/Black Lives Matter/Rev Jeremiah Wright

          • This practice has been specifically forbidden by Popes – we are to invite those in sects to come into the One True Church. Praying with them is just foolish when we know they are not in communion with Christ – HE FOUNDED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, AND NO OTHER.

          • Liberals hated him for not being liberal enough, but JP II wasn’t orthodox. His ecumenism went way too far, as was particular clear from his scandalous participation in an animistic ritual in Togoville, 1985.

            In his “theology of the body” JP II put the two ends of the marital act, procreation and expression of love, on an equal level, thereby implying that the traditional priority of procreation was abolished. Although it was probably never his intent, this essentially opened the door to the sexual mess we see under Francis. Ultimately, this will inevitably lead to the legalizing of homosexual unions in the Church.

          • Never said he was a perfect Pope. He would admit the same. It is easy to point fingers and assess blame. Thing is the Catholic Church is not an absolute monarchy and you will never get the perfect orthodox Pope.

          • I find this a problematic statement. For either a person is orthodox or he is a heretic. There is no in-between here.

          • I’m way ahead of you, my friend, and wide awake to the
            reality of the Church’s perennial battles. Read up:


            What you fail to describe in your litany of woes is that for
            centuries the Church possessed the liturgical, theological, and DISCIPLINARY antibodies to successfully fight these infections. Certainly there have been bouts of sickness and decline throughout the ages, but absolutely nothing like what we see in the wake of VII and throughout JPII’s pontificate.


            I acknowledge that he inherited a mess. The Oath was long
            gone, the sacraments denuded, disciplines abandoned, and dissenters promoted. One of the great travesties of the 20th century was JXXIII’s decision to send as “expert advisors” to the Council the very theologians that PXII had censured; their works were taken off the Index, and with an appeal to the “medicine of mercy” JXXIII brought these wolves out of the shadows and into positions of power and influence.


            The best that can be said for JXXIII was that he blundered, presumably thinking that, when faced with a pledge of pastoral leniency, these relativist theologians would somehow meekly resolve to abandon their errors. Predictably, they did not get the memo, and consequently continued their mischief, first at the Council, but then throughout the pontificate of JPII.

            Which gets to the heart of my problem with the late pontiff. Assuming the very best, his predecessors may be forgiven for their misguided efforts to evangelize the world by trying bring the Church “up to date”; but by the time JPII came on the scene it was painstakingly clear that those strategies were not only failing (and badly), but that their most vocal proponents were now running amok, sowing confusion, heresy, and corruption the world over. The ruse was up, and as such JPII had one mission; namely, defend the flock, condemn error, and root out corruption. In other words, reverse course. But he didn’t. He made many fine affirmations of some aspects of Catholic teaching, but the man was loathe to correct let alone discipline anyone, and in failing to do so he is responsible for the spread of the cancer.

            In a matter of months Francis utterly decimated the FFI, which is to say, when a pontiff has a will to suppress a certain faction in the
            Church he may do so. But JPII didn’t; not with the pink palace seminaries, the paganizing nuns, and so on; instead, he sat by while the likes of Mahoney hounded Mother Angelica out of her control over EWTN.

            So to close, I have never suggested, as you absurdly charge, that JPII is to blame for everything that went wrong; nevertheless I do blame him for his choice to coddle rather than confront those wrongs.

          • JPII was far too trusting of the men around him. In one of his books he admits as such. It was in hius psychological makeup as well as his upringing. Remember that liberals hated him more than traditionalists (I am one) and the KGB tried to have him killed. My charge was not “”absurd”. You flatter yourself.

          • Sorry, pal, you don’t get to pretend your absurdities didn’t happen:

            “I am sick and tired of so called Catholics blaming him for everything that went wrong with the Church.”

            This was your response to me. Own it. I never blamed JPII “for everything that went wrong in the Church”, and as such it was absurd for you to say so — to say nothing of labeling me a “so-called” Catholic…that was just childish.

            EDIT: Also, you’ve conceded my point. According to you, JPII apparently admitted his own failure; namely, that his misplaced trust left him unable to properly discern whom to trust. But in the end it doesn’t matter. A failure resulting from an excess of good will is still a failure, and while it may lessen a person’s culpability (i.e. they meant well), it does nothing to mitigate the damage of that failure.

            Yet with that said, I still find it difficult to believe that a mere excess of trust was responsible for his doing nothing about Mahoney, Maciel, or the pink palaces which devastated countless vocations.

          • Not your pal… tired of holier than thou types such as yourself. Go be a Cardinal and clean up the mess yourself since you know everything.

        • But if he is a saint he has obviously been forgiven by God for any failings that you think he had, and is in the company of the elect in heaven. I remember so many times hearing him speak with such moral force and passion and I thank God for his presence in the church. He gave us a Catechism that we desperately needed and need now more than ever. He warned us as to what was coming upon us in 1976 at the Eucharistic Congress in Philidelphia.
          He taught us how to endure the cross and how to follow Our Christ. No Pope can be perfect but his depth of spirituality and faith cannot be denied. As the expression goes “No good deed goes unpunished.” The Blessed Mother told Father Gobbi that John Paul was her pope and chosen by her. We now have the great benefit of his intercession on behalf of the church. St. John Paul please pray for us . I love you Lolek.

          • But if he is a saint he has obviously been forgiven by God for any failings that you think he had

            That wouldn’t make the example set by his pontificate worthy of imitation.

          • How I wish his pontificate was being imitated this very moment!! If we could only be in JP’s shoes for a day we would probably all fall silent and drop to our knees. I am going to take a few weeks now for Advent silence and hope. Bless you and your very good wife Steve.

          • How do you know that for a fact?

            How do you know that his actions were not the actions needed or the best option at the time.

            The funniest thing is that we judge his choices as if we would have made a better a Pope.

            People at the bottom of the hill trying to tell those at the top how to get there.

          • Yes. Right on point. And the purpose of creating Saints is mainly for our emulation (apart from giving glory to God of course). Emulate John Paul II? No.

      • He brought everlasting disgrace on his papacy when in masonic ecumenical syncretistic lunacy he kissed the excremental Koran bringing that gutter religion respect it never ever deserved, every faithful Muslim lives in denial of Christ and the Holy Ghost as God and they are polygamists who marry prepubescent children- they are despicable. Sorry, I don’t drink the KoolAide anymore, John Paul 2 was in charge for the majority of the Vatican 2 dissolution of the delivered Faith, he deserves approbation for the damage he allowed.

      • I’m sick of papolators who gloss over the fact that JPII and BXVI named most of the heretics who are enabling Francis, as if there weren’t any good men to fill the posts of bishop and cardinal. In my opinion, the MOST IMPORTANT function of a pope is to name good bishops. In this, they generally failed miserably.

        • How do you/we know there were any genuinely good men? The church in the US had been infiltrated ages ago (30s – 40s; don’t quote me on the date/s. What about Bella Dodd’s reversion via Arch Sheen? I’m sure some here have knowledge of THAT! And in come the sodomites, care of USSR, et al.)
          I’m in the Arch of DC, so we have both BHO AND Wuerl to deal with. I understand Wuerl was actually a student of J. Ratzinger’s. My impression is that sodomites are, UNFORTUNATELY, EXCELLENT actors AND networkers. Look at Hollywood. BESIDES, perhaps The Lord has His own reasons for allowing all this swill. The miracle will be all that much more obvious to those with eyes to see, and give great honor to Him, through His Mother Mary, IMHO.

    • I see it differently.

      First let me say that JPII was instrumental in keeping me AWAY from the Catholic faith due to what I at the time considered his universalism and religious indifferentism. I had to put that behind me in order to convert in 2013.

      I see it this way:

      JPII had his own problems, some of which still trouble me.

      But when you look at just how BAD things had gotten in the Church, the work he did was immense.

      It was like JP had a friend Mary who suffered a gunshot wound right in the guts and was bleeding out with little time to spare. JP arrived on the scene and stuffed his T-shirt in the wound, tied the whole mess up with baling twine and packed her into his ’68 Ford half ton pickup while his friend Benny drove the bumpy dirt road to the hospital. Mary passed out a few times and JP administered CPR on the way and once in hospital, Dr H Geist revived her and started to work. She was improving but the wound was a mess, full of dirt and even germs left by JP’s shirt.

      See, JP and Benny did what they could.

      Then along came George who visited Mary in the hospital. He was a friend of JP’s and Benny’s but when they were gone he thought Mary looked so forlorn he gave her candy and pop against the instructions of Dr Geist and sent her into insulin shock.

      Just then 4 janitors walked by and saw her slump and called for the Doctor. George insisted wasn’t doing anything wrong and the Doctor had to ask the janitors to restrain him until security arrived to sort out the mess.

      In the meantime Dr Geist is doing what he can.

      Mary’s pretty tough but she’s been through a lot.

      But the doc is the best there is and my money is on a full recovery..

      • JPII may have kept his hand on the doctrinal rudder and said, “No further”. But when it came disciplining and removing the wolves who were ravaging his flock, he was asleep at the wheel. Even as he acknowledged that Catholic Europe was undergoing a “silent apostasy” he did almost nothing to reign in the apostates who were reaping such a harvest of souls — to devastating effect.

        For all his faults, Francis at least has the spine to deal with his adversaries. Look what he did to the FFI in a matter of months; utterly dismantled. And the CDW? Gutted with the stroke of a pen.

        • The FFI were not adversaries! But they were and are holy, prayerful, penitential, and faithful and none of those things are valued by some in high places. The FI remaining ones are hanging on and going about their duty and praying to the Immaculate to intervene.

        • How do you know that what he did is precisely what was needed to be done at precisely that time?
          You must think you are more intelligent, wise and saintly than he is such that your judgments are better.

          • In what universe is allowing scum like Mahoney, Weakland, and Daneels the impunity to abuse the flock “precisely what was needed to be done at precisely that time?”

            Good grief.

            John Vennari once compared the JPII Church to a parent who, in an attempt to “manage” a houseful of unruly teenagers, simply puts a list of rules on the refrigerator before leaving the young hellions unattended.

            It’s a recipe for disaster, or at least silent apostasy, and so it has been.

            Complete dereliction of duty on the disciplinary front to the utter devastation of the flock.

          • I TOTALLY agree. That being said, even the popes are human, and remember JP2’s background. And Benedict KNOWS he is not a good administrator. PLUS, we have to remember the enemy agents have been in the Church for a LONG time. JP2 came from a USSR-controlled Poland. Besides, IMHO, even though I do agree with you, he got the ball rolling.

    • Funny how easily people forget that it was John Paul II who abolished the canonization process that would have made it impossible for him to be canonized.

      • Thank you for pointing this out as I had forgotten it. This is very sad, eh? That we have been put in this situation. Is he a saint or not? He may be in Heaven as God is Judge. But thinking him in Heaven, and actually putting him forth as someone to emulate, i posit are not the same thing.

    • And don’t for get the pederasty infection running in parallel, competing for the attention of what few white blood cells were still around as well. A blind eye was turned from the top down (the Maciel case being perhaps the archetypical example).

      (But, we were told, his canonization was unrelated to his leadership of the Church, so no issues.)

    • Let’s not forget the pederasty cancer fighting for the attention of what white blood cells remained as well: A collective blind eye was turned, of course, from the top-down, for decades.

      The notorious Fr. Maciel might be the archetypical example. He could have and should have been stopped long before Benedict XVI acted.

  6. Francis has already been excommunicated from the Church via Pope Pius XII’s Decree Against Communism. I think Pope Pius XII knew what he was doing to protect the Church and the Papacy itself.

  7. Great piece, thank you. I totally identify with preferring the purification of open war to the sleepiness of denial; this Pope and his mob are purifying us.

  8. A very good article, but, with all respect to the author, I can’t share her optimism. Were the Pope and his lackeys willing to come out and openly challenge the people to choose sides, all they’d have to do is answer the 5 questions.
    … No, I think they’re content to continue surreptitiously poisoning our food and drink, upping the dosage with increased frequency, until the delirium of the faithful becomes so ingrained, we won’t be able to remember what sobriety feels like.

    • … No, I think they’re content to continue surreptitiously poisoning
      our food and drink, upping the dosage with increased frequency, until
      the delirium of the faithful becomes so ingrained, we won’t be able to
      remember what sobriety feels like.

      This is exactly what watered down CCD programs have taught over the last fifty years or so right along with all the emotional gobble-de-gook. The poison entered the Church officially at Vatican II.

      I know. I am old enough to say that some very good nuns back in the day taught me the Baltimore Catechism. Can’t go wrong with that.

  9. Great stuff.


    “Priests will be able to preach the Faith once more, unobstructed by a Neomodernist hierarchy more interested in currying the favour of the world. Vocations will flourish, the religious life will flower again. These are the prelates and clergy who will go with the Bergoglian sect.”

    Remove, “Vocations will flourish, the religious life will flower again.” put it after “sect” (with a new paragraph?), then the ending will make sense…

  10. “The first question, the one that was posed in the context of the region
    having 80% of the population without a creed, is: “Do I have to convince
    these friends – good ones, who work and who are happy – do I have to
    convince them of my faith? What must I say to convince them?” Listen,
    the last thing you must do is to “speak.” – Francis


    “Our love for Jesus and for our neighbor impels us to speak to others
    about our faith. Each believer is thus a link in the great chain of
    believers.” CCC 166.

  11. “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t
    believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is
    the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him
    with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not
    believe in God is to obey their conscience.” – Francis


    “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be
    condemned.” – Mark 16:16; see also CCC 161 (“Believing in Jesus Christ
    and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for
    obtaining that salvation.”)

    • Not everyone who calls upon the lord will be saved, if you say we love God and not keep his commandments we are a liar, no matter how many times we say it, even demons believe in 3 Gods in one and tremble with fear. Mark 16:16 goes with everything the lord has taught and gave his church. Read John 6 :47 to 6:67 very powerful message, the first protestants walked with him no more because they didn’t believe in his flesh just as many today.

  12. I think the vast majority of bishops will opt for “unity” and stay with Francis, either because they agree with him or simply biding their time for a future Pope who could perhaps set things right. They will do their best to paper over his errors and explain them away. Very few will be willing to suffer to openly oppose him, because they will have the nagging feeling that they are betraying Christ by opposing his Vicar. They will doubt themselves, and perhaps convince themselves that what the Pope wants must be what the Holy Spirit wants. And the “faithful”? The vast majority are like children; promise them that they can have what they want and that you will make their lives easier, and they will be with you.

    • Very good chance this is the case, especially because Francis is 80 years old.

      It is his age that I think will prompt many to remain silent. That and his one lung, bad heart and excess blubber. They’ll take the gutless and cynical way out and just wait for him to die. Really, looking at the material we have in bishops today, can you expect much more?

      I’d love to be a fly on the wall in the next conclave.

  13. “Let all the poison that lurks in the mud hatch out”, @disqus_mK0H2m1Df4 (Miss Hilary White) has often said. And Scripture says the rebellion has to run its course or the cup of the LORD’s wrath is to be filled up or the wicked need to attain the full measure of their sins. I believe we are there.

  14. Steve, your readers are advocating a future sedevacantist scenario. I thought this was verbotten on this site. What I would like to know is at what point does/did Bergolio become/became a non-pope. When the 4 Cardinals say so? Or when he promulgated AL? Or was he ever a pope? Please site an authoritative source (preferrably pre V2) and not some theologian who happens to speculate what the process entails. And when we are done with the heresies of Francis, do we then take on the heresies of Modernism and revoke V2 and the NO. Do we then declare all Concilior popes as anti-popes for their support of Modernism? Or do we establish a new more trad friendly, orthodox V2 church? In all your eagerness to depose Francis (and I have no idea how anyone but God can) you are not looking out for the endgame. Theres an old saying about striking the king, I cant remember how it goes but it basically says, Dont Miss!

    • No they aren’t. This isn’t, and has never been, difficult to understand.

      If a competent ecclesiastical body (say, an imperfect council) declares that the man we know has pope has excommunicated himself and is thus no longer capable of exercising the office of the papacy, then at that moment, we may believe that the seat is vacant, and a conclave will proceed apace.

      Whether this will happen at all remains a rather large question mark, but in God’s goodness, we may hope and pray for it to be the case.

      It is not my job to explain to you — ahead of time no less — what rationale will be deployed, what explanations will be given, and what specific actions will be taken. These men are apostolic successors, and they have a grace of state that is unique only to their role as princes of the Church. What they choose to do, if it is guided by Our Lord and consistent with His Church’s teachings, is what we will follow.

      Why the need to complicate this through self-insertion in the process?

  15. Slight correction. The rebellion in the Church hasn’t just been in the last 50 years or so. That’s the period it started manifesting itself openly. Among some of those who comment on the origins of crisis in the Church, Cardinal Burke for example, they say that it originates in the French Revolution. Of course the spirit of the Antichrist is present even in the Apostolic times [cf. Pauline and Johannine writings in the New Testament]. Some even go to the ancient past to the mystery religions in Babylon and Egypt.

    • Of course you are correct. There was open sin in The Garden first. But God DID something about it. He flung Adam and Eve out on their ears. And in every crisis of the past the Church has DONE SOMETHING about the crises. For the past 50 years, unique in our history, popes have done less than nothing – that’s why this crisis is the worst.

  16. You offer hard truths and I applaud you loudly.
    There is much more that could be said, but I fear I do not have the skills to gild this lily.
    God bless you. Abundantly.

  17. I agree Hilary that in many ways manifesting the schism that already existed for decades is healthier in that it makes clear the battle lines. However I think the drama has some way to play out before the greatly merited chastisement and then restoration by Our Lady. Firstly Rome will need to formalize it’s apostasy (which was immanent in Lefebvre’s time) and now is openly evident. Those that are loyal to Christ will be exiled and reviled as the cause of the crisis. Those with Chirst will lose the buildings but keep the Faith until the resurrection.

  18. “Many, many people are deeply upset by all of this.” I guess that depends on one’s definition of “many.”

    These are FOUR bishops out of thousands. (A cardinal has no particular teaching authority outside of his status as a bishop.) Other bishops are not exactly lining up to support them; and many will resist anything that Cdl. Burke advocates just on that fact alone.

    Only a tiny fragment of Catholics even know about this–and an even tinier fragment are concerned. That’s not exactly a movement. It could become one, but I’m not seeing it.

    • You’d be surprised at how many we are. There are also many priests, and some bishops who are very worried. We must let Cardinal Burke et al follow the path they have chosen. Once that plays out and Francis persists, we will have some local leaders we can follow. That’s been the trouble all these past years – no true leader. Once he emerges you will see the tide of faithful stand behind him.

      • Oh, there are more than just the Four. the Polish Episcopal Conference beleives that the silly evnviromental encyclical and Amorti Laetitial is a bunch of garbage. Papa Bergoglio can’t excommunicate the entire Polish Church….they are a lot more Catholic than he is. Being of Polish descent, I know this much…Poles will fight and fight and fight and not quit. Ever.

  19. An exceedingly good discussion from Hilary and a very positive perspective. Her insight and clarity are always like a fresh breeze.

    BUT… We don’t know that the Church survives this in the way she describes. If it comes to a battle like in heaven between the dragon and his angels and Michael and his angels (there’s a patristic reading of “Angel” , I believe, that includes “Bishop”) and only one group can stay…. Well right now, there are maybe 6 on the good guy team and about 200 uncommitted or on the bad guy team.

    So some number between 4 and 200 will ultimately fight for Jesus – meaning deciding if Bergoglio is Catholic or not.

    As Michael, a minor angel, said “who is like God?” two thirds of the heavenly host rallied to his side and he became prince of the heavenly host.

    We haven’t seen that.

    So what happens if it’s, say 30? They can’t stop Bergoglio? What if he excommunicates them?

    It seems to me that Jesus said that can’t happen. Then we’ll need 120+ guys to join with Burke.

    Is there any other way?

  20. I was in RCIA under Benedict and was confirmed under Francis. After a lifetime of Scripture and theology study, I came to the Church from Protestantism, having been convinced of the NEED to convert through the documents of the faith. Only to find out the culture of the Church I converted to was essentially no different than that of the Lutherans I left.

    And then there is Bergoglio…

    I’ve lived in sort of a state of shock for the whole time.


    I am happy as a clam.

    A FIGHT to preserve the faith is something I can rejoice in, troubles and all. And there WILL be troubles!! Many of them! and more chaos to boot! Praise God! He is sifting His Church!

    I am overjoyed. Because simply milling around in a crowd watching Holy Mother Church get molested by a bunch of vestment clad rogues every day made me quite cranky.

    It’s about time we see some action.

    I’d say 4 against 5,000 just about makes it a fair fight.

  21. In spite of my anguish these days over the state of the Church, I have felt a ” freedom” a lifting of a great weight.
    Purity of the heart, is the best way I explain this and Ms. White has identified the reason quite well.

    It is time to serve Christ first, without fear or hesitation. It has always been that way, and I am so grateful for Cardinal Burke and the others who have put this pope on notice as well; our fidelity is to Christ first.
    Let it be seen who is for Him and who is not.

    Thank you Ms. White for another excellent article. You seem to capture the moment so well.

  22. Amen, Hilary! I see the situation exactly as you do and also am drawing joy from it! Praying for strength and wisdom to maintain faithfulness in all that I do within the circles I run in and any situations that I have influence in.

  23. You are quite wrong about John Paul II. He was a truly Catholic pope, not a Modernist enabler. He is rightly canonized as a saint (although I would add that the practice of canonizing anyone so soon after death is dangerous and ill-advised).

    Your category of “conservative” is problematic, and having defined this category, you force John Paul into it like the proverbial square peg, to fit your tidy narrative, wherein the “conservatives” collude together with the Modernists as a one-two gut punch to the Faith (i.e., Modernists gleefully destroying, and “conservatives” sitting back and watching the destruction unfold, complicit in all of it), only to have the Traditionalists eventually ride in and save the day.

    But John Paul II was not a “conservative” in the way you claim. He did not stand back in sinful omission while Modernism ran amok. Just ask any liberal theologian (e.g., Charles Curran, or Hans Kung) what they think of your claim that he stood idly by and watched. Rather, he opposed Modernism in the Church by proclaiming orthodoxy boldly and consistently, using the bully pulpit of the Petrine ministry to speak louder and more forcefully to the world than the modernist bishops and theologians could.

    Your real claim is presupposed rather than openly stated (in the presumption, I guess, that everyone on 1P5 takes it for granted): i.e., that Vatican II brought nothing good whatsoever, and was solely and exclusively a defeat for the Faith. Of course, if that were true, both John Paul II and Benedict would very obviously be complicit in the problem, because each of them participated in the Council itself, and each defended a hermeneutic of continuity, often citing the V2 documents in their papal writings.

    But it is precisely this basic presupposition, which I assume you examine elsewhere but you do not examine here, that needs to be called into question. Vatican II did not bring only destruction; the documents are far less than perfect, but the need they addressed was very real: i.e., the need for Christianity to articulate doctrinally a more direct response to the modern world (roughly the past 200-300 years, especially after the rapid changes of the mid 20th century), which is not simply the same thing as Modernism. When John Paul II draws so frequently on the Christology proclaimed in Gaudium et spes, he is opposing Modernism, not promoting it (as Gaudium et spes itself opposes it).

    Certainly it is undeniable that Modernism in the Church continued to survive and even grow in various places during John Paul’s pontificate. But John Paul was actively seeking to combat this; you make it seem as if it would be an easy matter to stamp the thing out, if only a given pope had the requisite courage, orthodoxy, and willingness to do what is necessary. But what, exactly, is necessary to stamp out such a thing? The Modernism in the Church is fed by Modernism outside the Church in the world, and if the pope were to cut off one head (e.g., by publicly condemning hundreds of theologians and taking away their ability to teach at Catholic schools, or by declaring hundreds of the world’s bishops to be heretics and forcing them to sign an anti-modernist oath), more would grow in their place, because the infection is so pernicious and so widespread. John Paul chose to combat lies by speaking the Truth loudly and boldly. It is not correct that he stood by and did nothing, that he sold the illusion of a perfectly normal status quo. It took hundreds of years to deal with the poison of Arianism, even though numerous saints and Doctors of the Church fought it continually; even so, Arianism never truly died, and rears its head again periodically. Modernism, by definition the sum of all heresies, is therefore to be expected to be even more pernicious, even more difficult to combat than Arianism; how then, can you demand that one pope, even a saint, should be able to easily get rid of it? You confuse failure to utterly destroy the problem with a failure to combat it.

    At this critically important time, the adversary would love nothing more than to divide Traditionalists from the Catholics you unjustly malign as “conservatives.” By separating orthodox Catholics into camps, he weakens the shamefully small opposition to the new regime under Francis. You are encouraging this division, and I’m sure you would admit as much (claiming that you are helping to separate the real Catholics from the “conservative” pretenders like myself). But you are wrong about John Paul, and by casting mud on his good name you assist the enemy as he attempts to divide and conquer.

    • There is much you say here I agree with but as a personal anecdote, I count Pope John Paul II’s hyper-ecumenical spirit as one of the great obstacles to my conversion under his leadership. It smacked of religious indifferentism and as far as I knew at the time {the perspective of a Protestant theology student}, if he represented Catholicism, he represented universalism and anything BUT “extra ecclesiam nula salus”, a doctrine I would only come to know many years later that influenced me in my conversion to the Catholic faith.

      These ecumenical types always seem to think that if they soft pedal the teachings of the Magesterium the herds will stampede toward the Church, when in fact, hard truth trumps shoulder-rubbing any day of the week.

      Most of my friends and family, Protestants all, I think would agree with me 100% {when I was a Protestant} about the Catholic Church giving the impression to the modern world that it teaches a big giant mass of vague suggestions and the doctrine that all are going to heaven regardless of religion, belief, creed or actions, except for maybe Adolf Hitler. Maybe.

    • Okay, we got it; you’re a JPII fan, but when it comes to combatting modernism, his pontificate was milquetoast. Words on paper are one thing, actions are another. Curran and Kung should have been anathemized and banished without a second thought; instead, they were coddled for decades as they spread their poison among the flock.

      You ask what, exactly, is necessary to combat such a thing as modernism? Here’s the rub: the Church already figured that out. JPII didn’t have to do anything except look to his forebears. He could have looked at the damage and the heretics running rampant, and realized that it was the very abandonment of tradition and discipline which was causing the silent apostasy he claimed to lament. Then he could have re-instituted the Oath, revived the Index and the Holy Office, lowered the boom on the Novus Ordo, excommunicated scores or clergy and politicians, and generally gone about restoring all things in Christ.

      Instead, we got ecumenical hand-holding at Assisi. Barf.

      • Only one problem: that approach (i.e., lower the boom) didn’t work. When you try something, and it fails to have the desired effect, you need to try something different or you can expect the same result. The Church spent decades trying to combat Modernism by ‘cracking down’ on it in the form of official censure, oaths, etc., and Modernism in the wider culture and in the Church only continued to gain strength.

        The whole point of Vatican II was to try a different approach, to attempt a direct response to the claims of Modernism. Certainly the result of this attempt is mixed. And the Council was used by Modernists in the episcopacy and the the priesthood and the theological academy as cover for a post-conciliar agenda of tearing apart all doctrines. But some kind of new response was needed; lowering the boom in the 19th and early 20th centuries simply didn’t solve the problem; Catholic clergy and laity were still continuing to be drawn into Modernism, ignoring the official censures / condemnations.

        It is not the case that before the Council everything was fine, with the Church relatively free of Modernism (due to courageous popes cracking down on it), and then during the Council suddenly Modernism entered. Rather, the Council was called in large part to deal with the already extant problem of Modernism among Catholics (and clear proof of this is the sheer number of Modernist bishops and theologians who participated in the Council and pushed hard to move it in a problematic direction).

        • The Modernists took over the council. Every credible history on what transpired there indicates as much. This is why, for example, after three years spent on orthodox schema which were praised by John XXIII and voted in by a majority of council fathers, they were summarily thrown out in violation of standard legal procedure and replaced with those written by a cabal of prelates who had anything but preservation of the faith in mind.

          The original schema have since been translated. I haven’t had the chance to read them yet, but I hear good things:

          • Mr. Skojec, fair enough, as you say, the original schema was pulled and and replaced. I have been informed by Fr. Morello, who used to comment on essays on ‘The Catholic Thing’ and also, now on
            essays on Crisis Magazine is that two documents that emerged from Vatican II have been declared infallible teaching. (I don’t recall which two at this time). And this declaration was not by this papacy.

            So, I am more with Bishop Schneider who thinks that there should be syllabus of errors regarding Vatican II – at least that is my understanding of what he has proposed. Furthermore, in his letter supporting the 4 Cardinals, Bishop Schneider quoted not only the older Tradition of the Church, but also Vatican II and afterward (i.e. St. JPII as well). As such, I think there are some very valid DEVELOPMENT (as opposed to ‘evolution’) that emerged from Vatican II – I will be studying that as soon as I can get some time freed up.

            In my view, there is great danger of throwing the baby out with the very dirty bathwater with some of the rhetoric here regarding Vatican II.

            By the way, I stand totally with the 4 cardinals!

            Update: I just checked the Fr. Morello’s reply to me (that I mentioned above): ” Only the two Dogmatic Constitutions Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum are binding”. …

        • Recently I have viewed the approach of the Council to that of God himself in the OT, “Come now, let us talk this over,” and so, in the end no one would have an excuse because the wicked responded neither to threats nor to the friendly approach.

        • No one ever claimed everything was fine before the Council, Jordan, so I’m not sure why you think that’s relevant. As a matter of fact I am well aware of the Church’s perennial battles.

          The point you’re missing is that up to the very eve of the Council the Church possessed, and successfully exercised, precisely the liturgical, theological, and DISCIPLINARY antibodies needed to fight the infection Modernism. Was it a complete rout? Of course not, but the threefold rigor of courageous popes unafraid to discipline, scholastic precision in the Thomistic tradition, and sacramental rites which eschew all novelty had adeptly kept the sickness in check.

          As such, those who advocated replacing this paradigm with one of disciplinary laxity (the “medicine of mercy”), updated language (the nouvelle theologie), and protestant friendly sacraments were either naïve or nefarious.

          And why is this? Because this paradigm, by its very nature, made it so much easier to confuse and corrupt the faithful. As you freely admit “the Council was used by Modernists in the episcopacy and the the priesthood and the theological academy as cover for a post-conciliar agenda of tearing apart all doctrines.”

          Clearly they had the same agenda before the Council, so why have all their greatest triumphs come in its wake? You claim the results of VII were mixed, but that is not supportable. The results of altering this paradigm have been an absolute disaster because absent her pre-conciliar rigor, the Church quickly went from fighting an illness to terminal infection:

          And is it any wonder? When you remove known dissenters from their well deserved censure, and unleash them as “expert advisors” on the Council, things are going to go downhill quickly.

          Which gets to the heart of my problem with JPII. Assuming the very best, his predecessors may be forgiven for their misguided efforts to evangelize the world by trying bring the Church “up to date”; but by the time JPII came on the scene it was painstakingly clear that those strategies were not only failing (and badly), but that their most vocal proponents were now running amok, sowing confusion, heresy, and corruption the world over.

          The ruse was up, and as such JPII had one mission; namely, defend the flock, condemn error, and root out corruption. In other words, reverse course to the paradigm that had seen the Church thrive throughout the ages. But he didn’t. He made many fine affirmations of some aspects of Catholic teaching, but the man was loathe to correct let alone discipline almost anyone, and in failing to do so he is responsible for the spread of the disease.

          In a matter of months Francis utterly decimated the FFI, which is to say, when a pontiff has a will to suppress a certain faction in the
          Church he may do so to great effect. But JPII didn’t; not with the pink palace seminaries, the paganizing nuns, and on and on and on; instead, he sat by while the likes of Mahoney hounded Mother Angelica out of her control over EWTN.

          JPII is obviously not to blame for everything that went wrong; nevertheless he is to blame for all the damage that occurred through his choice to coddle rather than confront those wrongs.

          • Brian, thanks for your reply. Just to warn you, what follows is pretty lengthy.

            There can be no denying that destruction of the liturgy and heterodox teaching from many bishops and academic theology faculties continued throughout the 80s and 90s (although there was definitely some cracking down by the CDF under Ratzinger, approved by JPII). The ‘buck stops’ with the Pope, and so it would be disingenuous for me to say that John Paul II is not responsible in any way for that situation.

            As someone who is ready to defend the contribution John Paul II made to the Church in terms of his papal writings (his encyclicals, his Theology of the Body catechesis, etc.), I have gradually realized over the past 10 years that even those convinced that John Paul is a truly good Pope (as you can obviously tell I am) must acknowledge some elements of his leadership style to be ineffective in combating the enormous crisis. He was effective in reinvigorating millions of Catholics, especially the youth, with passion for the New Evangelization (i.e., the re-evangelization of Europe, which had largely abandoned the Faith after WW2). He was effective in counteracting the narrative of the ‘spirit of V2’ theologians by showing that the Council documents support orthodoxy and not heterodoxy. But as you correctly point out, it is not accurate to say that he was very effective in combating the horrific abuse of the liturgy that had begun in the 70s and continued during his pontificate, nor in directly confronting the bishops, priests, theologians who were spreading heterodox teaching.

            I have come to believe that John Paul’s approach was determined by at least two major factors: one, a conviction that if he simply started ‘cleaning house’ by publicly taking punitive action against heterodox bishops, or by emptying theology faculties and replacing them, that this would be widely perceived both in the secular world but also in the Church itself as a purge, thereby undermining the message. Think about how clear it was to everyone that Pope Francis was intentionally purging the Congregation for Divine Worship, as a message/threat to Cardinal Sarah on the ‘reform of the reform.’

            If you look at John Paul’s approach to things during his whole priestly ministry (working with youth groups in Poland, as a bishop confronting Communism, and as a Pope), his general idea seems to be that you will have more success by speaking the Truth boldly and with passion than by cracking down on your enemies via sheer authority. If he had started plainly moving all of the heterodox bishops into ceremonial roles, getting them out of major dioceses, this would be presented both by them and by heterodox priests and laity in the ‘trenches’ as an attempt to undo the Council, turning these bishops into rebel heroes, fighting the good fight against an oppressive, reactionary papal tyrant. And no pope should just start removing the faculties of multiple fellow bishops. Peter is supposed to be a leader of the other apostles, not pretending to be a king over them (the only King is Christ, Peter is the steward).

            I believe that in the 80s and 90s and 00s, John Paul was trying to change minds, rather than chop heads. He seems to have felt that if the laity and especially the youth could understand the orthodox message of the Council documents, they would gradually turn away from the Modernist ‘spirit of V2’ and leave it behind as the New Evangelization progressed. Now, the fact is that his approach was ineffective in some major ways, but he was not simply standing on the sidelines. As I said in a different comment, the crisis was, and remains, so vast that it is not fair to expect that John Paul could have dealt with it easily, if only he had the courage. Arianism took centuries to deal with, despite a lot of courage on the part of a lot of saints, most of them bishops.

            [As an aside: I believe that if John Paul really knew what the seminaries had become, and how widespread was the abuse of minors, he would have acted more decisively. I think he was naive about these things, and did not see how horrifically enormous the thing was. He would not have consciously turned a blind eye to it.]

            The second major factor in John Paul’s approach is linked to the central point of disagreement between you and myself (because I quite obviously align myself with him theologically). John Paul, having been actively present at the Council and helping to work on some of the documents, was utterly convinced that the Council was fundamentally a good and needed Council, not an evil triumph of Modernism over the Faith. He was well aware of the fact that the Council was widely interpreted outside the Church (due to the statements of heterodox bishops and theologians) as a revolution, but he insisted in all his statements and writings that the Council was not a revolution but in continuity with Tradition.

            This is the most basic reason why he did not attempt to, as you put it, “reverse course to the paradigm that had seen the Church thrive throughout the ages.” He did not believe that that the ‘paradigm’ had in fact been thrown out by the Council, if the documents were read correctly. Moreover, he was convinced that the Council had been something needed in confronting the challenge of hundreds of years of unprecedented cultural and societal changes. Therefore, he did not attempt to “reverse course” because he believed that the Council did not need to be erased, but to be properly understood according to the intentions of the orthodox participants in the Council, separating out the wheat of the Council from Modernist chaff.

            [Another aside: If John Paul II had made it clear that he intended to literally roll back much of the Council, or the changes to the liturgy, he would be effectively trying to erase an ecumenical Council in which thousands of bishops voted, presided over by two popes. This would produce a crisis in the understanding of the magisterium, with people deciding whether to trust an ecumenical Council or a Pope (and John XXIII and Paul VI are also popes). To reverse course in a straightforward way is not really an option; the Council would have to be fixed, not erased]

            You write in an article here on 1P5:

            “Why was the Mass of the Ages, which had subdued every epoch and converted every culture it had encountered, suddenly found wanting when measured against the challenges of the modern world? What was so unique about the conflicts of the mid-20th century that the Church – just as the fighting was growing fiercest – felt compelled to lay down her most faithful and effective arms, and instead take up some ill-conceived attempt at battlefield diplomacy?”

            This is a critically important point. The Mass lacks nothing, and remains infinitely powerful. But if the faithful are abandoning the Mass, its power is not accessed, is not used in the fight. The conflicts of the mid-20th century were not wholly unique, but they were the biggest challenge the Church has ever faced, bigger than Arianism, bigger than Islam, bigger than Protestantism. This much is implicit in the fact that Modernism is described by several popes as the sum of all heresies. If one heresy has in the past been enough to mortally wound the Church, what does the sum of all heresies do to her?

            Like many at the Council, Wojtyla was not a Modernist, but was nonetheless in agreement with John XXIII that the dramatic loss of Faith in Europe during first half of the 20th century, a direct result of the Enlightenment and the rise of mass atheism, was a challenge that required a serious examination by a Council, a challenge that could not be fixed by even more papal encyclicals condemning and forbidding Modernist claims. The popes could keep on writing encyclicals, but less and less people were listening to anything the Church said, less and less people felt any obligation to follow the pope’s guidance. Europeans were abandoning Christianity in a massive wave after the two World Wars, and although nothing was lacking in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, people were simply not responding to the proclamation of the Faith as they had, because the ‘modern world’ was so overwhelming.

            The Council was needed because the Church was long overdue for a serious, worldwide, conciliar engagement with the Enlightenment and the massive changes that it had brought in terms of thought, culture, society, and daily life. The rate of all of these changes had accelerated exponentially after WW2, and there was a enormous sense that ‘the modern world’ was no longer compatible with Catholicism. The Church had continued for hundreds of years after the Enlightenment to just keep on doing the usual thing (in terms of catechesis, theology, etc.) as if these changes were not happening, but this had produced a critical point where people were not responding to the Gospel, and could not be kept in the Church by sheer force of societal habit and expectation (because the societal expectation had evaporated).

            The point for John Paul, for Ratzinger, for DeLubac, for others at the Council who were not Modernists but who believed the Council to be a good and needed one, was not that the Church should change any of its doctrine, but that the Church must find a way to communicate more clearly in a world that falsely believed itself to have ‘outgrown’ the Church. For the Modernists at the Council (Kung, Schillebeeckx and co. and the bishops who made them advisors), the goal was actually to update the Church’s doctrine, to conform Christianity to the Enlightenment. But for John Paul and many others, the goal was not to change doctrine, but to develop doctrine in the sense that Newman outlines: i.e., to understand the unchanging apostolic message more deeply, so as to preach it more effectively. DeLubac believed that part of what was necessary was to return to the writings of the Church fathers, who knew what it was like to preach in a world that was mostly pagan. The objective (for men like Wojtyla, Ratzinger, DeLubac, etc.) was not “battlefield diplomacy” in the sense of laying down arms and negotiating terms of surrender with an enemy that had defeated the Faith, but to change tactics.

            Arianism had forced the Church to develop its doctrine in the 4th century (i.e., to move from an implied doctrine of Trinity, to an explicit doctrine of Trinity, using Greek philosophical terminology that had previously never been a part of Christian discourse). So, too, Nestorius and Eutyches had forced the Church to develop its doctrine again at Ephesus and Chalcedon (i.e., explicitly rejecting both a mixture and a division/separation, whereas previously this was not explicit but implied). John Paul and others were convinced that the crisis produced by the Enlightenment could not be overcome simply by continuing in the same course of action, because so many were leaving the practice of the Faith after the War. The infection was not, as you put it, held in check.

            So this is the nub of the disagreement between us: I believe, as John Paul clearly did (based on his writings and statements) that some kind of a Council was needed in response to the crisis of ‘the modern world’ (i.e., not just Modernism as such, but the massive changes in human thought and society taking place from the 17th through 20th centuries). I agree with you that the Council we actually got was problematic in various ways. But I also hold with John Paul that in spite of the great power of the Modernist faction, V2 managed to do some good things, at least in terms of the content of the documents themselves. I would further argue that John Paul’s papal writings are a major contribution insofar as they clarify and expand on these good things, offering to us an orthodox reading of the Council documents, thereby counteracting the heterodox reading many bishops and theologians continue to put forth.

            The basic intention to move toward more use of the vernacular in liturgy was not in itself a problem (the use of Latin was originally a move to the vernacular, away from the celebration of the liturgy primarily in Greek and Syriac), but no orthodox person can deny that most of the rest of the changes to the liturgy did great damage. Cardinal Sarah (who is in agreement with Benedict) is 100% correct that we very urgently need a reform of the reform. I would further add that you are right to say that John Paul II should have called for this reform of the reform decades ago.

            This ‘comment’ has turned out to be a short article. But the overall point is very simple: you and I have a profound disagreement about the Council, and I think more broadly this applies to most people who comment on 1P5. You are saying, if I understand you correctly, that the Council brought nothing good and only did damage, and therefore that the way forward is to reverse course, to return to what was lost. You do not (as some Trads do) view John Paul as simply a villain, a Modernist in league with other Modernists. You grant that he was more-or-less orthodox, and that he wrote some good things. But you hold him accountable for failing to do what you hold to be the obvious thing, which was to reverse course and (basically) undo the Council and go back.

            I say with John Paul II and Benedict XVI that some kind of a Council was needed in order to confront the unprecedented challenges of the Enlightenment, the ‘scientific revolution,’ and the massive changes in thought and society that these events produced. The Council was influenced tremendously by Modernists, but I am maintaining that the documents nonetheless brought some good things theologically that do actually help in responding to the modern world. There can be no serious denial that the post-conciliar period, especially due to the changes to the liturgy a few years after the Council, produced destruction. But I am contending that this has much to do with the fact that many, many bishops and theologians intentionally ignored the actual texts of the Council, or cherry picked from the documents to suit an agenda, implementing a ‘Council’ existing in their own head that should have happened. Neither the Council nor John Paul nor Benedict is perfect; but I am saying that the whole thing is not simply a mistake. Much of the loss of faith that has taken place in the past century would have happened even if the Council had never occurred, because changes in the wider culture affect Catholics very directly, since we are human.

          • Jordan, I don’t have time right now to go through your whole reply, but three premises stood out that I take issue with. You wrote:

            He was effective in reinvigorating millions of Catholics, especially the youth, with passion for the New Evangelization (i.e., the re-evangelization of Europe, which had largely abandoned the Faith after WW2). He was effective in counteracting the narrative of the ‘spirit of V2’ theologians by showing that the Council documents support orthodoxy and not heterodoxy.

            You’re going to have to define “reinvigorate” for me, because the data simply isn’t there to show that millions of Catholics became more Catholic, more orthodox, more likely to attend Sunday Mass, less likely to use contraception, etc., because of JPII. Nobody has ever successfully defined the New Evangelization, either. It’s a large tent idea, and an interesting one, but the practical upshot? I’m at a loss. And frankly, there was nothing wrong with the “Old Evangelization” – it was just that nobody was doing it anymore.

            Secondly, your assertion that Europe has been re-evangelized after abandoning the faith? The place has apostatized en masse.

            Finally, the idea that JPII was able to show that V2 documents were orthodox rather than heterodox fails on a couple of points.

            First, significant portions of the documents were intentionally written in such a way that they could appear orthodox but be interpreted in a heterodox way. This has been well-documented. Sacrosanctum Concilium was Bugnini’s Trojan Horse. Whether you agree with my readings of Gaudium et Spes, you can’t deny that it lends itself to my interpretation. Lumen Gentium 16 is a disaster, as is much of Nostra Aetate. Unitatis Redintegratio and Dignitatis Humanae both have big problems that need to be reconciled with perennial teaching on the issues of ecumenism and religious liberty, respectively.

            Whatever you think of the SSPX, their theological critique of Vatican II demands to be taken seriously. The side-by-side table in the following article comparing established Catholic teaching with Vatican II teaching presents the contradictions succinctly:


            Futhermore, JPII was himself guilty of some of the greatest abuses of Vatican II. From interreligious dialogue that did not seek to convert non-Catholics to the flourishing of false ecumenism to his own furtherance of the previously condemned assertion of a right to religious liberty to (as you mentioned) the vast expanse of liturgical abuses that occurred not only under his watch but WITHIN his own papal Masses…there’s a lot to answer for here just on these points alone.

          • Steve, thanks for your reply. Briefly:

            – I contend that JPII reinvigorated in the sense of fostering orthodoxy in the midst of the post-conciliar chaos, providing a kind of lighthouse for decades of Catholics who might otherwise have been completely lost. The numbers are hard to prove, in that case, because they are more in terms of people retaining Catholic faith than a mass conversion. Millions of Catholics who either grew up in or lived through the 80s, 90s, 00s would credit his influence as part of the reason they have remained Catholic in spite of powerful cultural pressure to leave, or in my case (and some others) converted to the Faith.

            – The New Evangelization is not in contrast with an ‘old evangelization,’ as though it were somehow improved or novel. The term, as I’ve always heard it used, refers to JPII’s challenge (issued to young Catholics) to re-evangelize nations that had previously been mostly Christian and had recently abandoned the Faith (so, largely Europe but also including US, Canada, Australia, etc.). The ‘new’ means ‘renewed’ rather than ‘brand new’, the idea being a return to the Faith.

            – I wasn’t trying to claim that Europe had been successfully re-evangelized; sorry if I communicated myself in a confusing way. Obviously this would be contrary to fact. The point was that the New Evangelization is directed toward re-converting Europe, though of course it also seeks evangelization beyond Europe (e.g., China, India, Japan, nations that have never had a majority Christian population).

            – Regarding the documents of Vatican II, the topic can’t be adequately addressed in a comment box. But my general response would be that the documents do not express heterodoxy, even if in some cases they say too little about things that ought to be made clear (e.g., Nostra aetate is correct to point out that there are some elements of truth in non-Christian religions, such as the fact that many religions confess the one God; but the document neglects to say enough about the enormous elements of error, falsehood, and idolatry in non-Christian religions). Moreover, again as before, I would argue (with John Paul II) that the documents actually constitute a development of doctrine in some places (I’ve mentioned before the Christology of GS, but I’d also cite the trinitarian ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium, off the top of my head). Development here does not mean a change of teaching, nor an accommodation of the Faith to the shifting sands of the world, but a deeper understanding of the unchanging Deposit of Faith, as Newman defines carefully.

            Having looked at the SSPX table you linked, I don’t see anything there that isn’t either a misunderstanding of the V2 text in question, or an exaggeration of the papal text cited. For example: obviously the Church cannot support religious ‘freedom’ in the sense of pluralism or relativism, nor in the sense of laws against proselytism. But neither does the Church support a coercive program of ‘conversion’ by threat/intimidation, either by Christians on others, or by others — e.g., Muslims — on Christians. The term ‘religious freedom’ is used in at least two ways; one of these ways has an anti-Catholic and unacceptable meaning, while the other does have a basis in the Catholic acknowledgement of human free will in response to God’s revelation.

            To really get into the various documents in detail would require much more than a post in a comment box. Suffice it to say that I do take the SSPX position seriously, and do not casually dismiss it by any means.

            – Finally, regarding John Paul being directly responsible for some of the worst post-conciliar destruction, I would again say that he was trying very much to steady the barque, and the fact that he didn’t ‘crack down’ in the sense of punitive measures against heterodox bishops was not so much a tolerance as a question of how best to accomplish the necessary change. As acknowledged in my prior post, John Paul’s approach (of trying to change hearts through proclaiming the Truth, rather than using his ecclesial authority to punish and condemn every heterodox bishop) was not always effective. But his basic idea, I believe (clearly I can’t take it upon myself to speak for him), was that if he just started ‘cracking down’ on heterodoxy wherever he saw it, he would actually strengthen the Modernists in the Church by playing right into their narrative (i.e., a repressive, medieval, obsolete conservative tyrant trying to undo Vatican II and go back). But (a) he was convinced that V2 was not fundamentally a detour, and that it had taught some good and important things, and therefore (b) he was trying to help people gain greater clarity following the confusion of the immediate post-conciliar period, without trying to undo the Council.

            – As for liturgical abuses in papal masses that John Paul celebrated, you didn’t mention anything specific. I have an idea of the kind of thing you might have in mind, but I’d rather respond to specific things than assume I know what you mean.

    • I am glad to see you commenting again, Mr. Miller. I hope you continue, as it brings, in my opinion a good, and necessary balance to the discussion.

    • One word about JP2: Assisi.
      That alone puts him in his proper category. There’s really not much anything else to be said after that.

    • Brilliant and thank you! Finally some support to what has seemed as battling it all alone.
      Those 4 Brave Bishops who are cardinals plus the Bishops who have come out in support of them would be fall in her “conservative” category.
      PS Plus Pope St. John Paul II vigourously opposed Liberation theology and Kasper’s proposal went nowhere under the pontificates of Popes St. John Paul II and Emeritus XVI.
      the adversary would love nothing more than to divide Traditionalists from the Catholics you unjustly malign as “conservatives.” The snare the Trads fail to see/avoid.

  24. Well, you know we’re going to lose the buildings, the framework, the Vatican Bank, etc. That’s the sad part.
    The good part is the truth is on our side. And we are going to have to be the FEROCIOUS remnants.
    The corrupt Vatican will corrupt the youth. This will take many years to overcome. So start teaching your kids the faith yourself.

      • That infrastructure doesn’t “serve Satan”. It doesn’t ‘serve” anyone. It is a tool like a hammer, put to good use building a house or bad use breaking into a jewelry store.

      • Well the infrastructure is the main engine of the operational systems (education, health care, services, etc.). It’s not right that the enemy gets the whole framework.

        • This might sound naive but Jesus didn’t have an “infrastructure.” He had his disciples and the Holy Spirit. Perhaps Catholics have relied so much on “infrastructure” created by men that they have forgotten how to rely on God. Perhaps once the schism takes place, devout Catholics will put aside their pretensions of earthly power and learn to rely on the only True Power in the universe.

          • Perhaps you are right in some aspect. But Jesus did give us the priesthood:

            Acts Of Apostles 20:28
            “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

          • I wonder this, too.

            As Protestants, we all thought exactly of the Catholic Church what you have noted combined with a few other “features”; namely, that the Church didn’t TEACH anything, that people believed whatever they wanted to, that everybody is saved and that what was important was punching tickets and pushing buttons, ie kneeling and standing at the right times and such like.

            Since converting I have come to realize A} this is NOT what the Catholic faith is about B} many Catholics do not exhibit anything like these stereotypical features and C} many do…

          • The fact that “infrastructure” is “NOT what the Catholic faith is about” (which I agree with) doesn’t negate the fact that far too many Catholics identify more with the “infrastructure,” the “punching tickets” and “pushing buttons,” and conventional wisdom than in sound teaching. Given the divine commission given to the clergy, who is responsible for that situation?

            BTW, if the “features” you noted weren’t true to some degree, then why is this conversation even taking place among the Catholic devout, especially on this blog?

    • “So start teaching your kids the faith yourself.”

      Right on!!

      At risk of making some enemies…Catholics should have been teaching their kids the faith all along.

      But then, Catholics should have been having kids all along, too, not just the 2.4 per family like all the heretics and agnostics…if they did, we’d probably still have Catholic schools to help with the grading papers!

      • Many dioceses stopped teaching doctrine from the 1970’s so there are vast numbers needing catechesis themselves let alone teach their children. That’s why we are missing a couple of generations of Catholics.

        • “Missing a couple generations of Catholics”.

          Hard saying but appears to be true.

          Just like American schools ditched civics so we are missing a couple generations of Americans…

    • Shoulda been a honey badger. Mary crused the head of the serpent….The honey badger bit through its neck and ate the damn thing. Honey badger don’t give a damn.

  25. An excellent piece, Hilary, and a thesis that in many areas makes sense (eg Francis has finally brought the heresy out into the daylight for all who have eyes to see) and one that I would truly love to believe, but I think the reality is likely to be much more messy, long and drawn out. But let’s see. In the meantime we continue to man the trenches and organise the resistance. I wonder whether one next step could be for us, the laity, in large numbers, to ‘resubmit’ the Dubia to the CDF and at least demand a response from Cdl Muller himself. Is that permissable?

  26. I am silent. There is nothing to add, except perhaps a happy anecdote.

    I have a friend – a remarkable character – who, whenever he hears someone lament the latest deeds of Jorge Bergoglio, responds, “It OK. It’s fine. Everything is going to plan.”

    And so it is.

  27. Maranatha! Lord Jesus Come! Deliver Your Church from the grip of these Judas’ who have sold their soul’s for the miserable smoke of this world. Please Lord send the light necessary for conversion to those who have been led astray by the evil shepherds who are dominating your Church. Amen. Amen Amen.

  28. “Gentlemen, welcome to the desert of the Real.”


    They cancelled all color
    Sanctuaries stripped
    First Communions were duller.

    No crinoline whites
    Pale hues they stressed
    Only pearled-Pharisees
    Are ever so dressed.

    Roses, carnations,
    Flowers, all manners
    Left just to wither
    Gainst assertive beige banners.

    Pillars of marble
    Corinthian styles
    They decided to paint
    Like pink bathroom tiles.

    Cassocks of red
    Habits blue, white,
    Robes of distinction
    Extinct over night.

    Missals with pages
    Embossed in gloss-gold
    Latin in tint
    English-black to behold.

    Even the ribbons
    To mark scriptural prayers
    Were of green, yellow, silvers
    So to keep us from errors.

    The soft votive flames
    The red opaque glass
    Gave an aura of stillness
    Like time could not pass.

    Yet time it passed
    Vividness drained
    And populations without color
    Cannot be sustained.

    So those underground
    Tradition’s red in blue veins
    Birthe vocations, the True Mass
    Great virtues they’ve gained.

    They did not decay
    God’s colors kept green
    For the day up above
    Once again to be seen.

    Except for those beige
    Gray fertility fades
    In their black open minds.


  29. I think of the generation before me: the large Catholic families, most parishes having schools where there were teachers who were Sisters and one could pretty much trust the pope to do the right thing and to defend Christ’s Church. My generation began to fall apart with birth control and abortion and the so called sexual revolution having planted its death dealing seed. Divorce became rampant. Families under attack. Scandals rocked the Church where catechesis had somehow disappeared. A new mass was imposed on the faithful which has been disastrous. No family has been unaffected. And the fallout continues. The vast majority of our ‘catholic’ young people are having sex, living ‘in sin’, having children without marriage and if they marry, it is mostly outside of the Church. My young cousins are all doing this and the parents and others feel they have no choice but to go along with it. There is only a remnant who truly know and love our glorious faith.

  30. “The cloying, mendacious happy face of JPII”? That happy face belongs to a canonized saint, de fide, guaranteed infallibly to be enjoying the Beatific Vision. You should check your enthusiasm for being holier than either of the two “conservative” Popes you mentioned, St. John Paul II or Benedict XVI, it is unseemly and out of place here.

    • It’s interesting the word you left off:

      The cloying, mendacious happy face of JPII conservatism

      You see, the JPII-era conservatism — which swaps out genuine Catholic orthodoxy for an adherence to pro-lifism and Humanae Vitae principles while leaving liturgy, ecumenism, evangelization, and doctrinal consistency on the scrapheap of history — really has been a huge problem.

      We don’t get Francis without it, in fact. (And of course, JPII is the one who made the man a bishop, despite the Superior General of the Jesuits’ objection that he was a sociopath and unfit for leadership). Francis is building on what his post-conciliar predecessors began. He’s just taking it to the logical extreme. Cardinal Kasper demonstrated as much when he said:

      Instead of choosing the path of John Paul II and Benedict XVI (“who had adhered to John Paul II’s decision”) to not allow “remarried” divorced Catholics to receive Communion and instead to insist that they practice abstinence in their sexual relations, Pope Francis “goes a step further, by putting the problem in a process of an embracing pastoral [approach] of gradual integration.”

      “Amoris Laetitia envisages which forms of exclusion from ecclesiastical, liturgical, pastoral, educational, and institutional services can be overcome,” Kasper explains. He posits that when John Paul II gave permission for remarried divorced to receive Communion – if they lived as brother and sister – this was “in fact a concession.” The Cardinal reasons this by saying, “Abstinence belongs to the most intimate sphere and does not abolish the objective contradiction of the ongoing bond of marriage of the first sacramental marriage and the second civil marriage.”

      It was a concession. Gradualism is the preferred poison of the Modernist.

      I don’t think JPII was intentionally complicit in the Modernist thing, he was just so formed by it that he couldn’t help it. And those who have followed suit have allowed more and more abuses of both doctrine and discipline (which, if we’re being honest, piled up under JPII’s watch) until we wound up where we are today.

      If any of us pulled a Catholic of 1920 through time and stuck him in a 2016 parish at random, he wouldn’t recognize it as Catholic. That problem doesn’t just get wished away by happy talk about a hermeneutic of continuity.

      • concession … you are agreeing with the framing by an innovator [they will try to sell their innovations whichever way they can] but that’s not how the Church frames it nor explains the conditions underwhich the divorced + civilly remarried may access the sacraments. And no it is not Gradualism as understood either as gradualsim of the law [condemned by the Church but is in AL] or the law of gradualism [step by step progress in grace].
        From Fr. RP, an example of the gradualsim of the law

        If you’re an adulterer who loves your adultery and want to
        remain in the adulterous relationship then you need to follow your conscience
        and even realize that it is what God desires for you at the time and it is
        pleasing to Him and then follow your conscience all the way to Holy Communion.

        I.e., for one, the demands of the law depend at a particular moment on what an individual is able to give/respond to those demands.

      • I mentally associate the face of this conservatism with the Pentecostal-like behavior of Steubenville–as the son of a converted Pentecostal pastor myself.

    • Pope Francis made it known that he does not regard canonizations as infallible acts. While that has been a topic of minimal dispute over the centuries, generally it has been assumed that canonization is an infallible act. Given this pontiff does not regard it so, we are left in the usual ambiguity. Are they saints when the pope doesn’t regard it as an infallible act?

      • Pope Francis made it known that he does not regard canonizations as infallible acts. Irrelevant. It is an act of the Church. Just as an unbelieving priest can validly consecrate the Eucharist provided he intends to do what the Church does.

        • Everything Pope Bergoglio does is a calculated political act, a leftist wedge to undermine that which he finds unacceptable to his ideological point of view. Note well his decision to toss John XXIII – without the requisite second miracle – into the canonization
          ceremony for John Paul II. That was done deliberately to diminish Pope John Paul II. It was apparent to all and commented on at the time. Pope Bergoglio and his cadre exhibit hubris without measure. His pontificate itself appears to be about destroying the credibility of the papacy, the evisceration of Roman Catholicism and reconstituting it with an ideology that is decidedly not Catholic or ultimately religious.
          In line with this article by Ms. White, the weakness of the pontificate of Pope Saint John Paul was manifest in his choice of a name. The last thing necessary in 1978 was evoking the tragically flawed pontificates of John XXIII and Paul VI. Even when it happened it seemed a rash attempt to bring some measure of reason and credibility, moral stature, to a twenty yearlong train wreck. Well-intentioned but woefully misguided – we endure its consequences today. It is a lesson we all learn in life. Things are the way they are. Pretending otherwise does not make them better, let alone exempt us from their consequence.
          As for the reasoning that the infallibility of the Church provides certitude for a canonization – I can’t say I have seen that reasoning employed on this question. It is an act of the will of the Pope, as Pope Benedict demonstrated with the canonization of Hildegard of Bingen (no miracle at all); Francis has demonstrated in regard to Peter Faber, John XXIII, Marie of the Incarnation, Francis Laval – all these causes exempted from the second miracle required after beatification for canonization.
          The Pope is always the ultimate arbiter of the decision, not the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints. They present the evidence with a recommendation. He decides.
          The devised canonical processes involved in the recognition of sanctity cannot be equivocated with the validity of the sacraments which stand on an entirely different level of significance. It is tempting to equivocate ecclesiastical realities but you have to be very careful. It does not work in this instance. The sacraments, sacramental theology, is dealing with the very essence of the redemptive work of God in His Son, Jesus Christ.
          The question remains, can a pope make an infallible decision when he himself does not believe the decision to be infallible? Or further, when he does not believe in papal infallibility?
          We need be very careful how we answer that question in the current quagmire.

  31. JPII’s huge weakness was that he was a poor judge of character, as can be noted by his appointments to the episcopacy. Benedict’s weakness is that he’s insecure, and he had very few allies during his pontificate to help prop him up. Francis is an entirely different animal. He’s malicious and cunning to start with, and he gets worse from there. Neither of his two predecessors were anything like that. Something to keep in mind…

    • That is so true. Although John Paul II appointed some really good bishops, such as Cdl. Burke, he also appointed many horrible ones. Also, some of the “good” ones he appointed were just sucking up. The best example of his dreadfully poor ability in judging character would be Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ. Although Maciel was an evil man who was described by the Vatican under Benedict XVI as having lived “a life devoid of scruples and authentic religious meaning,” he had been a close personal friend of John Paul II. Being an actor, John Paul II was easily moved by impressive words. Maciel wrote and copied some very powerful words. John Paul II was, at heart, a good man. His main personal flaw seems to be that he couldn’t understand that this simply was not true of everyone else.

  32. I have to admit scratching my head over Hilary White’s optimism. And I almost get the impression that she is of the opinion that the Church was (more or less) hunky-dory while JPII and Benedict XVI held the Keys. As recently as July 2016 in the pages of “The Remnant” she longed for the calm days of JPII and Benedict XVI. And in the same Remnant article she was quite content to accept a heretical pope as Pope (with “resistance” of course). The “conservative” label she applies to JPII and Benedict XVI serves only to describe their public demeanor and to disguise their heterodoxy. Has she ignored the history of the Church under all the popes since John XXIII—-including JPII and Benedict XVI?

    The Church as been under siege since the beginning of John XXIII’s pontificate; he began the process of filling the world’s dioceses with heterodox bishops and the appointment of heterodox Cardinals (their seminaries largely turn out heterodox priests whose only doctrines come from Vatican II). All of the popes after him followed suit. John XXIII (and the popes after him) radically altered the “law of praying.” The Novus Ordo service is more Lutheran than Tridentine. The lector’s at my parish’s Sunday Novus Ordo for the last several years begin the service by reminding attendees that, “St. xxxxx is a Roman Catholic Church faithful to the Church’s teachings and centered in the Eucharist.” Things have gotten so bad that the lectors are instructed to remind parishioners that they are attending a “catholic” service. At the pulpit my Diocesan parish priests parrot and defend the stream of heterodoxy coming from Rome—-whether it be the Vatican’s 2000 opinion concerning the Third Secret or the “teachings” of Amoris Laetitia. Or they are silent about what’s going on. The only Church teachings that have any voice are those from Vatican II and after.

    What exactly does White think is going to happen with regard to the four bishops and their dubia? Does she actually think the world’s bishops and cardinals appointed by the popes from John XXIII to Francis are going “see the light?” Francis and the college of cardinals will do to the dubia-gang exactly what they do to all those who resist the destructive Vatican II path—–they isolate them and ignore them (and crush them when necessary). I would be surprised to learn that there were enough orthodox bishops and priests to fill a parish hall on bingo night (at least in the US). Does White think the catholic masses will rush to the aid of the dubia-gang? Very little of this turmoil makes it down to average catholics who have spent most of their lives under the Novus Ordo and Vatican II Church.

    Things are too far gone. Only the Blessed Virgin Mary can intercede on behalf of the few remaining orthodox and the many deceived.

    • And I almost get the impression that she is of the opinion that the Church was (more or less) hunky-dory while JPII and Benedict XVI held the Keys.

      I didn’t get that at all from this. She was saying that the ‘conservative’ pontificates lulled faithful to sleep, pretending that there was a way that heterodoxy could coexist with orthodoxy. Everything wasn’t ‘hunky dory’ under them and it hasn’t been since the Council. As John Paul II said himself in Ecclesia Dei, paragraph 5b, the doctrines of the Second Vatican Council haven’t been accepted by all members of the Church “perhaps because they are new”.

      • If the so-called “conservatives” lulled anyone to sleep it was only because many were already asleep (myself included for some period of time). The disaster was there to see early on and a few were pretty vocal—–the radical changes to the Tridentine Mass stand out. And as I pointed out, as recently as July 2016, in the pages of “The Remnant” White was longing for the good ol’ days of JPII and Benedict XVI (she wasn’t being sarcastic). However, the fact that JPII and Benedict XVI were slightly more civil didn’t make their official acts qualitatively less heterodox than Francis. Furthermore Francis has been merely treading the disastrous path blazed by JPII and Benedict XVI with the Vatican II Constitutions as their road map.

        Since the Vatican II Constitutions were accepted in whole by Paul VI and promulgated by him they represent teachings of the Magisterium. So a member of the Church is not at liberty to disregard them; oft made claims that they are merely pastoral are nonsense. In the Vatican negotiations with Abp Lefebvre (under JPII and Ratzinger) the only things the Vatican wanted was Lefebvre’s acceptance of the Vatican II Constitutions and acceptance of the validity of the Novus Ordo service—–apparently the Vatican II Constitutions meant a bit more than “pastoral” to JPII and Ratzinger.

        The only way a member of the Church can refuse to give assent to the Vatican II Constitutions is if they were produced by heretics, who cannot be Church members or bind Church members—-a position raised by the sedevacantists. The Catholic Church is not a cafeteria.

  33. Well you made some good points (one being that the Pope is what we need to force the the rogues out in the open) but as for the rest, it sounds more like a screed of a high strung woman who is upset that the governance of the Church did not go according to her liking.

    I suppose you would have governed better than JP2? Hubris.

      • I would. I will not pray their prayer but I will pray with them.

        Yes, keep living in your nice coocoon.

        And FYI, his prayer for the protection of Islam can be a protection for Muslims.
        Unless of course you want all Muslims to be cursed.

        • I suppose those martyrs of the Faith, who died at the hands of the Protestants, that would not even pray with heretic Christians–much less pagans or heathens–died for absolutely nothing. All St. Margaret Clitherow had to do was “pray with them”.

          “I will not pray with you, nor shall you pray with me; neither will I say ‘Amen’ to your prayers, nor shall you to mine” – St. Margaret Clitherow

          • Do you really think those who died at the hands of Protestants and Muslims would be upset by us praying with their persecutors? Really?
            You don’t get Christianity do you?

            I don’t know the background of that little snippet from Clitherow so I won’t comment on that.

          • Uh, we are not to pray with heretics. St. John himself said if anyone were to bring a different doctrine don’t even receive them into your home. And that is something devoid of religion, so yes, I believe that praying under the pretenses that you both believe the same doctrine upsets God. Take it up with St. John.

            2 St. John 1:[10] If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.

          • It is not pretense. We don’t believe in the same doctrine but in so far as there is a good intention to honour God no matter whether one conception may be in error, that is a step in the right direction.

            As to St John’s letter to the lady, he was telling her this to guard against her faith being compromise. John would have received those who do not believe in Christ. Otherwise he would not have been able to convert them.

          • 2 St. John 1:9

            Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.

            What is Protestantism? A revolt; a protest. St. John continues, don’t even receive them into your house–much less pray with them.

            Regardless, Mortalium Animos paragraph 1 and 2 condemns anyone who gathers groups of believers, unbelievers, heretics, schismatics, heathens, and apostates saying it cannot be approved by Catholics, and whoever does such a thing has all together abandoned divine religion.

          • In fairness to MarcAlan, I used to share the opinions he is espousing on inter-“denominational” worship. But that was before I actually read pre-Conciliar documents, such as Mortalium, which no one ever actually hears about these days in New Church Land.

            The sad part is that many people of good will who post here truly do not seem to realize that there is a significant difference between what the Church taught before the Council and what the Church teaches now, because they (and I include myself in this, before I studied on my own) have been deprived of Catholic Truth by the men who are supposed to be giving it to them.

          • So you think the martyrs and the saints died so that we will not pray with pagans and protestants? You really do not know Christianity do you?

          • Maybe the historical context and the particular circumstances which caused her to say that, might explain why she said it, and its appropriateness.

      • Pope JPII wrote such long texts that I gave up trying to read them especially as there seemed to be too much padding in my opinion. So I never got to read that prayer!!!!!! What could he have been thinking of !!!

  34. I still don’t understand all of the hysteria about giving Communion to those in adultery. The 1983 Canon Law already allows those of other faiths to receive and that is far worse. If Francis is an anti-pope for this why not JPII or Benedict XVI? What is worse then? The adulterating of the body or the faith?

    JPII gave communion to Tony Blair, Br. Roger of Taize, and allowed Buddha on top of a Catholic tabernacle in Assisi in 1986 while a Benedictine screamed “Blasphemy!” The benedictine was removed, Buddha stayed. Francis is a logical conclusion.

      Where does the 1983 Canon Law allows those of other faiths to receive? And why then would the USCCB issue the folowing guidelines? – USCCB > Prayer And Worship > The Mass > Order Of Mass > Liturgy Of The Eucharist > Guidelines For The Reception Of Communion –

      We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith in Jesus Christ. While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family.

      • Yes, the joy of Roman decrees is they say one thing and immediately do another like “Indifferentism must be avoided” and then do an act of indifferentism. But here you go Canon 844 with the appropriate sections and before you say I’m misinterpreting it look up images of Bill Clinton receiving, Tony Blair receiving from the JPII and Br. Roger, a Protestant, receiving from Benedict XVI and JPII gave him Communion too:

        §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek
        such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches. (my note: Orthodox can receive without the Catholic faith in Catholic Churches, I’ve seen it first hand and talked to a learned Eastern priest, an academic no less, about this practice since 1983)

        §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly
        also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

        This is the reason why there is interfaith communion and there are pictures of this non-sense. It’s not my opinion.

        • Some of the numerous problems with JPII and B16.

          But wait: I don’t recall the statute but in effect, there is code outlining the requirements for those of other faiths to receive. In effect, they must affirm all the dogma of the Catholic Church {BE Catholic}. Whether they are required to in fact by any given priest or even whether such a requirement is functionally capable of being performed without scandal is another thing entirely.

          The gist of your points here are well-taken. The wholesale support or at least tacit approval of liturgical irreverence, lack of discipline and religious indifferentism present in the pontificates of the last 3 {at least} Popes is obvious {I think} to anyone who follows the issues.

          Maybe FR RP will chime in.

          • Brother Roger, Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair met those conditions? They were in imminent danger of death? They could not approach a minister of their own ‘community’? JPII and BXVI were aware that they manifested the Catholic faith in respect to the sacrament, and were properly disposed?
            Since being properly disposed includes being free from mortal sin at reception, did a priest grant absolution to these non-Catholics before Mass?

          • This thread may be getting moribund, and I hate to say this since I consider you, in general, a sensible commenter, but: cop out. I don’t get involved in debates about JPII’s sanctity or the validity of his canonization. However, your refusal to face this scandal (which, yes, BXVI participated in also) does not argue for logical consistency and integrity on your part.
            My Methodist father, who will soon visit again over the Christmas holidays, refuses to believe that there’s any real reason he should refrain from receiving Holy Communion when he attends Mass with us. He only refrains because he knows that ‘following his conscience’ would scandalize me in the true sense of the word. Thanks to the throw-up-your-hands attitude of people like you, and the example of these Popes, I get to be the ‘Pharisee’ again.
            And that is just a personal anecdote, of course. The larger issues involved (principally 1 Corinthians 11:27-31, and the Four Marks of the Church) are just unimportant to some, I guess.

          • Thank you for your kind words and I am sorry you feel that my comment is a cop-out, but on what basis do you want me to answer for those who it is said gave the Eucharist to [it seems not worthy] non-Catholics? Only they can answer. My comment above was that I see nothing wrong in the canons RE: Eucahrist being given to non-Catholic Christians provided the “why” and the “conditions” of those canons are met.

          • Protestants are of another faith. If you don’t believe that you don’t believe in the Church on the necessity of believing dogmas and doctrines. Orthodox are too. If you don’t believe that ask yourself if either group believes in the dogmas of Our Lady, that the Catholic Church is the true faith necessary for salvation. All of those are dogmas. If you disagree you disagree with dogmas of the Church. I don’t argue facts, and those are facts.

          • Which Church? The Church of Vatican II, Ameoris, the Novus Ordo, or the one for 2,000 years that said only Catholics have the truth faith. The church of novelty finally showing to ordinary people how bad it is, or to those who have known for decades? If your “Good Friday” prayers which don’t even pray for the conversion of other faiths is your measuring stick I don’t want your “church”, I want the Catholic one. I reject your “faith”, your “religion”, your “Catholicism”. We say the same creed but different faith.

            St. Thomas says to break with the ancient beliefs is to break the Faith. People are just waking up now.

          • There is only one One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic ChurchM and if you have doubts as to where to find the Church of Christ founded on the Apostles and built on the rock Peter listen to St. Ambrose:

            Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia, et ibi ecclesia vita eterna.
            Where there is Peter there is the Church,where there is the Church there is life eternal! – St. Ambrose of Milan

          • You’ll quote St. Ambrose on Peter, but not on who are real Christians and who can receive Holy Communion. Show me the quotes that support giving other faiths Holy Communion, that giving adulterers Holy Communion is fine, that ecumenism is great and that we all belong to the same faith. Taking 1 quote as the sole context of a complex situation is intellectual hypocrisy, unless you really think St. Ambrose would be at Assisi and supporting Canon 844 and that Protestants belong to the faith as well. So when St. Ambrose makes you feel right quote him and when he doesn’t ignore him.

    • God’s trolling the left. “Killer hurricane!! It fizzles. “Moar hurricanes!” No hurricanes. “Global warming!” sun goes dormant. “Trump said ‘kitty’!” # Spirit cooking. “Francis Effect!” Crickets. “The Joy of Sex!” Vatican II implodes…

  35. I wrote a response to some on CWR who was very hurt and befuddled by Pope Francis, especially because of his being known for being so merciful and this is what I found myself writing in reply:

    “Pope Francis is not merciful. He is the opposite on a
    regular basis. Leaving someone in or even daring to confirm them in their sins isn’t
    merciful it’s evil. He shows zero mercy or even charity or patience with anyone
    who dares to ask him what he means by something (from within the Church), it is a
    snide remark or a sicking the Papal minions on them.

    If your a Catholic who loves the Church and her teachings
    then you’re are a rigid, psychologically disordered, law enforcing, black and
    white seeing, hypocritical, moralizing Pharisee who injures Jesus.

    If your a Muslim then you are a peace maker for you belong
    to a religion of peace; and if you are a Muslim seeking to colonize Europe then
    you are really beautiful and wonderful and everything should be handed over to
    you and anyone who doesn’t want you colonizing their village or town is an evil
    hypocrite who is going to hell.

    If your married in the Church then you probably aren’t
    really married but if your cohabitating and have been doing so for a long time
    then you’re probably in a real marriage.

    If you’re an adulterer who loves your adultery and want to
    remain in the adulterous relationship then you need to follow your conscience
    and even realize that it is what God desires for you at the time and it is
    pleasing to Him and then follow your conscience all the way to Holy Communion.

    If your afraid of Zika and maybe getting pregnant with a
    child who could possibly be micro-cephalic then you need to use a condom or
    some other form of birth control because a child with microcephaly isn’t worthy
    of conception in the first place so it’s ok to practice Eugenics. Doesn’t everyone know that it’s the quality
    of life that matters?

    If your pro-life and think it’s the most important moral
    obligation of our day then you are a benighted idiot who doesn’t realize that
    climate change and youth unemployment or lonely old people are just as big of a
    problem if not worse. Especially Mother the Earth who demands our adoration and

    If you think that the celebration of the Mass and
    Eucharistic Adoration and the Stations of the Cross or Vespers being offered or
    led by the Pope for and with the people then you are too sectarian and are
    causing division in the body of Christ.

    If you think that its important to lead souls to Christ or
    to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by teaching others the Faith and
    convincing them of the Truth of Catholicism then you are the worst and most
    debased sort of Christian there is: your are harming others and committing the
    grave sin of proselytism.

    If you think priests caught in active homosexual
    relationships numerous times shouldn’t be close advisors to the Holy Father (or
    remain in the ministry) then you are a hateful judger.

    If you think Capital Punishment or even Life imprisonment
    are sometimes necessary and just sentences then you are an unmerciful person who doesn’t love Jesus for
    no one can be condemned forever because that’s not the language of the Gospel.

    And frankly I’m tired and don’t feel like coming up with
    more examples but I am certain that there are literally hundreds more, like
    praising communist dictators and adoring a hammer and sickle crucifix and having
    stiff knees when it comes to adoring the Holy Eucharist but having limber ones
    when it comes to washing and kissing the feet of Muslim women (or anyone
    unfortunate enough to be anywhere near Pope Francis on Holy Thursday.)

    Sorry to be so blunt, but that is exactly what has been and
    is going on and yes Pope Francis has actually said or clearly implied or done all of the above,
    and most of them many times.”

    That’s off the top of my very weary head (been a very long few weeks in the Parish.)

    • WOW, Father! I could not have written it any better. In fact, if I were a deacon, priest, or bishop, this would suffice as a Sunday homily in and of itself.

      • The pain is far worse for this these dear men who have sacrificed for their Lord.
        But their sacrifice will not go in vain!
        Let us keep them in our prayer.

    • ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (Reuters) – Catholics should not feel they have to breed “like rabbits”


      The Bishop of Rome
      He lives not at home
      I’m sorry
      I have to say

      He’s here and he’s there
      He’s up in the air
      Flying this
      And that way

      He gets on the phone
      Waits for dial tone
      To comfort a man
      In his sins

      But mothers of seven
      Who put faith in Heaven
      “Don’t breed like a rabbit”
      He grins

      And how the boys chuckle
      And how the girls laugh
      And gender-benders
      Can trust this man’s staff

      But only the mothers,
      The big family breed,
      Deserve condescension…
      From this Bishop’s crude creed.

      • Of all of his fantastically stupid/heretical statements, this one hit me the hardest. Nothing like friendly fire. Does one sin by calling the Pope vulgar names? Well, I’ve yet to feel any contrition for it.

        • I’m not sure how serious a sin it is, but I make sure I confess it anyway – just in case. I even confess it with a firm purpose of amendment and try to avoid news, blogs, media and even people for as long as possible after I have been to Confession. Inevitably I fall as soon as somebody in my family says: “Have you heard what he’s said now…..?” Best solution I have found so far is to use a word which satisfies my desire to respond with invective, but which is not at all vulgar to anybody else’s ears, e.g. “plank” (useful because it rhymes with Frank.)

          I imagine that if expletives were vocations, the Church would have experienced a massive growth over these last 3 years.

          • It is in big crisis. Modernism has successfully gained ground. How we are going to have priesthood’s vocations when all the
            churches use alter girl servers and turn them into a market places or fashion shows.? I’m sick and tired of sacrileges committed by old, fat female Eucharistic Ministers wearing very tight, sport paints carrying and handling communion hosts. Look terrible! Domine, miserere nobis.

    • Well that about sums it up Father RP.

      Somebody once said to me as I lamented that so often I felt like a stranger in a strange land, and nobody seems to want to listen anymore to God, words which you know very well. That, ” We were born for this time.”

      Oh well, thanks God. So be it Lord. We shall do our best for Him, and take comfort and rest when we need to.

      God bless you Father RP. We love you!

    • I told you Jorge pushes 1,000 errors/heresies per day. I can’t keep up!
      Oh by the way, Jorge had a private audience with Martin Scorsese on Wednesday.
      You know the guy who did the Last Temptation of Christ (the blasphemous film about Jesus and Mary Magdalene).
      This reprobate gets an audience with the Pope. But Asia Bibi’s (a Christian prisoner in Pakistan) family gets a 5 seconds hand shake from Francis.

    • “If your afraid of Zika and maybe getting pregnant with a
      child who could possibly be micro-cephalic then you need to use a condom or
      some other form of birth control because a child with microcephaly isn’t worthy
      of conception in the first place so it’s ok to practice Eugenics. Doesn’t everyone know that it’s the quality
      of life that matters?”

      Quality of life obviously does matter. Are you saying married couples in the middle of such a plague ought not resist the temptation to have sex, that a moment of their pleasure outweighs a tortured lifetime? Who would be so irresponsible and immoral? Who is suggesting the use of contraceptives or abortion? No one. The rational Catholic position would be to not have sex under such circumstances until the bodily safety of the mother (and hence the child) could be secured. Are you really agonized by Zika-infected people choosing not to have children till the infection is eliminated? Obviously, you have been so wonderfully protected from suffering by the Father that you naively fail to comprehend suffering at all, such that you advise others to irrationally choose misery. You don’t care about other people, as you don’t even fear suffering yourself, which is not loving or courageous. You are in serious error.

      • From my post it is obvious that I am stating that the Holy Father, Pope Francis is the one who promoted contraception via the use of a condom or another sort in order to prevent the possibility of microcephaly due to Zika (which is a form of Eugenics.) And that is exactly what he did in February of this year. He never even mentioned abstinence as a solution, for him that appears to be too drastic a measure to take, better to contraception and have sexual relations. Furthermore, spouses are not supposed to engage in marital relations for a ‘moment of pleasure’ physiological pleasure is an accident (in the ontological sense) of marital love not it’s purpose.

        And everything you said about me is false: You are in serious error.

        • 1. If a married man chooses to have sex with his wife when he knows she is or may be infected with the Zika virus, which is the example I gave, he is certainly doing it for pleasure, not the proper raising of children. Your attempt now to dodge the point I made in criticism of your original irresponsible implication, by pretending that I don’t know what marriage is, is itself another untruth in the pattern of how you have falsely accused Pope Francis.

          2. I refuse to believe some stranger online that the Pope advocated for the use of contraception without full proof.

          3. I furthermore do not believe you are actually a Catholic priest, and pretending to be so online is wrong.

          • 1. Your first premise in number one above is presumptive: you cannot determine the motive for the marital act and there is zero evidence that this is what you meant in your original statement, even if you meant it. Nor was I pretending anything about what you know or don’t know about marriage, I was correcting your presumptive reasoning in your original argument.

            2. Don’t take my word for it, please do investigate I even provided a link in my response to you and I will do so again happily:
            How about you stop calling people liars (like you did with Steve) and actually do just the briefest search on Google?

            3. I am a priest (calling people liars with no proof is called slander, doing it in writing is called libel.) and I don’t care one bit what you think about me.

            4. I’m not interested in dialoguing with you.

          • 1. Yes, I do reason that a married couple knowingly choosing to conceive a child when the woman is in serious danger of contracting a severe baby-deforming virus (or has already been exposed to it), cannot be motivated by a rational and pure impulse. I felt your exhortation against eugenics (which abstinence is not) could be construed by the anarchist types hereabouts as an irresponsible denial of both medical facts and ethical reproduction. A) Testing God via the presumption of His mercy after behaving irresponsibly is not Christian, but superstitious. B) I refuse to take part in public, as opposed to private, attacks on the person of the Pope, since it can only serve to destroy Christianity.

            2. I will research, but LifeSite has taken the story down. It’s easy to fake news on the web, and the enemy wants Christians to fight one another. I will not believe the Pope is in error without extraordinary proof.

            3. If you really are a priest, I love you and I’m sorry, and I won’t argue with you for the same reason I won’t disrespectfully talk about the Pope. A priest against another priest is like separated parents asking their child to pick sides. I just can’t believe everything said or titles claimed anonymously.

            4. Ok.

          • 1. Ok.

            2. The link is active, here it is again:

            The Philippine Bishop’s conference even went along with it:

            The news is not fake, I read the Papal presser, which is linked to from the article and the Vatican Press office confirmation from Father Lombardi when it happened in February 17th, 2016.

            3. I really am and I accept your apology and I understand about not believing or accepting every thing someone says on the internet. But you can research the Zika Contraceptive report, it isn’t hard to find. It’s horrible, and shocking but it’s true. Please read the article Steve Linked for you below to 1P5 on it, it lays it out.

            4. I was being snarky with the ‘dialogue comment’ but I have been very exasperated having to deal with the Pope Francis stuff as a Pastor. I’m sorry about being snarky.

            5. May God Bless You and keep you safe in these troubled times.

          • Guys, a little discernment here. Popper is clearly not all together altogether. There’s not much to be gained arguing that reality is real with someone who shows signs of being mentally unable to tell the difference.

          • So it seems, in a sense (and, hey as to a possible cause, sin darkens the intellect – just sayin’).

            Yet, are the odds that other souls will be influenced by his diabolical disorientation nil? Perhaps not. We debate for the audience. 🙂

      • The rational Catholic position is never taught by the pope because his favourite theologian believes that it is too “heroic” for “normal Catholics” to manage. Apparently “normal Catholics” have no control over their appetites and must surrender to them constantly. (Makes me wonder what the pope’s favourite theologian is constantly surrendering to in order to have such low expectations of the life of grace.)

        • Exactly! Those who constantly go around trying to diminish the seriousness of sin are trying to assuage their own guilty consciences. You don’t need a doctorate in psychiatry to figure that out, it’s basic human psychology.

          • It’s also basic psychology that those who go around exaggerating the sin of those who go around trying to diminish sin, are also trying to assauge their own guilty consciences, just from the opposite angle.

    • Yes. A priest who gets it — truly gets it! Thank you so very much. You have no idea how much it means that you see and that you speak. None of the priests in my local community seem to understand. Or if they do understand, it is a private matter. Nary a word that anything is amiss has been spoken publicly.

      That has caused double angst: first there is the original problem and second there is a doubting of what one is witnessing. I want to give the benefit of the doubt; and I think most people do that same thing. It’s a matter of translation from Italian to English; it’s how the media reported the events; it’s “fill in the blank”.

      All of my Catholic friends have eyes glazed over: “Pope Francis is such a holy and such a humble man.” “He is exactly what the Church needs.” “People are coming back to the faith because of him (one of the priests says this).” And on and on it goes. I want to scream: Don’t you see, it isn’t Catholic teaching.

      May God richly bless you for having the courage and the integrity to speak out as you are doing.

      • Pope Francis isn’t drawing people back to the Church of Jesus Christ, which is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic: he is drawing people to himself and those like him who believe that a full house a faithful house.

        They are dead wrong. Turning the Lord’s house into a Modernist den of iniquity will cost them their souls.

        • Indeed he leads souls into error and death Father. Is it not a measure of the wrath of God that He had allowed such a scandal personified to occupy the papal chair? If St John Eudes says that bad priests and bishops are a mark of God’s anger with his people, what can one conclude about how God’s views the world and the Church right now? It is not an exaggeration to state that we are living in the end times, since it was no less than Sister Lucy who said so. Given that I think St Pauls epistles, particularly to Timothy and 2 Thess are particularly applicable. Francis is the type of pope the world wanted and most frighteningly God has granted that wish. Francis is a good candidate to be called the “operation of error” in person, or at least a very important component of it.

      • You are more patient than me. I have given up on getting through to my family (blood relatives that is) about the apostasy in the institutional church, so throughly captured by the spirit of the world they are. So I don’t even bother opening a discussion on the disgrace that currently occupies the Chair of St Peter. Sticking up for Christ and His Church has made my wife and I veritable outcasts with my family but I would do it again a thousand times and twice on Sunday if necessary.

  36. I share your sentiment, Hillary.

    This situation reminds me of a quote from Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich: “Do build it as solid as you can; we will put it to the ground”
    Those who know her prophecies will know what it relates to.

  37. “shouting fashionable heresies into their faces and daring them to deny them”
    Great line! The dubie should be directed to all cardinals and bishops to answer before God.

  38. A word on labels

    The labels Conservative and Liberal (and the others in the spectrum: ultra-conservative, moderate, progressive, etc.), are from the US/West sociopolitical landscape and a lens through which those familiar with them attempt to understand and thereafter apply to individuals and/or groups in the Church, wherein they have no meaning.

    For 1) These labels even when competeing, are presented as if they are equally valid.

    And 2) Within the Church as regards the faith and morals it is either faithful or not, orthodox or not, moral or immoral, good or evil.

    We hope that no one will choose to interpret the matter according to a “progressive/conservative” paradigm. That would be completely off the mark. We are deeply concerned about the true good of souls, the supreme law of the Church, and not about promoting any form of politics in the Church. – Exclusive Interview: Cardinal Burke Explains Plea to Pope for Clarity, November 14, 2016

  39. I fully concur with this article. Benedict’s abdication and his replacement by Bergoglio was foreseen and permitted by God for His own perfect purposes. Pope St. Pius X alerted the faithful to the bitter reality that the enemy was now “the enemy within.” Within a year of his election, Pius XI solicited the views of his closest curial cardinals on the advisability of convoking a Council of the Church. The suggestion was unanimously rejected on the grounds that the modernists would hijack such a council for their own nefarious purposes. The Bergoglian pontificate must now bring to a climax the crisis that has been intensifying exponentially for the last half-a-century. The restoration of the Church will soon be underway. This renewed Church can only be erected over the ruins of the “old”.

  40. Very unusual essay. “For 50 years, we have attempted to…” How would the author know, since she “re-entered Catholic life in the late 1990s.” While the author was on vacation, Pope John Paul II produced a Catechism that clarifies the tactics in the war against the dying Am Church, triggered fifteen political revolutions in the dying Soviets, and venerated sancti et beati to assist the living Militant Church. “The comfortable John Paul II” did not exist, since he was in pain 24/7 for decades from injuries, mortifications and calumnies. “The religious life will flower again.” Wow. It seems the author is delusional. Note to those release from the chains of envy: religious life will flower if and only if the teachings of Pope Benedict XVI are listened to and carried out.

  41. It’s a shame when l see or hear those who say they are Catholics blame St John Paul II l guess they are FSSPX…. Be careful…. What do u understand by Universal or Being a Mother?????? The church is a mother…. And remember in the scriptures it says…. God does not desire the death of any sinner…. God still permits both the rain and the sun to both shine and fall on all. St JPII understood that and was a real representative of Christ. I doubt if those who are his critics are real friends of the church. Christ rebuked Peter and co when they were grumbling about James and John…. He warned them, and said to be first you have to be a servant. Jesus Christ knew Judas was going to betray him, why did he allow him to still be among the twelve?? Christ kept hoping he would change and repent. That’s why the apostles described him as the one who chose to be lost.
    Every family always have their own black sheep, but they keep hoping and loving such is in other for them to change. Where there is truth you must find Charity… If any is separated from each other …there you find error. Who among anyone here was born a saint….. ???? The Church in her wisdom being guided by the Holy spirit Canonized the Pope. … The FFI are truly a blessing and an example of those who truly love Holy mother the Church. The understood what Christ meant by… Cut off from me, you can do nothing….. So they remain in the Church which in itself is Holy, and the source of Grace…. Nobody knows better than God…. The Blessed Virgin has always stated it in many of her apparitions, that the Church will be purified and she being the spouse of Christ can only be purified through the grace that flows out from the Sacred Heart of Jesus….

  42. La Misericordia Bulla

    Mercy for you, mercy from me.
    Hosanna, mercy! Hosanna, me !

    Dogma says “don’t”, doctrine says “whoa”!
    Tradition says “halt”. Serviam? I say No.

    Sin can be virtue, virtue be sin.
    But mercy is mercy, Voila! Sin again.

    Obstinate, harsh, hateful justice is wrong.
    Mercy the prize, dance to my song.

    Mercy the rock, the rock built on me.
    So it is now and ever will be.

    Mercy for all, unring the bell.
    Satan is saved, though his ideal is hell.

    Mercy for you, mercy from me.
    Hosanna, mercy! Hosanna, me!

    Guy McClung
    Copyright © GM 2016


    This is even better than the Trump victory to begin restoring the American Dream, right Hilary?

    But with a big proviso. Roughly half the voters were on the side of the angels so to speak. In the case of a Trump-like replacement for Pope Francis, my guess is that five percent would be high. So, to make Hilary’s dream come true the faithful 5% will have to join up with SSPX as an interim and practical matter.

    Maybe Hilary can let us know how she sees this revolutionary restoration of Traditional Catholicism playing out. One thing for sure are Christ’s words: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:24

  44. Everyone please get on board with this if you are not already:

    Cardinal Burkes Rosary Crusade: Specifically asking all of us to pray the Rosary today for certain intentions this being one of them: That bishops and priests will have the courage to teach the Truth and defend the Faith against all her enemies both within the Church and outside the Church. And may all confusion be dispelled from the Church

  45. This needed to be said. So many “conservative” Catholics look upon the reign of JPII with fondness that was not justified at all. I lived during the entire pontificate. Hillary White is a voice that sees the reality. So many “conservative” and “traditional” Catholics make their goal removing Pope Francis, like they make their goal getting rid of Obama in the political arena. What us happening to us is that the religion of the secular humanism that is embodied in the modern secular democracy has taken over as the most powerful influence n our behavior. This is subverting us.

  46. All you say in this article is true. Where were we? Why were we so afraid to do what our ancient ancestors did to preserve the faith for all these years? I believe that more people are turning to God now and THAT is where these prelates are receiving the graces necessary to stand firm in the faith. Our Blessed Mother told US to do the reparation. Why has it taken so long for us to do it?

  47. We must remember that the four Cardinals didn’t start this war, the Pope and his minions did. They started a rebellion against Christ and a few of his soldiers bravely decided to resist. But the vast majority of his soldiers have either also rebelled or are still asleep in their warm beds while the four brave soldiers, do their best by themselves.

  48. Those nuns sound like the teachers at my sons’ “Catholic” school.

    Everything they teach has to be accepted, except Catholicism. Then they get the options laid before them.

  49. Vatican II Documents Another look

    If Vatican II was hijacked by modernists [not saying that they didn’t try] and their heresies made it into Vatican II documents, then those documents would be a treasure trove from which say Pope Francis and the innovators would draw from. One would expect them to be copiously quoted in AL. On the contrary, we find Pope Francis quoting himself and when he quotes from the said VII documents, he misuses and distorts them.

    • The problem is iterative. What could be inserted into Vatican II was relatively restrained, considering the historical context.

      The Trojan Horse must be built bigger, stronger, faster, now that it is already inside the gates. They’ve moved on from straight V2 justifications to justifications in their own writings which were, of course, derived from exploitable passages in V2.

        • Which is why Bishop Schneider suggested a list of syballus of errors re : Vatican II. That would take care of the “exploitable passages”, with no need to reject all of Vatican II. When people like Bishop Schneider don’t reject V2, I think there is a need to look at it closely

          • (upvoted with a caveat) … syballus of errors re : Vatican II … wrong interpretations and errors drawn from the Council and/or its documents. In matters of faith and morals, an ecumenical Council under a pope cannot teach error.

          • If that Council is dogmatic and invokes infallibility. Vatican II was the first ecumenical Council not to be dogmatic and infallible. In fact it was the first ecumenical Council of its kind. A pastoral Council. Since it was pastoral and not dogmatic, it is not protected from error like previous councils. I fully expect that Vatican II will be resolved in this century by a future Pope or Council. The only resolution is the revoking of Vatican II as an official ecumenical Council of the Church.

          • Search my responses on disqus to misunderstanding such as yours. In brief:

            1) The entire sacred deposit of faith is infallible. Dogmas [= revealed truths which have been formally defined or proposed by the Church] are just a subset of all the Church teaches as regards faith and morals and all she teaches as regards faith and morals is infallible because she teaches what she received, which was deposited with the LORD Jesus and the Apostles and closed with the death of the last Apostle John. The Church has never and will never teach any new doctrine. Dogmas do not create new teaching.

            2) The revealed truths in faith and morals that the Church teaches are just infallible before they were proposed as dogmas as they are after they were proposed as dogmas.

            3) There is no such thing as “only a pastoral council” but there are ecumenical councils – [Vatican II is one of them, the 21st and the latest] modeled after the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem. All of the Church’s ecumenical councils are by their very nature pastoral and by their very nature are infallibly protected in their teaching on faith and morals dogmatic or not.

            4) What must hold for one council in terms of the positive protection via the charism of infallibility Christ endowed his Church with must hold for ALL ecumenical councils.

            5) I have asked and someone has yet to point out to me a single error in faith and morals in the 16 Vatican II documents.
            It seems to me that to say something is pastoral is synonymous with fudging the revealed truths of the faith. That for sure is from the innovators and from the pits of hell and therefore it is sad when Catholics fall for this false dichotomy [though among certain circles, they are looking for a way to very much to discredit VII e.g. your, ‘ I fully expect that Vatican II will be resolved in this century by a future Pope or Council. The only resolution is the revoking of Vatican II as an official ecumenical Council of the Church.’ And only you can answer why this would be your expectation].

          • All of the Church’s ecumenical councils are by their very nature pastoral and by their very nature are infallibly protected in their teaching on faith and morals dogmatic or not.

            No, they are only infallibly protected because they invoked infallibility in their canons and definitions. A council is not infallible because it was called, it is infallible because they invoked infallibility in their definitions by invoking the Holy Spirit to be free from error and stated so in their documents. Unless the Holy Spirit is invoked and infallibility invoked in a council document in writing, there is no infallibility there. Vatican II defined no dogmas and did not invoke infallibility in any of its documents in writing.

          • Lumen Gentium #16:
            “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”

          • Do you need it in caps? Islam does not acknowledge the DIVINITY OF JESUS, THE SECOND PERSON OF THE HOLY TRINITY, and ‘the plan of salvation’ necessitates this, period.

          • Neither does Judaism. That there is only one God and his is the Creator does not require Faith and this is reachable via natural reason [“the God of the philosophers”] – Cf. Catholic Encyclopedia > G > The Existence of God –
            PS There is a grevious error hidden in your the DIVINITY OF JESUS, THE SECOND PERSON OF THE HOLY TRINITY. The truth about the incarnation, God becoming man, the Second Person the Blessed Trinity assuming human nature, changed neither what God is [his nature] nor who God is [the persons of the Most Blessed and Thrice Holy Trinity]. God and the Trinity remain the same without increase or decrease before as after the incarnation.

          • I’m sorry I wasted my time responding to you. You didn’t address what I wrote, just attempted misdirection. Also, I understand what I’m seeing in your comments now. Carry on as you like, but I hope other readers understand.

          • Dignitatis humanae # 3:
            “Government therefore ought indeed to take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favor, since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare. However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious.”

          • The Church has always condemned the separation of Church and state. The state has a duty to be a Catholic confessional state. Government has the right to command or inhibit acts that are religious. Dignitatis humanae is saying that the state exceeds its authority if it directs or prevents religious acts. That the state cannot be confessional, and that it exceeds its authority if it is not secular or godless. Because of Vatican II and Dignitatis humanae, many European Catholic counries abandoned their Catholic constitutions in favor of secular constitutions.

          • From the infallible Sacred Deposit of the Faith [Sacred Scripture portion]:

            10 Pilate therefore said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.” – John 19:10-11 (RSVCE)


            13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution,[a] whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. – 1 Peter 2:13-15 (RSVCE)

            Footnotes: 1 Peter 2:13 Or every institution ordained for men

            Therefore LORD and his Vicar and first Pope St. Peter acknowledge and are subject to a temporary civil authority that is NOT a Catholic confessional state and that such institutions receive their authority from God, and St. Peter teaching that we be subject to such authority, therefore what you have written and your understanding of it is what is not Catholic.
            Further recommended reading: Catholic Encyclopedia > S > State and Church –

          • This has nothing to do with the Church’s earlier and authoritative condemnations of religious liberty. Are you attempting to make the case that those have somehow been nullified?

          • I effectively answered @asburyfox’s post.
            Now to you: where is “prior Church condemnation on religious liberty” in @asburyfox’s post re: Dignitatis humanae # 3?

          • Condemned: “Liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man…” (Pius IX, Quanta Cura)

            Condemned: “…the best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledgment by the government of the duty of restraining… offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands” (Pius IX, Quanta Cura)

            Condemned: “Liberty of conscience and of worship… should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society…” (Pius IX, Quanta Cura)

            Condemned: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship” – Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors

            Condemned: “Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.” – Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors

            Condemned: “Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. – Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors

          • That’s what you draw from @asburyfox’s post re: Dignitatis humanae # 3 but that’s not what it actually says which is simply as regards the State, thst it ought take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favor since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare (my emphasis) without promoting or inhibiting one religious belief over another for the sake for the common good (key) or provided the common good is not compromised.

          • I’m sorry, but I can’t make sense of your response.

            I’m telling you flat out why DH has a problem.

            “The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom…” (Dignitatis Humanae, §2)


            Condemned: that “Liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man…” (Pius IX, Quanta Cura)


            This isn’t rocket surgery. These things dont’ go together.

          • I believe you are the one who injected himself in my exchange with Asbury Fox. And now you want to hijack and redirect the exchange? Briefly, then, you draw from Dignitatis humanae # 3 in Asbury Fox’s comment the position of religious freedom already condemned by the Church whilst my reading is that the State’s obligation is the Common Good which ought to take into account the religious life of its citizens [cf.
            PS My understanding of one Asbury Fox’s reading of DH #3 is that the Church teaches that State has a duty to be a Catholic confessional state. I effectively answered her from Scripture.

          • I did inject myself, as I am wont to do. Thus are the privileges of being the Moderator.

            As for your understanding of AF’s reading of DH #3, that is consonant with the Church’s own. Again:

            Condemned: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship” – Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors

          • First of all, I am not a she but a he. Asbury Fox is a man’s name and is a male literary character.

            What I said was that the state had the duty to be a Catholic confessional state. That a nation and the people should be converted to Catholicism and that its government should be a confessional state. Catholicism being the state religion. I didn’t get this from DH. This was the teaching of the Church before Vatican II and DH. Now DH#3 comes along and says the state shouldn’t direct or prevent religious activities, but in a Catholic sate, that is precisely what a Catholic government does. It’s their right and duty.

            For example, a Jew in a Catholic state has the freedom of religion to practice his religion in his synagogue. He doesn’t however, have the right or liberty to go to a public street corner to shout that Judaism is the one true religion. He can’t proselytize. The state can prevent the religious activity of public proselytization. The state can also limit the number of mosques built in a country. This is all preventing religious activity. The state can also promote religious activity by having Holy Days be state holidays free from work.

            Pope Leo XIII Libertas #21
            “…justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness — namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide — as they should do — with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community”

          • Thanks for the clarification. Did I refer to you as a “she”? If so, my bad and I stand corrected. I believe I must have assumed so initially then thought about it and thereafter replaced it with your name/handle.

          • Reread Pope Leo in Libertas. I even quoted Libertas #21 above. There are are other teachings from other Popes on this. The Church has taught against the separation of church and state clearly in the last two and three centuries.

          • Cf. DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY | EWTN – and Vatican II vs Pius IX? A Study in Lefebvrism by Fr. William G. Most | Catholic Culture – and Pius IX, Vatican II and Religious Liberty by Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D. –
            Cf. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2104-2109):
            The last an author here at 1P5? A chat between you two might be in order. [though I find his article confused e.g the paragraph that begins: Vatican II, however, in highlighting another aspect of divine law – the natural right of all men to be left free (within due limits) to practice their own religion without human interference – has in effect substantially changed this earlier ecclesiastical law (not doctrine). In the same way, the Church has often changed many other aspects of her previous legislation or discipline when they no longer….].
            Catholic Encyclopedia > T > Religious Toleration –

          • If you don’t see that the compared meanings are incompatible, it makes me question you reading comprehension. And if the council can be determined however anyone wants, then how is it any better than Amoris Laetitia?

          • I am thinking you must be very familiar with my numerous posting here on 1P5 on the Council and its documents and on Amoris Laetitia, my thinking on these and the reasoning behind it.

          • We receive hundreds of comments most days, and I don’t read them all carefully, particularly the long ones.

            So no, I’m not. But I’m certain your defenses won’t stand up against what is obviously irreconcilable.

          • You are certain that my defenses won’t stand up even without reading them? Herein is the problem I encounter within certain circles and those who lean toward them, i.e. they just confined themselves to sound bites often repeated in those circles.
            But this is the worrisome part that your position is that of the SSPX who have doctrinal differences with the Church.

          • Yes, I’m certain. And the reason it’s so easy to be certain is that I believe in the principle of non-contradiction. It cuts out a lot of the guesswork. Knowing that a thing cannot be both true and not true at the same time means that if the Church held something as true, you can’t show up later and explain why it really wasn’t. That is, not if you believe in her Divinely-inspired teaching authority.

            Also worth noting is that the SSPX have precisely ZERO doctrinal differences with the teachings of Catholicism as they were understood prior to the Second Vatican Council. And as the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (whose job it is to deal with the SSPX) said earlier this year of the concerns of the SSPX over Vatican II:

            They are not about doctrines or definitive statements, but, rather, about instructions and orienting guides for pastoral practice. On can [thus legitimately] continue to discuss these pastoral aspects after the [proposed] canonical approval [of the SSPX], in order to lead us to further [and acceptable] clarifications.

            When asked by the journalist as to whether the Vatican has now come to the idea that the varied Council documents have different dogmatic weights, Pozzo very importantly states:

            This is certainly not a [later] conclusion on our part, but it was already clear at the time of the Council. The General Secretary of the Council, Cardinal Pericle Felici, declared on 16 November 1964: “This holy synod defines only that as being binding for the Church what it declares explicitly to be such with regard to Faith and Morals.” Only those texts assessed by the Council Fathers as being binding are to be accepted as such. That has not been [later] invented by “the Vatican,” but it is written in the official files themselves.


          • I have recently referenced this here on 1P5:

            Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. (My emphasis)- Benedict XVI > Letters 2009 > Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Remission of the Excommunication of the Four Bishops Consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre –

          • He can say it until he’s blue in the face. To my knowledge, the Vatican has NEVER – not even once – demonstrated what the doctrinal errors of the SSPX are, or why their beliefs are in any way incongruous with Catholic teaching.

            It is true that they are asking questions of a doctrinal nature. The problem is: they’re the ones honoring the authentic doctrine, and the Vatican has strayed from it in practice.

          • Clearly in the letter above Pope [now Emeritus] BXVI is speaking for the Church and not the Vatican or else how would you explain that even the SSPX themselves acknowledge that they do not have a canonical status within the Church?
            What I am now going to say, for all it’s worth, I say as someone who appreciates and has benefited from your Apostolate [1P5 +] and who also has been grateful for the voice you have granted me and my comments here. God bless you and reward you for that. But my take is that you flirt with the Trads/their position, who/which to me are just but another snare from the crisis within the Church that the evil one has whipped up.

          • As the supreme legislator of the Church, Benedict had the right to leave them without a canonical status. That does not mean that such an action as just. As Bp. Schneider said, after his official visit as a Vatican observer to the SSPX, there are “no weighty reasons” that they should not be restored to full status “as they are.”

            I do not flirt with Trads/their position. I believe that the Church my grandparents and great grandparents worshiped in, the truths that they were taught, the Mass that they were nourished by, is the authentic expression of Catholicism. I believe that the authenticity of this venerable and divinely revealed faith has been eclipsed and occluded by a post-conciliar construct that is not just banal, but anti-sacred. That much of what happened at the council and certainly what was done to the liturgy was perpetrated principally by those who sought in malice to diminish, if not to destroy, the Catholic faith.

            I hate using the label “traditionalist.” It just means Catholic. It’s the novelty of the late 20th and early 21st century Catholicism that requires a new taxonomy for identification.

          • Thank you for claryfying for your position as regards SSPX.

            So exactly what is your position regarding:

            1) Vatican II Council. Valid Ecumenical Council or not?

            2) Vatican II’s 16 documents. Did Vatican II in its 16 documents teach error in faith or morals? Yes or no?

          • Briefly:

            1) I believe that it is most likely valid, but there are enough problems in it that I’ll leave it to the Magisterium to ultimately decide. And I fully expect that when the restoration of the Church finally comes, correcting Vatican II will be one of the main areas of focus.

            2) This is a thornier question. My citation of Pozzo above seems sufficient to cover my position. Not everything in the council is binding, and the things that are seem not to be controversial, inasmuch as they re-state established teaching. But there are errors in Vatican II “about instructions and orienting guides for pastoral practice” and they need to be corrected. There are potentially some more serious errors. I am aware of at least one bishop and one theologian working on analyzing these. (LG 25’s “religious assent of mind and will” is arguably an overreach of the authority of the ordinary magisterium, for example.)

            One could, of course, argue that questions like that of religious liberty are matters of faith and morals, since they have previously been solemnly defined. I don’t feel that I have the theological competence at this point to state anything definitive about those, so my position is evolving as I learn more.

            Unlike my friend Jordan, I do not believe Vatican II added anything of benefit to the Church; it did, on the contrary, do damage. Inasmuch as it introduced no new authentic doctrinal developments, however, if it were somehow erased from the history books, we’d lose nothing but 60 years of confusion and bad catechesis.

          • Excuse me budding in here. While I disagree with nothing Steve said, the question itself (1) is a red herring. Of course Vatican II was a valid ecumenical council: It was a canonically legal council of the world’s episcopate with its documents ratified by the pope.

            The pertinent question is whether or not its documents teaching anything *new* that is *binding* on the faithful, and the answer is “no,” according even to both the council and the ratifying pontiff! (Let me know if you need to see those references.)

            As to assent of mind & will, the theologians have always taught that exceptions are admitted (for anything not directly de fide) – specifically when a teaching is either unclear or appears to contradict something of higher authority.

            The fact that Vatican II did not even intend to define new teachings is made evident by precisely that: In point of fact, it is the only ecumenical council that both defined no dogmas and issued no anathemas (these are exactly the reasons ecumenical councils are normally convened – to settle a matter of doctrinal dispute and/or condemn errors).

            What went on here is far deeper and far more insidious than questions like, “Was the council valid?” even hint at.

          • To ask someone where they stand on an important particular issue is not a red herring. 1P5 reaches many, we ought to know exactly where those behind it stand.
            1) As to whether Vatican II was a valid Ecumenical Council, you and every visitor here ought to be troubled that @skojec did not answer in the affirmative, with a simple YES, as you have done. Thank you for the basis of that yes:

            Of course Vatican II was a valid ecumenical council: It was a canonically legal council of the world’s episcopate called by a pope with its documents ratified by the pope.

            2) As to the rest of your comment, you will find my responses in comments as regards this topic under this article and elsewhere on disqus.

          • My statement concerned the question in general, not the instance of it you invoked to Mr. Skojec.

            I don’t think there’s any doubt that Steve believes the council to have been “valid.” I think you’re stretching if you see any evidence to the contrary. But that’s none of my business.

            No offense, but I’m not interested in your responses to what I stated regarding the council. 🙂 Facts are facts.

          • I have spoken for myself. As with this papacy, the council is valid until and unless it is proven otherwise. It certainly would be no loss if it were tossed on the scrapheap of history, though.

          • It certainly would be no loss if it were tossed on the scrapheap of history, though To say this of a valid ecumenical Church council? Wow!
            the council is valid until and unless it is proven otherwise … troubling caveat … So the Church would contradict herself? That then would be a Church that is not the Church Christ founded, then the LORD promise for his Church has failed and I would want no part with her or such a lord.

          • We’re talking about a heretical papacy that derives its impetus from that seeds planted at that council. I have no qualms about what I said.

            And if the council were proven to have included errors — even if only in non-doctrinal assertions — it would need to be addressed, revised, or revoked. That’s not a contradiction of infallibility.

            We’ve had messy councils before (see: but as usual, we’re in potentially uncharted territory.

          • From: Catholic Encyclopedia > C > General Councils
            (My emphasis)

            1) Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.

            2) Papal and conciliar infallibility are correlated but not identical. A council’s decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council’s infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope’s infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions. This accounts for the fact that, before the Vatican decree concerning the supreme pontiff’s ex-cathedra judgments, Ecumenical councils were generally held to be infallible even by those who denied the papal infallibility; it also explains the concessions largely made to the opponents of the papal privilege that it is not necessarily implied in the infallibility of councils, and the claims that it can be proved separately and independently on its proper merits. The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature. Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an Ecumenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of all Christ’s co-workers for the salvation of man through true faith and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the truth for which they are striving. His presence, by cementing the unity of the assembly into one body — His own mystical body — gives it the necessary completeness, and makes up for any defect possibly arising from the physical absence of a certain number of bishops. The same presence strengthens the action of the pope, so that, as mouthpiece of the council, he can say in truth, “it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us”, and consequently can, and does, put the seal of infallibility on the conciliar decree irrespective of his own personal infallibility.
            Given the foregoing, it is clear that hoping and waiting for VII council and/or some or all of its documents, and/or part of its documents to be tossed on the scrapheap of history is wishful thinking and more seriously, those so wishing and hoping are placing their souls in grave danger should they persist in their position.

            The only thing that I can grant can and ought to happen is the proper interpretation of the Council and its documents à la Pope Emeritus BXVI’s “hermeneutic of reform”, of renewal in the continuity []. Something Robert Cardinal Sarah is eager to accomplish as regards the Liturgy.

          • Well, I agree with one huge exception. VII did was a pastoral Council- not a dogmatic/doctrinal one. That said, Modernism certainly hijacked the Council and the Novus Ordo Mass. My friend, the SSPX is right, and they have been right for fifty years. I am under NO obligation by my own well formed, Catholic conscience to accept VII’s aberrations of both Faith and Morals- or the blather that continues to come out of all the Modernist liberal prelates and clergy- to include Francis’ AL.

          • From my recent numerous postings on this matter it ought to be clear to ALL especially those of the same thinking as you, that they ought to promptly distance themselves from the Trads/Traditionalists and their position, and from those of like thinking. Their salvation may depend on it especially after my expose.

          • I’ll respond to your assertion about the infallibility of V2 later, but I can assure you that I know of prelates and theologians alike who agree that it contains errors that must be formally corrected.

            As for wanting distance from traditionalists: this is probably not the place for you then. Traditionalism, properly understood = Catholicism. We don’t hide the fact that we approach the faith from that perspective here, and it is always our hope that we can evangelize post-conciliar Catholics in a way that returns to them what was stolen from their inheritance.

          • What I have written, I have written.
            We don’t hide the fact that we approach the faith from that perspective here Thank you for clearing that up because my earlier take was that you flirt with that position.
            As for wanting distance from traditionalists: this is probably not the place for you then. Thank you because I am to live and be consistent with my own counsel, and I believe my work here is done.

          • When you say Trads/Traditionalists, to whom do you refer? And, their position? My friend, the Trads/Traditionalists do not advocate anything that would lead any Catholic into either heresy or schism. This includes the SSPX. I, for one, am sick and tired of all the Modernists in the Church. I, like many, have suffered greatly through the years. I know. I spent three and half years in the seminary only a mere six months from ordination to transitional deacon before the heretics in the seminary showed me the door. These same folks and their ilk remain responsible to this day for furthering, among other things, the Homosexual Collective within their ranks. So, please help me understand just exactly what you mean. I would like to understand. And, for the record, yes, I am a fan of The Remnant website, Mr. Michael Matt, and Mr. Christopher Ferrara.

          • The limitation in your understanding is user error, not a bug in the system. I reached out to a professor of dogmatic theology to get clarification on these points.

            His response:

            LG 25: “The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.”

            Also see the “Nota Previa” of LG.

            I.e., a council speaks infallibly only when making a solemn definition. Period.

            That was never the intention of Vatican II in its entirety. Ergo, it is not infallible in all of its constituent parts.

          • My last post: a comment by professor of dogmatic theology vs. A Catholic Encyclopedia article with Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

          • Better then that I do not to make definitive statements like last comment when we are having a conversation.
            In the same Catholic Encyclopedia article, cf. section: Subject matter of infallibility and the section that follows it Promulgation.

          • You’re making the same mistake sedevacantists do: overestimating the scope of this relatively limited charism.

            You’ll note that the Encyclopedia article you cite speaks of the infallibility of “decrees.” The Church doesn’t accidentally issue infallible statements. She intentionally and clearly formulates them. Vatican II was never intended to issue any such formulations. It re-stated some existing statements that are infallible, but it did not create anything new that binds the faithful or is, strictly speaking, protected from error.

            I understand that the language of V2 documents is confusing, with “dogmatic constitutions” and “decrees on topix X, Y, Z”, but this is why we need to urge caution in our understanding. I fear that they were using this language very loosely, in the hope that it would be understood as more authoritative than it was.

            I sometimes think the word “pastoral” gets bandied about so often that people lose sight of what it means. It has nothing to do with defining anything, and everything to do with offering malleable guidelines. That V2 was seen even by the pope at the time as a “pastoral council” should be informative in this regard. And with the current head of the PCED saying that the disagreements the SSPX have with V2 are pastoral, not doctrinal, and thus negotiable, we have a certain continuity in understanding over half a century.

            It is also important to remember that certain statements in V2 are difficult if not impossible to reconcile with prior Church teaching; in such cases, prior teaching is always given precedence as true.

          • As I have repeatedly asked–and I have never received a coherent answer–what are the dogmatically binding propositions and/or decrees of the Second Vatican Council? If there is apparent tension between Vatican II formulations and those of prior teachings, to which are we bound?

          • You did not answer my question in the slightest: what are the dogmatically binding propositions and/or decrees of the Second Vatican Council?

            I am asking for specific, discrete propositions and/or decrees of the Council itself, not of subsequent Magisterial documents. What you have presented is a slightly wordier variant of the usual hand-waving.

            To be clear, I do not reject the authority of the Council, nor do I hold that “the Council did not intend to teach, and has not taught, and her teaching as regards faith or morals do not bind or can be ignored…” I am asking the simplest of questions.

          • To be clear, I do not reject the authority of the Council, nor do I hold that “the Council did not intend to teach, and has not taught, and her teaching as regards faith or morals do not bind or can be ignored…” Thanks be to God.
            What I have offered is surely not mine but from the Popes of the Council, isn’t it? What you take as “wordiness” is surely theirs and not mine.
            1) If by dogmatically binding propositions of the Council you mean dogmas i.e., revealed truths which have been formally defined or proposed by the Council, Pope Paul VI has given that answer i.e. they are none:

            The Council, … avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.

            2) Understanding your question as asking, ‘so what do we get from the Council?’ or ‘what did the Council leave us?’, again Pope Paul VI answers:

            The legacy of the Council consists of the documents which were promulgated in the various final moments of its discussions and its deliberations; these documents are of a different nature; namely Constitutions are (four), are Decrees (nine) and Statement (three); but all together they form a body of doctrines and laws, which must give the Church the renewal to which the Council has been promoted. Learn, study, apply these documents is the duty and it is the luck of the post-conciliar period. (My emphasis)

            So, ALL sixteen documents together form a body of doctrines and laws. And this should answer those who ask whether the Council was doctrinal and correct those who say that “the Council was not doctrinal”. How this body of doctrines and laws is to be taken and understood, Pope Paul VI again tells us that:

            a) This is to be arrived at by learning, studying, applying these documents and that this is the duty and luck of the post-conciliar period.

            b) They [the teachings (my emphasis) of the Council] must not [be detached from] from the doctrinal patrimony of the Church. And

            c) They must be accepted docilely and sincerely by ALL the faithful in accord to the mind of the Council about the nature and purposes of the individual documents.
            If someone has a doubt or a question as regards what Vatican II did or taught, they ought to approach the Church and no one else. See for example:
            Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church | Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – and

            Commentary on Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church | Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith –

          • And what are those doctrines and laws?

            Actually, that was too flip. Let me try again.

            The fundamental problem I see is that Catholic doctrines and laws traditionally tend to be formulated in a succinct, unambiguous fashion, in which the basic premise can be expressed in one or maybe two sentences. To the best of my knowledge, no-one has done so for the “doctrines and laws” formulated by the Council. Whenever I ask the question, I get essentially the same response as you have given: we’re bound to all of it, and you just have to docilely figure out what you’re being told to do. Oddly, I find this to be an unsatisfactory answer.

            We know that the Council left the doctrinal patrimony of the Church untouched, as of course it was bound to do. We know that several eminent Council Fathers objected to the ambiguous nature of the conciliar documents. We know, further, that due to this ambiguity, people have claimed thousands of contradictory things about what Vatican II requires us to do over the past 50-odd years. And we are now being told that the regularization of the SSPX may not require complete adherence to the Council texts, which indicates a somewhat more modest level of teaching authority than you are claiming.

            To be blunt, gesturing vaguely in the direction of the entire body of conciliar (and subsequent) documents does not move us one angstrom towards resolving these questions and contradictory interpretations. Until someone with magisterial authority comes up with a succinct, pellucid syllabus of the authoritative teachings of Vatican II, we are left groping in semi-darkness.

          • Especially as regards doctrines I can find no better example that Catechism of the Catholic Church – [Prepared following The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council – cf. and the teachings of the Council contained therein.
            Cf. Apostolic Letter Laetamur Magnopere In which the Latin Typical Edition of the Catechism of the catholic church is Approved and Promulgated –
            PS Recommended Reading: Apostolic Constitution Sacrae Disciplinae Leges of the Supreme Pontiff Pope John Paul II for the Promulgation of the New Code of Canon Law

          • The fundamental problem I see is that Catholic doctrines and laws traditionally tend to be formulated in a succinct, unambiguous fashion, in which the basic premise can be expressed in one or maybe two sentences.

            Has never been the case as I answered above and provided a reference which was pre-Vatican II – The example the article provided was from the same Council.
            And we are now being told that the regularization of the SSPX may not require complete adherence to the Council texts, which indicates a somewhat more modest level of teaching authority than you are claiming.

            This is under the Pontificate of Pope Francis. I would go to the Pontificates of Popes St. John Paul II and Emeritus BXI to find what what the requirements are for SSPX’s regularization cf. It should be noted that SSPX has not ‘taken the bait’ [because that’s what I think it is] as regards the latest offer.
            To be clear we are talking about only doctrines and laws that the Church teaches [the Church can never teach error in faith or morals – this is an impossibility] and promulgates from those 16 documents and not everything in those 16 documents.
            PS Reality shows that even misunderstanding and confusion are never eliminated by dogmas [note: all Church Teaching is not dogma] as I understand you would have preferred the Council to have done cf. the dogma of papal infallibility.

          • OK, so to return to my flip question, what are those doctrines and laws? Please be as specific as you can.

            And I’m not sure how you can bifurcate the pontificates of Francis on one hand and JPII/BXVI on the other, unless you are claiming that the former is somehow of lesser authority than his predecessors. Regardless of their response, the SSPX has been told by a prelate of the Catholic Church that they are not required to assent to the entirety of Vatican II.

          • OK, so to return to my flip question, what are those doctrines and laws? Please be as specific as you can.

            Can do no better than what I have previously posted. Sorry.
            And I’m not sure how you can bifurcate the pontificates of Francis on one hand and JPII/BXVI on the other, unless you are claiming that the former is somehow of lesser authority than his predecessors. Regardless of their response, the SSPX has been told by a prelate of the Catholic Church that they are not required to assent to the entirety of Vatican II.

            This ought to be obvious. Authority has nothing to do with this but the truth, Just as PF’s AL contradicts and cannot be reconciled with e.g. Pope St. John Paul II’s FC and VS.

            …And authority can be overstepped, or abused, or misused, etc.

          • This was what I was hoping you would get:

            The same remark applies to the chapters of the Vatican Council in its two Constitutions, as appears from the concluding words of the proemium of the first Constitution and from the initial phrases of most chapters. All that may be conceded is that the chapters of both councils contain the doctrina catholica, i.e. the authorized teaching of the Church, but not always and invariably dogmata formalia, i.e. propositions of faith defined as such. (My emphais)

            What you say is just a regurgitation of what is erroneously repeated within certain circles, responses to which I have already made.
            As to who is similar/close to sedevacantists, perhaps with a foot already in Sedevacantism, please judge this person i.e. a person who substitutes “The Vatican” in place of where “The Church” has acted.

          • Observations on the professor of dogmatic theology and his position

            1) If Vatican II and its documents are in dispute, why does he offer LG and LG 25?

            2) If a council speaks infallibly only when making a solemn definition. Period. On what basis is LG and LG 25 and what he offers from them infallible?

            3) On the contrary, I have an offered an article with Ecclesiastical approbation prior to Vatican II and

            a) Since the professor of dogmatic theology disputes Vatican II/its documents and we are in dispute as regards what is infallible in them, wouldn’t he have been better served to look at how Ecumenical Councils have generally been held within the Church?

            b) Then it also follows from all the above that isn’t the position of the professor of dogmatic theology the one of paradox à la Abp. Lefebvre [] and that is, by his own interpretation of Vatican II and its documents, he is giving up what has generally been held within the Church as regards Ecumenical Councils?
            As regards what is infallible from the Council, I have never once stated that ALL from the Council is infallible and the article I have referenced clearly states that. What I have consistently stated is that the matter has to pertain to faith and morals and that the Church has to be teaching. All that the Church teaches as regards faith and morals, her competency, is infallible, be they in her solemn definitions or not, and I have effectively shown in my past comments, that those things that now have a solemn definition were always taught in the Church [or connected to them] therefore it makes so sense to imply as the the professor of dogmatic theology is implying that it is as if the act of solemnly defining is the one that imparts infallibility.

          • Then why does the Church continue to teach?:

            “Outside the Church there is no salvation”

            846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

            Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

            847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

            Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.

            848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”
            (sans footnotes)

          • However, is quite apparent that in our post Vatican II era, most prelates, priests, etc., continue to teach that “all men have a reasonable hope of salvation.” Well, the problem is, we do not.
            Although I will grant the Vatican II Council Fathers the benefit of the doubt regarding the culpability of non-Catholics through no fault of their own that God can save them, this is a departure from the previous 1,962 years of Catholic teaching passed on to us from Christ and the Twelve Apostles.
            The Church is in a mess- and that is an understatement. The Faithful need clarity, not vagueness, and cloudy answers.

          • The Church is in a mess- and that is an understatement. The Faithful need clarity, not vagueness, and cloudy answers. ?
            I try to carefully distinguish post Vatican II era from the Council itself and its documents.
            Good exchange and thank you. God bless you and yours and his work at your hands [great or small, exalted or humble, each of us has a particular calling to building up the Body that is the LORD’s Church] and may he bless you abundantly this Christmas season. Come, Lord Jesus!

    • Roberto de Mattei, an Italian historian, has written an impressive book entitled The Second Vatican Council – An Unwritten Story. It explains it all. The hijacking occurred the day after the Council commenced, on October 13, 1962. All the schema that had been prepared in anticipation of the Council — previously applauded by John XXIII — were cast aside and a new Council began. Do not deprive yourself of this illuminating read. Somewhat long, demands attention, but it gives you an insight into ecclesiastical life that all adult Catholics need be familiar with as we are now exposed to similar gymnastics today. It hones the eye and makes the last fifty-five years of ecclesial life far more intelligible.

      • With the shenanigans and the rigging that went on during the 2 most recent Synods on the Family, one need not stretch their imagination that the enemies of the Church must have tried the same tactic before in the past. After all, there is nothing new under the sun. Trying is not the same as succeeding. They couldn’t do it in organs [Synods] not protected by the charism of infallibility, impossible when the Church is assembled at its fullest teaching authority in ecumenical councils that are protected by the gift of the charism of infallibility that Christ endowed his Church with.

        • Again, regard the language with which the documents were rendered. As you reference and as we all have so recently witnessed, ambiguity serves a purpose. That ambiguity served to allow all manner of aberrant pastoral interpretation and application. Recall, no doctrinal statements were included in the Second Vatican Council. That is clear in its stated purpose, documents and what has been uttered by Pope Benedict.
          The Second Vatican Council while intended to finish what the First Vatican Council began, was not on the same level. It did not issue any doctrinal statements. And regard well how the documents of the First Vatican Council were rendered — and all other Councils. Precision reigns for a purpose — to glorify God in the elevation of Faith and reason, and practically to avoid what we are presently enduring.

          • ambiguous … concur

            error? … impossible

            doctrinal? … Yes. The Council taught. Cf. 16 VII documents.

            dogmatic? … No. As no revealed truths were formally defined and proposed by the Church [i.e. no dogmas].

          • Pardon me…
            You are indeed correct, they are doctrinal to the degree that they already recall established doctrine. They do not present any new doctrine.

          • It was the end of a long day…
            I posted that last comment, went to bed, realized what I had written and fell asleep before I could decide whether I should come back and edit or forget it…
            But around the idea of doctrine at Vatican II it must be admitted that facets of doctrine were placed precariously on the edge of reasonable support. The idea of religious liberty for instance and its tension with “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” – “outside the Church there is no salvation,” and Rahner’s proposal of the “anonymous Christian.”
            You can’t tug a frayed strand in the rich tapestry of the two thousand year old Church without consequences unforeseen.

  50. Brexit, President Trump, the 4 Cardinals…….the best I have felt going into Advent ‘evah!’ I think our Lord has put the bad guys on the run!

    • There is much truth in what you say so briefly. It is a bit unnerving how there are these parallel developments transpiring at the same time. With some reflection I believe we could ferret out a few more.

  51. You’re a neo-protestant traitor and sewer of disunity. In other words, an agent of Satan.

    Why would bishops demand a clarification from the Pope pertaining to unalterable doctrine, except as a means of subtly, tacitly, and publicly, accusing the Pope of heresy? Such an act is a scandal and slander, and serves only the cause of those prideful usurpers who are attempting to use freedom of speech and social media to generate a schism that would land them as heads of a new church.

    • St. Paul confronted Peter to his face. Bishops in the past have done the same to Popes. The only scandal and slander are the words coming from Pope Francis who wants to destroy Christ’s true Church by instituting sacrilege.

      The Pope is not infallible unless he specifically invokes the mantle of infallibility. We’ve had heretical Popes in the past. Popes are not God. They can not change truth or doctrine only defend it and propagate it. Thank goodness for people like Hillary on social media who are educating and proclaiming the truths of Christ unlike our silent and incompetent shepherds who sit by doing nothing while the Bride of Christ is raped.

      How can their be unity in falsehood? Light and dark do not walk together per Scripture. Pointing out the lies and destructive heresies is an act of charity (instructing the ignorant) and brings clarity. And true unity can ONLY come with shared truth and purity of doctrine.

      God bless~

    • The four cardinals are not the individuals who have placed unalterable doctrine in question as a means of subtly, tacitly, and publicly undermining the papacy. Such an act by the individual committing is indeed scandalous and slanderous of the office of the papacy and serves only the cause of prideful usurpers who are attempting to use freedom of speech and social media to generate a schism that would land them as heads of a new church.
      This time the butler didn’t do it.
      It appears to be a suicide in progress..
      You’ve got all the scenario and even the intended conclusion but cannot determine the perpetrator.

    • Wow – so much ignorance (mixed with spite) it’s hard to know where to be begin.

      Let’s begin here: You are aware that the Church’s most respected theologians, saints, doctors, and popes have taught that it is possible for a pope to preach heresy, and that, if he does, he should be publicly corrected (by anyone), and possibly even deposed (by his own actions, if he displays pertinacity in heresy) – right?

      If not, you need to go back to the drawing board.

      If so, your post makes no sense at all.

      P.S. Neo-Catholic papalotry and papal positivism is what smacks of Protestantism. Those are the guys that worship their flamboyant pastors.

  52. A “decisive battle” and a real victory may indeed now be in sight, but, to be sure, we need more than orthodoxy per se: We need the “real” Mass (the received & approved rite) in the Latin Church. Reverent Novus Ordos will not do, given that that “banal” “production” was created explicitly with the goal of subjugating the core Catholic doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice, not proclaiming it.

    Of course, the latter follow from the former, logically, but the wounds are deep and we have a long, long way to go.

  53. Comrade, it is good to see yourself describing yourself as a Traditionalist. As the man who some 6-7 years ago wrote a three-part post about the differences between the True Mass and the Nervous Ordeal, a series of posts for which you thanked me as the light had suddenly gone on in your mind and soul, I am particularly pleased.

  54. There is a certain studied nonchalance in the above piece that strikes me as unreal.

    If Our Lord sweat blood near to Golgotha, it’s okay and only natural to have felt or feel bewildered, anxious or even somewhat depressed at times over what we are living through under the spectacle of Francis, which is tantamount to the mystical crucifixion of the Church. Which means our own spiritual crucifixion by definition. Every soldier even in earthly wars feels this anxiety at times. In our war there is so much more involved and at stake. And there is nothing “laughable” about it.

    If Francis and Cardinal Kasper have taught us anything over the past few  years, it’s that without resurrecting that final “checkmate,” which popes from the beginning used to protect the Faith from grave errors and outright heresies (I’m referring to the Anathema), our problems will only repeat themselves, over and again.

    Even the “Vatican Enforcer” Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger / Benedict XVI, who I believe was, in his own way, trying to dig our way out of trouble, never showed any indication that he disagreed with John XXIII who, in introducing the Second Vatican Council, said that in the past (like St. Paul, Gal 1:7-9) the Church condemned errors

    “with the greatest severity. Nowadays, however, the spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than of severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations.”

    Benedict was conservative. But he handled doctrinal errors mostly as academic problems that could be resolved through the dialectical give- and-take of academic discussion, and an occasional magisterial document—but without teeth.

    To Benedict’s credit he made room for the criticisms of more traditional Catholics (some of which criticism he shared). And he even infuriated Progressives by making room in the Church again for the traditional Tridentine Latin Mass of the Saints and expressing disdain for so much that passed for liturgy today. He even deplored the widespread wrecking of altars and the often bizarre new Church architecture which spread across the world after Vatican II.

    He was a quiet, conservative, intellectual man with classical tastes. But he was manacled by an unwillingness to break with pope John’s “medicine of mercy” approach. To do so would have made him seem like a repudiator of the “pastoral” Council itself.

    And those Progressives who opposed his Conservative preferences took complete advantage of that failure.

    And so today we have lived to see chaos ensue as the moral and dogmatic bedrocks of the Catholic Church have been made to tremble beneath our feet.

    In the final analysis one might say that whatever their own personal preferences, many Conservatives today are, like Progressives, subjectivists. And so many of them are part of the problem. Many Progressives are conservative in taste. Not all are wild or morally corrupt. Progressives too have their flanks and parties.

    Subjectivists (and all strident Progressives are enthusiastic subjectivists) tolerate even truth, as long as error is also allowed its room to breathe. This is the error of Enlightenment liberalism with its worship of liberty. It is relativistic,  dialectical and pluralistic.

    The only thing anathema to such subjectivists is the Church’s traditional Anathema. Because that would rule them and their Enlightenment errors out quick, if the Church’s Sacred Tradition and dogmatic patrimony is revived as the standard.

    I’ve always accepted Vatican II as a legal Council protected by the Holy Spirit against *formal heresy*.  Michael Davies taught the same. But was it always wise in its human formulations? Clearly not. And Davies showed why. It is a dilution, born of a pernicious strategy that sought to reconcile opposites under a mischievous concept labeled “pastoral”.

    On his deathbed it is reported that John XXIII said: “It is not that the gospel has changed; it is that we have begun to understand it better.”

    Well, I suppose he thought so. But that this thought was preemptively condemned by Vatican I (one) does not seem to have occurred to him:

    “…that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared. Nor is that meaning ever to be departed from, under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.

    “Let then the intelligence, science, and wisdom of each and all, of individuals and of the whole Church, in all ages and at all times, increase and flourish in abundance and vigor; but simply in its own proper kind, that is to say, in one and the same doctrine, one and the same sense, one and the same judgment (Vincent of Lerins, Common. n, 28). ”

    And  50 years later? The story is so well known it almost bores me to sketch what so many have known for so long: 

    Religious Orders have been decimated, the liturgy seems to have banished that sense of the Holy, the very Sacred, which was always a main draw for Catholics and for very many outside the Church. Homilies today are all too often anemic (at best). Mass attendance has consequently declined in massive numbers, to the point where in the West churches close everywhere and once vibrant parishes are forced to merge every day. And this is to say nothing of morally corrupted clergy and Religious so shameful to the Name of Christ.

    Theology today at the seminary, college and university levels ranges from the relatively orthodox to the incoherent trendy, to the outright heretical. And of course this means bishops and priests inevitably reflect that confusion in the pulpits and so laypersons hardly know what to think.

    It was (until the 1960’s) always understood that dogmatic truth, derived from the Apostles and Sacred Scripture must at all costs be protected as *the* most sacred trust. It was called The Deposit of Faith.

    St. Paul warned against tampering with it or watering it down in any way.

    Gal 1:8 “If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed (anathema).”

    There was never, ever, any perceived opposition between the Deposit of Faith and Charity. Which is why pope John’s new prescription of mercy, cited above and echoed today by the openly “Progressive” Francis, was at first so puzzling after 20 centuries, and today we can see so mistaken, a pastoral strategy.

    Reform or a Restorer Pope

    Catholics need to restore dogmatic Truth and traditional moral truths based on Revelation to its preeminent, indispensable honor and cease bizarrely opposing charity to it. And this necessarily will involve declaring many dubious or heretical opinions in theology as incompatible with the Catholic Tradition.

    Not to do this would be to guarantee only more decline and more infiltrations and to raise more suspicions with respect to the quality of our shepherds and their commitment to the Gospel of salvation. Without the Anathema Benedict must yield to Francis. This is our crisis.

    It’s time to end the naive,  myopic “pastoral” experiments. The wolves are devouring the flock.

    Our Post-Conciliar Time

    By and large the Traditionalist manifesto or hermeneutic has almost always involved the insistence that,

    “We resist only the dangerous formulations of the Conciliar popes, but obey them when they faithfully transmit sacred tradition”.

    It’s a reasonable approach to the crises of our time wherein ambiguous formulations have too often led to outright collapse in liturgy and traditional piety.

    In my opinion, it is going way too far to summarily dismiss Vatican II as outright heresy from first to last, a plot pure and simple, rather than (as I see it) an ill-advised (even if good intentioned) Council that was naive, compromised and thus not strong enough—despite all official clarifications— to keep out the wolves.

    Therefore it makes sense, especially after the spectacle of Francis, for Catholics to see ourselves in a post-conciliar time, a time of waiting, waiting for the official “reconnecting” more explicitly to our traditional Deposit of Faith, liturgically, theologically, and spiritually. Even if, as Benedict predicted, we must become a much smaller witness in the public squares of this world.

    It is a simple fact that all Catholics who reject pernicious Progressivism in favor of Tradition are Traditional Catholics (whether certain traditionalist cliques like to think so or not). And Progressivism must be condemned. Officially. Again.

    The best Traditional leaders and authors, including Romano Amerio, Klaus Gamber and Michael Davies I think aimed essentially in this direction. And it is, especially after Francis, up to us to complete it, and, most importantly, to live it.





    A Rite represents an ecclesiastical, or church, tradition about how the sacraments are to be celebrated. Each of the sacraments has at its core an essential nature which must be satisfied for the sacrament to be confected or realized. This essence – of matter, form and intention – derives from the divinely revealed nature of the particular sacrament. It cannot be changed by the Church. Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as interpreted by the Magisterium, tells us what is essential in each of the sacraments (2 Thes. 2:15).

    When the apostles brought the Gospel to the major cultural centers of their day the essential elements of religious practice were inculturated into those cultures. This means that the essential elements were clothed in the symbols and trappings of the particular people, so that the rituals conveyed the desired spiritual meaning to that culture. In this way the Church becomes all things to all men that some might be saved (1 Cor. 9:22).

    There are three major groupings of Rites based on this initial transmission of the faith, the Roman, the Antiochian (Syria) and the Alexandrian (Egypt). Later on the Byzantine derived as a major Rite from the Antiochian, under the influence of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. From these four derive the over 20 liturgical Rites present in the Church today [22 August 2007].


    Western Rites and Churches




    As a consequence of the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Pope Paul VI undertook a reform of the Mass of the Roman Rite, promulgating a revised rite with the Missal of 1970. This Missal has since been modified twice (1975 and 2002). Mass celebrated in accordance with this missal is the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

    At the time of the revised Missal’s promulgation in 1970 almost all Catholics assumed that the previous rite, that of the Missal of 1962, had been abolished. By decision of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI this general assumption has been declared false and the right of Latin Rite priests to celebrate Mass according to the former missal has been affirmed (Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum, 7 July 2007). Mass celebrated in accordance with the Missal of 1962 constitutes the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

    Roman – The overwhelming majority of Latin Catholics and of Catholics in general.
    Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Mass celebrated in accordance with the Missale Romanum of 1970, promulgated by Pope Paul VI, currently in its third edition (2002). The vernacular editions of this Missal, as well as the rites of the other sacraments, are translated from the Latin typical editions revised after the Second Vatican Council.
    Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Mass celebrated in accordance with the Missale Romanum of 1962, promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII. The other sacraments are celebrated according to the Roman Ritual in force at the time of the Second Vatican Council. The Extraordinary Form is most notable for being almost entirely in Latin. In addition to institutes which have the faculty to celebrate the Extraordinary Form routinely, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, any Latin Rite priest may now offer the Mass and other sacraments in accordance with norms of Summorum Pontificum.
    Anglican Use. Since the 1980s the Holy See has granted some former Anglican and Episcopal clergy converting with their parishes the faculty of celebrating the sacramental rites according to Anglican forms, doctrinally corrected.
    Mozarabic – The Rite of the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal) known from at least the 6th century, but probably with roots to the original evangelization. Beginning in the 11th century it was generally replaced by the Roman Rite, although it has remained the Rite of the Cathedral of the Archdiocese of Toledo, Spain, and six parishes which sought permission to adhere to it. Its celebration today is generally semi–private.
    Ambrosian – The Rite of the Archdiocese of Milan, Italy, thought to be of early origin and probably consolidated, but not originated, by St. Ambrose. Pope Paul VI was from this Roman Rite. It continues to be celebrated in Milan, though not by all parishes.
    Bragan – Rite of the Archdiocese of Braga, the Primatial See of Portugal, it derives from the 12th century or earlier. It continues to be of occasional use.
    Dominican – Rite of the Order of Friars Preacher (OP), founded by St. Dominic in 1215.
    Carmelite – Rite of the Order of Carmel, whose modern foundation was by St. Berthold c.1154.
    Carthusian – Rite of the Carthusian Order founded by St. Bruno in 1084.


    And then there are Eastern Rites and Churches


    RE: the Roman, the Antiochian (Syria) and the Alexandrian (Egypt), I personally see the stamp of St. Peter, the first Pope on these first three Rites.

  56. On The social duty of religion and the right to religious freedom (sans footnotes)

    2104 “All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it.” This duty derives from “the very dignity of the human person.” It does not contradict a “sincere respect” for different religions which frequently “reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,” nor the requirement of charity, which urges Christians “to treat with love, prudence and patience those who are in error or ignorance with regard to the faith.”

    2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is “the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ.” By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them “to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live.” The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church. Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.

    2106 “Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits.” This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it “continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it.”

    2107 “If because of the circumstances of a particular people special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of a state, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected as well.”

    2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.

    2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner. The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with “legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order.”

  57. @skojec – wrote:

    […] To my knowledge, the Vatican has NEVER – not even once – demonstrated what the doctrinal errors of the SSPX are, or why their beliefs are in any way incongruous with Catholic teaching.

    It is true that they are asking questions of a doctrinal nature. The problem is: they’re the ones honoring the authentic doctrine, and the Vatican has strayed from it in practice.

    (It would be good for someone – for 1P5, this would be good, even a crowning work within their Apostolate – to translate the following for us:)

    1) Archbishop Marcel-François Lefebvre, C.S.Sp. submitted his argument on Religious Liberty to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the form of 39 dubia

    2) He was dissatisfied with the Congregation’s response: which conluded (Google Translate, my emphasis):

    At the end of this argument, I think that the following conclusion can be accepted as sufficiently substantiated: There is no sufficient reason to justify in conscience a questioning of the compatibility of the doctrine of the Declaration Dignitatis humanae and the Previous Magistere.
    It should be noted, however, that the explanations given in these pages necessarily contain questionable theological aspects. Once it has been shown that there is no sufficient reason to assert that there is a contradiction, there remains the possibility of a subsequent study of the problem in order to explain in an even more perfect manner Existence and compatibility and continuity: that is, from quaerere rationem quomodo sit, and not quomodo non sit [look for an argument how it is, and not how [it] is not], what is taught by the Church.

    3) Apparently his dissatisfaction was a decisive factor in his decision, carried out on June 30, 1988, to consecrate four bishops without papal mandate, thus incurring excommunication latæ sententiæ..
    Source: Religious Liberty and Tradition I – which makes an interesting observation:

    Lefebvre’s position was somewhat paradoxical, as the then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, pointed out: by putting his own private interpretation of previous Church teachings above the Church’s official interpretation of her teaching he was giving up precisely the principle of fidelity to Church doctrine that he wanted to defend. –

    As I had earlier commented –

    • The response of Rome to +Lefebvre’s dubia is an excellent example of the ‘nothin-to-see-here’ conservatism Hilary decries…”if I put my right hand on the floor, stand on it with my left foot, then tie my right leg and left arm in a knot, it is possible (more or less) to reconcile the V2 document with Tradition. So, forget the fact that 99.9% of the clergy are following a heretical interpretation (ie: the Church of Christ is bigger than the Catholic Church and includes all kinds on non-Catholic entities where people can be saved), and our own self admission that we need to make a further “study of the problem in order to explain” how it is in accord with Tradition, you, Mons Lefebvre, must shut up and stop rocking the boat. Under no circumstance are you to dare suggest that there could be an issue here.”

      I’m surprised Pope Francis hasn’t follow the same approach with Burke’s dubia.

        • I’m glad your keen on obtaining it! I have not a copy, even in the original, and I don’t think a full translation is available on the net but I believe Angelus Press have the following which I intend to read but I am not sure it is a verbatum transcript of the Dubia as presented to Rome.

          As for the CDFs response the question is: Why is it not available on the vatican website?

          For my part, it all boils down to a very simple concept: Error can not have ‘rights’ because it does not exist in reality. The Church always drew from this the logical conclusion that a person can never have a right to worship a false God. But DH says he does have that right. DH therefore contradicts not only the previous teachings of the Church, but logic as well.

          I have started to read the link you gave to but I am afraid he is developing a stand-on-you-hands-and-tie-your-legs-together argument to justify the concept of no contradiction. The very fact that we have to wait for theologians to make ‘breakthrough’ post-conciliar discoveries to reconcile the council teaching with what used to be a very simple to understand doctrine, is in itself, a flashing warning light… ‘let your yes be yes and your no be no…anything else is from below’. ‘By their fruits…” and the fruit of DH is such that even B16, while claiming to be in conformity with tradition, had no problem telling Buddhists at Assisi 2011 that all they needed to do was be good Buddhists to be saved!!! Say what you will, but DH, applied practically, has lead to a rupture with Church teaching even by those who claim there cant be a rupture.

          P.S. +Lefebvre’s book ‘They have uncrowned Him’ would also give you a good insight into Lefebvre’s opposition to V2

          • I very much appreciate your very mature response.
            What made it in the CCC as regards religious freedom I provided in a comment here [cf. this link: I do not see any erroneous teaching opposed to Catholic Teaching.
            As regards “rights & freedoms” as understood in the Western World, this seems to me to be from the [or influenced by] enlightment cf. The Fatal Error of these United States of America
            FYI, I wrote this to SSPX and I have yet to receive a response:
            PS I provided this link: and not you quote which returns what I have captured below.

          • I forgot to add the link to the book which I believe may have the text of the dubia:
            However, while I searched for that I also came up with this: Happy reading!

            I also just remembered, the SSPX have produced some videos on these basic issues which might be good to watch if you haven’t already. They are only a basic introduction to the issues and you might find they are (owing to the limitations of the format) a little too generalised to capture the nuances of the various shades of error opposed to Catholic Truth.

            As I understand it, both the Catholic and erroneous position on human dignity agree that man was created in God’s image therefore he is dignified. Where modern thought goes wrong is that the modern theologians make dignity intrinsic to man whereas traditional thought never saw man’s dignity as a something independent of the God who created him. Man was created in God’s image to freely serve Him and maintain that Image and even grow it with an increase in virtue and sanctifying Grace. But by sin, man looses that image of God, and consequently the dignity that befits him (although while he yet lives he will always keep the potential to regain this dignity and hence is always owed respect). Without Grace, man is in reality an undignified monster! When one grasps this reality, one becomes so much more concerned for the conversion of poor sinners, and prayer and sacrifice for them becomes a second nature. On the other hand, if one believes a man keeps his dignity even in sin and error, it then seems logical to accord to them a right to do and believe as they will, and accordingly, concern for poor sinners is gradually lost, and other errors start to creep in like universal salvation… after all, how can someone with dignity not be saved? Such is the fruit of DH and we see it everywhere in the Church today.

            Sorry, I was lazy and did not give the full url… you are correct but I am reading from the link you posted

            Cheers & God Bless you.

          • This is great! Good Stuff! Wonderful! Thank you so much!
            Now if we can only have the CDF’s response in English!
            PS Will review your comment and understanding and answer in time. In the meantime, let me know what is your understanding of the following biblical passages and how you reconcile them with your understanding of “Religious Freedom”, “Human Dignity”, and “Dignitatis humanae”:

            19 his eyes are on those who fear him,
            and he knows every deed of man.
            20 He has not commanded any one to be ungodly,
            and he has not given any one permission to sin.
            – Sir 15:19-20


            19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live, 20 loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days, that you may dwell in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.” – Deut 30:19-20 (RSVCE)


            14 “Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness; put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River, and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 And if you be unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

            16 Then the people answered, “Far be it from us that we should forsake the Lord, to serve other gods; – Josh 24:14-16 (RSVCE)

            PPS And I am sorry I sent you the wrong link to the letter as yet unanswered by the SSPX –
            God bless you too and yours and may 2017 for all of you be full of fruits pleasing to him.

  58. Robert Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal-Deacon of San Giovanni Bosco in via Tuscolana joins the fray.

    Cardinal feels called to intervene as Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, because the current disorientation involves three sacraments: marriage, penance and the Eucharist. According to Cardinal, the confusion we live draws its sap from the lack of training that unfortunately affects their own brothers in the episcopate .
    Sarah was keen to stress that each bishop himself in primis, is linked to the doctrine of indissoluble monogamous marriage,, Christ has restored to its original form and that is the good of man, women, and children.
    This truth can not fail to have consequences on the possibility of approaching Holy Communion: ” The whole Church has always remained steadfast in the fact that you can not receive communion when he is aware of having committed a grave sin , a principle that has been definitely confirmed by the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia of John Paul II. ” And the Cardinal Prefect added: “Not even a pope can dispense with this divine law.“

    – Cardinal Sarah is concerned about the confusion that reigns in Catholicism –

  59. Well done Hilary White. The ‘Third Secret of Fatima’ announces the coming of the Apocalypse. The ‘Two Witnesses’ of Revelation 11 are the Jewish and Catholic Churches. ‘Satan’ represents man’s evil human pride on earth. The Jewish Church fell to man’s evil human pride and Jesus used freedom of speech to transfer God authorized authority as His ‘witness’ on earth to the Catholic Church. Now, through Pope Francis, man’s evil human pride on earth has killed the Catholic Church as well. The Good News is that Revelation tells us that God blows new life into His ‘Witnesses’ on earth. Your article seems to be powered by the Holy Spirit to engage Satan in battle to put God’s breath of life back into our Catholic papacy.

    The big event of all apocalyptic scriptures, Old Testament and New, is the enthronement of Jesus Christ as King and Ruler of the world. Once God’s ‘Witnesses’ are revived, God calls them up to heaven, as Archangel Michael forces Satan, aka man’s evil human pride, out of heaven. This is indicating a power change on earth. God was King over Israel from the Exodus till the fall of Israel in 587 B.C.. At the fall of Israel, God put Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, as King over Israel. Until Jesus comes to Rule, God still has secular power ruling over Israel and the world today. Once the Catholic papacy aka God’s Witness on earth, is brought back to life, Jesus will set His Church up to rule on earth, with and through Him. Messianic Reign will begin on earth. There will be peace on earth and we will enter into the golden era of mankind as the Blessed Mother has described. Hallelujah! Let Jesus Rule!

    Keep up the battle on this, killed by Satan, pope Francis papacy, as Jesus kept up the intense battle against His, killed by Satan, God authorized Jewish ‘Witnesses’.

    Peace Steven


Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive