It would seem that Malta has become the battleground where some of the deepest divisions in the Church have been playing out. From Cardinal Burke’s exile to the role of Patronus of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta to the landmark Maltese bishops’ guidelines on Amoris Laeititia to the battle that’s been going on between the order and Rome after the Grand Chancellor of the Knights of Malta, Albrecht Boeselager, was forced out following the revelation of his involvement in the distribution of condoms, it seems to be one thing after another in news related to the tiny Mediterranean island nation.
But now, the “knights who won’t retreat” appear to have done exactly this, with the order’s Grand Master, Fra’ Matthew Festing, reported to have resigned his post today at the request of Pope Francis. The position of Grand Master is for life, making this move — especially after the order’s strong statement of resistance to a Vatican inquiry — very strange.
The official website of the order does not yet have the announcement in their news section, and the above-linked report from the Spanish-language website InfoVaticana is notably sparse, consisting mostly of background, with the exception of the following sentence:
Acccording to what InfoVaticana has heard, Pope Francis has asked him to offer his resignation.
This entire episode with the Order of Malta has been, I must admit, incredibly hard to follow for the casual observer. I do not expect it to be made much clearer following this unexpected news.
UPDATE: Reuters is now reporting the story:
The head of the Knights of Malta, who has been locked in a bitter dispute with the Vatican, has resigned, a spokesperson for the Rome-based Catholic chivalric and charity institution said on Wednesday.
The spokesperson said Grand Master Matthew Festing had resigned after Pope Francis asked him to step down at a meeting on Tuesday. Grand Masters of the institution, which was founded in the 11th century, usually keep their positions for life.
“The pope asked him to resign and he agreed,” the spokesperson said, adding that the next step was a formality in which the group’s Sovereign Council would have to sign off on the highly unusual resignation. The order would be run by its number two, or Grand Commander, until a new head is elected.
It seems this is a done deal. The question of why remains unclear.
POSTSCRIPT: I know the order has been, following the loss of Malta in 1800, based in Rome, but it retains its title for a reason. I note the connection between what is happening in Malta proper and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta because it seems, at least to me, more than just a coincidence.
POSTSCRIPT 2: I have also updated the title and part of the body of this post to better reflect the speculative nature of this report. We are hearing from a reputable source — InfoVaticana broke the story on the pope’s letter to the Argentinian bishops last year — that this has transpired. I’ve been unable to obtain independent verification of this story directly from the order, but I have heard tentative confirmation from some people with contacts within the order. I hope that the updated text makes more clear that this has not yet been fully verified.
Will Francis succeed in destroying the SMPM, like he did with the FFI ?
This resignation looks very suspicious. Blackmail?
SMOM, not SMPM.
Something is going on. Seems odd to have this sudden resignation after all the sovereignty posturing. Perhaps he is falling on his own sword for someone else. Makes the Knights of Malta look weak, at least until the full story emerges. Curiouser and curiouser.
I find all the complaining about Francis being dictatorial and autocratic to be misplaced. He’s the Supreme Pontiff; that’s kinda the point. The problem is not that he sacks when and where he chooses, but that he’s choosing sheep rather than wolves.
Had Francis’ “conservative” predecessors prosecuted dissenters with the same zeal that Francis trains on the faithful, the Church would be in great shape today.
Brian, what type of crack cocaine are you smoking? He is not the Supreme Pontiff, Benedict is. Jorge Bergoglio is a fat Freemason pig, and anti pope. He isn’t even Catholic. You are ignorant of Catholic prophecy. Please read the ancient prophecy given to St. Francis of Assisi.
I think you go a trifle too far there.
I don’t think so.
Hey Jeff…then you woke up? You simply do not exist in Catholicism.find some other religion which will accept cases such as yours.
Marcelus, your comment doesn’t make any sense.
It does:
“He is not the Supreme Pontiff, Benedict is”
Then you woke up..you were dreaming..
Wrong Church pal..
There’s only one Church and one true sovereign Pontiff, pal, and that is pope Benedict XVI.
Really? I thought he retired..But, it’s the RCC I am talking about, not sure about yours. Good luck with the daydream.
Not a daydream for me. A nightmare for people clueless as to what is going on.
You mean the apocryphal prophecy attributed to St. Francis of Assisi?
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/if-francis-is-an-antipope-we-cant-know-it-yet/
Also, if you want to post here cool it with the insults.
It is easier to believe the prophecy of Saint Francis than to believe that “Pope” Francis is in fact the canonically elected pope. True popes rarely reject the teachings of Christ.
I don’t deny that the text, whatever its origin, seems like it was written for our times. The necessary grain of salt, however, is that it cannot be reliably attributed to St. Francis.
The book, Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi (London: R. Washbourne, 1882) has a preface that speaks about the authenticity of some of the writings. The editor states that there is no real opposition to the prophecy as being a true part of St. Francis’ canon. Who knows, but fuel is added to the fire by the apparent rejection by Pope Francis of the words of Christ about the permanency of marriage and of St. Paul’s teaching about unworthily partaking in the Body of Christ. Oh my, and what becomes of Pope Francis’ saints?
The official acts of Antipope Anacletus II (1130 – 1138) were declared null and void by Pope Innocent II (1130 – 1143), the bishops and priests ordained by him (Anacletus) were with few exceptions deposed.
But He was canonically elected. Would u deny that? I think you may go too far in your critique of the Pope Francis. There was a valid Concave and the election was not rigged. Or would you say that the Holy Spirit was intentionally absent? That would need more explanation why you give him attributes such as used by you. Not mentioning the quotation marks around the title Pope.
I don’t know if he was canonically elected. I think there are ways that a pope could be invalidly elected. If a man was a heretic, or sought the papacy with an intend to do the church harm, or if an elector or electors did not follow the rules of the conclave, the outcome could be invalid. Pope John Paul II made some adjustments to the rules of the conclave. It appears from the authorized biography of Cardinal Godfried Danneels that those rules may have been broken. More here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-danneels-admits-being-part-of-clerical-mafia-that-plotted-francis
Was the Holy Spirit absent? I think the better question is was the Holy Spirit followed. If there was an illegal effort to broker a candidate, then no, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was not followed.
Thank you. Very interesting answer which opens many possibilities of interpretation. I thank you for the link and will come back perhaps next week (as I travel until Tuesday and no Internet access then). Please send me a prompt in case I lose this tread…Regards
Yes, I would. He was not canonically elected. Canvassing was going on which would void his election.
Jeffrey, please familiarize yourself with our comment policy before commenting further.
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/comment-policy/
Well said, Alfred.
I don’t think the contents of that link prove the prophecy is apocryphal. Rather, it simply asserts that it cannot be decisively traced to St. Francis himself. In other words, it MAY be apocryphal. There’s a difference.
It asserts that it is of dubious origin, first appearing in the work of a scholar, whose noted carelessness, led his more rigorous predecessors to distrust those aspects of his work (i.e. the prophecy in question) which could not be corroborated in any other sources.
Brian, you can disparage The Prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi all you want. That is typical of those in the vatican II novus ordo sect.
Call it whatever you want, sir, but you have no way of documenting that this text actually came from St. Francis.
Full disclosure: I honestly hope it is a legit prophecy as I would like nothing more than to see Francis and all of his works invalidated and condemned. Yet with that said, I’m not going to assert as fact that the text is from St. Francis because, (1) there is no way to prove that, and (2) there is strong evidence to the contrary.
Brian, do not be deceived. This is a time where deception is everywhere. You will only understand what is really going on, if you have eyes to see, and ears to hear.
Lay people do not have the authority to make a juridical judgement about the validity of Francis holding the papal office. To do so is a mortal sin against justice. It is ESPECIALLY grave to base the decision off of a prophecy whose credibility and validity is at best questionable.
A pope has no right to teach error, and we have no right to follow error even if taught by a pope. The prophecy attributed to St. Francis is not really the point. We have a pope who rejects the teachings of Christ and his church about marriage and the proper reception of Holy Communion, and who refuses to clarify this new attitude.
I understand all of that, and I even agree that we should not follow him into error. What’s troubling is the increasing number of people who reject Francis as pope. That’s a different problem.
Alfred, a pope that rejects the teachings of Christ, is a formal heretic, and cannot be pope. He is an anti pope. We have had at least 38 anti popes in Church history. This is exactly what Cardinal Burke stated.
Lay people have a duty to call out formal heretics whether they be priests or a pope. There is no sin involved in standing up for Christ and his unchangeable doctrinal teachings. You don’t know what you are talking about. It sounds like you are part of the vatican II novus ordo sect. A Roman Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, cannot resign because he doesn’t want to do it anymore. This isn’t a civil service job, like the postal service!
Francis is pope whether we like it or not. Let’s deal with him as he is, not as we wish him to be.
What would St. Francis of Assisi say about your lack of charity for the Pope? Oh wait! we don’t have to listen to St. Francis, wasn’t there Someone before him, way back in the bad old days Who said: “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.”
We must pray for Francis, call out his lack of Faith, using all the examples at hand – and there are plenty and I don’t mean we don’t protest as much as we are able – but to call him a fat Freemason pig is to spit on Christ again.
Barbara, I have complete charity to Pope Benedict XVI. Jorge Bergoglio is not the pope! Father Paul Kramer refers to him as an infidel. He is a Freemason and he is a destroyer of Christ’s Church, his only Church by the way, according to the prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi. Jorge Bergoglio needs to step down. That is my charity towards him.
Barbara, Jorge Bergoglio doesn’t lack faith, he doesn’t have any faith at all! I do pray for his conversion and to stop destroying Christ’s Church. Freemason’s are all pigs, not just him. They are cowards that operate in secret.
The difference is the tone and charity. A pope with a more traditionalist bent who was interested in cleaning house would hopefully do so in charity, and when asked why, the answer wouldn’t be something like “I don’t have to answer. I’m the Pope!” Dissenters would be told, hopefully quietly and in private, what the issue is, why it is an issue in terms of Catholic teaching, and what the potential remedies may be if they are obstinate.
Bishops are princes of the Church. There is a dignity in their office, even if they are bad bishops. To just oust them from their position without real justification (i.e., clear and present danger to the faith) or without first giving them the opportunity to reform their actions is contrary to charity, and contrary to the dignity of their office.
Finally, the craziness of Francis’ hypocrisy — claiming humility and gentleness, whilst lopping off the heads of people who dare to ask questions. Who’s being rigid and coarse in this picture?
That’s a good point.
I think calling them princes, even though it has a long history, is part of the problem with many bishops.
HEAR! HEAR!
No, a prince is a prince even when a bad prince. We are getting far away from reverence for the OFFICE, to reverence for the person. My Bishop is a weakling and allows bad things to happy in this diocese, but when he comes to our parish we kneel and kiss his ring. (This puts him in a bit of tizzy as he’s not used to it from his NO parishioners.)
I am a traditional Catholic and as far as I am concerned there is only one Prince in that Catholic Church and that is namely: Our Lord Jesus Christ. I would not kiss the ring of a Bishop or Cardinal. This is one of the reasons some clergy (especially in Ireland) got above themselves; and placed on a pedestal ……. how they fell !! I would not kiss the ring of the present incumbent of the See of Peter …… and I never thought I would ever say that! Our Lady of Fatima, pray for Us.
So you deny them the dignity that their office calls for? They are heirs to the apostles, who were anointed by Christ. Judas himself was a bishop — a bad one, but he was anointed by Christ as such, even knowing he would be betrayed.
St. Ignatius of Antioch is oft quoted saying “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” The episcopate is what defines the church on many levels.
And Christ is the King of Kings, implying that there ought to be other kings beneath him. The church was structured by design to mirror the temporal order. The Pope is as its Emperor, Cardinals are as its princes, Archbishops are as archdukes, bishops as dukes. That is the right social order.
And I would kiss our Francis’s ring, as that is what the chair of Peter is due! I would certainly confront his grievous error, but I love the office too much to not pay the appropriate tribute.
Yes, I follow – BUT – why follow the secular order of Royalty ……. which now is mostly defunct?!
Because it is better. It’s defunct because we made it defunct. Same with the Church. The church hasn’t fallen into the mess it is today because of the actions of a few powerful actors at the top, it’s because Christendom has cast her aside in pursuit of vice.
God always gives us at least the leaders we deserve, in both the temporal and religious spheres. We, as a people, deserve Francis because we reject Christ. Francis is the symptom, and not the cause.
“The church hasn’t fallen into the mess it is today because of the actions of a few powerful actors at the top, it’s because Christendom has cast her aside in pursuit of vice.”
Utter nonsense! Leaders lead and we have had no leadership from the so-called leaders of the Catholic Church from the day Vatican II ended.
The Legion of Decency used to be the barometer for the moral content of movies. Do you suggest ‘we as a people’ shut down the Legion of Decency? After Vatican II Catholic seminaries became flooded with homosexuals. Did ‘we as a people’ engineer that abomination? The vacuum left by the failure of leadership in the Church was filled by the Hollywood/TV establishment and our ‘leaders’ stood by and allowed them to lead our children into “the pursuit of vice.” That began over 50 years ago.
The powerful actors at the top, Bernardin, Wuerl and their ilk are, indeed, the cause of the mess the Church is in today. Try brushing up on your history before you start making speeches on subjects you obviously know little about.
Vatican II was just when the issues reared its ugly head in obvious ways that normal people could see. The evil had already filled the church decades prior. We abandoned Christ and His Church, overthrew the monarchs of Christendom, became soft and greedy, etc. Where do you think this corrupt leadership came from? From us. Before they were leaders, they were vicious members of the laity that reveled in the French and American rebellions, Marxism, pornography, etc.
Make no mistake: these leaders are a chastisement. We were warned by Our Lady that we had to live holy lives and pray hard for the world, or it would fall into darkness. Many, many times we were warned.
We’re at a similar inflection point now to Vatican II — the evils of modernism and all its fruits can only be denied by the laziest and most damages souls. Anyone who has any ounce of piety can see the lack of Catholicism in the Church.
“We, as a people, deserve Francis because we reject Christ.”
Speak for yourself.
You honestly believe that the majority of Catholics do NOT reject Christ and his commandments?
All people that have ever lived, except Christ and his mother, deserve hell. Hell is the penalty for sin, and we all sin. We have a chance to attain heaven only by the grace of God through the sacraments of Christ’s holy church, and our cooperation with said grace. Which is better than we deserve because of Christ’s mercy and charity.
As we all deserve hell, and hell is worse than Francis, then we deserve worse than our current pope.
So unless you claim that you were born without original sin and spent the entirety of your life to this point without sin, then too deserve our pope, or worse.
God deserves better. The inviolate and eternal Church deserves better. But we, the defiant people who reject God’s commandments, do not.
How dare you say “we all deserve hell”. Who are you to judge “all” either way? Are you a Protestant, taking out of context that “all” have sinned, twisting scripture when this only refers to evil doers, not the just?
Every human being is born innocent in the Image and Likeness of GOD. It is Satan who tells the innocent they are deserving of hellfire, when they only inherited the effects of Original Sin, not personal guilt.
That “all people disserve hell” except Jesus and His Mother is a satanic lie. No where in all of Catholic teaching can you or anyone claim authority to say that.
Besides, though Mary was the only human other than Christ known conceived without Original Sin, there were many including St Joseph and John the Baptist to have been assumed free of sin through Baptism of Desire before birth.
Learn your faith before daring to speak for others.
Baptism for infants is necessary for them to enter heaven because the price for all sin, including Original sin which we inherit (See Baltimore Catechism #4, Lesson 14, Q154).
We never deserve heaven by our own merit alone; we must have good works in cooperation with divine grace through the sacraments. This is the teaching of the church always and at all times. The fact that baptism of desire and blood exist, and that limbo exists do nothing to refute this. We don’t deserve heaven through our merits. When those of us who are nourished by the sacraments and die with sanctifying grace enter heaven (likely after spending ages in purgatory), we don’t get there because we deserve it — we get there because God provided us a means, through his infinite mercy, through the grace of the sacraments. No man may enter heaven without sanctifying grace, and the only means for sanctifying grace is those narrow few God has provided us.
If we do NOT deserve heaven, what then do we deserve, qua the last things?
Also, I’ve never heard this odd theory as to St. Joseph or anyone else being born or living sinless. The immaculate conception is so extraordinary because it is unique. Thus, even if it was true that they were born with baptism of desire, it is no different, functionally, from proper baptism — i.e., they were guilty of original sin, and attained sanctifying grace by God’s mercy. And I find it highly doubtful that they lived their entire life without any sin, or it would have been noted and part of Catholic tradition.
Aaron, like all protestants, you take scripture and church teaching out of context, assume things wrongly from the way it is worded, than claim I am wrong because I have researched all of this and you have not “have never heard this” (what has always been a part of Sacred Tradition) “odd theory as to St Joseph or anyone else being born or living sinless.”
Frankly, I really don’t care of what you’ve never heard before, or any opinions you may have, when you state outright falsehoods as if they were Catholic truth.
Let’s go back to your first false premise, a gross assumption of judgement against others which you have yet to correct.
You stated “As we all deserve hell..” we all deserve worse than the current pope.
Please give me credit for copying and pasting this, as rereading it alone makes me want to gag on my morning coffee. If your statement were true, than the thousands of victims of priestly pederasty deserve what they got, and these young innocents deserve the pontiff who just in formal statement, reduced the penalties for offending prelates further, to the equivalent of a weekend retreat at the Villa La Rotondo.
And no where in my statements did I say we achieve heaven by anything other than the Grace of GOD, or that Baptism (whether by desire or sign, before birth or after) is not a free gift of GOD. So back off with the Catholicism for Beginners please. It exposes your own ignorance. Even the innocents infants slaughtered before Christ’s birth are hailed as sinless martyrs through the power of God, but never at any time did Scripture say they “deserved” hell. Of what offense against God would you hold “innocents” culpable? Being conceived? Hold on, wait a minute, doesn’t God do that, imparting our soul to our bodies?
God’s creation is always intrinsically “good”, made “innocent”, not intrinsically “culpable” of sin.
And what you do with the catechism, how you wrongly interpret it, imposing personal culpability or guilt for Original Sin instead of understanding that we’ve “inherited” the guiltless effects (of Original Sin), interpreting one wrong assumption after the next then building them up in attempt to make one huge, big faulty argument, finally landing at this satanic notion that we are all, therefore then, “deserving” of hell – is outright disordered thinking. Your conclusions don’t follow.
For one to be deserving of anything like you say, one first has to be “culpable” of something, and Who Alone is worthy to judge someone’s personal culpability, especially someone else? Of what could babies before they are born and children before the age of reason be culpable, and if Baptism of Desire and living a life absent of mortal sin or forgiveness for it wasn’t even possible – how could anyone (by Christ’s Grace) merit heaven? We can’t “all deserve hell” and have hope for heaven at the same time. That is believing in a contradiction, that I only hope you aren’t teaching your children if you have any, for it will instill in them subtle psychiatric disorders (a sadisticly cruel inner critic) intertwined with their spirituality. Abusive religious sects who wrongly interpret Original Sin as personal fault (therefore all people “deserve” hell) end up abusing innocent children to “beat the devil out of them” before sending them on “mission”.
The following is from John Martignoni’s, Dealing with an Anti Catholic.
After pointing out that you cannot take “all have sinned” like you did, out of context in the bible, for it was referring only to reprobates – not the just – he pointed out that the bible also states “none seeks God” which you cannot take literally or out of context either, for then it would be true that no one seeks God. On the contrary:
In Luke, chapter 1, verse 6, it states, “And [Elizabeth and
Zechariah – John the Baptist’s parents] were both righteous before God,
walking an all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.”
So, if Elizabeth and Zechariah were blameless in “ALL” of the Lord’s
commandments and ordinances, do you contend that they had sinned?
Indeed, Scripture and Sacred Tradition point not only to the existence of persons that are blameless, the existence of persons who are not culpable of any mortal sin at all their whole lives, and persons who are forgiven of mortal sin, but suggest that hell is not something anyone “deserves’ in the strict sense, as ALL truly are made in God’s Image and therefore made destined for heaven. Catholicism teaches that hell is something an obstinate reprobate willingly “chooses” rather than face a GOD Who is infinitely good and just, taking into account how we were raised, and all of our brainwashing by man.
God is never the Accuser.
Finally, just like Original Sin we have inherited the current corrupt hierarchy of the visible church, but the true children of God who hope for heaven not only do not “deserve” it but ARE the true church, the Body of Christ, that has, as Scripture speaks of, fled to the mountains. Ultimately all the sacraments will be fed to us directly by God, by desire. Those who sincerely “desire” God are not “deserving” of hell. The continuing Sacrifice on the altar will be all but non existent, but where the body lies, there shall the eagles gather.
I don’t have time to rebut you point for point, but the core of what you state is contrary to what I’ve been taught by many traditional priests.
The crux of the argument is that we can hope for better than we deserve. That we strive to attain heaven does not imply that we must deserve heaven. To say we deserve something means that we have a moral absolute right to it, whether by action or by nature. Though we are created perfectly, we are corrupted by original sin. The proof of this is death, as death is a scandal to the natural order. Mary’s proof of freedom from both original and actual sin is her bodily assumption. Christ’s is his triumph over death itself, in his resurrection and ascension. There is no action we can take that can rid ourselves of the burden of sin; we must cooperate with divine grace for this. Thus, our actions cannot make us deserving of heaven. Thus, if we are undeserving of heaven, we must deserve hell. And in striving to rid ourselves of sin, we can hope to die in a state of sanctifying grace.
Your ad hominem and straw man arguments are getting tired. I’ll not respond further. If you continue, I’ll block you on Disqus.
Aaron Traas: “I’ll block you on Disqus.”
Wow. How “masculine” of you. I feel like a Philistine… Here’s a suggestion for you Aaron, don’t just block me, but AFTER you block me – remove all of my rebuttals to your infallible personal condemnation of all persons on earth, AND continue to verbally beat me to death with the jawbone of an ass, so as to convince those unpracticed in critical thinking skills – that I presented arguments here that I did not even advance. I’ll just watch this blog from afar feeling really put “in my place” by elitist male superior beings.
Aaron Traas: ” we all deserve hell…”
Me (in accord with the true faith, correcting) We’ve inherited the
guiltless EFFECTS (emphasis added) of Original Sin.
Jesus: Father, forgive them, for THEY KNOW NOT (emphasis added) what
they do.
Matthew: THAT YOU MIGHT BE BLAMELESS, and sincere
children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse
generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world.
Luke: And [Elizabeth and
Zechariah – John the Baptist’s parents] were both righteous before God,
walking an ALL the commandments and ordinances of the Lord BLAMELESS.
Me: Every human being is born INNOCENT in the Image and Likeness of GOD. It
is Satan who tells the innocent they are deserving of hellfire, when they
only INHERITED the effects of Original Sin, not personal GUILT.. Of
what could babies before they are born and children before the age of
reason be CULPABLE (emphasis added) and if Baptism of Desire and living a
life absent of mortal sin or forgiveness for it wasn’t even possible – how could anyone (by Christ’s Grace) merit heaven?
Aaron Traas: “No man may enter heaven without sanctifying grace.”
Me: No where in my statements did I say we achieve heaven by anything other
than the Grace of GOD.
Aaron Traas: ” Your …straw man arguments are getting tired.”
Me: Definition of straw man argument: A straw man is a common form of argument and is
an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s
argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
Aaron Traas: No man may enter heaven without sanctifying grace. (This statement is a clear example of YOU trying to impose upon ME a straw man argument.)
Me: No where in my statements did I say we achieve heaven by anything other than the Grace of GOD. Once again, Aaron, the definition of a straw man argument is: an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while refuting an argument THAT WAS NOT ADVANCED by that opponent.
Aaron Traas: “As we ALL (emphasis added) deserve hell..” we ALL deserve worse than the current pope.
Me: We can’t “all deserve hell” and have hope for heaven at the same time. That is believing in a CONTRADICTION.
Cognitive dissonance: (In psychology) the mental stress (discomfort)
experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more CONTRADICTORY beliefs… or when CONFRONTED (emphasis added) with NEW information that
contradicts existing beliefs, ideas, and values…. A person who
experiences inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable,
and …avoids situations and information likely to increase the
psychological discomfort.[1]
Aaron Trass: “what you
state is contrary to what I’ve been taught by many traditional priests.”
Me: Explanation of cause is not justification by reason.
Aaron Traas: “As we all deserve hell..” we all deserve worse than the current pope.”
Me: If your statement were true, than the thousands of victims of priestly
pederasty deserve what they got, and these young innocents deserve the
pontiff who just in formal statement, reduced the penalties for
offending prelates further, to the equivalent of a weekend retreat at
the Villa La Rotondo.
Cognitive dissonance: (In psychology) the mental stress (discomfort)
experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more
contradictory beliefs… or when confronted with new information that
contradicts existing beliefs, ideas, and values…. A person who
experiences inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable,
and …avoids situations and information likely to increase the
psychological discomfort.[1]
Aaron Traas: “I don’t have time…getting TIRED. (emphasis added). “I’ll not respond further. If you continue, I’ll block you on Disqus.”
Cognitive
dissonance: (In psychology) the mental STRESS (DISCOMFORT)
experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more
contradictory beliefs… or when CONFRONTED with new information that
contradicts existing beliefs, ideas, and values…. A person who
experiences inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable,
and …AVOIDS situations and information likely to increase the
psychological discomfort.[1]
I find men who “block” intelligent Catholic women because they cannot dispute a woman’s arguments with words, draw attention to greater issues of gender and elitism sadly consistent with traditional factions who have become beholden to heretical pessimism. These two errors – brute misogyny and brute pessimism – are like a bromance.
They go hand in hand.
“So you deny them the dignity that their office calls for?”
Dignity originates with the subject. If the office calls for dignity, as you imply, then it is incumbent on the holder of the office to think, act and speak in a dignified manner.
The boilerplate courtesies you listed have no meaning when applied to the likes of Pope Bergoglio and his gang of heretics. These theological thugs, devoid of any semblance of dignity, are destroying the Catholic Church and you’re looking for reasons to kiss their rings?? Please….
Aaron, Maggie is not denying the dignity that their office calls for. The court cases prove a large proportion of bishops including the pontiff have fallen from office through their connection with child abuse and its cover up. The fraudulent do not even have the powers of office to ordain. This, many believe, including the masons at the time, was what Fatima was all about. She was the Lady of the Apocolypse, with “stars” (bishops) falling from (loosing office) the sky (the church).
Yes, but there are “some” dissenters, who are so evil, so filled with the destruction of the Church, they need to be booted out. That is charity too.
For there is a greater cause here, and that is the sanctity of the Church and Her members.
In my opinion, there are a few times, more the exception, when a leader must swiftly remove that which seeks to destroy, and explain later. You see, its members are so carefully watching!
HEAR HEAR
It should always be done with an aim of salvation, including the salvation of those doing damage to the Church. It must be presented to them in charity, so they may have an opportunity to repent.
And I’m not convinced its members should be carefully watching. For most of the Church’s history, if one didn’t live in Rome or travel in very high circles, any action taken by Rome would take years or even decades to spread. In the mean time, Catholics went about their lives.
In an age such as that, institutions like 1P5 and the Remnant would be better off not existing. They need to exist because the forces against us use the tools of mass media to propagate evil, and they must be countered at the same speed. It would be better for the average Catholic to be ignorant of the crazy utterances of the Pope and his men. But that’s not the world we live in.
The members i am referring to you are not the laity, but the other prelates who gaze for an opportunity as well to show their real agendas.
Crazy utterances of Pope do not nearly categorize the gravity of the situation in our Church.
Perhaps had Catholic media been around back in the “good old days” when the “average Catholic” was around, gross and despicable sexual abuse by clergy and hidden by bishops would have been uncovered. Fortunately,it took secular media to do the job.
The last authentically “good” Catholic media we had around, in my opinion, was Mother Angelica, one mere woman, who challenged clericism on the left – and on the right.
There is plenty of “traditional” Catholic social media around today- but such entities tend not to focus on shuffled, recycled pederast prelates – so nothing’s changed in this regard.
The sexual abusers are still with us, and the victims only chance of survival or justice is leaking to the secular press.
The focus of “traditionalists” or “conservative” entities seems to only be on their war with the left, just as the left focuses mainly on its war with the right.
Take this post and thread for example. Not criticizing it, just noticing.
And I don’t see entities like “Life Site News” for example, focusing on such a “scandalous” subject like continuing sexual abuse of children by prelates, but I did notice one of their (fewer) female writers opine about the “dangers” of letting her five year old wear spaghetti straps.
(I think the danger was supposed to be acceptance of clothing that “caused” men to sin in the future, which in turn caused abortion – or something like that – who knows).
But the only voice in semi major social media today that I can think of that focuses on the extremely urgent and still constant issue of shuffled pederasts – that I can think of – is Catholic reporter Randy Engel, who covered a lot of sex abuse cases when they first surfaced.
I don’t think she is well liked among much of the so called Catholic press, on the left or the right.
One of the cases (she sent me the entire court transcript) implicated the current bishop of Wheeling Charleston.
But aside from her and organizations like SNAP, “traditional” “good” “orthodox” Catholic media, for the most part (this is not a blanket condemnation) seem to deem still needed investigations and exposure – either scandalous in itself, or unecessary.
Perhaps this is because if you look at the still shuffled pederast priests and bishops around the world via the data bases, they have no distinct “traditional” or “liberal” bent?
Hmm.
” institutions like 1P5 and the Remnant would be better off not existing.”
That’s all I need to read from you to know you are an enemy of Christ. Without 1P5 and The Remnant you and people like you would have a clear field to operate, wouldn’t you? It is you who are ‘the forces against us.’ Thank God for 1P5 and The Remnant!!
Winslow, you’ve lifted Aaron Traas’ words completely out of context. Please put them back in their context and read ALL of his words — then you will understand that you have committed a grave error to accuse him of being an enemy of Christ. Indeed, his very next sentence after “better off not existing” is to affirm what you said — 1P5 and The Remnant NEED to exist in this day and age. It would be better if it were not so, but sadly that’s not the world we live in today.
You’re right and I apologize. Thanks for the correction.
My apologies to you for my message below. I shot from the hip. I need to read more carefully.
I wouldn’t accuse Pope Francis of being dictatorial or autocratic; as you said, it comes with the territory. But his pontificate, especially if this latest revelation is confirmed, is clearly headed in the direction of despotism.
You’re right. There may be a cruelty at work here that has no place in any pontificate. What is admirable, however, and regrettably lacking in other recent pontificates, is the boldness to act.
If you mean to act just for the acting, yes, you are right. Do you think that his actions are guided by Wisdom? I do not invoke Sophia to dispel any possible questions, but the Holy Spirit.
Don’t we wish the four previous popes had used the God given authority of the Office! I’m convinced we are shocked by Francis using this power because it was not used for 50 years.
Well …another one bites the dust..up next…the fab 4.
We have had plenty of autocratic popes.
I don’t so much mind the ones who exercise the autocracy in the defense of the faith – as opposed to its deconstruction.
But now Francis is the dissenter. That is more than a bit odd.
I’ve made the same point, Brian, on a couple of web sites.
I keep remembering that awful “Loggia Stare.” It was eerie, and many people scattered far and wide across the world independently perceived the same chill up and down their spines.
Yep. Felt immediately sick in my gut. Had no idea why. Now I do.
https://akacatholic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Francis-sneer-601×220.jpg
This is totally unfair! If you were to have your picture taken in all the different expressions your face holds during the day you would not look so good either. Using these pictures in this way is a cheap shot and not charitable.
Barbara, life isn’t fair. Get over it! This is an accurate description of what this man really thinks about real Catholics, Latin Mass Catholics.
How many are you.. real catholics…? for your existance is quite invisible in this side of the world. That is the problem.. loud but few-
It was used as an example of what I labeled as the Loggia Stare. Then I found Steve’s timely article and posted it.
I don’t think Bergoglio has any room to complain about fairness. So just get over yourself.
Oh, Barbara, there are, however, times when a picture is worth a thousand words. I’m sure you’ve heard that one. This is one of the times.
True. I hope you are out there protesting the panoply of nasty pictures used as stock footage in depicting Donald Trump.
senrex, what’s the Loggia Stare?
http://www.steveskojec.com/2014/06/first-impressions-pope-francis/
Chill? I wanted to vomit.
I wept as I did on 9/11.
The world does not yet realize the carnage of March 13,2013
The Supreme Pontiff himself talks about de-centralization and dialogue. He strives for unity even with outspoken enemies of the Church. He loves to use the words “encounter”, “dialogue”, “unity”,”peace”. He proposes the supremacy of the individual conscience over absolute truth, as expressed through the Word of God.
His actions toward Catholics (as has been defined by the Church – faithful to all doctrines of the Church) also known as Traditionalists have consistently been in obvious opposition to his words. While lovingly embracing those, whose religion openly denies and insults Jesus Christ, he persecutes sincere Christ-followers (to the best of their ability, not unlike open adulterers, to whom a godly marriage is only a distant ideal). This often means an attempt at violation of their conscience, which – if unsuccessful – is followed by ridicule, dismissal or reprimand.
The contrast between Jorge Bergoglio’s “encounters” and messages toward followers of false religions and false doctrines, as opposed to Catholics faithfully following Catholic teaching and the Word of God, is impossible to overlook.
I claim to see an agenda in this – the overthrow of the Catholic Church, as defined by two millennia of Catholics, popes amongst them, in opposition to this definition. He persecutes faithful Catholics, because he considers them mistaken, stunted in growth as Christians. He sees them as an embarrassing obstacle to progress in the Church, where the Church asks the world of flesh, not the Holy Spirit, for guidance.
His is saying: This was by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, when we know, because we have been told by witnesses and participants, that it was plotted and achieved by dishonest means. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit inspires bishops, cardinals and popes to engage in deception and manipulation of others.
Bravo!!!
Well said!
Sorry, but I do not see that “He proposes the supremacy of the individual conscience over absolute truth”. He simply puts one’s Conscience into focus. Absolute truth is absolute, per definitionem. But that he puts Conscience into its proper place is very laudable. After all, isn’t that the most important interface between Life and Death and prominent feature of the Life thereafter? However, with the virtual disappearance of the Sacrament of individual confessions it is highly questionable how could the conscience develop properly without regular “training of the Inner Soul” in the confessional.
At a time when many bishops have lost their office automatically through the act of pederasty and/or its perpetuation, one has to ponder whether or not we are in those days of Revelation predicted, where valid priests and masses would become rare and God will provide sacraments directly and spiritually.
Mary brings her children to a place of safety, as the sign in the Apocolypse – and stars falling from sky symbolized some bishops losing all powers – including that of ordination.)
Clerics will fail, and it will not be through them God will provide grace to His children.
Yes. Well said. Have you perhaps noticed how (from our very limited field of wisdom) God moves and chastises His own people. Take Catholics: via sexual abuses the Church is humbled. Because She has not been the proverbial Light on the Mountain. Take our deviant brothers, the Protestants. Where their ‘brand” of Christianity is prevalent, there Islam comes as the Great Chastiser. France, for too long corroded by likes JP Sartre and Communist Party (Duclos) has been heretical, similarly like Italy corroded almost completely by the Communists. They are under attack by Islam. Christianity in East Europe was purified by persecution from the atheistic regimes. That is why you do not have (as many) sexual cases as in the comfortable West Europe.
I have yet to see evidence that the church hierarchy has been “humbled” by its countless cases of shuffled predators (shuffled “bishops” cannot even validly ordain – Canon 2359) nor have I seen evidence that the US has less cases than Western Europe.
Perhaps that’s just because it takes so long to get through the American databases of Catholic sexual predator clergymen, most of whom are still in action.
As a side note these databases cite the legal cases and do not disclude lists of our “deviant” Protestant brethren.
This IS what Revelation predicted – bishops who lose their offices and subsequently rare true masses. Fraudulent bishops cannot ordain valid priests.
So it seems to me the bigger issue regarding Pops Francis is whether or not Francis is the head of a sex abuse cult (and that’s why Benedict fled?) rather than the question of whether his ambiguity of language is encouraging people to receive unworthily.
People have been receiving unworthily since the church’s inception, because church law prevents clerics from assuming culpability, unless evil intent is expressly expressed.
Erroneous conscious does not disclude the possibility of culpability but neither does it preclude culpability.
Thank you Judy for additional explanation on a post which was almost filed away disappearing from our field of vision. In purely managerial terms, when a company is in a mess, it would take any new management (tasked to clear up the mess) at least the same amount of time as it has taken the company to get into the mess. But I start to see some encouraging signs that the Church is starting to get Her acts together. God bless.
I am simply stating what seems a logical conclusion to the “internal forum” which alone should decide whether an adulterer can continue adultery, and yet- receive the Holy Communion. The internal forum is, of course, what Catholics have always known as an examination of conscience. This examination has always taken place in relation to God’s commandments. Catholics have always known that God provides the grace necessary to keep His commandments to all who ask for it. God’s burden is never too much for His child to carry. When first things come first (God before flesh), no suffering is too great, and when it becomes too much, one is probably on the way to meet Him.
The examination of one’s conscience does not take place in relation to what other people do, what the common practices of the time are, or what the priest thinks during confession. I mention the priest, because according to Jorge Bergoglio, the internal forum should take place with the accompaniment of a priest. This simply means that two (not one) internal forums consider the matter, and can somehow arrive at a decision that in this particular case living in adultery is the best (“most generous”) answer that can be offered to God.
It is shocking and extremely demoralizing to teach that two “internal forums” are capable of discerning that God is not merciful enough, not sophisticated enough, not complex enough, not loving and just enough, to make rules that apply to all and always. Catholics know that those rules have been put in place to bring us closer to our Father, and not to oppress us. Also, it is offensive to me to hear from a pope that people can be “generous” in varying degrees in responding to God. We can be willing or unwilling to take the very radical step of offering our lives to Him, lives received from Him. Those who believe God and His Word know that there is no possibility for a lukewarm, half-hearted response. Beroglio is encouraging lukewarmness which God very clearly forbids.
Jorge Bergoglio once said that some rigid Catholics say – this OR that. He then claimed that this is un-Catholic, because a proper Catholic response is – this AND that. What he said is obviously shockingly incorrect. It is truth or falsehood, God or Satan. Whoever rejects God at times, to embrace Him at other times, is not truly Catholic. Bergoglio promotes a world comprised of shades of grey, when Jesus Christ taught us the very opposite. The Bergoglian discernment is constructed in order to serve the needs of this false, artificially constructed world of greyness, a world denying the Word of God, rebelling against Him. Which “generous” response to God is dark enough, and which is too pale? Sheer nonesense. Not Catholic.
It doesn’t take a theologian or a Cardinal to understand the concept of the indissolubility of marriage. It doesn’t surprise God that simpletons desire to marry too, so He made it real easy to comprehend.
Great response. Very well said. Thanks for clearly spelling it all. God bless and thank you.
Many thanks for you kindness.
EXCELLENT! And many Bravos to you.
God bless you.
Another outstanding message!
The “this AND that” nonsense was Bergoglio’s reaction to Cardinal Sarah’s book, “God or Nothing,” the work of a true son of the Church. Bergoglio is incapable of that kind of clear and faithful witness.
Excellent insight and a well grounded reply. Thank you PlushGrizzly. It is indeed a clear answer which you have provided, and this gives us, for all practical situations, a firm guidance. On a much more general level, it touches the issue of God as Good and of Satan as Evil. The existence of both, where in principio was only One. We enter the area of Big Grey. Our real world.
We also know that for a good purpose God in His infinite wisdom is often taking use of Evil to achieve His end. Old Testament if full of examples where God is using Assyrians or Babylonians etc. to clean up His people. It was a brutal method of achieving a noble end. Perhaps the merciful too merciful attitude of our Pope is trying to smoothen up the situation while waiting for God to enter the game with His much less merciful hand?
Does the sixth commandment express an absolute moral truth or not? AL opens the a door which would declare this not an absolute moral law with no exceptions. Are there cases in which persons who are not validly married may engage in sexual intercourse? It seems that AL contemplates such cases, and this is the whole purpose of the four cardinals’ dubia. Taken at face value AL does state that there are such exceptions “in some cases”. Who decides which cases allow this? Apparently the individual conscience with the much touted “accompaniment” and “dioscernment” by a priest”. The fact is that in places like Germany most of those in such situations don’t go near any priest for such accompaniment and and discernment. Besides, how could priests who are already overworked engage in such activities without abandoning other more urgent tasks? Also, as has been the case with a priest in Columbia, the preest may well find himself suspended from his ministry based on a dubious or fale interpretation of certain canons of the Code of Canon law, if he defends what the Church has always taught and refuses to rubber stamp such discernment. The great expert on discernment in the history of the Church is St. Ignatius of Loyola, and there is no evidence that he had any intention of applying his insights on the matter to whether people are obliged or not to fulfill the ten commandments.
Very well said and I thank you for clarifying for me a few issues which I did not see clearly. Thank you. But now one question remains still: who is then this Pope? What is His agenda (if any can be perceived by us, from outside) and aims? Would or could we dare to speculate without being labelled as rebels against the Catholic Church itself, ergo falling into a category of opponents?
Well, this Pope has been at it for 4 years and we know enough about him to make a clear, accurate assessment of who he is.
Only Protestants celebrate the heresy of Martin Luther. This Pope did that.
Only a Protestant would suggest that Protestants be allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist. This Pope is working to bring that heresy to pass.
Only a manifest heretic would dismiss the words of Christ and substitute his own which allow Communion for public adulterers and sodomites. This Pope has ‘legalized’ the first and is working on the second. I’m sure you get the point.
The ban hammer cometh.
Read these. If you can’t accept them, take your comments elsewhere, please:
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/comment-policy/
Pavel, those who dare speculate (or even recognize reality for what it is) will always be labelled as “rebels” against the Catholic faith itself – by clerics who rely on their supporters “allegiance of faith” being comfortably ignorant – or an assumed battle between liberalism and so called traditionalism.
I was banned from attending a popular “traditional minded” priory – simply for privately complaining that the prior there broke the seal of my menial little confession, and falsified outrageously what I confessed, in front of another woman. I was also banned from attending the book club there, as a potential “harm to the greater good of the community”.
I have been a long time mental health care advocate, successful female business owner and am currently an assistant fraud investigator. I was labeled in public by this prelate and to his community without any evidence as “troubled”. He “bound” his sycophants (in particular, single men) from speaking to me.
I imagine similar smear campaigns as the one I endured are incurred proactively against all sexual abuse victims as well, and their families, so that, should the truth come out, their “opponents” are already deemed “opponents” of traditional Catholicism, and lacking in credibility.
That’s why I believe these lengthy threads by self defined traditionalists questioning the Church’s long time stance on withholding Holy Communion only to those who publicly, objectively and stubbornly embrace culpable mortal sin (a situation that is very rare and hardly ever occurs) is just intellectual chewing gum to waste the time away for those who imagine themselves the intellectual traditional elite.
Meanwhile, unless you yourself or a loved one has been directly victimized, few are willing to speculate as to what, and what not, fraudulent bishoprics and priests can produce on an altar.
I speculate a lot on “who is this Pope” but I speculate more on what Pope Benedict said shortly after assuming office, after receiving and reading the “horrific third secret of Fatima”, and shortly before he left:
“The Vatican is infected with homosexual lobbyists.”
Is the visible church just a disguise for an extremely well organized pederast cult?
Thank you for being so open and for sharing your experiences with me and others on 1P5. We have seen the work of Devil against God on two fronts: in mostly Catholic countries/Catholid bodies such as monasteries, schools, seminaries, particular churches or parishes: God is allowing Devil to rein by exploting sex as a tool to bring Church down. In the Protestant countries, bodies, international organisations (UN as example) Devil is using Islam to punish the haughty, proud and greedy. Same as before in the time of Old Testament and the Prophets.
Yes, and St. Ignatius was clear that there are ‘spirits’ that are not The Spirit.
The rule that clerics MUST provide the Sacraments except to those who publicly and obstinantly justify living in mortal sin has never changed. The weight of the issue to prove people are culpable of public mortal sin has always been on the priest.
There are always cases of “irregular” marriages that prove valid, because a first union is declared void. Subsequently priests today are far from capable from discerning inner culpability. Most “Catholics” don’t even know what the Sacrament of marriage is, which could diminish culpability, and some who know – shouldn’t be assumed to be in sin because they know their first union was false.
All Catholics have a God given right to 1) live in the real world and 2) receive our Lord when not aware of mortal sin.
To say that individual conscience is at the core of who gets to receive Holy Communion might be too “vague” or an incomplete way of putting it, and misleading to some, but it is not a new teaching, or incorrect.
Unless a person specifically denies, “obstinantly” expresses opposition to church teaching, once clearly informed of it, as in “yes! I believe I have a right to TWO marriages” a priest cannot “judge” culpability. Only God can judge souls. This should be a no brainer to “traditional” Catholics.
And this has always been the case.
I think this issue is a bait and switch technique to distract from bigger issues concerning the church today, such as the shuffling of pederasts and the canon that excommunicates these clerics.
The church has already answered all these questions. No one here is justifying subjective conscience over church teaching, or the use of vague language in clerical documents.
But the church has already defined who the exceptions are, over and over again. Everything I state here was reiterated by John Paul II. It is no secret.
Scandal is cause when people assume others are living in objective sin, without knowing any of the facts, like the “gentleman” who assumed my conception “a sin”. (My father was a living saint in a valid marriage who ended up exposing and eradicating from this diocese a pederast priest back in the 1980’s. There have even been miracles attributed to his intercession. The whole time he was supposedly “living in sin” he was communicating with and being advised by many priests including my uncle, a devout
Franciscan.
Before you say it, it was not these facts that justified his position, but objective reality that did, Disciplines do not come above the law, change a marriage, a reality, or teaching of the church, and cannot conflict reality.
His first union was false and he knew it – he had found out. (Not by “subjective” conscience! What an insult.) Therefore his ” second” (that is his “first”) marital covenant was valid. That’s called: LOGIC.
Your arguments place letter of the law in contradiction with objective reality, as if we have to be brainwashed or retarded to be in the state of grace.
Providing the Sacraments (salvation of souls) IS their most important task. That is WHY church law states they HAVE to assume state of grace unless their clients obstinantly prove differently. Are you saying we should change constant teaching on who gets to receive Holy Communion?
Outstanding message, PlushGriz. If I were you I wouldn’t waste my time writing to Brian Miles. I’ve found it necessary to respond to a couple of his messages, but based on what he’s written here, I’d say he’s not a faithful Catholic. If we ignore him, he may go away.
Not likely as I’m a comment moderator here. And if you’d like to continue commenting here, you will need to stop asserting who is and is not a faithful Catholic.
Thank you, God bless you.
I’m afraid I don’t think that being dictatorial and autocratic is part of the charism of the successor of St Peter – quite the contrary.
Dictatorial: of or typical of a ruler with total power
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dictatorial
Autocratic: relating to a ruler who has absolute power
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/autocratic
What’s the problem?
I know what the words mean. And they don’t mean the same as “supreme”, nor “pontiff”. Popes certainly do not have absolute power. And to the extent that they do have power, the problem is that Our Lord commissioned St Peter to feed His sheep, not bully them. On the face of it, this particular case seems like another example of papal bullying.
As for “Had Francis’ “conservative” predecessors prosecuted dissenters with the same zeal that Francis trains on the faithful, the Church would be in great shape today.”, No! No! No! Do you not believe in “right” and “wrong”? Do the putative ends justify the means? Would you cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
You are mistaken. The pope certainly does have total absolute power to sack when and where he chooses. Francis understands this, but sadly not only uses that power for evil, but also — as others have noted above — exercises it in an uncharitable manner.
What the Church desperately desperately needs is a pope who will wield this God-given power with fervor, zeal, and charity against the enemies of the faith whose ranks within the Church are now legion.
I’m sorry to have to say that I think you should be less sure of yourself.
The misuse of that power is the problem.
The use of that power to destroy the Catholic Church, is the problem.
This is the problem.
The words of Pope Benedict XVI: “In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith … the authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.”
you have to be kidding, the worst is that he has a doctrinal problem. Either he is correct or Chrisrt lied.
Yes say that to the Argentine Jesuits who had to put up with his dictatorial ways and had him removed. Applied to Bergoglio, the words dictatorial and autocratic are indeed misplaced. What happened to the Servant of the servants of Christ?
Where can on find this information? I remembering hearing something to the effect that the Jesuits were generally unhappy but did not pay much attention at the time.
Trolling!? Rigid and imposing in choosing wolves while lording over the Shepherds and sheep while protecting wolves of sexual abuse…this is what is happening….may Mary aid us…
In this case, the objection is that the Pope is setting himself up against the law — i.e. that the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta is precisely that — Sovereign. The Pontiff has plenipotentiary authority only over the fully professed members of the order insofar as he oversees their spiritual wellbeing. Precedent and treaty enshrine the rights of the Order, to which the Vatican has assented.
The idea that the Pope can simply set himself up against law, precedent, and indeed revelation is a hideous one, and entirely unCatholic. It is, rather, the parody of infallibility with which Protestants have for centuries reproached us.
The Pope’s role is to defend and protect law, precedent, and revelation, not to act like a capricious dictator with privileged access to the mind of God. As the German bishops wrote to Bismark: praeterea neque quoad res ecclesiasticas papa monarchus absolutus nuncupari potest, quippe qui cum subordinatus sit iuri divino et obstrictus sit iis quae Christus pro Ecclesia sua disposuit.
He doesn’t have any more right to ask for his resignation than he does the Prime Minister of England. They are sovereign. At least they were!
So, what is Bergoglio? Pope or Religious Dictator? So, exactly what dirt does the Vatican have on this gentleman? Is there blackmail going on here?
Why, Al, there’s nothing conspiratorial going on here at all. How dare you even suggest such a thing! This is Pope Francis we’re talking about, the Most Humblest Pope Evah™, the King of Mercy!™. Surely he would never do anything that smacks of such nefariousness. . . .
(sarcasm off)
I like your sarcasm!
Cardinal Burke has been very quiet on this episode, hopefully because he is very busy making the formal correction, quickly followed with the calling for an imperfect council while they still have the power to do so. I hope the Fab Four are not lacking in courage & will not allow this already protracted tyranny to drag on any longer. We need an answer as to when this will end, the Modernists cleared out & the agenda set for the full restoration of the CC.
Indeed, he’s no doubt cloistered in a secret dungeon diligently practicing his cursive, writing “Holy Father, you are wrong” over and over and over and over!! LOL. 😉
The fab 4 are on their way out.actually they already are.. Just Burke left. What ever happened to the fraternal correction??
Could this action signify that the correction has been received at Casa Santa Martha?
Very possibly, but one would like to have it confirmed. Nobody wants another liberal appointment & what of Cardinal Burke. Will he also be required to resign? This Papacy is a farce!
This is God’s will. What we are seeing is the machinations of evil which have been going on for over 500 years. I believe that the resignation of Benedict was to bring this all to a head. We need more than ever to trust in God. He is playing the Devil at his own game. Like a Greek drama where the chorus tell us the plot and then we proceed with the drama, so with the history of time; we know the outcome but we don’t know how we get there. We are in the early stages of this great battle. Bergoglio will make mistakes because evil is in a hurry. Patience, Prayer, Penance.
Excellent comment. How hard it is to trust that God already knows the players, the rules of the game, each move by each player, and the results – all at once. I have to remember myself that He has a plan and it’s a plan for the salvation of all mankind – if we only use our wills to align to His Will.
When we pray “lead us not into temptation” some holy writers say the ‘temptation’ can be translated as ‘test.’ So should we pray that we, as individuals, won’t have to be tested – I mean the big test – to give a pinch of incense to the world, or not.
The “connection” is the key. Unmistakably. The action against the Order is to grind their nose to the line the Malta bishops have drawn. Francis has nothing to tweak theirs back into line with Scripture & Tradition. Meaning every islander (though Rome based) must jackboot walk the talk of A.L. (The turning of something as bedrock as the Order – the very image of it – is treasure trove to the rampagers. There is (there will be) no place of escape.
Why? Because the Malta bishops radicalization – secure in the Pope’s roaring silence – will be the grand exemplar of how (and where) the universal Church is meant to go (in all things sacramental, in all things regarding – the disregard – of the Moral Law. If this was not so Pope Francis would sunk the island by now; a stirring of wrath he is quite capable of exercising, as he has demonstrated in sinking the august standing of the Order.
The bishop of Malta (that is their grand gesture) will be on a world tour, docking and deembarking in artfully selected dioceses. Would say the Diocese of San Diego (California) has already cleared its harbor for that monstrous wreck.
The Knights of Malta have nothing to do with the modern nation (or dioceses) of Malta. It’s just the name. They have been out of Malta since before Jane Austen died.
All that true.
Yet the long history of the island goes with them. They’re stuck with it, and for that (somehow) have a duty towards it.
Your headline is unsupported even by the surmised facts that you report third-hand. The story you link to is wishful thinking – “so far as we know….” and “the Holy Father has requested….”
Sloppy? No, slovenly. Irresponsible. Laughably bone-headed. Get a Spanish dictionary and get a life.
How dare you use the Sovereign Order of Malta as click-bait.
Actually, the article I reference confirms exactly that. The machine translation isn’t rough, and I’ve had it confirmed by one of our human translators. If you’d care to rebut the facts of the story or supply an alternate translation, please feel free. I am reporting this as something that has been reported by another outlet — an outlet, I might add, that gets things right. InfoVaticana broke the story on the letter to the Argentinian bishops last year.
If you think I should have put more nuance into my post, I’ll take that criticism. I should have put “reported to have resigned” in the title and the body. This was written as a blog post, not a fully-researched news piece. It’s a developing story, but in the wild, and thus, worth reporting that it has been reported. Fr. Z has done the same. Welcome to the Internet.
The more I see this knee-jerk angry reaction from people associated with the SMOM, the more I wonder if maybe there isn’t something odd going on here. I saw a similar reaction from someone on Facebook, only to have him come back later and say some of his sources were telling him that this is, in fact, true, and will be announced tomorrow.
Not sure who you are, but can you go on the record here stating this report to be wrong and that Festing is sticking it out and will not resign? Is THAT what you are trying to say?
Thank you for your note. Please see my reply immediately above. And pray.
I’ve added a second postscript to the post along the lines of your critique.
Thank you. Members of the Order are sworn to secrecy on this matter and thus one must wonder where the “news” or the rumor of news originated. I pray that it is not from a member of the Order.
As far as the Vatican is concerned, Pope Francis has already and repeatedly complained about and condemned the nefarious lobbies – the Masons, the gays – and who know what else. The place is infested with intrigue, alas.
He has never complained about the Order of Malta.
The situation with the Order of Malta is as historic as it is delicate. Without the Order, Europe would be Islamic today (I pray that, in 100 more years, that statement does not appear humorous). The Order of Malta is a precious gift of God to the world, and to the West. Both the Order and the Holy See seek unity, not division, in this and all matters.
These are rough times. Pray, pray, pray.
Reuters is reporting the story.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-knights-idUSKBN159001
Both the Order and the Holy See seek unity, not division, in this and all matters.
Unity avails not if it’s not in the service of truth.
The Grand Master attempted to discipline Albrecht Boeselager for distributing hundreds of thousands of contraceptives in the developing world. Instead, it is the Grand Master himself who ends up purged.
But we surely have not heard enough complaints from Bergoglio about the infestations of free masons and the gay mafia within the Vatican itself, even among the higher echelons of the Curia. I wonder why?
Maybe next time a more moderate – dare I say it, “polite” – tone would be more appropriate if you think there has been inaccurate reportage?
Good grief. Now that the reporting here has proven correct, I’m sure you’ll be issuing an apology for this histrionic bit of projection?
This is somewhat over the top, no? “Get a life”? Come now . . .
Wait. One minute the Grand Master is asserting the sovereignty of the order, and the next he’s resigning at the Pope’s “request”? Isn’t that like Trump resigning at Putin’s “request”? You’re either sovereign or you’re not.
Cornelius – and writers – moderators – anyone who cares to listen – please explain why anything the Knights of Malta – or such groups like the Knights Templar – (which by nature are anti clerical) are accused of – is taken seriously?
As I understand it, these entities take vows not to enlighten those who cannot be enlightened, even in defense of themselves – even in the face of unjust accusations and attacks, including those attacks leveled at them by corrupt leaders of the church.
That he’s resigning at the Pope’s request – or guilty of anything – is what the visible hierarchy and certain media sources state. But doesn’t it sound fishy to you? A Knight of Malta wanting to pass out condoms?
The visible hierarchy has always planted onions around masonic entities. By this I refer to the habit of planting false information to frighten away the faithful from what’s good or valuable, or any entities that – in secret – act like a check and balance to the powerful elite.
Now, I’m not saying that masonic entities cannot become corrupt as well, but the difference is – they typically don’t engage in verbal defense.
It reminds of when vocal anti-clerical Father Corapi was charged with outrageous crimes, wound up disbarred – and even donned layperson’s garments.
Conservative press for the most part accepted that he had “gone bad”, and ignorant laypersons wrote to him begging him to “return” to obedience and to the faith. None of this made any sense, in fact, was contradictory.
Why would an outspoken, clerical corruption exposing, orthodox priest like Father Corapi, who still still insisted “Once a priest a priest forever” shed his priestly garments for a black leather jacket and all but not defend himself?
Perhaps he figured out he was not even validly ordained, because his ordaining bishop had committed a crime that, by action, stripped him of a bishop’s faculties and real power of office.
And perhaps his silence in defense of himself was not an indicator of guilt – but an indication he had been threatened, compromised, a protection of other innocents, and in other words – the silence of the lambs.
Remember, the masons recognized and honored Our Lady of Fatima as the Lady of the Apocalypse, the “sign in the heavens” in scripture – that prophesied the falling of bishops from their offices – by the falling of “stars”(bishops) from the “heavens” (the church).
Considering that loss of office and powers of office is distinctly and specifically intrinsic to the act of child abuse – and any connection thereof – can’t it be speculated that any pope upon receipt of the “horrific unspeakable third secret of Fatima” cannot rightly claim “not in my pontificate” anymore?
Why should it come as a surprise then, this double speaking, ambiguous pope points the finger at the Knights of Malta as the real dissenters of Catholic teaching?
We should never overestimate our abilities to know what’s really going on.
So you scrub messages showing how you embellish news without any foundation.
Coward.
Shame on you. Pray to Our Lady of Philermos, the patroness of the Sovereign Order of Jerusalem, Rhodes, and Malta.
You need to correct your Fake News.
For heaven’s sake, lose the attitude, Chris. Nobody has scrubbed anything.
Dont mind Chris Steve, everyone who cares about the Faith and its proper communication know that we live in a time of heightened fear so, even the brief gust of something negative happening in the Church will often produce an alarming reaction. As to the veracity of this alleged report, time will tell…till then, continue to fight the good fight. Pray, Fast, Evangelize…and if need be…educate your local priest and Bishop
Is this true?
If so…I wanna know why, how, etc.
Steve Your conspiracy theory is really silly. There is now no connection to be drawn between the island nation of Malta (and its bishops) and the Order of Malta.
Did you read the postscript?
It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s just pattern recognition. There seems to be an odd connection between Malta and the post-AL crisis. Cardinal Burke was metaphorically banished to Malta (yes, HQ in Rome); Archbishop Scicluna was known as an orthodox bishop before the Maltese bishops document, and there are rumors that the document is Bishop Grech’s work, supported by powerful members of the hierarchy in Rome. There have been allegations that the investigation into the SMOM are intended to discredit Burke in some way. There are allegations of Freemasonry within the order, and the very unlikely report (but from a reputable source) that Pope Francis wanted these Freemasons rooted out by Burke…none of it makes sense, and all of it is circling the drain of this papacy.
Someone recently told me a prophecy, likely not approved, that says “From Malta will come an order that will topple the Church and the faithful will suffer.” I really want to emphasize that I have no idea about the provenance of this, and if it should be trusted, but it’s in the back of my mind as I evaluate this story.
I’m not trying to undermine your point, Steve, which you know I more or less agree with, but we really do need to keep in mind that the connection the Knights have with the actual island nation of Malta is historical and symbolic, not currently geographical. Although one mostly hears them called by the short form, the full proper name of the Knights is the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta (Latin: Supremus Ordo Militaris Hospitalis Sancti Ioannis Hierosolymitani Rhodius et Melitensis). They started in Jerusalem during the Crusades, offering medical aid to pilgrims until the Malmuk Caliphate conquered the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1099, went to Cyprus in the 13th century and Rhodes until the blasted Turks showed up there and kicked them out. They went to Malta and set about rebuilding that little nation after a couple hundred years of Arab rule there. Then of course the blasted Turks showed up again, and the Knights finest moment came when they repelled – with a force of about 1000, including Maltese volunteers – the most terrifying Islamic force the world had seen up to that point. Sadly, the Knights deteriorated internally after that to the point where they were weakened enough to succumb to Napoleon’s forces in the early 19th century, after which they went to camp for the last two hundred years in Rome. The Knights were being rebuilt as a serious force for good in the world by Fra. Matthew and his supporters who are specifically interested in building up the order’s Catholic character. Whether this will now be possible – with the pope favouring the faction within the Knights who were opposing this re-Catholicisation – remains to be seen. But we must not become confused about the Knights’ connection with Malta.They could just as easily be called the Knights of Jerusalem, or the Knights of Rhodes.
“Pope Francis has asked him to offer his resignation.”
So he should reply:
“You have no authority to ask that, but I will if you will.”
Ooh…Right between the eyes.
Hilary White summed it up in 3 words: It’s a purge.
Wait, does the report actually say that Festing resigned? My Spanish is rusty, but where does it explicitly say that he resigned? What’s the complete translation?
Never mind, Reuters is now reporting it.
“Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God; therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” – St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, Summa Theologica IIa-IIae, Q.104
Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, commmitteth adultery. (Luke 16:18)
I read the comments below. It’s hard to know what’s going on here exactly, but one thing sticks in my mind: the undeniable similarity between the way liberal prelates at the Vatican (including, of course, Pope Francis) and their secular counterparts act. On the one hand, there is a apparent sweetness of disposition, and an endless stream of words expressing charitable thoughts. On the other, there is the mailed fist harshness in their actions, a rebarbative nastiness in their dealings with both associates and opponents. It makes me wish at times that Wikileaks were as interested in the Vatican crowd as it clearly once was in the Democrat National Committee and Mr. Podesta. I suspect we’d all find its docu-drops very revealing.
There is something u may be missing: vatileaks: http://www.vatileaks.com/
I assume your comment is seasoned with heavy sarcasm. It’s a rather good joke; the site found at your link most certainly is a bad one.
Absolutely correct.
They are from the same mould, and all seek the NWO.
Obama has gone. Though maybe in the NWO he will find a way back. And Pope Francis is 80. But it is a very long term plan which recently has moved a lot closer to success (disaster).
What sticks in my mind while reading through comments here, is the typical obsessive, distracting polar-ism of two erroneous opposites, as if the “Catholic War” is a battle between the “real Catholics, Latin Mass Catholics” and the “bad” liberal Catholics (epitomized by Pope Francis).
I accuse myself as well.
Because I used to think like this, many years ago.
Let’s vote on just how evil we think the pope is, to what degree we think he is intentionally evil, and how much disdain he has for “Latin Mass Catholics”- by his facial expression – even as he recently just let Pius X sects back into the church.
I think most are missing the point here – the forest through the trees, so to speak.
Like it or not, not refusing Holy Communion to those not proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be stubbornly and knowingly attached to culpable mortal sin – is the constant teaching of the church – and such actions cannot make a priest lose his office. Although unworthily received Holy Communion grievously offends our Lord, He knew He would be received unworthily, and still did not bind his future priests to have to mind and soul read individuals who approached.
However, since the Didache, the act of child abuse( it’s promulgation or any connection thereof) desposed all prelates (including bishops) of their office, and all powers related to office. The result of THIS act was restricted to child sex crimes and incest, not regular adultery with another cleric or layperson, which although sinful, did not automatically excommunicate – with resultant loss of power to ordain, for example.
Also the loss of office inherent with sex offenders is not dependent upon any ruling by religious or civil authorities.
Subsequently, until one is willing to face what this means in the church today, all the actions of the current pope will remain obscure and contradictory, because of course they are meant to obscure something, and of course they were meant to contradict something.
Perhaps the question we should be asking is not whether or not those in second unions are in their real first marriage (or not) but whether or not the priest distributing “Holy Communion” was validly ordained.
Lesser issues keep the faithful choking on gnats while they swallow whole camels – perhaps instead of the real Body of Christ.
Your comments are well taken. I don’t think the pope (or anyone else, for that matter) is intentionally evil; he may be, but I wouldn’t have any way of knowing it. Nothing you write here strikes me as objectionable. I would only caution you that what is in question around the world is not a priest’s giving Holy Communion to someone who may or may not be in a state of sin; he might very well only be able to surmise about the person approaching him for Communion what I know about the intentional evil or lack of same on the part of a pope, i.e. nothing at all. What IS in question is a pope teaching that receiving Communion while in an objective state of serious sin is acceptable to all concerned, priest and communicant.
I keep in mind that many perfectly orthodox popes, bishops, and priests whose words I assent to without hesitation, were perfectly nasty men, thoroughly disagreeable and rebarbative. The thrust of my observation was only that liberal men and women, whether ecclesiastics or not, very often seem to be sweet on the surface but sour in the marrow.
This is one of my points. (And I don’t mean to pick on you Johnny, ha ha) but you say: ” I would only caution you that what is in question is – is a pope teaching that receiving Communion while in an
objective state of serious sin is acceptable to all concerned, priest
and communicant.”
Yes, this is being bantered around here in detail. I did notice that.
It’s being bantered around as if it’s a fact, but the statement assumes the Pope is teaching that receiving Communion while in an objective state of serious sin is acceptable, when the pope clearly did NOT say receiving Communion while in an objective state of serious sin is acceptable.
If you read the pope’s writing in context, one has to be intellectually blind to say otherwise.
Whether the pope’s purposefully ambiguous, sweet on the surface, sour in the marrow and he too secretly carries a pack of Trojans in his pocket may or may not be true (maybe he’s sweet but carries the Trojans – sour but condom free – ha ha just joking here) but the pope didn’t literally teach unworthy reception of Holy Communion.
I tried to make the point that couples receiving Holy Communion in a second union (albeit not recognized or declared licit by the church) may well know their second union is their first valid marriage – and therefore not be in an “objective state of mortal sin” and was verbally smacked with all kinds of false assumptions about my own conception, and the state of my own father’s soul…. so it’s very interesting to me how foolish it is to assume things.
Making judgements about someone one does not know as intimately as the good Lord knows us – as to whether or not they are in “the objective state of mortal sin” is risky business, and that’s why – unless a person basically states “I know I’m in a state of objective mortal sin but I don’t care” they cannot, and can never be considered in an objective state of mortal sin, or refused Holy Communion.
Nothing is new here.
Ambiguity of language distracts and confuses BOTH sides on this issue because there are such cases where couples receiving know full well they are not in a “second” “marriage” but their first “real” one – so they receive. In fact there is no such thing in sacramental theology as a second marriage, but there are oft stated reasons why second union Catholics cannot be assumed to be objectively sinful.
(Should those couples have waited until their annulments came through? We can argue that elsewhere – it’s besides the point.)
In fact, like Benedict and John Paul II before him, these exceptions were among those emphasized by Francis as the reasons WHY Holy Communion could not be refused sincere recipients.
At no time did the Pope justify people receiving in the objective and stubborn and persistent and obvious and public and culpable and willful state of mortal sin, so I have to ask, why is it being debated on this page (which is just one small example of how it is being debated on many other “traditional” blog spots.)
When a large percentage of the hierarchy are in the clearly objective state of full loss of office via child abuse or connection to it – such a preoccupation is something I cannot quite wrap my head around.
The Pope’s formally heretical faux pas just didn’t happen folks, so in my (albeit not infallible) opinion, imagining it, or the personal culpability of any prelate or pope, is a foolish and useless mental distraction.
You say, “… the pope clearly did NOT say receiving Communion while in an objective state of serious sin is acceptable.” No, but he didn’t state clearly that is was NOT acceptable either; that’s the problem, and that’s why many good bishops around the world are confused. If things were as cut and dried as you pretend here, Pope Francis would have answered those dubia tout de suite. We all know he deliberately hasn’t taken that simple step, and so the question immediately becomes, why not? A pope’s role, after all, is to bring clarity to the Church’s teaching, not studied ambiguity. Remember: I Led Three Lives hero Herb Philbrick never entered the local Communist cell meeting to say, “Hey, guys, you know what? J. Edgar Hoover’s one helluva nice fellow!” Sometimes announcing exactly what you’re up to can be a career-damaging act.
Johnny, please tell me how am I pretending the pope’s words were cut and dry, or any other situation is “cut and dry”.
On the contrary, I emphasized most emphatically the opposite – the danger of ambiguous language and assumptions- and your attempt to make a cut and dry accusation of heresy against the pope when his statements were by nature of what they were – not formally heretical or a change in any church teaching about Holy Communion.
I think “we as traditional Catholics” (if I can use that expression) have a tendency to focus on the ambiguity of liberals, because ambiguity is (I agree with you) very dangerous and the hallmark of liberalism.
However, that does not justify it’s use (the use of ambiguity) to misinterpret or condemn those “ambiguous liberals”, as in accusing or assuming the pope said receiving Holy Communion while in an objective state of mortal sin is acceptable – because he maybe, if you take his words out of context, said something similar.
This IS ambiguity as well.
And perhaps Francis did not reiterate church teaching because he had already clarified it in other portions of the document you critique. I saw consistent truth there not denied. Or maybe because he’s a bad pope, but that doesn’t make any of his statements: formal heresy.
Ambiguity is wrong in any accusation, especially when accusing a prelate, because it in part, actually encourages the scandal that you fear the pope’s ambiguity is encouraging in the first place.
I’ll give you an example, please bear with me:
Pope Peter says in a document people cannot receive if they are aware of a mortal sin. In a later part of the document he says unless (of course) they go to confession first. Other prelates start administering Holy Communion to those aware of mortal sin without having gone to confession at all. Isn’t it better to point out that the disobedient prelates disobeyed the pope, then to falsely accuse the pope of blatantly announcing it was okay to do what they did, when he did not?
Church teaching is very cut and dry on what constitutes formal heresy (which WOULD give the faithful a right to outright reject a pope’s documents) and on what constitutes determinable culpable objective state of mortal sin (which WOULD give the priest the right to refuse Holy Communion to particular individuals.)
These situation hardly ever occur they are so strictly defined and cut and dry.
There’s no ambiguous kinda sorta state of formal heresy.
In fact, to constitute formal heresy one must knowingly positively directly and specifically and very clearly deny an infallible teaching. What constitutes ambiguity on the other hand can be anything under the sun, moon, or a fresh pile of new trash.
How you wanted to phrase the question pondered (“What IS in question is a pope teaching that receiving Communion while in
an objective state of serious sin is acceptable to all concerned,
priest and communicant”) was a cut and dry statement that the pope did not make, but a cut and dry statement you made regarding your ambiguous and assumed interpretation of his words and intent.
And once again, it’s evident on it’s face the current Pope speaks out of both sides of his mouth and dabbles in ambiguity, whenever he feels like it, and not when he happens to be reiterating church teaching. I am not endorsing this – I’m just saying it’s obvious – and we would do better to try and make sense out of what he’s distracting us from – rather than trying to explain what is purposely disordered.
Sorry, Judy, but you are simply too prolix, too discursive for me. For instance, you introduce here the world “heretic,” one you will not find anywhere in any of my posts at 1P5. My point is quite simple and I am going to restate it one last time for you in as few words as I can manage: Bergoglio’s papacy is an unmitigated disaster for the Catholic Church. The man is extremely limited, keeps very bad ecclesiastical company, and seems to have a vexatious, vengeful personality. If you like him and like his chaotic style of governance and his nasty disposition, then God bless you and good luck to you. As for me, I will pray he changes drastically or that he leaves the papacy before he reduces the Church to the lamentable state of, say, the Church of England.
I didn’t say you used the word heretic.
But you accused the pope of formal heresy, in what you stated he said (which he didn’t). That’s not anything anyone should do lightly. That’s taking liberal liberties – ambiguity – in traddie packaging.
And as far as jumping from subject to subject – once again – that was my point friend. You, like many, refuse to consider that the biggest issue facing the church today may be not “the subject” that you want to assume it is, and ruminate over. Any suggestion otherwise is incomprehensible to you.
To paint me, after everything prolific I’ve written here to explain myself, as someone who potentially “likes” this pope and his “chaotic style of governance” and his “nasty disposition” only goes to emphasize that maybe I am too “prolif” for you. You’ve clearly stopped reading.
Recognizing that the visible church is an organized child abuse sect much worse off that the Church of England ever was – is not something one can easily tweet about.
The word is “prolix” not “prolif.” And, you’re right, I’ve stopped reading.
Of course.
You get to pick the subject, and you get to pick the more insulting term – when I challenge it.
Have a great day.
These continuing absurdly bizarre breakdowns – of one nature or another – and in themselves not appearing so consequential – are adding up. In secular reality an administrator having this kind of pile up would be held suspect of incompetence.
The resignation required is not that of Grand Master, Fra’ Matthew Festing – but Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his enablers.
Love it. Pope Francis has found his inner Pius IX who said to a Cardinal questioning if the definition of papal infallibility was in conformity with tradition these memorable words, “Tradition? I AM Tradition!”
That is how you do it.
Also from the Reuters report, “The all-male top leaders of the Knights of Malta are not clerics, but they take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience to the pope.”
The senior leaders of the Order (very few in number) are professed as are other religious. They have taken oaths of obedience. Everyone else is subject to the hierarchy of the Order and not to the Pope.
The legal question at hand is how far the obedience to the Pope extends — only insofar as it affects the strictly religious of the Order, or in every particular.
Canon law is generally extremely conservative in such cases, arguing that, where there is doubt as to one’s responsibilities one cannot be compelled to obedience.
The secular character of the order should not be treated as if it were religious. And the secular character of the Order is supposed to have full sovereign rights.
Another one bites the dust…..
The situation in the with the Knights of Malta is sad at best, there is obviously much more going on behind the scenes, which Fra Festing himself said when he pointed out to the Holy See that the dismissal of Albrecht Boeselager was about more than the condom distribution that took place under his watch. Furthermore he also pointed out that 3 of the Vatican’s investigator’s had connections to a source of a large monetary donation and to Albrecht Boeselager personally.
For the record, if the Pope asked me to resign I would do so immediately, even if I were innocent of any wrong doing and the Pope wasn’t.
To be sure, there is much more going on here than is being reported.
Edit in: Edward Pentin has confirmed Fra Festing’s resignation at the request of the Holy Father, and reaffirms what I said above too:http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/grand-master-of-the-order-of-malta-resigns
when someone wants to manipulate another, he threatens him with exposing his dirtiest secrets. It’s very likely Bergoglio know’s something about Festing that leaves Festing no way out.
That explains the job of a Vatican Committee, finding those dirty secrets.
Very significant step to open the door to Muslims. More or less letting the door now wide open. We have to watch for more, but in the meantime: where does the Holy Spirit blows?
They got him.
This man continues the demolition of dogmas. Marriage and divorce was just the foot in the door. It’s about the abolition of sin, the primacy of mal-formed concience, the new one world religion to go with the one world government, Etc. everything is up for grabs. When every Baptist teaches Methodism, and elects Methodists to rule the Baptist church, why pretend it is still Baptist? Modernist now rule the Catholic Church, and it only gets worse. What’s the difference. You can’t have intellectual honesty and continue this charade. Francis and his minions are a threat to the material and spiritual well being of our children. He is a socialist and does not hold the Catholic faith. He is a modernist through and through. Where is the real Church of Christ.
OK,Pope Francis, you made your point. Now that this issue has preoccupied you and it is over with, would you please answer the dubia, which is wrecking our Church, and sanction your wayward and boastful bishops in Malta.
And God bless the Grand Master for his humble obedience and his witness.
What do you witness Pope Francis?
The self confessed authoritarian streak in Bergoglio is rearing its head. This is what made the Argentine Jesuits remove him when he was provincial over there. Apparently, no amount of ostentatious humility can suppress it for long. Yes, as a Maltese I am saddened by the turn of events in our Islands, especially by the fact that our lackey Bishops have placed themselves on the wrong side of the line dividing orthodoxy from heterdoxy. Please pray for us, and for Cardinal Burke who is being hunted down mercilessly and vindictively.
The Pope of apostasy shows his hypocrisy again. Mercy, inclusion, accompaniment for the heterodox, heretic, schismatic and pagan; tyranny, exclusion and dismissal for the orthodox and faithful Catholic. The persecution is now well under way. Though this latest piece of bad news is distressing I remain at peace knowing that this current Pope’s plans for modernist hegemony over the Church will ultimately fail. Why am I at peace? Because Pope Francis fulfils the final part of the yet unfulfilled Third Secret of Fatima, namely, that “the great apostasy will begin at the top”, to quote the late Cardinal Ciappi. Message to Pope Francis via Fr Spadaro SJ and his media trolls: Read the Third Secret of Fatima and see that you and your plans are doomed!
That does you credit, but it’s hard to be at peace when souls are being lost.
Simon, you are so right. The loss of souls is the greatest tragedy for which this Pope will be answerable to God.
I hope this news is untrue or if the Grand Master has been requested to resign by the Pope that he has the good sense to refuse to.
During world war 2 Malta was never taken, even though heavily bombed the country never surrendered, in fact Malta went from what many would be convinced would lead to defeat to being one of most successful attackers of German vessels.
Saint Paul was shipwrecked there, so maybe Malta will become the shining light of truth in these dark times.
Today, January 25th Is the feast of the conversion of Saint Paul.
Was he a bishops? what has been the history of these types of terminations in the past 50 years? Is this just part of the job of pope, or is it unusual? Did Benedict terminate a lot of bishops?
I think this might have much wider implications than the problems of the Order of Malta. I may have said all this before but it bears repeating and illustrates my suspicion that the long term aim is to undermine Humanae Vitae.
In London we have the Catholic Hospital of St John & St Elizabeth founded in the 1850s and put under the protection of the Order of Malta by Cardinal Wiseman. Latterly it became plain that the Hospital was not following the teaching of the Catholic Church on such matters as contraception, abortion and gender reassignment operations. I and a few others, none members of the Order, campaigned to put this right. We wrote to Boeselager then Grand Hospitaller of the Order. His response was to do nothing and wash his hands of the situation. Matthew Festing, on the other hand, was always extremely helpful but unfortunately we came up against one of the promoters of Pope Francis namely Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor who did everything to undermine our position despite having had an independent report supporting our view commissioned at the instigation of the then Cardinal Ratzinger.
One of the difficulties with the Order is that there is a split between those like Matthew Festing who regard the Order as a religious institution doing charitable work in the light of the teachings of the Church and others who would like to see it becoming a merely secular institution following the mores of the world at large. This is the essence of the Festing v Boeselager issue. The distribution of contraceptives was part of the issue with Boeselager and we now have Pope Francis taking his side. I have long suspected that Pope Francis had a somewhat lukewarm attitude to Humanae Vitae but this makes my suspicions much stronger.
You are probably correct. Pope Francis has criticized those who “breed like rabbits.” He also mentioned that some Nuns in Africa used contraception because they were in danger of being raped. He is very much ecologically oriented and is allowing Paul Ehrlich to speak at a Vatican conference. There is evidence that he may be lukewarm towared Humane Vitae.
Francis once again gives the secular press plenty of leeway to spread error and confusion among Catholics and others. (“¡Hagan lío!”) Take this Yahoo article concerning his dismissal of Knights of Malta chief. With a pope like Francis, who needs a Luther? https://www.yahoo.com/news/knights-malta-chief-resigns-condoms-row-pope-080452509.html
Wow, poor Benedict’s name is also dirtied in that piece.
I noticed, Notung. In the comments section below the article, you will see several objections to the assertion. One writer even says it is a prime example of fake news. Pope Francis should be concerned that his actions often give rise to these media fake fests, but it doesn’t seem to bother him.
I’m afraid it seems to be deliberate.
As the Vatican under Francis has just interfered (to be charitable; in reality, more like overthrown) a sovereign entity, I presume the United Nations will get right on with decrying Francis as a despot and a tyrant and will intervene immediately.
(sarcasm off)
This situation is of course still evolving, but what it appears to be is just another maneuver on the part of our pope to get nearer to Cardinal Burke. There seem multiple possible motives. If past practice is any predictor, the pope has a pattern established of isolating men who may not agree with him on issues. Once they are isolated, he inserts men of progressive bent around or under them, who can then report back to the pope (also an established pattern) or simply peck at the traditionalist from below or laterally. Cardinal Burke is obviously in the man’s crosshairs, there can be no reasonable doubt whatsoever. There is a diabolical personality at work here, but it is the boldness and brashness that is shocking. He feels no compunction to pretend to be what he relentlessly lectures, “merciful”. That the hypocrisy of this will be publically identified, the man does not seem to fear at all! He seems to be right. We have no men left in the church to state the truth. They seem all sodomites or sodomite enablers.
Apparently, there is great money to be found in the Once Sovereign Order of Malta, and now, in what has been described as a “mafia type takeover”, that money is within the Vatican’s hands. It’s always about the money or power, we have come to understand. We will never see the papacy the same way again, no matter when this pope croaks and another put in his place.
Dictators who are unopposed go on to unimaginable diabolical success until someone finally man’s up and says NO. Are there ANY men left who will stand up to this man?
Are there really no men who will stand in the gap and denounce this papacy and his teaching as heresy and sacrilege? Will nobody call these sodomites and liars out publically and give authentic witness to the Gospel? To Jesus Christ? If not for the poor flock which is being scattered, then for the sake of their own souls which are in peril due to their lack of spiritual fortitude?
Maranatha, indeed. Come Lord Jesus!
I understand your anger. I do believe that there are a small number of men standing up to Pope Francis. The problem is that a Pope is basically like a father. In a family where the father is overly authoritarian and making big mistakes it is not always appropriate to overthrow the father. Some times the sons have to speak the truth and wait perhaps in exile if banished, although it may be appropriate bring others to safety.
At this point it would seem what is appropriate is to speak the truth to Pope Francis and not obey in something sinful. I believe the four cardinals are doing this as well as some bishops. There are even mild utterings from other cardinals, such as Pell, Napier, etc. Also, these prelates continue to preach the truth to their flocks. There are also courageous professors and a number of journalists, like those on OnePeterFive who are not silent. The problem is that they are too few as compared to the actual number of prelates who see the harm that Pope Francis does and say nothing.
I go to Mass at a Maronite parish and often at a close by Novus Ordo parish. The priests are still faithful. If they are replaced with unfaithful priests, I am within traveling distance of an SSPX seminary. The SSPX still hold Pope Francis as their pope, but you could say they are in exile.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4b7ceafcadd6e932ee496f2e0d8f2764ccc8efa0e79ad8765e5de223183fd55f.jpg This reminded me of your comment.
And now news comes that he is to be replaced by a papal delegate. The pope’s decapitation strike on the Order’s senior leadership was a smashing success, and now he moves to mop up the scattered and leaderless resistance and claim the spoils.
What spirit is in operation in our Church when the above paragraph can be accurately written about the actions of the Vicar of Christ? What has happened to our Church? All human powers are failing us one by one, our only refuge is in Christ the King.
“What has happened to our Church?”
I’ve been asking that since I converted 4 years ago.
Folks, we still have the teachings; the Sacred Scriptures, the Magisterium and we have the Mass.
The rest of it along with it’s vile, effeminate “leadership” appears to me to have utterly evaporated into homotheologic anarchy.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/01/25/vatican-pope-francis-to-name-delegate-to-run-order-of-malta/
Another indication that those who seek in the administration and hierarchy of the Church solutions to the collapse of the Catholic Church at this time are sorely mistaken.
It appears there are NO leaders left who will stand up to the Pope and his sodomite and heretic-supporting allies in clarity and in truth and in strength.
Of course, we do not know what is waiting in the wings, but at this point it looks pretty grim.
I pray this is not the case, but the evidence to this point is clearly on your side.
The Catholic Church needs an independent army or a Donald Trump.
I believe in Jesus’ mysterious plan for us.
Me too, But we are not Protestants, we are Catholics. That means we believe we will be saved by faith and works not by faith alone. We cannot just pray and expect God to clean up our messes. That is why saints organized crusades, Popes organized armies to defeat muslems, etc.
It does indeed look grim.
All who are interested in this, and that should be every faithful Catholic need to read this piece by Ed Condon at the Catholic Herald: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/01/25/the-vatican-has-destroyed-the-order-of-maltas-sovereignty-what-if-italy-does-the-same-to-the-vatican/
this isn’t the same article that RTHEVR has linked to below, this covers that one and then some. What is going down here is Extremely bad to say the least and consequences will come of it.
What would be very good is if the Council of the Top official’s of the Knight’s of Malta who are convening this Saturday to accept Fra Festing’s resignation refused to do so (exceedingly improbable as that is.)
Thanks.
When you say “consequences” what do you mean. I mean, I can imagine some, but what are you thinking?
From the article: “Today’s announcement of an Apostolic Delegate to be appointed by the Pope represents, essentially, the total abrogation of the Order’s sovereignty.”
Nonsense. They were never sovereign in the first place and the Pope just proved it. All the Pope’s move did was clarify the non-existence of sovereignty. I don’t know how else to put it. Look, the sovereignty of the Order has ALWAYS been in question. It’s been debated and discussed for centuries but no one actually attempted to clarify its status until now.
Well, Pope Francis just defined it.
“NOT SOVEREIGN”.
Now, if the Order actually believed it was sovereign, it could resort to what real nations resort to; negotiations and in their breakdown, war. After all it is a “Military Order”… But it is a fake entity, and now, maybe not even an entity at all {we’ll see how it plays out and if its so-called international agreements are kept}. The worlds real nations have allowed these guys to “play nation-state” for a long time because they are harmless and actually do good works. But far be it from PF to leave a good thing alone! Hell, no. Says he? “While we are wrecking the Church we might as well trash the ancillary groups as well!!”
But the organization’s status as a “real, sovereign state” is silly, a FRAUD, guys, a legal joke.
AND WE FELL FOR IT, THINKING THESE GUYS HAD ANY GUTS TO STAND UP TO BERGOGLIO. They are no different than the effeminate bishops who hike up their panties and run away from every breath the Pope blows.
“Military Order” my butt.
The whole affair is sick, as it demonstrates just how little concern for ANY sort of tradition {or Tradition!?} Bergoglio has, but nevertheless, he merely defined what has not been defined before.
I don’t mean to demean the work the agency does, but to suggest this was a real “nation” without land and beholden to another head of state {the Pope} is the most laughable of Walter Mitty pipe-dreams.
Guess they can scrap their uniforms, too. Might be able to donate them to a high-school drama club somewhere. Tax writeoff, maybe…
I fear you’re right.
If Francis were a state, he’d be a “rogue nation.” That is, one that never honors treaties or agreements or borders or anything else in the law.
I’m still hoping their council does not accept the resignation of Fra Festing. This needs to be fought. Francis is power mad and must be opposed.
I can’t wait until PF decides that normal, obedient Catholics need to change to what he wants and if they don’t: “NOT CATHOLIC”!
With all due respect I think what you say about the sovereignty of the Order of Malta is questionable. They originally ruled Malta and were evicted. There are parallels with Governments in exile such as we had in London in WWII.
However the idea that the Pope can or has resolved the issue seems fanciful to me. It is surely a matter of international law and perhaps only some international body has jurisdiction to decide such an issue. In the meantime the Order remains recognised by some and not others as a sovereign body.
But the question of sovereignty is really irrelevant. Suppose I were to set up a charity called ‘The Knights of St Nicolas’ and declared as its object the rescuing of children all in accordance with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. I then appoint myself as President of the Charity. If the Pope then took a dislike to me (maybe he already has!) could he ask me to resign? I cannot see that he would have any civil legal power to force my resignation. I doubt whether he has any power to do so under Canon Law. I would not be under a vow of obedience so I think I could ignore him.
It seems to me that the same would apply to the Order of Malta. They are an independent entity over which the Pope has no jurisdiction to my knowledge. There is nothing that I can see in their constitution which makes them subject to the Pope; although the fact that some of them are religious in accordance with Canon Law might be an issue.
However the Knights do seem to have a problem with obedience. In London with the Hospital of St John & St Elizabeth there was a governing board ignoring the teachings of the Church. Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor was the patron of the Hospital and arbiter on ethics. Eventually the misconduct of the board was proved and further they were found to have lied about what they were doing to the government regulatory body the Charity Commission. Resignations from the Board followed and we ended up with a new Board dedicated to following the teachings of the Church. This apparently irritated Cardinal Cormac and he asked the whole board to resign. Unfortunately the Knights on the board felt they had to resign as a matter of obedience although Cardinal Cormac had no legal power to force their resignations. Anyway they did and Cardinal Cormac set up a new board dedicated to NOT following the teaching of the Church with his blessing. Why on earth did the Knights resign? Why on earth has Matthew Festing resigned? Seemingly they feel themselves bound by blind obedience. They are wrong in my view.
I never thought of Knights of Malta as sovereign. Quite honestly, forgive me, but I never even knew much of the Knights of Malta to begin with, except when Cardinal Burke was cast out there by Pope Francis.
Well, we Catholics, God love us, are known for our grand appearances at times.
I couldn’t agree more with you.
I agree The KoM Council should refuse to accept Festing’s resignation. Instead, they should 1) Pray to their patron saints especially in a few all night vigils for discernment, 2) Fast and attend daily mass for a month, 3) find a Dicks or Sports Authority, to buy a nice stiff jock strap. The way to gain respect for your sovereignty is by asserting it. They need to call all Knights 1) to the defense of the order and 2) to expel the heretic, causing all the trouble, from the Vatican. It is far better for Catholics to have the fortitude to deal with this situation internally rather than to wait for Blessed Mother to act through a third party. We as Catholics have to answer for our actions and omissions at our particular judgment. The KoM will have to account for their responsibilities, both to the order and the church.
Folks, leave behind the nonsense about sovereignty. That is a lost rabbit trail.
The real problem here isn’t a dispute between nation-states, it’s the TOTAL disregard Bergoglio has for TRADITION OF ANY SORT.
UNLESSSSSSSSSSSSSS…..
Conspiracy Theorists arise…..
Unless Bergoglio really DID want to destroy the Freemasons and the place was a rat’s nest of Freemasonry so he “took it out”.
But does any one believe that?
Or is it more likely Bergoglio’s call and order {remember?} to root out Freemasons was actually a dupe to cover his EFFECTIVE HANDING OVER OF THE ORDER TO THE FREEMASONS!!
Time will tell.
Notice Burke has been quiet?
Given the breaking news, you might be on to something.
If the ‘gansters in Roman collars’ go after Cardinal Burke would it be much of a surprise.
I still believe God’s Providence allows the on-going assaults against the Vicar of Christ and His Holy Catholic Church. Somehow.
It appears Fatima and Akita and Our Lady of Good Success are unfolding before our eyes.IMHO
Christ had to be scourged, crucified and laid in a tomb before He could rise and conquer death and sin.
Perhaps, the visible institution of Christ’s Church must be laid low or even destroyed.
Christ is ultimately victorious!
Scripture tells us that the Gates of Hell will not Prevail.
In my humble opinion, that does not mean that the body of Christ will not be Scourged.
Pray the Divine Mercy daily and defend your “orthodox’ priests as we enter another round of the Catacombs.
Kosta
Some of you need to clear the confusion from your thinking.
The Vicar of Christ is Christ’ s representative ( and on the rare occasions of faith and morals) and he speaks with the authority given by Christ.
We do not ever want to fall into…
You pick the phrase. Pope worship or aserious man crush on Pope(s) John Paul 2, Benedict XVI or Francis.
The pope is merely a mortal selected by the Cardinals through the guidance of the Holy Spirit to guard and guide the Holy Faith and administer the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Dear Maggie,
as the proud son of beautiful Irish Catholic mother, now deceased, I wouldn’t hesitate to kiss my mother or Maggie’s ring before I would ever kiss a Bishop’s ring.
We are apparently living through an era of great chastisement and trial for Christ’s
Church. Remain faithful to Christ and the true teachings of the church.
As they say in the American Military you salute the rank not the man.
Oops… sorry y’all I fell off my rather large Soap Box.
Kosta part2
Not only does he show no care for sacred Tradition (capital T) nor the doctrine of our faith as evident by parts of AL he doesn’t defend the Faith whatsoever. He simply defends what he believes is true and forces it on the rest of the Church as if he is the arbitrator of objective truth. He says Christ derived His authority from the proximity he had to people….I can’t even find this teaching in most Protestant denominations.
And, equally as bad as the heretical teachings of AL is his punitive, gingerly handling of priest and prelates who have been proven, as fact, as harming others sexually. Some of which secular governments have found guilty of abuse! (still dont know why some of them aren’t in jail and awaiting trial)
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/six-cases-where-the-sexual-abuse-scandal-touches-pope-francis
I hope he truly does believe in a coming judgement as do I, and the rest of the Catholic faithful…..because at that judgement there will be no room to echo “I am the Pope. I dont need to give reasons for my decisions.”
I agree. The Rosary is our Only Defense in these…. chaotic times. The Dictatorship of Relativism. Marriage is reduced to a simple contract so that Men can marry each other. The Right of a Child to live is discarded in favor of a Artificial Right to Choose.
Progressivism is the greatest threat to Our Faith. It seeks to dissolve our Faith. When we abandon Tradition….. We abandon the Church.
Although it is not confirmed both LifeSiteNews and Church Militant are running stories that Von Boeselager is being reinstated! Holy Guacamole!
ooo
And now it seems that the Grand Chancellor Boeselager has been REINSTATED? Several people have the story, but it doesn’t seem clear as to circumstances of the reinstatement.
Who needs TV soap operas? Just keep watching the Catholic Church.
The Pope’s press office talked about the eventual appointment of a Papal Delegate. I and I think many others assumed that this was appointing a new Grand Master or some external commissioner. However I wonder whether it is not a coming replacement of Cardinal Burke who is the representative of the Pope and thus the Papal Delegate. Article 4.4 of the Order’s constitution reads as follows:
‘The Supreme Pontiff appoints as his representative to the Order a Cardinal of
the Holy Roman Church on whom are conferred the title of Cardinalis Patronus
and special faculties. The Cardinalis Patronus has the task of promoting the spiritual
interests of the Order and its members and relations between the Holy See
and the Order.’
And now, the Grand Chancellor is reported by the Knights of Malta as REINSTATED to his position. What is going on here???
This is a takeover by one sovereign state over another. As I implied below, if the true Catholic Knights had the testicular fortitude to examine their consciences, send out a general alarm to fellow Knights and organize to expel this traitor to Christ from the Vatican, billions of fellow Catholics would be able to rest comfortably at night and pray sensibly in church. Sadly, that won’t happen. The Father will give Our Lady permission to send her Russian “knights” to the Vatican to expel this heretic. Sr. Lucia was given a vision of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Holy Trinity in Tuy, Spain, 1929. She told Sr. Lucia, “The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father, in union with all the bishops of the world, to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart.” Once Pope Francis, and his retinue are gone, the remaining Cardinals can elect a new pope, make the consecration of Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart, and watch the miracle of grace that will convert Russia and bring a period of peace to the world.
Some commentators are claiming that what Francis has done here, namely, in requesting the resignation (or “sacking” depending on one’s interpretation), was somehow unlawful. Now, I’m not about to defend the Pope’s actions as a matter of prudence. But I’m hoping to defend, in principle, what I think is orthodox doctrine regarding the papacy, namely: the pope has the authority to depose EVEN secular rulers.
When I was studying legal history in a Protestant law school we studied a book called “Law and Revolution” by the late Harold J. Berman, a Protestant legal scholar. I still clearly remember my professor, in what seemed to me a mocking tone, harshly criticize several 11th century popes but one in particular: the great Italian Hildebrand, better known as Pope St. Gregory VII, who put an end to the investiture conflicts of that era and, according to Berman, set in motion the so-called “Papal Revolution” that forever altered our Western legal tradition.
Here’s a bit of interesting trivia from The Catholic Encyclopedia (Conflict of Investitures):
“At the next Lenten Synod in Rome (1076) Gregory sat in judgment upon the king, and in a prayer to Peter, Prince of the Apostles, declared: ‘I depose him from the government of the whole Kingdom of Germany and Italy, release all Christians from their oath of allegiance, forbid him to be obeyed as king . . . and as thy successor bind him with the fetters of anathema.’ It availed little that the king answered ban with ban.”
If what this greatest of Catholic saints did was lawful, and arguably it was (but I’m not 100% sure), then we shouldn’t be so quick to reprove Francis for acting unlawfully. After all, most of us are not canonists or schooled in international law. As traditional Catholics we should be consistent. We who most desire the Social Reign of Christ the King should be the least offended—again, in principle—that the Vicar of Christ on earth has exercised his authority. Or am I misreading things?
Francis, true to form, is making an example out of Festing, like he tried to do previously with Cardinal Burke, by “beating him up” for all to see. He humiliates those who stand for longstanding Church teaching, and who dare to disobey His Holiness’ heresies. The False Prophet, I believe.
I wonder how safely their assets are kept, and how many signatures away from the Vatican’s grasp their bank accounts are. Once their funds are sequestrated, they are done for. But then, as an autonomous order, they are already disempowered.
Festing seems a very decent person. He had little choice but to meet with the Pope, and give his resignation when demanded.
Of course Cardinal Burke is the real target of this papal action. Now when Burke and the other three Cardinals pursue their action on AL, it will be made to look like personal retaliation.
Machiavelli could take a correspondence course from this Pope.
You are mistaken as to who Festing is. He is the Master of the Order of St. John, located within Cambridge University in the St. John College as his Official spot to meet, yet the Order of St. John was first Ordained as such by Queen Victoria in 1888. The Future King of England was KICKED-OUT of Trinity College at Cambridge, I always wondered who in the Staff had that Power, well, it’s the Emperor of Rome, Legally. In 1955, the Pope gave them Knights of Malta Status, and Personal Sovereignty, the right to Mint Coin, the right to make Passports, then they had only one Official Land location, near the Vatican. They can also have a Military, and perform Assassinations, leading to some speculation that the Pope was involved when six Jesuit Priests were Hung for Treason after Lincoln’s Assassination was investigated. The suppression of this by the existing Duopoly at the time, showed Weakness, the Emperor created a Long-Game, Psycho-History, a Sick, Sad War of Abuse to Children by the MOTHER. It accelerated the Known History of Mankind through the last 130-or so years, five steps, the first, Infanticide, ” Abortion made legal”, the Second Stage is Abandonment, this is called ” Divorce Rate of 50%”, the THIRD STEP? Male Abuse of the Male Child, the CHURCH DID THIS. The Fourth Stage is ” Molly-Coddling the Youth” ( The writings are sparse on this subject, and these steps were written in 1920), so the common ” Helicopter-Mom” syndrome is actually a form of Child Abuse, as the Delayed Adulthood became blindingly apparent when College-Age males were WEEPING because a Woman did not get Elected. This was a moment in History RECORDED. The SAME DAY…” BOMBS, 2,000-Pound BOMBS RAINED ON ALEPPO, and the MEN CHEERED THEM ON.”. It is a War where we are fighting the Proxies of 1888 Britain, only an Empire War-Games three-Generations ahead. The good news is, in America, we set about Fighting this Plan in 1889. We created an Elite Military Academy in New York, to Counter the Continuity of Action originating at Cambridge, Year by year, Blow for Blow, always ready to strike back when they are thinking they are winning. Trump is not Random, he was Selected at age 13 by Eisenhower, and Built to Destroy this Entity. Look! He’s DESTROYED! And LOOK! THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING! GOOD LUCK SNEAKING AROUND NOW! There are Sub-Sets within Cambridge that work for these guys, ” C.U.S.S.” the Cambridge University Socialist Society” has a Poisonous Effect, and has been heavily involved in American Media, pushing Immorality and Abortions. All the actions make sense now, and the kicker is, it only takes a single person to destroy a Psycho-History Conspiracy. Wikipedia even has the Odds set, Four-Billion to one. To this, I say, ” This is why Nicola Tesla gave us the ability to have this Medium, so when the inevitable individual became aware, they could spread the message without any Diplomat Censoring the Peace that should result, as this is THE Eugenics Club that all other Secret Societies Exist to be Found, just to hide the Order of St. John. Yet, they are so Brazen as to hide in plain sight, as youi see, this Festing is also the Head Cheeze of the Knight of Malta, the Needs to be Invited In are such, nobody but the World Leaders would be allowed in, and this new Emperor? Under their own Rules, if Trump is Invited in, and Accepts? President Trump could end up as Emperor of Rome, and be the Order in Law and Order. This is actually one of the Greater Game Plans, a God-Emperor so Horrible, he Dissolves all Existential Capital, and Humans live in Peace, leaving behind these ridiculous Warring Religions that work fine in a Fist-Fight for Genetic diversity, but Mechanized War, Poison Gas? That is Female War, Bee-Hive mentality, complete with Genocide. The Ant-Hill Model is Superior. Christians need to consider again what exactly a ” Son of Man” is, because all it is would be a Clone, and the ability of the Catholic Church/Roman Empire to produce Charismatic and Smart Tax Collectors and Spies to Control the Empire of Idiots who think they have ” Free-Will”. This is the biggest News in..1,000-YEARS? And there is SCANT Reporting.
Was Fra’ Matthew Festing, Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta pressured to resign? If yes,
Why?
I thought the Order of Malta was outside the jurisdiction of the Vatican, and the Grand Master’s position was for life.
There is big money involved here – sounds highly fishy to me.
Anyone has any ideas?
The Knights of Malta, like all masons, take vows not to defend themselves against such unjust accusations. Seriously folks, use your heads. This is not admission of guilt. No cleric has authority over them any way. Do we really think the grand chancellor of the defender of King Solomon’s temple, the builders of all the old Catholic cathedrals, are going to include in their charities the distribution of condoms? Masons are not anti Catholic. They are anti cleric-ism, wherever the heresy of cleric-ism reigns.
Wake up! It is Francis who has aligned himself with sexual predators, fraudulent bishops, Catholic Charities and other diocesan collection programs aligned with USAID and militant population control. He even recently resurrected and invited old Ehrlich of debunked Population Bomb fame to speak at the Vatican.