Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Dr. Lamont: It is More Likely Than Not That Francis is a Formal Heretic

(Image Credit: Lena Klimkeit Picture Alliance/DPA)

All sorts of rumors are now swirling about current events in the Church:

  • Cardinal Burke has been cancelling engagements. Why?
  • Cardinal Muller has resigned from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Was he forced or was it voluntary?
  • A formal correction of the Pope has already been made in private and is about to become public.
  • The Pope and his allies are intending to radically revamp the Novus Ordo Mass to make it even more amenable to Protestants and others.

And these come against the background of significant public events and incidents:

  • The official and public endorsement of a heretical understanding of communion by various groups of bishops in Argentina, Malta and now Germany, based (they claim) on the Pope’s recent apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The Pope has either confirmed their endorsements or maintained a favorable-seeming silence.
  • The “annexation” of the Sovereign Order of Malta by the Vatican.
  • The overnight appearance in Rome of posters critical of a sitting pope – something not seen since the era of the Papal States.
  • A parody “attack” on the pope sent via email to Vatican officials.
  • A seemingly coordinated attack on Cardinal Burke – now the Pope’s most identifiable “opponent” – accusing him of being a right-wing extremist in league with the Trump administration and neo-Fascist Italian politicians. The attack has involved Pope Francis himself and various Vatican allies but has also bled over into the American secular press.

A friend reminded me of this motto:
Motus in fine velocior

“Motion accelerates when the end is near”

But what is the “end” in this case?

The unprecedented (in modern times) suppression of four (or more) cardinals and thus a tightening of the grip of the Church of Mercy?

Open schism?

Or is it that the “end” will include the removal of a pope?

As unthinkable as the last possibility may seem, more and more people, many inside the Church hierarchy and bureaucracy, are now privately talking about it. Even if it is mere wishful thinking, this has enormous significance.

Yesterday, Rorate Caeli, one of the leading traditionalist Catholic websites, published a long essay by Canadian-born philosopher John R.T. Lamont, addressing certain questions surrounding the meaning of “formal correction.” While the positions taken in he article were not explicitly endorsed by the site, the post was not preceded by any disclaimers either, unlike other “controversial” articles they have published.

Among other things, Lamont claims:

In the light of the fact that Pope Francis has openly endorsed heretical understandings of Amoris laetitia in his letter to the bishops of the Buenos Aires region of Sept. 5th 2016, it is more likely than not that he is in fact a formal heretic.

Why then have so few cardinals and bishops publicly lined up with the four “dubia cardinals” on this? Lamont argues that much of the reason stems from an absolutist understanding of “obedience,” with roots in the philosophy of St. Ignatius Loyola and other 16th and 17th century Jesuits. But this understanding is erroneous and dangerous:

The question of how anyone, even a cardinal, can correct the Pope is an important one. It is a basic principle of the divinely established constitution of the Church that the Pope judges all other Catholics on earth and is judged by none of them. But this constitution does not establish the Pope as an autocrat with tyrannical authority, who is answerable to no-one. The Pope’s authority is a legal one, and as with all legal authority it involves duties to his subjects as well as rights over them. The duty to confess the Catholic faith is a fundamental duty of the papal office. His subjects may thus formally request and even require him to carry out this duty. The right to make such a formal request belongs to any Catholic, but the cardinals, whose office is to advise the Pope, have a strict duty as well as a right to make this request. The cardinals who have failed to do this are guilty of a grave dereliction of duty. This failure is a catastrophe that threatens to lead to the disintegration of most of the Church.

Read the full article here.

It should be noted that the anonymous Rorate author who introduces the piece strongly rejects the truth of the rumor that the Pope has already been formally corrected. However, he does not explain why he believes this.

We’ll find out soon enough.

Originally published at Mahound’s Paradise. Reprinted with permission. This post has been modified for republication.

80 thoughts on “Dr. Lamont: It is More Likely Than Not That Francis is a Formal Heretic”

  1. The anonymous author at Rorate Caeli must be the only Catholic in the Traditional media that doesn’t believe the correction has been made & that we are now experiencing the fall-out. Dr. Lamont’s article, although not timed to coincide with recent events, is on the ball.

  2. One bishops’ council says one thing, another council says another. In charity, the pope MUST clarify. By not doing so, Pope Francis is sinning against charity. Whether he is a formal heretic or not, Pope Francis is a danger to the Faith. Because this is such a serious matter, it could cause a schism in the Church. Should that happen, the blame for it would fall completely at the feet of Pope Francis, and that is not something anyone should want to go to their judgment after causing. Pope Francis, on the other hand, seems to relish the thought of possibly causing a schism. He only appears to care about “encounter,” a stupid, sentimental, protestant understanding of man’s relationship with God. If his reputation for public humility and mercy was also indicative of how he is reported to be in private, I might believe him. In which case, I would just say he is painfully naive and perhaps a bit senile. His reputation in more private circles, however, is one of severity.

    He’s like a mobster. A mobster often puts on a good show for the public. They might do charity work, they might be likable people as far as their neighbors are concerned, but they are monsters in private. That is Pope Francis.

    • Yes, as XB said, listed under rumor. One we’ve been hearing almost every day for about a week now, despite sources in Rome saying it isn’t true. If the rumor is disinformation, one can’t help but wonder about the purpose of it.

      • Dear Steve,

        This is just a suggestion: Interview John Salza and Robert Siscoe on their book True or False Pope? A Refutation of Sedevacantism and Other Errors. You can contact them through their website

        This book has really helped me and I’m sure it will help others too. It’s a massive book though.

        Yours in Christ the King,


      • Be warned, a good way to ferret out a suspected mole is to give a group of people different versions of the same (potentially false) story and then see whose version pops up in the media (or in enemy hands), afterward.

    • True, bergoglio’s disloyal preaching and doings against our Lord Jesus are numerous and blatantly evil. That perverse tango that he encouraged/oversaw, was performed in front of an Altar that we offer gifts to Almighty God…
      Jesus Is Life. your brother, Joseph

  3. The discussion on obedience was the most fascinating part for me. If true, it explains so much about why we are plagued with company men in the episcopacy, and why even good priests are afraid to speak out. I’d like to hear from Father RP on this, so here’s hoping he turns up.

    Of course, the silver lining to this dark cloud is this: if our bishops are truly men of no fixed beliefs other than blind obedience to whomever happens to be pope today, many of them will turn on a dime to become fearless champions of orthodoxy as soon as (may it please God) a faithful man is elected to the Petrine Office.

    • “…many of them will turn on…”
      Do you not think there is NOW time to be brave? It is not NOW the time to speak the truth?
      Do we not think there is always time to speak and to defend the truth? The TRUTH?
      Did Jesus wait till successor of Pilat will come, who maybe will be a ‘good one’ who’ll give Jesus a freedom instead the cross?
      If we are true believers, than we know the TRUTH. When we know the truth, than is always without exception those time which we call ‘NOW’, the time to speak and defend the TRUTH.

          • The Anglican Ordinariate is standing firm, as well. Bishop Lopes issued a solid pastoral letter affirming the orthodox teaching, and our local Ordinariate priests do likewise.

            But then, these men spent decades in the wilderness, effectively exiled from the Anglican Church because of their fealty to God’s word. They are accustomed to being on the wrong side of heterodox authorities.

  4. There are reports from those who have been near him that Cardinal Burke has not looked well of late. It may be that the cancellations of appointments are related to health issues. I am fairly certain that he is presently in a public situation in which he never expected to be and that may well be taking a toll on his health.

  5. The Sacramental Church will survive, whether it encompasses the Institutional Church or doesn’t do so is the only question that remains to be revealed. If the Institutional Church is over run by Heretics, so be it, they can have everything that they have corrupted. We will hold onto the things they will never possess – that which is Sacred, that which is Holy and that which is Incorruptible. This is the year we find out.

    • I find statements such as yours about the nature of the Church pretty problematic and they always pop up in these discussions. The way I read your comment you seem to suggest that a Church exists that is different from the one headed by the Bishop of Rome… but there is only ONE Catholic Church and not a Sacramental and an Institutional Church. Please read the book “True or False Pope”. There is plenty of sound ecclesiology in there. If people knew more about the nature of the Church, they wouldn’t resort to bomb-throwing on the internet.

      • Hi Konstantin – Which Bishop of Rome? Maybe God didn’t accept Benedicts resignation. That would explain Francis, not being the Vicar of Christ(he openly contradicts Christ), or the Holy Father(he is quite profane). Without God’s stamp of approval it would not be surprising to have the anti-Vicar of Christ and the Unholy Father making the claim that he is the pope, like Francis does. One man’s bomb throwing is another man’s defense of the Truth. It all depends whether you wish to destroy the Truth or destroy the lie, and those who labor to establish the lie, like Francis, deserve the bombardments. Choose the Word or the World, Konstantin, those who try to choose both will find themselves among the lukewarm.

        • That opens a can of worms, because whether or not a particular individual is the legitimate Pope is bound up with the visibility of the Church. If X is Pope in God’s eyes, but not in those of the Church, there is no way of knowing who was the last legitimate Pope. St Celestine V (1294; died 1296), perhaps ? Some earlier Pope ? A later one ? If a legitimate Pope is after all deemed to be not legitimate, his acts become uncertain.

          After the Great Schism of 1378-1417, the legitimate Pope was deemed to have been Urban VI (1378-89) and his successors in Rome; the other contenders were deemed to have been ‘Popes in their obediences’ – by that legal fiction, their acts were accepted as valid, as though they had been the acts of legitimate Popes. This is why the Pope who succeeded Innocent VIII in 1492 was Alexander VI – the antipope Alexander V (1410-15) was treated as though he had been legitimate.

          The point is that in the past there have been principles for dealing with the acts of men who were regarded as not legitimate Popes. But on what principles are Pope Francis, his pontificate, and his acts to be challenged or disregarded ? That is never explained. Are all his acts since his election illegitimate ? If not, how do people tell ? If some of his acts are legitimate – which ones, and why ? If he is not Pope because of things he has said or done, why can the same standard not be applied to Paul VI, JP2, or Benedict XVI ? That it is not applied to them as well as to him, suggests that those of his critics who cast doubt on his legitimacy are not acting in good faith.

          As far as most of the Catholic world is concerned, Francis is the legitimate Pope, and is prayed for as Pope in the Liturgy – Benedict no longer is. The liturgical practice of the Church is a sure and trustworthy test and witness of her belief. By not lodging accusations of heresy or schism against him, the cardinals have accepted that Francis is the legitimate Pope. By being in communion with him, so have the over 5,000 bishops of the Catholic world. Against this massive and united testimony to his legitimacy as Pope, the objections to it count for very little.

          • Hi James – Francis is opening this can of worms, so be it. I pray for Francis every Sunday – that he has a conversion of heart.

      • Hi James – When one part of the bodies decays, it is time for surgery. Better to stay with the healthy part of the body than be trapped within the diseased member.

  6. I think February 22nd, the feast of the Chair of St. Peter will be a very revealing day in the history of the Church. Pray for Pope Benedict XVI’s well-being and for the church of darkness to leave Rome!

  7. “It should be noted that the anonymous Rorate author who introduces the piece strongly rejects the truth of the rumor that the Pope has already been formally corrected. However, he does not explain why he believes this.”

    I think from what Pope Francis had done from Epiphany onward explained us of his argument.

  8. It seems that, for the time being, this Year of Our Lord 2017 is the Year of Facelifts. No doubt, if this trend continues throughout the year, and if it intensifies as we move closer to the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady is driving the “fumus Satanae” [the smoke of Satan] out of the Church so that the truth is revealed. This is just retribution for the failure of the Papacy to adequately consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart as Our Lady requested. I can only pray that Our Lady of Fatima, on whose feast day I was born, will be gracious enough to aid me in honouring Her more: especially by wearing the Brown Scapular and praying the Rosary, which She said were the weapons that God would use. And may Our Lady protect other loyal Catholics, and especially true and loyal Priests of the Church.

    • The Pope *and all the bishops of the world* together must consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

      On June 13, 1929, in the Presence of the Most Holy Trinity, Our Lady said to Sister Lucia (+Feb. 13, 2005):

      “The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to order and make in union with all the bishops of the world the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.”.

      No Pope from Pius XI to the present has ever done this exactly as Our Lady said. Pope Pius XII consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary BUT WITHOUT the participation of all the bishops.

      May the Most Holy Mother of God keep us all under Her Holy Mantle!


      P.S. Your altar and icon corner are lovely. ?

      • Pope Pius XI was not well informed. His advisors read the newspapers to him. They only let him know what they wanted him to know. My understanding is that he received many letters from Sister Lucia, which he did not answer. Who knows if he ever saw them?

    • Our Lady of Miraculous Medaille, Rue du Buc, Paris 1830.
      Our Lady of all Nations, Amsterdam, 1945. – 1959.
      Our Lady of Akita 1973.
      Take a good look and see similarities of all these apparitions (messages, but also see images)
      Lourdes followed Rue du Buc. Akita was clearly the confirmation of the apparition of Lady of all Nations in Amsterdam.
      She is standing on the globe – Advocate
      She have open arms (from which pass the grace of the Holy Spirit) – Mediatrix
      She stands in front of the Cross – Coredemptrix

  9. If I may offer my humble thoughts.
    “I come to serve not to be served” claims the Christ. “I come with ALL authority!”.
    He has ALL authority and yet He comes to serve?
    The mis representation of authority we see today was borne in the feminist movement. A father is the authority in his home because he is the servant, not the boss!
    This was not only a revelation to me as a father and husband, but a means of my release from my own stupid pride. It helped me understand who I really was. This is grace! I am a servant, proclaimed so by GOD Himself, and placed over those He chose to die for, to lead them to Him. I bring nothing to the table but sin, yet He allows that I would assist to co-redeem those that He died for.
    Recently in a post somebody asked me, “Who are you?”
    Well, I am one appointed by God, no less than the Pope! I am the father of the children He gave me to lead!
    He who is God allows that I who am nothing could look in wonder at His work, even while I exist here, and wonder at the marvels that I see without the least merit.
    Be assured I don’t merit any of it, and yet here it is before me.
    Francis can do what he likes, I and my family like Joshua, stand with the Lord!

  10. Dear Dr John Lamont,

    Congratulations on your courage to correct and expose this appalling Pope.

    You might not know me under the name of Bob Smith but we did come to know each other during Sydney University Chaplaincy days.

    Keep up the good fight!

  11. Another way of thinking about all of this is that a Pope’s authority is essentially derived from his adherence to the historic doctrine of the Church which is based on Christ’s teaching. Pope Francis, having apparently rejected this definition, has placed himself outside the Church’s teaching and has consequently rendered himself a heretic without authority.

    On “Why then have so few cardinals and bishops publicly lined up with the
    four “dubia cardinals” on this? Lamont argues that much of the reason
    stems from an absolutist understanding of “obedience, etc” This assessment by John Lamont gives the non-dissenting Cardinals an excuse that does not seem relevant in their case. I would say most of the non-dissenting Cardinals agree with Pope Francis. The others are afraid of losing their jobs. The red clothing they wear is a mockery of their sworn duties. Ann Barnhardt get it right:

    Things have come to a pretty pass. Let us pray and do penance.

  12. I don’t think it’s so much a (false) notion of obedience that keeps so many prelates silent, but rather an exaggerated notion of “collegiality” that arose out of VII and the impulse to preserve at least the facade of unity amongst the Shepherds.

    But when collegiality leads you to hell, to hell with collegiality.

  13. It is important to note that denying the Sanctity of the marital act, and thus the fact that God Is The Author of Love, of Life, and of Marriage, is apostasy, not heresy.

  14. If the pope has been formally corrected, the question is why does he continue to deny the essence of Trinitarian Love?

    “Let Us Make man to Our Image and Likeness.”

    God Is Love. Love exists in relationship. Love is trinitarian. (Filioque)

    God Exists in an ordered communion of Perfect Complementary Love thus we can know through both Faith and reason that Catholics and Muslims do not worship the same God.

  15. If Dr. Lamont believes or Rorate Caeli believes Francis I is a validly and canonically elected pope , then how is it that he could be deposed if Canon law rightly asserts that the pope has no superiors on earth? The deposition of a valid canonically elected pope would be a violation of logic as well as Divine and canonical law. The only logical avenue for such deposition satisfying both Divine and Canon law is to assume that he was a heretic prior to election – and the evidence exists to support such an allegation. Cardinal Bergoglio apparently destroyed a conservative contemplative order of nuns in Buenos Aires. He also had extensive relationships with freemasons. Such heretical actions have been discussed on the internet. I presume that source citations can be found.

    I agree with Saint Robert Bellarmine, If a pope is found to be a manifest heretic then those views must have been formed and existed prior to his election as pope. The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia under Conclave and/or Papal election has stated that only a CATHOLIC MAN can be elected pope. The election of a non-Catholic or a woman is automatically NULL and VOID. The election of a heretic, schismatic or apostate is the election of a non-Catholic. It is an invalid election and consequently NULL and VOID.

    Anyone who asserts that a valid canonically elected pope can be deposed without the voluntary resignation of the pope, is himself a heretic. If this were done it would leave the Catholic church open to rampant Protestantism, as if it hasn’t had such over the past 100 years. However, a heretic imposter occupying the papal office probably can’t be said to be deposed, because after all he couldn’t be said to have held the office. A different term would have to be used.

    • The troubles we are having in the Church with Cardinals and Bishops contradicting eachother on morality is because some have fallen away from the Faith. So yes we have Cardinals and Bishops who do not teach the Catholic Faith. But they remain in their positions. So in fact we have a sea of protestants inside the Church who wish to think of themselves as Catholics. Only God knows the true number of Catholics who treasure the Faith. This protestantisation of the Church has been underway for at least 100 years. So what’s a Catholic to do? Include amongst your friends real Catholics. It’s a difficult time to evangelise adults because they are being fed anti Christian attitudes via mainstream media.

      • Prior to 1914, and the death of St. Pius X, the Catholic Church paid a great deal more attention to the orthodoxy of it’s priests, bishops, cardinals, theology teachers and yes, the laity. The congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was formerly known under Pius X as the Holy Office. St. Pius X focused on Modernism as the compendium of all heretical errors in his encyclical Pascendi Dominini Gregis. And it was the job of the Holy Office and a lay group, whose name I can’t remember, to police the church for modernists. They apparantly were doing a good job, along with the use of the Oath against Modernism, that Pius X developed and required of Theology teachers, that is, until the next pope, Benedict XV disbanded the group looking for modernists. The Oath against modernism was dropped, I believe, in the 1960’s. In the early 20th century Msgr. Jouin spent most of his time as an sleuth looking for ecclesiastical freemasons. The point I’m trying to make is that there existed doctrinal firewalls in the early 20th century, that no longer exist. We don’t have Catholic authorized groups or individuals looking for heresy in our schools, seminaries or chancelleries.

        The criteria used to select a papal candidate for election is an entirely different issue. Priests or laity may fall into heresy just by exposure to a secularized protestanitized culture but a papal candidate must demonstrate that he is truly Catholic. If his actions prior to election demonstrate an indifference or a contempt for Catholic doctrines, practice and culture, then a reasonable person can assume that he holds heretical, schismatic or apostate positions. There is no room for realitivizing or giving a pass to a papal candidate regarding the practice of the faith. They have to be held to a high standard.

        • The men who vote in Conclave are mostly formed by the culture they grew up in and live in today. They underwent Priestly formation in good seminaries or otherwise when attitudes were strict or liberal in those institutions. I dont think any one of them would see themselves as policing a conclave and very few would agree on what kind of Pope the Church needs at any time. Pope Francis was elected to reform the Curia. That hasnt happened, or the attempts by Cardinal Pell to reform the financial side of the Curia have been stonewalled. “Mercy” as opposed to strictness, arrived in 1935 apparently as a policy decision. It’s become out of balance and mercy is being shown to people who should be held accountable. But we can be peaceful that God is in charge, and if enough Catholics pray for timely intervention God will hear us and bring us out of this situation.

          • The pope elected must be a Catholic man, that is, he must be so by the standards of Divine law, Canonical law and even the natural law. The intentions, motivations, education, sympathies or physical health of the Cardinal electors is irrelevant. A conclave should not be a political convention. The papal criteria that count are those related to thoughts, words and actions of the papal candidate and their adherence to Catholic doctrine. His spiritual life should be of the highest order. These are objective criteria. Plans for the future change because events force us to change and adapt. In the end the most important criteria in the election of any leader are not his plans to accomplish this or that but his basic integrity, humility and reliance on Divine help.

          • Mary, I think you are laying out what you think should happen. What actually happens is of course entirely out of our hands.

          • The fact that Ecclesiastical law – and Divine law – would require a Catholic man elected,is not criteria I came up with. Those criteria have been the standard for 2000 years. On the other hand, regarding what happens in the conclaves, you are correct. It is out of our hands because the proceedings, deliberations and inputs to the cardinals are secret and are meant to be kept perpetually secret, but only since the 20th century conclaves. Prior to the 20th century conclaves proceedings, results, deliberations, etc. were all known by the faithful after the conclave concluded. The Apostolic Constituion of Pius X was promolgated in, I think, 1904,1905, January. It was held in secret until Pius X died, so no one knows what the original Constitution said. All I know is that the “Oath of a Cardinal” written by Pius X for his cardinals said nothing about secrecy at the future conclave. If secrecy had been so important and intended by Pius X then I’m sure he would have mentioned it in his Apostolic Constitution. After he died it was alleged that all Conclave proceedings were to be secret according to his Apostolic Constitution. Modern “Oaths of a Cardinal” all contain a promise to keep all events before, during and after a conclave secret. Now, why would they want to do that?

    • My priest spoke up in his homily last Sunday and said that the Roman Catholic Church teachings cannot be undone by the Pope, bishops, President or anyone ekse. He is unafraid to speak out. I hope the bishops, archbishop and cardinals follow his example.

      I was wondering if a pope could lose his title. I am glad to know that if a pope were a heretic before becoming pope that he is illicit. I hope that Cardinal Burke and other like-minded officials have the courage to follow this route.

      • There were many periods of multiple popes in Catholic history. Thankfully, most of them were for only short periods of time. Unfortunately, they caused oodles of confusion, even for saints. So, who was the real pope? If all the popes are Catholic men, that is, have faith in the magisterium and do not hold heretical views, then the canonical process needs to be looked at. Was the pope claimant, elected according to canonical process? Was he the first to be elected? etc. I know what you’re saying to me, but Mary we only have one pope, yes, but the same questions have to be asked even for one pope. If a pope is not Catholic or is a pseudo-man prior to election, then this would null and void his/her election automatically. Technically, it is not taking office and jurisdiction from an elected pope, because he was never validly elected to the office of pope. So it is a matter of taking from a usurper/imposter what is not his to have.

        Cardinal Burke is far better educated than I am in theology, history and canon law. I am sure he knows all of this and more. He also has to traverse a dangerous political landscape with few resources. He can’t call up the marines from Venice to back him up, or the knights of Malta, that’s why he has to take cautious half steps.

  16. It seems almost comical to me that Jesuits would be talking about any religious figure as having absolute authority. I was in the seminary with men who left the diocesan seminary to join the Jesuits precisely because the Jesuits were doing pretty much as the pleased and IGNORING the pope, the bishops, or anyone else who told them they could not do or say whatever they wanted to do or say.

    It has always been my experience that the liberal element in the Church NEVER strove to change Church laws or teachings for their own benefit, since they were already doing what they wanted to do. They pushed for changes only so they could FORCE the more conservative or traditional members of the Church to do what the liberals wanted them to do. A couple of very plain examples of this are “communion in the hand” and female altar servers. Neither of these were doctrinal matters, true, but the liberals were already using girl altar servers and receiving and distributing communion in the hand. They pushed through legislation ONLY because they wanted to force conservatives to do these things.

    Some of my liberal priest acquaintances are now laughing and telling me that they have been giving Holy Communion to divorced and “re-married” people for years, and that they have been doing the same for people who are not even civilly married, but just cohabitating. They don’t see this as “any big deal”. They are applauding Pope Francis because he is going to force ME to do so.

    I have stated here before that I think it is ironic that the same German bishops who are now telling us that it is a very bad, perhaps even a sinful thing to tell cohabitating couples and the divorced and “re-married” couples that they are not entitled to the same sacraments as everyone else, decreed that Catholics who do not pay the “Church Tax” through the state are EXCOMMUNICATED. Protestantism caught on among the German princes because they stood to make a great deal of money from it. Are we seeing the same motives at work now?

      • Yes Msgr. They are doing it for the profits. They do not realize that our Beautiful Lord would be serene enough to let the Church contract in population if the inhabitants were sincerely dedicated to Him. But He is not serene when these leaders allow people to live sinful lives just to expand the Church’s population.

    • Father, it’s a scandal that the Catholic Church in Gernany receives 6 billion euros from their share of the German Govt.-collected Church tax. That arrangement is so corrupting, and apparently a significant portion of that sum ends up in Rome and they are equally dependent on it. Now the trouble Cardinal Pell has had over implementing external audit scrutiny does make one wonder about how many people are in the trough. As painful as it is seeing what is happening in the Church today, it is no doubt a forerunner to the “making known of everything which is hidden” at some future stage. Poor Pope Benedict just got out of the way, and what we see from our ancient slow-moving Church, is a constant whir of activity and change in all the wrong areas of governance.

    • Revolutionaries are always anarchists when they are acquiring power, once the possess it, they embrace autocracy and despotism.

  17. – The overnight appearance in Rome of posters critical of a sitting pope – something not seen since the era of the Papal States.
    – A parody “attack” on the pope sent via email to Vatican officials.

    I couldn’t help but smile


Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...