Last week, we reprinted a report of some very odd online behavior on the part of Fr. Spadaro, SJ, close friend and spokesman of Pope Francis. Among his various activities on Twitter, it was discovered that he was retweeting an account in the name of “Habla Francisco” (which can be translated as “The Pope Says”) which was, in fact, linked to his email account. As the writer of our piece, Oakes Spalding, said at the time:
That’s right, Antonio Spadaro, the editor of La Civiltà Catholica and one of the Pope’s main point men in promoting Amoris Laetitia had been “retweeting” his own tweets from a sock-puppet Twitter account. These fake retweets were used to defend an Apostolic Letter and attack four cardinals of the Catholic Church.
Now, in an exclusive interview with Crux, Fr. Spadaro has confirmed our report, attempting to pass it off as something totally harmless:
There’s also the issue of a Twitter account which some of your critics claim you are ‘hiding’ behind.
What do they mean, “hide”?! The account was simply an under-used one of three or four I operate, including that of the journal. I often re-tweet from one to the other.
If I had really wanted to throw stones from an anonymous account I would never, obviously, have re-tweeted it. And why should I feel any need to hide? I was merely quoting the view of an American friend who was commenting not on the behavior of the cardinals but the way the expression “the four cardinals” was being used on so many blogs in ways that reminded her of 196os rock bands.
I find this admission absolutely bizarre. There is nothing normal about a priest who is both the editor of a major Catholic publication and a close advisor and spokesman to the pope using phony Twitter accounts under pseudonyms to bolster the credibility of his social media scoffing — least of all over serious questions about dangers to the faith posed by four distinguished members of the curia and echoed by Catholics around the world.
He goes on to say:
The funny thing was that when I sent that tweet, Raymond Arroyo of EWTN tweeted the photo of a cardinal [Timothy Dolan of New York] dancing the can-can with his legs in the air along with the Rockettes. His tweet was cheered by my detractors, from which I deduce that this attack on me is organized and deliberate.
I’ve seen that Tweet. In fact, I shared it. It’s here:
It’s never Advent until the @Rockettes and Cardinal Dolan appear at Radio City. pic.twitter.com/rrSTh5Ax3o
— Raymond Arroyo (@RaymondArroyo) November 24, 2016
And in my opinion, this was Arroyo having some fun at the Cardinal’s expense, since this inappropriate appearance of the highest prelate in the second largest diocese in America has become something of a tradition. That Spadaro’s “detractors” would “cheer” such a Tweet is entirely in keeping with the spirit of why they would question Spadaro’s own tweets: because both involve a certain violation of priestly decorum that is offensive to an authentic Catholic sensibility.
But while his confirmation of the fake Twitter account was strange, the hubris with which he dealt with critics of Amoris Laetitia was unsurprising:
What’s behind it, do you think?
I think that some people are exploiting the cardinals’ letter in order to ramp up the tension and create division within the Church. These groups feel sidelined, so they’re yelling, and attacking anyone perceived as being close to the pope. I’m not here referring to the case of the tweet, but more generally.
It’s painful that this is taking place within the Church, among Catholics. In some cases it’s enough to be positive about the Petrine magisterium to be attacked. It’s a deeply unpleasant opposition, incapable of articulating a thought without at the same time turning it into an attack.
Did you hear that? We are the ones acting in an exploitative fashion, “in order to ramp up the tension and create division within the Church.”
We apparently also feel “sidelined.” Interesting. I hadn’t been made aware of that. Here’s more:
But why are the attacks so unpleasant – what’s going on?
I think there are three things happening here. The first is that Francis’s actions have been highly effective; they’ve hit the nail on the head.
And that means, secondly, that, “the spirits are expressing themselves,” as Bergoglio would say. The hatred and viciousness directed against him are always signs of the bad spirit which has nothing to do with the Gospel.
That’s easy to discern. And by the way, that disturbance of spirits is a reaction to the good spirit: if there were no reaction, it would be worse.
The third point is that those who are hostile to Francis are in the main self-enclosed groups who cannot handle an open, serene debate, and who simply repeat each other, like in an echo chamber. Some of those sites, and Twitter accounts, are simply copies of others.
So, what we see here is that — in Spadaro’s eyes — any criticism of what Francis is doing is just a confirmation that he’s been effective, successful, and on the right path. Also, the critics are bad guys full of hatred, viciousness, and bad spirit. Aaaand they’re part of a self-enclosed echo chamber.
Did I miss anything?
What is the proper response?
Patience. We need patiently to bear the insults and attacks, and just trust in the process that’s underway. The attacks are an inescapable part of the process.
That must be why he blocks anyone who challenges him on Twitter at the slightest provocation. That’s the very definition of “bearing wrongs patiently,” amirite?
Moving on a bit, he is asked if the criticisms make the pope angry. Remember, Edward Pentin reported (and confirmed again, off-air) that he had sources inside Casa Santa Marta telling him that the pope was “boiling with rage.” (Incidentally, he said this to none other than Raymond Arroyo, who was asking his own probing questions about the dubia. But I’m sure the dig at Arroyo by Fr. Spadaro was just a coincidence…)
Not so, says Spadaro, with a skip in his step and a laugh in his voice:
How does the pope himself react to the attacks? There have been reports that he’s enraged by the letter.
Oh please! Such comments make me laugh. To get Bergoglio angry it has to be something very different. His real concerns are pastoral. What disturbs him is poverty, injustice, the martyrdom of Christians, violence, and so on, not these kinds of criticisms.
I can assure you, because I have direct knowledge of this, that Francis simply doesn’t get annoyed about this kind of thing. I think he sees the anger in some quarters as evidence that some people feel challenged by the hermeneutic of mercy, by the Gospel sine glossa [‘unglossed’ – i.e. presented directly].
Consider me assured, Father. Francis is never angry with anyone for anything less than “poverty, injustice, the martyrdom of Christians, violence, and so on”. Except…adoring fans pulling his arm a little too hard and “being selfish“.
https://youtu.be/EBXh8YOWMnA?t=20s?rel=0
But let’s return to the interview, shall we?
Why hasn’t the pope responded to the cardinals?
The pope doesn’t give binary answers to abstract questions. But that does’t mean he hasn’t responded. His response is to approve and to encourage positive pastoral practices. A clear and obvious example was his response to the Buenos Aires area bishops, when he encouraged them and confirmed that their reading of Amoris Laetitia was correct.
In other words, the pope responds by encouraging, and indeed loves to respond to the sincere questions put to him by pastors. The ones who really understand Catholic doctrine are the pastors, because doctrine does not exist for the purpose of debate but for the salus animarum [‘the health of souls’] – for salvation rather than intellectual discussion.
Did you catch that? Yes, that was
a) an admission that the pope won’t offer yes or no answers (Sorry, Mt. 5:33!) on the dubia and
b) That the Buenos Aires letter — famous for its tacit endorsement of Communion for the divorced and remarried — is the new law of the land in the Church… and
c) Since he “loves to respond to sincere questions put to him by pastors” and he won’t respond to the four cardinals, ergo, their questions are either not sincere or they are not pastors, or both.
And here’s Spadaro, doubling down on b):
The cardinals want to know whether Amoris Laetitia ever makes possible absolution and Holy Communion for people who are still validly married but having sexual relations with another. They claim that hasn’t been made clear.
I think that the answer to that has been given, and clearly. When the concrete circumstances of a divorced and remarried couple make feasible a pathway of faith, they can be asked to take on the challenge of living in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulty of this option, and leaves open the possibility of admission to the Sacrament of Reconciliation when this option is lacking.
In other, more complex circumstances, and when it has not been possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, this option may not be practicable. But it still may be possible to undertake a path of discernment under the guidance of a pastor, which results in a recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations which attenuate responsibility and guilt – particularly where a person believes they would fall into a worse error, and harm the children of the new union.
In such cases Amoris Laetitia opens the possibility of access to Reconciliation and to the Eucharist, which in turn dispose a person to continuing to mature and grow, fortified by grace.
“I think the answer to that has been given, and clearly,” he says. Followed by three paragraphs of incomprehensibly vague word salad that sounds mostly like, “Reconciliation and the Eucharist for people who don’t feel guilty of adultery even if they’re violating the 6th Commandment is totes okay.”
I can’t take anymore. It’s an unserious interview from an unserious man. But his proximity to the pope — despite his protestation that this interview is reflective only of his own thinking, and not that of Francis — makes it noteworthy. If you want to read more, pay particular attention to how he tries to justify the compatibility of AL with Veritatis Splendor. (I recommend at least two stiff drinks before beginning that section.)
Of course, at the end of the interview, he unconvincingly attempts to twist the knife, saying, “My sense is that the vast majority of the cardinals and bishops are with him [the pope], and very few are resisting Amoris Laetitia.”
Because Divine Truth is a popularity contest, Father? I think not.
The bottom line is this: a man in Fr. Spadaro’s position wouldn’t solicit an interview like this (with a sympathetic publication, no less) if the Vatican felt like they had this situation under control. He’s trying to mitigate damage here, and he’s principally doing so by going after the credibility of the pope’s critics and by dismissing their concerns.
It’s a little too late for that, Father. We’re onto you.
This is all the more reason why now is the time to apply more pressure. When you’re living in a house of cards, the last thing you want is for the wind to blow.
Steve Skojec is the Founding Publisher of OnePeterFive.com. He received his BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville in 2001. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Crisis Magazine, EWTN, Huffington Post Live, The Fox News Channel, Foreign Policy, and the BBC. Steve and his wife Jamie have eight children. You can find more of his writing at his Substack, The Skojec File.
“Bad spirit”- Spadaro and those of his ilk have long been happy to live in a world of total inversion of meaning, i.e., confusion, so much so that those who seek to uphold divine teaching are not only to be vilified, but also demonised. Prevaricators, on the other hand, are to be deemed true apostles who expound the Gospel sine glossa…
Didn’t we hear a few Sundays ago “Surgent enim pseudochristi et pseudoprophetae”? What more do we need?
What sheer, unadulterated arrogance. Perhaps Spadaro has never actually read a copy of Denzinger (it wouldn’t surprise me if he hadn’t), because the current pontiff’s predecessors most certainly had no problem with providing “binary answers” to so-called “abstract questions” (e.g., St. Pius X’s responses to queries addressed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission). Of course, we all know the real reason Francis will not respond to the dubia—he can’t without acknowledging that his position is objectively heretical. But for his cronies to act as if the dubia are some sort of insult to Francis, or that they are in some way beneath the status of his office, is ludicrous on its face.
He thinks that the dubia are ‘abstract questions’? Good grief.
Spadaro = utter babble.
This idiot priest won’t even wear his Roman collar for goodness sakes. Folks, the schism is coming. It is only a matter of time. The Four Cardinals will move ahead very soon, I suspect, on the public, formal correction of the pope.
Did anyone also notice that Spadaro did not call the pope “Francis”, but “Bergoglio?” I find that interesting.
The schisms in all honesty would have been here a good while back if anyone had half an ounce of Catholic left in them. Reality is, if youte so used to bs passing off as Catholicism you simply tolerate it. A little here, a little there; like the bit about boiling frogs by increasing the temperature slowly so they dont jump. In truth, heads should have rolled the first time anybody stuck a protestant dinner table in a Catholic church and called it an altar.
In truth, heads should have rolled the first time anybody stuck a protestant dinner table in a Catholic church and called it an altar.
But that was happening here and there throughout the world as early as the 1940s, at a time when the Church was sane and the Mass was still the same, so no one really questioned it. Of course, the argument was that it was standard practice at Saint Peter’s Basilica anyway, albeit not on a “table.”
You can see online photos of Mass facing the people in years leading up to Vatican II.
Here’s a photo of the von Trapp family, of The Sound of Music fame, at Mass in their home in the 1940s. Priest faces the people.
http://orbiscatholicussecundus.blogspot.com/2015/08/1940s-mass-facing-people-at-trapp.html
Some more photos before Vatican II showing Tridentine Mass offered facing the people.
http://ordorecitandi.blogspot.com/2010/06/re-ordered-sanctuary.html
http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2015/feb/2/Missal-1965-Online-Missale-Romanum/
I have no trust this guy. He looks so suspicious.
“We find ourselves here at the very opposite pole from a situational morality in which the norm is perceived as somehow extrinsic to the act that is carried out.
In situational morality the subject is freed from the objective norm, which is conceived in an abstract fashion, in favor of a pragmatism linked to circumstances. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is right to say that “the truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience” (#1780).
The moral justice of a particular concrete act includes, inseparably, the search for the objective norm which I must apply to the complexity of my case, as well as the virtue of prudence, which disposes us to discern in every circumstance our true good.”
This is the word salad he uses to claim that the situational ethics of AL is not situational ethics. Contrast this with the Word of God:
1 John 2:3 “And in this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But he that keepeth his word, in him the charity of God is truly perfect: and by this we know that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him, ought himself also to walk even as he walked.
7 Dearly beloved, I write not a new commandment to you, but an old commandment, which you had from the beginning: The old commandment is the word which you have heard.
8 Again, a new commandment I write to you, which thing is true both in him, and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.
9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
10 He that loveth his brother, abideth in the light, and there is no scandal in him.
11 But he that hateth his brother, is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth: because the darkness hath blinded his eyes.
12 I write to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.
13 I write to you, fathers, because you have known him, who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the wicked one.
14 I write to you, infants, because you have known the Father. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and you have overcome the wicked one.
15 Love not the world, nor those things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him:
16 For all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life: which is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the concupiscence thereof. But he that doth the will of God, abideth for ever.”
Please help me with this if I am misunderstanding. I thought the Pope convened 2 synods in order to discuss and debate freely, when most of us knew there was no need for those synods and instead were seeing that discuss and debate wasn’t truly occurring but rather a hijacking of doctrine via pastoral egg slicing: lllllll. Yet, this man states, “The ones who really understand Catholic doctrine are the pastors, because doctrine does not exist for the purpose of debate but for the salus animarum [‘the health of souls’] – for salvation rather than intellectual discussion.”
It’s interesting that Father Spadaro uses the word “binary” as he does. That is a favorite term of the gender revolutionists- i.e., sex is not one or the other of a binary fundamental to being either male or female.
To five abstract binary questions from four abstract cardinals I have thus far answered with concrete silence.
Why does this not fill you with the joy of the gospel, the joy of love and a strong desire to care for our common home?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/73d038e477eeb87f8c4165be40dff1e6bacb37cc3d10eb749ba7e6a9f0fe94f3.jpg
A real father would never be so Arrogant to leave any of his children in confusion and doubt. God help us!
Amen!
And the longer he ignores our concerns the more he confirms his neglect.
Who said anything about a real father?
If anything I am a stepfather.
The last real father is now playing the role of wise grandfather at home.
Even though he is only nine years my senior.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/89df78354bfee823d94422afb60c0b2445e209cd0ab13f542492717bab3c307b.jpg
Dear Papa, I fear that your minimalist home is not only built on sand but the concrete used (four parts heresy to three parts confusion and two parts detraction) just doesn’t have enough orthodoxy in its ingredients to create a solid base. I strongly suggest that you EVACUATE THE BUILDING.
Your casuistry renders your comment unintelligible.
Try again?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/193a367b9e598c44639392edc2fffc5ade350def639cb8c89cb91ebfea0ff992.jpg
Try again you unintelligible casuist?
Oh Papa! Even when you chide, your mercy shines through! I can never thank you enough for taking your wrecking ball to the narrow gate.
Jesus knew that there would be many of the Pharisees that would not agree with him and he spoke the truth. Did it matter that their were many, verses the one man that had the word of God and was God and the truth? If it is a lie, just because many go along with it doesn’t make the lie become the truth. Pray for these Cardinals. What was it that was said?, if God is with us,then who can be against us? God help us!
Keep shoveling the coal to make the fire hot to get the truth out and the pressure on, it is growing greatly, got to get this thing to burst to clean house and get these heretics like Spadaro out into the open and so much pressure they have to resign and leave the Church fully, they already left spiritually and no longer believes the Authentic Faith, time for the final push. As I may remind everyone what Benedict XVI said as Josef Cardinal RATZINGER http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/spiritual-life/the-church-will-become-small.html “The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning.”
Patience. Let’s tone down the accusations. We know that in real life few are openly confrontational in any situation. Most will go along to get along. Few people will back you up if they fear they will pay a price for publicly doing so. This fact of human behavior explains how sociopaths capture control of institutions and do damage.
The 4 cardinals have placed Pope Francis in a tight spot,and he is responding like any person caught in such a situation would do. The 4 cardinals, in my opinion, have done a good job by following procedural norms in expressing their dissatisfaction. Other cardinals do not have to speak up at the moment and won’t. They can wait.
For Pope Francis and the Catholic Left the consequences of bypassing procedural norms are usually destructive in the long run. Pope Francis does not want to destroy the Church or its institutions. He needs these to push his agenda. He plays on the loyalty of Catholics to press his plan. The Left loves authority and institutions when they are running the show. This means that they have to respect the
rules at least some times or they reveal that the whole institution is a farce. If they discredit the institution, they face institutional collapse and their own personal irrelevance. Do you think anyone would listen to Bergoglio’s incoherent ramblings if he were not pope? The Left needs the institutions too, which is its weakness. They cannot simply overturn everything or show their hand clearly. To do so would ruin their ability to command obedience (and, very importantly, money) from the truly faithful.
As lay people we have no power to make decisions in the Church. All we can do is pray, learn the Faith better, assist at an authentic liturgy, and seek holiness. We can use the freedoms that exist within the Church to build an alternative culture – an alternative Catholic life – to the normative one promoted in the Novus parishes. When we can, we must recapture our Catholic institutions. But, remember, we have no power. Few will support our vision. Few will have our backs. Let’s not spend our time denouncing others, but praying for them and learning to see reality clearly.
…and take advantage, whenever it’s there, to use our spheres of influence to help others see and understand more clearly.
I would argue that we do indeed actually have power. We don’t have institutional power, we don’t have decision making power, but we have the authentic faith, and there’s great power in that. It’s to deceive ourselves to say we have no power, and to disparage our place as Catholics. We have great power. Our prayers are efficacious. Our voices, when we make them heard, can have great power. It’s not power in the sense of institutional control, it’s a much greater power than that.
We also have the power of the purse.
I wonder if one of Bergoglio’s parents were divorced & ‘remarried’? Men start revolutions for personal reasons, y’know.
If the available online information is correct, one of the pope’s sisters (from what I read, his favorite) is divorced and remarried. He also has a niece that married outside the Church to a divorced man, and one of his nephews lives with his girlfriend without the benefit of marriage.
Very interesting to know this, like I agreed above, I think this is all to do with personal issues..
I agree, and thought so from the very day I remember reading about the pope’s family several years ago.
The pope has stated that “a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in ‘irregular’ situations as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives.”
It sounds very much to me like this is personal to his family.
Ah, I remember reading about his sister now that you mention it.
Again, revolutionaries aren’t the vanguards of ideology — they’re revolutionaries for personal reasons.
Totally. I think this whole thing is a personal issue.
Always speaks of the conrete lives of people.
*
Maria Elena Bergoglio, 10 years his junior, divorced mother of two adult sons, is the Pope’s only living sibling.
*
No nothing of her remarried status.
*
https://youtu.be/YsDSGfr_v8A
4) Maria Elena – mother of Jose Ignacio Bergoglio and Jorge Vallejos (2 different fathers)
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1563022-los-bergoglio-la-familia-mas-sorprendida
Marital status?
The online information is that she was divorced from her first husband quite awhile ago and is presently married.
Reference to divorce from first husband:
http://www.repubblica.it/speciali/esteri/2013/03/17/news/racconto_sorella_papa_francesco-54759672/
Maria Elena affonda le dita in una scatola azzurra di cartone, dalla quale estrae due lettere: una autografa del maggio ’58 ai genitori dal collegio “Sagrada Familia” di Cordova e un’altra scritta a lei appena divorziata, qualche anno dopo. E alcune foto di Papa Francisco adolescente. “Siamo rimasti soltanto io e lui”, dice con la prima lacrima che le scende sulla guancia mentre fuma l’ennesima sigaretta. “E adesso lo perdo di nuovo. Lui che è stato sempre presente. Anche quando affrontai il divorzio da mio marito mi appoggiò, mi aiutò.
Reference to present husband:
“Her house was still busy with phone calls and visitors, and occasional motorists would still drive by, honking their horns, shouting ‘Viva el papa,’ Avvenire reported March 19. Maria Elena and her husband painted the gate to the house yellow and white in honor of the election, the paper reported.”
http://sportsandspirituality.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-spirituality-of-siblings-in-sports.html
Thank you. Good to know.
However, I have no knowledge as to whether the information is accurate. All I know is that the allegations are out there in the public domain.
I also read somewhere that the niece’s husband was granted an annulment some years after they married civilly.
“You must hate your mother, father, wife and children, brother and sister…..”
Jesus knew that one of our weaknesses is that we would sell out our faith for fear of divisions in our families.
Followed by three paragraphs of incomprehensibly vague word salad that sounds mostly like, “Reconciliation and the Eucharist for people who don’t feel guilty of adultery even if they’re violating the 6th Commandment is totes okay.”
That is what it boils down to.
The modern theologian will never use one word where ten will do. Perhaps because, had he simply said “in some cases, yes,”* the frogs in the warming water would more readily appreciate that this stance is a clear repudiation of that given publicly and formally, repeatedly, by Popes Johna Paul II and Benedict – who in turn were merely affirming the ancient discipline on communion.
* In reality, of course, I think we all know that any couple personally “advised” by a priest like Bishop McElroy or Fr Spadaro would somehow never manage to extract a “no” from them.
Many of the divorced and remarried are already illicitly receiving communion or there are those who have left the Church because of their adultery. Making it okay for those in adulterous second relationships is not going to mean that the doors of the parishes are going to be stampeded by couples returning to Communion and even if some did, the pope cannot excuse the sin and so the communions are sacrilegious.
As a practical matter: Certainly there are a number of Catholics in such situations who have been (sacrilegiously) receiving communion with the encouragement of their pastors – and not just in Germany. For decades.
And yet, this new development is going to have some adverse consequences on the ground. It is not just that some liberal-minded pastors will now be emboldened to encourage more such Catholics to receive, it’s also that some faithful pastors could face serious consequences for upholding the ancient discipline and doctrine. Imagine you are such a pastor in a diocese like Chicago or San Diego. You do your best to counsel such a couple, but make it clear that in their circumstances, they cannot receive communion without a change of life. They complain to your bishop, who hauls you into the chancery. He might not *order* you to tell them it’s permissible to receive, but makes it clear that your continued employment as a pastor will depend on “adjusting your praxis.” You refuse to bend, and before long, you are in a hospital chaplaincy,or even without any assignment at all.
That’s a price you ought to be willing to pay. But the end result is that a parish is deprived of the leadership of a sound pastor, replaced with one who is….not.
Steve Skojec: “Did I miss anything?”
Yes, you missed that we can’t handle open serene debate…
*** hang on just a sec ***
Yep, thought so; irony meter just shattered.
Get this….five tersely and succinctly phrased questions are classified by Spadaro as “yelling”.
On the other hand, the FrancisPropagandaFan, continually turned on “hi” to generate insults such as “rigid”, “doctors of the law!” and “witless worms!” is what is known as “serene debate”, in Spadaro’s world.
You may not be able to say this Steve, but I’ll say it; this sort of hysterical, shrill, overwrought, girly, insult-laden, hissy fit is entirely typical of homosexuals. Spadaro and yes, maybe Bergoglio too, are card-carrying members of the lavender mafia. I’d bet my house on it.
Oh….and one other thing, Spadaro…..our eternal destination is binary.
Heaven or hell.
That’s it.
Maybe they should re-read the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. The last time I looked, there’s the meditations on the Two Kingdoms and the Two Standards. Sounds binary to me.
Catholics for 55 yrs you have no Shepherd’s recognizable voice..You must Search the Catholic Saints, Doctors, Catholic writings prior to Vatican II along with the Holy Bible…Since Vatican II hijacking brought mass Exodus and Deception.
Jesus established the Catholic Church as necessary for salvation, those who knowingly and willingly reject him or his Church cannot be saved. We see this in Jesus’ teaching: “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters” (Mt 12:30). Also: “If he [a sinning brother] refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Mt 18:17).
Invincibly Ignorant
The Church recognizes that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation. (Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)
Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spesteaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:
But once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” .
See below these Whistle blowers:
THE COMMUNISTS REALIZED THE CHURCH CANNOT BE KILLED
PUBLICALLY- eg. -FRENCH REVOLUTION. ETC..under Globalist Freemasons…they decided to INFILTRATE THE CHURCH IN THE 1ST HALF OF THE 20th Century!
Bella Dodd was a ingrown Communist Operative that helped infiltrate the Govt and Catholic Church from 1920’s-1940’s for a Hidden Communist One World Govt/religion takeover for the Future..the ILLUSION is Over.
Must Watch “Communist Leader, Dr Bella Dodd, Confesses to Infiltrating the Church & USA” on YouTube
https://youtu.be/37HgRWTsGs0
Watch “Priest John O’Conner (1987)” on YouTube
https://youtu.be/QNzoVYNa8Zw
Looks like I’m gonna be writing my letters to some Cardinals today and sending them out tomorrow. Encourage the good, condemn the bad. This is ridiculous.
Godspeed!
This is merely a foretaste of how ugly it is going to get. Ugly, messy, and with personal consequences that I fear most of us are probably not ready for, because we haven’t even begun to think about it, let alone pray about it. Friends, this is going to be a war, and you’re not ready. Every diocese and every parish is going to be torn apart by this, and it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. It had to eventually come to this, and Francis just accelerated the timeline.
Not every parish will be torn apart by this.
The Traditionalist parishes will not be torn apart, and neither will the whacked-out parishes. Most people who go to such places are in agreement, either one way or the other.
Parishes like Holy Redeemer in San Francisco and St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis left the Faith eons ago. They won’t be torn apart, as the people that attend such venues all think alike.
Some of the in-between parishes will be affected, with the majority of clueless Catholics siding with the defenders of Amoris Laetitia. They will look at others as nut jobs.
If this continues along the line that it is taking it will affect every single Catholic and Parish for it will become a full blown schism and entire dioceses will enter into schism which will mean that once traditional parishes will no longer even be a parish and their priests will be excommunicated and forced out along with the faithful…etc…etc…
I hope everyone is LISTENING here to what you wrote Father RP!
I see a time when a good priest will give a ” goodbye” homily or speech from his parish, with humility and a spine of a steel. And there will be some who follow him.
How blessed those ” some” will be.
This here is the truth.
In the final analysis, the SSPX might become the way for many of us.
I have been wondering for a while, what do you do then?
The best I could come up with is that a faithful priest so excommunicated could turn to some bishop to get permission to say mass. The bishop, the priest and the faithful could rely on faith that excommunication by a junior pope (while there is a senior one) is not valid, and that the investment of apostolic authority endures.
I believe you are correct. It saddens me, but it appears there is no other way.
I suppose now that tossing ad hominems, ad populums, non sequiters and strawmen fallacies the plan now is to turn the tables by inferring that to question an ambiguous document is tantamount to malicious intent. Good grief! Did not a single defender of AL ever take a basic philosophy course?
I guess when you have no argument this is what you must resort yourself to. Hopefully, more people than not will see the wolf behind the sheep’s clothing. (For this I pray!)
What sort of pseudo-intellectual sophistry is this charlatan of the Holy Father peddling to try and befuddle the masses? What sort of accusations is he leveling against sincere men and women of faith all over the world?
““…Francis’s actions have been highly effective; they’ve hit the nail on the head.
And that means, secondly, that, “the spirits are expressing themselves,” as Bergoglio would say. The hatred and viciousness directed against him are always signs of the bad spirit which has nothing to do with the Gospel.
That’s easy to discern. And by the way, that disturbance of spirits is a reaction to the good spirit: if there were no reaction, it would be worse.”
Just incase you are not aware that is language referring to demonic activity expressing itself against the Holy Father because the Holy Father’s work is the fruit of the Holy Spirit. This man is insulting the Holy Spirit of God by calling all those who oppose the errors of AL as people either influenced by a bad spirit or possessed of one who are reacting negatively (manifesting) due to the good spirit.
For him the Four Cardinals and all who share their concerns are hateful and vicious and are possessed of a bad spirit: to say that is incredibly reckless and malicious and indeed even damnable.
It’s one thing to believe that they are in error and that the Holy Father is acting in a way compatible with Catholic Doctrine, it’s a whole other thing to accuse those who think that the Holy Father may be promoting error of being influenced by a demon. If you’re not absolutely and morally certain of such a thing you just don’t go there for you may find yourself accusing the Holy Spirit of God of being a ‘bad spirit’ and that is never good for one’s eternal life.
There was zero intellectual reason for him to make such a claim for the actions of the Four Cardinal’s plus all of the faithful members of the hierarchy and laity who are seriously concerned with the division that is occurring within the Church due to differing interpretations of AL (because of what it says.) They can be so concerned based on purely good intentions, good faith and a profound love for the Church and the Holy Father and indeed they are and have demonstrated that over their long and faithful service to the Church and the Holy Father.
Yet, Fr. Spadaro chose to make the most brazen accusation of demonic influence and the possessing a genuine ill will of those who are deeply concerned with what is happening: that itself is a demonstrable sign of a great callousness and maliciousness toward all who don’t think in lock step with him. Why is it perfectly fine and good for the whole protestant world to reject almost everything of the Catholic Faith and be just fine right where they are with Jesus, but a faithful Catholic cannot even ask a simple yes or no question for the sake of clarity and to better understand the will of the Holy Father without being influenced or possessed by a demon?
This is a bad as it gets in terms of labeling others. To be directed or possessed of a bad spirit means that those people actually want the bad not the good: this is far worse than saying they are wrong and doing something that is bad, it is saying their intention itself is evil. This is an absolutely condemnable act on behalf of this man, it cannot be made to be seen in a better light in anyway.
What sort of intellectual sophistry is this charlatan of the Holy Father peddling to try and befuddle the masses?
LOL!
Not a joking matter, I know, but…well that was funny.
Imho, he has too much influence over the Holy Father.
“This is a bad as it gets in terms of labeling others. To be directed or possessed of a bad spirit means that those people actually want the bad not the good: this is far worse than saying they are wrong and doing something that is bad, it is saying their intention itself is evil. This is an absolutely condemnable act on behalf of this man, it cannot be made to be seen in a better light in anyway”
Either they are all deliberate Servants of Satan or they are doing one hell of a great imitation.
Love the way that His Holiness gets away with ‘not giving binary answers to abstract questions’ in a way married persons would never get away with with their spouses.
‘Are you having an affair? Yes or no.’
‘Sorry, I don’t give binary answers to abstract questions. Anyway, it depends what you mean by ‘affair’ and ‘having’.
‘Do you love me?.’
‘Sorry, I don’t give binary answers to abstract questions.’
In Scripture, adultery means first and foremost religious infidelity, the breaking of the covenant between one/nation/the chosen people with God; marriage being an image and type of that covenant. From Cardinal Sarah ‘a bishop, he himself in primis [himself first and foremost], is bound by the doctrine of monogamous and indisoluble marriage’ – https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/cardinal-sarah-not-even-pope-can-dispense-divine-law/ [thank you 1P5/@skojec], therefore for the Pope, a Bishop, and for the innovators with him to answer with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ would be into bring to view the status of their fidelity to the LORD/His Church/His People/Her children. That’s why, no answer to the 5 dubia.
*
Bishop husband to diocese, Priest husband to parish, and I guess, Pope husband to the Universal Church.
*
Cf. #AmorisLaetitia: My Papa Offers Me A Mistress – https://thewarourtime.com/2016/04/13/amorislaetitia-my-papa-offers-me-a-mistress/
t-shirt time
I hate the word and the idea of schism yet it has been within the Church actually for some time. To say C. Burke and others are not ‘pastoral’ is a joke. To say the questions were not pointed, needing a clear yes or no answer is a joke. I don’t like the francisnuchurch. I think God is still offended by sin and condoning it places a prelate in a serious moral responsibility.
Reading Fr Spadaro’a words makes me feel ill. He is certainly dishonest, cunning, and manipulative. Heretical positions will never stand in the end as they are not in accord with Christ and his Holy Church. All the Saints and the Angels, ora pro nobis! as we fight this Spiritual battle! Excellent work from 1Peter5 as usual.
All I know, they [the innovators] are all going down.
I think, rather unfortunately, thatnit will be the traditioalists who will face the persecutions. If the Church becomes divided, the traditional side will be much smaller in number and because we do not side with the secular world we will all suffer.
Let us pray that each of us remains strong.
Rethink the Traditionalist position – https://disqus.com/home/discussion/onepeterfive/the_bishops_enter_the_war/#edit-3033529301
I believe I have thought about and prayed about the position quite often. There will be no cleansing without suffering. It should not however be feared. When they hate you know that they hated me first. I’m pretty sure there is truth in that. If you are not ready for the battle you will fail!
To be honest, I should probably not have responded since I’m a little uncertain as to what you mean by rethink the traditionalist position. If you meant to imply that the traditional position is the one that will prevail, then I agree, but I am also not so naive as to believe that that victory will come without any trial.
I provided I link. Orthodoxy will prevail vs. Trads/Traditionalism which is a self-construct. To me, the latter have just been ensnared by the evil one and my link ought to make that clear.
“The hatred and viciousness directed against him are always signs of the bad spirit which has nothing to do with the Gospel.”
Thus, if you refer the Pope to Jesus’s clear position on divorce in the Gospel, you are, to the Pope, a “bad spirit which has nothing to do with the Gospel.” Moreover, quoting Jesus is “hatred and viciousness.”
Who would think such things, where good is evil and evil is good?
If a cleric is caught driving erratically the cops can give him a breathalyzer and if a Pope is acting erratically we laymen can give him a Tradalyzer.
I have determined he is drunk with power and is running over every single Pope who proceeded him in that august and Divinely-Constitued office.
The man is immature and flighty.
If Antonio Spadaro was accused of being a Priest of the Roman Catholic Church would there be enough evidence to convict?
#AskingForAFriend
What has happened to the dignity of the priesthood? Who speaks like this????? Oh yes Spadaro, Forte, Fernandez, Kasper, Marx and Georgio.. Father Spadaro, you are a deceiver. Why would Francis say to Bruno Forte that ‘We must go slow or we will make a real mess.’ In other words, we will deceive the people and go slowly to get them to swallow this bilge a bit at a time until it becomes the norm. Then perhaps, down the road, slowly we will include a blessing for those in sodomite relationships.
How is it possible that purposely deceiving the faithful in order to promote your modernist agenda is the work of the Holy Spirit? It is not and can never be. This is not the way of Peter. It is the way of Judas. You ramble in order to purposely confuse. How can a person whose marriage went through the Marriage Tribunal and was denied an annulment then go to a priest and be allowed to receive Holy Communion? Your words ” in some cases” will turn into “in many cases”. You attack us in order to deflect from the truth. We see.. You do not speak like a priest or act like a priest. You see Anthony, the sheep know the voice of the shepherd. Popes speak directly to their flock and they speak so that they may be understood and in continuity with the deposit of faith. . The four Cardinals are speaking clearly, humbly and respectfully. Learn from them Anthony.
There is something of the ‘Theater of the Absurd’ about all of this where Catholicism has been rendered meaningless and logical argument gives way to irrational speech. And, of course, as characters in this drama we have the sly but menacing Pope and his cranky and squeaky sidekick Fr. Stiletto (sp) Thanks for the hilarity Steve.
P.S. It should be noted that the “‘Theater of the Absurd’ does not provoke tears of despair but the laughter of liberation” as it reveals the truth. Wikipedia
The most poisonous statement, by far, is this:
“The ones who really understand Catholic doctrine are the pastors, because doctrine does not exist for the purpose of debate but for the salus animarum [‘the health of souls’] – for salvation rather than intellectual discussion.”
Notice the steps here:
1 “Intellectual discussion” — that is, applying reason to faith, also known as theology — is dismissed casually as mere “debate,” as if the goal of the intellectual discussion of doctrine (again, meaning theology) was to win some kind of a contest, rather than to express as well as possible the truth of reality
2 If “intellectual discussion” = “debate,” then “Doctrine does not exist for the purpose of [intellectual discussion].” This is not a twisting of his words to fit a preconceived narrative. He very explicitly says that doctrine exists for the purpose of the health of souls, then equates the health of souls with salvation, and contrasts salvation with intellectual discussion.
In other words, doctrine (literally meaning ‘teaching’) is contrasted with intellectual discussion.
This is utterly contrary to the Catholic understanding of theology, which is not some kind of contest in which one invents clever arguments to spore points against an opposing position, but rather the application of reason (itself God’s gift) to revelation, yielding not “debate” in the sense of pressing one’s own opinion, but a perception of truth, transcending the shifting sands of human argument.
Theology exists for the health of souls, not for the ego of the theologian, precisely because souls cannot be healthy if they are cut off from the Truth, who is also the Life and the Way.
Try telling St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, St. Basil the Great, St Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Leo the Great, St. John Damascene, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure that “intellectual discussion” is in conflict with “the health of souls,” that serious discussion of the truth of doctrine is obnoxious and useless “debate.”
These saints (along with, obviously, numerous others) devoted their entire lives to protecting the health of souls precisely by applying their reason to the articles of faith, so that they could help people to find and to hold onto the true Christ, and not a false idol of ‘Christ’ invented in their own head. Every one of those listed above were pastors, most of them bishops. Spadaro is now going to lecture them about knowing better than they do what the role of a pastor is with regard to the intellectual discussion of the truth of doctrine?
This comment, echoing almost exactly very similar statements made by Francis, is effectively claiming that one can know very well what is needed for “the health of souls” and for “salvation” while dispensing with the question of whether the things one is promising (e.g., that receiving communion in a state of continuous, ongoing sin is not a problem provided that one feels subjectively non-culpable) are in fact actually true.
The teachings of the Church are not the teachings of the Church: they are the teaching of Christ, whose words the Church continually contemplates and applies reason to. Theology (at least if it is done for real) is not empty debate, leading to more debate; it is a seeking of the truth, in order to bring that truth to the world.
EDIT: One final thought: the word ‘pastor’ literally means shepherd. A shepherd must constantly consider the question of truth, because some things are healthy for sheep, and other things are deadly. Sheep need certain food, a certain physical environment, and protection from predators in other to survive and be healthy. So, too, the human being needs certain things to be spiritually healthy, and some things are objective harmful to the human being. To ignore the question of truth is not a certain ‘merciful’ style of being a pastor; it is a failure to be a pastor at all. Leading sheep over a cliff is objectively different than leading them into a grassy field. The question of objective truth is intrinsically a pastoral question.
Notice how modernists will do anything to avoid answering a simple yes/no question since they cannot easily hide approval of sin given such clarity.
My wife made this and it seems extraordinarily fitting here!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2449ce854ef4a44d6dab23e5bfa9698a57f613db5a1fb5ad35a28668d66ed43e.jpg
Maybe answering questions in a “binary” way is the ultimate criticism!
Our Lady of Fatima warned us that we may not even have legitimate masses to attend in the future. She said we will need to rely on the rosary. Our parish priests have really exploited the year of mercy, telling us God loves us no matter what….no sin or repentance required. I think we are in end times. How many big earthquakes have there been in the last month?
What? Binary answers to abstract questions? Boy, does he have it backwards!!! What’s he been smokin’?
I think that this odd fellow is among those who don’t actually believe all “that Catholic Stuff” but for whatever reason don’t quit and instead play a wierd cat and mouse game to deny implementing a radical social agenda.
Dubium: Does Our Lord give a binary judgment to an “abstract” or complex life lived?
Responsum: Yes