I am absolutely fed up.
I am fed up with being lied to, fed up with surreptitious manipulations, fed up up with casuistic non-denials posed as denials from
the Iraqi Information Minister Fr. Lombardi, fed up with all of it. I am equally fed up with being told that I have to interpret things that are clearly un-Catholic (or even anti-Catholic) in a “charitable light” because they are said by this reckless pope.
Yesterday, I reported to you the inexcusable comments on marriage made by Pope Francis – who said that he believes that “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null.” As one might predict, the firestorm that has followed these comments is significant.
At some point since yesterday, the transcript of those remarks quietly changed. The Catholic Herald‘s Luke Coppen tweeted the following this morning:
How did ‘a great majority’ (at 1:14:30 at https://t.co/PdcUSNdTSo ) become ‘a portion’ in the official transcript? pic.twitter.com/5lRihZnc1G
— Luke Coppen (@LukeCoppen) June 17, 2016
A small fracas broke out Friday over the Vatican’s “editing” of remarks made by Pope Francis on Thursday during a convention of the Diocese of Rome – an event which was broadcast on Vatican TV, and which can easily be found on Youtube.
At one stage, the pontiff was asked a question about how to prepare young people for marriage today when they have a “fear of the definitive,” meaning an aversion to lifetime commitments of any sort.
Among other things, Francis unmistakably says that due to a contemporary “culture of the provisional,” a “great majority of our sacramental marriages are null, because [couples] say, ‘yes, for my whole life,’ but they don’t know what they’re saying.”
In the official Vatican transcript released Friday morning, that remark is changed to “a part of our sacramental marriages are null.”
Predictably, the retouching has elicited howls of outrage, with some charging the Vatican with attempting to rewrite history and others suggesting Vatican officials, or Francis himself, were cowed into making the change by blowback to the remark that unfolded on the Internet.
[A] Vatican spokesman said Friday it’s normal practice for the pope or his aides to review transcripts of his impromptu remarks, and to make small changes before releasing an official version.
In the past, the problem with this sort of thing was that it wasn’t always clear it was really the pope making the changes. Famously, an anonymous editor at l’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, admitted in a 1962 interview with Time to taking the edge off the words of Pope John XXIII’s speeches about the Second Vatican Council whenever the pontiff said something the editor worried might stir controversy.
Under Francis, however, there’s little question of anyone “censoring” the pope, and it’s equally clear that changes to his transcripts wouldn’t be made if they didn’t basically reflect his will. This is, after all, a highly “hands-on” pope.
In other words, there’s nothing objectionable about a pope correcting what he said, as long as we’re sure it’s actually the pope, or someone who truly knows his mind, making the corrections.
Here’s what the Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, said on Friday.
“When it’s a matter of topics of a certain importance, the revised text is always submitted to the pope himself. This is what happened in this case, thus the published text was expressly approved by the pope.”
Just how stupid do they think we are? If he misspoke, he needs to issue a public clarification, not a quietly falsified transcript that doesn’t even match up with the video.
In fact, I’ve caught this kind of transcript tinkering before, if not on the part of the Vatican itself, then with those agencies most invested in carrying its message. In a plane interview on his return from Greece this past April, Pope Francis responded to the Wall Street Journal’s Francis X. Rocca’s question about whether there are new concrete realities for the divorced and remarried, post-AL. In his response he said, “I can say yes. Period.” At the time we first reported this, there was no English translation of his Italian comments, so we provided our own.
But the Catholic News Agency, America Magazine, and others (including Vatican Radio, if I recall correctly) ran a different translation, one in which the pope said, “I can say yes, many. But it would be an answer that is too small.”
So I went back to my translator and asked for a complete English transcript, which I then sat for hours and painstakingly used to subtitle the video of the presser. I then had that work double-checked, and then I published the video. A video which simply cannot be refuted, because it’s absolutely clear.
Within a few days, the CNA link we provided showing the discrepancy in the translation was instead using a version that matched our own. You will note that no correction was issued, and the transcript was not notated in any way to show that a change had been made.
The bad translation — which mitigated the severity of his comments — just went down the memory hole.
This is Orwellian, it is deceptive, and it is unbecoming of the Vicar of Christ – or his surrogates.
I’ve explained the Vatican communications strategy in the past. I’ve explained how Francis uses foils like Eugenio Scalfari to float his stalking horses in the public eye with plausible deniability. But even those examples are less overt than this.
Holy Father, when you make a public mistake, please be enough of a man to apologize for it and correct it in public, like the rest of us have to do. This sneaky, dishonest manipulation is why nobody trusts the Vatican to tell the truth. And considering Who the Vatican represents, that’s simply unacceptable. For my part, I choose not to believe he approved this change until I hear him say so.
I’d like to make one final point here, on the honesty front, before I step down off my soap-box: I saw a theologian today say we shouldn’t “freak out” about what Francis is saying on marriage. I’m really not interested in being told anymore that the problem is my interpretation of what he’s saying. It’s not me, it’s him. My response to the theologian in question was as follows:
It seems we’re past clarification at this point and into correction. If a man calls green grass gray, as Chesterton would put it, there’s no honest way to try to fit a “charitable interpretation” around it until we’ve convinced ourselves that he really meant green.
Our first duty as Catholics is to the holy and inviolate teachings of Our Lord and His Church. That applies even more strongly to the Vicar of Christ, who is not the originator of what we believe, but the guarantor.
Theologians breathe rarified air that the average pewsitter does not. The layman is not surrounded by colleagues with whom he can discuss such matters at length, seeking precision and nuance. He does not have a deep grounding in what the Church teaches, and is in fact at the mercy of his catechesis, such as it is. He knows mostly what he hears from the pulpit and the news, and that may as well be gospel to him.
The idea that people shouldn’t “freak out” revolves around the axis of “stay cool, the teaching hasn’t changed.” But nobody is freaking out (if they are at all) about that. They’re upset because people they know who are struggling are going to take this and run with it, straight to the wrong conclusions. Because once again, this pope leads the faithful toward perdition rather than away from it.
And if good men who know the faith in theology departments around the world don’t start speaking up to correct this, who will? People don’t need reassurances that there’s nothing to see here; they already know that’s not true. They need reassurances on what they’re supposed to believe, and how they are to live the faith correctly in accordance with God’s will.
Fortunately, the number of theologians and philosophers who are speaking out is growing, and most of their fire is directed at the post-synodal apostolic exhortation. In fact, I think I’m going to compile a list. You’ll have to give me a little time, because it’s Father’s Day weekend, and I’ve got things going on that don’t involve being hunched over my keyboard for hours at a time, but I’ll get to it. I think it’d be handy to have a single place to find links to all the best critiques that have been made so far of Amoris Laetitia.
If you have any favorites along those lines, please feel free to leave them in the comments along with your regularly-scheduled exasperation.
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.
Steve, am I doing wrong to pray that if Pope Francis will not repent and renounce this evil, that God will supernaturally stop him? Because that’s what I did this morning on the way to work after reading about this on Rorate.
I’ve struggled with this myself. For a while, I thought, “You know, he’s really waking people up, and that’s a good thing.” But he’s a living wrecking ball, and the faith is his target.
So I commend him to God. I ask God to stop him from damaging the faith any further, however He chooses to do so. I’m not interested in prescribing a method. I just want it to end. And at the same time, I pray for his successor, because wow, if he’s a good one (and there’s no sure bet of even that) he is going to have his work cut out for him.
That is what scares me the most. Who or what is next?
There is no need to be scared. The boat is being rocked not by the winds but by the captain and crew but God is still at the helm.
We must never ever doubt that.
He’s a lose canon from the word go.
But I leave to God how to deal with him, because he would not be Pope without the Lord’s permission.
We just keep exposing the lie. Maybe the bishops who are in torpor will manage to wake up.
I should note that I also pray for Francis’ conversion. It’s a regular rosary intention of mine. I don’t have much hope, but it seems the right thing to do.
Yes, we must pray even for our enemies, and a Judas is the worst kind of enemy.
Please see my reply to Freemen.
I think this is what N Idaho Catholic was referring to:
Thank you for everything that you do for the Church.
Happy Father’s Day.
While I pray for the Pope, I pray for conclave too. Rather, to be honest, while I pray for a conclave, to be honest, I also pray for the Pope.
The conclave seems full of the kind of shepherds who don’t seem to care all that much about their sheep.
“I will strike down the shepherd…”
This is the time for leaders (from the laity) like Steve. The message is carrying.
Praying for the pope is a duty and a commandment [cf. the 4th] and it is an intention in the Eucharistic Prayer at every Mass, therefore no escaping that even if one wanted to.
My initial dilemma and struggle was if we pray and he never converted, we are just heaping red hot coals on his head – before God he will have no excuse – but realized as I have presented above what is incumbent upon us [cf. https://thewarourtime.com/2014/03/18/popefrancis-i-am-a-son-of-the-church-2/%5D.
Thank you for the excellent advice.
You are most welcome but of course the thanks rightfully belong to God, his saints, and Dr. Silva.
Penance, Penance, Penance!
“Those whom I love, I reprove and chastise. Be earnest, therefore, and repent.” – Rev. 3-19
That struggle made me wonder too, but:
1. it applies to anyone we pray for;
2. we are commanded in Scripture to pray for our superiors;
3. The Charity of Christ excludes neither us nor those we regard as enemies;
4. The Church prays for all who govern her, including Popes
5. God, Who knows what is best for every soul on earth, has provided His Church with this Pope and no other;
6. – why should there not be such difficilties ? At least this Pope has a sense of his responsibilities – which is a lot more than some of his predecessors had.
7. People talk about his faults. There are at least two possible replies: do they know, for a fact, their faults are not even more damaging than his ? Has God revealed to them the true extent of the harm done by them, and by the Pope ? One of the nice things about being Catholic is that we are *all* scum – not one of is so innocent that he can accuse others, and not accuse himself as well.
Very well said @James M. I believe yours and a number of other comments here are very useful to readers here. Mahalo!
“…we are *all* scum….” – except for Our Lady, who is the Immaculate Conception.
Let’s really and truly thank God for this, for his Immaculate Mother who he has given to us as our Mother also. I would be very discouraged if all of our race were touched by the evil one. Truly Immaculate Mother, you are the glory of Jerusalem … you are the splendid boast our people and that’s why the offenses and blasphemies against the Immaculate Heart of Mary sadden me as it saddens Our LORD, and I wish to make reparation for them [cf. First Saturday Devotion – http://www.fatimafamily.org/#!blank/cgfl%5D
You have to distinguish between God’s positive will and his permissive will. God allows evil things to happen, but he doesn’t want them to happen. He does this because he gave man free will and in doing so, ran the risk of man sinning. He then brings good out of evil. I think we shoud prefer if he didn’t have to allow the evil in the first place. His ways are certainly mysterious, but we cannot think that he positively wants any evil. Objectively the grossly unjust condemnation of Jesus on the cross was a terrible, but God used it to do the infinite good of our salvation, but that doesn’t stop it being an evil in itself, per se as the theologians say.
God allows evil things to happen,
but he doesn’t want them to happenfor good. God can even draw good from evil.
Precisely why we ought to continue pray [also a commandment and duty] and pray always because we do not know the mind of God as regards Pope Francis we only know God has allowed him to be there for some good reason.
God is truth; untruth comes from elsewhere…
It’s possibly even more outrageous that Crux and the like are saying, “Yeah, sure the pope can change transcripts to cover up what he really said… does it all the time.. nothing to see here.” This kind of shenanigan is normal in Italy and has been standard procedure at the Vatican forever. We really can’t expect anything from these people. But someone like John Allen is supposed to know better.
Nothing to see here? Riiiight. Everything to see here.
Thank you for your service to the Church.
Maybe the Muslims will tear down the Leonine walls and wipe them all out so we can start over again.
I don’t pray for this , but I think about the possibility.
There is a puppet master behind the Muslims [and the multiculturalism in full swing destroying the Western world], and that’s their aim, to wipe out Christianity [which they state in their only mortal enemy] to the last man [they have telegraphed this, as is their custom, in the most recent Star Wars movie – https://thewarourtime.com/2015/12/20/the-war-decodes-star-wars-the-force-awakens/%5D.
Then there is this:
I see this positively, and not negatively, I see it as Russia coming to the aid of the Church.
“Positively” out of the frying pan, and into the fire.
I hope you have been paying attention to Russia’s intervention in Syria.
Does not negate Russia being God’s chosen instrument to chastise the world. We are in the frying pan by our own doing, and we will go to the fire because of our own doing.
cf. RORATE CÆLI: Editorial: WE DESERVE FRANCIS [http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/06/we-deserve-francis.html]
Russia is looking good now in several ways, but if she were actually good there would be no need for her place at the unmet-consecrational centre of the Message of Fatima.
Appearances are deceiving, and things change.
There will come a time very soon when Russia will again take up her now-lapsed position as the prime agent of satan to not only chastise the world, but to destroy the Church (not purify– destroy).
I don’t think that can be viewed positively.
unmet-consecrational centre of the Message of Fatima
Where we disagree cf. Fatima Consecration – Chronology [https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/FatimaConsecration.htm] and Fátima – 1984 Consecration [https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/Fatima1984.htm]
This is my belief and guesstimate: that upcoming are the two battles of the end in Revelation. According to Navarre Bible note, they must coincide in time. My take is that one battle is in Europe where the False Prophet is [to me this is Pope Francis] and where the head of the Beast is [see my blog – https://thewarourtime.com/2016/01/29/the-apocalyptic-beasts/%5D. Makes sense to me as this is where they are and therefore where they will be captured and “thrown into hell”; and the second is in the Middle East where Gentile armies will be gathered for battle [Armageddon Part II]. It appears to me Russia plays a significant and positive role in both of these battle as Russia will be the ones leading the opposition to the Beast’s armies [one appears to me to be NATO].
To think that the Consecration of Russia requested by Our Lady of Fatima has already been done (a vatican-kosher position, to be sure) is a very great obstacle to doing that crucial consecration (which has not been done).
Better to follow http://www.fatima.org/ in this regard.
BUT, we’re all going to see the real position for ourselves soon enough, are we not?
BUT, we’re all going to see the real position for ourselves soon enough, are we not? There we agree.
PS On Private Revelation [Catholic Encyclopedia > R > Private Revelations – http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13005a.htm%5D I always go with the Church. She suppresses Divine Mercy and it is a devotion that I cannot adopt. She lifts the suppression, and I know that there is nothing in it that is contrary to faith or good morals, and that they I may adopt the devotion with profit and without danger. I go with the Church as regards Fatima.
OK, but EWTN is not the Church.
Neither is Cardinal Sodano.
No argument from me there.
The issue is who is it that has presented the Church’s position. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine Faith > The Message of Fatima [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html]. Find on the page the word “consecration”.
But if the Consecration of Russia requested by Our Lady of Fatima has been properly performed by the Pope and all the Bishops of the world (as some say), then where is the peace all over the world promised as the fruit of the consecration?:
“… To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”
Fatima.is NOT a private revelation. Fatima is a public prophetic revelation. Even PJPII said that the Message of Fatima imposes an obligation on the Church. Private revelation does not.
Also, here are the exact words of Our Lady from June 13, 1929:
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 hit by this means.
In the 1950s, She said to Sister Lucia:
Make it known to the Holy Father that I am still awaiting the Consecration of Russia. Without the Consecration, Russia will not be able to convert, nor will the world have peace.
Here’s a snapshot of the Popes in re to the request of Our Lady:
Pius XI did nothing.
1942 – Pius XII consecrated the WORLD to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
1952 – Pius XII consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary BUT WITHOUT ALL THE BISHOPS.
1960 – John XXIII disobeyed Our Lady of Fatima by NOT revealing the Third Secret of Fatima.
1964 – Pope Paul VI declares Mary as Mother of the Church .
1967 – Pope Paul VI goes to Fatima . Sister Lucia pleads with him; he tells her to be obedient to her Bishop .
1981- PJPII is almost assassinated in St. Peter’s square.
1982 & 1984 – Pope John Paul II consecrates the WORLD to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. March 25, 1984 – “Enlighten especially the peoples from whom You *** are awaiting*** our consecration and confiding.
1990 – Pope John Paul II consecrates the WORLD (and other groups BUT NOT Russia ) to Our Lady.
2013 – Pope Francis is supposed to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Instead, a short, vague prayer to Our Lady.
That’s what the Popes have done in a nutshell.
Please check out http://www.fatima.org as Harold suggested.
Fatima is NOT a private revelation. Says you not the Church
Actually +Fr. Nicholas Gruner (eternal memory!) wrote about that extensively.
Also, perhaps you missed what I said at the beginning. Pope John Paul II said that the Message of Fatima imposes an obligation on the Church. If the Message of Fatima was a mere private revelation, it wouldn’t impose an obligation on the Church.
Please check out http://www.fatima.org. Please?
I believe you have been caught up by the word game that some play. If I recall correctly, I read what you have written on the Remnant. Definitions are important. When I say Fatima is a private revelation [cf. Catholic Encyclopedia > R > Private Revelations – http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13005a.htm%5D I am not the one who has qualified it as ‘mere’ private revelation. I am expressing a distinction that the Church herself makes. From the link above:
Clearly from this understanding Fatima was not deposited with Jesus Christ and the Apostles and that is why it is termed “Private Revelation”.
I am looking at this: Giovanni Paolo II Omelie 1982 [http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/homilies/1982/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19820513_fatima.html] and this: Mary’s Message of Love > Pope St. John Paul II > Homily, Mass of Our Lady of Fátima, Fátima, Portugal, 13 May 1982 [http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP820513.HTM] and I do not see this: Pope John Paul II says: The Message of Fatima Imposes An Obligation On The Church [http://fatima.org/crusader/cr18/cr18pgS11.asp], which I believe it does as the great and saintly pope says in part in his homily:
I would say you and we all would do well to stick with the Church rather than those who manipulate words [e.g. the employ of “mere private revelation’] for their own end.
PS I have taken the time to provide you with this detailed response because of the positive interaction you and I had at the Remnant, a place I would not advise any who care about their Faith to visit.
The second part of the definition actually refers to “particular or private revelations”, a fact which the catechism seems to ignore (only referring to “private” revelation). “Particular” does not necessarily mean the same thing as “private”, at least as far as these two words are commonly defined.
Perhaps then it would help to put a finer point of distinction on it by calling the Fatima prophecy a ‘particular’, rather than ‘private’, revelation– thus emphasizing its application to a particular period of world history.
Cf. CCC 67 linked above.
Yes, the Catechism does make reference to the application of “private” revelations to “a certain period of history”. Interestingly, it refers to them as ‘so-called “private”‘ revelations, which suggests either that the authors are acknowledging that some “private” revelations can be very ‘public’ in their import, or that the authors had some other (better?) word in mind to characterize “private” revelations.
The catechetical authors do not however repeat the broader optional characterization “particular or private” found in the Catholic Encyclopedia, although ‘particular’ and ‘private’ do not have exactly the same meanings (hence enabling some distinction).
Some people find the word “private” in this context to be at least connotatively problematic, because some persons (even some persons in the Vatican) thereby imply that since the considered (sometimes Church-approved) revelation is only or merely a “private” revelation, therefore it does not apply to ‘us’ or does not need to be taken very seriously.
In fairness, though, that goes against the spirit of what the Catechism is saying.
It is “particular or private” occurring throughout the age vs. “universal revelations”, that ended with the preaching of the Apostles and must be believed by all. That’s the distinction that’s borne out by both the CCC and the Catholic Encyclopedia. From this article PRIVATE AND PUBLIC REVELATION [https://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/PRIPUB.TXT] “Public Revelation” = “universal revelations”. It is a grievous error to want to want to term a “private revelation” a “public revelation” and it is unbecoming of one who claims to hold the true faith to want to engage in what I termed “word games” that can confuse and therefore endanger souls.
That is good, although I did not state that the Fatima revelation was in the universal category, which it is not.
But I am curious as to why the catechetical authors saw fit to call the other category “so-called ‘private’ ” revelation. Why not just label it– why qualify with “so-called”?
As far as the edification and salvation of souls is concerned, it is for these reasons that the Mother of God came (was sent) to Fatima for our spiritual welfare, engendering apparitions supported by the miracle of the sun, and judged by Bishop da Silva of Fatima as “worthy of belief”. In July, after revealing the vision of hell, she declared to Lucia: “You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved…” It is for such reasons that I believe that disbelief in the messages of Fatima– although permitted for Catholics– is less than helpful for the salvation of souls.
1) Why not just label it– why qualify with “so-called” I believe understand how you take that characterization. I don’t share it because I understand it together with the rest of the material I have provided here. That would be a question which perhaps you can pose to the CDF for clarification. Again, I understand but do not share your concern.
2) that disbelief in the messages of Fatima – Once a private revelation all the way up to the Vatican has been declared “not contrary to faith or morals” or more strongly “worthy of belief” it is not that a catholic now has a choice to “believe” or “not to believe” but that such revelation now is “without danger [to faith or morals] and “can be profitable to the faithful” but the Church “does not impose an obligation that they must now be believed” i.e. for example as regards Fatima, the message of Fatima is not added to the Catechism of Christian Doctrine. The one who chooses to disbelieve after such Church declaration manifests something not right with his faith.
Thankyou as well for your fine-grained and faithful considerations.
I have very much appreciated our very respectful exchange. Mahalo! God bless you @Harold and yours, and his work at your hands. We have much to do.
I think it is the opposite. I think it is talking about Communism since Our Lady asked that Russia be consecrated.
So I think this prophecy means that the errors of communism will sweep Europe and will even take over the Vatican.
Is that not what we are seeing now?
Same puppet master behind the current instigation of the Muslims and communism and ultimately they in turn have been lied to by the prince of this world.
Russia is no longer communist and the Union of Soviet Republics disintegrated. You: ‘talking about Communism since Our Lady asked that Russia be consecrated. You must therefore conclude that it appears the consecration was done.
Whether Russia was consecrated or not, the delay has caused the errors of Russia to be spread. Before the collapse of Russia, she had already marketed her devilish ideology to all parts of the world particularly in Europe.
So the text you cited ( “Russia will march upon all the nations of Europe, particularly Italy, and will raise her flag over the dome of St. Peter’s.” -) refers not to Russia (orthodox faithful) coming to the aid, but Russia (Marxist atheism) insinuating her doctrines into the high echelons of the Church.
Liberation Theology comes to mind and the Pope is sympathetic to LT. Then there is also the fact that the left has evolved into environmentalism after the fall of Russia and this worldview is at the heart of Laudato Si.
So Russian error creeping into the Vatican is exactly what we are witnessing now. And this is the consequence of the failure of the Popes before to consecrate Russia. It is a case of too little too late.
If you look at the attempts at consecration, there was none that was done with the specific wording of concentrating Russia alone. There was a consecration of the world, and then there was a consecration of the world and the Russian people. I cannot understand why the Popes did not just consecrate Russia (plain and simple) as Our Lady requested?
The ills of the world that we see now all spring from the atheism that came hand in glove with communism. So while the visible communism (structure) is gone, its tentaticles (more insidious and thus harder to fight) remain.
the delay of the consecration … no argument from me there.
No they won’t. He will gladly let them in.
The father of lies is alive and well with Francis and his cronies. I am convinced it will take some serious Divine Intervention to stop this guy, but God will allow it for a time as punishment for apostasy. Those who can see will notice how *FEW* sheep there really are. To paraphrase a famous saint, the world woke up and found itself goat.
More and more Catholic’s are finally getting privy to this man, whoever he is….
In the past, the Vatican was a holy place and the last couple of year’s now, has turned into a circus..!!
Well said Steve. Where are those Bishop’s who crave more power that is being dangled in front of them by the Vicar?
If you have any favorites along those lines, please feel free to leave them in the comments along with your regularly-scheduled exasperation.
I realize that the topic is extremely serious, but there are times when the only thing one can do is laugh!
“Regularly-scheduled exasperation.” Too funny.
Friday afternoon exasperation: I’m exasperated
I for one am for precision and accuracy and as regards the accuracy of these transcripts, @skojec and 1P5 have done very well and done us a great service. Mahalo! Amazing that CNA changed their transcript to match 1P5’s.
As regards what others are saying or doing in the advent of AL Cf. this post of mine: Pope Francis & The Synod on the Family 2015 STAND CONDEMNED! [https://thewarourtime.com/2016/04/15/pope-francis-synod-on-the-family-2015-stand-condemned/]
Resorting to lies defines the father we really love. Case closed.
I agree with much of this article.
The only thing I see as problematic, is that this kind of situation is catalyzed by the peculiar and unprecedented situation we are in, which is the quantity of media.
Let’s suppose that the Holy Father is without bad intentions, but that he is a pure product of post-Vatican II confusion/chaos. He is simply not thinking straight, because… maybe he is not so intelligent, and going to seminary did not help him to think properly.
Modernism/liberalism was already rampant in many seminaries, as early as early 20th century. Dichotomy between love and truth is typical of modernism, … and Pope Francis, and Cardinal Kasper. Now, having this dichotomy, try for a minute to understand sacramental marriage. Impossible ! So, … poor Kasper and poor Pope Francis, they simply are trying to figure something out, which is impossible to figure out, given the modernist premices that they hold for true.
… So, given all this, in the hypothetical case in which Pope Francis would not be having any bad intentions, and in our peculiar historical context where medias go around the world within minutes, what would be a wise thing to do?
I would suggest that somebody around the His Holiness should strongly advise him to simply speak less.
And for us catholics? I honestly think that this brother got some pearls of wisdom here:
I can’t really go there with the poorly formed/ignorant theory. Whether or not he was poorly formed, he has obviously chosen a belief system that is often inimical to the Catholic Church. He is aware of what the Church teaches and he chooses differently–and he lets the world know it in no uncertain terms. It is the sycophants, the apologists, and frankly, the terrified among us who cannot face the truth and who seek to make the Church fit whatever heretical thing he says. It is truly the Church of Francis.
My mind just keeps going back to the moment Pope Francis stepped out on the balcony and my soul was filled with dread. I had never seen or heard of Jorge Bergoglio before so I had no opinion one way or another on the new pope. But I saw something in his expression that was not right. A flicker of triumphalism is the only way I can explain it. All that has come out about his election speaks to a plan in place and executed. To deny such things at this point is, to me, a subtle form of fleeing the Lord when he was arrested in the garden.
You should generate another petition, that’ll show em”
This is the Urgent Appeal to Pope Francis:
If you agree, please sign it and share it with others.
One can know through both Faith and reason that to condone and promote same-sex “marriage”, is to deny the Sacramental essence of marriage. The fact is, there are a multitude of Baptized Catholics who condone and promote same-sex “marriage”, thus denying the Sacramental nature of marriage, which would include their own, if they are existing in relationship as husband and wife.
Those, like Francis, who are Baptized Catholic, who promote and condone “irregular” sexual relationships often use the argument that because some marriages exist that deny the Sacramental essence of marriage, this justifies the elevation of irregular sexual relationships to the status of marriage.
Valid marriages can be sacramental or not.
It is very disturbing if the Vatican is retouching Pope Francis’ comments which seems to the case here. Caught with their hand in the cookie bowl. Because if it’s true what the Pope said, all those marriages are invalid in the eyes of God. What a disaster that will be.
No, Francis only wants to give the impression that the marriages are invalid so that adultery can be supported. How many with itching ears are glad to hear it.
I read it more as a get out of marriage free card, an excuse so that people can get an annulment easily and quickly. He’s giving people the answer for people to claim a marriage is not valid. This is blatant blasphemy in which the pope thinks he is above God and can change things contrary to Law.
HE SAID MAYORITY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IcbhHS-onA
He did say it. I read and translate and understand Italian – although I don’t speak it, since there is a difference between a passive (understanding) and active (speaking) knowledge of a language. The Vatican spin and Francis-clean-up-in-aisle-7 machine is working overtime on this one, but it’s too late.
Yes, absolutely fed up. The Pope is either wicked, profoundly stupid, or crazy, or some combination of these. He needs to repent and resign.
Right and u are some god to say so
Just using logic, man. You should try it.
Some things are plain.
Wicked. There is a craftiness to everything he does. It is all meticulously planned and subtle and now booom, subtlety is abandoned.
Someone said to let him be as for sure there will be enough rope.
Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us.
“In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” – Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciapi
None of this stuff since Francis took the Chair of Peter surprises me. I had a problem with him from the first time I saw him step onto the balcony at the Vatican. I got a very ominous feeling come over me and hasn’t left me since…..
My first impression was ominous as well, but I decided of course to give him a chance, chalking up my first ‘gut’ reaction to maybe something I expected that wasn’t apparent. of course it went downhill from there.
It was the same for me. As soon as I heard that he was a Jesuit, I knew we were in for trouble. The order should have been suppressed 60 years ago.
I am just learning about the troublesome nature of this order. I wonder where they went wrong because they were founded by a saint.
Corruption will find a home anywhere. The problem is that nobody, including my beloved St. Pope JPII, took corrective action. Additionally, JPII and/or B16 should have ruthlessly cleaned house of the hetrodox. They did not and now we have this mess. Lies are the work of the father of lies, satan, and half truths are lies. Unfortunately, Pope Francis promulgates half of the truth mixed with confusion. He must go.
I have much to be sad about JPII, but given the current man, and what little we know of the content of the Third Secret, I now look upon the long reign of JPII in a new light. Yes Assisi and many other things were scandals, but I think JPII held on as long as he could to buy us time, because he knew what was coming. How appropriate he elevated St Faustina to the altars (that devotion strikes me as God’s last chance for a poor sinner like me). JPII wasn’t given the grace to reform the Church ( because it had been steadily withdrawn since 1960) so he had to oversee the decline. Francis it seems will initiate the final collapse of the visible institution (not to be confused with the Mystical Body which is immortal) until Our Lady restores things, as she promised.
If JPII knew what was coming & didn’t act, he is as culpable as the rest of the Modernists inside the CC. So is Pope Emeritus Benedict. In fact, all popes going back the last century who prophesied about this heresy but did nothing to eradicate it at the roots are also complicit. They collectively have brought ruination to the Catholic faith.
Sadly the punishment became compulsory once the orders of Our Lady were ignored (failue to consecrate Russia and release the FULL 3rd Secret). Now we need to pay.
According to the Church the consecration was done [even though late] and the full secret has been revealed. I go where the Church goes especially as regards private revelations.
I genuinely would like to know what “Church” source you are citing regarding the consecration being done. If you are referring to the one by JPII in the 1980s this did not have a specific mention of Russia as she commanded. No Pope of the 20th or 21st century (even my dear holy Pius XII) could pull it off for whatever reason. Fr Gruner’s site http://www.fatima.org has excellent accurate information regarding the consecration and 3rd secret. Our Lord did warn that the popes (“my ministers” as he calls them) that they will follow the king of France into misfortune if they did not comply. We have 1 year left until the 100th anniversary of Fatima. For my own part I try to pray my Rosary every day now for my sins. I gusss I need to thank Francis for that at least – scaring me into action.
Start here: Congregation for the Doctrine Faith > The Message of Fatima [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html]. Find on the page the word “consecration”.
Then proceed here:
1)Fatima Consecration – Chronology [https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/FatimaConsecration.htm] &
2) Fátima – 1984 Consecration [https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/Fatima1984.htm] &
3) 25 March 1984. Pope St. John Paul II in Union with All the Bishops of the World, Consecration of all Individuals and Peoples of the World to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. [https://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/consecra.htm#JP2c]
End here with a presentation of arguments from both sides:
Has Russia Been Consecrated by the Pope? Arguments from both sides by Dr Taylor Marshall [http://taylormarshall.com/2013/10/has-russia-been-consecrated-by-the-pope.html]
Just like it is said Noah’s Ark saved Noah and his family 100 years after God’s warning and command, it appears it is by Mary, who is the New Ark of the Covenant, that those who will be saved will be saved. We all will do well by daily reciting the Holy Rosary and by devotions like wearing the Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. Cf. Why the Catholic Church is true: the Books of Maccabees [https://thewarourtime.com/2014/03/20/why-the-catholic-church-is-true-the-books-of-maccabees/]
Very insightful. Pope St. John Paul II the Great and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI could only do so much. It is good to remember that it is up to the LORD as to when he will grant victory to his Church.
Read “Jesuits” by Fr. Malachi Martin S.J.
I have the book, and it’s almost like reading the speeches of PF. I’m not kidding. If you read the book, it seems like everything he says or does came out of the book. It’s very disconcerting (to say the least).
By the way, I strongly suggest that everyone get The Keys of This Blood by Malachi Martin. This book really helped me understand the crisis in the Church.
The Judas Complex chapter is alone worth the price of the book.
Fr. Malachi Martin S.J. He himself is also surrounded by controversy, isn’t he?
I have read 4 or 5 of his books. He comes across as an earnest disciple who laments the dire consequences to the Church by the leap into Modernism. In “Jesuits” he rakes the heretics over the coals and highlights the long term disobedience of that order to a succession of Popes. “Hostage to the Devil” is the best thing ever written on possession. His friends say the Jesuits attacked him with calumnies because he slaughtered their sacred cows as de Chardin & etc. “Jesuits” is a long hard read but PF will not be a mystery to you when you finish it.
With my understanding of the conspiracy, this is believable.
I think that revelation about the Black Mas is in Keys of This Blood.
Ok Thanks. I have not read Windswept House but did read about the Black Mass so maybe he covered it more than once?
I heard a variation on this enthronement ceremony, in that Lucifer was invited to take hold of the vatican no later than 50 years after this event. 1963+50=2013 – significant given Benedict’s “resignation” and being just 7 years short of the Fatima anniversary.
Pope Francis is the evidence that Lucifer reigns at the Vatican. The warnings of Malachi Martin are being fulfilled before us, almost 20 years after his death. His interviews form the 1990’s spell out exactly what is happening right now and how we got here.
In the past 50 years, no order was left unscathed. Thomas Merton was a Cistercian, Fox and Keating are Dominicans, Rohr is Franciscan and heresy proliferates in the SDBs, SVDs, SSS and every other order.
It is not to say that there are faithful priests in these orders but they are now few and far between.
I believe the Jesuits were corrupted much earlier. The founder/organizer of Illuminati Adam Weishaupt was a Jesuit [?] or a Jesuit trained professor of canon law. The Illuminati are masters of infiltration and very quickly infiltrated even other secret societies like freemasonry. Perhaps they even the infiltrated the Jesuits back then. I have read somewhere that he boasted that one of their own would one day sit on the papal chair.
It is a mistake to think the problems in the Church began c.50 years ago in the 1960s. That is when they reached their fruition. No less authority than Card. Burke has said [paraphrasing] the current Church crisis has its roots in the enlightenment.
Except for Mitch Pacwa!
I felt the same way. At the time I wasn’t sure what the feeling was. I knew there was something different about this man but I wasn’t sure if it was good or bad. I now know that the feeling was what you describe here: ominous. This man, if he is not the anti-Christ, is surely an anti-Pope and a precursor to the evil one.
I didn’t get to watch it live. I watched the replay of the announcement. When he came out to the loggia, I thought he looked kind of grumpy, not smiling; I didn’t like how he looked. I know it sounds shallow.
For me not so much grumpy but pensive, as though he was examining the faithful with a bewildered but searching stare.
He must have been thinking: Let me see, how do I manipulate this masses?
It was just odd for sure. Something was out of place. Something amiss.
Why the heck didn’t you tell us at the time??!!
Doomsdae: This “pope” was the first pope who, when appearing on the balcony of St. Peter’s, NEVER blessed the people below. He ASKED for their blessing, i.e. “pray for me”, and never offered a papal blessing. It was weird and indeed, ominous!
Indeed. Don’t forget the last interview of Fr Malachi Martin (who read the Third Secret) on the Art Bell show.
A caller from Australia related this story to Art Bell:
“I had a Jesuit priest tell me more of the Third Secret of Fatima years ago in Perth. He said among other things, the last Pope would be under the control of satan. Pope John fainted, thinking it might me him. We were interrupted before I could hear the rest.”
Art Bell – “Any comment on that?”
Fr Martin – “Yes. Ah. It sounds as if, they were reading, or being told, the text of the Third Secret”.
Art Bell – “Oh my!”
Actually, the link I provided above to The Fatima Crusader:
has the account of Malachy Martin and the Art Bell Show. It’s close to what you’ve summarized but unfolded a bit differently. Martin was the Secretary for Augustin Cardinal Bea, who was (reputedly) privy to The Third Secret and was Malachy Martin’s source.
Then Cardinal Ratzinger, in 1988, as Prefect of the CDF, approved the apparitions at Akita in Japan in 1973 and he stated that they are a sequel to Fatima. Check it out in Google.
The good Lord knew the shenanigans and confusion that would arise from the Fatima messages as would be handled by the Church, so He ensured our safe passage through the 20th century through our Lady of Good Success, 400 years before our time, clear as a bell for those who will listen, and fully, unequivocally approved by the bishops.
AND, true to modern times, never spoken of…….all my catholic learning is now done through scriptures, books and Catholic online news and blogs.
This is creating huge problems on the ground. I have a friend who is really worried about a lot of people in connection with this, and she is feeling confused herself. This is having a terrible effect on Christ’s little ones, who incidentally, don’t need to be constantly scolded and told to shut up.
I’m more than upset about this and I thank you for this post. A lot of the critiques I have read have been in Spanish from Spanish (in Spain) websites. Like any good Argentinian, Francis considers himself Italian and hates the Spanish bishops and clergy, many of whom are very orthodox ( although his appointments are changing that).
I don’t know what we’re going to do. The fact that they changed the statement in the Spanish version and eliminated it in the English version shows you where the opposition is coming from. But what to do?
People throughout the world are in a state of shock and despair over this.
Trust in the Lord. This is His Church. You belong to His Church. You are His child.
Now let’s get to work and expose the lies and tell all we know that he lies.
I all I can say to this post is AMEN!
Steve: Not necessarily from theologians and philosophers but these helped me understand the mess of AL Chapter 8:
Well – you get the picture.
Happy Father’s Day Steve. May God continue to bless you abundantly. I am blessed to be spending the summer with my 88 year old father who is suffering tremendously from Parkinson’s Disease. All my children and grandchildren will join us here on the farm in July. Praise God.
Try http://www.remnantnewspaper.com and http://www.fatima.org.
Truth will out, always. With AL we knew it was Pope Francis all along, Kasper was just a useful
fooltool telling the truth about Pope Francis. This just reinforces it.
This is almost enough to make me become anti-clerical. I wonder if the laity have the right to discuss, you know, marriage and stuff.
Meh – a majority, some, a few, a lot….I guess its just words, right?
“But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil. “
They changed it [the transcript]. That’s kinda reassuring because I understand that Satan hates being laughed at … and I laughed out loud.
There was a Monty Python skit known as Dead Parrot.
Increasingly, on at least two levels, it seems like this guy is the shopkeeper.
Yes, I have a favorite, and I’m going to paraphrase it. It came from the blog “Eccles”? It was a headline that more or less said “Pope Says Most Catholics are Bastards”.
One must laugh or one would surely cry.
Personally, I believe this Francis is the anti-pope. That’s right, I said it..!
I wonder if AL isn’t be overwhelmed by the astounding list of recent statements that belong to a confused seminarian and not a Pope. Are priests that don’t baptize fatherless children “animals?” especially when priests do – and have always done – exactly that every day. What priest doesn’t? I guess at least they’re not animals. In the same talk Francis says that the Church is like a loving mother who teaches her children what is right but nurtures them when they stray. Hasn’t Mother Church been doing that for 2,000 years or so, and isn’t the sacrament of confession there to achieve exactly that end. Then Francis says the Church must not “stick its nose” into the moral lives of people. But wouldn’t a good mother do exactly that – stick her nose into the lives of her children to help them develop into good adults and good Christians? Isn’t that what faith formation is for? And now we find out most Catholic marriages null because the couples don’t understand what they’re doing. Amazing really. All of this within 48 hours.
The Pope has told us that Trump isn’t a Christian. There are lots of reasons not to like Trump – identifying the faith inside his heart isn’t one of them. Are humans able to do such things to other humans, even if they’re popes? Ironically Francis is beginning to sound like Trump. I’m sure even his small army of spin doctors who have been working overtime “clarifying” strange remarks must be getting nervous every time Francis gets near a microphone or a camera.
The man has a genius for gesture. But it takes more than washing feet to lead the Church especially if one is leaving the faithful in a state of confusion that I fear is turning to contempt and is leaving real world Church teaching in a state of semi ruin.
still whining eh Steve but Congrats U have just declared to the world that you are holier than the Pope….:)
That is absurd. Your spite (a demonic emotion) seems in high gear.
There are Popes, and there are ‘popes’.
Heretical utterances aside, is Francis actually a Pope?
1. Was Benedict pressured by “the wolves” to ‘resign’?
(If his ‘resignation’ was involuntary, then he is still the Pope.)
2. Was Francis elected with the assistance of a covertly organized campaign, in contravention of the rules for papal conclaves promulgated by Pope John Paul II?
(If, as there is evidence, he was so benefitted, then he and his cronies are automatically excommunicated.)
Keep mocking the Holy Spirit…
How is asking pertinent questions “mocking the Holy Spirit”? Is stupidity a symptom of the Holy Spirit?
There are certainly grounds for pertinent questions: e.g.
“Swiss bishops confirm existence of Cardinal Danneels’ ‘mafia’ against Benedict XVI”
You have ignorantly insulted any Catholic who has been legitimately moved to question Francis’ position, whether partly or fully.
ooo LifeSiteNews another FAKE Catholic site…just like you…
The truth hurts sometimes, I guess.
But if you think that LifeSiteNews is “another FAKE Catholic site”, then your obtusely undiscerning self is in a minutely diminutive minority.
If LifeSiteNews is fake, then who would not be fake? You?
Please check out True or False Pope? A Refutation of Sedevacantism and Other Errors by John o and Robert Siscoe at http://www.trueorfalsepope.com. It’s well researched and extensively footnoted. Let me know how things work out.
Thankyou, Margaret. I will take a look at it.
However, the position that my two questions may suggest is not sedevacantist, and I do not believe in sedevacantism.
Notice that I referred to both Benedict XVI and John Paul II as genuine Popes. And I implied that if Francis (due to having violated, or benefitted from the violation of, the papal election laws promulgated by Pope John Paul II) is not actually a genuine Pope, then Benedict XVI– if he acquiesced to resign under any degree of pressure– remains the Pope.
I don’t agree with sedevacantism either, but I got the book because there are some people who are sedevacantist unfortunately.
Also, the book addresses some of the points you mentioned in your post.
This book has been very helpful for me and I hope that it helps you too.
Thankyou, Margaret. I will take a look at it.
However, the position suggested by my two questions is not sedevacantist, and I do not believe in sedevacantism.
Notice that I referred to both Benedict XVI and John Paul II as genuine Popes.
And I implied that if Francis (due to having violated, or benefitted from the violation of, the papal election laws promulgated by Pope John Paul II) is not actually the current Pope, then Benedict– if he acquiesced to resign under any degree of pressure– remains as the genuine Pope.
The Holy Spirit is NOT absolutely the only dynamic in choosing a Pope. This has been confirmed by previous Popes. Cardinals are MEN and can for various reasons ignore the inspirations of the Holy Spirit. Sorry, but it’s not by any means a ‘done deal’.
You really do have a talent for misstating and misrepresenting what others have said, don’t you? Jesuit studies? Is that the problem?
I disagree with your opinion, there are many pew sitters that have had enough of being treated like nodding donkeys, few are speaking up but the ones speaking up are truthful and love their faith.
For the Pope To suggest that the great majority of marriages are invalid can only indicate that the meetings that many couples have before getting married are not explaining the sacrament correctly. Our priest explained everything very clearly and through free will we were married.
Well that is why he said Most marriages are invalid and NOT all…
So therefore Ben he is attacking the same people that would like communion for all.
Now, did he say “most marriages” as you assert or did he say “part” as the official transcription would have it? You can’t have it both ways.
Exactly! I really don’t understand the ‘why’ in ‘most people don’t understand what they are doing?’ Just the marriage vows themselves says it ALL! …………”To have and to hold,
from this day forward, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health until DEATH DO US PART!” Wondering why this isn’t crystal clear???
Your reply takes the cake for distorting what Steve said in the article. Oh, and why the telegraph language format? Too much time on Twitter?
You’re absolutely right, Steve. It’s not us who have a problem. It IS him. It’s this pope who has a problem, or as someone said, “This pope IS the problem.”
I think the change from “maggioranza” to “parte” can reasonably be considered a revision of the HF’s original remark, without being a falsification, or intended as one.
The later version is not in itself a contradiction of the spoken remark. It can be treated as clarifying it; as being what the HF intended to say, even if what he said was – as to the words – something different. The spoken words may have been imprudent and, in practice, not helpful, but were they are inaccurate ? Quite possibly they were all too accurate.
I thought the article by Fr. Z., and the discussion following it, was most helpful.
Anything that weakens our communion with the Pope – such as his (perceived or real) weaknesses, or our attitudes to them – is not a good thing. I don’t think that is in any way an unusual position for a Catholic.
I don’t find Pope Francis a problem – for me the problem Pope was JP2. After his pontificate, and its continuation by B16, the things that upset some Catholics about Pope Francis are (for me at least) a mere nothing. If can tolerate the indifferentism and scandalous utterances of JP2, and some of the stuff from Rome in his time, what the current HF says and does on occasion has no power to upset. All he is doing is continue what his predecessors from Paul VI onward have done. He at least tries to be guided by the Gospel, which is why he emphasises the poor so much. He seems to be emphasising St Luke’s understanding of Christ,
Unfortunately, Fr. Z., seemed to be playing PR. in reference to his discussion. Weak.
Your discussion regarding the past two popes leaves me speechless.
I will leave it at that.
Well stated Steve!
I have already been told that ” I do believe and trust God”, because of my great concerns regarding what has sprung from the lips of Pope Francis. As though righteous criticism of Francis, renders me ” less than Catholic”, ” less faithful to the Church.”
Hogwash! Manipulations, manipulations, manipulations.
I would say to those who refuse to call out heresy, and I think we can call the pope’s statements on Matrimony heresy, along with his condoning and giving a wink to cohabitation a heresy;
whose faith is it that is really in jeopardy here?
I trust no one from Rome, at this moment.
Dear Transcriptgaters: You forgot to delete the heresy. https://nonvenipacem.com/2016/06/18/dear-transcriptgaters-you-forgot-to-delete-the-heresy/
Time for the pope to resign.
Any bishop who fears for his own salvation is compelled to encourage the pope to resign.
He is also compelled to point out where the pope is non-authoritative and correct him for the benefit of his flock.
I’m not naive believing that he made mistake. He’s always doing it intentionally with his evil purposes that to undermine until the Catholic Church get destroyed. Want to get rid of him? Please join and support Veri Catholici of bishop Schneider. So far he has declared war on Jesus Christ and His Church by twisting, distorting, blaspheming, and opposing directly whatever Jesus’ teachings are. So don’t be fool and ignore what he said. St. Michael, the Archangel defend us from this evil and his minions.
The problem with PF is he is a dimwit who believes he is intelligent. Satan is very crafty at using our conceits against us. “By their fruits you will know them.”, we were warned. The Cardinals were remiss in not taking a good hard look at Buenos Aires. So now we have an intemperate autocrat as the tip of the spear for the heretics.
To play the devils advocate here I would like to share two thoughts: First of all if the point of the Church is to communicate the Gosepl, then “charitably” interpreting comments may be one strategy of communicating the Truth of Jesus Christ to people without getting tangled up in the dicey matter of correcting your father. Sure we have a moral duty correct even our superiors who are in error, but directly. Morally its very dangerous to correct him publically because you may cause scandal by communicating disrespect for one, who sacramentally is St. Peter (with all Simon’s foot in mouth gaffes, mistakes, and sins), who is in the Image of Christ the Head, and ultimately serves as an Icon of the Father in Heaven. I believe the Holy Spirit is using Francis to remind us not to make an idol of the Pope and to remember the falleness of all the member of the Church so that when we experience persecutions in the near future we will not be led astray by shepherds who pasture themselves. Gentily we need to teach this without succuming to anger and the desire to wrathfully and disrespectfuly lash out at our Father. It is a difficult part of love, one that I frequently pray and talk about with biological children who have been abused by their father or mother.
Secondly, to defend what the Pope actually said, as a priest who actually prepares people, though fewer and fewer, I can attest to the fact that I often need to turn people away because they do not have the intention of validly entering into marriage. We are in the midst of a full scale apostasy, at least in the West, and many of the marriages celebrated in the past 50 years have been culturally Catholic marriages contracted between people who are only historically “Catholic”. I ask tough questions that most priests don’t, and I try to trick them, because people have no qualms about lying to the priest, telling him what they think he wants to hear; and honestly many priests are lazy, cowardly, or heretics who don’t really care whether a marriage is valid.
Now I don’t know that the Holy Father is doing anything by AL to correct this situation, but given the fact that most priests would witness the marriage of pretty much anyone who has a pulse, how can we not question the validity of vast numbers of putative marriages? Failure to be committed to lifelong indissoluble marriage, a lack of openness to children, intoxication, coercion, etc. these are all grounds for annulment that I see regularly. And I have seen couples sent away who went next door and “married” although they stated quite clearly they had no desire to ever have Children. How many priests do you think given the option would witness “gay marriages” given the option? How many do so already on the hush hush? If a priest has such a disordered understanding of what marriage is, how can we expect lay people not to? The very fact that fewer and fewer “Catholics” are marrying in the Church is I think evidence that even those who do, or who have in the past few decades, being products of their culture, are likely to have done so not because they understand or believe in Catholic marriage but because of family pressure or because they like the Church. If the Church is one option among others and getting married on the beach is in serious contention as an OPTION for a venue for marriage can you really say these young people are interested in doing what the Church does in Marriage? And remember, Church law teaches that natural marriage is not an option for Catholics. A marriage between two “Christians” is a Sacrament or it is not a marriage. Intellectually if 57% of American “Catholics” favor gay marriage, essentially declaring that they understand marriage to be a state sanction to cohabitate and fornicate, can these “Catholics” honestly freely enter into real marriage? I agree I would not have said this in mixed company, but I am not sure honestly if I don’t believe than many marriages could be proven invalid if you only had a time machine and could read minds.
Here is another article that you can add to your collection
of the heterodoxy of Pope Francis:
Dan Lynch Apostolates promoting devotion to Our Lady of
Guadalupe, Jesus King of All Nations, Our Lady of America and Saint John Paul II
Visit our website at http://www.JKMI.com
E-Mail Us at [email protected]
May Our Lady of Guadalupe keep you under the mantle of her
protection and may the Reign of Jesus King of All Nations be recognized in your heart!
The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Catholic Church, but the smoke of Satan has obscured the truth.
On Saturday, Oct. 24, 2015, the Family Synod Final Relatio was voted upon and approved. “Sin”is not even mentioned. One passage quotes John Paul II’s “Familiaris Consortia,” but omits the part where communion for the divorced-and-remarried is forbidden. The Final Relatio is ambiguous and could be interpreted to provide an opening for divorced-and-remarried to receive communion.
I call upon Pope Francis to clarify the confusion and chaos in the Catholic Church. I call upon Cardinal Burke to lead the true Catholic Church.
The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Catholic Church, but it will not be the church being changed by Pope Francis.
The Pope has said that he believes the Bible is dangerous , that is a serious blaspheme , isn’t Christ the Word of God incarnate, then how is it dangerous , the Word of God tells us the bible is a sword , dangerous only against the carnal nature and evil one, We are told to seek refuge in the Word of God in the bible, how is the Pope a guardian of the truth, he is a false teacher. He also has spoke that he believes that Christ’s life ended in failure. That means he doesn’t believe that Christ conquered death on the cross. The victory of Christ over this world and over the evil one by making an eternal atonement for sin and an everlasting covenant with our Father in Heaven. So he is by far not a Catholic or someone who believes in the gospel or its furtherance. There is no way this man is the Lords anointed. For Gods Glory we should take this man to our God and pray for our deliverance from all his kind. He is more concerned about his political role in society and his fame then his office over the Church Doctrine, we are warned in both the old and new testament not to add to or take away from the doctrine. Also we are told not to be like Jews. He honors only the Church politics. Jews honor only law and because of their law they are hypocrite and condemned by their laws, the laws of Moses and without a covenant with Christ and Holy Communion they have no atonement for sin, without Christ as the High Priest they have no one to intercede on their behalf to the Father. However without true doctrine of law the catholic church is misleading the masses , we cannot have corrupt canon law it must be exact, no more and no less, its not something a man like Pope Frances or any Pope has place to change around. The Pope is such a liar, he has never married how would he know , for instance, if the young people getting married were to worry about their future, wouldn’t that contradict the scriptures which tell us that we are not to worry about what tommorrow will bring when we don’t know what the day will bring forth. ( I would have to look up an exact translation). Not to worry about ourselves , God knows what we have need of, not to forbid to marry, I am very suspicious of the Pope’s intentions to say the least and believe he is truly working for the evil one.
I think this Pope and many of his followers are like third world voodoo, not Christianity, they care nothing about the gospel , all the Papacy is about to them is getting fame and taking white people’s money, they want white people’s money , they want revenge, they want whatever white man has , given to them. They want it ok to steal from whites , rape white’s , kill whites, they want white man’s inheritance and heritage to be taken from them. They are strategically tearing down what was built to hold white community together, even if that means tearing down what holds their own community together. They hate white people and they don’t care if they subvert the Church institution. Often I have heard people who are not white, say we don’t agree with white man about religion, American Indians refuse to honor white mans religion, they never admit that white man was only honoring the same religion any man was to honor, that is the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
As the day passes there can be no doubt that the devil animates this Papacy.
Steve, you have overlooked something else (probably worse) from that talk.
Please carry this in your blog.
I hear you Steve and I’ve reached the same conclusions. We had our local parish men’s group (yes, men only) meeting last night and it’s not just us laymen throwing our arms up in the air.
We need a young, orthodox pontif. Someone with the vigor to clean house.