Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

LifeSiteNews Editor: “I simply could not believe it…”

John-Henry Westen (Image courtesy of LifeSiteNews)
John-Henry Westen (Image courtesy of LifeSiteNews)

John-Henry Westen is the editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews (LSN). While LSN hardly shies away from difficult topics in general, there has been, I think it’s fair to say, a certain degree of reticence in acknowledging in a public way just how damaging the Francis papacy truly is. They have covered the commentary of other Catholic prelates, but rarely have I seen pointed editorial commentary coming from the LSN staff.

Until now.

Last Friday, Westen wrote an article entitled, “Confusing even the devout: the troubling statements of Pope Francis“. In it, he relates his own sense of shock and amazement at certain statements of the pope:

Two weeks ago the latest controversial interview with Pope Francis hit the press, this time in France with the daily newspaper La Croix. Contrary to the teaching of previous popes, such as Leo XIII in Libertas and Pius XI in Quas Primas, Pope Francis said, “States must be secular. Confessional states end badly. That goes against the grain of History.” In the same interview, Francis suggested a comparison between Christianity and Islamic adherents’ use of conquest to impose their beliefs. “It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam,” he said. “However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.”

The shocking statements reminded me of the very first leaked Q&A with Pope Francis at the beginning of his papacy. It’s an interview remembered most for the pope’s admission that there is a “gay lobby” inside the Vatican. Despite the fact that such explosive news would have been huge for LifeSiteNews, you won’t find that first interview covered on LifeSiteNews anywhere near the date of its release. I simply could not believe it to be authentic or accurate – not because of the ‘gay lobby’ comment – but because the Pope had spoken disparagingly about a spiritual bouquet of rosaries he had received upon his election.

Pope Francis was quoted as saying:

It concerns me; when I was elected, I received a letter from one of these groups, and they said: “Your Holiness, we offer you this spiritual treasure: 3,525 rosaries.” Why don’t they say, “we pray for you, we ask…”, but this thing of counting… And these groups return to practices and to disciplines that I lived through – not you, because you are not old – to disciplines, to things that in that moment took place, but not now, they do not exist today…

“There is no way,” I remember thinking to myself, “a Pope would ever say anything slighting the rosary.” That aspect of the interview made me question whether any of it was authentic. Thus, I resisted the pressure to publish a story on the Pope’s remarks on the ‘gay lobby’ in the Vatican. A few weeks later I was in Rome and finally got a chance to ask someone in the know about the leaked interview. I was shocked to hear: “of course it was true.” It was, I was told, the first example of a new communications method employed by the Pope using different channels.

That sense, of “there’s no way a pope could ever say such a thing,” has resurfaced time and again over the last few years, and not only from the Holy Father’s off-the-cuff and leaked interviews. Even in official teachings such as his Angelus addresses and homilies at big events, Pope Francis has shocked Catholic sensibilities. Such as the Angelus of June 2, 2013, where he spoke about Christ’s miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes as taking place by “sharing.” “This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer,” he said.

Westen not only goes on to give another example of the pope’s heretical erroneous interpretation of the miracle of the loaves of the fishes, but then recounts nine more examples of extremely troubling statements issued by Francis over the past three years (surprisingly for a pro-life publication like LifeSiteNews, the pope’s endorsement of eugenic contraception was not among them).

The number of people willing to put on a brave face about this papacy is dwindling daily. It’s a disaster, full stop. The more people who admit it, the better, so we can contain it, wait it out, pray for a good pope to be elected, and move on with our lives.

206 thoughts on “LifeSiteNews Editor: “I simply could not believe it…””

  1. I think the Pope has a point on the counting and TELLING of someone of how many Rosaries had been prayed for them.

    Our charity and prayer needn’t be noisy, as if we’re counting the cost.

    • It’s the nature of a traditional spiritual bouquet for a number of people to volunteer to pray for a certain person, and to commit to praying a specified number of prayers.

      The total number is shared with the recipient, and I don’t believe individual names are mentioned. It’s purely a spiritual work of mercy. This devotion may not be to your liking, but for many it is meaningful and inspiring. No need for Francis–or you–to sneer at it. The proper response is “Thank you.”

      • Maybe the noisy nature of the “tradition” warrants re-examination and amendment.

        I get it…but I also know – and you also know – that things can often grow into new things, noisier things. Left hand not knowing what the other hand is doing, etc.

        • Still, it is heartless to mock somebody who has done something for you in sincerity and good faith: there are other occasions that could be found to discuss such matters.

          • Some people don’t have a filter, a lack of a sort of temperance. Or he may have witnessed too many “retentive” (mechanical?) Catholics who in all their devotions forget to converse with the Father. It’s possible.

            I know a priest who sees people with stacks of holy cards kept together in rubber bands. They are so generous in their devotions, but they drive themselves batty. He says…make a list of people…call it “List A”…when finishing up some period of mental prayer…say “Mary, List A” please. Review monthly. Make another list….List B…give it to another saint!

          • Yeah, it’s possible. But it’s not the way to bet. He is a coarse, cruel, lewd, and prideful oaf.

          • Spot on! It is all these character traits that spell his lack of the Holy Spirit and that he is a fraud (if you now what I mean) I am sure God had another man in view for the position but sabotage took place.

        • Not sure about “noisy” and what’s wrong with counting? I thought that’s what our fingers and thumbs were for! I guess the next time I get 3 Hail Mary’s from the priest in confession, I’ll tell him not to be so “noisy”!

          • We should love “without counting the cost”. Pride kicks in.

            The only reason we should do ANYTHING is for love of God, not for the feelings we get, not for the accolades we get, not so that someone else will feel good about us, or about themselves.

            This is called ‘purity of intention’.

        • The correct response when told that someone has prayed for you is a simple, unadorned “Thank you”. It’s called having good manners.

    • I doubt very much that was the point of the rosaries. As I understand it, it was a spiritual bouquet, which he should have at least have received with some gratitude instead of the insensitive and insulting response which he gave. A gift received like this by anyone else and we would certainly call the ungrateful recipient a clod. I don’t know anyone boasting of prayed rosaries. At the least, the pope of all people should be sensitive to the disdain of non-Catholics for the ancient prayer, and not add credence to their disdain. That shouldn’t be too much to ask of a pope.

      • He’s a Latin American Jesuit ordained in 1968. He’s got the sloppy, chaotic way.

        Imagine a father of a very large and poor family….taking his family to the beach in a big broken down van…it’s noisy, he can barely see out the front windshield, it’s broken and dirty, music playing, kids hanging out the window, neighborhood kids who don’t belong – stoyaways – are hidden in the back. The father doesn’t care….his kids like these other kids. Come one, come all, let’s go to the beach.

        You get the idea.

        I really believe this is largely the pope we have: the pope of a large and poor family.

        I get the whole matter of “truth” and proper reception, etc. I am just saying we have a messy family…and a father who is whistling and driving us to the beach.

          • Exactly! We have the duty to speak the truth in charity and out of charity. People are being led into error, which has eternal consequences.

            Personally I believe Pope Francis could make a great Pope given God’s grace. But we do him no charity either if we don’t call him to the truth but pretend the emperor has clothes on.

          • Hey, are you also on NCR ? I can’t post there, banned after the Synod I think. But occasionally I scan the site.

        • It is the poor who appreciate authentic piety yet look at how Franciscus grabbed the hands of the Altar Boy in the Vatican Tomb and pried his folded hands apart and audibly mocked him.

          The Altar Boy immediately returned to his pious stancesas soon as the jerk left.

          Go on, keep trying to explain away what he does but you too are fated to reach that moment when you think – To hell with it, he is on his own. I can’t justify his BS anymore and THE moment for most men is coming when he goes to Lund Swedn to celebrate the protestant revolution.

          IANS guaran-damn-tees you he will bow-down and receive a”blessing” from a lesbian Bishop who is married to another lesbian and photos of that papal perfidy will be the death of him for real men will abandon him like he has the plague and only the media will remain at his beck and call.

          • But that’s the thing…it doesn’t fit.

            See Luke 14:28

            We should never count our love.

            Our love shouldn’t be done for the feeling, shouldn’t be done for the accolades, shouldn’t be done so that someone else thinks well of us….we should only love to please God, to serve Him.

            What I found odd in this traditionalist place is a shallowness of the why. And I consider myself fairly orthodox/traditional. I am always struck when I run across people who perform all manner of devotions but who seem to not get the point.

            The point of all devotions and prayer (sacrifices, fasting, mortification, detachment, all acts of charity) is unity with God. Even some traditionalists..who pray, who fast, who mortify, who say thousands of rosaries…don’t get the real essence of these actions: closer unity with God, increased conversation with Him.

          • Seriously? Your reaction to a gift which demonstrates considerable sacrifice and devotion is to quibble over the degree to which it was quantified? That is the very essence of straining the gnat to swallow the camel. Do you not see that your eagerness to police how gifts should and should not be given leaves you utterly hardened to the beauty of the gift itself? But to make matters worse, you’ve now gone on to suggest that the motivation for the measure was simply to obtain accolades; and that the givers – so consumed with the flattery of men – didn’t even understand the purpose of prayer.

            For all your lecturing on charity, yours are some of the most proud and presumptuous comments I’ve ever read.

          • Pope needs to worry
            more about the purity of our intentions, than about our feelings. Even traditionalists here have it wrong, very wrong.

            True gift, shouldn’t care about the reception of a gift by the human receiver. All gift should be done to please God.

          • Carry on attributing the worst possible motivation to people you don’t know. BTW, I offered 8 Hail Marys, 3 Our Fathers, and 1 Glory Be just for you!

          • No, the pope needs to worry that he is leading countless souls to hell and creating schism in the Church of God. When he has actually worked out what the purpose of a Pope is and has started to do it, then he can quibble about devotional practices he dislikes.

            If he had an ounce of true humility, however, he would realize that just because he doesn’t like a devotional practice, that does not make it worthless. I don’t think I have ever participated in a spiritual bouquet, but if somebody told me they had “gathered” 3,000 Rosaries for me, I think I would be rather blown away by that. What kind of person sneers at and belittles people who pray for him? The kind of person who needs an exorcism is the only one I can think of.

          • Just for the knowledge of those still responding, I’ve removed “Redemptionis Donum” from the conversation. We had reached trolling level, I think it’s fair to say, what with the constant and insubstantial disagreements being flung around. It was derailing the larger discussion, which should never have been primarily about this in the first place.

  2. My experience with spiritual bouquets (both given and received) is that
    this is a touching and charming tradition. I don’t believe it’s ever
    meant in a negative way.

    • If #’s don’t matter…. how would he have felt or reacted if they had sent him a bouquet of a pair of rosaries—- a sufficient amount. Numbers dont count until you dont get them. His reaction was beyond rude. It suggests that he holds no belief in the power of the rosary.

    • Its concerning when a beloved devotion, especially one that all the apparitions of Mary have asked us to pray, is dismissed like a museum piece from another time. Its really odd because the Pope seems to be very devoted to Mary.

  3. Isn’t the REAL issue whether anybody goes to hell? Because if not, then nothing really matters all that much, because nothing has eternal consequences.

    But if people ARE going to hell–as Christ indicated–then the fact that the gates of hell will not prevail is of small comfort regarding those that are lost in the interim. And so we need to speak up! Or we have no love within us…

    • YES! That is EXACTLY the point I have been making throughout this entire papacy….every time someone quotes “The gates of hell shall not prevail” – Yes, DUH, we know that. The issue is the souls being led astray and falling into hell “like snowflakes”.

    • Actually that verse gets interpreted in reverse. The gates of hell won’t prevail against the Church of Jesus storming those gates. The Church will most certainly be here until the end of the age, but is subject to the effects of demonic influences as I think we’ve seen.

  4. Thank you for this. It is encouraging, to say the least, that one senses a new willingness to acknowledge the nightmare we are living with this pope. If one listed the words and actions that have shocked the sensibilities, well, it would be a long list. At first I chalked him up to, okay, he’s not my type of pope, but he’s somebody’s, but it’s not a matter of that at all. We aren’t talking about personality or style, it’s got nothing to do with that. He often sounds hostile to the Catholic faith. I mean, hostile to it. He mocks Catholics and Catholic practice.
    Oh, why go on, we all know what he has said and done. But somebody, influential somebodies, articulate and knowledgeable somebodies, will hopefully make a public statement that is impossible for him and the minions to ignore. Please God, they will be direct and plainspoken, not mince words and not speak in the abstract. The sheep need it that way and so do the men in the Vatican.
    Then we need to close ranks and protect whoever says it.
    In the meantime, every single one of us should be writing our bishops polite but firm letters declaring our faithfulness to the ancient creed of our faith, just as Bishop Schneider instructed us to do.

  5. To be honest, fam, this recent ThreeFer: badmouthing confessional states, extolling secular states, and merely imagining (nevermind voicing) some jihad/Great Commission equivalence finally settled me on Francis.

  6. “The more people who admit it, the better, so we can contain it, wait it out…”

    Is it impossible to remove him? A pope who doesn’t believe in Jesus’ miracles is a pretty bad pope. His bad comments influence people and we’re talking about souls losing faith in God.
    His comments can lead people to hell.

    We must come up with a solution, I don’t want to wait it out.

    • There is a website, as I have read, called : (I believe) that anyone can go on and ask him a question. I think I may do that and ask him where his idea came from that the miracle of the loaves and fishes was only a miracle of the people sharing their food. LOL! If he’s really thought this through, has he figured out how a few people could bring enough food for 5,000 people and still have baskets left over? I would say again LOL, but it’s only funny in a sad kind of way. Quite a ‘banquet service’ those few had going on.

    • Quite a few years ago, I heard my (past) Pastor say this in his homily…….I ALMOST got up and walked, but I was at the last Mass on Sunday, and knew I had to stay. Most grueling Mass I’ve ever been to. But to hear the ‘Vicar of Christ’ reiterate this error? Unimaginable.

      • The communal sharing of a packed lunch was an interpretation of the loaves and fishes under discussion some 30 years ago when I attended a Franciscan seminary. It is of course OK to ponder the miracles, I have often wondered about the practicalities of this one. For example, how long would it take the disciples to distribute food to 5000 people, not counting women and children, and then go back and collect all the scraps. Also, what did they do with the scraps and where did they get the baskets from? I must add, that such questions don’t mean I fail to get the Eucharistic point of this miracle or that I agree with The Pope’s interpretation of events. The same scrutiny occurs with all reading of scripture, miracles, reported events, historical contexts and the agenda of the writer. The issue for me is the Pope does not appear, according to the LSN extract, to have included in his commentary the Eucharistic point of the miracle.

        • Read John 6 again! Verses 16-21!!! If the boat could transport 4+ miles!!!! with all the men & equipment (the sea is 8 miles wide) then the distribution of the loaves is not a problem.

          It isnt important that I figure out HOW, but only that I accept and believe!!!

          • Hi Mary, I think you may have missed my point, which is simply, the miracles witness to who Jesus is, they are an eschatological sign and the Pope’s comments (as reported by LSN) seem to omit this fact.

            In response to your last comment, we are not mules needing to be led by the bit, our faith can draw on the faculty of reason which together inform a deeper understanding of Sacred Scripture and Salvation History.

            And Mary, please dont SHOUT!!!! , my eyes are not deaf. 🙂

            Best regards

  7. This is kind of an aside, but each time I notice it I think of these com boxes. I don’t follow him daily, but even Vorris has been criticising words and deeds that are clearly of Bergoglian origin. He hasn’t said 2+2=4, but he has said 2+2 and 4 in one script.

    I wonder who will pretend there’s no problem last.

  8. He is leading souls to hell by these scandals, there has to be some sort of wiggle room to have any of the College of Cardinals who are solid and orthodox to approach him and tell him his errors, do the warnings that I read some where, either on this site or on Remnant and then begin the process of removing a heretical Pope. But it also comes down to him actually admitting his error and heresy publicly and then stepping down. That will be the most difficult part, I don’t think he will admit it. Plus, we need to remove all the bad Cardinals from the college that elects the Pope too or we can fear this happening again.

    • There is no process to remove a heretical Pope. All you can do is exercise judicial review of his acts and quash those which involve wrongdoing.

      • In future there will have to be such a process. It is unacceptable that there isn’t. Of course, I’m speaking of the likes of PF & coterie not some process that can be inaugurated on a whim but after much public debate & Hierarchal warnings to stop changing Tradition & Magisterium of the CC but to uphold & transmit intact the entire Deposit of Faith. If a bad pope refuses to conform then he should be SACKED.

        • There can’t be any such process, because only Our Lord could put one in place, and He hasn’t. The only remedy for a manifestly heretical Pope is for the faithful to refuse to join him in his heresy.

          • Since popes can & do make changes to Canon Law then a future pope must examine the unnecessary trials & evils of the present day brought about by a possibly illegally elected Pontiff and certainly one that doesn’t promote the Catholic faith in its entirety which the Papal Office must be seen to unequivocally uphold & pass on to future generations.

      • It is possible to depose a heretic pope. Go to this site and read the articles on deposing a pope (or, better yet, purchase and read the book True or False Pope):

        There is a practical problem with deposing a heretic pope when all the bishops are cowardly sycophants since the laity can’t accomplish the task themselves or simply declare the pope to be deposed. But that doesn’t mean that it is impossible.

      • Well… that’s not ENTIRELY true. If a Pope were to become a manifest heretic, either before or during his pontificate, he would, in the first case, never have been validly elected pope and thus it’s simply a removal of an anti-pope or, in the second, will have left the faith and thus left also his office of successor, which then is removal of a man who WAS pope.

        Technically, you’re right, there is no process to remove a heretic who claims to hold the See, but an Inquisition headed by the CDF and an act by the College of Bishops could remove such a person. It’s simply unprecedented in Church history.

        • This is incorrect. The Pope manifested heresy only during his ponrificate. Under Can. 1331(1) he is forbidden to exercise ecclesiatical office, but if he does so anyway his acts are valid. Invalidity affects the official acts of a heretic according to 1331(2) only if his excommunication has been imposed or declared – which in his case it hasn’t.

          • Canon 1331 applies only to one who is excommunicated. A heretic is not a member of the Church by the very fact that he does not believe what Christians believe. It does not apply to a manifest heretic unless that person has been excommunicated. Francis is obviously not excommunicated. Check St. Robert Bellarmine for more.

        • Election to the papacy automatically removes all impediments to the papacy. Even if the Pope was a manifest heretic, schismatic, or excommunicated, his valid election removes all those impediments and penalties.

          • He can’t be elected if he’s a manifest heretic because he is not within the Church and cannot be it’s head if he is not a member.

          • An election to be Pope automatically removes the penalty and restores him to the Church. He is a member of the Church because of the election.

      • Actually there IS a procedure for declaring that a Pope has severed himself from the Church and the faithful no longer owe him allegiance. Check out Robert Siscoe’s articles in the Remnant website. Also check out True or False Pope by John Salza and Robert Siscoe. Fantastic book.

    • or………. man up and face the truth; have the guts to avoid the Normalcy Bias which is the self interest of wanting to be comfortable.

  9. I think it’s time loyal Catholics declared war on the social justice nonsense and the “preferential option for the poor” baloney that the Vatican and the USCC worship before. Only when there is a full-scale revolt and they find their social justice nonsense going up in flames and their relationship with the anti-Catholic secular elite in tatters, will they stop spitting in the face of loyal Catholics.

    We hear all the time about the “obsession” of some bishops on abortion and marriage issues. Well, the average diocese in the U.S. probably spends $500K or less on those issues. OTOH, they spend TENS OF MILLIONS on social justice nonsense — healthcare, poverty, homeless, soup kitchens — most of which is paid for by Catholics for the benefit of non-Catholics.

    Enough is enough. Cut off their oxygen supply. It’s time they pursued a Catholics First policy with our own $$$.

    • Amen!!! We left St John Neumann in Reston VA for this reason. All the parishes in the Arlington diocese staffed by Oblates of St Francis de Sales are hooked up with Saul Alinsky community organizers. IAF. VOICE.

      If the election of Bergoglio wss the answer to anyone’s prayer, it wss theirs. They r very indifferent to Church teaching.

      • That’s actually the first parish I ever attended when I moved to Virginia 14 years ago. I only went once. When I saw the “folk group” receive Jesus in their hands and then hold the host there as they went back to their places so that they could all receive Him simultaneously, I wanted to scream.

        Fortunately, the Arlington Diocese had better things to offer. That one just happened to be the closest to home at the time.

        • I think sometimes you need to aim a shotgun at someone’s crotch to get their attention.

          And sometimes you need to pull the trigger.

          I think what will get the Catholic bishops off their a**** is when loyal Catholics start embarrassing them. Hit them where it hurts, on their 2 pet causes: the poor, and race relations.

          These guys need to be embarrassed, so they stop embarrassing us. Too few Fabian Bruskewitz’s dealing with left-wing subversives and their ilk.

        • I’ve seen little old ladies who are “extraordinary” ministers self communicating and then rushing with glee to get their little hands all over the sacred vessels. Its very disturbing the liberties people are taking.

  10. Never in my whole life have I had a stronger urge to say “I told you so.”

    Because I did. I did.

    (I guess I just did say it, though. Sorry, John Henry but I did.)

    The thing is, though, we can say without a doubt that unless Francis had broken the post-Conciliar rule never, ever, ever to mention it, who would ever have known what Church teaching was on the subject? How many Catholics have ever heard of the Catholic confessional state or the Social Reign of Christ the King or the teaching against Americanism or any of that stuff that got memory-holed after Vatican II? The fact that the gap is closing between serious-minded conservatives like John Henry and Traditionalists like Steve Skojec, that conservatives are being forced to examine teachings of the Church that have lain “dormant” for 50 years can’t be anything but a good thing.

    I’m going to keep saying it until I turn blue: another “conservative” pope who maintained the post-Conciliar status quo was going to be the death of the Church. Francis might not be the pope we like, but he was definitely the pope we needed.

    • This is true. It is paradox. But speaking for myself. I have learned more about my faith during Francis reign than ever before. Before Francis I would never even listen to anyone who criticized the Pope.

      • I can honestly say this is true. And it took me a long time to change my mind about him. I love the Holy Father, but I don’t love his off the cuff remarks and some of the things he seems very determined to change.

        I’ve prayed about it a lot. God makes good of all things. Perhaps this is a cross many of us who blindly followed St. JP2 and Benedict followed to teach us how to be Catholic. Or maybe its just the imperfection of things on this side of the veil, and it won’t matter in the final analysis.

    • It was a big goof up for Francis to bring up the Church’s teaching if only to impugn it. His immediate predecessors had one foot in each Church and knew they had to keep mum about certain topics lest people fail to forget them.
      When the topic of Benedict’s grand uncle Fr. Georg Ratzinger was brought up, he just deftly said: “we were proud of him” and then no further questions were asked.
      THAT was a churchman who, in the 19th Century, understood well the Church’s social teaching.

    • I no longer read “Mother Bear” Anchoress, Even she must be losing control of her cubs: with most trashing the den – what’s left of it – and the rest heading for the high grass looking for another mother.

      Francis is the pope we need – one who gleefully (and programmatically) throws off the covers and permits the cubs to run riot. Under Francis there is no more lulling wishes, no more sugarcoating table scraps for cons, neo-cons, or even trads.

      Maybe its time for dogs under the table to turn a bit wolfish.

      None of this surprises me. I entered the Roman Church from the East and still retain a Byzantine prejudice, and Eastern way of looking at things. Have never overly enthralled with papal personalities, “conservative” or not.

    • Bad spiritual leaders are a punishment for sin. Jeremiah 23:1-4 -“Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord. Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel to the pastors that feed my people: You have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold I will visit upon you for the evil of your doings, saith the Lord. And I will gather together the remnant of my flock, out of all the lands into which I have cast them out: and I will make them return to their own fields, and they shall increase and be multiplied. And I will set up pastors over them, and they shall feed them: they shall fear no more, and they shall not be dismayed: and none shall be wanting of their number, saith the Lord.” The time of the Remnant is certainly upon us.

      • Here God is warning of the punishment awaiting bad spiritual leaders. It is a mistake to think that God sends us bad spiritual leaders. I’ve already explained that in the conclave the Modernist cardinals exercised their free will to elect an outright Modernist pope. Not God’s fault. He doesn’t want us to have a bad pope but the quote you cite from Jeremiah is a reminder to them and to us that one day they will be called to account for their neglect and abuse of office.

        • God sending bad spiritual leaders is to be understood that He allows such evil, always for a greater good of course. It is a mistake to think that God does not “send” punishment.

    • Hillary White,

      Sorry, but I have been stunned to read some of your articles on The Remnant site and now this comment here, because – I just have to remind you – we had an email exchange some short years ago in which you were clearly not for criticising the then celebrity pontiff John Paul II. Catholic Truth (in Scotland) and Christian Order, have been virtually alone in speaking out about the damage to the Church inflicted in the post-Vatican II era, by the succession of modernist popes we’ve had to suffer. Just because Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI spoke out against abortion and other “life” issues, doesn’t change the fact that they were Modernists. We expect a pope to defend the natural moral order. That’s elementary my dear Hillary. What we don’t expect, is for him to endorse and promote the concept that one religion is as good as another, that there are some people who don’t need Christ to be saved, ideas promoted by Pope Francis’s predecessors every bit as much as he now pushes the same heresy. We expect popes to discipline dissenters and keep good order in the Church. None of the post-Vatican II popes did that. Yet most of the now hot potato commentators on the papal office, maintained a complicit silence during those years.

      Pope Francis did not appear out of the blue, as the “bad pope” after a succession of “good” (in fact, “canonisable”. Yeah right) popes. No, the ground was being prepared and it is interesting to see how – despite the fact that, yes, more and more Catholics are now, very belatedly wakening up to the dire state of play in the Church, there are still many who will not hear a word against Pope Francis, just because he’s the pope. Papolatrists.

      It is my firm belief that if enough of the now “Francis Commentators & Critics Brigade” had spoken out as forcefully during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, AND the slightly better but still not ideal Pope Benedict XVI, the 2013 conclave just might have turned out differently. It was the silent acceptance, the papolatry which reigned during each of the post Vatican II pontificates that have contributed, hugely, to the current mess.

      Having said all of that, I am delighted that you – and Lifesitenews – are now speaking out.

      • For quite a while after he was elected I continued to work for LifeSite and as John Henry said above it took a while for the editorial staff there to come up to speed.

        However, I was referring above to personal conversations I had with JH on the phone on the night of the Conclave. I was in the Piazza, fairly close to the front that night. I was standing with a group of seminarians from the VEC. Tauran botched the annoucement so badly (not his fault, as he has Parkies) that no one in the Piazza below had any idea who he had named. Which is why the cheering died off so abruptly. Some of teh VEC boys had smart phones and we had to learn from the internet – while standing in the damn piazza! – who had just been elected. All it took, even before he came out on the balcony and did his Frankenstein routine, was the information the he was a South American Jesuit, ordained in the early 70s and the archbishop of Buenos Aires. I opened my phone and called first Mike Matt and told him, “We’re completely ___ed.” He told me to meet up with the gang at Roberto’s in the Borgo where we would be spending the rest of the night receiving text messages from Argentina about just how _____ed we REALLY were. I struggled out of hte crowd before he gave his papal non-blessing, (but after he had pulled – in the first five minutes of his pontificate- his first ridiculous populist stunt of bowing to the crowd) and caught up with friends for a hot chocolate. We huddled around their smart phones while warming up and exchanged horror stories coming in to our various email addresses. Then I got on the phone with JH who started telling me what a wonderful record he had on life issues. I tried to tell him we were in the biggest trouble the Church had ever been in, but I was told not to judge too quickly. Then I went to Roberto’s were I and Mike Matt, John Rao, John Vennari and various others I can’t name spent the night drinking in shocked horror. None of us were near our computers, or we would have got ahead even of Rorate Caeli who was the very first to sound the alarm bell. They produced that within hours of Bergoglio’s little performance on the loggia. We all read it while we were still in the Borgo.

        If you’re actually interested in what I really wrote publicly – and at some risk since LSN wasn’t on board yet – you can find quite a bit of it on my blog, Orwell’s Picnic for the date March, 2013

        This is the post I wrote while I was recovering from my hangover on March 14th, but before I went down Vittorio Emanuele and saw his ugly mugg plastered over hte front of every paper at the kiosks and was almost sick again.

        Also, I’ve been writing against modernism since before Benedict was elected. I’m not new, I’ve been a trad blogger since I learned what a blog was in 2004 and I was nearly fired on several occasions for pointing out that John Paul II, the “greatest most prolifest poap evah!” was a modernist who was failing to do his job. So you can take your smarmy condescending tone and shove it somewhere dark and unmentionable.

          • Thank you – over the years I’ve been called lots of things but “nutbar” is a first.

            My critics, however, never specify why they think I’m this or that – in your case “that nutbar at Catholic Truth” (our name is just Catholic Truth, by the way: only the domain name contains “Scotland” for technical reasons).
            So, in a spirit of true charity, enabling me to correct any particular fault(s), I’d appreciate if you would explain precisely why you consider me to be a “nutbar”.

            God bless you.

          • This is directed at Patricia as well as your goodself, Hilary, but ladies, please…don’t let this degenerate into an inter-trad pi**ing contest.

            Everybody is different with respect to what causes the scales to fall from their eyes and when, but as long as the scales do fall eventually, then that is the only thing that really matters. We are all on the same page now and it only serves Satan’s purposes for his enemies to be at each others’ throats.

            I do think you are correct, Hilary, about this Pope being needed at this time. JPII and BXVI both had too many redeeming qualities which masked the devastating assault on Truth which was taking place under their watches. Francis does not appear to suffer from any redeeming qualities whatsoever. Its easier to be objective about people who are so thoroughly dislikeable. Long may he continue to be himself and inspire more converts to the Catholic cause.

          • Deacon Augustine,

            Thank you. For the record, though, two things. I never describe myself as a “trad” – or “traditional Catholic” – there is no other kind. Tradition and Scripture – we were always taught – were the two “pillars” of the Faith and all Catholics had to be faithful to both, so I only describe myself as a Catholic, and these days, due to the confusion, explain that I would be dubbed a “traditionalist” because the majority of Catholics, really don’t accept the central importance of all that has gone before – “Tradition” creating, sadly, now, various “wings” like the nearest political party. But that’s not how God intended it to be.

            And my second point, for the record, is that the Church never has and doesn’t now and never will need an unfaithful pope. That’s a bit like saying we really needed “gay marriage” legislation to make us see how immoral society has become.

            No, we needed another unfaithful pope like we needed the proverbial hole in the head.

          • Fully agree with your point about labels. The adjective “traditional” should be quite superfluous.

            Funny you should mention that same sex rubbish because God has been known to inflict bad law on His people as punishment for their sinfulness:

            Ezekiel 20,23 “Again I lifted up my hand upon them in the wilderness, to disperse them among the nations, and scatter them through the countries:
            24 Because they had not done my judgments, and had cast off my statutes, and had violated my sabbaths, and their eyes had been after the idols of their fathers.
            25 Therefore I also gave them statutes that were not good, and judgments, in which they shall not live.”

            Perhaps He also inflicts bad Popes on us as punishment for our sinfulness. In which case Francis would have been the Pope we deserved. However, if the Church militant needed punishing, then Francis would have been one of those punishments that was needed.

          • I suggest, Deacon Augustine (although I’m always open to correction, being an expert in just about nothing!) that a correct interpretation of those OT passages is that when we decide we don’t need God and do our own thing – as the ancient Hebrews too often did their own thing – God leaves us to it and to suffer the consequences of our wrong choices and decisions.

            In other words, it is precisely the Modernist stranglehold on the Church – permitted by successive pontiffs over the years since Vatican II – which has led to Papa Francis. His predecessors permitted the spread of liberalism and modernism and voila, here we are, paying the price.

            It may seem to be splitting hairs, as I’m certain you know this perfectly well yourself, but I am just a bit wary of suggesting that God “inflicts” bad popes on us or bad priests. Most people accept bad priests on the grounds that they are nice men, that they are keen to save the planet, or other such PC baloney. We’re to blame for that state of affairs, ourselves, since we should all have been shouting from the rooftops of our churches long ago, that it’s not on. God didn’t “inflict” them on us, we accepted them.

            And The system for electing popes is not infallible. There is no guarantee that a holy pope will be elected. God allows us to exercise our free will – and the conclave fathers to exercise their free will – and He accepts (not “respects” as if often claimed) our choices.
            Our Lady foretold the diabolical disorientation which would afflict the Church in our times and since God cannot inflict the diabolical on us, we must use our reason, our common sense, and accept that we have lived and are living through the worst crisis ever to hit the Church and that this crisis – i.e. the bad, Godless decisions made by successive members of the upper hierarchy, including recent popes – has brought us to what Pope John Paul II himself admitted was a “silent apostasy”, now, of course, anything but silent. Have we ever had a pope who talked so much? Someone ought to write the “Silence is Golden” book and send him a copy!

            I have no doubt that we agree on all of the above but I just wanted to put the “afflicts” word into context – for the specific purpose of underlining the fact that I am certain we agree on all of this!

          • Yes, I am certain we do agree on all of this, though I think the sins which have led to the current predicament go deeper than just failing to resist modernism in the hierarchy.

            To put the term “inflicts” into a fuller context, it is necessary to understand that there are five expressions of will that are assigned to the Divine will: i.e. prohibition, precept, operation, counsel and permission.

            God neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done, but wills to permit evil to be done -and as the Angelic Doctor teaches: “this is a good”. Particularly in the case of punishment, God’s permissive will is most to be feared. The worst punishment we can receive from God in this earthly life is that He permits us to have what we want – this punishment is more severe than His chastisement. Punishment by chastisement usually precedes the last resort punishment of letting is have our own way.

            Throughout Scripture we see this phenomenon that when God “really loses His rag”, His punishment of last resort is to give His people what they want e.g. “OK, so you really want to be like the nations, fine, so to the nations you will go.” – cue Assyria and Babylon stomping all over Israel and Judea respectively and hauling them all off into captivity. “You call Me a devil, a liar and a murderer for leading you out into the the desert just to die, fine, you will be killed by fiery serpents unless you look up to a bronze image of a serpent (symbol of the devil) on a staff for salvation.”

            When I use the term “God inflicts bad Popes on us” as a punishment, I mean it in the sense of an act of God’s permissive will. He has permitted us to have exactly the kind of “Pope” which most “Catholics” want us to have: that is why Francis is so popular with the braindead. Most “Catholics” want a “Pope” who will tell them that “Its fine to go and screw yourselves senseless – God is the all-merciful “god of surprises”.” Most “Catholics” contracept, they abort at the same rate as the pagans, they divorce at the same rate as the pagans, they support all forms of gender ideology to the same extent as the pagans do. They now have a “Pope” who can pat them on the head and tell them that this is all ok.

            This is the punishment the Church is undergoing at the present time. It needed to happen in the sense that the Church (miltant), like the old Israel before it, was ripe for the wrath of God. The amazing thing is that God will draw good out of it. Just as the Babylonian destruction of the Temple, the execution of the High Priest and the exile was followed by the return of a faithful remant under Ezra and Nehemiah, so the current tribulations will be followed by the return of a faithful remnant.

            For a fuller treatment of how God permits evil to be done, while not willing it to be done through His operative will, St Thomas deals with this in the Prima Pars of the Summa, 19,9:

            Article 9. Whether God wills evils?

            Objection 1. It seems that God wills evils. For every good that exists, God wills. But it is a good that evil should exist. For Augustine says (Enchiridion 95): “Although evil in so far as it is evil is not a good, yet it is good that not only good things should exist, but also evil things.” Therefore God wills evil things.

            Objection 2. Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv, 23): “Evil would conduce to the perfection of everything,” i.e. the universe. And Augustine says (Enchiridion 10,11): “Out of all things is built up the admirable beauty of the universe, wherein even that which is called evil, properly ordered and disposed, commends the good more evidently in that good is more pleasing and praiseworthy when contrasted with evil.” But God wills all that appertains to the perfection and beauty of the universe, for this is what God desires above all things in His creatures. Therefore God wills evil.

            Objection 3. Further, that evil should exist, and should not exist, are contradictory opposites. But God does not will that evil should not exist; otherwise, since various evils do exist, God’s will would not always be fulfilled. Therefore God wills that evil should exist.

            On the contrary, Augustine says (Qq. 83,3): “No wise man is the cause of another man becoming worse. Now God surpasses all men in wisdom. Much less therefore is God the cause of man becoming worse; and when He is said to be the cause of a thing, He is said to will it.” Therefore it is not by God’s will that man becomes worse. Now it is clear that every evil makes a thing worse. Therefore God wills not evil things.

            I answer that, Since the ratio of good is the ratio of appetibility, as said before (5, 1), and since evil is opposed to good, it is impossible that any evil, as such, should be sought for by the appetite, either natural, or animal, or by the intellectual appetite which is the will. Nevertheless evil may be sought accidentally, so far as it accompanies a good, as appears in each of the appetites. For a natural agent intends not privation or corruption, but the form to which is annexed the privation of some other form, and the generation of one thing, which implies the corruption of another. Also when a lion kills a stag, his object is food, to obtain which the killing of the animal is only the means. Similarly the fornicator has merely pleasure for his object, and the deformity of sin is only an accompaniment. Now the evil that accompanies one good, is the privation of another good. Never therefore would evil be sought after, not even accidentally, unless the good that accompanies the evil were more desired than the good of which the evil is the privation. Now God wills no good more than He wills His own goodness; yet He wills one good more than another. Hence He in no way wills the evil of sin, which is the privation of right order towards the divine good. The evil of natural defect, or of punishment, He does will, by willing the good to which such evils are attached. Thus in willing justice He wills punishment; and in willing the preservation of the natural order, He wills some things to be naturally corrupted.

            Reply to Objection 1. Some have said that although God does not will evil, yet He wills that evil should be or be done, because, although evil is not a good, yet it is good that evil should be or be done. This they said because things evil in themselves are ordered to some good end; and this order they thought was expressed in the words “that evil should be or be done.” This, however, is not correct; since evil is not of itself ordered to good, but accidentally. For it is beside the intention of the sinner, that any good should follow from his sin; as it was beside the intention of tyrants that the patience of the martyrs should shine forth from all their persecutions. It cannot therefore be said that such an ordering to good is implied in the statement that it is a good thing that evil should be or be done, since nothing is judged of by that which appertains to it accidentally, but by that which belongs to it essentially.

            Reply to Objection 2. Evil does not operate towards the perfection and beauty of the universe, except accidentally, as said above (ad 1). Therefore Dionysius in saying that “evil would conduce to the perfection of the universe,” draws a conclusion by reduction to an absurdity.

            Reply to Objection 3. The statements that evil exists, and that evil exists not, are opposed as contradictories; yet the statements that anyone wills evil to exist and that he wills it not to be, are not so opposed; since either is affirmative. God therefore neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done, but wills to permit evil to be done; and this is a good.

          • Deacon Augustine,
            I’m neglecting the CT blog and have a heavy week ahead, so this visit will have to be my last for a bit. I’ll try to be as concise and clear as possible…

            Yes, of course there may well be more sins but it’s not my place, or anyone else’s to try to judge or comment on personal sins. Our duty and right is “performance related” – what we know as objective data in the sphere of the papal office. In short, whether a pope is doing his papal duty of not. Whatever sins he may be committing aside from the neglect of his papal duties, we are not in a position to judge. We ARE in a position to judge his words and actions as they relate to his office, his papal duties. Hence, we cannot be surprised that an outright Modernist has been elected Pope because his predecessors were also Modernists, just most people didn’t notice. They were good on the pro-life issues, so all the rest was ignored by the majority of commentators. So, I hope that clarifies point number one.

            Reading your comments about permissive will, I think there is a misunderstanding simply because you are describing the consequences of our sinful actions as a “punishment” from God (“the worst punishment we can receive from God…”) and while that may be technically correct, I would never describe it thus, given the ignorance around us today and the fact that such a term images God as a big bad Person making us suffer, whereas it is ourselves who make us suffer. I suspect this is just a difference in useage, semantics, so will leave it there. That God’s permissive will results in our straying from the right path etc. and suffering as a result, is our own fault, not God’s vengeful punishment of us. We punish ourselves.

            As for the rest of your post, the Old Testament writers certainly interpreted the various wars and invasions as punishments from God, and we read, essentially, of a never-ending cycle of fidelity-happiness/success-infidelity-wars/suffering-fidelity in OT Hebrew history. That is true. But God was always a God of love.

            The prophets were pointing out that when the people remained faithful to God’s law, they were happy and successful, the nation flourished; infidelity brought wars and misery. But, the fact is that the misery wasn’t sent from God, it was a result of the infidelity of the people, who subsequently interpreted their unhappy state as the outcome of their disobedience towards God. We could say the same thing today; there are broken families and pseudo-families all over the place; people suffering from a variety of serious sexually transmitted diseases, none of which has been “inflicted” by God. We have deviated from the moral and religious truths revealed by God and we must accept the consequences, without blaming God.

            I’m afraid that’s all I have time for at the moment as I wish to post a quick few replies to others before disappearing for the foreseeable future. We have a hugely important Conference in Glasgow next weekend so we are swamped with last minute things to do, people to see, but I hope that what I’ve said is clear enough and I do think, on skimming both your response to me and this response to you, that we are essentially saying the same thing.

        • Well, it’s interesting that you were phoning the Remnant people et al because I distinctly remember them taking the “we’re reasonable men” attitude and refusing to offer as much as a vague thought on the new pope preferring to “let’s wait and see” for quite a bit after the election of Papa Francis.

          Yet, it was obvious from the minute his name was announced (Francis? South America?) that things were about to go downhill and then, when he appeared on the balcony not wearing the mozzetta -symbol of papal authority – that is, before he’d spoken a word – some of us knew the die was cast.

          So, it’s great that you wrote something to that effect in March 2013, after the conclave, but I don’t recall thinking I had to check out what Lifesitenews were saying about the popes prior to this one. Frustratingly, as long as the popes and bishops were saying abortion/euthanasia is wrong, the LSN staff slept easily in their beds at night. It’s akin to the rest of us expressing confidence in our doctors because they can diagnose a headache.

          Anyway, I must apologise for upsetting you – not my intention. I can see from your closing paragraph that, of course, you are a longtime “trad” so forgive me for any hurt caused.

          • The morning after the election, actually. And never stopped. You really just haven’t been keeping up much.

        • Hmmm…actually in reading CT’s comments to you I did not think that CT’s tone was smarmy or condescending. Your crude response, in my opinion, was unwarranted.

          • Thank you, MSDOTT, if you’re ever in Scotland get in touch and I’ll treat you to some haggis and neeps… or maybe not !

        • A week before the election of Bergoglio I picked him out of the list of papabile and sent emails to fellow Catholics saying he will be the next Pope. There were social and historical factors I took into consideration which were beyond the intellectual grasp of any of the non Catholic punters. But there was an additional, far more serious consideration which informed my selection, one which I believed had to do with timing, specifically Gods timing.

          This consideration arose from my years of research, scientific analysis, interviews with primary witnesses and unfettered exclusive access to documentation and evidence of the transformation of Eucharistic host into human flesh in Buenos Aires. The Archbishop at that time, Bergoglio, ordered a scientific investigation be undertaken. The first major report on the findings was completed at the time of his election as Pope, in time for the report to garner far greater attention than if Bergoglio had simply remained in Argentina. The scientific analysis of the samples continues as ever improved genetic testing technologies emerge.The story also continues, and the reaction of our Pope to the incontrovertible scientific evidence presented will be crucially revealing.

          Believe me, no one watches and listens to him more closely than I do. He ordered the investigation I have given so much of my life to. Much of what he does and fails to do demoralises me, but his big test is still coming. He will face the real presence of the Real Presence.

      • Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI spoke out against abortion and other “life” issues, doesn’t change the fact that they were Modernists. Calumnious charge.
        that there are some people who don’t need Christ to be saved, ideas promoted by Pope Francis’s predecessors every bit as much as he now pushes the same heresy And another calumnious charge, something even the secular media will disagree with you.
        And if they were really all on the same “modernist team” I would expect Pope Francis to be copiously quoting Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict, quoting their works and following their example. Pope Francis when he quotes the great and saintly Pope, he distorts him, and I can’t recall him quoting the Pope Emeritus. Pope Francis quotes himself. Just from this it is plain Pope Francis has an agenda apart from his two immediate predecessors.
        (in fact, “canonisable”. Yeah right) popes It is clear who it is that does not have Faith, who does not believe inter alia in the Holy Spirit,
        the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, …

        • Calumny? You kidding?

          Those of us who watched first, Pope John Paul II and later Pope Benedict, stand shoulder to shoulder with the “religious leaders” of every false religion under the sun,. as if the Vicar of Christ were of no more account than the nearest Imam or Rabbi, then you know that you are looking at a Modernist Pope. As I’ve just said in another post above, Google is your friend. It won’t take you long to catch up with the shocking deviations from Catholic teaching on the Jews and everyone else – who, if they are saved, will be saved by Christ and His Church, no matter what any Modernist pontiff thinks for says.

          No calumny in truth. Can’t be.

          • … will be saved by Christ. And if you Googled and YouTubed enough you will come across MSM saying that Pope John Paul II has upset people because he has said that salvation is only through Jesus Christ.
            Hoping you have also read the great and saintly Pope’s Crossing the Threshold of Hope.
            We know where to find Catholic Teaching [] I am yet to find on it ‘shocking deviations from Catholic teaching on the Jews and everyone else’ by Pope St. John Paul II the Great and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

        • FM, l see that you’re slated to speak at the conference by the laity on Amoris Laetitia .Bless you for making the trip to Rome. I am not able to go but my prayers will be for all those attending and supporting the conference.

          • Thanks for the info because I now know I have to correct this perception since I am not travelling [though would love once again to be in the Eternal City … that’s now inviting its own destruction!]. I have sent in my thoughts/notes. I know one can participate e.g. via video conferencing but I do not believe I will be doing that either.
            Let’s pray and work because it is abundantly clear it is now up to us the laity. The “shepherds” are MIA and worse, some want to formally implement AL.

      • “Just because Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI spoke out against abortion and other “life” issues, doesn’t change the fact that they were Modernists.”

        No, not a fact. It is calumny to say that St. John Paul II was a Modernist, that Benedict is a Modernist.

        Many comments on this site parrot the assertion that “Francis isn’t really a change from the past 50 years, he’s just more open about it. Every pope since the Council is a Modernist.” But this narrative is false, and it stems from a false conflation between “Modernist” and “someone who accepts Vatican II as a real ecumenical Council.”

        Francis has said and done things that suggest that he may actually be a Modernist. If you want to accuse St. John Paul and Benedict of Modernism, make an argument from the actual texts of their body of work (either their papal writings, or their personal writings). Accusations are cheap; make an argument.

        • Sorry, but if you do not think the shocking Assisi events alone are not sufficient to identify Popes John Paul II and Benedict as Modernists, I don’t know what it would take.

          They allowed all sorts of liturgical abuses (not to mention child abuse) to go uncorrected around the world. They made rules about various liturgical matters and then refused to enforce their own rules. On the odd occasion that a dissenter was disciplined, a public outcry from “liberals” sufficed to have him re-instated. As for finding texts from their own works – goodness, are you serious? There’s no shortage. Google is your friend…

          But listen, if at this stage in the game, you still don’t get it, I’m not the gal to help you. Find a patient soul. I’m not that person.

      • Apart from anything else, how can you possibly assert that “Catholic Truth (in Scotland) and Christian Order, have been virtually alone in speaking out about the damage to the Church inflicted in the post-Vatican II era…”? I’m sorry, but that is preposterous, as Catholic Family News and the Remnant – not to mention the Society and its publications, and others as well – have been calling out that spade for quite some time. (Certainly well before I personally began reading them about a decade ago.)

        • The publications you name are American. I was meaning that CT and CO are the only Scots/English (respectively) based publications etc.

  11. The problem is the ignorance of some catholics, the Church is not condemned to accept an heretic as a valid pope, Bergoglio was a heretic in Argentina and remains a stubborn heretic, he is also excommunicated because he belong to the club rotary since 1999, those who support a heretic are excommunicated ipso facto, some catholics forget that the Church has had periods without a pope and periods where an anti-pope has usurped the papacy.
    Pope Pius XII warned in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, the Doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, that heresy and apostasy are grievous sins that separate by its own nature a man from the Body of the Church.

    When the any person commits the sin of heresy the excommunication ipso facto occurs immediately.
    This is why Blessed Emmerich said: “I see a lot of ecclesiastical punishment of excommunication, which does not seem to care or even know. And yet they are excommunicated when they take part in these companies, when they enter partnerships and embracing opinions on weighing the anathema. I see these men surrounded by a cloud like a wall of separation. (AA.III.148)”

    Pope Paul IV and Pius V They perpetuity declared null the election of a heretic as pope. Pope St. Pius V: Motu proprio “Inter multiplices”. Motu proprio, confirming the perpetuity of officio “Cum ex apostolatus” of Pope Paul IV 21 December 1566 declaring invalid and null elevations heretical ecclesiastical authorities. Even if the heretic was chosen by all the cardinals is invalid.

  12. The content of Amoris Laetitia, and now this stuff about the loaves and fishes demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that this Pope has lost the faith.

  13. The disparaging comments about the spiritual bouquet were what really set me off in this papacy. I was trying real hard to give him the benefit of the doubt until then. That made it clear to me that he has no love for the Church or the faith.

  14. “Pope Francis was quoted as saying:
    It concerns me; when I was elected, I received a letter from one of these groups, and they said: “Your Holiness, we offer you this spiritual treasure: 3,525 rosaries.” Why don’t they say, “we pray for you, we ask…”, but this thing of counting… And these groups return to practices and to disciplines that I lived through – not you, because you are not old – to disciplines, to things that in that moment took place, but not now, they do not exist today… ”

    Even the Pope agrees the Church is different in various points of history as opposed to the claim “It has survived 2000 years.” Which Church survived?

  15. I guess John-Henry Westen won’t be invited back to Michael Voris’ Mic’d Up program for speaking ill of Pope Francis. Just a few weeks ago I made a comment regarding the pope’s confusing and loose speech in a CM combox wherein the CM moderator pounced all over me. I replied by referencing the La Crox Islam/Christian conquest passage to no avail. Hopefully John-Henry will fair better.

      • The funny thing is, they’re behaving like the mainstream catholic media whom they castigate. Sorta of a pot calling the kettle black situation. Soon it will turn into an echo chamber where free exchange of ideas go to die.

      • Steve, I sent you an email via your website a few days ago asking if you can provide an email or mailing address for a friend of mine who wants to send you an article for possible publication. I know you receive a bundle, but could you please get back with me?

    • It is sacrilege and blasphemy at CM to criticize the pope. You won’t last long if you do, as I learned through experience resulting in becoming an ex-subscriber, which I redirected to Life Site News. In fact some of their commenters attacked Life Site News also, particularly a guy named Festus. I noticed also their Vortex episodes are generally tamer and more about living your faith than the old “errors trapped and exposed” work. That change came after the past-life sodomy revelation about Voris which definitely had a major impact. You can be part of the “resistance” as long as you send them money. LOL.

          • Page 117, of the pope’s book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex unions
            “If there is a union of a PRIVATE NATURE, THERE IS NEITHER A THIRD PARTY NOR IS SOCIETY AFFECTED. Now, if this union is given the category of marriage and they are given adoption rights, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and female mother that can help them shape their identity. – Jorge Mario Bergoglio
            Approval of same-sex sexual unions is approval of same-sex sexual acts.

          • There is no doubt that any approval of any type of sodomite unions is the approval of sodomy as well. I do expect approval of something like “unions but not the ideal of marriage.”

          • While pope Francis, to the best of my knowledge, has not condoned or promoted abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, he has promoted and condone same-sex sexual acts and thus same-sex sexual relationships. This ia a problem because it is not possible to promote and condone same-sex sexual relationships of any nature, and remain in communion with Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

          • I assure you, I am not, in essence, a broken record.
            There is no such relationship as a private relationship for those who recognize man was created for communion with God.

    • Westen and Voris were both at the Catholic Identity Conference in 2013.
      Not too long afterwards, Voris, in Cambridge Traitor fashion, would turn against those he had plagiarized for so long.
      Westen, on the other hand, gave them a fair hearing.

  16. And there goes Francis again!!! Good job (round of applause).

    Notice the sarcasm? This Pope is a fool. Period.

  17. Good for John-Henry Westen for speaking out. It is a courageous act depending on your audience. More and more Catholic are coming to understand that Pope Francis doesn’t act like a Catholic. Why? Because he is a Catholic in name only. He is some combination of Protestant and Marxist who is celebrated by the secularists and atheists of the world. He is setting back the spreading of the word of Christ for which he was ordained. It is shameful and scandalous. Let us pray for him daily.

  18. Thirty years or so ago, I attended a meeting where another person mentioned the idea that the “miracle of the loaves and fishes” was a case of “sharing”. Providentially, I had just re-read that scripture passage the day before and what followed the next day, when the people found Jesus and asked for more bread. Jesus then gave His “I am the bread of life” discourse. I was inspired to ask this person, “Does not the people asking for more bread prove that they believed Jesus had produced all the bread the day before and there had been no “miracle of sharing”? He had no answer and I was never asked back to that interfaith dialogue. Perhaps many, many people could, and should, publicly ask all news reporters world wide to publicly ask PF to publicly explain why the people asked Jesus for more bread the next day if they believed there was a miracle of sharing? World reporters may not know the “rest of the story” and they may benefit from, and be thankful for, a suggested question.

  19. I sent this message today to the Nuncio in Washington and a couple of other prelates:

    “In an article about the liturgy, the author Steve Skojec writes, ‘The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a meal. It is a HOLOCAUST. The priest does not set the table for a supper. He places the Victim, butchered and bloodied, upon the altar of sacrifice….’

    “And yet in the Church where I attend daily Mass, the priest invites people into the sanctuary for Communion, where they take the Eucharist, under both species, into their hands as if they were sharing breakfast.

    “I have no choice but to offer up the pain this travesty causes, in the hope that such abuses will one day be forbidden, as they once were.

    “In the meantime, I pray, in the words of a friend of mine,

    “‘Dear God, send us a worthy pope, or at least – through his resignation or a conversion in his thinking – bring an end to the chaos and destruction of the Bergoglio pontificate.

    “‘How long, O Lord, how long?'”

  20. Cardinal Henri de Lubac, S.J.

    It is clear that the Church is facing a grave crisis. Under the name of ‘the new Church,’ ‘the post-conciliar Church,’ a different Church from that of Jesus Christ is now trying to establish itself; an anthropocentric society threatened with immanentist apostasy which is allowing itself to be swept along in a movement of general abdication under the pretext of renewal, ecumenism, or adaptation.

  21. Nobody wants to believe it. When I shared the La Croix article with someone, they told me I was a “Pope Hater” and claimed the article was a fake. Then when I showed them a Radio Vaticano post with a link to the article (emphasizing other comments of course) I was told I needed to go to confession and that La Croix was twisting the words of the Pope and that the original interview was with Radio Vaticano. I didn’t even make a value statement. The person just came unraveled at the notion that the Pope would say such things, and then defaulted to accusations of exaggeration and fakery.

    It really is hard to believe, but true.

  22. As far as I’m concerned, Francis nailed his true colours to the mast some six months after he took office. In Sept. 2013, one Hillary Clinton got invited to Scotland’s St. Andrews University to receive an honour for – wait for it – her ‘championing of human rights’!

    The most fundamental of all human rights is surely the right to be born.
    Without this, all other human rights are meaningless. Clinton, as we all know, is one who has never seen an abortion she didn’t like, so the very idea that she should be commended for ‘upholding human rights’ was farcical, to say the least. Many pro-lifers contacted the University Principal (a woman, incidentally) and asked for the matter to be reconsidered. The local media dubbed this a ‘vicious hate campaign’ (as they would). The Catholic Media Office in Scotland just couldn’t wait to say that ‘those who objected to Clinton’s presence didn’t represent the Church’.

    Francis got to hear about this. He could have chosen to keep out of it, but not him. He only sent his ‘cordial greetings’ to all concerned with the honouring ceremony!

    • It’s interesting that everyone has had a different tipping point with Bergoglio. My own was his display of wilful and utter contempt for the Holy and Immaculate Virgin on Her feastday. Up to then I just viewed him as a boor and an ignoramus, but still Catholic. Not any more.

  23. Sometimes I wonder if I should stop visiting Rorate, 1P5, Orwells, Fisheaters, New Liturgical Movement, and all the other trad sites. I think we might be wasting our time. I mean seriously…we all keep visiting, wondering, when will this all stop! Traditional Catholics are waiting for the vindictive news to break out on each return. A kind of naive optimism. We are in for the long haul. Good luck guys, but I am done and spent. My desire at this point is to concentrate on the one thing necessary. God Bless and Keep the Faith everyone.

  24. This is why Pope’s really should NOT abdicate during their Papacy. Rushed people into voting for Bergoglio. Hopefully the lesson is learned. Benedict should have toughed it out until his dying breathe. None of this would be happening. Yet another example of breaking with tradition going wrong-wrong-wrong.

    • This was all happening, the veil has been lifted, and the apostates are now being exposed, those who head the lobby, including a pope, who obviously, could not have been validly elected.

    • I don’t know. My own belief is that Benedict was told by the Virgin Herself to step down so that the wolf Bergoglio and his pack of braying hounds would fill up the measure of their wickedness. All to be cleared up by October 2017

  25. I don’t normally comment on other people’s blogs – busy as I am operating Canada’s largest independent Catholic news organization, Salt and Light TV (TM) available on most basic cable packages, and doing a Basilian other things such as giving speeches pillorying the so-called “Catholic” blogosphere – but when I do stoop to comment on other people’s blogs, it’s to say that this negativity about Pope Francis the First must stop!

    If it doesn’t, I know a good lawyer or two – know what I’m saying?

    • Oh yes, I know what you’re saying. I suggest you point your lawyer pals in the direction of St Robert Bellarmine, and throw in Melchior Cano for good measure. He, theologian of the Council of Trent, denounced those – like yourself – guilty of papolatry:

      “Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See – they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.” End.

      So, while I wish you, your “good lawyers” and the rest of the papolatry community, all the best, I’ll pass on your advice and continue to defend the Faith against this dreadful pope on every possible occasion.

      “Salt and Light”? Seems the “salt” over in Canada, has certainly lost its flavour…

    • ….and that’s straight from the man who said Francis the First is a rebranding master. So get on with the face lift folks. Otherwise the Canuck hosers are gonna get ya ;^)

  26. Perhaps the Roman Catholic Church simply mirrors the contemporary world which it inhabits. It was a traditional Church during traditional moral eras, and now it has gradually morphed into a more progressive Church during a socially progressive epoch. Much like the Anglicans, although certainly not on marriage or life.

    • “Roman Catholic Church”? You’re using the Protestant-coined name for Christ’s Church?

      It’s a common error but depressing nonetheless. The above article is a very clear and concise history of why no Catholic should ever use the term “RC” – I’m a Scots Catholic, not a Roman one, and unless you live in Rome, neither are you.

      Yet, it’s blazoned across the internet on diocesan website after archdiocesan website. Such ignorance. But, have no doubt, the Protestants (certainly over here in the UK) know the significance of the term only too well. In meetings with them I’ve asked them to drop the term, explaining that we are the Catholic Church not the Roman Catholic Church; they smile and continue to use the misnomer.

      Although in the great scheme of things it’s no big deal really, I try to correct this error when I see it. Hope you don’t mind.

      God bless

        • So have I. Whole dioceses have it emblazoned across their websites. Useful idiots. The ignorance of the history of the Church and the Reformation offshoots, is mind-boggling.

      • I don’t mind. Thanks to Vatican ll, validly baptized Protestants belong to the Roman Catholic Church, albeit “imperfectly”, so the joke is now on them.

        • Vatican II taught nothing binding and certainly nothing that contradicted what had gone before could ever be made binding. The teaching of the Church Fathers in clear; apart from those who are truly invincibly ignorant (almost impossible today with the extensive media coverage, discussions, writings, blogs etc on religion as on everything else) – apart from those who are truly invincibly ignorant, the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation. Those who are genuinely invincibly ignorant but live good lives according to their insights, may be saved but they will be saved through Christ’s Church. To peddle the idea that there is somehow an “imperfect” way to be within the Church, as a member of a false religion on Christian “denomination” is a novelty. As you point out, a Vatican II novelty. One of many.

          But it’s no joke to see Catholics limiting the Church to a mere “branch” of the entire Catholic Church, by using the term RC, as if there is some other “Catholic Church” – nope. There is the Catholic Church, described as such as early as the beginning of the second century, and there is the Protestant innovative title of RC Church, to promote their branch theory heresy, that the Catholic Church giving allegiance to the Pope in Rome, is but one branch of the Church to which all wishing to call themselves “Christian” belong. Wrong. With bells on.

          • When in my early teens we had a very strong Archbishop in Melbourne (Daniel Mannix) who one year when we were having a National Census strongly urged the Faithful to write Catholic as religion not Roman Catholic. This made an impression on me which lasts even now. I have neverused the RC label and never will. I am Catholic… the Church is Catholic. The Church is not a Roman vesion of the Truth…. the Church is the Truth for all mankind

          • That’s great. Very few Catholics seem to have been taught this, and yet from the beginning, certainly by the end of the first century, the Christian community was using the term “Catholic Church”. You were blessed to have that strong Archbishop teaching this important fact. Most of them these days, wouldn’t have a clue.

  27. Guys, I don’t have time to keep up with all the comments, so I’m asking for some self-policing. I’m fine with debate (in fact, I think it’s healthy) but please try to keep it civil and fact-based.

    If you see comments that you think are actually abusive (not just things you disagree with), please flag them for my review. It’s a lot easier for me to look at a handful than 200+ (many long enough to be blog posts) on every article.

    Thank you.

  28. Pope Francis hailed Senator Dr Emma Bonino, an Italian politician who personally carried out over 20,000 abortions, as one as Italy’s forgotten greats. He also endorsed the Millenium Development Goals which explicitly support artificial contraception The Pope weakly affirms the teaching of the Church, but I find it impossible to believe he opposes abortion.


Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...