“You Are Distancing Yourself From Wisdom”
On November 27, 2015, the German-language magazine, FOCUS, published an open letter [Issue 49/2015; pp. 46-48] to Pope Francis from a former high-ranking member of the Roman Curia. The author claims to have drawn his inspiration to “omit to speak about all the good that you are doing and are speaking and … only list those aspects of your exercise of the papal office which seem to me to be problematic” from the pope’s own scorching address to the Roman Curia last Christmas.
Our thanks to Dr. Maike Hickson for graciously providing us a translation from the original German, which can be viewed here: original article in PDF; online version.
FOCUS Editor’s Introduction:
Among some Catholic ecclesiastical dignitaries, indignation about Pope Francis is increasing. A former member of the Roman Curia speaks out sharply here in an Open Letter during this Advent Season.
[A Picture of Pope Francis giving an address to the Roman Curia is featured. The caption explains: In his Christmas Allocution of 2014 in the Sala Clementina, inside the Apostolic Palace of the Vatican, Pope Francis rebuked his employees by listing for them some “15 illnesses” of the Curia. This castigation by the Head of the Church caught the attention of the world.]
Two and a half years ago, 115 cardinals elected the Argentine Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be the next pope. The outcome of this pontificate turns out to be mixed; while Francis receives much praise in the realm of politics and the media, the current atmosphere in the Vatican is as bad as it has ever been. Employees complain that the pope enjoys his role as Francis Superstar and that he does not care about the Church’s teaching. They also complain that he is a populist and an authoritarian and that he only takes counsel with those people who share his own opinions. There is talk about a “climate of fear.” A former, long-standing member of the Curia sums up the critique in his own open Advent Letter to the Pope – which is itself a grave form of dissonance, because the servants of the Church owe to the pope a complete obedience. FOCUS herewith publishes the text. The author (who is known to the editors) has decided to remain anonymous since he – according to his own words – would otherwise have to fear grave consequences, not only for himself, but also for his superiors and for his former colleagues in Rome.
[The Open Letter Itself:]
On the occasion of your Christmas Allocution in 2014, you called on your curial employees to make first an examination of conscience. Indeed, Advent is an occasion to reflect upon the promises of God and what He expects from us. You claimed that your employees had to be an example for the whole Church, and you then listed a several “illnesses” from which, in your view, the Curia is now suffering. At the time, I had considered this statement to be rather harsh – yes, even unjust – against so many in the Vatican whom I know personally – while you were talking, instead, as if you knew the Vatican, but either only from the outside or only from above. Nevertheless, this speech of yours has actually inspired me to write this letter to you. Following your own example, I shall omit to speak about all the good that you are doing and are speaking and I shall thus only list those aspects of your exercise of the papal office which seem to me to be problematic:
1. An emotional and anti-intellectual attitude of yours which is often tangible and which has difficulties in dealing with theories and doctrines
The alternative to the Teaching Church is the Arbitrary Church, and not the Merciful Church. Among not a few of your own chosen employees and close counselors, there is to be found a true lack of competence, both in teaching and in theology; these men often have behind them a career within the Church’s government or in a university’s administration, and they think rather all too often in pragmatic and political terms. You, as the Supreme Teacher of the Church, thus have to make clearer the primacy of the Faith – for your own sake, and for the sake of all Catholics. Faith without doctrine does not exist.
You are distancing yourself from the wisdom which is preserved in the Church’s traditional discipline, in Canon Law, and also in the historical practices of the Curia. Together with your disdain for (supposedly) theoretical teaching, this propensity leads to an authoritarianism of which even the founder of your Order of Jesuits, St. Ignatius himself, would not approve. Do you really accept those admonitory voices who say what you, personally, do not immediately see nor understand? What would happen if you were now to know my own name? It would be helpful to act in a less authoritarian way in order to change the current climate of fear.
3. A populism of change
Today, it is popular to call for change. However, especially the Successor of Peter has to remind himself and others of that which changes only slowly, and even more so of that which does not change at all. Do you really believe that the approval which you receive from the opinion-makers in the realm of politics and of the media is a good sign? Christ did not promise or prophesy to Peter popularity in the media and status in a star cult (John 21:18). A great many of your statements awaken wrong expectations and give the harmful impression that the teaching and discipline of the Church could and should be adapted to the changing opinions of the majority. The Apostle Paul is here of another opinion (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:14)
4. Your own conduct is seen as a critique of how your (often canonized) predecessors have lived, talked, and acted
I cannot recognize how this attitude comports with the humility which you have so many times invoked and demanded. Such humility is indeed needed, especially when it is about continuing the tradition which goes back to the Apostle Peter. Your conduct implicitly proposes the idea that you intend to re-invent somehow the Petrine Office. Instead of preserving faithfully the heritage of your predecessors, you want to acquire it [the heritage] in a quite creative way. But, did Saint John not say: “He (Christ) must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30)?
Only recently, you said that you especially like those parts of the papacy where you can act like a pastor. Of course, neither a pope nor a pastor should raise any doubts as to whether the Church is following the teaching of Christ in everything she currently does (Pastoral Care, Sacraments, Liturgy, Catechesis, Theology, Caritas); finally, everything depends upon the revealed Faith as it comes to us in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and which is thus binding upon the consciences of the faithful. We cannot even live the Faith and pass it on to others, if we do not know it. Without a good theory, we are – in the long run – not able to act in a good manner. Without teaching in the field of pastoral care, we shall only have emotional and largely adventitious successes.
6. Exaggerated display of the simplicity of your own way of life
Of course, you want to set an example – but is it better for you yourself to take care of all kinds of daily chores? In ascetical questions, the left hand should not know what the right hand is doing (Mt 6:3); otherwise, the whole thing appears somehow to be insincere. If you really want to drive cars that are ecological, you have to invest, by the way, much more, or to ask someone to give you as a gift the more expensive technology that is thus needed: for. ecology has its price.
7. A particularism which often subjugates the goals and purposes of the Universal Church under the viewpoints of only a part of the Church
This attitude appears nearly comical with regard to a pope. Additionally, our world is now much more interconnected, more mobile, and more proximate than ever. Especially today, it is a treasure that the Catholic Church is throughout the whole world always the same. It corresponds to the global life realities that Catholics in all countries live, pray, and think in a similar vein (and with each other together).
8. An urge for constant spontaneity
A lack of professionalism is not a sign for the working of the Holy Ghost. Expressions like “to breed like rabbits,” or “Who am I to judge…?” might possibly impress some kinds of people, but, in reality, they lead to grave misunderstandings. Constantly, others have to explain what you really meant to say. To act without a plan and outside of the protocol has its time and place – but it should not become the standard. You owe this respect to your employees (in Rome and in the whole world). The measure of spontaneity is much smaller among popes than among pastors.
9. Lack of clarity about the interconnectedness of religious, political, and economic freedom
Many of your statements indicate that the state should rule more, control more, and be responsible for more areas, especially in the economic and social field. We in Europe are used to very strong states. However, history has proven wrong the idea that the state can take care of everything. The Church has to defend non-governmental institutions which can provide things that the state could not provide (in that way). Against the tendency to expect everything from the state, the Church has to help people to take care of their own lives. The welfare state can also become too powerful, and with it, too paternalistic, authoritarian, and illiberal.
On the one hand, you show very little interest in the clergy, on the other hand, you criticize a clericalism which is more of a phantom than something that is real. One cannot compensate for this lack of interest with a good intention or with statements in front of smaller groups. The bishops and priests have to know again that the pope stands behind them when they defend the Gospels “in season and out of season,” even if it is done in a way that does not personally please the pope. It is not good that some think that the pope sees many things quite differently from the Catechism, and that others then imitate him in order to make a career under this pontificate. As a pope, you of necessity have to serve the continuity and Tradition of the Church – even non-Catholic Christians are of this opinion. It may well be better for you to cut back on your innovations and provocations; we anyway already have many people who do that. Your Magisterium, as such, is already in itself the ultimate provocation and innovation – after all, you are the Representative of Christ and the supreme teacher of our supernatural Faith. “Grace, Mercy, and Peace” are coming “from God, the Father, and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in Truth and Love” (2 John 1:3); and they only come together in a complete package. If, during this coming Year of Mercy, you are now preparing yourself for Christmas, please take this occasion as an incentive to find out for yourself what you have yourself neglected in the recent past. Let yourself be helped by your own employees who will only learn from you if you are willing to learn something from them. Like me, many others have difficulties with the way you sometimes talk and act. But that can be fixed, if it becomes clear that you listen to what others have to tell you. Unfortunately, I know that you are not yet capable of dealing well with such criticism – that is why I do not put my name on this letter. I want to protect my superiors against your wrath, especially the priests and bishops with whom I have worked for many years in Rome and from whom I have learned so much. You might want to work on taking away such fears – from me and from others – or, even better, to make such letters as this one superfluous, namely, by learning something from others.
In this spirit, may you have a blessed and contemplative Season of Advent!
A Chaplain of Your Holiness
[1P5 Editor’s note: some formatting changes were made to adapt this article for easier online reading.]
OnePeterFive offers Catholic news, commentary, and information. We are dedicated to rebuilding Catholic culture and restoring Catholic tradition.
During the season of Advent, the vicar of Christ ought consider imitating Jesus Christ who came to the world silently, in real humility.
He did not seek to grab the spotlight every single day.
His life then was hidden from almost the entirety of the world.
Now, imagine if the Pope retreated into an Advent retreat and kept his silence and showed true humility by forsaking the spotlight and the center stage of the entire world?
Imagine if, following Advent, he continued to follow the example of the LORD and remained hidden for thirty years.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
I’ll start holding my breath now.
Jesus had a public life and people were always saying either : we heard he would be here today and have come to hear him or : that troublemaker is at it again let’s go and set a few traps …
Jesus noted these by remarking that these same folks quarreled with The Baptist because of his lifestyle and we’re annoyed when Jesus drank wine and enjoyed dinner parties !
wait, was this written by Benedict? 😉
I was so sad to read this letter and am only grateful that this man no longer works in the curia. I do hope he is not in any position of pastoral care. I am sorry to say that I saw in this letter all the characteristics displayed by the scribes in their dealings with Jesus. Indeed if one replaced the Pope as the recipient of the letter and substituted Jesus, it would be an almost perfect fit.
I totally agree. Sour grapes at it’s best. I’m sure this man had a “story’ and was removed from the curia. Now he’s crying in his beer oh I mean wine. lol
What sick comments that follow. Sad bunch. Get over it.
What is sad is that this pontificate provides such ready material upon which to make such commentary. Wine or beer cannot erase reality.
Jesus let his yes mean yes and his no mean no, Richard. That is not the case with Francis, sadly. Unfortunately the term pastoral, much like the term love, has been hijacked by those who would facilitate and/or enable that which is sinful by not speaking out clearly against it.
Even as the Pharisees would deem some beyond redemption by way of exaggerating the letter of the law, today’s Pharisees would deem sinners beyond redemption by pretending that sins are not sins and thereby depriving the sinner of the opportunity to take advantage of Christ’s copious offer of grace. Both approaches are a negation of Christ’s saving love. The former believing others beneath God’s saving grace and the latter believing themselves above the need for God’s saving grace.
As for a perfect fit, I do hope you’re not a tailor!
Well said. I am reading this a year later – the situation has deteriorated so much more. May the Lord bless the efforts of Cardinal Burke and all the faithful cardinals and bishops who are protecting the faith.
The 4 Cardinals and the Dubia
Blessing Adultery: Christ the Judgmental vs. Francis the Humble – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auJ0qYdIdHQ
THE POPE’S BOSS — Wikileaks: Pope and Soros An Unholy Alliance
hey baby, Year of Mercy. sin boldly inside the curia and out.
“Sad” is the wrong word, Richard. Rather, “hopeful”. That there are still men in high places in the Vatican who retain the eternal verities of the Faith, taught for 2000 years is, indeed, cause for hope. Perhaps nuance, spirit (of man), creativity and relativism will not, after all, shroud the Truth, as long as there are some, however few, with “eyes to see”. These days hearken back to Elijah where the Lord was not in the wind, nor in the earthquake, nor the fire: but, in a “still small voice”. Despite the best efforts of the modernists, that “voice” will never die. THAT is the Christian’s hope, his faith—and his salvation.
As Saint JPII once remarked, we ought too call black, black; white, white, and sin, sin.
Those who prefer to demand niceties and comfort rather than uncomfortable truth, in the face of grave harm to God’s Church, themselves assist in the harm being done. The cross has many splinters–discomfort is but one.
St. Paul–who never once walked with Christ on earth–dared to so admonish St. Peter the first pope, otherwise you (as a gentile) would not be so honored and gifted with the true faith.
Richard, if you are sad, then it means you are living in a dream world. Francis is the most authoritarian pope of the modern era. The only thing that matters to him is his ego. As much as the secular press praises him, he cares less for the wider Church.
Sad because the letter touches a nerve that you’re uncomfortable with?
Comparing Francis with Jesus seems like blasphemy. Francis is so much more humble, you see.
On the contrary, I was almost expecting to hear that Jesus Himself had signed the letter. It hits the nail smack on the head.
Wow! I’ve never seen anything even remotely like this! Honestly, I cannot add one word because the author has mined my thoughts down to the bare walls. Again, wow!
Lord, hear our prayers for all the good priests suffering under the “mercy” of Francis.
I guess the author didn’t read Dave Armstrong’s post telling him that if he’s not willing to submit to the unfathomable wisdom of this pope, then he should get out of Dave’s church.
Oh, Dave. Don’t ever change.
Did he really say that? That is funny.
These are sad, irrational times with Pope Francis sitting in the Chair of Peter.
It is always easier for people to gush over the “Emperor’s New Clothes” rather than acknowledge that he is naked.
Thank you for publishing this anonymous letter. Indeed thank you for all of your efforts on behalf of the faith. However do you not think that this letter’s very anonymity causes it to loose a certain “weight”?
On one hand, as no other high ranking cleric (to my admittedly very limited knowledge) has come forward with similar charges, then the letter’s accuracy is in question.
On the other hand if the letter’s charges against Holy Father Francis are, in the main true and correct, then that calls the moral courage of the higher clergy into question.
Indeed it means, if the letter’s accusations are indeed in the main true and correct; that Ms. Barnhardt’s criticism’s of the Holy Father are spot on – a scary thought.
Keep up the great work.
Richard W Comerford
The charges are manifestly true, as is the concern over retribution. I wish it were signed, but I understand that not everyone is willing to put their name to something like this, especially when it might do damage to others who had no role in the writing of the thing.
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “The charges are manifestly true”
I pray that you are wrong. I fear that you are right.
and in part: “as is the concern over retribution”
No doubt. But can one witness for Christ from the shadows?
Keep up the great work.
Richard W Comerford
“…But can one witness for Christ from the shadows?”
One must if to reveal oneself would harm others unduly.
Steve, I wish to put something in your tip jar, but alas, your paypal requires me to do this on a weekly or monthly or annual basis. If I were in the chips I would be a regular contributor, but would like to give a xmas gift, so how do I do that when there is no venue for doing that?
Why would the lack of other voices put in question the accuracy of the letter? A lot of people in the Politburo knew what was afoot a few decades ago, but only occasionally did anyone have the testicular fortitude to denounce publicly the abuses, and on most of those rare occasions the author remained unattributed.
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “Why would the lack of other voices put in question the accuracy of the letter?
If the accusations contained in the letter in question are true (and Mr. Skojec affirms that they are indeed true) then one would expect there to be similar letters, and not authored anonymously, published by Cardinals, Bishops and Vatican officials who love Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
There are perhaps three reasons for this non-appearance of similar letters:
1. Our esteemed host is wrong and the accusations lack substance.
2. Others potential authors refrain from writing out of prudance.
3. Other potential authors refrain from writing because they do not love Jesus Christ enough to overcome their cowardice.
and in part: “A lot of people in the Politburo knew what was afoot a few decades ago”
Solzhenitsyn, among others, loved Christ and Russia enough to come forward and publish with their true names and in so doing did, in my opinion, great good.
Richard W Comerford
I suspect strongly it’s your number two that keeps Vatican mouths sealed. Solzhenitsyn, as you certainly know, was never in the Politburo. Members of that august body bold enough to attach their names to criticism like that written by our ex-vaticanista ended up “airbrushed out of group portraits” with all that implies.
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “I suspect strongly it’s your number two that keeps Vatican mouths sealed.”
I pray that you are right.
and in part: “ended up “airbrushed out of group portraits”.”
You are, of course right, but my concern is this: no Vatican whistle blower is going to get air brushed. He may be humiliated. He may end up in professional disgrace. He may end up with a parish in Antarctica ministering to penguins; but he is not going to be killed. You and I both probably know of more than a few laymen who have sacrificed EVERYTHING for the Church.
Saint Paul did not critique Saint Peter from the anonymously shadows.
Richard W Comerford
You underestimate the evil within the Vatican RWC. Further you previously suggested that these clergy are to be obeyed by all. I think you would have a very difficult time telling that to Christ. “At the Vatican, a significant number of gay prelates and other gay clerics are in positions of great authority. They may not act as a collective but are aware of one another’s existence. And they inhabit a secretive netherworld, because homosexuality is officially condemned. Though the number of gay priests in general, and specifically among the Curia in Rome, is unknown, the proportion is much higher than in the general population. Between 20 and 60 percent of all Catholic priests are gay, according to one estimate cited by Donald B. Cozzens in his well-regarded The Changing Face of the Priesthood. For gay clerics at the Vatican, one fundamental condition of their power, and of their priesthood, is SILENCE, at least in public, about who they really are.” I would add that murder and mayhem have been alive and well in the Curia for a very long time. Check this out–Nov 13, 2013 VANITY FAIR an article entitled The Vatican’s Secret Life. While you are at it, also see the 8/28/2015 article in the Daily Beast entitled Vatican’s no. one Pervert Priest Dies Suddenly in Vatican City.
And why would Ann Barnhardt’s criticisms of the-not-so-Holy Father be a scary thought? I doubt Ann rants just for the sake of ranting. She is a seeker of truth and today in this PC environment that can get you taken out, or at the least, you find yourself minus many liberal friends who count PC Alinsky as the pope.
“And why would Ann Barnhardt’s criticisms of the-not-so-Holy Father be a scary thought?”
Neither you nor I know the state of Holy Father Francis’ soul. Let us hope it is in an inspiring state. And, of course, in this case the word “Holy” does not mean that the Pope is saintly but that his position is dedicated to the service of God.
And if Ms. Barnhardt is correct in her criticisms of Holy Father Francis then we can expect some very bad times ahead. I find that very scary.
Richard W Comerford
And in the German press, too.
That is the Holy Hand Grenade launched deep into enemy territory.
Serious dress down happening in those words. Wow.
I think you meant to say “…launched FROM deep inside enemy territory.”
Fantastic! The author has summed it up – and this was even before the desecration of St Peter’s with the ecological light show. The latter is the thing that has most viscerally upset me so far, and the thing that I think shows beyond a doubt that we have a heretic or an anti-pope in the Chair of Peter.
Lord, raise up a new Athanasius for us.
You posted in part: ” I think shows beyond a doubt that we have a heretic or an anti-pope in the Chair of Peter”.
When I was young (back in the Dark Ages) a heretic was a person who publicly, formally and repeatedly over time denied part or all of the Deposit of Faith AND refused both private and then public admonishments from his bishop. Excommunication was seen not as a punishment but as a corrective move both for the good of the soul of the heretic and to prevent further scandal of the faithful.
As individuals neither you nor I can declare Holy Father Francis a heretic.
Richard W Comerford
“Declare”? Lay people with no authority of course cannot officially declare anything That’s irrelevant and unimportant. We can certainly have our own opinions and speak them. In fact, I’d say we have an obligation to do so. Otherwise, it’s “shut up and follow orders.”
Spot on Food Stuff. Nowhere in scripture or elsewhere does it mandate that we follow a fool. Au contraire, as followers of Christ it is imperative we shout truth wherever lies are found.
You posted in part: “Nowhere in scripture or elsewhere does it mandate that we follow a fool.”
Really? Holy Scripture tells us that Christ was obedient unto death. Remember Abraham who was ready to sacrifice his own son? How many times have we heard a Saint described as “a fool for Christ”/
Satan was the first rebel.
Richard W Comerford
Where in scripture does it say that Christ was obedient onto death for a FOOL? Methinks you are confused. Abraham may have sacrificed his son as commanded, BUT no God/Father has ever told us that we MUST obey fools, pervert priests or recalcitrant clergy of any stripe. A fool for Christ is not the same as a damn fool..hugh difference in my book. Au contraire, we are told to avoid at all costs, those who deny truth/goodness. Satan was the first rebel, but that does not mean that if one rebels that they follow in Satan’s footsteps..that is ridiculous.
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “Where in scripture does it say that Christ was obedient onto death for a FOOL?”
Perhaps “FOOL” is not a good word to use?:
“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of
fire.” Matthew 5:22
and in part: “BUT no God/Father has ever told us that we MUST obey fools”
And how do we determine a person is a fool? Particularly someone who is a fool for Christ?
1 Corinthians 4:10: “We are fools for Chris”
and in part: “we are told to avoid at all costs, those who deny truth/goodness”
And where has Holy Father Francis, speaking as the Successor to Peter, taught the faithful to deny what you call “truth/goodness”?
and in part: “but that does not mean that if one rebels that they follow in Satan’s footsteps”
Of course it does. We have no right to rebel against just authority. Remember the 4th Commandment. God has commanded us to honor and obey those in authority.
Richard W Comerford
RW Comerford, thanks for your response. I have to disagree with you on two of your assertions. One being where I say, “we are told to avoid at all costs, those who deny truth/goodness”
Your response is, “And where has Holy Father Francis, speaking as the Successor to Peter, taught the faithful to deny what you call “truth/goodness?” Making light of the sins of gays/pervs highlights his problem of denying the good.
If you have read any of Ann Barnhardt’s take on the pope you would learn how she views the pope evading both the truth, and in so doing, not moving towards the GOOD. But I digress.
I have my own take on this regarding Pope Francis’s cozy relationship with Islime..and his kissing the feet of those whose so called religion tells them to hate all non muslims. The pope equating Allah with God the father/ Christ/Spirit gives the lie to the truth of the one true God. I also do have a HUGH problem with any pope who basically rewards a cardinal (known for decades of playing musical pedophile priests in MA) with a cushy Vatican post and not even a slap on the wrist! I fail to see any truth or goodness in such an act.
If you can’t view that in the context of a pope rewarding evil, I don’t know what I can say to change your mind. In my mind it is very clear that any old boy network covering the butts of said pedo priests is NOT good, let alone truthful in the eyes of God!
Your other assertion, “We have no right to rebel against just authority. Remember the 4th Commandment. God has commanded us to honor and obey those in authority”
Au contraire, you ASSUME a premise of said authority being just, honorable and respectful of the person they lord over. BUT as I know from experience, it is wrong to teach kids from a young age that they must ALWAYS obey their parents and any priests with whom they have contact.
As one who had parents who wanted me to sell my body so that they could have extra money, there is no way you can convince me that I had to obey such sick orders. So too, any student used or abused by any priest did NOT have to obey such a sicko who betrayed both the child, the parents, and the Lord himself. Authority is not always the good thing you think. Further, I have authority given to me by my maker that I must rebel against those who would endanger my body/heart/soul.
I have five children and had two miscarriages. If I had ever found out that any of my children had been abused by any priest, coach or Boy scout leader, they would have had to pay bigtime for all the work I had been creating for years. I would have THAT AUTHORITY given to me by god, as a parent who is to protect and cherish their child. Further, to condemn evil.
Hence, I would then be responsible for punishing severely anyone who defiled my offspring. I have that on the word of my Lord. As he said ‘it would be better one put an albatross around their neck and sink themselves into the sea before taking a child’s innocence” Knowing that few who could do such heinous acts, would in fact drown themselves in the sea, then it is required that the innocent have someone punish the perv who defiled them, thus showing the child they have worth.
If you think I am joking about parents who would deign to use or abuse their kids, you must have been a lucky kid to have parents that loved you, cherished and protected you. Not all kids are that lucky to be born into that wonderful environment.
In my town, it is known by our local police dept that there are parents who force their girls out the door onto the streets to make money for the parent’s drug habit. In my book such a girl should not only NOT OBEY, but should tell her parents to go straight to hell. If I were in a confessional today telling a priest a major sin of mine, it would be that I never told my parents where they could get off.
I do believe that the Lord would be upset with me for taking the easy way out and not telling them what horrible parents they were for wanting their girl to sin for their wallet. And no, my parents were NOT poor by any means. Having been made the parent at the age of five by liberal parents who could not or would not be responsible. it was put onto me to carry their load and be the parent to them and my two sibs. Where in scripture does it say that I had to go along with that, and further, why would it be wrong if I disobeyed? Should such a child sin to obey her parents, or should she see who the real sinner is?
BTW, my moniker is NOT Mr, but Ms! Thanks for listening.
Thank you for your reply. Your reply is somewhat Looooong. I find it hard to respectfully respond to your entire reply. So let me try this.
Most folks in public will not speak ill of their father even if he is a jerk. This is admirable. It is also in accordance with the 4th Commandment.
Those of us who were blessed with great fathers further realize that these great fathers are still very human, make mistakes and can act stupidly. Yet we still owe them obedience and in later life profound respect.
Christ did not promise us perfect Popes. Indeed He chose the very imperfect Peter to be His chief apostle and not the almost flawless John.
We owe our all too human Holy Father Francis respect and obedience.
I hope you find my reply acceptable.
Richard W Comerford
I suppose that you also feel that we should respect the president as well, even though he is attempting to destroy our country. I find that many liberals take the same PC stance which is abhorrent. Sorry, but I do not agree that either should be respected. I am surprised that you have not read Revelations to learn that we have no duty to respect/honor or accept any who would put themselves out there as the whore of Babylon. But in fact, Revelations tells us to save ourselves and flee from the W of B.
Why is it that the sheeple actually believe that the pope represents Christ…no pope has even come close and our real allegiance is to God the Father, not to any mere man who breathes the same air you do, eats the same food, As for your complaint that my piece was too looooong, some of us are not into sound bites which say something, but not really anything.
I note that you did not address my discounting of your two assertions and why they were not correct assertions. I find it hard to respectfully agree with someone who will not engage in the topic at hand, but cleverly attempts to make me look bad.
Thank you for your reply: “I suppose that you also feel that we should respect the president as well”
Richard W Comerford
Have a gas man, when you are told to put 666 on your forehead and your hand by the False Prophet disguised as a Pope. Have a gas!
I am sorry if I upset you again. But as I wrote to you previously why do you read my posts if they upset you so?
Richard W Comerford
“We owe our all too human Holy Father Francis respect and obedience.”
A Father must not put the family in danger, we know the gates of hell will not prevail, that doesn’t mean the Ship won’t suffer heavy damage and losses, as the Captain puts it in full throttle, yelling we will fly! Hopefully, there will not be too many Aye Aye Sir !
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “Hopefully, there will not be too many Aye Aye Sir !”
“Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution” 1 Peter 2:13
Richard W Comerford
Not to the point of stupidity, the bible frowns upon fools.
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: Not to the point of stupidity, the bible frowns upon fools.
“We are fools for Christ’s sake” 1 Corinthians 4:10
Christ was obedient to the Will of His Father unto death. Ten of the apostles accepted a bloody martyrdom. IIRC correctly a Rabbi on this matter: ‘every institution requires and needs obedience. A Jew in Hitler’s Germany had a moral obligation to obey the traffic laws’ (I am sure I messed that one up.)
But there are limits to obedience to Papal authority.
My layman’s reading of Laudato Si seems to indicate that Holy Father Francis holds that the question of global warming (or climate change) is settled science. (And although most of the encyclical’s 187 pages was devoted to this matter there was only one foot note, as I recall, devoted to climate change.)
I am free to disagree with Holy Father Francis on this matter and still remain a loyal son of the Church. In other areas I am not free and must be obedient as Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was obedient to the Will of His heavenly Father during His passion and death.
Richard W Comerford
Fools for Christ do not make the stupid list. Use your obedience well, as will I.
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “Fools for Christ do not make the stupid list.”
‘The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline
Richard W Comerford
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline ”
Your response to sunshineinjuly is completely absurd, like the rest of your posts. And, no!. I do not owe this heretic pope any respect, obedience or deference of any kind. He is a scandal to the Church. I’d say the same about you if you had the standing to be scandalous.
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:
“Your response to sunshineinjuly is completely absurd”
Is it. What does Holy Scripture say on this matter of respecting civil authority?:
“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority” Peter 2:13
and in part: “I do not owe this heretic pope”
Where comes your authority to declare a Successor to Peter a “”heretic”?
“I’d say the same about you”
I was unaware that my Bishop had declared me a heretic.
Richard W Comerford
When oh when are you, Mr B. Richard P. Mordernist L Vanity S. Pride xvii th ever EVER going to stop bloggering (trolling) around the web in ALL the places where they disagree with you 99.95% and wish you were GONE so that your idolizing the bad man and never the good man wouldn’t have to so resemble ADHESION (sticky-glue) to your modernist Führer. You see Mr Snooty Nom d’Ignorence XVLI we couldn’t give a rat’s a^^hat about your sooo repetitive misunderstanding of what the Catholic Faith actually entails, one of which is SUPERNATURAL discernment of the Spirit, get it? As our Lord said, “but the hireling, my sheep will not follow.” git it mon?
Lord Superior Thinker to Richard W Comerford Blathering Troll XV
I am sorry if I upset you yet again. But as I wrote to you previously why do you read my posts if they upset you so?
Richard W Comerford
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:
“Lay people with no authority of course cannot officially declare anything That’s irrelevant and unimportant.”
No. You are quite wrong. Accusations of heresy have torn the Church to pieces in the past. We have an obligation to defend the Mystical Body of Christ.
and in part: “We can certainly have our own opinions and speak them.”
No. We cannot speak them if they conflict with either justice or charity.
and in part: “Otherwise, it’s “shut up and follow orders.”.”
Exactly right. (St.) Padre Pio agrees with you.
Richard W Comerford
Thanks for your response. I respectfully beg to differ. I understand your position, but I think the situation is too dire for lay people to remain silent (hence this website and many others). You’re of course know that St Pio took a vow of obedience that lay people do not take.
Thanks for your response. I respectfully beg to differ. I understand your position, but I think the situation is too dire for lay people to remain silent (hence this website and many others). I believe charity demands that we “call a spade a spade.” You of course know that St Pio took a vow of obedience that lay people do not take.
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “but I think the situation is too dire for lay people to remain silent”
Certainly laymen must ask for clarification when their pastor, Bishop or Pope reportedly make statements that cause confusion regarding doctrine and the Deposit of Faith. However it seems that we laymen are dividing into 2-camps: one > which tends to hold that Holy Father Francis is a kind of demi-god who cal do no wrong; and two > which tends to portray him as the Anti-Christ.
and in part: “I believe charity demands that we “call a spade a spade.”.
The difficulty here is that there are no spades involved. Just remarks and actions by Holy Father Francis that might be interpreted in radically different ways. Much like both Cardinal Kasper and Archbishop Lefebvre described the V2 documents.
and in part: “You of course know that St Pio took a vow of obedience that lay people do not take.”
Yes. A very particular type of vow proper to a monk who lives in community. However both are baptismal and confirmation responses bind us in obedience to the successors to the Apostles.
Richard W Comerford
Needless to say, I don’t share your point-of-view, but I understand it, and hopefully you understand mine. I don’t do protracted word jousting. God bless you.
The decades long “process theology” of Kasper (the notion that God is in process of learning how to be a good God) and reiterated by Francis is not at all respectful to God or coherent with the Catholic religion. No one owes respect to blasphemy and heresy.
Mr. Edward J Baker
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: No one owes respect to blasphemy and heresy.
No. Of course not. But do we owe respect (and obedience) to Holy Father Francis?
Richard W Comerford
TO give respect and obedience to a blasphemer makes one complicit with the said heresy…that is against God. It sounds like you are telling us that if a priest defiles a child, we must still afford him respect and obedience..to that I say, “Hell no, 1,000 X over”.
It sounds so far out to me that we must reward someone who is attempting to pull rot over on us. God does not demand our victimhood to those who attempt to destroy good, truth/beauty.
1 Peter 2:13 – Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
Richard W Comerford
you’re really are the biggest troll i have ever read in the entire web, just full of stinking pride to talk to parents the way you do and still put faith in your much too over-read signature. Give it up man, and find blogs that fit your bloated ideology.
Snodgrass F. U. Deanery CCVLI
…we are bound in obedience to all but sin, Richard. It is important to correct heresy, especially rampant soft pedal heresy by speaking clearly when needs must. It is no pleasure to look to one’s Pope and feel compelled by duty to speak out. It is a nasty and disturbing business.
Francis may exercise the authority, even in so far as throwing many out of the temple so to speak, but we have been forewarned of these times.
No one can tell me that it is right to be bound to obeying disobedience on the part of so called authority. MY Lord tells me that he gave me my own mind and to use it, Further if He wants me to know anything He is perfectly capable of letting me know without an interpreter…or worse, one who leads others astray. We are now in one of the most spiritual struggles we have seen in eons…and the strong must keep their mind and voice in tune with God who provides clarity and clears the fog of PC and ‘niceness’
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:
“No one can tell me that it is right to be bound to obeying disobedience on the part of so called authority.”
We must all respect authority > “LET every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.” Romans 13:1
Richard W Comerford
It is because lay people have been silent for far too long. Like around a half a century, I would add. And of course, when you allow bullies to reign supreme, to defile your child, to be responsible for that child committing suicide, you have forfeited your GOD given right to speak up and demand answers. It is the only Christian thing to do…silence always implies acceptance.
Thank you, Richard W. Comerford your polite and thoughtful contributions: I think your observations as to fools and folly are well made (but then I am always impressed by people who base their views on the authority of scripture. As to what you say immediately above subordinating our views to justice and chariot, I am reminded not just of St Pader Pio, but of St Francis of Assisi, who, at a time of great corruption in the Church, never deviated from his respect for the Pope, even if his own life provided a radically different example of observance. God Bless you, Roderick Blyth.
Thank you for your kind, indeed very kind reply.
At my age memory fails and I cannot remember who gave the following guidance for posting on a Catholic blog; I paraphrase:
‘Every post on a Catholic blog should be a witness to Jesus Christ, a proclamation proclaim His His good news and an opening of hearts to the Holy Ghost.’
Of course 9-times out 0f 10 I fail to follow the aforementioned advice; but I try.
Let us assist one another on the journey Home.
Richard W Comerford
Refusal to confront heresy has torn the Church to pieces in the past. Name one “opinion” expressed here that conflicts with justice and charity.
You cannot find any opinion here Edward that does conflict with justice or charity. Au contraire, only the brainwashed masses never get a clue. Thus they give up their own god given voice, just as they/gov’t are now attempting to get us to give up our Freedom of Speech. My God has taught me to never forfeit my own mind for that of a lesser one. And by God, there are many lessers out there today in both church and state.
Mr. Edward J Baker:
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:
“Refusal to confront heresy has torn the Church to pieces in the past.”
I think that it is heresy that “has torn the Church to pieces in the past.”.
and in part: “Name one “opinion” expressed here that conflicts with justice and charity.”
Richard W Comerford
Be gone Satan!!!
“It’s shut up and follow orders” Straight out of the commie book, today, the liberal PC MC BS book too. Anyone who sees the light knows that the Church was infiltrated with the commie/homo element back in the 60’s,70’s. Who says that we have to bow to that, when infiltrators are doing their best to destroy the church?When Christ chased the money changers out of the temple, please tell me why it was wrong to speak truth? What on earth is all this nonsense about being PC. As for Food stuff’s response, I think that he/she knows that sometimes comments can conflict with charity, especially when what you opine on is the truth, even if the supposed seat of Peter has not a clue!
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:”It’s shut up and follow orders” Straight out of the commie book,”
And this Book: Romans 13:1-7 – Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Richard W Comerford
The powers that be are ordained of God? Does this include anyone with a high position of power in church or state who asks you to sin or do for them what God forbids? I don’t think so! My God tells me I am responsible for my actions and do not, He repeats, DO NOT DO anything you wouldn’t do if I/God were there. Seems to me that God does not want us to obey powers that go astray or ask us to do horrific things. If your argument is right, you give credence/legitimacy to isis’s actions, simply ’cause some higher power/alasux, tells them to do the demonic.
An example today on Ann Barnhardt’s blog gives the reality of honoring/obeying clergy authority figures and probably ending up in hell! Thus proving the dark underbelly of obeying.
I also note the exponential growth of evil within the clergy when none speak out against evil and all pretend that since a priest is a representative of God his butt is covered no matter what he does. Thus proving we are NOT to obey mere men no matter if God is the source of all power. To do so would imperil one’s own soul.
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “Thus proving we are NOT to obey mere men no matter if God is the source of all power”
It does not prov anything. Man’s laws must abide with God’s laws; but we cannot pick and chose whop or what we will obey if the man in authority is operating within natural law.
Richard W Comerford
If the authority is NOT operating within natural law, we have no reason to agree, to respect or honor said so called authority. Methinks you are confused about this preferring to put your head in the sand about authority per se. Today Ann Barnhardt, in her usual brilliance, agrees on why we should not ever agree or respect crooked clergy.
Referencing the demonic light show at St Peter’s for Christmas, Ann offers this view which is spot on and I feel is more than legitimate..
“Yes, I’m sitting here watching all of this collapse unfold, remembering how all of this was made perfectly, totally obvious when Bergoglio didn’t genuflect after consecrating the Host and Precious Blood in his first Mass in the Sistine Chapel. I don’t know what exactly it is going to take for people to realize that the whole “YOU CAN’T MAKE JUDGMENTS based on objective reality” TROPE is DIABOLICAL.”
But my point is that your point, when you rant, ‘we can never make judgments based on objective reality’, I find a tad whackadoodle.
This next paragraph shows just how fruit and nutty such thinking is.
“People today think they can run with truly evil people and never say a word to them admonishing their sin, telling them about hell, and telling them of the massive importance of repenting and ceasing their sinful ways, ..that this isn’t only morally acceptable, but MORALLY SUPERIOR – that in running with, doing business with, or associating with genuinely bad people and NOT CONFRONTING THEIR EVIL is the mark of a truly “Christian” soul.” Amen…Sheer balderdash I’d add.
Am in total agreement with Ann on that. You are not a Christian by being ‘nice’, ‘PC’ or any other kind of stupid. Using scripture as white wash to defend the indefensible just doesn’t wash.
F A C T is, that if you don’t judge then you apparently allow demons into the air you breathe..it’s that simple. Telling someone not to judge another does NOT make one superior. Au contraire, I see it as a form of stupidity akin to the sin being defended..and it’s all around us today…it’s called liberalism where the brain is liberally awash in anything goes and we cannot judge any. The old fashioned word at one time was called brainwashing. Smart people don’t go there!
Do read all about the demonic lightshow the Pope has at St Peter’s. It is mind-blowing to conceive of giving credence to this truly depraved act of allowing such a digital artist to sully St Peter’s in this fashion. And pleeeeze do not come back and say we have no right to judge evil..and that we must obey it, honor it, and give it credence. http://www.barnhardt.biz/2015/12/10/on-the-demonic-light-show-freemasons-and-the-themesong-of-the-remnant-church/
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “f the authority is NOT operating within natural law, we have no reason to agree, to respect”
Sorry. Yes we do.
and in part: “Today Ann Barnhardt, in her usual brilliance, agrees on why we should not ever agree or respect crooked clergy”
and in part: “And pleeeeze do not come back and say we have no right to judge evil.”
We do not.
I believe Ms. Barnhardt today addressed secular rulers not priests. We can and must objectively judge external actions. We cannot judge the interior soul. All human authority is very fallible. However we still owe respect and obedience to our superiors both religious and secular.
Richard W Comerford
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “The powers that be are ordained of God? Does this include anyone with a
high position of power in church or state who asks you to sin or do for
them what God forbids?”
Of course not. But you owe respect and obedience to those in authority who exercise power within the 10-Commandments.
and in part: “If your argument is right”
Not my argument. I am citing Holy Scripture.
Richard W Comerford
old loquacious warthog antipope idolater…it is written, “My house shall be a house of prayer” not a heil, heil from a man who can’t recognize a true peter from an imposter that was prophesied would come! “Get thee behind me Satan.” You say heil to a machiavellian traitor and dishonour Christ the Mystical Head of His body, which makes me question that you are a false brother…You know the prophecies – Go study them and fall on your knees and stop trolling people who don’t appreciate your falsity disguised as loquacious trolling…
It is often cited that Excommunication is a corrective but it should be emphasized that is only a corrective if the person excommunicated repents.
In the case of an excommunicated person failing to repent removing access to the supernatural graces of the sacraments is obviously both a punishment and a condemnation.
Yes, It is clear that no layperson or even individual Bishop can not juridically declare any person preaching heresy a heretic or condemn them to temporal punishment but a heretical teaching is still heresy no matter who teaches it and the person preaching it a heretic determined by the faithful in the same manner that person who commits any crime is a criminal before his trial and a convicted criminal after.
You are also correct in your call to charity and respect for the office of the Papacy and the current occupant and it is also wished that same would be true for the Shepherd.
RWC. Back in the day, before IANS was banned from his blog for opposing the personal opinions of Mr. Shea, you were on virtually every thread there in full- throated support of his personal opinions.
So, have you now joined the legion of men banned from his Blog?
Mr. I am not Spartacus:
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “IANS”
and in part: “you were on virtually every thread there in full- throated support of his personal opinions”.
Regarding the 5th Commandment Mr. Shea’s opinions and the teachings of the Church I found to be one and the same. And IIRC it was my intent to limit my comments on things related to the 5th Commandment and in particular to matters where I had some decades of professional experience; namely military and law enforcement and things that went ‘bang”.
and in part: “So, have you now joined the legion of men banned from his Blog?”
I am not aware of being banned from Mr. Shea’s blog. Of course if he had high standards, or any standards at all, he would ban me.
Richard W Comerford
RWC Thank you for thanking me.
One imagines you would know if you were banned or not.
O, and you do have a duty to combat heresy even though you oppose the bible when it teaches you to do so.
O, same goes for Canon Law, see Canon Law 212.
Of course you have Free Will to oppose the Bible and Canon Law but you ought not advise others imitate you in refusing to do your duty as a Christian.
Mr. I am not Spartacus:
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “One imagines you would know if you were banned or not.”
If it is important to you please ask Mr. Shea. It is not important to me.
and in part: “you do have a duty to combat heresy even though you oppose the bible when it teaches you to do so”
I have a duty to practice the spiritual works of mercy. I do not have the authority to become a heretic hunter.
and in part: “same goes for Canon Law”
No. You are mistaken. Canon Law does not provide me any layman to become a heretic hunter.
and in part: “you have Free Will to oppose the Bible and Canon Law but you ought not
advise others imitate you in refusing to do your duty as a Christian.”
Neither Holy Scripture nor Canon Law provide for laymen to become heretic hunters. Instead we are called upon to perform teh spiritual works of mercy.
I imagine that if there was less heresy hunting, and more spiritual works of mercy by Catholics, the Church would be in a much better state than it is now.
Richard W Comerford
RWC Thank you for replying to my reply to your etc etc etc but you neglected to apologise for mistakenly claiming that “heretic” does not appear in the Bible.
Can we expect that you will correct your error or are you too focused on correcting the putative errors of others to correct your own errors?
And now, despite the apt sources having been produced, you are continuing to deny you have a Biblical Duty and a Duty as a member of the Church militant to identify heretics but you sure have spend a lot of time correcting others who are not heretics so, judging from your behavior, you seem more interested in correcting that which you mistakenly think are errors in those who defend the faith than you are interested in defending the Faith against heretics.
O, and as regards being a heresy hunter, that is the wrong way to think abut the matter for the heretics are pursuing us and we are merely defending the Faith against them, the heretics.
And what sort of man is it who refuses to defend the enemies of the Faith when they attack The Bride of Christ?
That seems a very effeminate response to an attack on one’s Mother, The Church, but, you could not be any clearer that is what you feel called to do, so, ya know, whatever, as the kids say.
In any event, there is no reason to keep up this exchange, is there?
Mr. I am not Spartacus:
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “but you neglected to apologise for mistakenly claiming that “heretic” does not appear in the Bible.”
Did you not provide me with citations in which the word “heretic” did not appear?
and in part: “are you too focused on correcting the putative errors of others to correct your own errors?”
I correct no one. Our duty as laymen is to practice the Spiritual Works of Mercy in these matters:
Admonish the sinner
Instruct the ignorant
Counsel the doubtful
Comfort the sorrowful
Bear wrongs patiently
Forgive all injuries
Pray for the living and the dead
and in part: “you are continuing to deny you have a Biblical Duty and a Duty as a member of the Church militant to identify heretics”
Yes. Our duty is to practice the Spiritual Works of Mercy. (See above.)
and in part: “and as regards being a heresy hunter, that is the wrong way to think abut the matter for the heretics”
It is the duty of the bishops to hunt heretics – not the laity.
and in part: “And what sort of man is it who refuses to defend the enemies of the Faith when they attack The Bride of Christ?”
One can not defend the faith without practicing the Spiritual Works of Mercy. One can only loose souls.
and in part: “That seems a very effeminate response to an attack on one’s Mother, The Church”
Practicing the Spiritual Works of Mercy is the response the Church gives us in the face of ignorance, doubt, sin, sorrow, wrongs, injury and doubt.
and in part:” but, you could not be any clearer that is what you feel called to do”
It is not what I feel. Again, the Church calls upon us to practice the Spiritual Works of Mercy.
and in part: “In any event, there is no reason to keep up this exchange, is there?”
I am always happy to practice the Spiritual Works of Mercy.
and in part:
Richard W Comerford
The Bible tells us to not only identify heretics but to shun them
2 John 10:11
Mr. I am not Spartacus:
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:
and in part: “Roman 16:17”
The word heretics does not appear in this cite
and in part: “2 John 10:11”
“The word heretics does not appear in this cite either”
It is not my duty to declare a soul a heretic. That is the duty of the bishop
Richard W Comerford
RWC Thank you for thanking me.
Romans 16:17 so you think “offenses contrary to the doctor you have learned” is not heresy?
2 John 10:11 does not speak of heresy when it refers to men arriving and not bringing the doctrine taught by the church, that doesn’t refer to heretics?
Well then, you have proved you have not the faintest idea of what heresy is.
The Bible says you have a duty to identify heretics and to shun them but you follow something different; perhaps papalotary?
Mr. I am not Spartacus:
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: ” so you think “offenses contrary to the doctrine you have learned” is not heresy?”
That is for the Bishop to decide not me.
and in part: ” does not speak of heresy when it refers to men arriving and not bringing the doctrine taught by the church, that doesn’t refer to heretics?”
It is the duty of the bishop, not me, to name and condemn heretics.
and in part: “Well then, you have proved you have not the faintest idea of what heresy is.”
As mentioned above the identification and naming of heresy is the duty of the bishop.
and in part: “The Bible says you have a duty to identify heretics”
No it does not. That is the duty of a bishop.
and in part: “and to shun them”
I must shun any near occasion of sin.
and finally in part: “but you follow something different; perhaps papalotary?”
I only strive to follow Jesus Christ. I urge you to do the same.
Richard W Comerford
RWC Thank you for replying to my reply of your reply to my reply but the Bible does teach Christian catholics to identify heretics and it does not restrict that identification to Bishops.
The apt passages have been sourced and you gainsay them even though they are the words of God so, you know….
Consider purchasing a better Bible.
Mr. I am not Spartacus:
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “the Bible does teach Christian catholics to identify heretics and it does not restrict that identification to Bishops.”
The words “catholic” and “heretic” do not appear in Holy Scripture.
and in part: “The apt passages have been sourced”
No. They have not
and in part: “you gainsay them even though they are the words of God”
No. You are simply making up words which do not appear in Holy Scripture.
and in part: “Consider purchasing a better Bible”
No. All of the Bible concordances are the same.
The Catholic Church teaches that neither you or I can declare a soul to be a heretic. That is the duty of the bishop. We do have an obligation to pray for both heretics (real and imagined) and bishops.
I suggest we do so.
Richard W Comerford
RWC Thank you for your repose to my response to your response to my response to your response but nowhere in the New Testament, in the passages IANS cited, does it read that identifying heretics, marking them out, and shunning them, is the sole duty of a Bishop.
In fact, the passages, while treating of heresy (which you initially denied had anything to do with heresy) do not say that only a Bishop may do such a thing, rather, for example, Saint Paul, writing to the Romans, addresses them as “brethren” and, surely, even you will not claim all Brethren were Bishops
I Beseech you brethren to mark them who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to doctrine which yo have learned and to avoid them
And the Titus verse A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition avoid… also needs sourcing for you to sustain your false claims that only a Bishop may do this (talk about clericalism).
Now, if you source your claims in a traditional commentary, Catena Aurea, The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide, St John Chrystostom, St Thomas Aquinas – any Doctor of the Catholic Church – then you would be worth listening to you as you tell others what they must and must not do but, as it is, you can not even admit the clear sense of scripture and so your confusion ki projected unto those faithful Christian Catholics who are following the New Testament.
Earlier you mentioned Satan as the first rebel, well, are you or are you not imitating Satan by continually trying to refute the New Testament by claiming it says what no Doctor of the Catholic Church has ever taught it said?
Why do you mislead others by claiming the Bible does not have the word heretic?
It is beginning to make sense why you are such a Shea supporter 🙂
Thank you for pointing out that you strive to follow JC. So tell me where Christ tells us that we MUST obey and bishop/clergy? I have never felt that I must follow and mere man/clergy, but Jesus is the one I must strive to follow. I want to see chapter and verse where Christ tells us to believe in heretics or supersized sinners. For that matter I would like to know where in scripture that Christ says that an institutional church must have multi million dollar edifices for that is the only way one can worship our Lord. Further where does Christ tells us we must pay into sunday collections to help defray costs of $2,000,000,000.00 in pedophile lawsuits?
Your definition of heresy is correct and accurately describes the actions and words of the heretic you’re defending.
And, FYI, I can declare an heretic to be an heretic if I so please and you have nothing to say about it.
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “I can declare an heretic to be an heretic if I so please and you have nothing to say about it.”
And I can declare myself a hippopotamus and everyone will have a say about it.
The Church does not call upon the laity to hunt heretics. That is the duty of the bishops for which they will be held accountable to God – pray for them.
Instead the Church calls upon us on to practice the Spiritual Works of Mercy in these matters:
To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.
Let us help one another on our journey home.
Richard W Comerford
First, name one heresy of which Pope Francis is guilty? The above letter mentions none. He has a difference of opinion and worldview, which he has the right to express, but it doesn’t make him right and Francis wrong. The opposite is also true. But you have no doubt that Francis is a heretic, and yet you offer no proof of your accusation. What dogmas of the Church has he violated? List them. I am certain you are theologically astute enough to do so otherwise you would never have made the statement.
Second, an anti-pope is someone who is elected in opposition to the legitimate Pontiff. Francis was elected by the College of Cardinals to the Papacy sede vacante, Pope Benedict XVI having resigned the office in accordance with Canon Law. There is no evidence that Benedict was forced from office. None. Therefore, Francis cannot be an anti-pope.
Bearing false witness is a violation of the eighth commandment and a serious sin.
RickinMD..I challenge you to peruse Ann Barnhardt’s fabulous blog and prove how she is bearing false witness against the likes of Pope Francis, Cardinal Dolan, another jerk you can read about in my previous post above gleaned from NY post. You bear false witness when you cover the butts of lousy priests/cardinals, et al, by denying the ugly truth. This is what unfortunately has been going on for decades within the clergy and papacy…it is called the old boy’s network…doctors do it, cops do it….You can fool some people some of the time, but you can’t fool a wise woman.
The pope is very careful never to make overt statements rejecting any doctrine – he always says, with a kind of wink-wink, nudge-nudge, “of course I cannot change any doctrine,” and then goes on to announce some action that directly conflicts with it or comes as close to doing so as he can make it. He has announced several times that”theology bores him” and he “doesn’t understand it,” also minimizing the importance or even reality of doctrine and essentially of universal truth.
Is this a specific heresy, such as Arianism? No, although it is probably a form of modernism, which in itself is such a polyfaceted and non-formalized heresy that defining it has always been one of the problems in combatting it. It morphs, because it is essentially a heresy that affects the Church and its practices, adapting them to the world and its view of God, rather than picking a particular novel doctrinal point to rally round as did the heresies of old.
Outstanding letter of more than fair criticism of Pope Francis’ personality, actions and beliefs. One is left with the impression that he is evil, seriously mentally disturbed and causing unprecedented damage to the Catholic Church. Every day he remains the Pope is a bad day and with him on the throne the Year of Mercy is an ironically bad joke. Let us pray very hard for him and that he will soon be replaced.
In reading the aforesaid article, it struck me that the writer could have just as easily been writing about our present president, except the religious aspects. It is easy to see for those who have eyes, the remarkable resemblance of both men who appear to be on the same page…namely, liberalism, communism and even islamofacism…the prez identifies with islime while the pope kisses their feet. Ideas of change, spontaneity, forgoing tradition for novelty usurping truth are just some of the hallmarks which the two men share on the world stage.
in my opinion any priest who feels the Church is headed in the wrong direction should sign his name to the complaint. No longer should one remain anonymous in the current dire times of our Church. Mike Eberl
I would be willing to wager that there are people in the Vatican and elsewhere who could figure out who penned the letter or at least narrow down the possible candidates. German speaking curial priest who worked “many years” in Rome but who apparently has left during the reign of Pope Francis. There can’t be a whole lot of people who fit that description.
You clearly do not understand the nature of the present papacy. It would be unhealthy and unwise for the priest to reveal his identity.
I absolutely understand the nature of the present papacy. An anonymous letter does not hold the weight of a signed one. If the Church is headed in the direction that I fear it will be a necessity for all priests to openly confront the issues, regardless of the obvious consequences. There will only be one chance to right our sinking ship.
Please. This priest’s freedom to voice complaints is much more secure than it was under BXVI or JPII.
Well, Greg, could I interest you in a bridge spanning the Hudson River? It’s cheap and will give great return on your investment. Promise!
Well, Johnny, I don’t know about the economic potential of a bridge spanning the Hudson River, but could I interest you in an open mind? I think if you look at BXVI’s penchant for silencing priests and theologians, and JPII’s very public reprimand of a priest in Latin America during his visit there in the 80’s, it will be clear, even to you, there was greater reason to fear them than Francis.
Cf., “Error has no rights.”
Oh, how could I forget those screams coming from beneath the floor of St. Peter Basilica? Please. Of course, I make a differentiation between the silencing of outright heretics, preventing them from claiming the Catholic label for their snake oil, and the silencing of those to whom a pontiff may take a personal dislike because they are “too orthodox” or because they may not agree that Francis is the best thing since sliced bread and squeezable ketchup bottles.
This is big.
The anonymity of the letter is of much less importance than the fact that it was written and published at all.
Food stuff, again, spot on. Fact is that the best of men in church and state often lack the testicular fortitude as Johnny C wisely stated. If such fortitude did in fact exist among the clergy, then decades of priests being shuffled all over New England and parents paid hush money for not revealing massive pedophilia, would have been reported, But alas, and tragically, Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston was rewarded with a cushy post at the Vatican after the fit hit the shan in courtrooms deeming him to be a major guilty force in playing musical priests. By shuffling pedo priests for decades and other priests knowing this, obviously there are few men in the clergy with the ballage required to be a man of God. And so, like Food stuff says, it is not important that a name was not attached, but that, in fact, someone was willing to say what had to be said and not killed for truth.
Law was my Bishop. I think they removed him to Rome partly to keep him out of jail.
Which makes the point I’ve been making over and over.
That is, the old boys network covers themselves time
and time again. Where did JC say, “way to go guys!’
Let’s just get it over with. Apocalypse now, please.
BEST comment ever !!! More please.
If the phenomena outlined in this letter are clearly observable, then its credibility does not depend on its being signed.
It is amazing that the author still presumes the pope has good intentions. I can see the pope reading this letter and saying, “Everything is going according to plan”
I wanted to instill climate of fear -> Check accomplished
I wanted to make people believe that doctrine could change -> Check accomplished
I wanted to “re-invent somehow the Petrine Office” -> Check accomplished
I don’t think the author gets it. Pope Francis is a HERETIC. He wants to destroy the Church and destroy the faith of Catholics. He won’t be mad at this letter he would be pleased. His plan is working and probably ahead schedule.
Like my previous post above, the same can be said of the president. He wants to destroy the country, destroy faith of Christians of any ilk. Many say Obummer is just incompetent. I say ‘no way’, he knows exactly what he is doing..just like the commie pope is doing. Their plans are working in tandem and on schedule.
Okay. Let’s see, together, what God has to say about this; first, through His Word, and second through His Body, the Church (1 Cor 12:12, 25-27; Col 1:24; Eph 1:2, 4:25, 5:23), both of which are infallible.
Hebrews 13:18 NABRE
17 Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Matthew 16:15-19 NABRE
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.”402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”403 (834, 1369, 837)
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith—he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals…. The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,”419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421
402 LG 23.
403 LG 22; cf. CD 2, 9.
418 LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3074.
419 DV 10 § 2.
420 LG 25 § 2.
21 Cf. LG 25.
CD Christus Dominus
DS Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum (1965)
DV Dei Verbum
LG Lumen gentium
I don’t get it.
God, Himself, guarantees the infallibility of Pope Francis in matters of faith and morals. Yet this article and the comments under it are ripping on the Vicar of Christ. I am simply calling them on it, citing infallible sources.
You’re arguing the wrong point. Nobody here disputes papal infallibility. Those who actually know their faith, however, know that it doesn’t act as a magical talisman that keeps popes from erring in non-binding matters. Francis is leading people astray through neglect, insinuation, media manipulation, and the elevation of unorthodox clerics to positions of power.
None of these areas are protected by papal infallibility. It’s a charism that protects the deposit of faith, not an invincible forcefield against a pope who wishes to circumvent it via careful legalisms.
I am very self taught, so I might be wrong … but I thought that the protection of infallibility extended no further than ex-cathedra statements. It makes sense, but maybe v1 has more to it than I remember. … you’re busy but if you can, im grateful for your correction.
My response wasn’t to you, it was to Mr. Miss the Point With Verbosity up there.
I know. I was hoping you’d answer the question. But I really don’t want to detract from your time. I can certainly look it up.
“Mr. Miss the Point With Verbosity up there”? How again was it that Jesus said people would know his disciples?
John 13:35 NABRE
35 “This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
When my six year old boy had a tantrum and shrieked like a girl, i told him to stop acting like a little girl and that he was acting like a baby. He was very insulted.
That, however, was love.
I’m not impressed. I deal with a lot of comment box drive bys, and sanctimony is just one flavor. You think your argument is air tight, but it isn’t. The quantity of words you throw at me doesn’t make up for your remarkable ability to miss the point.
Here. I’ve got 4000 words of my own for you:
I am not being sanctimonious. I am refuting your position with Sacred Scripture and paragraphs from the Catechism. Did you even read them?
It’s your tone. Maybe you’ve missed it. And believe me, anyone can prooftext their way towards arguing just about any non-insane position, particularly when drawing from scripture.
I can certainly be too direct, particularly in writing. I also completely agree that scripture can me misused and misinterpreted. In my use of scripture in my comments in this conversation, I do not think either is the case.
You’re showing up here for the first time, guns blazing. I tend not to be too receptive to that kind of thing. Discretion being the better part of valor is a thing worth learning in the combox wars. I’m a 23-year veteran. I can tell pretty fast when a conversation is going to be productive and when it isn’t.
Well then why did you reply?
Because this is my town, and I’m the only sheriff.
Good answer, I suppose. Just be very, very careful with what you say, brother. You appear to have quite an audience.
James 3:1-5 NABRE
1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you realize that we will be judged more strictly, 2 for we all fall short in many respects. If anyone does not fall short in speech, he is a perfect man, able to bridle his whole body also. 3 If we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we also guide their whole bodies. 4 It is the same with ships: even though they are so large and driven by fierce winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot’s inclination wishes. 5 In the same way the tongue is a small member and yet has great pretensions.
Trust me. I’m aware of the responsibility. It keeps me fairly consistently anxious.
That said, this is EXACTLY why a letter like the one above needed to be written. We can all agree about the theology of the papal office. What we should also all be able to agree about it is the damage the man who currently occupies it is currently doing to both the papacy and the Church.
I don’t know about you, but my loyalty is to Christ before His Vicar. If the two are at odds on a thing — and it clearly falls outside the prescribed conditions for infallibility, as such a conflict must — I can tell you whose side I’ll be on.
I can tell you whose side I’ll be on too. God told us below how we are to behave, including in the passages below. The Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. I will never presume otherwise. I am just not that smart.
1 Timothy 3:15 NABRE
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
1 Peter 2:1-3 NABRE
1 Rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, insincerity, envy, and all slander; 2 like newborn infants, long for pure spiritual milk so that through it you may grow into salvation,3 for you have tasted that the Lord is good.
“The Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. I will never presume otherwise.”
Good. You should never presume otherwise.
“I am just not that smart.”
If you refuse to acknowledge the absolute ravaging that is being done to the Church during this papacy, I would second this remark.
We’ve documented plenty of it, most recently here:
Once again, I don’t know where you’re going with your scripture quotes, but they’re not really applicable.
My scripture quotes were applicable in two ways:
1. They brought in the definitions of papal and magisterial infallibility from scripture and the Catechism
2. They reminded others how God taught us to correct others
Except that they really didn’t on the first count, and on the second count, well, yeah, obviously. But why?
On the first count, sorry but I cannot do much better than quote Mt 16, Mt 18 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
On the second count, have you read some of the comments on here? Also found the anonymous letter seems to me to be an extreme act of cowardice. If the person really thought Pope Francis was in error, then they should have the guts to put their name on it. I also found them to be completely lacking in the the virtue of prudence. Finally, I found them to be completely inconsistent with how Jesus commanded us to handle situations with others in Mt 18.
Yes, the comments here are from people fed up with watching their faith destroyed while mindless defenders of the destruction (like you) quote scripture at them to keep them in line.
Papal positivism is a cancer. I would prefer the letter to have been signed, but this pope, in particular, is known for being vengeful. Perhaps the author of the letter was willing to accept those consequences for himself, but not for those around him who had nothing to do with what he had written.
The unequivocal and unjust crushing of the FFIs, the banishment of Cardinal Burke, and other episodes I’m certain other readers could call to mind, show the folly of thinking Francis will not make those who do not fall into lock step with his program pay.
“Mindless defenders of destruction.” Good one. Perhaps you should reflect on the four scripture passages I sent you earlier that tells us how we are to correct others.
I reiterate: you are acting as a mindless defender of this destruction, and I resist you to the face. YOU are part of the problem. Either help out, or go find another place to stand beneath the urinal and pretend its raining.
I understand your desire to protect your position, especially when this is your site. The only reason I am here is because someone shared a link to your article on Google+.
I disagree with you, and will religiously submit myself to the Roman Pontiff in accordance with the teachings of the Church, such as the one below.
This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
This isn’t about ME protecting MY anything. This is about souls, and the fact that the man currently occupying the Throne of St. Peter is *actively* bringing them to eternal ruin.
While you dig up quotes to justify your cognitive dissonance, this is what’s happening in Rome. Keep going. You give me a reason to never stop fighting those who seek to cover over these sins against Our Lord from within the Church:
Here are a few scripture passages for you:
Acts 20:29-30: I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
1 Corinthians 14:33: For God is not the God of dissension, but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints.
2 Timothy 3:5: Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid.
2 Thessalonians 2:10-11: And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.
Romans 16:17-18: Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent.
2 Timothy 3:13: But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error.
2 Timothy 4:3-4: For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.
I have the same goal as you, the salvation of souls.
The difference between our arguments is that I use the official teachings of the Church to support my position.
Consequently, though I may be wrong in my positions, what I have provided from the Church is correct, consistent, and free of cognitive dissonance.
the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.
Seriously…get off my website.
Dear Steve – About Time! I was getting so sick of this guy! thanks. Tamaveirene
Novelty and that which is anti-Catholic is not authentic magisterium, Michael.
You actually believe that anyone is to believe, obey and protect any pope, priest, cardinal who obviously is on a third rail. One which electrifies or even possibly kills any who get on that rail?
Michael are you related to RWC? He too, thinks that Scripture alone reveals truth. If that were the case, why did our Lord tell us he would leave us the Spirit to guide us?
Perhaps try looking up “papolatry” and “infallibility”.
Regarding papal infallibility of the Pope and the Magisterium, see the excerpt below from LG 25. Note the word “DOGMATIC” in the title of the document. The promulgation of LG by Pope Paul VI was clearly a “definitive act” in which he “proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.”
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.
The word “Dogmatic” in the title does not mean everything within is dogmatic. I know this is confusing. Theologians and priests and bishops have been parsing this for half a century.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, for example, himself a patristics scholar and noted liturgical expert and apostle of the Eucharist, has called for a syllabus of errors on Vatican II – he says certain things MUST be clarified to rectify them with traditional Church teaching, including things in…wait for it… Lumen Gentium.
Let me start by encouraging you to read the title of the document you linked to above, “Proposals for a Correct Reading of the Second Vatican Council.”
Granted I only skimmed through it, but in doing so, I did not find any statement that said the Council erred in any way in what it actually stated in the Conciliar documents. Instead it called on the Church to clarify the documents because of erroneous interpretations. The excerpt below, perhaps, sums up the author’s position best.
From the pastoral nature of the Council’s texts it is evident that its texts are, on principle, open to further completion and to greater doctrinal clarification. Taking account of the experience of several decades since then, of interpretations doctrinally and pastorally confused, and contrary to the continuity, over two millennia, of doctrine and prayer of the faith, the necessity and the urgency rise for a specific and authoritative intervention by the pontifical Magisterium for an authentic interpretation of the conciliar texts with completions and doctrinal clarifications: a type of “Syllabus errorum circa interpretationem Concilii Vaticani II”. There is need for a new Syllabus, this time directed not so much against errors coming from outside the Church, but against errors spread within the Church on the part of those who maintain a thesis of discontinuity and rupture with its doctrinal, liturgical, and pastoral application. Such a Syllabus would consist of two parts: a part marking errors and a positive part with propositions of doctrinal clarification, completion, and precision.
Get off your high horse. The problem, the huge problem with the council was and is its ambiguity. You have an excellent example at hand as of yesterday, viz. the “clarification” of Nostra aetate. Myself, I’m what you would call a philosemite, but what the Vatican issued yesterday, “The Gifts and Calling of God are Irrevocable,” is an unmitigated intellectual disaster. Read it to get a sense of the kind of confusion the nebulous documents of Vatican II are capable of engendering.
Read LG 16. Can you see error?
You are not refuting. You are using wrong material to argue against a straw man you created.
Regarding papal infallibility, see paragraph 891 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in my comment above as well as the paragraph below.
2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.77
Arguing the wrong point? Am I?
So, then did God err when he allowed the election of Pope Francis, “the Roman Pontiff, [who] by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered”? (CCC882)
Or, did the Son of God err when He said “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it”?
Or, could it be that the contributors to the article and the comments below it err (even it they are right, which they are not) throw about their condemnations of “another man’s servant”? (cf. Rom 14:4)
Lets’s review the passages below and pull out some key words and phrases about how we are to correct others:
a. if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing
b. you who are spiritual should correct that one in a gentle spirit
c. A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness.
d. but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame
1 Corinthians 13:1-2 NABRE
1 If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a
resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.
Galatians 6:1 NABRE
1 Brothers, even if a person is caught in some transgression, you who
are spiritual should correct that one in a gentle spirit, looking to yourself,
so that you also may not be tempted.
1 Timothy 2:23-24 NABRE
23 Avoid foolish and ignorant debates, for you know that they breed
quarrels. 24 A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, 25 correcting opponents with kindness. It may be that God will grant them repentance that leads to knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they may return to their senses out of the devil’s snare, where they are entrapped by him, for his will.
1 Peter 3:15b-17 NABRE
Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a
reason for your hope, 16 but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that be the will of God, than for doing evil.
Did God err when he allowed the election of Hitler?
Did God err when he allowed the election of Hitler? No. Did God guarantee the infallibility of Hitler or the Third Reich? A riidculous comparison, indeed.
Ridiculous? Yes, I agree. A ridiculous comparison to illustrate an equally ridiculous fallacy: God doesn’t elect the pope. Men do. And they have erred in doing so, many, many times.
Erred? Says who?
“There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”
– Cardinal Ratzinger
That would include papacies of centuries ago who had no problem with abortions before three months as fetus. So because they were popes does that men they were right…or mere men?
That, I know, is heresy: to claim thst the Holy Spirit guarantees anything whatsoever in a papal election.
You think the Holy Spirit removes the free will of Cardinal electors? That ain’t Catholic.
Did God err when he allowed the election of Pope Stephen VI, you know, the one who held the famous “Cadaver Synod” in 897?
v2 docs are not infallible. They contain demonstrable error on the one hand and they were not promulgated infallibility. The last infallible pronouncement was on Marian Dogma.
In terms of teaching infallibly on faith and morals, again, that is “if and only if” such statements are explicitly stated to be ex cathedra.
Otherwise, the Holy Spirit DOES NOT guide him and he can say “it is good we are here so we can build huts” or he can endorse a heresy like, (a matter VERY MUCH of faith and morals) say, a judaizing one, and then firm rebuke is indeed called for.
You say “v2 docs are not infallible”? Says who? I will stick with Jesus guarantees in Matthew 16:15-19 above and Matthew 18:18 below
Matthew 18:18 NABRE
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Said Pope Paul VI.
Lol. That’s funny.
For one thing, its after 1950, the last infallible pronouncement.
I don’t have to. But this time, I’ll give you one for free:
“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.”
– Paul VI:General audience of Jan 12,1966
The paragraph below is from Lumen Gentium.
I don’t know what statements the Council defined as binding, perhaps many, perhaps none. Regardless, the council did clearly state “they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful”.
“Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.”
” the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding”
This section is of critical importance. The Council was pastoral. It could only bind when it reiterated doctrinal truths already extant.
When it introduced suggestions, changes to discipline, novelties, etc., these things were NOT binding because they CANNOT bind what came before, or the legislative actions of popes who come later. Those things which were mutable are not infallible, and they were legion.
1950. Assumption. Latest infallible bit from the Church.
Relevant: “Anyone who speaks critically of the Pope is not risking their immortal soul” http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/12/10/anyone-who-speaks-critically-of-the-pope-is-not-risking-their-immortal-soul/
Thank God for small favors on that one.
Could you write for us an enlightening and inspiring defense of Popes Julius II or John XII? I have a flagon of brandy here and I’ll wait for your response before pouring; I want to savor your every word.
Or Benedict IX! Even St. Peter Damien described him as
“feasting on immorality” and the old Catholic Encyclopedia
stated he was a “disgrace to the Chair of Peter”. I’d love to
see MG try to mount a defense of that one…
Sadly, Mr. Curedents, I suspect your brandy will remain unpoured.
JC, did you ever think of writing a novel or similar.
You have a wonderful way with wit and words! I
note that your initials JC are similar to another JC.
Long ago, Sunshine, I did think about writing. Several European adventures, a teaching job, marriage, and then kids all combined to put an end to the pipe dreams. But I thank you for the compliment. As for the JC, I’m dull enough so that the connection you mention never occurred to me. I saw Roberto Benigni’s movie Johnny Stecchino in French where it was titled Johnny Cure-dents and adopted the handle along with the photo (the name as I write it doesn’t carry the hyphen as it must in French because the first site where I used it did not permit hyphens).
LOL, and here all this time I thought that Curedents meant that you had your own auto shop where you did the welding thing! Meaning that you cured…dents..what else? Yes, marriage and kids do put a dent (no pun intended) into our pipe dreams. But the ‘cure’ is to retrieve them/dreams when the time arrives and the dust settles from years of raising a family. Dull, U R not!
So what you’re saying is that it’s raining spiritually, only we’re too sinful to see it.
In light of all of this I gained much comfort in receiving this today: Mark Mallett’s “Just Enough” http://www.markmallett.com/blog/just-enough/
Francis & Ignatius would look at the man in
white and say “monastery”. Peter & Paul would
look at the man in white and say “……”
Catherine & Teresa would look at the man in
white and say “Argentina”. After the Saints had
seen the Monkey Show on St. Peter’s Basilica,
on our Blessed Mothers Day, they would have
We run to our blessed Mother who has crushed the
snake and keeps us under her mantle with the
love & protection of the Church. “I’ll take the bullet for you” an inspiring policeman in CA, could be a Bishop’s Motto. An image of running to the danger and not away, an image of comforting the frighten and leading them away from the danger to the best of one’s ability.
The insult to our Blessed Lady on a day of her feast is particularly off. Toit, I think I read if a Francis-connected bishop writing today of “mother earth.” The possibility that that idolatrous nonsense reflects from the vocabulary of Francis’ sycophants and closer allies is chilling.
Every since Feb. 11 2013, I’ve cringed our blessed Mothers special days for fear of what might be announced on them, the bearers of glad tidings haven’t disappoint, call me grinch, I’m not smiling.
How did Debbie insult the BVM with this?..I fail to see what you see!
“We run to our blessed Mother who has crushed the
snake and keeps us under her mantle with the
love & protection of the Church”
Au contraire, Debbie states that the snake is crushed…
what’s not to like about that statement, 2 trees?
Thanks however, for pointing out the Pope’s ‘mother earth’
nonsense which is spot on with the Prez and New World ODOR.
No no no. I must have been unclear.
The animal show on the using the sacred as a screen, on a feast for the Blessed Virgin. That was an insult to our Blessed Lady.
I pick no bone with Debbie. All I know of her is that she appears to love the Lord. No fault there.
My apology to her and you both if I gave the wrong impression.
No problem, I understood. I could see where it could be read differently.
By the way, I was impressed by how lovely your screen name is. Although the concept has taken on a new, less delightful meaning since I moved to south Texas (114 F in the shade plus very powerful sunshine is serious stuff) – but still: lovely.
I sense that this is a first, but a first of many, too. This format permits a galvanizing if the episcopate that is crucial. Inseriously doubt Francis would be able to read this through. His narcissism will hurl him into denial and further from his proper role. But if this is a first whisper — one that grows and is heard by the weak but not anti-Catholic bishops, it may galvanize something very badly needed.
I hope others join in. I hope there are dozens or even hundreds more like this.
Down South, they call this…”Being taken out to the woodshed”.
Let us pray for the conversion of PF and for all the holy and courageous priest, prelates and religious resisting the PF regime.
The writer of the letter makes a strong, multi-faceted case with which many of us agree. Kinda like Ol’ Martin Luther nailing his list of complaints to the door of the cathedral. Let us pray that the Pope is not an instrument of schism. Our Lady, Mother of Truth, pray for us….
Faithful Catholics must pray hard for the Church, and for Francis. He has surrounded himself with such mediocre persons that one is left shocked at what has become of Catholicism under a few years of Bergoglio’s pontificate.
If the author’s mother tongue is German, Cardinal Paul Cordes (retired, age 81) comes to mind as a possible author. Regardless, one cannot resist wondering whether, prior to putting his thoughts down, the author had an open-hearted talk with a certain Bavarian bishop.
We all need conversion, and yes the curia too. Stop complaining about the Pope’s words being harsh and unjust. Did not Jesus called the pharisees Brood of vipers? cf Mt 12;34
You posted in part: “Stop complaining about the Pope’s words being harsh and unjust.”
I think it is not a matter of Holy Father;s Francis’ words “being harsh and unjust”; but confusing.
For instance can I now put aside my wife, and after a period of penance marry another in the Church and receive Holy Communion?
If I am engaged in a stable, long term ,loving relationship with another man can I have my relationship blessed by the Church and receive Holy Communion?
Can I advocate for artificial contraception and still receive Holy Communion?
Can I advocate for abortion and still receive Holy Communion?
As my eternal salvation may be on the line here is it not reasonable to beg Holy Father Francis to clarify these issues?
Richard W Comerford
I agree on the need to have clearly defined doctrine for the good of our souls. However, In order to get there we need reflection and dialogue which at times can be messy and not clear. I do not see the Pope implying we can now have all those behaviors you mentioned above as acceptable and in communion with the Church. What I see the Pope is doing is opening the forum to necessary dialogue and reflection on why we teach what we teach in regards to those issues and how we can better communicate those teachings to the faithful. This dialogue and reflection by the way is in accordance with Church Tradition, recall the first council of Jerusalem for example.Your concern of becoming a permissive Church is legitimate, however we need to remember that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and will show us to way to the Truth. Let us not be afraid of open dialogue and reflection, in my opinion that is something healthy for the Church and for our own lives.
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “I do not see the Pope implying we can now have all those behaviors you mentioned above as acceptable and in communion with the Church.”
I remember Holy Father Francis praising, in an extravagant and public manner, Cardinal Kasper. This was after Cardinal Kasper made an argument for folks who practice adultery and sodomy being allowed to receive Holy Communion without first amending their lives. This matter touches upon the 6th and 9th Commandments and should, I think, be clarified forthwith.
and in part:” recall the first council of Jerusalem for example”
OK but Saints Peter and Paul were not talking about throwing out two of the 10-Commandments.
and in part:
and in part: “Let us not be afraid of open dialogue”
I am all for open dialogue; especially if it involves free food and drink; but do we have a right to dialogue about whether or not we will follow God’s Commandments?
Richard W Comerford
Where did Pope Francis praised those behaviors? I do not recall seeing comments like that. If they did happen, it would be interesting to see what the Pope really said.
I brought up the council of Jerusalem to show that dialogue and discussions on God commandments and laws have been part of the Church all along and there is a reason why they continue to occur. I believe open dialogue is good and necessary and we should not be afraid of it.
It is true that when we ask ‘why’ to follow a command it can be done in a challenging manner and in opposition to God’s laws. However I do not think this is the spirit in which the current reflective ‘why’ is happening, at least certainly this is not what the Pope intends. The type of ‘why’ we are seeing is one of confident reflection.
Do we have a right to dialogue about weather or not we will follow God’s commandments? But of course we do, it is a right given by God Himself as he made us free to choose, without freedom there is no Love and we know that God loves us.
However, the current discussion is not about weather or not we will follow God’s commandments as a Church but as to why and how we will follow them and how to explain our faith to the world.
Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “Where did Pope Francis praised those behaviors?”
As I wrote he praised Cardinal Kasper who advocates for adultery and sodomy under the guise of mercy.
and in part: “I brought up the council of Jerusalem to show that dialogue and discussions on God commandments”
i do not think we can dialogue on whether we can obey the 10-Commandments or not.
and in part: “at least certainly this is not what the Pope intends”
I do not know what Holy Francis intends or not regarding adultery and sodomy and sacrilegious communion. This frightens me.
and in part: and in part: “Do we have a right to dialogue about weather or not we will follow God’s commandments?”
I do not think so: “He who is not with Me is against Me” Matthew 12:30
and in part: “but as to why and how we will follow them and how to explain our faith to the world.”
I hope you are right. I pray you are right.
Richard W Comerford
I agree on the need to have clearly defined
doctrine for the good of our souls. However, In order to get there we
need reflection and dialogue which at times can be messy and not clear. I
do not see the Pope implying we can now have all those behaviors you
mentioned above as acceptable and in communion with the Church. What I
see the Pope is doing is opening the forum to necessary dialogue and
reflection on why we teach what we teach in regards to those issues and
how we can better communicate those teachings to the faithful. This
dialogue and reflection by the way is consistent with Church Tradition,
recall the first council of Jerusalem for example.Your concern of
becoming a permissive Church is legitimate, however we need to remember
that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and will show us to way to the
Truth. Let us not be afraid of open dialogue and reflection, in my
opinion that is something healthy for the Church and for our own lives.
Carefully thought out and well written. I thought I was the only one who held such opinions about Pope Francis. The question now is quo vadis? Even if members of the curia are helpless in the face of what arguably is a dictatorship in the Vatican, we the laity cannot afford to be complacent. As we pray for the church during this period of advent, one can only say Almighty Father, PUNISH those who are trying to destroy your church for they know what they are doing!
The world’s most famous humble man, indeed. Rides in a KIA but flys in a chartered jet. Rejects the papal palace but lives in a quite comfortable residence nevertheless. This is humble world of the bishop of Rome. Pray for him and God
bless Holy Benedict.
Opinions not shared by the broader cross-section of Catholic faithful, nor by society at large, cowardly offered under the veil of anonymity by an ideologue who no doubt feels his place and standing in the world is threatened. Shameful.
So who opened a portal to troll world? That’s three new comments from three new visitors just this afternoon, all with variations on the same contradictory theme.
I don’t know about three comments from three visitors. I made two comments Steve.
Anyway, is 1P5 about having a discussion of different viewpoints, or is it a mutual affirmation society masquerading as something better than that? Your choice Steve.
That all depends on my mood, and how much I feel like allowing ad hominem arguments play out instead of substantive ones. Comments are a privilege, not a right.
Anyway, I’m just curious what link you followed to get here.
You do realize the author of the letter offered absolutely nothing substantive, don’t you? It was entirely ad hominem, and reflective of only one point of view.
I would say I am sorry my comments don’t reflect the opinions you seem intent on portraying as a consensus, but I am not. My only mistake was thinking 1P5 was a forum for dialogue.
The contents of the open letter were observational in nature – and manifestly true. If one wanted to document them, one could do so, and we’ve spent no few words here on a number of them.
As for dialogue? It’s is an overused word. Usually by those who have no interest in orthodoxy, absolute truth, or in preserving the unchanging nature of the Church. Error has no rights, so dialogue with someone intent on propagating error has rapidly diminishing returns if they are obdurate in their adherence to said error.
We had a good article on this. You should read it. I’m sure you’ll hate it:
Thanks, but I won’t bother. If nothing else, you’re conduct makes it clear this website offers precious little to the discussion of Catholicism that is objectively worthwhile. Congratulations on creating a perfectly unless ghetto of closed-minded opinions. Hardly worthy of a New Evangelization.
I am going to be all pre-conciliar and put you on the Index of Forbidden Commenters!
You keep on banning people before I can respond to them, mein Fuhrer.
I should probably stop. I just loathe time-wasting trolling from people with no intent to engage in real “dialogue” (shudder).
About Time again! What is it with these argumentative people who add nothing to the discussion apart from endless quotations to “prove” their “righteousness” and everyone else’s “wrongness”!
Small wonder the Church is in such a mess, if this is a sample
of the faithful!
“you’re conduct” ???? Even I, without having the choice of going to high school, can see lots of ignorance in you.
To paraphrase the rather odious German playwright Hanns Johst, whenever I hear the word “dialogue,” I click off the safety on my Browning.
Sort of how I feel when I read of Christian/Islamic dialogue whether it be at the Hartford Seminary in CT…or in the Vatican. For that matter, how I feel about my college days of old at Marygrove College in Detroit, once an all girls Catholic college, but now sporting a mini mosque within replete with foot baths for the moes missing the point….of God, of life, of love, of sacrifice.
I propose a dialogue on never dialoging again.
Ad hominem? But, isn’t that the point, that much of the problem IS the man at the present moment?
If this man seeks God and has good will, who are you to judge him? Do you know his heart?
Well played, Tamsin. Well played.
And there’s more where that came from.
Then again the writer might be smart enough to know others have often disappeared when they spoke up…and perhaps he knows the Lord has more work for him to do before anyone should take him out!
Greg, is there only one string on your banjo? I’ve heard you play this tune here before and there’s never any variation. Look, I know a good instrument costs money and times are tough, but think of your audience, man! You’re putting them to sleep. Break down and get something worthy of you talent before you start strumming again, OK?
I found the troll portal, everyone! It was opened by one Michael Sean Winters. PREPARE FOR BOARDERS!!
Disgraceful! And a coward too boot. Would not surprise me if Burke is the author. Long live Pope Francis.
Would not surprise me if you, Joeseph, are a troll.
How about Vivo Christo Rey!
Like Burke has alot to lose. He’s firing in the open, I don’t mind snipers either as long as they hit the target.
Who are you to judge?
Ah, cool your jets, Joe. Oh, and it lessens the impact of what you write when you make an elementary mistake like confusing “too” and “to.” (Be careful; there’s also another lurking about that sounds like these two. They’re called homonyms in English.)
You posted in part: Would not surprise me if Burke is the author.”
Cardinal Burke has had a long, high profile career. I cannot think of a single instance wherein he was NOT straightforward, honest and transparent.
Which may be, come to think of it, why he has so many enemies to include apparently you.
“But I say unto you, Love your enemies” Matthew 5:44
Richard W Comerford
As disgraceful and cowardly as hiding behind the joeseph pseudonym.
The Jesuit, Francis, who evidences an inability to practice prudence and/or is embarrassingly unable to communicate clearly and/or is cognitively impaired and/or is a pathological narcissist – perhaps compounded by geriatric dementia. All the while stuck hopelessly in the sixties – unable or unwilling to process the advanced state of decomposition of the Church or the culture. He abides on the level of affect – seriously dangerous for the spiritual life, and thus ecclesiastical life. He believes that ontologically, the Church is the way he wants it to be. It isn’t. It never will be. To the extent it is, we have the collapse that commenced fifty-six years ago, and has continued – with some abatement during John Paul II and Benedict – only to be where we are today. In a state of advanced ecclesiastical decomposition and moral decay.
The perspective of those with whom he colludes allows for creative ways of
– manipulating – reality, and with the greatest pride in their facility to do
so. Will he abide by the timeless Magisterium of the Church? Will he be
faithful to the teaching of our Lord, Jesus Christ? From Vatican I (1869-70)
Dogmatic Constitution “Pastor aeternus” – “The Holy Spirit was not given to the
Roman Pontiffs so that they might disclose new doctrine, but so that they might
guard and set forth the Deposit of Faith handed down from the Apostles.”
The truth revealed by Ivereigh, and substantiated in numerous reports that followed, would prompt an individual of integrity to resign office. Given his taste in friends, it appears integrity is not high on his list of admirable qualities.
“Team Bergoglio.” God help us.
The last paragraph says it all . Shades of Flip Wilson , a brilliant comedian Instead of ” the devil made me do it ” , ” Francis has caused me to have to write this obnoxious Unsigned letter ” . If anyone doubts the maturity level of this cleric or his lack of adequate formation or the horrors of clericalism this is a wake up call .
How petulant in tone this absurd scolding . This is not Paul pointing out to Peter something he needs to hear .
How many of us right now think it good manners for anyone to critique where we have set up housekeeping ?
Doesn’ T all this tell us just how much like Jesus Pope Francis really is . Jesus had the identical accusations hurled at him by the cowards of his day .
This open letter in its original German was published in FOCUS on November 27, 2015.
A week later, on December 4, 2015, while explaining how Pope Francis’s new “Missionaries of Mercy” will operate, Archbishop Salvatore “Rino” Fisichella — the pope’s appointee as president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization — made reference to Canon Law 1370, which imposes automatic excommunication for “physical violence” against the pope. Fisichella told journalists at a briefing: “I would say that we need to understand well ‘physical violence,’ because sometimes words, too, are rocks and stones, and therefore I believe some of these sins, too, are far more widespread than we might think.”
In other words, whereas priests who openly advocate homosexuality and “gay” marriage are not excommunicated, if a Catholic criticizes Pope Francis and the criticism is construed as “verbal violence,” not only has the critic committed a sin, the sin is of such egregiousness that the individual could be automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
The timing of Archbishop Fisichella’s threat, made a week after the publication of the Open Letter, is noteworthy.
“The alternative to the Teaching Church is the Arbitrary Church, and not the Merciful Church.” Indeed. Undoubtedly we will repeat this phrase, in various ways, many times in the months (decades?) to come…
WOW! Just “WOW!”
To say much after reading this work of courage, fidelity to Christ and a tribute to common sense would be to gild the lily. God reward the author of this critique.
Excellent letter. That being said, perhaps it’d be good to check out Fr. Ripperger’s book on “Magisterial Authority.” Its very short (you can read it in an afternoon), but should help clear up what assent/obedience is due to a member of the Magisterium in error.
Pray for the Pope.
But surely the writer’s decision to remain anonymous, morally invalidates it, and just causes more evil?
No. Anonymity puts the text rather than the writer forward for consideration. Of course, some people will prefer to ignore the text.
Thank you for that link. I’m a great admirer of Mosebach, since reading The Heresy of Formlessness. That interview is compelling stuff
The simple fact that this letter is anonymous makes clear what kind of coward devil-tongue is the author.
The ridiculous excuse of not compromising his superiors reveals his desire to hide the hand while he is throwing the stone.
If you believe in what you are saying show your honest face, speak through your own mouth and be responsible for your own words.
We will then take your words into consideration; otherwise you are just a blackmailer like those who have been recognized in these days.
Who is “we”?
Perhaps Immanuel Legend has a tapeworm?
I actually laughed out loud.
The hope is, of course, that King Francis will take this letter to him to heart and reform himself. I’m not holding my breath. He is the most authoritarian, most dictatorial and perhaps the most egotistical pope in the history of the Church, not to mention the most heretical. Personally I think he’s a Protestant at heart. I do not like him.
Exaggeration like that loses you credibility. How much papal history do you know?
It’s called ‘hyperbole,’ John. That said, I’m not aware of any pope unilaterally altering canon law as this pope has done. I’m not aware of any pope directly contradicting the words of Our Lord in Scripture or opposing settled doctrine as King Francis has done. Perhaps you can teach me something. As it is, your message doesn’t say much.
As to my knowledge of papal history, I could probably use some lessons there, too, but I’m not entirely ignorant of the subject.
HIJRAH AND JIHAD
In the early part of the 11th century, A.D., Roman
Catholic Europe and the Holy Roman Empire were embroiled in a conflict with theMuslim World,
which was seeking to expand its influence along with the spread of Islam. This
war came to a head when the Muslim Moors conquered Spain. It was during this conflict when influential Jewish
financiers and merchants that had close ties with the Spanish royal courts
worked as spies and informants for the invading Moors, and used subversive
tactics which enabled the Moorish conquest of Spain. It is thought that the reasoning for
this was a combination of resentment towards Christianity, the Catholic Church
and the European people, as well as opportunity for financial and political
gain. This period was known as a “Golden
Age for Jews“.
Spain remained a Muslim country until 1492, when King Ferdinand and Queen
Isabella mounted a “Reconquista”, booting out the Moors- and the Jews. History is a funny thing sometimes.
Our mainstream media has been controlled for 100 years, and
that WW1 & 2 allies were actually fighting for the Communists
unknowingly? Churchill was a
traitor. And so was Eisenhower and
Woodrow Wilson, Eisenhower. There is
genocide occurring on the Palestinians and many more hidden genocides/holocausts
have occurred which you will be shocked.
Many, many lies of our history have been taught by our Marxist
The Jew: Commissary to the Gentiles
The First to See the
Possibilities of War by Propaganda
Secret World Government
http://www.osjknights.com/History-After-Malta.htm (warrior monks in defense of Monarchs) – a real insight into the truth of WW2 and Russian Revolution
Major General Cherep-Spiridovich was assassinated at his residence on Staten
Island, New York a few months after re-starting the publishing operation. Boris
Brasol provided the funds to bury this leader of the SOSJ. H.V.
Broenstrupp published Secret World Government or The Hidden Hand by
Cherep-Spiridovich shortly after his assassination.
“Are we going to let our world be
destroyed so as not to offend a tiny number of people who accuse us of
anti-Semitism to cover up the crimes they are committing against us? (they are not Semites but Mongol Asiatics)
How to Save
Russia from Economic and Political Slavery (1911)
A Europe without
Turkey—the security of France requires (1913)
Disaster: Dangers and Remedies (1913)
How to Save
The Real Holocaust of World War
Two – The Genocide of 15+ Million Germans
greatest ethnic cleansing in European history, and almost no one talks or knows
about it? How can that be?
prepared Second World War (1922)
Secret World Government or The Hidden Hand (1926)
by Lt. Col. Gordon “Jack”
Mohr, AUS Ret. (later a Brigadier)
. . there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed: and hid that shall
not be made known.” – Matthew 10:26
Is America finally about to be thrown a
scrap or two of historical truth? If so, have the Soviet relations of recent
months, which has caused its leaders to admit to the murder of millions of
their own people, allowed a few rays of truth to filter down and penetrate the
Iron Curtain which has been erected over World War II, and which has kept vital
facts from our people? Something out of
the ordinary seems to be going on within America’s ruling circles. Are we finally to be told the truth about
World War II? Something out of the
ordinary seems to be going on within America’s ruling circles. Are we finally
to be told the truth about World War II?
SIX MILLION JEWS
The Real Holocaust of World War
Two – The Genocide of 15+ Million Germans
The greatest ethnic cleansing in European history, and almost no one talks or knows about it? How can that be? The ‘Refugee’ Crisis and the Creation
of Greater Israel
(see the maps)
It has become increasingly obvious that
the flood of refugees from the Middle East is serving the jewish agenda of
creating Greater Israel (Eretz Israel). In case you are unfamiliar with the
concept, Greater Israel is the vast tract of land supposedly promised to the
Israelites by Yahweh, stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates.
Greater Israel is far larger than the
current state of Israel, and since their current colonization efforts are being
hotly contested, drastic events are needed to be able to roll over the
indigenous Semites (Arabs) and install a new state.
ISIS, which previously stood for the Israeli Secret
Intelligence Service (aka the Mossad), has already conquered a decent chunk of Greater Israel.
ISIS is receiving funding, aid,
weapons, training, and recruits from the United States, Great Britain, Saudi
Arabia, and Israel. Although there are some sensational stories coming out of
the jewish press about an ISIS holocaust, the Islamic State has never had any
intentions of attacking the jewish State. In fact, the military conflicts
taking place in the Middle East, and in particular Syria, are all wrapped up in
the plot to massively expand the boundaries of Israel. Saudi Arabia, which was
founded by jews and is where Wahhabi ISIS originates, is already locked up, and
Egypt has recently fallen into line, so only a few more loose ends need to be