We reported last week on the death of Cardinal Joachim Meisner of Germany, Archbishop Emeritus of Cologne and one of the four so-called “dubia cardinals”. Dr. Maike Hickson also shared a touching memorial of Meisner, who by all accounts was beloved by all who knew him. In a report on the German cardinal written last year, Hickson also noted his closeness to Pope Benedict XVI, and his role in the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the office of the papacy in 2005, in opposition to the wishes of the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” who were reported to have desired the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio at that time.
Today, Saturday, July 15, 2017, the funeral Mass for Cardinal Meisner was offered in Cologne Cathedral. Pope Francis, who was not present, had a message read to those gathered by the Apostolic Nuncio to Germany, Archbishop Nikola Eterović. Then, in what has been characterized as a surprise — particularly considering his usual silence on matters facing the Church — a message from the Pope Emeritus himself was read by his Personal Secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, who also serves as Prefect of the Papal Household for Pope Francis.
When one reads the following message — particularly that moment where the Pope Emeritus speaks of how Meisner “learned to let go and to live out of a deep conviction that the Lord does not abandon His Church, even if the boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing,” one cannot help but see in it a possible reflection on his own choice to step away from the papacy, and the crisis that even now engulfs the Church in his absence. This message, of course, of the Lord not abandoning His Church, cannot be read in isolation from the somewhat cryptic message the Pope Emeritus gave the five new cardinals at the ordinary public consistory last month: “The Lord wins in the end.” It would appear this is a theme very much on the mind of the former pontiff in recent days.
Below we provide the full text of Pope Benedict’s message on the occasion of the funeral of Cardinal Joachim Meisner, graciously translated by 1P5’s Matthew Karmel.
Vatican City 11. 7. 2017
At this hour, as the faithful of the church of Cologne and far beyond bid Cardinal Joachim Meisner farewell, my heart and my thoughts are with you, and I am pleased to fulfill Cardinal Woelki’s request to address a word of remembrance to you.
As I learned last Wednesday via telephone of the death of Cardinal Meisner, I initially couldn’t believe it. We had spoken on the telephone to one another just the day before. Gratefulness for finally being able to begin his vacation after having participated in the beatification ceremony of Bishop Teofilius Matulionis in Vilnius on the previous Sunday (25th June) was audible in his voice. Love for the churches in the neighboring countries to the East, which suffered under Communist persecution, as well as an appreciation for their holding fast amidst the suffering of those times made a lifelong impression upon him. And, thus, it is no coincidence that the last visitation of his life was paid in respect to a Confessor of the Faith from those lands.
What particularly impressed me from my last conversations with the now passed Cardinal was the relaxed cheerfulness, the inner joy and the confidence at which he had arrived. We know that this passionate shepherd and pastor found it difficult to leave his post, especially at a time in which the Church stands in particularly pressing need of convincing shepherds who can resist the dictatorship of the spirit of the age and who live and think the faith with determination. However, what moved me all the more was that, in this last period of his life, he learned to let go and to live out of a deep conviction that the Lord does not abandon His Church, even if the boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing.
Of late, two things caused him to become ever more joyful and confident:
For one, he repeatedly related to me how it filled him with profound delight to see how young people, especially young men, experienced the grace of forgiveness in the Sacrament of Confession – the gift of having truly found that life which only God can give them.
The other thing which always touched him anew and put him in a joyful mood was the quiet spread of Eucharistic Adoration. At World Youth Day in Cologne, this was a central concern of his: that there be Adoration – a silence in which only the Lord speaks to the heart. Some experts in pastoral work and liturgy were of the opinion that such silence in contemplation of the Lord could not be achieved with such a large number of people. A few even considered Eucharistic Adoration as such to be obsolete, as the Lord desires to be received in the Eucharistic Bread, and not examined. That, however, one cannot eat this Bread like some common aliment, and that to “receive” the Lord in the Eucharistic Sacrament makes demands upon every dimension of our existence – that to receive must be to adore – has since become once again very clear. Thus, the interlude of the Eucharistic Adoration at the Cologne World Youth Day became an interior event which remained, not only for the Cardinal, unforgettable. This moment remained ever present, like a great light, within him.
When, on his last morning, Cardinal Meisner didn’t appear to Mass, he was found dead in his room. His breviary had slipped from his hands: he died praying, looking to the Lord, speaking with the Lord. The manner of death which was granted to him shows once again how he lived: looking to the Lord and speaking with the Lord. Therefore, we may with confidence recommend his soul to the benevolence of God. Lord, we thank Thee for the witness of Thy servant Joachim. May he be an intercessor for the church of Cologne and for the whole world! Requiescat in pace!
(Signed Benedict XVI)
Steve Skojec is the Founding Publisher of OnePeterFive.com. He received his BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville in 2001. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Crisis Magazine, EWTN, Huffington Post Live, The Fox News Channel, Foreign Policy, and the BBC. Steve and his wife Jamie have eight children. You can find more of his writing at his Substack, The Skojec File.
“…[T]he Lord does not abandon His Church, even if the boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing.” There is only one reason Benedict could have written these words. It’s a kind of clear but deliberately underplayed phrase we long ago saw in Mit brennender Sorge. Back then the careful but pointed wording was designed to blunt the fury of Hitler. Whose fury is this oblique allusion designed to avoid?
‘convincing shepherds who ….. live and think the faith with determination’. I like this translation. Many shepherds don’t even sound like Catholics today. We could use some more that live and think Catholicism.
Now when Benedict says “….the Lord does not abandon His Church, even if the boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing.”, he can’t be talking about Francis, can he? I mean, Ganswein is always telling us that Benedict is a big fan of Francis, right? And Ganswein would never lie, would he?
Oh my goodness, not in a million years!! Only a few minor details left out ya know!
Huh… there’s something about this that’s actually slightly encouraging. Perhaps it’s that Benedict actually does understand what’s going on. I’m not sure what it is exactly but I’ll take it.
Yes that’s the feeling I get – its true wisdom; there’s something truly good in Benedict’s words that are obviously very carefully & wisely chosen, & meant for all to hear, ponder, & understand – a gift from the Almighty God to us
What a great blessing to read these words of Pope Benedict !!! One cannot help but feel that a true Shepherd has poured the balm of his life-giving words on the whole Church. He makes several profound points in his typically gentle, succinct, clear style, not the least of which is–directly or indirectly–a comment on the great crisis surrounding the reception of Holy Communion today:
“That, however, one cannot eat this Bread like some common aliment, and that to “receive” the Lord in the Eucharistic Sacrament makes demands upon every dimension of our existence – that to receive must be to adore – has since become once again very clear.” These words of Pope Benedict shine as a great light for the whole Church.
He is giving us here the reason why he surrendered. He is telling us the following:
“The times are so evil that I could not change them. No-one can. John Paul and I tried to hold back the Revolution but we failed. The rot inside the Church is so far advanced, and the enemy so entrenched, that he cannot be shifted. All then that remains is to step aside, let them have their day while trusting in Our Lord Jesus Christ as things move on swiftly to their fulfillment. This includes Fatima for as I said in 2010, to think that Fatima is over is a big mistake.”
No-one knows the hour except God. But clearly Ratzinger does know a great deal that we don’t and that includes the imminence of the Great Chastisement. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see any day now events happen that start it. After all, “the Restrainer” has been removed.
What a wonderful and insightful post! As usual, I do believe you are exactly correct in that the evil is now so engulfing that the (institutional) Church is close to being permeated completely with it, and Benedict knows this. There is no purging of it lest we have no one left in our clerical ranks, or almost no one. Ann Barnhardt thinks that there are only a handful of clerics in the Vatican left that are actually Catholic. Although I don’t agree with everything she says, I do believe she is right on about this one! It all points to this when we see cocaine/ sodomy parties going on right on Vatican grounds.
Very sadly Senrex’ post above needs to be taken into account too as far as Josef Ratzinger is concerned. I see Ratzinger as a half-Modernist to the last, but one with a guilty conscience.
St. Teresa of Avila has a very fine quote that supports what you say, Great Stalin:
“To reach something good, it is very beneficial to have gone astray, and thus acquire experience.”
Better late than never!
Absolutely right. For me and my own life too, the Parable of the workers coming late in the day to the vineyard yet receiving a job and even the same pay applies.
That’s the Gospel for the the Wednesday following the Eighth Sunday after Pentecost (Aug. 2 this year).
Hi! Would you by any chance be able to recall where exactly in her writings St. Teresa says that? I would really love to read the larger passage or chapter that was written around this theme.
I will always wonder what exactly it was BEYOND what we see and hear and know of the Vatican shenanigans that provided proof-positive to Pope Benedict that the time for human effort to turn it around had passed. I think he may be a prophetic mystic, and knows more than he is allowed to say about what is to come.
there’s this kind of prophet, an argentine artist, who wrote about this kind of papacy, and he said nothing could be done to avoid the fall
Explain more about the Argentine prophet, please.
Do you mean Benjamin Solari Parravicini? He was ‘apparently’ abducted by aliens? If so, I think I’ll pass on that one!!!
Do you mean Benjamin Solari Parravicini? He who was ‘apparently’ abducted by aliens? If so, I think I’ll pass on that one!!! Having seen a few of his drawings, I’m guessing the popular belief he was taught to paint by angels is wrong as well – although I may have missed the masterpieces.
Not just Benedict, but St. John Paul II knew full well that, though they had to strive courageously and unceasingly to stem the tide of self-destruction in the Body of Christ, and strive as though they believed that the goal was attainable, it was not. Both knew that the hour had arrived for the Church to fulfil its destiny and ascend her own Calvary in imitation of her master.
During his visit to Fulda, Germany in 1980, when asked; “Why don’t you reform the Church?” Pope John Paul II replied; “The Church cannot be reformed at this time.” He also stated: “Here is the remedy against this evil. Pray, pray and ask for nothing else. Put everything in the hands of the Mother of God …. We must be prepared to suffer great trials in the not-too-distant future; trials that will demand of us a a readiness to give up even our lives, and a total gift of self to Christ, and for Christ. Through your prayers and mine, it is still possible to mitigate this chastisement, but it is no longer possible to avert it, because it is only in this way that the Church can be effectively renewed. How many times, indeed, has the renewal of the Church been wrought by blood? This time also, it will not be otherwise. We must be strong ….. we must entrust ourselves to Christ and to His holy Mother, and we must be very, very attentive to the prayer of the Rosary.
Vatican II will ultimately be seen as having been good for the Church, because it allowed the legions of liberals, modernists, neo-protestants and apostates to emerge from the shadows where they had been lurking for decades and spreading like an unseen cancer, and embark upon their project of building a ‘new church’ in their own rotten image and likeness. These elements are now the majority, and undeniably hold the whip hand.
In a recent discussion about the the current papacy, one priest said to me; “But he is God’s choice?” The answer to that must, of necessity, be “No!” He is there by the permissive Will of God, and his appointed role is to preside over the climax of the greatest ever crisis in the history of the Church. And In that regard, I think we’d all agree that he’s doing an excellent job! But I feel confident that Divine Justice will not permit the Bergoglian Revolution to succeed. The Church will be purged of this evil by the purifying fire of the Holy Spirit.
“St. John Paul II knew full well that, though they had to strive courageously and unceasingly to stem the tide of self-destruction in the Body of Christ….”
Yet he still saw fit to persecute Archbishop Lefebvre and demand his acceptance of Vatican II. The Archbishop could have saved the Pope and the Church if JPII had allowed to.
Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the CDF, accepted personal responsibility, and with great regret, for the way in which Archbishop Lefebvre was effectively banished. But do you really suppose that, had it been otherwise, we would not be where we are now, or at least, very close to it. The rebellion was already deeply entrenched, and the Church would still have to face the full force of it. The Church must be completely purged of these evils, and only direct Divine intervention will accomplish it. What form this intervention will take; I don’t know, but it will most likely happen when the world, especially Europe, has been reduced to turmoil and chaos, and the bishops of the world are confronted by the horrendous consequences of their apathy, their negligence and their outright loss of the true Catholic Faith.
You raise a very good point, Mr. Davies and we’ll never know if Abp. Lefebvre’s intervention would have made a real difference had he had been taken seriously by Pope John Paul II. If the Fathers of the Council had taken him seriously at the time of the Council, there is no doubt his objections would have made a real difference. What JPII did was put a roadblock in front of the Archbishop, who then had to spend his to time defending himself from the unjust and unsubstantiated accusations against him instead of opposing the rebellion, which JPII should have led. That he didn’t has always put, for me, a large question mark beside his supposed sanctity. I was opposed to his being made a saint.
The points you make in the last part of your message have already come to pass, especially the apostasy, not apathy, of many of our bishops. They know what they are accused of. Most of them are either atheists or homosexuals or both. They simply don’t care. Their faithful brother bishops are overwhelmed by numbers and the apathy of the laity. We live with the sure hope that Christ will not leave us orphans.
I personally feel more than comfortable with Pope John Paul II’s sainthood, but of course, only the terminally naive would suppose that he played a perfect hand throughout his entire pontificate. He initially failed to act against the infamous and downright evil Marcial Maciel, but it subsequently emerged that Maciel had been shielded by Secretary of State Angelo Sodano, who, according to some reports, received large amounts of cash from the Legionaries of Christ. It is also possible that the great mutual trust and respect that united JPII and Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the CDF was the cause of JPII’s passivity with regard to the very, very saintly Archbishop Lefebvre.
It has been stated that Pope Benedict confided to an SSPX priest-friend that; “There are two things I regret; one was Archbishop Lefebvre, but that was my fault. The other is Fatima, but there, my hands were tied.” The only one who could have “tied Benedict’s hands” with regard to Fatima, and presumably the full disclosure of the Third Secret would have to have been the Cardinal Secretary of State. And that was Sodano.
Archbishop Lefebvre was right about the new mass and V2 but wrong to separate from the True Church by defying the sitting Pope. If you study about Our Lady of Good Success you learn a great Prelate is coming to restore the Church after a climax in the ongoing crisis in which the ecclesiastical authorities align with the enemies of the Church. At the point of great darkness & war when all seems lost Jesus and Mary will intercede in a marvelous way. ” the Lord does not abandon His Church”
Your opening words, Blue Sky, are a non sequitur. Archbishop Lefebvre could not have been right about the Mass and VII and, at the same time, have separated from the True Church. He was the True Church and those who opposed him were the separated. He defied a sitting Pope and, at the same time, defied a Pope who had separated himself from the deposit of the Faith. It was JPII who was wrong, not Archbishop Lefebvre.
Thanks for setting the record straight.
Why do you say that “Abp Lefebvre was right about the new mass and V2”? Do you know what his stated position on these matters was?
Yet elsewhere you claim “the only justification for the SSPX was the false belief in the invalidity of the New Mass.” Of course, that is simply not true ─ Abp Lefebvre and the SSPX hold that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid. Liturgical vandalism Yes ─ Invalid No.
You claim Abp Lefebvre was “wrong by separating from the True Church by defying the sitting Pope.” This is quite a loose statement. Do you mean he was guilty of a schismatic act and therefore went into schism as some lite-trad Catholics pertinaciously maintain? And do you know what that ‘schismatic act’ was?
If you do know that the act was that of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate please note the judgement of Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, in La Repubblica, October 7, 1988. “The act of consecrating a bishop (without the pope’s permission) is not itself a schismatic act,”
The child who says ‘I won’t!’ to his mother does not deny that she is his mother. Not schismatic, perhaps disobedience. However, it is often lawful even necessary to disobey and Canon Law caters for this contingency. Consider St Paul: “But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was blameable.” (Gal 2:11).
St Augustine and St Jerome described the event as a dissimulation and that Peter “walked not uprightly to the truth of the gospel” to the degree that it was venially sinful. Of course, that was not the first time Peter suffered a moral lapse. Note that St Paul’s action was commendable and was not schismatic as Peter’s primacy was not questioned.
When I read elsewhere that you hold that “Cardinal Muller is correct. We must be faithful to Pope Francis,” I suspected an ultramontane presence ─ in current parlance something that goes beyond normal fidelity to the Pope; agreement with every prudential decision of the Pope regardless of how crass, banal, off the cuff, repulsive or heretical it may be. (If you have children
would you let Francis instruct them in the Faith?)
I do hope that my response is useful and, if so, I trust that you will see the light in the blue sky.
I think winslow’s response below says it all in a nutshell.
“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world”…Yeats was right.
Battles are lost and won on the battlefield of the mind and of perception, if we believe the fight is lost, then we have already forfeited and cannot thus expect a different outcome.
JPII and Ratzinger had plenty of chance to strengthen the Church, but they were too busy creating a “New Evangelization” and a “New Theology” and the new church is merely the result thereof.
At the risk of sounding insensitive, on a philosophical and theological level Catholic reaction to Francis viz a viz the rest of concilliar popes (specially JPII) is a striking parallel to Jewish reaction to the Shoah.
I say this in as much as the admiration of better of the olden and better times seems to blind us to the festering corruptions of the same and the logical link to our own.
Your last two paragraphs got a little fuzzy for me so I’m not sure of what you’re saying. That said, I don’t think any serious Catholic is blind to the current corruptions. Helpless, maybe, but very much aware of the crisis.
That’s my bad. I agree with you that no serious catholic is blinded, I actually meant that both JPII and Ratzinger were so distracted by their goals that they didn’t see that the battle was not lost back then.
I was trying to mention that among the NO crowd there is a certain tendency to see traditional catholicism as “JPII catholicism”. Does thst make sense?
Yes it does. One thing the NO crowd conveniently overlooks is, JPII was warned by an Argentine bishop not to make Bergoglio a bishop, yet he did, to our everlasting regret.
It must be said that JPII was consumed by his goal to rid the world of Soviet Communism and he did it with the help of Ronald Reagan and Lech Walensa. And he produced some excellent commentary on authentic Catholic doctrine. He was a mixed bag, like most of us.
Every battle recorded in the OT was of God’s tiny remnant fighting against impossible odds. And then, God winning the battle for them; the enemy put to flight by unseen Powers.
And this also in the Passion of our Lord, where He was literally an army of One against Lucifer and the allied might of Israel and Rome.
He reigns. They passed on.
Both were (still is) pope and had ample opportunity to say these words: “I consecrate Russia to the Immaulate Heart of Mary”. It’s easy, simple, one lttle sentence. Pure cowardice not to say it.
What if the “Third secret of Fatima” is that the secrets of Fatima will be distorted or somewhat fake messages?
But someone still think we have to bow to Saint Admiral Field Marshal President Emperor Duke Count High Commander Karol Wojtyla…
I don’t, and I don’t think a person who kissed the koran, placed a buddha on the tabernacle and sat there while a TOPLESS WOMAN read a reading from the bible is a Saint.
There ain’t no way that man is a saint, he was fully aware of most of his pontificate what was going on and what he was doing.
Not being a saint yourself, you might want to a bit more cautious in making such declarations.
Not at all, “by their fruits you shall know them” and he has died, we have all his fruits there for all to know him. Like our Lady said at La Salette, “two worm ridden popes”. My thought is JP2 and Paul VI, Bergoglio doesn’t qualify and John XXIII I believe may actually be a saint, I certainly have pity for who he was and he begged to call the council offf, but Paul VI and JP2, they made their bed.
The “fruits” require miracles.
There are miracles aplenty, and lots of FALSE ones too, such as nuns supposedly being healed of an illness but with no actual proof.
“By their fruits you shall know them.” “Judge not, lest you be judged.”
How are these seemingly contradictory sayings to be reconciled?
“By their fruits you shall know them” means that you can judge by if, and how well, they promote goodness and holiness and preserve innocence whether a person’s words and/or actions are Faith-centered.
“Judge not” do not presume to know whether another’s soul is ultimately pleasing to God.
If you want to say that John Paul at Assisi caused scandal, I will agree. When you presume to say that God condemns him for it, you’re way out of line. I’m always wary of anyone who wants to condemn others for sins they’re not even in a position to be tempted to.
And to presume, further, to tell the Church whom She has or has not validly canonized seems to put you squarely in the schismatic category, since you reject the visible apparatus of Catholic governance.
Could you please provide web links to these happenings?
Not as simple as that – the request stated that ALL the Bishops together should do it. I would doubt there’s been any chance of that for decades.
On June 13, 1929, in the Presence of the Most Holy Trinity, Our Lady said to Sister Lucia:
“The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to order and make in union with all the bishops of the world the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.”
This is what God asked for through Our Lady of Fatima on June 13, 1929.
From Pope Pius XI to the present, NO Pope has done it exactly as God wanted:
Pius XI – didn’t do it.
If he had, World War II et seq. NEVER would have happened.
January 1938 – The night is lit up by an unknown light. Scientists said it was an aurora borealis BUT it never registered on any astronomical equipment. Sister Lucia said it was NOT an aurora borealis.
1942 – Pius XII – consecrates the WORLD to Our Lady. Our Lord said the war would be shortened.
In the 1950s, Our Lady told Sister Lucia:
“Make it known to the Holy Father that I am awaiting the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. Without the consecration, Russia will not be able to convert, nor will the world have peace.”
Pius XII – 1952 – consecrated Russia BUT WITHOUT all the bishops. Our Lord told Sister Lucia that this was insufficient.
John XXIII – didn’t do it.
Paul VI – didn’t do it but declared Our Lady Mother of the Church
John Paul I – died after 33 days
John Paul II – consecrated the WORLD – NOT Russia – in 1982, 1984 and 2000. Russia was not even mentioned in *any* of these consecrations, *nor* were they performed in union with all the bishops of the world.
Benedict XVI – didn’t do it
Francis – 2013 & 2017 – entrusted the WORLD to Our Lady – no mention of Russia.
When God wants something done, He wants it done HIS way. NO politician, diplomatic treaties etc, is going to bring world peace.
Furthermore, the consistent testimony of +Sister Lucia over 50+ years is that the pope and the bishops must consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on the same day at the same hour. The Fatima Center debunked fake letters (supposedly written by Sister Lucia) years ago.
I highly recommend that everyone check out http://www.fatima.org. They’re the best resource on Fatima.
If you think RUSSIA is our problem today, either for the Church or the US, you are totally out of touch.
If you think peace will come to the world without the consecration of Russia being made as our lady requested, you’ve lost your mind.
What Our Lady told Lucia was that if Russia is not consecrated, then that country would “spread it’s errors throughout the world.” I suspect She knew what She was talking about.
Mother Russia herself does not appear to be an immediate problem. But her twin errors, Communism and atheism, certainly infect more and more of the world—-to the extent of our own country having just gone through eight years of a material Communist/crypto-Muslim in the White House. Both atheism and Islam are Satanic in origin.
We also have a higher education system so debauched and corrupt as to have produced hordes of young people who enthusiastically supported a self-avowed Communist, Bernie Sanders, for President—somehow believing that that would be a good thing!
That has been the seductive power of Russia’s errors for a hundred years.
First of all Russia HAD from 1917 to 1989 to spread its errors and kill about 50 million people in its political and military terror; isn’t this enough for you? Second, the nation that the BVM asked to be consecrated no longer exists. Third, many reputable Catholics maintain Russia was consecrated. But the endless arguments about whether it was done correctly are nothing but time wasters for church ladies who need to spend more time with their kids and less time reading the never ending supply of prophecy books. Finally, you talk about Russia being consecrated, but all the errors and sins you mention are being practiced with gusto in the USA. Sounds like you need lessons in theology, geography, and history.
“That many reputable Catholics maintain Russia was consecrated” is an irrelevant non-sequitur. Many reputable Catholics don’t accept Fatima at all; and since it’s a private revelation there’s no requirement to do so. Many reputable Catholics aren’t the least bit interested in Fatima.
I’m certainly not one who has ever condemned a single Pope for not consecrating Russia by name. Nor do I believe Our Lady ever has. Ecclesiastical authority trumps even divine requests—which is why Bishop Zumarraga didn’t heed Our Lady’s request for a Church to be built on Tepeyac until she gave Her proof, through Juan Diego; why the cure of Lourdes demanded to know “the Lady’s identity” if he was going to heed Her request that a chapel be built.
Such prelates have the reputation of the Church to consider and are right to be circumspect. Even Satan “can appear as an angel of light.”
But the fact is, Fatima is an apparition approved by the Church—and acclaimed by popes, the faithful and all manner of “reputable” Catholics. And the fact is that Mary did ask for the consecration of Russia, by name. She made that request through Lucy dos Santos, one of the three children who saw Mary at Fatima in 1917.
This Sister Lucy spent the entirety of her adult life correcting those who claimed that consecrating the world, in general, satisfied the request made by Our Lady—until certain disreputable Vatican operatives either strong-armed her into saying the general consecration of the world was sufficient, or they simply outright lied to the Catholic faithful.
Lucy was the very soul of obedience. When she was told, in 1943 by two prelates she trusted, that if she wanted she had permission from the Vatican to reveal the secret—even though Our Lady had told her to wait until 1960—she instead begged them to order her to do so, if that was their will. She knew that both God Himself and Our Lady consider obedience to her superiors in the Church—in all things but sin—to be more important than even Their own requests. In obedience lay her freedom of conscience.
Again, I haven’t lost a wink of sleep over the fact that Russia has not been consecrated, yet. But I know when I’m being double-talked. And I know when Vatican operatives have gone beyond circumspection to worrying more about seeming credulous to non-believers and offending diplomacy by “singling out Russia by name.”
If these prelates want to fulfill the demands of circumspection. Fine, I’ll support them. They want to water down the Heavenly message, or outright lie about it, they have only my undying contempt. I know what the message said.
So “…all the errors and sins you mention are being practiced with gusto in the USA.” Seems to be adequate proof that Our Lady was right. You want to know why She didn’t ask for the consecration of the United States, go to Her.
By the way, your sneering contempt for “church ladies” is very telling. Maybe you need to be spending more time with your own kids rather than scavenging blog sites.
Bergoglian reform won’t succed but many Catholic faithful suffer under “Francis papacy”. Just like with four Dubia Cardinals, Bergoglio is totaly neglecting the Chinese Cardinal Joseph Zen who is trying to stop him from giving the Catholic Church in the hands of Chinese government.
When ex-Yugoslav ruler Josip Broz Tito wanted to do the same thing with the Catholic Church in Croatia, then-Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac has fighted against him and the Church in Croatia has stayed unified with Rome. Sad thing is that Cardinal Zen is fighting a double battle for the Catholic Church in China: against the Communist government in China and against Communist Pope in Vatican.
Well said, especially with regard to Cardinal Zen. The scandalous efforts of this current pontificate to forge an agreement with the psychopaths in Beijing must be causing, not just Cardinal Zen, but all faithful Chinese Catholics enormous suffering.
That for sure, but we must strenghten our faith and fight back, even only with the writen words of correction or vivid discussions.
Unfortunately, there are some pharisees among the Catholics spreading the ideas that we should “keep quiet and suffer”, thus promoting sadism and masochism in stead of Catholicism. I guess they have never lived in China.
We are dealing with the Communists, and you don’t beat the Communists like that! If they fear something, they fear the freedom of spirit, thought, speach and act. So, as long as you don’t keep quiet and still, you are disturbing them no matter if they neglect you. It is because they truly and literally want you to disappear, but your words are reminding them that you are still here and that you understand what they are doing. They have no remedy for that!
This is why I really admire Cardinal Zen. I this moment, he is consistently fighting back Bergoglio in the only possible way – sending him message that he is still alive and around. May God bless him!
And now to enter into the realm of complete speculation…I’ve often wondered about God’s designs in the resignation of BXVI and the election of PF. Could it be that Jesus or the Blessed Mother appeared to Benedict one day in 2012 or 2013 and told him, “My son, I have a request of you. You must resign the papacy. A pope will be elected who will [fill in the blank here as you will], but, no matter what happens, you are not to fight against him, no matter how much you feel that it is the right thing to do. This is the will of God and these things must happen. The time of the Church’s passion is here. As for you, your job will be to pray – for him, for the Church, and for the world. Will you do this for me?” “Of course,” he replied.
Just throwing it out there.
I would not be in the least surprised if your speculation was correct.
Imo, I think he was influenced by the real Third Secret of Fatima (I.e. the exact words of Our Lady, NOT the Vision).
He had known that for many years Margaret prior to his election as Pope, let alone his abdication, so I cannot concur that Fatima was the proximate reason for him going. He did, after all, take a full part in the 2000 farce.
True, he took part in the 2000 farce (sic), but from what I’ve read, he and PJPII wanted to release the exact words of Our Lady but was pressured into going along with the “official” version by Cardinal Sodano.
” …. was pressured into going along with the “official” version by Cardinal Sodano.”
There is absolutely no evidence for this at all.
Well let’s not leave it there: at that time Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and St. Pope John Paul II was the pope. Why would the two men occupying the highest seats of authority that can be occupied by men within the Church need to feel pressure from anybody else? This would be like saying Trump and Tillerson crumbled under pressure from the house minority whip….
Look, if BXVI and St. JPII are the men I believe them to be, they had nothing hide. They hadn’t covered up child abuse, destroyed finances, tried to introduce heretical teachings, etc. If there was an absolute truth I would expect these two men to speak it in the tradition of the saints and Church fathers. So what’s the worst that could’ve happened? Vatican intrigue, death by poison? Forgive me for be glib but so what? Aren’t men like these to embrace and pray for martyrdom? Does it strike me that either of them would hide the truth to save their own lives or reputations? If so then I need to radically reassess my views on both.
I suspect Brian that the answer to many things lies in the imminent playing out of events of which both men had particular knowledge of.
See JP II’s comments at Fulda for his explanation of why the Third Secret was not released: they became assured that to release it would cause world-wide convulsions and turmoil that would include (I think) a global, bloody persecution of Catholics and this is what they sought to avoid.
There are hints and nudges in many things both men said down the years. JP II said at Fulda that the Third Secret was “sensational”, that it involved the detail of the coming death of many millions; that is was now impossible to avert it.
Sister Lucia stated that the apparitions at Fatima were bound up with the events of the Apocalypse.
I know it’s threads, glimpses and pure speculation, but for what it’s worth I think the answers lie in this.
But should we not obey Our Lady’s requests? I think that simple fact is forgotten in all the analysis of who said what to whom. OUR LADY requested the Consecration of Russia by the Pope, in concert with the bishops of the world.
So John Paul II and Benedict decided ‘it was not the right time’? Balls eh? I gotta tell ya, if Our Lady came to me and asked me to do something I’d jump to.
I know right? Like WOW.
I wonder if we’ll ever know why they decided as they did.
We’ll find out on Judgement Day.
Our Lady asked all of us to embrace Her Immaculate Heart promising salvation to all that embrace it. She said Jesus wanted to use Sr. Lucia to spread the devotion. Sr. Lucia always taught our response should be personal consecration to Our Lady insisting the wearing the Brown Scapular seeing as she always said “the Rosary & Brown Scapular are inseparable.” Sr. Lucia formulated a 30 second prayer to this end. Yet how few do this.
revelation 12 occurs in the constellations on one day only in history: October 11, 2017. On that date, the woman, clothed with the sun, with the crown of stars gives birth, the dragon flees, etc. It was the pope of 1960 who was to have read the the 3rd secret because as Sr. Lucia said “our Lady wishes it so”. It was not to be released any later than 1960. As we know Pope “saint” John XXIII put the secret back into an envelope and wrote on it “not for our time”. In a sense, I guess, he was right, not for his time and because of his cowardice in wanting some Orthodox KGB agents to attend his grand council, we now has to deal with the consequences IN OUR TIME. October 11th is the feast day of “saint” John XXIII and just two days before the 100th Anniversary of the miracle of the sun.
I can’t predict the future, don’t have that gift of the Holy Spirit but I do know Sr Lucia said in August 1931: “‘Make it known to My ministers that it has been given to
them that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the
execution of My request, and that they will follow him into misfortune.
It will never be too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary’.”
I think on that date or in the two days after the “ministers” will unfortunately fall into misfortune. I hope and pray not but these messages were very specific.
“The whole world”. Not just the “ministers”.
Yes, the world will be chastised but especially the “ministers”, Why? Because the apostasy came from the top down, they were bluntly told to reveal the 3rd secret to the people and they never did. Some did on the sly and for those great cardinals, bishops, and priests we are thankful, one such would be Cardinal Ottaviani who may be a saint. He derailed Paul VI or his advisers plans for Humana Vitae and revealed the 3rd secret, he was a great man and a hero for the Church.
To clarify: Our Lord said that to Sister Lucia at Rianjo in August 1931.
Then ask God for an explanation. After reading what Bxv1 said( and it gives me much hope for the future) its possible that God has spoken to them especially Benedict. He appears to be so peaceful, so why? I think he knows something that we don’t know and he doesn’t have permission to share it. God’s will be done, now we must do our job and that’s to pray pray pray, the Rosary.
Didn’t Fr. Nicholas Gruner make this point? I’m not sure but it rings a bell.
Thank you. I was trying to remember the source, but you beat me to it. ????
Bertone was mixed up in it somehow. As soon as Bergoglio came on the scene Bertone essentially got the hook.
I share your speculation to a tee.
I have long thought the same. It may be, or not. But the Lord truly will win.
A few of those faithful NO mass goers went to visit Bergoglio recently. He told them in private that Merkel had visited him a lot because both she and him are worried about the muslim immigration. They are not happy about it. That’s what he said in private, but is opposit to what he says in public.
Could be he’s double tongued, or something else is not right.
It could be they’re worried because the Invasion is not happening fast enough.
No way, not Pope Benedict, his anti muslim lecture at Regensburg for example is one of the final straws for why “they” wanted him GONE.
Merkel is a lousy freemason so yes, for her it wasn’t happening past enough
How did you lead others astray? By pointing out what is true regarding unrepentant sinners receiving Holy Communion? It sounds like you made the explanation with charity.
Let’s have it David. I should think our faith can stand it.
David, if your ‘possibility that makes sense of everything’ falls somewhere near the scenario described
publicly by Bishop Fellay SSPX, you should have no fear in disclosing it.
At the 2013 Kansas Conference, Bishop Fellay SSPX warned that Pope Francis is precipitating the Church’s decline and could herald the age of Antichrist. He described the situation as a real disaster and said Francis is making it 10,000 times worse. And that was four years ago!
The Bishop noted that Sr Lucia referred to chapters 8 ─ 13 of the Apocalypse when asked about the Third Secret of Fatima and observed that Chapter 8 speaks of the coming of the Antichrist. He noted that Pope St Pius X said at the beginning of his pontificate that “the son of perdition” may already be on earth.
He cited Card Luigi Ciapi, the papal theologian of all popes from Pope Pius XII through Pope John Paul II who said that the Third Secret warned the apostasy within the Church would begin at the top. Bp Fellay stressed the “end times” nature of Sr Lucia’s visions by referring to the famous 1957 interview with Fr Fuentes in which she stressed that “various nations will disappear from the face of the earth” and “the devil will do all in his power to overcome souls consecrated to God.”
Insisting there is “definitely a material chastisement of the world in sight” the Bishop warned of a coming
catastrophe and said these are “very scary times.” He concluded “… if you put everything together, it is clear that God has had enough of the sins of man.”
Bp Fellay reiterated Sr Lucia’s plea for Catholics to recite the Rosary and to apply themselves to the Devotion of the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary as the last remedies God has given to mankind.
Pope Pius XII, the “Fatima Pope”, whose Episcopal consecration took place on 13 May 1917, the date of Our Lady’s first apparition at Fatima, warned, “the time for doubting Fatima has passed.” Again he said “the Blessed Virgin, Our Lady of the Rosary, venerated at Fatima, the Holy Mother of God who brought victory at Lepanto, will assist you with her most powerful assistance.”
Sr Lucia and Fr Gruner, both ignored by many, have left us. There remains one potent voice of authority ─ Bishop Fellay.
“And now to enter into the realm of complete speculation…I’ve often wondered about God’s designs in the resignation of BXVI and the election of PF. Could it be that Jesus or the Blessed Mother appeared to Benedict one day in 2012 or 2013 and told him, “My son, I have a request of you. You must resign the papacy. A pope will be elected who will [fill in the blank here as you will], but, no matter what happens, you are not to fight against him, no matter how much you feel that it is the right thing to do. This is the will of God and these things must happen. The time of the Church’s passion is here. As for you, your job will be to pray – for him, for the Church, and for the world. Will you do this for me?” “Of course,” he replied.”
We can hope that is true – except:
Lightning Strikes St. Peter’s in Vatican City. Lightning struck the St. Peter’s Basilica Monday, hours after Pope Benedict XVI announced that he will resign as leader of the world’s 1.1 billion Catholics on February 28.Feb 12, 2013
“All then that remains is to step aside, let them have their day while trusting in Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
“But clearly Ratzinger does know a great deal that we don’t and that includes the imminence of the Great Chastisement.”
I agree with you very much.
I think he saw that the battle was at hand and it was time to let the actors come out of the shadows, into the light, and play their chosen parts.
I think Pope Benedict knows far more than we can imagine. I think he stepped out of the way, because it was time to bring the evil days to their fulfillment. And, as you say, “trust in Our Lord Jesus Christ”.
May I ask two questions?
One. What is meant by “the Restrainer has been removed”?
Two. What is the speculation to which you and others refer but which eludes me?
Hi Gerry. It is the speculation that perhaps Pope Benedict had a supernatural visit or vision from Christ or His Mother to step down and let the evil doers have their day and not to worry because in this way His Restoration will begin.
I don’t know what Great Stalin talks about when he says the Restrainer has been removed.
Thanks Pearl. I’ve reread davidc’s item and now understand.
Gerry, by the “Restrainer”, I was referring to Thess. 2:-6
And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time.  For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.  And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him,  Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders,  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.
I am assuming here that “he who now holdeth” (back the forces of hell) is the Papacy, and that this retraint has now in effect been removed.
I know you have done a great deal of study on these questions. In all humility I would be grateful for your correction and / or comments on the matter.
What would this mean: “God shall send them the operation of error.”
God will blind those who are not of Him so they believe the lies told them by the false teachers: even the Elect will barely escape the net of their deceits.
c2 mentioned “God shall send them the operation of error.” I’d say The Lord sure did send Francis an operation of error when ‘frugal’ Francis chose the ‘hipster’ Fiat 500 to get around in to show everyone how ‘humble’ he was when he travelled abroad. It’s come out that the Fiat 500 is one of the very worst small cars ever produced – everything from major engine, transmission, steering, electrical, braking and suspension issues through to bits and pieces falling off the bodywork.
You’ve heard of the movie Bullitt – here I present ‘Pullpitt’ starring Jorge Bergoglio, The Trads (and that truly awful little Fiat 500): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYUpit-B6lI
Thanks Josef. This topic is quite broad and, if I am to attempt it satisfactorily, I’ll need to tackle it in two stages. Stage One I’ll address now, Stage Two I’ll tackle when I get home from Mass around 2300Z UTC (I’ve been at this since 4am).
One. To get the ball rolling ─ if it is the Papacy that ‘withholdeth’ is it the Papacy generally (say up until Pius XII as the sedes would have it) or do you think it is Pontiff specific ie Benedict?
Similarly, Is it the ‘forces of hell’ in a broad sense that are withheld or is it specifically the ‘wicked one’?
A penny for your thoughts Josef.
Well, it’s just a guess on my part, but I’ll go for the Papacy as a whole.
I just heard a traditional sermon (recorded) on this not that long ago. The FSSP priest said that it is what is left of the Roman Empire that is holding back the forces of hell which he stated are
the western democracies. He said these will fall and the power
will move back to the east (to Jerusalem) then Antichrist will have his reign (after Enoch and Elias preach, Elias to the Jews and
Enoch (Noah’s great grandfather) to the Gentiles). This was
the majority consensus of the Fathers of the Church, he said.
With the caveat that prophecy is only known in its fullfillment.
It was interesting. I’ll see if I can find it again.
I believe I’ve heard that, or perhaps a different one, on youtube, under the title ‘the mystical significance of tge missal’ or something like that. The priest spoke of the reason that the missal is moved to liturgical east for the gospel, but back to the west side after – because the gentiles will reject the gospel but israel will accept Christ, & He will move His church out of Rome & back to Jerusalem etc.
It is hard to understand natural forces (western democracies) holding back the preternatural forces of hell. I believe that the preternatural forces of hell can only be held back by supernatural forces. Historically demonic manifestations have been contained at various levels of intensity by prayer, fasting, exorcism, by Consecration of objects, people or entire nations and supereminently by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
There is not a majority consensus of the Fathers on the various aspects of anti-Christology. For example, various opinions on ‘that which withholdeth’ ranged from the Roman Empire, St Michael
the Archangel, the Church, the Papacy and the Mass.
Much of apocalyptic significance has happened since the days of the Fathers ─ the return of the Jews to Palestine, the extraordinary events of Fatima, emergence of Russia, development of nuclear weapons, numerous Marian revelations, a universal state of apostasy, the collapse of the clergy, appointment of a diabolical figure to govern the Bride of Christ and lastly, the failure of the Continual Sacrifice.
Rev P Huchede, Professor of Theology at the Grand Seminary of Laval, France wrote in 1884: ‘The contemporaries of Antichrist who are enlightened by the Sacred Scriptures will alone be able to discover the solution to the problem.’
Saint Paul wrote: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, Who opposeth and is lifted up above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. … And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh: only that he who now holdeth do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed,” (2 Thess 2:3-8). The Fathers of the Church agree that the ‘man of sin’ is the Antichrist and the word ‘revolt’ is translated ‘apostasy’ in the Greek. St Paul refers to something which restrains the Antichrist, but that when removed, permits him to be revealed. He describes this restraint as being both neuter (what) and masculine (he).
Similarly, Daniel prophesied that “the victim (masculine) and the sacrifice (neuter) shall fail: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation”, the Antichrist. St Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church, wrote: “The devil has always managed to get rid of the Mass by means of the heretics, making them the precursors of the Antichrist who, above all else, will manage to abolish, and in fact will succeed in abolishing, as a punishment for the sins of men, the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, precisely as Daniel predicted.”
What did the prophet Daniel say? “And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice, because of sins: and truth shall be cast down on the ground and he shall do and prosper.” (Dan 8:12). “The victim and the sacrifice shall fail: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation.” (Dan 9:27). “They shall defile the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination of desolation.” (Dan 11:31). The Fathers of the Church agree that the ‘abomination of desolation’ is the Antichrist. It appears that the Holy Sacrifice fails, or loses its efficacy, thus clearing the way for the Antichrist.
In an astounding statement, echoing the Ottaviani Intervention, the then Cardinal Ratzinger admitted that the drastic manner in which Pope Paul V1 reformed the Mass in 1969 provoked
“extremely serious damage.” He said that the suppression of the old Mass marked a “break in the history of the liturgy, the consequences of which could only be tragic … I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today (1997!) depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy … I was dismayed by the ban on the old missal, since such a development had never been seen in the history of liturgy … Action should be taken to repair the damage … For the life of the Church, it is dramatically urgent to have a renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation, which goes back to recognising the unity in the history of the liturgy …”
(The Catholic Weekly, May 11, 1997. p 4.)
“Collapse of the liturgy … ecclesial crisis … for the life of the Church it is dramatically urgent …”! In language recalling Daniel and St Paul the Cardinal admitted that the Novus Ordo Mass had failed. Let us return to Sr Lucia of Fatima. Why did Our Lady tell Lucia dos Santos that there were only two remedies left – the Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? Why was the supereminent Holy Sacrifice of the Mass not given as a remedy?
Clearly the Blessed Virgin foresaw that the Mass would fail.
The Restrainer – The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Card Kasper claimed 50% of marriages are invalid and Francis upped the ante to “the great majority.” The reason – lack of proper intention. A bishop mentioned a young man who wanted to
become a priest but only for 10 years. Again, lack of proper intention.
Abp Lefebvre identified another grave problem regarding priest’s intention. He said that the validity of the new Mass depends upon the proper intention of the priest. “These young priests will not have the intention of doing that which the Church does, for they will not have been taught that the Mass is a true sacrifice. They will not have the intention of offering a sacrifice.” “They will have the intention of celebrating a Eucharist, a sharing, a communion, a memorial, all of which has nothing to do with faith in the Sacrifice of the Mass.”
In 1992 Card Ratzinger described the new Mass as “a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives
to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims. “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is, to a large extent, due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977)
Abp Lefebvre next asked “Are they true priests at all? Put it another way, are their ordinations valid?” He explained that a doubt exists over the ordaining bishop’s intention, for it is frequently no longer the intention of ordaining a priest to offer sacrifice.
The prophet Daniel prophesied that “the victim and the sacrifice shall fail and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation. (Dan 9:27). Similarly, St Paul prophesied: “And now you know what witholdeth that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then the wicked one will be revealed.” (2 Thess. 2:6-8).
St Louis de Montfort indicated that the Antichrist would arrive at the height of the apostasy. “And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice because of sins: and truth shall be cast down on the ground and he shall do and prosper.” (Dan 8:12). “They shall defile the sanctuary
of strength, and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination of desolation.” (Dan 11:31).
Sr Lucia referred to the general apostasy as the ‘diabolical wave ‘and ‘diabolical disorientation’ and said that Our Lady had told her that this is the decisive and final battle. The final battle is described by the Fathers and St Louis de Montfort as that of the Antichrist.
Sr Lucia explained that “God is giving two last remedies to the world. These are the Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate heart of Mary. These are the last two remedies which signify that there will be no others. God always before He is about to chastise the world exhausts all other remedies …. He offers us with a certain trepidation the last means of Salvation, His Most Holy Mother.” Why not the Mass?
St Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church, explained; “the devil has always managed to get rid of the Mass by means of the heretics, making them precursors of the Antichrist who, above all
else, will manage to abolish, and in fact will succeed in abolishing, as a punishment for the sins of men, the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, precisely as Daniel predicted. (The Antichrist, Rev V Miceli, p 276.)
Just as Our Lord had a precursor John the Baptist, so does the Antichrist ─ the False Prophet. Fr H Kramer describes the forerunner of the Antichrist “who will prepare the way for him, he may be
at the head of a world power, and though he poses as a lamb, his doctrines betray him for he teaches the doctrine of the dragon and his moral and civil law will be of diabolical inspiration.” (Book of Destiny pp 318,319).
Thanks very much indeed Gerry. And what have we heard recently? That Bergoglio might be planning a new Novus Ordo which might even be bereft of a Consecration. Your explanation is very persuasive.
Wow. Where did you hear that?That’s it then, as foretold. Let him, then. More eyes will b shocked open, more return to the real church, possibly from amongst those who would have been lost. Scary, though.
It will transpire according to the Almighty’s will.
There’s so much that goes by I cannot anymore remember where I read this. It’s just a conveyor belt of horror. Who knows which story is true and which is not?
I understand. Sometimes I get asked “Who sad that?” + I just stand there drooling because I can’t remember… or don’t want too…
Can it not be Our Lady Herself, who, in numerous apparitions has said that She can’t withhold the hand of Her Son much longer without sufficient prayer and repentance?
Re your next to last sentence: I’m not. You are much more charitable than I.
Stalin there is a talk on the Sensus Fidelium YouTube channel (don’t know which sermon it is) which talks about the restrainer being the secular authority of the Church in the world, which has traditionally been seen as i) Christendom, in other words, confessional nation states and ii) the temporal power of the papacy.
But now Christendom (as defined in this way) is dead, leaving only the temporal authority of the papacy.
But Bergoglio renounced even that upon his supposed election when he said “enough of this carnival” and declined the red stole. He even went and renewed his Argentinian passoprt shortly afterwards.
So now here is no secular restraint on the evil one, and hence we see so much havoc in the Church.
He didn’t surrender. Pope Benedict XVI is a hostage in Vatican.
That’s my feeling. One also gets the feeling he has a few trusted but closely watched sources of legitimate information.
You know, I often think about the Holy Father’s destiny. Whatever they got against him or the Catholic Church, they have no right to keep a 90-year-old man in the state of captivity.
During his recent speach in Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI has stated that he “feels protected here”. Protected from whom or what?
I would say it’s Goeffrey Robertson or something simular.
Here is what they got against him:
Now when we know it, I hope the Pope Benedict XVI will be free soon.
Interesting timing for this report
Here is what they have against Pope Benedict XVI:
That is why he feels “protected” in Vatican.
I wouldn’t call kissing a koran and placing a buddha doll on the tabernacle of Asissi “holding back” anything.
No. There are many paradoxes.
Yet there was the disciplining of the Latin american liberation “theologians”, the ending forever of the liberals’ hopes for priestesses and the confirmation of Tradition re marriage, etc.
It’s that damned Council. It looms over everything.
Remember ‘the Muppet Show?’
Crazy Harry, the wacked out guy with TNT and a plunger to set off the explosion? I’d like to send him back in time to the ‘Council’…
Or the mad drummer!
“Animal” – love him too ????
Don’t promote The Muppets. They are the brainchildren of the radical left. They are not even that cute.
Was I promoting the Muppets??
OPINION: The Muppets Go Hard-Left
BY MATT NORCROSS · SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
The Muppets is a beloved franchise that is universally loved the world over. It was created by Jim Henson in 1955, and has become a household name. Now ABC has decided to tarnish the Muppets brand with a crude new show (rated TV-PG L for Language) that has politicized the characters and turned them into left-wing culture warriors. Miss Piggy especially has been ruined, there was a column written with the character’s name in TIME magazine that endorsed monogamy:
I’m a strong woman with a ridiculously successful career and a hit primetime television series, so I never give up on my dreams. And my dream is to once again be part of a monogamous relationship with a strong, handsome, supportive and preferably wealthy man. And I will pursue that dream no matter how many strong, handsome, supportive and preferably wealthy men I have to date in the meantime. If you qualify, I’m available; contact my agent for details.
Now, those comments were not really written by Miss Piggy, as she’s just a fictional character. Those comments were actually written by somebody working at the Muppets Studios, a division founded by The Walt Disney Company after that organization acquired the rights to the Muppets in 2004. However, that’s not all. The character – performed by puppeteer Eric Jacobson- even went on MSNBC earlier this year to endorse abortion. This was all according to an online diary entry written by Eric Erickson last Tuesday. If you couldn’t wait for these characters to return to television, I’m sure all of that enthusiasm was shot once you read all of these facts. But, here’s the biggest disappointment… One Million Moms, the controversial conservative group infamous for their failed boycott of JCPenney because of their 2012 ad campaign with Ellen DeGeneres, says the new show will also talk about sex and drugs. Not something you would want The Muppets to tackle, is it? This franchise is supposed to be good clean fun for the whole family, and ABC has decided to not only politicize it with this new show, but coarsen it to the point where parents might feel uncomfortable letting their children watch it. Both Walt Disney and Jim Henson are rolling in their graves for sure.
I can’t tell you how angry I am about this. I loved The Muppets as a little boy, and to see this once-great franchise take a hard-left turn is sad. But, what else would you expect from ABC, which is propaganda central in the USA? Stuff like this and a show they’re putting out that shamefully stereotypes Catholics is also the reason why people are moving to alternative sources in droves. I believe that one day, all of this nonsense liberal Hollywood and the liberal mainstream media put out these days will come to an end. At least in the realm of theatrical films, there is the success of the Clint Eastwood film American Sniper, which shows how many people still have respect for our military and the sacrifices they make to protect our freedoms. Luckily, we’re also seeing G-rated films make a comeback too. The Peanuts Movie, which is set for release this coming November, brings back the aspects that made the beloved Peanuts comic strip by Charles Schulz popular. With these facts in mind, it is my belief that the day of leftist control of Hollywood is coming to an end. Rushing to the cultural left can only go so far, and that’s why public trust in both the press and the entertainment television industry as a whole is at an all-time low. A message to ABC, NBC, CBS and other left leaning networks using their respective news and entertainment venues to push propaganda, you wouldn’t make a sitcom stereotyping muslims and the prophet Muhammad, so why are you making a show stereotyping Catholics? Well, with people getting their content from Netflix and Hulu where they can choose what they want to watch, one thing’s for sure… your day is done.
Speaking of ABC, take a look at this from my inbox:
Discussion on ABC News 20 comments
Pope reverses Vatican stand on British sick baby case
Margaret 15 days ago
***Removed*** (emphasis added by yours truly)
XXIX. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
Magna Carta (and according to Wikipedia, one of the three clauses still part of English law)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…
Declaration of Independence, Wikipedia
O Mary, conceived without sin, Patroness of the United States of America, pray for us who have recourse to Thee and for Baby Charlie!
This was removed (!) from the ABC News website.
I wonder what they found so offensive in it that it had to be removed.
In good humor I ask, shouldn’t that have been posted by “C4”?
I’m not overly-bright : what is C4?
It’s goes ka-boom. It’s the play-doh explosive you see portrayed in the movies.
Ah! Thanks. Always learn stuff posting here.
I will always be creeped out by those particular examples and disagree w. other things JP II
Still: Peter denied Christ 3 times.
No perfect human beings, except 2, & one was God. Maybe (?) we have to be careful not to miss seeing the forest for the trees when it comes to Benedict & John Paul.
Unlike PF whose forest (slash & burn) is hard to miss.
“No perfect human beings, except 2, & one was God.”
Our Lady is the only perfect human person.
Our Lord Jesus Christ is one Divine Person with two *natures*, Divine and human. He is NOT a human person! Don’t confuse “nature” (ουσία) with person (hypostasis). They’re NOT the same!
This is from the Sunday of the Fathers of the First Six Ecumenical Councils (especially that of Chalcedon):
O Word and lover of Mankind,
infinite and beyond description in Your taking flesh for our sake,
the nobles assembly of Fathers proclaimed that You are both perfect man and perfect God,
one person in two perfect natures with two perfect wills.
Therefore, we profess that You are one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
We sing a hymn of praise to the Fathers, and we adore You.
For with the Lord there is mercy, and with Him there is plentiful redemption;* and He shall redeem Israel from all its iniquities.
O glorious Fathers of the Councils,
you demonstrated that Pyrrhus, Sergius, and Onuphrius,
Dioscorus, and Nestorius were in error
concerning the doctrines of Christ.
You save the flock by teaching the true principle
that Christ is one divine person in two natures.
This Christ we adore as perfect man and perfect God,
one with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
O holy Fathers, we honour you and sing to you a hymn of praise.
Praise the Lord, all the nations;* proclaim His glory, all you people.
The Fathers of the Councils, inspired by God,
declare and explain that in Christ
there is a divine act and a divine will,
uncreated and infinite:
the act and will of the Son of God.
There is also a human act and a human will:
those of the Son of Man.
Thus, they proclaim that Christ is one divine person having two natures,
the one is divine and the other is human.
Therefore, we the faithful honour these Fathers every year
and glorify Christ who glorified them.
Divine Liturgy: An Anthology for Worship.
Galadza, Rev. Peter, editor-in-chief; Roll, Joseph, assoc. ed.; Thompson, J. Michael, assoc. ed. Ottawa, Canada: 2004, Metropolitan Andrey Institute of
Eastern Christian Studies, pp. 863-864.
And coming up this Sunday:
Who would not call you blessed, O Virgin most holy?
Who would not sing a hymn of praise
to the glory of your giving birth without pain or travail?
The Only-begotten Son Himself,
begotten of the Father before all ages,
was made flesh out of you in a manner
that cannot be explained, O Woman most pure!
And for our sake, He Who is God by nature
assumed the nature of a man.
He is not divided into two persons;
He is understood to have two natures
without commixion or confusion.
O noble and blessed Woman,
intercede with Him that He may mercy on our souls.
“The Byzantine emperor Justinian I (483-565) composed this hymn [ O Only Begotten Son – sung in the Divine Liturgy – M] to refute the heresy of Nestorius, Bishop (sic) of Constantinople, who denied that the Blessed Virgin should be called the Mother of God because she gave birth to Christ-man, and not to Christ-God. The Catholic teaching says that Christ is God and man in the same person (sic), therefore the Blessed Virgin can rightly be called “Mother of God.”
Source: Schudlo, Rev. M., compiler. My Divine Friend. 1959, Redeemer’s Voice Press, p. 222.
Sorry for the lengthy post, but I felt I had to give a full explanation.
Jesus won’t abandon His Church but they abandoned their responsibilities to protect the Church and faithful souls.
Why is he dressed like the pope if he is not the pope?
And why is the other one not dressed like the Pope if he is the Pope?
LOL!!! Spot on!
The “other Pope” has ambitions larger than the Catholic Church so he finds the Papal shoes “too small” for him.
He is dressed *like* the pope because he *was* the pope, but don’t let the all-white deceive you – he has removed two important elements that matter in public appearance: the pellegrina (shoulder cape) and the fascia (sash).
I, for one, think the first item finds a liturgical parallel in the symbol of presiding called the mozzetta – so that you may remember, the red cape Pope Francis opted not to wear in his first appearance. But the pellegrina, as its name may suggest, refers to being on a journey, which has no longer pertained to Pope Benedict since retiring. So, too, the fascia is like the liturgical symbol of service we know as the cincture; its use or lack thereof should be a little more obvious, if not repetitive to explain.
For *any* rank of cleric, removing such articles is a valid way of wearing his dress in the house fashion (see http://www.shetlersites.com/clericaldress), but piously we may look beyond what is established and see Pope Benedict readying himself for the Lord: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb / And naked I shall return”.
As for my fellow commentator’s concern, which I didn’t expect to have referenced in the mozzetta episode above, note what the link I provide points out about papal dress. No doubt it won’t allay some from insisting on certain missing things, but as long as you know (and pray for) the one who is now pope, you are in good hands. “God bless us, every one!”
Sure, and let’s not forget Pope Benedict’s own words on why he choose to keep white: “At the moment of my resignation there were no other clothes available,” Benedict wrote in a brief letter to an Italian journalist”.
“The emeritus pope also said that he kept the name Benedict, rather than reverting to his birth name of Joseph Ratzinger, because it was a simple solution.”
Nothing to see here folks, move along….
I’m absolutely sure he couldn’t find anything appropriate that fit him, and there are just no tailors in Rome that would be able to whip something up for him right quick, eh?
These explanations are on the level of “I’m not firing you without warning, it’s just that from now on (this precise moment starting with you, and you may even be the last) I will not renew curial positions”
Why? Because there weren’t any black cassocks in all of the Vatican, in all of Rome, in all of Italy, in all of the European Union and in all of the world that could be found for Father Ratzinger. That’s why.
Apparently, as many as 10 or more Cardinals, discussed and agreed to work together to install Pope Francis as Pope! This is a violation of procedure and is not allowed. In fact it invalidates Francis as Pope.
I am starting to think of this more and more an coming to the same conclusion
It’s been on the table for at least a couple of years now. The questions are, what is to be done about it and who will do it?
This may very well be what is to be done, and God may be the one to do it….
5Behold ye among the nations, and see: wonder, and be astonished: for a work is done in your days, which no man will believe when it shall be told.
6For behold, I will raise up the Chaldeans, a bitter and swift nation, marching upon the breadth of the earth, to possess the dwelling places that are not their own.
7They are dreadful, and terrible: from themselves shall their judgment, and their burden proceed.
8Their horses are lighter than leopards, and swifter than evening wolves; and their horsemen shall be spread abroad: for their horsemen shall come from afar, they shall fly as an eagle that maketh haste to eat.
9They shall all come to the prey, their face is like a burning wind: and they shall gather together captives as the sand.
10And their prince shall triumph over kings, and princes shall be his laughingstock: and he shall laugh at every strong hold, and shall cast up a mount, and shall take it.
Habakkuk 1: 5-10
It’s a violation of procedure, but if you read Universi Dominici Gregis, it does NOT invalidate the election. Those Cardinals are excommunicated latae sententiae, but the election is still valid. The only part of that law that results in an invalid election are 1) “buying” the papacy as the Borgias did so long ago and 2) the voting procedure not being followed properly. Other things are punishable with excommunication, “a just punishment,” and the like, but do not invalidate the election. Francis is, sadly, Pope.
However if the Cardinals have been conspiring since 1996 when the Galen Mafia was formed – under Universi Dominci Gregis they were excommunicated and thus their votes at a papal election were invalid. How many cardinals were involved? We simply do not know the full extent of this corruption, there may have been enough cardinals or enough influence wielded to tip the scales in favour of Francis and thus indeed the validity of such a vote is in serious doubt.
I have found a counter piece of evidence to my theory. It seems that excommunication does not render a vote invalid, this applies it seems even to the newly elected Pope if he himself is excommunicated.
The Constitution of Pope Pius XII that establishes the rules for a papal conclave says the following:
“34. No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)
After reading Chapter 6 I find myself wondering did Pope John Paul intend for this in 1996?
Chapter 6-78 “I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision”
Also there are ambiguous declarations of things “forbidden” but no subsequent penalty stated, such as”
6-79. Confirming the prescriptions of my Predecessors, “I likewise forbid” anyone, even if he is a Cardinal, during the Pope’s lifetime and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private gatherings.
I can only assume the intent was also excommunication?
It is my understanding that prior to this Constitution these would have been cause to invalidate the election.
So basically the only penalty is excommunication of the conspirators and it’s up to Pope Francis to do so?……..(I won’t hold my breath).
It’s very strange that penalties aren’t mentioned, I agree.
The explanation for the first one, though, is in the second half of that sentence: ” in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.” Basically, he did it so that we would avoid something like we have today, doubting the valid election of Francis, but because of money changing hands rather than 6-79’s prohibition.
Benedict, in this letter occasioned by the death of Cardinal Meisner, said that the Church “stands in particularly pressing need of convincing shepherds who can resist the dictatorship of the spirit of the age. . . .”
We need more than this from him.
If anyone could alter the present course it is he. Benedict could simply admit that the Second Vatican Council had been ill considered, and the resulting post-conciliar 50 years have been an unmitigated disaster. He could confess that he and his Modernist companions (read de Mattei’s history of that Council) had collapsed the historical dam that set loose the perfidious flood waters that are now threatening to capsize the Barque of St. Peter.
His work at the Council and during many years in Rome often assisted the dark veil that is the spirit of the age to spread throughout Holy Church. He watched for more than two decades as Prefect of the CDF as the shepherds about whom he now complains (the most revolutionary of which were his German appointments) inverted the two Great Commandments and rinsed the sense of the sacred from Holy Church’s most sacred rites. He supported and continued the blasphemy of Assisi. He labored to remove the Church’s unique status as the Mother of Nations by urging the secularization of the political states of Spain, Italy and elsewhere (especially in Latin America). He was complicit with the Sodano falsification of the Fatima message. I need not go on.
If he publicly enunciated the above Mea Culpa to the Church and the world, I would embrace him with all my heart. As things stand, his words ring hollow in my ears and only cause me pain. I regret if this offends. But it reflects my deepest convictions.
There is a big difference between Cardinal Meisner and Pope Benedict. Cardinal Meisner has stood up to the lies of our day by being one of the 4 dubia cardinals. He did not “flee from the wolves.” He did his duty. That is the real reason for his peacefulness. On the other hand, with all due respect to Pope Benedict, he has resigned and remained silent. He knows the full 3rd Secret of Fatima, which surely sheds light on this apostasy in the Church, that is coming at us from “the top!” We need him to tell the whole Church what he knows about the warning Our Lady gave at Fatima regarding a “bad council and a bad Mass,” as Pope Benedict shared with Fr. Dollinger. Until and unless this happens, there will be no general repentance and conversion. And a chastising event will be the only alternative the Lord is left with to wake us up – less too many souls fall into hell, as the children were shown by Our Lady at Fatima. This is all on Benedict’s shoulders now. He must speak the truth to give us all a chance to repent. We need him to be like the Good Shepherd Whom He serves and not “flee from the wolves.” Cardinal Meisner, pray for us and for your friend, Pope Benedict, that he may share in the Peace you knew before your death.
When I pray for the repose of the soul for Cardinal Meisner, I think of this painting by El Greco.
Look at the eyes of the Christ! Looking upward to His heavenly Father in pure love.
The ” joy filled sorrow”, is what Cardinal Meisner had, I imagine, ……………to the very last moment on earth……..it gave him sorrow, but such peace, that one only knows in the suffering out of pure love for God.
What shines brightly in this eulogy is the deep love of Jesus, developed over a lifetime of prayer, work, fidelity; both in the man giving it and the deceased honored by it.
Politics cannot affect a love like this. All the controversy and politics fade away in the face of our God in the Eucharist. These two men; one passed, the other passing, speak deeply to me about how I should spend my life, granted by the hand of Providence. These lives were (and are) lived to their fullest according to the will of God.
I have always felt there is more to the story of Pope Benedict XVI than we may, or may not, ever know in this life. But whatever he has faced and decided in the halls of power on the Church’s behalf, he is surely God’s faithful servant. His whole life has been devoted to directing his fellow man to the risen Lord. His love for God and quiet confidence in God’s benevolent love and ultimate power is obvious. Those are the hallmarks of a Pope.
Spoken like God’s chosen Shepherd. “Requiescat in pace!”, indeed.
Well, the Catholic blogosphere has “blown up” with this address. I knew it was futile to hope that the correct response of ‘yawn’ would win the day.
We need the former Pope Benedict to affirm that the crisis in the Church can now be publicly acknowledged? Many people actually think that his words are of some importance. Yes, he sent a nice tribute to Cardinal Meisner, as could be expected of an eloquent and gracious man.
The former Pope, I’m sorry to say, is nonetheless the weak father who left the Church- you, and me, and every Catholic reading here. Many of us loved him greatly, and still pray for him, even though an intensive examination of his writings leaves (to be “charitable”) much disquiet for a believing Catholic.
On this site, so far I’ve read two comments speculating that a mystical instruction of the Lord may have been involved with the abdication. There isn’t any use commenting further on that. I just get frustrated seeing it here. The pleasures of futility abound!
Likewise, it’s frustrating to read others who see almost everything so clearly, yet insist that the almighty will of Ratzinger (as if we really knew what it was and is!) could have resulted in an invalid resignation. It doesn’t matter if his ‘intention’ was defective: He wrote the words resignation, free, and full. No hidden “intention”of his could make the Papacy a two-man job, overriding Jesus’s words and all solemn definitions of the Church. As to pressure from the banking magnates- and any other pressure- none justifies Benedict’s abdication.
Francis is the Pope, and abdicated Benedict is not. We do have to assess reality from here.
Pardon the length. TLDR version: like all weak earthly fathers, the former Pope merits kindness in his old age. It’s desperate, and sentimental, to look for him to help and protect us now. Surely, Benedict believed his abdication served the Church in some way known only to him. But, as I believe that the special duty of fathers is to fight until the very end for the protection of their children, I don’t care anymore about his reasons, intentions, or nice eulogies.
I’ll just leave this here.
You should have warned me it tastes like licorice! Have you no pity?
A cyanide pill?
You are so unfear! Pope Benedict XVI didn’t leave no one. Not you, not us, not the Church. Something else is at stake in Vatikan.
We think we are privy to Vatican politics by following them on blogs from afar.
We are not. Pope Benedict certainly is.
Claire Stone, above, has it exactly correct: Pray, fast, trust. This is a time for Christ, His Mother, St. Michael and his army of angels. We have our part to play, and it is not anger or fear. Pray at the foot of the Cross with the Saints. “God wins in the end!”
Well said! Thank you.
Not unfair in the slightest.
He could still be pope and we could be the beneficiaries of wise selections for the episcopate and for cardinals.
If the reason for resignation was infirmity, as pope he could have easily constructed his life to take account of it and got on with the task at hand.
If there was another reason, he need man-up and speak out.
No one in the know in the halls of the Vatican was unaware of what was in the offing with the resignation of Benedict.
His action was simply cowardly. His silence and acquiescence to the current tragic sacrilege is scandalous.
Can you please one more time read the title of this article? What does the Pope Benedict XVI say? “The Lord does not abandon His Church”.
Taking into consideration that the Pope Benedict XVI is a great intellectual and theologician, I would say that he is quite aware that he represents the Lord on the Earth.
Now, what do you think, why the Pope Benedict XVI keeps repeating the messages simular to that one: because he things we don’t know that the Lord won’t abandon the Church? I wouldn’t say so, since every Catholic knows that “gates of the hell will not prevail”.
Pope Benedict XVI is telling us that just as Lord wouldn’t abandon his Church, his Vicar wouldn’t abandon his flock.
We have one pope.
One who believes himself mandated to do whatever he wants in contradiction to “Pastor Aeternus” of Vatican I [1869-70] which at once defined the nature of papal infallibility and provided its constraints. “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.”
There is another man who was elected to the Chair of St. Peter and abandoned it and us for whatever reason.
Neither of them rank high on my list.
We are as sheep without a shepherd.
The Lord alone will now provide.
Ditch the rose colored glasses.
To be honest, I have remarked that the comments of people here became too depressive and desparing, not to mention that these references on the pils have nothing to do with how the Catholic faithful should observe reality and behave.
I am knowledgeable that the situation in the Catholic Church and Vatican is not good, but the God is Alive and Almighty. He can turn even the worse thing into the good one so why promote this “black pile attitude”?
On the other hand, there are international laws and tribunals that even Pope Francis can’t avoid. What makes you think that someone won’t get him? If they menage to reveal Hillary Clinton, why wouldn’t they do it to The “Pope Francis”?
Believe me, that Hillary Clinton was “stopped” was against “their” plan. Frightening as the thought is, maybe Francis is “their” chosen vessel.
I will repeat to you what I offered above to Kathy — God does not will evil, but He does permit it. Providence will craft this at some point in history to His design. We need to be cautious when attributing things and events to God’s will. As Cardinal Ratzinger said in regard to papal conclaves — oh twenty years before his election — the Holy Spirit always inspires. Men do not always listen.
I agree that the Holy Spirit always inspires but what I don’t understand is – if it is so – why people dispair and lamentate about some cathastrophic event all the time like it is the only “solution”? If what happened to Hillary Clinton wasn’t “their plan”, it means that they are not in control any more, right? If they are still playing their roles (especially “Pope Francis” and Angela Merkel), but they are not in control of what is going on, why would we believe that nothing can be done to get rid of them. Where is our Faith and Trust in Lord?
Madame, when the orphanage is ablaze you don’t wait for the Holy Spirit. You get off you butt and get in there.
The orphanage is on fire.
So what concretly did you do… without “waiting for the Holy Spirit”?
Lady, you are a troll bereft of common sense.
Give it up and work out your issue somewhere else.
Just like I thought ☺
Voila! You proved my point.
Argument for the sake of argument. For what purpose known only to your own torment.
The current tragic sacrilege has been going on for a very long time in many ways. I think it unfair to paint Pope Emeritus Benedict a coward, a man who for decades took the heat from liberal leftist Catholics and many others. What is happening now is either God’s Ordaining Will or His Permitting Will, but it is His Will, and I think the reasons for this chastisement are very obvious – man’s rejection of God.
Our Lady of Fatima Pray For Us!
God does not will evil, but He does permit it. Providence will craft this at some point in history to His design. We need to be cautious when attributing things and events to God’s will. As Cardinal Ratzinger said in regard to papal conclaves — oh twenty years before his election — the Holy Spirit always inspires. Men do not always listen.
TBH, I read his comments about Meisner coming to let go and trust that God is running the Church as a pretty obvious bit of self reflection — and rationalization — of his own abandonment of the post.
PBXVI, back on the occasion of his 90th birthday said in his frailty that he felt safe in the presence of PFs holiness (or words to that effect). Now he describes the ship that PF is meant to be steering as nearly sinking with the weight of water it is taking on board. If someone can help explain these two contradictory statements then please go ahead…
Perhaps he speaks of the body and not the soul.
2 years ago I was a member of a NO parish with little to no knowledge of what has gone on, & is going on, in the RC Church of which I have been a member since birth. Live & learn.
I like Pope Benedict’s statement of truth about the current state of the Church.
” However, what moved me all the more was that, in this last period of
his life, he learned to let go and to live out of a deep conviction that
the Lord does not abandon His Church, even if the boat has taken on so
much water as to be on the verge of capsizing.”
We place our hope in Lord.
Let us say with St. Peter: Save us Lord.
So the barque which Benedict himself was formerly captaining is now taking on so much water that it appears close to capsizing…maybe (whisper it!) because of the actions of the new captain and his crew. But instead of using *his* bucket which is the strongest and most effective amongst all those in the possession of the passengers and crew, to do some desperately needed salvific bailing, all the former captain can do is declare, “Oh look! This beloved ship of ours is almost on the verge of sinking.” Sorry, but I’m afraid that just isn’t good enough.
I don’t think its any more possible for us to undrstand fully & clearly what’s going on than it was for the Apostles before pentecost.
Also, remember Christ’s “Get behind me, Satan” as He reminded the apostles that what was about to happen was in fulfillment of scripture, His obedience to the Father, & His love for humanity, &, was not to be stopped by any human efforts. We are not angry at the 11 for not chasing away the soldiers come to arrest Christ in the garden, are we? And yet later they became the first priests, bishops, teachers, preachers & martyrs & saints. No one said, nor says, of them: “why didn’t they step in & save Him?”
I certainly don’t dismiss your analogy but I don’t believe the two situations correlate in one vital particular. Had the Apostles made that instant decision to intervene in Gethsemane, they could reasonably have expected arrest and imprisonment and perhaps subsequently torture and execution – their flight therefore did have some extenuating circumstances. Benedict, on the other hand, is a long time witness to his Mother being belittled, insulted and manhandled and would not be risking his liberty and/or his life (as far as we know) by intervening, not even physically but merely by saying something (anything!) to defend Her. There are many ways in which his silence could be described but I’ll limit myself to extraordinary.
I guess I didn’t mean it so much as a direct analogy but as a comparison; our burning feelings of wanting direct, immediate, strong action (such as the cutting off of the priest’s slave’s ear) and the need for trust when we look at situations with our limited knowledge and intellect.
If Jesus could sleep in the boat as it’s nearly capsizing, why would we hold Pope Benedict XVI to higher standards? He’s reminding us that Jesus is in control. “He wins in the end!” And what did Jesus do when he awoke? He rebuked them. “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” I think the real concern is and always should be not on how terrible the Church leaders are and how we seem to be losing…Yes, it’s good to be aware; but what is the primary concern: chasing down Judas or praying at the foot of the cross? We need to be praying for the conversion of sinners. If there were ever a time when our prayers would be more powerful, it would be during this Passion of the Church. So let’s follow in Christ’s footsteps and fast in preparation, praying without ceasing, so that we may sacrifice ourselves for others. Stewart Davies post below was perfect..
“During his visit to Fulda, Germany in 1980, when asked; “Why don’t you reform the Church?” Pope John Paul II replied; “The Church cannot be reformed at this time.” He also stated: “Here is the remedy against this evil. Pray, pray and ask for nothing else. Put everything in the hands of the Mother of God …. We must be prepared to suffer great trials in the not-too-distant future; trials that will demand of us a readiness to give up even our lives, and a total gift of self to Christ, and for Christ. Through your prayers and mine, it is still possible to mitigate this chastisement, but it is no longer possible to avert it, because it is only in this way that the Church can be effectively renewed. How many times, indeed, has the renewal of the Church been wrought by blood? This time also, it will not be otherwise. We must be strong ….. we must entrust ourselves to Christ and to His holy Mother, and we must be very, very attentive to the prayer of the Rosary.”
Also, I want to again draw attention to the Church approved (http://www.flameoflove.us/approval-by-the-church/) apparitions and locutions given to Elizabeth Kindlemann by the Blessed Virgin Mary, wherein she passed onto humanity “the greatest graces given to mankind since the incarnation:’ her Flame of Love (her love of Jesus in her heart).
“The Renewal of the earth will take place through the Power and Imploring Force of the Blessed Virgin Mary…the Grace from the Flame of Love of My Mother’s Immaculate Heart will be to your generation what Noah’s Ark was to his generation.” ~Our Lord to Elizabeth Kindelmann
May Our Lady spread the effect of grace of her Flame of Love over all of humanity and each of you who follow 1P5!
“Pope John Paul II replied; ‘The Church cannot be reformed at this time.”
Made no sense then; makes no sense now. He was the Pope, for the love of God! The Church couldn’t be reformed under him because he was one of the Vatican II revolutionaries whose ideas tore down the philosophical and theological defense battlements which had protected her against heresy for centuries.
(1) His personalist philosophy was the driving force overturning the traditional theology of marriage regarding the primary and secondary ends (Cf. Gaudium et Spes; he wrote that section); it was this re-orientation which has been the platform from which came the annulment revolution and which devolved into the climate which has given us Amoris Laetitia.
(2) His universal salvation heresy was incarnated at the Assisi blasphemy (not once, but twice).
(3) He fostered and developed a cult of personality within the Papacy; the Office of St. Peter has effectively been relegated to being the Office of whomever is the present occupant and with it the notion that every papacy can alter Church policy like a change of political administrations; the notion of handing down what has been received has been relegated to a “quaint” pre-conciliar concept.
(4) His refusal to govern (instead traveling the world, developing his personality cult and giving us images of kissed Korans, bare breasted readers at Mass, and photos displaying his enthusiasm for participation in pagan rites) permitted the homosexual scandals (propagandized by the leftist culture of the West as being a pedophile scandal) by which the moral authority of the Church has been neutered. What is more, he permitted the homosexual culture to infect the entire Church’s hierarchy and Wojtylian-bloated bureaucracy (this is the debilitated Church that Benedict inherited and which ultimately brought him down).
(5) The huge outdoor Masses where millions of people gathered and where the Eucharist was desecrated on a scale unimaginable was another legacy.
The praise of Popes Benedict and John Paul II in these com-boxes astounds me. Together, these men wielded papal authority for 34 of the 52 post-conciliar years. The lionization defies logic and reality. It displays a sentimentalist attitude devoid of reason, which itself is part and parcel of the post-conciliar effeminate Church.
Sad but true. How we hate to list things like you do – there it is, laid out plainly for all to see – weakness, false philosophy, perverted moral theology, worldliness, political leanings – all of that as you say for decades. Francis is the cherry on the cake.
Massively sour and negative attitude on your part, Senrex. You might need a nap! Or some prayer.
If you disagree with him, refute his comment.
Cheap shots are all those kind can muster, Great Stalin. I’ve listened to his type for more than 40 years.
And successfully too I am sure. They have nothing to say.
JPII is a mystery. Perhaps it stems from the experience of surviving the Nazis and the Soviets but truthfully he chose or fell into the personality cult thing instead of trying to clean out the Vatican. Maybe it was already too late humanly speaking. Maybe he was naive. Marciel of the Legionaries certainly fooled him and many people say so did Escriva. Benedict may have clearly looked at things and realized he had no stomach for a fight and that he couldn’t win anyway.
It wasn’t JPII who said to destroy the churches, stop wearing habits, No more Rosary Or BVM, or propagated the loopy catechetics minutes after VII ended.Progressive wolves in the Church and media were waiting for that moment to promote changes that had nothing to do with VII and used it to their advantage. JPII spent his Papacy trying to bring some normalcy to what it meant to be Catholic. Sadly so many Bishops using the liberal interpretation of VII, had already adopted the practice of knowingly ordaining homosexuals which as we all know was the main cause of the sex scandal. There is only 1 true Catholic Church and it Is tied to the Chair of Peter for better or worse. Yes Pope Francis is a turn for the worse but I agree with Bishop Athanasius Schneider that God is allowing this and it’s not for no reason. (paraphrasing of course)
Your first point was, “It wasn’t JPII who said to destroy the churches. . . .”
Take a gander: http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/lords-ark
A picture says a thousand words, doesn’t it?
I do not think you can say Nowa Huta is a result of VII, I think you need to look into the entire story behind this church, before it was built and why it was built, it is quite a story of courage and bravery not in the least by JPII. This was not one of the thousands of churches here in the USA that was willingly ransacked by the progressive elite that had all traditional elements removed including the Tabernacle and transformed into empty shells of their former selves.
The subject is not the bravery behind the church. The subject is ruined churches. Do you think it was an accident that JP II laid the cornerstone? Do you think he had to select this ugly architecture? He thought this was art? He saw beauty in this?
There may be a ‘message’ or ‘symbolism’ in the church being like the ark, but seriously, bleh.
Especially because of the sad & frightening situation out of which it arose, it just comes across as kind of silly. Their courage & conviction deserves something more.
I’m sure that Benedict XVI put himself aside for a powerful and transcendent reason.
He still is a Pope, he still has the same name, he still wears white. He has given to us the most valuable and encouraging words that we Catholics have received in the last four years: “The Lord wins in the end” “The Lord does not abandon His Church, even if the boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing”.
Yes, there is a mystery, but we accept divine mysteries. Why Jesus Christ permitted Judas Iscariot? ‘It was night’ (Jn 13: 30).
In the fullness of time; they all acted their chosen parts, according to His will:
Pharisees committed murder and injustice.
Romans were practical, didn’t care.
The Disciples ran away in fear.
Jesus embraced His passion alone.
All seemed lost. All chose wrong.
Jesus conquered all, alone.
If Benedict is the Pope, then Francis is not. This notion of a duel papacy threatens the Church’s indefectability (and thus her very foundations). The duel papacy is not the papacy established by Our Lord.
Since there is no such thing, then one must be an anti pope. Not the first time in Church history, I pray it’s the last.
Okay. This Amoris Laetia mess needs to fixed now.
It’s turning into a bigger mess than the Trump/Russia Thing.
And it was always a vastly bigger mess Joseph than “the Trump/Russia Thing”. In fact there is no comparison at all. The eternal destination of many souls is at stake.
There was a day, when the Church was so clear, spoke so simply, without guessing games by the laity.
I appreciate the great many possibilities as to why Benedict XVl says what he says, yet……doesn’t quite “say”.
Who really knows why.
Our Church is at a point, when the greatest of clarity is necessary by those in authority.
As usual….Ann has a very direct take on this. And as usual, she makes more sense of things than most out here. Thoughts?
The only person who has the whole picture here is Benedict. Not Ann, not anybody else.
There is another Anne that knows the whole picture: Anna Catherine Emmerich.
I think Anne Barnhardt has very good insights. I read her daily. She has a unique ability to “think outside the box”.
I also think that she can’t possibly make such sweeping judgements without having inside information she will never have. And I think she is very angry here, disrespectful, and that detracts from her message.
There is obviously far more going on here than we can possibly know. We may find out in this life, but we need not, to be encouraged that “In the end God wins!”.
Trust in God, and be at peace. Jesus stands in the rough, stormy seas and tests our faith: do we trust Him? My thoughts.
Yes, Ann is angry, and why shouldn’t she be angry. We all should be angry. Is she wrong in what she has written? If so, how is she wrong? What she writes is certainly how it appears from the outside looking in.
That’s what I was thinking too Susan. I think anger is the correct response.
I know I have a soft spot for her…but how can I not? She was the first Catholic I ever “met” and it is through her writings that I knew I had to convert. How long ago did she call out PF as being an anti-pope? And PBXVI’s resignation most likely being invalid?
And thanks to those who disagree….I do take note and think about what you say.
Here is why she is wrong in her anger. The Pope is being manipulated and has been. Do you blame an old person, well into their 80’s who is under the influence of a rotten, care taker who uses undue influence to control him?
Would you put the blame on an old person like that? If you have a Catholic heart and insight, just a bit of insight into human character and weakness, you sure wouldn’t
Yes Pope Benedict wore a business suit back in the day, yes he might have shown cowardice and weakness as a cardinal and later Pope but that’s all out the window when you see him lately and see the way he’s led around.
At this point don’t blame the Pope for anything, PRAY FOR HIM and pray that God smacks down the RATS around him.
So “Pope Emeritus Benedict” is suffering as an abused elder? There is no one he could turn to and/or no way he could get a message out through a trusted friend/ confidant and then to the entire world that that is what is happening to him? I’m not buying it.
I’m thinking, under threat of some kind?
I have always admired Pope Benedict XVI. I am perplexed by what he has done. I do not presume to have any answers. I have pretty much stopped trying. But I still admire his life’s work. Amidst all the unfaithfulness and resistance (which we can’t even begin to imagine), he stands at the pinnacle of having accomplished so much good that will endure.
And so, I do not share her anger. I remain deeply respectful of Pope Benedict.
I refer you to a prophecy of his, made in 1969, about the trials we would face … 45 years ago. He saw it clearly then. He SURELY sees it even more clearly now.
This is from God (hat tip Fr. Z):
“Back in 1969 theologian Joseph Ratzinger made some comments about our Catholic future. They were included in his Faith and the Future published by Ignatius Press in 2009.
The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning.
She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes . . . she will lose many of her social privileges. . . As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members….
It will be hard-going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek . . . The process will be long and wearisome as was the road from the false progressivism on the eve of the French Revolution — when a bishop might be thought smart if he made fun of dogmas and even insinuated that the existence of God was by no means certain . . . But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret.
And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith. She may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man’s home, where he will find life and hope beyond death.” (Bp Joseph Ratzinger)
There is now way I can be angry at POPE Benedict. I pray for him on the last bead of every rosary. I know he’s surrounded by wolves and I love him and pray for him all the more.
I will now do the same.
We have good reason to be very angry. We also have good reason to trust in God. Basically, I agree with Ann on this, but I do think it’s possible to get a Pope as bad as Francis. Lord, have mercy. I hope He will fix this soon, but Mundabor rightly points out that this could go on for decades. We must be prepared, and do all we can. To encourage each other, and punch our enemies’ lights out. This is a duel to the death.
And actually, I prefer that we are in full and open battle. It’s much better than the slow slide into degeneracy of the 70s and 80s etc, imo.
I loved Pope Benedict very much. This really hurts.
I like how you put that. Very encouraging.
The path to victory starts with seeing things as they truly are.
Thank you. Yes, I think you’re right.
An interesting statement to say the least. The Lord wins in the end.
Hmm. Now how long does this go on? Do we take it to the point where only a handful of Catholics are left?
Wins in the end indeed!
You may be surprised at how the Church endures and is strengthened.
My faith is not shaken by it all. I assume many others feel the same. There may even be a great number of faithful waking up for the first time in decades.
This fight of the faith will not be won or lost by one Pope or a few Cardinals. It will be won by you, me, everyone faithfully, quietly, anonymously, praying; interceding for the suffering Church and adoring the Face of Christ in His temple.
It’s time to get to work and do what our Lord wishes His faithful to do.
I dont deny we must all be converted more intensely now. But the Vatican echoes many secular values, and the Pope’s statements sit comfortably with mainstream press. Ignorant Catholics read what amounts to reversals on what the Church used to teach. Think about it: people who for decades did not go to Holy Communion because they were remarried divorcees, now learn it’s ok. The sexual abuse crisis is broadcast but the true sexual reform starting at the top, is yet to begin so sex scandals are likely to remain for the future. The Church will lose millions of Catholics because they will feel they have been duped. Our numbers will decrease.
What was the Gospel Reading today ? Oh Yeah…… the Story of the Seeds taking root. Some will not take root, Some will but then die, Some will choke….. But a Few will sprout and thrive in Rich Soil.
We need to make this Rich Soil.
One thing that always surprises me about the VII popes, since they implicitly believe that no one goes to hell, that they seem to have no concept of their true mission as the head of the Church. That is to pass on without compromise or ambiguity what Christ and his Church have taught for the last 2000 years. “The Lord wins in the end” is nothing more than “o well it is all a disaster now so we will sit around and let the Lord clean up the mess”. Really great shepherds these VII popes were/are. Glad I am not in their shoes.
Today I read the “Ottaviani Intervention,” and “Father John A. Hardon’s 1990 Commentaries On The “Revised Draft” Of The Catholic Catechism – Prepared And Elaborated By ROBERT HICKSON”. For those who haven’t done so, both are very illuminating as to our present crisis in the Church.
One thing jumped out at me (from Lumen Gentium 25). How does this square with the pontificate so far of Francis?
“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.”
How do we know what Pope Benedict says?
I just can’t believe a word Ganswein says, what a load of rubbish, he is apparently Pope Benedicts handler.
I pray for POPE Benedict every day on the last bead of my rosary.
“The Lord does not abandon His Church.” But you do.
You talking about Bergoglio?
Would everyone please go to twoheartspress.com and listen to Dr. Bowring then read his books and you will begin to understand what is happening.
For those who might be interesting in following divers opinions on Francis’ psychopathy, here is a good interview:
Briefly, Francis’ behaviour is “beyond any rational understanding”, and suggested reason why he behaves like that is because he hates West and Christianity.
Even this thesis seems possible.
Why the need to send this message? It is important to the Cryptocracy to retain Conservatives’ faith in the popes. The pay-pray-and-obey tradition on the Right must be kept open for the sake of the survival of the institution. The far-Leftist Francis is undermining the centuries-old Left-Right papist symbiosis. Into the void and in the nick of time steps 90-year-old Pope Benedict to attempt to build Conservative morale sufficient to keep Right wing sheep in the wolf’s fold.
(His eulogy was vague enough to afford him plausible denial should the Left call him out on “undermining” Francis).
If he truly were a tribune of Conservative Catholicism, however, why did Benedict abdicate in the first place, knowing full well there was a strong chance the papacy would be turned over to Bergoglio? Even more significant is the fact that Benedict XVI was himself a wrecker. The Cryptocracy has performed a wonderful act of prestidigitation in transforming Pope Benedict into a faithful watchman against revolution, when in truth he was a leader of it.
For example, Benedict is a pontiff who does not believe in the literal bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, as documented in this writer’s book, “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome” (pp. 89-90). Hence, he is not a Christian by any meaningful standard of measurement. Like many popes since the Renaissance he is also Neoplatonic heretic (p. 90).
Followers of the Church of Rome may lull themselves to sleep concerning the grave transgressions of Pope Benedict XVI, though by doing so they are leaving the field wide open for Protestants who are not so myopic. Matthew Vogan, who writes with civility in his essay, “Does the Pope Believe in the Resurrection?” (Free Presbyterian Magazine, September, 2010; reprinted in my book [pp. 89-92]), compiled a devastating dossier on Benedict which true Catholic Conservatives should have written themselves, but were too busy blindly extolling Benedict’s alleged orthodoxy.
In the Church of Rome since the sixteenth century, the thesis is always played against the antithesis, i.e. the Right is always a stage prop against the Left. The opposition of zealous Leftists to the pontificate of Benedict XVI did not render Benedict a true Catholic. Leftists are enraged that Benedict did not modify church edicts against contraception and women priests. But of what genuine significance is this particular “conservatism,” when a Neoplatonic-Hermetic revolution against the Gospel itself—the radical overthrow of nearly 1500 years of Christian teaching on Judaism—is implemented by Pope Benedict?
The Left-wing oppositional thesis does not absolve Benedict XVI of his complicity in Paul VI’s 1965 Nostra Aetate, or John-Paul II’s “Shoah” business, or his own unconscionable synagogue visits where he behaved nothing like the apostles of the early Church or St. Vincent Ferrer. In the synagogues he colluded with the rabbis and thereby encouraged them in their resistance to the Gospel.
Furthermore, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger his “Pontifical Biblical Commission” document promulgated by Pope John Paul II (such as The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible), offered support for the “misunderstood” ancient Pharisees, and amounted to a whitewash of these deadly enemies of Our Lord. Moreover, the future Pope Benedict recommended the blasphemous Talmud and Midrash (“Jewish exegesis”) to Catholics for a better understanding of the Scriptures (The Occult Renaissance, pp. 551-558).This is a Conservative? What this is, is a mockery.
Benedict’s synthesis of the Leftist thesis and the Rightist antithesis culminated in his continuing perpetuation of the calamitous “Elder brothers in the faith” fraud, and Holocaustolatry. Both of these modernist innovations were as strong as ever under Benedict’s pontificate and thanks to his astute maneuvering, were taken up by “Roman Catholic conservatives and traditionalists.”
Follow Hoffman on Twitter (@HoffmanMichaelA)
” Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” I’m of the opinion that included ancient Pharisees.
He certainly forgave them. It doesn’t follow that He approved them or promoted their legitimacy. Your comment to Michael Hoffman is a non-sequitur.
Sorry you feel that way.
It’s not a question of “feeling”. Your original post was a shot in the dark that missed by many a country mile.
Thanks again brother in Christ.
Forgive me, but I can’t help thinking of Chesterton’s observation that the madman is not the person who has lost all reason; he’s the person who has lost everything but his reason.
You’re extremely knowledgeable and you’re exceptionally articulate. But the above survey is so bloodlessly rational it’s frightening. Whom in the Church do you admire? Anyone, living or dead?
Someone earlier in the comments mentioned Ann Barnhardt, applauding her recent commentary on this matter. I would be very cautious about following her lead. Ann may have automatically excommunicated herself by publicly stating that Pope Francis is not the Pope. Schism is a very serious matter. Let’s be clear: Pope Francis is the Pope and Pope Benedict’s resignation was valid. It doesn’t matter what Ann or any other person thinks on the matter. What matters is that Pope Benedict solemnly, officially and fully (not partially) resigned his office. There’s not a shred of evidence (real evidence rather than innuendo) to the contrary. Gossiping is a very serious sin, one that Pope Francis has repeatedly warned about. And so is simony, especially the form that takes place in the Catholic blogosphere where the currency is information in the form of constant innuendo and gossip involving Pope Francis.
Who are you to judge?
I am not judging intentions, but it is a fact that those who refuse to submit to the Pope are, objectively speaking, in a state of schism. Ann has made it pretty clear that Pope Francis is not the Pope. She is objectivley in a state of schism.
If Benedict is still Pope then just maybe you are in a state of schism.
Benedict is not Pope because Benedict resigned and then a conclave was held wherein Bergoglio was elected Pope. Pope Francis may or may not be a bad Pope, but the fact remains that he is the real Pope and all Catholics must submit to his authority regardless of how they feel about his politics.
Not if he leads us to sin, heresy, or destruction of the church.
I believe this is called “begging the question”. Actually a number of questions: did Benedict resign? Was his resignation valid? Or did his resignation occur under substantial error? Has the single office of the Pope now been split into two shared offices (i.e., active and contemplative)? Is a dual-office title of Pope and Pope Emeritus with two men in the Vatican both wearing white valid? (It is certainly unprecedented!) Or does this papal office innovation invalidate the entire arrangement including the supposed election? And please note, I have not asked a single question related to Pope Paul IV’s papal bull.
It cannot be valid. What is more it challenges the indefectability of the Church: it is NOT the papacy as founded by Our Lord; it would be akin to the Church announcing that from henceforward the Eucharist would be confected with vodka and pasta.
Yes, I know. I agree with you 100%.
The next question: what else is not valid?
Susan (if I may), I THINK (not certain) that Paul IV’s Bull was expressly revoked.
As far as what else not being valid, I would say that a goodly number of conciliar and post-conciliar theological presuppositions are invalid.
One that comes to mind: The then Ratzinger’s writings (and those of others) altering the concept of Revelation itself. He calls it “Revelation as Relationship” where the receiving subject of Revelation (meaning a human being) is always a part of the revelation. This permits humanity, as it “evolves” through history, to “tweek” or manipulate the original Revelation of God to “fit” its development. One can see the problem: altering God’s Revelation to accompany the historical development of humanity permits humanity to eventually look into a mirror and see God. That’s one of the reasons Ratzinger has rejected Thomism (Aquinas’ notion of Revelation is very different). The consequences of this one theological point are staggering.
Sorry, I may have gotten into the tall grass here. But it’s one of the reasons why I am simply astounded by those Catholics who truly do not understand what a revolutionary Benedict was and is. He’s a kindly grandfather figure (and may even be a saintly man), but the damage that he and his companions have done within the Church will not easily be corrected.
Can anyone tell me whether Paul IV papal bull (which I have referenced above) is valid Catholic Church teaching? If it has been repudiated, then by whom and based upon what authority?
If Michael Hoffman (in the post below) is correct that Benedict XVI denies the actual physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, then how can he be Christian, let alone Catholic, let alone a pope in the Catholic Church?
Good discussion here:
I’m one of those Catholics at which you would be astounded. This understanding of Revelation that you mention, is it something he taught formally?
Both John Paul and Benedict certainly wrote a prodigious number of books—apiece. What I’ve admired about Ratzinger, though, is that, for example, in the introduction to one of the 3 volumes of “Jesus of Nazareth,” he makes a point of saying, essentially, “these are my own personal reflections; there is nothing binding here.”
I could at least respect it if Bergoglio had taken a topic dear to his heart—global warming—and likewise had written a book giving his ideas, his views and his opinions on the matter. Instead, he takes a discipline that’s what, 40 years old at best?—and based on the outright falsehood that it is already “settled science” he immediately and, I believe, precipitously grabs for a Church document in order to give the impression that his views are inspired by the Holy Spirit.
What you have outlined here regarding the notion of Revelation, though, sounds like an exact analogy to the idea of a “living and breathing Constitution” so beloved by activist Supreme Court justices.
I know that at the time of Vatican II, he leaned far more to the left in his thinking. But the impression I got from reading “The Ratzinger Report” was that once he was made Prefect for the CDF, the gravity of the responsibility impressed itself on him and he became much more solicitous on behalf of Catholic orthodoxy.
I try to keep up, but…I certainly hope he’s not as revolutionary as you say, at least not as Pope Emeritus ,however radical his private opinions may be.
In his “Jesus of Nazareth”, he explicitly states that the Evangelist (Mark I think) has obviously got it wrong (with regard to the Jews). He denies therefore the inerrancy of Scripture. I don’t know – this kindly old man Benedict may be a veritable devil in some ways.
Then it doesn’t matter what Benedict XVI (or any of the popes, for that matter) say or write or do. Even to deny scripture. Even to deny core Christian and Catholic beliefs? As long as it isn’t “formally done” from the Chair of Peter, then it’s all good.
Well, it’s been quite a few years since I read up on it, but as I recall there are a number of inconsistencies between events as described in Chronicles and Kings—in some cases even a direct chronological reversal of events.
Just one small example, in the book of Samuel we’re told that Jesse had 8 sons; in Chronicles we’re told he had 7.
Inerrancy means that the Scriptures teach “firmly. faithfully and without error…that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” And that’s in spite of its flaws.
I don’t see that Benedict’s opinion about Mark amounts to a denial of saving truth.
the Evangelist says that the Jews cried out that blood of the Jesus is on them and their children. Ratzinger refuses in “Jesus of Nazareth” to accept this.
Hmm. Well, I disagree with him. But I’d say it amounts to a denial of historical fact, not necessarily of theological truth. I doubt anyone will fail to get to Heaven for not believing it.
“At this time the idea of salvation history had moved to the focus of inquiry posed by Catholic theology and this had cast new light on the notion of revelation, which neoscholasticism had kept too confined to the intellectual realm. Revelation now appeared no longer simply as a communication of truths to the intellect but as a historical action of God in which truth becomes gradually unveiled. Therefore, I was to try to discover whether in Bonaventure there was anything corresponding to the concept of salvation history, and whether this motif – if it should exist – had any relationship with the idea of revelation.”
“Milestones” (p.104) “Milestones” was published in 1998
“I had ascertained that in Bonaventure (as well as in theologians of the thirteenth century) there was nothing corresponding to our conception of ‘revelation’, by which we are normally in the habit of referring to all the revealed contents of the faith: it has even become a part of linguistic usage to refer to Sacred Scripture simply as ‘revelation’. Such an identification would have been unthinkable in the language of the High Middle Ages. Here, ‘revelation’ is always a concept denoting an act. The word refers to the act in which God shows himself, not to the objectified result of this act. And because this is so, the receiving subject is always also a part of the concept of ‘revelation’.”
“Milestones” is, of course the collection comprising Benedict’s memoirs so, again, they justifiably include different speculations.
I haven’t read this particular book but just from the two passages you’ve quoted above I find his reflections fascinating. I don’t know much in the area of patristics but the ideas remind me of some I’d discovered in Origen, in doing a paper on, of all things, Beowulf.
In any case, I don’t see any heresy.
If you read my original statement closely, I didn’t mention the word “heresy.” I said it was theologically a break from the perennial position of St. Thomas Aquinas and therefore its validity must be challenged (especially given the possible consequences).
If you don’t see this position has the possibility of enshrining the danger that I originally mentioned, the we’ll just agree to disagree. But it’s very frustrating to see so many comments lamenting the state of the Church after 50 years of post-conciliar history, but no one wants to see problems with some very nontraditional theological presuppositions of sentimental favorites such as Benedict.. If we don’t get Revelation right, we don’t get God right.
I don’t claim that you did mention heresy; it was simply my way of saying I don’t recognize any problem. I’m happy to get clarification from you; but at this point, from what I understand reading the quotes you cited, early in her history the Church emphasized revelation as an act—-God’s act of showing forth truths not otherwise accessible to the unaided human intellect. And today, we tend to emphasize revelation as the content of what God has shown forth.
Also, there’s revelation and Revelation. 2 +2 + 4 is a truth. God is a Trinity is a truth. On the scale of importance they’re at opposite ends of an infinite spectrum. Yet, God is Truth and every piece of truth you know is something you know about God. And to reject even the smallest particle of truth is to reject something of God. Not in some pantheistic sense, but we know causes from their effects.
And God is the First Cause of all things.
Origen, then, believed, that creation itself was a ‘small r’ revelation. I’m really fuzzy on the details but, as I recall, he pointed to the way, in the traditional Mass, in which the priest would raise the chalice several times; first entirely covered by the chalice cover veil, then, successively, he would raise it with the veil gradually lowered until, on the final raising the chalice was completely uncovered. It was supposed to represent God’s progressive self-revelation: first through nature, then through the law, then through the prophets and finally His full Self-revelation in Jesus Himself.
At the same time, it was Saint Augustine, I believe, who defined theology as faith seeking to understand itself. God reveals a particular truth, we accept it by an act of faith and we reflect on it. So, God reveals Himself, say, in His birth at Bethlehem—“a communication of truth to the intellect (and the heart); we accept the truth that this Baby is God and we reflect on all that this implies. Those reflections become, individually and collectively, the content of Revelation. And the Magisterium corrects any mistaken reflections in declaring an official common and consensus reflection.
Where is the danger, here?
All you need to know is that his view is at odds with Aquinas.
Well, you’re not going to get me to badmouth St. Thomas—especially not with mere hints and suggestions. But even he was not infallible.
If we need to agree to disagree, fine. But unless you’re ready to cite a specific problem or set of problems associated with the views of Benedict that you’ve quoted, you’re merely being too cute by a half.
“You’re drowning yourself in ignorance and damning yourself, my Friend but, well, not enough Comment space to save you. Ta ta.”
I suspect that if you really felt capable of defending your position you’d find the space.
After taking exception to my point about Ratzinger’s views on Revelation, you asked me to provide factual data. I provided it with the Milestones citations. You end your response to that by telling me you didn’t see the heresy there. I responded saying I didn’t mention heresy; I was talking about theological speculation that detoured from Aquinas. You countered with you hadn’t claimed I mentioned heresy — then why bring the word up since I had previously expressly stated it was dangerous theological speculation? Why? because you’re one of these typical stealth defenders of the post-conciliar status quo who enjoy obfuscating to protect you’re point of view which is indefensible.
I don’t want to get into a theological debate here because (1) I don’t have the time. (2) It bores most people here to death.
Let me just attempt to simply state where the danger lies: If Revelation, as Ratzinger and Company believe, necessarily includes the “Recipient,” then it can never go beyond the intellectual capacity of the recipient. Therefore, Revelation is limited to the understanding of the intended audience. This can easily devolve into rationalism. This God slowly unveiling Himself is not wrong in se, but the Modernist version ends up giving us Amoris Laetitia. That’s humanity looking in the mirror and seeing God. How does this fit in with St. Thomas? I borrow from another internet page explaining the Summa: (1, Q 1)
“Article 1: Is it necessary to have a doctrine over and beyond the philosophical disciplines?”
“The objections here point to the alleged fact that (a) in their methodology the philosophical sciences exhaust the range of reason and (b) in their subject matter the philosophical disciplines exhaust the range of being. Hence, there is nothing more for any other science to be about, and there would be no mode of cognition capable of approaching it even if there were something else to be talked about.
“St. Thomas answers both counts in one fell swoop: Our ultimate happiness or flourishing (which amounts to salvation in our postlapsarian state) requires a sort of knowledge about God and his actions that is not accessible in itself to our natural cognitive faculties. Furthermore, even though we can have some inadequate cognition of God through natural reason, the possibility of this knowledge depends on a few very talented philosophers who would come to it only after a long time and with error mixed in with it. But this is insufficient, because it is desperately important to us to be able to order our actions and intentions–in short, our lives–in a way that will lead us to true happiness.
“So we stand in need of God’s self-revelation both with regard to what is in principle inaccessible to us (the articles or mysteries of the faith) and with regard to what is in principle accessible to us through natural reason (the preambles of the faith). Hence, there is a forum for intellectual inquiry that takes us beyond what reason can devise on its own and that is based on God’s self-revelation.”
The Modernist’s are very wary of Aquinas’s point (and notice that Ratzinger couldn’t even find his sought after view on Revelation in St. Bonaventure — whom he assumed was more of an Augustinian than Aquinas; he didn’t find it because it didn’t exist). Anything beyond human reason necessitates dogma. It is this that the Modernists are ultimately after: the erasure of dogma. Do I think that this Ratzinger’s goal? No, I do not. But that’s one of the reasons he is incapable of addressing the post-conciliar theological and philosophical chaos. He doesn’t see the problem.
That’s my attempt to explain in an abridged manner what would require 2 hours of discussion to clarify and a couple of chapters in a theology text.
So: you may tell me you disagree; just don’t insult me and tell me that my position is without foundation. And if you want some more fun as far as the troublesome thinking of Joseph Ratzinger, read his section on the Trinity in his “Introduction to Christianity.” He essentially relegates the methodological achievement of this dogma to an exercise in dialectics.
I’ve “drunk the Kool-Aid: and I’m a “typical stealth defender of the post-conciliar status quo.” Right back at you on the insults,
You know absolutely no more about me than I know about you, but you decided to start off with a condescending and imperious tone “All you need to know is that his view is at odds with Aquinas.” Is that so?
First of all, there is hardly a more transparent defender of his beliefs on the planet than I. Nothing whatsoever stealthy in either my intentions or my approach.
Second, I’m far more at odds with the post-conciliar status quo than you will ever guess. I’m just not afraid of inquiry—so long as one doesn’t try and foist his conclusion off as divinely inspired when they are merely one’s own. That I support Benedict’s right to speculate does not mean I uncritically accept his conclusions.
When Father Richard P. McBrien proudly refused to sign the mandatum at Notre Dame some years back, I fount it utterly contemptible and condemned it in every conversation I had with friends at the time. At least Charles Curran moved on to Southern Methodist U. When you teach theology at a Catholic University you should be bound on pain of dismissal, at the very least, to teach only Catholic truth.
But, however problematic the views of Ratzinger are, I can’t condemn him, either for holding them or for writing about them. I reject Bergoglio’s efforts in both “Laudato Si” and “Amoris Laetitia” precisely because they are offered as Church teaching, which they are not, rather than his own personal reflections, which they are.
Furthermore, I suggest the problems in the Church, which we probably do agree on, are far more the result of an inadequate prayer life and a concern for living holy lives than from a faulty epistemology. Failure to pray one’s Breviary bothers me more than thinking that the intellectual expressions of the dogma of the Trinity is an exercise in dialectics—so long as he doesn’t reject the dogma.
Granted, you didn’t use the word heresy. But you did say that someone who holds a view that is opposed to a defined teaching of the Church should be removed from office. That implies a concept that thoroughly escapes me: an Inquisition that does NOT treat of heresy, Again, in my judgment, it depends on the forum in which the view is held or expressed.
Does no one see a problem with a pope writing about his “private opinions” which are at complete odds with the Catholic faith and/or with Holy Scripture? And then releasing such a document, say as a book, publicly for all to read? But yet his job description as pope requires him to safeguard and uphold the deposit of faith (orthodox Catholic teaching)?
Disclaimer or no disclaimer, this is crazy-making!
If you would like an analogy, it would be like the CEO of Ford writing an editorial in a national newspaper outlet saying that he really believes that Toyota manufactures the better product. (But what he wrote in the editorial is really his private opinion, and does not reflect in any way upon his position as CEO of Ford.)
Does no one understand the problem here?
For thirty years I lived in a diocese whose bishop was very much in favor of women being ordained as priests. He even wrote a pastoral letter—“The Fire in the Thornbush”— extolling the notion. He was far too liberal for my tastes.
Yet as soon as John Paul declared that the Church doesn’t have the authority to change what Christ had ordained and that the matter was closed, this bishop ceased to clamor for the ordination of women—a fact for which I’ve always admired him.
Do I believe that this bishop stopped favoring women priests just because the law was laid down? Not at all. I imagine he feels just as strongly about it, today, as he did before “Rome spoke”
Are you saying that a person should be forced to keep his thoughts to himself? I just don’t accept that. A prelate of the Church has as much right as any other Catholic to express his views in written form—-so long as he uses the appropriate vehicle for his writing and, yes, issues appropriate disclaimers.
A book is not a Church document (well, some Church documents are long enough tomes).
The fear you express is precisely what is wrong about what Francis did regarding climate change. He tried to deceptively, as I see it, appropriate the authority of a Church document on a matter outside the scope of faith and morals.
Had he published those same thoughts in book form, I may not have found them any more convincing than I do now. But it wouldn’t have been as infuriating as it is.
“A prelate of the Church has as much right as any other Catholic to express his views in written form — so long as he uses the appropriate vehicle for his writing and, yes, issues appropriate disclaimers.”
Do you not see where this point of view is taking us? As long as a person (clergy or laity) issues a disclaimer that it is a “private opinion”, one can be Catholic and:
be a supporter of same sex marriage
be a supporter of transgender rights
deny the Resurrection
deny the Virgin Birth
deny that Jesus is the Son of God
deny that Hell exists
believe in universalism (salvation for all)
deny the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture
claim that all religions lead to God and to salvation
the list (of heresies) is infinite.
To say one is “Catholic” is now meaningless. One can apparently be Catholic (and also be a high level prelate) and hold views that are 180 opposed to the Catholic faith. And as long as one “says they are Catholic” then no one, and I mean no one, can say otherwise.
If one is a member of the clergy, it is far more damaging than if one is merely a lay person. And to do this under the guise of papal authority is ruinous. Basically, to say one is “Catholic” is now the equivalent of saying one is atheist or Muslim or Jewish or Baptist or Hindu or who knows, maybe even a Satanist.
To take my example further, if the CEO of Ford wrote an editorial praising Toyota vehicles in a major newspaper, he would be out on his ear and out of a job the very next day. But in the Catholic Church, that same CEO is praised as being so insightful and progressive and so pastoral and welcoming.
God have mercy on us all.
Where, in God’s Holy Name, does Benedict XVI
support same-sex marriage
support transgender rights
deny the Virgin Birth
deny the Resurrection
deny the Divine Sonship of Jesus, etc.?
Only a deliberate subversive would do that and continue claim to be a Catholic or to operate as a priest. He should be defrocked, the sooner the better.
But we’re not talking about deliberately teaching against the Church, in speaking of Benedict. We’re talking about an alternate formulation of the dogma of the Trinity, in the specific instance being addressed here.
Don’t know if it was Augustine or Anselm who first called theology “faith seeking to understand itself.” How does growth in understanding come if one isn’t aloud to speculate?
Augustine did say that trying to understand the Trinity is like trying to use a bucket to pour the ocean into a hole. St. John Damascene described it in terms of an interpenetration he called perichoreisis (playing off of this, C.S. Lewis speaks of the interpenetration as a “living dance.”); and, of course, St. Patrick used the three-leafed clover/shamrock to convey the idea.
In his “On the Use of Philosophy” Maritain observes that it is the place of the lawyer to decide whether A was just or unjust to B. But it is the philosopher who tells us as well as he can, what the nature of justice is. So the history of ethics is, on one level, a history of people tweaking each other’s definitions to get it ever more precisely stated.
When it comes to dogmatic definitions, I’m a firm believer in “if it ain’t broke…”
But I do recognize the desire and, sometimes, the need for a more satisfying definition. Some people are just born to keep pouring
buckets of ocean into a hole. I certainly don’t sense a personal need to define the Trinity any more precisely than St. Thomas has. But to suggest that something infinite has already been adequately defined, seems mighty overconfident.
Finally, is Benedict a “sentimental favorite” for me? Not quite. I was profoundly disappointed by his abdication of the papacy. And I’m suspicious enough to wonder whether he was pressured—even with threats of death—to step down. I sure wouldn’t have wanted to be in his position is such a case. But the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. He may have missed an opportunity to wear the crown of martyrdom.
At the same time, when I consider him, I see a frail, possibly morally weak but decent, man. I do not see him, the way I’m afraid I do Francis, as an operative. Benedict’s ideas may be mistakenly formulated, but I sense no ill intent on his part and I support his right to speculate so long as he doesn’t intend to officially propound those ideas, uncorrected.
I was not referring to Benedict alone in my laundry list of “you can hold views/ positions entirely at odds with historic Catholic teaching, doctrine, dogma” and proudly proclaim yourself Catholic. I wasn’t referring to “papal level” alone either. Francis is in your face with it; Benedict not as much.
There are plenty of Cardinals and Bishops who are not in the least bashful in stating their anti-Catholic beliefs. Do you really need a list of which heresy (ies) should be attributed to which individual? I could get that for you, but this information is general public knowledge.
You do realize that “morally weak” but “decent” Benedict had a significant role in Vatican II — which is the tree of modernism from which this bounty of rotten fruit has grown? Do you think truth is something that changes century to century and generation to generation?
When I spoke of Benedict’s “possible moral weakness” I was referring to moral courage—adding that I hope my own courage should hold up under persecution—not moral rectitude. I believe him a good man. Period.
“Are you saying that a person should be forced to keep his thoughts to himself? I just don’t accept that.”
The matter is defined teaching of the Church. Not only should he keep his position to himself, but he should be removed from Office for holding the position.
I’ve always thought it to be weird, wrong, & dangerous
Rite of Ordination since 69?
I still wonder. If they have not been correctly formed, the intent is not there, plus the rite itself…oh help.
What is “wrong” with the Rite of Ordination since 1969?
Someone needs to do something about that other Pope in the Vatican with the St Michael statue outside, living a life of prayer, contemplation and suffering on behalf of his flock, whom he said he would never abandon in his new role in an “expanded Petrine ministry” (2013).
He sure looks and sounds an awful lot like a Pope to me. I thought abdicated Popes had to completely and freely abandon the Office and return to their prior state in the Clergy.
Your logic rests on the assumption that a) Benedict fully abdicated which he did not…he retained the spiritual mission of the papacy for himself (probably the most important aspect ) b) Did Our Lord intend to have a dual papacy ?
Did he say on these rocks (plural) I will build my Church? He did not .
This has nothing to do with Bergoglio’s behavior. Benedict simply was not free to split the papacy and retain a part therefore he remains Pope.
(snort) if I was PF I’d warn against gossiping too ????
“…the currency is information in the form of constant innuendo and gossip…”
But not for a moment attribute this to the Catholic blogosphere. This medium of exchange runs the clerical universe. They crafted it to a fine art.
How in the world do you think he got where he is?
Sankt Gallen Group.
I do agree with you, Ann Barnhardt needs to tone it down.
Let me see if I understand your comment correctly …
we can have a Catholic celebrity comedian openly support Gay Pride week with kids in tow (he is so proud of his gay kids, rainbow colors and face-painting to match)
we can have a priest write a book that praises and supports homosexuality and LGBTs (we must Build Bridges and dialogue and accompany …. but nary a word about repentance and conversion)
we can have have a priest explain to us that the devil or Satan is really just a philosophical construct or creation (we created “the devil” to explain evil in the world) … Satan isn’t a real being
we can have Catholic politicians and other high profile individuals openly support abortion, same sex marriage, transgenders, birth control, and so forth …. and nary a word is said
we can have a priest tell us that hell will be virtually empty …. maybe Hitler will be there, but then again, he isn’t even sure about that …. in other words, all will be saved or universalism
we can have every form of heresy and false doctrine that goes against 2000 years of traditional and historic teachings of the Catholic faith, and all of that is perfectly acceptable and perfectly Catholic.
But we can’t have Ann Barnhardt state her belief that Francis is an anti-Pope. God Forbid It! She may be on shaky ground and she may have subjected herself to excommunication.
I would suggest to you that Ann is on much firmer ground than all of the others. For your night-time reading enjoyment, you might consider Cum ex Apostolatus Officio by Pope Paul IV, February 15, 1559.
There is plenty of dispute over whether Pope Benedict’s resignation was valid.
One of the best: An Invalid Abdication – Richard Guido, (via les femmes – the truth blog):
“It is better that scandals arise than that the truth be suppressed.” – St Gregory the Great
Sometimes, gossip is in the ear of the beholder. I’d certainly prefer it if bits of gossip about President Trump, conservative Catholics and southern American evangelicals weren’t repeatedly lobbed like mortar shells from the Vatican, which then whines “Don’t whine.”
I believe it was Bill Buckley Jr. who said that whereas conservatives tend to analyze, liberals tend to characterize. There are some very clever and calculating operators at large in Rome, and I detect not a shred of an attempt on the part of the Spadaro crew to do anything but characterize, without any understanding, American politics as an enemy to the Francis vision.
So, gossip is bad, whining is bad—except when it’s in the service of papal meddling in politics.
Also, simony? Are people in the “Catholic blogosphere” paying for some spiritual benefit that I’m not privy to?
Compared to Francis, Benedict and John Paul look like staunch, orthodox Catholics.
You are forgiven on this occasion Comrade. No, nothing for you here Lavrenti.
Ha! I had to look this up. Not many Russian names in the US
public school system history classes. Thanks for not turning me
in or ordering my demise! 🙂 Gerry imposed a penance prayed
for you, so you have one more Hail Mary on your heavenly
score card. 🙂
“learned to let go and to live out of a deep conviction that the Lord does not abandon His Church, even if the boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing,”
I really don’t like this attitude of “the Lord will take care of the whole situation.” Did St. Joseph say: “Well, the Cherubims will put the Blessed Virgin on their Chariot and take her to Egypt to get away from Herod.”? NO. St. Joseph was an agent of change, so he put her on a donkey and took care of the difficult situation himself. Wow, I just don’t like this attitude at all! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cfc726a0e8b99b6a1dc4a00d21570204a2cb1e1e165ab7bd1d80b6080066d876.jpg
An “agent of change”?
Don’t you mean just a good husband and step-dad?
I don’t get it. Are you being sarcastic?
Why the management speak? The English language provides us with more than sufficient vocabulary without going that awful route.
You are too uptight! I was kidding around. Of course, St. Joseph was a good protector, step-dad, and much more.
You needn’t apologize for posting a parody. I certainly got it.
The more one thinks about it in simple terms, the more one realises that the state of the Church is barking mad, box of frogs crazy and insane and absolutely, totally and completely unprecedented in its sheer lunacy.
* We have a Pope who is the False Prophet or at the very least is doing a bloody good audition for the job.
* We have a former Pope who thinks he’s still the Pope but in a non-executive form.
* We have a clutch of Jesuits, South Americans and other clear heretics obviously enjoying the limelight they have.
* The only truly Catholic group in the Church is deemed by many to be schismatic.
* The False Prophet Pope appears to want to regularise the only truly Catholic group in the Church.
* The only truly Catholic group in the Church is going along with the False Prophet Pope as far as it can.
* We have a Mass that is self-evidently more Protestant than Catholic.
* The Vatican is overrun with homosexuals, Masons and other filth.
* Few in the Hierarchy appear to believe in God.
* 95% of the Catholic media bend over backwards to whitewash the False Prophet Pope.
* ‘Tradition’ is interpreted ad hoc, ignored or made up as the aforesaid clutch of heretics goes along.
* Laicised clerics are re-admitted to the priesthood and then rape children in Confessionals.
* Cardinals who protected predatory homosexuals are promoted.
* Sexual deviants are welcomed into the Vatican along with abortionists, who are praised by the False Prophet Pope.
Any rational man or woman would run a mile from this bunch of crazies. They make Charles Manson look sane.
There may be a quibble or two with what you have written, Comrade, but in essence, yes.
The “Decameron” has a tale about a pagan merchant who goes to Rome to conduct business. He returns home a baptized Catholic. When his friends ask him how such a thing could happen, he tells them he was so stunned by how thoroughly corrupt and morally bankrupt a place it was—especially the Church. So he figured, if She could survive for so many centuries in spite of all that, it could only be by the grace of the Holy Ghost. [That was in 1353.]
About the only thing that has changed, really, is the level of outright and open defiance animating the evil that men do.
No. About the only thing that has changed is that Catholic Popes, Cardinals and Bishops openly flout the substance of the Faith itself.
Why confine it to them? I was including the secular world as well. CNN for example. They lie; they know they lie; you know they lie; you know they know they lie and they know you know they know. And yet they defiantly continue do it and defiantly insist that they don’t. I’ve never witnessed anything like the past two years as far as the media goes. Ever. No shame. No allegiance to a speck of truthfulness. No reasoning. Raw power.
The degradation of Popes, Cardinals and Bishops only completes it all. There is, now. no spiritual oasis.
Oh yes there is – it’s called the SSPX.
Thomas Merton observed that if a Catholic missionary and a Buddhist monk each walked past a burning building and heard screams from inside, the monk would be no less likely than the missionary to risk his life to save the person trapped in the fire.
The difference between the Buddhist notion of Compassion and the Christian notion of Charity is that charity is a seeking out. The Buddhist will compassionately attend to the situation at hand; the Catholic goes out and takes his concern with him. Compassion will work to save anyone it comes across; charity seek out whom it may save.
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere on this site, I live in a diocese that is some two-and-a-half times the size of Texas—from Nome to Barrow to the Yukon border and points South. We have some 14 faithful priest serving 46 parishes most of which are off the road system.
In the whole state of Alaska, there is one SSPX parish—in the Anchorage diocese. It is hardly accessible to the faithful living on Little Diomede island or living in the bush villages below the Brooks Range. They may only see a priest and have access to the Sacraments once every two or three months, but our priests go out to them.
Where are the evangelical and missionary efforts of SSPX?
“The difference between the Buddhist notion of Compassion and the Christian notion of Charity is that charity is a seeking out.”
The difference my friend is that the first is a natural good work which avails nothing for eternal life, while the second aids to the eternal Salvation of the doer of it – if done in a state of Grace. That’s Catholic teaching, like it or not.
You clearly know nothing whatsoever about the SSPX in Asia or in Africa. Schools for slum children, new parishes, medical care where possible. I have seen this with my own eyes in Kenya. Tiny in comparison with the forces (albeit fast-dwindling) of the mainstream but nevertheless incredibly fruitful.
I would say too that in Europe the performance of the SSPX is nothing short of astonishing. Did you know that those who assist at SSPX chapels and priories in France now probably outnumber those at all the Novus Ordo Masses in France put together? With a tiny fraction of the priests.
The daily itinerary of an SSPX priest is beyond punishing. You have no idea, clearly.
I don’t live in Asia or in Africa, I live in Interior Alaska—the only missionary diocese in the US. However laudable SSPX efforts are elsewhere—and I’m glad to learn they are, in fact, animated by a seeking out—they have no workable presence here.
In any case, I believe in both the charity and the holiness of our so-called Novus Ordo priests, whose schedules are often equally beyond punishing. You also have no idea, clearly.
Too, I was not equating the Buddhist natural virtue of compassion with the supernatural virtue of Christian charity—quite the opposite. I was describing the impulses behind the two. Like it or not? What exactly are you disputing?
I probably misspoke when I said there is no longer a spiritual oasis, Certainly the Mass and the Sacraments themselves are exactly that. You trust in those of the SSPX; even were it accessible, I’m not comfortable with it. I don’t condemn it, but I am comfortable with the Church I belong to, In fact, I love the faith community here.
I was referring to the fact that, at present, there seems to be no trustworthy source of authority. I no longer look to Rome as the final court of appeals.
“I know my sheep and my sheep hear my voice and they follow me.”
We either have a false shepherd—which is my gut instinct—or he has a severe case of doctrinal laryngitis. In either case, we sheep are no longer hearing the Voice and, to that extent, we are lost in the wilderness.
“Why confine it to them?”
Because I am a Catholic and am commenting on a Catholic media outlet about the Catholic Church.
I too am a Catholic commenting on a Catholic media outlet about influenced—both inside and outside the Catholic Church—which affect her.
Lived and worked in poltics and journalism all of my life. Well said! And, for further developments in the story of the media, read the last book of the Bible.
They drank the Bugnini Koolaid
“Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”
Counter Revolutionary Warfare experts advise that, like a floating iceberg, only about 10% of subversive activity is seen. For that reason, Josef I think that you have only pricked the surface.
Please feel free to use any of my material as you see fit without any acknowledgement.
Whilst there is no need for an apology I note that Josef has given you absolution but no penance.
For your penance please say a Hail Mary for Josef and Gerry.
🙂 Thank you! Penance completed. 🙂
“Positive Probable Doubt.”
Learn these three words, because they are all we need to shape our response to this crisis.
If the sacraments are rendered positively doubtful by the acts of the priests and their circumstance, we cannot follow them. For example, we know from our priests homilies he doesn’t believe the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice.
This renders his ability to have the proper intention positively doubtful. Hence the mass cannot be attended or communed.
“…we know from our priest’s homilies he doesn’t believe the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice.”
Has he explicitly said so? The Mass is both a commemoration of the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper and a reenactment of the very propitiatory sacrifice which gives the Sacrament if’s infinite value.
I agree that far too many priests emphasize the “celebratory meal” to the detriment and even exclusion of the mention of the Sacrifice of the Mass. That doesn’t necessarily mean that such priests have stopped believing in that element of it.
In any case, it’s not a question it occurs to me to ask my own pastor, visiting priests or the priests celebrating Mass in any Church I may attend while away from home.
[…] Moreover, Gänswein demystifies the contents of a message sent by Benedict to be read at the funeral of Cardinal Meisner—one of the dubia cardinals—and which was construed as a veiled criticism against Pope Francis. […]
[…] De plus, Gänswein démystifie le contenu d’un message envoyé par Benoît afin d’être lu aux funérailles par le Cardinal Meisner – l’un des cardinaux liés aux dubia – et qui fut interprété comme une critique dissimulée contre le Pape François. […]