Last week saw yet another instance of Pope Emeritus Benedict giving an interview and insisting upon his unconditional support of Pope Francis and his work. EWTN reported on 28 August 2016 about this new statement of the former pope as follows:
Speaking about Pope Francis, Benedict said that obedience to his successor “was never in discussion,” but that since Francis’ election, a feeling of “deep communion and friendship” has arisen between the two.
“At the moment of his election I experienced, as many, a spontaneous feeling of gratitude toward Providence,” he said, explaining that after having two Pope’s [sic] from Central Europe, “the Lord was turning, so to speak, his gaze to the Universal Church and invited us to a more extensive communion, more Catholic.” [my emphasis]
Pope Benedict makes it very clear in this statement, as originally published on 24 August 2016 by the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, that he fully supports Pope Francis. There is no hint of any polite criticisms or reservations to be seen. Earlier this year, Pope Benedict had already twice given his full and unqualified support of Pope Francis and his work, especially in his Year of Mercy and with Francis’ general accent upon that professed part of the Church’s doctrine. First, Benedict said in March of 2016:
I believe it is “a sign of the times” that the idea of God’s mercy is becoming increasingly central and dominant – starting with Sister Faustina, whose visions in various ways deeply reflect God’s image among today’s mankind and its desire for divine goodness.
Then, on occasion of his own 65th anniversary of his priestly ordination on 28 June 2016, Pope Benedict uttered these somewhat strange-sounding words, addressed directly to Pope Francis:
First of all, thank you, Holy Father! Your goodness, evident from the moment of your election, has continually impressed me, and greatly sustains my interior life. The Vatican Gardens, even for all their beauty, are not my true home: my true home is your goodness. There, I feel safe. Thank you also for the kind words of gratitude, for everything. We hope that you will continue to go forward with all of us on this road of Divine Mercy, showing us the way of Jesus, toward Jesus, toward God. [my emphasis]
Thus, in all these instances, Pope Benedict shows himself apparently to be in effective collaboration with the “reform” agenda of Pope Francis, which often enough puts Mercy above Justice. Benedict gives his blessing to a work which has led to the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL), which has gathered such strong criticism from theologians and philosophers that “heresy” has often been mentioned in this context. It was especially to be seen after the Austrian Philosopher, Josef Seifert, wrote a stringent and compelling critique which lay bare the objectively heretical statements to be found in Amoris Laetitia. Seifert – who is a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life – lists in his 28-page analysis of Amoris Laetitia the many grave errors to be found in the papal text. For example, he refutes the claim of AL that one may have sexual relations with someone other than one’s own true spouse, if that would also somehow be helping to preserve such a currently adulterous relationship for the sake of the children of that new bond. Seifert also criticizes the claim that “no one can be condemned forever,” which is “a denial of the existence of hell.” While calling some of these statements of AL heretical, Seifert, in his charity, shows his trust in the current pope when saying:
I am thus full of confidence that, as true pope and successor of Saint Peter, should Pope Francis find a contradiction between his statements and the teachings of the Church, he would immediately rescind his theses. And I hope he will do so with regard to the following cases.
At the end of his acute historic critique, which surely will have a place in future history books, Seifert asks Pope Francis to rescind these heretical statements. He says:
Then we can only ask him [Pope Francis] imploringly to follow the glorious example of his predecessor, John XXII, who, a day before his death, rejected and condemned with the bull, Ne super his, his own false teachings that the souls separated from the body (the animae separatae) in the beyond before the Last Judgment experience neither the heavenly beatitude, nor the pains of hell – a teaching that has been condemned as heresy by his successor Benedict XII in the bull Benedictus Deus […] May Pope Francis not leave it up to a successor or to a council to condemn these statements, but, rather, may he revoke them himself. [my emphasis]
As we reported earlier, Pope Francis’ somewhat indirect response to these strong criticisms of Amoris Laetitia — coming from many directions — was to appoint Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia to several prominent positions within the Curia, with the explicit wish that he may “continue the work of Amoris Laetitia.” Thus it becomes obvious that Professor Seifert’s kind and charitable expectation that the pope would immediately rush to correct and rescind objectively heretical statements of AL was wrong. Pope Francis apparently insists upon the retention of his errors and false teachings.
To make things worse, Pope Francis even now increases the ambiguities – and the practical cultural relativism – of this papal document. He tells the Polish bishops during his trip to the World Youth Day in Poland that they may interpret Amoris Laetitia in a way that is fitting for their own culture. Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki, the head of the Polish Bishops’ Conference, related the words of the pope to the Polish bishops at a press conference – according to LifeSiteNews – as follows:
The pope related that in a decentralized Church, bishops’ conferences “might on their own initiative not only interpret papal encyclicals, but also looking at their own cultural situation, might approach some specific issues in an appropriate manner,” Gadecki said. [my emphasis]
Pope Francis also explicitly mentioned in this context – according to Gadecki – the matter of the putatively “remarried” divorcees and their possible access to Holy Communion. (Accordingly, Gadecki declared publicly on 28 July 2016 – hours after the meeting with the pope on that day – that the Polish bishops will not give out Holy Communion to the “remarried” divorcees unless they “live as brother and sister.”)
Nonetheless, Pope Francis has just recently allowed – and not long after his own above-mentioned remarks to the Polish bishops – an unmistakably contradictory 23 August article to be published – in his own newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano – which says exactly the opposite of what he had just said in Poland.
As Catholic News Service reports:
Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation on the family is an example of the “ordinary magisterium” – papal teaching – to which Catholics are obliged to give “religious submission of will and intellect,” said an article in the Vatican newspaper.
Father Salvador Pie-Ninot, a well-known professor of ecclesiology, said that while Pope Francis did not invoke his teaching authority in a “definitive way” in the document, it meets all the criteria for being an example of the “ordinary magisterium” to which all members of the church should respond with “the basic attitude of sincere acceptance and practical implementation.” [my emphasis]
In this context, the author, Father Pie-Ninot, explicitly includes in the list of the “most significant words” of Amoris Laetitia the possibility for “remarried” divorcees to receive Holy Communion:
Accepting Amoris Laetitia as authoritative church teaching, Father Pie-Ninot said, applies also to the document’s “most significant words” about the possibility of people divorced and remarried without an annulment receiving Communion in limited circumstances.
The ambiguities with regard to Amoris Laetitia and to the vexed question as to whether one now has to follow its content – and fully adhere to it – are obviously increasing. This is not pastoral. Confusion – especially subversive equivocation – is never pastoral. And an ambiguous teaching is not at all binding upon the Catholic conscience. As Cardinal Carlo Caffarra told OnePeterFive in an interview in July of 2016 with regard to ambiguous moral teachings:
Logic teaches us that a proposition is ambiguous when it can be interpreted in two different and/or contrary meanings. It is obvious that such a proposition can have neither our theoretical assent nor our practical consent, because it does not have a sure and clear meaning.
In this situation where so many souls are at risk due to such ambiguous – and some objectively heretical – statements coming from Pope Francis, each Catholic prelate, I dare to say, has a greater duty now, in charity, to help the pope himself to correct his errors, and even some of his perceptibly hardened errors. In this context, it would be Pope Emeritus Benedict’s experienced role as the former pope, and in his role as a known theologian, to raise his clarifying voice and to help confused Catholics to find the loyal path to salvation. (With such an intervention, Benedict would also give moral support to all those prelates – such as the Head of Doctrine Cardinal Gerhard Müller – whom he once as pope called to Rome to assist him and some of whom now even desperately try to preserve the Church’s traditional moral teaching.)
It seems, however, that by giving Francis repeatedly his unqualified support, Benedict now serenely chooses to be a “team player,” even to the point of being complicit with the nuanced, equivocal novelties of Francis in his professedly “pastoral” actions.
Dr. Maike Hickson, born and raised in Germany, studied History and French Literature at the University of Hannover and lived for several years in Switzerland where she wrote her doctoral dissertation. She is married to Dr. Robert Hickson, and they have been blessed with two beautiful children. She is a happy housewife who likes to write articles when time permits.
Her articles have appeared in American and European journals such as Catholicism.org, LifeSiteNews, The Wanderer, Culture Wars, Catholic Family News, Christian Order, Apropos, and Zeit-Fragen.
December 8th, 2015….the evil light show of the pagans on the facade of St. Peter was a day that Benedict XVl embraced Francis?
Sorry guys, but I don’t buy it for one moment.
A Schism is on the horizon, and this surge of unity between these two men is a media attempt to show harmony.
Pope Benedict XVl would never approve, never approve of what Francis is attempting to do in respect to church teaching regarding divorce, remarriage, sexuality, family…..NEVER!
Francis is using this very tired, old man, who may broken and presently suffering in ways to distort and gain support for his agenda that will destroy the Church’s teachings on the family.
CS, I am glad to see you on this blog. I have wanted to upvote you on CMTV but I am banned due to my justified criticism of Francis. I cannot commend or upvote anyone.
Hi Al! Good to see your posts. I am sorry about CMTV banning you.
I do read your posts on Remnant as well.
I guess CMTV is trying to reach newer Catholics or those struggling in the faith.
Fear of criticism of PF by posters does seem to concern them, as they may fear it will cause Catholics to abandon the faith or cause some schism? I do not know.
So much distress in our Church! if only we could unite among ourselves and say, ” Yes PF is our pope, the Vicar of Christ, but we shall never follow heresy, we shall never accept contradiction of The Ten Commandments given to Moses. And we shall never do something wrong or a greater good.”
cs… You express what I think – namely: Francis is Pope, the Vicar of Christ. I will never follow heresy. Therefore if Francs promotes heresy l will not follow it.
Yes. How can we, as faithful Catholics follow heresy? Not possible.
And yet, as a Catholic, I believe in apostolic succession, and I will always have a sense of deep loyalty to the papacy.
Some may find this to be “talking out of two sides of my mouth”.
But I do not.
There is no joy to be found, no “ah ah” moment to be gained should the pope proclaim heresy, as what could possible be coming regard AL, and with changes to the Pontifical Life Council.
These are very troubling times. I would rather pluck out all my fingernails than have to face choosing between following the pope and Christ’s Commandments/Dogmas. But, if I do have to choose….yes…..it will be for Christ and His Church.
That is the right answer – we obey truth, and those in authority when they are in the truth.
CS, LifeSiteNews just banned me as well. It is amazing how many so called Catholics (Neo-Modernist Catholics) cannot handle the truth. I hope Steve does not ban me on his website.
All in all, CMTV and LifteSiteNews.
I guess the truth must hurt.
Join the club. We should probably start a new blog only for banned ex-CM’ers.
We must have like Catholic minds. I was being too Catholic for CMTV, also. I’ve also been blocked. The other site I was on a little while ago, deleted a bunch of my good comments. I just don’t know how to do political correctness nonsense. Oh well. I should stop trying to help other souls. I’ll just go back to my prayer cave and pray harder, and do more penance. O Crucified Christ with Our Sorrowful Mother, help us and guide us, as we try to help other souls to get to Heaven. Kyrie eleison….
FYSA, I just got banned from LifeSiteNews! Can you believe that?! People just do not want to hear the truth!
Sadly, I believe. What does fysa mean? lsn has already “threatened” to also ban me. something about my being to harsh??? It’s hard trying to figure out what is good behaviour to please so called Catholics. When I go back there, maybe I’ll be banned also. And yet other people are allowed to post whatever, and don’t get punished. I guess we are being too Catholic? It was nice knowing you. God bless you and keep fighting the good fight. Kyrie eleison….
“For Your Situational Awareness.”
Maybe you weren’t banned from lsn. Maybe they just deleted some of your posts, like they did to me. Unless you got a notification that you were blocked.
I got notification from DISQUS that LifeSiteNews banned me.
Shame on them. Their loss. I’m probly next. JMJ we love you. Save our souls.
If it makes you feel any better, Al, Church Militant actually went where I thought they never would: they banned Festus. His most recent comments were purged, but I think the straw that broke the camel’s back was his repeated insistence that anyone who tries to claim that Islam is a false religion is violating Church teaching, to the point that he openly admitted (I’m paraphrasing) that “the Church’s position on Islam changed at Vatican II”, which, of course, violates the “conservative” Catholic line that Vatican II in no way changed Church teaching or dogma. (It doesn’t help that he accused CMTV of “undermining the Pope” by publicly calling out Islam, nor did it help that he insulted Christine Niles, who absolutely eviscerated him for his [characteristic] “emotion-laden arguments, which are not really arguments but appeals to emotion” and his “vigorous defense of Islam over and against Catholics”.)
Maybe things are turning around there after all. I thought for certain that Festus was simply the alter ego of one of CM’s staff, or at least on their payroll, so to see this happen was startling (and, I must confess, somewhat gratifying, considering the number of people he has been allowed to insult and treat in condescending fashion on their forum).
Yes, and, as I recall, the moderators at CMTV often featured his comments. I also received an email from Voris in reference to my expired premium membership (YouTube) yesterday. I think Voris is in up to his neck on lost memberships. I believe this is primarily due to CMTV as a whole not wanting to listen to educated, justified arguments when criticizing the pope- when warranted. Too many good people banned by his staff. Worse, the moderators often edited/deleted posted comments. They did this to me which broke the camel’s back.
I was featured twice, possibly three times, but I think twice – no more than that. I never featured my own comments, it was always someone else who hit the feature button.
I’m not going to explain CMTV and papal criticism here – you probably had enough from me on that already. They have their policy – their house, their game, their rules. I happen to agree with it and do so under my own terms and have done since long before I found RealCatholicTV. Such an ironic title.
The problem with CMTV now is poor journalism, a nefarious agenda, and heavily biased and slanted articles, all delivered with a heavy dose of neo-Protestantism. I don’t know what they hope to achieve by this other than sowing division and spreading disinformation and misinformation.
and they hate being called out on their lies and falsehoods.
Did I read correctly that you helped to found RealCatholicTV? I guess I always wondered given that CMTV usually seemed to give you pretty free reign on their blog combox. So, when did the falling out happen? I am also interested in just exactly where Michael Voris is in the background. Who is really running his organization?
Try to stick with the truth. I never said that ” to claim that Islam is a false religion is violating Church teaching”. I did say that the position that CMTV takes as regards Islam goes against Church teaching and what the Pope is saying – all you need do is look for references to Muslims in the Catechism and the words of the post conciliar popes to see what I was saying. My position is and always has been that Islam is a false religion but it is an Abrahamic religion, or was in Mohammud’s day, and the Church still considers it to be an Abrahamic religion. What some Muslims have done with it is a different matter. That is a somewhat shortened version as it is a lot more complicated than that.
As for insulting Christine Niles. She insulted herself by her own actions. I said ” if you are relying on ISIS to teach you about Islam you are a fool. ” All of this goes back to their premise that ISIS is the true face of Islam. I am not the only one who disagrees with that premise. The moderator at the time did too.
I was never on CM staff or payroll. I was a moderator – an unpaid volunteer, as was the senior moderator.
I’m glad you are gratified. I am too as now CMTV is to be seen for what it actually is and is it not Catholic.
You will be gratified to know that the senior moderator was retired to and replaced by Christine and Simon. No doubt you will be more than welcome back at CMTV now as long as you toe their line and not that of the Catholic Church.
Post edit – the straw that broke Niles back was my constantly referring to the Catechism and Fulton Sheen in support of my case. These were the first comments to be purged.
One thing further LB, and I’ve said this to Al too.
Have you not noticed how CMTV never talk up the pope? They never pick up on any of his orthodox homilies or writings.
The “don’t criticize the pope” is the current CMTV policy that applies to every sitting pope but don’t kid yourself. There is precious little love for this pope where it counts within CMTV.
It is highly probable that their love for LSN is due to LSN’s penchant for criticizing the Pope, and they use them, or support them, for saying things their policy prevents them from saying.
Why do I say that? Very simple. I called out LSN for criticizing the pope in a discussion and Christine Niles rounded on me stating that LSN were CMTVs friends. CMTV is “friendly” with a site that has a history of criticizing Pope Francis. What does that tell you?
Things are turning around there. They are turning around so fast they are spinning like a vortex.
Why? They love criticizing the Pope there and they banned me for challenging them on their criticism of the pope.
maybe contact them for a reason. It is possible they banned someone else by IP address and you’re on the same IP from your internet provider.
Hard to believe LSN would ban a critic of the Pope. LSN are the papal critic wing of CMTV. Christine Niles loves LSN and she is the biggest critic of the Pope in CMTV – never in “public” of course, only in front of staff members.
I banned Festus. For no better reason than that I find him to be useless in discussions, raising countless self-serving polemics. In other words: I just don’t like him.
Let it not be said that I, too, cannot be as capricious and arbitrary as the Church Militant Moderator.
Respectfully, don’t be so sure, with regard to Benedict XVI. He continued on with the abominable ecumenical prayer gatherings, started by his predecessor. He was squarely in the liberal camp during the Council. He just sprinkled a little more Catholicism onto his liberalism, which helps disguise the modernism.
He also had a great input into what went into the VII documents so cannot be exonerated. He knows the Third Secret but chose not to reveal its full content. He also didn’t consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary & it is known that he doesn’t care much for Fatima. With this obvious disdain for Our Lady no wonder he abandoned us (mystical moment or whatever) as he is a Modernist like the rest of them.
I am with you on this. I recall the Vietnam prisoners who some of which “praised” communism. Of course with torture and a gun to their head.
it could be due to ” Stockholm Syndrome”. Not all that uncommon. Maybe that is what some are experiencing today inside the CC. There is a site i found called ” The Hammer” compiled in the 1990’s which i found extremely interesting. In one of the articles, there was a total expose on the Third Secret of Fatima ( http://roman-catholic.com/Roman/Articles/fatima.html ) that laid out some incredible findings regarding the Message, Sr. Lucia etc. it was a very good read.
Never thought of that. Of course, “Stockholm Syndrome” could very well be at play here. I believe it was Our Lady of Quito who said that the Pope would be held prisoner in the Vatican and weep bitter tears. Our Lady of Quito is an approved apparition btw. I keep going back to that. Whatever is going on with Benedict, this much I know…….he is not the Benedict we all came to know and love. Not the same man.
“…which says exactly the opposite of what he had just said in Poland…”
Proving yet again my always-applicable 24 Hour Pope Francis rule: Don’t like something he’s said? Wait 24 hours. He’ll say exactly the opposite tomorrow.
And by any given Saturday, he and/or his press corps will deny he ever said [insert controversial/heterodox/heretical statement here] and will retroactively edit his transcripts. If one attempts to challenge their revisionist history, one will be met merely with mumbles of “Well, yes, but . . .”
He is consistent at promoting modernism!
“…my true home is your goodness. There, I feel safe.”
I remember first reading Pope Benedict’s words (quoted above) and feeling a sense of surrealism. Even now, I wonder, has he been shielded from the reality of AL? Does he suffer from Stockholm Syndrome? What are we missing? Then my thoughts move on to other possibilities – what do the two know that maybe we do not? The Loving Father desires all His children be saved. Has He somehow communicated to Francis and Benedict, that all His children of good will, regardless of formation, be gathered into the Ark before the coming storm? For this instant in time, maybe the darkness of our time is so thick, and if there is a shred of good will, The Loving Father desires to limit the culpability of so many many of His children. Could this moment in time be a consession to the thick fog of confusion already here? But then I come back to the beautiful, clear and bright Truth expressed in Scripture and created nature. God would not contradict Himself.
And my thoughts start again.
Better to take refuge in the LORD than to put one’s trust in mortals. Better to take refuge in the LORD than to put one’s trust in princes. (Psalm 118) …even princes of the Church.
It will be difficult to make our way, as Catholics, in the midst of this global sorting of the sheep and goats. But one thing has become very clear to me–we are dealing with the fallout of a long-done deal. Our only recourse is to “take refuge in the LORD” at this point. And that is a good thing, for it is He that will correct. I take comfort in this verse from Exodus 14:14 — “The Lord will fight for you and you shall hold your peace.”
So its Pope against Pope now, as well as Cardinal against Cardinal & Bishop against Bishop. PF must be loving the mess he has made & continues to make. I doubt very much if Pope Emeritus Benedict will raise his clarifying voice to help confused Catholics to find the loyal path to salvation. After all, he has abandoned them to the wolves. There is no other conclusion. If he were being coerced all he had to do was to appear on the balcony & tell us. His recent excuses of WYD & jet lag are extremely lame & his praise for the Castro Brothers quite shocking. if he were being drugged Archbishop Gänswein would have to be in on the act as he is his closest confrere.
Whilst he did say on abdication that he had a mystical experience he qualified this by stating it wasn’t a vision nor did he hear God’s voice. One can only conclude it was Satan (or someone very close to him) duping him to make way for what we have now – a Holy Mess.
Going out on the balcony and telling the truth is simply not how it’s done in Rome.
The only reason Kasper is a cardinal is that the German bishops threatened JPII. They said that if Kasper was not made a cardinal, they would cut off their financial support of the church in Poland.
JPII should have gone out onto the balcony and told the whole story. And appealed to Catholics around the world for financial support for the church in Poland. I’m sure it never occurred to him to do such a thing. It just isn’t done that way.
If the circumstances demand a change in custom then that has to be the way. Both JPII & PBXVI had plenty of time & power to reclaim & restore the CC but they didn’t. PB’s Motu Propio Summorum Pontificum never reached Spain because his NO Bishops won’t allow it to be celebrated here. He had control but didn’t use it, even though he knew very well the flock cried out for TLM & catechesis for their children.
All post VII Popes were Modernists & have made a farce of our once beautiful faith. To start making excuses for them is ridiculous. They were very able men in their own spheres. If they didn’t want the responsibility they needn’t have agreed to take the Papal Office – it might have been better for them & us if they hadn’t.
Let us not forget that JPI was only given 33 days on the Seat of Peter before his demise. The fact that the Vatican had trouble in producing a legitimate death certificate & also ceremonial procedures left us in little doubt as to what happened to him.
If you watched the video of Benedict at his Anniversary Celebration in his address to Francis, you clearly saw Ganswein giving him the masonic sign and Benedict giving it back to him. Quite unnerving indeed. So……we cannot be sure where Ganswein sits in this whole evil mess.
They are all of the same mould. I don’t trust anyone in the CC Hierarchy – Pope, Cardinal or Bishop. They take us for dimwits to walk over. It will take Divine intervention to unseat them.
Absolutely it will! I am praying that intervention is not far off.
Can you tell me at what part of the video that happened?
I would have to go back and look at it again louiseyvette, but if I recall it was somewhere in the middle.
That’s great, thanks. I didn’t expect you to go over the whole thing!
Does Pope Francis have compromising pics of Pope Benedict, maybe? Or maybe Benedict is just being a senile old man who “loves everybody” and doesn’t want any more “fighting”? Or is he a fan of red wine? Red wine often has the effect of making people all “lovey” and amiable and forgiving. Or does he actually believe all this leftist nonsense from Francis?? No matter what the cause, I agree with Dr. Hickson that by his “repeated, unqualified support” to the Francis papacy Pope Benedict becomes complicit in the evils Pope Francis is foisting upon the Church.
Spot on! I am wondering what ever happened to the secret report handed off by Pope Benedict to Francis about the homosexual underground and Lavender Mafia?
We’re never going to see that report, Al. Assuming it still exists and hasn’t been run through the shredder, burned to ash, and scattered across the Tiber, it’s going to be kept firmly under lock and key. With Francis’s buddy-buddies like Marx now being suspected of covering up abuse within their dioceses (the culprits most certainly listed in said document), does anyone actually think this pontiff is going to do anything to expose his inner circle?
Right. Something ain’t right with this picture. It just doesn’t add up.
From what I heard there were only 4-5 culprits and Benedict cleaned that up!
And if someone believes that then I will have to quadruple my prayer efforts.
Your comment makes me think of all the establishment Republicans who have gone submissively along with Obama’s travesties. Where is the outrage? Why are so many of the people we’d thought would speak out so strangely silent? It’s like the tale of the emperor’s new clothes, only there’s no little boy anywhere piping up to say “But the emperor is naked!!”
Well put. Although I would say we do at least have Austrian Philosopher, Josef Seifert, who has raised some serious alarm bells. And then there is Cardinal Raymond Burke and the group of 45 Catholic scholars and prelates who petitioned the pope to correct ‘Amoris Laetitia’. And, of course, there is our beloved Steve Skojec himself, who certainly has not been shy about criticizing Pope Francis’ heresies. So, there are some “little boys” out there!
As for the GOPe, don’t even get me started. The reason Trump is so wildly popular is precisely because those RINO devils didn’t do what we elected them to do in the first place. Yeah, they were probably afraid of being called “racist”, and so they acted like abject cowards and let Hussein do whatever he wanted. They are despicable, complacent cowards. And the extent to which the common people hold them in utter contempt will be seen very clearly on the morning of November 9th, when the headlines read that Trump has won in a landslide. If the GOPe had just DONE THEIR JOB, there would be no need for a revolution. But they didn’t. And so there is. Enter Trump.
Perhaps the real question is WHO exactly is in a state of schism, heresy, apostasy, etc. Is it those of us Catholics adhering to constant Church teaching? Or is it our very own pope and the prelates in collusion with him? Of course, the answer seems obvious. But one must ask the questions and then proceed to lay out the arguments, counterarguments, and a rebuttal of the counterarguments. I believe that many learned laity and clerics alike have done a wonderful job of this. However, the time is quickly coming when we, as faithful Catholics, must choose who is right and who is wrong.
It seems to me that Bishop Fellay and the SSPX had it right all along. So where does that leave us?
Personally, I am almost to the conclusion that the Third Great Schism is underway. The First in 1054 with the Orthodox, the Second with the Protestant Reformation, and, now, the Third which is led by (I am more convinced now than ever) by either a man who was not validly elected (and, hence, never pope); or was validly elected and, by virtue of his obstinance in promoting error in Faith and Morals (AL), has actually lost the charism of the papacy (although not yet formally proclaimed by either the College of Cardinals, a Church Council, or a future pope), and is not now the Roman Pontiff making the Chair of Peter vacant.
And, if the Chair is vacant, or became vacant, what of the canonizations of Pope John XXIII, and John Paul II?
These questions occupy my mind and weigh very heavy on my heart and soul.
As for Benedict, what does Francis or Francis’ friends have on Benedict? Or, was Benedict always a wolf in sheep’s clothing all along (and withholding this from even John Paul II)? And what if the bishop in your diocese agrees with Francis? Then what?
So, which is it? Where does the Church stand? All of these questions remain, and need answered. Ambiguity and obfuscation is not the answer.
The Church is in shambles and Francis seems to not care a damn bit.
To add to your already excellent list of questions, Al, I would pose this additional query:
Just what exactly is this elusive, ephemeral quality that is bandied about as “full communion with the Church”? And if it actually is a “real thing”, how can the SSPX be considered to lack it while quasi-heretics and borderline-schismatics are permitted to parade about under this pontiff, spewing all sorts of heterodox nonsense, all while still being said to be in “full communion”?
Does “full communion” even matter at all in this sort of environment? Which is the correct course of action: Trying to remain within this “full communion” framework in the name of loyalty to the Petrine office, or doing what needs to be done in the name of remaining true to the unchanging teachings of Christ?
We all will be judged by the Almighty upon our deaths, and we will have to give an accounting of our actions. That fact terrifies me, to be honest, considering that I, personally, feel utterly lost and abandoned under this pontificate.
Perhaps the question is who is in full communion? I, like you, tremble at the thought of standing before our Lord in Judgment. The Petrine office Christ gave directly to Peter. It is real, and I believe in it. However, I am not under any obligation to follow a man who proclaims heresy (and practiced it as Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina). Even St. Paul said as much. Keep the Faith, my friend. Pray with me that God will bring all of this to a holy and peaceful conclusion. I am afraid that the waves will become much larger and threaten to (seemingly) swallow us. Jesus promised He would never abandon His Church.
PF has indeed left us with the Holy Mess which he set out to achieve. Despìte Cardinal Burke saying he will not lead a schism (which no-one asked him to do) there will undoubtedly have to be a parting of the ways if Lund turns out as expected, i.e. that the CC excommunication on Luther will be lifted & that he will be on a list for canonisation. The post conciliar popes that have already either been canonised or made venerable should never have been, as it is much too early. It was done to support VII & make us believe that VII was a good Council. The CC Hierarchy will then have to choose which side they are on -Christ’s or Satan’s.
There is, however, nowhere for a staunch Catholic to go as all other religions are man-made. A case could be made for the Traditional Orders but without faculties from Rome they cannot serve in the way that is necessary with the result that most parts of the world are without them, so that does not provide the answer for reclaiming & restoring the Catholic faith. Maybe the Ordinariate may be able to step in but let’s not jump any hurdles before it is necessary.
Just because the SSPX has no canonical faculties does NOT make any of the sacraments or the TLM Mass invalid. There is a difference. Maybe we have not yet come to the bridge yet, but I can see it not far off. My family already decided that IF our current NO parish pastor is moved and we have nowhere else to go for the TLM or the NO (which our pastor removed the old NO altar, restored the old high altar, and rebuilt the communion rail, etc.), we have a SSPX chapel only thirty-eight miles from our home. That is where we would go.
Yes Al, you have a choice which is fine. However, the vast majority of Catholics worldwide don’t. By withholding legality from their valid ordinations it means that NO Bishops can bar them, which they have done here in Spain &, of course, elsewhere too. They can only say Holy Mass here and there on the run which is only beneficial to the local community. Disobedience on the one hand & intransigence on the other has blocked countless Catholics from accessing the True Faith – TLM, full sacraments, catechesis, parish retreats, schools etc. Canon Lawyers will have to look at this situation after we get rid of the usurpers & clarify the position for future protesters & supporters as the present canons don’t fully take into consideration the whole picture & faithful Catholics have been ignored.
No disagreement with you:)
no one questions validity the question is whether or not the sacraments of the SSPX are licit of course they are valid and in an emergency I would not question receiving the sacraments from them. I just hope they regularize their situation soon
The only way to actually regularize the SSPX is for Rome to elevate them to the same canonical status of what the Archdiocese for the Military Services, U.S.A. has- basically worldwide jurisdiction with co-jurisdiction with other dioceses and the local ordinaries. This would include allowing the SSPX bishops to continue ordaining their own priests as well as choosing and consecrating their own bishops just as the Catholic Eastern rites do. A Personal Prelature will not work. Personal Prelatures under the Code of Canon Law depends on the local bishop’s permission to exist.
Re the comment that if Benedict was drugged, his best friend would have to know. Why? Would they do it in front of him? Is he there 24/7? The things Benedict is supposed saying are so saccharine and so sycophantic that is simply unbelievable that he knowing and freely said them. He sounds like a prisoner of war being shown on the enemy’s television. I read a recording of John McCain speaking on a Vietnamese radio show, where he also praised his captors for their kindness. There are certainly drugs which produce compliance.
Furthermore, if I remember correctly, when he retired he said it was because he was in so much pain, so weak, and so unable to mentally deal with the demands of being pope that he needed to resign. Now its jet lag and not being able to go to World Youth Day? This is descending into farce, or would be, if it were not so tragic.
And if Benedict were to rebel, and head for the balcony to tell all, do you really think he would be allowed to get there? If he could even walk that far.
True. I’m kind of a skeptic, but I watched the video where they said Benedict look drugged. I have to admit he did look kind of off. I don’t know if it’s because he was tired or sleepy, but his eyes looked like they were staring into space.
I agree with you 1000%. I do sincerely believe there is something quite diabolical going on inside the Vatican. What it is, we may never truly know, but Benedict is NOT the Benedict we know. That much is not rocket science……it’s as plain as the nose on your face.
Do we have proof that PBXVI really said what is claimed? Is there video/audio?
reminds me of the article about Döllinger and the 3rd Fatima secret, after which Lombardi said that Pope Benedict had said – or would have said – or whatever…
It’s tough when you can’t trust anyone any more…
Yes, there is a video of the celebration on the 65th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood. It is available on You Tube. As I have written above, not only do these words addressed to Pope Francis sound unlike him but his manner as he delivered them was very strange. If I were told that he had been drugged I would not dispute it. I highly recommend that you view the video.
Strange, either Pope Benedict was deceiving us before or we are being deceived now. The evidence speaks for itself. God protect our Holy Father from the wolves who surround him!
Everything about this papacy is ambiguous. For example, the strange way it came about, the semi-heretical teaching, the seeming approval of sexual deviancy, the constant criticism of orthodox Catholics, the strong focus on secular concerns, and now the incomprehensible support of ex-Pope Benedict. As Shakespeare might say, “There is something rotten in the Vatican State”.
But Pope Paul VI said it best, “The smoke of satan has entered the Church”. In the midst of all the confusion we see that Pope Paul was correct.
Dr Hickson, your article illustrates why Ratzinger has always been part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The uber-liberal conciliar peritus has always been lurking within his psyche. He is a gentle soul who hates conflict and surely this played a part in his decision to resign. However, there is a fine line between the desire to avoid conflict and cowardice.
It would be unrealistic to expect him to confront Francis when he has already put himself in this ridiculous non-position of “Pope Emeritus”. He is entirely at the disposal of Francis’ whim with no power or precedent on his side whatsoever. He “fled for fear of the wolves” once (whether one interprets that as the devils in the Church or the process of decrepitude which is a hangover from Original Sin) and unless he experiences a radical conversion/change of character he will continue to be an ineffectual doormat until the day he dies.
We shouldn’t expect him to do anything about Francis when it was he who handed us Francis on a plate.
I don’t think Ratzinger was always “part of the problem,” except in the sense that he wasn’t strong enough to do what he knew was required of him and not strong enough to admit and deal with the evil poured into the Church by Vatican II. Like many people who originally thought that VII would just be a fresh restatement and reaffirmation of Church doctrine in modern terms and thus participated in it, he soon distanced himself from it but was never able to bring himself to renounce it or condemn it entirely, which is what VII needs. The Pope I really blame, in fact, was JPII, who spent nearly 30 years imposing the stupidities and heresies of VII and tolerated a lot of evil people (who Benedict tried to get rid of as soon as he had the power).
That said, I think BXVI is either suffering from some serious age-related mental problem or he has been brainwashed and is under the influence of drugs. The things he is saying do not sound even remotely like him, in terms of either content or style, and they have been getting worse and more bizarre every time he is trotted out to make a statement. It is horrifying.
I think any hope that Pope Benedict VI Eremites will be anything other than an obedient supporter of Pope Francis is misplaced. At VII he sided with the Modernists, as a co-worker with Karl Rahner he was heavily involved with drafting the conciliar documents, and gives credence to noe-modernist theologians such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, when repeating his 1952 declaration that She (the Church), must demolish longstanding bastions, i.e. Her traditional defences against her enemies. If you have any doubts about where Benedict sits then I suggest reading The Devil’s Final Battle edited and compiled by Fr Paul Kramer. A substantive, authoritive and fully evidence book That says much about why we are where we are with these prelates and why the general incorporation and practice of VII’s errors are prevalent in today’s Church.
I don’t think Benedict has in any way, supported the above-Christ views of Francis. There is nothing in whatever Benedict has said thus far that says he supports the Church going above God in understanding mercy. I think Benedict is very conscious that many Catholics still look up to him, and he is trying as best as he can to avoid a situation of schism. Keep in mind that Benedict, as a typical Augustinian and Bonaventurian scholar, is conscious that ultimately it is God that will triumph in history. The Church will continue to become small, as Benedict predicted many years ago, but there will be a remnant that will remain faithful to the Lord comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead.
Yes. The SSPX. The FSSP and the Traditional Orders.
I trust my eyes more than things or persons. It is plain to me now (it was not before) that Archbishop Lefebvre was right.
Malachi Martin’s “The Jesuits” is helping me understand Francis much better, and it ain’t pretty folks.
I cried while I read that book yrs ago….
It’s hard to believe that Benedict really knows what’s going on. The awful questions have to be asked regarding his support of Bergoglio: has Benedict grown senile, or is he somehow even being blackmailed? Does he really understand the destructive and even catastrophic effect the Bergoglio pontificate is having on the Church?
Now blackmailed is something I could take to the bank.
“Does he . . . understand the destructive and . . . catastrophic effect the Bergoglio pontificate is having on the Church?”
I wonder if there is one of us without some of the infection of modernism.
You are correct, there are not in my opinion. However, many want to see it in others without saying it is in them. It speaks of the publican and the sinner. Jesus said the sinner went home justified, because he acknowledged his sin.
With respect to Pope Francis, we must respect his office and not the man. The Pope is our Holy Father and his authority comes from the Lord. We must pray for his soul continually that he may attain Heaven and avoid Hell. We must pray that our Lord Jesus Christ restore the ruins and strengthen and build again the walls and gates of the Church Catholic.
All that being said, Psalm 108 comes to mind:
“May his days be few: and his bishopric let another take.”
I sincerely hope I don’t die before this mess is sorted out.
A sad, but accurate, article.
Pope B16 unfortunately did what he asked that we pray for him not to do at the start of his pontificate – flee from the wolves. Check out this Emmerich prophecy, which has great significance now that Francis and his Vatican are praising heretic Luther:
October 1, 1820
“The Church is in great danger. We must pray so that the Pope may not leave Rome; countless evils would result if he did. They are now demanding something from him. The Protestant [Luther and subsequent heretics] doctrine and that of the schismatic Greeks [Orthodox] are to spread everywhere. I now see that in this place (Rome) the (Catholic) Church is being so cleverly undermined, that there hardly remain a hundred or so priests who have not been deceived. They all work for destruction, even the clergy. A great devastation is now near at hand.”
…”“In those days Faith will fall very low and it will be preserved in some places only.”
“The Little Black Man in Rome, whom I see so often, has many working for him without their clearly knowing for what end. He has his agents in the New Black Church also. If the Pope leaves Rome, the enemies of the Church will get the upper hand. I see the Little Black Man in his own country committing many thefts and falsifying things generally. Religion is there so skillfully undermined and stifled that there are scarcely 100 faithful priests. I cannot say how it is, but I see fog and darkness increasing … All must be rebuilt soon; for everyone, even ecclesiastics, are laboring to destroy (and) ruin is at hand. The 2 enemies of the Church who have lost their accomplice are firmly resolved to destroy the pious and learned men that stand in their way
We can say that Benedict XVI “left Rome” by resigning.
Yes, there are several prophesies that point to exactly what we see going on now in the Church of Christ.
With the 100th anniversary of Our Lady’s apparition at Fatima is fast approaching and the Church is in the throes of apostasy (Is there any who denies this?), a vision by Jacinta recorded in the 3rd Memoir of Lucia which is rarely referred to seems most appropriate.
“One day we spent our siesta down by my parents’ well. Jacinta sat on the stone slabs on top of the well. Francisco and I climbed up a steep bank in search of wild honey among the brambles in a nearby thicket. After a little while, Jacinta called out to me:
“’Didn’t you see the Holy Father?’
“’I don’t’ know how it was, but I saw the
Holy Father in a very big house, kneeling by a table, with his head buried in
his hands, and he was weeping. Outside the house, there were many people. Some
of them were throwing stones, others were cursing him and using bad language.
Poor Holy Father, we must pray very much for him.’”
Is anyone willing to suggest which Pope is referred to in
this vision? A past Pope? A present Pope? Or some unnamed future Pope?
How would we really know for sure Fr.? Seems to me like Benedict, but there is no ‘verifiable truth’ to this being so. If you read one of my posts above, Our Lady of Quito also said as much but we still cannot know for sure if this is really Benedict, but to me, circumstances certainly point to it as a possibility.
Dunno. Not Francis!
Hi Fr. DRB – My money is on JPII, He knew where the Church was heading, and that there would be a future pope who would succumb to the pressures to resign he experienced, and Benedict proved to be just that man, totally rejecting the role of the suffering servant, and proving to be singularly unwillling to follow in the shoes of the fisherman. I am also quite sure JPII knew that once that happened, God would withdraw the Grace needed to protect the Papacy from an apostate pope, like Francis. Jesus returns for a reason, and the actions of Benedict and Francis, and those who excuse their actions, will not go unpunished.
WHERE exactly does Pope Benedict give his blessing to Amoris Laetitia ?
That’s right – he doesn’t.
He just said a few nice words about Francis. What was he to say, when he is virtually a prisoner there ?
I’m beginning to regret my support for this website. I’ve actually stopped reading here. Someone recommended this article, so I decided to check it out. If the goal here is to find “scholars” or “theologians” who are also willing to hint at the “heresy” of the pope, then this website will always be in business and have fodder from which to write their articles. I regret that I supported them once when they were asking for donations.
The site is OK, but I suspect Ms. Hickson might have an unjustified dislike for Pope Benedict. This is the second article of hers that I read where she is just spreading rumours not based on facts.
Yes, you are correct there. The article started out fine, then when it went to this transition, “Then, on occasion of his own 65th anniversary of his priestly ordination on 28 June 2016, Pope Benedict uttered these somewhat strange-sounding words, addressed directly to Pope Francis,” I had a feeling when I got to the end of the article I was going to find Ms. Hickson was the author.
I also felt that in statements that Austrian Philosopher, Josef Seifert, “lay bare the objectively heretical statements to be found in Amoris Laetitia” and Seifert’s analysis pointed out the many “grave errors to be found in the papal text.” To me, this smacks of it’s own kind of private interpretation. These people throw around heresy as if it is some light word. In my estimation, Francis has not changed any of the cardinal doctrines of the church.
Francis is a wolf in sheep clothing. He doesn’t have the courage to change the doctrine directly, and thus show himself an apostate, but he is allowing and encouraging the distortion of practice. He and his people are also using New Speak, calling white black and black white
His falling in Poland in front of millions of people was a sign from God, but he will disregard it because it’s written in the scriptures “he that is unjust, let him be unjust still”.
Interesting thought on his falling in Poland.
My concern is that the internet, now in its 25th year, seems to be driving everyone mad. While it has contributed so much good, it has also contributed to a lot of chaos, misinformation and sometimes, hysteria. The internet has, in my own opinion, caused all of us to be much more critical than I think we otherwise would have been say 50-100 years ago. I am not saying people then were less opinionated than us today, we just have more opportunity to reach a wider audience with our criticisms.
Pope Benedict does NOT support Amoris Laetitia.
NOWHERE in his statements does he say that, including those in the Italian language. All he said, as showed even in the links given in this article, was his OBEDIENCE to the will of GOD, as manifested in the election of Francis.
The only expressions of support for the policy of Francis refer specifically to the MERCY of God. And what is presented in this article as his “endorsing” was in fact Benedict thanking
Francis for his personal kindness to him on the occasion of the anniversary of his ordination; and a statement he made immediately after the election of Francis, which he naturally considers as an act of God. Whether we like it or not. [ and most of us don’t]
Ms. Hickson’s article is intellectually dishonest by pretending that Pope Benedict supports Amoris Laetitia. She has not presented any proof in support of this assertion.
Spuriously connecting some innocent statements of Benedict XVI with a critical interpretation of another theologian, is misleading, to say the least.
Pope Benedict has decided to accept the will of God in the way which makes sense the most for him. He mentions the words OBEDIENCE TO THE WILL OF GOD several times.
He cannot lead a revolt against Francis because that would be unfeasible, especially after he resigned. He considers that by continually praying for him, and by his presence close by, he might have an effect. If not, that’s also God’s will.
He is in fact showing the world THE EXAMPLE OF JESUS, who suffered crucifixion from the most unjust people of His time, to show obedience to the will of God. And he is being slandered the same way his Master was slandered.
Our Holy Father does not have to lead a revolt; he only needs to address the apostasy.
God does not desire apostasy; God desires that we repent and believe, as Our Lady of Fatima requested.
When they publish these “statements” supposedly from Pope Benedict, what guarantee do we have that they are actually from Pope Benedict and that they accurately reflect what he said?
None, if he is a prisoner in the Vatican:
“…my true home is your goodness. There, I feel safe.”
By denying that God Is The Author of Love, and thus that God Is The Author of Life, and of Marriage, Jorge Bergoglio, prior to being elected pope, denied The Divinity of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, excommunicating himself from Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
“Page 117, of the pope’s book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex unions
“If there is a union of a PRIVATE NATURE, THERE IS NEITHER A THIRD PARTY NOR IS SOCIETY AFFECTED. Now, if this union is given the category of marriage and they are given adoption rights, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and female mother that can help them shape their identity. – Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Approval of same-sex sexual unions is approval of same-sex sexual acts.
Prior to being elected pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, by condoning same-sex sexual acts in relationships that he referred to as private, did not include children, and were not called marriage, and thus denying that God Is The Author of Love, of Life, and of Marriage, denied The Divinity of The Blessed Trinity.
The election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not valid.
The Church’s ultimate trial
“675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576″
To deny The Divinity of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, is apostasy.