Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Pope Francis’ Reported Words: “I Might Go Down in History for Having Split the Catholic Church”

Today, DER SPIEGEL, a very influential German publication, published an article about the manifest current crisis in the Church, to include a growing resistance to Pope Francis’ proposed and actual reforms. At the end of this article its author, the Spiegel’s Correspondent in Italy, Walter Mayr, reveals an important new leak:

In a very small circle, Pope Francis is said to have self-critically further explained himself as follows: “It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.” [my emphasis]

In light of this self-revealing comment, it is worth quoting some other parts of this article which shows just how much open and smoldering indignation Pope Francis has caused within the Catholic Church. Mayr describes the atmosphere in the Vatican with critical words, as follows:

It is Saturday morning last week, shortly after eight, in the Pauline Chapel of the Vatican. A group of fifty cardinals now living in Rome – purple elegant robes and purple caps as far as the eye can see – has appeared in order to honor Pope Francis with a common concelebrated Mass, on the occasion of his 80th birthday. As they sit there under the fresco of Michelangelo depicting the crucifixion of Peter, the dignitaries have their eyes on the powerful man to the left of the altar – and the estrangement can nearly be palpably grasped with one’s hands. “Be assured that we are close to you,” says the cardinal deacon [Cardinal Angelo Sodano] to Francis – but this reassurance sounds strangely hollow.

As the article’s author also says, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, who lives in Rome, had excused himself from this celebration, however, due to his frailty; but he had sent Pope Francis a congratulatory letter.

In the following, Mayr also describes the events surrounding the dubia of the Four Cardinals, with Pope Francis’ decision not to respond to the letter containing their doubts concerning his promulgated document Amoris Laetitia. The author even calls the pope’s decision not at all to respond his own “highest penalty.” In Mayr’s eyes, Pope Francis apparently feels wounded by all these events, as became quite discernible when he spoke at his address to the Roman Curia yesterday about those “evil forms of resistance” that aim at accusing him personally by way of specious reference to traditions and formalities.

With reference to Edward Pentin, the well-known Vatican specialist, Mayr says: “The pope is boiling and fuming.” Mayr also quotes Cardinal Brandmüller himself whom he visited in his apartment next to the Vatican:

Speaking in his apartment next to St. Peter’s Basilica, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller said in truth “it is about all or nothing” [“es geht um die Wurst”], to speak in colloquial terms; that is to say, it is about the kernel of the whole, about the teaching of Doctrine.”

Moreover, Mayr adds, Pope Francis – together with Cardinal Walter Kasper – wishes to “soften central precepts of the Catholic Faith and to leave up to the local bishops and priests the task of interpreting them for the daily lives of the people.” This new approach, according to Brandmüller, attacks the very foundation of the Universal Church:

“Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and the reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism.” Holy Scripture, according to Brandmüller, is not a place where everybody can pick what he likes: “We are, according to the Apostle St. Paul, administrators of the mysteries of God, but not holders of the right of disposal.”

In Mayr’s eyes, as well, “much is at stake.” For him, “Francis seems to be increasingly isolated” and also “worn down.” A confidant of the pope tells Mayr: “Many do not recognize any more in the Francis of the year 2016 the man whom they elected in 2013.” The journalist also describes how the Year of Mercy “has kept everything open” and it “did not at all fulfill the expectations.” The curial reform does not advance, either; and, “from some dicasteries, there now come reports of ‘total chaos’.” According to Mayr, Francis’ “volubility causes additional problems”; his comments about the media and their tendency toward “coprophagy” have even caused indignation among his own sympathetic followers.

According to DER SPIEGEL, Pope Francis is “still fighting for his legacy.” He is up working from 5 o’clock in the morning. “There is not much time left to him,” says Mayr. But, Pope Francis might still have some surprises for us. And, then, the DER SPIEGEL article closes with above-quoted words recently attributed to Francis: It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”

321 thoughts on “Pope Francis’ Reported Words: “I Might Go Down in History for Having Split the Catholic Church””

  1. There isn’t any context provided for this supposed quote from Francis, which is important. When Francis reportedly said that…”It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who slit the Church,” what was the tone or context? Did Francis seem serious or worried, or did he seem glad that he may split the Church? It’s an important distinction.

    • Context? Seriously? How about a healthy skepticism in this situation that he said this. “Someone said that someone said that someone said that someone said that Pope Francis said…” And your asking for the context? LoL

      • The problem is that the pope says so many… shall we say, bizarre… things that, when someone asserts something like this, many tend to believe it to be true, regardless of any independent verification.

      • I see what you’re saying. You may be right. I suppose that even if there were a context provided, it would still be hearsay, and therefore not really any clear evidence that Francis said it. We have enough problems with what we know the Pope to have said, without adding to it an unsubstantiated rumor, no matter how probable it might be that he would say such a thing. We trads have to take the moral high ground; even though it’s very tempting to accept that Francis said what he is reported to have said.

      • Well, yes, I understand what you mean. But…..I sometimes hope that Francis has a glimpse every now and then about the reality of what he is doing. Surely the Holy Ghost or his guardian angel will try to show him reality, even though he may not pay much attention. Even if a person is in a state of mortal sin, they can be prompted to see the light. Otherwise, those of are in a state of mortal sin would not be moved to go to confession. I have to hope that Francis will be converted. It’s a longshot, I know.

    • But when do we say enough is enough? When do we stop contorting ourselves in an attempt to explain away concerning statements by the pope? I for one, am weary of it. He is supposed to be the shepherd and as one of the “sheep,” I should be able to trust him and his intentions and actions implicitly, for the life of the sheep is fully dependent on the actions of the shepherd.

    • It seems we don’t have more. This was said in a very small circle and was leaked. I wish we knew. We probably won’t. But you’re right, I’d really like to know too.

      But then again, the leak could have been lying. I don’t think Maike would write this if it wasn’t a reliable source, but still… cum grano salis.

    • He took a deep breath and steam shot out his ears just before he said that HE would slit the church.
      He has some high hopes to even utter something like that.
      He is not my pope. Never was never will be

      • May God have Mercy on his Soul…..I always had reservations about him…so sad to know the Pope is moving the Catholic Church out…..For taking Father Bishop Strickland out of the vatican just proves that your voice can’t be heard………

  2. For sure it’s a shame that Catholics who want to adhere to the fulness of the Church’s teaching feel so alienated from the present successor of St Peter. And for sure, a Pauline moment of ‘opposing Peter to his face’ is now upon us: which, if Scripture sheds any light on this at all, should be done by successors to the Apostles – since that is, alas, part of their responsibility when Peter is not tending to the flock as he ought.

    So we should be careful about furthering a loss of confidence in the Holy Father by speculations which are basically just hearsay. And we should be reluctant to arrogate to ourselves the role of St Paul – who as Apostle had a particular role in the governance of the Church. Opposition from the laity to corrupt prelates has been widespread in centuries past, yes, since the laity too have a role in the defense of the Faith. But first, let us allow the Cardinals to do their best. Docility, in that respect, is the virtue we must cultivate until such a point as such docility would become complicity with sin.

    It’s truly hard to imagine Our Lady participating in some of the language used in relation to the Holy Father in the traditional Catholic blogosphere. And, yes, it is hard to imagine Our Lady endorsing many of the pronouncements made by this pontificate – but we will be judged on our own actions, Pope Francis on his: let us be mindful, then, of his office even if he is not.

      • You’re asking the wrong question – but I hope you’re not asking it in bad faith.

        The Cardinals asking the Dubia (and issuing the correction) are doing the right thing, in the right way at the right time.
        Likewise, Bishops who are issuing clarifications on Amoris Laetitia that are in accordance with the Church’s Magisterium are doing the right thing, in the right way at the right time.
        If those Cardinals and Bishops were not doing that then they would be being complicit with sin.

        Accordingly, if, in the near future, a Bishops’ Conference takes it upon itself to issue ‘instructions’ about AL that are not in accordance with the Church’s perennial tradition then at that point Priests and Lay people would be in circumstances where they would have to choose not to be complicit with sin.

        That point has yet to be reached. So whilst they express their concerns to their legitimate authority, in actual fact the sole responsibility they presently have in relation to AL is not to follow what they find is inconsistent with their formed consciences and the Church’s tradition and to tell their pastors as much. We are NOT Congregationalists – we are Catholic – and the Laity has NO governmental power in the Church: NONE. That’s the Tradition of the Church. In that respect the ONLY people who have the right (and duty) to ‘oppose Peter to his face’ are those who DO have governmental authority: the successors of the Apostles. And we have successors who are doing just that. We can support them with our prayers – and in our own commitment – and in telling the truth when we must (for example when the opportunity arises to do so or when consulted.) But publicly remonstrating with the Sovereign Pontiff – on a blog or elsewhere? Really? Is that what we’ve been reduced to? I just don’t see how you square that with the Church’s teaching.

        Nota bene: publicly remonstrating and correcting can indeed be done – by those who have legitimate authority to do so. I imagine also that the Church would recognize a charismata that might allow it: St Catherine of Siena wrote to the Pope, St Joan of Arc remonstrated with the King of France but I’m not sure that we should so swiftly believe ourselves to be invested with that kind of special mission for the good of the Church.

        Let us see what the Dubia and Correction bring forth.

        • Let’s start with seeing the substantiation of your accusation. How are we on “thin ice” by reporting on what is being done, and commenting that the plain meaning of such is wrong?

          I’m not going to spend time substantiating our position here. It’s been done, at length:

          And for what it’s worth, one of the most notable prelates who has put his name behind the dubia personally confirmed to me that — done respectfully — “you can and should of course continue to fight the holy battle of the faith and to present the correct doctrine of the Church in case the pope or other authorities distort it”. That doesn’t sound to me as though he feels that their effort is being usurped. If anything, we have helped to bring this discussion out into the open in a way that gives these prelates cause to talk about the grave scandal and confusion it is causing the faithful.

          • I read the article a couple of hours ago – and its use of Aquinas is judicious.

            But my question was a very specific one which I don’t see addressed neither in the article nor in your (understandably) brief response here:

            Where do you, as a layman, derive your governmental authority from?

            We both know that you have none. None whatsoever. How can you? It is derived from the Apostles via Apostolic succession in the episcopate.
            As laymen we have no possible derivation of that authority – nor of any of the other tria munera. In short: we are the governed.
            Thus, whatever a prelate says to you – and I notice that he said it in a personal confirmation to you which rather supports what I’m saying rather than the opposite – it can only be interpreted in the restrictive way you delineate in the remainder of your post.

            But Cardinal Burke speaks of making a formal correction – which he can do because his Eminence is a successor to the Apostles. That is one of his duties. An unhappy one, for sure, and one he’d rather not have to do but there. Things are as they are.

            So to OnePeterFive: your ‘reporting’ is a valuable service.
            The thin ice is clear nevertheless: You are not an ordained bishop. You have no charism of government. Report as you must but don’t assume that when Cardinal Burke ‘opposes Francis to his face’ that you can somehow join in.

            By what authority would you justify being able to do so?
            “Jesus I know, Paul I know, but who are you?”

          • More conflation. Governmental authority of the laity is not the issue. You make it so in an attempt to shut down the authentic authority of the laity. Won’t work. Way too late for that. The individual who accused us all of liking to eat sh#t has exposed himself completely.

          • “the authentic authority of the laity”

            An interesting notion.
            Which part of the Church’s Tradition do you base this on?
            Church Fathers? Canon Law? Sacred Scripture? Historical Magisterium?

            Or just your wishful thinking because you’re unhappy with the present Pontificate?
            Now here’s the thing, SBT, I too am desperately unhappy with the present Pontificate and pray that the Good Lord will resolve the situation.
            But I think we MUST be wary of giving in to exasperation.
            It does not come from the Holy Spirit – no matter how we then rationalize it.

          • Exactly. Your straw man argument that this article and others like it somehow attempt usurpation of the Church hierarchy is exasperating. It does not come from the Holy Spirit, no matter how you rationalize it.

          • I re-post this, but I think it pertinent. One or two slight additions.
            No straw man argument here:

            OnePeterFive does indeed use that Pauline argument to justify correcting a Pope ‘to his face’. And whilst the reading of Aquinas on that issue is more than reasonable I’d hesitate a little before assuming that I as a layman had the authority to do so (even if I love the Faith and Tradition ever so much.) Why? Precisely because I am not a Bishop and haven’t received that charism.

            If what I’ve just written weren’t the case, then Cardinal Burke’s ‘correction’ wouldn’t be a formally constituted canonical act but just the action of another ‘concerned Catholic’, like you, like me.
            But that’s NOT what Cardinal Burke is doing: he’s going to make use of the weight of his Episcopal Authority. He’s going to speak as a successor to the Apostles. THAT’S what ALLOWS him to ‘oppose Peter to his face’ – not simply because he disagrees with the choices of this pontificate….

          • Hmm. Just because you post a picture with a definition doesn’t mean you’ve made your own point yet.

            I’m all ears.

          • Those who have ears will hear. Despite spending hours typing your subtle arguments, you have yet to demonstrate your original contention that 1P5 has told any layman to oppose Peter to his face in the same way that a bishop can and should. Nor that any of the commenters do the same. Good day, sir! And Merry Christmas!

          • NO! That’s NOT my original contention.
            My original contention is stated very clearly and NOWHERE do I mention 1P5’s methods anywhere.
            THAT discussion emerged in the subequent mêlée.
            I reproduce my ‘original contention’ below – and you won’t even see 1P5 MENTIONED let alone disagreed with.

            Your bad faith is staggering. And intellectually dishonest. And if you want a picture to go with that, just look in the mirror.

            “For sure it’s a shame that Catholics who want to adhere to the fulness of the Church’s teaching feel so alienated from the present successor of St Peter. And for sure, a Pauline moment of ‘opposing Peter to his face’ is now upon us: which, if Scripture sheds any light on this at all, should be done by successors to the Apostles – since that is, alas, part of their responsibility when Peter is not tending to the flock as he ought.

            So we should be careful about furthering a loss of confidence in the Holy Father by speculations which are basically just hearsay. And we should be reluctant to arrogate to ourselves the role of St Paul – who as Apostle had a particular role in the governance of the Church. Opposition from the laity to corrupt prelates has been widespread in centuries past, yes, since the laity too have a role in the defense of the Faith. But first, let us allow the Cardinals to do their best. Docility, in that respect, is the virtue we must cultivate until such a point as such docility would become complicity with sin.

            It’s truly hard to imagine Our Lady participating in some of the language used in relation to the Holy Father in the traditional Catholic blogosphere. And, yes, it is hard to imagine Our Lady endorsing many of the pronouncements made by this pontificate – but we will be judged on our own actions, Pope Francis on his: let us be mindful, then, of his office even if he is not.”

          • My apologies. It was apparently a secondary argument. Thank you for the compliments. Good day!

            addendum: if the above seemed flippant, it was due to lack of time. I’m sincerely sorry if I misunderstood anything you wrote (of which there was quite a lot). Must go. Thanks. Merry Christmas!

          • The next step i.e. the “formal act of correction of a serious error” if Pope Francis does not respond follows the “Tradition of the Church” and is not a canonical [=according to or ordered by canon law] act.

          • Listen: When you are asked a question, by a Priest, Bishop, or even the Pope, you are required to tell the truth. God said that when we were “hauled before authorities” not to study what to say: because the Holy Spirit would tell / inspire us at the time what to say. That’s all the authority you need.
            Illustration: I knew a generous rich lady of one well-to-do Novus Ordo Parish who left it for a small, poor new Anglican Ordinariate parish because their reverent, ad orientem liturgy ( and enthusiastic Eucharistic Adoration) was so reverent that her spirtual life “took off like a rocket” as her pastoral needs were better met there.
            Her former pastor, missing her large contributions, asked to see her and asked her point blank what she was getting at the AO that she hadn’t got at his parish.
            She answered, “Inspiring sermons helping me grow in the faith by explaining the hard sayings of the Gospels, and relating them to the challenges of living in our post-christian culture; and the example of personal holiness from a pastor dedicated to prayer in his own life, and who makes me long for and strive for a deep life of prayer and union with God in mine.”
            She told him the truth in a nice way, which challenged him to re-examine his own effectiveness (or lack thereof) as a pastor.
            She had the authority to do so because he asked her to tell him–whether he liked her answer didn’t matter.

            It also occurs to me that this exchange would never have taken place except that the lady “had the power of the pocketbook” which made her pastor eager for her opinion. This is why rich Catholics should consider carefully to which areas of Catholic Church they should give their support, and examine carefully how the funds to various charities are administered and spent. This, because some charities and bishops actually support birth-control and other programmes inimical to Church teaching. The gift of Riches demand intelligent stewardship.

          • I haven’t given in to frustration. That is your description. The laity certainly has proper authority in their own sphere. You attempted, and failed, to accuse the laity of usurping the role of the clerics because some of us have publicly criticized the pope, which is within our authority and rights as Catholic human beings, using reason and an informed conscience. Please let me know where I do not have that right and authority, using the Magisterium, teaching, tradition and so forth.

          • “The laity certainly has proper authority in their own sphere.”

            Yes. But that sphere isn’t the government of the Church.

            “Please let me know where I do not have that right and authority, using the Magisterium, teaching, tradition and so forth.”

            Jafin already answered this for you below – with the most relevant sections helpfully put in bold. Do let me know which part of it you don’t understand:

            Canon 212§3. “According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”

          • Not a reply. Again, you conflate the authority of the bishops with the right of Catholics to speak their mind.

          • No, I have been making the same consistent point all along:

            When laymen say the following: “St Paul opposed St Peter to his face therefore we can criticise the Pope” I point out that they are being too hasty:

            They are not successors to the Apostles so can’t follow in St Paul’s footsteps here.
            But not only that: there ARE successors to the Apostles who ARE (about) to do just that and we, as governed not governing Catholics, should WAIT and pray.

            Sure we can let our pastors know what we think – we have a duty to do so – I made that point also. But there is no way that the nature of your comments and those of others fulfil the spirit of Canon 212: you do NOT speak with reverence.
            You speak with hostility, frustration, anger and contempt.
            None of which are in the traditional list of fruits of the Holy Spirit last time I looked.

            If these two distinct points I’ve been consistently making remain unclear to you. If you think that I’m deliberately obfuscating or trying to conflate and confuse I suggest you take it up with a remedial teacher who can help you with basic comprehension.

          • You have been consistent in accusing Catholic lay people of attempting to usurp the governmental role of the bishops because they have criticized the pope and/or bishops. I comprehend perfectly your point of view. I do not agree with it. I have not accused you of hostility, frustration, anger or contempt, as you have accused me. I have been blunt in disagreeing with you. I have said nothing in this thread regarding the pope except what he has actually communicated to the world, so to accuse me of irreverence is also incorrect. I stand with Christ Jesus and Holy Mother Church. St. Joan of Arc said, “About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they’re just one thing.” If an angel came down from heaven, or a pope appeared and preached a different gospel, I would not follow, and I would shout to the rooftops to warn others. It would be my Christian duty to do so, before God and man. This is truly, in its essence, the right of spiritual self-defense for oneself and the brethren. The bishops have their authority to correct false teaching, which no lay person could usurp, even if they tried.

          • “hostility, frustration, anger or contempt” towards the Pope, not towards me. I don’t really give a fig about how you speak towards or about me. It isn’t about ME. It’s about the reverence we OWE – as part of the Virtue of Religion, itself part of the virtue of Justice – towards the successor of St Peter.

          • The focus of my comments has been almost entirely in response to your comments regarding the respective roles and duties of the laity and the bishops. You are now accusing me of irreverence, hostility and anger for the pope.

          • Hello my friend. God is with you. My name is Diego A. Prieto. 20 year old Catholic who’s speech at times indeed condemns Bergoglio. I have confessed this. Glory be to God, you have made me realize that, when a person does find substancial evidence as to Bergoglio being a heretic, (knowing the duty of any Christian bringing darkness out to light), it is important that when one states this for useful information and enlightenment of others, it is to be done _with _ the reminder that we have no authority to physically oppose him (unless it comes to us being told to sin, as you stated earlier), but the immense, alarming duty to pray for him. You have seen hostility and ignorance in what our brothers and sisters reply to you here. I think that the case is a lack of faith in prayer. A lack of understanding that by God we are the governed (as you have reminded me) by the body of Christ himself though infiltrated, and we are to obey at every moment except for when directly told to sin. We are to bring darkness out to light as a duty but with intentions of love. To those so angry and hostile towards what is going on, and understandably so, use this energy to pray, to fast, to sacrifice for the pope and God’s Church. Your prayer is more than you could ever do alone, is what you are allowed to do, and is what will enable you to do the right actions regarding this time of the church. With love, wisdom, confidence, and other God-given virtues. By all means however, it is every Chrisitian’s duty to bring darkness out to light. It is just a matter of how.

            Thank you ardenjm for enlightening me.

          • Are you suggesting that bishops should create a document, and task priest with posting it in all the bullitens, that say:

            Stop talking about the Dubia or you cannot receive communion????

          • I think a better term for “authority” of the laity is the “duty” to evangelize and to defend the faith according to our circumstances. And “Governmental” implies the State jurisdiction, not Church jurisdiction. Perhaps you mean “canonical” authority? That regulates the duties of our vocation. Every baptized & confirmed Catholic who is a parent or teacher has the canonical duty of passing on the authentic faith to their children / pupils; and to preach the gospel to their neighbours by witness of their life; and words when appropriate.

          • I understand your concern, I really do. But what I don’t see is any attempt at exercise of governmental authority. For as long as I can remember, OnePeterFive has simply reported what’s going on, and attempted to urge the Bishops to do something… which they’re now doing.

            What is wrong about exposing the error? If there is error, we need to know it’s error so we can oppose it. With the atrocious catechesis of the last 50 years or so, many Catholics don’t know what’s wrong with all of this. For some anecdotal evidence, my cousin (who is not Catholic, but protestant) dated a Catholic girl some time ago. She genuinely had no idea that sex before marriage was wrong. She went to mass, prayed the rosary, etc. She’d heard her grandma say something about premarital sex, but thought it was just prudish old-fashioned talk and had no idea it had anything to do with Church teaching. Needless to say, that relationship did not last. So how are Catholics with this level of spiritual anemia supposed to know what’s right and wrong, or if there is error coming from the Pope himself if no one reports it and calls it out? If the bishops are doing nothing, which for quite some time appeared to be the case, then isn’t it the duty of the faithful to educate their fellow faithful?

            There is no attempt at governmental usurpation here. There is only the effort to educate the faithful about what is happening in the Church, and what the truth about this, and other issues, is. No one acts as if they have, or would like to govern the Church. As you can see as you read there is no direct chastisement of the Holy Father. There is nothing but respect for his office and grave concern for what he is doing in that position. And it is of great comfort to the faithful to know that they are not alone in their concerns, and to know that the proper authorities, the cardinals, are in place dealing with the issues. After seeming years of complicity and sloth, we finally have some heroes to look to, who DO have the governmental authority to do something about the serious errors that permeate the church.

            EDIT: I would like to add a point… it is probably true that many of us, and I know myself for certain, have made some decisions about the present situation that, while based on solid evidence, we do not have the competence to make (for myself, deciding that, for certain, the Pope is a heretic and must be deposed.) While there is certainly evidence to prove this, it’s not in my competence to make that judgement and so I have repented and withhold that. Privately, I still suspect that will be the case, but that is just a guess, not a full blown judgement. I hope it’s not true. I really do.

          • And this is all very well and good – and balanced and sane and, well, Catholic.

            But two things:

            1. This particular article is based on hearsay – so it’s just a tad ‘butter wouldn’t melt in my mouth’ to hold up your hands and say, “We’re just reporting.”
            Sure. Then do so. I don’t think this article counts though.

            2. Whilst you might express yourself judiciously and with care – ask yourself the extent to which you foment (or at the very least give encouragement) to those who don’t see the nuances, don’t express themselves with care and who are now consistently accusing Pope Francis of being a heretic or as near as such – and who then get VERY cross indeed with those who urge restraint.

            I’ve only made a few posts and I’ve already been accused of being an idolater, a Fifth Columnist, an agent provocateur and a Jesuit.
            When people have given in to imaginative paranoia to that extent don’t you think you have a duty to be temperant in your reporting?


          • Well, I have no say in what’s reported. I simply help moderate the comments against trolls from both sides of this (ultra-libs and the sedes), as well as other sorts of riff-raff, and try to keep things civil within the confines of debate… but not too heavy-handed. That is my only official role here. Steve Skojec is the owner and operator of the site and only technical employee of 1P5. Everything goes by him first. Everyone else who writes articles is a contributor. I’d recommend contacting him directly if there’s a direct concern about the sort of articles posted. Seriously. There’s a contact link in the menus at the top of the page.

            As for this article, perhaps it could have been worded more clearly, but this is indeed hearsay as you said. I thought it was clear, but perhaps not. Something that Maike Hickson does, in all her articles for 1P5, and many of us appreciate, is reporting on what’s going on in the press in the German speaking world. This is a report about a report. I always make sure to take it as that. A fair amount of it turns out to be totally true at a future date too though.

            As regards the comments, well, as you probably noted, I did post, after seeing such accusations, was to remain civil. And I hope people listen.

            Thank you for keeping it civil, by the way, even if we don’t agree on every point. You are right about one thing at the very least though; the enemy wants to divide us, and the only means he really has for doing that is to convince some of us that one person is more “traditional” or more “Catholic” than another… and we can’t divide ourselves or cut off potential allies in the fight for the truth. And that’s what I think CM has done in their policies. 1P5 even has a post about just that thing, and it was reposted not too long ago. I think it would do everyone here good to take a look again.

          • After seeming years of complicity and sloth, we finally have some heroes to look to

            I’m living proof of the damage of the complicity and sloth from V II and the 70s. Is there anyone who has not been hurt by the bad or nonexistant teaching, the all paths lead to god philosophies, but nothing compares to the wildfire of the sexual revolutions that has burned town after town. And weakness in the church leadership is partially responsible for that IMHO….

          • So how are Catholics with this level of spiritual anemia supposed to know what’s right and wrong?

            How about going back to the formation of the faith that you bemoaned earlier in your post; catechesis. Plus the weapons of prayer and the Rosary. When the western schism was afflicting the Church they didn’t have the media publishing left right and centre, but they had their catechism and holy Mass and prayers. In fact the vast mass of the faithful were blissfully unaware. God was in control then as he is in today. We are being purified to have faith, hope and charity. Happy are those who don’t have access to the internet, television and the media, but do have their faith catechism and their prayers. I wish to God I was one of them.

            I believe that one can say that the pope is a material heretic, because that is rational and obvious, but to say he should be deposed is another thing because even the good Cardinals have not said that. They wish Peter to correct errors and come back to the faith.

          • Dear Paul,

            So how are Catholics with this level of spiritual anemia supposed to know what’s right and wrong? It’s written on our hearts.
            I agree with you about the pollution that fills the air: tv, internet and the media in general and prefer sites like 1P5, M. Charles Pope, Father Z and youtube for watching ArchBishop Fulton Sheen and great films about the saints.

            Have a great Christmas.

          • It is a great problem, is it not? But we are told to pray so that our prayers may be answered, that we may be guided to the perennial teachings of the Church. As I was when I returned to Holy Mother. Yes it is very distressing to witness the state of our dear Mother.

            I think that the sites like 1P5 are interesting to garner what is going on, but maybe we, as bloggers, are in danger of becoming armchair popes and bishops (armchair generals) and losing our sense of charity, which is the work of the devil. I know that I am guilty of seeking too much internet, too much searching of blogs, and not enough praying and sitting before the Eucharist. Allowing our indignation and despair to get the better of us. When we must sit tight and soldier on, and allow the good Lord to sort this diabolical disorientation out in His own way. We are all being purified in our faith, hope and charity.

            In Domino

          • Was Jesus uncharitable when he criticized the priests? When he overturned the moneychangers’ tables? I would say he was being charitable to all concerned. Those within sight and hearing received an object lesson regarding the house of God ; and the priests were no doubt humbled. Charitable in the extreme.

          • I don’t know where you are going with this argument SBT. Jesus is the Son of God, the supreme Priest and Victim. He is the source of all charity.

          • Dear Paul,

            Yes, agreeing with you on everything. For me 1P5 has been helpful in understanding more about the faith (I’m a badly formed Catholic) and what is truthfully happening within the church. I hope that through the sacraments and trying to living the faith his church is restored.

          • ” … don’t assume that when Cardinal Burke ‘opposes Francis to his face’ that you can somehow join in.”

            Well, Cardinal Newman thought that in the time of the Arian heresy the laity were inspired by Providence to ‘join in’ with Athanasius, and that Athanasius would have failed had they not done so.

            In one of his interviews Archbishop Schneider quotes John Henry Cardinal Newman as follows: “In that time of immense confusion the divine dogma of our Lord’s divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the ‘Ecclesia docta’ than by the ‘Ecclesia docens’; that the body of the Episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism; that at one time the pope, at other times a patriarchal, metropolitan, or other great see, at other times general councils, said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth; while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people, who, under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius of Vercellæ, and other great solitary confessors, who would have failed without them.”

          • I, too, want to thank your efforts. Do not stop, come what may.

            Besides your own family and friends, there are millions out there who need your work. You won’t know its value until the next life.

            Keep fighting and ignore the naysayers.

            Saint Bernadette was told by the Blessed Virgin: “I cannot promise you happiness in this life, only in the next.”

        • I am in good faith and respect your opinion. As a 35 year convert approaching the end of life, it is extremely depressing . Most especially when those you care about and others can throw the words of the Pope back at you. God Bless You.

          • In the end, Niggle is right:

            “It is a gift!”

            And of course there is always the Lady we call Ours.
            “All shall be well.”

      • This pope is TRANSPARENT. His goal is the destruction of the Church. Enough with the polite nonsense. Our ancestors would have handled him physically a long time ago.

        • Violence is not the answer. However bad a pope he may be, he is still the Pope. We must follow his teachings when he is right and not follow him when he is wrong. The spiritual works of mercy include correcting sinners, and counciling the doubtful and educating the ignorant. We must do each of these things according to our role in life — expecially when people we know living in sin brightly say, “Wow — now we can go to Holy Communion now !”–and we must teach our children true dogma so that they can’t be misled by heretical clergy– such as those who say “nobody really goes to Hell because God is merciful”

          • Baloney. Violence sometimes is the answer. Before Vatican II the nuns regularly administered corporal punishment. And guess what? We had orderly schools with disciplined students. The Catholic Church has used violence in the past to deal with heretics and it was very effective. If the Church gave floggings to priests caught engaging in sodomy or if the laity tarred and feathered modernist priests, the modernist problem would go away. It is only we have became a completely emasculated society that people won’t even consider this option.

          • Peter, in “the good old days” there weren’t civil and criminal laws against physical discipline, and now there are. Anyone doing what you suggest will find themselves behind bars pretty quick.

            And, psychologists now know (they didn’t used to, and gave bishops erroneous advice) that pederasty is incurable and the current policy should be, “One strike and you’re out.” Reform of seminaries (which is ongoing) should now be able to screen out unsuitable candidates for the priesthood.

            Violence against heretics in the middle ages didn’t “cure” heretics of heresy, it just made them give insincere recantations. You can’t change a man’s mind by beating or burning him. Modernism is rampant in the church as a way of thinking, and a set of warped values, and only the grace of conversion is going to change hearts and minds. Only the Blessed Virgin (to whom Our Lord has entrusted the peace of the world) can by a miracle convert wicked priests and bishops. This is part of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart for which we pray the rosary. Our sufferings are putting up with the present state of affairs– “How long, O Lord”? Never mind. Keep praying, The chastisement is at the door, and when it comes it will kill both the just and the unjust; i really don’t mind if I die, if my grandchildren can grow up in a church and a culture that is pure and godfearing and not materialist.

    • Why do you think these brave Cardinals have stepped out in front of the juggernaut if not for the fact that they have heard the concerns of thousands of clergy and laity? Cardinal Burke was not lying when he stated that he is hearing confusion and concern coming from everywhere. These four men need our loud and vociferous support if they are to stand a chance of facing down this carefully planned and premeditatated assault on the Church of God. Loud voices and “mess” are the only things that count in some quarters.

      As confirmed Catholics we are all of us soldiers of Christ with the mission to defend the faith wherever it is endangered. We are well beyond the point of “docility”. These are not high-browed, arcane points of doctrine which are under dispute, but fundamental revealed dogmas of the faith which have been viewed as settled from the time of the Apostles until 2013. We should not ease up on the pressure one jot because of human respect for the man who of his own free will took supreme power and then chose to wield it against the teaching of Christ.

      • The hearsay of this article is the starting point for my remarks.

        But more generally: Traditionalists get in a tiswas when they see the fuss-pot Readers, Liturgy Animators, Eucharistic Ministers, various announcers, swarming all over the sanctuary during Holy Mass. And they likewise get frustrated when Priests (and Bishops) turn in to Social Justice Warriors as if they have a competence in the secular domain.
        And I understand those frustrations – I really do:

        Let the laity be lay men and lay women and the clergy, clergy.

        Accordingly: let the Cardinals try their best – and let us support them (and the Pope) with our prayers that their efforts bear fruit.

        Instead of that, what I see are busy-bodying laymen and women spoiling for a fight. Against the Pope!
        It’s unseemly.
        And not Catholic.
        Dress it up as you might with your Fidei Defensor rallying cry.
        We know how one hot- headed layman in 16th century England launched in to that stalwart defense of the Faith – and we know how it finished. Henry VIII is hardly an example to follow.

        • “Instead of that, what I see are busy-bodying laymen and women spoiling for a fight. Against the Pope!
          It’s unseemly.
          And not Catholic.”

          Oh really? Well let me call it how I see it. What I see are busy-bodying cowardly laymen trying to downplay the scalding forest fire that is now engulfing our homes and burning our children to death. And these same cowards who refuse to fight the fire have the gall to blame the firemen and those rushing to the well because they themselves are too proud and arrogant and have no love of Christ but wish to prop themselves up as ‘Catholic’ and look down on the people actually fighting in the trenches from their perch of indignant piety.
          Dress yourself up all you want as some reasonable soft-spoken nice fella’ We know how many likewise laymen and clergy decided to play nice and never say a word and pretend that everything is fine while boasting about their lukewarmness. God and the saints have nothing but contempt for these people who make the likes of Henry VIII possible.

          Thanks for nothing.

          • When you’re calmer and have come down off your moral high horse you’ll realize the following:

            1. You know nothing about me, what I’ve done nor how I ‘fight’ this ‘fire’.
            2. You’ve been imaginatively projecting – and that’s embarassing.
            3. Your over-emotional virtue signaling (another Savior of the Church!) produces more heat than light, ironically enough.

            Mind how you go.

          • Neither angry in the way you mean, nor liberal by any definition, nor watered down in relation to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Canon law (including 212.3).
            Click on my disqus profile and you’ll not find one comment that fits your description.
            Which leads me to conclude that you’re making stuff up simply because I DO sound like a traditional Catholic in respect to the way we should speak about the Succesor of St Peter and that gives YOU an uneasy conscience – which, if you share the sentiments of some on here who speak about the Pope in ways which would make Our Lady blush – is an uneasy conscience that you should have, frankly.

          • I think Cardinal Brandmuller’s words sum up the present problem – that is what every Catholic worth their salt should be concerned about “Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and the reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism.” Holy Scripture, according to Brandmüller, is not a place where everybody can pick what he likes: “We are, according to the Apostle St. Paul, administrators of the mysteries of God, but not holders of the right of disposal.”

            We are well past trying to shore up this pontificate which staggers from bad to worse and when souls are at stake that should be the primary concern which is the reason for the dubia of the good cardinals. May God bless them and keep them and give them strength in whatever they have to do.

          • Look here precious.

            I don’t have to be ‘calm’ (what you actually want is for me to be is ‘nice’ and to not ‘hurt your feelings’) I can use anger perfectly rationally. Anger is a perfectly created emotion God exercises and has also created us to have and utilize when justified.

            Now while your leg is still trapped to your horse dragging you along the ground as it runs for the cliff, please consider the following:

            1. Nobody cares who you are or what you’ve done. We are taking you to task for your actions and words here. Yes, yes, I’m certain you are a great saint in your secret hidden holy life. Please publish your memoirs when you have the opportunity.

            2. I’m not projecting. ‘Projecting’ would be me in the context of my above post attributing to you something that I myself am guilty of which makes no sense in this context given that I am confronting you whilst correcting you for not being confrontational enough with regards to this Papacy. Which I certainly on my part am, and for which you yourself agree about me seeing as how you have gotten upon said crazy-horse to come in here and chastise us all for doing so.

            3. I’ve simply turned your own silly words against you, and now you’ve exposed your own hypocrisy given how you yourself have come strutting in here with your emperor’s clothing, virtue-signaling name tag, and gone about tut-tut-ing everyone else here by yourself presuming who we are and what we think and that we should think like you.
            I’ll mind how I go. And if you can’t deal with the same heat that you yourself have no problem producing in your hypocrisy, I recommend you mind not letting your butt hit the door on your way out.

          • Yeah, well, whatever:
            1. You’re still pontificating
            2. You’re still projecting
            3. You’re a bit of a bully-boy who likes to huff and puff his moral indignation AGAINST THE SUCCESSOR OF ST PETER.

            Truly, I do not understand the Catholics on here who think that they are in a position to CONDEMN THE POPE.

            Does this mean that I agree with Pope Francis?
            Nope. I don’t.
            Does this mean that I don’t think concerned Catholics shouldn’t express their concern?
            Nope. They should.

            But even if you do not like or respect the man, Francis, you MUST respect his office and speak with care. We shall have to answer to God for all our words and deeds.

          • You assume that respecting the office is identical to respecting the man. And you attempt to hammer us on this point. No longer works, courtesy of the heinous words and acts of Francis himself. Indeed, respect for the office demands we oppose the desecration Francis visits upon it and Holy Mother Church.

          • “You assume that respecting the office is identical to respecting the man.”

            Below, in one place, are the occasions where I’ve said the exact opposite!
            That you so easily misrepresent me – even though my words are in black and white and easily scrolled up and down to – is yet more evidence of your wilfulness. This is not good. Or maybe you’re just not very bright. In which case I can do nothing for you. Sorry.

            1. “let us be mindful, then, of his office even if he is not.”
            2. “even if you do not like or respect the man, Francis, you MUST respect his office and speak with care.”
            3. “BUT the Pope is the Pope and our (legitimate) criticisms must never lose sight of his office – even (perhaps especially) if he lose sight of it himself.”
            4. “we will be judged on our own actions, Pope Francis on his: let us be mindful, then, of his office even if he is not.”

          • Oh, then you agree the pope needs to be vigorously opposed! You just think we are going about it wrong and need to be silent and reverent. Gotcha.

          • “let us be mindful, then, of his office even if he is not.”

            Could it be that that is precisely why people are upset? That we are mindful of his office and mindful of how he is tarnishing it? It’s like protecting the Papacy from the Pope.

          • ardenjm Reasonable enough. What seems to be of concern here is the actions of Pope Francis, and not his person. Personal theology is never permitted. More information is needed.

          • I respect the Pope — but I will not follow his teaching when he burbles heresy.
            And it is my duty to warn (not to “stay quiet out of misplaced respect”) those for whom I am responsible for teaching the faith when this or any pope contradicts settled dogma of the church.

          • 1. Hypocrite
            2. You still don’t know what projection actually is and are now further embarrassing yourself
            3. Hypocrite
            You’ve been called out numerous times here by many others. But feel free to continue digging your hole and falsely accusing others and making erroneous opinions. Feel free to point out where precisely I’ve insulted the Office of the Pope.
            C’mon Liar. Let’s see it.

          • Don’t alienate allies. Look at more posts from ardenjm and you’ll see he’s on board that Francis is posing very real problems. He’s only warning us about sinning against piety by speaking inappropriately about the Holy Fathet, no matter the problems we have with his teachings.

            Ardenjm makes a point that (correct me if I get this wrong) that we should remain docile in our attitude toward the Pope and let the cardinals do what they do and see what happens, while of course rejecting erroneous teachings. I don’t entirely agree but you know what? That’s ok. We’re on the same side, and I don’t mind being challenged once in awhile to rethink how I’m behaving. We all should welcome a little fraternal challenge once in awhile.

            So let’s keep the vitriol down, the name calling and accusations of hypocrite and liar can go away, and have a civil, vigorous, even heated discussion. You don’t have to agree… but don’t be a jerk. It’s not becoming of us.

          • Why do we have to degenerate into this petty squabbling? What about us is different here – different from the “world.” Our Lord Jesus said we would be known as His disciples by the love we have for each other.

            If there are specific points of disagreement that do not amount to a great deal – or are a matter of opinion they can be passed over.

            Get on with commenting on the post!!!!

          • Of course, Mike. But what we read here sometimes is not debate about important issues but personal invective aimed at someone who makes a statement opposing our own ideas. There is a great deal of opinion splashed about, but very little reasoned debate about concrete theology, Church teachings, or specific ideas.

            Sometimes the squabbling takes up the majority of the comment section in particularly polarizing cases and the result is anger and frustration – and an almost total obscuring of the original point.

          • this sounds like a VERY important issue to me and hits to the heart of the crisis we are in.

          • Johnno, Very well stated. There are too many cowardly and “practical” protestants masquerading as Catholics. No one still living on Earth is safe from personal error, INCLUDING every sacramental minister. IF comments about Pope Francis’s “concern for his legacy” and “seething with rage” are true, then dangerous pride has take over the person. I really hope this is not the case, but one must always stay vigilant. Satan and company are extremely clever and long range planners and have many centuries of practice of steering saintly people off the spiritual road and into the ditch. To rephrase an old saying, the devils know how to boil a frog.
            I am both pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II and have a long perspective that young people do not have. I am witnessing a very gradual and almost indiscernible erosion of historical Catholic teachings and practices. While Vatican II should have blended the better elements of Novas Ordo into the “traditional” faith (Holy Mass, in particular), the outcome was a near total rejection of the “old way”. The new way resulted in a skim-milk version of Catholicism. IF Pope Francis is attempting to promote a “personal theology”, then he definitely would be running the risk of schism.
            I am definitely interested in seeing how this threatening situation will play out. (Getting accurate and complete information is always a problem.)

          • PF’s intentions are so clear and obvious that his secret mission has started, from the beginning of his office attacking Jesus’ teachings and Church’s doctrines. The most effective way to eliminate Catholic Church is (he said before) to get rid of all conservative bishops and makes the Catholic Church just looks like any other protestant church and lures the Church into the fold of NWO church. He has already caused a lot of damages, but never be completely successful. His arrogance makes him totally blind, forget to realize that the Roman Catholic Church is Christ’s Church and Jesus is his omnipotent God. Domine, libera nos a malo.

          • Many years ago, I had great theological discussions in India and Ceylon. Indeed, the catholic priests have picked up the nature of the new trends in the Catholic church very clearly. There, in that part of the world, the Catholic church has to prove herself everyday because of the multiple other religions. They felt genuinely sorry for the new developments and much earlier than the lazy and arrogant Church in the comfortable Western World has noticed any changes. Devil’s great strategy is that he can appear pretty “holy”. A little booklet given to me back then has provided a brilliant analysis and a prophecy and I treasure it. The fruits we see now.

          • You’re reading backwards from the Henry VIII we came to see later on in his reign.

            Earlier in his youth he was awarded by the Pope with the title Defendor of the Faith precisely because he wrote so ardently and well against the heresies of Martin Luther – and defended the 7 sacraments from Luther’s attacks.

            Didn’t end well though, did it…

          • Reading backwards? I am well aware that Henry upheld the Catholic faith against Luther in his earlier days. Then, it seems, he fell from grace – big! Are you implying that if we criticize a pope doctrinally (cf mine on John XXII et al. below this). we have fallen from grace like Henry? He sinned against married fidelity; we are upholding it. Now do you spot the difference?

        • Perhaps you have heard of another 16th century layman who was a stalwart defender of the Faith against Henry VIII? Thomas More’s defiance of the tyrant has been awarded by the Church raising him to her altars. Why would we not follow his example rather than a sovereign who attempted to justify adultery? It is the saints who set examples to follow – not kings or popes. In this case we have a pope who seems determined to follow Henry VIII.

          • You missed my point – but you make it for me here without realising it:

            Two laymen in 16th century England started out as devout Catholics – defending Tradition against its enemies. Indeed some say it was More (or Fisher) who wrote Henry’s Defense of the 7 Sacraments.
            By the mid 1530s one of those devout traditional Catholic laymen had become a heretical and schismatic tyrant who martyred the other…
            My point was: Do you think devout, pious, traditionalist Henry VIII would have believed you back in 1520 that just 10 years later he’d be killing Catholics in the name of a new religion?

          • I am sure he didn’t. Do you think Pope Benedict XVI would have believed you back in 2006 that just 10 years later his successor would be killing Catholic souls in the name of a new religion – while he looked on in silence?

          • I’ll let you take that up with a moderator I guess.

            Jafin’s post below on Canon 212 is the best response given the accusations you make here.

          • Why is that controversial? The sin of scandal is a sin against the 5th Commandment precisely because leading others into sin kills their souls. What is not scandalous about telling people that committing adultery might be what God is asking of them?

          • I think some people may not be fully aware of the gravity of what the Pope has signed his name to in AL. The Cardinals who have submitted the dubia have not done so for trivial reasons.

          • I am guessing that Pope Benedict remains silent to prevent scandal; knowing that the Holy Spirit will raise up holy people: a few bishops, many laity– who will speak the truth and prevail to save the Church.

          • And to follow Luther as well!.

            “Pope Francis has praised the 1960s German moral theologian Bernard Häring, one of the most prominent dissenters from Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, for his new morality which the pope said helped “moral theology to flourish.” ‘ -lifesitenews

            We know what Jorge is about.

          • Indeed. Isn’t it appalling that when it comes to adulltery a Pope could make the same errors as a 16th century English King who managed to split the Church? Perhaps the lessons of history are inaccessible to those people who think that history began at Vatican II.

          • Sir that dig is superfluous. And yes it is truly appalling that a pope has done this. The lessons of history, as you well know, can not be drawn from the example of a king – granted a tyrant – and that of a pope. St Thomas More refused to perjure himself. Likewise the same with Bishop Fisher. The Church is an hierarchical society which follows its own rules, and those rules are that only the bishops can challenge him. As is happening. We play no part in the juridical process that is underway. We pray that through this process Francis will revert to the perennial teaching of the Church. It is not becoming to throw invective at the Holy Father, when neither the theologians nor the cardinals have done so.

          • No. I agree. And bishops and theologians are not. And yes the laity have a part to play in instigating action from their prelates. But in that order

          • Most importantly, it is not merciful. It is no mercy to call evil good, or good evil. (Scripture has a few things to say about that!) I sometimes think of it this way: If I as a parent were to see my child going down a road that would get him killed, would I be a good parent if I stood back and said nothing?

            The spiritual works of mercy include counseling the doubtful, teaching the ignorant and admonishing the sinner. True charity does not let the wolf into the sheepfold to kill all the sheep.

          • “And so we should consider whether we may, without sin, avoid scandalising our neighbour– If scandal can come from telling the truth, it is more fitting to give rise to scandal, than that the truth should be concealed.”
            –Pope St. Gregory the Great (Homily on Ezekiel 1:18)

        • I bet you have no clear definition for Traditionalist. What you see are people fighting to ensure that the pope follows Jesus Christ and not create a church of his own making.

        • The Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus was convened when a layman publicly shouted: “THAT IS HERESY!” to Nestorius in the Cathedral in Constantinople. So a dogmatic council of the Church came about because ONE layman publicly spoke up. No one knows his real name but he is given the name Theophilus – the friend of God – for defending the Divine Maternity of Our Lady.

          So every time you say the Angelical Salutation, remember “Theophilus”.

          • As nit-picking as this will sound, Margaret, that layman – inspired no doubt by the Holy Spirit in a particular moment and place – to carry a message to the Church nevertheless was inspired to say this:

            “That [teaching] is heresy!”

            This is significantly different than the following denunciation:
            “You [person – successor of St Peter!] are a heretic!”

            Now, God spare us from this ever happening, but the latter is not something we have the authority to enunciate – even should our sensus fidei equip us, as it did your Theophilus, with the ability to detect the heresy in the teaching. The authority to declare someone a heretic is a Magisterial one – and it is invested in the successors of the Apostles. Moreover, in this unprecedented situation of it even being talked about that a Pope be accused of formal heresy (rather than material heresy or equivocation or a theological opinion that was never magisterially taught as such) I’d still want to ask whether it can only be (a majority of?) the College of Cardinals – or even a Church council – which possesses the authority to depose a Pope.

            A lot of people on here seem to have moved from the one – condemning erroneous teaching – to the other: condemning the Pope.
            And that worries me – because the Devil exploits that:
            “Like a roaring lion your adversary the devil prowls around, looking for someone to devour” seem apposite in this context.

          • No one here needs to condemn Francis as a heretic. Francis condemns himself.

            All one needs to do is compare what he speaks against Scripture, Tradition, the teachings of the Magisterium, the Councils, etc. — as is done on the Denzinger-Bergoglio website. Side by side: this is what the Church teaches, this is what the deposit of faith says and here is what Francis says and teaches.

            I do not have that type of expertise to make those comparisons. The anonymous priests who run that site seem well versed in Church history and teaching and the documents they site are easily researched and validated. With the dubia, the process is underway by those with the responsibility to take action.

            What I see as fruit: confusion and uncertainty, discord and division. What I see are things that cause me to feel great discomfort within my soul. I will pray for his conversion and I will respect the office of the Pope. When his words contradict what the Church teaches, I will do the opposite of what he says and treat him as a negative example.

            I think the parish priests are well aware of the consternation Francis is causing among the laity. I just had this conversation yesterday and the priest’s response was “Why do you let him scandalize you? Why do you pay attention to him? He can’t change the doctrines of the Church. The Holy Spirit has it all under control. Be at peace.”

          • Bishops in Malta??? No this pope is schismatic and needs challenged and, yes, prayed for his conversion.

          • As a lay Catholic, I understand that I lack the jurisdictional competency to say Pope Francis is a heretic (or not) and have no intention of making any such claims. Yet, I also cannot help but be informed (and alarmed) by statements from Pope Francis when assessed by sources such as “The Denzinger-Bergoglio” that should make a discerning layperson take notice; especially when recognizing that more than just a few of P Francis’s statements run specifically contrary to settled Magesterial principles and doctrines.

            At a time when Pope Francis (and the USCCB) militantly advocates in favor of mass immigration of Muslims, violent crime and sexual assault associated with that decision skyrockets with groups like ISIS openly calling for murderous predatory violence against, among others, Christians. I worry that when such violence hits a tipping point after some violent event (or series of violent events), the same Church leadership that has profoundly misread its own faithful will face its wrath – along with many non-Catholics.

            As a lay person, I cannot compete with theologians but do have a basic knowledge of my faith. I also know the dialectic, can spot it when I see it, and see it from Pope Francis in spades. When Church leaders say they accept Church Tradition, the Magisterium etc, but then do the opposite in the name of being “pastoral,” how is that not positioning Tradition as thesis, with “being pastoral” as the anti-thesis?

            I do NOT believe Pope Francis is a Marxist as he has clearly stated as such and I have no reason to believe he is lying. But his flirtation with the dialectic consistently puts him visibly in that camp. Walk the corridors of power in Washington DC and one finds that both the left and right position Pope Francis and the USCCB in the uncentered left (not saying that’s fair, just that it is). Wasn’t the dialectic condemned in Humani Generis? (Yes!)

            When Francis makes an off-the-cuff remark every once and while, or gets stung by interviews with leftist journalists like Scalfari once, that can reasonably be explained away. But when it becomes a preferred form of communications, then it becomes more appropriate to understand that behavior as part of an information campaign. When Francis states his support for a Church doctrine in a formal Catholic forum but then says something quite different in an impromptu media venue, he imposes the dialectic in a way that forces a negation of the specific element in question on the one hand while making a defense of that point a practical impossibility on the other.

            I have enough irons in the fire and don’t need or plan to take on the issue of Pope Francis’s questionable conduct. But I know what I see, can articulate it, and what I see is greatly concerning. As the high priest of the Temple in Jerusalem was, in many respects, the forerunner to that of the popes, I’ve often pondered the reason for Maccabees in the Old Testament as it does chronicle the historic role of lesser priests deposing a corrupt high priest and then purifying the Temple (and celebrated as Hanukkah).

            I also ponder St Nicholas. When in a Coptic Church in N Africa, I saw an Icon of Nicholas and in the bottom corner was a depiction of him smacking Arious. I don’t make this obvious because I am calling for violence, but simply to note a quiet surprise that priests haven’t been more vocal in defending the Church.

          • Read up a little more on St. Nicholas punching Arius. Our Lord and Our Lady personally vindicated his action. It’s a beautiful story really!

          • From reading up about St Nicholas, I now have an icon of him and ponder him as I think of the Gnosticism and Arianism of our time and pray.

            Of course, from my initial post above, the point to note is that anything done in the name of being pastoral that can reasonably be shown to be the antithesis to the thesis of Church doctrine should be understood to be deliberately antithetical to the Faith.

            This is true regardless of whether those operating under the sway of the dialectic are subjectively aware. In this, as ordained clerics, I associate them with professionals that have a duty to know the objects of their profession, in this instance God and Tradition, and hence hold them to the knowing standard – that they either know or should have known the faith enough to recognize its negation. I don’t do this to make judgments on them but rather I find when I ponder the issue that that is the thinking that controls my thinking.

          • There’s a picture of the Blessed Mother punching the devil.

            Quite different from Eve having a congenial conversation with him.

            With regards the father of lies, we can’t pussy foot.

          • So now, it looks like there will inevitably be a “declaration” about Francis in the near future. The “Four” are setting this up as we speak.

            In the likely scenario – that they issue this formal correction, Francis digs his heels in, and they declare that he is a heretic and no Pope – how will you know that they represent the true hierarchy, and have the authority to do so, and not a splinter group of usurpers and conclavists? Whoever takes the side of the Four will be in the minority. Which side will you take? Will you need another Magisterial declaration to know who’s right?

            Eventually you will have to make a private judgement, probably based upon the orthodoxy or otherwise of the side that you back. Yet you don’t know if someone’s a heretic for professing heresy. God gave you Faith and Reason, and He expects you to use them.

          • But I’ve never been in doubt of what I think and believe, Mike, and smile ruefully at those on here who tell me that I must be a Liberal Catholic or not in favour of robust language.
            The diagnosis of the situation I take no exception to – as Jafin’s level-headed reading of my posts accurately understands.
            My issue was with the way certain posters speak about the Pope and how the Evil One exploits their anger. They see it as righteous anger, of course, and for my part I counsel circumspection. Canon 212 as Jafin rightly pointed out again requires lay people to have an appropriate level of competence and to speak with reverence – even when expressing their disapproval.
            Actually, this is how Cardinal Burke expresses himself – and, I expect, is how his Eminence will express himself when it comes to the inevitable correction.
            Others on here, however, spitting feathers of anger, think this is standing up for the Faith or the Church. But basically it strikes me more as a lack of Hope…

          • Right’s right if nobody’s right. Wrong’s wrong if everybody is wrong.
            “Any man more right than his neighbours constitutes a majority of one.” (Henry David Thoreau)
            We know that in the end, only a faithful remnant remains with Christ. I should therefore think that the prospect of your being in the minority, and excrated by the majority who want you to believe that might makes right, would reassure you. . . 🙂

          • Well, Bishops are also successor of Apostles.

            And while the phrasing is indeed better with Theophilus, it is also true that one who holds and manifests heretical teaching is a a heretic.

            It’s really not much different saying someone is committing adultery and telling him he is an adulterer.

          • Is that true? Because that is incredibly amazing. I can picture it: packed Cathedral and the bishop spouting heresy. The others think like this Theophilus guy but they won’t say anything. Then he yells it like it is. Wow!

            The Lord grant us the courage to be Theophilus.

        • “But more generally: Traditionalists get in a tiswas when they see the fuss-pot Readers, Liturgy Animators, Eucharistic Ministers, various announcers, swarming all over the sanctuary during Holy Mass. And they likewise get frustrated when Priests (and Bishops) turn in to Social Justice Warriors as if they have a competence in the secular domain.

          And I understand those frustrations – I really do:”

          I wonder if you really do understand the very real and serious concerns of Traditional Catholics, who btw, are faithful Catholics. A tiswas? really?

          I shall speak for myself. Yes, I do believe there is a very real battle raging, and it started long before this pope. And now we are at the point of possibly ” no return”, from an earthy standpoint, if Pope Francis continues with his energized zeal which bears poor fruit now and will in the future. Shall we turn a blind eye from his letter to the Argentinian bishops?
          How about his many distasteful, crude and hostile statements to those faithful and traditional Catholics he deems as ” psychological inept”? Do you REALLY want me to go on here?

          Our Lord gave us emotions for a reason, and yes, we must not get carried away with personal vendetta against Francis. And OnePeterFive has NEVER done that, and you know it. Do you not read the very beautiful and spiritually filled articles that are published throughout here? Do you really believe that this is some “witch hunt” to scapegoat Francis for the last 50 years? Francis now sits in the Chair and it is his duty to defend the faith! And it is the laity’s duty to support those cardinals and bishops likewise in doing so. None of us our ” big shots” here. We understand we are just the laity and have no authority in Rome or within the endless Councils, Congregations of this and that in the Vatican. Who would want to?

          Yes, I am in battle with a very diabolical seduction that Francis is thrusting upon the Catholic Church. You better believe it. There is too much at stake here.

        • 60 million children have been killed, legally, by their own mothers, because of no one spoke up. Least of all bishops. . How many lives have been ruined by the sexual revolution, and now we are suppose to sit by and let a POPE GIVE HIGH FIVES TO ADULTERERS?

        • “Who is going to save our Church? Do not look to the priests. Do not look to the bishops. It’s up to you, the laity, to remind our priests to be priests and our bishops to be bishops.” -Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen

          Archbishop Sheen was right, as usual. Our pastors cannot lead us out of the current crisis in the Catholic Church, because they, as a group, do not recognize the nature of the crisis. In fact, despite the abundant evidence all around us, they are not prepared to admit that there is a crisis. They do not see the problem, because they are the problem.

          • First: Our Lord saved the Church already – neither clergy nor laity have that work to do – which I’m sure the great Ap Sheen would agree with.
            Second: He speaks of reminding the clergy of their role. One of the roles of Bishops is governance of the Church – munus regendi. Lay people do NOT participate in that ‘munus’. We are the governed, not the governing. So whatever else Ab Sheen meant he certainly did NOT mean what you say here:

            “Our pastors cannot lead us out of the current crisis in the Catholic Church… They do not see the problem, because they are the problem.”

            I’m afraid ONLY the Shepherds are allowed to lead the Faithful since that is the way Our Lord instituted His Church. Whether you know it or not, what you are saying here is revolt (for understandable reasons!) but revolt nevertheless:

            Too many of our shepherds might be false but that does not mean that the sheep start to govern themselves. They are scattered. As we are now seeing. They need to enter into contemplative SILENCE in order to hear the voice of the Good Shepherd – and, to mix metaphors – to “follow the Lamb wherever He goes.” Instead of which they are bleating and running around like headless chickens.

            Ask yourself: how might the Devil be exploiting our breathlessly sharing the latest scandal to come from Rome? He’s not called the Divider for nothing.
            Flock – we need to be cannier. And keep our heads.

          • Lol. Contemplative silence, eh? You are a stitch! That is just what the laity must not do regarding the words and actions of Francis. All that evil asks is to be let alone. It does it’s work quietly, such as the priest sex abuse scandal (see the Daily Mail of 12/23 for pedophile priests in Argentina attacking deaf youth because no one could hear their screams…such a horribly apt metaphor). The laity have awoken. We stand with the Four Cardinals, and we will not be silent.

          • Sigh. I asked above whether, in fact, you’re just not very bright – and as reluctant as I am to conclude that that’s the case – it’s the position I’m coming around to.

            Contemplative silence doesnt mean mute acquiescence.
            We speak FROM a place of prayerful, contemplative silence: this is what Our Lady teaches us. She who ‘pondered in her heart’ all that had been said to her.
            Surely you don’t have a problem with imitating Our Lady?
            Did the pontificate of John Paul II pass you by?
            Have you not read St Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort?

            If we don’t have that contemplative, Marian, silence at the heart of all that we are, do and say then we slip in to agitation and noise-making and risk become tools in the hands of Satan.

          • Please practice what you preach Ardenjm. Would the Blessed Mother teach us to speak this way to our brothers and sisters?
            ” in fact, you’re just not very bright – and as reluctant as I am to conclude that that’s the case – it’s the position I’m coming around to”
            Reading through all these posts you have generated. Division where there should be unity, we finally get down to it. You insult those that will disagree with you.
            Thanks for reminding me that these comboxes are all too often a devilish waste of precious time and energy and now im off to go and do something productive.
            I respectfully suggest to my fellow Catholics that you ignore Ardenjms ego bait.

          • Oh, I’m sorry, snowflake, I didn’t realise you were so sensitive. I should have been clearer.
            I’m not bothered by people using robust language with me – nor using it myself. It’s not ideal, I appreciate, and it’s a failing which I hope, with God’s grace, I shall overcome.
            My issue was that people denounce Pope Francis as an agent of the devil – failing to show the respect they OWE as part of the virtue of religion to the Sovereign Pontiff.

          • Denouncing a pope “as an agent of the devil” is not wrong if in fact that is the truth. If (NB) it is true, what could possibly be wrong in saying that?

            The history of the Church is replete with popes who were, in fact, “agents of the devil” insofar as they were doing evil things.

            Sergius III was a wicked pope and was strongly opposed by prelates and laity alike.

            And let’s not even mention John XII.

          • *moderator hat goes on*

            Ok everybody, let’s calm down with the personal attacks. I’m all for vigorous and even heated debate, but personal insults are not necessary. I posted a similar PSA earlier, but it’s fallen further in the comments so you all get a second reminder. Keep it civil and keep it Catholic! We don’t all have to agree, but we do have to remember who we are. We’re Catholics. Don’t let the enemy divide us over little things. He WANTS us to lay accusations on each other, to call people liars, snowflakes, liberals, to go beyond our competence… he wants us so occupied on what’s wrong with a brother that we miss what’s truly important.

            It’s Christmas people! So let’s act like it! While there is no truce in the war for souls, let there be a truce among those of us fighting on the same side.

            Now… don’t anybody make me put this moderator hat on again. It gets hot and my ban hammer starts feeling heavy! I REALLY don’t want it fall on anybody here. I like you all too much!

            *moderator hat comes off, Santa hat goes on*

            Merry Christmas!!

            this comment is not intended solely for the person replied to, but all who read it

          • Oh piffle SBT. You’re just peeved because I called you out on the fact that your intemperate language about the Sovereign Pontiff is uncatholic.
            End of.

          • Now we get to the root of it…clericalism. A mere man, elevated to the position of Vicar of Christ, should be allowed to speak heresy without rebuke from other mere men, by virtue of his office? The man and his office are identical? Nay, the man makes or breaks the office by his words and actions. Criticism will and must be attributed to the man as long as he refuses to renounce his errors and persists in them. You and I will be held accountable to God for silence in the face of attacks against Holy Mother Church by the chief shepherd. It is better to be a God-pleaser than a man-pleaser. Man-pleasing often descends into idolatry.The laity speaking out against the errors may very well help the pope and his supporters to reflect and repent on those statements. God works in mysterious ways.

          • Abp. Sheen specifically says to remind the priests and bishops of their calling… not to say they’re the problem. Yes, our shepherds have let us down, failed us, let the wolves in. But that’s why we need to cry out! Remind them of their calling, and of our distress! Our Lord has not abandoned us, and these men are still bishops and priests, and their ordinations have imparted them with sacramental grace that Our Lord can use to turn their hearts, but we must remind them of the grave that’s there if they just accept it. Even Francis can convert… or perhaps especially him.

        • Dear Ardenjm,

          Sorry to interject but from reading what you have written it would be a surprise if you were a liberal kumbya sort of person not that this makes any difference.

          Are conveying the best defense against the current situation is the path of mass, confession, adoration and prayer and living the life? If it’s yes, 100% with you on this route.

          Can we agree that the line within the “I confess to almighty God” clearly states “in what I have done and in what I have failed to do” and that if we do nothing in the sense of trying to stand true to all of the teachings of the church we are in effect culpable by standing by and doing nothing?

          Have a great Christmas.

          • Dear Paul, What an odd one line statement, without any courtesy.

            It’s not as simple as that one statement and yes off course I pray for the Pope.

            Have a joy filled Christmas.

          • Christopher – believe me: NOT a liberal here!
            For your tactical list I agree whole-heartedly.
            I know I’m verbose and people have limited time but if you read my posts you’ll see that I agree with the diagnosis that people make and I agree that lay people must express their misgivings.
            Where I part company with many who post on here is the way they denounce Pope Francis in a way which, quite simply, I cannot imagine Our Lady (Destroyer of All Heresies!) doing.
            I’m quite bellicose myself online and have no problem with it. BUT the Pope is the Pope and our (legitimate) criticisms must never lose sight of his office – even (perhaps especially) if he lose sight of it himself.
            Really, that’s all I’m saying.

            Just for the record: The modernism crisis is reaching its apotheosis. Various Supreme Pontiffs failed to do enough to stem its effects within the Church – and I include Pope Pius XII amongst them – but I’m not naive: The Bishops of Vatican II were nearly all educated in the 1910s to 1930s. Think about that for a second. Vatican II emerged from the Pre-Vatican 2 Church. It’s a truism but it’s important. We see the ruptures post Vatican 2 as definitive but they didn’t come from nowhere – they emerged from what went before.

            Lastly – as grave as the consequences of this pontificate are – the Abuse Crisis has been more toxic: ‘Bishops who moved around abusive priests for years and hid the abuse now condemn divorced and remarried Catholics’ is the kind of headline I’m thinking of… See what I mean?


          • Dear Maranatha,

            Agreed and thank you for your generous reply. I’m grateful to those who post on here, and to those that have followed the faith during the past 50 – 60 years standing firm to the truth. Without them the destruction of faith, the rot would have gotten further into our faith. At least now everything is being revealed for what it is, no more sweeping the abuse under the carpet.

            Have a great Christmas!


          • Again – you’re wilfully trying to misrepresent everything I say.
            My ONLY issue in relation to this thread is the following – and it has two parts to it:

            1. Only the successors to the Apostles have the authority to issue a correction like St Paul to St Peter. We – the laity – can (indeed must) communicate our misgivings to the appropriate authorities. But the formal ‘opposing’ is to be done by a successor to the Apostle.
            2. Should we express our misgivings prior to such an action undertaken by a Bishop, then, as per Canon 212, we should humbly assess our degree of competence in making our claims and express them with reverence towards the office of the religious authority – a fortiori – the Sovereign Pontiff.

            And that’s ALL I’m saying. (In the context of this article, you’ll remember, it was the issue of how helpful it is to report hearsay about something Pope Francis may (well) have said.)

            Jafin understood this – indeed helpfully re-explained it – but you have decided that I am some kind of enemy of the truth and of the Faith – as repeated here with something bordering on a slur – that somehow I approved of the hiding of pedophile priests because it was an effort not to harm the Church.

            Here’s a headline which needs to be broadcast loud and clear:
            Most of the priests – well over 50% especially those under the age of 50 – be they liberal, conservative or traditional have Same Sex Attraction issues.
            To my knowledge not one Diocese, not one Religious Order has publicly issued the following declaration:
            “This diocese/religious order does NOT accept men who experience SSA and will not accept them for formation – and should that be discovered – just the orientation, not the homosexual acts – they will be required to leave.”
            And why have none of the liberal, conservative or traditionalist diocese or orders not issued that kind of policy statement?
            THAT is the question…
            It’s almost certainly because SSA clergy are everywhere. Not just liberals but conservative and even traditionalist.
            If you know of any Diocesan Bishop or Religious Order that has made that their definitive position I would be mightily relieved to learn of them. But I BET you can’t count more than the fingers of one hand – out of the thousands of diocese and religious orders within the Church.

            Sign of the Times.

          • You’re not getting the point. Please, argue the actual point, or just stop. This is not helpful and is getting close to hijacking the thread, a violation of our comment policy. This is turning into an “attack ardenjm time!” That’s not what the combox is for.

          • Less than timely with the rebuke, but duly noted. Your playground. I’ll take my ball and go home. ?

          • Just out of interest, Jafin, has 1P5 asked dioceses and orders for a formal acknowledgement of their policy regarding candidates – in the way I set out in the second half of my post above – reproduced here?
            It would surely be an investigation worth making…

            Most of the priests – well over 50% especially those under the age of 50 – be they liberal, conservative or traditional have Same Sex Attraction issues.

            To my knowledge not one Diocese, not one Religious Order has publicly issued the following declaration:

            “This diocese/religious order does NOT accept men who experience SSA and will not accept them for formation – and should that be discovered – just the orientation, not the homosexual acts – they will be required to leave.”

            And why have none of the liberal, conservative or traditionalist diocese or orders not issued that kind of policy statement?

            THAT is the question…

            It’s almost certainly because SSA clergy are everywhere. Not just liberals but conservative and even traditionalist.

            If you know of any Diocesan Bishop or Religious Order that has made that their definitive position I would be mightily relieved to learn of them. But I BET you can’t count more than the fingers of one hand – out of the thousands of diocese and religious orders within the Church.

          • In truth, I don’t know of any, nor have I seen anything posted here on 1P5 in regards to it. If anyone has such a thing, I’d check Church Militant as they seem to be the only ones really investigating the SSA infiltration of seminaries and the priesthood. They have more resources for that sort of investigative journalism, even from a pure manpower perspective, than 1P5.

            As far as places that may have something of the sort, I’d check out the Diocese of Lincoln in Nebraska. For orders, perhaps see what the SSPX has to say. But again, I don’t know for certain of any.

          • Thanks, Jafin. I did ask CM to make that check and encouraged them to do so – but around the time of Michael Voris’ Coming Out, Christine Miles took exception to me expressing doubts that he who had been in a relationship with a man until his late 30s (certainly for many years) had been healed of his homosexuality to such an extent that he wasn’t just a chaste man living with SSA but was henceforth sexually attracted exclusively to women – a heterosexual.
            Now, I know you can find online those creepy Mormon/Evangelical Christian videos with dutiful husband holding hands with supportive wife talking about how they’ve moved beyond the husband’s SSA but I’m personally quite sceptical. (And it’s so American!) It’s one thing to quit the lifestyle and the gay milieu – I think Courage has done important work in this area, no? – it’s another thing to say grace has fundamentally re-oriented your sexuality. Anyway, my scepticism about Michael Voris wasn’t at all well received and I’ve been blocked ever since.
            In any case, they don’t seem to have done what I suggested, more’s the pity. Instead of making that rather obvious enquiry diocese by diocese and publishing the resuts of those who’ve ‘signed up’ to a clear procedure – you just have Michael denouncing homosexual cabals all over the place. Whilst I don’t doubt they exist – I just don’t find Michael Voris a convincing agent to pursue that corruption: his zeal comes across as taking revenge on his past lifestyle and gay relationships and doesn’t seem spiritually healthy. I encouraged him to take a step back from CM and enter in to silence and prayer: should a man with that baggage really be on the frontline on this issue? Needless to say, that got me censored and censured by all kinds of contributors – which rather suggests that CM suffers from the cult of personality like so many of these initiatives do…
            It would, after all, take only one or two Bishops to get the ball rolling on this…

          • Long term, the abuse crisis is a black blot in the history of the church, no doubt. But what the real crisis here is, is the soul of the Church. Modernism has nearly destroyed the faith of most of at least 2 generations of Catholics. Right now, attack is on the very heart of Christian faith. The ultimate end of this divorced and remarried issue is whether or not forgiveness of sins or even salvation are actually needed… and I would say modernism is directly responsible for the abuse crisis. What we’re facing now will be in the history books as a much larger issue than sex abuse. Headlines now don’t matter. Eternity matters, and every soul lost to this Pope’s erroneous teachings, and those of the unfaithful bishops, is a tragedy of the highest order.

            I won’t condemn Pope Francis, as that’s not my job, but you’re wrong here.

          • “the soul of the Church”
            hmmm I’m not sure what you mean.
            We know that the Magisterium refers to the Holy Spirit as the soul of the Church.
            Pope John Paul II re-iterated that in an audience in July 1998:
            “If Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her soul”. So said my venerable Predecessor Leo XIII in the Encyclical Divinum illud munus (1897: DS 3328). After him, Pius XII explained that in the Mystical Body of Christ the Holy Spirit is “the principle of every vital and truly salvific action in each of the Body’s various members” (Encyclical Mystici Corporis, 1943: DS 3808).

            But surely you do not mean that the crisis over AL somehow compromises the Holy Spirit (in the Church)?

            Perhaps you mean the essence of the Church’s mission is somehow fatally compromised by the theological positions underpining AL:
            “whether or not forgiveness of sins or even salvation are actually needed”
            Certainly, there is an issue here and the 4 Cardinals are right to put their finger on it.
            Clearly, there is no way the Pope can take an option that denies the very raison d’être of the Incarnation and Redemption. (One of the reasons why I think Pope Francis will try and circumvent even the Correction when it comes.)

            And perhaps you are right that the Dubia and Correction and subsequent fallout will be a bigger deal than the Abuse Crisis.
            But in the eyes of those who gave up on the Church in the past 20 years – half the members of my family, for example, – it’s because of Bishops hiding abusive priests for decades. And when you think about it: what SHOULD we be more concerned about – the correctible errors of a Pope (the Church’s tradition cannot change, after all) – or the tens of thousands of children who were abused and the life-long fallout of that? I notice that Our Lord reserves millstones around necks for those involved in the latter saying – in remarkable language for the Word through whom all things were made: “It would have been better if they had never been born.”

            But I agree with you: Modernism is at the root of all these situations – so they all stem from influences that go all the way back in to the 19th century.

          • You’re right, I should have said something other than the soul of the Church as the soul is the Holy Spirit. The essence, or mission, or the like would have been more accurate. You obviously got my point though.

          • Dear Maranatha,

            I hope that you had a great Christmas, Is there any possibility that you could help me with an article? I can put my email address online so that I can send you the copy and would appreciate any help that you can offer in co-authoring? If you are too busy with other things no problem.

            In Christ.


          • Sure. Happy to help if I can.

            Oh, and my name isn’t maranatha! It means come Lord – a way of asking for the return of Christ.

        • “Traditionalists get in a tiswas”…….. well, yes, I agree with you. Personally speaking, when I see Our Lord God being battered about and spit upon by the Vicar of Christ, I tend to get my undies in a bundle. Yep, I get angry……really really angry. Does that mean I am uncharitable to him? I try not to be……Does that mean I won’t pray for him? Pray for him daily for conversion and to lead Christ’s Church according to the timeless traditions of such……to lead souls to HEAVEN in other words. Does that mean I will follow him in his twisted ideas and his heretical ‘reform’ of Christ’s Church that he is now demanding of us? Ummm…no, I won’t follow him off the cliff, nor any prelate who advocates heresy and moral corruption. You can spout your Papal worship all you want, but it’s a sin that many misguided ‘Catholics’ espouse to. It is the duty of every Catholic to defend the teachings of Christ’s Church even from a sitting Pope if necessary. We are after all, the Church MILITANT. And on THAT we will all be judged accordingly by Almighty God.

        • Perhaps this fight for the Faith should begin at the parish level. That is the coal face where the laity have direct access to someone who is Faithful or Unfaithful. That is the role of the laity – you are correct – let the bishops and cardinals accuse or correct the pope – that’s their job – but we must not neglect our direct duty in our parishes.

          I don’t hear a lot of people telling their experiences when they have spoken to a dissenting priest.

        • Very good comment till you got to the last paragraph.

          The hot-headed layman in 16th century England was not in boiling rage due to defense of faith but rather the opposite.
          John Fisher and Thomas Moore were the ones who launched into that stalwart defense of the Faith.

          Except that this time around, it is not a secular king who is proposing the error, it is the one who is supposed to safeguard the faith.

          So understandably, the stakes are higher and so the emotions.

      • So go join a Protestant movement – since there is nothing Uber-ultra-montane in what I’ve written here. I don’t think the Pope is infallible come what may (other than those conditions which we all know of from Vatican I). Thus I can easily support the Correction that is coming.
        Where I express reservations are in relation to lay people who presume that the discernment of papal ‘error’ is theirs to make.
        Last time I looked, it was Martin Luther who relocated the Magisterium to the level of the individual personal judgement of the Christian. Are you sure you want to take that route just because of Pope Francis. Really?

          • Hang on: my attack about the Protestantism of your position isn’t because you disagree with me but because you’re in danger of doing exactly what Protestantism does viz: denying that the Magisterium has an authority over you and presuming on your own authority (and your own superior understanding of the Faith, and no doubt by the power of your own sincerity) to possess the Tradition of the Church better than the Church.

            It’s not just Protestants who went that route: all heretics have. It’s the very essence of heresy.

            So, no, I’m not being specious in my remark – I’m making a brotherly correction.
            Take it or leave it: it’s your call.

          • You’re attacking an argument not being made. Who is claiming that the Magisterium doesn’t have authority over them? Where is it written that only prelates of the Church have the duty of fraternal correction?

          • Be careful not to parse my sentences beyond their meaning, Steve.

            We all have a duty of fraternal correction and to make peace with our brother on the way to the altar – Scripture is very clear.
            However, the ‘opposition to his face’ of St Paul to St Peter – in what looks remarkably like a proto-synodal meeting (if not yet quite a Council, like the proto-Council of Jerusalem) is an Apostolic correction and thus one of the munera of the episcopally ordained.
            I think OnePeterFive is on very thin ice when, instead of supporting the successors of the Apostles in their defense of the Church ad intra (i.e. in relation to Bishops, Cardinals and a fortiori the Sovereign Pontiff who are deemed to have failed in their role) you take it upon yourself to be like St Paul and ‘oppose’ publicly. I do not think you have the Apostolic authority to do that.
            Do you?

            If so, I’d be more than happy to see where you derive that governmental authority from.

          • I’d like to see where you derive this nonsensical notion that laypeople do not have a right to make known their grievances and record and document the unvarnished truth. to their superiors given canon law and Papal statements support Steve. If it were up to you, the Bible itself would’ve never been written to account for all those scandalous times Israel’s leaders went astray. What nonsense!

          • On the contrary: I fully support lay people expressing what they think to their legitimate authorities in the Church and I encourage them to do so.

            But Cardinal Burke is about to issue a Formal Correction – a canonical act – precisely because of who he is: a Successor of the Apostles.
            This means he has the fulness of the Tria Munera.
            Pope Benedict gave three General Audiences on these munera in 2010. Here is the one in relation to governance:

            And here a more technical article by +Eugenio Corecco but one which delineates the theology of Episcopal governing authority and where it comes from (basically God directly via ordination.)

            We, as laymen, do NOT directly exercise these munera – not even through participation by the ‘priesthood of the faithful’. Therefore whatever WE do – it’s not ‘opposing Peter to his face’ in the way St Paul did and in the way Cardinal Burke proposes.

            In fact – we should be wary of presuming that somehow we could do so.
            Given that: we need to tread carefully lest the Evil One lead us astray.

          • Where in the article does Steve say he is opppsing Peter to his face. This is just a news article. You are making it into something more.

          • Sigh. It’s the nature of replies on blog posts to be responses to comments left, right and centre. And such is the case here.
            For my part I was replying to the question I was asked above:

            “How many years of docility before we become complicit [with sin]?”

            My argument was that we need to be wary of issuing corrections to the Pope – or to imagine that in doing so we (as lay people) are following in the footsteps of St Paul. We’re not, because we’re not successors of the Apostles (i.e. Bishops).

            Cue a whole rake of posts about lay people having the right and duty to express their opinion etc. None of which I doubt! What I doubt is whether the layman can follow in St Paul’s footsteps and do the opposing – precisely because they are just laymen.

            Others (vociferously) disagreed with me.
            So my responses were in response to other comments. Not so much this article.
            Still, OnePeterFive does indeed use that Pauline argument to justify correcting a Pope ‘to his face’. And whilst the reading of Aquinas on that issue is more than reasonable I’d hesitate a little before assuming that I as a layman had the authority to do so – precisely because I am not a Bishop.
            If what I’ve just written weren’t the case, then Cardinal Burke’s ‘correction’ wouldn’t be a formally constituted canonical act but just the action of another ‘concerned Catholic.’ But that’s NOT what Cardinal Burke is doing: he’s going to make use of the weight of his Episcopal Authority. He’s going to speak as a successor to the Apostles. THAT’S what ALLOWS him to ‘oppose Peter to his face’ – not simply because he disagrees with the choices of this pontificate.

            Hope that clarifies.

          • What’s going on here in the articles are simple the acts of concerned Catholics. No one at all makes the case that they are issuing some sort of formal correction to the Roman Pontiff. None of these websites, blogs, news articles, etc. are formal as regards the Church in anyway… nor do they make an assertion that they are. You see no “Open Letter to Pope Francis” or “We the people…” style declarations… just news articles, which anyone and everyone are free to agree or disagree with. You’re right, Cardinals Burke, Brandmuller, Meisner, and Caffara, along with any other cardinals and bishops who join them will make a formal correction (if Pope Francis doesn’t do something first; don’t hold your breath) and that is indeed appropriate to them, as you have noted. If there were an Open Letter or other declaration of the sort, I think you’d have a bit more substance to your argument… but that isn’t the case and hasn’t been done. Yes, things are a bit more critical here than, say, NCRegister, Church Militant or certainly Crux and other fishwrap sites, but that’s simply because there’s a problem, several actually, and Pope Francis is the instigator behind several… so no one is hiding that fact. Pope Francis, by all accounts appears to be in error, and, until that is corrected, it is I think wise for faithful Catholics to inform other faithful Catholics to be careful with what they listen to.

          • Fine. Again, this is all very reasonable.
            And I have no problem with robust criticism.

            But it requires vigilance in its exercise, lest it drift towards open opposition.
            To my mind the comment by Deacon Augustine made above which I’ve copied and pasted below is no longer ‘loyal opposition’ but is (spiritual) revolt. To what extent do you have a duty not to encourage that? Your call. It’s your website.

            I’ve been blocked on Church Militant for being too critical of Michael Voris over his gay revelation so I appreciate your greater latitude. And temperamentally I’m not keen on censoring peoples’ points of views. My disagreements with one or other here aren’t of that nature – but over the notion that they are somehow being more genuinely Catholic than me (they are surely BETTER Catholics than me!) in their understanding of the Faith.

            Deacon Augustine came out with this corker:

            “… Do you think Pope Benedict XVI would have believed you back in 2006 that just 10 years later his successor would be killing Catholic souls in the name of a new religion – while he looked on in silence?”

            I averred in my response.
            Perhaps you can think of a better one…

          • Feel free to say more if you wish. I’ll only make some sort of action as a moderator if it violates our comment policy, which is available here:
            As long as you stay civil and follow those guidelines, you’re golden!

            And, btw, unless I say something that is clearly moderator hat worthy, I’m not speaking as a moderator and won’t do anything like banning you or deleting your posts (which would only be done, as I said, if the policy is violated, and you’d be warned). I was blocked by CM as well, only it was being too critical of CM for not reporting on the error of Pope Francis, even to the point of calling AL a fine document. They’ll argue they have been reporting, but it’s all within the last month.

          • I’ve got all of ya whooped: I was banned by CM for something I posted on 1P5 that had nothing to do with them at all…I was protesting the Pope’s endorsement of Contraception over here and they banned me over there. Ah, the good ol’ days…

          • Awesome. Simply Awesome! Congratulations, Father. If we are voting on this, you win the award, hands down, no contest. At least as far as I am concerned.

          • How conveniently you forget to mention that in the past even lay theologians, mobs of laypeople and kings have confronted wayward Popes.

            Also you are setting up a strawman.

            Nobody here or anywhere else believes they have the authority to perform the functions of the clerics to rebuke the Pope within the context of a council or canonical trial, and we understand the difference that stems from a lay-led confrontation of the Pope versus that performed by the hierarchy.

            Again, thanks for nothing.

          • “How conveniently you forget to mention that in the past even lay theologians, mobs of laypeople and kings have confronted wayward Popes.”

            Uh huh?
            So what’s this doing in my very first post?
            “Opposition from the laity to corrupt prelates has been widespread in centuries past, yes, since the laity too have a role in the defense of the Faith. But first, let us allow the Cardinals to do their best.”

            Second you write this:
            “Nobody here or anywhere else believes they have the authority to perform the functions of the clerics to rebuke the Pope within the context of a council or canonical trial, and we understand the difference that stems from a lay-led confrontation of the Pope versus that performed by the hierarchy.”

            So express yourselves with more ‘reverence’ (to quote canon 212) and respect for the Pope! That’s all I’m saying.

          • Who are you and by what authority do you presume to tell us how to address this issue with the pope? Define your sense of reverence, please.

          • Really? Good grief.
            Listen to yourself…

            But here’s a good rule: If I was addressing the Pope – or anyone else for that matter – in the presence of Our Lady – what language would I use.

            It aint complicated.

          • But I haven’t addressed the pope or the Virgin Most Powerful. Why not just come clean? You don’t want us to speak at all, because there really is no delicate or graceful way of communicating the issues with the pope. It is what it is. He’s advocating for Communion for adulterers. He accuses some Catholics of vile sexual disorders because they disagree with his ‘reforms’. The list is too lengthy to enumerate. In short, the papal office has been desecrated. I’ve had enough of silence. St. Catherine of Siena, pray for us! Yep. Not complicated.

          • PF said Our Lady must have felt tricked (or words to that effect) by God at the foot of the Cross & that God was unjust. Doesn’t show much respect himself for higher authorities!

          • Go read your prior post and particularly the last two paragraphs of yours and you’ll see what I responded to.

            And please by all means, show us the guidelines for what it considered due reverence according to Mr. ardenjm. Or are Catholics now all held to your own subjective opinions? Any examples you can provide here that constitute undue reverence? Or are you still holding fast to your opinion that Steve and others shouldn’t document or discuss remarks the Pope has been heard to made, unless you are calling Der Spiegel and its sources liars spreading hearsay. You got evidence to the contrary? Better provide it then, especially considering that given the whole documented history of Francis’ Papacy, all hearsay inevitably has all turned out true, and thus the Pope has earned a justified reputation for making comments like these that are totally a part of his character. Or is stating this fact somehow not ‘reverential’ enough for you? So Truth is offensive now because we need to protect a Pope who delightfully spreads error and heresy?

            And who is getting in the way of Cardinal Burke and co.? What false charges are you hurling at the rest of us? Who here is preventing the Cardinals from doing their job?

            How about you relax and let Steve and the press do their jobs on reporting to us what is going on? Pope Francis has tossed away any benefit of the doubt we’d ever have been inclined to give him following his first tumultuous year as Vicar of Christ. And he himself states that he’s precisely proud of this. Hagan Lio!

          • Actually, I think Cardinal Burke himself shows you how the ‘reverence’ is to be done.
            It’s not my subjective opinion.

          • Cardinal Burke can be shown to be saying some contradictory things. He did this very early on with Amoris Letitia, and Louie Verrichio has a new article demonstrating this with regards to what Burke has been saying in interviews. Burke is in a position where he needs to carefully walk on eggshells. I don’t blame him for carefully choosing his words and straining the gnat when it comes to the obvious that indeed the dubia do put Francis in a heretical light, regardless of his repeating over and over again that he has not ‘used the word’ heretic with regards to Francis, which while technically true are still obvious suggestions alluding to a Pope in heresy. If this is the example you wish to follow. Go right ahead. The rest of us, however, will speak plainly and straightforwardly about the logical conclusions without contradiction.

          • I agree with you, ardenjm, mostly. But the brotherly correction is to take place privately.

            See, this is what this pope has done. His fruit appears to be division, formally, informally, even in com boxes we are biting each other’s heads off because this pope seems to have removed the rudder from the barque of Saint Peter.

          • You are doing exactly what you accuse me of. Canon law (212.3) allows the laity to express their views to the hierarchy. Modern communication methods facilitates that expression. You, unfortunately, are conflating individual conscience with Church authority. I claim no authority beyond what has been given to me by God and His Church.

          • Then we have no disagreement. If, indeed, that’s all you’re doing.

            You’ll forgive me for seeing your use of the word ‘idolatry’ – papolatry I guess is what you’re taking aim at – and asking you: do you REALLY mean that and are you committed to the full implications of that?

            After all there was nothing in what I was saying that was in fact papolatrous – just traditional Catholic teaching in relation to the Pope’s office. So what, exactly, do you find idolatrous in what I said?

          • As a former Protestant, I am quite acquainted with idolatry, which most of us commit on a regular basis, whether it is food, alcohol, sex, or the pope, cardinals, Mother Mary, or “traditional Catholic teaching” and the “office of the Pope”. What you have done, is to elevate your personal perspective of traditional Catholic teaching into a god in which to bash anyone who doesn’t agree with your understanding. I believe you are wrong in your reasoning and I base that on the words you used to castigate Catholics who don’t agree with you, and your sure conviction that you are correct and those laity who publicly criticize the pope are oh-so wrong. Pride and idolatry go hand-in-hand.

          • *steps in with moderator hat on*
            I just want to remind everyone here to remain civil. It hasn’t gotten out of hand yet (I have yet to read further down) but as Catholic faithful we need to remember that we’re all brothers and sisters, and treat each other with the respect each is due. Make corrections, debate all you want… but if this degenerates into attacks on persons and/or beyond useful discussion… well, let’s say I’d rather not step in. Looks like Steve is watching this too, so all should be well. This is just a friendly reminder. Keep it civil!
            *take moderator hat off, and sits down with popcorn*

          • Are you perhaps a Jesuit, ardenjm? Or an agent provocateur? Or both?
            The matter is really quite simple: Do we uphold the Catholic doctrine of the Indissolubility of marriage or do we not.
            Pope John XXII repented of heresy – for which he was condemned – on his deathbed. Let us pray that Pope Francis I gets there sooner rather than later.
            Nor was John XXII the only pope to have been condemned.

          • Canon 212§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
            While I disagree with ardenjm, it is important to note what Canon 212.3 says, which I’ve emphasized above. This is, I think, the argument he’s making. Again, I disagree with him, and think he’s taking things much farther than they need, but I get where he’s coming from.

          • I was not aware he was a pastor. Nor that I have been unjust and uncharitable. Bluntness can be startling, of course.

          • Let me clarify that I’m referring to the Cardinals as pastors, not ardenjm. And the argument that ardenjm is makingis that the laity need to be careful not to go beyond their own knowledge, competence, and prestige and to not sin against piety by maligning our pastors. I think he goes a bit too far by concluding that 1P5 is doing this, and have posted about this farther down. I think we do need to call error when we see it for what it is, and I think it’s a work of charity to not inform the faithful what’s going on when you have the resources to do so, as 1P5 does. Anyways, I’ve said more about this elsewhere, if anyone cares what I think, which I don’t hold against you if you don’t! 😛

          • Amen!
            Let us fear God, gentlemen!

            And SBT’s little dig is disingenuous: his exasperation with Pope Francis is what provoked this spat between us. He accused me of being ‘idolatrous’ when I basically wrote in a way that echoed the points emphasized by Jafin in his quotation of Canon 212.

            It’s got nothing to do with me, STB, you can insult me as much as you like if that’s what rocks your boat.
            But be careful when it comes to the Pope is all.

          • No of course it isn’t.
            How on earth do you suppose that this is what I’m suggesting?

            The point I’m making is the following: it is possible to do the right thing (defend Our Lord’s teaching on marriage) in the wrong way (sailing close to the wind of denouncing the Pope and justifying it because “I know better.”) Indeed you might well know better, on this particular point of doctrine and if you stop there, then fine.

            But of course people rarely “stop there”. They go on to accuse the Pope of error in other areas, too and little by little the devil leads them astray.

            I’m urging vigilance is all. And governance of the tongue in imitation of Our Lady.

        • Nor is there any comparison to be made with Luther . He wanted to change doctrine, not retain it – as is the case with the indissolubility of marriage.

    • Very wise words. I can tell that you have humble spirit and are rightly concerned and cautious. I agree with your approach wholeheartedly and suspect you have a close relationship with the Blessed Mother. ???

    • When in the history of the church has a pope suggested that natural law be ignored? We didn’t need Christ to tell us that adultery is wrong, friend. But marxism has gotten so deep in EVERYONES psyche that even cardinals and bishops are infected.

      No, its time for war, not niceties. We are talking about souls here.

    • All right, I’ve read through this very long thread, and … I agree with you. I also admire your patience and charity in responding to those who misconstrue your argument.

      Anyone looking at my Disqus history will see a very long series of arguments against and criticisms of Pope Francis’s statements and actions. I believe he intends to harm the Church (and will ultimately fail), and I have great difficulty seeing how many of his statements can be reconciled with Catholic orthodoxy.

      But what you won’t find me doing is impugning his character, accusing him of formal heresy, or otherwise losing my marbles, as many Catholics seem all too ready to do. It’s sufficient to point out the objective facts, refute those who adopt an everything-is-awesome-9-things-to-know-and-share attitude, and mercilessly poke fun at Mark Shea when there’s a lull in the action. Leave the determination of formal heresy to those with the authority to determine it, and hold fast to the truth.

      None of which should be taken as criticism of Steve, Maike Hickson, and anyone else associated with 1P5, all of whom I admire immensely.

    • “So we should be careful about furthering a loss of confidence in the Holy Father by speculations which are basically just hearsay.”

      It’s much too late for that. We’ve had four years of this man’s heresies now and any allegation that the accusations against him are hearsay are unavailing. He is who he is and has done and said what he had done and said. It’s all on the books and they will not be erased. In this case docility is nothing but cowardice. A refusal to stand up for Christ and defend the faith. Bergoglio is a manifest heretic. His election was rigged, making it invalid, and his papacy is ridden with one heretic, moronic and absurd remark after another. How is it possible to defend him? He is not his office. He is he corruption of his office.

  3. “It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”

    To quote a famous secular prophet: “Well, duuuuhhhhh!”

    Did he not in his speech at the end of the last Synod propose the determination of doctrine and discipline down to the level of different bishops’ conferences? Is he really so lacking in the foresight department that he could not “discern” that this would be a recipe for splitting the Church? What is it about “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” that is so hard to understand?

    Turn back before it is too late, Holy Father. True humility is being able to say: “Whoops I have screwed up.” when one has in fact screwed up. You would earn the loyalty, respect and admiration of Catholics around the world if you showed them in your own person the true meaning of repentance.

  4. “Pope Francis is fighting for his legacy”?

    Good Lord, is an “historical legacy” now of importance to a pope? His “place in history”? Truly revolting sentiments for a successor of St. Peter, who, I am certain, gave not one fig about how favorably or unfavorably he would be depicted in history books. A lust for personal fame was one of the highest motivators to action in the pagan era. Christianity? Not so much.

    A politician puffed up by amour propre like Barack Obama worries about “his legacy”; there’s no doubting that at all. He can be expected to “fight” for a five-star review from opinion arbiters in learned volumes destined to molder away into dust. It’s vainglorious yet comprehensible. That a Roman Catholic pontiff should concern himself with such frippery is quite nauseating.

    • If he hasn’t repented or converted when the LORD calls him to account for his life and pontificate, noting that he refused to live in the papal apartments, God forbid his burial be at St. Peter’s [apparently place already chosen] and thereby add a final disgrace and insult to the LORD’s Church and to the Holy Popes buried there. I believe he still holds an Argentinean passport …
      ‘Let his habitation become desolate, destined to become a dwelling place of demons, a haunt of every foul spirit, a haunt of every foul and hateful bird, and let there be no one to live in it’

  5. If this is true, even partially, the pope needs to realize his position in Christ’s Holy Church is not about him. He reminds me of Obama, worried about his legacy, inflicting his personal views, whining about those who disagree. I’m not sure what to think anymore. I have defended him, thought him naive, and given him every conceivable benefit of the doubt. He seems to go out of his way to hurt and anger orthodox Catholics while, at the same time, trying to please those outside the Church. His favorable comments about Luther, who by definition is a heretic, followed by his desire to destroy certain Sacraments, and his refusal to answer five simple questions have me baffled as to his intentions and goal. I’m still recovering from the reality and idea that the Holy Father, Peter’s successor, called people s–t eaters, an idea I’ve never heard of and wish I could unknow. Are we at the gates of Hell yet? Jesus and Mary, save our Holy Church!

    • Fr. Malachi Martin though dead 16+ years was prophetic about the Pope who would preside over the great Apostasy (which most Catholics, not well-catechized in their faith, won’t even notice) and whose values would be entirely acceptable to the NWO. Look for old radio interviews of Fr. Martin on “the final pope” on U-tube. He is describing Pope Francis, whose aim appears to be to dismantle the authority of the Papacy in “collegiality” of bishops who do not need to agree with each other. The mark of Satan is to sow discord. Ask yourself: Is Pope Francis causing discord?

  6. Akita is being fulfilled before our very eyes. Schism and then great persecution of us “rigid” Catholics who practice our faith. 2017 is going to be a great year.

  7. “It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”

    This I take to mean the Holy Father knows exactly what he is doing? That quote pulls the rug under from those apologists who defend the Pope by saying he is just misunderstood, and he never intends to change the Church moral teaching. If anyone deserves our prayers it is Pope Francis.

    • He will also enter eternity as the one who split the Catholic Church.
      But it seems that is not so important to him. If he believes in it at all.

      • Judging by his coments to Scalfari the other day about how St Paul “invented” the Catholic Church and there wasn’t really a sacramental priesthood but just the early Christian laity somehow “celebrating” by themselves, I’d say the fundamental problem is that Francis simply doesn’t believe in the Church.

        I’m not sure how much of this God-stuff he believes, either, but the immediate problem is that he doesn’t believe that the Church is anything but another NGO, albeit one that has lasted longer than others, and now it has been given to him to make any changes he sees fit, just as any new boss would do. He is completely Lutheran and not even shy about proclaiming it.

        The dubia just focus on a single aspect of his polymorphous heresy. I realize that’s because they focus on a written document that Francis was trying to enforce upon the entire Church, whereas the rest of his heresies slip out in a more indirect manner. But certainly there is no shortage of ways to show that he (a) doesn’t believe what the Church has always and everywhere believed on ANY issue; and in fact, that he doesn’t even believe in the Church

        • Agree, except for one part.

          The dubia actually address issues beyond AL and address the very nature of the existence of sin itself, the answers to which could potentially expose Francis as an apostate.

          He will not answer, naturally.

        • His remarks about St. Paul really are a key to understanding our Pope’s intellectual formation. Statements like this, as well as the teaching that the feeding of the 5000 was not a real miracle, are practically the pass phrases that faithless modernist Catholics use to identify each other.

          He Pope seems to uncritically repeat whatever theological formation he received decades ago, and I don’t know that his evident heresies are entirely intentional. He’s a product of the post-Vatican II wreckage.

        • Isabel, thank you. We do indeed have to pray for this most arrogant of old men, prelates from the 50’and 60’s.
          Sacred Heart of Jesus give your vicar a pauline conversion, in Your mercy , hear us . Amen

  8. To paraphrase St. Thomas More – if Everyman in Christendom should have a vote (those who have ever lived) our position would prevail. (Against the heresy of the Pope). Remember Chesterton’s Democracy of the Dead.

  9. Every day…….every single day there is a “he said what??” moment. Like a deranged psychotic he just babbles on and on…… and night. If he’s not turning peoples’ stomachs with revolting references to human excrement, he’s ranting about “rigid” Catholics, yelling at the Cardinals, wringing his hands about carbon emissions or ridiculing Catholic tradition. It’s an unending deluge of trash talk, modernism, heresy and negativity.

    As if that’s not enough, when we really do need him to talk and confirm Catholic doctrine by answering the dubia, he shuts the hell up!!!

    What an absolute chastisement for a faithless Church he truly is!

    • Very keen summation. The only thing we might consider is that he is indeed mentally ill, and might not be at all culpable. Thus his psychosis could be used by God to smoke out those who no longer uphold the Catholic Faith and prepare for us definitive lines of delineation for the terrible times ahead when it must be clear who’s in the camp of the True Faith.

  10. Pope Francis could still be the hero. He could uphold Church teachings. Then, out-of-the-blue shock the living daylight out of everyone and order all the Bishops and Cardinals to properly Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary! I speak directly to him: If you’re looking to go down in History, Holy Father, DO THE CONSECRATION AND SAVE US FROM NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION!!! You’d be a freaking hero! You’d go down as the one post-Vatican II Pope who isn’t a coward. Be brave! Disobey your hidden bosses, your handlers. To heck with all of them. YOU ARE THE POPE! Do you have any idea how much spiritual power you possess? Do what is right! You are a human being with a free will. You do not have to placate the Kasperites. It is not necessary to split the Church. You do not have to obey the Masons or Soros or the New World Order, but you SHOULD obey the Mother of God. Perform the Consecration and save the lives of a BILLION people. The 100 year anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima is on October 13, 1917. Performing the Consecration at that time would be a perfect gesture, and you’d be hailed a hero until the end of time.

  11. “It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”

    So he’s bragging! He’s proud of himself. I think he’s a user and he knows it!

  12. It’s impossible. The True Mystical Body of Christ cannot be split. The institutional church has been more than split, it has been shattered to many pieces as a result of the efforts of Pope Paul VI and John Paul II. Pope Bergoglio is just bringing it to its conclusion. But Our Lady of Fatima and Our Lady of Akita told us this would come. The Mystical Body of Christ is made up of all the people who have kept the Traditions that have been passed down since Christ. The True Catholic Church is the antithesis to the Church that was given to us at Vatican II. “Flee to the Mountains as Our Lord has said.

  13. What comes immediately to this ex-Lutheran is the old Doxology:

    “Praise God from whom all blessings flow! Praise Him ye creatures here below.
    Praise him above ye heavenly hosts. Praise Father Son and Holy Ghost!”

    And truly, PRAISE GOD!

    I have been living in a funk since my conversion, utterly shocked that the Church appears devoid of true men of God among the prelates but with the movement of the Big Four and their supporters I can hardly contain my joy. These men have finally begun the process of purifying the Church. Yes, we must go thru much more heartache, but honesty is beginning to surface thru the years and years of lies and deceit that have plagued the Catholic Church under prelates like Bergoglio.

    Can you all see it?!

    The history of the Church is the history of those who stand with Christ and those who seek to destroy Her, the latter doing their level best, failing…and leaving. It must be! The gravest evils have been promoted in the Church by rogue prelates for years and now we are beginning to see the light. And clearly the Pope must see it, too!

    The Man of Lawlessness is being exposed! {2 Thess 2:1-12}

    “And he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals should not come: but woe to him through whom they come.” {Luke 17:1}

    Prepare your hearts!

    The “Correction” that is coming will settle nothing. Do not expect it to! It will not be the END of the affair, but rather it will be the TRIGGER to begin the real fight, the fight that will be open, the fight that will present to each Catholic the option to stand with the Lord Jesus Christ or with those who seek to destroy His Church.

    What an amazing time in which to live! God has granted US the grace and opportunity to be His witnesses at this time!

    Praise God!

    • You are 100% correct on every point. And there is a supreme irony here. Many think of Francis as their “prophet” who will reform a “rigid, unmerciful” Church, as a “winnowing fan” being used by God to separate the wheat from the chaff.

      However, the IRONY is that they don’t realize that THEY are the ones being winnowed out of the Church for abandoning the True Faith, the irrefutable, clear teachings of Christ….and now at last it is clear where the dividing line is!

  14. This is what PF wanted from the beginning, ‘to make a mess’ and now (very strange, like Obama & the WH) the Vatican is in total chaos because he chose to do the will of men and not of God. Since he was elected he’s done nothing but divide holy mother church. He’s done (too numerous to mention here) and said thing’s unbecoming for a Pontiff. If he’s willing, with the help of Almighty God, he can ask for forgiveness and reverse his course and hop on the “right path” before its too late!

  15. Well first off “concelebration” has to go. All those cardinals “concelebrating” is a failed liturgical experiment. Yeash.

  16. My chief response to this article is that we (correction, I) need to pray for the Pope more consistently. He is doing much damage; yet he is our brother (and spiritually, our father).

    Speaking for myself, but perhaps not only for myself, I have been so frustrated and grieved by what he has been doing and saying, that in my heart I have not been thinking of him with love, even if technically I pray for him.

    I must pray more often not only that the dangers in Amoris might be overcome, but also for the man himself. He is our brother.

  17. There is a bright side to all of this aside from Pope Francis’ loss of respect. And that bright side–if such a thing can be imagined–is the fact that most Catholics are not influenced by him, never hear about him and have the same indifference towards him as they do about the Catholic religion in general. Indifference to religion is one of the “fruits” of Vatican II. Hopefully, during 2017, the 100th anniversary of Fatima, our Lord will intervene in the management of the Catholic Church in order to redirect it’s course.

        • His bold madness will either be the cause of his fall or conversion. God help us as we watch this display go on.
          On the world stage the real crisis of the priesthood is being played out. Far too many of them are without Catholic faith. This is a tragedy beyond comprehension. But it ultimately bespeaks our need for the Savior.

  18. I thought that was already done by Martin Luther et al.

    This feels like the time Peter DENIED Our Lord not once, but three times! How Our Lord must be suffering yet again/still!

    Pray our Rosaries!!!

  19. (Luke 12:49-53)
    34Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn

    ‘A man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
    a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
    36A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

    Sorry fran, its already been done, yep, your still a back-up

  20. Perhaps he is not as disoriented as I often believe him to be, which consequently provides some hope. Would it not be miraculous that, with the consciousness he has of what he has wrought, he might have a moment of deep conversion and proclaim his error? We need to pray for that. It would be a mighty thing to see, giving glory to God whose power is manifest in our weakness (2 Cor. 12:9).
    If the event that does not come to pass, it is at least consoling that he is aware that he is not held in universal high regard. He needs to feed on what he has done and is doing. But will he feel remorse or pride in succeeding to gift heterodoxy with papal approbation and successfully accomplishing the blow that fractures the Rock – yet again.
    Raise that mighty hammer, little man. Drop it with relief or render your raging blow.
    The infectious agent need be seen for what it is before it can be eradicated.

  21. He already has split the Church…having left the moral teachings behind he has tried to move the Church into the world of the marxist liberal social justice arena.
    God help our Church as he is trying to destroy it!

  22. “Who is going to save our Church? Not our Bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops like bishops and your religious act like religious” – Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “Don’t be so open-minded that your brains fall out.” – G.K. Chesterton

    “I want a Church that moves the world not one that moves with it.” – G.K. Chesterton

    “The further a society strays from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” – George Orwell

  23. He is wounded? his legacy? What about the wounds inflicted on the souls in the church not to mention the eternal jeopardy we all may be placed in. And what about the Pope’s own salvation. If your in hell what difference does your legacy make?
    Why would he as the Supreme Pontiff even think about being ” the one who split the Church ” as if that is some accomplishment?
    I guess He really does not believe in hell, only soul annihilation.
    God help us all!!

  24. It’s unclear without context whether that quote about splitting the Church was spoken with an sense of horror, trepidation, and dread, or perhaps satisfaction and demonic glee. At this point either one is possible, it’s a toss-up.

    I’m still reeling from ‘coprophagy’ coming from a man people still call “Your Holiness”. Right: poop-eating from Mr. Holiness. Anything is possible with this man.

  25. “Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and the reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism.”

    Why can’t other senior prelates and learned Catholics (that excludes me) speak with such directness and clarity? I love Ed Peters, but OMG that man can split a canonical hair down to the atomic level over a 1500 word essay. Cardinal Brandmueller strikes to the heart of the matter in 20 words (20 in English that is).

    • Funny, funny, funny!!! “I love Ed Peters, but OMG that man can split a canonical hair down to the atomic level over a 1500 word essay. “

      • That quote reminds me of something Origen once said (I had been researching what the Early Chuch fathers wrote concerning the Eucharist), “I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence. But if you observe such caution in keeping His Body, and properly so, how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting His Body?”—-and that is precisely what is going on, many have neglected the command, “do not commit audeltery” while thinking it is a “lesser” crime or no crime at all. Yet Origen saw, to neglect the word of God is also to neglect the Eucharist

      • Would you feel justified in writing that out in full? Everyone who reads those three capital letters knows exactly what they stand for. Please don’t blaspheme.

  26. “It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”
    Surely I could be wrong, but I think he is very proud of that prospect — and should it prove so, it is his own indictment, for time and eternity.
    A seriously unbalanced individual.
    This crew believes because they are of significant number, they are stable. They assume a lot.

    • Unbalanced, to be sure. I think that balance in character comes only slowly, over many years, through regular communing with the Holy Spirit, who gives that balance. This man, this Bergoglio, shows no evidence of such regular communing. Quite the contrary.

  27. There is an attack on the Holy Eucharist the very foundation and the Life of the Holy Catholic Church which Christ Himself created as Heaven on Earth. This a very serious crisis that to the point that Pope Francis may go down in history as the Pope who caused a Schism in the Catholic Church. The Pope is offering us to have to chose either the Pope or the foundation of the Holy Church, the Holy Eucharist which is Christ.

  28. The problem is he may turn right around later and use Our Lord’s words to justify the division: “I haven’t come to bring peace, but the sword.”

  29. I was hoping he might have done his reforming against those bishops acquiring money from the Fed government to resettle unvetted immigrants from church-burning lands who go to those churches, the ones abusing the Vatican bank, the ones sending contraceptives to third world nations and not sticking it to Catholic colleges that put on filthy plays and commencement speakers, instead of obsessing about the climate and fixing what ain’t broke, but encouraging our fostering a simple heart within ourselves within the safe confined of doctrine. It is true we can get too heady, but those doctrines are there to keep us from not getting lost after the loosening of disciplines and poor catechesis after Vatican 2. The Pope’s main job is protecting the souls of his flock, if not also their bodies, as in the Middle East.

  30. It is apparent here that turmoil in the Church leads to dissent and squabbling amongst the laity. The presence of discord among the faithful is evidence of weak or troubled leadership. We must refer constantly to scripture in our answers to one another, to the example of Christ and the lives of the Saints.

    A good discipline is trying to answer each question only with Bible references – it is hard to do, but it trains the will.

  31. I contemplate his actions with a heavy heart but I remember the words of Our Lord and rejoice: “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel […] Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”

  32. There have been a lot of ‘heated words’ spoken here. There is a lot of confusion right now which is a mixture of truth and error in our thinking, so I would like to present to you a biblical approach to this topic. ‘Never let the sun set on your anger or else you will give the devil a foothold’. (Eph.4:27) If I speak evil against you it releases satanic forces to harass & oppress you. Anything spoken outside the context of love is an evil. God spoke ‘Let there be’, and it came into being. When God speaks something, he considers it to be already done. (Rm 4:17) The same applies to us whenever we speak. ‘Do not let your own words bring guilt upon you, nor tell your angel afterwards it was unintentional!’ (Ecl.5: 6)
    What you say with your mouth releases spiritual forces. Those forces will either be heavenly or satanic, working either for us or against us. The repercussions of speaking out of a wrong heart against the leadership can be found in the book of Numbers chapter 12, there we see Miriam and Aaron who spoke out against Moses because he had taken a Cushite as his wife. They murmured against Moses and even though they had a right to speak the truth, they only had a right to speak the truth in love. They spoke out in anger. When we speak like that, then we bring ourselves in danger of God’s judgement. The anger of the Lord blazed out against them. The repercussions of their speaking against Moses are a warning for us (v.10-15). First the Lord departed; then the Cloud departed; Miriam was covered in leprosy and we are told that the Congregation stood still.
    What does that mean for us? When people in the Church speak out of a wrong heart and attitude against the leadership in the Church, then the Lord leaves; he gets up and goes. His covering, that is, his hand of protection is removed from the congregation because of the presence of sin. Leprosy is symbolic of sin, and until the sin is repented of, there is no moving forward for that Church and if they are not moving forward, then they are not growing and they are not going anywhere. So
    be careful what you say !!!


Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...