Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Did the Pope Just Indirectly Answer Both Prof. Seifert and One of the Dubia?

Image: Screenshot

As we all likely know by now, Pope Francis is a little shy in more directly answering candid questions put to him about his moral teaching. So far, he has not responded to any of the filial and scholarly appeals, nor even to some proposed polite corrections. However, what is equally known is that he likes to speak through three of his closest advisers: Archbishop Manuel Fernàndez; journalist Andrea Tornielli; and Father Antonio Spadaro, S.J. (the editor of the journal Civiltà Cattolica, which is approved by the Vatican).

For example, the latter Jesuit priest has now once more spoken, and he has spoken in such a way and with such words that one can get the impression that he, by partly quoting the pope, has just answered the pressing and piercing question posed by Professor Josef Seifert, which also happens to coincide with one of the five dubia of the four cardinals.

On 6 October, Father Spadaro gave a talk in the United States at a conference hosted by the Jesuit Boston College – and with supportive participation from two of the newly made Cardinals, Blase Cupich and Kevin Farrel. The conference’s topic was about the papal document Amoris Laetitia, and it was seemingly intended to instruct and correct some of the still more resistant U.S. prelates concerning this controversial papal document. As Joshua McElwee from the National Catholic Reporter wrote on that day:

An Italian Jesuit priest known to be a confidant of Pope Francis says the pontiff thinks the Catholic Church can no longer issue general rules that apply to whole categories of people. [emphasis added]

This statement in itself is quite troubling, to say the least, because it seems to be a direct answer – in the name of the pope – to Professor Josef Seifert’s urgent request to the pope to answer whether, after what he wrote in Amoris Laetitia, he still believes that there are absolute moral norms, or standards, that apply in each and every case or whether an intrinsically evil act as such does not exist anymore. (The same question was essentially one of those five dubia posed by the four cardinals.) Otherwise, argued the Austrian philosopher, the Catholic Church is about to face and gravely experience the destruction of her whole moral edifice, and thus it would open the door to moral relativism. He even used the image of a “moral atomic bomb” in this context and showed that, subsequently, even such evil acts as abortion and rape would more easily find exemptions and evasions from being verbally condemned and actually punished.

Moreover, Professor Seifert had referred to this lax line of argument by citing paragraph 303 of Amoris Laetitia, according to which there might be times where irregular couples who have sexual relations realize that God at that point wishes them to continue these objectively sinful relations. Thus, Seifert had put his finger on one specific aspect and had asked only one specific question.

Father Spadaro seems to answer him. According to McElwee’s report, Spadaro also said

that the document recognizes that even people living in “irregular” family situations, such as divorce and remarriage, “can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in a life of grace.”

While still quoting the pope, Spadaro also says:

We must conclude that the pope realizes that one can no longer speak of an abstract category of persons and … [a] praxis of integration in a rule that is absolutely to be followed in every instance,” said Spadaro, who was one of the first people to interview Francis as pope in 2013. [emphasis added]

“Since the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same,” he said.

Thus it nearly seems as if these statements of Father Spadaro were a direct – and obstinate – response to the discussion raised by Professor Seifert. But even if they were not a direct response to Professor Seifert – who just last week reiterated his argument and question – it certainly confirms his grave concern and sense of alarm.

Should someone raise an objection with regard to the reliability of the McElwee report, let us consider that Father Spadaro himself had even openly retweeted that same McElwee article on his twitter, with exactly that very troubling message: “@antoniospadaro tells @BostonCollege event pope thinks you can’t issue general rules for whole categories of people.” Spadaro himself had written his own nominalistic twitter message on that same day where he says: “Ogni caso è singolare. Non si può dare regola generale che li abbracci tutti né costruire casistica del discernimento #AmorisLaetitia.” (“Every case is unique. One cannot grant a general rule which embraces all of them, nor construct casuistry of discernment.”) Father Spadaro surprisingly here still uses as a “meme” the 2+2 =5 image once more, and in spite of much criticism of this idea, that in theology, sometimes 2 plus 2 can be five, and even in spite of the critique coming from Cardinal Gerhard Müller, then-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

OnePeterFive‘s contributor, Hilary White, had a good set of separate responses on twitter to this Spadaro statement which sums up, also, Professor Seifert’s own concern:

If this is true, then the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount are all meaningless. This is Bergoglianism out of the closet.

In fact, if this is “true” then there is no truth. Nothing is true, including the idea that nothing is true. Anti-rationality eats itself.

If every case is judged separately & there is no moral law, can I buy a slave? Can I pollute the environment? Can I defraud the wage earner?

Such is the harvest, and such are the foul fruits, of Nominalism.

Thus it seems that Pope Francis and his advisers and close confidants are now insisting upon their erroneous doctrine and pastoral teaching, which is fundamentally undermining all the moral discourse and structure of the Church’s larger teaching.

If anyone would object that Spadaro is not here speaking for the pope (even though he claims it himself), let the pope come forth and be prompt to correct these grave statements from a man who often permissively speaks in his name. The pope would now have a moral duty to do so, otherwise he would become complicit, and not just tolerant.

Let us thus hope that the two remaining dubia cardinals now more fully see that this sort of response by Father Spadaro is a form of doubling down, and of hardening obstinacy, on the side of Pope Francis himself, which also calls for a fraternal correction. May this additional correction loyally come to pass this week. For, what is enough is enough, especially when we see and feel a moral earthquake a-forming.

Update: Shortly after publication of this article, Mr. Andrew Guernsey kindly sent to us translated quotes from an article published today by La Repubblica‘s Eugenio Scalfari – to whom Pope Francis repeatedly grants interviews, thus giving credence to his papal quotes. Guernsey points out that this article which contains quotes from Pope Francis has already been picked up by the “semi-official” Vatican organ, Il Sismografo. In this new article, Scalfari quotes Pope Francis with words which now even more directly give support for the fear that Pope Francis defends a sort of moral relativism:

Scalfari quotes Francis as saying: “We believers and of course above all we priests and we bishops believe in the Absolute, but each in their own way because each one has his own head and thought. So our absolute truth, shared by us all, is different from person to person. We do not avoid discussions in the case where our different thoughts confront each other. So there is a kind of relativism among us as well.


H/T Thomas D. Williams

130 thoughts on “Did the Pope Just Indirectly Answer Both Prof. Seifert and One of the Dubia?”

  1. We had better get this straight, This man, who sits in Peter’s Chair, is anything but shy. He is a skillful at manipulation and will
    stop at nothing to get his agenda implemented.
    In my mind, in my eyes, in what I hear………..Pope Francis is a heretic.
    Is he a formal heretic or material heretic?
    Does it really matter friends?
    He has many allies. They have their marching orders and are like trained monkey’s going from diocese to diocese to infiltrate more parishes, defend their heresies, drive the faithful crazy and drive priests into despair.

    Shy? You wish.

    • My thoughts exactly. He’s manipulative and strategic in getting his thoughts across without stating them himself, probably for fear of being accused of ‘formal’ heresy. He has his advisers do the dirty work while he keeps his hands clean but only in a very technical sense. They do state things like ‘the Pope thinks’…..and if he himself doesn’t say it, he feels his ‘directives’ are implemented without opening his own mouth. I’m sure if he doesn’t correct his advisers, he knows that silence IS an answer, and so people go ahead with the implementation of immorality. So no, shy is not Jorge Bergoglio, Jorge Bergoglio is calculating, which only points to his true intention of dissembling the Church.

      And yes, I’ve always thought that the difference between formal and material heresy is mute, because the institutional Church can be destroyed much easier via ‘material’ heresy. Formal heresy would most likely unseat him, but with his present strategy and the people he has placed around him, throwing bombs through the back door is a cake walk. He’s scott free to continue strategizing his next target.

      • Let’s have no more pretense; his hands are filthy! He is an heretic by any definition of the word and we must tell him so and act as if we believe it.

        Our choice is to either get rid of him or stand meekly by and watch him dismantle the Church and make of Her just another Protestant sect, which is what he is after. The strongest thing he has going for him is the silence and fear of faithful bishops and priests who know who and what he is, but are reduced to inaction because they are essentially disorganized and alone and are fearful of leaving their flocks in the hands of one of Bergoglio’s traitors to Christ. They must begin speaking to each other and looking for ways to overcome this calamity. Archbishop Lefebvre showed he way 60 years ago and the SSPX is flourishing today because of his courage and fidelity. Let us all pray for his intersession, begging God to remove this servant of Satan and his stooges from our midst and restore the Catholic Church to her rightful place as the temporal servant of Christ and the moral and doctrinal guide of mankind.

    • Whether he’s a material or formal heretic matters when it comes to discussion about whether or not he is still pope (‘cuz he is) but it matters, at least to all of us, ONLY in that discussion. What we do know can be seen plainly… he’s a heretic. You know what you do with heretics? You avoid them. You do not even greet them (2 John).

      So our pope is a heretic… what do we do? We avoid him. Do not greet him. We don’t listen to his words. This is an unprecedented situation in the church, but that doesn’t matter. He’s doing all sorts of things, issuing something 16 motu proprios, but very few of them affect the day to day life of faithful, mass-going, Catholics on the ground, especially traditional Catholics. So… ignore him. There is a lot that needs to be worked out and I have reason to believe that the competent authorities will be taking action very soon. But there is nothing we can do about.

      That doesn’t mean don’t talk about it, of course. Talking about it is one of the reasons 1P5 exists. We just need to keep things in their proper context.

      • Yes, he is pope. I never stated otherwise.

        But he is a heretic nonetheless, for he preaches, supports heresy. What else do you call someone who does this?

        Avoid, of course. But, I would beg to differ with you regarding the effects upon the ” on the ground” Catholic laity.
        The Truth is silent in this decadent, pagan world. I remember as I child, my non Catholic friends’ parents would ask parents questions about certain moral issues, only to seek, ” what does the Church teach?”
        So goes the way of the world, as he Church goes.

        I hope you are correct that those in authority are preparing to take action.
        And in my humble opinion, I hope the voice is strong and self righteous in the Truth.
        We do not need any graveling tones.

      • I hear what you are saying Jafin.

        WE just have to deal with this, as best we can.
        I have turned a blind ear to this man long ago. Such a loss.

      • Whether we in the laity ignore him is irrelevant in the larger picture. Personally, I have ignored his teaching and have pronounced him heretic from the minute I first heard his voice. I am irrelevant. What matters is whether the clergy, the priests and bishops in our parishes and, more important, in the Curia accept his teaching and follow him. If the faithful among them ignored him, just refused to obey him in his decrees and in his actions, in his appointments and directives, then we will have a confrontation that will have to be resolved. That day must come sooner or later and I pray Our Lord will instill in His faithful servants the courage, beginning today, to stand up to this monster, shout him down and tell him, “non serviam.”

      • Canon law gymnastics aside, how is it possible that our Lord would permit a Pope who teaches heresy? Would our Lord give His children a snake as His Vicar? I get the whole “terrible castigation” of bad priests or bishops, and even a sinful Pope, but can His Vicar, Christ on Earth teach error openly and consistently on faith and morals? He’s proclaiming the anti-Church. Everyone wants to argue the technicalities of canon law on papal elections, but taking a step out of the weeds, it makes no sense to hold the position that Christ wills (or perhaps “permits”) The ROCK to actively destroy the Church and lead souls to hell.

        Also, I am very worried about not only the precedent but what seems in my little head to be a dangerous temptation to hold the position that we can just ignore the Vicar of Christ in this case because he’s teaching the anti-Faith. Now, I’m not saying you’re ignoring the battle, I know everyone here is fighting it on some level, but I’m saying the Lord’s Vicar aka Christ on Earth CANNOT be disregarded/ignored/belittled in his teaching office. How CAN he be Peter whilst actively destroying the office, the moral teaching, the faith, and the government of Christ’s Church?

        If someone throws up their hands with “Christ wins in the end” again, I think I’ll be sick. Yes He does win, but 2+2 also has a knowable answer. Please someone check my math.

          • Both JPII and B16 formally changed the rules for electing the next Pope, and I do not recall the source, so someone who is more knowledgeable than I will have to support this, that being said the rule in question basically said that there could be no “pre” conclave meetings to determine the successor, unfortunately for PF there was at least one known preemptive meeting of Cardinals, which could nullify his Papacy, if there ever was the requirement to do so. I am not advocating this, Our Church has had to determine historically who the legitimate Successor of Peter is several times, with every side supporting one candidate over another. 50 to 100 years from now I think that history will have to examine the current situation we are faced with and decide accordingly, for now we will have to suffer the cross as our Lord and Savior has taught and in the end Truth will Prevail.

        • Steven you bring up a very good point. To be quite frank with you I have thought very carefully about what I am about to say and I pray that I do not scandalize you or anyone else for that matter. After much prayer and reflection I think faithful Catholics need to at least research the possibility that Christ has allowed a usurper on the Throne of Peter, and that His true Vicar is eclipsed as Our Lady said she would be eclipsed at La Salette. This has generally been authenticated by various approved prophecies and apparitions of the Church and her saints. Francis and his ilk make traction with those “catholics” and others who have already been unfaithful to maintaining their Catholic Faith in various ways. The last 60 years has been used by Our Lord both as a punishment for sin and faithlessness, and a test of the elect. It will confirm those who hold onto the Faith whole and entire and expose those who fawningly cling to a caricature of the Papacy and it’s authentic role in the life of the Church. I pray for and wish the 2 Cardinals and the other public witnesses the best, but I suspect that the horse has bolted – Malachi Martin’s 1992 theoretical apostate “pope” is most probably right in our face and this is the most obvious sign of God’s wrath (see St John Eudes). When Benedict flees Rome and Russia has marched we will most probably have been given the remainder of the 3rd secret which will show how the last 50-60 years has been a gradual withdrawal of grace for the institutional Church, allowing for the “diabolical disorientation” that Sister Lucy spoke of. Francis is confirming those already in error as a punishment for their resistance to the truth (see 2 Thess “Operation of Error”). I’m happy to discuss this in further detail offline.

        • I understand your confusion. I think everyone here does. This is a seemingly impossible situation.

          But can the Vicar of Christ teach error openly and consistently? Well, look at the evidence. It seems he can. He hasn’t strictly done so in his official teaching off, but in interviews, off the cuff plane fiascos, and homilies he definitely has. Laudato Si contains proclamations that are not within his purview or authority, and Amoris Laetitia, while definitely containing errors, states at the very beginning that it is Francis’ personal reflections on the Synods, so not issued with the full authority of his teaching office. We know that Pope John XXII definitely taught error on a matter of faith. And then there’s Vatican II. So we know it is possible for a pope to err and teaching privately or unofficially on matters of faith and morals. We also have only very small shreds of doubtful circumstantial evidence that maybe his election was not canonical and therefore possibly not valid. We also have very sketchy evidence that maybe the election was invalid because of conspiring previously… though such was done before the elections of most popes (there’s written evidence cardinals of desiring to elect Montini, later Paul VI, before John XXIII had passed on, and there was conspiring before the 2005 conclave, though the one elected was not the conspirators’ choice.) As laity we, as St. Pius X said, have the great privilege of allowing ourselves to be led. And no one with any authority on the matter has said that Francis is not pope. So, until further notice, Francis is pope.

          As to the precedent set and possible error by ignoring Pope Francis… Well, he’s teaching heresy left and right (regardless of actual metaphysical status as pope) isn’t he? So, should those with no power at all be listening to the heresy? How about passing it on? No. For all intents and purposes, we need to ignore, for purposes of instruction, everything that man says. And that is key, we ignore it only for instruction. This is not something we only can do, but we must do it. for the sake of our souls. We need to listen, be aware, and be ready to combat, according to our capacity, the errors that come from this pontiff until such a time as the proper authorities (the cardinals and bishops) take care of the matter.

          • “It seems he can” – only if he is pope. Francis preaching error is not evidence that popes can preach error and retain office.
            John XXII may have been wrong on the timing of beatific vision, but he didn’t ratify anyone in sin, and his office was shortened. Maybe I’m wrong, but that error seems to have very little impact on any of our day to day lives.
            Perhaps better questions would be the following,
            “What does the Church teach on whether, and to what extent the Holy Spirit protects us from a Pope actively teaching heresy?”
            “Does the Holy Spirit permit the devil to play *gotcha* with the official/unofficial nature of papal statements on faith and morals?”
            Depending on the nature of the answers of the Church Fathers to those two questions, he’s either pope or he’s not regardless of when/how you get there.
            Any suggestions on a source for the above questions?

            As a response to Malachy below, I think it is only fair to expect the withdrawal of grace from the institutional Church. The provision of that grace is dependent upon the holiness and piety of the members of the Church, first and foremost, the hierarchy. That being said, were that withdrawal to go so far as to include the failure of the Papacy as Rock, then what does that say about Christ’s promise re: gates of hell? If we believe popes can publicly and constantly proclaim heresy, regardless of the unofficial/official continuum, then Christ’s promise was meaningless, ergo He’s not God, and 2000 years of magisterium is meaningless and pointless.

            But, we do believe Christ’s promise, He is God, and the magisterium is timeless. Thoughts?

          • As for the first half and what the Church teaches as regards the Pope’s teaching authority and the potential for heresy… The Church Fathers have surprisingly little to say. The most comprehensive statements on that we have are Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I. And Vatican I was cut short by the loss of the Papal States. There is definitely further room for clarification. Another place to look would be St. Robert Bellarmine.

            We already talked about John XXII. We also have to look to Honorius, condemned by an ecumenical council and his successor as a heretic. So there’s that.

            For the second part… all I have to say is that Our Lord has made a promise, that the gates of hell shall not prevail. It seems to me that he wouldn’t need to make such a promise unless it would seem at times that the gates of hell would prevail. The Church is in Our Lord’s hands, not ours, not the pope’s… Our Lord’s.

      • Yes but he loses the chair for pertinacity in heresy – stubbornness – so I think he will metaphysically lose the Chair in the coming weeks.

        • Well… maybe… it’s possible that’s the case. Pertinacity has to be proven though. An equally valid argument has been made that loss of the papal office requires some act of the church. Besides, if he does lose the chair, we won’t know for sure until the church declares it so. I’m glad it’s way above my pay grade to make such calls.

  2. “One cannot grant a general rule which embraces all of them, nor construct casuistry of discernment.”

    Once again, we see “casuistry” used in a fashion that totally reverses it’s meaning. What is casuistry but the scrutiny of individual cases to discern whether a general rule may or may not apply? Which, of course, is exactly what Amoris Laetitia recommends.

  3. Heresy in spades. This is the complete destruction of Catholic doctrine.

    Uttered through a proxy, of course, as is typical of this manipulative, dissembling rogue.

  4. “We must conclude that the pope realizes that one can no longer speak of an abstract category of persons and … [a] praxis of integration in a rule that is absolutely to be followed in every instance…”

    Who is “We”?

    • To a quiet room in your home with a crucifix, some holy images, a Bible, a Catechism, holy candles, a ligher, your rosary beads and perhaps some potable water and non-perishable foodstuffs.

        • “Nothing ex cathedra spoken”…….
          It is still promoting heresy and I dare say this pope is a full fledge heretic.

          Let me ask you; If I order the murder of innocent people, in the name of self righteousness, am I guilty of murder, even though no bullet was fired from my gun? Of course. Because Francis hides behind the legalizes of the Church, ( something he always whines about), does that insulate him from being called a heretic?
          Francis is speaking. Why do we live in a detail fest, and say, ” Oh well, he has not actually changed dogmas.”
          Of course he is attempting to change Church teaching in its practice and he IS.

          The Church will remain……..but she is sorely battered and beaten and her faithful are being tossed aside.
          I do not wish for Francis’ death to be hastened.
          It is not the remedy. His death will serve no purpose of Truth Witness to the Truth.

          What must be done, needs to be done while he breathes on this earth.

          • We are not in disagreement, I am looking forward reminded that the gates of hell will not prevail.
            I pray, I reflect, I do what is in my power to do….

          • A worse possible thing we could even imagine is happening right under our noses. All the time. And that takes a very long time, almost 5 years. And what could it be?
            A fact that we (the Church to which we all belongs but especially BISHOPS) wait until he will say heresy ‘ex cathedra’! Bad news for all those ‘waiters’ is that he will probably never do THAT.
            And so, we come again to another enigma which we call PAPOLATRY.
            Whether we like it or not, we are witnesses of the obvious successfully realization of very cunning subtle evil plan, of creating a situation where believers think that one pope (of 266) can do, say, write and spew anything what he wants, (or someone else wants),- just because he is let me say it this way, – a bishop of Rome.
            There are a dozens heretical deeds, words, writings, gestures, which are already and repeatedly done, openly, – which should must be ENOUGH!
            As all of this already ENOUGH is for so many simple Catholic faithful peasants, so it should be more clear and understandable for Catholic ‘learned, scholarly, and wise’ men!

            When will they understand that enough is ENOUGH!?!

          • Has a pope? No. Never. Because he can’t. It is impossible so he hasn’t. And the number of times anything has been declared ex cathedra is VERY small. Twice actually (Immaculate Conception, and Assumption.) That’s it. More has been issued with the full authority of the papal office, but ex cathedra? Those are it.

          • Thanks Jafin. I’m still wrestling with this whole ‘Is he, isn’t he?’ It just doesn’t seem possible he can be pope when not one of the popes described as heretical came close. But I’m well aware that the task of declaring such is not up to me. I admit though, that if history declared it be so, I would not faint with surprise. (I doubt if I could raise an eyebrow.) Sigh! We’ll all just plod on. Mother will sort it out if we do everything we can, and should. Go to Mass, hang onto your rosaries, go to Adoration. ( Incidentally, the traddie Church I attend has Adoration every day. There are rarely more than three people there).

          • It’s my understanding that Pope John XXII held a heretical view that at death the Beatific Vision was postponed until the last person died at the end of the world, then all, who were in the state of grace, would enter Heaven together. I read, somewhere reliable but can’t remember where, that the sort of anguish we’re all going through was going on in Europe for months. He finally stated that he was tired of the arguing and was going to declare it de fide, but he was stricken with a fatal illness before he was able to do so. He died repentant and received that Last Sacrament. (It’s a start for your own research.)

        • He needn’t speak ex cathedra, barry, the damage already done is incredible. Devolution of power, sowing confusion, embracing Protestantism and rebuking evangelizing efforts.

          Have you ever read anti-Christ by St. Robert Bellarmine? It’s worth a look right about now (not because I think Francis is the anti-Christ). There are two things that have to happen before AC: apostasy (we’re getting VERY close to being able to check this off the list) and the collapse of the Roman empire–make no mistake that the Roman empire is the west (Germany, France, Italy, Britain, Ireland, US, Canada…). Based on what is going on in the streets, iconoclasm, rejection of the western traditions (getting pretty close to checking this off the list, too).

          • I know we are in deep, a perfect storm across the religious, social, and Geo-political landscape develops,
            shocked and fearful we are but history tells us (both secular and biblical) that victory is snatched from the jaws of
            apparent defeat.

            One only has to look at the delight of HELL at OUR LORD’S Crucifixion up until the point of IT’S realization that
            this Act Of Love destroyed their unbridled power over Man.

            The great grief is undoubtedly the heavy loss of soul’s when the DIVINE CORRECTION ensues…..

      • I think you are right. It may come to exactly that if the mainstream Church trajectory continues unchecked. It’s pretty scary to think of the point when there isn’t a valid Mass to go to.

        • ‘It’s pretty scary to think of the point when there isn’t a valid Mass to go to.’………THIS is the thought that absolutely terrifies me. I am a sinner like we all are and I NEED the sacraments (like we all do) to stay spiritually healthy! I NEED a valid Mass and Confession and Communion (like we all do) lest I fall into whatever kind of debauchery my weaknesses lead to! I’m telling you, it terrifies me more than any other bomb he could possibly throw at the Church. I don’t allow myself to think much about it otherwise I go into a complete panic!

          • The Japanese Catholics survived for a VERY long time without priests… if necessary we can, with the grace of God, do so too.

          • my ancestors in Ireland suffered this and they found a solution. Holy Mass was celebrated in the hills and the forests to avoid the English soldiers. The places are called “Mass Rock”. These places are scattered throughout the country and every year Mass is celebrated at these Mass Rock in rememberance.. The large rock is used as an altar. I used to wonder as a child why some men always knelt at Mass on one knee only, apparently this was passed down through the generations, the men surrounded the venue of the Mass on guard and in preparation to warn the priest to run and hide.. We may be returning to these days.

          • Very and an excellent point. We certainly have our Japanese brothers and sisters for inspiration. As well as Irish and English Catholics. It’s nice to be reminded of days when the true Faith survived regardless of her enemies. Just this time they are inside the gates so to speak.

          • Don’t forget the underground Catholic Church in China and formerly in Ukraine! My pastor grew up under communism.

          • “It would be easier for the world to survive without the sun than to do so without the Holy Mass.” – Padre Pio

            If (when?) things get to the point where valid sacraments are few and far between, we can be assured that God will sustain us in His grace in many other compensatory ways. Be at peace…

            I find great inspiration in Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson’s historical novels, such as ‘Come Rack, Come Rope!’. (Msgr. Benson was the author of then end-times novel ‘Lord of the World’, which our friend Pope Francis has recommended we read.) Benson’s stories describing the heroic perseverance of Catholics under harsh persecution in 16th century England are not only inspiring but perhaps could very well spell out what is coming in the not-too-distant future. The caving of much of the clergy to Henry VIII’s ‘Act of Supremacy’ could very well be reenacted in the near future. St. John Fisher, St. Edmund Campion, St. Thomas More, pray for us!

    • Some leaks came out in a few places that Cdl. Burke let slip that Oct. 13 will be the day the fraternal correction will be issued. It has not been confirmed of course, but that’s only 4 days away… PRAY.

      • hmmm
        I wonder if Our Lady will show her support of the correction with another sky show? *That* would certainly underscore the points made!!

      • Dear Jafin,
        From my sources, I hear that we should not expect that correction to come on 13 October. Unfortunately. May Our Lady of Fatima intervene!

        • At this point, I am not anticipating ANY “formal correction” in the manner in which most folks {I think} anticipate it.

          Humanly-speaking, that is, short of some sort of recognizable miracle, I suspect when {if} it comes it will be couched in more or less toothless and conciliatory terms, thus allowing the author to state that the deed has been done while at the same time also doing nothing to stop the continued spread of heresy and error throughout the Church.

  5. Thank you, Maike, for keeping us so up-to-date —
    As painful as it is to hear, we need to know each chapter of this unfolding dilemma — as it is now reaching a crescendo. Oct 13, the 100th anniversary of Our Lady’s final apparition at Fatima, is this coming Friday. We are living in the aftermath and the culmination of the Vatican’s failure to obey Her – both as regards the release of the full 3rd Secret of Fatima and the failure to consecrate Russia, publicly, in union with the Bishops of the world, to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. The errors of Free Masonry and cultural Marxism have invaded the Roman Catholic Church, all the way to the top — just as Our Lady said would happen when She appeared at LaSalette. Let us keep praying our daily Rosary, uniting it with fasting and penance, as Our Lady has repeatedly asked of us. Our Lord told Sr. Lucia that it is never too late to call upon the Hearts of Jesus and Mary. There is no human solution to this dilemma.

    • We are living in the chastisement that Our Lady warned would happen to us – if She was not obeyed in Her twin requests at Fatima, which you mentioned above. The worst chastisement that the Lord can afflict us with is “bad shepherds” – who lead the flock astray. Only Our Lady, Queen of the Holy Rosary, can save us – as She told us at Fatima.

      • Sr. Lucia spoke of a “diabolical disorientation” that would take over the Church – if Our Lady was not obeyed. This is what we are seeing now – it has impacted the papacy and the upper hierarchy – and many clergy. What I don’t understand is how those who are still living, who know the full contents of the 3rd Secret of Fatima, can remain silent – as they see Catholic doctrine and dogma being destroyed daily by Francis. I read elsewhere that he is going to force the Novus Ordo liturgical calendar onto those groups and communities who are offering the traditional Latin Mass, and still using the traditional liturgical calendar. He has destroyed the moral foundations and is going after what remains of the liturgical foundations. All of this would be seen for the complete diabolical horror show that it is, if someone would simply release the official text of the 3rd Secret of Fatima, even though we mostly know what it probably contains. We need an official release of the full 3rd Secret by a prelate with some authority, so that there can be the possibility of steps toward repentance on the part of the clergy who still care.

  6. I would advise people to stay clear of Francis and his minions. I heard an asteroid is in the neighborhood. ????

  7. Give him more rope.
    Give him as much rope as he wants.
    This merely affirms our suspicions are justified regarding Pope Francis, those he has appointed to the episcopate, and those members of the episcopate who allow by their words and/or their silence to be painted with the Spadaro brush.
    Spadaro’s statement simply justifies the much maligned “Dubia” and “Correctio” and enhances the credibility of those who composed and publicized them.
    Spadaro’s statement undermines the credibility of those who say that Pope Francis is not speaking heretically.
    Pope Francis’ personal silence magnifies the suspicions of faithful Catholics and makes him appear a pitiful coward.
    The character of pitiful cowards generating unorthodox notions frames those notions as erroneous, and those speaking them to be unorthodox.
    Can the occupant of the Chair of St. Peter be unorthodox?
    Oxymoronic, at least, but I suspect when viewed from the lens of eternity it is far more grave.

  8. I have no difficulty whatsoever in believing that this pontiff does not accept objective truths. He has his own agenda and surrounds himself with those ‘progressive’ (kindest possible word) who agree with him and push the envelope even more. Sodomites are welcome, communists too, atheists and population control advocates—yes, all are welcome in his place. Faithful Catholics? Not so much.

  9. This is not mere nominalism. This is an attack on the very possibility of rational thought inasmuch as it is a denial of the logical principle of non-contradiction.

    Consider the proposition “The Catholic Church can no longer issue general rules that apply to whole categories of people”.

    Now note that the proposition is itself a rule (a principle regulating conduct) since it forbids issuing general rules.

    Moreover, it is a general rule since it applies to a whole category of people. The category can be understood to refer to either those affected by the rule immediately (i.e., law-givers of the Church) or those affected mediately (i.e., all Catholics). In both cases, it is a whole category of people.

    Therefore, the proposition forbids general rules while itself being a general rule, which is a contradiction allowing absolutely anything to be deduced. It must be held as abhorrent by every rational being. Indeed, by accepting it they would undermine their own rationality.

    • “The Catholic Church can no longer issue general rules that apply to whole categories of people” If that’s the case will this then include God’s Ten Commandments? .This appears to be what his intention is.

  10. “In Europe first and now in America, elected men have taken it upon themselves to indebt their people to create an atmosphere of dependency. And why? For their own selfish need to increase their own personal power.”

    “It is necessary to respond to the globalization of migration with the globalization of charity and cooperation, in such a way as to make the conditions for migrants more humane” (Message for the 2015 World Day of Migrants and Refugees, September 3, 2014).

    “Women in the Church are more important than bishops or priests” (plane interview, 28 June’s, 2013).

    The Holy Father can speak (and condemn) categorically when he wishes.

  11. I believe the Pope is saying nothing is absolute. What is most important is people live their lives being thoughtful compassionate persons looking out for themselves in their own glass house, before they throw stones. People should not be so quick to always see evil in someone else. And be forgiving people, as God is. If God forgives me, so shall I forgive you! No one can know what is in someone’s heart and mind. Not even the Pope’s.

    • Your point is noted, BUT there is too much evidence to HAVE faith in an agency that contradicts the office it claims to uphold.
      The heart and mind aspect is not sufficiently relevant.
      When St.Paul corrected St.Peter it was based on an error of St.Peter’s judgement not the status of his soul before GOD.
      Humility held sway with St.Peter despite his having known OUR LORD in the flesh unlike St.Paul.

    • If this is what he is saying — never a solid bet since he always seems to leave himself plenty of wiggle room — then the pope is simply wrong. There are absolutes and he, as a Catholic priest, ought to be the first to acknowledge that. It surprises me that you can post something like this and excuse it away with such persiflage.

  12. Remember, in 1917, St. Maximillian Kolbe witnessed the 200 year anniversary of Freemasonry parading itself in front of the Vatican, carrying banners proclaiming, “We will sit in your Chair someday, Pope!” This shocked Kolbe into founding the Knights of the Immaculata to counteract Freemasonry and establish devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary throughout the world. Well, here we are 100 years later, about to celebrate the anniversary of Our Lady’s Miracle of the Sun in Fatima. What are the Freemasons doing to celebrate the 100 anniversary of their 200 year anniversary that Kolbe witnessed in Rome? Freemasons have admitted that membership in their lodges is not necessarily a prerequisite for a future pope, but that for a man to merely OBEY the directives of Freemasonry would be sufficient to their goals of a one world church. It appears they have their man in the Chair.

  13. We should, we like it or not, (and not only now) go to the very basics: Can a heretic be a Catholic? No. Can a Catholic become a heretic? Yes. This only should be enough. For the faithful ones. But where they are?
    Do we now really need to ask this question: Can a non-Catholic be a pope?
    In the very near future, it would probably be proclaimed that one was a heretic before his installing on the Seat.
    But who is obligated to proclaim that? To say the words. The words, which are in this case, actually the real, true works. Otherwise, as we know from the epistle of apostle James 2. chapter:

    “Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.”…
    “For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.”

    So, I’ll ask now our six thousands brothers in Christ; What are then your works bishops?!
    Remember the words of Pope S. Gregory the Great, to YOU, from his Pastoral Guide:

    “A spiritual guide should be silent when discretion requires and speak when words are of service. Otherwise he may say what he should not or be silent when he should speak. Indiscreet speech may lead men into error and an imprudent silence may leave in error those who could have been taught. Pastors who lack foresight hesitate to say openly what is right because they fear losing the favour of men. As the voice of truth tells us, such leaders are not zealous pastors who protect their flocks, rather they are like mercenaries who flee by taking refuge in silence when the wolf appears.
    The Lord reproaches them through the prophet: They are dumb dogs that cannot bark. On another occasion he complains: You did not advance against the foe or set up a wall in front of the house of Israel, so that you might stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord. To advance against the foe involves a bold resistance to the powers of this world in defence of the flock. To stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord means to oppose the wicked enemy out of love for what is right.
    When a pastor has been afraid to assert what is right, has he not turned his back and fled by remaining silent? Whereas if he intervenes on behalf of the flock, he sets up a wall against the enemy in front of the house of Israel. Therefore, the Lord again says to his unfaithful people: Your prophets saw false and foolish visions and did not point out your wickedness, that you might repent of your sins. The name of the prophet is sometimes given in the sacred writings to teachers who both declare the present to be fleeting and reveal what is to come. The word of God accuses them of seeing false visions because they are afraid to reproach men for their faults and they consequently lull the evildoer with an empty promise of safety. Because they fear reproach, they keep silent and fail to point out the sinner’s wrongdoing.
    The word of reproach is a key that unlocks a door, because reproach reveals a fault of which the evildoer is himself often unaware. That is why Paul says of the bishop: He must be able to encourage men in sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For the same reason God tells us through Malachi: The lips of the priest are to preserve knowledge, and men shall look to him for the law, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. Finally, that is also the reason why the Lord warns us through Isaiah: Cry out and be not still; raise your voice in a trumpet call.
    Anyone ordained a priest undertakes the task of preaching, so that with a loud cry he may go on ahead of the terrible judge who follows. If, then, a priest does not know how to preach, what kind of cry can such a dumb herald utter? It was to bring this home that the Holy Spirit descended in the form of tongues on the first pastors, for he causes those whom he has filled, to speak out spontaneously.”

    • Remarkable!

      How much our Lord wants to give His flock future priests such as this, future bishops and a great Pope.

      I think, this moment in Church History, must begin to be cleaned up first………….CORRECTED, for that to happen.
      Just an opinion, here. Why would our Lord call upon ‘young men’ to serve Him in His priesthood for this?
      Perhaps those who have weathered a great storm for so long, from seminary to present moment,
      are called to make way for this cleansing, this witness to Christ.

      So many men and women who desire to give up all and serve Christ through His Church, do need a little encouragement, would you not say?

    • Yes. Yes. And Yes.

      See how much does the reality today stands in concert with the New Approach of John XXIII:

      “The Church has always opposed these errors, and often condemned them with the utmost severity. Today, however, Christ’s Bride prefers the balm of mercy to the arm of severity. She believes that, present needs are best served by explaining more fully the purport of her doctrines, rather than by publishing condemnations.”

      You say in support of the way of St Paul {and Jesus and the Fathers and the Church till V2}:
      “He must be able to encourage men in sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”

      Indeed, a good bishop must.

      But no. Our bishops, even our “orthodox” bishops, stand by and allow wholly rank evil to flourish, even as they assert the “nice things” about the Catholic faith. Never naming names of the enemies of the faith that exist within her walls. THEY COULD FIGHT. But they don’t.

      They will not defend the Catholic faith.

      And now we see this “New Church” evolving; an oganization that defends nothing, stands for nothing, fights nothing. And organization that presumes God’s “mercy” while refusing to condemn disobedience to His commands.

      4 Say not: I have sinned, and what harm hath befallen me? for the most High is a patient rewarder.
      5 Be not without fear about sin forgiven, and add not sin upon sin:
      6 And say not: The mercy of the Lord is great, he will have mercy on the multitude of my sins.
      7 For mercy and wrath quickly come from him, and his wrath looketh upon sinners.
      8 Delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day.
      9 For his wrath shall come on a sudden, and in the time of vengeance he will destroy thee. Sirach

      May God save the Catholic Church.

      • Still, I’m perplexed by the insight of their fear!
        That must be fear. But not the healthy one! Why such fear for this earthly life, and not a healthy fear for eternal life. The fear to not offend the Lord the God.
        Thanks for the link to that ‘Opening Address to the Council’ of JXXIII.
        I can’t avoid to think immediately on his words at his deathbed: “Stop the council! Stop the council!”
        As in the description stated, the IIVC should be more pastoral than doctrinal, but in his Opening he says this:
        “Bringing Home The Church’s Teaching To The Modern World
        From what We have said, the doctrinal role of this present Council is sufficiently clear.”
        – If I read the first sentence, I can’t hold my tongue and must say, – With IIVC it is done quite opposite; The Modern World imported its ideologies into the Church!
        In the chapter “The Defense And Advancement Of Truth” he said:
        “The major interest of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred heritage of Christian truth be safeguarded and expounded with greater efficacy.”
        – But that sacred heritage is nothing else than traditional teaching, – which is turned upside down, with this council!

        Sometimes I get idea, that people at the top, are thinking that everything what they do, simply must be good (if not the best), because, they are on the very top, above of all others on earth, the untouchable one(s),… while they in the same time forget their real, main role and purpose which is that they as apostolic successors, should and must lead the Church trough the apostolic tradition, which is the authentic teaching of the apostles, which was handed from Christ to the apostles, and from them to their successors.

        Btw. the IIVC is the first and only council, where the outsiders were actively participating about the matters which are the matters of THE CHURCH.
        At the first VC there were also some guests from outside the Church (Thus non-Catholics, thus non-believers and/or heretics), but then only as observers.

        PS. Here you have two links to two recent articles, that you’d like to read. About the CCC from 1995., and of course further plans with it by those seducers which are known as ultra-neo-progressives:

        • They lack love and charity.

          “Fear is not in charity: but perfect charity casteth out fear, because fear hath pain. And he that feareth, is not perfected in charity. “

  14. The proposition that the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace was solemnly condemned by the Council of Trent, but Amoris Laetitia seems to say that it is not always possible — or even advisable — to follow the moral law.

  15. I am an elementary school teacher in a Catholic school. I shared the filial correction on my Facebook page. A “friend” reported my post to my principal and I had to remove it. These are the times in which we live, we are not allowed to speak the truth of our faith without persecution. I’ll do it anyway.

  16. Paragraph 303 is a poison pill or a vaccine planted cancer cell.

    It’s job as a pill is to pollute and stain the context, the setting it has been inserted into – the whole of the document. As it seeps and stains the meaning of all other paragraphs – exercising its executive control – it draws down every point and argument of the document to one function: simply, how to take the poison without antidote, how to survive

    As a cancer cell Paragraph 303 was Trojan horsed into the document (A.L.) to feed on the host (A.L.), snacking on, digesting every intent and point, every premise and conclusion. After its cannibalistic consumption Paragraph 303 is now established with its own cancerous autonomy. Gorged and able to survive without the host (A.L.) – possessing powerful (of course, cancerous) ability to colonize – it is ready to be excised and planted elsewhere: into other papal and administrative documents, catechisms, laws, teachings, rites, doctrines, and dogmas.

    That was the announcement of the Boston confab (near too a conclave on the future of the Church; at least, the next stage of the Ecclesiastical Peronian Revolution.

    The proof, the evidence is in the near future made present in Boston, made manifest in the proxy voice of Pope Francis.

    Jut wait. Just wait, imagination if you can how “A.L./Paragraph 303” will, itself, be the host – the primordial cancerous stew – for every bit and part, every point and argument, every numbered paragraph, of the next papal document, the Mother of All Exhortations issuing from the Synod on the Youth.

    That dox’s paragraphs (to be carefully grafted into the prime cancer – the cobbling of “LGBTQ issues”) will be so colonized by Paragraph 303 – with its powerful generating powers to colonize its bloody cancerous mass – there will no need for a poison pill.

    Queer Church will be on its way, after so many stuttering fits and starts. Soon, the Boston confab will reconvene to honor godparenting role – maybe this time banqueting on certified halal chicken and goat.

  17. Thus Spadero: “one can no longer speak of an abstract category of persons and…[a] praxis of integration in a rule that is absolutely to be followed in every instance.”

    First, this is prime Jesuit gobbledygook. Second, the “no longer” gives the game away. Of course! Metaphysical realities have been updated, no doubt because we are in the Age of the Spirit! Joachim of Fiore, call your office!

  18. Once again, the Pope plays his Sicilian Defense, Father Spadaro, in the long chess game against his opponent (that would be us, the Catholics). Father Tony can always be counted on to befuddle the enemy with his creative math and logic skills, while the king hides safely behind the battle lines. Or when he needs cover from incoming flak, he might use his queen (James Martin, SJ) to distract us with his/her latest installment of bridge building. The problem is, even though we put up a good fight, we only have pawns in this dismal game, while Francis has the throne and all the powerful pieces.

  19. What I don’t get is why people are still debating whether Bergoglio has given a response or not. He has never said anything to the contrary. He has been very persistent in stating and acting that he has changed the doctrine. He has even sanctioned those who expressed it plainly for him. So why don’t we all come to the acceptance that this man has answered the dubia and other clarification calls? If he has meant otherwise he would have responded long ago. But he keeps telling the world he has no intention of answering what he has taken to be a ranting by those he termed rigid. Let us all face this fact and think of a way of getting him off that place. As for me, I never saw him as pope, right from the day of his selection and especially when he stepped out to greet those who were waiting for the so-called new pope.
    He is a devil’s right-hand man and the sooner we stop referring to him as pope the better for us.

    • I agree – a declaration of Sede Vacante can be made after a Fraternal Correction goes unheeded – a new Pope can then be elected against the wishes of Francis.

  20. Wouldn’t it be nice, if these kinds of messages are true – that if Pope Francis truly believes in relativism, that he would just come out and say it clearly in a document. Instead of sending out all of these puppets to do the talking.

  21. Actually some may argue 2 + 2 = 5 if you make 2 large enough. Today we create our own truth and our own reality. Even the pope feels entitled to reinvent the Catholic church today. But don’t worry, shortly as all our politicians subscribe to the belief that our safety lies in brandishing our nuclear sword instead of heading Christ’s words. The important thing is to make other nations fear us rather than heeding the words of Christ. Christ advised us to be meek and humble, the consensus in America today is that we have to show how tough we are.

  22. It is hard to believe how stupid and evil is the Argentine, how Bolshevik and aggressive his pertinacity.

    The coming Fraternal Correction is not enough.
    It must contain a Canonical Warning also saying that unless there is explicit repudiation of all his errors and renunciation of all sly and deceptive behaviors, the man must then, as the Gospel commands – be “treated like a publican and tax collector” meaning the Church shuns him.
    After the short period to give him time to repudiate and renounce – and he does not – the Canonical Warning kicks in and there is a declaration of Sede Vacante. Then a new Pope by Christmas – he might need some temporary accommodation, though!


Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...