Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Pope Orders Cardinal Müller to Dismiss Three CDF Priests

(Image: Palace of the Holy Office; Headquarters of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)

Marco Tosatti, the well-informed and well-respected Italian Vatican specialist, has just revealed another quite troubling development in Rome. On 26 December, Tosatti reports on his own website Stilum Curiae that Pope Francis had just ordered the Prefect of one Vatican dicastery to dismiss three of his priests from their duties in their congregation.

My own research has shown that this incident occurred at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), and that it was Cardinal Gerhard Müller himself who now has to obey these peremptory new orders. Additionally, I was able to discover that the three priests involved are, respectively, of a Slovakian-American, French, and Mexican nationality. (One of my sources is a friend of one of these three theologians.) However, the last of these three might now, after all, be able to remain a little longer in his current position at the Congregation.

Let us now consider some of the specific details of what Marco Tosatti himself has perceptively gathered for us. He starts his article with a reference to Pope Francis’ usual rebuke of the Roman Curia at his Christmas address to the Curia and detects the pope’s obvious anger in his words and gestures. When looking over to the Curia itself, however, Tosatti perceives something else than a reciprocal anger to be present among the curial members: “It is not about their resistance, but about their fear, their discontent, and a kind of feeling that belongs to another context altogether.”

Tosatti then refers to a credible source who told him several recent episodes occurring at the Vatican. Two of them appear to be of great importance and might also give us some additional glimpses into Pope Francis’ own authoritarian methods as well as his somewhat indirect way of ruling the Church. But, we should now first concentrate on the new personnel matter at the Congregation for Doctrine, which Tosatti himself says is “decisively sadder.” Here is Tosatti’s report:

The head of a dicastery has received the order to remove three of his employees (all of whom have worked there for a long time), and it was without any explanation. He [the Prefect] received these official letters: “….I request that you please dismiss ….” The order was: send him [each of them] back into his diocese of origin or to the Religious Family to which he belongs. He [the Prefect of the Congregation] was very perplexed because it was about three excellent priests who are among the most capable professionally. He first avoided obeying and several times asked for an audience with the pope. He had to wait because that meeting was postponed several times. Finally, he was received in an audience. And he said: “Your Holiness, I have received these letters, but I did not do anything because these persons are among the best of my dicastery… what did they do?” The answer was, as follows: “And I am the pope, I do not need to give reasons for any of my decisions. I have decided that they have to leave and they have to leave.” He got up and stretched out his hand in order to indicate that the audience was at an end. On 31 December, two of the three [men] will leave the dicastery in which they have worked for years, and without knowing the why. For the third, there seems to be a certain delay. But then, there is another implication which, if true, would be even more unpleasant. One of the two had freely spoken about certain decisions of the pope – perhaps a little bit too much. A certain person – a friend of a close collaborator of the pope – heard this disclosure and passed it on. The victim received then a very harsh telephone call from Number One [i.e., the pope]. And then soon came the dismissal.” [emphasis added]

In this passage, Tosatti piercingly speaks about an “autocratic fever that seems to have broken out in the Vatican.” [my emphasis] And he concludes his report with the following words:

Thus it is not so astonishing when the atmosphere behind the walls and in the palaces is not really serene. And one may now ask oneself what kind of credit this fact gives altogether to all the elaborate and sustained fanfare about mercy. [my emphasis]

Thus Tosatti adds another piece of the puzzle concerning Pope Francis’ manner and methods of governance through which he seemingly aims at removing – or marginalizing – orthodox prelates, priests, and laymen from positions of formative influence in the Vatican.

Moreover, with specific regard of the Congregation for Doctrine, another source had told me the following, more than a month ago:

One source in Rome says that all those who work for the Holy See are afraid to talk about anything for fear of being chopped because of the presence of informants everywhere. He compared it to Stalinist Russia. He said two priest friends of his, good men, have been fired from the CDF because they were accused of being critical of Pope Francis.

This same Rome source, who is personally very honest and well informed, reports that these two priests here mentioned (who are some of the same ones who are involved in the recent three personnel cases) fear that they will not be the only ones to be removed. They see their own removal to be just the beginning of a “massive overhaul” [my emphasis] within the Doctrine Congregation, “not unlike what happened recently to Cardinal Sarah’s Divine Worship Congregation.” (Here we might be reminded of the fact that it was Marco Tosatti himself who had earlier called these recent changes at the Congregation for Divine Worship a “Purge.”)

We have also recently reported about the pope’s earlier decision to remove the members of the Pontifical Academy of Life, which is widely known for its strong stance in defense of human life. Here is what one well-informed source had reported to me then about this incident:

At the end of 2016 the Pontifical Academy for Life was closed and all its members dismissed. The Academy will be reconstituted in 2017 with new statutes and the Academy will be repopulated. The process for naming new members of the Academy is not known.

We also have repeatedly reported on the atmosphere of fear that now increasingly permeates the Vatican, as did a recent report from the co-founder of LifeSiteNews.

During this forthcoming year of 2017 – the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima – may the Blessed Mother increasingly be our help and our trustworthy refuge. May she help us with those graces we shall need to defend the truth more fully and to manifest Christ’s love, as well, even in the face of fear.

This post has been updated.

519 thoughts on “Pope Orders Cardinal Müller to Dismiss Three CDF Priests”

  1. So, the only cardinals, bishops, priests, and faithful who are entitled to mercy are those that don’t disagree with PF.

      • No, no, no. It’s only an irregular situation. We must accompany our brethren to hell if necessary as that is what “mercy” requires.

        At which point of course we say, no thanks for your “mercy”.

          • An innovative and potentially useful idea indeed! Perhaps in their quest for a sinless world where God’s Mercy overcomes every imaginable act without exception, they may experience something to more properly shape their thinking. If they find it difficult to actually get to hell to conduct further research, they may want to consult the transcript of a 1977 Exorcism entitled “Warning from Beyond”.

  2. Bring it on Bergoglio. I don’t care what you have to say or wish to do any longer – and neither do the Children of The Light of God. Your days are numbered, whereas the days of He Who Is are without number.

    • Then there Will be a Schism in the Faith. Francis has ignored faithful bishops and promoted those who have the church in the dying west in ruins like De Kessel, Cupich, Farrell and Depaglia. Etc……….. Time for Pope Benedict and Majority of the college of Cardinals to declare a Schism in the faith. Otherwise most of the Western church will be like Chicago and Belgium where sorry excuses of AB like Cupich and De kessel close One Third of parishes there while they circumvent Canon law 915 while they promote a Homosexual agenda.

  3. “which is widely known for its strong stance in defense of human life”. Sorry Maike, but here you’re mistaken. The PAV was barely worthy of the name. Out of a large membership of academics had at best no more than half a dozen to ten who were actually what we would call “pro-life”. When the head of the PAV – appointed under Benedict XVI mind you – wrote an article for L’Osservatore Romano condoning the abortion of twins, it took two years of concentrated effort to have him removed and the direct intervention of Cardinal Levada (CDF) and Pope Benedict. Of the membership of the PAV we had the support of no more than a handful. Most of these peripheral artifacts of the Vatican apparatus – particularly the newer ones that have no immediate bearing on the governance of the Church – exist for essentially PR purposes. Frankly, though I’m sure he has the wrong motives, Bergoglio might be doing us a favour here in the long term. Let’s not forget that the CDF is itself pretty suspicious. The fact that we are now thinking of Muller – Liberation theologian – as a bastion of Catholic orthodoxy says much. Let us not forget the carefully crafted PR burst of the Charamsa affair, perfectly calculated to throw light on the direction things were expected to take for the Synods. This is the CDF of our time:

      • He has also written a book on deacons and why women can’t receive the sacrament of orders at any level. His speech last year in Spain on marriage was solid. Ok he’s not St. Pius X, but he’s not Boff either!

          • I agree, but at the same time, Muller is definitely a weak link and I don’t think people should rely on him. So far, he’s tried to mitigate the effects of Bergoglio’s heretical documents and statements by working strenuously to give them an improbably orthodox interpretation. That’s something, it’s true, but he certainly hasn’t opposed them openly and I don’t think he will. Bergoglio is actually relying on Muller to run interference for him by trying to downplay the heretical content of virtually every document or word that comes from the papal pen or lips.

          • I certainly agree. The heir of the Holy Office needs to actually carry out his holy office. Sadly, though, with the situation as it is in the hierarchy, especially in Rome, I’m just glad when a high-ranking prelate doesn’t open endorse heresy

      • Matthew, this is interesting. Our Bishop’s newspaper column for December (in effect his Christmas message to the city as head of The Catholic Church in his city/diocese) stated that “Our Lady was in labour as Joseph frantically searched for a place for them to stay.”

        This poor Bishop obviously does not believe in the Immaculate Conception (thus ensuring that Our Lady was spared the pangs of childbirth), the Virgin Birth, and who knows how many other things we are to believe. My priest told me it was a waste of time to write and correct him as the damage was already done, that no correction would reach the readers, and that hardly anyone would know the difference.


        • The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary being born without Original Sin n therefore has nothing to do with Mary while in childbirth!!

          • Mary was conceived without sin. Therefore, when delivering her Divine Child, she did not suffer the pains of childbirth placed upon the children of Eve in Genesis 3. This has long been the teaching of the Church concerning Mary’s perpetual virginity, her Immaculate Conception, and the Virgin Birth.

            In a manner foreign to the minds and bodies of we children of Eve, Our Lady gave birth to Jesus her Divine Child, without the pain we associate with birth, while her virginity remained intact.

            I think that generally, we have trouble understanding that truth. Many Catholics do not seem to believe that, and protestants of all stripes (including those who claim to be Catholic!) most certainly do not believe that truth of the Church.

            If I’m not mistaken, I believe this is the situation that Barbara mentioned as being sad. And truly it is, very sad indeed. That popular blasphemy concerning Our Lady’s pregnancy and delivery is so widespread, even so that her own bishop has bought into the lie.

          • Thank you! I don’t ever remember hearing or reading that n I attended Catholic Schools in all grades n will turn 75 this year!!

          • [The] supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost extended to the birth of Jesus Christ, not merely preserving Mary’s integrity, but also causing Christ’s birth or external generation to reflect his eternal birth from the Father in this, that “the Light from Light” proceeded from his mother’s womb as a light shed on the world; that the “power of the Most High” passed through the barriers of nature without injuring them; that “the body of the Word” formed by the Holy Ghost penetrated another body after the manner of spirits. – Catholic Encyclopedia > Virgin Birth of Christ –


            Manner of his birth – The Third Article of the Creed – The Catechism of the Council of Trent
            Besides, a circumstance wonderful beyond expression or conception, he is born of his Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity ; and as he afterwards went forth from the sepulchre whilst it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which his disciples were assembled, ” the doors being shut;” 5 or, not to depart from natural events which we witness every day, as the rays of the sun penetrate, without breaking or injuring, in the least, the substance of glass ; after alike, but more incomprehensible manner, did Jesus Christ come forth from his mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity, which immaculate and perpetual, forms the just theme of our eulogy. This was the work of the Holy Ghost, who, at the conception and birth of the Son, so favoured the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity, and yet preserve inviolate her perpetual virginity.

            The Apostle, sometimes, called Jesus Christ the second Adam, Christ and institutes a comparison between him and the first : for ” as compared in the first all men die, so in the second all are made alive ;” and as in the natural order, Adam was the father of the human race ; so, in the supernatural order, Christ is the author of grace and of glory. The Virgin Mother we may also compare to Eve, making the second Eve, that is Mary, correspond with the first;
            as we have already shown that the second Adam, that is, Christ, corresponds witli the first Adam. By believing the serpent, Eve entailed malediction and death on mankind ; and Mary, by believing the Angel, became the instrument of the divine goodness in bringing life and benediction to the human race. 3 From Eve we are born children of wrath ; from Mary we have received Jesus Christ, and through him are regenerated children of grace. To Eve it was said : ” In sorrow shall thou bring forth children :” Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate, she brought forth Jesus the Son of God, without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.

            5 John xx. 19.

            Cf. Did the Virgin Mary suffer the pains of childbirth? –

          • It is a very interesting question – the effects of the Immaculate Conception on the human body of Our Lady – and, by extension, on the body she gives to Our Lord.

            Clearly, the grace of the Immaculate Conception – being a prevenient grace from the Cross of Our Lord – is not the simple restoration of the state of Original Justice of Adam and Eve before the Fall because that Original Justice did not know mortality in any way. Does that mean that in a state of Original Justice Adam and Eve wouldn’t have known the weariness of labour – as they do in a post-lapsarian state? Does it mean that their bodies did not feel suffering or sickness in the way we now do? Would they have fallen sick? We know they wouldn’t have suffered from mortality in the way we now do since Death enters in the world with Adam’s Sin. Would they, therefore, have ‘gone to God’ and the Beatific Vision at the end of their stay in the terrestrial paradise – or would they have benefited from a perpetuity of human life in that terrestrial paradise until such a time as God gathered them and all their descendants into the Heavenly Home?
            We do not know. Neither Scripture nor Tradition gives us many clues.
            But it is an interesting speculation in the light of what the grace of the Immaculate Conception grants Our Lady – and the kind of human body she gives to her Divine Son:
            Clearly Our Lord could physically suffer. Indeed He knew tiredness and weariness also. By extension, then, Our Lady could, too, in her humanity. So the Immaculate Conception grace did NOT take away those consequences of Original Sin (which Adam and Eve in Original Justice seem not have experienced since they are announced after the Fall.)
            We know also, however, that Our Lord’s death was NOT a death that He passively suffered (as all of us descendants of Fallen Adam and Eve do have to endure) since He says, “No-one takes my life, I lay it down of my own accord.” Therefore, He offers actively His suffering on the Cross and He chooses the moment when He ‘gives up His spirit.” Sacred Scripture is quite clear on all these points. The death of Our Lord is thus ENTIRELY redemptive of human sin-caused mortality. Accordingly, the question of whether the Immaculate Conception, Our Lady, knew physical death (not phsical corruption, obviously) at the end of her life seems to have two persuasive but different theological opinions:
            1. No – because death is a punishment for sin and Our Lady was sinless.
            2. Perhaps yes – in an act of conformity to Our Lord’s death and resurrection.

            So after these long digressions – Our Lady’s experience of child birth pangs – needs to be understood in the light of the original passage in Genesis which speaks of an INCREASE in birth pains (could there have been others? I don’t know. Do animals experience pain when they give birth? Do we see their physiological distress?). It also needs to be understood in the light of Revelation 12 and the woman in birth pangs, crying out in labour indeed. For sure – we can harmonise these traditions and deep mystical truths that the Deposit of the Faith gives us: Our Lady knew no birth pang in the physical labour of Our Lord’s birth: the Head of the Church was born without suffering. But the birth of the body – His Church – at the Cross was a birth in suffering and compassion and to that extent Our Lady can be said to give birth in suffering for the (sinful) members of the Church.

            Lastly – whilst I venerate the tradition of the Fathers (and various mystics) on speaking of Our Lord’s passage through the birth canal: “penetrated another body after the manner of spirits” – it is important, as St Ireneaus so accurately portrays – that Our Lord’s human life recapitulates all of the stages of a human life IN THE FLESH. Otherwise we’re drifting towards a somatic understanding of the Incarnation, not a sarxian understanding. Need this compromise Our Lady’s virginity in the act of giving birth? No. But, whatever the ‘mechanics’ by which God preserved Our Lady’s perpeptual virginity it mustn’t come at the price of ‘tidying up’ the full humanity of Our Lord. Nor the rammifications of the fact that the Immaculate humanity of Our Lady, and by extension the immaculate body she gives to her Divine Son are not the restoration of the state of Original Justice but are a state of Christian (Crucified and Risen) grace – certainly in its fundamental determination if not in its full exercise (which we catch only a glimpse of on Thabor and only after the Resurrection do we see it more fully – notably St Paul on the road to Damascus.)

            Just my two bits for what is a fascinating theological question and a beautiful Divine Mystery to ‘ponder in our hearts’.

          • Oh, I should be genuinely interested to see you delineate the errors.

            We can all SAY we stand by Church teaching. You can even quote reams of texts.
            But a) have you understood them? b) have you understood what I’ve written?

            I’m pretty sure there is nothing in my post above – unless it is twisted by an erroneous interpretation – that is against the Faith of the Church.
            Moreover – these ‘speculations’ about the state of Adam and Eve in Original Justice and the grace of the Immaculate Conception are not my own! They come from traditional Thomists: people like Garrigou-Lagrange amongst others.
            So, sincerely, do show me where I’ve opposed the Church’s teaching and allow me the courtesy either of retraction or correction should you succeed in doing so.

          • Because you say this: “Just my two bits for what is a fascinating theological question” whilst I have presented Church Teaching from The Catechism of the Council of Trent [to which I refer to you again –, with its own theological explanation.
            You speak of “traditional Thomists” but had you bothered to investigate what St. Thomas himself says perhaps you would not have been in the confusion you have brought upon yourself, and if you had bothered clicking on all the links in my comment, your quest would have been speedily rewarded.

            Catholic Encyclopedia > Summa Theologiae > Third Part > Question 35 Article 6. Whether Christ was born without His Mother suffering?


            I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (28, 2, Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man “was born into the world,” according to Isaiah 35:1-2: “Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise.”

          • Oh, okay.
            So, in otherwords it’s what I agreed with here below – in a post you called out for its erroneous speculations…
            Do you want to try again? I am quite prepared to retract any errors.

            “…Our Lady knew no birth pang in the physical labour of Our Lord’s birth: the Head of the Church was born without suffering. But the birth of the body – His Church – at the Cross was a birth in suffering and compassion and to that extent Our Lady can be said to give birth in suffering for the (sinful) members of the Church…”

          • In your comment, this is a great section with great insight . Thank you! We have no quarrel over it but over other unnecessary theological speculations that I now know you must be aware of since you point out where we have no disagreement.

          • Thanks.
            I’m just – at my little level – “faith seeking understanding.”
            Imagine the response amongst Traditionalists in the 13th century when Blessed Duns Scotus going further than St Augustine, St Anselm, St Bernard, St Thomas Aquinas said: I think I’ve understood how the Immaculate Conception does not limit Christ’s universal salvation but extends it…
            And yet, in the end, it’s this Beatus whose theological argument is now dogma – not any of these great Doctors of the Church.

          • Thank you! God favors the “little” with understanding so may your 2017 bring you abundant Faith with understanding coupled with hope and resulting in much love for the LORD, his people, and others.
            In hindsight perhaps I was a bit harsh with “erroneous” better “unnecessary theological speculation that could lead to conclusions opposed to Church Teaching”?
            Digression: I agree with Scotus, that Christ would have become man, even if Adam had not sinned [Scriptures seems to support this]. I believe St. Thomas believes otherwise.

          • Indeed he does.
            As do I. I think there’s a line that takes you from Scotus to Teilhard du Chardin (via Hegel).

            That said – I remember asking one of my professors whether instead of the Scotist line: Incarnation as ‘culmination’ of material creation – and instead of a hardcore Thomist line: Incarnation as ‘response’ to the Fall you could not articulate a third option:

            That in a pre-lapsarian state (if our First Parents hadn’t sinned) there might still have been a necessity for the Incarnation in so far as an Incarnate God could communicate the Truths still veiled from Adam and Eve concerning the Holy Trinity and thus mediate grace for their passage to the Beatific Vision. No longer a saving grace as such but a ‘convenant’ mediation of Divine Illumination given the fact that Angels communicate to each other via illumination in the manner of their nature as pure spiritual intelligences.
            It’s a tenuous argument I admit – but not wholly without merit.

            More speculations! But I hope not error!
            These questions fascinate me ever since coming across St Maximilian Kolbe’s statement that Our Lady refers to herself as the Immaculate Conception in an ‘identity’ way in Lourdes: Not, “I am the one who was conceived immaculately” which would make sense if you think about it. But, “I am the Immaculate Conception.”
            You’ll notice that when St Bernadette recounts this revelation she adds an incredibly authentic detail: “With a slight tremble in her voice she answered: I am the Immaculate Conception.”
            That slight tremble is astonishing.
            After more than 1800 years contemplating the Beatific Vision, Our Lady was still surpassed by the grace of her own being: her existence was salvifically graced from the moment of her Conception.

            Of course – if Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned then there would have been no Immaculate Conception – and no Virgin Mary (at least not as we know her.) So, ironically, Duns Scotus’ beautiful argument for the Immaculate Conception seems not to square with his conviction that the Incarnation would have happened ‘anyway’. Perhaps so – but not via the Immaculate…

            Still, as you say, these are speculations – or rather ruminations and ponderings…

          • Great stuff on pre-lapsarian state speculation and on your pondering on Our Lady [she too pondered!]. Remember that the I am the Immaculate Conception only arises because she is His Mother – I believe it is St. Thomas who says her dignity is almost or in a sense “infinite” … Both she, a creature, and The Father, the Principle without principle, can say to Christ, ‘my Son’ [as quoted above, another reason why his birth is virginal and without pain, to mirror his eternal generation].
            I would say speculation is fine where the Church has yet to rule. As you rightly said, our Faith is to be understood [or we have at least to see the reasonableness of it] and “Faith and Reason” are from Him and not opposed.
            But if I get from Scotus to Teilhard du Chardin (via Hegel) and I am in error as regards the Faith, then I would have to find out whether it is Scotus or my own reasoning or the conclusions of Teilhard du Chardin (via Hegel) that are erroneous. It is good to recall here that even Scripture can be twisted and that is the word of God.
            Cf. Spiritual Blessings in Christ – Eph 1:3-11 (RSVCE) –

            It is clear to me we were foreseen by God through the Son in Christ, that is, in the Chosen One, in the Messiah, who is God [The Son]-made-man. And from Scripture and the Little Office of BVM, if Christ is the the first-born of all creation [Col 1:15 (RSVCE) –, God also decreed His Mother with him [because this has now come to pass], out of all His infinite possibilities.

            The Nicene Creed seems to also indicate incarnation without salvation:

            For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven.

            My speculation:

            This plan is what the now fallen Angels led by Lucifer [plan was shown to him and the heavenly court – rebelled against, not wanting to serve and in addition to frustrate it, Lucifer also seduced man. But as I have commented above [] no one can frustrate God’s plan and having seen at once the rebellion of the creature, He fashioned the remedy that included punishment for the rebellious angels and men, and the restoration of all things IN [the same] CHRIST and then some, raising man to even far greater heights.

            The other of my reasoning as to why it is Creation IN CHRIST, is that wherever the Father looks and loves, he must always see his Beloved [or else God would be unfaithful and chose a creature over the Uncreated – this is what we do, and He is not us]. Since His love is also infinite, without Christ, the fitting return of that love would be frustrated. Here we see the omnipotence of God to whom nothing will be impossible, doing as he pleases.
            PS Perhaps caution not to compare the states of the The Blessed Virgin Mary and Our LORD to Adam and Eve pre-lapsarian. There is analogy, but they are not the same.

          • Thank you.
            Just the quickest of responses because i have to go:
            The Eternal Word is He ‘through whom all things were made.’ – So strictly speaking it is Creation not in Christ but in the Word, the Beloved and Eternal Son.
            So the Original Plan would still have included that.
            But more later.

          • we were foreseen by God through the Son in Christ … In my comment.
            Meaning creation is through the Son and for the Son but in Christ as he is the one thought of first, for the reasons given above i.e., no creation without it being constituted in Christ and such a creation would be meaningless.

          • It would be worth while to read Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich’s book “Life of The Blessed Virgin Mary. There was no pain…only ecstasy.

          • Sure – I allude to that remarkable mystic here:

            Lastly – whilst I venerate the tradition of the Fathers (and various mystics) on speaking of Our Lord’s passage through the birth canal: “penetrated another body after the manner of spirits” – it is important, as St Ireneaus so accurately portrays – that Our Lord’s human life recapitulates all of the stages of a human life IN THE FLESH. Otherwise we’re drifting towards a somatic understanding of the Incarnation, not a sarxian understanding.

          • To my knowledge, it is not a dogma that Mary did not suffer the pains of childbirth. It is rather, a theological opinion, open to debate. It is a dogma that Mary was conceived in her mother’s womb with no trace of Original Sin from the instant of her existence.

        • From Catholic Answers:

          ‘It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived “by the power of the Holy Spirit,” in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what “immaculate” means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings. ‘

          • Ah excuse me but I believe the reference to the immaculate conception meant Mary was without sin and therefore not under the curse of pains of childbirth as God imposed upon Eve. I think Barbara is correct in her usage.

        • Are we jumping the gun here? Being in labour could imply pain as that is the norm but certainly The Blessed Virgin Mary had biological clues that Christ was about to be born. What would you call those clues if not labor?

        • I agree with your assessment of that Bishop’s beliefs but I do have one question. Is it not possible that in her perfection Our Lady chose to suffer the pangs of labor and childbirth which would bring her into even closer union with her divine Son?

    • In short, under the last two pontificates we had the illusion that the Pontifical Academy of Life was actually living up to its name.

      Now we’re spared the illusion. Well: Outside the die-hard ultramontanist precincts, where such words are endlessly being redefined, at any rate.

  4. … oh, and what happened to the former head of the Pontifical Academy for Life? He has been quite prominently in the forefront of much of the new regime, but was put in charge of yet another bogus PR office, the dicastery “for the New Evangelization” by that great champion of orthodoxy, Pope Benedict.

    … None other than our good friend Rino Fisichella. Removed from the obscure post of head of the PAV, to bask in the media limelight he so obviously loves. Quite a punishment. It was certainly no accident that he was the one who was given the task of announcing Francis’ changes to Canon law making the crime of abortion no longer subject to automatic excommmunication… for “mercy.”

    • Poor Hilary. She still has not learned the basics of the Catechism (choose any you like): Contumely is a sin, and can be mortal, depending upon the target of the vitriolic name-calling.

      • You’ll get no sympathy on this website accusing Hilary White of such. She, and many others on this website (myself included) write only what is true. Take your accusations and go elsewhere.

      • In such case, Bergoglio should beware of his own name-calling – but I think in your world, “contumely” only applies to orthodox believers speaking honestly about heretics.

  5. So I kind of feel like I’m back to the question of whether this man is a tyrant or if he’s lost his marbles (i had decided upon the former a long time ago). These personal phone calls to his victims and disrespectful encounters with Mueller. This all sounds like someone who’s three sandwiches short of a picnic. One wonders where someone like Abp Ganswein sits in all of this; always a big smile on his face. I’d love to receive a phone call from Francis. I’d relish the opportunity to tell him a few things. Happy new year…

  6. The year of mercy is well and truly over and has been replaced by the year of retribution. Woe betide any who do not offer “unconditional obedience” to this Peronist buffoon who pretends he is a “faithful son of the Church.” I don’t care if the “Prophecy of St Francis” is a fake – its proving to be more true than this fake Pope.

      • “Act bravely, my Brethren; take courage, and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.

        The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death.

        Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.

        There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.

        Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.

        Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head [Jesus Christ], these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish [physically] rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.

        Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.”

        (Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi [London: R. Washbourne, 1882], pp. 248-250)

        • Fascinating. I had not heard of that before. Ironic that the Pope who appears to be the fulfillment of the prophecy is named Francis

  7. I hope the anniversary of Fatima will see Our Lady putting her foot down hard on the nonsense that is rampant in the Church and we will again have a Church that actually keeps the Faith.

    What was that HH said about rigidity? Last I saw, the Vatican wasn’t a glasshouse, but ……

  8. One source in Rome says that all those who work for the Holy See are afraid to talk about anything for fear of being chopped because of the presence of informants everywhere. He compared it to Stalinist Russia.

    Perhaps the better comparison is to the pontificate of St. Pius X during the height of the Anti-Modernist Campaign?

    If so, it would be doubly ironic: The most authoritarian pope since Pius X inspires in his Curia some of the same fear lamented by so many 20th century theologians, only he apparently does so in service of forwarding the cause of modernism, rather than destroying it.

    • Yes, and we know how well that anti-modernist campaign went, considering we’ve got the consummate Modernist in Peter’s Chair now. Surely Bergoglio’s anti-orthodox campaign will fail just as miserably, Deo volente.

      • It depends on whether conservatives (let alone traditionalists!) are better at dissembling and networking than modernists are. I’m not terrible sanguine on that score.

          • We should not forget that the Curia has had more than its share of time-serving and scheming worldly creatures for centuries – just as the Papacy has had more than its share of Popes capable of behaving in brute fashion.

            The difference, however, was that before the 20th century, such worldliness was not married to heterodox theology, and lacked the capability in any case to give it much force due to the lack of modern communication and transportation.

            But worldly religions inevitably commit ecclesiastical suicide. That’s a better bet than hoping for more manipulative orthodox prelates to show up.

          • So what? The curial officials now being driven away received their offices because of professional competence, not personal holiness. The latter is desirable but of secondary importance.

          • My point is: Let’s bear some sense of perceptive on this.

            It’s bad that these men are being dismissed in the way they are. But brute treatment by Popes is nothing new. The reason this should especially concern us is because it appears to be in service of weakening the preservation of doctrine.

            Still the brute behavior on display ought to disabuse at least a few ultramontanists from their image of the Pope as warm lovable fuzzy poppa bear. He’s really not that, either.

      • Error has no rights. Excellent and timely quote from Pio Nono, who was the one who promulgated the doctrine of papal infallibility, probably never imagining that it could be twisted to the ends for which Bergoglio is now using it. But who knew we would get a heretical pope with world-domination ambitions?

  9. It is a good thing these Priest entered holy Church with a Spirit of obedience, and in following such bow should not be afraid to continue their path of sanctity if they happen to find themselves in it. Now if they create scandal and fear for their personal well being then it wasn’t love for Holy Church which discerned them into the Sacrament of Holy orders but the desire of comfort. When the Pope speaks we say amen!

      • …. very ridiculous who ever though of a woman confessor? you must be a protestant at heart… we know them by their fruits.

        • That you are a woman is precisely WHY I knew that you will never be a confessor.

          You missed my point, and then, on the basis of your misinterpration of my comment, you rashly and uncharitably pronounce me a protestant.

          You have amply demonstrated on this thread that you are pompous, ignorant, pietific, harsh, uncharitable, and not very bright.

    • My goodness, Claudia, such ultramontanism. So, to borrow from Mr. Waugh, if the Pope says it will rain today and it doesn’t, do we conclude it really is raining but we’re just too sinful to see it?

      • God speaks through His Holy Church and we listen and pray silently. Obedience is a virtue that is hard to attain, but its worth obtaining it, or we risk loosing heaven just as lucifer.
        “Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error “when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.”[1][2]”

        • Claudia, you can’t just quote the CCC willy-nilly and expect anyone to take you seriously, especially on this forum. We are all very aware of the limitations and specific requirements for papal infallibility, thank you very much, and know that it applies only in an extremely limited number of cases.

          I have no idea what you are trying to prove, but your holier-than-thou approach is wearying, to say the least.

          • … i just hope that you are aware of your own limitations…. leave the Holy Father alone, he has the Holy Spirit to over see him. A blessed day!

          • Yes, but only if he is properly disposed to receive the graces the Holy Spirit is attempting to impart. I do not see Francis doing such.

          • Leave the Holy Father alone.

            Sorry, Claudia, but Francis is an adult and should be more than capable of withstanding justified criticism of his actions—not his person, but his actions. Your response is the default response I have received from almost all those who defend Francis no matter how outrageous his actions, and it tells me that you have no objective response to logical concerns regarding this pontiff’s actions other than to act as if Francis is a precious snowflake who will melt the moment someone criticizes him. If he is truly that thin-skinned, he never should have accept the papacy in the first place.

            And yes, I am well aware of my own limitations, thank you very much.

          • Poor Claudia, she is defending the Pope and wants us to act and speak charitably. I think the case is that she does NOT know her Faith fully. It takes effort to study our Faith, and to learn just what Jesus teaches through Holy Mother Church. It’s not possible for a new pope to sweep away what old popes have taught.

            Claudia may not understand what has gone before enough to compare it with what Francis is trying to achieve.

          • Claudia:
            We all have the Holy Spirit to watch over us. This has nothing to do with his, or our, limitations.
            We don’t leave Pope Francis alone because his words and actions require us all (even you Claudia), as baptized Catholics, to defend the Faith. The test of whether the teaching of Pope Francis (or anyone else for that matter) is authentically Catholic is whether it is clearly consistent with Holy Scripture, Tradition and the Deposit of Faith.

            All three of these teach us (and have so taught for two thousand years) that a person sacramentally married, who obtains a civil divorce without receiving a canonical annulment, who subsequently enters into a conjugally active civil marriage marriage, is in a state of serious sin and cannot be admitted to Holy Communion. Saint John Paul the Great was very clear on this point.

            Francis appears to contradict this constant teaching of the Church by severing the necessary link between truth (doctrine) and pastoral action (what Francis calls mercy). True mercy is consistent with true doctrine. Francis’s mercy contradicts doctrine, or renders it an irrelevant ideal in the discernment process of the internal forum. Because this rupture is so glaring if examined, Francis uses obfuscation to fog his actual meaning and refuses to answer direct questions (the dubia) from cardinals and bishops which are intended to give him the opportunity to clarify his statements, thereby removing the cloud of confusion from the faithful.

            Based on his refusal (more than 100 days) to respond to the reasonable questions in the dubia and other shockingly heterodox commentary, it is not surprising that many Catholics question his orthodoxy and agenda. If Francis intends to promulgate an authentically Catholic teaching all he needs to do is answer the dubia accordingly. He doesn’t and he won’t. By his refusal he has created a serious crisis (what he would call “a mess”). The mess is entirely the pope’s making. I don’t mind him smelling like the sheep. I just resent him trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

          • And it’s obvious he’s been ignoring Him. Where in the world did you ever pick up such ideas? I’m afraid you’re either very poorly catechized or another Spadaro sock-puppet…which is pretty much the same thing.

        • Claudia, yes, obedience to authority is indeed a virtue, but not when said obedience causes us to act contrary to higher law (or authority) or to assent to error. If you do not recognize the limits of obedience then you just become a willing tool of the devil. I’m sure that’s not what you want.

          • If i may advise, with the speed of technology google the quotes of Saints on obedience, and hopefully we can find an answer to this dilemma. The best we can do as Catholics is to pray for our Holy Father, because he is dealing with demons and demoniac.

        • But he is not teaching doctrine concerning faith or morals.
          He is teaching pseudo science and social justice babble and he is doing it by pushing away any who would ask for him to teach Catholicism.

          • …. let him finish, and pray he answer your questions… Usually when I have a question I go to Holy Mass an it is anwer via a homily. Just pray for him, it is a very charitable thing to do among us Moms.

          • Well, I am a mother as well. And I will guard against this diabolical seduction of Francis from my children.
            My first priority is fidelity to Christ, and His teachings.
            He is the Way, the Truth.

        • Papal positivism of the sort you espouse is not Catholic. The faith is not Maoism and the petrine office not a personality cult.

        • The Pope is infallible only when affirming the doctrine given by Our Lord and expressed through 2000 years of Church teaching, not when he decides to go off on his own and proclaim himself Master of the Universe.

          • The fact of infallibility doesn’t even come into what Claudia is talking about. We (most of us) are reacting to the daily drivel coming from a Pope who doesn’t even know himself that most of what he says is not even magisterial let alone infallible. He, and many including Claudia, don’t understand Church teaching.

        • This obedience you talk of, in the face of false teachings by Francis, is really a false piety on the part of the laity and clericalism among clergy/prelates.
          It was “this” obedience you refer to as being responsible for the horrific sexual abuse among the clergy, which, with knowledge of it, straight to the Vatican top, and not a darn thing was done to stop it.

        • You’re confusing infallibility with impeccability. Holy Mother Church has never, ever taught that any Pope is impeccabile. What you’re proposing is to obey the Pope even if he “accompanies” you straight to hell…which is entirely possible. St. Catherine of Siena, for one, would take issue with your erroneous position.

        • Furthermore, a Pope is only infallible in matters of faith and morals and under very limited and, dare I say it, “rigid” conditions. In reality, infallibility has been invoked very rarely. Hence, the phrase in the Catechism “…he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.” In other words, when he’s speaking ex cathedra, which is very rare, indeed.

        • Let’s make sure we know the rules regarding what is infallible and what is not. Not everything coming out of the Pope’s mouth is infallible. To believe so is a heresy.
          According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra papal teaching are as follows:
          “the Roman Pontiff”
          “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
          “he defines”
          “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
          “must be held by the whole Church”
          If Pope Francis says “Gouda cheese is the best” that is not infallible.

    • Now if they create scandal and fear for their personal well being then it wasn’t love for Holy Church which discerned them into the Sacrament of Holy orders but the desire of comfort.

      Who exactly is the one creating “scandal” here, Claudia? From my position as just an “observer”, as you put it in your comment below, it certainly seems as though the Pope is the one doing just that. So perhaps you need to turn your statement around and address it to the man in the white cassock instead regarding just what “discerned [him] into the Sacrament of Holy Orders”.

      • With all due respect to your title, assuming you are a true Priest and not someone pretending to be. I have you in prayers.

      • 2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion. I always pray for the holy Father and for Pope Emeritus, let us not be the source of scandal by not being obedient and using our own reasoning in matters of divinity. Let us just be child and keep praying.

    • I have all of you in prayers, sorry I won’t have the opportunity to respond back. Please quiet your mind and pray for the Pope if you are Catholic, and if you don’t agreed may God forgive you and not have the same mercy you have on Pope Francis and our Holy Church…… God bless you all and in prayers.

      • So you come to a forum with an editorial policy 180 degrees opposed to your own views, disseminate your erroneous notions of papal infallibility, hurl accusations toward those who offer logical rebuttals to your proposals, and then announce you will be departing without answering said rebuttals when it becomes too much for you to handle, all while implying that you are somehow the only truly Catholic and holy person on this forum?

        What a mature way to conduct yourself in a Disqus forum. My highest commendation.

        (sarcasm off)

        • Hmmm. I think Claudia Osorio is pious and well-meaning.
          In C.S. Lewis’s The Last Battle – which is well-worth a read since it deals with a false Pope and a falsified Christ and is prophetic about syncretism – especially if you’re European and seeing the islamification of our continent. Anyway, one of the characters, a Bulgy Bear if memory serves me correctly, spends his time saying, “I don’t understand.” And indeed the times are so confusing in the novel that it’s more than understandable why those who are sincere in their faith but who are neither theologically formed nor aware of ecclesiastical machinations ‘don’t understand’.
          In the time of testing and decision (although he does not understand) his heart remains true to Aslan and he offers his life in the last battle with just as much merit as those who do understand what’s going on in the story…
          So I wouldn’t be too hasty to round on Claudia Osorio. If you re-read her posts there is nothing against the Faith in them – there is just a lot of sentimental piety. But, my goodness, when did that become a stoning offense?
          Which leads me to my second point – which I’ve made elsewhere on this site:
          The alienation many Catholics feel in relation to this pontificate seems to lead (only God can judge) to a ‘hardening of hearts’ – in relation to all those estimed insufficiently doctrinally pure. In times of crisis it’s inevitable, I guess.
          But there is courageous witnessing for the truths of the Faith and then there is lack of charity – as if people, so proud of their commitment to the truth – feel they have a pass in relation to the way they express it – that this ‘masculine’ ‘robust’ defense of the Faith is necessary in these urgent times and that the effete, effeminate, Vatican 2 Church needs to man-up and take it.
          Well, whatever, frankly. We can go to Hell, Our Lord is very clear, for calling our brother, “You fool.”
          Some of you – such GOOD friends of Jesus and the Church, such paragons! – speak as if you do not fear God. Humility isn’t sentimental pietism. You don’t like what Pope Francis is doing? Me neither. But quit the kvetching. It’s effeminate, unseemly and serves no purpose other than allowing the Evil One to take advantage of division.

          • Thank you. You make some good points and, whilst I remain sceptical, it’s obviously possible I have got it wrong about her status and intentions. As such I have deleted my post.

          • You liked the post because you like to stir things up.
            You refer to Pope Francis as Mr Bergoglio.
            Because you block access to your profile and your other posts on Disqus it’s hard to check whether this is just an affectation or because you are a Sede Vacantist – who are fond of referring to the Popes since Pius XII as ‘Mr’.
            Either way – your contributions remind me on a spiritual level – of what these fellas are doing. Theirs is a great crime, of course, your comments: merely toxic.

          • Ha! Thanks. No, I’m not a sedevacantist. I appreciate the implicit reproach. True, I have referred to ‘Mr. Bergoglio’. So shoot me.

          • I’m not the judge you need to fear, sunshine.
            Wisdom 101: remember where and how it starts.

            I’ll not be entering into a discussion with you over this any further.

          • Discussion? I wasn’t aware we were even discussing anything. Thanks for the reminder about the existence of God. I’d forgotten about Him.

          • So there. You’ve been well and truly slapped. 🙂 (Very arrogant this one – sunshine! – despite having made a few reasonable points here and there).

          • Ha! Won’t be the first or last time.

            Honestly, polycarped, I did not think your post was uncharitable or wrong. Claudia is a well-meaning Catholic, but invocations of papal infallibility and exhortations of “Obey, obey!” are utterly out of place in our present trying circumstances.

          • I don’t disagree with you overall but perhaps not my place to draw a conclusion of the type I did and advise others to ignore her. Although there’s absolutely zero sign of it in her posts, perhaps she’s looking for guidance. Perhaps our friend ardenjm could spend some typing time responding to her and show us how it’s done, as he/she is clearly way above our station both intellectually and spiritually 🙂 God bless.

          • Please remove this video, I ask of you.

            The stoning of this poor soul has no place to be “used” in such fashion.
            You are obviously very angry with posts here, and possibly mine as well.
            You are entitled to your opinions.

            Perhaps this video does have a place for prayer for this young soul.

            But, I do not think so for your purposes

          • It’s terrible isn’t it? I agree. I posted it with fear and trembling and not, I hope, with the intention to instrumentalise this poor woman’s last moments. I find it particularly distressing that at those moments she called out the Islamic declaration of faith – even as Islam killed her.
            Aren’t we grateful that Our Lord gave us John chapter 8?
            Yet Our Lord’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount is nevertheless very clear: we can spiritually kill someone with our intentions, too.
            So I’ll leave this examination of conscience for a while longer – or until the moderators intervene (and I’d quite understood if they do). To what extent have we spiritually stoned others – including Pope Francis?

          • Of course you will leave the video there, for this examination of conscience, that you call upon.

            You will use this stoning of a young, girl….a child… make your point.

            Pray for this young girl. Pray for the Muslim people to see the error of their ways.

            Where is your conscience??? Tell me please!

            No one is spiritual stoning Pope Francis. He is doing a fine job of that himself.

          • “No one is spiritual stoning Pope Francis.”

            I beg to differ.

            And – please note – with your “He is doing a fine job of that himself” – you’ve basically just said he deserves it anyway.

            This 19 year old girl ran away with a man and broke Shariah (and Mosaic) Law. The Taliban believed they were absolutely defending the Law of God in doing what they did: that she deserved it…

            I shall remove the video tomorrow – if it hasn’t been removed already by someone else.

          • Thank you for removing the video.

            Actions have consequences. That is what i was referring to regarding, ” He is doing a fine job of that himself.” Pope Francis is pushing, pushing people away…..he is putting his eggs in the wrong basket, in my opinion, and casting mean spirited characteristics of those who desire to follow Christ in all things.

            God will judge what each of us deserves.

          • Very kind of you 🙂 But no, ardenjm’s overall point – other waffle aside – was completely fair. I (we?) do have to be more restrained at times. These times are about as testing as they get. Happy Feast!

          • You are acting like a bully here. You are inciting motives to those here who post out of great concern and possibly a sense of helplessness with what is going on right now in this papacy. And how dare you post the stoning of a young girl, to make your point.
            I am not upset that you may equate myself with the evil of the killers, but that you would use this victim, who is nameless, and not call upon us to pray for.

      • There you go again, Claudia, assuming that contributors to this blog do not pray for Mr. Bergoglio or the Church. This is a most uncharitable assumption.

        I assure you, I pray for Mr. Bergoglio’s conversion every morning, along with the ‘liberty and exaltation of Holy Mother Church’.

  10. I don’t quite understand the talk of fear in the Vatican. I can understand it from the point of view of lay Catholics who work in the Curial offices who might lose their jobs (though Catholics have sacrificed far more for the truth than a job), but why are clergy fearful? Do they fear losing a cushy life in Rome and being sent back to their religious orders or to an obscure parish somewhere? No more wine and pasta lunches in sight of the frescoes in the palazzo Farnese? Tut-tut.

    Perhaps I’m being insensitive (speaking from a position of a small fry lay Catholic), but this seems like an ignoble fear compared to what’s at stake. Man up, gentlemen.

    • This all has to do with the purging of anyone who dares point out the heresies contained within either his papal writings or his verbal statements. Anyone who dares challenge Peter to his face is soon removed and replaced with another heretical apostate.

      • Liberals/progressives are all the same no matter what country they are from, it would seem. They are all for “open debate” and “questioning of doctrine” whenever a perceived conservative is in power, but when they are in charge, suddenly to question them is tantamount to apostasy and will not be tolerated under any circumstances.

        Their hypocrisy is excused in their own minds, of course, because they truly believe they know better than the rest of mankind, and thus, having been so enlightened, they reserve the right to “correct” those who dare oppose them, as their opponents, to the progressive mindset, are little more than illiterate rubes who would clearly embrace all that liberalism/progressivism has to offer if only they weren’t so damn “stupid”.

    • I know of one priest who angered his bishop. He was removed from his rectory and given a punishment assignment. His priest friends abandoned him. His lay friends all said, “Well if the bishop must be right….” and they abandoned him. Next he was laicized and no fellow cleric dared stand up for him. The last I heard he was living with elderly family members. It would take a saint to not want to deal with that. And one more thing, let’s say you are a fifty, 60 or 70 year old priest and you get kicked out. What are you going to do for money? What job are you going to get? How do you start over? It’s not nice Italian food, it’s a man’s life at stake for speaking up.

      • While I understand your sentiment, it can not be forgotten that each martyred saint had their life at stake, and still chose the righteous path.

      • This is a hard story to hear – or frankly – to believe. Might there not be more involved here? We need to be careful about urban legends and contributing to fear mongering ourselves. Our reputations for veracity will doubtless come under attack in the approaching storm. Yet, please accept my apology if this is a fully true story.

      • NO Bishops rule the roost, even more so that PF. They show no interest in parish work, especially the poorer districts & lead a charmed life. If they are allowed to make the rules to suit their warped beliefs then truly the maelstrom will be horrific.

    • Perhaps I can explain. What they fear is the unjust deprivation of their true vocations, for which they’ve been formed and validated by the fact of their having risen to positions of high distinction. Beyond that, it may be that they fear as many of us do, for the welfare of souls about to be delivered into the hands of hirelings and the wolves they serve. It is a valid pastoral concern when a competent and conscientious person is lost with no worthy successor to take his place.

    • Yes, but where would they go? And how would they use their education to help the Church? The suggestion is that they would return to their home diocese or to their Orders. Their jobs and jobs just like your and mine. Would they be expected to take up parish work? I think we have to ask these questions too.

    • “Un altro caso è decisamente più triste. Un capo dicastero ha ricevuto l’ordine di sbarazzarsi di tre dei suoi impiegati (che lavorano in Vaticano da diversi lustri), senza spiegazioni. Ha ricevuto le lettere ufficiali: “Per venerato incarico Le chiedo di voler dimettere…”. L’ordine era: rimandateli alla diocesi o alla famiglia religiosa di appartenenza. E’ rimasto molto perplesso, perché si trattava di ottimi preti, e di persone professionalmente fra le più capaci. Ha evitato di obbedire, e ha chiesto a più riprese udienza al Papa. Ha dovuto attendere, perché per varie volte l’incontro è stato spostato. Infine è stato ricevuto. Ha detto: Santità, ho ricevuto queste lettere, ma non ho fatto nulla, perché gli interessati sono fra i migliori del mio dicastero…che cosa hanno fatto? La risposta è stata: e io sono il papa, e non devo dare ragioni a nessuno delle mie decisioni. Ho deciso che devono andare via, e devono andare via. Si è alzato, e gli ha porto la mano, a significare che l’udienza era finita. Entro il 31 dicembre due dei tre lasceranno il dicastero in cui hanno lavorato per anni, senza sapere il perché. Per il terzo, a quanto pare, c’è stata una proroga. Ma c’é un risvolto che se vero, come pare, é ancora più sgradevole. Uno dei due si esprimeva liberamente, forse troppo, su alcune decisioni del Papa. Qualcuno, molto amico di uno strettissimo collaboratore del Pontefice, ha ascoltato, e riferito. Il malcapitato ha ricevuto una telefonata molto dura dal Numero Uno. E poi il congedo.”

  11. I’ve taken a great love for the history of the papacy with my conversion – and I can honestly say never since the 15th Century has there been a wrecking ball like Pope Francis. All catholics should not look to Francis and revere all the things he hates—- including deep reverence for the blessed sacrament, holy matrimony, in defence of her holy priests! to heed all the advice of good shepherds like the Card Burke and Sarah– Pope Francis has inferred being nice is enough for salvation and proselytizing is wrong– but the truth is never polite– so advance the truth in public LOUDLY– if many of us do this- we break the chains of tyranny !

    • Correction: I think it is fair to say we haven’t had this type of crisis in the papacy since the seventh century (with Pope Honorius I) or even the Arian Crisis of the late-fourth century (Pope Liberius)

  12. It sounds like the Pope really hates the Church.

    This massive abscess which has been building in the Church for the last century or more is about to rupture; in the year of the 100th anniversary of Our Lady of Fatima.

    • I don’t think we can say that. Francis is an ideologue – he has ideals that are NOT compatible with preserving the Faith intact from generation to generation – his job description in fact. But his agenda, fully embraced years ago in Argentina, is propelling him to act as he does. Francis needs vast numbers of Rosaries so Our Lady will bring him back to what God asked him to do on his ordination day.

  13. Let’s build peace every day in 2017, says Pope Francis. Say ‘no’ to hatred and violence and ‘yes’ to fraternity and reconciliation, urges Pontiff

    Empty words from a vacuous, tyrannical pope whose only ambition (it would seem) is to destroy the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church of Christ on earth. Time is running out for him & his cronies so the insults & false mercy will continue. Time for Cardinal Müller to sign the Dubia & formal correction & make sure it is personally handed to PF with an addendum that if it isn’t answered within a week the procedure for his deposition will be enacted forthwith.

      • He’ll be deposed by schism. Satan, in all his guises, must leave the CC. We mustn’t allow him to remain one moment longer than formalities allow for. It is now up to those prelates who still cling to a modicum of faith to surge forward collectively to rid us of this demon & his followers. It is a huge undertaking but one that cannot be ignored or put off any longer. We must support their efforts & insist they are carried out to the full.

        • My point was simply that there is no official way to depose a Pope. The College of Cardinals can not get together to “impeach” the Pope, so to speak. Schism would only add to the confusion with devout Catholics who love the Faith and are appalled by the implications of what Francis is doing and saying but are equally unwilling to enter into schism.

          • It’s not a question of being willing or unwilling to enter schism. IMO this pope & his supporters have, in fact, publicly separated themselves from the CC long ago & have brought this turmoil upon us all & themselves. It is appropriate that this fact be publicly acclaimed by the four Cardinals & other signees of the Dubia & forthcoming formal correction. God’s Will be done after that, but if this intended destruction is allowed to go on the Gates of Hell would have prevailed. We believe they won’t prevail & Satan will lose so there will be a halt to this dastardly pontificate one way or another. As Cardinal Burke has said – it hasn’t anything to do with numbers but rather the Truth. God reigns above all Popes, Councils, Synods. We just have to stay firmly affixed to His Word which, in these times, doesn’t coincide with PF’s.

          • When a pope places himself above God & indeed shows a patent lack of belief in God or an afterlife i.e. no Hell, non-believers can attain Heaven, we must tell God that our sins are His, that Our Lady must have felt duped at the foot of the Cross, puts environment matters before saving souls, shows indifference to persecuted Catholics/Christians e.g.Asia Bibi, Fr. Tom Uzhunnalil, attempts to rewrite the Ten Commandments etc. he needs correction & the opportunity to retract which the Dubia affords him. If not, then he is causing a split in the CC not the Traditional Catholics whom he loves to castigate.

          • If he needs correction, he shall receive such correction from God. He is the leader of the flock. That is his role, and we have ours.

          • He is leading the flock to Hell (which he doesn’t believe in) & as this is the case he must be held responsible, as were others before him on lesser charges. Of course, he will be corrected by God as we all shall, but that may simply be too late for countless souls who are already extremely discouraged by his leadership & have left the CC.

          • Many feel that AL is actually permitting mortal sin on a large scale & the fact that PF has gone to Lund to commemorate Luther a schismatic whom he said he respected & now wants to give Holy Communion to unrepentant divorced & remarried, and following on, no doubt, to co-habitatnts (heterosexual/homosexual) & Protestants has certainly had a huge impact on the attendances at Holy Mass in most countries.

          • I am not aware of any of these alleged actions, and they wouldn’t prevent me, nor discourage me from, continuing communion with the Catholic Church.

          • I don’t know how you cannot be aware of PFs actions and teachings which are contrary to the Gospels, Tradition & Magisterium of the CC. I specifically say that by such adversity to the Catholic Faith he is putting himself outside the CC & not Traditional Catholics who adhere to the Word of Christ. There are countless non-catechised NO Catholics who have little knowledge of the faith & find these times so distressing that they simply give up. Their loss can be attributed to the Modernist take-over of the CC which put PF on to the Seat of Peter.

          • I am not aware of any of these alleged teachings. If there have been non-teaching errors, which is possible, they will be corrected as they always have been. Sedition of the Church and Christ’s established order is not an option.

          • Having one’s head in the sand is not an option either. Commitment to Christ is a given. The one who sits on the Seat of Peter at present is not committed to Christ or His Church. Never before have we had such flagrant disobedience by a Pope or Hierarchy to the Deposit of Faith, Magisterium & Tradition of the CC which they all upheld (even the bad living ones) for nigh 2,000 years.

          • Christ’s established order in passing on the faith from one generation to the next is His command. The Vicar of Christ, our pope, is charged with that duty, starting with Peter.

            The evidence is insurmountable that Pope Francis is failing this duty, r And is filling seats in the Vatican and in dioceses, with those prelates who are like minded.

            I hope and pray, as many others do here, that Pope Francis understands what the consequences for the Church will be , for the many souls, if he does not change course very soon.

            Let us pray the correction occurs within the institutionalized Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For it is hard for me believe that our Lord will permit these changes to His Law to occur and take root in His Church.

          • What’s being advocated by some of the commenters here in the need for the Pope to be deposed is not an act of sedition and disruption of Christ’s order, but rather a restoration of that very order that Christ established. Fortunately, I think, none of us are prelates with such a responsibility before us (unless one is hiding under an pseudonym????) and the decision is in the hands of others. It’s up to us to remain faithful to the perennial teachings of the Church, and to grow in holiness. If we can perhaps teach the ignorant and admonish the sinner as we go, we’ll, God be praised.

          • Then, with respect, where have you been the past three and a half years, and how do you have the audacity to lecture those who have been paying attention—and have been distressed and already discussed these important matters online prior to your sudden arrival to this forum today—for the duration of Francis’s pontificate on just how we should behave?

          • I am not telling you how to behave. You can believe what you like. If you believe you are in the position to compel resignation on a pontiff that continues to sit on the Chair of Saint Peter, that’s your thing. Not mine, and certainly not Catholic.

          • Henry, you’re the one who decided to post on a forum you’ve never participated in prior to today and immediately begin lecturing people on how they should act, even though you have no idea whether or not the very things you rail against have already been discussed in the comboxes on other articles on this site (hint: they already have, many times over). That’s like showing up uninvited to a party at the house of someone you haven’t even met and immediately complaining about the beer selection. You’ve inserted yourself into a long-term conversation between members of an online community whose regular members have already done the basic legwork, and you’re trying to accuse us of disobedience and schism when you don’t know the first thing about us.

            That’s at least two today—you and Claudia—and we’re only two days into 2017. You could at least have performed the basic courtesy of examining prior articles to acquaint yourself with what has already been discussed over the past three years before you begin castigating others. If you actually do take the time to read other comments on this site, you’ll find that none of us WANT the situation we are currently facing; we are all simply trying our best to make sense of a pontificate that has descended into madness.

          • I am not telling folks how to act. Agreement is not a prerequisite to compliance with the Pope’s decisions. You invite chaos to where order is required. I personally do no have a problem with folks questioning or even being critical. However when folks cross the rubicon of sedevacantism, that’s where I draw the line.

          • You can draw the line wherever you want, Henry, but it’s not your site. It’s Steve’s, and what he decides to permit in his comboxes is none of your business, frankly.

          • I wish there was a way for my to post links to comments questioning what can only be answered by sedevacantism. If you know how I can post links, please let me know and I will share them.

          • There are answers other than sedevacantism. During the Borgias popes the answer wasn’t sedevacantism. And it isn’t now. The other possibility is that we have a bad pope.

          • Not necessarily.
            Either the man is the pope and you submit and you obey him or you admit that through his actions, legislation, and spoken words that the man isn’t a pope.
            Just because a man wears white and lives in Rome doesn’t make a man a pope; being a Catholic does. Do a Catholics give other Catholics doubtful Sacraments, harmful practices, heretical legislation, exorcism rites that are worthless, apostate ecumenism, or liturgies that are offensive to God? What else is there?

          • Your logic is flawed. By what right and authority do you judge that a pope is not pope? Who made you or me or any individual arbiter to determine who is truly the vicar of Christ? I have no special charism and I doubt you do either.

            There is only one individual on earth with that authority… the pope. However, the Church has a means, or so the scholarship seems to indicate, to determine if a pope has become a formal heretic and perform a ministerial action to depose this man. But the Church has not yet done so.

            One day, a future pope or a council may condemn every man to hold the papacy from John XXIII through the present day (or beyond) as heretics. But even the pope who HAS been condemned as such has never been said to be a false pope: Honorius I. Granted his crimes are a bit different in form, but in essence it was because of heresy.

            The point is we personally or even corporately as laity have NO competence to determine if a man is pope or not. That’s beyond us. Only the Church, through her bishops and cardinals, can possibly have that authority (please note I’m not promoting conciliarism. Look at the link given by Steve elsewhere in the comments on this article.) Note also that the First Vatican Council infallibly declared that Peter would have perpetual successors. Some argue that doesn’t mean there cannot be a long interregnum, but it makes such a long period dubious at the least.

            If a pope is promoting things opposed to the divine law then we are duty bound to reject those things. If these are odd bits of eschatology (like John XXII) or matters of sexual morality (Francis) or the administering of the sacraments (you would say Paul VI) we must certainly reject and oppose this, for these are not legitimate exercises of power, but abuses and do not flow from God. That doesn’t mean the man isn’t pope, as much as we might wish it. Sedevacantism is an easy way to tell yourself everything will be ok. The present situation is much more difficult than that easy way out, and requires a stronger faith in Christ’s promises than the error of sedevacantism.

          • Actually, it’s a way that relies on God to sort the mess out. We know that humanly speaking, things are far too gone and the apostasy is far too great to be restored and that it’ll take direct, Divine Intervention to do so, but that’s on His Time and His Ways (which very often, are not our ways).

            Think of it this way: if a man changed the Catholic religion to suit himself; if he promoted a lie or caused willful apostasy universally; if he embraced heresies or teachings he knew were condemned; if he denied sacred doctrine; if he totally disregarded with contempt the sacred oath(s) he had taken; if he lead millions to their damnation by sin and discipline against the Faith, would he be a Catholic? Could he be your pope? Thus, the criteria is the Catholic Faith Itself. We all know when someone is not a Catholic or teaches falsely; if we don’t why would Our Blessed Lord, St. Peter, St. Paul, et al. constantly tell us to beware of those who do if we couldn’t judge true versus false in the first place?

            Again, you’ve proved my point already: there is nothing that says how long an interregnum can last or go on. Disciplines (including canonizations and the sacraments) are infallible acts because they are linked to faith and morals as well as right living and that we can receive harmful, evil, crippled, or useless disciplines is condemned. Likewise, Vatican I also condemned that the Church judge a pope. However, an antipope can be judged…

            Just because we’ve had non-Catholics sitting in St. Peter’s Chair acting as a pied piping papal pretender changes nothing; Divine Law is that a pope has to be a Catholic; you cannot have a non-Catholic pope. Like it or not, you’re already “sede”; you just haven’t figured it all out yet.
            Peace be with you,

          • I understand all your points, and I’ve been convinced of the fallacies long ago. If sedevacantism was a new idea that spawned with Francis, well, I’d be more sympathetic. The previous several popes though (I assume we’re referring specifically to John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI specifically? Do you include John Paul I?) I don’t see the same level or even the same kind of heresy and apostasy.

            John XXIII seems to have had the right intentions in calling the council and nothing I can see of him speaks to his lack of orthodoxy. Perhaps I should investigate more, but his error seems to have been that of reading the situation wrongly and was ill advised to call Vatican II. Paul VI definitely made some errors, the worst being the institution of the Novus Ordo.

            Here I believe is where we depart, as I still hold the sacraments of the Novus Ordo Missae as valid. While there was a massive change to the rites, a change stripping the liturgy of much good that it had gained over the last 2000 years, it did not destroy the validity of those sacraments. All of the form, matter, words, and intentions remain the same (you can argue that Extreme Unction fundamentally changed as part of the matter changed from a dying person to an ill person, though it can be argued likewise that using it for the sick, even if not mortally, is a totally valid use of the sacrament as well.) For example, in the liturgy for the consecration of the bishop, Vatican I (I think was the council?) defined certain words that need to be said in order for validity. Those words are still in the new rite, in the same order. They are separated a bit, but the exact words and the exact order of those words is maintained.

            I would agree that the new rite is an egregious assault to the faith, that some of it’s added parts and watered down prayers are potentially deleterious to the faith. But nothing that happened destroyed the VALIDITY of those sacraments. If it had, I would say that the Church HAD been overcome by diabolical forces. It also would have destroyed the visibility of the Church, and a visible church on earth was promised to us.

            Regarding the further popes, John Paul II I think did the best that he could with what he had been given, and that he made some serious mistakes in attempting to implement the will of the Church as he saw it from Vatican II and his predecessor Paul VI. The problem there is that he was wrong about what was the will of the Church. I genuinely think that he was personally a very holy man and sought God’s will. And I do personally believe he is a saint, by virtue of his personal holiness, NOT his governance of the Church. Argue that as you may, but IF Francis is a valid pope, no matter how bad, you would agree that JP2’s canonization is infallible… as do I. Even if such a canonization was imprudent.

            Benedict XVI was, again, deceived and tried to do the best with what he had. And he made more strides than anyone to bring back what was last in the new rite. And what was discovered, I think, was that there is no marrying of the new and old, no matter how hard you might try.

            Francis, now… Francis seems to be in harmony with the evil forces. He’s the worst pope we’ve ever had. However, he’s still pope. In order for him to be ejected from whatever office he may hold, his heresy, schism, and apostasy would be made formal. You’re right that Vatican I stated that no man may judge the Pope, since all are his inferiors. But if he himself, before the whole church, formally holds to heresy after being made to understand that what he holds is heresy, by his declaration has deposed himself. I mentioned it before, but look at this link:


            Very informative about the position that I and others, though not 1P5 officially, hold regarding the current situation and what could and perhaps should happen. It’s certainly safer than sedevacantism, and requires considerably less pride in one’s own abilities to determine truth.

            I’ll stop here because this comment has already gone on WAY too long.

          • How does a priest using the Novus Ordo, which denies many essential Catholic dogmas, manifest the intention to do what the Church does?

            He doesn’t – any more than if he used the Anglican or Lutheran rites, even though they have “This is My Body/Blood” in them. Like the protestant Lord’s Supper services, the Novus Ordo omits any reference to the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, i.e. the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary upon the altar in an unbloody manner. This is the infallible definition set out by Trent, and the Novus Ordo supresses this Divine Truth.

            Further, the consecration of the wine is set out as an historical narrative, not a consecratory formula said by the Priest in Persona Christi; it also deletes the Mysterium Fidei, the signification of the belief Real Prescence, which St Thomas and St Pius V said were part of the FORM, and necessary for validity.

            Since he doesn’t manifest the intention to do what the Church does by using the Novus Ordo, you can’t definitely say that the Mass is valid, and so it must be treated in practice as invalid.

            The Church has not been overcome by the devil; evil impostors defected from the Church, and set up a counterfeit organisation to try to deceive the elect, if that were possible.

            It’s not hard to understand, just hard to accept; a difficulty I can sympathise with, as one who also loves the Church and the Faith.

          • “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good and the good of all his holy Church.”
            That seems to be an explicit mention of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ in the novus ordo. Is there any other things that you say explicitly suppress the dogmas of the Church.

            “…it also deletes the Mysterium Fidei, the signification of the belief Real Prescence, which St Thomas and St Pius V said were part of the FORM, and necessary for validity.”

            You have a reference? I noticed this very thing when I started going to the TLM awhile back but never heard it mentioned anywhere. According to my knowledge, the only words that are necessary for the consecration are “This is my Body” and “This is… my Blood.”

            I don’t see, in either place, where the minister doesn’t intend to do what the Church does. The intention is to confect the Eucharist. There may be a deficiency in understanding, or even belief, but that doesn’t mean the sacrament is invalid. And if the Form and Matter are correct, then it’s confected. Look at the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano. The priest ceased to believe that the Eucharistic could truly be what the Church teaches it to be. And yet I think it’s pretty clear that the Eucharist was confected there.

            I agree that the Novus Ordo is deficient, deleterious to faith, and problematic on many, many levels. But it IS valid.

            I would like to note that this website does not support sedevacantism and attempts to convince others of this movement are considered a violation of the comment policy. We can continue to discuss this, but attempts to convert anyone to this line of thought will require moderation, including potentially a ban. We’re not there yet, but I wanted to warn you ahead of time.

          • The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving are acceptable to protestants. They also retained the Orate Fratres prayers. But where is the offering of the Divine Victim in the Novus Ordo as it appears in the traditional Mass? It went the same way that the heretic Lutheran and Anglican architects took it: Out!

            The same pattern of deletion and supression of the Catholic theological elements that Cranmer and Luther used in creating their protestant liturgies was repeated in the creation of the Novus Ordo. The generic elements that were acceptable to heretics and Catholics were left in the new mass. We are dealing with very serious issues.

            Patrick Henry Omlor’s material is as solid as you can get. Have you read him? He answers all your points conclusively, especially regarding what is necessary for the form of the Sacrament to be valid.

            There is more than “This is My Blood required for the consecration of the Chalice. I recommend him in order to get the full picture. Omlor provides every reference in his material you are asking for regarding St Thomas, St Pius V – and St Alphonsus.

            His objections were taken very seriously when he posed them, going all the way up to Bugnini himself. They are not lightweight issues.

          • Btw, please stop dragging the name of a true pope that taught no error or heresy or usurped Catholicism using the “Catholic” name. The Vatican II sect is another religion; it’s not the Catholic religion. Period.

          • Who’s name is being dragged through the mud? The Borgias popes? Sure, they were valid popes, and sure, they never taught error as pope. But their lives were horrendous! Brothels, concubines, children from mistresses. It’s related from the then papal master of ceremonies that St. Peter’s was full of pimps, whorehouses, and that “There is no longer any crime or shameful act that does not take place in public in Rome and in the home of the Pontiff” including rape and incest! Oh and one of the pope’s sons murdered his brother, bedded his sister, and then set off to conquer northern Italy, without one recorded word of rebuke! How is this dragging a true pope’s name (which I haven’t used yet) through the mud? He put his name there himself. And if you’re referring to something else, please, enlighten me!

          • Gladly 🙂
            That’s still not as bad as heresy, schism, or apostasy (which separates one from the Church by their very acts). You prove my point here.
            Would you agree that’s there’s a massive difference between such things that you describe and still yet legislating, enforcing, and professing the Catholic Faith versus what we’ve seen in the past 58-59 years?

          • I’ll reply to this comment on the other comment string we have going so we can avoid shotgunning the argument since the two lines of thought are intrinsically related. Short answer, though… The current times are worse, yes. My use of the Borgias popes was to illustrate that a bad pope doesn’t sedevacantism necessitate. Anyways, more over on the other comment (once I read yours and finish!)

          • The Borgias were gravely immoral men in their personal lives.

            The papal claimants since the Council are public heretics.

            There is an infinite difference between the two. The former were bad Catholics. The latter are non-Catholics. I know this is not news to you. If it is, please read on.

            “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

            Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 22.

            “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

            Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis 23.


          • Ok, this comment IS to the point of moderation. I won’t, since you didn’t know before posting this. From our comment policy:

            6. Persistently advocating for unorthodox positions (ie., sedevacantism, the falsity of Catholicism, outright denials of doctrines or dogmas, etc.) will not be tolerated.

            7. Unless your name begins with “pope”, don’t declare anyone else whose name begins with pope an antipope. This is not your job. We allow reasonable and prudent speculation about the confusing nature of the two living popes, but definitive, declarative statements of such and/or accusations that others must reach the same conclusion are not welcome.

            This is the only warning you will receive.

          • Thanks Jafin. I am not binding anyone else, and I don’t make any declaration that you are bound to see things the way I do. But to hold that the Church can be responsible for poisoning the faithful is not acceptable by any Catholic standard. It needs to be said so people don’t lose their Faith. It almost cost me mine.

          • The distinction that I think needs to be made is the difference between the Church and the men in the Church, even if they are bishops. You’re right, the Church cannot be responsible for poisoning the faithful. That’s just the Church poisoning herself. But men in the Church are perfectly capable of inserting their own ideas and damaging many. It’s happened many times: Arianism, gnosticism, Protestantism, now modernism, and many other -isms throughout the centuries. And I heard it said once, and I don’t remember where, (perhaps Bishop Athanasius Schneider) that no heresy was ever successful unless there was a bishop supporting it. These evil men are not the Church, and the evils contained in Vatican II’s documents are not the speaking of the Church – it’s the opinions of ill-informed or evil men being presented as the teaching of the Church.

            The whole reason we don’t promote sedevacantism and don’t allow it to be promoted is that we believe it to be (and rightly so I think) a schismatic reactionary movement based on poor theological reasoning, and, therefore, is dangerous to the faithful. I understand you’re at where you’re at, but I’d triple and quadruple check everything you hear about there being no pope in Rome. I can understand the current crisis of the last 50+ years making it hard to believe and the appeal of sedevacantism in light of that. I really, really can. But it’s very dangerous to make such a claim based on our own reasoning. Only the Church has the authority to make such a declaration, and she hasn’t.

            I’ll look into the author you mentioned in your other comment. I don’t anticipate my mind being changed, but I’ll look into it. And thanks for being respectful. Most others who promote sedevacantism or the like simply get louder when you tell them to stop. And then they end up going away. You didn’t. It’s appreciated 🙂 Pax Christi!

          • Thanks Jafin for your reply.

            Please let me respectfully point out the error in your otherwise good reply. It has to do with the nature of the Church. You may know that the Vatican Council in 1870 taught that since the Church is a visible institution, there are two visible bonds which hold it together, hold the members to one another, and hold each member to Her. These are the visible bonds, first and foundational is the bond of Faith and the second is the edifice built upon the foundation, which is the bond of Social Charity. The first bond is broken by public heresy; the second bond is broken by schism.

            Public heretics automatically sever the first bond of Faith, and thereby leave the Church automatically. They are self-excommunicated, non-Catholic, non-members of the Mystical Body of Christ. Even if the hold an office in the Church, they leave the Church and lose their office. See canon 188 from the 1917 Code of canon law, and the Bull, Cum Ex Apostslatus.

            The enemies who try to poison the Church by heresy are not members, which is why the longer we tolerate them, the more souls they will lead to damnation, when as the Church Militant, we should be outraged at their heresies and refuse to submit to them. God does not want us to submit to heretics, and actually commands us to avoid them.

            So the men you refer to in the Church who try to insert their heresies are not actually in the Church, because they outwardly profess “another gospel” and not the Gospel of Christ. Public heresy is diametrically incompatible with membership in the Church. That is the 2000 year teaching of the Church, and Vatican II obscured and subtly altered that in a few crafty ways, leading to the loss of Faith among millions of Catholics.

            Thanks for the exchange. The moderate sv position is founded upon love of God and His Church, his revealed truth, the salvation of souls and the defence and promotion of the true Faith. Because that also means we are in an unprecedented situation in history is an unfortunate conclusion, but God has everything under control.

            Again I am not deliberately trying to promote the thesis, but am showing why it is a very reasonable explanation of the crisis, based upon the perennial teaching of the Church and applied to today. It has been a great help to me, and if you can explain or at least resolve in your mind the mystery of this crisis – and its cause – by some other means, then as long as you keep heresy away and practice the traditional Faith, then that’s great.

            Thanks again for the exchange!

          • Antipope, in the Roman Catholic church, one who opposes the legitimately elected bishop of Rome, endeavours to secure the papal throne, and to some degree succeeds materially in the attempt. This abstract definition is necessarily broad and does not reckon with the complexity of individual cases. The elections of several antipopes are greatly obscured by incomplete or biased records, and at times even their contemporaries could not decide who was the true pope. It is impossible, therefore, to establish an absolutely definitive list of antipopes, but it is generally conceded that there were at least 37 from 217 to 1439. Felix V (1439–49) was the last. Historically, antipopes have arisen as a result of a variety of causes; the following are some examples:
            Tentative list of antipopes
            Hippolytus (217/218–235)
            Novatian (251)
            Felix (II) (355–365)
            Ursinus (366–367)
            Eulalius (418–419)
            Laurentius (498, 501–c. 505/507)
            Dioscorus (530)
            Theodore (687)
            Paschal (687)
            Constantine (II) (767–768)
            Philip (768)
            John (844)
            Anastasius (855)
            Christopher (903–904)
            Boniface VII (974, 984–985)
            John XVI (or XVII) (997–998)
            Gregory (VI) (1012)
            Benedict X (1058–59)
            Honorius (II) (1061–64)
            Clement (III) (1080–1100)
            Theodoric (1100–01)
            Albert (or Aleric) (1101)
            Sylvester (IV) (1105–11)
            Gregory (VIII) (1118–21)
            Celestine (II) (1124)
            Anacletus (II) (1130–38)
            Victor (IV) (1138)
            Victor (IV) (1159–64)
            Paschal (III) (1164–68)
            Calixtus (III) (1168–78)
            Innocent (III) (1179–80)
            Nicholas (V) (1328–30)
            Clement (VII) (1378–94)
            Benedict (XIII) (1394–1417)
            Alexander (V) (1409–10)
            John (XXIII) (1410–15)
            Clement (VIII) (1423–29)
            Felix (V) (1439–49)

          • First, do a little research. I mean this in a kind way (internet text doesn’t convey a meaning properly all the time). A couple of simple google searches and a look at a few articles on this website are a start. If you want more specific references, I can off them after you’re done with that (perhaps someone has give me some links below.) That will give a start to how concerning the present situation is.

            Secondly, I’m very glad to hear these wouldn’t give you pause in continuing in your communion with the CC. That’s how we all need to be. But not all people are as firm as you or I in our faith. The message given by the present pontificate is that there really is no need to be Catholic. He even told a teenage girl that she should not preach the catholic faith to her friends because “proselytism is the greatest sin against ecumenism.” That is diabolical. With such a message to a young person in this secular world, why would she continue to think she needs to remain catholic? The Pope basically told her there’s no need!

            Please do go and look some of these things up, and make up your own mind.

          • No offense taken. Being sick today, I stayed home and reviewed AL and researched the issues you raised. I was aware of most of them and, truth be told, I don’t see them as damaging—within their context. I’m reminded how some folks often forget the importance of dialogue when discussing matters. For example, your method of addressing me was very much in tune with the concept of charitable dialogue, for the purpose of reaching understanding. Often times, when folks preach, they do so in a manner that is not likely to be perceived as charitable, and such proselytism does, indeed, damage the ability to reach understanding as well as the ability of engaging in productive dialogue. If the manner of preaching the gospel repels folks from the good news, then I would have to agree that there is no need for that particular METHOD of evangelism. I think we should first seek to understand, before casting judgement—and that takes considerable patience, effort, time, prayer and discernment.

          • “has certainly had a huge impact on the attendances at Holy Mass in most countries”…please clarify what you mean, I doubt mass attendance has increased anywhere since PF came on the scene, case in point seminary entrants are down for the 3rd year in a row

          • That’s what I mean – attendances have been grossly affected by this pontificate. The only weekday Mass we had locally has been cancelled as only two & then one (me) turned up.

          • Wow… I had no idea just how awful things are where you are. You’ve said it was bad, but no more weekday masses? Ouch…

          • The Saturday Vigil Mass we suspect has also got the knock as there wasn’t one over the Christmas period & as there are no Traditional Orders it is now becoming extremely difficult to access the Sacraments. Most of our churches are shut during the week & priests don’t want to hear Confessions, turning up at the last minute & leaving as soon as Mass is finished. We have a lot to put up with!

          • I am very sorry for your predicament Ana. You are in a tight spot. If you were living in the middle of a desert, you would pack up and move somewhere where you could get food, water and shelter. Have you thought about moving within reasonable distance of an SSPX chapel?

          • Well you can thank Paul VI for depriving you of Priests ordained in the traditional rite and offering the traditional Catholic Roman Rite, and your local Bishop for filling the parishes with heretics. Sorry…Blessed Paul VI.

          • Yes I know. I was an adult when VII started. I met PVI in Castel Gandolpho many moons ago & thought him to be a very weak man. Didn’t like him.

          • Yes and no. Yes people leave of their own accord, but they may do so because another person shows them there is no reason to stay. Look to the Oct. 31 festivities in Lund last year and the Holy Father’s prayer intentions for this month. He’s making a case that any ecclesial community (using V2 terms) is fine. And AL is calling into question even the need for salvation.

            Yes, people do leave of their own accord. But others can be responsible at least in part for that free choice.

          • It appears people are projecting terms into Pope Francis’ words. A simple review of his prayer intentions for this month do NOT indicate that any ecclesial community is “fine,” but I encourage you to show me where you see that in his prayer intentions for the month: “Universal: Interreligious
            Dialogue That sincere dialogue among men
            and women of different faiths may produce the fruits of peace and justice. Evangelization: Christian Unity
            That by means of dialogue and
            fraternal charity and with the grace of the Holy Spirit, Christians may
            overcome divisions.”

            As for the need for salvation, can you please, identify, SPECIFICALLY, where he is “calling into the question even the need for salvation”? AL is a large document, otherwise, I’d search for it myself—and I’m assuming you know which part your referring to.

          • All of these items taken individually are not particularly problematic. There’s some ambiguity, which I’m sure we all can agree on, and that’s why the Cardinals issued their questions… so the Holy Father could put to rest any erroneous interpretations. He has opted, however, not to answer and let his various mouthpieces slander the Cardinals and continue to propagate confusion in the Church, especially to the less knowledgeable.

            Regarding the specifics here… On its own, the prayer intention for this month is really not so bad. It’s very Vatican II in its ecumenical language (which is an entirely different issue), and some of that is somewhat problematic… but it’s really not too bad, all things considered. You do have the wrong intentions however. I think that was last year. The correct intention is here:
            “That all Christians may be faithful to the Lord’s teaching by striving with prayer and fraternal charity to restore ecclesial communion and by collaborating to meet the challenges facing humanity.”
            Now, taken in light of everything that’s gone before, such as last year’s January intention, particularly the video (which basically says “All gods are fine!” No, really, watch it); the Commemoration of the Reformation in Lund, Sweden (check the joint declaration signed by the Pope and the head of the Lutheran World Federation which calls for joint communion, among other things); the event in the Paul VI Hall in Rome on Oct. 17 last year, with the statue of Martin Luther; with Cardinal Kasper’s hint that the goal of ecumenism is joint communion with other Christian groups (notable as Kasper is a known close adviser to the pope and former President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity); the words to a Lutheran woman in a Q&A in Rome that she should ask the Lord what He thinks, privately, and then go to communion in a Catholic Church with her husband; telling a teenage girl not to share the gospel with her friends (because it is a “sin against ecumenism”(!), cf. the Oct. 17 event); telling his Episcopalian Bishop friend, when Archbishop of Buenos Aires, not to become Catholic, even though this man wanted to, because it damages ecumenism; washing the feet of Muslims on Holy Thursday (not even his revision of the rite involved women allows this). When you put all that together with the prayer intention this month, well, that paints a different picture. Protestants and Catholics DO NOT believe the same thing. Not about the Eucharist, the priesthood, the papacy, the Church, the indissolubility of marriage, or even sexual morality (same-sex “marriage.”) But with all of the above, it seems that Pope Francis does not seem to think being Catholic is all that important. It seems that any faith is just fine… or none at all (cf. letter to mayor of Paris in the last month or so.) As I said, the prayer intention, by itself, isn’t really that bad, again all things considered. But what it signifies, what’s between the lines… THAT is troubling… unless of course you don’t believe being Catholic is necessary, or at least the surest way, for salvation. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

            Regarding the necessity of salvation. Again, Pope Francis isn’t calling this out SPECIFICALLY. I can’t find a passage because there isn’t a passage. But, IF he actually intends that communion for the divorced and remarried is just fine, which he seems to (letter to Argentinian bishops, AL guidelines for Rome diocese, etc.) at least one logical end is that salvation is not necessary. If a person is divorced and has civilly remarried then any sexual acts committed by the persons involved, if the original marriage is found to be sacramentally valid, are acts of adultery. Adultery is a grave sin, one that kills the life of grace. St. Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians that any who partake of the Lord’s Body and Blood unworthily (which the church has always understood to be a state of grave sin) eats and drinks condemnation upon himself. So to allow people to do this is to destroy themselves. But that’s not merciful. So there has to be another line of thought. Allowing people this communion is medicine for their souls… so St. Paul was wrong. Or adultery isn’t REALLY a sin. If adultery isn’t a sin, then what other sins aren’t sins? If these sins aren’t actually sins, then maybe no sin is a sin, then Christ really didn’t need to die at all. So we must all be fine. So we don’t need to be saved. And Christianity is false. Or perhaps a slightly more likely line, that St. Paul was wrong, that communion really can be taken by anyone, therefore the Eucharist isn’t really special at all… Either way, this is EXTREMELY problematic.

            Francis never calls these things directly into question. He’s far too clever for that. He skirts the border of what’s ok. He leaves things very ambiguous. It’s ok as long as you employ a certain “hermeneutic.” But if you follow the logic, just a little, it means something else. He’s not a theologian or a canon lawyer… so he’s not always precise in his language. And that’s exactly what he uses to his advantage. And either he’s completely bonkers and has no idea what those loyal to him are doing with this, or, the more likely outcome, he knows exactly what he’s doing, and counts on no one really being able to cause a problem… hence his silence to the dubia.

            If you need references to any information regarding these events, a simple google search will do. This site also has a large repository of this information.

          • No, this man is not even Catholic, so he cannot possibly be leader of the flock. The Church teaches that if you can prove someone was a heretic prior to his “election” to the “papacy”, that such an election is to be considered null, void, and worthless.

          • Thank you Ana for your insight and courage in speaking the truth on this. They key point is that it is not the faithful remnant that are creating or entering into a schism. It is the pope and his supporters, who called a “Synod on the Family” to undermine the gospel teaching of Jesus on marriage, divorce and adultery who have left the church.

          • That is why he deposes himself when he becomes a public heretic, and the Cardinals just move in and mop up the mess. But they cannot depose a true pope by any means or power.

          • Who is too make the determination that the Pope is a heretic? Who has the authority to so pronounce?

          • Whoever hears what he says and is catechised according to the level he is obliged to be. Why else does the Church insist upon catechism of the laity?
            St Paul assumed that the Galatians could tell the truth from heresy, and that even if someone in the teaching hierarchy (“..even if we or an angel preach a different gospel…”) taught heresy he was anathematised.
            A Catholic has the duty to know the Faith and detect a teaching that contrary to what the Church teaches. The one who says it is anathema.
            So we can know a heretic when we see one, but the declaration is made for the common good.

          • The Church will descend into chaos if that is the case. Who is to determine if a person is “catechised according to the level he is obliged to be.”?

          • Heaven forbid that we should ever see a time where the Church descends into chaos. My goodness, imagine what that would be like! Hope it doesn’t happen in our lifetime.

            You may not have noticed, but the Church is in the worst crisis that has ever existed. Public heretics being accepted as members of the Catholic Church is the root. Chaos is everywhere. We keep submitting to heretics, and we get what we deserve. Catholics from earlier times would be horrified to learn that we haven’t run these clowns out of town with pitchforks and scythes, and burnt their residences to the ground.

            Ordinarily (traditionally, that is) the parish priest decides if a child is sufficiently catechised to make his First Communion, and the Bishop or his delegate decides if someone is sufficiently catechised to be Confirmed.

            Have you seen the level to which children in SSPX chapels are instructed before receiving these two Sacraments? It’s embarrassing.

            So, your first worry is put to rest. Chaos is already here, and I hope I have answered your second point/question.

      • You should read what de Mattei wrote about this. It’s an article, dated Dec. 16, 2016 on 1P5.

        His opinion is that cardinals may find out/come to understand that a pope has renounced his office either by a voluntary abdication or through manifest and persistent heresy. Of course this does not mean that cardinals themselves can depose a pope.

      • Why can’t people see/admit/proclaim that Francis (as well as Benedict) are clearly manifest formal heretics in the external forum? These guys (and many others) are not merely bad/sinful popes/bishops/priests; the reality is they are not even Catholics. Alexander VI might not have been a moral man. He may have been one of the worst popes. But he was not a heretic. Someone like Bergoglio, however– even if he were a “nice guy”– is heretical and even apostate. This goes much deeper than Francis dismissing “conservative” clerics. Francis actually published/appeared in a video which placed a Buddhist statue, Islamic prayer beads, a statue of the Baby Jesus, and a Menorah on the same level. Conservatives and Traditionalists need to focus less on Curial politics– and dare I say, less on moral matters like marriage, divorce, and contraception…. and more on core issues of Faith. And on Christ Himself.

    • I read the article you linked to, Ana, and the “highlights” (if one can actually call them that) of Francis’s New Year’s Day Angelus address reported in the article are anything but.

      It’s yet another laundry list of social justice warrior stereotypes, clichés, and pet projects—according to Francis, for example, Christ did not come to save mankind from our fallen state or open the gates of Heaven but merely “to be close to all those who felt lost, demeaned, hurt, discouraged, inconsolable and frightened”—such as “making room” for young people (read: guaranteeing them jobs) and embracing non-violence at all costs while the (nameless, of course) Islamic jihadists continue to slaughter, rape, and pillage what remains of formerly Christian Europe.

      Oh, but Francis was certain to send a not-so-subtle rebuke toward his opponents (read: us) with this little gem: “Looking at the manger means recognising that the times ahead call for bold and hope-filled initiatives, as well as the renunciation of vain self-promotion and endless concern with appearances.” Because, gosh golly gee, every single faithful Catholic I know who actually tries to live according to Christ’s teachings is only concerned with their own “self-promotion” and “appearances” and spends their days trying to actively oppress minorities, take jobs away from young people, and incite violence wherever and whenever they can. Oh, wait. No, they don’t.

      The man is so wedded to his radical ideology that he can no longer recognize reality. It would be sad, if he wasn’t so dangerous.

      • Of course, the homily of our priest yesterday was virtually a quote of this…Jesus didn’t come with a message or to do anything (such as the Crucifixion and reconciliation) but just to be close to us and “accompany” us silently. What are these people smoking? Can’t they even read the Gospels, where Jesus most definitely has a message, it wasn’t silent, and it has nothing to do with “accompaniment”?

        • Isabel, I’m sorry to hear that you had to endure this nonsense. It took us many years to escape from this type of bs.

        • I feel for you Isabel. My own priest reminded us that we can’t fall into “legalism” and I heard quite a few communist sounding prayers of the faithful as well as PF inspired wording and themes of many more. I have avoided that priest, (Head of the Parish) in favour of our new younger conservative one- Fr B. But it’s really hard to hear even a single Mass with Fr A -because of my children!! I point out errors but then I sound like I do nothing but criticise priests! As often as we can, I go to Latin Mass with the FSSP for the children and I (but we live remote from it).
          The days have come to hunt around – for everyone. We need safe Mass refuge centres that give good teaching without liturgical abuses. Set up alliances now. Be known to good trustworthy priests and support them- even if you can’t see them weekly. On the other hand, I feel a responsibility towards those fellow Catholics who are being sucked down. I continue to attend Mass regularly where I live, to teach by example and word and to build relationships. Some of them will need trustworthy contacts and information too- esp when it all gets worse in the Church (this year I think). So my advice is to consider your circumstances and your role but to make sure you have a safe refuge Mass centre and or priest/group of priests ready.

          • There is no such thing as an independent priest. I’m not sure if you are actually an ordained priest or not, but either way, to be an “independent” priest is to be in schism. That’s no way to live. A schism is coming, but we can’t be the ones to start it, or we’re schismatics. Don’t go beyond the Church, in action, allegiance, or move ahead of her decisions. We need to be wise, not reactionary.

          • Yes. We must stick in the Church. I fear Francis is provoking this type of reaction. This moment and those to come are silent sufferings. It will take greatstrenghth and perseverance. May God be with us.

          • Forget it signore Jafin. All Christians are priests, of priestly class. Do not u read yr bible? And a word of consolation: it does not need to be a schism. Just do not follow those fools who (vide supra)…”our priest yesterday was virtually a quote of this…Jesus didn’t come with a message or to do anything (such as the Crucifixion and reconciliation) but just to be close to us and “accompany” us silently.” Indeed, the Devil is around and in the middle of the circle. already.

          • You read the table of contents in your Bible.

            By what reasoning do you accept exactly the same 27 Book NT Canon that the Catholic Church infallibly defined in the 4th Century?

          • Mike, my statement has nothing to do with the consensus of books which are included in the Canon. I have referred to 1 Peter 2:9 “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession,..” To satisfy your curiosity as to the NT Canon (not only that) I would refer you i.a. to Kelly: Early Christian Doctrines. He is of the Anglican branch but knows the Bible and her intricacies well indeed. God bless you, Mike.

          • Yes, Pavel, but you are trying to quote 1 Peter 2:9 as some sort of “proof” that the Catholic Church misunderstands something. Who told you that 1 Peter is inspired? The Catholic Church at the councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th century. If you read the Bible and believe its inspired, then why not believe everything else the Church teaches?

          • Thaks, but this would be too long to discuss, Mike. I decline to continue, not because it is not interesting & challenging but simply because I do not have time. At the moment I have to be very strict with how I use my time, a few projects have much higher priority than discussions on Disqus etc. Sorry for making you perhaps disappointed. Adieu

          • That’s ok. I worked my way out of protestantism many years ago because of this issue, which, as far as I can see, makes protestantism completely untenable.

          • May God bless you too!

            Scott Hahn’s talks, debates and a book called Rome Sweet Home were among the reasons why I left protestantism and returned to the Faith.

            A little while after returning however, I picked up that the reasons why I originally left my Novus Ordo parish, and twelve years of “fine” Catholic schooling, looking for something more substantial in protestantism, were still being promoted and tolerated by the EWTN/Catholic Answers people. It was at about the same time that I saw my first traditional Mass and that changed everything. Everything!

            So while I am thankful to Dr Hahn for making the case for the truth of the Catholic Church so clear, I have moved further to tradition over the last decade, as I don’t want to end up as a shipwreck once again, nor do I want my children to go looking outside the Faith for something more “real” than Novusordoism, which is not really Catholicism.

          • I am a cradle Catholic, but it was the difficulties I experienced in life that led me to rely on God and pray for better understanding of my faith. God sent me Scott Hahn and after listening to his understanding of the beauty of the Sacrifice of the Mass, the history of the early Church, his struggle to find truth, his own conversion, and his willingness to share his story and expound to nominal Catholics like myself, the treasures of our faith, I am so grateful that I can better appreciate my understanding of the Church and the Magisterium. This has taught me to rely more on God than on myself – the peace that came with this understanding was beyond my comprehension.
            I am therefore upset with P. Francis for all of the confusion he has caused in undermining the truths and teachings of the Church. The ambiguous statements, the fear and intimidation in the Vatican of those who defend the faith, is unconscionable.
            It must be even more difficult for those converts who have struggled to find the truth.
            His agenda is clear.
            Are you familiar with the site The Remnant?

          • Thanks, I fully agree. See also how Islam started to corrode the Protestant Europe much more vigorously than Catholic Countries.

          • And in the countries where the Holy Inquisition was active, those same countries resisted the protestant revolt that swept across Europe. They had a house cleaning and were not affected by later heresies.

          • an interesting observation. The Catholic Church needed to recover from the virus of (in many respects justified) Protestant critique and challenge, and has it done brilliantly in Antireformation movement.

          • The old guard priests who refused the Novus Ordo in the 70’s, and were persecuted and kicked out of their orders and/or parishes, left to fend for themselves and rely solely upon the generosity of Catholics who had Masses in their garages all over the country – what were they? They were independent priests. They refused to compromise, but they were not schismatics – they were Catholics. Many SSPX chapels owe their existence to these “independent” priests who kept the Faith and the Mass – before the Society was able to send out enough Priests to various areas.

            However, I don’t understand why there would be independent Priests these days. They could join the SSPX, or a sede group if that’s the way they make sense of things.

          • Jafin is right. There is no such thing as an independent priest. The one counselling you to do so is the serpent.

          • Holy Moly, as I said above all Christians are priests. If the Chief Shepherd smokes weed (or so it looks like) or is a victim of Datura fumes from the Black Mass, are u going to follow him? Perhaps only safely fool-low him…

          • Who said that we should follow the bad teaching? I am saying we remain in the Church for only in the Church is truth.

          • You are not alone but so priests feel “safe” to speak out….. so SAD!!!! There ARE faithful priests… just waiting for leadership to join… I believe it will come!

          • This is what our future will look like in the Catholic church, the Remnant and we will be going underground..

          • I know exactly how you feel, Donnaliane! I have left two parishes in the past 15 years because of pastors who never met a liturgical abuse they didn’t like! I would get so angry during Mass, cataloging errors, that it became counterproductive. Fortunately, both times, I was able to find N.O. parishes that were more faithful.

            In November, my husband and I were able to move back to Our Lady of Grace in Indian Land, SC, which is much closer to our home. Check us out at

            Rev. Jeffrey F. Kirby, S.T.D., has been pastor here since August. He was a teacher for a year between graduation from Franciscan U. and seminary. This is his first parish assignment, augmenting his experience as a Catholic speaker, author, and young men’s formation sponsor/director. We suspect that he may not be with us for very long, but we are overjoyed to have him as pastor! Catholicism now has a “real presence” in the Lancaster County, SC, panhandle!

            At OLOG, the number of Sat/Sun and weekday Masses have tripled! Confession is available (in a real confessional setting!) before every Mass. The altar is properly set up well before the processional hymn. Homilies address the Scripture readings of the day.

            The rubrics of the GIRM are faithfully followed — no ad-libbing or dramatic “personal-gesture stylizing.” Father stays on the altar instead of glad-handing in the pews at the “Sign of Peace.” The Eucharist is distributed under the species of bread alone, EMHCs have been reduced from 10 to 3 at weekend Masses, and a new “St. Bernadette Adoration Society” is starting up.

            At OLOG, altar boys (with very few “altar girls”) are being *rigorously* trained, and they wear black cassocks, white surplices, and black *shoes*. Discarded are the white-hooded rope-waisted robes and sneakers or flip-flops. It’s heartening to see these young men respond with such intensity to Fr. Kirby’s leadership.

            There are a million other things happening, with more and more parishioner engagement, and we’re growing like crazy! It is truly wonderful to see the transformation!

          • Oh my gosh! Praise God! You have given me so much joy! As a Catholic mother, I completely felt everthing you said! Thank you for the hope and direction! God bless you abundantly+++

          • You are blessed to be in such a parish.
            Our priest is young and trying hard – I encourage him when he gives a relevant sermon and makes himself available for confession – which is on demand, any time. We thank God for his willingness. However, he is concerned about where PF is going – I have apprised him of the situation, and now I pray that he will stand firm on teaching the faith pre-Francis.

          • He’s just Vatican II’s fruition; Roncalli, Montini, Wojltya, and Ratzinger led the way and abided by it. You can’t have the FSSP, who are sold men and see nothing wrong with Vatican II, the changes, and the bs, and you cannot go to the SSPX who believe they can drag through the mud a man and a church whom they recognize as a true pope which gave us these things.
            The only alternative is to either seek out a non-una cum Mass in your area or stay home and make Sunday as holy as you can (ala catacombs) since we’re in the Great Apostasy.

          • Dear CT, I found this helpful regarding the “una cum” issue.


            It was written by John Lane in 2000, who still holds the same position. It is an excellent article, and helps to avoid unnecessary extremes and unnecessary deprivation of the Sacraments in an already dark time for souls.

            I have found that taking the minimum retreat for my safety’s sake is the best path. This way, when the crisis eventually ends, I won’t find myself painted into a corner of schism, unable to recognise my felow Catholics. It’s not good to refuse charity/communion with professing Catholics, especially if some are simply mistaken but in good faith. I can’t solve the issues, and I don’t go looking for new ones; but I can maintain the Faith in my own family and household. Valid Mass and Sacraments, and the enormous manifold graces we receive through and by them, are indispensable, if they are available.

            I have heard many anecdotes of home-aloners losing the Faith, especially among the children. The Church wants us to receive the Sacraments, and go to Mass, and this has always been the design. I hope you find it helpful. As we make our way through this mess, let us build one another other up.

          • I think you’re spot on, Mike. To my knowledge, the CMRI (whom l go to) takes the same line for pastoral reasons. I cannot nor will not–save such occasions as a wedding or funeral–will not set foot in a Novus Ordo “church.” In good conscience, l cannot do it nor will l.

            If it makes sense, l believe we should be very, very prudent Catholics these days since we’re fighting the Devil unchained, and be charitable as we are prudent.

            Btw, John Lane is a friend of mine’s brother in-law and think the world of the Omlor family. 🙂

          • 1. I believe Bishop Pivarunas is also not against the una cum Masses.
            2. The Lanes/Omlors go to the SSPX with no issues as far as I know.
            3. It’s a smaller world than you might think ;-)!

          • 3. Only on here as far as I know. While there are probably twenty thousand people called Mike who go to an SSPX chapel somewhere in the world, I don’t want to give myself away in public. If there is a private message thingy on this Disqus function, I’d be happy to see if I can answer your question!

          • You’re very lucky to have FSSP priest around. In Orlando, Fl we have modernist bishop and have no sight of FSSP priest. We used to have one quite traditional Church in 25 years and monsignor pastor retired (A lot pressure from bishop). Now feminists allover the sanctuary. I left.

        • Well, they are not smoking anything…..because I am stoned and even under the influence of pot, I know that God the Father of mercies, thru the death and resurrection of His Son, has reconciled the world to Himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sin!

        • You too? I have had to sit through banal homily the days after Christmas. But then, I don’t really get to go to daily Mass so did not know this priest is this bad.

        • Isabel,

          When you have the opportunity, ask that priest why Jesus did not “accompany” the disciples who walked away after Jesus gave them His discourse on the Bread of Life on John 6. They could not understand His words and left. Whjy did Jesus simply let them go? No discernment on Jesus’ part? No attempt to ‘dialog’, so he could better explain His Words? He would not even accompany them arm in arm to the edge of the property? Would he not even blow them a kiss goodbye? Seems harsh!

          If possible, look for a traditional parish in your area. When I travel, I always research parishes where there is a good schedule for Confession and Eucharistic Adoration at least weekly, but preferably daily.

          God bless you,


          • These priests aren’t evil, they’re just going with the PC flow. Our formerly orthodox bishop is so stressed that nobody has seen him for months because now he’s supposed to be dispensing annulments like popcorn and he’s uncomfortable and confused and ashamed. We attribute evil to them but most are just weak and confused and never thought they’d face a situation like this, where they were being attacked by the Pope himself.

            There’s no traditional parish within 150 miles.

            If you’re fortunate enough to live near one, that’s great, but most people are stuck on their own. We have s couple of good, straggling priests here, one of whom can celebrate the old rite so I go up there when I can (leave at 6:00 am,because of course the mass is scheduled for an inconvenient time.).

            This situation is not going to be able to go on for much longer.

      • Every pathological narcissist I’ve ever known projects that way. They accuse people of fakery because they themselves are fakes. One detested holidays because of the hypocritical, repressive “forced merriment.” He truly could not imagine being happy just because it’s Christmas. Another mocked people in love saying, “They’re just in love with being in love.” During one conversation where she listed the self serving attributes of everyone she’d had a relationship with, I asked if she’d ever been with anyone just because she loved them. “No…I guess not.”

    • Dear Ana, All power comes from God. Remember if we pray for someone to be cured it’s not us that has the power, it’s God listening to our request that intervenes. Time is running out and those that oppose the truth will fail, It’s Jesus Christ’s Church it’s not the pope’s church. If the existing pope isn’t on the side of truth he and the others shall fail!

      Kind regards,


  14. “And I am the pope, I do not need to give reasons for any of my
    decisions. I have decided that they have to leave and they have to

    I’m not feeling “the mercy” here.

  15. Without the appointments of JP ll and Benedict none of these people, including Bergolio, would be where they are now. What these Pope’s motives were, I make no judgement, but this is a REALITY. Bergolio has dropped all pretense and is driving off the cliff. Here in the US, the Church receives millions from the government to settle invaders. The Bishops ( most ) tailor their message to this REALITY. Perhaps it is the same in Europe? The Church moves toward mostly becoming a Social Services organization every day. It will take a true rebellion to save the visible Church on Earth. If a leader appears, who will follow him? May Almighty God have mercy on us all.

    • Get real. All you jerks that complained about Saint John Paul II & about Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI. The world is big and you think you could know if the Cardinals,bishops, priests from each country were faithful and properly preached the Gospel? The joke is on you. God the Father gave you Bergolio because you back stabbing people in the pews, cardinals , bishops and priests do not deserve any better. You didn’t want to listen to Saint John Paul II, as though, you knew better than he. This is where the Goats will be separated from the Sheep. The American Cardinals or Bishops did not teach their flock properly, , so you have millions of half-baked Catholics in their second and third marriages,and these same Cardinals are the ones that voted in Bergolio. The Cardinals had much better to pick from, but no, they are Political Example:(they should have excommunicated Pelosi, Biden, Ted Kennedy, the promoters and voters that Sanctioned a Nation with abortion on demand and still allowed them to receive Holy Communion ( a sacrilege) causing huge Scandals in the Church) when all along these Cardinals, Bishops, and priests should have been Saints. The Apostles were Saints because they knew how to Defend the Faith by being faithful to Jesus Christ’s Teaching because they knew there is no other option. They dared not to have failed!

      • I daresay Francis is inadvertently doing the Lord’s work of separating the goats from the sheep…For all the world to see.

        • God’s will can never be frustrated because he has power even to draw good from evil e.g. our salvation from His Son’s death. But just because he is going to do so even in this current pontificate, it does not mean that Pope Francis is lined up for a reward [cf. Judas’ case].

  16. As saddening as this is, it might serve well to see this type of behavior more often. As the headline suggests this element in the Church is unbalanced. I would prefer to see far more of these demonstrations and see them done boldly and publically, exposing this collaborative for what it is.
    Plainly put, these devotees of Marx, Darwin and Freud are desperate men, self-perceiving as disappointed, faithless and impotent. Were they not, they would be deeply happy in the Church, and this would be demonstrated in preserving the treasure that is the Church. To the contrary, these individuals, and they are legion, are continually pulling and tugging at the masterpiece gifted us by Christ, desperately seeking accommodation of their personal idiosyncrasies and rationalizations in order to release themselves of their self-loathing.
    Just review the latest utterances of Marx, Kasper and Pope Bergoglio – it’s all there. These men are beat. I wouldn’t trust them or any of their sycophants with the care of a fish tank over a short weekend.
    Let him act out. Once fear is generated the appropriate surgical response is sure to snap into gear. The sooner the better.

  17. After Vatican I, it is impossible for Cardinals to convene an extraordinary session of a General Council of the Church to call for an ecclesiastical trial of a Pope accused of heresy and to eventually depose him and begin the process for a papal election. There are no procedures in place in law that anticipate or give guidance for such an action. Appealing to historical praxis in such matters, such as using what happened at the Great Western Schism, is of no avail since conciliarism was declared a heresy–that a General Council is above a Pope. As of this moment a corrective measure of the 4 Cardinals would only be a symbolic measure and only increase the Pope’s trajectory toward a wholesale cleansing of orthodox men in the Curia, the episcopate, and beyond. Even if they could find a way around Vatican I and Pastor Aeternus and convene a General Council, Pope Francis could appeal to the UN and world governments to legitimize his papacy, since he is the head of Vatican City. There is NO possible way to eject Pope Francis from his Chair–unfortunately, Vatican I did not anticipate such a future Pope since the ultramontanists at that period could never conceive of such a situation occurring in the Church. What Vatican I tried to do to stop the infiltration of the Modernists has, in granting dogmatically full potestas and infallibility to the Pope, has worked against the Church by granting heretical men full and uncheckable power against the orthodox element in the Church with the goal of implementing the liberal Catholic plan for the Church-while stripping General Councils of their power to do anything against such men. All you have now is to wait for his death and pray for a better man, more orthodox, to be put in the Chair or that a schism occurs which will take over half the Church with it declaring it’s side the legitimate Church–alas, the history of such events has shown that such strategies do not work to preserve and save the Church.

    • You’re on point, Robert. While Pope Francis has not changed the any doctrine or teaching, he has used his judgement to change the practice of applying Church teaching within the confines of already established doctrine.

  18. Our Lord Himself will have to sort all this mess out; it actually is HIS Church although sometimes you might wonder….And Our Lady of Fatima: we know that in the end her Immaculate Heart will triumph. That starts with you and I leading an intensely sacramental prayer life.

  19. The poisonous relationship between Pope Francis and faithful clergy make up one huge Gordian Knot. Right here in front of me is a prayer to Our Lady, Undoer of knots. Jesus is the Head of the Church, but remember, Mary is the neck that turns the Head. With God, ALL things are possible, even this. The undoing of this horrible knot would be a great Rosary intention.

  20. In my opinion this is good news because for example, France the eldest of the Church will receive a very good Priest. Our Priest in France often says that it wasn’t until recently that everything the Pope says or does was reported.

    He also said on Sunday that we should not be afraid of what 2017 will bring us because the Virgin Mary has already crushed the head of satan.

    God always wins in the end!

  21. Not just that but that open dialogue is also a lie. The call for it is a farce and a deadly trap. He wants to imprison all tongues and silence debate ( preferably permanently ) -unless it will further his agenda, usually in a wicked way OR for wicked reasons.

  22. “….I request that you please dismiss ….”

    This is a request, not an order or a demand, and it should be ignored, or denied.

  23. I thought the Church was a Monarchy, not the autocracy of Imperial Russia where the ruler is the only one between man and God, which is not true, Jesus is the true mediator between God and Man, not Pope Francis, he has forgotten who rules the Church, it is Jesus Christ. The faithful Cardinals must end this hostile take over and restore and save the Church.

  24. Look, the Catholic Church is in the ditch, OK?

    The job of believers is to “hold until relieved”. For those seeming few Cradle Catholics who have been doing just that for what is now generations, I have nothing but the highest regard and immense respect and, gratitude to God.

    But overall, based on my personal experience getting to know Catholics over the last 4 years since my conversion and from what I’ve read about them and their opinions and beliefs, at least in the USA, Latin America and Europe, the vast preponderance of Catholics agree with the Protestantization program of Pope Francis and if anything, want more of it.

    I think if the Pope just put the whole Magesterium up for a public vote, he’d get what he appears desperately to want. Though some Catholics MIGHT have the common sense to wince at their own screeching of OCP “hymns”, from what I have observed, it appears to me “Catholics”………

    1} …agree that personal conscience should be the deciding factor in whether communion is received or not, or for that matter, whether anything is right or wrong or not.
    2} …think marriage isn’t really THAT big of a deal and if they want out, they should be blessed in setting up a new homestead with their new “soul mate”.
    3} …feel homosexuals should be respected and that monogamous {until they break up} homosexual pairing up should be blessed in some way.
    4} …accept the practice of artificial contraception as a moral virtue
    5} …repeat “OMG” and “JC” and “GD’it” as acceptable responses to finding out Brangelina broke up, one’s 16 year-old daughter might be pregnant by her 15 year-old boyfriend and the hammer missed the nail and hit the top of one’s thumb, respectively.
    6} …are confounded by Latin and think it is “stupid”.
    7} …find fun in gambling and are certain that because it’s OK, so is Las Vegas and everything that goes on there as long as it stays there.
    8} …want nothing to do with a Priest in that old fashioned and embarrassingly weird thing called confession since any bad stuff they might have done is between them and God.
    9} …have never read 2 consecutive pages of the Bible at one sitting, and have never read 4 pages of the Bible in total in their lives.
    10} …hear from others that the Pope says some weird stuff but have never actually read a single homily, Angelus or encyclical of the Pope for themselves.

    At any rate, this is pretty much what I have learned over the past 4 years since I converted.

    Which is why I say that when push comes to shove, if push comes to shove, the vast majority of Catholics will side with Bergoglio in spite of actually knowing almost nothing of what Bergoglio thinks, teaches or does.

    ETA: I marvel at a question that nags me.

    Is it possible for a religion to be less believed than is the Catholic faith by Catholics?

    And I am beginning to believe that includes the Pope.

    • I’m amazed that you entered the Catholic Church, and if you value the ‘constant through the ages teachings of the Church” what has stopped you seeking out other like-minded Catholics and their parish to attend? I’m a cradle Catholic and hanging regularly with like-minded Catholics is helpful to me. You can only join a Church that exists – visibly somewhere!

      • GREAT question….


        I led my wife and all my children {adults} to the Catholic Church. I came to the Church from a Protestant background of many generations of pastors and leaders in the various sects. My wife also.

        It’s a long story but suffice to say I was teaching at a Lutheran place {it’s not a CHURCH} and decided to get ahold of a copy of the CCC to “prove the Catholics wrong with their own words”.

        That led to us converting to the Catholic faith.

        I LOVE the Catholic Church and many, many Catholics I know. But what is truly the War of the Worlds between Catholic truth and apostasy has left many casualties…many who have left the Church, many others who have swallowed poison., and then there are the Heroes of the faith, many Traditionalists and those stuck in the novus ordo world who BELIEVE. And praise God for them.

        We have found those supporting Catholics of whom you reference in our wonderful FSSP parish and I have never in my life been more happy in my life with Christ and my “religious life”. It is not ideal in that we are 1 1/2 hours away, but it is worth it, and…a little secret…my vision is to assist in expansion of the mission of the Church by hopefully working with a local parish to open it to the ministry of the FSSP as well.

        Catholics, we must think outside the box. I actually think there are some bishops that might be willing to as well, and definitely will if the Church {appears to} more or less collapses into schism.

        Hey, the schism is HERE.

        Only thing left is for the heretics to leave.

        What I see happening in the developed world is what in effect happened in England under Henry VIII and subsequent monarchs and what happened in the Lutheran Germans states; little by little large numbers of “faithful”, priests and prelates are apostatizing. They are unwilling to “hold until relieved” as true soldiers are often called to do. Difference is this is happening without clear geographical borders to define, to “enclose” the heretics.

        But praise God for those who have stuck to their guns.

        It will be worth it in the end.

        9Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall put you to death: and you shall be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. 10And then shall many be scandalized: and shall betray one another: and shall hate one another. 11And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. 12And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. 13But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come. {Mt 24}

        Interestingly, the next few verses reference the Abomination of Desolation.

        Could that be the big ole Chocolate Luther set up in the Vatican? If not, I’ve got it for a runner-up…

        • Well, for sure, the cavalry when they come, will need be people of passion and focus, but probably not yet a while.

        • It is truly deplorable that converts who have come into the Church seeking refuge from Protestantism see the same process of internal dissent and self-destruction occurring in the visible Church to the point where many are leaving for Eastern Orthodoxy, going back to their old ecclesial communities, or leaving faith altogether–those in authority will have much to answer for on the particular Judgment for their destruction of the Church and being accomplices in driving Catholics away from the Vineyard of the Lord. I am grateful for your conversion and pray you are faithful to the end. Stay strong!

        • I loved reading your story. thankyou! The Catholic Faith is a GPS for me – a lens to view history,politics. Plunging deeper into doctrines is pure joy! I could only ever be Catholic, I cant believe how passive these Cardinals appear to be in Rome. They are watching the Church, around whom their lives have been formed, and suddenly everything they hold dear is being destroyed right in front of them. I havent surveyed the ages of these men but I guess they are mostly in their 70’s and a few over 80. I’ve read about the ‘spies’ planted at various levels who inform on others, but Rome is a big place. Would’nt many be meeting to discuss what can be done. Surely they realise there is strength in numbers. Can it really be that to object to what is happening means they will be thrown out into the street without a roof over their heads? I cant believe that is their only choice. If the destruction continues, well I would be thinking that God is allowing it for the purification of the Church in the end. And it is also true that he can bring people back in droves to Churches if they are shocked by public events. I dont want to go through another year like 2016.
          At least, when the announcement (correction) is public, in theory that gives everyone the ‘permission’ to raise the topic with other Catholics. At the moment, I cant bear to disturb the Christmas happinness people have, blissfully unaware that Houston we have a problem.

      • I’m a convert of almost 7 years (this upcoming Easter). It was the timeless truths of the Church that drew me. And thankfully the NO parish I was received in still had and has people and priests who believe what the church has taught. There are and were many problems, but the faith is still alive, if only by a thread. I now only attend mass and spend my time at a FSSP parish not too terribly far away, but there’s hope for Catholics in the wider margins.

        • Very wise going for FSSP. I’m at NO with a strong Priest who is a moral theologian and seminary professor so totally reliable. He does Extraordinary Rite Saturdays, alternating with our local FSSP parish coming to do that Rite for us as well when he is absent. But he had to teach himself the ER as it is no longer taught in secular seminaries. Hopefully lots other good Priests are doing the same. I admire your courage in making the jump from another denomination.

    • Thats why this will lead to the biggest schsim in the history of the church and full scale apostacy by the novus ordo sect and why traditionalists and conservitives will be the ones labled as schismatic and not the other way around.

    • “Pray constantly, implore tirelessly, and weep bitter tears in the seclusion of your heart, beseeching the Eucharistic Heart of my most holy Son to take pity on His ministers and to end as soon as possible these unhappy times by sending to His Church the Prelate who shall restore the spirit of her priests.” –Our Lady of Good Success: message to Mother Mariana regarding our times, 1610.

    • “Which is why I say that when push comes to shove, if push comes to shove, the vast majority of Catholics will side with Bergoglio in spite of actually knowing almost nothing of what Bergoglio thinks, teaches or does.”

      Given your deadly accurate list above, you could just as correctly say “…the vast majority of Catholics would side with Bergoglio even if they knew absolutely everything of what Bergoglio thinks, teaches or does.”

      • Bergoglio could publicly worship Vishnu — or Satan — and most people would still stand by him. This is because (1) they do not yet understand that heretics cannot hold office in the Church and are ipso facto not even members of the Church, or (2) that they are not rooted in a firm faith nor in Church dogma, but rather in the notion of a “guy in Rome wearing robes”. As long as they can have their “extraordinary form” services in their own parishes, with fancy robes, they will still pour money into a heretical sect and stay in communion with heretics. Sad.

  25. Read my post below for more detail, but what I am pretty sure I see in the Pope’s MO is that he is simply trolling thru the lowest common denominator of belief present in the Catholic Church and from what he finds, hand selecting choice tidbits to ordain as the New Magesterium of the Church.

  26. The Church is learning a painful lesson. Namely, that the Latin American church is a massive mess and that no more Latin American Cardinals should be elected Pope. Bergoglio rules like a caudillo. What a sad, confused, distubed old man he is.

  27. While there is nothing juridically possible to do to remove a Pope, after Vatican I, it is clear in the culture of Wiki and Vatileaks that the third possibility is to remove a Pope through exposed scandal. It seems modernists always have skeletons in their closets yet they are very cunning at deception and will do anything to hide their personal scandals and private vices–if those in the Vatican with knowledge of a scandal involving the Pope could expose it, he would lose credibility, and the scandal was of such a degree as to be able to rock the Church then perhaps internal pressure could be placed upon the Pope to retire leading to an election of another more orthodox Pope–by electing Cardinals which had become wise to at a minimum not elect such an overt and unrepentant modernist to the Chair. It is clear that the modern Papacy has become rather than a visible spiritual organization a political machine and the orthodox Cardinals and bishops need to truly be ‘innocent as doves and wise as serpents’ in this age of the Church–this means to do whatever is possible to save the Barque of Peter. When it comes to saving the orthodoxy of the visible Church churchmen need to take the gloves off and be men and if this means exposing scandal and playing rough so be it–the day of playing nice in the sandbox is over.

        • Correct. Here I am talking about an invalid papal election. Do not confuse this with an Imperfect Council or Imperfect Conclave to elect a new pope. Many believe that Bergoglio is invalidly elected and was never pope. Perhaps after the fraternal correction of the pope by the Four Cardinals, and a declaratory sentence by them- at a minimum- will declare that Francis lost the papacy by his own material, obstinate heresy- and the refusal to retract what he has said and what he has written which is contrary to the constant teaching of the Catholic Church.

          • What is required in law is evidence not hearsay–there is no substantial evidence that an invalid election occurred–unless you buy into the conspiracy project of certain Sedes and Siriists. In the case of a reigning Pope being judged a heretic in the external forum–again, no mechanism exists in law after Vatican I to begin proceedings for a trial–since the theological presumption existed before the Council and currently exists that a Pope would never fall into error regarding faith and morals, as a part of the Petrine promise. Speculation online may work to blow off steam from effected and orthodox Catholics but it has no bearing in Rome. The hard truth is that Rome has been overthrown by the very modernists the pre-Conciliar Popes warned about–but their warnings already signaled disease in the visible Church years before Vatican II, what is happening now is the kiss of death to the institutional Church. What is left are the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity and to live the Catholic faith and pass it on to future generations. A future Church restored in her orthodoxy and orthopraxy will judge Francis and men like him–we must hold to the Truth of Christ and be ever faithful until the end…

          • What you’ve written here (all the comments, not just this one) is chilling. I fear that most if not all of it is correct, based on my understanding of Vatican I in particular. If you wouldn’t mind answering a personal question, do you “participate” formally in the Church as it is now, and if so, under which auspices do you receive the sacraments? I understand if you’d rather not answer that, but I ask respectfully, I assure you.

          • Thank you for the response. I love the Church too.
            This site definitely has some interesting commenters. It’s possible to learn, here.

          • SAF, all we may do as Catholics now is to act within our own capacity to assist the Church and through prayer may our actions be efficacious.

          • You are right and it is the future Pope…or Jesus Himself in His 2nd Coming, that will judge the Pope as Pope.

            But having said that, there is a law that appears to have been broken in a fairly straightforward manner in the election of the Pope, and that is P. St. JP II’s pertaining to the lobbying of candidates. I say “broken” because the so-called St Gallen Mafia have been reported to have brazenly admitted to the very thing the law appears to condemn.

            Now HOW such a law would be enforced goes straight to your point; there doesn’t appear to BE any enforcement except by a future Pope. But certainly there is no obvious method by which that could be enacted now. Maybe never.

            But it does seem to me to be a legitimate question for Canonists to ponder and possibly write about as well, for how can a law be established that cannot be fulfilled in the enforcement?

            If THAT is the case, we are then left with another theological conundrum. For how can a Pope establish a law that is invalid in its conception?

            Does this not beg the question that Pope JPII certainly conceived of some mechanism for satisfaction to prevent {not judge by a future Pope after the fact} an invalidly elected Pope from reigning?

            I am no sede, but I would not be surprised to find a future Pope condemning this one, especially because I don’t think Francis is done “making a mess” yet and feeling his oats as he appears to be, I wonder if he is planning not just to buck some more, but rather to bust the gate down and run pell-mell all over the countryside…

          • Sorry. Incorrect. There is plenty of substantiated evidence that the College of Cardinals violated JPII’s apostolic constitution which governed papal conclaves/elections (and left unchanged by Benedict). Don’t believe me? Go do a little research on Cardinal Danneels and the St. Gallen Mafia group of prelates. Then get back to me.

          • The evidence you claim of Danneels and the St. Gallen Mafia has not been presented by ANY of the Cardinals to begin proceedings on an investigation into a possible invalid election but is rather the stuff of Sede conspiracy theories. If what you say is true, nothing is or will ever be acted upon by any of the Cardinals, I assure you.

          • Again let us suppose the evidentiary support may be there as you affirm–why has it not been acted upon to begin an investigation? The reason is corruption. There may be evidence, revealed or not, on many scandals in regard to modern papal elections–the problem is no action is being made by those in authority to investigate and openly prosecute such cases. The laity who promote such evidence have no power to act and those with power to act do nothing–this is clearly criminal and evil.

          • Now you and I completely agree on this. The truth is that we cannot have the foxes in the henhouse investigating their own. Who, pray tell, would investigate Francis, if no one can judge him? Perhaps Cardinal Burke and his cohorts will divulge what they know about the conclave. Even if they don’t, none of it really matters because Francis must go- either by voluntarily resigning, or deposing himself by his heresies.

          • If the formal correction is made soon it would at least start the ball rolling. I sense that PF knows his time is coming to an end & this will put a spoke in his gallop. If he can be prevented from making any further ‘innovations’ to Catholic Doctrine it will give us some respite & hopefully the Curia itself will wake-up to the divisiveness of this man & resist him. It’s all in God’s hands anyway, but we must make our repudiation of the anti-Catholic PF known to the Vatican & its Episcopates. Prayer, together with firm resistance, may make him throw in the towel. We will know more about what can be done once the formal correction is made, but we mustn’t waver in our support for what the four Cardinals are trying to accomplish.

          • Catholics are trained to think “hierarchy”. We generally dont behave as non-aligned autonomous Christians so we need strong leadership to come from somewhere speciific. We cant gather round a “no to PF”. We have to gather around a “yes to a true leader”. That’s why this suspended animation.
            Yes, we go to Mass, we study and praise God – we discuss – but we still need a leader.

        • No provision needed. The pope will have deposed and judged himself a heretical apostate. Let the imperfect council and/or imperfect conclave begin!

          • The matter is less clear in a post-Concilar reality. If such a Pope was elected and proposed such heresies even in the pre-Vatican II context there was no procedure in law or praxis to convene an ecclesiastical court by the Holy Office or by Cardinals–since the Pope is not judged by inferiors. In the Church, during and after the Council, many heresies fill the Church in her official documents, Vatican II as a prime example, and in her praxis. In effect, a condemnation of the heresies in AL would necessitate a repudiation of the errors in the conciliar documents and all the post-Conciliar documents, which would call into question the magisterium of the popes after John XXIII. This simply would detonate the whole Vatican II project–something which would call into question the Catholicity of the Church and in fact destabilize it. The careerists in the Vatican would have nothing of this. Pope Francis will neither be censured by his inferiors or hauled before a court–his papacy remains–anyone who thinks contrary either rejects Vatican I or is living in an ecclesial pipe-dream. The Argentinian Pope remains. Sadly.

          • In re: Pope Francis: While I very much hold traditional views, I also understand one shoe does not fit all. I appreciate the depth of your analysis. There is something to be said about intellectual integrity, even if you don’t like saying what that integrity requires.

          • I also appreciate your fidelity to the Church and position of defense of the Faith and it is clear the contemporary challenge of Pope Francis to traditional Catholic moral theology has caused a deep crisis in the Church which has went far beyond even the liturgy wars–for even many bishops, most silent and afraid for their ecclesial careers, whose sensibilities with regard to liturgical theology and praxis are thoroughly post-Conciliar are not comfortable doing aggiornamento to the moral theology, but like pealing back an onion the modernists sought to comprehensively overhaul externals and internals. The modernists spare nothing and have no regard for the holy unless it fits their theological paradigm. Pope Francis is a new form of modernist who does not have the intellectual acumen of his modernist forerunners while using Church Fathers, such as the Angelic Doctor!, and prior church documents to support his clearly weak version of Argentinian “catholic” eco-liberation Latino theology which is mostly written by a ghost writer or drawn from real scholars, who are heretics such as Kasper, with the intention of transforming the Catholic Communion of Churches into a form of the Anglican Communion on a massive scale. With the strong Catholic historical position of rejecting heresy and the heretics, it is a strange new world where Catholics accept both and give uncritical allegiance to both. While some may feel it best to play nice with Pope Francis, it is clear that doing so with modernists gives them the feeling of security in their positions and I most certainly cannot accept that the Church of Anathemas which existed from Christ to the beginning of Vatican II would suggest I or any Catholic remain silent so that sheep may be slaughtered by men who hide their perversions under cassocks and ecclesiastical dress–utter nonsense!

          • Cardinal Burke has NOT outlined a procedure for deposing the Roman Pontiff, I promise you–all he has said is that Francis is not a heretic and that a heretic pope would automatically lose office.

          • Either way, the College of Cardinals will have to act. A schism is coming. The only question is what side will Catholics stay with? That is the question. And what if we have three living popes? All I can say is I am glad I am not a cardinal.

          • In a pre-Conciliar context, action would have been possible since the majority of Cardinals would neither been open modernists or liberal Catholics, however, almost the entirety of the Cardinals in the today’s Church are not not only modernists but also careerists and will not risk their heads to go after a Pope who could destroy them. You are living in an ecclesial pipe dream and to be honest I would love to live in an age which churchmen would stand for truth over their ecclesial careers–sadly, today only a handful of Cardinals and bishops will risk everything for the Truth of Christ and we must support them!

          • If he honestly answered the Dubia he would then be exposed as a heretic. The fact that he won’t is sufficient proof that in fact he knows his teaching is heretical. The purpose of the Dubia is to call attention to this fact & PF must feel great annoyance that his actions are not going to be tolerated if they are not in harmony with the Magisterium & Tradition of the CC. At some stage Divine Providence will bring about a return to order in the CC.

          • If Francis isn’t a heretic, then who is? This man rejects converting non-Catholics. He received a copy of Luther’s 95 Theses with a smile. He teaches that Lutherans and Catholics agree on the issue of justification, and that this issue is not one of the dividing points. He published a video wherein a statue of the Baby Jesus is placed on an equal level with a Menorah, Islamic prayer beads, and a statue of Buddha.

          • Speaking about heresies accepted passively post V2, I was chasing down the history of the dogma “Outside the Church there is no Salvation” and whatever became of it. Came across a doco from 1997 INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION – CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS so that’s under JP2; seems to me theologians were anxious to find an explanation as to how non Catholics are saved through their various religions, and sought to re-interpret that dogma. This long document is a case study in all the efforts afoot to somehow suggest that Jesus is present in all religions to lesser or greater extent. Are we surprised that such malleability would beget our current Pope who really has only gathered up all these optimistic threads and is presenting them in a giant smorgasbord to those willing.

    • Not that Catholic Bigwigs seem to flinch over serially raped children, but this Argie thing brewing at present might be a bit of a burr under the saddle of Pope Francis. I guess we’ll see.

    • This is a periodical founded by Fr Louis Villa who was given the mandate to rout out ecclesiastical freemasonry by Padre Pio and authenticated by Pope Pius XII. If you look you will see that there is shocking dirt on Francis, if you believe that evil can extend this far. Not only on Francis, but Benedict, Justin Welby and the Jesuit Pachon. There is scandal.

    • You’re right. PF has left the Faith behind. To leave the Faith is to have no faith, is to head off towards atheism. Perhaps Argentina knows.

  28. The still undisclosed Third Secret of Fatima speaks about the “Great apostasy in the Church … which will begin at the top” (quoting Cardinal Ciappi who had read the Third Secret in full). Are we now witnessing the fulfilment of that prophecy? If so, then I am at peace, no matter what Pope Francis (Vicar of Kasper) does. His destructive left-wing, modernist agenda will be defeated, totally defeated. What remains sad, however, is the enormous damage that will be done in the interim.

  29. The anti-Catholic comments here are absolutely deplorable. Any Catholic advocating the “deposition” of a sitting pontiff is a Catholic in name only.

    • I would clarify: they are anti-Modernist comments. Loyalty must first be given to orthodoxy not believe heresy because men or popes promote it claiming divine authority.

    • I wouldn’t go so far. Fr. Gerald Murray, the esteemed canon lawyer who appears occasionally on EWTN, told me once in a private email exchange that an openly heretical Pope could be, and would be, deposed.

      To suggest that he should be is certainly not “deplorable”. Please control your adjectival use.

      • No matter how many time you say it isn’t so, a Pope cannot be deposed. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “882. The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, ‘is the perpetual and visible
        source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.’402 ‘For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.’403”

        “883 ‘The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.’ As such, this college has ‘supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.’404

        • Got it. I defer to Fr. Murray, who clearly thought it was possible.

          The larger question is: SHOULD an openly heretical Pope be deposed? The consensus of canon lawyers seems to be: by the very act of public heresy, a Pope deposes himself.

          Since that deposition occurs by an act of public heresy, it’s clear it could and should occur.

    • Ben, the modern Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions are also very much infiltrated by false ecumenism and modernism as well–I would not view the EOC as an island of protection from the issues in the Catholic Church; faithfulness to the Divine and Catholic faith is essential along with loyalty to the Church of your Fathers. Never buy the illusion that running to another Church will solve your problems–it only opens up new and even more grievous issues since most denominations and even the schismatic Eastern and Oriental Churches are having a crisis of identity in the modern context.

      • I’ll give a simplistic answer because I don’t think I have a more complex one. I like the liturgy. And it gives me a chance to pray. I don’t know if you’ve ever been to the divine liturgy But I recommend you check it out. I’m not leaving, I just need to take a breather. It’s a shame I can’t even go to Novus ordo anymore it’s just unacceptable to me. I have to travel an hour to TLM , so it also gives me a chance to just go pray when I need to.

  30. There is a creepy yet distinct odor of sedevacantism among many of the comments here. Lets take a quick moment to remind ourselves the teaching of the Catholic Church, straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    “The episcopal college and its head, the Pope

    880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, “he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them.”398 Just as “by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another.”399

    881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.”401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles
    belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

    882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.”402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”403

    883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”404

    884 “The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.”405 But “there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.”406”

    • I personally think we are stuck with Francis until the Lord takes him myself.

      Now, AFTER the fact {end of his pontificate and/or his demise} is a different story. I could see a future Pope condemning him or his writings or some convoluted amalgamation of the two.

    • Oh for heaven’s sake. Is this official Troll day? How many out-of-context, inappropriate-to-our-circumstances CCC quotes must we read?

      Next thing Henry will be telling us the Pope is infallible and we must “Obey, obey”, even if it sends us all to hell.

    • None of this is in question. The key point is to understand that an act of obstinate formal heresy is believed to also be an act of resignation of the See. This is what Cardinal Burke alluded to, this is the idea that Bellarmine, Suarez, Cajetan, et. al., were hypothesizing about, etc.

      We also need to recognize that we’re in a situation that is, somehow, unprecedented in 2,000 years of Church History. We’re not going to know the process until it is created.

      • Exactly my point. The question you pose is a question in search of a solution… It begs the question of sedevacantism. It is the Pope’s sole prerogative to resign. The 1983 Code of Canon Law mentions papal resignation in Canon 332, where it states:

        If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

        • You missed Steve’s point. A Pope who engages in public heresy deposes himself. Call it a “resignation” if you want, but it’s the same thing.

          • No, I did not miss Steve’s point. The Code of Cannon Law is quite clear. A pope’s resignation must be FREELY made and PROPERLY MANIFESTED. It cannot be forced onto him, by ANYONE. What you are suggesting is that resignation can by forced upon a sitting pontiff, which is, by definition, sedevacantism.

          • You’re suggesting it is possible for a pope to resign because that pope does something you believe automatically results in his resignation. And it appears you’re suggesting that something is what you determine to be “public heresy.”

          • You all certainly have the freedom to questions Christ’s judgement in giving the keys of his kingdom to Saint Peter and his successors, just has I have the freedom in placing my faith in Christ, His decisions, His Church, and Saint Peter’s successors.

          • There you go again, Henry. You come into a forum you’ve never participated in before and you immediately begin trying to lambaste its regular contributors—and presuming motives you have no possible way of knowing—for not living up to your perceived notion of loyal Catholicism.

            Just why are you wasting your time here, anyway?

          • Actually, it was the St. Gallen Group (Mafia) that gave the keys to PF – they have already claimed that victory.

          • A pope who holds to heresy in the internal forum and proclaims it in the external forum is excommunicated by Christ the Head and no longer holds divine authority, jurisdiction or office–true, however the Church after Vatican I rejected conciliarism, which would of allowed for a pope to be found guilty of heresy by a General Council, given a period of repentance, and if he did not recant would be delivered unto Satan–in other words: stripped of his papal office, deposed from the priesthood, and excommunicated. Vatican I rejected that a pope would ever magisterially teach errors or heresies in relation to faith and morals and thus condemned in fact and principle that a Council or inferiors could judge the Roman Pontiff–this precludes any judgement by a Cardinal-convened General Council, CDF, the 4 Cardinals, or the Synod of Bishops from being able to depose a Pope. Although National Conferences and local diocesan bishops or eparchs may issue particular laws or norms which, for example, in regard to communion for divorced and remarried Catholics prohibits them from reception of the Holy Eucharist. However, these Catholics may then appeal to Rome if the new discipline allows this practice universally. The overall point is that while Christ the Head would have spiritually deposed a heretical Roman Pontiff by the very fact of his profession of heresy, internally or in the external forum, the modern Church has no mechanism to apply an ecclesiastical judgment of heresy by inferiors to Popes or because modernism has so infected even magisterial documents: which truths in the so-called “hierarchy of truths” has Pope Francis denied and if an ecclesiastical court were to be convened in a Post-Conciliar context the Pope could always use Vatican II as an example of the development of doctrine and discipline as a way out of a heresy trial. A future resolution? The future Church restored by God to orthodoxy and orthopraxy, I know this is merely hypothetical, will need to change canon law to include a section which details specifications on how to proceed with ecclesiastical trial and removal of office of a Pope who has proclaimed heresy in the external forum–which would prove challenging since theologians, experts in canon law, and ecclesiology would have to determine how the new law would not violate Vatican I, the doctrine of indefectibility, and the Petrine promise while at the same time safeguarding the Church from future heretical Popes.

          • Let me preface this by saying I have not observed the change in the norm you believe has occurred. Clearly, however, there has certainly been a change in which the context of the conversation is occurring. That being said, you appear to argue what I believe to be accurate: no man, and no council, pay place himself/itself above a pope and depose him. It appears to me that you disagree with Pope Francis pastoral judgement in re: the practice of Catholics who had divorced and remarried outside the Church to receiving Holy Communion. He has not, however, changed Church teaching re the same. Could it be that the safeguard to a heretical Pope already exists? Specifically, the deposit of faith. Assuming Pope Francis is a heretic, is it not reassuring to you he hasn’t changed Church teaching? If not, I’m curious to hear your thoughts on what safeguards could be put in place within the rigid doctrinal context you very clearly, and accurately, articulated.

          • The pope has not issued a motu proprio which has changed the discipline of the the Church regarding reception of communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, correct–however, since AL is a magisterial document doctrinal clarification is needed to assess if his pastoral methodology is in continuity with his predecessors in the pontificate and to correct the praxis which is occurring now which is allowing priests to instruct those in Reconciliation that they may receive communion as divorced and remarried Catholics if they testify before the tribunal of the Sacrament that they are living as brother and sister and not having sexual relations with their new “partner,” The most progressive interpretation of AL as demonstrated in pastoral praxis in Germany, for example, is the use of the individual conscience in determining personal reception of the Sacraments by divorced and remarried Catholics and those in “irregular unions or situations” such as gay and lesbian “partners”–both pastoral realities are gravely erroneous and go against the magisterial teaching of the Church, her Sacred Tradition, and indeed the Divine Law of Our Beloved Savior. This pastoral theology in is AL allegedly based on Eastern Orthodox praxis is not even in configuration to their understanding of the Mystery of Repentance and Confession or Penitential Marriages–however, NO Eastern Orthodox priest will commune those in “irregular unions and situations” such as GLBTQ Orthodox Christians living in grave sin as “partners” or those who have a second marriage when the first partner is alive. The pastoral methodology is AL has no likeness to any of the praxis of the ancient, albeit schismatic, Eastern Churches with regard to communion discipline. Frankly, AL is a grave scandal which destroys what it claims to desire through pastoral measures to affirm and preserve: the sanctity and indissolubility of Marriage and the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. AL is the beginning of a process which will end in the change of the traditional discipline of the Church on a universal level which, rooted in sacred doctrine, is that communion for divorced and remarried Catholics is the mortal sin of sacrilege and is forbidden. This is the reason a doctrinal clarification is so desperately needed by the Church.

          • Would it satisfy concerns for the response to be that bishops should, within the confines of the Church’s doctrine and moral theology, address this question their jurisdictions. Being out sick from work today, I read AL in its entirety today and it appears to me that it reaffirmed traditional teaching but emphasized that not all situations are similarly situated and must individually considered, which as I understand it has always been acceptable from a theological standpoint, for answers to the most fundamental questions behind this brouhaha.

        • OK, so what IF a Pope resigns under duress?

          Who in the Church is authorized to refuse his resignation?

          Where’s THAT in Canon Law?

    • A Pope ceases to be pope when he chooses not to perform the office. The office is well defined, including by Vatican I. Francis is clearly close to the point of having abandoned his ministry.

  31. Sedevacantism is really the other side of Eastern Orthodoxy since both are responses to what they view are heretical popes and Churches. Since Sedes will never elect a Pope and have in essence a permanent interregnum they cannot be classified as Catholic–the end result of their theory is a move toward Eastern Orthodoxy if not in theology but in praxis. Catholics who seek to find a resolution with the current Pope’s discontinuity with orthodox Church teaching simply will not find it in the papal model of ecclesiology flowing out of Vatican I and confirmed by Vatican II (which really only gave lipservice to synodality and conciliarity). The Catholic liberals and modernists, who took over the Second Vatican Council, had to sustain the power of the Pope in order to implement their “reforms.” If the Church followed the ancient practice of deposing a heretical hierarch, as the Eastern Orthodox have in their canons, then a resolution would be to convene a Synod, after he has been declared heretical via an ecclesiastical trial, and despose him, case closed. The Latin Church developed a papal ecclesiology which became iron clad against such measures and thus appealing to earlier Church praxis is invalid. The only way for the Church to go back to the ancient praxis of deposing a heretical hierarch and in our case a pope would be to repudiate the papal model of ecclesiology and more specifically Vatican I–an event which would in essence prove the case for Eastern Orthodox theology and ecclesiology. While a pope may cease to be pope through a proclamation of heresy in the external forum, the papal model which reached its pinnacle at Vatican I in effect denies that such an ecclesial event could occur based on the Petrine promise. The only option now is to put ecclesio-political pressure on the Pope, a strategy the 4 Cardinals are attempting as an example, to correct his actions and in the case of AL to issue a magisterial interpretation of the document which eliminates the provisions which would allow in principle for communion for divorced and remarried Catholics and to reaffirm traditional teaching on marriage and Eucharistic reception. Since Pope Francis is strategically preparing the future Church for further liberalizations in doctrine and praxis he is guarding his legacy zealously and will not recant his actions–a truly grave scandal which is about to create more schisms in the Church. Kyrie Eleison!

    • I think this assessment is essentially correct.

      The gist of it is why I have said over and over I do not believe the “Correction” will be a solution, rather, it will be a trigger that will set in motion further resistance, theologizing, study, conflict and all of that will lead to a solution down the road.

      The method for affecting the removal of a Pope is after-the-fact, that is, by another subsequent Pope who can judge the previous Pope. In the meantime, we are stuck with what we are stuck with, in this case, an apparently Lutheran Pope.

      The strain is getting very hard to bear, but Francis’ age and health are two things going against him. What a future conclave would produce is anyone’s guess, but I suspect that there are many who voted for Francis who if they had another whack at it, would choose someone else {that has already been reported}. I imagine there are many conclave-eligible Cardinals who will be doing a bit more due diligence at this time than possibly they did in the past. Not saying we couldn’t get a disastrous “Schönborn” for a successor, but I am saying that we MIGHT get a very orthodox Pope, and if we did, the entire current pontificate could be reviewed in depth and possible “judgments” made. C’mon, Cardinals gave us Rod Borgia for crying out loud so it cannot be said that the “Protestants” have it in the bag merely because a guy like Bergoglio was elected once.

      I actually see a lot of good coming from this pontificate. Francis merely reflects the rank Protestantization desired by many who were seemingly afraid to really let go, and up till now only had partial support from previous post-V2 Popes. Now with Francis we see Luther every time we turn around. That reality is causing open conflict and in that we at least have a form of honesty and not the make-believe we’ve been stuck with for many years.

      • The method of theological ambiguity, with regard to modernist writings such as evidenced in the Conciliar documents, will deteriorate as the Church’s historic teachings become more openly challenged by Popes, cardinals and bishops with the laity accepting the once heretical teachings as authoritative. As you have noted, this reality is expressed in the open dissent by those with authority–dissenting views once viewed heretical now prepped to be proclaimed as the new-orthodoxy by the Pope. The liberal Catholic dissent Popes John Paul II and Benedict tried to suppress is becoming normative in the Church and is becoming institutionalized in magisterial documents such as AL. Pre-Conciliar Popes experienced with the modernism in the Church were also unable to extinguish this super-heresy successfully. You are also correct that this open and unambiguous contradiction with sacred doctrine coming from the Pope and the Kasperites is a blessing in that even the laity, most of whom are unschooled in the subtleties in contemporary Catholic theologies, are able to understand plainly the contradiction with previous magisterial teaching. The side of history is on Catholic orthodoxy and it would behoove those in authority to remember that in every age the Church has encountered men who have become as Judas and not only have anathematized the men and their memory but also their followers.

  32. Being Pope presupposes you hold the Catholic Faith, or at least that you do not teach contradictory to what has always been taught and believed by all prior magisterial teaching. If it’s all about the magisterium of the moment, as Flannery O’Conner would say ” to hell with it”. If you look for truth, you must apply the principle of non-contradiction. A cannot = B, or change to B.

  33. True Liberals are pure evil. Their sole purpose is to destroy Truth wherever it resides…be it in Society, Countries or especially the One True Faith. The current occupant of the Chair of Peter, is a radical liberal. Put up or Shut up time is rapidly approaching for everyone…..God or Man? It’s clear whose side the apostates running the Vatican in Rome have chosen. It’s part of our Chastisement duly earned by men. This is a positive development. No one is going to be able to hide behind the Vatican 2 nonsense of the last 55 Years.

  34. Pope Francis must be replaced as soon as possible. Let us ask Our Lady of Fatima for help. She more than anyone must realize how bad the situation is. She has not been treated kindly by recent Popes regarding her requests. It is time for a reckoning.

  35. Were they, by any chance, three wise men, and therefore bearing troubled countenance, amid the throng laughing clerics?
    Every second photo of Francis is of him laughing uproariously, or smiling like a lunatic at some stranger in the crowd. A troubling sign, methinks. Where is sanity in that crowd that occupy the Vatican and its choke points in the world??

  36. The irony : had any of the post-conciliar Popes moved as decisively as Francis to eradicate opposition to the perennial teachings and disciplines of the Church and to protect Her from Her enemies, we wouldn’t have been sitting here with the fruit of 50 years of Revolution.

    The Pope who will be the Restorationist will need to move as ruthlessly, decisively and comprehensively as has Francis. The exercise of authority isn’t the problem. The problem is what the exercise of authority is accomplishing: the work of Our Lord or the work of the Evil One.


      We need a Pope with the guts of “Obama” and “Bergoglio” to lead in the purification of the Church.

      It’s funny…I am reading through the Books of the Maccabees right now. When will the Lord give us a Judas Maccabeus?

  37. Archbishop Fulton Sheen made the perfect distinction between someone who is bad, and someone who is evil. A bad person does bad things — steals, lies, cheats. An evil person seeks to destroy goodness, virtue, honor, decency, morality and truth.

    Like goodness, there is a hierarchy to evil as well. Not all evil is equally malicious, just as all good is not equally sublime. – Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

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

  38. The pope knows it wouldn’t be smart to do anything about the four Cardinals, but it makes him look weak. So instead he decides to remove priests at the SCDF.

    Too bad he can’t use one of his Straw Man arguments.

    Sic semper tyrannis

  39. Does the pope do the same to the faithful, who would ask the same thing to the pope in a audience or in confession if living together and having sex before marriage is a sin, or is there still a mortal sin in these things such as pornography, masturbation, homosexual acts, cussing, skipping mass, etc, maybe the whole audience should ask him and he’ll answer and we’ll find out if he is a faithful servant to Christ and his church.

  40. Let’s have all the faithful lay people of the church ask the pope the questions as if it’s ok divorce our spouse, sex before marriage, commit adultery,etc is a mortal sin real still, did the early church fathers and apostles who gave us the scriptures, doctors of the church, saints, previous popes lie to us? Is this a new gospel,? Let’s all ask ask pope Francis that through mail, email, audiences and stand up for Christ, because the Catholic church is supposed to have answers for everything for our souls.

  41. We should ask if it’s ok to dialogue with the devil so it we can make it easier to live in sin and do away with holiness and teachings of the gospels and church.

  42. “Don’t be wise in your own eyes, fear the Lord and shun evil” Prov 1″7

    Below are comments with attributes of the fallen one

  43. Cardinal Mueller needs God’s grace to publicly question the Pope the way the four Cardinals have. He needs people asking Mary to help him. If it is a truth of the Catholic Faith that God has only one, single, infinite, always in the present tense thought, WORD, JESUS (which contains all CCC 2666), in which God thinks about every detail of God’s nature, every action of God in time and space,
    every thought and action of every soul throughout time and space and eternity,
    exactly when everyone will be given the truly infinite graces needed so that God will be all in all, everything to everyone (CCC130, 1 Cor. 1528),
    exactly when at least some priests and Bishops will explicitly teach that because all time is eternally present to God in Its immediacy (CCC 600) therefore God is eternally honoring St. Joseph as the head of the family the way the Child Jesus revealed by His life, and that Mary will be more pleased to help Cardinal Mueller (and all of us) when we publicly strive to honor St. Joseph the way God does eternally, and on and on…….
    Perhaps more people should strive to honor St. Joseph the way God does and then maybe God, in His mercy, will be pleased to hear our prayers through Mary, through Joseph, the way Jesus prayed as a child?

  44. I like the use of the term “purge” except it could be in God’s plan that Francis will gather all of the major heretical players around him and then God is going to “purge” His Church of them in His own way and at the proper time. But there have been a lot of earthquakes happening in Italy lately. Maybe the good priests being expelled from Rome should go quickly and not look back for fear of being turned into a pillar of salt. I don’t worry about it too much anymore. The problem is not between the Church faithful and the Pope but rather between God and the Pope and God is never in the wrong. He’ll bring good out of Francis’ papacy even if it is only to make Francis serve as a warning to the college of Cardinals and future Popes. God is in charge, grace will flow.

  45. I suggest that the four Cardinals and any other priests and bishops that support them quietly place themselves around the Apostolic Palace and pray the prayers of Exorcism continually over a period of 9 days while a Novena is said by all of the faithful for the deliverance of the papacy.

  46. St. Cyprian of Carthage

    “Moreover, beloved brethren, a new kind of devastation has appeared;
    and, as if the storm of persecution had raged too little, there has been
    added to the heap, under the title of mercy, a deceiving mischief and a
    fair-seeming calamity. Contrary to the vigour of the Gospel, contrary to
    the law of the Lord and God, by the temerity of some, communion is
    relaxed to heedless persons – a vain and false peace, dangerous to those
    who grant it, and likely to avail nothing to those who receive it. They do
    not seek for the patience necessary to health, nor the true medicine
    derived from atonement,34”——-Cyprian of Carthage

  47. The culture in the CDF, as reported in this article, is no different from the culture as it has existed under previous Popes. For example, it has always been full of gossip and of ‘informants’.
    And how is it thought that previous Popes managed officials of whom they did not approve?
    Ironic to hear some of these people now using the ‘mercy’ argument, and against the Pope.
    So much leaking and spinning of conversations.

  48. Francis is turning more into a Dictator then a man of God. And lets not call this pope, humble. He’s far from it..! By the way, has anyone noticed that he always waves to the crowds but never will you see him blessing the crowds? Interesting….

  49. Our thanks to Maike Hickson for great reporting.
    The “spirit of fear” in the Vatican has been apparent for some time and C. Mueller’s shocking statement against the dubia now raises a number of questions – what pressure was he under that he changed his stance so suddenly?
    – is the strategy to move clergy sexual abuse cases away from the CDF to another ministry an indicator of some kind that PF plans to change the Church’s stance on homosexual unions? Lots of questions, no answers yet.
    Also keen to know what C. Burke and the 3 cardinals response to C. Mueller has been. Waiting and praying for them and for a resolution to this nightmare.
    God bless you Steve – keep up the good work.

  50. As we look ahead, I believe we shall see, by necessity, a continuation of Church Prelates going public as either supporting the “Dubia”, presented with sound premises, or rejecting them (without any real reasoning, thus far). In the end, we will see two groups of Prelates as like rows of dominoes, converging one by one in the direction of the doorstep of our beloved Pope Benedict XVI. The visions and prophecies of Bl. Anne Emmerick, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Pope Pius X, and other chosen souls seem to clearly confirm this. That day, thank God, is not far away.

  51. This dreadful man no longer deserves the respect owing to the Papacy. He is malicious and he is a demagogue. Thus it’s beholden on ALL FAITHFUL CATHOLICS to resist him, and inform all their associates of his terrible man’s fascist-style governance and his open attack on the church.


Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...