Together, the editors of two of the most notable traditional Catholic publications — The Remnant and Catholic Family News — have issued a public accusation of Pope Francis as one who has “defied the very words of Our Lord Himself” and has done great damage to the Catholic Faith. A brief excerpt explaining why now, and in this manner:
You have already provoked a fracturing of the Church’s universal discipline, with some bishops maintaining it despite Amoris Laetitia while others, including those in Buenos Aires, are announcing a change based solely on the authority of your scandalous “apostolic exhortation.” Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the Church.
Yet, almost without exception, the conservative members of the hierarchy observe a politic silence while the liberals exult publicly over their triumph thanks to you. Almost no one in the hierarchy stands in opposition to your reckless disregard of sound doctrine and practice, even though many murmur privately against your depredations. Thus, as it was during the Arian crisis, it falls to the laity to defend the Faith in the midst of a near-universal defection from duty on the part of the hierarchs.
Of course we are nothing in the scheme of things, and yet as baptized lay members of the Mystical Body we are endowed with the God-given right and the correlative duty, enshrined in Church law (cf. CIC can. 212), to communicate with you and with our fellow Catholics concerning the acute crisis your governance of the Church has provoked amidst an already chronic state of ecclesial crisis following the Second Vatican Council.
Private entreaties having proven utterly useless, as we note below, we have published this document to discharge our burden of conscience in the face of the grave harm you have inflicted, and threaten to inflict, upon souls and the ecclesial commonwealth, and to exhort our fellow Catholics to stand in principled opposition to your continuing abuse of the papal office, particularly where it concerns the Church’s infallible teaching against adultery and profanation of the Holy Eucharist.
The entire first installment (because more is coming) of this accusation, including the introductory letter, is over 2300 words long. And the most striking thing about it is the feeling of insufficiency it induces. This part covers the falsification of humility and contemptuous treatment of the Petrine Office under Francis, his political meddling (and failure thereof, when it comes to murderous regimes), and finally, his scandalous religious indifferentism. Citing (and linking to) specific examples, the case is adroitly made, but one could come up with so many more instances to bolster the case.
It’s an astonishing thing when you begin compiling it all in one place. You realize that yes, Francis truly is the most damaging pope in Church history.
The next installment promises to tackle Francis’ “Absurd whitewash of Islam” along with his “relentless drive to accommodate sexual immorality in the Church” …and more. One wonders how many installments this will take. I think it could be a recurring feature for quite some time.
And while I don’t know what this document will accomplish, we aren’t consequentialists. It’s good, I think, to have such a thing on the record.
Not having read what’s coming in the future installment(s), I have to say that I suspect I’ll be willing to lend my own voice to it. The silence of our bishops thus far has been devastating. I hope they will join in the chorus of protest soon.
Wow. I couldn’t agree more. I’m sick.
Dear God help us!
I am starting to wonder if this is a chastisement. A winnowing towards the end.
I’m not counting on a chastisement, I’m counting on the Power of Christ to right his ship.
Smacking these people down with a chastisement is too easy and may not work.
Remember what happened to Fr. Volpi and his terror against the FFI. The courts came down on him and then he died. Not a single person in the modernists learned from it.
What I mean is that THEY are a chastisement from God on US. God may be allowing this to divide the sheep from goats.
On this we agree!
An old, maybe apocryphal, quote attributed to Protestant evengelist Billy Sunday (of yesteryear) comes to mind. The “proper” Protestant clergy had informed the flamboyant preacher that they didn’t like his way of “doing evangelism.” His retort: “I like my way of doing it better than your way of NOT doing it.” The comparison with the Remnant and CFN vs. the “conservative” clergy is relevant here.
The idea occurred to me awhile back and I think I’ve come to the conclusion that this is probably the beginning of a chastisement. 100th anniversary of Fatima is coming up…
The “pastoral” whitewash on usury, formally supporting absolution for and admission of unrepentant mortal sinners to the Eucharist, happened before Fatima and well before Vatican II.
Francis is not the first Pope to formally approve of disciplinary practices manifestly contrary to bedrock moral doctrine.
Not the first but we hope & pray he’ll be the last.
Even more, we can stop being histrionic about this being the worst thing ever and can work and pray toward restoring sanity to sacramental discipline around usury and adultery.
Strategically, the modernist promoters of sexual sin are weak when it comes to property-based sins which cry out to Heaven for vengeance like usury. In my view if Catholic traditionalists really want to turn this thing back they should attack where the liberals are weak.
But that would mean admitting that this didn’t start with Francis or with Vatican II, and it might involve appealing to Francis for a return to orthodox discipline when it comes to usury — where he has shown signs of sympathy.
My own read on him is that he is not really very bright — not especially stupid, mind you, but not in the genius category like we are used to with our two previous monarchs. Francis is just a mid level Latin American functionary with pedestrian ‘current year’ liberal views on most things, who was elevated to the Throne of Peter.
That particular background makes him and his curia vulnerable to an orthodoxy phalanx based in economic sins, even though he is a 30 foot wall of scolding mercy tyrant when it comes to sexual sin.
It is always tempting to attack where our old Enemy is strong, because the damage he is doing there is manifest and horrifying.
But it is strategically smarter to attack where he is weak. Flanking is a basic and time tested military strategy, and we are after all supposed to be the Church Militant.
There is a lot of conflict & ambiguity in this Papacy. OTOH PF is always talking about the poor, i.e financially poor as opposed to spiritually poor. Christ said the poor shall always be with us, so in that case his priority should be with the spiritually poor as that is what is necessary to redress in order to gain Heaven. There again, PF states that anyone can get to Heaven & there is no Hell as that would go against the Gospels. He has also stated there is no Catholic God, i.e. no God, so what is he doing holding the Seat of Peter if he doesn’t believe in the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church which Jesus Christ founded? Put there by the sect of Marxist/Masonic/Modernists he is playing according to their tune, not Christ’s, & the Hierarchy, which mainly consists of the same ideologues, are backing him to the hilt to bring about the total destruction of the CC.
Faithful Catholics can only prepare themselves by prayer, fasting & vigilance. Reading CC history is a help to understanding the words of Christ that we shall be hated just as He was. We should be please to wear that badge for His sake
Ana Milan:
Yes — that and his occasional explicit condemnation of usury is precisely what makes him and his curia vulnerable to appeals to restore traditional sacramental discipline with respect to unrepentant usurers, the abrogation of which is every bit as (and possibly more) horrifying as the abrogation of traditional sacramental discipline with respect to unrepentant adulterers.
There are probably as many unrepentant objective usurers who receive the Eucharist as unrepentant objective adulterers.
We should direct our efforts where the Enemy is weak, not where he is strong.
[edited for typos]
good advice
Inquisitorial beaters! Moralistic quibblers! Christian hypocrites only interested in their formalities!
It’s the sickness of those who insatiably try to multiply their powers and to do so are capable of calumny, defamation and discrediting others, even in newspapers and magazines, naturally to show themselves as being more capable than others.
They call themselves Christians, they call themselves Catholics, but their rigid attitude distances them from the Church!
Rotting in the heart, weak, weak to the point of rottenness! Gloomy in the heart!
Be joyful as I am joyful!
Truly a picture worth a thousand words, all of them bad. I do believe this is the real Jorge. God help us.
LOL!
Far out! who’s that poor prelate!
You forgot “crapophilia.” That word sent me running to the dictionary and became nauseated to think it was actually the pope who said it. I’m not – and will never be – a “cafeteria Catholic,” but now afraid I’m a “cafeteria papist.”
And we’re fighting about “tone?”
“Yet, almost without exception, the conservative members of the hierarchy observe a politic silence while the liberals exult publicly over their triumph thanks to you.”
That is an unfortunate choice of words as it confuses their own complaint with a political philosophy.
They should have said: “Yet, almost without exception, the faithful members of the hierarchy observe a public political silence while the unfaithful exult publicly over their temporary triumph thanks to you.”
One gets the impression that they are writing with anger, never a good idea as it garbles the message. I may agree with the majority of their complaints and could add to them, yet I am already leery of any good outcome if they continue to employ the same kind of argumentation and language.
Valid points, all. I think we are at a moment when traditionalist Catholics who can articulate clearly and calmly what the problems (and solutions) are have an unusual opportunity to be listened to by those who might never have done so otherwise.
The same old polemics are not going to accomplish that. I agree, as you say, with their objections. I understand their indignation. But indignation is…well, it’s not a selling point, I guess. My one worry is that this further marginalizes those who authored it.
Exactly, an unnecessary self-inflicted wound. Passion is best employed in a face to face confrontation, not in a written document of public record meant to correct the Chief Shepherd of the Sheep….and I wouldn’t touch the humility aspect ever, that is another strategic mistake.
I don’t know what to make of it, I am not sure enough about these kinds of things and don’t want to be in sin.
Respectfully disagree. Righteous Indignation is legitimate response. If after 3.5 years of PF you don’t have it, either one has been living in a cave or is not up to speed on what PF is/has/continues deconstructing the OTF
You are misunderstanding what I am saying, I completely agree that righteous indignation is a legitimate emotional response to what is going on in the Church.
However, I think employing it the way that it is being employed, especially with ad hominem arguments that are completely unnecessary for making their case, is a serious mistake and will actually end up hurting their cause. I think that it is clouding their judgment and leading them to make a much less effective argument.
I have already stated multiple times that I agree with the majority of their complaints (I can’t say all as I do not know all of them yet, and I don’t agree with going the route they have started on.)
Just looked at the first part of the first part, not very impressed. They are allowing their passions (which have been inflamed for decades and are now raw) to get the better of their reason and purpose (and they demonstrate considerable amount of their own hubris in the section on Pope Francis false humility.) And looking at their comment section, they need to moderate their moderator. He is ridiculing good comments that people made in sincerity.
Nothing new there.
I agree fully. They’re focusing on the wrong things, and their lack of prudence is troublesome. Who cares about the false displays of humility by the pope in light of his attempts to change discipline contrary to sound doctrine, which will lead countless souls to hell? Not to say the Pope’s foolishness in these other matters doesn’t matter, but they’d better make their case if they can stick to the objective wrongs rather than the silly utterances.
It is often those “silly utterances” that cause the most damage and confusion. We have to remember, the world does not understand the definition of Papal Infallibility. They think everything the Pope says is revelation. This is also the reason why the Pope has to be very careful about what he says and clearly define what he means when he says something.
Am I allowed to ask how long you have been working for the Church, Father? Where is your carefully weighted comment, with just the right words? Please, you and other priests should do your job and then it wouldn’t fall on laymen to do it for you, while being criticized for doing so. How disappointing. That is a big reason we find ourselves in the situation we are in. Can we say ‘circular firing squad’?
This is totally a circular firing squad
Are you accusing me of not doing my job? Are you rashly presuming that I have not addressed these subjects (and many more) in my parishes? Am I obligated to host an online forum and post everything I say and preach and teach in my parishes so that you can be assured of my orthodoxy and that I am faithfully carrying out the obligations of my office?
Furthermore, I do not need to be perfect and or have written the perfect document in order to point out obvious errors in another document, that is an erroneous position.
If someone I am going to battle with another against a common opponent and that other begins to act rashly and wave his firearm wildly around shooting everywhere, I’m supposed to be good with it because he’s on my side?
With all respect Father, Your thin skin and ire is showing a bit. Now what were you saying about the tone of anger from the guys at Remnant? God Bless.
I was simply trying to help her see that she was rashly judging me when she has no idea of what she is speaking about. Hence the series of questions to clarify what she is actually saying so that she can reconsider and stop making false accusations, for that is actually seriously sinful.
And I am not writing a remote case from a distance but responding directly to someone who is falsely accusing me personally for failing the obligations of my office.
This is a very common occurrence in the com box: false accusations based on presumption based on past experience and a general problem.
….Father, with all due respect, you were also the one who previously spoke out in strident terms against the SSPX…. rashly presuming others weren’t doing as they “should” based solely on, it seems, what you feel you must do. Or what you presume you would do should this crisis become even graver. (There but for the grace of God go I.) That said, much about the non-binding nature of Vatican II documents has been revealed because of the position of non-compromise. Perhaps not the method you would have chosen, but that method God has chosen for others. Not you.
Sorry, but marginalizing those efforts that should be lauded, specifically those of the Remnant and CFN in doing what they are called to do in conscience, is not helpful to anyone.
“…And looking at their comment section, they need to moderate their moderator. He is ridiculing good comments that people made in sincerity.”
In truth, perhaps you need to look with an unbiased eye at your own comments and posturing, and your own bias and perception of what “you” consider correct.
For while you take offense at those who intimate that you may not be doing your job, you seem to have little issue with presuming to tell others what their job is. Physician heal thyself.
Are you ever not preachy? I appreciate that you like to contribute here, but it seems the only mode you have is to talk down to people – couched in enough respectful language that it’s difficult to ding you on technicalities.
Either way, I find it abrasive. It leads to more pointless arguments than it accomplishes persuasion. I’m getting really tired in general of tenor of the comment box. It’s become a fever swamp lately. We need to elevate our game.
…I appreciate your contributions to the good fight, Steve. (And I’m glad to see you posting this article here.)
It often seems, however, that commentary is often posturing and negating the valid contributions of others. Others who have previously been marginalized here, but now, are not. Deo gratias! (Truth will out.)
That said, isn’t being respectful what we are called to do? Isn’t being honest what we are called to do?
There is nothing pointless in being honest about the worthy contributions of others, Steve. But I don’t doubt you’re exhausted by the fever swamp of the combox. It’s reflective of the great work of necessary unification and building up that must be done so that those who embrace the Catholic Faith in its entirety can work together, recognizing the gifts and contributions of others to get the job done.
Again, it’s your parlor. Moderate as you will. But this is a massive crisis and we all need to build each other up. To include welcoming the possible gift of ire in the Remnant CFN piece.
Who knows?
While some castigate those at the Remnant and CFN, such a letter may be precisely the goad necessary to spur those in positions of authority to do the job of couching their words in precise kindness to call out His Holiness.
I think that The Remnant, CFN, and basically, the SSPX have done yeoman’s work for our troubled age. They have cut a path through the forest. Sure, they might sometimes use a blunt machete. But without them, we would be in a more difficult position than we currently find ourselves.
Elevate this. It seems that the needs of Catholic men through history have been pretty simple; give me the sacraments, the truth and a cause. Our current leadership has publically given us; “dont breed like rabbits” a publicity photo of a man essentially sucking the toe of a mohamedian and now adultery is no big deal. Frankie 2-flats has created a demand for Catholic manhood. This blog just disqualified itself from meeting this demand by “dont be so MeAN!”. God help us, it is eternal salvation and the tip of a sword at our throats that we are facing here. Go dialogue over tea. There are men’s souls to save (and may those saved carry their women and children with them)
I’m guessing you haven’t read much here, Stephen. I’m not saying “don’t be mean.” I’m saying, “be effective.” The right message delivered through the wrong rhetoric is simply not going to reach as many people.
My criticism has been widely misunderstood to apply specifically to this Liber. While I conceded Fr. RP’s criticisms that impugning motives and ad hominem detract from the larger substantive message being presented, I excerpted the first part of the Liber and shared it with our audience because I agreed with it. In fact, the whole point I was making in the post is that with all that was mentioned as strikes against Francis, there’s so much more that could be said in each area. I’ve been documenting his deviations for three years. Search this site for “Pope Francis” and then tell me if you think we’re advocating simple dialogue.
My criticism, which I didn’t think merited being in a post of its own (hence its appearance in the comment box in a larger discussion about an effective strategy) is about how average every day Catholics are being violently shaken awake by this papacy and looking for answers. If they come to the traditional Catholic community to find them, are they going to be put off by the way we tend to sneer at anyone who doesn’t get it? By the labels we use, or the condescension? By the underlying victim mentality that comes from being marginalized for so long?
I’ve always advocated hard truths. That doesn’t mean they can’t be offered diplomatically enough that people can palate them. A friend of mine always reminds me (especially when I feel like taking the gloves off) that when G.K. Chesteron sparred with George Bernard Shaw, he always gave him enough wiggle room that if he came around and converted, he could do it without having too much egg on his face.
I was cemented in my faith by knocking on doors as a missionary, teaching people about Catholicism and trying to convince them to convert or come back home. The only way to do that face to face (which many writers have precious little experience doing) is to establish common ground, and build from there.
This publication was always designed not just to report on the reality of the crisis, but to lead Catholics who have been robbed of their patrimony toward the beauty of tradition without making them feel browbeaten by it. Preaching to the choir is all well and good. But we also need to know how to evangelize.
“I was cemented in my faith by knocking on doors as a missionary, teaching people about Catholicism and trying to convince them to convert or come back home. The only way to do that face to face (which many writers have precious little experience doing) is to establish common ground, and build from there.”
That some great experience, Steve. Others, though, have the experience of sustaining Catholics and their families (…likely to include some of the experience you describe). Their charter isn’t so much to bring in the unknowing, but rather to sustain those who have known for a long, long time and take the lead to do what they can to address the issue.
I’m looking forward to everyone appreciating the efforts of all who are fighting the common enemy, although maybe on different fronts. We don’t want to pursue common ground with one demographic only to experience attrition on the back end by discounting those whose audience is a little different.
Maybe, since you take such issue with tone and mode, you could write your own piece to Francis, taking the points you’ve outlined into consideration with an eye to garner those who may be put off by strong language. Goodness knows, you have a staff of capable writers!
Just a thought.
Do not be tired of the tenor. It is necessary. After all, one can always simply not read it.
The comment box enables us to sample the audience. It is a thermometer. Don’t consider being like CMTV and their strange cultish ways. Freedom to talk, even if annoying, is a very transparent and honest way to go about this.
I said that I would not be joining the SSPX because they are not in full communion with the Church; hopefully that will soon come to an end and they will have a personal prelature.
And I am allowed to disagree with the method being employed by CFN and the Remnant without abandoning the Faith. I am not marginalizing their efforts. What I am concerned about is that they are marginalizing their efforts by the style and tone they are employing. They could make a simple objective case without engaging in rhetoric and ad hominem accusations.
May God help us all to Love Him and Server Him in sincerity and truth so that we may further build up His Holy Bride and give glory to His Name. Amen.
PS: And I say this with sincerity: thank you for reminding me to pray and humble myself before responding to article or comment that I don’t fully agree with.
I am saying that you have not backed your criticism well, Father. I certainly would not question your sermons without hearing them, or your teaching in general. I have great regard for you as a Catholic priest. I am just sorry that what appear to be minor details, presented by men in the trenches for many years because the Bishops won’t do their jobs, are quickly critiqued because of a minor aberration in form, when the basic tenet of the presentation is so correct.
All I did was point out that I did not agree with the style they were employing as it is filled with unnecessary ad hominem attacks. This will not further the cause of the Mission of the Church. If one is going to address the Pope about his ambiguities and apparent errors publicly one should stick to objective facts and not enter into the realm of the subjective. I hope and pray that all of us who are in agony over the harm being done to Holy Mother Church will rejoice together over Our Lord’s victory, both now and forever. Amen.
“I did not agree with the style they were employing as it is filled with unnecessary ad hominem attacks”
Hmmm. Perhaps a megaphone is necessary for their task? Perhaps dialectic is simply not enough to punch through the thick epidermis covering the hierarchy’s ears. Perhaps they needed to switch it up with some rhetoric.
Aristotle often argued that rhetoric was necessary when dialectic failed:
“[B]efore some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct. Here, then, we must use, as our modes of persuasion and argument, notions possessed by everybody, as we observed in the Topics when dealing with the way to handle a popular audience.”
“Am I obligated to host an online forum and post everything I say and preach and teach in my parishes so that you can be assured of my orthodoxy and that I am faithfully carrying out the obligations of my office?”
That would be one of the most wonderful things I’ve seen from a priest. Not the part that you’d be forced to do it, though. But putting every work out there online would be fantastic. I can’t tell you enough how often I’d wish a priest would put his sermon out publicly, so that I could go over it a second or third time.
Of course, you’ve put more of your work online than most. So, please don’t think I’m saying you’re lacking in what you produce.
“Am I allowed to ask how long you have been working for the Church, Father?”
Facepalm. You don’t know who you’re talking to.
Yes I do. That is why I asked.
Has the Vatican ever been concerned about the Remnant as it has evidently been, say, about 1P5? If they haven’t, my take is that they do not consider them as a threat. If Remnant is not a threat to the current regime, then who do they work for?
*
Thank you Fr. RP for calling out things clearly and directly as regards the Remnant . I hope they take to heart your paternal correction.
Paternal correction goes further when it is girded by an example of what is being preached.
That said, the Vatican is very concerned about the rise of traditional Catholic practice, friend. So this superior posturing that would denigrate the Remnant for supporting traditionally practicing Catholics who have been marginalized for decades is, in truth, leaves me to question who it is you work for. The Truth…. or perhaps the perception of a holiness.
Father, I completely agree. But I would take it a step further.
I personally do not think that writing an open letter will accomplish its goal. It isn’t because the intentions are not good, but because there us what can be interpreted as a sign of hubris that is present.
Mr. Ferrara, I’m not sure if you’re familiar with Dr. E. Michael Jones’s newest e-book, “The Man Behind the Curtain:. Michael Voris and the Homosexual Vortex,” in which he writes:
“The teaching found expression in Lumen Gentium, the Vatican II document on the Church. Like the Apostles: the bishops received the charge of the community presiding in God’s stead over the flock, of which they are the shepherds in that they are the teachers of doctrine, ministers of sacred worship and holder of office in government. … The sacred synod consequently teaches that the bishops have by divine institution, taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.[ 9] That prohibition found expression in Canon 1373 of the revised code of Canon Law, which specified that: “One who publicly either stirs up hostilities or hatred among subjects against the Apostolic See or against an ordinary on account of some act of ecclesiastical power or ministry or incites subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or by other just penalties.”[ 10] Canon 1373 was precisely the canon that Roger Cardinal Mahony cited as the basis of a Canon Law suit that he was planning to file against Mother Angelica in the late ’90s. Ferrara hoped to “show that the unprecedented emergence of ‘New Church’ is the very essence of the post-conciliar crisis, and that this development was predicted in the Third Secret of Fatima, as Pope Pius XII indicated in a stunning prophecy that figures largely in this book.”
I don’t know. I rather liked it.
I understand where you are coming from, but things might have moved on to a point where an indignant blast with both barrels is exactly what’s needed.
There seems to be a new mood spreading round the world where “the man in the street” is getting sick of all the BS and is starting to kick against it. The MSM dismisses it as the global rise of populism, but I think it runs much deeper than that.
Here in the UK we started our kicking back with a vote to leave the EU which none of the elite predicted and which sent world financial markets into a temporary tail-spin – Old Blighty hasn’t been this globally significant for years. In other European countries movements against the NWO are on the rise – even Merkel in Germany is starting to look vulnerable, and Hollande in France already looks like a has-been. Who would have thought 4 years ago that Donald Trump would have been a serious contender for the presidency of the USA? But he seems to have struck a chord with “the man in the street” and might beat that harpy yet. He hasn’t got this far by sweet-talking his way through life. (I don’t know if he would be good for your country or not, but nobody can deny that there is a phenomenon at work here.)
Maybe the Remnant/CFN have hit the right tone at the right time to actually make an impact with this. Its not pretty, its not subtle, but the 45 theologians tried that already and all they are getting for their pains is persecution from superiors. Perhaps its time to tap into the widespread anger and emotion that is being pent up and ready to explode – maybe its time to cleanse the Temple.
I agree with you. Does anyone here seriously imagine that by using polite terminology and avoiding topics such as the pope’s vaunted “humility” that letters of protest are going to be then taken more seriously? I do not believe this is the case. There has been nothing in the past three years to indicate that our concerns are heard OR cared about. Quite the contrary, the pope or his minions seem to get huffy about it, dig in, and add some more fodder to the “Pope Francis Insult Generator”.
We are relatively small in number. Now we know. But we can make noise and be heard. I’d rather make noise and at least hope it was registering somewhere, then be maddeningly quiet in the face of the demolition of our church and faith by destroyers. Whatever little blow we can strike, we ought to. Pray, fast, but light a candle rather than just curse the darkness, as the Christophers say. I’m sick of these men and their antics, and frankly, I’m tired of being silent, or, being cautioned to be so respectful nothing actually gets said.
“…the right tone at the right time to actually make an impact.”
Exactly.
There’s a time and a place for everything under the sun and often, in assessing our own weaknesses and baggage, we fall short of the vigor we might otherwise use.
Faint heart never won fair lady. There’s a time for gloves to come off, even if the bare knuckled fight frightens some.
Hear, hear! As I read part II of the letter/liber, I noticed more unnecessary sarcasm, more unnecessary suggestions of evil intentions, and so on and so on to underscore their indignation that I, too, understand and largely agree with concerning many of the Pope’s statements and declarations, etc. Without question, the Pope’s errors are sufficient fodder to be rightly called out, but the ad hominem attacks on him do not provide enlightenment, and they reflect poorly on the authors.
Thank you!.
Seriously, Mr. Ferrara, with all due respect, the method that Mr. Voris uses, as well as the method that you use, are both understandable, but still wrong.
For one thing, what are the chances of as an open letter being read?.
Also, what good is this to Holy Mother Church to write to the Holy Father in such a way?
If you wouldn’t write in such a fashion to your birth father, what makes you think that writing to the pipe in such a way is an exception?
What good is any of this going to accomplish?
To quote Saint Catherine of Siena, we ought to honor our Holy Father “even if he were Satan incarnate.”
Steve, do you think they care about being “marginalized”? CFN is in the cross-hairs of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who call John v. a Terrorist!
My question to is, what in the trilogy is factually incorrect? These are the facts, and the authors give voice to the reality of the impact on traditional Catholics, and even NO. Catholics who are confused about doctrine due to Francis’ fantasies. The damage he has done to souls is incalculable!. Finally some like Vennari, Matt, and Chris actually RESIST in fact and in public, instead of murmuring on FB or blaming the “misinterpretations”, the “out of context” media quotes. I think it is a masterpiece.
When did I say any of it was factually incorrect? My comments only ever alluded to tone. And frankly, while I conceded that Fr. RP made valid points, I posted this because I agreed with it.
The continued making of a big deal about this is mind boggling to me.
That was my reaction to that sentence too… “conservative” is a loaded word that doesn’t mean what many people think it means. “orthodox” would have been my choice.
Yes, ‘Orthodox vrs Heterodox’ or ‘Faithful vrs Unfaithful” as those are the religious and spiritual realities. Conservative and Liberal are Political Philosophies and the employment of them in this kind of argument (other than analogously) is to harm one’s own argument.
Whatever the inefficiencies of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” may be, I have sat with a notable conservative priest (who would identify as “conservative” himself most likely) who expressed his view on this encyclical stating that he saw it being ignored by many Bishops, many priests he spoke with simply haven’t read it, many Bishops and priests don’t intend to read it or have made no comment on it. Indeed you will see a systemic silence in many dioceses on Amoris Laetitia. This notable conservative priest went on to state how he believed that most of the Church will ignore Amoris Laetitia.
It is a fact that the conservative prelates in the Church are ignoring Amoris Laetitia and consciously intend to continue ignoring it, pretending as if it doesn’t exist. And it’s not as if they don’t think it doesn’t contradict doctrine either, they just don’t want to address it. After hearing these thoughts expressed, I thought this expressed a complete lack of charity towards the Holy Father, because true charity cannot exist without truth. And they don’t want to correct him, they don’t want to tell him the truth.
You are not considering that they are ignoring it not out of cowardice or complacency, but because they have zero intention of following it and firmly believe that it will be shelved in the very near future. Perhaps they do not wish to expose the faithful to the heterodox positions of Pope Francis, because they are firmly aware that the majority of Catholics haven’t a clue about most anything going on in the Church. When the people who are supposed to promote the erroneous positions of their superior remain silent and ignore the instruction of the superior they can quite effectively mute much of that superior’s power to bring about his desired intent.
Haven’t the ‘liberals’ in the Church been quite effective employing this strategy for years? Haven’t the ‘conservatives’ lamented daily for decades that the ‘libs’ are ignoring what Pope (fill in the blank) or the CDF or the CDW said about X, Y and Z and are teaching what they want to instead?
I’m not saying that their positions is the correct one to take (as I am not absolutely positive which is at this point, though I tend to go with the second position below), I am simply saying that they are employing a different strategy and one that has been employed very effectively by the heterodox members of the hierarchy for decades.
It seems to me that there are two viable positions, one is to largely ignore the document/statements of those promoting error (when it is truly possible to do so) and the other is to oppose them for their ambiguity and outright errors (via personal temperament I usually rush into this position daily…though not always.)
It seems you are forgetting the saying “evil prevails when good men do nothing.” They are not employing a different strategy, they are cowards. If they had true charity towards the Pope they would tell him in no uncertain terms that he is in error.
And it seems that you are filled with rash presumptive judgements of people you don’t even know. And they may very well have told the Pope of his error, once again you are presuming that they haven’t.
The fact remains that countless Traditional Catholics from every walk of life have been pointing out PF’s heterodoxy from the outset but only received cutting remarks & name-calling by way of response, which is most unbecoming to the Papacy. The only presumption we can make is that he assumes because he is Pope he can do so. Christ did give the power to loose & bind to St. Peter & the First Apostles but that was in relation to the forgiveness or retention of sin, not to change His Law & Commandments so that sin is eradicated. The Hierarchy obviously hasn’t the collective nerve to come out publicly against him & the perceived vision is they won’t, even if Luther’s excommunication is indeed lifted.
I didn’t disagree with this (except that the power is more than just for sins, it’s also for establishing Ecclesial and Liturgical Law, however none that are contrary to divine law.): one must continue to pray for the Hierarchy to exercise the office they have received for the good of the Church and confront Pope Francis privately (which is always done first and it is the council of Our Lord Jesus Christ himself to do so) and then publically if the private confrontation doesn’t bring about the desired correction.
I don’t think Luther’s excommunication will be lifted, it will probably be IGNORED and or explained away as an aberration of past polemics due to a lack of proper DIALOUGE and Accompaniment….then he will simply be celebrated….which will have the effect of lifting the excommunication without actually doing so.
Father, do you honestly see anyone ‘confronting’ the Pope privately? They’ve all had plenty of time to do so and the situation just keeps getting worse so either they haven’t or some have and the Pope has chosen to ignore them – or even felt the need or desire to keep pushing forward with his personal aims and wishes which are opposed to the teaching of Christ. I suspect he either sees none of these petitions/letters or else has a good laugh over them all. Equally sad whichever is correct. One thing’s for sure, he’s not going to be corrected himself by any human means – only Divine intervention.
Remember Moses challenge thrown out to the Hebrews at the base of Mt. Sinai after receiving God’s laws – would those who are on the side of God stand to this side. Would those who wish to return to Egypt go to this other side. Then there was a mighty earthquake!
Why do I feel more and more something similar is happening?
I am morally certain that he has been spoken to privately about these things a number of times. Unfortunately it appears that he is maintaining he course.
Father, glad you raised the issue of binding and loosing because I had decided to chase down the full teaching on this. Very difficult to find! But Fr. Chad Ripperger has a youtube 2 hr lecture on the The Binding nature of Tradition, and wrote a book on it. This is very helpful because it deals with the limits of power of any Pope. I don’t think many Priests are aware of these limits either. Of course very few would be running towards a position which is going to mean they will be persecuted within the Church. But I pray that good catholics will gather to support their brave clergy and help them in every way possible.
You mean sainthood for Luther will be put off again? Dang! All these holy cards just waiting for distribution…
That seems like a pretty standard response for you judging from your comments here. I told you, I am speaking about a private gathering of “Conservative” priests who said exactly that this is what is going on. So yes, I do know that many Bishops and Priests are choosing to remain silent. I am not presuming that they haven’t, I know they haven’t. Not only that but common sense and a simple observation of the Church landscape tells us that Pope Francis isn’t being confronted, it’s a systemic issue.
Silence is the name of the game today. Silence and compromise, and no correction of error. The Church doesn’t correct error anymore, they welcome error, dialogue with error, but no one is really wrong anymore. But whatever you do don’t tell anyone they’re are wrong. Like our Lady of Akita predicted, “the Church will be full of those who accept compromises,” and today it is.
The presumption is about the reason for the silence, not about the silence:
“They are not employing a different strategy, they are cowards.” That is what I was calling presumptive. No doubt, there are many cowards who are remaining silent out of cowardice, however not everyone who is silent is a coward. To assume that is to be rash in one’s judgement.
I actually didn’t presume as to the reason for their silence, you did that. Actually what you did in your response sounded more to me like you making excuses for them. And I’m not buying it for one second. If you can see that he is in error, that he is leading others into error, and you say nothing, you are a coward and not worthy of your Bishop’s ring.
Good day, we are going nowhere with this. What your doing is the very definition of rash presumptive judgement. The problem is that you are PRESUMING that the silence is based in COWARDICE, there can be other reasons for it, they don’t have to be good reasons, as in defendable or justifiable ones to be other than cowardice…
No I’m not presuming that the silence is based on cowardice. I’m saying that they ARE cowards. Because if they are truly enlightened enough to see that he is in error, and that he is leading others into error, and they say nothing, then a coward is what they are.
I think this is based on the tendency for Conservative Novus Ordo priests to put truth in the back seat, in favor of a more “pastoral” practice, as you term it. But in reality you’ve been doing the same thing for 60 years, you refuse to change, and the Church is suffering because of it. Because when people from my generation see your weak effeminate compromising faith, they see it as a fraud and leave. The Church is suffering because you won’t stand up and preach the truth when it needs to be preached.
Sigh. Sigh. Sigh. Your argument is literally illogical, but never mind. And I am less than Sixty years of age so I haven’t engaged in any behavior for sixty years. Furthermore, I am not silent…can’t you tell? And I don’t fall into ‘pastel practice’ .
Once again you are making a rash presumption about my behavior as a Priest without any evidence of what you accuse me of doing or not doing. This is actually the sin of judgement.
Just last night at meeting of both Clergy and Laity, that was sponsored by the Bishop, a fellow priest, a layman and I were the only one’s who pointed out the errors and defects of Amoris Laetitia and the need for it to be publically amended or revoked and the negative consequences that are occurring and will occur if it isn’t.
And that is one example, my whole priesthood and even my seminary years have been devoted to the proclamation of the Eternal Truth of Jesus Christ without compromise.
May God help you.
I thought you were “done with me” since “this was going nowhere.” So why are you still replying?
I actually didn’t presume or say anything about your behavior. My comments were hypothetical. Yet, because of your reading deficiency, you accuse me, rashly and presumptuously I dare say.
Yet I will say this, if you so care about the truth then why do you continue saying the Novus Ordo Mass? How can one who truly seeks truth want to say a liturgy so inundated with protestant theology? How can you not be bothered at all by the rash and presumptuous alterations?
When you say the new “mysterium fidei”, now removed from the Canon and turned into a banal responsorial, completely changing it’s meaning. When people say “Amen” after they receive communion, something protestants first did to emphasize that there was no difference between the priesthood of the people and of the priest.
And the list could go on and on, these are just what stick out for me every time I have to suffer through a Novus Ordo. It is no secret that many of the changes were made to remove barriers for Protestants, to make a “compromise.” So whether you like it or not your priesthood is already complicit in compromise whether you like it or not.
Fr. RP is a welcome guest here, and even an occasional contributor. He takes a contrary stance where he feels he needs to – including with me.
You really don’t know anything about him, so why the persistent nagging and insinuations?
Do you know that he doesn’t offer the TLM? If he doesn’t, do you think being ungracious and obnoxious about it is going to spur him into action?
Father RP has been quite clear about the fact that the motives for silence are various, and that speaking out online is not the only way to speak out publicly. For many people, it’s actually a far greater service if their pastor does not get removed for being an online agitator if he is in fact instructing them in the faith and pointing out these errors in a more local forum.
So with all the thinly-gripped patience I can muster: back off.
Steve with all respect to you and your great blog as well as to the good Father RP “.,, being ungracious and obnoxious…” can be interpreted as accurate descriptions of some of his comments and replies as well. In a word? “Snarky” Just an observation. Take care.
One last time:
“I think this is based on the tendency for Conservative Novus Ordo priests to put truth in the back seat, in favor of a more “pastoral” practice, as you term it. But in reality you’ve been doing the same thing for 60 years, you refuse to change, and the Church is suffering because of it. Because when people from my generation see your weak effeminate compromising faith, they see it as a fraud and leave. The Church is suffering because you won’t stand up and preach the truth when it needs to be preached.”
The above is from someone who has never met me, knows nothing about my parishes or how I offer the Holy Sacrifice (I happen love the Traditional Latin Mass) knows nothing of how I preach or teach the Catholic Faith or my complete lack of effeminate character, or that I loathe the use of the word ‘pastoral’ as a euphemism for failing to tell the Truth, and yet they are perfectly comfortable with making all of those accusations. This is seriously sinful (slander) and I am a Priest, so my immediate tendency is to try to make the person aware of their sin so that they can repent of it and stop committing it. That is the purpose of my response.
Again, don’t hate Raguel too much. Such people serve a purpose. Their fire can temper and purify ideas. Because of Raguel’s impertinence, Fr. RP has been drawn out more, explaining his case more clearly, and we’ve even learned a lot more about Raguel–what he doesn’t know, and how far he’s willing to go ignorantly. It’s all very illuminating.
Patience, friends! It’s the internet! Just walk away for a while if it gets you heated!
Dear Father,
Many do not know the enormous pressures, stress priests like you are under, the burden you carry right now. I am sorry for some of the “hits’ you took. People are so anxious right now, angry, and so distrusting of each other. The work of the Devil never ends!
You will not remember, but long ago, on another Catholic website, you posted a reply to me regarding my son to enter seminary. I copied it, and it is placed in my Bible. Such a priest for Christ you are! God bless you always. Stay close to our Mother, as you do, I am certain.
God be with and bless you. Do you wear a St. Benedict medal that has a special exorcising blessing? I gave one to my son and had a priest from St. John Cantius order do this special short blessing.
I remember and pray and hope that your son is doing well. Yes I wear the medal with my scapular. And don’t worry about the comments people are angry and can let it get the best of them, unfortunately I have been known to succumb to the irascible as well. May God Bless you and your family.
God bless and protect you Father RP.
Somehow, I know our Lord is strengthening his faithful, guiding us through this moment in our Church. We will need priests like you.
Stay strong and close to our Mother.
God bless you for your courage Father at that meeting. This is being played out throughout the Church. What we each need is a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit to increase the presence of the spirit of Fortitude and Wisdom. There are so many difficult decisions to make.
It is not a lack of charity towards the Holy Father. Rather, this is FRATERNAL CORRECTION in true CHARITY towards Francis. The anger is justified.
I think most people get the point that “conservative” and “liberal” are not used in any merely political sense but only analogously. “Faithful” versus “unfaithful” wrongly implies a simple binary between the wholly orthodox and the heretical, which does not reflect the actual confused state of the Church today.
Nor is it necessary to spell out that the liberals are enjoying a “temporary” victory. There will be no “permanent” victories in this crisis, nor have there been in any another of the Church’s past crises, as the document as a whole makes clear, especially in the conclusion.
Any idea what it would take to get “La Republica” to serialize this? Its probably the only way that the guy who needs to read it would actually get to read it.
Maybe taking out one page advertisements in all major USA & European newspapers would get most peoples attention plus bill-borads all around Rome & Lund. When they take them down just erect more and so on. Probably more effective, if it could be organised. I’m sure Veri Catholici would oblige for the Rome arrangements.
Radio would be another outlet to consider.
Translate it into Italian and send it via Priority Mail International to “La Republica” AND the Vatican.
A very good idea. We will work on that.
Happy to oblige. ? I would also add in “signature required” so they can’t say that it got “lost” like the condemnation of Communism got “post” at VII (cf. Rhine Flows Into The Tiber).
In the sentence I quoted there is no impression that the terms were analogously used, they are simple statements of a political disposition. In no way does unfaithful/faithful or orthodox/heterodox boil down to a ‘simple binary (and somehow conservative/liberal do not…) one doesn’t need to be unfaithful in everyway to be unfaithful and the majority of heretics are not heretical in everyway, they are so in one or two aspects of the Faith. The language of Faithful and Unfaithful, Orthodox and Heterodox is the Language of the Church from time immemorial, for you to oppose them is strange indeed, it appears that you are merely defending something which you shouldn’t.
And with that thought, never mind I can see that you are in defense mode so anything I say is pointless. Do know that I most probably support the majority of your concerns and am not an enemy, but that doesn’t mean that I need to embrace folly. Your liber has already begun poorly, including the style or lack off with which it is written. At the very least, please employ a more competent author to edit the work prior to publishing it.
I see you are one of those catty critics who spends too much time on line, if we are to assume “Fr. RP” signifies your vocation. As you are in attack mode anything I say is pointless. Nor do I see a high level competence in your own prose.
Never claimed to have a high level of competence as an author (which is why I have any work that is going to be published edited) I am not in attack mode, I was in helpful critical analysis mode now I am preparing to enter into ignoring this thread and entering into prayer.
Father I am sorry you receive attacks and offensive attitudes on conservative sites. Please do not desert us. What you write always sounds calm and measured to me. You have many friends so please continue to be among the few Priests who are prepared to share their calm logic informed by Catholic teaching. We so need to hear these voices today! God bless you!
I love your friendly fire! I shall call you “Father Friendly Fire Ferrara”!
May your friends never tire of dialoguing with you!
When love fails, the answer is more love!
Likewise, when dialogue fails, the answer is…more dialogue!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8bfcfb7b4a6c01b57b46f3637bb19e02a2c678180bb1c4ff43e394a557f88246.jpg
Have you shaved since I saw you last? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c6f9093b010fdf27e922f013d8c49c23b408af65686124f3d221219d92df94df.jpg
You, sir, are as thin-skinned as any traditionalist I’ve ever seen on-line.
Catty critics?
Funny how extremists on the right share certain characteristics with those on the left; i.e. the tendency to project onto others the exact behavior of which they are guilty themselves.
Thanks for identifying your role at The Remnant. I’ll be certain to avoid your screeching there.
Your proclivity for alienating those who are most likely t become your friends and allies is unnerving. Self-sabotage is typically an entrenched life pattern, the attachment to which is so deeply rooted that serious work in therapy is required to achieve success in extricating oneself from it.
Frankly, I don’t know what the prospects are for an entire community which seems to be stuck in it together. Perhaps the biological solution we’ve been awaiting to clean out the progressive cabals in the Church may well provide the only feasible way to free us from those whose anger makes them unfit to lead the effort to reclaim the Church.
Fr, you sound quite a bit angry! just another different opinion. Easy..
Dr. Ferrara, I was of the understanding that Conservative was defined somewhere along the lines of ‘Liberalism in slow motion’ or perhaps ‘Bending the iron softly.’
My being a regular slob, I really don’t know what it means.
That’s quite true. Today we see in the Church a dilution of the meaning of “conservative” paralleling its dilution in the realm of politics. A truly conservative Catholic would be a Pope on the order of Saint Pius X. Today a “conservative” hierarch would be considered a Modernist by Pius. Hence the emergence of the term “traditionalist” following Vatican II. The very existence of that term indicates an unprecedented change in the Church.
Mr Ferrara: I can see both sides to the question of which words to use. Either can be sufficient to define the group…and both can be criticized. Do what you want. Neither is going to fix or break the situation. It is already busted…
JUST DON’T LEAVE OUT THE POPE’S BLATANT MISQUOTE OF JESUS AND GHASTLY REPLACEMENT OF LOVE OF GOD WITH THE LOVE OF NEIGHBOR AS THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT {Evangelii Gaudium 161}. I am astonished that no prelate {I have found} has noted this. In concert with the Pope’s keeping the “human person at the center” it sums up a doctrine that is not Catholic.
Thank for your answer, sir.
Thus cuckservative is best; in the Catholic realm, CatholiCuck.
I found the three-part series incredibly brave, cogent and absolutely necessary in the context of this almost unimaginable crisis in the Church. Congratulations to these three for putting in writing what the true remnant of the Church really thinks about this heretic pope. Perhaps these three being the first to take such a strong a public stand makes others embarrassed or defensive about their not having done so. And by the way, as a former newspaper editor and mass communication professor, the series was very well written.
I think the day of blaming anger or vitriol in a message is long past. We’ve all played that game of “play-it-nice”, it got us nowhere and people who look at this and not the good it does to explain error and to let people know someone is out there fighting is just a position of cowardice. Why not look for typos as I type rather than the message, it’s more convenient than the truth of exposing the errors of the Vatican.
If you want to criticize the message I want to see yours with your name on it. You may find that erroneous because the logic doesn’t fit perfectly in a syllogism, but you know what? I’ll flat out say that any priest who doesn’t reveal their name while blasting others who put their names on the line is a coward. I don’t care if you say things in your parish or to some people in the congregation, I want to see you tell the world.
So many priests want to be courageous and you know I want to see a courageous priest in my life “in communion” who speaks openly because I’m getting a little sick of this hiding in a bunker of their parish, or talking to some guys behind closed doors and yet throwing grenades at others who are in the field.
When the heck did losing the whip of Our Lord in the temple become the only reasonable position? You know I used to care a lot more about this stuff, but priests like yourself are the reason I don’t.
Are you serious?
May God Bless You.
Of course I’m serious. And yes, I hate bunker fire without being in the line of fire: it’s cowardice. I may personally not agree with this or that part of a statement said from someone trying to fix an ill but who is anyone to criticize that person publicly when they aren’t doing the same? Sure you can keep private critiques, but publicly finding fault for things like tone are silly and weak.
It’s funny how men love the story of Our Lord with a whip with a “Yeah Go Get Them!” attitude, yet we are routinely rebuked for prudence when we do it ourselves. St. John Chyrsostum said when we should lose our temper and don’t we sin. When should we lose our temper? When I read the Bible, Church Fathers and Doctors writing in terms I would call “anger” were they all wrong until the now?
Tone is now needed, Pope Francis has openly contradicted the Church, he is a heretic, a blasphemer, and has mocked marriage. I SHOULD be angry and the men called as clergy should be saying it loud and telling us what we can do to overturn such sacrilege or what’s the point of being Christian?
If we’re just called to be effeminate academics who get angry with people we trust behind closed doors, but not with the money (doctrine) changers then why should I care? The Church militant then is a joke and a mockery of it’s name.
I am not in a bunker nor do I only proclaim and defend the Holy Faith behind closed doors, you are in error to presume such a thing. The internet isn’t the only venue for proclaiming and defending the Faith.
If you actually believe that Parish Ministry is less important than an online declaration then I beg you to reconsider.
I’m in the field of battle everyday, many days before sunup and long after sun down and that is exactly where I am supposed to be and doing what I am supposed to do.
The Church is in serious Crisis, and the demeaning of Parish Ministry is something that Pope Francis has done from time to time calling it a bunker that the priests hide in…if it’s a bunker, then its’ because people are dropping bombs on it.
I don’t take that line of reasoning, I think that the Local Parish is the Temple of the Lord and the Home He has provided for His Children to be fed the Living Bread of Heaven in the Word boldly proclaimed through the Gospel and Truly Incarnate in the Blessed Sacrament. It is where they are to be joined to the Host of Heaven in Adoration of God and made partakers of the Holy Sacrifice by being made one with the Son of God. It is where they are to be summoned to Heaven and warned of Hell; where they are to be strengthened by the Eternal Truth and chastised for surrendering to Sin. It is where they are to be called to humble contrition an offered the Mercy of God and a just penance for their own sins and encouraged to do penance for the conversion of Sinners and to make reparation to the Sacred Heart. It is where they are to be entrusted to the tender care of their Holy and Immaculate Mother, the ever Blessed Virgin Mary. It is where they are to be consoled throughout the trials and tribulations that they must endure while on pilgrimage under the Veil of Tears and through the Vale of Tears. It is where they are to be summoned to the Heights of Tabor to behold the Glory of Jesus Christ and then commanded to follow Him to Mount Calvary to be crucified with Him. It is where they are to be raised up in righteousness and taught to Pray in Fidelity and Truth. It is where they are to be united to the Glorious Saints and Choirs of Angels in the Worship and Praise of the One True God. It is where they are to be made Children of God through the Fount of Baptism and where they are to be offered to God as a living Temple in which to dwell. It is where their immortal Soul is to be fed and cared for with the Grace of the Sacraments and the Teaching of Jesus Christ which are to be kept inviolate from the Stain of the World, the Flesh and the Devil.
Would that all Priests would see this and stop gallivanting about seeking a more ‘fulfilling’ ‘ministry.’ and that includes spending too much time blogging and not enough time caring for the souls in their midst (including fighting their battles with them against all of the forces of evil both without and within the Church.)
May God Bless You and Keep You and may He provide for His Church with an abundance of Good Shepherds who will give their entire lives to the Salvation and Sanctification of the Flock, and may we never be apart from His Flock. Amen.
Thank you Father for sharing your thoughts on our situation and the prudence we must exercise to ensure we are in a good place to do good wherever we can. A wonderful Priest here who headed up Catholic Adult Education for some time, occasionally reminded us about prudence in our dealings with catholics when we are involved in common work together, and where he said we are not under obligation to throw our pearls before swine in all instances. In order to carry on working, we must be careful. Fr. John Hardon used to say (during the 80’s) the real Church is ‘underground’, say nothing and do something (so dont prejudice your position of continuing to do whatever good we can). God bless you!
Unfortunately the Church institution is political . Parish communities and other groups do not want to lose their good Priests who continue to lead them on the right path. Sometimes it is better to keep your head down and avoid being ‘decommissioned’. It wont be possible to do this forever, but for the time being, continue to do the good wherever we can. Many priests are themselves victims of poor formation and their understanding of what the limits are on papal authority, is not understood.
Father, as a 26 year-old convert from atheism who is learning more about the Faith every day from sites like The Remnant and CFN, I find your vindictive and petty behavior on this site to be scandalous. I’ll pray for you, as I hope you will for me.
None of what you have just stated is true: I have no vendetta against anyone let alone the Remnant or CFN and I agree with much of what they state on a regular basis and I am not motivated by pettiness; I am simply disagreeing with the approach and the style that they are employing. Thanks for the prayers, I will say a prayer for you as I converted from atheism to Catholicism at the age of 26 too.
Vindictive and petty? Really? Evidence?
With all due respect, you’re out of line! The suggestions and criticisms are warranted. And it is orthodox vs. heterodox, not conservative vs. liberal. We are the Church!
While I do not agree with your view of the piece, on reflection I see that certain of my comments to you were offensive to your priestly dignity. Please accept my apology.
Apology accepted. And, of course, I still maintain my objections to the style employed in the piece. But, that being said, I did not intend to insult you are anyone involved in the piece, and on reflection I realize that I probably did. For that I am sorry and seek your forgiveness. The heat of the moment often leads to burns…
Comment boxes invite hasty and thus often uncharitable remarks. I learned that lesson long ago, yet every now and then I forget it. I am glad we have found a way to “reconciled diversity.” 🙂
Thank you Father for sharing your thoughts on our situation and the prudence we must exercise to ensure we are in a good place to do good wherever we can. A wonderful Priest here who headed up Catholic Adult Education for some time, occasionally reminded us about prudence in our dealings with catholics when we are involved in common work together, and where he said we are not under obligation to throw our pearls before swine in all instances. In order to carry on working, we must be careful. Fr. John Hardon used to say (during the 80’s) the real Church is ‘underground’, say nothing and do something (so dont prejudice your position of continuing to do whatever good we can). God bless you!
This will achieve nothing positive but will only give Bergoglio an excuse to persecute the Traditional Orders even more.
What we need is for whole conferences of Cathoic Bishops to stand up to this wolf.
Come On POLAND!!!! Come On Africa!!!
Cardinals Sarah, Arinze, Napier & Archbishop Gadecki have all gone to ground along with Cardinal Burke & Bishops Schneider & Lenga. They gave us the impression they would stand for the Truth but when that slap on the wrist was delivered with force they shrank away. Does anyone know where to?
Polish bishops will do nothing. I’m from Poland.
Whole time (the ‘Francis’ time) they are ‘thankful to Holy Father’.
Most of Polish bishops are modernists, it’s just the secularization process of polish church is a few years delayed from the western europe & usa.
But they are catching up.
In 2004 polish Episcopate allowed communion on hands.
Right now I see a lot of lay married ‘diacons’ giving Holy Comunion, etc.
We have a rush of pentacostal prayers, groups, …. .
Polish church is the only one it the world that celebrates ‘the day of islam’ – common prayers with islam !!!
But – I think you can count on polish lay people & some common priests & common clergy.
Where are praying. We are fasting. We are re-learing our Catholic Faith.
Day by day.
Yes, that’s what has been happening in Europe generally. We have been already warned that it is up to the laity to reclaim God’s church on earth but the problem for us is we have no power, except that of prayer. Petitions (private & public) have gone unheeded & our dedication to Tradition is daily ridiculed. If Luther’s excommunication is lifted as expected, our hope can only lie with Our Blessed Lady’s promise that when all seems lost, she will triumph. For this to happen, the Consecration of Russia needs to take place soonest.
The excommunication of Martin Luther may be lifted???
This is HORRIBLE.
Pope St. Pius X, pray for us!
We do not have whole conferences of Catholic bishops to do this.
Looking at this from the outside, there may very well be repercussions; that the Tradition-minded will be maligned with greater force than before. And yet, this is Truth. It is one of the reasons I come here to 1P5 daily. An article at NCR headlined with- “Pope Francis: The World has a thirst for Peace.” No. The world is thirsting for Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and His Church, here on earth. They are thirsting for the Truth… the Way, the Truth, and the Life! They are thirsting for a most tender and vigilant Blessed Mother who will love and mediate for, shield and console, fight for and protect us as she helps us climb the ladder of the Sacraments, which Our Holy Mother Church administers, through the merits of Jesus Christ. Perhaps they are not calculating rightly, not strategizing enough- but they are yelling as loud as they can that Truth is really ALL that matters, and He is Christ the King! (These shouts of triumph are as so many little pinpricks of light in the darkness to so many. Prelates may not listen, and Rome may definitely turn a deaf ear, but I am edified and strengthened because of their open defense of the Truth.)
Well put! And I agree with you. We parse every word and syllable, obsess over every dot and tittle, and in the end say very little. Say it! Say it and let it be read or printed or torn up and used to cover the bottom of the parakeet’s cage! But say it! Three years of this maddening man, three years, and frankly, I’m done with reticence and obsessive politeness and fear. He is tearing our church apart, causing so much worry and heartache, to say nothing of how many Christians are going to suffer because of the leverage he has utilized to get as many Muslims into Europe and the West as he can. Good God. Why are we parsing words in order to be “heard” by the Vatican, who even when they “hear” something only ignore it or respond negatively. There is not going to BE a response, so tell it, tell it plain and tell it in full. God bless your effort and may angels carry those words to Rome.
Molly Klein & Evangeline – I agree with you.
I personally feel a lot of emotions in above declaration, possibly some anger which could be avoided.
But this declaration its far more true than for example Card. Burke nice ‘Amoris L. is not a magisterium, is not official, is a Francis private thoughts ..’ & similar … prevarications.
Yes Yes, No No, even if some emotions are involved.
When I read some St John the Baptists words, I find there a lot emotions, ‘good anger’.
Is it not time for action rather than words? So far all the petitions, letters (private & public) by priests, academics & individual faithful Catholics have been disgustingly ignored & thrown on the rubbish heap. Those Cardinals/Bishops that showed some leadership at the outset have been put in the freezer. Their faith has been found wanting, so there is no-one at the highest level to come forward & start a counter-revolution. Cardinal Burke has already eschewed the idea!
I personally would be much more interested in a public campaign via the media (tv,radio,national newspapers throughout the world) & visible protesters outside the Vatican & PF’s plush hotel, to pursue this NWO religion & government. Something akin to what ANF does in sending counter-protesters to pray outside abortion clinics & black mass venues. It will take cash but it would be money well spent.
While the hearts of these men are for Tradition Catholicism to be restored (which we all pray for) this is not going to be sufficient and will not entice those lukewarm & un-catechised Catholics it is so necessary to get on board.
Actually, it’s just hit me – what exactly is so humble about living in a hotel?
And a sumptuous one at that.
Especially one which cost 10 Million Euros to convert for your own private use when you had perfectly adequate apartments in the apostolic palace already!!! Hence the moniker: “Franky Two Flats” (“Flat” is English for “Apartment” 😉 )
Unreal.
Australians use the word “flat” too. 🙂
For my next remodel, I’m going to be really “humble” and only spend 9 million euros! 🙂
“Actually, it’s just hit me – what exactly is so humble about living in a hotel behind a wall while you condemn others for recognizing that they need one?”
Thank you! I have been trying to write something along these lines…..but you did it beautifully.
Shades of the Abbe de Nantes, except, of course, that he was a big fan of Bergoglio and his disciples seem to be unable to find anything bad in him for fear of questioning the judgment of their father.
I’m very curious as to the source(s) re/ the Abbe de Nantes being a “big fan” of J. Bergoglio. Did I misunderstand what you meant, or would you direct me to a source for that?
Never mind, I did a short search and found the references.
How does one express the loss contained in this one man’s reign in the Chair of Peter. In such a relatively short time he has devastated the office, the church, and the faith. Yes, it would seem to take many installments. I hope they save some pointed remarks for the sorry lot of Cardinals and Bishops, so called. Mice squeak out a protest louder than these men have against the obvious damage being done. It has been awful to experience this papacy, but disappointing beyond words to realize there is no man living, no Cardinal or Bishop, who was willing to defend Jesus Christ. They have all denied knowing Him. I don’t even want to read their weak advice or subtle complaints, or worse, denying there is a problem at all.
“In such a relatively short time he has devastated the office, the church, and the faith.”
Is it just me, or am I having double vision? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bc9ff42772e24319e5c2414a5ddecd99f54774264833f2e5f2aeef238990ec07.jpg
PF is just the culmination of what has been happening in the CC for a prolonged length of time. The present Hierarchy are as complicit as he is in advancing the final blows. Their silence speaks volumes!
I don’t believe there is anything man can do to stop this devastation – it will take Divine intervention via the Consecration of Russia. PB needs to be reinstated solely for this purpose as too many Catholics suspect the authenticity of PF’s election to the Papal Office. He should have done it during his time as Pope, but then so too should all the Popes since Our Lady requested it to be done & in the manner she required. Until it is mandated we shall have no answer to the disentanglement of Satan’s army from within & no peace on earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxKCPjcvbys
I gotta be honest that few, knowledgeable people inside or outside the Church will be confused by this shot across the bow. To be sure some will have no trouble disassembling the language of the letter to quibble about the meaning of this word or that. Nonetheless, I doubt their disassembly will matter any more than will the joint letter from the contributors of The Remnant and Catholic Family News. I believe the contributors of these publications to be good, honorable men and women and I don’t disagree with the substance or sentiment of their letter. This kind of resistance, in and of itself, is in the fine tradition of Abp Lefebvre, but I think it is too little, too late. One need only look at this kind of resistance, employed by Abp Lefebvre for almost 30 years, for a clue at what this might accomplish.
While I’m not a devotee of the SSPX I do hold a great admiration for the life and fight of Abp Lefebvre against the conciliar church as described in his biography. Lefebvre was one the few prelates who fought from the beginnings of the Council until his death in 1991. He was fairly adept at using the press, was known worldwide in his fight, had a core of faithful members in his priestly fraternity and many more among the laity. I doubt his fight was ignored in Heaven; however, his only great accomplishment on Earth (as a result of this fight) was to keep the SSPX alive as one of the remnants of the Church of Christ (regardless of how imperfect its detractors claim the SSPX to be). Practically speaking, I doubt enough Catholics will notice (or understand if they do) the shot by The Remnant/CFN. If I am wrong, I will be happily so.
While Lefebvre was a visible thorn in Rome’s side for the 29 years he fought, Rome largely surrounded him and continued the ecumenical disaster around the world unabated. Regardless of Lefebvre’s resistance and warnings (both public and private), Wojtyla (JPII), for example, never broke a sweat and continued from one scandalous act and word to another. Montini was a little more skittish but likewise Lefebvre had little real effect on the ecumenical steam roller. Godspeed to those at the Remnant/CFN, but let’s hope they have more up their sleeve than the good Abp Lefebrve’s tactic of resistance.
It is critically important for us to recognize and understand that faithful hierarchy, clergy and religious are constrained by their vow of obedience. Evangelical obedience is being exploited as a weapon in order to gag the conscientious. To my mind this is simple sacrilege on the part of the heterodox and is mortally sinful. Unless I were to be disabused of that perception by some credible canon lawyer, it would appear that those who remain restrained by their vow are not to continue to be silent and they are to raise
a commotion loudly.
There has been a certain reserve developing across the Catholic media. Note the absence of “comments” at “The Catholic Thing” and at “Crux” since its takeover by the Knights. The Register is appearing somewhat gaged as well. Time to spill the beans and make known what is going on behind the curtain.
We need be honest with ourselves – “Catholic Family News” and “The Remnant” – any and all such sites and publications are consigned to the bowl – as are ninety-nine percent of us reading this site – by those coveting and wielding power abusively in the Church. There is no other route than to stop contributing to the Sunday collection. Put a picture of Jorge Bergoglio in the envelope instead of Andrew Jackson. If we have no voice they need have no money. If pussy cat in a dog collar gives you grief, give it back, or just walk away. It will take some time for them to take note, but when faithful Catholics stop contributing it will eventually have an impact. But make no mistake, we will only be rendered lip service even then.
The generative impulse in the heterodox is sheer unadulterated narcissism.
No orthodoxy, no obedience.
We are sheep without a shepherd.
This is a perceptive comment, especially in regard to ecclesial obedience and the ‘certain reserve developing across the Catholic media.’ I would add that you can contribute financially even to your parish church if you have an orthodox pastor. Speak to him privately as to how to best do this. If your parish has a good school, you can pay a child’s tuition-directly- too. Thankfully this is an option in my area.
Otherwise, I believe that our obligation to contribute to the Church can be met by other types of donations. But I strongly urge people to have a personal conversation with your pastor; dropping a picture of the Pope into ‘the envelope’ is just going to annoy the ushers at your favorite TLM.
“If you have an orthodox pastor.” I do, thank God, at least for the time being — God reward him. He knows me and is quite understanding of our dilemma.
You contribute a number of wise nuances. Thank you.
I would urge us not to highlight those who might be the recipients of “alternate giving.” It will make them targets. They are already on the prowl for observant contemplative monasteries of nuns.
I agree completely and have edited my comment.
The Vow of Obedience NEVER binds one to either blind obedience or to silence in the face of error or heterodoxy.
A vow made to God can never bind one to tolerate what is evil, only to do what is good or more perfect. This is basic moral theology.
It is a completely false notion of the Vow to assert otherwise. I know this as one who is bound by vows.
“It is better for us to obey God than man.”
Only cowardice, fear of reprisal or human – rather than supernatural – prudence is silent in the face of so much treachery.
Faithful Catholics, stand up!
Deus vult!
You are, of course, correct. But that is no protection from very effective means of undermining religious and clergy in hostile situations.
I know from experience.
I had the resources to make a new life. Most others do not.
This crew is ruthless, make no mistake about it.
Monastic road kill is not a pretty sight.
Yes, while it is true that the Vow itself does not bind one in this way, those in Vows tend to fall lockstep with what is expected of them simply because not doing so means a rupture.
It is very difficult for those in vows who are troubled by what is happening in the Church to swim against the torrential tides of Modernism and break ranks to resist and denounce it.
But this is a human failing in fortitude and courage, and a failure to have recourse to God rather than man; it can often result from gradual desensitization (aka brainwashing); it is definitely not an obligation of the Vow.
The sin committed by many in religious life, as well as the Diocesan Priesthood, is that of human respect. In ordinary life this is where one is more concerned with pleasing the worldly than the Lord. In religious life it is the same thing but it usually happens through placing obedience/respect of a person or office over the Love of our Lord Jesus Christ and fidelity to His teachings.
This is everywhere today.
Simply exquisite.
“Evangelical obedience is being exploited as a weapon in order to gag the conscientious. ”
You’re paraphrasing Archbishop Lefebvre who once wrote that the masterstroke of Satan was to sow disobedience by obedience.
I only followed the activities of Archbishop Lefebvre from a good distance, in my attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable, it now appears.
With huge financial assistance coming from George Soros (Schwartz) for promulgating his NWO, they really don’t require our humble donations. i have noticed that fewer people are, in fact, putting anything in the collection baskets for quite some time now.
The parish itself does require assistance and it does register with the conscientious among the hierarchy when they see the people expressing an opinion. BUT you are correct — and its not just Soros — regard the influence of the German Church Tax — it is influential to a frightening degree. So you have the atheists in the German hierarchy and the atheist Soros pulling the strings.
An excellent start, James. Starve the heretical pig. Your authentic and Catholic mentality of activism is praiseworthy. While I’m sure you already do, continue to work it in to conversations after Mass. Maybe there is more that can be done. What if there were a priest or two out there who is looking around for alternatives to what he knows is coming next: institutionalized desecration of the Most Holy Eucharist? Maybe, just maybe Catholics like you and me could assist. Underground Railroad, anyone? https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/
The German Church is contributing billions to the Church and even the Vatican. It’s a shame that whilst the German Bishops are Liberal in so many ways, they have no qualms about the non-separation of church and state in Germany. That Church Tax is imposed on all the populace and the Government collects the tax on behalf of the Churches (and I guess that means the Catholic and the Lutheran churches) and distributes to them what’s collected. The individual German only needs to identify to the Government which “church” he belongs to. Were that money source to dry up, things might change. For worldly men, these things are of prime importance.
As Bergoglio use to say “time is superior than space”. That means that after a couple years people will accept sacrilege as normal.
If we don´t act now, and I mean NOW, asking our own diocesan Bishop wether he still Catholic or not, time will prove to be be superior than faith.
When the holy Catholic church goes, so does the World…..
Hence the reason the Marxists wanted so badly to infiltrate it.
There is such a thing as righteous anger. God bless the authors of this document for demonstrating it.
Catholics are against something more powerful and sinister than an anti-Catholic pope. It is clear that Bergoglio is a warrior for global peace and justice despite, without and against Jesus Christ. Whether he is an unwitting accomplice (a so called useful idiot) or a conscious worshipper of Lucifer, the light-bearer, the liberator of humanity from the oppression of the evil Demiurge, he is but a fruit and an ignorant though duplicitous, vocal and much promoted agent of the hidden hand that has worked for generations on unleashing evil in the world. The Catholic Church has always been enemy #1. We know they are very close, because with Bergoglio at the top, and all the compromised and cowardly hierarchy, they got the Church in auto-destruction mode. They told us in their own writings that destruction via a fair and open fight was impossible, that it had to come from within. We are now the main target of our shepherds. It is all up to us. We must pray, serve and obey our Creator. Without His grace we can do nothing. If He so wills, He will use us to fight these bastards. But we must repent.
“to admit public certain public adulterers”
Wow. You would think that a letter to the pope would at least get a grammar check. While I can identify with many of Michael Matt’s frustrations, his arrogant tone, blatant exaggerations, and abysmal writing make it hard to take him seriously. As usual, he does far more harm than good to the traditional Catholic position.
Regrettably I’d have to agree. His rampant bad temper & total inability/willingness to listen to others, many of whom are intellectually his superior, rather mirrors that of PF himself. OTOH I commend his fervour & loyalty to the True Faith which is absent in many lukewarm Catholics.
Why don’t you link to it?
Because I’m a dummy. The omission was totally accidental and has been fixed. Thank you for pointing it out.
The problem is not just Bergoglio/Francis.
He is the summit of a very large iceberg.
The essential problem is that a large component of the visible Church no longer believes nor practices the Catholic Faith.
Fr Gabriele Amorth said as much in 2010. I don’t think what he said then got as much publicity within the church as it could have. He said within the Vatican there were Priests and Cardinals who neither believed in Christ nor Satan.
This is the elephant in the room. For then one naturally asks, “if those in the Church no longer believe or practice the Catholic Faith, are they, in fact, the Church?”
A problem which Bergoglio, nevertheless, is exploiting. Just as a hacker exploits a vulnerability in a program.
Speaking traditional….Pray for Mel Gibson…a somewhat new girlfriend…a ninth child coming. Blessed God, rescue him.
I’m sure they are right to make their accusation. As for how it’s done, that matters morally, of course, but just as a practical consideration, I wonder what would be an effective way to write to a megalomaniac?
“I wonder what would be an effective way to write to a megalomaniac?”
Best. Comment. Ever.
😀
I certainly wish the bishops would weigh in.
This to shall pass. Remember the words of Our Lady of Fatima. “In the end my Immaculate Heart will Triumph
Another valiant attempt. It will go unaddressed by Francis and the few faithful but cowardly prelates will not stand up for it. Therefore only one choice is left. God will have to intervene. The Akita prophecy is on the verge of fulfillment. Expect incoming asteroids – fire falling from the sky like Deep Impact movie – and nukes in the Middle East (check our Russia and USA and Syria) and schism. Real soon now.
Regarding asteroids, I know this sounds crazy, but I’ve read just the other day that there’s an asteroid redirect mission.
It’s not crazy. It is in action now but will not fully succeed. Prepare for asteroid parts – meteorites – of large size, one of which will hit the Atlantic ocean and cause a 100 meter high tsunami on the East Coast. Pray, pray , pray.
Pope Benedict IX
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm
He is my new favorite worst Pope because I was just reading about him although there have been other worst Popes ever
“With Burning Concern” is the tile at Remnant.
Mit brennender sorge? With burning concern… This is how Pope Pius XI began his crucial encyclical.
So, is this an intentional or coincidental echo?
If you go to the Holy See website and search ” Germany Pius XI”, Mit Brennender S automatically Google translates into “With Burning Concern”. However, when you click on the encyclical, the English version has “with deep anxiety”. Very interesting.
Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites his or her subjects to hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical authority or ministry, or who provokes the subjects to disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.
Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope Franciscus have been very patient with The Remnant and the CFN. Either or them could have dropped the Canonical guillotine on them at any time to say nothing of them (throw in Pope Paul VI also) in regards to Mons Lefebvre
What does canon law say about a Pope who hates Christ and His Church?
Well, you know what Christ says “If the world hate ye, know ye, that it has hated Me before you. The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.”
1) The world does not hate the Pope any longer. Rather, it now fawns on him.
2)The Pope, the servant of God, is not greater than his master, something he clearly does not agree with.
3) Traditional Catholics – in fact anyone defending in any way the true Doctrine and Faith of the Church (or, incidentally just following natural law) is attacked and persecuted by both the world and by the Pope.
4) Ergo – we must all make a choice. Are you with Christ or against Him?
5) So I would say to you – bring on the guillotine if necessary. I just pray God gives us all courage and strength to persevere in our individual ways and stations in life.
Guaranteed eye roll post.
I assume “his scandalous religious indifferentism” refers to his saying that religions that do not believe in Jesus being our Savior have the same God as we do.
What this document and this website has accomplished is the opportunity it affords commenters like me to get out the truth. I don’t see the truth of salvation published on many Catholic websites.
Thank you,
BT
There are lots of examples. Here are some:
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/breaking-bergoglio/
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/chocolate-cake-for-breakfast-doctrine-example-are-inseparable/
And here’s why it matters:
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/why-we-cant-be-indifferent-to-indifferentism/
I agree that in most technical and professional communication, expressed passion can be a detriment to discussion, but come on, Catholics. SERIOUSLY…the content of this anthology of errors is so toxic and describes so damaging a condition in the Church, how can passion NOT be expressed? It is as if you expect a man to remain as stoic as a Brass Monkey while a thug rapes his wife. Give me a break…
Part of what I consider the bizarre culture of the Catholic Church today is the emasculation of communication. Read old Papal encyclicals and language is direct, forceful, blunt and, well, passionate. Yet somehow we are supposed to remain linguistic eunuchs when it comes to addressing the molestation of Holy Mother Church?
I just don’t think that is going to happen.
Love that phrase, “…emasculation of communication.” The enemies in the Church and the world at large are quite expert at a hypnotic type of speaking/writing. It is filled with politically correct, feminine turns of phrase that remind me of the Green Witch in Lewis’ “The Silver Chair”. The Witch is attempting to keep the newly-awakened prince from escaping. She uses soothing tones, false logic and so on. It takes the homely and honest Marsh Wiggle, Puddleglum, to stamp out the hypnotic techniques and speak the truth.
I read the joint accusation and did not think it was improper in any way. It was robust and masculine. Of course it would bring down condemnations from a world schooled in politically correct double speak.
Well said.
There is this “thing” in Catholicism today, especially among good-intentioned “orthodox” folks, to limit their observations of the ransacking of the Church to their peripheral vision and then when pushed to describe what they see in effeminate, hesitant, tippy-toeing ways that somehow…do they fear excommunication?…in the end always sounds to me like they are blessing the vandals!
“Let your yea be yea” might just be the most timely verse in the Holy Scriptures.
That and ” This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” SINCE THIS POPE HAS MISQUOTED THE VERY WORDS OF JESUS HIMSELF AND REPLACED GOD WITH MAN IN PARAGRAPH 161 OF EVANGELII GAUDIUM AND NOT A SINGLE ONE OF OUR PRELATES HAS RISEN UP TO CHALLENGE HIM ON IT AND HIS WORDS STAND AS UTTERED ON THE VATICAN.VA WEBSITE THIS VERY DAY.
GOD HELP US CATHOLICS. THIS ALONE WOULD BE BAD ENOUGH TO DEMAND A RESPONSE. HOW CAN A POPE UTTER SUCH A MONSTROUS LIE AND PUKE OUT SUCH A DAMNABLE AND BLASPHEMOUS TWISTING OF SCRIPTURE WITH NARY A SQUEAK, NOT A BLINK, NOT A FLINCH FROM THE PRELATES OF THE CHURCH?
Are we led entirely by faggots and sodomites and shameless liars and freaks whose bloody and dung-encrusted sins have so blinded them that they feel nothing when their own Mother is beat up and violated right in front of their eyes?
Because Holy Mother Church, the Blessed Virgin Herself is lying bleeding in the ditch and the “men” in High Hats stroll right on by headed for…WHAT? More important duties they must attend to at the church? Or the bath house?
GOD SAVE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
The love of many has grown cold, I fear.
Truth will not contradict truth; double speak serves to undermine truth.
Yep, good old Puddleglum. Excellent analogy.
Thanks. Lewis brought me to Christ. The Church Fathers brought me to the Church. I hope that Catholics who strive to live an authentic Catholicism do understand how strong the spirit of division is just now. We cannot afford to “muff the signs” (to quote Lewis again).
Sadly, a spirit of division, bickering, one-upmanship and downright unpleasantness is apparent online within the ‘Traditional’ community as well. Puddleglum, of course, anticipated this as well “”…Won’t do to quarrel, you know. At any rate, don’t begin it too soon.
I know these expeditions usually end that way: knifing one another, I
shouldn’t wonder, before all’s done. But the longer we can keep off it-“”
Let us all pray that we bear with each other’s opinions, frayed tempers and irritating behaviour and treat each other with respect and charity. PLEASE! The Devil loves division.
Yes, I will pray for true love among the brethren. On a side note, I feel the need for a good cleansing reading of Lewis. His Space Trilogy is calling. I think That Hideous Strength is especially suggestive of our political and academic culture right now. We could certainly use a Dr. Ransom and Merlin right now.
On a daily basis, I’m reminded of the Objective Room
Yes! Terrifying to contemplate the spiritual corruption.
Hi, Heloisa:
I hear ya regarding the bickering. I attempted to write a clarifying message in response to your comment at the Remnant site, but the moderator will not permit it, nor is he/she permitting my important follow-up to his use of a Psalm or Saint’s message that is erroneous. Perhaps versions of my responses will be accepted here since they are written in good faith regarding an important theological understanding. Keep in mind that I favor the vast majority of what is set forth in the letter to Pope Francis.
Here is what I wrote to you (slightly edited due to the context of responding here) that the moderator won’t allow:
Actually, Heloisa, it is not true what the moderator writes about being nothing. Also, my concern/point is not based on how the statement reads, but the faulty theology behind it. See my follow-up post to the Remnant moderator (below) that explains this further. The notion of being nothing both metaphysically and morally is just wrong, and it violates a basic Catholic understanding of God and His creation.
_________
The Remnant Moderator writes the following in response to sound theological concerns raised about claiming to be nothing as is done in the letter to Pope Francis:
‘Lord, I am nothing, I can do nothing, I am worth nothing, I know nothing, I have nothing! I am nothing, and You are everything.’
My response that sets forth sound Catholic teaching is as follows:
This quote or paraphrase used by you appears to be out of context and/or a very poor translation. The version of the Bible that is used needs to be identified, and where this precise quote comes from (if it is from Psalm 16, it’s way off the mark) also needs to be set forth. Also note how this phraseology lines up with some erroneous Protestant theology concerning original sin, grace, and good works, which is most unfortunate. If it comes from another source, this should also be identified, and note that even if a Saint said it, it is still erroneous.
“You are everything” also doesn’t make much sense unless we want to see God as some Hindus and others do, and basically annihilate everything else that exists apart from God. And from a moral perspective, we are taught that we can do good things with God’s assistance, which would not be possible unless we are at least a little something to be able to humbly cooperate with God’s grace.
One does not express true humility by declaring oneself to lack the existence and moral standing as a child of God which are both gifts from God.
Also in the “scheme of things,” did our Lord and Savior die and rise again from the dead for a bunch of moral nothings? Or does He see us as something (metaphysically and morally), and if so, who are we to contradict Him by a false statement of humility that denies the value of God’s creation of humans?
The good writers of the letter make reference to the Angelic Doctor. I hope they will consider some of his very important teachings on metaphysics to correct their faulty and non-Catholic claims about being nothing both metaphysically and morally, and also refrain from making similar mistakes in the future.
But if the authors continue to wrongly insist that they are “nothing in the scheme of things” despite Catholic teaching to the contrary, then they forfeit any standing to say anything. Why listen to “nothing in the scheme of things” who are endeavoring to advise a Pope that he is screwing up in the “scheme of things”? What could they possibly know about the “scheme of things” if they are mere nothings in that “scheme”?
I probably read it before it was deleted. I have no (really NO theological training etc) so we come at this from different angles but I felt the same in my own way. I had been going to reply to the moderator ‘We are the Church aren’t we?’ but I got sidetracked and further down, I wrote
‘This is true – but docent has a point because it does read more like a
bit of sarcasm than humility (we realize we are nothing compared to you
Holy Father) . Humility is something I feel is never well expressed in
writing by anyone – unless it is written to God. Perhaps prefacing the
letter with the quote would be more effective for showing humility
before GOD. Just a suggestion because I can imagine the comments and
smirks if any of Francis’ acolytes actually reads it. Pax’
We are, of course, also the laity whose duty it is to point out to superiors when they are ‘outside’ the Faith.
As far as moderation on the Remnant is concerned, see my post to Ana below. Not everything is rosy in the State of Denmark so to speak ;-))
The way I understand your point – and I have not read the moderator’s quote and comment. I would probably assume he/she was thinking in conformity with Catholic teaching on the metaphysical understanding of human nature. That we are real. That we each have a unique identity as persons, as mind, body and spiritual soul, destined to live forever with God or as the damned.
This in opposition to depth psychology which denies ontological being. As well as Hinduism, with it’s skewered metaphysics, which I must confess I know little about.
My Catholic understanding of “we are nothing” which includes the above is that God created us and the universe from “no-thing”, that we belong to God, that we return to God, that our breath is only possible with His sustaining grace. And it should go without saying that without God like today’s west returning to paganism, that things go from bad to worse very quickly.
The problem with the moderator you mention is that he/she was not thinking in conformity with Catholic teaching on the metaphysical understanding of human nature, and the same holds true for the authors of the letter and anybody else who maintains the “we are nothing” stance both metaphysically and morally.
God did indeed create all out of nothing, and He gave humans a special purpose and grace as His children. As such, we are not metaphysically nothing, and we are not moral nothings even poetically.
That’s it exactly. Thank you. I have to laugh at the idea of a “respectful critique” of 5,233 papal errors against the faith, including the new Handy Dandy Adultery Facilitator.
“Regarding Error No. 4,694, Your Holiness, may I respectfully point out that you have contradicted the teaching of your predecessors on this point as well? We beg you to clarify your position.”
This pontificate is a continuous mockery of the Magisterium and an unprecedented abuse of the papal office by a Pope who literally said: “It’s very entertaining to be Pope.”
God help us. Passion must indeed come into play. If Francis had reigned in medieval times, the faithful would probably be marching on the Apostolic Palace with burning torches, demanding a new conclave.
Chris Ferrara says: “If Francis had reigned in medieval times, the faithful would probably be marching on the Apostolic Palace with burning torches, demanding a new conclave.”
We could give it a whirl, ‘cept we’d have to scale that darned high wall….
Chris Ferrara quotes: “It’s very entertaining to be Pope.”
Sheesh.
And that doozy of doozies: “I am by nature irresponsible”.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2016/07/pope-francis-i-am-by-nature.html
Taking the man at his word, I simply don’t trust him as a man. How to trust him as POPE?
If something doesn’t happen quickly the only use we will have for our copies of Denzinger will be to ship them all off to our friends in Washington and Colorado where they can be put to good use rolling doobies.
Steve, I would be very careful. The comment thread here is far too long for me, but as someone who has donated money to 1P5 in the past – seeing Chris Ferrara needing to defend The Remnant has instantly closed my wallet to this site. It will take a lot for me to ever consider donating again. It’s just the reality of your decision.
Thanks for your support in the past, Nate. But do I really strike you as a sellout? That I just change what I say based purely on the financial repercussions?
I stated what I believe to be a valid (and fairly mild) criticism in the context of a discussion that included questions about what the most effective way to approach this issue. You’re free to disagree. It’s my own opinion, based on my impressions and on feedback I’ve received from others. Whether or not you (or anyone) chooses not to consider donating, or even to continue reading, based on something I say, is, of course, entirely up to you.
But I’d like to believe you’d lose whatever respect you have left for me if I jumped every time a donor snapped their fingers. That is a slippery slope away from truth.
I was under the impression that we were all on the same side, fighting the same enemies, even if we had some disagreements about the most effective approach. I hope I wasn’t wrong.
You’re not wrong, as far as I’m concerned. And my own donations to 1P5, while probably not even noticeable in the scheme of things, will be increased.
Very generous of you, can you cover mine as well?
Whatever happened to “Let him be anathema”, anyway? The CCC is guilty of this, talk talk talk.
“8] I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? [9]”
“8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. [10] For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”
“Page 117, of the pope’s book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex unions
“If there is a union of a PRIVATE NATURE, THERE IS NEITHER A THIRD PARTY NOR IS SOCIETY AFFECTED. Now, if this union is given the category of marriage and they are given adoption rights, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and female mother that can help them shape their identity.”- Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Approval of same-sex sexual unions is approval of same-sex sexual acts.
Prior to being elected pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, by condoning same-sex sexual acts in relationships that he referred to as private, did not include children, and were not called marriage, and thus denying that God Is The Author of Love, of Life, and of Marriage, denied The Divinity of The Blessed Trinity.
No doubt, prior to being elected pope, Jorge Bergoglio was part of a very powerful lobby.
The evidence simply supports the fact that Jorge Bergoglio appears to be the head of this very powerful lobby. Of course, if any of this were not true, we would not have this evidence to begin with.
Your first quote, particularly “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?”
That haunts me every day, every time I consider the damage being done, rumor of schism, the light of the Church being covered.
Thank you Catholic Family News, The Remnant Newspaper and 1P5 for writing and commenting.
What has happened these past three years makes me want to vomit, it makes me so very sad. I love my Catholic faith. But now I detest the Vatican and the USCCB because I know I cannot trust them. My real thoughts on our weakling, cowardly bishops I cannot write as they are too severe for print.
The enemies of the Church are about to reign a crap storm down upon it. It cannot be stopped. Too Late, way too late and no spine to resist. There is a handful of bishops who will fight. Burke, Schneider, Sarah, a few more. Not enough. Think Fatima.
Have Burke, Schneider and Sarah demonstrated public and outspoken resistance lately? Have they clearly guided the sheep? Have they risked all for Christ?
Seems to me they have gone to ground. Possibly something is in the works that is not known to us?
In the absence of manly leadership, The Remnant is left to try its own method. And others there’s.
Think CCC 675 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12.
They may not be as outspoken as you/many would like but I think we can be sure they are genuinely praying. That makes them stand out from the rest of the hierarchical crowd and so let us encourage them not vilify them, please. Prayers for them to be braver would be a start (we all need to be braver).
Yes, but that outspokenness IS what we lack. They can whisper all the solid doctrine they want, but in the end a MAN must stand up and act like a MAN. And yes, it is that simple.
WHY IS IT THAT WE LAY FAITHFUL ARE EXPECTED TO STAND UP FOR JESUS CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH {AND WE SHOULD!} IN THE MAELSTROM OF THE SECULAR WORLD WHILE OUR LEADERS “MUST” ACT LIKE TOTAL FAGGOTS IN THE FACE OF THE ENEMY OF ALL THAT IS GOOD?
Why are WE held to a different standard?
A holy priest friend of mine has told me what he believes is the answer: Because a very high percentage of the priesthood {and subsequently the Bishops, probably at a higher percentage than the priests} are sodomites. Period. He has explained just how pervasive it is and how EVERY bishop today in the developed world has been brought up in a faggot-rich environment and even if they aren’t butt humpers themselves, their senses of decency and dignity and integrity are marred, scarred, diffused and twisted by exposure to that most unnatural and evil of sins. They live in a spiritual bathhouse surrounded by the stench and confusion of the lowest form of godless debasement possible.
Thus almost everybody has something on everybody else, and the Truth is the actual victim in the process.
I will never leave the Catholic faith. I am a theologically educated ex-Protestant and I know Protestantism {ALL of the sects} are simply wrong theologically. But what I see inside the Catholic Church is shocking. The Truth has been made hazy by the smoke of Satan. Cultural Marxism thrives in the institution that was once the single and most vociferous enemy of it! Leadership utterly shocks me; the cowardice, the shame of it all. The lack of frank speech, the obfuscation of direct language, the ambiguity. Top to bottom.
Yes, with notable exceptions, some priests I know being such notables, priests who joke in the face of it all that they will never become Bishops and are happy in spite of that fact. One has even told me he has recurring NIGHTMARES of being laicized! FOR DOING THE WORK OF JESUS AND SPEAKING AND LIVING CATHOLIC TRUTH!!!.
May God bless such men them richly!!
I work for a huge corporate entity. Every American knows the company I work for. Simple fact is that if employees demonstrated the level of integrity toward our company mission that Catholic prelates demonstrate toward the teaching of the Church, they WOULD BE FIRED. Period. Done. Get-the-crap-out-of-your-desk-and-into-your-little-box-and-get-the-hell-out-of-here FIRED. AND THAT IN A SECULAR “MAMMON-ORIENTED” CORPORATION! How do I know? Because I have seen it happen! And not just with company policy…BUT WITH MORAL ISSUES AS WELL, issues the Catholic leadership makes excuses for all the time!!!
When Christ will have enough of this and drive the scum, the faggots out I do not know, but as far as I am concerned, at this point, the sooner the better.
I have the highest regard for those Cradle Catholics that have grown up in this Bird Cage and I hope the many converts out there respect them for hanging in there. Converts, help your fellow faithful. Do not slip into the “this is just the way it is” mentality that so many have sadly slipped in to. Don’t let the emasculated faggotry of the Bishops creep in to your world view, either. Be MEN and WOMEN of God.
God Save the Catholic Church.
God will save the Church and the world when the Holy Father does two things:
1) reveal the Third Secret of Fatima (I.e. the exact words of Our Lady which follow: “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved…”
and
2) orders and makes In union with all the bishops of the world the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
God asked for this through Our Lady almost 100 years ago. He will give us peace on His terms – not ours.
Check out http://www.fatima.org. They are the best resource for the full Message of Fatima.
It’s unfortunate that trads can always be counted on to warm up the circular firing squad. I primarily blame the leadership vacuum in the Church – if laymen didn’t need to set themselves up as critics to distinguish what is true from what is false in Church affairs, they wouldn’t begin arrogating to themselves the judgment to decide who is sufficiently Catholic and who is not. Or at least, I suspect the temptation would be greatly lessened.
Again, this is a theme I’ll be returning to again here soon: traditional Catholics have a unique opportunity to be heard at this moment. It’s time for us to drop the snark and the sharp elbows and actually gather people in from this storm.
Agreed. My rule of thumb is to try not to attack fellow Catholics who are simply trying to be faithful. Satan is our enemy. We must also stand up to our earthly enemies as well as we can.
“It’s time for us to drop the snark …and actually gather people in from this storm”
Absolutely agree with that statement.
Steve: Can you elaborate here?
What exactly do you mean?
Are you saying the “Accusation” is a shot fired at the firing squad? Are you saying the posters here are cannibals? Or something different?
Maybe I’m just slow on the uptake, but obviously you have a strongly held opinion here, but I just don’t know exactly what you mean.
Thanks.
“Trads” — if we can define such a broad-based group in a single label — are often (more like always) on the offensive, are engaged in near-perpetual criticism, and are all-too-frequently thin-skinned.
That means that while they can dish it out, they’re often indignant about taking it. Good intentions? Certainly. And yet…
A priest I used to know once said, after returning from a retreat with traditional priests, “I saw a great deal of reverence, and very little humility.”
The problem no doubt comes with:
a) a decades-long bunker mentality
b) the need to constantly debate from a disadvantaged position (thus, leaving no quarter for common ground – it’s “I’m right, you’re wrong” – often with a good bit of snark thrown in.)
c) the bitterness that comes from seeing the truth constantly suppressed, oppressed, or treated as though it just doesn’t matter.
I’m sure others could supply more.
The combativeness that the trad community is known for — especially online — is one that has become a sort of brand; a PR nightmare. Trads actually do have the right answers, but many people don’t want to get anywhere near them in order to learn them. And even in the case of the newer generation of trads, who tend to be a bit less hostile, there’s a perception gap that is hard for people to overcome.
I was just reading about a priest who offers the TLM in his parish but has recently been castigated by some TLM-attendees for things not being to their standards. They didn’t approach him first with their concerns, they sent an angry email around.
Collectively, trads are a mixed group. But the stigma — rightly earned — is that we’re about as much fun as lemon juice at a papercut party.
I’ve written this carefully and tactfully, and I fully expect the annoyed responses to begin in earnest. We fight amongst ourselves, we make the perfect the enemy of the good, and we are our own worst enemies.
Gotcha.
Good stuff to ponder deeply. Gotta take that to heart.
One comment I have is that {I’m a convert with a short time span on the “inside” of the Church} I’ve seen this critique {of Traditionalists} frequently used to simply suppress the message they try to affirm more than the actual faults they exhibit.
I’m not saying YOU are doing this {you aren’t} but in the culture of the Church today, the Traditionalist message is frequently swept aside due to their quirks and sins and in so doing, the “comfort” heresies common to modern Catholics are thus protected.
Kind of like the constant call of “RACISM!!” any time a white guy critiques anything in the culture of the inner city.
For myself, I don’t mind combative people and i like to hear what they have to say.
Sometimes, combative jerks are right and expose where I am flatout wrong.
I don’t disagree. I just think – as I said in another comment a minute ago – that we need to elevate our game. We have the best product on the market, so why are we so bad at selling it?
Yeah, people get all huffy when I compare what we’re doing to business, but on a human level — psychology, anthropology — that’s where the best thinking is on the art of persuasion. Do that well, have it amplified by grace, and what can’t we accomplish?
While I respect the work — and the sheer time grinding it out — of pubs like The Remnant, I’ve long found the excessive snark and polemics there unappealing. There are probably any number of reasons why 1P5 has, in just two years, become one of the top three mainstream traditional Catholic publications online (in terms of audience size), but I suspect our attempt to find balance in our approach and not treat those who don’t yet see the point we’re making as the enemy are a part of that.
“…There are probably any number of reasons why 1P5 has, in just two years, become one of the top three mainstream traditional Catholic publications online (in terms of audience size), but I suspect our attempt to find balance in our approach and not treat those who don’t yet see the point we’re making as the enemy are a part of that.”
Not everyone has the same charism, Steve. But kudos on your two year rise.
Ugliness is not a charism.
Neither is pretending that one’s personal way is the only way.
I’m not pretending. There’s a most effective way to do most things, and there are less effective ways. I’m sure plenty of people have me beat. And whenever I identify people like that, I look to learn from them however I can.
Again, lack of humility is a problem in the tradosphere. Trafficking endlessly in condemnations is a danger to any and all of us. I am constantly gut-checking myself. This is an inherently negative and dangerous business for the soul. That it is necessary does not mitigate the risk.
But since you’re ever the contrarian, I await your rebuttal.
You’re not pretending, Steve, but you’ve made a choice. (To use your business model analogy, you’ve established your charter. That doesn’t mean others charter doesn’t work for them, to include motivating the troops to endure the ongoing storm….one that is increasingly dark.) You are two years into a venture of learning things and enjoining a fight that has been ongoing for a very long time. Again, I applaud your efforts. You’re doing great. But perhaps your “market” is a little different.
I am glad that you are forever gut-checking yourself. That is good. But if my observations, put in respectful terms to point out the hypocrisy of others (namely those who presume that they have adequately checked their own hubris while calling out the pride of others) are still abrasive, that may be a sign that the self examen may not be what you think it is.
You state there’s a “most effective” way and a less effective way. The ways are many, Steve, as all things work toward the good for those who love God. (Much like married couples have varied ways – some fight passionately and then make quick amends, others table arguments, others converse via written words to find the means to express and work past issues. One must also use different methods when dealing with different children. There are mainline “most effective” ways and then there are special situations and needs must.)
And while what you describe as ugliness prevails at the Remnant, you perhaps haven’t been receptive to what is actually ugly in the statements of others…. others who have perhaps supported your efforts here.
Your last statement, painting me as the contrarian, is nothing but an ad hominem used to negate what I’m saying. Again, your parlor, Steve. But if we’re truly going to engage in that peaceful exchange, the time for calling out “trads” as filled with pride while negating our own doesn’t set the example. It’s just hubris in a different form.
…and if you don’t think I speak the same lingo with those who fancy themselves pure blood “trad” think again. Time to stop. That’s my two cents. But the Remnant has been at the business of fighting this fight for decades. That in itself calls for respect, that and perhaps the benefit of the doubt in not critiquing their methods.
“Your last statement, painting me as the contrarian, is nothing but an ad hominem used to negate what I’m saying.”
And nonetheless, you didn’t fail to deliver.
Neither did you, Steve. Again, kudos to you on your two year rise. But it’s about the triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
Best to you and yours.
I love you all. All of you: Steve, Chris, Michael Matt and {may God heal him} John Vennari have all helped me in my faith.
The issue isn’t about “The Church” as if it is a nondescript, concrete, material thing. It is about “The Church” as Body of Christ, made of members that do not always agree but who affirm the teachings of the Church Herself and don’t try to change them!!!
I am a mountain climber. Sometimes my legs don’t want to go where my heart is wiling to take me.
Do I cut off my legs?
…No…
Many people are lost. We need to lead those who might be saved to the Lord Jesus Christ thru “The Church” which is His Body; visible and present, ruled by a Holy Father in the line of, yes, imperfect St Peter, and truly {wincing when I say it}…heretic or not.
Ultimately, Jesus will give witness to us in heaven if WE do so for Him on earth.
And if we don’t, if we keep the “human person at the center”, He will, as he coldly says, not recognize us in Heaven.
If you want the “Scripture references” for all of this, well, just ask me.
This lover of the Catholic faith, ex-lost-Protestant, saved by the grace of God is willing to produce them. 🙂
God BLESS you all.
Deo gratias.
Rod.
PS: Keep fighting THE ENEMY. Don’t EVER give up. God is watching and the Crown of salvation is for those who “endure to the end”.
🙂
Nor is lukewarmness. Our call to Holiness, has always been a call to be chaste in our thoughts, in our words, and our deeds; it is one thing for a Pope to be a sinner, it is another to deny that sin is sin.
Ugliness? Poor word choice. You just lost me. If I didn’t know better from other threads, I’d think you were very arrogant. There are a lot of good people who read the Remnant. To dismiss its writers and readers as ugly and angry is extremely unfair and untrue. You’ve gone well past charitable criticism and are beginning to appear pretty ugly yourself, Steve.
My irony meter just broke. So it’s ok for you to call me ugly for saying that other types of writing are ugly, but not for me to have said it in the first place?
My “ugliness” comment was not intended to be a broad brush, but rather a characterization of what I had just described as “treating those who don’t yet see the point we’re making as the enemy.” I was certainly not saying everything written at The Remnant, or every writer, or every reader, is guilty of ugliness. Two of these writers are friends of mine (present tense) if that gives you any idea. I’m talking about a certain kind of tone. The kind you know when you see it.
Maybe I should have been more specific. Maybe I should have chosen a different word. All of which is evidence, it seems to me, of how the things we say — and the way we say them — have a pretty profound effect on how they are perceived.
Now that’s a just bit much in the self-congratulation department, Steve. Quite snarky, in fact. Even a bit polemical.
The Remnant has been advancing the cause of Tradition for half a century, “excessive snark and polemics” included. Let’s see how 1P5 is doing in 2066.
And it’s easy to become popular quickly when you give it away. Let us know when you have 20,000 paid subscribers, and growing.
This kind of preening is really unbecoming, Steve.
Thanks for proving my point.
Oh, I see. You get to belittle the Remnant for its excessive snark and polemics and boast of your own popularity because 1P5 is just so much more respectable, you see, and when I defend the newspaper I write for against your snide put-down this proves your point?
The only one who convened the circular firing squad here is you. We never said an unkind word about 1P5, and I have linked to it many times in articles for the Remnant.
That proves MY point.
Chris, have you ever met someone who wasn’t an enemy in your eyes?
You’re here on a post in which I promoted your work at The Remnant.
You’re here on a comment in which I said, “I respect the work — and the sheer time grinding it out — of pubs like The Remnant”.
But yes, I have a caveat. I don’t care for the snark. Never have. The tone in your response to me is needlessly combative. Are you so thin-skinned that despite the fact that I’m a natural ally you want to set the bridge on fire because you don’t like my criticism of your tone?
Guess what: it’s not news. Lots of people are turned off by traditional Catholicism because of the polemics of trad writers, which is in strong evidence here in this comment thread.
Trust me, I get plenty of pushback for what I write, too, but I don’t think anyone would disagree that you’re a more polemical writer than I am. (Do you object to this characterization?)
We are faced with an opportune moment where average Catholics who have never had an interest in tradition might want to listen to us. Are we going to beat them over the head with it? Are we going to dismiss them as “neo-caths”? Or are we going to welcome them into what they’ve been missing? Why not save our fire principally for those who are really doing evil to the Church. Am I one of those people now, because I dared voice my criticism?
I don’t mean in any way to diminish the work you and the Matts have put in over the years. You’ve committed your lives to this cause. But there is a whole new generation of Catholics interested in tradition and not in the bitterness of a decades-old war. Yeah, they get angry too. I certainly do. But sometimes it’s just too much.
I intentionally went into this business attempting to reach those people, and it’s worked rather better than I could have hoped. I’m glad you have 20K subscribers. I’m sure if you gave me a few years, let alone a half century, I could, too. I don’t plan on doing this for that long. I hope to be made redundant far sooner than that. And honestly, I don’t think spending this much time scrutinizing the evils trying to destroy the Church is good for anyone. It changes you. It often brings out the worst in me.
You know as well as I do, though, that building the kind of web audience we have isn’t easy. Neither is building a loyal base of donors that keep this going. If you want to believe it’s just dumb luck that we’ve been so successful, that’s your prerogative. But I know how much hard work has gone into it. I know the editorial choices I’ve made, and the level of control I’ve exerted over tone. Control that means the failures we’ve had are all on me, but that I get credit for the many of the successes, too.
I’m proud of what we’ve accomplished because I believe that what we’re doing matters. Is it preening to observe a demonstrable fact? We’re within a month or so of becoming the second most-read traditional Catholic website online (after Fr. Z) that I’m aware of. Is it really so impolitic to see that as validation of the choices we’ve made?
“You’ve committed your lives to this cause. But there is a whole new generation of Catholics interested in tradition and not in the bitterness of a decades-old war.”
Well there you go again, pretending to praise The Remnant while you hit it below the belt one more time. The Remnant is not about “the bitterness of a decades-old war.” It is a trend-setting publication with numerous young subscribers and an annual chapter in the Chartres pilgrimage that for decades has been overwhelmingly youthful.
You haven’t promoted the Remnant in this piece. Rather, you linked to our Statement, posted numerous negative comments about it, agreed with those comments, and added your own nasty barbs along with a boast about 1P5’s approach being much superior.
If that’s “promotion,” Steve, words have lost their meaning. I call it derogation—unprovoked and unnecessary derogation of a newspaper that should be your ally in the cause.
The Remnant, on the other hand, has promoted your blog enthusiastically, never said an unkind word about you or your writing, and has even invited you to Remnant-related events.
So you don’t like snark. Well, I don’t like snobbery, but I have never complained about your snobbery, so evident in these posts of yours which view The Remnant as infra dig, an old rag for bitter people waging a decades-old war—blah, blah, blah with nose upturned.
At any rate, the Statement is not snarky. That’s just your snobby put-down of the piece. The 28,000 readers so far (we expect at least 50,000), and the multiple volunteer translators into French, Spanish and Hungarian (with more languages to come) think a bit more of it than that.
Thanks for nothing, Steve.
I know you love to argue, but I’m not interested. I think my criticisms are fair, and they’re certainly not severe. I’m not sure why you’re so sensitive to them. I did promote your liber by posting it here (something I’m beginning to regret).
I’m not into boot licking. I can respect what you’re doing without agreeing with all of it. Clearly, if I thought it couldn’t be improved on, I wouldn’t have started my own.
This exemplifies the circular firing squad: you can’t take measured criticism, so you respend with attacks. And what substantive things do we disagree on? Beats me. I’m talking about approach.
Again, I’m not looking for a fight with people I otherwise agree wit. If you want to be enemies, that’s on you, but it only substantiates my argument that trads are our own worst enemies.
I don’t think anybody outdoes you in the “love to argue” department. And putting down The Remnant as bitter, snarky and excessively polemical while boasting of your superior approach is not “measured criticism.” It’s self-promotion at the expense of another publication that always treated you with respect and promoted you enthusiastically.
I wish you well, Chris. I have no interest in continuing this.
When you find yourself in a hole, it’s generally wise to stop digging.
With all due respect for spiritual advisors, it is possible that his
spiritual director may be on the whimpy side, advising moderation
etc., etc. Will moderation win the war? I doubt it. ( he may not be
from NY either)
..
Just one last comment from me. Those of us who have weathered the trials of the last 40-50 years (as Traditionalists) have very serious reasons for our approaches, and we see the damage done to families and to the Church at large. I have been repeatedly critiqued by those who find me a fossil, and believe my work as a lay person has been for a dead cause. I will always cringe at the comments that sound condescending, or that reek of the language of the liberal 60s and 70s which still permeates the halls of the Vatican and yes, the local churches. Many of us have experienced apostasy and heresy in our own families. And I will likely always experience a gut reaction to those soothing, condescending ‘corrections’ from people who are well-meaning, but have not lived the experience, and have not tested all of the methods, and have not learned that sometimes there are times for soothing words, but sometimes one must ‘drive the sellers’ out of the sanctuary, even if our words sometimes fall on deaf or critical ears.
My prayers for all of us here.
Polemical. Chris? Weren’t you the one who perpetuated the war with Karl Keating for close to two decades because you couldn’t admit publicly to Gerry Matatics’ sedevacantist proclivities?
Here’s some historical reading for those unfamiliar with this controversy:
http://salbert.tripod.com/mataticsdefense.htm
Guys, lets be on the same side here! Divided we fall. This is not a time for finger pointing and criticism. All those with the best of intentions do what they think is right. Those of a traditional bent live under a microscope. We live in a hostile world and in many places even a hostile church.
You guys need a “Get Along Shirt” https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a2eaa5217a37ee8a8794497aa9366e86fbecccfd133c8ff1a4ab0ee3d32dfce7.jpg
No, Chris, you have once again come forward to prove Steve exactly right. I have made the same critique previously, naively believing that reasonable people would be able to hear constructive criticism from an ally, but instead I received the same hyper-sensitive attack you mounted on Steve’s fully appropriate remarks.
Worst of all was your pouncing on his conjecture that part of the popularity of IP5 was its consistent avoidance of the sort of invective all too frequently seen at the Remnant an RC. He was not bragging or elevating IP5 over the Remnant, but every word you posted drips with hyper-defensiveness.
You could be the poster boy for the very problem Steve described but for the fact that your over-sensitive diatribe is all too typical of the antagonistic attitudes tossed out like hand grenades by the trad community. This is exactly why you all continue to fail at growing your numbers in any significant amounts. You have more potential friends than you know, but they want nothing to do with you all because you are so combative. With friends like you…
Your collective reputation for unforgiving condemnation of those who don’t share your views to your satisfaction has made exceedingly difficult my efforts over the years to bring about a change in view among the neo-conservative Catholics I know would benefit from what the traditionalist community has to offer.
They feel that when they ask trads for an egg, they are handed a scorpion instead. I’m not the one who brought about that reaction; they’ve come by it honestly from their dealings with the sort of attacks you mounted on Steve.
Perhaps if you took all this too private prayer before the Blessed Sacrament and entered into humble conversation with Our Lord, you might be able to allow Him to lead you to a more peaceful response.
You all keep blowing the opportunities He has allowed you, but you can’t see them too well from your fortress mentality.
I can’t imagine the evangelizing by the Apostles and St. Paul was driven by such a fortress mentality, and they experienced real persecution.
19,999 paid subscribers. I’ve decided to cancel mine.
19,998. I did the same a few months ago. It was getting a little stuffy in there.
Indeed it is — because it ignores God’s providential part in the outcome. Which applies to the Remnant also, lest anyone become proud.
Steve, some consider this site the same thing as the Remnant. Your perspective of this site is yours. Many others see it as just a “Trad” site.
For myself, I really like your work here. I also think the Remnant has a special work of its own to do.
Take the “Accusation” for example. While I might not have done exactly the same thing, I think a compendium of errors and excesses of this pontificate is needed. I mean just looking at them all in a list is SHOCKING and frankly, very hard to ignore.
I do wonder where the sense of outrage and “righteous indignation” has gone among most Catholics. It’s like NOTHING could get a rise out of them. I am still waiting for any prelate to take issue with the Pope’s misquote of Jesus in Evangelii Gaudium 161. To me it sums up the pontificate and the silence in addressing it sums up the state of the Church today.
I agree that Righteous Indignation has disappeared in many Catholics, most probably because most of them have been nourished on the thin gruel of modernism for much of their lives. They simply don’t even know that they should be indignant.
And 1P5 has demonstrated righteous indignation at the outrages which are occurring quite regularly. Righteous indignation and ugly ad hominem attacks are not the same thing. By all means, one ought to righteously oppose what is going on and vociferously so, but leaving out subjective personal accusations and ad hominem attacks won’t weaken one’s argument. By all means sin should be called sin, heresy should be called heresy, immorality should be called immorality etc…
I have read the Liber and find myself agreeing with much of it, however I still think that the style they have employed damages their argument considerably.
I will say that I sincerely hope that it has a positive effect in strengthening the Faithful, ordained and lay alike, to oppose these errors and bring about the necessary corrections needed to help heal the ever widening divide that is tearing Mother Church asunder. I’m not convinced it will, but God can do anything.
Furthermore, if this is the action that these men deemed necessary to take, then take it they must. However, they must also answer for their actions, good and bad alike.
I must say that I wish they would have written it without all of the unnecessary language that is detracting from the clear objective truth.
Steve, while you may respect the Remnant’s work today, I don’t.
It’s been a steady downhill since the deaths of Michael Davies, Hamish Fraser and the Remnant’s other early writers who made it critical reading for traditionalists.
In fact there’s a reason why Ferrara’s writing, unlike that of Davies, won’t be remembered by the next generation of traditional Catholic. American trad media took a shift to the tabloid at the turn of the millennium with the “We Resist You to Your Face” statement (I believe the first of many such co-authored statements between the Remnant and CFN) and it has been a steady slide to semi-vacantist polemic since.
In my last face-to-face conversation with Michael Davies, he made fun of Gerry Matatics (also present) for defending Solange Hertz’ geocentrism. Davies must be rolling in his grave knowing that the lawyer who took his spot as the Remnant’s senior writer has since challenged Karl Keating to a debate on geocentrism.
Einstein said geocentrism is ok.
Is it possible for a Catholic to remain in communion with The Catholic Church if they condone abortion and/or same-sex sexual relationships? Does respecting the Sanctity of human life from the moment of conception, and the Sanctity of marriage and the family as God intended mean a Catholic is a traditionalist?
I can’t believe you, Brother Steve. Your way is not only the best way, it is the only way. Hey, tell you what: please stop emailing me solicitations for support. I will be subscribing to the Remnant today. I appreciate the breadth of their publication, after having read several of their issues. Pax Christi
top8305,
You will fit right in there. I am sure of it.
Actually, you sound rather cranky.
Several years ago, a good friend of mine was assigned to, what was considered to be, the most traditional parish in the Diocese. This priest is a lover of the Faith and offers the TLM as well as the rest of the Sacraments in the ancient tradition. He is humble and personally pious and devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary etc…
Within a week he was being corrected by his parishioners on an almost daily basis over the most trivial matters. Within a couple of years he was frazzled and constantly under siege because he refused to cave to every demand. Eventually some of parishioners got it into their heads that he was having an affair with the Parish secretary and accused him of being unchaste to the bishop, which was not true in anyway. His accusers persuaded themselves that he must be immoral because he didn’t do everything they thought he should do and did things they thought he shouldn’t (none of which were necessary to be Faithful to the Lord.) He spent a lot of time working with the secretary (who was also the bookkeeper) in the office, sometimes past office hours…therefore!
Thankfully, he was eventually exonerated and has gone on to a different assignment. He isn’t the same man anymore, he is withdrawn and beat down. He is still faithful and Loves the Lord, but he is not the same.
Holding to the Tradition of the Church doesn’t mean one is holy or charitable, it should but it doesn’t. Being a priest, especially a traditional one, is the most difficult thing, it means being attacked on every side and not giving into the attack or interior bitterness and despair. And I know that the same is true for being a member of the Faithful Laity.
If we have not Love we have nothing. Let us pray for the grace of a willing spirit, a contrite and humble heart and the Love of the Cross, so that we do not loose The Way. Jesus died offering salvation to those who crucified Him, let us be His Faithful Disciples and be willing to do as He has done. With the Grace of God it shall be so.
PS: sorry for the long post.
I have four young sons. I remember a lady saying you never hear Catholic boys say anymore that they want to become a priest when they grow up. But my boys do. My five year old was racing around the yard on his bike the other day when all of a sudden he stopped in front of me and looked at me and said, ‘I want to become a priest’, with the biggest smile on his face. Then off he sped again with that wonderful exuberance of the young.
I think what he was actually saying is, ‘I love you mum’ (knowing what regard his mummy holds for priests) but who knows.
I can only pray I raise them with all they need to become good priests, if that is God’s will for them. And if they should say to me one day when they are grown, that indeed they feel they have a vocation to the priesthood, my fear is not that I won’t have grandchildren, though there will be that sadness. It is knowing what they will face…
God bless you in your vocation Father! I very much appreciate all you do! God be your strength and guide always!
I will pray for you! Please say a prayer for me! As you say, the attack on the laity is great too.
Don’t worry, pray, do penance and Love God above all things. If there is a vocation to the priesthood amongst your children then God is calling them to be another Christ. Whatever suffering they endure will be worth the grace of the vocation.
Leave the grandchildren and vocations to God and raise your sons to Love Him above all things and your neighbor as they love themselves and you will have great joy. One final note, try not to criticize priests in front of your sons as that will put them off from the priesthood.
May God Bless you.
‘raise your sons to Love Him above all things and your neighbor as they love themselves and you will have great joy.’
God help me to do this Father, for all my children! (I have 3 daughters too, and one due December 🙂 Thank you for your words and advice!
God bless!
Sharyn, if you want your sons to grow up to be priests, and it is within the means of your family to do so, introduce them to the monastery young. Visiting the monastery will spur the young spirit and imagination much more than all the criticism against today’s churchmen.
Thank you Eerie!
Helpful. Thanks for the insight.
Fr RP, what you describe fits my experience too and was one of the catalysts for our family joining the “Byzantine exodus” after God blessed us with children.
I have since realized that our local TLM chapel had been unique within the context of the Latin traditional movement in North America. First, both the pastor and the majority of parishioners were French-Canadian. So we had a much closer connection to traditionalist movement in France than we did the rest of the traditionalist movement in the United States and Canada.
Second, our priest was an oblate of a traditional Catholic Benedictine monastery in Europe. So our experience of the TLM and community life as a TLM chapel was essentially rooted in the monastic tradition. His backup priest, although Novus Ordo when not covering for Father, was also French and Benedictine.
When our elderly pastor (and his backup) retired due to poor health, our TLM community did not survive the transition to the typical English-speaking North American environment. We quickly discovered that like much of American catholicism, traditional Catholicism in America wrestles with and is deeply influenced by America’s Calvinist roots.
About a decade later, other than the two individuals who joined the FSSP and were eventually ordained priests, most of the parishioners who formed our TLM community, independently of each other, have transferred to various Eastern Catholic Churches (mostly Byzantine) where liturgy and tradition remain deeply rooted in monasticism.
During this same period we have watched the Latin traditionalist movement in Europe, which is similarly rooted in the monastic tradition, grow for much the reason.
“We quickly discovered that like much of American catholicism, traditional Catholicism in America wrestles with and is deeply influenced by America’s Calvinist roots.” An excellent point.
Father, I completely know what you mean. I’ve offered the traditional Mass as an “outsider” (non-FSSP or non-ICRSS) several times: half the time (maybe more) there was some unpleasant coldness or muted hostility because I wasn’t “their” priest (presumably) and a Novus Ordo compliant priest as well. Mind you, it wasn’t everyone in the congregation–not by a long shot–but what there was of this attitude was blatant, not imaginary (for instance, an entire family of about five children with their mother, getting up from their pew the moment I came in to start Mass and leaving). I don’t know any priests more inclined to tradition than myself, and yet I find myself more and more over the years avoiding “traditional” congregations.
Isabel’s comment, about 8 places above) is fairly spot on in describing the problem and the solution.
One of the strangest things is that amongst the groups that hold to the Traditional practices of the Faith (just like in all the other groups, but for whatever reason one doesn’t expect to see it with Traditional Catholics) there are people who are very anti-clerical because they blame the Clergy for all of the terrible goings on in the Church, and no doubt there are many who are to blame, but most of us are not to blame. As soon as Father doesn’t suit them perfectly for whatever reasons, he becomes an image of all that is wrong and unholy in the Church.
This mentality is truly awful and I have found it in many places. What I have discovered over time is that people tend to favor priests who say things they like and put their pet projects in play (not a big revelation) and they tend to really dislike priests who say things they don’t like or who dare to deny them their particular pet project in the parish (again, not a big revelation). Most of the time it has nothing to do with Orthodoxy (though often times on whatever side of the divide they stand it will be couched in those terms) it has everything to do with personal preference for one’s own tastes and will. This is no secret, but many tend to think that it’s more true amongst heterodox Catholics or the Lukewarm, but I have found it to be just as true amongst the Orthodox Catholics.
Fr,
Interesting insight! I’m sure that’s the case (usually): it seems that so many of our conflicts in life are dressed up, so to speak, as ideological or spiritual struggles but underneath are merely thwarted wills or hurt feelings. Vivas!
Would the response be any better in the NO congregants?
The response to what? I do think, in general, that conservative NO folks get along far better, and feel that they have much more common cause, than trads. Trads more often seem to have a chip on their shoulder, and a vested interest in promoting a very specific viewpoint.
I say this as someone who self-identifies as one. They’re certainly not all that way, but it’s a real issue. I think it comes, in part, from always questioning the established narrative, and needing to provide a counter-narrative of one’s own.
Now I’m left wondering what qualifies as trad. I supposed that there were gradations, for example. What’s the threshold?
In general I would say that Trads tend to “eat their own”..
Is that what you are doing ?
Fr. Riperger had some really excellent ideas on this subject. Unfortunately I don’t know his body of work well enough to be able to point to where I saw it. Perhaps someone knows what I’m thinking of.
Good comments. One thing that I think has developed among self-proclaimed and self-defined “trads” is a bunker mentality, with the resulting isolation and tendency to see things in very subjective terms, that is, solely in the context of their own wounds and horrible experiences. There are very good objective (theological) reasons for many of the traditionalist positions, but putting everything solely in terms of one’s own miseries and particular grudges makes it impossible to present a coherent position or invite others to it.
Here’s where a little forgiveness would come in handy. A defensive, hostile position is only for losers; a generous, confident position is for those who know that right is on their side. And the future is on their side, too, if they will let it.
Being Catholic, is not a matter of degree; one is either for Christ or one is against Christ. A Faithful Catholic will always confirm Catholic tradition. Where is your proof that a Faithful Catholic is not capable of distinguishing between God’s Truth and a lie?
Steve, Trads are human like anybody else .We are not pod people. If someone is spreading verbal manure be he a Trad or not, I will either ignore him or point out that he’s speaking crap. Why do we have to act like North Koreans, all nodding or crying in unison or a Soviet Union slave, afraid to be the first one to stop clapping after a toast to Stalin? That’s not unity. that is servile fear. I like the idea of Trads of all stripes gathering together but it
is not going to happen. The Home Aloners and the Seds would probably spit in our faces and the Resistance people don’t trust anybody.
Once upon a time in our parishes people strove to get along and put on a happy face no matter what. So the people who complained about the gay priest or the fact that Fr. was driving a sports car and an apartment in town or that Father’s best lady friend was running the parish while he was off somewhere were rebuked and told to shut up. As a result people left the Faith and the Church ended paying out a billion in abuse settlements. Shutting up and playing nice cost us dearly.
OK..
I’m going to do it.
At risk of setting myself up as a punching bag for Catholics ranging from self-avowed, raging Communists to ultra-Traditionalists and even sedevacantists, I’m just going to say it.
Seriously, I mean no disrespect, but as a convert, I have observed something among Catholics I haven’t seen among other groups with such consistency. And I have a fair amount of life experience. Advanced degree, extensive travel, lived in a foreign country, etc.
Among Catholics, I found something that might be called head-in-sand or disingenuousness or fear or make-believe or Walter Mitty or SOMETHING I just couldn’t put my finger on but now I think I get it…
They just can’t admit that a spade is a spade, and fact is, I think I know the reason…
Folks, I have read document after document. I have history and theology degrees so I know how to read the stuff and…sorry, but what I see in “Catholicism” today just doesn’t mesh with what was Catholicism before Vatican 2. I watched an interesting documentary on Saul Alinsky and Catholicism on EWTN and finally it clicked. Should have clicked long ago since much of my academic life centered on political philosophy and communist systems.
Catholics have swallowed Marxism.
At all levels, understood or not.
Sorry but we have a Marxist Pope and we have Marxist Bishops and we have well-intentioned “faithful” whose world views are permeated by cultural Marxism. And it doesn’t just reside among “liberals”. It is a feature of Catholic culture stem to stern with some significant and notable exceptions.
What Pope Leo XIII warned us about in Quod Apostolici Muneris is the plank in the eye of modern Catholicism.
God Save the Catholic Church.
Just my $.02.
You’ve told the truth – nothing wrong with that.
I remember pre vatican 2 church and you are right. It is a different church, a different religion. I still see it in some traditional parishes, but even they, are like a body walking without its head. Without the vatican and the bishops to lead us, we but do what we can to stay close to Christ without leadership. I think it started with protestantism that has slowly seeped into the Church. An attitude of, I am the interpreter of the Bible and the decider on what is right and wrong. As far as the Marxist side, it snuck in with the labor movement and the greater ability of the state to care for the poor than we who strove after greater worldly goods. Oppression of Catholics was very present in the factories and mines of the US and the labor movement (and a college education) both helped us escape that oppression. We were willing to take the good with the bad but the bad took over. Of course we cant forget the total control of our thinking by the media, but God forbid I give up my TV.
You have called it exactly. God is taking away, one by one, everything, including faith in the hierarchy and a large community of believing and orthodox Catholics.
We are being called to be faithful, we can’t depend on the hierarchy anymore. Like the priest in the Power and the Glory, we are now becoming the only ambassadors for orthodoxy. No longer can we point to the Pope or the bishops.
Great stuff RTHVER, you will like this speech, if you haven’t read it already:
http://voiceofthefamily.com/dr-anca-maria-cernea-cultural-marxism-a-threat-to-the-family/
Thanks very much.
I heard her when she first made the speech. It is beyond powerful.
Sometimes I think I can relate to the Hebrew captives in Babylon….
for those who believe, I toss out the motto of my patron saint; “Unanimiter et constanter”. May we be both.
Excellent analysis. This Marxism can be detected in the casual
conversation of fairly normal Catholics who regard themselves
as good Catholics. The sheep have been led by their Bishops to
embracing Communist ideas……and Russia will spread her errors
throughout the world…..Our Lady said so.
1000 Amens brother – If that comment was 2 cents can I send you a check for $20.00 then??
Yes, yes and yes!!!
A few of the accusations against Pope Francis do not appear to be 100% accurate (especially the ones that are more suggestive than definitive), but the vast majority of the complaints are indeed spot on and reflect sound wisdom and traditional Catholic teaching.
However, I have a theological quibble regarding a statement in the basic letter that precedes the Liber of Accusation. The authors write the following:
“Of course we are nothing in the scheme of things…”
To be sure, some zealous Christians have been given to making such over-the-top and theologically unsound statements of possessing a would-be “super humility” from time-to-time, but the declaration of being “nothing” is actually a slap in the face of God and His creation of all human beings in His image, and it also fails miserably as an expression of true humility. Moreover, it reflects many false beliefs (both philosophical and theological). According to sound Catholic teaching on metaphysics and morality, each one of us is something in the scheme of things…simply by being a child of God, and so annihilating themselves as an expression of humility as the authors have done is unfortunately misguided and misleading.
We are of course very small/lowly as human beings,…but we are still much, much more than nothing in both a metaphysical and moral sense despite our fallen nature that also does not relegate us to being merely nothing in the scheme of things. I hope the authors of the letter will make a necessary change to this statement in their final draft to better reflect true humility and a sound Catholic understanding of themselves as children of God, which is a most beautiful something in the scheme of things. In fact, it is in being this small/lowly but still beautiful something that gives them the moral standing to make the claims against the Pope. If they were truly nothing “in the scheme of things,” then they would not have any status whatsoever to make the claims that they make.
Also in the “scheme of things,” did our Lord and Savior die and rise again from the dead for a bunch of moral nothings? Or does He see us as something worth saving (both metaphysically and morally), and if so, who are we to contradict Him by a false statement of humility that denies the value of God’s creation of human beings in His image?
Saints have always commented on their nothingness…..in
comparison to the greatness of God. I don’t think it is
supposed to be taken too literally as those three authors
are well aware we are made in the image and likeness of God.
It is erroneous whether uttered by a Saint or anyone else, and even the Saints should be corrected in this regard despite their intentions because of the faulty understanding that could easily slip into a form of Protestantism or perhaps even a kind of Hinduism that undermines the nature of reality as designed by God who created us as metaphysical and moral somethings. To be sure, neither the Saints nor anyone else are nothing compared to God because He gave all humans the something called existence made in His image.
Humans are indeed tiny compared to God, but we are not nothing which would deprive us of the necessary existence to humbly serve God. Even as a kind of poetry or other non-literal approach expressing a faux humility based on annihilation, it fails to speak the truth which is always needed. As such, these kinds of unthinking phrases should be dropped and never used because they do not reflect the proper relationship between God and man.
Finally, any person who is truly well aware that he or she is made in the image and likeness of God does not deny that definitive reality by also declaring that he or she is really nothing in the scheme of things despite being made in God’s image. The scheme of things pertains to Revelation and God’s plans for the world which would be of no value if humans are mere nothings in this plan.
The Little Flower wished to give all to God and finally gave Him her
nothingness….this, she believed was pleasing to God.
Today we are too anthropomorphic, too man centered and filled
with our own self importance…again in relation to the great mystery of almighty God we are as nothing. This concept, in no way deminishes or denies God’s plans for the world. It simply means his plans are more
important than ours.
I’m not sure you are quoting or paraphrasing the Little Flower accurately, but even if you are, it doesn’t matter. As previously set forth, any Saint who so presented him or herself were simply wrong in doing so. If you have nothing, you have nothing to give. This is a metaphysical point that must be emphasized much more today, especially when relativism rules too much.
And indeed today we are actually not anthropomorphic enough in that we have people merely declaring themselves to be this gender or that gender, declaring the unborn to not be human, and otherwise defining reality as they subjectively see it. And so now more than ever we need to stand up for man as God designed him and her to be and not wipe ourselves out by declaring we are mere nothings when that would be to tell God that He made nothing.
Again, in relation to the great mystery of almighty God we are as something because He made us something in His image. To be nothing would be to deprive ourselves of any reality in which to share in God’s plans.
At first I thought you might be a lib glorifying man but I see you
are not . Yes, a thing is what it is for example there is no such
thing as homosexual marriage . It’s a contradiction in terms.
Definitive metaphysical realities are true but not dead ends.
They are the beginning like a point of a cone (Raissa Maritain)
the structure of the spiritual life. Sometimes we set up false
dicodomies
where none exist for example Catholics believe the Pope is
infallible and therefor we ought not to disagree with him which is
not true. If the saints speak of their nothingness it is in the context
of their relationship with God ….it is simply the language of love .
The problem today is that man does not believe in God and his
design for mankind and believes himself God-like and free to
decide who shall live who shall die, who is female and who is male etc.
I appreciate the recognition that you claim you did not initially possess. However, your point about metaphysical realities not being dead ends is not clear nor does it have any bearing on what I have set forth.
As for Papal Infallibility, that is well-defined by Catholic teaching, and it, too, has nothing to do with what I have set forth.
Also, I did not set up false dichotomies, but you appear to be doing so in your insistence on defending the erroneous understanding of declaring oneself to be nothing as a language of love. To annihilate oneself is not an expression of love, especially when addressed to the being who gave you existence and the grace to be His child. “Thanks for giving me the gift of existence, God, and making me your child, but out of love I will declare that I am actually nothing.” This does not work in any way, and it is not an act or expression of love. In fact, it actually disrespects what God has done.
By the bye, you previously mentioned the Little Flower and claimed she made similar expressions of being nothing. I have not come across any such specific claims, but one that falls in line with my point and references ‘nothing’ is the following from “Story of a Soul”:
“It seems to me that if a little flower could speak, it would tell simply what God has done for it without trying to hide its blessings. It would not say, under the pretext of a false humility, it is not beautiful or without perfume, that the sun has taken away it splendor and the storm has broken its stem when it knows that all this is untrue. The flower about to tell the story rejoices at having to publish the totally gratuitous gifts of Jesus. She knows that nothing in herself was capable of attracting the divine glances, and His mercy alone brought about everything that is good in her.”
And before you get excited about her reference to nothing, note very carefully the proper context in which she expresses herself in this regard. The flower in and of itself without God has nothing, but with the grace of God it is indeed a beautiful thing that only false humility denies. Indeed, her criticism of making false statements like not being beautiful or without perfume when such is not the case is analogous to stating “we are nothing” when that is also not true.
A proper expression of humility and love recognizes our littleness and even being nothing Without God, but it never wrongly asserts that we are simply nothing when God Himself has made us something.
I didn’t know flowers had grace…..are you sure that is true? By the bye
how can a flower in and of itself exist in the first place without God…..
just not possible . Are you posing as a trad ? Leaving God out of things
Is so totally modernist.
Very sad post by you. Re-read my post again, and note the precise quotation is taken from St. Therese very early in “The Story of a Soul.” Note how she says “if a flower could speak…”, so if you are now just trying to be sarcastic by foolishly attempting to use the style of some of my good faith explications of metaphysical and moral realities from previous posts, then you reveal more about yourself in the process. Goodbye and good luck. Thankfully, others at this site have reached out to me in good faith, and we have benefited from the exchange, plus we did so by not resorting to any adolescent name-calling or suggestions of bad intentions that you seem incapable of avoiding.
Three cheers for the Remnant Moderator. God bless
Excellent!
Episode Three is out.
And seriously, and this is grave in the extreme, but if the simple facts stated were applied to any other Catholic on earth the final word would be one and one only;
Heretic.
So unless words have no meaning, or unless a reigning pontiff can say, write and promote ANYTHING and still be considered sound in doctrine {1+2=16}, then there is only one rational explanation.
Bishops?
Cardinals?
Bueller?
A perfect and proper response to an Antipope. They are announcing to the Church that we have an Antipope: Antipope Bergoglio, not Pope Francis!
Matthew 23:
“… 23 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone.
24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean.
27 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness.
28 So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; that build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the monuments of the just,
30 And say: If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell? …”
Oops sorry folks- it looks as if Jesus was being a bit too snarky and using sharp elbows, perhaps the Vatican II church can upgrade Scripture to make it say nice things only….
Michael F Poulin
He’s just a good old fashioned Jezzy hairy tick. It’s all good. Only the believers are bad.
I try to see both sides of this issue, as a few others here have done. The tone of the Remnant has been abrasive for a long time, which reflects a certain amount of immaturity on the part of its authors. That’s not to say that the general content of what they write is wrong. Pope Francis is, without a doubt, promoting heresy. We absolutely have to speak out about it, and defend proper Church teaching. But if we cannot do it with a certain amount of decorum and maturity, then we should be silent.
Some trads have indeed developed a trench mentality. I chalk it up to the Crisis. If there were not a severe crisis, then we wouldn’t have a need of speaking out against the horrible errors of the Pope. Our Lord said…”If you love me, keep my commandments.” We have always keep this in mind, but also we much have charity.
I support the SSPX Resistance movement, and we are against the SSPX reconciling with Rome. The Remnant does not support us, nor does Louie Verrecchio. Yet….Bishop Williamson is causing quite a fuss in the Resistance movement because he is holding firm to the idea that graces can still flow from the Novus Ordo, and that there are still those of good faith in the Novus Ordo. He is correct in this assertion, and he believes that we should have charity towards those in the Novus Ordo, even though we believe the mass to be very ambiguous and dangerous to one’s faith. There are quite a few trads who are attacking him for this, which is unfortunate.
The Remnant – that 50-year-old bastion of Traditionalism – is “abrasive” and “immature,” you say, as you also note that you’re aligned with the “Resistance,” a loose band whose entire cause is based on subjectivism and bitterness? Call me crazy, but what I suspect is Resistance folks don’t much care for the mainstream Traditionalist bastions such as the Remnant and CFN precisely because they reject the claims of the “Resistance”. They do that because their claims don’t hold water.
http://www.acatholicthinker.net/a-response-to-the-sspx-resista/
Actually, the Resistance isn’t based on subjectivism or bitterness at all, though there are some adherents of it who would fit that description, as your description fits any number of trads in various circumstances. I don’t have a huge problem with the Remnant because they reject the claims of the Resistance; rather, I have a problem with their lack of maturity. If you disagree, that’s fine.
Thank you for the measured response. I have to disagree regarding the “Resistance.”
Also, to call the Remnant “immature” while praising the “Resistance” does strike me, I must admit, as completely batty.
Yes, I can see why it would strike someone as completely batty. However, there are some who are in a leadership role in the Resistance who do strive towards both charity and truth…not an easy thing to accomplish. Consider this latest article from a Resistance website in France:
“Strength and Gentleness of the Sacred Heart”
“The Sacred Heart of Jesus is still alive in Heaven. Continuously, and for all eternity, it is beating in His chest. At every moment, it is full of love for each one of us.
During trials, sufferings, and difficulties of life, we are either tempted to get discouraged, or to ‘harden our hearts.’ Let us turn, then, to the Sacred Heart of Jesus to find STRENGTH AND GENTLENESS (Wis. 8:1).
Our heart is a muscle, and as all muscles, it is made to provide an effort. Our heart is gifted with extraordinary energy, because throughout our life it beats millions of times, without ever stopping. Yet one day it will stop, and that means our death.
The Heart of Jesus experienced this “stop”–without, however, ceasing to be united with the Divinity. It started beating again on Easter Sunday, and this time it will never stop again. It is now endowed with invincible STRENGTH.
“Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more, death shall have no more dominion over him.” (Rom. 6:9).
May this consideration help us to never get discouraged and to make at every moment the effort Our Lord is expecting of us.
However, this heart hasn’t lost anything of its gentleness, which, while on earth, drew all hearts to Him, especially the hearts of children and the lowly. Let us not harden our hearts as a result of the tension caused by the combat we are forced to lead.
“Let us be gentle souls, whom the Little Divine Child ‘leads in the paths of peace’ (Is 11); who endures malicious men in patience, and who ‘overcame evil by good.’ (Rom. 12). Teach us , Lord, to be meek and humble of heart [Dom Marechaux].
By this GENTLENESS, joined with strength, we will be victorious. We will triumph over our disordered passions, but we will also win souls for Jesus:
Authentic gentleness, founded on a firm adherence to truth, conquers hearts. This is what Our Lord meant when He said, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Land.” The Apostles accomplished this prediction; by their gentleness, they became ‘Princes of the land.’ [Dom Marechaux].
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/friends-and-benefactors-letter-number-23-september-2016-strength-and-gentleness-of-the-sacred-heart/
God bless the Remnant for publicly accusing this pontificate when nobody in the hierarchy seems to want to do the hard and right thing. Thank you for getting behind this idea:+) And it was wonderful to see you listed with the likes of other true Traditional men at (if I recall correctly) the Catholic Identity Conference.
The likes of Mr. Matt, Mr. Ferrara and Mr. Vennari have been around for some time. It’s good to see the new trads joining with the old guard:+) Please don’t let any words or squabble come between you. Humility is so important in all of this. Please reach out and try to work things out. We need all the trad men leaders we can get in this. Don’t let the enemy win. The true enemy is the devil and his minions on this Earth, not fellow trads.
God bless~
“Page 117, of the pope’s book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex unions
“If there is a union of a PRIVATE NATURE, THERE IS NEITHER A THIRD PARTY NOR IS SOCIETY AFFECTED. Now, if this union is given the category of marriage and they are given adoption rights, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and female mother that can help them shape their identity. – Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Approval of same-sex sexual unions is approval of same-sex sexual acts.
Prior to being elected pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, by condoning same-sex sexual acts in relationships that he referred to as private, did not include children, and were not called marriage, and thus denying that God Is The Author of Love, of Life, and of Marriage, denied The Divinity of The Blessed Trinity.
The election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not valid.
Love is ordered to the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the persons existing in a relationship of Love. (The Blessed Trinity) Every beloved son or daughter, from the moment they are created and brought into being at conception, has the inherent Right to be treated with Dignity and respect in private as well as in public.
Men and women are designed in such a way that it is not possible to engage in same-sex sexual acts without demeaning our inherent Dignity as beloved sons and daughters. The desire to engage in a demeaning act of any nature, does not change the nature of the act. No one should be condoning demeaning sexual acts of any nature including between a man and woman united in marriage as husband and wife.
Same -sex sexual acts, as well as any sexual act that does not respect the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person, demean the Dignity of every human person, who is not, in essence, an object of sexual desire, but a son or daughter, worthy of being treated with Dignity and respect in private as well as in public. The sexual objectification of the human person has led to physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual suffering. It is time to heal those wounds, and learn how to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are grounded in authentic Love.
Why not tell those men and women who have developed a same-sex sexual attraction the truth? It is because we Love you, and respect your Dignity as a beloved son or daughter, that we cannot condone the engaging in or affirmation of any act, including any sexual act that demeans your inherent Dignity as a beloved son or daughter. The desire to engage in a demeaning act of any nature, does not change the nature of the act. We Love you, and because we Love you, we desire that you will always be treated with, and will always treat others with Dignity and respect in private as well as in public. We will not tolerate the engaging in or condoning of sexual behavior that does not reflect the upmost respect for the human person.
I will assume, for the sake of ending this argument, that Steve Skojek condones same-sex sexual relationships, as long as they are “private”, do not include children, and are not called marriage, and believes that someone can condone certain same-sex sexual acts and remain in communion with Christ and His Church.
It would be nice to see unity.
The pagan world sure needs to see unity in us. That’s for sure.
The devil is sure good at division. Everyone pray the rosary to stop this bickering.
I think a distinction has to be made between being a witness to objective reality and dealing privately with individual persons in a humane and pastoral way. What the Remnant/CFN liber is, like Lefebvre’s ‘Eternal Rome’ statement or the Abbe de Nantes’ books of accusation, is something meant ‘for the record’. It is meant, in a certain sense, for the benefit of the faithful as much as it is for the pope in question – it is a matter of public record. As such, it ought to be as clear and unequivocal as possible. I think the issue of respect for persons or the office of the papacy is trumped by the need to speak the plain truth, especially considering how high the stakes are. As for the issue of traditional Catholics and their reputation for snark or bitterness, there is a difference between traditional Catholics acting in a public or in a private capacity. I think when a Catholic person or publication makes a public statement, the tone is necessarily more formal and therefore is not going to be as personal as it would be if you were having dinner at their house. Really, if people out there are offended at how traditionalists speak and write it’s because they are confusing the difference between public and private capacities. When you speak as a public person, it’s automatically more formal. But public pronouncements and articles etc. are not meant to be personal and pastoral, they’re meant to be witnesses to the truth. That’s why traditionalists run blogs and have newspapers and write books of accusation – to bear witness to the truth. If you’re looking for a pastoral approach, a personal tender approach, that needs to be done in person. And I think if you were to approach Michael matt or Chris Ferrara or John Vennari and have dinner with them and their families you would find them to be very kind and accommodating and extremely helpful. I don’t know them, I only conjecture. But when they write a public document it’s very different than a private conversation. Private conversations and friendships and interactions within a parish or somebody’s home, those are the times to be the gentle traditionalist. But on the web, in the newspapers, in the blogs, that is the time to speak the plain truth no matter how people might construe it. Because in public, all you have control over is your words and how clear you are, you can’t control how people react. So you have to be clear. I think the Remnant/CFN liber was necessary and very clear, and if it ‘burnt’ the ears of some people, well, maybe they need to take that liber to a trusted friend or priest to have it explained over coffee. And I don’t at all mean that in a condescending way. These are hard times and it seems sometimes that no one has all the answers, so everyone needs friends and helpers. I think people who paint traditionalists as their own worst enemies misunderstand why traditionalists do what they do. They do what they do to be witnesses to the truth, not to explain everything perfectly. Everything has to be understood in context. The problem is that most people can’t supply context, so they read traditionalist writings and think they see anger or bitterness or divisiveness where there isn’t any. Michael Davies was a gentleman of the best kind, but he was and is hated by many simply for speaking the truth about Lefebvre, the traditional mass, the council and pope paul vi.
Catholics the world over are starving for answers. Traditionalists seek to give them insofar as they are able, but that doesn’t mean the answers are easy to hear. Scripture and the words of Christ are a stumbling block to many, but only through their own faults. Think of how different the ‘tone’ of the words of Christ in the gospel can be as compared to his ‘tone’ in private apparitions to dear saints – night and day really. The liber is something that ought to provoke thought and prayer and conversation – in a word, action, action to save the Church. It is not the end but a means. It is not a substitute for personal and tailored explanations and a desire to seek out answers, it is not meant to be a comprehensive history. It is a piece in a much, much bigger puzzle, and if people are taking it the wrong way, it’s like a child holding three pieces of a thousand piece puzzle and being angry because they can’t see the whole picture yet while making no effort to find the other pieces. It takes work and sacrifice and dedication to arrive at the truth, and traditionalist publications can only do their own part. They can’t force readers to be open and to make an effort to arrive at an understanding of the battle unfolding currently. That is up to each person. Traditionalists don’s misunderstand traditionalists, they get the outrage and burning concern – maybe those who don’t need to swallow their first emotions and do a little digging. Why would we malign traditionalists for their ‘tone’ when they are using their free will to bear witness to the truth publicly, when so many are not using their free will to even seek it, never mind to defend it?
I have a hard time taking somebody seriously that wears a t-shirt.
Good to know.
I hope that this is meant to be comical because I laughed out loud when I read it.
Does anyone here really think that continuing to foment divisions among people on the same side is going to help our cause?
Do we really want to waste energy fighting each other?
I know that my comment came across badly, and for that I apologize. Looking back, I was irritated at the reaction that Fr. RP’s fairly benign criticism was getting. That showed in how I handled my own responses. I am not just lecturing from an ivory tower when I talk about having sharp elbows. I know what anger does when it’s an ever-present thing. It’s one of the chief vices I fight every day. And it’s hurt a lot of people close to me.
So yes, I do think tone matters. (It certainly mattered in my comment that started all of this, don’t you think?) And yes, I do think that how we approach these topics matters — sometimes almost as much as the truth of what we’re saying. It’s not about some false dichotomy between being nice or mean, it’s about removing the rhetorical stumbling blocks that could keep someone who is just waking up to the crisis (in a way that only Francis could make happen) from being willing to commit to the answers that tradition offers. I have family members and friends who have had this reaction. I’ve even experienced it myself, over a decade ago, when I first found tradition. Sometimes you can agree with what is being said while still finding the way it’s said so abrasive that you almost regret your agreement.
We make lots of strong statements here. We have earned a lot of enemies of our own doing it. I’m not selling Jesus as a fluffy butterfly from the mountain. I don’t think I hold back on the crisis. I just try to avoid, wherever possible, the ad hominem and impugning motives that so often distracts from the larger point (unless you already agree with it.)
But again, we are supposed to all be on the same side here, so why not act like it? I have no animosity towards the folks at The Remnant (or CFN; I met John Vennari last year and he was very gracious, and I was very sad to hear about his recent illness). I don’t see the point in forming up sides for a brawl.
I have my own ideas about the best way to do things, and that’s why I started my own publication. I’ll keep doing what I’m doing, and I expect others will do the same. We are wasting precious time and energy, though, if the few of us who really see things for what they are turn on each other rather than face the enemy in the field.
Can we all please move on? This isn’t worth it.
Hi Steve – At what point does moving on become complicity? Who dares to measure the worth of such things in the eyes of God? Francis tests our faith in both God and man.
Move on from the internecine argument, fniper. We can’t move on from Francis, though it’d be lovely.
Hi Steve, thank you for your response, we can’t move on from Jesus, we can from Francis. It is Francis who is paving the path away from our Baptismal Promises.
Agreed, fniper. We can move on from Francis by getting on with the business of living Catholic lives. Be a witness to what it means to be Catholic…. and leave the rest by the wayside.
Hi Ann, thank you for your response, the unfortunate thing is that our “Catholic Lives” are based on an Apostolic understanding of those Sacraments and unadulterated Faith in the Holy Spirit who empowers those Sacraments . It really isn’t all that different from the consequence which followed the souls that followed Luther to eternal damnation. The devil is relentless in his quest to separate souls from the Sacraments which are absolutely necessary for Salvation. Satan knows what he is doing, and what builds his kingdom. If the leaders of our Church are more afraid of offending men than offending God, they are the chastisement.
…indeed, fniper, we do need solid shepherds. But bad shepherds are a sign of God’s wrath. So one way or the other we must engage grace to live out the precepts of the Faith.
That said, one must keep at the forefront of the mind that while Sacraments are critical, they are also the means to an end. If God, through His Providence, permitted the scourge of the removal of the mass, it would be hellish. But would salvation become impossible? No.
God Provides. And right now He seems to be providing us the opportunity to respond appropriately against an encroaching evil.
That’s why I’m all for letting those who opt for peaceful words to forestall offending newcomers leeway to do so. I’m also for, 100%, those who have the wherewithal to come together and write the powerful piece that issued forth from the Remnant and CFN.
I will not question the means God is providing, harsh words and all, to communicate that which needs to be communicated. To include the justifiable anger of Catholic men who are doing their best to uphold their duty before God.
Hi Ann, the demons love the tolerant and even tempered.
…the demons love to tempt the tolerant and even tempered to lose their temper. But then they tempt every man according to his weakness.
But to seek the Lord with pure intention, committing oneself to frequent self examine while keeping an eye to practice the virtues will be rewarded in due season. Especially when we don’t seek to judge others in accordance with that which we’ve adopted for ourselves.
Hi Ann, That sounds like something Pope Francis might say at an ecumenical gathering. Was that your intent?
Even Francis throws in orthodoxy when it suits, fniper.
The intent is seek and you shall find. Those outside the Church need to keep seeking. And those inside the Church need to keep seeking the truth that is in the Church and and in their own intentions so as not to ruin the good they think they are doing.
Hi Ann, I wonder what the response to your post would have been 150 years ago, before psychological speak saturated our inner and outer dialogue. Probably a good measure of puzzlement. Enjoy your evening Ann, it has been a pleasure posting with you. May God Bless your journey toward His Kingdom.
God bless you, too. And I hear you on the miasma of liberal soup in which we are hatched, matched and dispatched. Enjoy the debates!
“…Does anyone here really think that continuing to foment divisions among people on the same side is going to help our cause?”
No. That’s why your apology is good to see. We need to build, not exclude. That includes not excluding those who may otherwise, if we’re not careful, even with the best of intentions, be typecast as old and bitter because “we’re” not precisely where they are.
“…But again, we are supposed to all be on the same side here, so why not act like it?”
Exactly the point. So again, thank you for apologizing, Steve. We all must act like it…. al the time.
God bless
Hi Ann – Could you please define what you mean by the “same side”?
…those with the desire to uphold the Faith, whole and entire.
Critiquing others as to the methods they use or positing that other’s should do things this way or that way instead of looking at the common enemy pits those on the same side (the side of upholding the Faith) against one another.
Sometimes a “great job!” is in order without any critique of how something was said. A dirty job needed doing. And believing men banded together to do it. That deserves a high five and it’s about time.
If some want to be kinder in the words, great. Be kinder. If others choose to be more hot, let them be hot. And let those who will find the Truth find it by means of those sites that speak to them, without each site having to critique or denigrate the method chosen by the other.
Hi Ann, “desire to uphold the faith”, that seems to be a bit too dependent on one’s own perspective for me. I wonder how the words spoken by Saint John the Baptist, or Saint Paul, would fare if first spoken in our day.
Might seem a bit vague to many, fniper. But God does look to what is in the heart and we are all, sadly, just the product of what we’ve learned, heard, been taught, etc.
We’re all, in a manner of speaking, merely smoking flax and bruised reeds.
Again, that’s why mutual apologies for that which offends against uniting the forces is key. Without that there is nothing but continued misunderstanding and the perception of a personal claim to holiness that negates reality.
Hi Ann, let the Truth resolve all disputes, that is the surest path to holiness regardless of temperament.
The Truth will always out, fniper. So here’s to it!
Hi Ann, I hope that’s true tonight during the debate.
Me too, Father. I don’t have much hope about it, though.
Hi SAF, if not informative, you can be sure it will be entertaining. God often reveals the Truth in mysterious ways, and that may be what the debaters should fear most tonight.
…and how!!
Thank you Steve. I treasure your website, the Remnant, and CFN for their respective insights and support and pray for goodwill among you and others battling to discern and spread God’s holy Truth. There are some people that may strongly prefer, or be more easily persuaded by, one approach over another, so it is good that God has provided us with a variety of temperaments in those trying to defend holy Tradition. Of course, only God is perfect, so some disagreement is natural.
I support your comment. Another point is that often, within the Church, because many cant engage the content of faith because they don’t understand it or don’t want to understand it, so they take the easy option and respond emotionally with a variation of “you’re not being nice by holding to a doctrine over a real live person’s feelings”. So when a legitimate comment is made to a faith-filled person about the way they are expressing themselves in regard to Faith, instead of receiving the criticism as something useful, they respond in frustration on automatic pilot because probably they think internally (people are ignoring the content and looking at the emotions). But many liberal Catholics respond this way by preference all the time! And unfortunately the people who will receive the letter are more likely to latch onto any perceived emotions and thereby avoid the content of their letter.
And after your plea to move on, 21 additional comments on the topic.
Especially poignant, Fniper’s observation that “demons love the tolerant and even tempered.”
That is about as wrong as wrong can be.
There is a definite place for intolerance and righteous anger. On occasion. But, as a rule, demons actually love the intolerant and temperamental. They are like emotional alcoholics. Stimulus – Response. Done.
This is some really interesting commentary. I liked Fr. RP’s contributions the best.
I didn’t read all 355 of them (now 356), but from what I did read I find it interesting that there is little or no commentary (that I recall) on the actual contents of the Liber of Accusation itself.
Circular firing squad indeed.
If we can’t even discuss and fully “unpack” the facts and important implications of it here, it seems a sad and futile indication of how far it will get “out there”.
I guess that just demonstrates why these things need to generate from within the structured, official, mystical Body of Christ. WHY do they remain silent?
Still: One.Holy.Catholc.APOSTOLIC.Church.
Just read a fantastic little,piece at AKA Catholic.
https://akacatholic.com/roman-catholic-church-v-francis/
Now THAT is how you present a case against the Pope, (a fearful task indeed, with eternal implications I would think). You better get such a thing right.
Charge
Summary
Evidence
Applicable Law
Verdict
Clear. Simple. Concise.
Run the Liber through that format and see what comes out at the end.
I think a distinction has to be made between being a witness to objective reality and dealing privately with individual persons in a humane and pastoral way. What the Remnant/CFN liber is, like Lefebvre’s ‘Eternal Rome’ statement or the Abbe de Nantes’ books of accusation, is something meant ‘for the record’. It is meant, in a certain sense, for the benefit of the faithful as much as it is for the pope in question – it is a matter of public record. As such, it ought to be as clear and unequivocal as possible. I think the issue of respect for persons or the office of the papacy is trumped by the need to speak the plain truth, especially considering how high the stakes are. As for the issue of traditional Catholics and their reputation for snark or bitterness, there is a difference between traditional Catholics acting in a public or in a private capacity. I think when a Catholic person or publication makes a public statement, the tone is necessarily more formal and therefore is not going to be as personal as it would be if you were having dinner at their house. Really, if people out there are offended at how traditionalists speak and write it’s because they are confusing the difference between public and private capacities. When you speak as a public person, it’s automatically more formal. But public pronouncements and articles etc. are not meant to be personal and pastoral, they’re meant to be witnesses to the truth. That’s why traditionalists run blogs and have newspapers and write books of accusation – to bear witness to the truth. If you’re looking for a pastoral approach, a personal tender approach, that needs to be done in person. And I think if you were to approach Michael matt or Chris Ferrara or John Vennari and have dinner with them and their families you would find them to be very kind and accommodating and extremely helpful. I don’t know them, I only conjecture. But when they write a public document it’s very different than a private conversation. Private conversations and friendships and interactions within a parish or somebody’s home, those are the times to be the gentle traditionalist. But on the web, in the newspapers, in the blogs, that is the time to speak the plain truth no matter how people might construe it. Because in public, all you have control over is your words and how clear you are, you can’t control how people react. So you have to be clear. I think the Remnant/CFN liber was necessary and very clear, and if it ‘burnt’ the ears of some people, well, maybe they need to take that liber to a trusted friend or priest to have it explained over coffee. And I don’t at all mean that in a condescending way. These are hard times and it seems sometimes that no one has all the answers, so everyone needs friends and helpers. I think people who paint traditionalists as their own worst enemies misunderstand why traditionalists do what they do. They do what they do to be witnesses to the truth, not to explain everything perfectly. Everything has to be understood in context. The problem is that most people can’t supply context, so they read traditionalist writings and think they see anger or bitterness or divisiveness where there isn’t any. Michael Davies was a gentleman of the best kind, but he was and is hated by many simply for speaking the truth about Lefebvre, the traditional mass, the council and pope paul vi.
Catholics the world over are starving for answers. Traditionalists seek to give them insofar as they are able, but that doesn’t mean the answers are easy to hear. Scripture and the words of Christ are a stumbling block to many, but only through their own faults. Think of how different the ‘tone’ of the words of Christ in the gospel can be as compared to his ‘tone’ in private apparitions to dear saints – night and day really. The liber is something that ought to provoke thought and prayer and conversation – in a word, action, action to save the Church. It is not the end but a means. It is not a substitute for personal and tailored explanations and a desire to seek out answers, it is not meant to be a comprehensive history. It is a piece in a much, much bigger puzzle, and if people are taking it the wrong way, it’s like a child holding three pieces of a thousand piece puzzle and being angry because they can’t see the whole picture yet while making no effort to find the other pieces. It takes work and sacrifice and dedication to arrive at the truth, and traditionalist publications can only do their own part. They can’t force readers to be open and to make an effort to arrive at an understanding of the battle unfolding currently. That is up to each person. Traditionalists don’s misunderstand traditionalists, they get the outrage and burning concern – maybe those who don’t need to swallow their first emotions and do a little digging. Why would we malign traditionalists for their ‘tone’ when they are using their free will to bear witness to the truth publicly, when so many are not using their free will to even seek it, never mind to defend it?
I don´t think that we need a bitter public debate between Mr Skojec and Mr Ferrara.
I couldn’t agree more.
I am nowhere near the level of education as the writers of 1P5 or the remnant. But i read both publications and although i without doubt do not have the same authority based on my level of education in these matters i would like to in full respect to both publications remind 1P5 and the remnant that we are all seeking the same thing. The restoration of all things catholic to the church herself and i do not wish to speak out of place but i feel that condemnation of one publication or the other and bickering is not profitable to the cause of which both publications seek. I would like to remind both that we are all endowed with different talents and skills by our lord and that what appeals to one person may not appeal to another. For example A moderate approach may do more to awaken people where a more aggresive approach may help instill a zeal for the tradition of the fathers to those aware and thus both publications have their place.
In my humble opinion both 1P5 and the remnant are excellent publications and i have the deepest respect for the entire restoration movement. I also think maybe drop the “trad” lable as it is often used in a dergoitory way… and is causing a negative notion of catholic tradition…. i think “catholic restorationist” would be more subtle… but thats just me.
God bless and may both publications continue to do their good work.
In the age of Tweets and sound-bite labeling, your suggestion likely will not go very far. But for faithful Catholics who don’t give a fig for Tweets and drive-by labeling your suggestion is spot-on.
I HATE the label “Trad”.
I LOVE the accurate description in the name: “Catholic Restorationist”.
It may not flow off the tongue quite so easily. But maybe that’s a good thing. Restoratinists slow things down; take their time; pack their labels and ideas full of meaning and layers of meaning; take the long road rather than the easy road.
I hope it sticks. I’m going to start using it.
I actually started a group blog in…2007, I think, called “Catholic Restorationists.” It’s a good term. But it is certainly a bit unwieldy.
I’ve attempted in the past to also make the case that the labeling thing is not in our best interest. But it seems to be a hard habit to kick.
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/losing-the-labels-lets-be-catholic-again/
A good link. Thanks.
The labeling David refers to is the nut of the problem YOU refer to here.
Trad to me implies “tribe”. Don’t like it. I picture a nostalgic enclave for those who can’t keep up with the fast moving “Innovator Tribe”.
Restorationists do not live in Tribes. If Restoration means anything, it means unity within the Body as One. They calmly remain where the Church Body has always been and will always be.
Love this quote from Archbishop Lefebvre….. “When soldiers have lost the ideal for which they fight, their weapons fall from their hands” Pick up your weapon Steve, and stop watching your ratings. We are in a battle for souls, not prideful “top 3” status.
And tell me: how do Catholics reach people if they don’t…reach people? I run this publication like a business, following best practices wherever possible as provided by those who are at the top of the online content industry.
When did we collectively become so self-loathing that we thought that being good at saving souls meant being a failure at everything else? The two things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the more people we’re able to reach, the more people we’re likely to persuade.
Doug,
I think building a “top 3” Tradition friendly Catholic web site, with multiple contributors and a widespread readership counts as picking up and wielding a weapon in the battle for souls. Certainly to an extent beyond what I’m currently doing. Perhaps you as well.
I think the point of this thread, amply demonstrated by almost 400 posts, is that we Tradition friendly Catholics are trigger happy aiming our fire at each other simply because we are a more convenient target.
Step back, and skim through all the posts. It is amazing how much vitriol is directed internally.
Read Steve’s post above. He FULLY supports the document. He praises it and the intention behind it. Yet, over almost 400 comments, including yours, he is accused of “laying down his weapons”; compromising his ideals; for … his ratings?
That is not a charitable reading of Steve’s post, or his labours building up this very Tradition friendly web site.
As much as I hate to admit it, I think it’s true that trads can get a little “holier than thou” on others.
There’s a traddy Catholic facebook group (a Polish one, not English) and although I agree with everything they post, their arguments can be quite appalling. To give an example, they once posted a picture of a Jesuit Mass in Lodz with liturgical dancing and disco lights. Good so far. However in the comments section, the “average” uninformed Catholic asked the question: what’s wrong with this? Instead of charitably answering and clarifying the importance of reverence and tradition, you had trads attacking this person for being a protestant, or not believing in the Real Presence, and so on.
Unfortunately there are Trad Catholic versions of people from the “Christians or Catholics?” facebook group.
I recently attended a parish assembly at my Cathedral (well, not MY Cathedral, I go to the Ordinariate parish down the road), and the focus was completely on being tolerant, and welcoming and inclusive, at the expense of all else. Yes, they’re focus was off, but that experience taught me something. Inclusiveness is a good thing. It shouldn’t be the primary focus, but it should be A focus. We should be friendly and if someone is ignorant of tradition, let’s educate them not criticise them. They might not know any better. They have been told by priests that Vatican II discouraged the use of kneelers in church (a lady actually said this to me). It made my want to try a new strategy: using their arguments against them! They say we need to be inclusive? Ok, let’s invite the Ordinariate and the Syro-Malabars to also celebrate their mass at the Cathedral. How inclusive would that be! (Unfortunately there’s no Latin Mass in my diocese, but in time, if the people become truely “inclusive”, it won’t be so anathema to suggest it)
And the attacks begin in 3…2…
For what it’s worth: you’re absolutely correct.