If it seems self-serving to keep demonstrating our consistency on the issues we cover, it’s perhaps only because so many people have sought with such fervor to discredit me (and by extension, the other fine writers here at 1P5) on all things Francis. (The post I’m about to link, incidentally, is worth a re-read just for the documentation of scorn we were receiving at the time for saying that what has now happened was going to happen.)
It has been my contention all along that if you only are willing to see what is right before your eyes, things will suddenly shift into focus. For example, as I wrote in April of this year in a post entitled, Pope Francis Didn’t Change Doctrine (and Other True Stories):
If the title of this post is all you want to hear about Amoris Laetitia, then kudos to you, because it’s true!
He didn’t change doctrine. Never could. Never will.
Of course, he absolutely gutted pastoral application and guidance on the doctrine on sin and marriage to the point that he made them both virtually unrecognizable. He accomplished this, as usual, through a subjective, relativistic approach to truth by way of “conscience” and “discernment.”
The so-called “Kasper Proposal” is, as it turns out, actually the Francis Proposal. It appears, in fact, that Kasper was telling the truth all along.
“I’m not naïve,” Kasper said. “I knew that there are other positions, but I didn’t think that the debate would become, and now is shown to be also, without manners.”
“Not one of my fellow Cardinals ever spoke to me. I, instead, [spoke] twice with the Holy Father. I agreed upon everything with him. He was in agreement. What can a cardinal do, except be with Pope? I am not the target, the target is another one.”
Kasper again claimed that Pope Francis knew what he was going to propose and fully approved of his speech.
“They know that I have not done these things by myself,” he said. “I agreed with the Pope, I spoke twice with him. He showed himself content [with the proposal]. Now, they create this controversy. A Cardinal must be close to the Pope, by his side. The Cardinals are the Pope’s cooperators.”
Of course, this has been obvious from the beginning. But now, despite certain notable holdouts who are literally setting what little credibility they have left on fire by their continued attempts to spin this, we see others who have been reticent finally swallowing that red pill they’ve clearly had in their cheek for a while but just weren’t quite ready to commit to. People like Robert Royal, who writes today:
So now we know. We knew before, really, but didn’t have explicit confirmation. The long, agonizing slog, however, is finally over: from Pope Francis’ invitation to Cardinal Kasper to address the bishops in Rome in February of 2014 to the pope’s letter last week to some Argentinean bishops affirming guidelines they had developed in a joint document that, in “exceptional cases,” people divorced and remarried (living in an “adulterous” relationship as we believed for 2000 years in Western Christianity), may receive Holy Communion. This whole affair is bizarre. No other word will do.
As I wrote on this page many times before the two Synods on the Family, daily during those events, and subsequently, it was clear – at least to me – that the pope wanted his brother bishops to approve some form of what came to be known as the Kasper Proposal. That he did not get such approval – indeed, that he got significant pushback from bishops from various parts of the globe – visibly angered him, and even led him into a bit of snark at the close of the second Synod, that some opinions had “at times” been expressed there, “unfortunately, not in entirely well-meaning ways.”
[…]
In the Church’s 2000-year history – a history of apostles, martyrs, confessors, great saints, brilliant doctors, profound mystics – none thought this new teaching Catholic. Some even died to defend the indissolubility of marriage. For a pope to criticize those who remain faithful to that tradition, and characterize them as somehow unmerciful and as aligning themselves with hard-hearted Pharisees against the merciful Jesus is bizarre.
I’ve lived long enough in Washington and spent sufficient time in Rome not to trust what a journalist says some leader – secular or religious – told him in private. But I’m convinced that when Eugenio Scalfari – the eccentric editor of La Repubblica, the socialist paper in Rome the pope reads daily – said that Francis told him he would allow all who come to receive Communion, he may not have gotten the words exactly right. But he caught the drift.
That last bit may also sound familiar. I dissected the use of Scalfari to disseminate Francis’ most unorthodox stalking horses here, back in November of 2015. And again, more than an “I told you so,” this serves as proof that the handwriting was not just on the wall, it was clearly legible. It was always a matter of willingness to see it. For what it’s worth, I’m glad to have someone of Royal’s pedigree on the side of unvarnished and unpopular truth. And he isn’t pulling punches (except maybe using “bizarre” where “evil” would be more appropriate.) Royal continues:
Indeed, Catholics have a new teaching now, not only on divorce and remarriage. We have a new vision of the Eucharist. It’s worth recalling that in January the pope, coyly, not ruling it out, suggested to a group of Lutherans in Rome that they, too, should “talk with the Lord” and “go forward.” Indeed, they later took Communion at Mass in the Vatican. In a way, that was even more significant. A Catholic couple, divorced and remarried, are sinners, but – at least in principle – still Catholic. Has intercommunion with non-Catholic Christians also been decided now without any consultation – almost as if such a momentous step in understanding the Sacrament of Unity hardly matters?
Need I provide another reference point? I will anyway – this one also from November of last year:
Why am I speaking here about Communion for the divorced and remarried when the topic is Communion for Lutherans? Because it’s all of a piece. 1 Corinthians 11:28 makes it clear how we must approach Holy Communion: “Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” What Francis, Kasper, and others have been advocating is the idea that this examination is not necessary. That rather than being fearful that we “eat and drink judgment (or condemnation) against” ourselves if we receive the Eucharist unworthily, we should see it as the very means by which we may be strengthened on our “journey.” This is an outrageous form of utilitarianism, in which we use God — our first beginning and final end — to accomplish some other, lesser thing. If our worthiness to receive Him is treated as a matter of no importance, how can this be viewed as anything other than elevating the concerns of man — and man himself — above God?
Of course, this sort of humanism might produce other indicators – say, excessive concern for the material well-being of the poor, distribution of resources, or care for the environment – over and above concern for the salvation of souls.
We are at a point where it becomes almost impossible to believe that Pope Francis is doing these things by accident. His ideology is interwoven with Catholic belief, but it also works at cross-purposes with it. Statements like the one made to the Lutheran woman above, or the stalking horses floated to the media through surrogates like Scalfari, indicate that he feels constrained by the limits of his office in accomplishing his agenda. One priest — one of the new “Missionaries of Mercy” no less — recently issued an open letter to Pope Francis, warning him that if he continues to try to move against the doctrines of the Church, God will stop him, and he will “either die or be incapacitated, much as Pope Sixtus V dropped dead before he could accomplish his own will on a matter also touching on marriage and divorce…” And yet, all appearances are that Francis is too clever to try something like that. Instead, he’s figured out how to beat the limitations placed on him by papal infallibility. His method never violates the letter of the law, while savaging it in spirit. He does not invite the enemy in, he merely opens all the doors in the enemy’s full view.
It is a strange feeling to find myself in unexpected company on these observations, but a good one. Royal’s final sentence is, I think, a bracing dose of reality for what comes now:
I say this in sorrow, but I’m afraid that the rest of this papacy is now going to be rent by bands of dissenters, charges of papal heresy, threats of – and perhaps outright –schism. Lord, have mercy.
We’ve been watching this beast slouching toward us from a long way off. It is now upon us.
It’s nice to have validation on the truth spoken, but really it doesn’t matter who wakes up unless that person can actually do something about this.
More people in the boat as the flood water comes doesn’t save any of us. We need someone who can stop the flow.
Jesus.
Also, Our Lady of Quito.
And 1) the revelation of 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…”)
&
2) the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Holy Father in union with all the bishops of the world.
That’s the solution given by God Himself through Our Lady of Fatima on June 13, 1929. To the present day, NO Pope has ever done this as per the following:
1942 – Pope Pius XII consecrated the WORLD to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
1950s – Pope Pius XII consecrated Russia BUT WITHOUT all the bishops.
1960s – Pope Paul VI declares Mary Mother of the Church.
1982, 1984 & 2000 – Pope John Paul II consecrates/entrusts the WORLD to Our Lady.
2013 – Pope Francis entrusts (? – not clear from the prayer) the world to Our Lady.
NONE of these is what God requires. Ad I’ve posted before, God will give us peace on His terms, not ours. And what God wants, He gets. He wants the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Check out http://www.fatima.org for more information.
I’m praying daily now for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, and the consecration of Russia.
What? Why would we want to stop the flow? His Humbleness the First is serving an important purpose.
He’s bringing those to the conclusion that there’s something terribly wrong in the post-conciliar program who would never go that far otherwise. Those who refuse to see it simply won’t, and they’ll be the ones who make up the new, schismatic church whose foundations were laid at the robber Council.
I say let the man lay his own snares with his loose tongue. Cut out the rotten pieces attached to him and the nuevo church and toss them into the sewers their modernism produced.
It’s like Willy Wonka watching Augustus Gloop get sucked up the pipe: “the suspense is terrible, I hope it’ll last!”
its a tall order for people to make the leap from heretical pope to rotten council. That requires a degree of logical thought which is a rare commodity in today’s world.
Amen. Separate the sheep from the goats. Recall how Cardinal Ratzinger said many years ago that the Church must become small again. To reboot so to speak.
Self fulfilling prophecy. He was one who was helping to “raze the bastions” of the Church so that it could become smaller.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_029_RatzingerRazeBastions.htm
Regretfully there is a logic to your point. His current comportment is a painful display, and you wonder what is going through the minds of those who are in his trust. The picture presents too many questions.
I believe that Pope Emeritus BXVI was overwhelmed with the challenges and responsibilities and, who had to try to fight off the Germans also. This is an interesting excerpt : .
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI during an interview May 2013 as recorded in : (“Last Conversations”), by Peter Seewald,
But at the same time, Benedict says, “One feels the difficulties of life’s questions more deeply; one feels the weight of today’s godlessness, the weight of the absence of faith, which goes deep into the Church. But then one also feels the greatness of Jesus Christ’s words, which evade interpretation more often than before.”
I think he was trying to convince himself that he did all he could but fell far short. A true confession of sorts. He really needs our prayers also.
Yes, we definitely pray for him, and Francis too, even more so.
Logic and his words say it is so, but it is so hard to believe. We wonder, what is the plan of God?
Lord, have mercy
Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us. Since we have no defense, we sinners offer this supplication to You, our Master: Have mercy on us!
+ Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit
Lord, have mercy on us, for in You we place our hope. Be not exceedingly angry with us, nor mindful of our transgressions, but look upon us even now with mercy and deliver us from our enemies. For You are our God and we are Your people; we are all the work of Your hands and we call upon Your Name.
Now and ever and forever. Amen.
Open to us the doors of mercy, O blessed Mother of God, that we who place our trust in you may not perish but that we may be delivered from misfortune, for you are the salvation of all Christians.
Troparion, Kontakion and Theotokion of General Intercession (and penitence), Tone 6
And what is even clearer is that the Pope ISN’T strongly supporting Catholic doctrine and directly confronting the errors of the age. And that is exactly what he is supposed to do: not just, somehow, refrain from being an unambiguous heretic–which should be a given.
The Pope lost his way, his faith, it appears, years ago.
The Jesuits knew he was trouble which is why they shipped him off to be a chemistry teacher, and they knew he would be divisive when he was elected as Pope. We have St.JPII to thank for his rehabilitation – he was an awful judge of character.
@Deacon_Augustine, please! Why the dragging in here and maligning the name of the great and saintly pope? In Amoris Laetitia Pope Francis contradicts e.g. Pope St. John Paul II the Great’s Familiaris consortio and Veritatis splendor. If it is as you say that ‘St.JPII rehabilitated him’, then he did that and taught him well and gave him an example on the kinds of papal documents a pope ought to write i.e., those that are faithful to the perennial Teaching of the Church.
*
The failings of Pope Francis are his and his alone. He is a grown man and claims to be a son of the Church. Well a true son of the Church is as true son of the Church does.
Few have greater regard for Pope Saint John Paul than I, but when it came to appointing bishops he was, without doubt, frequently senseless.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio should never have been ordained, sustained or advanced to any position of responsibility — along with a sizable number of his generation. Gratefully many jumped ship. A scandalous number remained, good only for the plank. Their mutiny is in full swing. Watch your back. Watch your head. Get your water wings. This crew isn’t as possessed by Christian charity as was our deceased shepherd. God reward him — but he was deficient in this exercise of office.
I will never again make excuses for Jorge or PJP ll. There can never be justification for John Paul appointing corrupt or weak men to be bishops. To protect the church, he should have been prepared to die, like St Peter, rather than see the church compromised and devastated like Vat ll and everything that has followed from that God forsaken council. It’s salutary to look at the popes after Pope Pius ll, and see the subtle ways that they were seduced by the heresy of Modernism. And how their humanity wounded by original sin tested their weaknesses, blindness and sinful inclinations which led them to compromise the church’s Magisterium each in His own way.
I am sympathetic to your perspective. Conscientious clergy and laity have been doing gymnastics to accommodate and give deference to fraudulence, well masked and otherwise for over fifty years. One is left dumbfounded at the mendacity, incompetence, false optimism, poor judgement, misplaced trust that has been on stage for all this time.
This weeks “Office of Readings” has a sterling commentary on the bad Shepherds. Not a pretty picture in the fifth century or the
twenty-first.
The whole crew should be denied a salary and their perks. Then we would see what they are really made of. It would not be a pretty picture.
His right-hand man was Cardinal Ratzinger, who continued the process when he was made Pope. They are/were all Modernists & made sure to appoint their supporters to positions of authority so they could carry on he Marxist/Masonic/Modernist ideology. Perfectly understandable!
Amen to that sir. They knew what they were doing. Or they were pretending to be blind.
Agree Deacon. Judge of character? How about ” the sexual scandal of Marcial Maciel
was related to allegations since the 1970s that the Mexican Roman
Catholic priest had sexually abused minors and fathered a total of six
children by three different women.[1] Maciel was the founding leader and general director of the Legion of Christ, based in Mexico, from 1941 to January 2005.” Wikipedia
You read my mind……
The only problem with your statement, however agreeable, is that it quotes its authority from wikipedia. Bad mistake on that one.
Why? It is an accurate statement. I was a member of Regnum Christi and very involved with the Legionaries of Christ and very shocked about this entire affair. Unfortunately, it was true.
Im not denying the truth value of what you have said. I am denying where it is cited from. Wikipedia is not an authortative source. Rather it is a questionable one.
Otherwise what you have said is true. I believe it
I actually agree. JPII wasnt a good judge of character. Quite frankly many are becoming saints and it is quite contestable who is what.
Generally, Auxiliary bishops are promoted by the bishop of the place. He had been banished to Cordoba for having caused lots of trouble as Provincial and was brought back by Cardinal Quarracini, his predecessor to be Auxiliary and he succeeded him. Before he was Pope, a Jesuit told me that there was a very negative atmosphere in the community when he was Provincial. thus his removal.
The Pope ‘cut his teeth’ on Marxism. Somehow, he thought he could incorporate and apply the Gospel with his Marxist philosophy. To tell you the truth, I’m not really sure he ever really held a true Catholic belief. Of course, he KNOWS what the Church has always taught, but I’m not convinced he ever totally bought into it.
To me these are the action of a person who does not believe.
It’s comforting, I suppose, that at least some of the “conservative/the Council has just been misinterpreted” crowd is finally admitting what we “reactionaries” have been saying for some time now. How many will publicly admit—however reluctantly—that something is seriously wrong within the Church of Modern Man remains to be seen, as so many owe their employment and livelihoods to perpetuating the status-quo-nothing-to-see-here mantra.
I have to keep reminding myself there was a time, not so long ago, when ordinary Catholics knew next to nothing of what took place in Rome, going about their daily lives confident that whoever was on the throne would understand that his role was to safeguard Tradition and serve as a bastion of orthodoxy and sound teaching. How naive that all sounds today.
>> … not so long ago … ordinary Catholics knew next to nothing of what took place in Rome, going about their daily lives confident that whoever was on the throne would understand that his role was to safeguard Tradition and serve as a bastion of orthodoxy and sound teaching.<<
Born in 1953, I was raised in a family like this. No one doubted, let alone looked beyond, the decisions of the parish priest and the sisters who taught in the parish school. No one I knew troubled themselves with the "why's" of our faith. I didn't begin to study theology until I returned to the Church after 25 years "away."
I know people like that active in the Church today. More numerous, though, are those who have decided for themselves how to answer the "why's," and they're quite satisfied with their own answers. Never you mind that the now-accepted and *finally* acceptable answers are *wrong* in light of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. Franciscan pastoricity has become "the way, the truth, and the life."
God help us.
I think that some people are in denial because they just cannot believe that a Pope could actually have the temerity to attack Church teaching in so open a fashion (and so violently). But now, it seems that some are beginning to get the message – welcome to Catholicism, Pope Francis style!
In my pettions to the Bishops: Be Brave before Pope Francis as Paul before Peter | Online Petitions, I wrote
Interesting petition. I think I will write an article for my website about this petition, and hopefully garner more signatures, God Willing. It seems rather sad that it hasn’t got the momentum it needs.
I personally would word it differently, but that’s just my opinion. As I said, I hope it gets more signatures. The bishops need to stand up for the Faith and for the Church.
God bless.
Thank you. Please do share with me [via contact on my blog] on how you would word it.
The Remnant website has the Urgent Appeal to Pope Francis on the top of the website. It’s been translated into a dozen languages besides English and is extensively linked:
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2198-the-year-of-mercy-begins
If you agree, then please sign it, post it on your website and share it with others.
Thank you, Margaret. Where would we be without the Remnant?! It is similar to the style of petition that I would have created (had I written one first!). By the way, do you know when it will be sent off? God bless.
Please see my reply to Mark Anthony. If you like it, please sign it and post it on your website. Thank you!
I had seen it. My petitions are to the Bishops vs. the Pope himself.
But now, despite certain notable holdouts who are literally setting what little credibility they have left on fire by their continued attempts to spin this… calling Jimmy Akin, LOL!
Agreed, I would not use ‘bizarre’ to describe it either. And it is good that Bob Royal is finely looking at things without a shade of Rose in the glass. However this statement:
“I say this in sorrow, but I’m afraid that the rest of this papacy is now going to be rent by bands of dissenters, charges of papal heresy, threats of – and perhaps outright –schism. Lord, have mercy.”
makes it sound like the bands of dissenters, and that those who call people who sound like heretics heretics are the problem and not the one sowing division from the highest office in the Church and actually sounding like a heretic on a regular basis. People will dissent from and call Pope Francis a heretic because of what he is doing and saying isn’t in line with the Faith or Tradition (with a capital T) of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Pope Francis is squarely to blame for all that is unfolding within Holy Mother Church.
*Edited to say*
What Mr. Royal actually said: “I say this in sorrow, but I’m afraid that the rest of this papacy is now going to be rent by bands of dissenters, charges of papal heresy, threats of – and perhaps outright –schism. Lord, have mercy.”
Contrasted with:
What Mr. Royal should have said: “I say this in sorrow, but I’m afraid that the for the rest of his papacy, Francis is going to continue to rend the faithful into dissenting bands, that will result in charges of papal heresy and threats of -and perhaps outright- schism. Lord, have mercy.”
See the difference? One shows that it is Pope Francis causing the trouble the other makes it look like everyone else is.
Yep. Caught that, too. Give it more events, though.
‘Lund’ is coming soon. On Halloween no less.
He wants to contort, but can no longer.
You make a very good point that I overlooked, but it is not in doubt who Royal sees responsible for painful days ahead. Nevertheless he does employ his penchant for prudence. While regrettable for his lack of punch, his meaning is clear. The context of the article establishes Francis’ as the cause. There is no doubt about that.
We are constrained to speak with respect. Surely the major object of the connivers who engineered the conclave was to elect a person who would undermine the authority of the papacy. To assault Francis full frontal with the truth would be to participate in his maneuver. It is imperative to render him to the degree possible the respect the office renders him. Not easy, to be sure.
Just give Mr. Royal some time. He just took the red pill. It takes a little adjustment.
If the enemy can communicate through a wink and a nod, so can we.
This is insane. He is the worse Pope in these times. Him and Obama. I can’t believe I came back to the church 8 years ago and see such a mess. God help us!
Thank God every single day for leading you back to the Church, especially in this time of Her holy need. Outside of the Church there is no salvation. Amen.
What you say is true Father about “outside the Church……..” but still we Catholics need to be more diligent in tracking back to make sure what the teachings of the unchangeable Church really are. Most people don’t have enough leisure to do this. Others don’t know where to go to find out. We are so dependent on God’s Grace to lead us to the pure and refreshing source.
Father are the holy doors still valid?
Yes, so long as you follow the general and specific norms to gain an indulgence.
The only precision I would add to your astute synopsis is that while “Pope Francis is squarely to blame for all that is unfolding within Holy Mother Church,” at least as a proximate cause, far greater blame falls on the college of cardinals who elected this man.
As @skojec has previously pointed out, and as I have commented in the past here at 1P5, remember they telegraph things way in advance:
It has come to pass.
*
Another trial balloon was “Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.”
*
Do think for a second that it stops only with the divorced + civilly remarried. Cf. With #AmorisLaetitia, Pope Francis Expands Kasper’s Proposal.
It never stops. The modernists have a never ending lists of “reforms.”
The more you give liberals the more their demands increase.
Paul 6. Is it even right to allow nuns to do that?
Like @disqus_xnU0ukSBgK:disqus said above, the innovators are always looking for openings. Of course once their specious arguments are swallowed, soon it is not only “special cases” as in the case of some certain people in irregular situations or nuns, the floodgates open to everyone else.
*
Btw there is no record or proof that Bl Paul VI gave that allowance.
As Ferrara says, “The exception becomes the rule and the rule becomes the exception”
Look at altar girls. Try to find a parish without altar girls.
Or communion in the hand. While I am not opposed to both [it doesn’t appear they oppose or depart from anything in the deposit of the faith], Pope’s Francis’ innovations and the innovations from the innovators that he has now allowed to be proposed and debated, oppose the very words of the LORD himself and of his Apostle to the Gentiles and the perennial teaching of the Church.
I wa speeaking with an Austrian priest in Rome last year between the synods and I asked him if he thought the Pope would actually do it. He replied:
“Of course – its what the Germans want.”
Being a little skeptical still at that stage, I asked him if the German church really held that much influence in Rome. His reply:
“You see St. John Lateran over there – lit up like a theme park? It’s electricity bill doesn’t even get posted to the Vatican – its sent directly to the diocese of Cologne. If the Germans don’t get what they want, the Vatican runs out of money.”
Well, Fr. M, (if you read 1P5) the Germans certainly got what they wanted with this so-called Pope and as the Germans want intercommunion with the Lutherans we can look forward to that being “delivered” next month.
Baloney. The pope could call for a worldwide Sunday collection and raise all the money he needs. The pope isn’t a heretic because he needs the money, he is a heretic because He Is A Heretic!
I do not dispute the fact that he is a material heretic – he may even be a pertinacious heretic after his non-response to the letter of the 45.. It just so happens that he is a heretic who is bought and paid for by the same heretics who engineered his election.
He has succeeded in incorporating the heresy of “Gradualism” into his Apostolic Exhortation and this will now set a precedent for other areas of morality and discipline to be similarly corrupted. It is no coincidence that he is starting his “reforms” with areas that are close to the hearts of the majority of the German bishops.
He has convinced himself that this is all about mercy without repentance.
Ha. Thats right. Thats what i have been arguing all along. And that cannot be. He is also trying to remove justice from mercy. The two cannot live without.
You have a point. The Germans may have been the Pope’s motivating factor, but he has always been inclined (I believe) to be of like mind.
Ahhh ummmm are you serious???
??? im embarrassed. This is disgraceful. Theres no escaping such a catastrophic ending
And where do the Germans get their money? From German taxes!! No wonder Francis and others spout the same line that Angela Merkel does on the subject of the Muslim invasion.
The German government really does need to ensure separation of church and State to bring this temptation about money, to disappear. The church tax sets up the German Bishops for corruption. From Reuters 2015 “Feb 19 The Roman Catholic archdiocese of Cologne in Germany has disclosed it is worth 3.35 billion euros ($3.82 billion), making it richer than the Vatican.”
They have issued a bizarre defense of sorts over at Catholic Culture.
Yep. More of the we don’t really want to confront this reality argumentation. Bye bye Catholic Culture…
It’s disappointing to me as well, Father, as sources like Catholic Culture, Catholic Answers, EWTN, and other “conservative” Catholic were instrumental in my reversion to the faith five years ago. I found them to be, for the most part, solid in doctrine, and for the longest time I bought the narrative of the mainstream Church that Vatican II was inherently a good thing, just abused by the progressives to cause all sorts of problems and dissension, but thanks to John Paul II and Benedict XVI, all that was in the past.
Since February 2015, however, as I have discovered the traditional Rite offered daily online thanks to the FSSP, and as I have broadened my study of the Church prior to 1970, I have sadly had to conclude that these media outlets and apostolates all operate from the principle that the Pope, whomever he may be, is a divine oracle from God at all times, and that any and all novelties introduced by a reigning pontiff have to either be accepted at face value, or one is required to perform a Herculean feat of mental gymnastics to square said novelties with Church tradition. They served their purpose for me, and they may yet serve a purpose for others who begin where I was five years ago, but this pontificate has revealed just how deep the cracks in their respective foundations actually are.
Robert Royal will be appearing on EWTN with Fr. Murray today (Sept 15). I think it will be an honest discussion.
I assume on Arroyo’s show (to be fair, I should have acknowledged above that Arroyo has been the exception to the rule regarding conservative Catholic blindness to reality).
If it is anything like the last time Royal and Fr. Murray were with Arroyo (June 23), in which both men expressed great concerns regarding the Pope’s “the majority of sacramental marriages are invalid” debacle, then it should be an honest discussion as you said. Hopefully, both men will realize there is no point in being coy or parsing their words at this stage and will be willing to deal with reality, painful though it may be.
I remember well watching the funeral of JP ll. At that time, as a young mother, I had felt so angry at the abuses of children within my Church.
In fact a priest that gave my daughter her First HOly Communion, was one of these such homosexual priests who preyed on young teenage boys. Somehow, by the grace of God, I did not abandon my faith, yet, I was but a shell.
But watching JP ll’s funeral, and seeing the thousands upon thousands gather in St. Peter’s Square, I knew, in an instant, that this was the True Church, for good moments and not so good moments in Church History. And that the HOly Spirit is truly watching and guiding Her.
But, so true….while he served a purpose for me in many spiritual ways, it is obvious that he and Pope Benedict were used by those who were determined to harm our Church, which has led this point in time.
Schism is a word that is used to hold good men hostage by.
If only there would be a great trust in the Holy Spirit, our holy cardinals and bishops would be so moved, as to collectively renounce this heresy by Francis. The Holy Spirit will protect our Church…..if only they would truly believe this to be so.
“Bizarre defense” is an understatement! Mirus is saying that the Pope can’t be expected to interpret his own document accurately because his private correspondences aren’t infallibly protected.
That’s like saying Leonard Bernstein wasn’t a good enough conductor to correctly interpret his own compositions in performance.
These people are virtuosos when it comes to making excuses for not calling the pope a heretic.
They should sell excuses. You have something you should do but don’t want to. You call them up and they give you a great excuse.
They would have done great in the past, kind of like selling indulgences.
Where is Torquemada when you need him? LOL.
So, according to Dr. Mirus, who interprets the Pope’s teaching? Is there a “Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Papal Letters” that we don’t know about? I think that Dr. Mirus should take Cardinal Ouellet’s advice and reread Amoria Laetitia slowly, especially Chapter Eight!!
I think Mirus ends up proving our point about AL when his defense is that the Pope can’t even interpret what it means – and he wrote it.
I haven’t read anyone discrediting you, Steve. What I’ve read is people looking to your decision on how to handle the Francis question and disagreeing with it.
All the reporting here has been great. And the business of whether or not Francis is Pope is just one more cog in that reporting wheel. Not something to overly worry about, but just another facet of what’s really out there.
All of those technical issues surrounding Francis and BXVI is pertinent because it becomes news once it’s exposed. Just like Hilary White’s summation of the proposed deal between the SSPX and Rome. It’s all speculation and discussion and having to corral it all into trusting in God’s overall plan while still reporting what’s out there. Legitimately out there.
Much like the reticence to rat hole about the non-binding nature of a pastoral council becoming pertinent once more when Vatican officials make public statements about novelties not being binding.
In the grand scheme of things, there are many a sound spiritual adviser who believes all internet blogging to be an utter waste of time. I’m personally glad to gain the perspective of other concerned and believing Catholics.
I appreciate Mr. Royal and am happy to have him join us however late. I recall when AL came out, Mr. Royal called it “elegant” and “beautiful”. Ouch. That crow must be pretty tough going down with those claws. Yet Mr. Royal is a Catholic voice that benefits us, he is a faithful Catholic. His words caused me consternation, as it was a time when I was amazed that a man of Catholic education and insight was not seeing what was perfectly clear to me, a layperson with no specific Catholic training at all. “You have revealed these things to the little ones” is true indeed. It is spiritual discernment, not education, that is to illuminate the soul and the mind in these times. Never more obviously true in my lifetime.
It will be heartening when we are joined, please God, by more and more faithful Catholics, most especially Bishops and Cardinals. I have tolerated for many months men hiding behind the “let’s not upset anybody” or “cause anyone to jump off the ledge” which means they are unwilling to take this hard topic on. Cowards and quislings! Yes-men and weaklings! There will always be people who fall apart, that cannot be a reason to avoid defending Christ and His Church and teaching. This pope is cunning, cunning like a serpent, and Mr. Royal is right, like a real Jesuit he knows very well how to walk that line, but he has left a blazing trail of insults, bad teaching, terrible example, anti-Catholic diatribes, and now, horrors, he is about to give the Holy Eucharist to any pagan who approaches the altar of God. Mortal sin, what is left of the concept after this? Marriage? It too will crumble, whatever is left of it.
No. We must speak out and wake up the others. It is late.
This past week, in an RCIA “inquiry” meeting, a few non-Catholics testified that what drew them to the Catholic Church is its unwillingness to bend to the whims of the times, its defense of the eternal truths of the faith, compared with the breakdown of discipline among the Protestant churches. The discussion almost instantly veered away from this point when others celebrated Pope Francis for his “more pastoral approach” (as opposed to those of his “hard-line predecessors”), and how wonderful it is that he is drawing so many people to Catholicism. It’s seems that it will be very difficult to counter this trend.
That’s a very worrying scenario and it is exactly what I would have expected to be happening. PF is indeed going to attract some unlikely people to investigate the Catholic faith but they could be attracted by the new ‘tolerance’ and a new ‘compromise’ mentality. Truly this crisis affects every apostolate in every Parish and cuts swathes through parishes. “Don’t think I have come to bring peace to the world but division”.
That quotation of Jesus (Matthew 10:34) was actually cited by another of the RCIA candidates. It may be helpful to spend some time meditating on this passage during the reign of Pope Francis.
R. Royal: “I’m afraid that the rest of this papacy is now going to be rent by bands of dissenters, charges of papal heresy, threats of – and perhaps outright –schism.”
I compare this situation of “dissent, heresy, schism”, to nausea; perhaps from food poisoning.
You feel really, really sick. You know it’s going to get ugly really soon. You dread the moment. You can almost plot the seconds until you meet the dreaded bucket or porcelain receptacle. You dread it, yet you know that on the other side of it is relief. You know your body really needs to do this thing. Something is poison inside and it needs to not be there any more.
The event is “sorrowful”, yes. But on the other side is sweet relief from sickness and suffering. And a return to health and inner peace.
Rev 3:16
I want to know what part of Catholic doctrine has changed in Francis’ mind? Is he saying that being in an adulterous relationship is no longer a mortal sin? Or is he saying that mortal sin is no longer an impediment to communion?
Try: diregarding the LORD’s own words and teaching on divorce and his Apostle Paul’s words and teaching on the worthy reception of the Eucharist.
He seems to be saying there are venially sinful adulterous relationships.
While the legion of the discrete (of whom Robert Royal stands tall) have been a disappointment to me over the last three plus years, at the same time I hold them in respect. They remind this somewhat impulsive Irish-American to reason things through and not comment impulsively.
“The Catholic Thing” has ceased to permit comments on its daily offerings as of this past Monday. I emailed them regarding my disappointment about that decision, and speculated that the new policy was related to some pressure being brought to bear – the comments are often well articulated, but as often quite understandably critical of the current “situation.”
This morning I read Mr. Royal’s excellent essay. That a sober and sharp mind such as his has finally consented to write it as it is, painful as it is, took courage and prayer. God reward him. I applaud him. Critiques such as his do have impact. Let us pray that the consequences for him are abundantly favorable. Let us pray that his display of courage encourages other outlets to bring this insanity to task.
And thank you, Mr. Skojec, for being at the head of the pack. You commentary is proving invaluable.
My research indicates that 30-plus anti-popes were identified and removed from the papacy in first 1500 years of church history and not a single anti-pope has been identified as such and removed in the last 500 years. Have all forms of corruption been completely removed from papal election process during the last 500 years?
Written By:
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
Related Topics
Roman Catholicism
Benedict (XIII)
Roman Curia
Christianity
religion
papal infallibility
papacy
pope
ministry
John (XXIII)
Antipope, in
the Roman Catholic church, one who opposes the legitimately elected
bishop of Rome, endeavours to secure the papal throne, and to some
degree succeeds materially in the attempt. This abstract definition is
necessarily broad and does not reckon with the complexity of individual
cases. The elections of several antipopes are greatly obscured by
incomplete or biased records, and at times even their contemporaries
could not decide who was the true pope.
It is impossible, therefore, to establish an absolutely definitive list
of antipopes, but it is generally conceded that there were at least 37
from 217 to 1439. Felix V (1439–49) was the last. Historically,
antipopes have arisen as a result of a variety of causes; the following
are some examples:
Tentative list of antipopes Hippolytus (217/218–235) Novatian (251) Felix (II) (355–365) Ursinus (366–367) Eulalius (418–419) Laurentius (498, 501–c. 505/507) Dioscorus (530) Theodore (687) Paschal (687) Constantine (II) (767–768) Philip (768) John (844) Anastasius (855) Christopher (903–904) Boniface VII (974, 984–985) John XVI (or XVII) (997–998) Gregory (VI) (1012) Benedict X (1058–59) Honorius (II) (1061–64) Clement (III) (1080–1100) Theodoric (1100–01) Albert (or Aleric) (1101) Sylvester (IV) (1105–11) Gregory (VIII) (1118–21) Celestine (II) (1124) Anacletus (II) (1130–38) Victor (IV) (1138) Victor (IV) (1159–64) Paschal (III) (1164–68) Calixtus (III) (1168–78) Innocent (III) (1179–80) Nicholas (V) (1328–30) Clement (VII) (1378–94) Benedict (XIII) (1394–1417) Alexander (V) (1409–10) John (XXIII) (1410–15) Clement (VIII) (1423–29) Felix (V) (1439–49)
“The elections of several antipopes are greatly obscured by
incomplete or biased records, and at times even their contemporaries
could not decide who was the true pope.”
And yet, somehow, the Church survived and thrived.
Nice bit of perspective and context. Helpful.
Lol…how does Francis draw the line at these second marriage people. What if a man is cheating on his wife with an old school sweetheart but wants to receive Communion now because his mistress is more understanding than his cold wife. He needs unity with her…and that comes from the horizontal tango. Heaven forbid he gets castrated in a car accident….then the understanding one will leave him because he can’t produce unity. Sounds like to receive, under unmerciful Francis, he is bound to file for divorce…not seek an annullment…and tell his priest the new sex must be done to keep the new understanding spouse with him…in unity of course. What if a robber wants to keep robbing to put bread on the table or a lying car salesman wants to keep lying while receiving Communion because the money keeps the family together? What if a mafia hitman wants to receive Communion without giving up his job in the family because unity of the family is now paramount. Evil and bizarre….and ludicrous.
How can one evangelize others into this mess? I feel so sorry for converts. I always placed a heavy premium on the clearly infallible only…like canon 749~3 does. That saves my butt in these times where the LG25 person needs a stiff shot of 151.
He has already covered all the situations in Amoris Laetitia. In it is not only the divorced + civilly remarried, but also those in “irregular situations” that are addressed.
But the erroneous pivot point applies outside of sexual arrangements….the waiving of the firm purpose of amendment because Eucharist is medicine for the weak. No….it’s in part medicine for those who are weak but strong enough to make a firm purpose of amendment. With Francis, it’s medicine for those so weak that they cannot amend at all….but that happens outside of sex as with drunkards etc.
I believe 1P5 had a post here that showed how the catechism of the past was clear and straightforward and formed believers and would be believers in the faith vs. the current Religious Ed. In that effective catechism, it taught that sick people [those in venial sins] could eat and I would say that the eating gives them strength, but those dead [in mortal sin] cannot eat [unless first restored back to life in confession].
*
The enemy knew what he had to do to get us to where we are now.
An open revolt by Bishops would be healthy. Instead, there will be many covert revolts until this Pope and his fellow traveler Popes ( God forbid ) are dead and replaced by the common sense school…Eucharist requires firm purpose of amendment….simple.
As i was listening to EWTN today, during one of their 2 minute news update segments, the announcer noted that PF is now going to allow D / ReM to receive Communion. No emotion. Just a plain statement of fact. Unbelievable!
Indeed, Francis’s “pastoral approach” could do away with all the commandments, as it would seem sufficient to declare that one is in some dire situation and be in a state of grace in one’s own eyes. This is situation ethics, condemned by Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office in the 1950s.
Steve, I know you and your family are going through transitions and there is a very big cross in your life right now…..but PLEASE don’t stop writing and researching and informing us about the affairs of our Church that we should ALL be aware of. Thank you for your courage and your perseverance. May Our Lord bless you and your family abundantly…… considering this is the Feast of the Exultation of the Cross…….He already has!
It is amazing how many lies have to be promoted before only a few wake up. No wonder that the schism is inevitable and fire will fall from the sky wiping out a great part of humanity, where the living will envy the dead — Akita. Coming soon to an earth near you, i.e. by the 100th anniversary of the Fatima miracle.
I have been watching Robert Royal on EWTN’s The World Over for the last 6 months or so. I would respectfully disagree that he has just now taken the red pill, as he himself says “So now we know. We knew before, really, but didn’t have explicit confirmation.”
He most likely just staking out a more reserved position in the vain hope that maybe his intuition was wrong.
I wrote this on another forum but I post it here in the hope that someone can provide me further answers, help, please!
As a Protestant revert to Catholicism I find all of this quite troubling.
I left Protestantism because of its epistemological incoherence and I was quite confident that I had found the one true Church founded by Jesus. One of my major hurdles in returning to the Church was the Papacy.
Sorry if this is derailing the thread, but when Christ says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, what do others take it to mean?
In that passage after becoming Catholic and hearing/reading Catholic commentators I took it to mean that the Pope would not be allowed to teach error, and more specifically in the form of an ex cathedra statement. Is this how others understand it or is my understanding a bit too limited?
Are we to understand “not prevail” as not ‘ultimately prevail’, but that the gates of hell may, in fact, swirl all around us and even move in and amongst the Church possibly to the point that it looks as though they may prevail but never actually finally prevail?
Sorry, but this whole saga has been a cause of great concern for me, though I will admit I am naturally prone to doubt.
The Church will prevail in the end. But, none of us know when “the end” will be. If you read closely the history of the RCC, there were several periods when it surely looked like the Church would not prevail, either as a religious institution or a political/social institution. Think of the 1527 Sack of the Vatican and its desecration. A few years later King Henry rebelled against the Vatican. Going back a thousand years prior, heresy was destroying the Church from within (Gnosticism, Montanism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Pelagianism, etc..). Additionally, Islam spread throughout the Christian Levant, Judea, Egypt, North Africa, and Spain during the 6th and 7th Centuries. Muslim footholds were also established in Southern France, Sicily, and Sardinia. Between dissension from within and military attacks from without, it appeared that the Church would soon perish. The Fall of the Western Empire in the 5th Century was a disaster for Christians, as civic society dissolved into civic anarchy. Villages were sacked and looted, woman raped, murders abound, churches were destroyed and desecrated. It surely looked like the end of the world.
For those who lived through those times, things looked very, very bleak. But, from a 1200 year perspective we lose sight of this.
King Henry VIII, not King George.
corrected
If you read JPII’s Universi Dominici Gregis (in English), you will see that he forbids the collusion of Cardinals in campaigning for votes for a candidate for the papacy. The St. Gallen mafia openly admitted that this was done, twice, the second time successfully. Paragraph 76 of UDG states that “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constituyion (UDG), or should the conditions laid down not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without need for a declaration on the matter; consequently it confers no right on the one elected. In other words, the election of Bergoglio was null and void, he was never validly pope, and none of the things he does, says, or writes have any authority over the Church.
This is not a quibble about some trivial detail of his “election” to the papacy. It was a major concern of JPII. If this blatant violation of the norms for papal elections can be ignored, then what is worth paying attention to?
Look it up for yourself. “Francis” election was null and void, but the damage he can do because people are unaware of UDG are all too real. I had read it years ago, but had forgotten about paragraph 76.
That’s just a terrible reading of UDG. That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.
#76 PRECEDES the proscription against canvassing. The latter is found within a section that begins:
Then we get to your point:
You will note that this follows the commentary on Simony — which is of course just as bad as collusion — which EXPLICITLY states that JPII has removed the nullifying penalty of simony such that “the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged”.
After that statement, nowhere in the following paragraphs is nullity of an election even implied due to the “matters to be avoided”, including #s 81 & 82.
You’ve just read into UDG what you’ve wanted to read. The document doesn’t say it. You’re not looking at it from a legal basis, which is going to take into account the specifics of how the document is structured and where the penalties are laid out – and aren’t.
Thank you. I see your point.
Sorry, didn’t mean to hit you over the head with it, but reaching the conclusion that the election was invalid is pretty serious, and it needs a serious basis. We have to be careful.
Would you be willing to do a brief post on why paragraph 76 of UDG doesn’t apply? It might save others from going down the same rabbit hole. I am not experienced in analyzing such things, and so did not understand the implications of the structure of it.
Thank you for the enormous amount of work you are doing for all of us.
I so understand where you are with this, Carolus. I’m on my parish’s RCIA team. Trying to reconcile Franciscan “pastoricity” with orthodox teaching (read: “discipline”) is just not possible, at least in my mind. If it’s any consolation, I am greatly troubled by this myself and wonder if a point might come where I have to keep silent or give up my instructional role.
Carolus,
I agree. I, too, am troubled. I think it means “ultimately prevail”. The gates of hell are sure raging and I expect them to rage even harder as time goes on. This is what I do: I pray for Francis and I respect the “office” of the Pope. I don’t believe “respect” includes embracing heresy, blasphemy or papal views contrary to 2000 years of official Catholic doctrine.
Some have suggested that Francis may not be the legitimate pope — i.e., there were substantial errors in how Pope Benedict stepped down and Pope Benedict is still the true and valid pope. I am certainly not a canon lawyer and I recognize that these views are there. Also, I am mindful of prophesies by Our Lady of Fatima and by St Francis of Assisi.
We may be watching prophesy unfold before our very eyes. And we may well be living in the end times. The Church is still the Church. We know who wins in the end.
Susan
Pope Francis is doing nothing more than implementing the Protestantization mission of Vatican II to serve the ecumenical purpose of achieving a One World Religion. The game plan is to assert that all religions–including the Catholic Church–are in pursuit of the Christ inherent in everyone and to make this world and Man himself the primary focus of attention.
It is painful for me – and, I’m sure, for many others as well – to read, “(S)o many people have sought with such fervor to discredit me….” Your blog is excellent. Your writing is excellent. Shame on those who seek to discredit you.
Was just made aware Robert Royal will be on “The World Over” tonight. Could be of interest.
As Zippy has pointed out, the Catholic Church is just repeating its pastoral praxis first arrived at in response to Usury
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2016/09/13/sex-and-the-single-banker/#comments
but we Americans are blind to Usury but we are like Ravens with the shiny salaciousness of the sexual sins.
Now, usury is also a sin crying to heaven for vengeance (like willful murder/ abortion, sodomy, and depriving a worker of his wages) but we are jake with Usury; in fact, one well known priest blogger succors The Acton Institute, a Calvinist supported outfit dedicated to teaching Manchester Liberalism to the clergy in Rome (its ONE overseas outpost).
There are two camps.
Those Catholics who are wise to the Fatima cover-up and where Russia was never consecrated.
Those Catholics in denial to the Fatima cover-up, and think World Consecrations are satisfactory enough.
It is the latter group who will fall for any hoax and still have the blinders on.
The one’s who’ve long been aware of the Vatican’s disobedience since 1960 are not so easily fooled. We’ve been staring at the code of the Matrix for a long time. This is that same feeling of Deja Vu neo experiences over again. They’ve changed something, while pretending things are just the same. But in reality the Agents are coming, and the rebel trads will need to conform back into the system or be eliminated.
David Warren, a regular contributing writer to The Catholic Thing has, as has Robert Royal, clearly written about the devastation that PF has wrought.
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/2016/09/15/buenos-aires-directive/
Well,Vox Cantoris has reported that the Bishops of the province of Alberta in Canada have responded. Good for them;
http://voxcantor.blogspot.ca/2016/09/catholic-bishops-of-alberta-in-canada.html
Hope remains in these good and faithful bishops. Thank you for providing this.
I am not sure about Pope Francis’ aims, but I have plenty of firsthand experience of how Modernist clergy operate. I can only speak from my experience, but what I have seen is that Modernists create confusing situations in order to smoke out and isolate all opposition. I had an
experience once with a very popular liberal priest. He was crafty and careful. There was only one church in town and the closest parishes outside of town were an hour away. There was no traditional option to be found within 150 miles. Typical desert before Summorum. Thus, the priest had a captive audience that included both conservatives, liberals, and a few – very few – who had begun to discover tradition but literally had no options if they wanted to meet their
Sunday obligation. The priest had to keep the conservatives (and their money) at the parish. He did this by playing a little game. His sermons were mostly liberal blather, but he was careful not to preach outright heresy that might alienate the conservatives. But he attacked — by neither
permitting nor encouraging — all traditional forms of prayer in the church: no rosary, no Eucharistic adoration, no traditional liturgical music or art, no cult of saints. The few intellectually
minded quickly saw that he was a Modernist and confirmed this in various private conversations with him. But most of the people loved him because he was so friendly and a dynamic speaker. If a traditionalist complained publicly, they were quickly identified and ostracized both by the priest and by his many supporters. His goal was to isolate all traditional-minded Catholics and make them pariahs. He was successful. When controversial topics came up – and they did – anyone who espoused the traditional line or teaching was identified. Then, the priest made sure this person, if active in the parish, began to be excluded from various events, committees,
parish councils, etc. Most of the conservatives had seen this happen before. Since there
were no convenient options for another parish, they did not want to fall on his bad side. So, generally the parish was a Modernist sewer. But, it took the occasional traditionalist to point this out. The conservatives remained silent.
I had the misfortune of living in this town for several years. I was rather poor at the time. I was lucky if my car made it 10 miles much less the 50 miles it took to get to the next decent (but not traditional) parish. Hence, I stuck it out. Initially not knowing the game, I spoke out. I was quickly isolated and became a pariah. My biggest wake-up call was that the so-called conservatives treated me no better than the liberals. Fearing their own isolation, they willingly left me isolated. When I engaged conservatives on the concept of tradition, the traditional liturgy, a traditional Catholic life – when I tried to share with them all of the great stuff I was discovering at the time – they called me a schismatic and a troublemaker. They were content watching EWTN at night and staying quiet.
It took me quite some time to process all of this. To quote Hillary White, it was when I “tradded.” I realized that the novus ordo conservatives were not much better than the liberals. Both
financially supported, facilitated, and enabled the same destructive order. True, the individual culpability probably differed tremendously between the conservatives and the Modernists,
but they served the same disorder. Now, after the passage of time, I have more sympathy with the dilemma of many of those I encountered. They faced a tough circumstance as well. But the fact remained that they supported the status quo. (And, yes, some did go to the bishop for help; that turned out to be a disaster.)
The confusion and disorder coming from the top today seems very much like what I experienced previously. Those who speak out will be identified and isolated from polite/popular Catholic society and media. Robert Royal took a big risk in his piece. Let’s see how much longer he will appear on Catholic media outlets.
You know. Through every comment i read, there is always an invocation of prayer. I completely and utterly agree. But it doesnt stop there. Looking through the histories of papal reigns, when the people didnt like the pope or something was completely wrong with him, they would rally and kick him off the throne. Why arent catholics rallying?!! Why arent we raising our voices and telling francis the unacceptability of his stances!!??
Why arent we taking it a step further or are we waiting until it all falls down?
This crap, this utter crap, has infected society, the youth, the parishes and academia!!!
I am a dual degree student in my 3rd year studying theology and philosophy. Every one of my theology classess have been centered on vatican II and if not, has been otherwise focused on stupid francis.. how much more do students like myself have to suffer with this? Enough is enough.
Im calling it out, loud and quite clear. Where they call me schismatic or heretic. I do not care for truth is truth and it is something not to be covered. Eventually the cover gets thrown off.
After this long rant of mine. I bid you all adieu. And God help everyone to open their mouths prudently before, really, before, it becomes way too late. And this will then hang over all our own heads for that.
Those older than you have children and bills galore and are often exhausted. They also know that even organizing a march in their town would do zilch to Francis who sees such things as proof that he is Isaiah. You can only protest to a Pope who suspects that he might be wrong. It is the Bishops who should openly revolt. The priests who must cooperate with this immoral order must not cooperate and this will be the major temptation of their lives. Christ may be asking them to give up their very vocation and home base and friends. Pray for these priests daily. Francis said such insane things as the 5th commandment forbids the death penalty
( the same Biblical book has God giving multiple death penalties in the first Person). He had children recite ” immigrants are not a danger” after hundreds of German women were molested by them. His is the most chaotic intellect I’ve ever encountered in a Pope and I didn’t like his predecessors. Droves of intelligent converts will be disheartened now from all authority. I’m cradle. I never trusted the non infallible realm in a knee jerk manner having had a father who thought himself infallible 24/7….pretty much like Francis.
Your totally right about francis. 100%%. On the other hand, you missed my point entirely. We need to take action besides only asking for prayer. We need to take the initiative.
You know. Through every comment i read, there is always an invocation of prayer. I completely and utterly agree. But it doesnt stop there. Looking through the histories of papal reigns, when the people didnt like the pope or something was completely wrong with him, they would rally and kick him off the throne. Why arent catholics rallying?!! Why arent we raising our voices and telling francis the unacceptability of his stances!!??
Why arent we taking it a step further or are we waiting until it all falls down?
This crap, this utter crap, has infected society, the youth, the parishes and academia!!!
I am a dual degree student in my 3rd year studying theology and philosophy. Every one of my theology classess have been centered on vatican II and if not, has been otherwise focused on stupid francis.. how much more do students like myself have to suffer with this? Enough is enough.
Im calling it out, loud and quite clear. Where they call me schismatic or heretic. I do not care for truth is truth and it is something not to be covered. Eventually the cover gets thrown off.
After this long rant of mine. I bid you all adieu. And God help everyone to open their mouths prudently before, really, before, it becomes way too late. And this will then hang over all our own heads for that.
This is a website full of Pharisees, ignorant of Catholic teaching. A teaching that has always had a method for divorced and remarried to re-enter full communion with The Church. That our Holy Father Pope Francis is applauding these methods and bringing it attention is derided here, reminds me of a line from Jesus; “is it lawful to heal on The Sabbath?” According to most commenters here, the answer is: “No!!”
Most of you who claim to be Catholic, need to get to confession. I was looking forward to commenting on Royal’s own website, but coincidentally, he shut off comments on his page concurrently with his pharisaical article. Shame on Mr. Royal.
God Bless our Holy Father, Pope Francis.
It’s good that the asylum has wifi. Here’s another line from Jesus to the woman caught in adultery….” then neither do I condemn thee…go and sin no more.”….and to the Samaritan woman at the well…”
For thou hast had five husbands: and he whom thou now hast, is not thy husband. This thou hast said truly. “
Vince,
What exactly is that method you describe to allow divorced and remarried to re-enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church? I’ve heard of annulments, abstaining from communion and for the couple to live as brother and sister. Is there more?
Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? Apparently Christ thought it was. Additionally, Christ seemed to think that healing and forgiveness must be accompanied by repentance and conversion: you know, something like “Your sins are forgiven you; go and sin no more.”
Yes, confession is always a good thing. It is a beautiful and healing sacrament. I went about ten days ago. So Vince, tell us, when was the last time you went to confession? Do you truly think you are able to judge the state of another man’s soul? Really?
Finally, what if anything, would it take for you to question and doubt the words and/or the actions of our current pontiff? Is there anything Francis could do or say that you would find unacceptable and/or contrary to Catholic teaching and faith? Anything at all?
Well, of course, I’d sound just like many here, if he said or did anything that was contrary to Catholic teaching and faith.
As a general observation, and from personal experience, someone who approaches a priest, and eventually a marriage tribunal is exhibiting signs, outwardly at least, of repentance. It’s usually best to presume innocence.
I wonder if many people here would talk about their earthly fathers in the way they speak about our Holy Father on this blog. I disagree with a ton of stuff my dad says, but I defend him anyway. He’s my dad. (And he’s usually correct eventually anyway)
So Francis ( to give a crystal clear brief example) is correct saying the fifth commandment forbids the death penalty even though the same Pentateuch has God giving all men a death penalty for murder in Gen.9:5-6….and has God giving over 30 death penalties to the Jews only for personal sin. The man’s intellect is sorely chaotic.
Vince,
So in your view, Francis has not done anything that is contrary to Catholic teaching and faith? If that is your stance, then my conclusion is either (1) you do not know what the Catholic Church teaches and believes OR (2) you are choosing to put your head in the sand like an ostrich.
I would invite you to visit https://en.denzingerbergoglio.com The site is well documented and well researched. In comparison to sacred scripture, past popes, ecumenical councils, saints and doctors of the church, which of the 154 items does Francis speak truthfully and accurately about?
As for fathers: There are thousands upon thousands of children whose fathers abuse them — verbally, emotionally, physically and sexually. Should these children defend their “loving dad”? Does adding “respectable pillar of the community” or “holy father” lessen the consequences of abuse?
You equate Pope Francis, the Vicar of Christ, with an abusive father. Wow. This is what I mean. I’ll pray for you.
I get a picture of a loving father, speaking to his 8 year old. I wanna be more childlike.
I won’t visit your site, if it’s anything like this place. I’d rather stick my head in the sand and pray. And I have work to do. I have to get busy. The harvest is massive. I’ll go join the other 99.9999% of Catholics who don’t hang out on Internet blogs scandalizing 2 year olds, and blaspheming The Holy Father of The Roman Catholic Church.
G’day and God Bless!!
An insult followed by a prayer….who could have guessed that was coming…
Not that you will read this, but the denzingerbergoglio site is not “my site” — it is a collection of clergy who have grave reservations about what is coming from Francis. They are answering the doubts and questions and concerns of their own parishioners and are attempting damage control.
Yes, there is scandal. But the scandal isn’t coming from the laity or from sites like 1Peter5; the scandal is coming from the highest levels of the Catholic Church. Sites such as these are sounding the alarm. To speak truth in a time of universal deceit is now considered blasphemy? Not!
Abused: yes, I feel battered about by double speak and half-truths, by Orwellian rewrites of what is actually said by Francis, by disinformation and misinformation. And it is being done in a passive-aggressive way, by undermining and by deceit. He is waging war against God himself.
By the way, Christ himself had a very stern rebuke for Peter (i.e., the first pope) when Peter tried to dissuade Christ from completing his passion: “Get behind me Satan!” If Jesus were here today, in the flesh, what would he say to the Church and to Francis?
Bahahahhaha yep. Just another ignorant blind individual. Dont point the finger to this website. It is the best thing that has happened to catholics. If i was you. Point the finger to francis who, provided all the evidence, is the biggest pharisee of all.
Pleasse save your crap for someone else who wants to listen. No one here does.
I don’t point fingers. And I also don’t busy myself in the business Of others. St.Paul would agree. NONE of us are worthy, NONE of us. Not even the Pope. And we admit it, at least verbally, every time we approach the table at Mass. Any time you go pointing fingers or drawing lines in the sand, Jesus is usually on the other side of that line. It’s the hotheaded, bloviating, opinionated, judging theological “experts” commenting on Internet blogs that cause the most scandal, not our Holy Father.
Maybe instead of spending our time (wasting it?) worrying about the worthiness of another, like a divRem person, or Joe Biden, or the Pope, we should worry most about our own more. Especially before receiving the Eucharist.
Get Busy.
Interesting.
Since when did drawing the line entail Jesus being on the opposite? It is our duty to draw the line BECAUSE things are right and wrong.
You are pointing the finger.
You contradict yourself by saying that your not then turn around and start pointing the finger at how to do what and blah blah blah. Let me provide you some evidence.
A moment ago you said that you do not meddle in other peoples business. And then contradict yourself by precisely doing it because your doing it now. Especially on the point of theologians and there misinterpretation of Francis.
Theologians are the reason for discussion. Mind you they are called to write and instruct the laity on teachings of the doctrinal faith.
Now your pointing the finger here, precisely what you said your not doing, at theologians who really are not to blame for Stupid Francis. Last time i checked, which wasnt long ago, theologians COMMENTATE on information they have received. The media is the one reporting here. Not theologians. So this leads us to the actual problem.
Francis. If he kept his big mouth shut and knew the faith properly there wouldnt have to be any commentary would there? If he wasnt such a stuff up then that wouldnt be necessary? If EVERYTHING Francis said was clear, concise and consistent then there wouldnt be a need for commentary?
So. Who really is the one pointing fingers here? I daresay yourself. If anyone should observe themself it should and must be you.
We are called to test and judge characters. Francis is not an exclusive.
How about i leave you with this.
Go and find out about your own worthliness, even though as you said this to me has no relevance to the argument you propose, and find TRUE humility so that you will find truth in its utmost form.
Get busy!!
Oh on another point. You dont like this website. Get off it. Your argumentation is no good and a waste of time. Why waste your time on something you dont like and is not good for you?
Quite complaining on here and move along.
“A teaching that has always had a method for divorced and remarried to re-enter full communion with The Church.”
You mean repentance, confession, absolution with a firm purpose of amendment?
Remember, the Pharisees were the ones in favor divorce and remarriage; they pointed out Moses let them, but Our Lord told them from the beginning this wasn’t so. The Pharisees were masters of looking for loopholes to get out of observing God’s commandments.
This is the first thing coming from Robert Royal that has made any sense in a very long time.