Allow me to be lowbrow for a moment. Because let’s be honest, I’m a child of American pop-culture, and no matter how much I reach for erudition, I grew up in the 80s.
So yes, I think of things in terms of Star Wars.
We’ve been having a lot of discussion lately over whether or not Francis is the real pope. As I said to you the other day, on a practical level, this is immaterial. Yes, it’d be better to know than not to know, but the fact of the matter should have little bearing on our daily lives as Catholics. We are still called to strive for virtue. We are still called to stay in a state of grace. We must still receive the sacraments and educate ourselves and our children in the things of God and evangelize and all the rest of it. None of that changes.
The biggest reason we struggle with the idea of Francis being the real pope is because we hate the idea. We look for outs. We want desperately to believe that it’s all just a bad dream that we can wake up from and things will go back to normal.
In reality, it’s a lot more like this:
As we all know, Luke’s rejection of Darth Vader didn’t mean a hill of beans. He was his father. It was part of the tragedy of the story, which is what made the redemptive moment in the Original Trilogy’s denouement so satisfying.
It is, to my mind, as unlikely that Francis will repent of the evils that he is doing to the Church and come over from the dark side as it was for Vader. And yet, he is alive, so there is still hope. It is to this end that I pray the following prayer daily:
Almighty and Everlasting God, have mercy on Thy servant Francis, our Supreme Pontiff, and direct him, according to Thy loving kindness, in the way of eternal salvation, that with Thy help he may ever desire that which is pleasing to Thee and accomplish it with all his strength. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Whether or not he corresponds to the graces of those praying for him (and what must it be like to have millions of people praying for you??) is up to him.
But the argument that he is not the pope is most likely nothing more than denial. Yes, I’ve flirted with the thought. But it never felt true, if that makes sense. Truth has a certain ring to it, and this doesn’t. It’s more like wishful thinking. People can find all kinds of technical defects in the conclave, in the Latin grammar of Benedict’s abdication, or can try to extrapolate from Bellarmine and Suarez that Francis has removed himself from office, etc. There are real errors and inconsistencies that have been raised. None of which have prompted any serious question on the part of a significant portion of the Church’s hierarchy over which claimant to the papal throne is authentic. In fact, there is only one claimant. Benedict has conceded the point time and again. He appears perfectly happy with his decision, and he praises Francis every chance he gets. Do these look like images of a man in captivity? A man unhappy with his decision, or his successor?
It’s like every time they see each other, all they want to do is hug it out. These men are not enemies. They are friends.
The Church has been riddled with antipopes over the years, and the 9th to 11th centuries in particular made an absolute mess of the papacy, what with all the corruption, collusion, evil, and fighting that went on over the papacy. But never was there a question over who was the real pope when there were not at least two people laying claim to being the real pope.
I understand that we all have had (and some are having) our Luke Skywalker moments, preferring to throw ourselves into the abyss rather than confront the reality of our spiritual patrimony. But there comes a time when the following advice from Bob Newhart becomes essential:
We need to focus on how we get through this, folks. We need to figure out how we can best teach our kids the Faith under these circumstances. We need to try to gather up as many of the people who are dazed and confused by what they see going on and keep them IN the Church, not running screaming from it.
If we trust Christ, if we trust in His promises to the Church, we needn’t tie ourselves in knots trying to figure out, “BUT HOW CAN THEY APPLY IN THIS INSTANCE WITH THIS GOING ON???”
Just…trust Him. He’s got this. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: we are being tested in no less severe a fashion than were the apostles when Our Lord was asleep in the boat during that storm. Think about it – these weren’t a bunch of gussied-up hipsters wearing skinny jeans and drinking Soy Mochaccino Lattes (no foam!) while Snapchatting about their skinny jeans. These were rugged men of a harsh time – sailors, most of them, who made their living on the seas. They knew the difference between a sprinkle and a tempest. If they were scared, that boat must have been in serious danger. They thought they were going to die because in ANY ordinary circumstances, they would have.
And there’s Jesus. Just, you know, catching some Zs.
So then they wake him up with all the passive aggression that they can muster: “Master, doth it not concern thee that we perish?” It’s a hilarious line if you think about it. It reads like, “Uh, Jesus? We’re just about to get killed here. NBD. If you’re done getting your beauty rest, you think maybe, uh, you know, you might want to do something? Or we could just get back to dying a horrible death. It’s fine. No worries. We’ll see you at the bottom.”
So Jesus gets up, and in my mind, he’s giving them a dirty look, but not saying anything. Just mad dogging them on the way to the prow. And then he rebukes the storm. He doesn’t calmly tell it to go back to sleep, or massage its self-esteem. He rebukes the weather for acting up. And then he turns around and gives the apostles (again, I’m assuming) the same look I give my boys when they start having an imaginary brawl with each other in the wine aisle of the grocery store, fists flying near bottles I can’t even afford to buy on Christmas.
And he lays into them: “Why are you fearful? have you not faith yet?” (Mark 4:37-40)
And you’d better believe that in the midst of this tempest we’re getting our butts handed to us by, He’s asking us the same exact thing.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I submit to you that we need to get our heads on right, and fast. Despite my very serious desire to be more of an optimist than my upbringing and DNA seem willing to allow, something is coming. We cannot — CANNOT — afford to get all caught up in the petty stuff. In the details that won’t change anything in our lives but certainly do make us angry and upset and in constant inner turmoil. God entrusted the Church to very specific people, and it’s His job (with them as His instruments) to sort out personnel issues. Nothing we can do. We are not outside consultants who get to come in and determine who gets laid off.
I’m a big fan of analogies (as you’ve likely guessed by now.) I’ve often referred to Francis as “Pope Smelling Salts,” because he’s waking people up from their unconsciousness. But it occurred to me this morning that he’s actually more of an emetic.
Emetics are deeply unpleasant. They cause you to vomit rather forcefully. The point, of course, is not to inflict suffering on you; rather, it is to force your body to expel the toxins that have been ingested.
The Mystical Body of Christ has been poisoned. Francis, in his attempt to deepen the crisis, is actually beginning to serve as its unwitting remedy. (So if he makes you want to throw up, take heart. It’s a good thing!) He is forcing all this festering nonsense to the surface, in much the same way Vatican II did. The modern era of the Church didn’t begin in the 1960s. That’s when it came to a head first. And soon — sooner than many of us may expect — it’s going to run itself out.
Either that, or God will excise it by force.
You see, we’ve reached a point in time where we can’t find any solution to the crisis. We’re all scratching our heads and wringing our hands and praying our rosaries and making our sacrifices and saying, “How Long, O Lord?” He wants us to ask that question. He wants us to see that we can’t solve it. We may even have to endure yet another conclave where someone like Francis gets elected (cough*Tagle*cough). We have to feel it in our bones that there is no way out except through Him.
And when it comes, however it comes, the solution will leave us no doubt about its provenance. It will be from heaven. And all this confusing and nitpicking and legalistic trying to find a loophole that somehow makes this situation less horrifyingly bad than it actually is (again, Luke Skywalker) will all seem silly.
When Christ endured His passion, he drank the cup of suffering to the dregs. He is asking us to share in that. He is asking us to give over all our worry and anger and concern to Him, to shelter ourselves within His wounds, and to trust.
I don’t want to waste any more time on theories we can’t prove. God will sort it out. Let’s move beyond this to what really matters. We have a lot worth fighting for.
Can you do that? Do you love Him? Do you trust Him enough to know that He has a plan, and that if you seek His will, you will be provided for?
For your sake, I really hope the answer is yes.
Steve Skojec is the Founding Publisher of OnePeterFive.com. He received his BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville in 2001. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Crisis Magazine, EWTN, Huffington Post Live, The Fox News Channel, Foreign Policy, and the BBC. Steve and his wife Jamie have eight children. You can find more of his writing at his Substack, The Skojec File.
Thank you Steve – excellent post..
There is a sermon over at romans1017 entitled “Christ is the point”. It is helpful in this situation. I have listened to it a few times these last few years.
As a amateur historian, it seems that whenever there was an antipope (and there were plenty, not just the Avignon antipopes most people are familiar with) there were cardinals and bishops who backed them. I don’t know off hand of any that are backing Pope Emeritus Benedict as being the legitimate Pope. They all say that Pope Francis is the Pope.
On a side note Steve I grew up in the 80s as well. I appreciate your occasional Optimus Prime reference.
I still watch Transformers with the kids sometimes…
Can’t help but feel BXVI fits the Optimus Prime character.
I am doing a survey study on the popes and was shocked to learn of how many anti-popes and “bad” popes there actually were. What’s even more shocking is the fact that Christ’s Church has been able to survive all of these damaging rulers. God is truly in charge!
Bishop Fulton Sheen said almost the same thing when he was living. If I find the source, I’ll post it.
Let me second that recommendation.
An excellent sermon from a sound priest, full of good advice.
Great post, Steve!
There is already fruit to see from your trials! The images of Christ in the storm is right on!
Excellent and hits just the right balance needed at this point. Thanks.
Brian: Were you on one of trips that I was on to Medjugorje many moons ago?
No, we just talked via Internet. I sent you a PM at Facebook, we can chat there.
Nice idea – but Frank has pushed people way too far… To ignore him is to say the vicar of christ is meaningless, and people are ignoring him and walking away. Those of us shouting are the ones trying to find a way. You cannot have it either way – the pope is irrelevant, or frank needs ot be deposed… First adulterous couples, will you be so still when the same logic allows sodomite couples ot communion? This is a dangerous and demonic path he treads – To not follow him is to ignore some of the most basic tenets of the faith – he must be fought and the next pope must purge the clergy…
When did I say he could be ignored? You mistake my purpose here. I’ve covered his nonsense arguably more than anyone has, and for longer. You’d be hard pressed to find someone shouting louder than me. He is absolutely decimating the faithful.
He is not irrelevant in that sense. But whether or not he is an antipope is – on a pragmatic level. (Obviously, this is something the Church will have to deal with.) He could be an antipope right now. Let’s just say he is for the sake of argument. OK, so then what? The whole Church thinks he’s the real pope, so they listen to him anyway. He keeps doing what he’s doing, keeps leading people astray, keeps making statements and calling synods and writing exhortations.
Every Catholic media outlet worth a damn could be calling him an antipope (which will never happen unless he’s declared one by the Church) and it would still have to be proven and made official before the majority of Catholics would believe it.
That said, knowing that the Church has to deal with this in her own way, the people who are out there right now arguing that he’s not the pope gain what, exactly? Do they think their pronouncements are changing the juridical reality? Are they gaining credibility with people who don’t agree that it’s obvious that this is the case but are nonetheless concerned?
What good is being done by pursuing this line of inquiry?
What matters, Colin, is fighting the evil that the man does, far more than trying to get him fired. He will be condemned by the Church in the future. Of that I am certain. The specifics, though, really don’t have much bearing on what we need to do right now.
“…That said, knowing that the Church has to deal with this in her own way, the people who are out there right now arguing that he’s not the pope gain what, exactly?”
They are, perhaps, gaining the strength to understand that we must even more fully place our trust in God, Steve. Some folks get put off by such discussions. Others don’t.
Just because others find it germane to discuss the particulars of whether Francis is or is not the Pope doesn’t mean they do not understand, and quite well, that our duty is to carry on no matter what. Practicing the Faith, teaching our children, correcting where necessary, etc.
Everyone has their own way of dealing with a crisis. And this is a doozie. So it may put some off to the point of just wanting to dismiss all future discussion of the matter, but that is not true of others. Different strokes.
The problem is, this discussion almost always leads to so-called moral certitude. It leads to proclamations and vehement disagreements. It leads to people who are far less certain becoming far more confused. And at the end of the day what does it accomplish?
…that “can” happen, Steve. No doubt. But speculation is going to be out there and better to have it happen in a place wherein the rational “we need to double down on knowing and practicing our Faith” is the counter measure.
Kind of like acclimating our children to the outside world in slow, measured doses. To shelter too much or to preclude discussion, even legitimate discussion, is often to encourage that discussion in places where it should not be. Places where there is no rational counterbalance.
It’s a waste of time. I’m not telling people they can’t do it. I already explained this earlier today in my post about comment moderation.
What I’m saying is that it’s an exercise in futility, and not where our efforts will serve the best purpose. And since I have to read through all the comments here, I’m encouraging people not to do it. It misses the point.
It’s a waste of time as you see it, Steve. Again, if you want to banish these discussions from your living room, fine. You are the master of your domain. No question.
But again, to pretend that those who discuss these things are merely seeking an “out” that you feel is impossible because “I AM your father, Luke” is to make the kind of pronouncement and assertion of moral certitude that you seem to be wanting to avoid.
As for encouraging others to follow you in your prudential decision, that is all well and good, too. But again, to feign that those who do not choose to go your way are guilty of not trusting God is to judge and use a very high hand to press your opinion, not the truth.
That, Steve, is seeking an out. “There are legitimate technical and unprecedented circumstances surrounding Francis’s being Pope, Luke!” “No! It can’t be true. It can’t be true.” (Well, sorry, but it is true. That’s the odd and disturbing bit.)
And while we may want to reach out with our feelings, our feelings are too often that which mislead us, Steve. The truth is in the details. And yes, we trust in God, and that is why we know that no matter what the truth is surrounding Francis, the truth is that God is the Head of His Church, even when the Vicar misbehaves.
Even when Synods on the Family, or Amoris Letitia is floated about in our times. Nothing new there. Just a bolder manifestation of that which was experimented with – and quite successfully – at Vatican II.
But again, it’s your parlor.
Agree with you. RCC is in big crisis, a matter of life and death. In this last time moderation means compromise, lukewarm? There is no such thing as half truth, either black or white. Something not clear is no truth! Hiding, covering up and disguising are all lies. We always need light. God is Truth!
The Truth always outs, Dankin. Prayer and patience.
“YOU GET NOTHING. GOOD DAY SIR.” – Willy Wonka
It accomplishes…nothing. This nothingness also encompasses “I told you so” bragging rights. It’s vapid, and in the end, just kind of stupid. There is no way — for laymen — to know if he is the real pope or not with moral certitude.
Therefore, there is no choice whatsoever other than to acknowledge him rightfully and fully as the Holy Father, and then pray the prayer Steve mentions above, with love, tears, and consternation (while bitting a leather belt). Anything else only increases confusion.
How will we know, for sure, he was a heretic or bad pope or anti-pope? When the next (or next next) pope says so. “I, Pope Athanasius Pius, therefore fully rescind AL, LS, reestablish the TLM in all parishes, declare all NO masses to be said AO, banish altar girls, communion in the hand [insert a dozen more “day one” corrections] and forthwith remove from office as of this moment any Cardinal or Bishop that voted for AM. Have a nice day. Oh, and look for a new, de-ecumenicalized, and unmuddled CCC in the next 6 months. Please sign the Oath Against Modernism on your way out”.
The devil loves when we are tempted to prove our discerning prowess and try solve a rubic’s cube in the dark. He just laughs. “Idiot”. But some blogger are perpetually like “Hold my beer, I got this”. No. You don’t.
Those given to hubris fall for the temptation to put on the prophet hat so easily and cocksuredly. It’s almost like a gambling addiction, with some of the bloggers out there. They can not know, and they can not discern — with 100% surety. Discernment isn’t magic. Is he a bad pope? We can discern, based on solid and simple catechesis, yes! But “do not go beyond what is written”. There can be no moral certitude until it arrives by authority.
We can be pretty sure, we can feel deeply, but we can’t know fully. It is hidden.
It is the mystery of iniquity, no? Hagan Lio!
That said, if Francis is Vader, he *could* be redeemed. But that also opens up the way for Pope Jar Jar Binks (Tagle).
Retracted for rudeness. Sorry.
PGMGN and Steve both touch on something we need to acknowlege- due to temperament, upbringing and other factors, we will never all agree on how to react to this situation.
And we need to not take this personally, as a number of people have already done here in the comments.
Unless there is obvious evidence to the contrary, we need to exercise the virtue of benevolence towards each other and trust that we have each made a prayerful decision re: our actions.
A disinclination to discuss the awfulness 24/7 may not mean a head in the sand- it just might mean that you want to use your limited time and energy in other ways.
At the same time, an active and ongoing discussion doesn’t mean that they aren’t spending an equal amount of time in prayer.
So, Steve and PGMGN are both right.
“… I’ve covered his nonsense arguably more than anyone has, and for longer.”
Really? There are others who have been at this post longer than you, Steve.
Oh? Like who? Because with the exception of some very early reporting from Rotate, I’m not aware of much coverage before I began in 2013.
The Remnant, Louis Verrechio, and others have been covering Francis for quite some time. Angelqueen, though not moderated as you do here, also covers the news of what’s said etc.
But Francis is absolutely not the beginning of crisis within the Church, but rather the flowering of that which has been left to fester under the auspices of pretending that which was novel is now somehow binding. Amoris Letitia is nothing new. Just another floated balloon.
And whereas you may believe yourself to be the premier news source for all things Francis, all things Francis is only part of the problem.
Think Harry Potter. Saying Voldemort and attempting to tamp down the mention of he who shall not be named will in absolutely no way eliminate the reality of Voldemort’s being present. (The reason folks don’t want to talk about it is because they don’t want to accept that the evil is present.) And whereas the Muggles might be horrified at the notion and just want to wake up from the dream, those who fought his evil before and are preparing to do so again know enough to understand that education is critical.
Similarly, while discussion of this or that with regard to Francis may nauseate, debilitate, and/or send untold numbers into a tizzy, the reality is it must be discussed and teased through somewhere. If you want to banish it from your living room, so be it. But your decision about what works for you, Steve, is not what works for others.
“…The biggest reason we struggle with the idea of Francis being the real pope is because we hate the idea. We look for outs. We want desperately to believe that it’s all just a bad dream that we can wake up from and things will go back to normal.”
Maybe, you, Steve, hate the idea. Other’s don’t. Others take it as a sign of the times. We are not looking for outs, but rather looking at things for what they are. Not “loving” the reality, but not “hating” it either. Just dealing with it.
The idea that solid Catholics are merely desperately wanting to believe that “its all a bad dream” is untrue. Again, that’s why, while you may be what you consider the go-to-guy for “Francis”, others have been covering the seed, sprout and roots of this ongoing festering for decades. That’s why there’s no truth in saying that everyone just wishes they could wake up from the night mare.
It’s possible that the out being sought is not having to look at things for what they are because the situation is disgusting.
Peace to you.
What are you arguing for, then? Sedevacantism?
I’m putting forward the case for open discussion of realities as they present themselves. No hyper focus, but not the opposite either.
Am I advocating Sedevecantism? No. The Sedevecantist position is beside the point. That’s rather jumping to conclusions, in my view, where we are still living in the midst of the problem. Like a protracted algebra tangle that, much as we may like to be finished with it, is not finished.
Similarly, when it is stated, “…But the argument that he (Francis) is not the pope is most likely nothing more than denial. Yes, I’ve flirted with the thought. But it never felt true, if that makes sense. Truth has a certain ring to it, and this doesn’t. It’s more like wishful thinking.”
“Most likely” is a guess, a hypothesis that assumes much of what cannot be known. And the additional impetus of implying that those who do not want to leave off discussing the particulars surrounding the issue (details and technical aspects) don’t trust that God has a plan is an unwarranted charge.
Will life go on if you don’t get the proper answer? Yes. But if one has opted to go on with other tasks, it is not fair to imply that others aren’t hopping on the bandwagon of trusting God in just because they don’t get the same vibe as you or are not choosing to handle the situation the way you are. To imply that others don’t love God if they don’t “up and go with your feeling” is similarly not grounded in reality.
What is that but moral certitudes and proclamations being used to stave off…. moral certitudes and proclamations?
“Most likely” is me hedging my bets on something I’m pretty certain is true. But we live in a world full of the unthinkable, and I don’t like to close the door to anything that *could* still be proven true.
As for the rest, I stand by the assertion that spending too much time worried about this amounts to a failure of trust. Whatever the truth is, we will eventually know it, but until we can ascertain it, these are precious moments we can’t get back.
Standing by and “worrying”, yes, that is a waste. But to discuss legitimately, especially when/if new details emerge is not worrying. It is facing that which “is”. It’s also reporting the news. That which, despite the hedging of bets, reveals itself in the fullness of time.
There were many who dismissed the reality that Vatican II documents proposed novelties. They vociferously shouted down all those deemed as naysayers as being unfaithful, unCatholic, and disobedient. Many just didn’t want to go down that particular rat hole.
But the truth outed, no? That’s not a triumphalist cry, but rather just what is. And as the seemingly ridiculous reveals itself in greater clarity every day, it is a great service, Steve, to discuss these matters rationally so that when more nonsense comes down the pike it can be handled with maturity and clear thinking, not fear.
So I stand by what I said. Discussing realities is not equal to fear. And discussing realities, even in what you may believe is something that should be relegated to seeking a simple “out”, is no proof of a lack of trust. Rather it is trusting God, very much so.
Did not St. Thomas Aquinas say that heretics should be executed because they do such great harm to souls?
..and Bellarmine said that a heretical Pope deposes himself but needs to be declared so by competent authority in the Church. We still have competent authority in the Church and they need to do their work. It seems some of them are already working. This may or may not have anything to do with Star Wars. I was nearly thirty when the film was made.
For me it was just a kid’s movie and it never affected my thinking about Catholic theology, but I have noticed that some people look for too many answers in fiction and too few in solid Catholic Theology books or writings of the Saints. Fiction can also provide disguises and hiding places for one’s
denial and confuse one about real situations, often more so than providing light and understanding.
The scripture quote of Jesus’s words come to mind in the situation which is developing within his Church, “Call no-one on earth your Father”.
What you call him a modernist, heretic, communist, mason or much more than all this combination?
I am gradually more and more convinced of the conclusion that he is not a valid pope, but I am not absolutely sure. However, this article contains a lot of argument based on emotion whilst simultaneously accusing those who have concluded he is an antipope of doing so just to assuage their emotions.
Exactly why does believing he is an antipope equal not having faith that Christ will preserve the Church?
Good post. This isn’t Star Wars or a dramatic play, much as we may draw comfort from parallels.
That said, trust in God is primary, whether Francis is really or is not really the Pope. Trusting in God is to trust that even if we are afflicted with an anti-pope – and we very well may be – that in the end, it’s all okay if we put our trust in Him.
As for it being wishful thinking that Francis is not the Pope, that has nothing to do with it.
Roman governor Pilate said that “What is truth?” and didn’t even care asking more, the subject was dying. Business as usual. Let Jesus does the fighting, his Church any way!
The Church has to pass through her passion, Dankin. And being thrown under the proverbial bus by those who should support the truth is the way of the Cross.
And Jesus does do the fighting. By way of His grace and our compliance with it. But it’s getting mighty cloudy out and far more difficult to find the seemingly sure path. But that too is a sign of His nearness.
Also, why would believing he’s an anti-pope represent the emotionally easy way out? I don’t believe he’s an anti-pope; it’s certainly a possibility, but frankly, I think reaching that conclusion would be far more emotionally disturbing than simply affirming the status quo – however unpleasant it may be.
The point isn’t whether he is or isn’t the legitimant Pope. The point is that it doesn’t really matter. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t… either way, we can’t know. So don’t focus on that. Focus on the fact that, whether he is or isn’t, most people out there think he IS the Pope. And so, unless you have some very solid evidence that definitively says he isn’t (if you do, please share!) that point doesn’t matter! It may help you alleviate the pain in your soul to come to that conclusion (true or not) and if so, great. But when you’re talking to anyone else, when talking to your family, your friends, a fellow parishioner, you need to remember… they believe he’s the Pope. So now you need to figure out how to transmit the truth in spite of this apparent papal claimant to those who need it. That’s the point.
Thank you Lord God for the tremendous gift of the pontificate of the Most Supreme Holy Father, Francis. My heart cannot cease to rejoice!
Don’t you have a writing gig to get fired from somewhere?
Chastisement is often the best of gifts, John. So God’s showing us His wrath by way of afflicting us with current leadership is a blessing.
My heart cannot cease to rejoice because Catholics are increasingly being called to learn the actual Catholic Faith instead of relying upon being told by those who have another agenda outside the official job!
You are welcome, my overly happy child.
My heart cannot cease to rejoice, either.
Below are some exclamation points you can use for your future work in my church.
Rejoice again, always. Again I say, rejoice.
Thanks, Steve, for reminding us of the storm on the lake.
Is there a Canon Lawyer around who can tell the Church whether the Cardinals and Bishops can remove the Pope from Office and then talk about whether he was a valid Pope afterwards, because I get the feeling that’s the only kind of behaviour Pope Francis respects. His Holiness clearly wants a proper fight. It’s been ‘all too easy’ (to quote Darth) for him so far.
Unfortunately, it’s arguably not a matter for canon law, which doesn’t foresee having to deal with such a circumstance. We’re kind of in uncharted territory.
I can’t shake the feeling that either history is about to be made or the Lord of History Himself is going to draw it to a close. But we know not the day or the hour. I guess the Church has been musing upon that for quite some time.
But then again, I can’t shake the feeling that Pope Francis is prepping us for something bigger and more deadly than himself. On that subject, would His Holiness recognise the Antichrist if he met him, or call upon his help to ‘heal divisions in humanity’? I’m sure there’s a blogpost in there somewhere!
Agreed on all counts.
The Antichrist isn’t coming yet.
First of all, 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…) MUST be revealed to the world.
Then the Holy Father will get the graces he needs to order and make in union with all the bishops of the world the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Tben comes the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart.
AFTER that, then comes the Antichrist, who will be battled by Enoch and Elijah.
THEN comes the Judgement Day.
You simply don’t have the numbers on your side anyway. In my city of 5 million there MAYBE 1500 people assisting at a traditional mass center and that is split between diocesan, 3 sedevacantist, and 1 SSPX.
It’s never about the numbers. God prefers small numbers so that His glory shines through and no one is able to deny that it was done through God alone.
Because you’ve done a detailed, statistical analysis of your metropolitan area to document the numbers you’re tossing around, right? Or are you just guessing based on anecdotal evidence?
I know all of the chapels and the rough number of people they hold. And, in the past, I’ve attended the diocesan, 2 of the sedevacantist, and the 1 SSPX. There is a 3rd sedevacantist chapel that I have not attended but it is a small Church.
So what’s your point? That Truth is based on numbers?
We’re going to have a smaller Church; no one is denying that. But at least we’ll have a Church of faithful, devoted Catholics, rather than ones who couldn’t care less and don’t take the time to learn the Faith.
Compare the average TLM chapel to an average NO diocesan parish, and I guarantee you will find far more fervent, devoted Catholics in the TLM chapel.
The point is that there aren’t the numbers to get rid of the Pope some people dislike so much. A popular movement to remove the pope would have to be, well, popular.
….and that’s the rub. The Church is not something to be handled by way of a popularity contest. What you describe is nothing short of what is warned of in Romans wherein those with itching ears will seek those who will tell them only what they want to hear.
And yet, Our Lord began the Church with 12 everyday guys and a band of those who believed. History, despite what we may believe because we live in it, does repeat itself.
No doubt. I have a lot of respect for old time sedevacantists like my mother-in-law. She believes the last Pope was Pius XII and goes about her life as if he was still alive. She prays the rosary, observes the Friday fast and adheres to the teachings of the Church. She could literally care less what goes on with Pope Francis or the Vatican.
I suspect she feels less stress than the rest of us, any rate.
Truth is not based on numbers, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves about how big the numbers really are (however much they might be growing, mainly through procreation).
What’s more disappointing than the limited numbers of laity involved is the even more limited numbers of bishops. The example of St John Fisher might seem like a useful precedent, but a) that was a case of the Church within one single polity rather than whole globe, and b) the Church *did* end up being essentially wiped out in England, with a very modest recovery (now crumbling again) after the re-establishment of the hierarchy in 1850. Not encouraging.
…what is encouraging is that scripture foretells of times wherein we will have blind guides. What is encouraging is that we have been warned by Our Lord when He implied that there will be very few with actual Faith left upon His return.
We should also be encouraged by the reality that Christ suffered and died on the cross at the behest of those who should have welcomed Him. Even His own disciples ran and hid with the exception of St. John.
The Church is following Her Spouse. Being put out from that which should be her own, the “Truth” nailed to a cross in an attempt to kill it and silence it for good so those in the positions of “authority” can continue on their merry way.
No worries. Just reality of the situation.
Time for all of us to get over that fear of pain and suffering and just ride it like a woman absolutely has to when giving birth. Some will opt for the epidural of “He IS the Pope!” others will opt for the breathing method of “He’s not really the Pope.” It’s a choice.
But we’re all in labor here. And it isn’t going to be over until its over.
And brer people of god
To sacrifice just seems odd.
Brer mother of ten cried,
“I assist tried and trued.”
Brer people of god cried,
Take a lude.”
Brer priest said,
“Ms. Brer come on smile
Serve with me
The True Faith, let pass,
Make a mess – harmony!”
With these words
Brer mother got sick
And threw up
So brer priest urged her, “Go
If you can’t drink our cup.”
“So you’re urgin’ I go?”
And her head she did scratch,
“Jus’ please don’t throw me
In no Pius
The Tenth Patch!!”
But brer priest
Flung brer mother
Out the door shut the latch
And forced her to land
In a Pius the Tenth Patch.
So sacrilegious celebration
Is given the nod
By brer bishops
And brer people of god
But high on a hill
Brer mother of ten
Is singin’ and kickin’
“I was born and raised
In a Pius the Tenth Patch
Known as Catholic Church
And there still ain’t
After some posts of ‘what are we gonna do?’ it appears God has made use of Pope Francis to cause the real @skojec to emerge. Thanks be to God and thank you @skojec!
PS All very wonderful except for the description of Jesus’ look as a ‘dirty look’.
PPS And your 1P5 apostolate has an impact and is noticed. It is mentioned here: Pope’s leaked letter suggests support for Communion for the remarried | Catholic Herald
After that Bob Newhart clip, I’m in too good a mood to address the meat of the post. Showed it to my 13 year-old son, who happened to mention today his interest in a screen writing career. Newhart was even better than Mitchell and Webb’s “Evil Vicar.”
Thank you, Steve, this post greatly consoles me. You have struck gold with the truth. There is only one claimant to the papacy at this time. Francis’ papacy is a remedy for what is sick in the Church. Jesus is in full control but is asleep on the boat. These last two ideas help me immensely to be more optimistic. I am going to try to pray your prayer for Pope Francis daily. The Bob Newhart video was one of the funniest things I’ve seen, I haven’t laughed so hard in a long time.
“When Christ endured His passion, he drank the cup of suffering to the dregs. He is asking us to share in that. He is asking us to give over all our worry and anger and concern to Him, to shelter ourselves within His wounds, and to trust.”
Beautifully said, and He has “never left us orphans”. Yes, I assist at the Society of St. Pius X Masses and we, the laity, work with these Priests to keep on preserving the Whole Faith, Seminaries, Monasteries, Convents, Retreat Houses, Schools, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, DAILY, so when they try to wipe you out Our Lord has shelter for those of “good will”. Only one Bishop, St. John Fisher, was left when they tried to wipe out the Faith in England and I truly believe that is why Archbishop Lefebvre was sent…for you, the “many”.
“Look up O man!”
To all my friends
I cannot see
I’ll pray for you
On bended knee
On Christmas morn
At stable’s side
Where Christ the King
Once did abide.
Amidst the stench
Of creatures low
Yet star above
Sent down its glow.
Light, bold thing,
A beacon for
The hidden King.
And when bad men
Snuff earthly light
Stars are born
To light the night.
That’s why He put the stars
Up in the sky
Where men can’t touch.
For candled flames
Men can bring low,
Won’t lose their glow.
So at each stable
Be not forlorn
If Prelates say
“He was not born!”
Look up O man
The sky is flooded…
With Sanctuary light
Beautiful, Long-Skirts. Thank you.
Words fail me. I am thankful, they haven’t failed you.
Thanks be to God. You nailed it.
Steve, I just love you! Haha! You use all the right explanations and analogies, very similar to my own. I’m a child of the 80’s and 90’s so perhaps that’s why. Thank you for this. I believe it is much needed right now, as the Catholic world is convulsing. I hope and pray that it’s helpful to so many out there whose faith is suffering. God bless you, Steve!
P.S. Just waiting for pay-day to send a bit of help for the bills!
What has always bothered me about the abdication and election were the questionable circumstances surrounding the abdication, the quick election of someone who rapidly departed from Tradition and also the vague, persistent feeling of unexplained anger, foreboding and fear in the face of it all.
Later, so many said, “don’t worry about it. This belongs to the Church. It doesn’t affect you. Just pray at home, go to Mass and let the hierarchy take care of it. Calm down. Don’t get emotional. Be at peace.”
Well, I did all that. And now we have what we have. Beach balls on the Holy Altar, homosexual blessings, acceptance of divorce and Holy Eucharist for manifest sinners; something they said could never be done. The train has long ago left the tracks; is accelerating down hill, parts flying off, and still they say, be calm! Don’t be emotional! Keep your wits! Pray! It will all take care of itself in due time. Not your problem.
I remember writing of these things to you 3.5 years ago, Steve. The feeling of anger, impending doom, as if I was seeing evil itself on the Loggia, when I first saw the face of that man. Never heard one word about him. Never felt that way before or since in my entire life.
And all those fears and forebodings have all proved to be true.
Steve, I disagree with your advice here. Something quite strange and wrong happened when Pope Benedict “abdicated” a portion of his Office, retained his Title and this innovator was quickly put in his place; source of increasing heretical innovation confusion and division since the beginning.
To understand all the evil that has descended on our Church, that “day” must be fully explained. You can’t really explain the pervasive immensity of the problem if you don’t start at the foundational root. The Seat of Peter is the cornerstone. Through His Vicar, Christ speaks to His people. We must be clear as crystal about that first. We must NOT ignore irregularities in that Holy Office.
I for one am not satisfied with the answers and the sin reaching Parish life; reaching me personally and my family, which gives me the right and duty to speak out.
Your theory sounds an awful like this one. Ever hear of it? Deja vu?
“The Siri “Thesis” (FACT) holds that actually Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was elected Pope, after the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, but the newly-elected Pope (Gregory XVII, formerly Cardinal Siri) was *put under grave duress, threatened- prevented from taking the Papal Chair (i.e. publically proclaiming His Pontificate) and replaced by Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII). There is evidence that in 1958, during the Conclave, the enemies of the Church were threatening “Siri” with mass destruction if he took the Chair of Peter (i.e. as stated “Cardinal Siri” after being canonically elected, accepted the papacy and chose the name Gregory XVII – the 5th column enemies within the Conclave walls themselves, then used ferocious and vicious, real threats against Pope Gregory XVII, if he publically were to announce he was the True Pope.) Pursuant to this thesis, all of the apparent ‘popes’ after Pope Pius XII were/are imposters (Anti-popes), as “Siri” was the true Pope.
*”Resignation is invalid by law if it was made out of grave fear unjustly inflicted, fraud, substantial error, or simony” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 185).
I don’t have a theory.
I am interested in an explanation for why we have two men sharing the title of Pope living within the Vatican walls, both claiming each side of the one Papal “Munus”, (Contemplative / Active). They are both quite clear that the Papal Office is “expanded” and “permanently transformed”. They acknowledge the import of Benedict’s words. For some reason, we don’t.
If Pope Benedict truly resigned, he would never have said or done any of these things. Pope Francis would be Pope in FULL, (with an active contemplative connection to God), and Pope Benedict would live in the Bavarian Alps as Fr. Ratzinger. That is how a proper resignations is appropriately manifested.
I will no longer avoid that FACT. Everyone else seems to be. I can’t. Christ’s Vicar is the cornerstone upon which the whole earthly Church edifice is built. Strange, unheard of, perhaps fatal irregularities have re-shaped this Office through which Christ speaks to His people. And no one seems to really care.
I would simply like someone to explain how it is acceptable to have two Popes sharing the Papal burden, without reverting to the claim that what I can clearly see and hear is true, is actually not true.
It is. “By their fruits you shall know them.”
P.S. As to the rest, I’ve not heard that before. That was before I was born and long before I became a Catholic.
Undoubtedly, that can never be proven, one way or the other. I have often wondered, however, at the revolutionary social upheaval starting at a very specific point in time on a global scale. I believe the Church is the heart of the World, and if She is sick, then there are consequences to the World. Something has obviously gone seriously wrong.
Whatever happened in those days, it is clear it was the beginning of revolutionary change never before seen in Holy Mother Church. And here we are now, talking of the desecration of Holy Eucharist, and a bifurcated Papacy!
Their actions, whatever they were, are hidden from us now and for all time. But God sees it all to their deepest inner core, whether good or bad. He sees; knows; will not be mocked; loves justice and Truth. May God bring justice out of injustice; and holiness from sin. Heal Your Church! Heal me.
I don’t think their actions are ‘hidden for all time’.
Pick up a copy of Maurice Pinay’s (that’s a pseudonym for a group of prelates) “The Plot Against the Church”.
Thanks. I will look into it.
Most of us have been raised in times that do not understand hierarchy by parents who trained us with no love for it. I believe by this many of us are missing that interior reference point which would have given us a rightly ordered Catholic understanding of respect for the office of the pope that we really need right now. We rebel against being under authority. Particularly if we don’t care for the one giving it. But this authority does not come just from ‘some man’, it comes from Our Lord, Jesus Christ!
To destroy the hierarchy is just as surely to destroy the Church. This is why the SPPX haven’t just said ‘see ya later’.
Now, if we have not been raised to love hierarchy, to respect authority, let us train our children in it.
And if you want to raise good Catholic children, don’t disrespect the pope in front of them ever! Train them to love the office of the pope. When they get to their teens and realise that their own mum and dad are poor sinners you can start to explain to them that popes also are sinners, and explain the things that have led us to where we now are. But never, never teach them to disrespect the pope!
As Always, Steve,…WELL SAID.!1!! I was born in 1961….the Bob Newhart clip…PRICELESS!!
Thanks for a good laugh on a serious subject…..You know…..I think Our Lord smiled too!!!
I just watched the Empire Strikes Back so this is great
Pope Francis is a pure Vatican II priest. I once called him the first cafeteria catholic pope. He is a product of the era that he grew up in as a priest. He is no different than the pope before him who was just as progressive in his young days as a priest. And probably the one before him, also. They created this situation we are in now. And it’s going to stay this way until a holy man comes along and has the courage and guts to clean it up. I think he will have to be a man like St. Nicholas. And I say that because some heads are going to have to be smacked. In the mean time, we must stay in the boat. If you jump overboard, you’ll drown. No matter how much the boat is rocked and thrown about, it will not sink. No matter how sick we are because of the action of the boat, we stay on board. We tough it out. There is an anchor on this boat. It is the Crucifix. Let’s all just grab hold of the foot of the cross. We will survive there. Thanks, Steve.
1. Tempest in a teacup. We’ve had “bad popes” before. Francis is clearly and undeniably one of those popes. Deal with it. Got Church History? I just don’t see the story here. For real Catholics anyway.
2. Is my faith shaken in the least? Nope. One pope doth not a Faith make. My goodness.
3. I just don’t get it. Why does this create such a problem for people? Hello, one of the twelve Apostles personally selected by the Lord Jesus Himself turned out to be…a thief and a traitor. I just don’t see how this is news. Except maybe for the weak who need cajoling and comforting.
4. Man up, people. Pope Francis is a “bad pope”, however you want to define that. We’ve had them before. Grow a pair and deal with it. When Judas betrayed Christ, did St. John quiver like some weak uninstructed woman and question whether Jesus was “the Anointed One”? Nope. He – smartly – stayed by Christ – and by Our Lady – all the way to the Cross. Got good example?
5. Also: “Ite ad Ioseph”. Go to Joseph. A real Catholic and a real man. And he will comfort you as he no doubt comforted Our Lady when they had to flee to Egypt to avoid the malice of Herod.
6. It’s the Cross, people. How is this news? You’re Christians, for Heaven’s sake [literally]. Christ suffered; so you will suffer too. Is the disciple greater than his master? Didn’t Jesus even explicitly ask as much? “Unless you take up your cross daily and follow me…”?
7. Boo hoo. “Pope Francis is speaking heresy and makes me feel bad”. And?? Judas betrayed Christ to His very death on the Cross. Stuff happens. Deal with it. But…”Let not your heart be troubled. In the world you will have affliction. But, take courage, I have overcome the world”.
8. Now, who said that?
9. Move along. Nothing to see here. It’s the Cross. Who knew that Christians would be asked to carry the Cross, right?
The Church, the Bride and Body of the Christ is also to follow her head and LORD. She too must undergo and suffer her passion just as her LORD did. And who is it that it seems will hand her over? The chief priests and the scribes.
Yes indeed. In fact the chief priest was the chief apostate who made sure the Savior was killed. Francis follows perfectly in his footsteps on the doctrinal level.
The most irritating meme in Catholic blogdom today is the admonition to “grow a pair”, frequently accompanied by a helpful visual aid of juicy cherries or perhaps bright, shiny steel marbles. Thanks for that visual. It’s not an argument. It’s an insult.
What matters, what really matters, is that Sodom and Gomorrah have been brought into the Holy Tabernacle of God, unrepented mortal sin in union with Holy God, under the direction of the Pope. The Council of Trent declared this heresy on its face. Men and women of God, including the Shepherds, should find that utterly outrageous and demand an end to that, and accountability from those who led the People of God to this place.
If you are serious about “manning up”, then insist on that; up to and including your Bishop and the Pope himself.
I love Bob Newhart. He has always made me laugh. He’s Catholic.
Pope Francis is the full blossoming of Vatican II. And it is not a Rose. It is Modernism–the worship of Man and it destroying the Catholic Church. I have been spending time learning what Vatican II was actually all about in order to confront and and, with God’s help, try to fight it. Suggested reading: ‘Iota Unum’ by Romano Amerio. A Study of the Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century.
Indeed, as you say, “something is coming”. Lund will probably be the precursor. The entire Hierarchy as well as our two ‘Popes’ will have to be exposed for what & whom they stand for. Do they stand with Christ (their silence would indicate No) or do they stand with the NWO (Satan)? There are no grey areas here. Christ demands we take our stand in readiness for His intervention as no-one has demonstrated that they have the knowledge, ability, willingness or even depth of concern to handle this grave situation brought about by the adherents of the Marxist/Masonic/Modernist heretical ideology. Time is getting very short indeed.
Benedict’s words yesterday are stunning.
I think the fallout will come at the end of the Year of Mercy (as bad as the celebration at Lund will be). One day before, there will be a new consistory of Cardinals, and then this:
Many hold the same opinion online. We can only be witnesses. God’s Will will prevail.
What’s coming are the Warning, the Miracle, and the Chastisement, particularly explained in your country at San Sebastian de Garabandal.
June 18, 1965 (a time when the Church, to those of us around back then, seemed quite “normal” even though the changes were beginning to appear):
As my message of October l8th has not been complied with and has not been made known to the world, I am advising you that this is the last one. Before, the cup was filling up. Now it is flowing over.
Many cardinals, many bishops, and many priests are on the road to perdition and are taking many souls with them. Less and less importance is being given to the Eucharist.
You should turn the wrath of God away from yourselves by your efforts. If you ask His forgiveness with sincere hearts, He will pardon you. I, your mother, through the intercession of Saint Michael the archangel, ask you to amend your lives.
You are now receiving the last warnings. I love you very much and do not want your condemnation. Pray to us with sincerity and we will grant your requests. You should make more sacrifices. Think about the passion of Jesus.
Conchita told the author in 1965 when everything would be set in motion:
“When communism comes again everything will happen.”
The author responded: “What do you mean by comes again?”
“Yes, when it newly comes again,” she replied.
“Does that mean that communism will go away before that?”
“I don’t know,” she said in reply, “the Blessed Virgin simply said ‘when communism comes again’.”
Interview of Mari Loli:
FATHER BENAC: Did the Blessed Virgin speak of communism?
MARI LOLI: Our Lady spoke several times about communism. I don’t remember how many times, but she said that a time would come when it would seem that communism had mastered or engulfed the whole world. I think it was then that she told us that priests would have difficulty saying Mass, and talking about God and divine things.
FR. BENAC: Did Our Lady ever speak of people being put to death?
LOLI: What Our Lady said was that priests would have to go into hiding but I didn’t see whether they were being killed or not. She didn’t exactly say they would be killed, but I’m sure they would be martyred.
FR. BENAC: Your mother told me that one night you were upstairs with your father and that you cried and cried for one hour. Afterwards your father said to her: “I have just seen the most touching sight. Loli was crying the whole time while saying, ‘Oh, it’s going to be like that? People are going to suffer like that? Oh, make me suffer!'” Do you remember what you said at the time?
LOLI: It was all related to communism and what is going to happen in the Church and to the people because all these things are to have repercussions amongst the people. When the Church suffers confusion, the people are going to suffer too. Some priests who are communists will create such confusion that people will not know right from wrong.
[THE CALL OF GARABANDAL, Apr-Jun 1984.]
Thank you for the wonderful prayer for our Pope Francis. Your article was very informative and entertaining. Having recently returned to the Catholic Church after years of being an Evangelical Protestant, I have much to learn and catch up on. I love our dear Pope, he’s one factor that brought me back to the Faith. So right- on, dear Steve, we must remain steadfast in our whole- hearted trust and confidence in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I’m thrilled to have stumbled upon this fabulous website. Your goals and purposes are exactly what’s in my heart. Am looking forward to reading more of these fascinating, superbly written articles. I’m amazed that this outstanding and excellent “OnePeterFive” is not fully funded each and every month. My impression is that Catholics are some of the most generous givers on the planet. Please, dear Readers, how about donating today? You’ll be aiding a more than worthy nonprofit organization and also laying up treasure for yourself in Heaven. Remember this grace-filled Year of Mercy.
Steve, how about a discussion between you and Ann Barnhart and Louis Verrechio? Something big is definitely coming especially as formal approval of Holy Communion for adulterers was given.
You beat me to it by 18 minutes!
To simplify in the extreme, Ann says that there is one pope max, Steve’s position is more like
I’d love to see it fleshed out, even if just to say “this is the point where we disagree.”
“we can wake up from and things will go back to normal.”
This is most of it. We are uncomfortable and want to go back to being comfortable. The trouble, however, with us being very adaptable kind of creatures is that we can get comfortable with some very bad situations, and that was what happened in the Church after 1965.
When we say we were “comfortable” then, it just means that we were used to whatever the situation was then. We had become comfortable by adapting to it, by getting used to those particular sets of pains, by figuring out how we can live with them and find some way to continue doing our thing uninterrupted.
Francis (and Benedict) has done us the inestimable kindness of making us extremely uncomfortable, and more, making it impossible to go back, to adapt and get comfortable once again, so we can carry on doing our thing, uninterrupted. It’s what all humans want all the time: peace in whatever situation they’re in. It’s what we do: we figure out how we can live with this situation.
But we can’t live with this, and Francis is making it impossible to even try. We had that space carved out for ourselves in the Church, however contorted we had to be to live in it, but he’s bulldozing all of it. What we are left with is the inescapable fact that things have not be livable at all in the Church for fifty years, that we have actually been living in an uninhabitable shantytown. Whatever his own motivations in bulldozing it, he’s actually doing us a favour by making it impossible to stay in it.
Believing Catholics have been living like half-starved refugees in their own Church, brutally persecuted and starved by our own bishops for three generations. Shouldn’t we be glad that is all over?
We had King Log, and complained. Well, now we’ve got King Stork, eating us frogs, and we know that the time of sitting happily in the pond is over.
Amen! Pray the rosary, and don’t abandon ship. even though many have. Jesus told us it would be this way – “When I come back, will I find any Faith?”
This is not about needing to get to that “comfortable” place again.
It is very simply about getting back to that orthodox Tradition again.
Christians have been willing to give their lives; live in deserts; give all their strength; all their money; everything for Christ. The Faith has never been about being comfortable.
I do not want to be COMFORTABLE. I want Orthodoxy. Nothing else is possible without that.
I think that’s what you’re saying.
Yes. That’s my point. Comfortable with mediocre “conservatism” is what we’ve been. We’ve settled for a warm bath of easy compromises in this fake “conservative” middle ground for fifty years. Well, that ground is now closed. We can choose to become the kind of Catholic Francis is, or we can go back to tradition.
Is the path you describe what seems obvious or are there some visible challenges and guide posts? I’m only guessing what you mean in practice.
Amen. Our Help is in the Name of the Lord Who made Heaven and the Earth. Jesus Christ is our savior and He is Faithful to His vocation even when his shepherds are not.
Very sensible advice, Steve. You obviously have spent time in prayerful pondering to be able to articulate so well (and more than once!) your thoughts. Really, all any of us can do is pray for strength to stay the course and remain faithful while we wait for whatever is coming next. I hope your cough clears up and we’re *not* Tagled, but if that’s what’s coming next…
You’ve got it, Steve.
After that, there’s really nothing more to be said.
On I side note, those same words from the psalms have been echoing in my head for many months now: Usquequo, Domine? (How long, O Lord?), not just (or even primarily) with regard to our current Holy Father, but with the sorry state of our country and the world. I’ll look at a crucifix or at the monstrance during Adoration and the words come to me again: Usquequo, Domine?
Keep the Faith
Good work and thanks for reminding us of the prayer for the Pontiff.
Darth Vader was never a pope, but Lando was.
I had the biggest laugh looking at the picture of pope Francis saying “I’m the holy father” and the picture of Luke Skywalker, very funny…!!
I can’t live like this! This is an APOSTASY from the faith!
AN EMERGENCY COUNCIL MUST BE CALLED TO STOP THE DESECRATION OF
THE HOLY EUCHARIST.
THE WHOLE HOUSE IS ABOUT TO COLLAPSE:
“However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.” – Saint Pope John Paul II/Familiaris Consortio
Steve, he is not our Holy Father because his election was not valid. There would be no harm in moving our Holy Father, Benedict, to a safe haven in order to determine if he has been programed to “hug it out”.
“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, 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.
In Christ, there is no such thing as a private relationship. Man is not an end in himself, nor is man a means to an end; man was created for communion with God, Who Willed us worthy of Redemption.
You need to work on your syllogisms.
I don’t have that book, so I can’t provide fuller context, but it’s immediately clear that he’s talking about civil unions. There is an ethical case that could be made for civil unions between homosexual persons that provide certain legal rights (visitation, power of attorney, etc.)
Clearly, the Church should in no way be endorsing these unions. They should merely stick to the condemnation of sodomy. But it does not follow that legal approval of same-sex unions EQUALS approval of sodomy. If you’re a grocer, would you refuse to sell food to a homosexual in such a union? If you were a real estate agent, would you refuse to sell them a home? If you were a doctor, would you refuse medical treatment?
Human beings have basic necessities. And one could (again COULD, not should) make the case that in the lives of some of these people, there is nobody else but their “partner.” If they get into a car accident and someone needs to make medical care decisions, etc. there needs to be some legal basis for this. (Obviously, power of attorney can be granted in other ways, but “visitation rights” always comes up, and so on.)
I’m not saying that the pope is right to endorse such unions. Far from it. Again, he should stick to condemning the sin. But to reach the conclusion that because he has a discussion about whether such unions might be permissible on a jurisprudential basis (not a moral basis) he is not the pope is…well, it’s just absurd. At most this is his personal opinion on something; it’s certainly not an authoritative teaching.
We all know he’s wrong about most everything important. None of that makes him anything other than a validly elected pope.
Nonsense, sinful acts can never be justified. God declares what is Good.
You don’t read good either. I didn’t say they could be justified. They categorically cannot.
Well – then, search your feelings, you know it is true, one cannot be condoning sinful acts and remain in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. One cannot be for Christ, if one is condoning sinful acts, simultaneously. Our call to Holiness has always been a call to be chaste in our thoughts, in our words, and in our deeds.
“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty,”
“One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”
Again: in countries with secular governments, the question of whether civil unions that provide certain legal rights are being debated. The question of whether there is an ethical basis for the provision of the basic needs and dignity of human persons is a part of that conversation, quite apart from the idea of condoning the sin.
My entire point here is that what Francis says, while it should certainly be objected to as at best misleading on this topic, is NOT a de facto endorsement of sodomy. It is thus NOT in and of itself a disqualifier from the papacy.
You’ve been cutting and pasting this quote everywhere you go for months. It’s not a silver bullet. It just isn’t.
According to you it isn’t, but according to God, it is. In fact, our Holy Father, Pope Benedict, had to change the Catechism because the lobby was assigning a separate personhood to sexual desire/inclination/orientation, in an attempt to make it appear as if sexual desire/inclination/orientation, is immutable. Identifying persons according to sexual desire/inclination/orientation, which sexually objectifies the human person, demeans the inherent Dignity of all persons, and is a direct violation of God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery. God desires that we desire to overcome our disordered inclinations so that we are not led into temptation, but become transformed through Salvational Love, God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy. There has never been a validly elected Pope who has dismissed the physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual harmful nature of same-sex sexual relationships by condoning same-sex sexual relationships that are “private”, do not include children, and are not called marriage. It is never necessary to condone same-sex sexual relationships in order to provide for the basic needs and dignity of our belved sons and daughters. I have been cutting and pasting this quote because this quote is sufficient to demonstrate that the election of Jorge Bergoglio is not valid.
Prior to the election, Jorge Bergoglio was not in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Your opinion is only that. When you gain enough traction that an ecclesiastical proceeding moves forward and judges Jorge Bergoglio to have excommunicated himself, please post an update.
Until then: he’s the pope.
Sorry, Steve, but this is where I part ways with you. I posted numerous times in the recent past of how we now know the Universi Dominici Gregis was violated by the College of Cardinals. Your conclusions and mine do not match. I believe that Bergoglio’s election was invalid. If, by chance his election was valid, then he most assuredly has lost the papacy due to his vehement doubling down on the heresies he and his henchmen at the Holy See advocate for.
As I’ve previously written on the idea that this is a silver bullet:
#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 t he 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.
And, Steve, I might add and repost what MyFaithRunsDeep posted:
Arguably, UDG is very clear about determining validity of the Papal Election.
Arguably, the outcome of Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio (Pope Francis) papal election was predicated on compliance with UDG paragraph 76:
“Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.” [UDG paragraph 76]
In pertinent part UDG paragraph 76 clearly states:
“The [Papal] election is for this very reason null and void”
As written, “for this very reason” refers to “election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed.”
As written, “the [Papal] election” infers there was an election – and that the Church moved on.
In pertinent part UDG paragraph 76 also states:
“Without any need for a declaration on the matter;”
As written, there is no need for adjudication by anyone. This is both a critical and logical concept. It would be illogical to take the evidence of an invalid papal election to the invalidly elected pope or his appointees. It would be a conflict of interest to take the evidence of an invalid papal election to the invalidly elected pope or his appointees.
Again, #76 refers to the preceding section (of part II) as pertains to the manner in which the election is to be conducted. Things like who the electors are, the place of election, the process of casting ballots, etc. These are process oriented guidelines, the violation of which would nullify the election.
The question of canvassing or collusion comes AFTER that proscription, and is classed among the section entitled “Chapter VI – Matters to be observed or avoided in the election of the Roman Pontiff.” It is clearly not included in the penalty laid out in #76, and in fact, the paragraphs describing prohibited activities in in Chapter VI have their own penalties listed.
You can’t just prooftext the document and try to bend it to the conclusion you’re looking for. That’s not how this works.
I and another friend are in the process of publishing a book that addresses UDG and we lay out a very clear and convincing argument that the papal election of Bergoglio is invalid. I am not sure when the book will come out, but it will. It is long, but necessary. It will also have many corroborating facts and addresses many counterarguments. Everyone will just have to wait. And, again, as my friend has said repeatedly, this is not about Sedevacantism. This is about true fraternal correction of a wayward pontiff in true Charity.
I empathize with so many Catholics who simply do not want to see the obvious. For my part, I am Catholic to my core. I believe in the papacy. However, our ecclesiastical leaders en masse have abandoned our Lord and His sheep. They refuse to call out Francis publically and formally. For this, they will answer to our Blessed Lord. Until then, we, the faithful, must call out Francis just as the Remnant has done. It is our right under Canon Law to do so. That is, unless Francis decides to change that too.
Do let us know when it does. I, for one, would be very interested in purchasing a copy.
“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”.
Simony and condoning same-sex sexual relationships that are not called marriage and do not include children are not the same.
Where is your proof that a Catholic can deny the essence of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, The Author Of Love, of Life and of Marriage, and remain in communion with Christ and His Church?
6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
Do you deny that one must be in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in order to be elected Pope? where is your proof that one can condone same-sex sexual acts and remain in communion with Christ and His Church?
Well, no need to take my word for it; you have the words of Jorge Bergoglio. Having excommunicated himself from Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, Church, he was never our pope to begin with.
Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.
Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.
Some people need to examine their consciences on these!
Yeah I sure hope that serpent Bergoglio is reading Canon 1369. I wonder what punishment he will impose on himself?
No hatred or calumny here from me. Only fraternal correction out of charity. Besides, I do not, nor have I ever, had the intention to defame the Holy See or the Catholic Church. My intention is to call these devils out for who they are in the hopes that they will retract and repent before they stand in judgment before our Lord. That is true Catholic charity in action.
Unlike others down below, I am going to advocate for sedevacantism, and I really don’t see what is so untenable about the idea. To me, it seems the only logical response. Fact: Every V2 pope has been a modernist promoter of heresy. Fact: True popes are supposed to be protected from the error of promoting heresy as per Matthew 16:18, therefore the V2 popes are not true, and have/had no right to the Chair of Peter. Therefore ever since Roncalli the Chair has been vacant of a true pope. V2 contains heresy. As well as vitiating the old Mass, Paul VI changed the form of the sacrament of Holy Orders, invalidating the ordinations of bishops. This has grave implications for the validity of the sacraments, which is another reason we can’t simply go about our day to day catholic lives continuing to use any spiritual resources tied to the NO church. It therefore makes sense to cut all ties with anything Novus Ordo, and where possible go to a church that does things pre-V2, with priests ordained by bishops with lineages not touched by Paul VI changes.
Continuing with NO in any way, legitimizing it in anyway, even reluctantly, is not telling the truth. I don’t care whether it seems practical to tell the truth, we must start telling it. Christ Himself prophesied that one day the abomination of desolation would stand in the holy place, and at that point we should flee to the mountains. Are you telling me that one day you are going to stand before God and defend acting like Francis is the true pope? Did not Jesus say “by their fruits you shall know them?” Did He not, with that promise in Matthew 16:18, give us a way to know a true pope from a false one? Also, is it logical to expect the hierarchy of a rotted church to depose one of its own? Wait for a proclamation from NO formed and ordained clergy to depose their “pope?”
Get out of the NO church and go back to the true catholic church, and start telling the truth.
Well, I think the SSPX is with you except advocating for Sedevacantism. If not the SSPX, where do the faithful go? I will not leave the Catholic Church. I will not become Protestant nor will I go over to the Orthodox churches.
“Yes you are the Holy Father, my Holy Father, but as the LORD God lives and as it pleases him, ‘NEVER. I’ll never turn to the Dark Side.’“