Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Smashing Traditions: The Vatican War Machine is Back


A few days ago, when speaking with a close friend, I said, “Pope Francis has been quiet for a while now, but I can feel it coming. A whole new barrage is just around the corner.”

Somewhere, deep in my soul, I heard the distant whistle of incoming ecclesiastical artillery. The Vatican war machine appears to be spinning back up, just as expected. With that in mind, I decided to go ahead and publish the story on the alleged papal outburst  – a story I had been sitting on for a while as we looked for more corroboration and sources. By this week, I had heard similar reports from enough people (and found it so consistent with what I have observed) that I believed it credible. That many of those questioned deflected rather than denied that the event took place became its own story. This is the same thing I heard when the Five Cardinals Book was stolen from the Vatican mailboxes of the Synod fathers. When I spoke to journalists in Rome about the latter incident, they said, “It’s strange. Everyone here knows that it happened, but nobody will go on the record.”

What are they all afraid of?

Not everyone agrees with my decision to move forward with a story that lacks a smoking gun. Fine. But I don’t run an investigative journalism operation. I run a commentary and analysis operation. It was important to get the story out there. It was important to lay down cover for those those journalists who do have the resources to dig into it, but don’t have the editorial freedom I do. They deserved an opportunity to examine the story. Once it’s already news, after all, they aren’t stirring up trouble by covering it.

As it turns out, the stalwart Ed Pentin did just that, taking our inquiry to the Vatican, where he received a Jesuitical non-denial from Fr. Lombardi on the issue. You know, the kind where he answers questions with questions that make you think he’s responding, but he’s actually performed semantic Aikido and turned your own inquiry against you? If he were playing poker, this would be his tell:

Who can believe it? People who have been watching this papacy closely. Who can waste time with it? We can, because we don’t consider it a waste at all. In fact, it’s really quite informative whenever we get a glimpse at the temperament of the pope who has the “humility and ambition” to change things in the Church so drastically and unapologetically.

The question Fr. Lombardi didn’t answer was: Did this outburst happen, or didn’t it?

Again: not a denial. A deflection.

There’s certainly reason to believe the Holy Father would have been angry at anyone who opposed his agenda. There’s no longer any question (as we’ve documented somewhat exhaustively) that he was the driving force behind the Synod, that he personally chose to stack the deck with unorthodox prelates, that he empowered Cardinal Kasper, that he preached homilies making those who adhered to the Church’s traditional teaching look like villains, that he warned about a “hermeneutic of conspiracy” around the time these Cardinals sent their letter.

And perhaps most telling, there was his speech at the end of the Synod, in which he vented his invective against the forces arrayed against the synodal agenda:

The Synod, he said,

“was also about laying closed hearts, which bare the closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Church’s teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families”

He went on:

“In the course of this Synod, the different opinions which were freely expressed – and at times, unfortunately, not in entirely well-meaning ways – certainly led to a rich and lively dialogue; they offered a vivid image of a Church which does not simply “rubberstamp”, but draws from the sources of her faith living waters to refresh parched hearts.”

Oh? Who could he have been speaking about with those “closed hearts” who “hide behind the Church’s teachings”? Who might he have been referring to when he said that “different opinions were freely expressed – and at times…not in entirely well-meaning ways”? Were there other notable disagreements he had with Synod fathers? That’s not what we heard from the language attaches whose job it was to report on the Synod proceedings.

This theme — that those who follow Church teaching and tradition are the bad guys — is one he reiterated just this week:

“Christians who obstinately maintain ‘it’s always been done this way,’ this is the path, this is the street—they sin: the sin of divination. It’s as if they went about by guessing: ‘What has been said and what doesn’t change is what’s important; what I hear—from myself and my closed heart—more than the Word of the Lord.’ Obstinacy is also the sin of idolatry: the Christian who is obstinate sins! The sin of idolatry. ‘And what is the way, Father?’ Open the heart to the Holy Spirit, discern what is the will of God.”

Divination? Really? By definition, Holy Father, that means trying to seek knowledge of the future by some preternatural or supernatural means – not understanding the context of the present through the wisdom that has already been established by Christ’s Church. Is it divination to understand that “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”?

Obstinancy is the sin of idolatry? Really? So if a young girl were obstinately to say, “No, it is a sin! God does not want it! You’ll go to Hell!” to the young man who tried to coerce her into having sex with him, dying rather than giving up her purity, she would be an idolater and not a saint? If a young boy carrying the Eucharist during a time of persecution obstinately refused to give it up to the pagans who wanted to take it from him, and they beat him to death for it, he would be an idolater and not a saint? If a great scholar and legal mind — and in fact the Chancellor of a mighty kingdom — were to obstinately refuse to endorse his king’s desire to ignore Church teaching and nullify his own marriage, and by so doing incur execution, he would be an idolater, and not a saint?

You see, the Lives of the Saints are filled with stories of men and women, boys and girls, who all shared one thing in common: they were obstinate in their adherence to Catholic truth, even to the point of cruel and ignominious death.

Pope Francis either does not understand this or refuses to accept it, either of which make it is impossible for him to be a friend of Catholic tradition. The evidence is overwhelming. And now, with some of the incoming shells reaching their targets, we have more.

Yesterday, we shared with you the revelation of some Lutherans receiving Holy Communion during Mass from Catholic priests in Rome this week after coming to meet with Pope Francis – an action that appears to have been justified (in the minds of those involved) by his comments about Lutherans receiving communion last November.

Today, we receive news that Pope Francis has decided to change the rule for the Universal Church forbidding women to have their feet washed on Holy Thursday – a rule he himself breaks with regularity:

The Holy Father has written a letter, dated 20 December and published today, to Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in which he decrees that from now on, the people chosen for the washing of the feet in the liturgy of Holy Thursday may be selected from all the People of God, and not only men and boys.

The Pope writes to the cardinal that he has for some time reflected on the “rite of the washing of the feet contained in the Liturgy of the Mass in Coena Domini, with the intention of improving the way in which it is performed so that it might express more fully the meaning of Jesus’ gesture in the Cenacle, His giving of Himself unto the end for the salvation of the world, His limitless charity”.

“After careful consideration”, he continues, “I have decided to make a change to the Roman Missal. I therefore decree that the section according to which those persons chosen for the Washing of the feet must be men or boys, so that from now on the Pastors of the Church may choose the participants in the rite from among all the members of the People of God. I also recommend that an adequate explanation of the rite itself be provided to those who are chosen”.

This is a debate which has long raged in the Church. Aside from the fact that this ritual is a distraction from the Mass and thus completely superfluous, it was formerly guided by rubrics (which were frequently ignored) and a tradition which, according to a 1988 letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, “should be maintained.”

That tradition was nothing less than recognizing that Christ washed the feet of the apostles only, and so any imitation of His action should be a direct imitation. In a March, 1997 edition of the Adoremus Bulletin, Fr. Jerry Pokorsky analyzed the debate over the topic, discussed the authoritative nature of Rome’s maintenance of tradition, and explained the significance of the ritual itself:

The “proper significance” of the ritual surely depends upon fidelity to what has been received. Like scriptural texts, liturgical actions (as well as liturgical texts) are multivalent: such is their richness and depth that they convey different levels of meaning simultaneously.

The symbolism of the ritual representation of the Lord’s washing the feet of His Apostles is an example of this. Even Peter did not at first understand Christ’s explanation, “What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand”:

Peter said to Him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part in me.” Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over; and you are clean, but not every one of you.” For He knew who was to betray Him; that was why He said, “You are not all clean.” (John 13:7-11)

Particularly in the context of the Holy Thursday liturgy, the ritual of washing the feet of men suggests the strong connection between Christ’s washing His Apostles feet and the institution of the Eucharist and Holy Orders. That the Vatican did not the accept the American interpretation of this ritual suggests that there are important theological reasons for the customary practice.

If the washing of feet were only symbolic of charity and service, why did Jesus not wash the feet of the sick, or the hungry, or the lepers, or His friends in the house of Lazarus, or at the feeding of the five thousand? The Lord might have have found other occasions to give a lesson in charity and service in the presence of all His disciples, both men and women. But He did not.

Christ chose an occasion which was not open to all His followers, but only to those twelve men He had chosen and called as Apostles. We must conclude, then, that the ritual is intimately connected to the priesthood and the institution of the Eucharist. Its symbolism cannot be reduced to a general theme of service to the whole Church.

The Lord’s example is given to those who would serve the people of God in His name, calling them to humility and self-abnegation in their priestly ministry. Hence, the ceremonial recalling of this act is liturgically related to the whole mystery of Holy Thursday — to the priesthood and the Eucharist. To include women confuses this focus and obscures the theological meaning of these solemn acts.

But it was Fr. Pokorsky’s conclusion that provided the most relevant takeaway from his article – a conclusion that predates this papal decision by almost 20 years, but is no less applicable in January, 2016:

The liturgical innovation of ritually washing women’s feet on Holy Thursday demonstrates the persistence of those promoting the feminist ideology at the highest levels of the Church’s liturgical establishment…

This is the crux of the matter. It is a “liturgical innovation” driven by feminist ideology. Or simply by ideology that despises the Church’s traditions and sees them as encumbrances rather than treasures. The Congregation for Divine Worship, in its decree on the matter this month, uses the same term: “this innovation in the liturgical books of the Roman Rite…”

Innovation – always innovation. This is the hallmark of the post-conciliar Church, but especially this papacy. There is absolutely no concern for the preservation of what the Church, in her wisdom, has built up organically over the ages. Quite to the contrary. Instead, in less than three years’ time, we have seen the empowerment of heterodox prelates, the tearing up the institution of marriage, the flattening of the understanding of the Eucharist and who should receive it, the waving off of concerns about contraceptive use, the accusation that Catholics obsess about abortion and moral issues, the dismissal (and crushing, in the case of the FFI) of those who are attracted to traditional liturgy, a complete antipathy towards evangelization, and a steady stream of insults from the Vicar of Christ towards those Catholics — priests and laity alike — who devoutly adhere to the Church’s doctrines.

This doesn’t even touch on the long list of theological distortions, humanist concerns, and elevation of worldly matters — like climate change — to a level of ordinary magisterial teaching, despite the fact that specific prescriptions on these topics are clearly outside the Church’s areas of competence.

The disaster of this papacy is interminable. I know that the comment box will soon be filled with people clamoring over how Francis is a heretic, how he isn’t the pope, and so on, and so forth. These comments are needless, arrogant, and serve no purpose – so please refrain. Such juridical matters will not be settled by us, and as such, they are not our concern. We wait for God in His own time to provide a competent judge of these things.

What is our concern is the damage wrought, and what we may do to repair it.

This is not a fight I want to keep fighting. It’s exhausting. But nonetheless, I will continue to do so, because I am an obstinate Christian, and I obstinately love the Church, and the God who founded and guides her.

151 thoughts on “Smashing Traditions: The Vatican War Machine is Back”

    • Before the person can do any more damage. …He’s done enough. When will the powers that be, that can actually take away the keys decide that the damage is enough?

    • How far are we now from the Abomination of Desolation of which the prophet Daniel (and Our Lord) spoke?

      Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote, commenting on the second temptation of Jesus in his 2004 book ‘On the Road toward Christ Jesus’ (referring directly to Vladimir Soloviev’s ‘A Short Tale of the Antichrist’),:

      “And a phrase of Soloviev’s is illuminating: The Antichrist believes in God, but in the depths of his heart he prefers himself.”

      May I toss into the mix a certain inference the late Malachi Martin made in 1999 in respect of a future pope and the unfolding of the Great Apostasy?

      Martin intimated that it had come to him through a reliable source that there would be a future pope either directly under the control of Satan or possibly possessed. He suggested the precise wording (I think he was alluding to the undisclosed portion of The Third Secret of Fatima) leaves room for one or the other reading.

      Martin suggested it would all play out within 20 years of his (Martin’s) 1999 statement.

      • I think you are on to something, bosco49. Bergoglio reminds me of the Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland. There is something very wrong, and it smells diabolic.

  1. My question is: does the Pope have the authority to alter the liturgy? I’d be happy to see sources on this, primarily preconciliar sources as innovation is taken for granted in the post conciliar church.

    • Of course he does. He is the Church’s supreme legislator, and no earthly agency limits his divinely endowed prerogative to legislate on matters of Church discipline.

      That, at least, is the orthodox Catholic understanding of papal primacy.

      • He is the supreme legislator, no doubt but that isn’t my question. Obviously there are limits to papal power. Granted it isn’t limited by an earthly agency but it is limited by heaven. For example he can’t alter dogma. My question is to what extent can he alter the liturgy and I would like sources not just opinion.

        • Popes certainly have authority to alter the liturgy.

          The canon of the Roman Mass, as it exists today, could not have existed at the time of the apostles. It includes the names of saints who were not even born at that time. Saint Lucy died in the 4th century.

          That means someone had to have the authority to alter the canon and add names. And if someone has the authority to alter the canon, that same person would have authority to alter other parts of the Mass.

          Saint Pope Gregory I revised the Mass.

          • What you are describing happened as a natural development and not by a Pope altering the liturgy. Gregory to my recollection added a few words. He almost got killed for doing so as the people thought this was out of bounds. This wouldn’t be what I referring to anyway. There is an difference between adding a few words or adding to the liturgy elements which can be found locally and destroying/removing immemorial liturgical traditions. It is this latter that I’m really referring to in my questions. I clearly wasn’t specific enough in my question. E.g. does the Pope have the authority to disregard liturgical east and face the people during mass when the former is an apostolic tradition?

          • Why go that route? Why keep asking for chapter and verse on whether Francis can do this or that? HE’S DOING IT. Showing why what he does is bad is what we should spend our time on, not digging around to find proof that what he is doing is against tradition. It’s obvious that everything this man has done is bad. Let’s concentrate on education of those who can’t or won’t see it. Steve does that in this post.

          • There should be no question in any Catholic’s mind whether a pope has the authority to make changes to the liturgy. He does. Whether any particular change is prudent or called for, is another question altogether.

            Encyclical Mediator Dei

            58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.

          • A change by a pope does not require the assent of the faithful.

            First, because popes have plenary power in the Church on such issues; the faithful do not.

            Second, if such a thing were required, no change could ever take place because not all the faithful are going to assent to any particular change.

            Third, if assent were required, then there could be no objection to the imposition of the Novus Ordo Missae, as the number of the faithful who assented to the changes outnumbered the handful of objectors by 99 to 1.

            Having lived through that era, I can testify to that firsthand.

          • I mention assent not as necessary for a change to be valid but as a necessary response to what the pope authentically teaches.

          • Oh, I see what you mean. I misunderstood you. Sorry.

            Unfortunately, nearly the entire Church assented to the changes. We could have used a little more dissent at the time, but the idea of “disobeying the pope” was unthinkable in those years among the rank and file of practicing Catholics.

          • In this same encyclical, Pope Pius XII also wrote: 59.”The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, developes, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, PROVIDED ONLY THAT THE INTEGRITY OF HER DOCTRINE BE SAFEGUARDED.” (My emphasis.) This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevaling laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the venacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days-which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation-to other dates; those, finally who delete from the prayerbrooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.”


          • Correct.

            The original question by Michael Lofton was: “Does the Pope have the authority to alter the liturgy?”

            The answer to that, of course, is yes.

            Popes have the authority to alter the liturgy. If they do not, then no one else does, which means the Mass would be the exact same as the Mass said by the apostles, as no one would have the authority to alter it in any manner.

            And we know that the Mass is not the exact same as the apostles offered, the Roman canon being the most obvious thing the apostles did not use, as it contains their names.

            Development equals alteration of some sort.

            The question of whether any particular alteration/development is good and prudent or bad and imprudent is a different question.

          • “Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger does not agree with you.”

            Then what could possibly be the explanation for the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger used the missal of Pope Paul VI, has done so for decades, and still does?

          • Here is a more important question, in my mind.
            Would a Holy Pope alter the liturgy so that it no longer reflected the true teachings of the Catholic Church, served to destroy the faith of millions of Catholics, rejected the dogmatic directives of prior Ecumenical Councils in favor of a never-before-in-history “pastoral” council, and eliminated the most authentic, holy, reverent, and centuries old Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by replacing it with an unholy, irreverent, man-invented, man-centered liturgy?

          • I would say the answer to your question is, no, a holy pope would not do that.

            But the question is whether a pope can alter the liturgy, and the answer is yes.

            And, of course, for those of us old enough to remember, in reference to the Novus Ordo Missae, it did not replace the centuries old Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as most people today experience it.

            The Mass, in the manner typically offered today, was gone half a decade before most of us encountered the Novus Ordo Missae.

            What the New Mass replaced was a revised liturgy, which had replaced a revised liturgy, which had replaced a revised liturgy, et cetera.

            The revised liturgy, at least up to 1967, reflected the Catholic Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre used it.

            Things began to deteriorate rapidly after that point, until the Mass was so altered that it wasn’t much different from the New Mass.

            Then the New Mass was promulgated.

      • Future pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger disagrees with you.

        In his book “The Spirit of the Liturgy”, “After the Second Vatican Council, the impression rose that the Pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council”. And so, “eventually the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the consciousness of the West.”

        What we see then is an exaggerated view of papal authority which is not based on the true teachings of the Church.”

        Cardinal Ratzinger said of the Novus Ordo Missae (in this same book): “In place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We (in the Second Vatican Council) abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centures, and replaced it-as in a manufacturing process-with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”

      • Yep. The question is whether this was within his limits. I’ve read some who say it is but I’d like sources if there are any.

      • It has been argued that the innovators, or purposeful destroyers of the Catholic faith, who had infiltrated her ranks, even into the position of Cardinal, in which our holy, orthodox popes condemned for a century prior o Vatican II, and wrote numerous warnings about their destructive theology and philosophies-the Modernists-took advantage of Pope Pius XII’s illness (he had stomach cancer) and his weakness and convinced him to participate in the destruction of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Not only that, but the world was in turmoil during his pontificate and the forces of evil were great and expanding.

    • According to future pope, Benedict XVI, writing as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, his answer is NO.

      In his book “The Spirit of the Liturgy”, “After the Second Vatican Council, the impression rose that the Pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council”. And so, “eventually the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the consciousness of the West.”

      What we see then is an exaggerated view of papal authority which is not based on the true teachings of the Church.”

      Cardinal Ratzinger said of the Novus Ordo Missae (in this same book): “In place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We (in the Second Vatican Council) abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centures, and replaced it-as in a manufacturing process-with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”

  2. Time to defend the Church even more, we must share the Great Works and Lives of the Saints with others, so they will know the Truths of our Holy Religion, plus pray and do penance for such sinful action against the Bride of Christ.

    Do we have any rights where we could bring our very well founded concerns; as a whole; to the court that Cardinal Burke once was head of? Just a thought Steve.

    • I would think one may start at ground level so to speak. Ask for the Traditional Latin Mass to be incorporated into our NO Parishes. I will write to my Bishop, however, it is almost a laughing matter to do that because my Bishop is Cupich which in one of his prior diocese (I cannot recall which one) barred one of the Parishes from celebrating TLM on Holy Thursday by actually LOCKING THEM OUT OF THEIR CHURCH. So, they celebrated Mass outside the Church. Guess we could start with the Bishop but it would depend on his ‘theological’ leanings.

  3. Steve, in the fall of 2013, I spoke with a Bishop recently ordained by Pope Francis, and asked if for the sake of the poor he’d be willing to talk to the Pope by going unannounced to Saint Marta with me. His response was sheer terror! I asked him why he was so terrified at my suggestion, to which he responded: Pope Francis is famous for flying into fits of rage and using the most abusive language, even though I have an important post by grace of the Pope, I would not dare try to speak with him on my own initiative….

    This is the Bergoglian papacy in a nutshell…

    • Many of us have come to see him as an abusive father who puts on a good face in public. This description you offer is completely in line with the narcissistic approach to the grave responsibility he has.

      • You call Pope Francis a narcissist and an abusive father.

        Yet, wasn’t it you who admonished your readership NOT to engage in hurling such invectives, using the following terms:

        “These comments are needless, arrogant, and serve no purpose – so please refrain.”

        It looks very much like, according to your own published understanding, YOU are now engaging in purposeless, gratuitous arrogance, doesn’t it?

        • You missed Steve’s point. He was referring specifically to SEDEVACANTIST comments. I.e., the Pope is a heretic, THEREFORE he is not Pope. Saying the Pope is abusive, narcissistic, imprudent, insincere, etc., are not sedevacantist comments.

          • It seems quite arrogant indeed for an allegedly faithful Catholic to call the Pope whom he believes to be the Vicar of Christ narcissistic, and an abusive father. Your Catholic faith requires you to obey and assent, period. This obligation does not cease just because you feel personally attacked by his criticisms.

            As for the sedevacantists, the fact is that they have very solid arguments for their position (including arguments along the lines I have sketched in the paragraph above). Your ad hominem insistence that they are arrogant in advancing them in all sincerity itself smacks of both pride and fear.

            It would be much more just and truth-loving of you to engage the sedevacantist arguments on their intrinsic merits than to dismiss them in their persons with moral judgmentalism.

          • But this is exactly Steve’s point. Sedes are a one-trick-pony. Everything they say and write revolves around their contention that the pope is not the pope. Hence all discussion of the points raised in any particular post ceases, and we all get into a he-said/she-said.

            It is useless! What the heck difference does it make here at the ‘coal-face’ if Francis is not the pope? He’s sitting in the Chair, for heaven sake. Unless we get a gang together, head for Rome, and wrestle him out of that Chair, HE’S WHAT WE’VE GOT. Get over it.

            It is perfectly legitimate, in fact our duty, to point out error. Not because we like it, but to teach others. THERE IS A STANDARD IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. A standard away from which we MUST not stray. It really is that simple. Any deviation from standards set, Tradition, must not be changed unless there is a real theological reason. There are NO true reasons for all the changes.

            As for being charitable and engaging sedes on their “very solid arguments” well, that’s a waste of time. They are in their own way ‘novelties.’ They must be ignored so we can get on with the real task at hand: pointing out error, and pointing out truth.

          • Engaging them on their arguments means being genuinely open to the possibility that they might be correct, and you yourself wrong.

            Genuine love of truth requires this form of intellectual engagement with sedevacantists.

            This is all the more the case in view of the fact that sedevacantists have in fact identified what appear to be fatal flaws and inconsistencies in the positions of Traditionalist Catholics who, on the one hand, want to acknowledge Francis as a genuine pope; and who, on the other, are in some cases literally ready to burn him at the stake for his heresies and apostasies (see Mundabor’s blog for an example of the latter extreme).

          • Nestorian. Engaging them on their arguments means being genuinely open to the possibility that they might be correct, and you yourself wrong.

            That applies to you as well.

            You read Vatican I and subsequent papal encyclicals and then come to certain conclusions.

            And you know you are correct in your conclusions… how, exactly?

          • “Your Catholic faith requires you to obey and assent, period. This
            obligation does not cease just because you feel personally attacked by
            his criticisms.”

            This is errant nonsense. Catholics are not cattle. We all – from the pope on down – are required to hold to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith, as revealed through holy scripture and passed down to us through what we call tradition. Certainly we must hold to certain doctrines, lest we cease to be Catholic (e.g., the divinity of Christ and the Trinity). Catholics embrace reason as a companion of faith in a process of theological reflection (Faith seeking understanding).

            It is not the fault of bloggers or the laity in general that Pope Francis, says and does things that are a matter of grave concern to the faithful. That rests with Francis.

            Francis is the pope – a very bad pope in my view, but the pope nonetheless.

          • It is not arrant nonsense at all. It is what the dogmas of Vatican I on papal primacy require.

            If you doubt that the dogmas of Vatican I require it after reading them, then you ought to consult the magisterially binding commentaries on the meaning of Vatican I issued at various times by Popes Pius IX, X, XI, XII, and Leo XIII.

            These magisterial commentaries may be accessed on sedevacantist websites such as

            Sedevacantists are quite right to point out that non-sedevacantist traditionalist Catholics are engaging in “Cafeteria Catholicism” when they ignore – as you yourself obviously do – both Vatican I itself and the rich legacy of papal teaching on its meaning.

          • …..back door Sede apologetics, Nestorian. Steve is quite right to differentiate between lawful observation and requisite action and the leap to proclaiming the right to judge the person of the Pope.

            The slur of cafeteria catholicism is just the sort of ad hominem attack that underscores the inconsistency of the Sede position. IOW: Being in a tricky situation is no fun, but when God requires it by way of circumstances it must be endured, not rejected by way of unlawful mandate that declares, without any authority, that the Pope is not the Pope.

          • “Cafeteria Catholic” is not a slur, but a substantively accurate characterization.

            By definition, “Cafeteria Catholics” pick and choose for themselves which elements of Catholic magisterial teaching and practice they accept, and which they reject.

            Just in this one article, Steve Skojec clearly indicates that there are many of Pope Francis’s papal acts and statements that he rejects. Thus, the appellation “Cafeteria Catholic” is no idle slur, but substantively applicable to him in light of the teachings of Vatican I on papal primacy.

          • What is substantively applicable is that you’ve taken the misapplication of Vatican I’s teachings on papal primacy and turned them into the caricature of a Chick tract. Kind of like a fifth grader with an SAT Vocabulary list setting out to impress while not understanding the subtlety of proper application.

          • As for my so-called “back-door Sede apologetics,” a tricky situation is not merely no fun, but must be abandoned by lovers of the truth if it entails a logically untenable position, since a logically untenable position must necessarily be false.

            In this regard, the sedevacantists have in fact successfully demonstrated for quite some time that the non-sedevacantist traditionalist attempt to lawfully resist a legitimate pope in his legitimate papal acts is bereft of foundation in Catholic dogma.

            Indeed, the language of Vatican I taken all by itself renders the “recognize but resist” approach to the papacy and its acts and utterances essentially absurd on its very face.

            Hence Steve Skojek and others who thing like him face much more than just a tricky dilemma. They must face the fact that they are embracing a manifest logical absurdity in their overall posture to papal authority.

            This state of affairs is really nothing new. It is merely the case that Pope Francis has made this state of affairs glaringly obvious.

            This also explains why the sedevacantists are gaining ground under Francis, and why non-sedevacantists such as Steve Skojek feel impelled to publicly direct gratuitous accusations of pride against sedevacantism even in contexts where the subject of discussion is something completely different.

          • We shall await a future Pope to declare the above, Nestorian. Until such time, Catholics must endure, obeying in all but sin as is required. (Doing what needs must while Dad is indisposed.)

            If you find personal comfort in the black and white that feathers your nest, good for you and yours. But to assume that others must take your position is pure foolishness as the one position posits that there is a father making some bad moves for the family while the other sets out on its own with no father.

            That said, you may want to own the reality that expecting a ‘true’ Pope to pop up out of nowhere is to embrace manifest logical absurdity.

          • Nestorian, if you have children would you tell them they ALWAYS must obey their teachers even if something doesn’t feel right?
            Like say, your teen daughter is a cutie and the coach asks her to stay after school and meet him in the Locker room? Or how about you have a son who is an altar boy and father what’shisname tells him to stay after mass and wait in the garments closet for him. Do you tell your kids they must obey any and all? If so, I have to say you are one lousy parent who is NOT protecting your offspring. For that matter Jesus is above even any pope and HE alone should be your guide. As my earthly father told me when I was a young girl…never take any wooden nickels from anyone. Now I was only six at the time, but I implicitly knew what he was saying. That blessed crap detector which my birth father gave to me, has served me well. Too bad your dad didn’t do the same for you. As for cafeteria Catholicism, I’ve lived far too long watching most catholics and clergy lining up at the deli bar picking only those things which suit their tum tum…boy, it made most of them sick.

          • We are all sinners and prone to human weakness, Nestorian. It is not arrogant of any Catholic to point to this reality with regard to the Pope, not citing conjecture, but making an observable analysis of actions.

            With regard to truth-loving, it would be more to the point for you to express your sentiments with regard to the position of Sedevecantism, no? For you seem offended that Steve rightfully leaves judging the situation – something Sedevecantists do – to stick to that which is lawful. Judging actions and, in so doing, comparing this papacy to what many, in family life, experience when being lawfully subjected to a wounded and abusive father.

          • It has been an established teaching since at least the time of Pope Symmachus in the 6th century that “The pope may be judged by no one.”

            Bu like just another Cafeteria Catholic, Steve Skojec has arrogated to himself the right of judging remarks the pope made in official speeches as pope as amounting to evidence of “abusive fatherhood.”

            If Steve Skojek really believes this, then he ought, in all moral and logical consistency, to abandon his beliefs in the dogmatically defined nature of the Roman primacy, because he is clearly “picking and choosing” not to accept one of the earliest defined elements of the Roman primacy in the present instance, when he has the temerity to judge Pope Francis’s papal actions, and to label said papal actions those of an “abusive father.”

          • The ‘Pope’ can be judged by no one, but his actions – and the danger they represent – can be. We are all responsible for what we know. If we know something that the Holy Father hands down will harm our faith or lead us away from it, we must do what is required to maintain what the Church has always taught.

            So all of this labeling “Cafeteria Catholic” and using such words as “temerity” to insinuate an attitude that is demonstrably not there, renders your argument little more than huffing and sour grapes. That and an oversimplification of a complex and difficult situation.

            That is why your assertion of what you believe is a clear picking and choosing on Steve’s part is rather something that applies to yourself. You are clearly picking and choosing to conflate the papacy with some fantasy of a walking/talking Oracle who is impervious to human weakness…. and influence.

            There is no crime or disloyalty to diagnose a drunk man as being drunk. A good father who perhaps had something slipped into his drink will thank those faithful children for keeping the house in order while he was indisposed. He will similarly thank those faithful children for not giving away the family’s goods as he had demanded during his drunken state.

            But a father will not thank those children who throw him out of his own house and act as if he is not their father, especially while under the influence. That shows a lack of love and loyalty – not only for the father, but for the family. It sets a horrible example, too, for we are called to bear one another’s burdens, even those of a Pope so influenced by modernism and the spirit of the age that he puts his children at risk.

          • PG, you get the prize…awesome response, for it is so true.

            Just as no Catholic kid in Boston was required to do what Father O’Reilly wanted to do with him (pedophilia), thus imperiling the boy’s body/brain/soul/spirit, neither are we to follow a red flag waving commie pope lined up with BHO, NWO and the other present freaks on the world stage ready to bring curtain down.

            I would imagine Nestorian also believes it is our duty to give our tax dollars, or even more a la Bernie Sanders Style, to the church to continue to bring in more refugees, many of whom are NOT refugees. Are we to cooperate with a church and state that wants head choppers galore on our streets?

            Making matters worse, this church after bringing in said headchoppers, then tells them that they must repay the church monies given them. Talk about a two-fer—not even Joe Bonanno mob could’ve conceived such a racket….but Nestorian, nothing stopping you from sending more than they’ve already taken from your tax dollars. You can throw more in the Sunday basket to further the cause of the demons in our midst. Am sure you won’t meet any 72 virgins once they take your head, but you will get to meet your Maker sooner.

          • Nestorian, I believe, is of the Sede persuasion (?) Sadly, like many in progressive New-Church, and in society at large, the attitude seems to be that, if you don’t take the position I do, then you are judging ‘me’. Kind of like the infighting that can and does occur when kids respond differently to the situation of a drunken father.

            The real issue is Dad needs help because it’s tearing the family apart.

            In this sheepfold, the poor lambs are not only disconnected from the flock, but from their own capacity to reason. And with the internet, we now have the vehicle to look like we’re arguing with others instead of arguing with our own faulty logic that requires reinforcement every hour at times.

            Kind of like the young adult who leaves home and pretends that mom and dad are judging them for their ‘bad’ behavior when neither one has said a word. The entire battle is occurring within themselves. It’s just easier to blame the turmoil on someone else.

            God bless!

          • All this blah, blah blah about Cafeteria catholics, methinks that Nestorian misses the very blatant cafeteria mindset of la papa!
            Mind you I have no problem with the idea of priests marrying for then I am sure the pedo scene would lessen..and further they would not ask catholic families to do that which they would NOT
            be able to do themselves.


          • You’ve mistaken me for someone who has to answer to you.

            Take your heretical name and your crypto-sedevacantist nonsense somewhere else, where they enjoy thread hijacks and proof-texting constructs that lead faithful Catholics to despair of the Church’s indefectibility.

            I put the warning IN THE ARTICLE because I had no intention of entertaining this mode of argumentation in the combox. I’m not self-loathing or faithless enough to go down your rabbit hole. And if I’m going to waste my time, I’ll blow it on an activity that I actually enjoy.


          • Oh, and by the way, my name is SKOJEC. There is no K at the end. It’s all over this website, it’s in the byline of the article, it’s in my author bio, and it’s in the response I already made to you.

            Just a cursory glance would have told you this. Common courtesy demands at least that much effort.

        • Moreover, there is quite a difference between “we see him as an abusive father” and “he is an abusive father” — the latter might be invective, the former is just a simple statement of fact about personal frustrations. Maybe those frustrations are irrational but the fact that a lot of people who are paying careful attention have them is pretty telling.

          • I’m sorry, but that is a distinction without a difference. For all intents and purposes, Steve Skojek has publicly branded the man whom he believes to be Christ’s divinely appointed vicar on earth as an “abusive father.”

            It also bears mentioning that there are plenty of non-sedevacantist Catholics who call Pope Francis a heretic, and even an apostate. Why exactly is it that non-Sedevacantist Traditionalists are not arrogant in saying such things, but sedevantists – and sedevacantists only – are?

            Mr. Skojek, can you possibly address what your grounds are for your double-standard?

          • “Branded” himself as what? As an apostate or a heretic? As not in fact a genuine pope?

            If that is what you mean, then I refer you to Steve Skojek’s admonition that saying or implying such things is tantamount to needless arrogance.

    • This must be very true. The way Francis acts shows his humility to be false and for the cameras. I have never heard an abusive homily like the type I have heard from Francis, both at the closing of the failed synod and thereafter.

      • Is it really abusive, or has Pope Francis merely articulated painful truths about yourself and many other Traditionalist Catholics that you are unwilling to face?

        Remember, Pope Francis is your pope by divine appointment, and he was making his allegedly abusive comments in formal speeches – i.e., in his official capacity as pope.

        At the very least, these considerations require you to embrace what he said with the utmost seriousness.

        And ultimately, the understanding of papal authority dogmatically defined at Vatican I, and magisterially reasserted by Popes Pius IX, X, XI, XII, and Leo XIII in their various commentaries on its meaning, leave you no room whatsoever to withhold your assent from Pope Francis’s “abuse” – at least not if you want to be a doctrinally and morally consistent Catholic.

          • But even bad popes are to be unconditionally assented to when they clearly teach and preach in an official capacity.

            This is something you, Steve Skojek, and many other Traditionalists are unwilling to do, even though the fullness of the faith you affirm requires it.

          • ….obedience is required in all matters but sin, Nestorian.

            Please stop attempting to convince Catholics that they are required to be unthinking and incapable of exercising intellect and will. You perpetuate a Protestant stereotype.

          • why are you giving so much time to this Sede? can’t we simply all just ignore him? and hopefully he will go away? This is just what they all want to do – just keep arguing and the whole theme of the thread gets hijacked. We are supposed to be discussing Pope francis’s behaviour. If Sedes do not believe he is the pope why even bother to come on this site and keep arguing? And why do bloggers continue to fall for their tatics? its all very frustrating.

          • You assume that others are falling for tactics, Celestine. Using your logic, we should similarly just wait for Francis to ‘go away’, ignoring him all the while. After all, it would seem by his actions that he does not necessarily hold to Catholic teaching.

            So what are you here for?

            To ruminate over Francis’s actions or perhaps make a difference, even if its in countering just one bad example. That said, your disdain for “Sedes” is sad. They are people, Celestine, beloved of God and lost in this current crisis by way of shallow argumentation casting a clever net.

            And if you do not see the Sede predicament as being aided and abetted by Francis’s “actions” then you’re not listening. So while I’m not going to sit idle while Steve’s website/articles are attacked unfairly, I am similarly going to refute the Sede argument that has ensnared many good people. Too many, Celestine.

          • You ask ‘what am i here for’? well PGMGN, its certainly not to listen to the continuing frustrating arguments led by Sedes on very many traditionalists’ blogs and forums that pope francis is not the pope and all the post concilliar popes were not real popes. I am here to gain knowledge, information about what is happening to our beloved
            church under this papacy and also to gain comfort from the people who post and comment most of whom have outstanding knowledge and insight. i don’t think i was being in any way ‘uncharitable’ by the comment i made . Further i was being responsive to the blog owner who clearly stated that he wanted commentators to
            stick to the topic in were clearly not doing this by allowing yourself to be ‘diverted’ by the pet topic of ‘Nestotian’. I have seen it happen too often on other blogs and it has become so frustrating to me that there are some blogs that i do not visit anymore simply for this reason. And no- i do not think we should just wait for francis to ‘just go away’. I am equally saddened and shocked by what he is doing to Holy Mother Church -by the multitude of souls that are being lost by his actions. And that is the reason why we should not waste time arguing pointlessly about whether he is the pope or not. I have great sympathy with my ‘brother and sisters sedes’ but i just do not think they are taking the right approach to this whole problem.

          • Celestine, part of what is happening in our beloved Church is the scandalizing of faithful Catholics. If you don’t understand how that connects to the ‘Sede’ phenomenon, then you have a lot of reading to do. Especially prior to admonishing others to be gentle and act like the good Samaratin with regard to immigrants even as you are dismissing others who are left on the roadside – wounded and needing to learn about what is happening to our beloved Church.

            “…And that is the reason why we should not waste time arguing pointlessly about whether he is the pope or not.”

            You see it as a waste of time, Celestine, while others may have the time and have no problem at all in countering Sede objections, the very objections that give rise to their erroneous belief that the Pope is not the Pope. So while it is very well and good that you don’t agree that the Sede approach is the right one, you dismiss any/all opportunity to dispel the error by taking the ‘ignore it’ route. Sedevecantists are not lost causes, you know. Rather they are scandalized like many others, seeking some purchase to regain their footing in an endless backwash of scandal.

            As for your respecting Steve’s request, Steve is a big boy and can call a halt to whatever he wills, when he wills. He has very limited time and has many duties to tend. That said, there was no promotion of Sedevecantist theories in my responses to Nestorian, but rather a solid deferral of the need to judge actions and not the person. And judging the actions and non-action of the current Pontiff is the topic at hand.

            And while ‘you’ may be frustrated by what you consider an endless argument that you do not share, others, perhaps even Nestorian, may have benefited from having his talking points countered with Catholic logic.

            Many Catholics are just coming to understand that talk of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae are not merely cranky discourses, too, but are an integral part of understanding the problems we are facing. Not sure how much you understand, but the crisis in the Church is a vast subject, one aspect touching almost immediately on another.

            As for your lack of charity, you may want to reread what you wrote. You may not agree with the approach of others, but similarly, others may not agree with your methods. Perhaps you have never lost dear ones to Sedevecantism. If you had, you may not be so inclined to just walk on by.

          • PGMGN, allow me to say i think you sound quite peeved about a comment you are alluding to that you claim i made a month ago.. I suggest you calm down and maybe go have a ‘cup of tea’. it might calm your nerves. So because i may have or have not made a comment about being kind to immigrants does this mean i cannot make any other comments , which according to your estimation amounts to ‘throwing’ someone under the bus? I am not even going to bother replying to your veiled insults about not understanding the situation in the church. Unlike sedes i do not participate in pointless arguments.This is NOT the purpose of this thread. You may reply and say whatsoever you wish but i am afraid i shall not be responding further to you. As i intend to prooffer the same treatment to you that i advocated we apply to the Sede-vacantists. Goodnight.

          • Celestine, own your own peevishness and your own unveiled insults.

            If you’re here to learn, try learning about yourself, too. I suggest you calm yourself in future and read for context before commenting on what you obviously do not understand, but rather what you disagree with as ‘the wrong approach’.

            “…Unlike sedes i do not participate in pointless arguments.” You just did, Celestine, and once again you castigated a group of lost individuals. That doesn’t help them understand the error, but promotes ignorance via a lack of education.

            Enjoy your evening and the cup of tea ;^)

          • ….and taken from your very own posting of a month ago:

            “…For instance Michael posted a most beautiful post -which should make us all think. Who is our neighbour? The story of the good samaritan anyone? How shall we be judged?”

            You may want to check the disdain for the Sede upon whom you believe others are wasting so much time, Celestine. Saying:

            “…why are you giving so much time to this Sede? can’t we simply all just ignore him? and hopefully he will go away?” Sounds rather like you’re not recognizing a wounded brother on the side of the road.

  4. My question is: how do we defend the Church (by using Tradition) when someone can come along and throw that out the window? I am paying attention to all these things, and every day I grow more and more concerned.

    • Tradition has been handed down to us.
      If we throw Tradition out the window, it is no longer Tradition.
      What is happening here is PF is establishing his own tradition, which is not the Tradition handed down to us from the Apostles

    • The first line of defence is to attend a Latin Mass and encourage as many people as possible to join you. And yes, it is worth a few hours of travel back and forth.

      The second line of defence is to speak up at your local parish. This is extremely, extremely difficult to do. But it has to be done. Every drop of truth that hits the stone wears it away just a little bit.

  5. About the only good thing to be said in this is at LEAST he bothered to actually change the rubrics instead of just ignoring them. Prior to this he just ignored them, which sets a horrific example to other bishops and priests. This pope is our penance for our many sins.

  6. We are all praying for our Holy Father and pulling for him — the Church has been heart-sick since 2013. Most of us are simply trying, with God’s grace, to live in Him and observe His commands. In recent memory, we have been blessed with so many Popes who lived and taught ex corde ecclesiae. May we all have the strength in Christ Jesus to withstand these days of turmoil, confusion, persecution and apostasy.

    • FS, yep sort of like what the prez is doing with our country. Not hard to see that the commie mindset is in full swing now. And when you add in the vast millions the church is getting of our tax dollars to bring in headchoppers, it is all to clear to me that BHO’s vaunted ‘change’ aligns perfectly with PF’s ‘change’.

  7. If Christ said/did things one way, Francis comes along and says/does something else, I think we have to ‘follow the higher law’, i.e. Christ. This will probably reignite the debate about true and false obedience. I think at the end of the day, we know that the way Christ did things was, is, and always will be, the correct and right way of doing things. Also, do you think liberal Diocesan bishops may attempt to force this on the TLM? What will happen to priests (NO/TLM) that refuse?

    • The foot washing is optional, and as far as the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, no changes have been made to that missal. A bishop cannot (or at least shouldn’t be able to) ‘force’ his priests to have it done. He can, however, prohibit his priests from including the (optional) ritual.

      Last year our bishop said that if the ritual was to be done, only men could have their feet washed. He was clearly stating that the rubrics were to be followed if used.

      I wonder what he’s going to do now.

  8. God bless you. The Holy Spirit works through people like you, just as he did in the time of the heretics like Liberius, Honorius and John XXII.

  9. One other observation, how will CMTV react, since ANY criticism of the pope (with the exception of criticism for those who do criticize the pope) seems to be off limits for them… just a thought 😉

    • I am wondering this also. I am wondering especiallyhow the latest news regarding the Lutherans is going over at CMTV. The day is coming when Mr. Voris will not be able to stand up for the pope, and that day is coming very fast.

      • Standing up for the Pope is to speak the truth in all its fullness. IOW: Those who pretend that ignoring a drunk’s blatant alcohol problem is ‘standing up for them’ are only fooling themselves and helping nobody – especially the alcoholic.

  10. Skip this totally optional “performance” at the Holy Thursday Mass. I always bring something to entertain my while it is going on, a short spiritual reading, for example. And that was before Francis’ latest brainstorm. (It always involved men “of prominence” in my parish — if you get my drift — anyway, and made me think potentially evil thoughts, so I just looked the other way. I’m sure others did the same.)

    • Find a SSPX chapel – you won’t have to endure the liturgical abuse, you get the Mass of ages, and they know to both pray for the pope (by name, Franciscus) and ignore those of his commands that lack the force of law (those contrary to God’s law). Problem solved! Well, problem addressed! anyways.

  11. I agree that it’s not very helpful to say that the pope is an authoritarian leftist heretic, over and over again. The question is what can be done about this. As laypeople, we have no power (except that of the pocketbook, and from what I hear, purses are snapping shut all over the US Catholic world).

    He’s getting bolder and more contemptuous of the people who pay the bills and also of the people who do the day to day work. Expect more things like this.

    Realistically speaking, it’s pretty minor in its impact because most US dioceses were doing it anyway. Furthermore, there was no general clamor….women were not out there screaming to be admitted to this dubious rite and now it’s even sort of demeaning because the Pope has implied that we’re second class citizens being admitted as an act of his merciful self’s mercy. I think even fewer women will want to be part of this. Except for the 90 yr old Nuns on the Bus and Nancy Pelosi.

  12. Steve, I know you do a lot and I appreciate it so I hate to offer a suggestion. But given the success of your petition for the bishops to walk out of the synod I think you should start one for the bishops to publicly rebuke the Pope in some manner. Maybe rebuke is too a harsh a word. Maybe to ask for clarity or confirmation on some of the important doctrinal issues. This would let faithful bishops know we support them and may give them the encouragement they need. And I think it would scare Francis.

    • The day is coming when each priest, and each of us, will have to choose to stand up to this man or fail Christ badly. Pray for priests and bishops that they may have the courage to do so. It will cost them the most.

  13. I have said on other venues, and will continue to say that it is no accident that Obama is the current President and Francis is Pope. This is the age of the progressive. And it is going to be very painful to watch. Progressives are not reformers, reformers fix things. Progressives destroy, and rebuild their own idea of utopia from the ashes.

  14. Not sure whether to laugh or cry at this statement….

    “The liturgical innovation of ritually washing women’s feet on Holy Thursday demonstrates the persistence of those promoting the FEMINIST ideology at the highest levels of the Church’s liturgical establishment… This is the crux of the matter. It is a “liturgical innovation” driven by FEMINIST ideology.”

    Just who are the forces forcefully driving such silly thoughts?

    It surely is news to me that nuns or women run the Vatican now.

    As far as I know the old boys network is alive and well, ‘er, maybe not so well after all. Especially when they blame any/all women.

    Reminds me of some other lame excuses coming out of the Vatican blaming women/feminists for priests being pedophiles. Again when I read this earlier today, I was ready to cry until I realized just how funny the comment was. Here we have a priest stating that feminists are the cause for pedophilia by priests. My first thought was, 1) is this priest saying if nuns just cooperated and gave them a little, then they would not have to ‘hit on the kids’? Or was he saying that in fact, celibacy is a bad news policy and if the priests were married these things wouldn’t be happening. Either way what he says is downright laughable as you will see here.

    A controversial conservative Catholic cardinal said in an interview that the forces of “radical feminism” have brought the once-mighty church to its knees, led to a “fluffy,” feminized view of sexuality and made way for generations of pedophile priests.

    Cardinal Raymond Burke said in an interview with website that the church needs to return to its male-centered roots and stop catering to “women’s issues” in order to regain its once robust standing in the world.

    Burke is the former St. Louis Cardinal who headed the Vatican’s highest court until a recent run-in with Pope Francis saw him demoted to a ceremonial position far from the church’s seat of power.”

    Now I am no feminist and have problems with much of the feminist movement as most movements belong in the toilet. But for this Cardinal to state that women have changed the church is more than laughable. Although, on further investigation of what the Cardinal states (as much of it has MERIT), I fail to see why priests diddle kids when feminists burn their bras or rant like loveless lunatics.

    • Surely its obvious that radical “feminism” (not the true feminism of pro-life, pro-morality, pro-equality, pro-sexual differences) and radica”gay rights” have always marched arm in arm and implemented their destructive agendas together as allies.

      • Yes, and a little homework reveals this to be Marxist, Communist, One World Order ideology. We are seeing this ideology working itself out in our daily lives. Identifying the enemy is a start, but to fight back we must ACT in opposite ways, and publicly.

      • And tragically, the leaders of the institutional Church have joined their forces and hope to march all souls straight into Hell.

    • Rampant feminism is a sign that the basic relationship in society, one between man and a woman, has gone terribly wrong. It points to the fact that men and women have some distorted expectations of who they should be. Such distortions have consequences.

      You also forget that women have always been very powerful as mothers. They practically shape the next generation of men. But feminism actually deceives them into thinking that women need to enter the work-force or hold prominent places in society to be important. Every man had a mother. If the mother did a bad job with the kid, that produces bad priests, or men in general…..

      • Yes Tony. Part of the problem is materialism. I raised my kids in the 60’s – 80’s when moms were going out to work for ‘things’ not necessities. Like a second car, newer furniture, pools in the yard..and then as a result of working they had no time to cook good meals so they ate out more, used fast food or frozen crap dinners.

        In Michigan I knew women who were NOT ahead financially, for with buying a second car, a better wardrobe, childcare, hair salon appts, a cleaning woman to do the house, and higher taxes, many of them were actually putting out MORE money to work than actually making extra money!

        Materialism was never where it was at for me, but building a family life superior to what I had as a child tossed between two different homes growing up, was paramount to my way of thinking.

        Further, those women always complained about being tired, had no time for themselves, couldn’t take any courses for personal growth or even find time to pick up a book. I was the non-conformist who fought all that nonsense..I was a stay at home mom…raised five awesome, bright, hard working kids who all graduated top or near top in colleges and universities. Further I gave my family a quality of life many never had…good meals, clean home, beautiful interiors on a small income as I am an artist who loves beauty in all things. I will take quality any day over quantity.

        My grown children now have their own families and I can say they are doing fabulous jobs. My three sons completely floor me, being outstanding fathers, helpful husbands, can tear apart a home and build it up new, do all repairs, make fabulous gardens and they NEVER once saw their own father ever lift a hammer! And they have good incomes too!

        Additionally a new breed of feminist exists today which in itself is an enormous burden for men I think. And no, I am not advocating a return to those days and guys of old who thought that they were Hitler and controlled your every move. I would not put that on my worst enemy for I lived that scene in both my childhood and marriage…living with narcissists a good share of one’s life leaves one feeling that they can never do enough, be good enough and are never really loved.

        Sad to say but there was a point in time where I had thirty books telling me How to be a better mother, better wife, better this and that and always feeling if I was better all would be well…Not so! Alas, God has finally reached me, explaining to me I have done a better job than most, am loved for whom I am, and not for anything I’ve done to live up to other’s ego based expectations.

        The church in fact, failed me with pure patriarchal thinking just as feminists have done equally wrong with their deficient/dumb thinking. I cannot wait for Ann Barnhardt’s upcoming 3 hour presentation on narcissism for I think it will answer many questions for those who endured such a life…and worse, had a church telling them it was their duty to carry the cross of chronic depression and take abuse by hands of either a parent or a spouse. I actually had a ninc of a priest tell me it was my cross to bear such abuse…many years ago.

        That was such a hugh bigtime lie! Not to mention that compensating for other’s weaknesses leaves one depleted, empty and depressed at all levels of one’s being. No amount of church going, masses, prayers repairs the damage done by others who have sinned against you. Only by investigating what happened in your life, is true knowledge ever achieved.

        • I think it is true to say that in the history of the world, there have been many abusive husbands who used their authority in the family to abuse his wife and children. But this is not really a defect of a family structure that is patriarchal.

          To give an equivalent example, the Catholic Church is in a certain sense, governed by the Pope and is not a democracy. But we have had bad Popes in the history of the Church. Does this mean that the authority of the Papacy is to be curtailed? No. It just means that God sometimes gives us bad Popes and it is our lot in life. We are to make the best of it. It also means that in the case of having a good Pope and members who are subject to him, the Church would be functioning really well because that is indeed in accord with the order God has built into the world.

          So in the same way, a patriarchal family structure is the one that is consistent with the way God has made the family. It works beautifully when the father is a good man and the wife and children submit to his authority. Obviously, a good man would not be a narcissist, abuses the ones under his authority, or tries to control everything just because he can. From this perspective, I do not think that the Church really failed you in promoting a patriarchal family structure. The Church should continue to do that today and to the future. What you experienced is probably the case of having a bad spouse who seems to have used his authority over you (judging by what you have said) in an abusive manner.

          When we are presented with such a lot, we have to carry our cross for the most part and pray for them. We have to remember that in this life, heaven is our main goal. Everything else is just not that important anyway. No matter how perfect we try to make the world, suffering will never go away from this world. After all, if it were true that we can make this world free of suffering, we would not need heaven.

          So I think the priest was right in a sense to advise to carry the cross and attend mass, pray more often etc. The advise is not intended to make us happy in this world, but to get us to turn our focus to heaven.

    • “But for this Cardinal to state that women have changed the church is more than laughable.”

      The cardinal didn’t state that “women have changed the church”; he stated that feminism has damaged the Church.

      Feminism is an ideology, not a person, and there are many male feminists. No one has to be a female to be a feminist.

    • What a weird argument.

      Someone else: “X is driven by feminist thinking.”
      You: “Hah! There are no women in X!”

      Unspoken assumption: “The only ones in thrall to feminist thinking are women.”

      • SW85…TOTALLY CONCUR…the only ones in thrall to feminist thinking are females argument from me there. MY POINT was that with us agreeing that feminism is not so red hot after all, and (equality is a BS argument for it does NOT exist, except in the minds of commies and other assorted whackjobbery)…all of that does NOT stand to reason that priests have for decades diddled with kids as a result of bra burners. The burden is on you to prove a scintilla of evidence on how feminism causes priestly pedophilia. I wait for an answer. Like I say we know feminism is a movement belonging in the toilet with other movements. Having said that there is no correlation between that of the sicko clergy who engaged in demonic behaviors and feminism.

        • Now that I think about it on further investigation, any pope or clergy advocating Marxism or communism is going along with feminism….to take women away from their families and destroy the family unit has always been the goal of those detesting the strength inherent in family unit, thus, the bulwark of societies.

          Further it sets up a dynamic of the bigtime battle of the sexes.
          Corporate women now bring home their power as CEO’s and think they can tell the little man what he can do. The complete and utter reversal of what men did for eons…neither is right!

          Karl Marx, whose mother was known to have said, “I wish Karl would get a job rather than just talk about capitalism”, informs us that with Karl advocating women to be out of the house, thus working 3 full time paying, 2) a homemaker, and 3) the feeding and care of husband and children, means a women who is so tired all the time, the state then controls her kids. And the men realizing she is too tired to be a real wife, then has an excuse to go out and ‘get a little’. Why dio you think Republicans love women working outside the home,

          It increases their tax revenues for decades of war mongering.
          Men love the extra income. A woman doing triple duty to the men’s one job as provider/paycheck, makes man’s job easier.
          If anyone thinks either party or even the pope or NWO loves you and your family, tell it to Jesus and He’ll set you straight.

  15. “Christians who obstinately maintain ‘it’s always been done this way,’ this is the path, this is the street—they sin: the sin of divination. It’s as if they went about by guessing: ‘What has been said and what doesn’t change is what’s important; what I hear—from myself and my closed heart—more than the Word of the Lord.’ Obstinacy is also the sin of idolatry: the Christian who is obstinate sins! The sin of idolatry. ‘And what is the way, Father?’ Open the heart to the Holy Spirit, discern what is the will of God.”

    I believe what Francis was referring to in this rant was 1 Samuel 15:23:

    “Because it is like the sin of witchcraft, to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to obey. …”

    In a twisting of doctrine, it is as if he interprets the faithful’s obstinacy and resistance to his new gospel of “mercy” to being in open rebellion. In light of 1 Samuel 15:23, the rant makes perfect sense. Those who oppose the new gospel of Francis and his novel changes are guilty of the sin of witchcraft and idolatry because they resist it and in doing so are rebelling against his authority.


    • Yes. This is a known ploy of Modernists – twist the meaning of words we all know bring confusion as we try to figure out what’s being said. Many Catholics who can’t believe a pope could teach evil spend hours trying to parse what Francis says, and try to make it mean what it should mean. That’s the diabolical disorientation.

  16. This statement in the Pope’s letter to Robert Cardinal Sarah of 12/20/15 really galled me:

    ” he has for some time reflected on the “rite of the washing of the feet contained in the Liturgy of the Mass in Coena Domini, with the intention of improving the way in which it is performed so that it might express more fully the meaning of Jesus’ gesture in the Cenacle, His giving of Himself unto the end for the salvation of the world, His limitless charity”.”

    “Improving the way in which it is performed”? Really! Presuming to improve on God’s intention?

    “Express more fully the meaning of Jesus’ gesture”? Really! Improve on Jesus’/God’s gesture?
    How can anyone dare to imply that they can improve God’s meaning and His gesture at the Last Supper, when it was obviously done with just the Apostles?

  17. Steve, I am coming at this from a standpoint of someone who loves the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and cherishes tradition. My daughter is a grad of FUS and I LOVE that university, but I have some questions to ask. When Jesus washed the apostles feet, was He showing his apostles how He wanted them to serve people as a priest? If so, and we are going to follow His example exactly, wouldn’t seminarians be the only ones “eligible” to get their feet washed on Holy Thursday? Or since it is our priests who do the washing of the feet, something Jesus did to instruct his apostles how they were to serve, and since priests serve men, women and children, is it really inappropriate to have men who are not seminarians, women and children participate in this service?

    • Well, lets look at the situation. We know that Christ did not wash the feet of any women that day. Also, the event of the last supper is considered, if I am not wrong, as the institution of the priesthood as well. So what are women and children doing in such a context getting their feet washed? It just sends the wrong message.

      Perhaps another way to look at this to ask what the priest is doing washing feet of women and touching their legs? Is that appropriate thing for a man to do i.e. touch and wash feet of random women? Imagine a young priest touching and washing the feet of a pretty young lady in the parish. You don’t see that it has potential for trouble?

      The reason why most of us don’t see the problems today with breaking certain traditions is that we have lost the sense of prudence in regards to many other things.

      • Tony there were no women present in the Upper Room as far as we know, correct? I did attend a Holy week retreat at a Byzantine monastery once and I was surprised that the priest washed the feet of everyone present, men and women and children, yet I observed only love and found it very humbling. But from your point of the impropriety of a priest washing the feet of a woman I could see how that might be problematic – I had not thought of that actually. But that is not the reason being offered by most for why this should not take place.

        • On the question of impropriety, I think the main reason that it never gets brought up is that our Western culture has lost almost all sense of impropriety. The manner and nature of interactions and relationships between men and women are for the most part make no distinction between whether it is between the opposite sexes or same sexes. This is another reason I think which makes it difficult for many of us today to find some new innovative liturgical rule or some other novelty in the Church problematic. We simply have lost so many natural standards we should have that everything looks ok.

          On the other issue, the problem is that we can observe something and feel many things, yes? I have a friend who unfortunately thinks he observes great love when he attends a same sex marriage, for an example.

          So it is my understanding that we do not try to feel the love in a given a situation. Rather, we are to objectively look at the situation using our knowledge of the faith, tradition, and other considerations (like prudence) to see if it is indeed a loving situation.

          From that perspective, we have to look at what the priest you observed did in that monastery from an objective manner. What this discussion shows however is that we are still trying to come into agreement as to what the objective principles for evaluation of this situation should be. So we cannot use that example you presented in favor of or against the washing the feet.

          • Tony this is the best response to the issue of the meaning behind the washing of feet on Holy Thursday that I’ve seen.

            Scott Hahn’s commentary from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament:
            “A gesture of hospitality normally performed by a household slave, not the presiding host. Jesus thus shows himself a model of humility (1 Tim 5:10) and, at the same time, gives a preview of the heroic service he will render when he accepts the humiliation of the Cross (Mk 10:45; Phil 2:5-8). • The foot washing may be a sign of priestly ordination as in the OT (Ex 40:12, 30-32). Against this background, Jesus washing Peter and the disciples parallels the scene of Moses washing Aaron and his sons on the day of their consecration to the priesthood (Lev 8:6).”

            On the other hand, I am entirely uncomfortable in judging the Holy Father’s intentions or right to make changes in the Liturgy. If we believe in the processes of the Church, instituted by Christ, aren’t we bound to believe that Pope Francis’ election was through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and we are bound in obedience to be submissive and not continually question or challenge his (the Holy Father’s) leadership? Has God made us Pope? Is the Holy Father leading any of us into sin? Are we praying for him daily?

          • I personally do not like having to question the Holy father’s judgement as well. However, our tradition itself tells us that sometimes we will be given bad prelates at times. So when a prelate, whether it be a Pope, Bishop, or Priest, starts speaking and acting in a manner that Catholics in our past would have found offensive, we do have to put our guard up.

            Complete submission to the Holy father is indeed the desirable normative position for a Catholics. However, when the Holy father is clearly departing from the path that the Church had held safe for millenniums, we do need to be a bit cautious. I am not advocating that we go and bad mouth him. But given that we have a contradicting set of sensibilities put before us, I think we have to stick to the path that has already been tried and tested.

            This should not throw any doubt as to the validity of the Papacy of Pope Francis. We would merely be acknowledging the historical truth that sometimes the Catholic Church has sadly had true Popes who did do damage to the Church. What we do know though is that the promises granted to successor of Peter will keep the Pope from doing irreparable damage. So we can still be at peace….

  18. Steve, don’t you have like a million kids? I imagine there are many other things you’d rather be doing with your time. The idea that you’d criticize the Pope for personal benefit absolutely floors me.

    • Well, you do realize that at some point, he is going to have to at least explain the state of the Church to his own kids too, right? I don’t think its good to criticize the Pope in general. But I think we have entered a time when not criticizing his actions and sayings can lead Catholics to become desensitized to a pattern of behavior and speech that can lead people to be deceived (whether intended or not).

  19. “Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days JESUS CHRIST WILL SEND THEM NOT A TRUE PASTOR, BUT A DESTROYER.”

    Saint Francis

    • Many Saints tell us that God allowing bad priests/bishops into our lives is the worst punishment – everything falls apart with a bad priest.

  20. Heh… “semantic Aikido” That’s pretty good. I still like “circumlocutory performance haiku” but semantic aikido is pretty good too.

  21. It’s just another legalism for the Pope to ignore. He’s above all these things, as he shows when he goes one up on Our Lord by kissing the feet as well as washing them. No one ever seems to mention this.
    We can give thanks at least that for the moment, the Holy Father confines himself to the portion of anatomy chosen by the Lord.

  22. There is much talk about what are the limits of the power of the Pope. I believe the bigger question is: How can we help more people in the pews work to know what the Catholic Church actually teaches, rather than them accepting whatever the priest or Bishop, or Pope says is important today? I see most people, including myself sometimes, being so lazy and uncaring about the whole truth, so as to appear to be ” not accepting the love of truth so that they may be saved” (2 Thes. 2:10). What can we do at the local level, in our parishes, do help God convince people to truly accept the true love of ALL Truth? Does anyone have a better idea than the following? I have suggested this idea elsewhere, and asked this question, so far no one has put forth what they thought was a better idea. Yes it can be improved. How would you improve it?

    “A Poster and slip of paper” idea to help lead all to the one Faith God wants all to accept by HIS peaceful means.
    To build up the foundation of civilization (the family) with a simple, new paradigm for helping spouses to do what they should be doing but many are not, to wash each other with a “bath of water with the Word” (Eph. 5:25) (truths that God has revealed that He wants all to know and believe)” and by helping them demonstrate a true love of (all) truth so that they may be saved (2Thes. 2:10)
    Please: How can this be improved? (The first 3 pages contain the “meat” of the idea)
    Suggested Poster for all ministers of all churches to put up and remind people of periodically, (and for all good parents, in all homes, all “domestic churches):

    All truly good parents, all truly good citizens, are seen wanting to pray ever more perfectly, are seen washing each other with a “bath of the water with the Word” and committing themselves to a lifelong effort at being open to all Truth from God, through anyone. All truly good people are seen eager to know and believe whatever it is that God wants everyone to know and believe and to help others accept the true love of all truth, and therefore these people, in order to share them with others but especially with their children, are looking for GOD’S ANSWER to the best sequences of questions from people of all faiths with the best verifiable information and who are eager to share such in the sure faith that God’s answers for these questions will lead all, by peaceful means, to the one Faith God must will all to have and for them to thereby reject violence and all man made additions to this Faith.

    “Is it not self-evident that someone is not a Person of goodwill (in the context of the message of the angel, ‘peace on earth to all men of goodwill’), if that person does not want, in their heart, to help everyone be holy, to do as they should, AND, that person refuses to sincerely ask for the help from God, for themselves and for everyone else, that is absolutely needed for anyone to want to help everyone, if that person refuses to ask for the help that God is eternally willing to give to all so that they may will to help everyone?

    All truly good people want to help others and they want others to want to help everyone, they want to share the good they have with others, and therefore they try to learn the Truths, the “important/fundamental” information, that might be helpful to themselves or others in the future and they join their prayer to the eternal “prayer/will” of God for all to want to help all.

    There are many in this church eager to help and encourage all spouses to wash each other with a “bath of water WITH the Word” the way GOD WANTS IT DONE (and they have some very good suggestions for questions and ways to do this) and to help anyone start or continue in this quest to pray as perfectly as possible and in the lifelong search for Truth and to help any who are now seeking to find everything God wants everyone to know and believe, one step, one question at a time.”

    (names, telephone numbers, email addresses)

    Obviously people will eventually know everything in the above poster no matter how long it is if the minister makes a monthly, strongly worded comment reminding all that there are members of the church who are eager to help anyone find God’s answer to all questions from anyone. Parents and children will each know (because the poster and the monthly reminders put a “spotlight on the parent’s actions”) whether or not the parents are, or are not, doing what they should already be doing but many times today, in this world, are not doing (washing each other with a bath of “water with the Word” and eager to know and believe all that God wants all to know and believe). Is this not a good way for ministers to frequently remind all (without pointing a finger at any one person) of the importance of truly accepting the love of, and therefore being open to truth, from God through anyone and eagerly seeking ALL the truth that God wants all to love so that they may be saved (2 Thessalonians 2:10)? Should you pass this on so others can help improve it If you cannot think of a better way, and this idea might help many, many parents, and many children?

    To help ALL parents be better helpers of their children, ONE STEP AT A TIME.

    This idea has three aspects:
    1. A poster (similar to the one on page one above) in all churches, put up by their minister for passive but powerful reminding of what everyone knows for certain that parents SHOULD BE SEEN DOING.
    2. Superb questions (God’s questions) that will improve with each succeeding generation with verifiable evidence on slips of paper with a web address.
    3. all ministers (and parents) of all faiths will be expected by their flocks (children) to publicly show they trust God’s answer to all such questions will lead people, by God’s grace, to the one faith God wants all to know and accept (or explain why they do not), and each minister (Parent) will be expected to make available their own sequence of questions or endorse other sequences.
    Verifiable fact:
    I, along with many others, believe God IS so infinitely good, merciful, and powerful that He Wills to, and therefore must be, turning the whole world right side up, by His peaceful means, to the one Faith He wants all to have, without violating anyone’s free will, by His grace, through verifiable evidence and His questions that He wants to give His answers to and God wants us to will to cooperate with His peaceful plan.

    Do you, and/or your ministers, believe God is infinitely good and powerful enough to convert the whole world to the one faith He wants all to accept, by His grace and His peaceful means of verifiable evidence and His questions that He wants to give His answers to, without violating anyone’s free will and therefore, do you believe all ministers of all faiths should be expected to publicly reject terrorism done “in the Name of God”?

    I believe this idea cannot be publicly opposed by any leader of any faith, and all will publicly support it (maybe some because they will not want to be seen not supporting it) once a few religious leaders PUBLICLY call on all other religious leaders to publicly support this.

    Second aspect of Idea: Slips of Paper to help evangelize others and especially children?

    The second aspect requires the minister or a moderator (or team of moderators) who will write, or find, and post suggested sequences of questions (with verifiable, unassailable evidence) on a particular part of the church web page (numbered and grouped according to topic) for people to be able to read and print out the questions on slips of paper and carry them in their wallet or purse. Then, when a person has an opportunity to dialogue with someone, (for spouses to share as they wash each other with “a bath of water with the Word, or when a parent and child have “one of those” discussions) they have these carefully worded, superbly well thought out questions, that they can hand to the other person and ask them if God might want to give them HIS ANSWER to this question and if they should therefore seek and find God’s answer to that question in their heart in the security of their home. The intent of each question will be to help people (spouses) take one step at a time, one issue at a time, towards believing whatever God wants everyone to know, believe, and understand the way GOD WANTS IT UNDERSTOOD BY ALL, rather than trying to get them to read an entire book (which is a very good thing but few do this today). There will be groups and individuals who will offer services (almost always free) where many different approaches to questions on each particular “step” are put side by side for comparison purposes. Parents, especially fathers, will be expected to arm their children with the best examples and to demonstrate being open to knowing and believing everything God wants all to know and believe and to help their children check out the arguments, questions, posted by other faiths to see if they have any questions that God’s answer to seems to appear to lead to this other faith only. Hopefully, many people will include related questions to be found on the web page also listed at the bottom of the slips of paper.

    Think if all religious schools made sure that all children knew where to go for the best questions for people of any faith.

    Do you see the potential for good if a few lay Christian groups (Knights of Columbus, St. Joseph Society, and non-Catholic groups) started working together and expected their ministers to support this idea? What minister would explicitly, publicly say, “I do not want to publicly, explicitly encourage husbands and wives to wash each other with a ‘bath of water with the Word’ the way God wants it done”?

    Are there any problems facing families today that a healthy dose of Husbands and wives washing each other with a “bath of water with the word” would not help alleviate because of the graces God would likely send in response to such washing?

    Has your Priest or Minister explained God’s meaning and the practical implementation of Ephesians 5:25 better than the following? If they have, please share with me that explanation.

    “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word”. What does God want husbands and wives to do in order to bathe each other with “the bath of water with the word” and to pass the desire for, and the practice of, such bathing onto the next generation and all their friends and their children?

  23. Not really a fan of the feet washing anyways but, just from a practical stand point, is it really a great idea to have men who are supposed to be celibate kneeling down in front of seated women while getting all touchy with said women’s feet?

    I guess (according to Mr. Voris) we don’t have to worry about half the priests getting any ideas with the women but maybe a solution to avoid temptation for the other half during this ceremony would be to only allow women like Nancy Pelosi to be wash-ees. I’m just spitballin’ here.

    • What you say has great validity. We sometimes forget your point in all the angst over tradition. This fits with the women dressing like whores going to Communion. Poor priests!

  24. We live in the Age of Hydra. Same organism, manifold attire, multiple countenances, and a host of vapid insults and arguments. Ecclesiastical Obamas shepherding groundlings over the edge. It is all of a piece.

  25. And thanks to the new Francis video promoting religious indifferentism, we now know one thing for certain: “People of God” does not apply only to Catholics. But having already washed the feet of people of other faiths, he’s already shown this conviction quite clearly.

  26. It is very clear we are living in the Apocalypse in real time. We must always be in Sanctifying Grace. Stay very very far away from occasions of Sin. Embrace even to Martrydom the Traditional teachings of the Holy Catholic Church and stay focused on the traditional Saints of the Holy Church. There is a darkness that has engulfed the world. This darkness has engulfed most of the Clergy of Priests and Bishops. Their blindness is do to not believing the absolute Truths of the Holy Catholic Church. These Truths are of the Holy Spirit. To deny these Truths is calling the Holy Spirit a Liar and there for a Sin against the Holy Spirit. This is the root of the problem of the Crisis in the Church. A very good Catholic pastor has proclaimed this in recent Homilies. We should also wait and see what Cardinal Burke ‘s comments on this new dark age that has enveloped the world and it’s extent to those in the Church who refuse its absolute Truths.

  27. Again, good work Steve Skojec. Question: Does Pope Francis see himself as the instrument of the ‘God of Surprises’? Answer: No, because nothing he does comes as a surprise.

  28. QUOTE: “This doesn’t even touch on the long list of theological distortions,
    humanist concerns, and elevation of worldly matters — like climate
    change — to a level of ordinary magisterial teaching, despite the fact
    that specific prescriptions on these topics are clearly outside the
    Church’s areas of competence”

    Within the lookout of thousand of years, the kicking up of “climate change” (the ideology, the religion of it) to magisterial teaching may seem a silly and significant thing. But it is no small thing, this fading & crossing of boundaries; this kicking of the ball by the papal foot from the yard or field to the hearth, the bedroom, and the cloisters of the House of God.

    Even in its littleness this kicked up papal ball smashes windows and slams through doors, shattering liturgical panes and splintering the doctrinal wood. Worse, it signals signage for the kicking of other yard balls into the house, laying low and leveling even the rules and goalposts of games properly played in fields and barnyards.

    Worse upon worse, it gives clearance for the games of metaphysical thieves and ontological robbers – the collapsing of the natural into the supernatural or the collapsing of the supernatural into the natural . Or both,


Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...