Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

A Third Bishop Comes to the Defense of the Four Cardinals

(Image courtesy of the Diocese of Rzeszow)

After the wonderful news yesterday that Bishop Athanasius Schneider has come publicly to the aid of the courageous Four Cardinals who are challenging Pope Francis over the much-contested post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia, a second Polish Bishop – after Auxiliary Bishop Józef Wróbel of Lublin, Poland – has now raised his voice in a similar way. Bishop Jan Watroba, President of the Council for the Family of the Polish Bishops’ Conferences, has now made a statement where he declares that he believes that the publication of the Four Cardinals Letter is “not reprehensible.”

According to the Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost, Watroba sees in this letter “an expression of the commitment and care concerning the right interpretation of the teaching of Peter.” He stressed also that he himself is now “waiting very much to see an answer, a clarification,” inasmuch “as I myself have now been overwhelmed with many similar questions – just like other bishops and pastors.” Watroba spoke these words to the Polish News Agency (KAI). He added the following words:

It is too bad that there exists no unified interpretation and no clear message of the document [Amoris Laetitia] and that one has to add interpretations to the Apostolic document. I personally – perhaps out of habit, but also out of conviction – prefer such documents, as John Paul II used to write them, where additional commentaries or interpretations concerning the teaching of Peter were not necessary.

It is encouraging to see that more prelates have the courage to defend the Four Cardinals – especially after they have now been accused of heresy, apostasy and schism by another prelate.

Moreover, it is to be hoped that the Catholic resistance will now grow by the day. This will become even more pertinent, inasmuch as more and more troubling pieces of news are coming to us now out of Rome. Today, our colleague in Germany, Guiseppe Nardi, reports that Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia – the new head of the Pontifical Academy for Life – has said on 23 November in an interview with La Nazione (among other newspapers) that the canonical rule of excommunicating a person for performing or procuring an abortion might soon be removed. To the question of the journalist as to whether this rule could be removed in the near future, Paglia answered: “Yes, this is not impossible.”

Paglia continued, saying:

Whether it will be Pope Francis who will remove this canonical rule, I do not know – one would need to ask him. It is certain, however, that the Canon Law has been modified dozens of times in the last decades. Thus it would not be surprising if the progress of life would lead to an aggiornamento [update] of Canon Law. That is part of reality. The tradition of the Church is a living body, not a blocked set of rules.

140 thoughts on “A Third Bishop Comes to the Defense of the Four Cardinals”

  1. The longer PF and his minion’s continue down the path of arrogance and intentional moral ambiguity the more the ordinary Bishop will feel isolated and upset and the more they will begin to speak out.

    • Pope Francis is a scourge sent by God upon the novus ordo church as punishment for abandoning tradition. Stop your complaining already.

      • I have no problem believing that PF could very well be part of God’s chastisement of the Church, but that will be to purify her not destroy her.

        There is no such thing as the Novus Ordo Church: that is a Sedevacantist position. Are you a sedevacantist?

        Who was the last Pope? Was it Pius XII or did his Liturgical changes mean he wasn’t actually Pope either (he started the Pontifical Commission for the Reform of the Liturgy and appointed Annibale Bugnini as secretary….) and he made changes to the Mass as well. So was it Pius XI then, was he the last Pope?

        • The CC should have quashed Sedevacantism & Modernism long ago – we wouldn’t have had this chastisement if they had. The Dubia must be defended & a return to order accomplished.

          • Ana, I believe this punishment is for SIN not for the modern heresies. The heresies are the window dressing, but sin in all its horror brings the chastisement. It’s important to understand this, I think, because moderns have lost their horror of sin entirely. If this fallen world with all its natural disasters (earthquakes, droughts, volcanos, tsunamis etc.) and the sufferings of all men (through illness, sorrow, trials, having to sweat for their daily bread etc.) is the direct result of Adam’s sin, imagine the chastisements due to the billions and billions of sins committed since Our Lord’s Resurrection – with the sins of Sodom, and abortion heading the list. May God lessen our punishment through Our Lady’s compassion and intervention. (always enjoy your comments, by the way.)

          • The world comprises of far more non-Catholic/Christian peoples yet PF says we are all the same so not to evangelise them as there is no need. They can get to Heaven by their good deeds. Now, if that is the case (which I don’t accept) how are we going to overcome the licentiousness & heathen worship which is so prevalent to-day, even in the highest ranks of the CC? We all know that the CC is ruled by active sodomites & Satanic influences brought into the recent church by the ideology of Marxist/Masonic/Modernism & this will not be overcome unless high-ranking clergy decide enough is enough & act against it. We don’t want to go backwards to the time of Christ & before when everyone was a heathen. As Catholics we know we must follow Him by adhering to the Ten Commandments & availing ourselves of the Sacraments, but the vast majority of the global world don’t & won’t as long as this instruction is conformed to. I am aware that the non-catechised Catholic is now almost as badly behaved as those who never heard the Word or dismissed it but that responsibility lies at the feet of the popes & hierarchies, particularly since VII. They have sent good men home from the seminaries because they didn’t ‘fit in’ with the sodomite agenda. They gave over our schools, universities, hospitals for government funding & have now been put in the position of having their mouths taped by successive governments because of that corrupt decision. They must be held accountable & I pray this Dubia will be the start of their public admission of culpability & repentance.

        • I reject the notion of a “novus ordo church” for the reason you identify but as an ex-Lutheran I have to admit I see Lutheranism all thru the Ordinary Form culture. In fact, I see more Lutheranism than Catholicism. Polls on Catholic belief seem to indicate that to be the case, with a relatively small number of “Catholics” believing in the Real Presence for example and Catholics everywhere ignoring teaching on restrictive communion, necessity of confession, practice of contraception, mixed marriages, etc.

          And I do not buy the “conservative” argument that such polls represent everybody who “calls themselves Catholic” {AKA “not real Catholics} and are thereby irrelevant for by the Church’s own teaching, the Church is made up of both the saved and the unsaved. Yet by their lifestyles and admitted beliefs, the masses appear to be…Lutheran. In FACT, all one needs for one indicator of PROOF that “Lutherans” inhabit and ATTEND Mass everywhere in the Ordinary Form parishes is mere observation of the average family size of Catholics who as I say, DO attend Mass regularly.

          Which is why I prefer to use terminology of observation and try, tho difficult, to avoid judging individuals.

          Simply observing what the culture of the Ordinary Form parishes IS, hearing what is taught and suggested and allowed and frowned upon, I see Lutheranism throughout. This Pope embodies it to what I can only call and hope is the penultimate degree {for a Pope!} and a degree that will never again be repeated.

          No, it is certainly safe to be highly critical of what the “novus ordo culture” has become in the USA and from what I have read, the West and developed portions of other regions as well. In fact, and I say this with grave care, it would not be unreasonable for an uninformed observer to simply state that the Catholic Church has simply changed her doctrine and become a new religion approaching Lutheranism if they happened to know anything about Lutheranism! It takes a great deal of knowledge and insight to understand how She HASN’T.

          So while I agree with you that using terms like “novus ordo church” is both inaccurate and very dangerous, I also understand WHY people use them.

          It is up to lay truly-faithful and warrior priests to come out of the dark and be heard and it is about time they boldly make their faces and names known, yes, even on public forums. We in the secular world must stand up for the Lord Jesus Christ and pay whatever cost we must in our work and businesses and families. No different standard should apply to priests, deacons, bishops and cardinals. IF such men had been bolder all along, I doubt we would have so much confusion as to whether there is, or is not, a “novus ordo church”.

          Rod Halvorsen

          • I very much agree with what you have said here, and I have said very similar things thousands of times for the past twenty years (I converted roughly 20 years ago and it didn’t take long to figure out that there were serious problems a plenty.)

            I say the average Parish in the West is comprised of about 10% of Catholics who are actually Catholic, about 10% who are mostly Catholic and are leaning in the right direction about 10-20% who are actively trying to subvert the Church via Modernism and the rest are practical secular atheists who call themselves Catholic but have no consciousness of what that means and almost no understanding of what the Church teaches on most everything.

            However the problem isn’t Protestantism in the Church (Lutheranism) per se (though it is a problem): It’s actually Modernism which is worse than Protestantism (hard to comprehend I know) because it even corrupts what the Protestants haven’t yet corrupted. Modernism’s principle tenant is that All things are mutable: even God is mutable for them. I would say that Modernism is simply Satanism under the guise of the Angel of Light.

            I speak out publicly all the time, how could I not? I have been given a commission to fulfill and my salvation is dependent upon my keeping the Vow I have freely made. When I was ordained I asked God in His kindness to kill me first if I were ever going to betray the Faith.

            I don’t give my name on the internet because I am a very busy Parish Priest and it is my assignment and I need to be obedient to it. I do not have time for hundreds more emails, phone calls and random pop ins from everyone who reads a post of mine, likes what they read and then wants to consult me.

            If God wants to free me of the Pastoral responsibility and give me more time and freedom then I will be happy to post my name etc…

            Everyone tends to think that priests who use pseudonyms on the internet are doing so in order to say things that they are afraid to say for fear of reprisal from an Ecclesiastical Authority, and for some that probably is true: which doesn’t necessarily mean that they are cowards (though they could be) they may simply be trying to preserve the Ministry for the sake of the Flock they shepherd and don’t want the faithful to be handed over to a wolf.

            However, I suspect that many do it because they are swamped by their ministry and don’t have the time for more ministry, yet they want to assist Catholics who are struggling on these forums because they are good priests and want to help if they can.

          • I don’t think a better summary could be made than yours here:

            “However the problem isn’t Protestantism (Lutheranism) per se (though it is a problem): It’s actually Modernism which is worse than Protestantism (hard to comprehend I know) because it even corrupts what the Protestants haven’t yet corrupted. Modernism’s principle tenant is that All things are mutable: even God is mutable for them. I would say that Modernism is simply Satanism under the guise of the Angel of Light.”

            I was introduced to the concept of “modernism” during RCIA when I began to read various encyclicals, especially Paschendi. Before that, having a Protestant theology degree {Masters} I understood classical Protestant liberalism {denial of miracles, affirmation of the “historical Jesus”, Bultmann, etc} but this “modernism was a striking and profound new concept for me. As you say, and as did Pius X, it truly is the sum of all heresies. I suspect it is the “religious deception” of CCC 675, where the “solution” is the variable and changing norms, morals and doctrines of modernism.

          • Novus Ordo is the product of Modernism. It is the reason all in the Church continues to die a slow death. N.O. Mass drains belief in the Real Presence with its dumbed down prayers, innovations. As Archbishop Lefebvre correctly said, it is a “bastardized rite.”

          • If faithful Catholics knew modernism is deep in the core of the Church, what would you do.? Follow the modernist pastor blindly to go to hell.? No,. we can’t do that. No accepting and no supporting Modernism. Best way is to stop donate money and times to that church, go looking for traditional Church to attend. Against it as much as you can. Make them think it over. God help us.

        • I’ve always assumed Pope Pius XII was under pressure to set the Commission up but then I found out before becoming Pope, he and Bugnini were working together with others on some reform of the Mass, so whose idea was that ? And wasn’t that project naïve because it was in contradiction of a previous Pope’s magisterial instruction that the Mass as it was, was and would be the Mass of all time ?

    • Good point. My bishop is, or at any rate, was good but is clearly scandalized by Francis and terrified by the fact that he doesn’t know what to tell his priests and the laity. I think many bishops are like him now – good men but completely shocked at having their legs cut out from under them. And, like the laity, they’re wondering what to do next.

    • Do you really think so, or do you think they will simply become numb to it like the priests, pastors and “bishops” of the Anglican and Lutheran sects? After all, tho the Church may be divine, Her leaders are simply men, and cowardly men do what cowardly men do.

      Take Chaput for example. The man sickens me. Just listen to him now trying to extricate himself from the blithering @$$-kissing he has done to PF vis a vis the PG-Rated and critically unacclaimed Amoris Laeitita.

      After fawning all over it now he tries to tag his name along with the Big Four. What a bureaucrat. What a pogue. A MAN would have just plain eaten crow and admitted he messed up, assessed it incorrectly and now after subsequent study realizes the thing reeks of Satanic foulness , vile rot he somehow missed on the first reading. MY bishop gave me a similar load of Bravo Sierra about AL when I corresponded with him, and he is supposed to be one of the “orthodox” guys.

      I am just about exhausted with fairies in vestments.

      • Bishops are men it is true, but they are also charged with a responsibility and they tend to become very annoyed when someone begin to play hide the ecclesiastic ball because it makes them look like fools and incompetents. Many of them may be poorly formed but that doesn’t mean they don’t want to fulfill their office.

        Some of them just want to know for certain which way the wind is blowing so they can sail with it (pathetic as that may be) and if it keeps swirling even they can get exasperated.

        OF course there will be the fence sitters who are either too stupid, too afraid or corrupt (or a combo) to commit one way or the other.

        • Well, I sincerely hope this current pontificate causes many of them to ponder their callings and to commit themselves to defending the Truth in the future.

          • When in doubt, stay with the established dogma of the church. See: Catechism of Trent, Baltimore Catechism if in doubt. Read St Pius X encyclical against Modernism and discern current trends according to it. You (or any bishop) can’t go wrong, though they will make all sorts of enemies and be embarassingly non-PC. (But Our Lord warned of that)

        • Christensen.

          First, he is one of the “Good Guys”, not one of the “Bad Guys”. I do not consider him a “Bad Bishop”. But I am exhausted with the weak and vapid leadership that he and others currently demonstrate in the face of what is for the Church CLEARLY a crisis.

          I sent him a letter and expressed concerns about AL but never directly said it was heretical. He wrote back {that he responded is far better than many bishops I bet!} and said that calling it heretical was “unjustified”.

          Well in the first place, I didn’t say it was, but clearly he must understand that the concerns I have with it lead that direction. What REALLY bothers me is this prevalent culture that exists among prelates to knee-jerk and pretend everything is “fine” when a simple reading of a document like this {or others from this Pope} clearly indicate everything is NOT fine.

          I do not expect a prelate to assault the Pope. I do not expect a prelate to bash the Pope. That is absurd. I think I speak for many when I say I DO expect prelates, priests and others to state what even the non-Catholics can see clearly; there are serious problems with this pontificate and with the documents of it vis a vis the past teaching of the Catholic Church. To play the “let’s pretend” game is to me effeminate and below the dignity of the office.

          As a Catholic man I am {rightly} expected to stand up for my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ first and foremost in my business and in my secular life. No matter the cost. I don’t think expecting Catholic Bishops to meet the same standard is asking too much.

        • Christensen.

          One of the “Good Guys”. and he is NOT a “Bad” bishop in my opinion.

          Look, he actually has responded to letters I’ve written. That is pretty good. But in discussing the problems I noted in AL, he was quick to respond that to say there was heresy in the AL was “unjustified”. Interesting, because I never said that.

          THIS is the type of “let’s pretend” that causes me so much angst. Because the FACT is that the text of AL patently DOES encourage heresy and even non-Catholics can see it.

          I am not hoping for a bishop who picks fights with the Pope. I am hoping for a bishop who can detect trouble when they see it and admit it {because nobody is being fooled} instead of taking what I consider an effeminate and vapidly knee-jerk a stance in always declaring that things are fine when they patently are not fine.

          As a Catholic man I am expected {rightly} to stand up for my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and confess Him and His teaching in the secular world, even if it costs me. I believe Bishops should be held to the same standard, not given a pass to duck and dodge because they need to be “diplomatic”.

          • Standing up will cost you a lot: lost of comfortable position, brilliant future and no more enjoying much fruits come from modernism and other personal thing quite secret is that you may be kicked out from priesthood and have no more sodomizing sex (full of them in Vatican).?

  2. Bishop Jan Watroba is to be commended for coming out in favour of the Dubia particularly while so many of our Cardinals & Bishops are still dragging their feet. It is highly necessary that the implications of AL as it stands are made totally clear & unequivocal. Leaving it to individual Bishops or Bishops Conferences is not in order as the CC is Universal & therefore it needs universal norms & governance. This must come from the Pope & Hierarchy of the day. At the rate PF is retiring, sacking & demoting conservative Cardinals & Bishops & replacing them with progressives, there is every possibility of no opposition to anything he proposes in the future.

    • Each bishop is the supreme authority in his own diocese, and the diocesan priests pledge their obedience to their bishop and his successors at their ordination. The possibilities are dizzying.

      • They are under the authority of the Pope as were the First Apostles under Peter’s authority. Bishops’ Conferences were introduced after VII as prior to that everything was decided by Rome, hence the power of the Curia. A Universal Church needs central government in order to maintain discipline throughout its Global Diocese as every parish must maintain the same adherence to the Deposit of Faith, Magisterium & Tradition of the CC or it flounders. If Protestantism had maintained order it might have been a force to be reckoned with. As it did not, putting personal judgement before Divine instruction, we must not follow in their footsteps as PF wants us to. That concept must be quashed.

  3. The faithful remnant among the clergy will be in a distinct minority. History teaches us this. At the time of the Arian heresy, Athanasius was left on his own. In England, during the Reformation, only St. John Fisher remained faithful among the English bishops.

    So it is today. Only four cardinals presented the dubia to Francis and only a handful of bishops have spoken in support of them. The remainder are either waiting to see which way the wind blows or are too clueless to understand the import of what is happening. Thank goodness for the blogosphere. All the hanky panky which followed Vatican II (such as the Novus Ordo Mass) was rammed through in the dark of night but today, we’re able to communicate with each other and marshal the resistance.

    As soon as I heard that Bergoglio was too “humble” to follow his predecessors and had decided to abandon the papal apartments for alternative living arrangements, I knew we were dealing with a demagogue.

          • Yes, this is quite the joke. Francis does sleep in a very simple room but the rest of the place is beautiful. We don’t want him to live in a tiny apartment over a pizzeria but – well this humble schtick is getting a bit tired.

          • When I’m pope, I’m going to move to Beverly Hills but make sure that I have a very simple room in my $30M mansion! I’ll be very humble when I’m swimming in the pool or using the underground gym. 🙂

            Anyway, despite all his other sins, I don’t think Bergoglio is really a greedy person. However, I think it was beyond pathetic for him to suggest that most or even very many other popes were for living in the papal apartments. (I thought the Church had decided that, with the support of the laity, but then again, I guess abortion and divorce aren’t sins anymore as long as Bergoglio says it’s “merciful”.)

          • In Italy, marble is just “local building stone”. I have stayed in cheap hostels there with bad plumbing in solid marble bathrooms. (and only one electrical socket in the whole beautiful room with its artistic plaster ceiling.) There were some battered “gold-leaf end tables” which were pretty rickety;
            –It’s hard for non Romans to realize how much fancy old furniture lurks in the homes and B&B’s of even impoverished Romans.

    • Only four cardinals presented the dubia to Francis…

      Six cardinals signed the dubia.

      Only four went public with it, along with their names. I wonder who the other two cardinals are.

  4. Here’s another gem from Pope Francis: Bernard Häring, a notorious dissenter of Humanae Vitae, as a moral theologian worthy of praise for rescuing Moral Theology from moral absolutes into an evolving of consciousness based on shades of gray.

    This is not surprising nor shocking to anyone who is the least bit alert, yet it is still painful to endure.

    • This is pure relativism and it makes me wonder, given BXVI’s stance on the subject, how the two seem to be so tightly connected.

      As you so accurately posted however, it is not surprising, simply disappointing and a bit painful to read.

      Hopefully more Bishops and Cardinals will come forth to put an end to this nonsense.

      • Please let’s stop judging Francis intentions. Man does not choose evil (under normal circumstances, psychologically at any rate). Man chooses what he THINKS is the good. Francis has always said that he wants the Church to be a place for all to meet Jesus – yes, to our ears this is evil, protestant blather and doesn’t mean anything…but I’m convinced FRANCIS intends this as a good. What does it gain us to state Francis’ intentions when we cannot know what they are?

        Isn’t it bad enough that we see, and legitimately can judge, his actions and words?

        • Thank you. Unlike so many, who are reacting in fear and anger, I do not believe Francis is evil nor does he intend it. He believes he is doing good, which makes him incredibly dangerous

          • I agree. It does indeed make him dangerous, perhaps because he seems absolutely convinced of the rightness of his positions, and he also seems strongly driven to change the teachings of the Church. He isn’t open to any other interpretation but his own. And maybe that of Cardinal Kasper.

        • Thank you. Unlike so many who are reacting to Pope Francis out of an understandable mix of anger and fear, I don’t believe he is evil or that he intends to destroy the Church. Pope Francis legitimately believes he is doing good…which makes him exceedingly dangerous

          • He was elected by the efforts of the St. Gallen Mafia who boasted about it afterwards. Look at the composition of that membership & the length of time they have been trying to get ‘their man’ into office & then affirm what you have just stated.

            I believe their agenda is the institution of a NWO Religion with no specific rules attached to start with but as time goes by anyone wth the faintest adherence to the Word of God will be persecuted for it.

          • Malachi Martin ( viciously slandered by people who had a vested interest in discrediting his writings and implied warnings) said that the last Pope of this era would be under the influence of Satan. He hastened to add in Charity that this pontiff might be unconscious of this; but would be so influenced by the “spirit of the age” (the heresy of Modernism, best defined as Satan in the guise of an Angel of Light, mercy, and ecumenism) that It would not alarm most Catholics.

        • Generally you are quite correct – we cannot judge another’s intentions unless they make them known to us. However, with somebody as loquacious as Francis he often reveals his intentions quite openly – irrespective of whether they are good or evil. Thus, when he states his intention to teach in a way that leaves important questions of faith open to interpretation, i.e. ambiguously, that is clearly an evil intention whether he realizes it or not as “ambigious” is one of the theological censures which is levelled at dubious teaching. When he states that it is his intention to devolve more power down to episcopal conferences to allow them to decide matters of doctrine, that is an evil intention as it can only result in parts of the Body of Christ embracing error – unless by the grace of God they all perchance teach the same doctrine in which case there was no point devolving such powers down to them in the first place.

          It may have been too strong to use the word “hate” of his attitude to the Catholic Faith (unless used with the intention of speaking in hyperbole), but there is a very simple way for him to prove that he does not hate the Catholic Faith. He can simply affirm that there are such things as intrinsically evil acts, he can affirm that circumstances and intention cannot turn an intrinsically evil act into a good act, he can affirm that conscience cannot turn an intrinsically evil act into a good act and he can confirm that public, permanent adulterers should not be admitted to the sacraments without repentance and a firm purpose of amendment of life.

          • It seems to me that this “simple way” is what the Cardinals have used to ask Francis to show that he does not hate the Catholic Faith, and so far, Pope Francis has not responded.

        • “Out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks” –Proverbs.
          Does a good tree produce bad fruit (teachings?) We don’t judge the man; we are supposed to judge his teaching voice and actions, including the symbolic ones–“Be you wise as serpents, and innocent as doves.”

  5. Archbishop Paglia correctly says, “The tradition of the Church is a living body, not a blocked set of rules,” and thus explains away the decision to lift automatic excommunication from cases of abortion. Of course, no one ever said this rule couldn’t be changed, so one wonders why Paglia pretends someone did. The real question is, given current popular attitudes of indifference toward this heinous crime against nature, whether it is wise to do so now. By this action at this time, isn’t Francis sending yet another tacit message to the world that abortion really isn’t such a big deal after all in the spiritual world? Be this his intention or not, clearly that interpretation will soon attach itself to this move.

    • >>The tradition of the Church is a living body, not a blocked set of rules.<<

      Interesting that this is the same rationale offered by those in favor of expanded federal (centralized) power in the United States. They would prefer an interpretation of our Constitution as a "living document" admitting of novel applications "more aporopriate" for our times.

      • Patricia, Isabel, and Arthur: Given its context, it’s hard to believe this announcement was merely fortuitous. Worldwide since 1973 there have been some 1 and 1/2 billion abortions, a figure I assume (I certainly hope) the pope is aware of. It’s the single greatest cataclysm in human history, one that has no substantive competition as concerns cruelty or the amount of innocent blood shed. Anyone with even the slightest inkling about how God has punished far less grotesque faithlessness on the part of mankind in the past should be, perforce, frightened to the point of nausea. Yet our pope, instead of sounding the alarums proper to this grim scenario, chooses instead to lower red flags along the beach and to hoist green ones. Perplexing at the very least.

        • Johnny, you have hit the nail on the head. This crime really has no historical competition. We are really going to get it – and it has begun – a purging of the faithless, a grave trial for the faithful. What chills me is Our Lady has said that the innocent will be punished along with the guilty. Think of all the innocent who have been killed in wars just over the past 100 years? And still we will not convert our lives to Christ.

          • We think, Barbara, of the tens of thousands of Japanese civilians who never raised a gun, but were immolated in the massive fire-bombing of Tokyo, or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; those burned in Dresden; the hundreds of thousands of German women raped by the Communist armies in 1945; the countless victims of Communist concentration camps in the Gulag. But, even with all this, we haven’t begun to balance the scales heavy with a billion and a half dead babies only recently departed from the hand of God. It is chilling indeed to think about this.

    • That was exactly what Francis was saying…or even if it wasn’t, that’s how it’s been perceived by the world. Oh, cool, abortion really isn’t that bad after all.

      • He’s talking about application of those teachings to situations unsuspected in the past. For instance, what does tradition have to say about the use of nuclear weapons on civilian targets, on great cities? What about small pills that render women infertile? That’s not “change,” but rather faithful adaptation to new circumstances.

        • Not really .
          Thomas Aquinas covered these developments in principle long ago.
          The Principles of Just War apply in the space age, as well as “Thou shalt not murder.”

    • “Of course, no one ever said this rule couldn’t be changed, so one wonders why Paglia pretends someone did.”

      It’s called a “Straw Man.”

    • How is he correct in saying Tradition is a “Living Body”? Tradition is the teachings of the Church, which nobody, not even the Pope, can change.

  6. If the excommunications latae sententiae removed from those who procure, aid or abet abortions, it would be the greatest departure from Apostolic teaching in history.

    From Apostolic times to the present, the Church has consistently admonished the faithful of the intrinsic evil of abortion, in documents from the Didache to Humanae Vitae and the teaching of PJPII.

    The MSM would be licking their chops over such a story. The truly Catholic faithful who picket abortion clinics, vote pro-life, and adhere to the traditional teaching of the Church on abortion would be in consternation.

    Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us. Since we have no defense, we sinners offer this supplication to You, our Master: Have mercy on us!

    + Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit

    Lord, have mercy on us, for in You we place our hope. Be not exceedingly angry with us nor mindful of our transgressions but look upon us even now with mercy and deliver us from our enemies. For You are our God and we are Your people; we are all the work of Your hands and we call upon Your Name.

    Now and ever and forever. Amen.

    Open to us the doors of mercy, O blessed Mother of God, that we who place our trust in you may not perish but that we may be delivered from misfortune. For you are the salvation of all Christians.

    Troparion, Kontakion and Theotokion of General Intercession and Penitence, Tone 6

  7. “It is too bad that there exists no unified interpretation and no clear message of the document [Amoris Laetitia] and that one has to add interpretations to the Apostolic document.”

    Indeed, but surely this was the intention of Francis all along. He could not have been any clearer at the closing of the last Synod that he was keen to see greater autonomy of bishops’ conferences, including the power to determine doctrine. He actually said that questions like divorce and remarriage should be decided at a local level in order that account could be made of the prevailing local “culture”.

    To any sane person this is an obvious, sure-fire way to foment multiple schisms within the Body of Christ. Not only is he failing to act as the earthly focus of unity for the Church, but Francis and his lackeys are actively and intentionally creating disunity. The Greek bishop who accused the 4 Cardinals of being schismatic should level his accusations at Francis as nobody is working harder at present to bring schism about.

    On the other hand, maybe we should not be concerned about schisms. After all, to say that schisms, heresy and apostasy are always bad is very black and white

    • I think Francis was confident that there would be very little opposition – and in fact, there has been very little. All he has to do is keep going – which he has said over and over he would do – “I don’t look over my shoulder.” The Devil has lots of time. Every day as more and more souls are convinced to walk the wide path the Demons rejoice. Francis is a tool of the Devil and we must pray that Our Lady will convert him.

  8. “The Tradition of the Church is a living Body, not a blocked set of rules”. Spoken like a true Protestant.
    Sounds very much like those who claim the U.S. Constitution is a “living document”, even as they kill it by draining it of its lifeblood of meaning.

    • Exactly. Make a straw-man claim and then come along and rescue everyone from the thing that no one believed in the first place. And with the whole intent on making A no longer mean A, it now means anything but A and eventually with new history books will have never meant A.

    • Chaput announced in a column August 12 that he could see no difference between a pro-life candidate and the most blood-thirsty abortion fanatic in history.

    • He still wants his red hat. The only problem is that every now and then, good, conservative, orthodox things come out of his mouth that obviously ruffle Francis’ papal feathers.

    • I don’t know why the Holy Father keeps referring to good and evil as black and white. To me that’s language that is used by those that don’t believe in the metaphysical. Since this life is a fight for our souls he should refer to this as good vs. Evil. Holy vs. Unholy since these concepts aren’t void of the recognition of spiritual forces that attach themselves to our behavior. He speaks too much as a secularist that has scant knowledge of the spiritual struggle we are in. The Church and our souls are under siege by demonic forces and to them there is no such thing as a grey area. As I think about it, he is quick to state something is from the evil one when something appears too “rigid”. One name….Nehemiah

      He rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem because he understood the people and the temple were worth protecting. It’s time to defend the faith Holy Father. Any rigidness exists within the demons that still to this day refuse to recognize the authority of God and any institution reflective of Him, especially the institution that birthed the Savior that will bring their destruction. I’ve only studied our faith for 4yrs and even I know this. Why is it so difficult for the Holy Father?

  9. “Heresy, apostasy and schism..” Oh, my! Well, which is it? Bergoglio openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals. Heresy. Faith and morals seem to have been irrelevant to him. Apostate. He has never fought for anything else than to remain in positions of power. Schimatic. Thus, Bergoglio scores a 100% and A+ on the kooky quiz. A sign of his kookiness is his dismissal of Cardinal Burke, a world renowned expert in canon law, in 2013. Solution? Elect a new pope.

  10. This statement by Paglia is stunning.

    Truly Cupich is dead correct in stating to the 4 Cardinals that what is happening in the Catholic Church today demands “conversion”.

    Conversion to the Lutheran religion.

    No thanks. Been there. Done that.

  11. The score at half time :
    Good guys (+Burke, +Caffara, +Brandmuller, +Meisner, +Schneider + 2 Poles): 7
    Bad guys (Bergoglio, Tobin, Cupich, Greek ): 4
    Where are the pro-sodomite heretics like Marx, Kaspar, Danneels and why are they not opening their mouth?

  12. It’s always the same: a little truth to introduce the big lie. Yes, of course Canon Law has “developed” over time to meet new times and circumstances. It has always been enhanced or filled out, at least until Vatican II. But a “devolution” is not a good thing. This lowering of the “status” of abortion means that the seamless garment has become the new normal – without an exception even for the killing of babies.

  13. There is one rule, rigid and unbending, in the Conciliar Church and that is change, that nothing is beyond the scope of “update” or really a transformation of the faith into that which adheres to Modernism and modernity. Archbishop Paglia revealed this to be true when he said: “The tradition of the Church is a living body, not a blocked set of rules.”

    In other words, nothing within the body of the Church cannot change and indeed, everything must change if it is to deny there are any rules that cannot be changed.

    Clearly, if you review the changes within the Church in the last 50 years, you cannot see anything other than chaos. A real revolution against the truths revealed by Christ and taught without ambiguity or confusion up until then.

  14. Thank you for your work, One Peter five. According to this article, There is a certain essay “making rounds in Rome” among the bishops and cardinals, by a Brazilian canon lawyer on the subject of a a heretical Pope and how the Cardinals can proceed to remove him. Do you know anything of this, and is there a way to corroborate it?

  15. Did you hear what Francis did? EVERYTHING IS CLEAR ISN’T IT?

    “Pope Francis has praised the 1960s German moral theologian Bernard Häring, one of the most prominent dissenters from Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, for his new morality which the pope said helped “moral theology to flourish.” – LifeSiteNews

    • I am trying to understand PF. I understand reaching out to those who have sinned in a public manner, but instead of admonishing their deeds, correcting them, and then embracing them, he goes out of his way to praise them for their behavior. The Italian abortionist, and this “moral theologian” who does not teach morality but again a sort of relativism that says its OK to commit a wrong as long as your intentions are good makes me both angry and sad at the same time.

      Everyone knows that a good parent chastises their child when he or she has done something considered to be wrong and then they let that child know that they are still loved. They DO NOT tell that child that their offense is alright and they certainly DO NOT praise the action.

      Can you imagine a parent telling their child that cheating on a test is really a good thing because it challenges the teacher to do their job better.

      Nonsense, endless nonsense!

      • The only folks left who are confused by Pope Francis are those who try to force him into the paradigms of an orthodox Pontiff and a Catholic man.

        Once you divest yourself of that fruitless endeavor he becomes completely coherent with his words ringing clear.

        • Perhaps you are correct, but I just can’t help but think that the man is more likely one banana short of a bunch rather than that he is purposefully leading the faithful into error. I suppose in the end it matters not if he is whack-a-do or diabolically sane, the fruits of his doings, as you so aptly put it ring loud and clear.

          • Well I don’t think he is rubbing his hands together and plotting the End of the World.

            I think it’s obvious he thinks the Catholic Church is messed up and he needs to fix it. He doesn’t seem to know that it is messed up BECAUSE he and many like him have been trying to fix it.

          • No No, I don’t mean I think he is evil. Quite the contrary, I think he is without some of his faculties. When he was first elected he made the comment that he believed his pontificate would last only a couple of years. Who says that aloud? I never try to deal in absolutes when it comes to the human mind. In other words there could be a plethora of reasons for his actions. I am just curious. Yours is a possible explanation but I don’t think it is the only explanation.

          • I understand.

            I certainly don’t mean to imply I have an open window into the mind and heart of Jorge Bergoglio.

            To be frank…I don’t really WANT an open window into the mind and heart of Jorge Bergoglio.

            At this point I’d settle for a few straight answers to the legitimate questions presented in the dubia, though in the absence the answers are clear enough…


          • LOL, I’m not sure I should be looking there either. And yes, a few straight forward answers would be welcome.

            Pax tecum.

          • Remember, he is a South American Jesuit formed by his zeitgeist.
            He’s very, very intelligent and knows what he is doing.
            It is ironic that he chose the name “Francis” when St Francis of Assisi prophecied a future pope in the great Apostasy “would be a destroyer” .

          • Yes, which is why I have been considering the fact that he might also be forming his own style of liberation theology, which of course, was condemned by BXVI. In the end it doesn’t matter much because what he is doing is not for the good of the Church. I have seen a few articles trying to defend PF’s actions but they are rather weak and force a person to try and interpret the pope’s intentions as good though his statements are almost always misleading.

  16. I guess I shouldn’t have posted a link, sorry. Katholische Info said that an essay by a prominent Brazilian canon lawyer and theologian was “making the rounds in Rome” and that the essay’s subject was “heretical Popes” and the Church’s way of correcting/deposing them (though technically God deposed them, not the Church, from what I understand). If this is true, it shows the state of mind of at least some of the bishops and cardinals in Rome. Is there any truth to this story?

  17. I suppose we are as close to schism in the Church today as we have been since the Second Vatican Council. But we are not there yet.

    It depends on whether Amoris Latitiae is an Infallible document addressed to the whole Church, stating as Infallible beliefs which were already accepted as such by being in Scripture, Revelation, Tradition, and expressed in the Magisterium.

    Amoris Latitiae does not come into this category therefore we are not in schism and it is perfectly proper of the four cardinals and now three others with doubtless many others, not to mention priests of whom I could probably name two, to state or think so and ask the Pope what in Heavens name he is rambling on about.

    On the issue of the removal of excommunication for abortion from canon law, that does not alter the fact that the obtaining knowingly of an abortion and the assistance to do so and the carrying out of the abortion is a mortal which will put such people in danger of Hell.

  18. Meanwhile another wolf comes to the aid of the Bergoglians. Cardinal Hummes of Brazil arrogantly claims”we are 200, they are only 4″.
    Yes that is the best these devils can do to back up their wicked teachings.
    At least Hummes is too old to vote in the next conclave.

    • I don’t know about a new one, but in addition to the original four, it has been reported that German Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes and the archbishop of Ukraine His Beatitude Sviatoslav Shevchuk, head of the greek-Catholic Ukrainian Church, were the two additional original signatories of the dubia. They chose not to go public.


Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...