Pope Francis: Enemy of the Papacy…

Pope Francis: Enemy of the Papacy...

When he read Pope Francis’s latest assault on the papacy, Petrus submitted the following commentary for discussion. As Editor, speaking on behalf of the Catholic Truth team, I agree with his every word. Do you?

In his first Apostolic Exhortation, Pope Francis continues his attack on the papacy. This attack began minutes after his election, when he rejected the ermine lined red cape and stole worn by his predecessors. Minutes after the election result was declared in the Sistine Chapel, the Master of Ceremonies offered to the new Pope these garments. “No thank you, Monsignore,” Pope Francis is reported to have replied. “You put it on instead. Carnival time is over!” Along with his continued use of “Bishop of Rome”, Pope Francis very quickly signalled his intent to demean the papacy.

His latest attack takes place just sixteen paragraphs into his latest document. ” Nor do I believe that the papal magisterium should be expected to offer a definitive or complete word on every question which affects the Church and the world. It is not advisable for the Pope to take the place of local Bishops in the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory. In this sense, I am conscious of the need to promote a sound “decentralization”. What exactly does the Pope mean by this? Clearly, he subscribes to the Anglican model of “First Among Equals”.

The Pope goes on to say ” I too must think about a conversion of the papacy. It is my duty, as the Bishop of Rome, to be open to suggestions which can help make the exercise of my ministry more faithful to the meaning which Jesus Christ wished to give it and to the present needs of evangelization.” So, last week we had a questionnaire asking us what we think of contraception, abortion, divorce and homosexuality, and now the Pope himself is asking for suggestions on the papacy? He goes on to say ” a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated.” For me, this is a no brainer. If Jorge Mario Bergoglio disliked the papacy so much, he should never have accepted it. For a man who never tires of telling us how humble he is, it is rather arrogant to say the least for him to try so blatantly to change the papacy to suit himself.

“It is not the task of the Pope to offer a detailed and complete analysis of contemporary reality”. claims Pope Francis. Well, this is the task of the Pope. This is what Pope St. Pius X did when he issued his Encyclical Letter “Pascendi”. It is What Pope Leo XIII did when he issued Rerum Novarum. This “humble” Pope cannot distinguish between true and false humility. His dislike of the papacy, issued under the guise of humility, is, in actual fact, pride. He himself cannot separate the man from the office. When the Pope teaches and commands, he does this because of the office he holds, not because of the man he is. When he wears traditional papal dress, he does this to glorify the office of the Pope, not the man. Pope Francis should never have accepted the papacy.

Click on photo to read Vatican source

80 responses

  1. It’s amazing that Pope Francis can refer to the wearing of the red cape and stole as “carnival” (if he did) and then go and put on that clown nose out in public. It’s as if the Popes are blindfolded and struck like Our Lord was, and mocked by the devil.

      • Would you offer some evidence for that, Martin? I’ve read several denials that he ever said what he said after his election before coming onto the balcony but he came onto the balcony without the papal stole, so the evidence (given his “liberal” words on other topics) seems, sadly, to point to the truth of the reports. If you can prove otherwise, we’ll all be delighted.

        • My friend is a colleague of the Maltese priest mc who offered the cape to the pope which he politely refused. I imagine you won’t believe that just as you don’t believe this pope has been chosen by the Spirit.

          • Martin,

            There is no guarantee that ANY pope is “chosen by the Spirit”. The Holy Spirit may or may not win the day in any given conclave but I think it’s pretty clear that he didn’t win the day in the election of Pope Francis. You’re not seriously suggesting that God the Holy Ghost chose all the bad popes in history, are you?

            We all marvelled at the two (I think?) lightning strikes on the dome of St Peter’s on the day Pope Benedict resigned. We now know why.

            • Can’t see the point in debating with people who are so set in their views. Yes there have been bad popes, but Francis is not one of them. May God bless him with long life.

            • Westminster Fly,

              Many thanks for reminding us of that article by William Marra. I have long intended to use it in the newsletter, so will do so at first opportunity. Not December – that edition is now in the post!

  2. This is a prophetic exhortation by a man after the heart of Jesus. This should be essential Advent reading for all who are serious about their faith. If you must be defensive then be so about the gospel and not about the church

  3. Here’s an alarming snippet from His Holiness’ new Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium:

    Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.

    I don’t accept this. I agree with the position of the Catholic Robert Spencer, who runs the website Jihad Watch . His esteemed opinion is that Islam is indeed a violent religion. This is because the fundamental emphasis of classical orthodox Islam is to proselytise non-Muslim peoples by marshal and revolutionary means. Some Muslims might not believe this, but they are not authentic Muslims.

    I found this passage frightening. It refers to Spiritual worldliness, which hides behind the appearance of piety and even love for the Church (93.). I am not sure what and whom it refers to. Would a more learned reader here help interpret it for me. (Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick?):

    (94.)This worldliness can be fuelled in two deeply interrelated ways. One is the attraction of gnosticism, [...] The other is the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others. These are manifestations of an anthropocentric immanentism. It is impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity.

    (95.) This insidious worldliness is evident in a number of attitudes which appear opposed, yet all have the same pretence of “taking over the space of the Church”. In some people we see an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige, but without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact on God’s faithful people and the concrete needs of the present time. In this way, the life of the Church turns into a museum piece or something which is the property of a select few.

    (emphasis added)

    He’s not referring to Traditionalists is he?

    I got the impression the Holy Father is saying a preoccupation for the liturgy is a hindrance to the Church’s apostolic work. I am sorry, but we know things have reached an unprecedented level of absurdity when the concilliarists are contradicting even the Second Vatican Council:

    Nevertheless the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows. For the aim and object of apostolic works is that all who are made sons of God by faith and baptism should come together to praise God in the midst of His Church, to take part in the sacrifice, and to eat the Lord’s supper. (Sacrosanctum Concillium 10)

    Not to mention an outright contradiction of his living predecessor:

    I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy (Ratzinger, 1998, Milestones)

    • Contrary to what this document appears to be asserting, I believe liturgies such as the one entitled (video on YouTube) MISA DE NIÑOS present a grave obstacle to the evangelisation of peoples in the West.

  4. Miles Immaculatae,

    I had a quick look at the Misa De Ninos 2011, the one where Pope Francis while still Bishop in Buenos Aires.
    From what I saw, I agree with you that the crisis in the Church we are experiencing is the disintegration of the lliturgy. Back in 2011 while still a Bishop, seems rather to be giving a sermon at some kind of Disney world entertainment, instead of a Mass. How often has it been said Lex Orandi Lex Credendi. As you pray so you believe?

  5. I find the frenetic searching for information to discredit Our Holy Father very worrying.
    When even his first alleged words after his election are used to add fuel to the fire of wanting him to be a bad pope, so you can sit safely behind the negative barriers.

    The church has been infiltrated and is rife with homosexuality and free mas******* , deliberately and systematically trying to destroy it from the outside and from within.
    This Pope has probably the hardest job and therefore requires the most support and prayers of any Pope in the history of modern civilization.
    Stop this “oh look I’ve found something else he may have said or insinuated or thought” to add to his discredit.
    I find the number of people who agree with your thinking in your poll both encouraging and the number symbolic.

    Have a look at what Michael Vorris had to say today about the Pope and his recent unreported, anti modernist actions and throw that on the scales.
    http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2013-11-26

    If Our Lady told the children at Fatima they must pray for the Holy Father, then we must do the same.

    Editor I humbly ask you to Please reread 1 Timothy 1 and 1 Timothy 3 and calm down.

    • I saw that Voris video and found it unconvincing. Michael Voris is one of those conservative types who makes excuses for the popes. When the criticisms of the Scalfari interview first came out, he said there was nothing in it that he didn’t agree with. Scalfaris asked if he wanted to see the stuff before he published it, but the Pope said no, he trusted him. I don’t go for this talk about emphasis etc. He said proselytism was nonsense and atheists could get to heaven if they followed their own ideas. If that was wrong, he needs to tell us in clear language that cannot be misunderstood.

      This was posted by the BBC three minutes ago and is very clear, as is the Pope’s document itself, that he “wants to devolve power” away from the Vatican – he’s obviously into decentralization.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25102720

      And what Voris said about his attitude to the Mass, anyone who has seen Begoglio’s Mass with the young people dancing etc. will not believe that either. I think it’s a feature of modernism that they way one thing that is orthodox one minute and something liberal the next.

    • Jacques Cathelineau

      I am sorry, but I think you have the wrong end of the stick. I watched Michael Voris and I think he put his own slant on what the pope said about the Council of Trent. He put Vatican II on the same level as that Council and he’s very wrong to do that. Trent was a dogmatic Council, Vatican II a merely pastoral council, and one that has caused devastation.

      Pope Francis is a modernist and I don’t think all the attempts to put a good interpretation on his words will work.

      Anyone watching his Mass before he became pope knows that he is a liberal and a modernist. I think things will get worse, before they get better.

      I’m just curious, but why do you say “calm down” to Editor? Petrus wrote the blog article and Editor only has one comment asking someone for evidence of what he says. How’s that “not calm”?

    • Jacques Cathelineau

      Sorry, Sugar Plum, not had time to read the bible verses you recommend but allow me to set your mind at rest, I’m very calm. Very calm indeed. Whatever made you think otherwise? And I had already seen that Voris video – typical Voris, as Lily says. He is the eternal optimist, and optimism is nearly always baseless.

      I’ll resist commenting on the rest of your highly uncharitable remarks because, frankly, there’s too much to correct and it’s way past my beauty sleep time, so good night and God bless you.

      Keep smiling! :-)

      • Editor,
        Since you do not have the time to read Sacred Scriptures I’ll quote them here for you.

        1 Timothy Chapter 3 11 – Women,* similarly, should be dignified, not slanderers, but temperate and faithful in everything.
        1 Timothy Chapter 2 11 A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control.i 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.* She must be quiet.

        1 Timothy Chapter 1 3
        that you stay in Ephesus to instruct certain people not to teach false doctrines 4* or to concern themselves with myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the plan of God that is to be received by faith.d 5The aim of this instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith.e 6Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk,f 7wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.

        I reiterate the Holy Father has a big enough problem with enemys such as Freemasonry, powerful homosexual circles and destructive malevolant influences such as Associations of irish priests, american nuns etc etc to defeat without people who WANT TO BELIEVE “Pope Francis is a modernist and I don’t think all the attempts to put a good interpretation on his words will work.” (to convince them otherwise)

        As Our Lord said “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand..”

        If you take time to read Evangelii Gaudium with an open mind, not looking for tipbits to feed your antagonism or bricks to build your barriers you will see
        ” Sometimes we are tempted to find excuses and complain, acting as if we could only be happy if a thousand conditions were met. To some extent this is because our “technological society has succeeded in multiplying occasions of pleasure, yet has found it very difficult to engender joy”

        I wont be flippant and sarcastic or antagonistic with smily faces or sugar plums because it is FAR to serious an issue.
        “I believe in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOLOSTOLIC CHURCH”
        United behind the Vicar of Christ we can defeat Satan (whom the Holy Father repeatedly mentions unlike most post Vatican two priests) divided we fall.

        Mise le Meas

        • But the Holy Father doesn’t have a problem with homosexuals. After all, who is he to judge??

          As for your Protestant cherry picking of Scripture…..”get a life” springs to mind!

          • The issue here is “cherry picking” , cherry picking anything, anywhere which will cement your PROTESTANT rejection of the Holy Father.
            I bet the “traditional” ladies here cover their heads in mass as scripture dictated, but are MODERNIST enough to convieniently ignore ” Women,* similarly, should be dignified, not slanderers, but temperate and faithful in everything.

            Traditional enough to be disgusted at the thought of innocent female children serving at a mass but MODERNIST enough to ignore
            A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control.I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.* She must be quiet.”

            The Holy Father repeatedly and regularly warns of the Devil and of hell, something I havent heard a priest or bishop mention (bar one priest) in over 10 years.

            If reading the word of Our Lord is a protestant, anti catholic practice, or using it as a guidance for right and wrong in my life, and praying for and supporting our Holy Father in his trials,well I have to admit I’m a modernist Pope loving, lifeless protestant!

            • Too many errors and misunderstandings to correct. Heard it all before and completely unoriginal.

              What’s next?

              • Go on Petrus, give it a shot, at least correct the errors. Lets break it down for simplicity.

                1. Your cherrypicking of everything the Holy Father does to find amunition to discredit him. Be honest, if he does do something in your eyes to be worthy & traditional, is it credited to him, or ignored or cast as irrelevant to belittle him. e.g his weekly warnings (as distinct from any modernist priest) of the devil.

                2. Tradition woman who use scripture (in my opinion correctly) as a basis to keep their heads covered in mass, but ignore the instruction “should be dignified, not slanderers, but temperate and faithful in everything.” and “A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control.I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.* She must be quiet.”

                Negativity becomes like a cancer.
                If I approach a modernist priest, bishop or cardinal and humbly/gently ask “Father, there is something you are saying that upsets me and my conscience could I possibly speak to you about it” I have a chance to speak to him, and THE POSSIBITY 50/50 chance convince him of my point, and his error.
                If I approach him pointing my finger, insulting him or his beliefs (which were deliberately misformed in him in the seminary) in an aggreesive manner, I will DEFINATELY
                1. Not convince him of his error
                2. Entrench his animosity for what I stand for.
                Thats human nature, the same way as you and I react to people of a similar or differant mindset (as in this blog)

                The Holy Father has the same problem, if he gently and humbly persuades over time he will with prayer save the most souls for which he is answerable for.
                If he agressively polerises and splits the church many souls will perish.
                I believe that the Holy Father humbly and silently adoring the Blessed Sacrament with 30,000 others (and millions more worldwide) for three hours last month was as powerful an act by a pope as I can remember.
                I walked the Corpus Christi procession in Glasgow for the first time in 60 years at the request of the Pope for worldwide adoration throughout the world at that time.
                Thats just two years since “wafer watching” was discouraged by our hierarchy here in Glasgow.

                Freemasonry avowed aim to distroy the church of Christ in league with its master is reaching its height.

                You will well know what Our Blessed Lady said to Lucy, “the Devil is in a mood for a decisive battle” and we must decide!

                Whether we disagree or not with some of his actions doesn’t matter, HE IS OUR LEADER in this discisive battle and we HAVE to give him our support, our actions and our prayers.

                • Saw the headlines of the Catholic papers today and the Herald one was about Pope Francis asking for the Church to be bruised, hurting and dirty (in helping the poor).

                  I don’t see that as a very appropriate wish to have for the Church.

                  And I am shocked at your description of Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament as “wafer watching”.

                • Jacques Cathelineau

                  I’ve already answered much of your criticism via my response to your other recent post so will focus only on a couple of things here, very quickly, as time is short:

                  Firstly, it is not “negative” to point out a problem. It is neglect NOT to do so and sins of omission are every bit as serious as sins of commission. As any alcoholic will tell you, it’s only when we face up to a problem that we can do something about it. How will the invalid who is unable to read and keep abreast of the news, as describes a good friend of mine, know that our new Pope needs many prayers, and so they may offer up their sufferings to win graces for him, unless someone tells them something of the scandal he is publicly causing?

                  It’s not “negative” to highlight problems. It’s very positive indeed. It’s the modern, foolish thing that is most popular however; just say nice things about everyone (especially the pope) then nobody will be any the wiser.

                  As for your advice about methodology. Thanks, but we sort of tried that for over twenty years before launching our newsletter. We wrote to the Vatican, popes and bishops, did the Catholic Truth team – between us for around 20 years) and do you know what happened as a result of our courteous, deferential letters? We were ignored and insulted in just about equal measure. It was then that we took to heart the exhortation of St Thomas Aquinas that the faithful have a right to rebuke prelates even in public, if the Faith is in danger.

                  Yes, the Pope is our LEADER as you say – and we must certainly pray for him – but the fact is, he’s a very BAD leader. And to say otherwise is to lie. In the face of manifest evidence, it is a lie to pretend that we have a good pope.

                  I can’t help wondering if you defend all the other bad popes in history – or if it is just popes in your lifetime who enjoy the luxury of your uncritical (and Un-Catholic) allegiance but don’t bother answering – I have a feeling I know the (depressing) answer.

                  God bless.

                • Well, it might help to learn to spell before engaging in such a profound discussion. It is quite hard to take the rest of your post seriously when you put your mistake in block capitals. After that, thinking and thinking again before you make a fool of yourself helps.

                  Is the pope our leader? Yes, no one is denying that. David Cameron is also a leader – does that mean he cannot be criticised?. Is the pope always infallible, ie. above criticism? Of course not.

            • Jacques Cathelineau

              I’m just catching up with your posts now and both of the ones I’ve just read are packed with assumptions, presumptions, false dichotomies, false allegations and heavens knows what else. But, let’s begin with your wrong-headed thinking about the papacy. Here’s what the great Theologian of Trent, Melchior Cano, writes:

              “Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See – they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.”

              The above is self-explanatory and should need no further comment. Allow me, however, to point out that where a pope is blatantly contradicting infallible statements of his predecessors, then he is not to be followed. Anyone who thinks differently is being unfaithful to the deposit of the Faith and that is where our fidelity must go – not to any individual pope. Our loyalty is to the Faith and the Papacy – not to any individual pontiff.

              Moving on to some of your false allegations, briefly; you cannot accuse “women” of being slanderers, lacking dignity, etc. just because some of us, myself included, pass comment on what is happening in the Church. There is no slander here. You need to offer evidence for such grave allegations and so far you have failed to do so. None of us have (yet) received any phone calls from Pope Francis so we can only speak about what is in the public domain. Nothing slanderous in doing that – even for us mere women…

              Your enthusiasm about the fact that the Pope has mentioned the Devil and Hell is interesting. It is, in fact, a feature of the neo-conservative type of Catholic, that they think all is well if a bishop or pope repeats any doctrine faithfully or upholds any moral law. I used to get loads of excited emails every time our Cardinal (O’Brien) made a pro-life statement, arguing that abortion is an evil and homosexuality is the last word in immorality – words to that effect and stronger. “All is well!” “The crisis is over!” My correspondents wrote: “Aren’t we lucky to have such hard-line orthodox bishops in Scotland!” Well, we now know the truth about our hard-line orthodox bishops not least our homosexually active Cardinal.

              So, forgive me if I don’t get too thrilled that we have a pope who actually believes in the Devil and in Hell just as I don’t get too thrilled when my doctor makes a correct diagnosis of my headache and correctly prescribes a few aspirin. That’s way below what I expect of him – that is, in other words, the very least I expect. A pope who believes in Hell? WOW! Pity he didn’t think to warn Scalfari that he might well end up there if he doesn’t think again about his atheism.

              You have, of course, completely misinterpreted St Paul’s teaching on women, but, assuming you intend to cling to it for dear life, be aware that Pope Francis is of a very different mindset about women. Here’s what he says in his first Apostolic Exhortation (but remember, this is not infallibly binding so you can disagree with him unless you fear going to Hell as a result: it’s not infallibly binding, just unfailingly damaging, as is just about everything else this Pope says):

              FROM HIS FIRST APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION:
              Pope Francis on role of women in the Church
              (after ruling out women’s ordination – that is part of the deposit of the Faith so he will be prevented from falling into that error.)

              “I readily acknowledge that many women share pastoral responsibilities with priests, helping to guide people, families and groups and offering new contributions to theological reflection,” the Pope wrote.

              At the same time, he said, “demands that the legitimate rights of women be respected, based on the firm conviction that men and women are equal in dignity, present the Church with profound and challenging questions which cannot be lightly evaded.”

              “The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion,” the Pope said, “but it can prove especially divisive if sacramental power is too closely identified with power in general.”

              “The configuration of the priest to Christ the head – namely, as the principal source of grace – does not imply an exaltation which would set him above others,” Pope Francis wrote. “In the Church, functions ‘do not favor the superiority of some vis-a-vis the others.’” (Ed: this is shocking. The priest is in persona Christi in the very person of Christ Himself: no-one else; no-one else, not even Our Lady or the Angels, can bring Our Lord down on the altar. Sounds pretty “exalted” to me.)

              Even when considering the priest’s role within the hierarchical structure of the Church, he said, “it must be remembered that ‘it is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members.’ Its key and axis is not power understood as domination, but the power to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist; this is the origin of its authority, which is always a service to God’s people.”

              Pope Francis said the Church and society need women and always have benefited from their contributions, including “the sensitivity, intuition and other distinctive skill sets which they, more than men, tend to possess.”

              “I think, for example, of the special concern which women show to others, which finds a particular, even if not exclusive, expression in motherhood,” he wrote. “But we need to create still broader opportunities for a more incisive female presence in the Church,” including “the possible role of women in decision-making in different areas of the Church’s life.” END.

              Now, Jacques, I don’t agree with a single word of that. Not a word.

              I am totally opposed to women being appointed to decision making roles in the Church – especially married women who should be caring for their children at home. I mean, I wouldn’t object to the odd phone call from the Pope asking my opinion, but that’s a long way from appointing a bunch of feminists to rule the roost or, worse, to pontificate :-)

              However, all of us, men and women, have an apostolic duty to spread the truths of the Faith, springing from our Baptism and Confirmation, and we all have a duty to correct errors wherever we find them. St Thomas Aquinas points out that “subjects” (both genders) have a duty to correct superiors – even in public – when there is a danger to the Faith. Google it to find his exact words and the source. I don’t have time right now.

              A papolatrist is someone who treats popes as if they are gods. They are not. Read Melchior Cano again to underline the danger of papolatry because the last thing we need right now as the crisis in the Church worsens by the second, is another papolatrist.

              God bless.

              • Your selective sourcing of material to suit your arguement is astounding.
                “Great Theologian of Trent, Melchior Cano” MY BAC*****!!

                Same great theologian who was called “the son of perdition”by the strict , devout advocate of St Thomas Aquinas (whom you also love to advocate), Pope Paul IV

                You may as well be saying “the great theologian Bugnini of the Vatican Council”

                Then again if you sift through his destructive theology you’ll probably find something to suit you preconceptions.

                I agree with you “It’s not “negative” to highlight problems”
                But it is pointless to highlight them in a negative way.

                You will certainly not change your opinion of what you believe, or hold dear by me or anyone else shouting or insulting you.
                You possibly wont change your opinion of what you believe by me debating gently or civilly with you, but you might!
                And thats the point, Editor!
                Just because you never succeeded (or think you never succeeded) doesnt mean you will succeed in changing the decision makers by antagonising them.

                I wrote to every Bishop in Ireland two years ago telling them politely that I was concerned about the way they were getting hammered and to please wake up to the damage of freemasonry and it’s many tentacles, listing facts, statistics etc, and humbly asking them to wake up and fight for the souls of the irish before it was too late.
                I got ONE response and thought like you it was probably a wasted exercise.
                However it wasnt and whether by the seed I sowed or others there have been significant changes in actions and mindsets.
                Not miraculous seachanges, as the barrel was so rotten but significant, piece by piece, bit by bit.

                Thats the way its going to change Editor, not by antagonising them but by you going back to gently debate and engage them.
                They are as set in their belief system as you or I are, so given good arguement, debate and example they MAY change. We can only try.

                • Jacques Cathelineau,

                  First of all, do not call me by my Christian name. Please read our About Us section where it is clearly stated that we observe the blogging convention of usernames. I’ve made the necessary corrections in your latest post. Please abide by this convention in future.

                  As for Cano – as usual, you have it the wrong way round. It’s not like calling Bugnini a “great theologian of Vatican II” it’s like a future pope calling Bugnini, a “son of perdition”! The following is from the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

                  “… Pope Paul IV, regarded Cano with disfavour for supporting the Spanish Court in some of its disagreements with the Holy See. On this pontiff’s death Cano personally repaired to Rome, and obtained the approbation of his election from the new pope Pius IV.”

                  And…

                  “Cano made an imperishable name for himself in his work,”De Locis Theologicis”(Salamanca, 1563), which in classic elegance and purity of style proaches the great didactic treatises of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintillian. It certainly ranks with the most lauded productions of the Renaissance not only on account of its fluency and freedom but also for its lucid judgment and profound erudition. In the estimation of some critics this work marking a new epoch in the history of theology has made its author worthy of a place next to St. Thomas Aquinas.” Source

                  As for the rest – I imagine Leo and other Irish readers and bloggers here will be fascinated to learn of the “significant changes in actions and mindsets” of the Irish Bishops. Really? When’s your next appointment? :-)

                  • As a famous traditional priest in Glasgow says “the Leninist lie – the lies is paramount – say and accuse someone of what they believe you are guilty of, and you will flumix them, the brain cannot process it – the lie is paramount.”

                    1. You have got it the wrong way around about Cano. (i) he was not “THE great theologian of the Council of Trent” who says ???
                    (ii) He was called “the son of perdition” by an Ultra conservative, traditional Pope who was a huge devotee of Saint Thomas Aquinas.
                    (iii)His anti papacy quotation was completely self serving in his sucking up to the regents of the day particularly in Spain.
                    (iv) “In the estimation of some critics” who???

                    2. Secondly ignore the main crux of the issue in the debate. Whatever success you may have in converting the church to a more traditional footing with humility and persuasion YOU WILL HAVE NONE WITH AGGRESSIVE INSULTING. IN FACT YOU WILL CREATE MORE ANTIPATHY TOWARDS TRADITIONALISM AND STRENGTHEN MODERNISM AND THE HANDS OF THE USEFUL IDIOTS PROMOTING IT.

                    3. Despite your sarcasm. Seeing all Bishops/Archbishops & Cardinals of Ireland meeting in Knock saying a full Rosary (and yes sincerely praying the Fatima prayer) and then collegialy consecrating Ireland to the Immaculate Heart of Mary was a huge milestone in my eyes, as a recognition of the battle they finally accept and the divine help they need to invoke.

                    My own Bishop in Donegal quietly consecrating the diocese to Our Lady in Fatima, in Fatima.
                    Again the recognition of the battle and the remedy.

                    The removal of one (in my opinion of the most dangerous longstanding modernist , destructive)priests in charge of possibly the most sacred sanctuary in Ireland and the world.

                    All things I recommended needed doing to the Bishops and they are all done. Whether my letters were torn up or read and sparked a flaem I wont ever know nor does it matter.

                    What matters to me is I believe we have a responsibility to use our (and in your case extensive) intellects and reasoning to bring about this change.

                    It is a war, we have to look for ways we can help Our One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to help Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart to triumph.

                    mise le meas

  6. I have no particular problem with the Pope using the title of the Bishop of Rome, because like the title ‘Pope’ it is an ancient title, and actually predates the title ‘Pope’ as the first Pope to use the title was Leo the Great who reigned between 440-461. He has however, shown disrespect to Papal tradition by refusing to wear the Papal shoes, the ermine lined cape, stole and mozzetta. The colour of these (red) I believe is supposed to symbolise the blood of the martyrs.

    But Pope Francis is not the only one to hate the Papacy. Paul VI abolished the Paschal mozzetta, papal slippers and gold cross. Also, Popes John Paul I and II discontinued the Papal Coronation. Whilst Benedict XVI reinstated the Camauro, Red Shoes, white Paschal Mozzetta and several other vestments, he did abdicate. Did Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict hate the Papacy as well?

    • Don’t understand your logic, Catholic Convert. None of those popes behaved in such a scandalous way and said the things the current pope has said about the papacy.

      • Petrus,

        Correct. Even the conservative Fr Z is finding this pope a problem to understand. This is from his blog on the latest:

        First comment on the Pope’s new Apostolic Exhortation

        Posted on 26 November 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

        The new Apostolic Exhortation is out: Evangelii gaudium. In English it is some 51000 words. It is a slog.

        It is not an encyclical. It is not an apostolic letter. It is only an apostolic exhortation.

        I caution all of you (and myself as well) not to rely only on accounts or summaries of this document in the New York Times, or Fishwrap, or … name your liberal source… or trad source for that matter. I am for now avoiding reading about it.

        See if you can avoid getting kicked by the knee-jerks.

        I will have more observations later. However, as I have begun my work on it – and when I land on something that I sense will be controversial – one of the things that I constantly remind myself of is “About whom is the Pope talking in this phrase?” and also, “What does that really mean?” Half the time, when I review his daily sermons, I have a hard time figuring out what on earth he is talking about. I am finding that in this document too, but I still have a lot more to read. end of the piece from Fr Z’s blog.

        That last paragraph reminded me of comments on this blog in the past – what other pope in history has had to have his words explained and interpreted as much as the post-conciliar (Vatican II) popes?

      • I suppose you are right, but what I was driving at was the fact that these men damaged the historical traditions associated with the Papacy, with regards to dress and the Coronation, and Benedict’s untimely abdication damaged the mystery surrounding the Papacy and it’s integrity. Although there were goings on that us snivelling mortals will never know about in this regard. But with Francis, I assume you are talking about his comment to the Master of Ceremonies regarding ‘carnival time’ being over, and also his plans to reduce the power of the Papacy and seemingly replace it with an Anglican style ‘confederation’ with the Pope only serving as ‘Primus Inter Pares’ as in the Archlayman of Canterbury and Patriarch of Constantinople.

        The Pope is infected with Liberation Theology, due to his meeting with and celebrating Mass with Fr. Gutierrez and also carrying on with Archbishop Muller, a Marxist.

  7. Petrus,

    I agree with everything that you have to say and find this Popes words very worrying for the Church. It seems the Pope wants to impress everyone outside the Church and takes swipes at the way that the Church has been lead and organised to date. His declarations about helping the poor seem to ignore that the fact that Catholic charities do the largest share of caring for the poorest throughout the world eg, Caritas

    He mentions the work that needs to be done with woman affected by difficult pregnancies through rape for example and that these issues need to be addressed by the Church. Where has he been for the last 50 years? The only organisations to protect these vulnerable women have been Catholic.

    What/s that saying that you cannot please two masters? Which master is he pleasing?

    • Clotilde,

      I can remember on a BBC (yes BBC) program that 10 years ago there were 25 gynaecologists in the entire nation of the D. R. of Congo, in 2012, thanks to the Catholic Church there is 115. That’s an increase of 90, and although not every woman will be served, at least there are 90 more to go around, thanks to our Church.

      As for the Pope’s comment on the poor, he’s obviously never heard of Mother Teresa, St Damien of Molokai or St Jeanne Jugan. Let me leave you with the words of a certain Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu:

      ‘The political and journalistic world can boast of very few heroes who compare with Father Damien of Molokai. The Catholic Church, on the contrary, counts by the thousands those who after the example of Fr. Damien have devoted themselves to the victims of leprosy. It is worthwhile to look for the sources of such heroism’.

  8. I think it was Archbishop Lefebvre who said that the abomination of desolation was the priest who stands in the Sanctuary and does not believe in the Real Presence, in the Catholic Faith.

    Does this Pope believe in Catholic Truth?

  9. Thurifer,

    “Does this Pope believe in Catholic Truth?” That is a good question and wish I could answer that.

    CatholicConvert has mentioned the things Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II abolished.
    Pope Paul VI was responsible during his papal tenure of abolishing the Oath against Modernism in the aftermath of Vatican II, in 1969 I think.

    Pope Francis was ordained on the 13th December, 1969. The question is did he also take this oath against modernism. I guess it would be unlikely. Pope Saint Pius X certainly wrote his papal encyclical on this matter.

    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

    Modernism was making inroads before, but especially during and after Vatican II, so what reasons did Pope Paul VI give for abolishing it?

    Another link about the oath against modernism, explicitys says that modernism is a heresy.

    http://www.returntofatima.org/tag/oath-against-modernism

    • Theresa Rose

      Thnak you for that post, and for making the very important point about the Oath against Modernism.

      My guess is that Pope Francis would have been ordained after the Oath’s abolition.

    • Yes, he is a believer of authentic Catholic Truth, and more than Truth… he is Christ-like in his humble and compassionate ways and core values. Courageous enough to speak the truth despite being attacked by the Pharisees of today for his love and care for the poor. Just like Jesus, he abhors putting rigid laws above human compassion and love. Hard to understand the vitriolic attacks on him by those who are more Christian in names only – but certainly not at heart and in deeds.

      • Felice Calderon,

        What kind of “courage” is required to speak about the need to help the poor? Even the worst of our politicians do that. So what?

        Pope Francis is causing confusion by his heterodoxy – one minute saying something correct and true (like help the poor, fight sin and the devil) and the next minute speaking heresy – the Jews will be saved without Christ. Tell that to the first apostles and the early martyrs who said the opposite.

        Who said “Jesus abhorred putting rigid laws above human compassion…?”

        Christ said: “If you love Me you will keep my commandments.”

        Those who divorced and remarried, despite Christ telling us that this is to commit adultery, think the Church is being “rigid” by refusing the remarried Holy Communion, yet they have transgressed the law (adultery) and ignored Christ’s words about “eating and drinking damnation” if we receive Communion unworthily – that is, is a state of mortal sin.

        Pope Francis is a very bad pope. It’s nice of him to care for the poor, but there is no shortage of nice men who care for the poor in the world. His job is to protect and proclaim the Catholic Faith – and he is failing to do that without ambiguity. He is causing confusion – the Devil’s favourite weapon – to take people away from Christ and His Church because they are falling into the same error that you have fallen – creating a false dichotomy by separating the Law of God from Compassion and Love. God’s Law is BASED on HIs compassion and love. If we love our neighbour, we won’t steal his wallet or his wife. Thus, the Commandments are rooted in charity because they will keep us out of Hell. It is the work of the Devil to see them as “rigid laws” opposed to “love”.

        • I am fed up to the teeth with this “option for the poor” spiel, it is pure hypocrisy. Pre Vatican II, in my home [anti-Catholic] North of England town, we had a Nazareth House for children whose families were in difficulty; we had a St. Joseph’s Home for the elderly; we had a home for women with learning difficulties; we had small convent school (private); we had nuns within the ordinary schools as teachers; we had a very active, but secret SVdPS; and, a load of other groups. We all looked out for each other. The foregoing has all but evaporated, the hierarchy having given way to Government to carry the burden, not to mention the overpaid management of so-called Catholic NGOs.

  10. So far I’ve only read the attached synopsis of this Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Francis, and one or two other commentaries. Given the remark about “excessive clericalism” it might be a bit over optimistic to hope that words such as the following would find a place amongst the total of 51,000 that this document runs to.

    “His (the priest) influence is decisive on souls and on society. A priest enlightened by his faith and filled with the virtues and the gifts of Holy Ghost can convert numerous souls to Jesus Christ, raise vocations, and transform pagan society into Christian society.”

    “How many priests have lost all sense of their priesthood, and all interest in contemplation or prayer through activism supposedly related to the apostolate!”

    “There is no apostolate without contemplation. Contemplation is not necessarily for the cloister. It is the Christian life: a life of Faith and the realities of our Faith. The great reality to contemplate is the Holy Mass. This is what must characterize the members of the Society: contemplating our Lord on the cross and seeing there the summit of God’s love, a love even unto supreme sacrifice. That is what our Lord is! This is what the Church contemplates primarily…

    “And by this we will be missionaries: by the desire to pour out the blood of our Lord on souls. This is the Mysterium fidei to contemplate and to work for, the priestly mission par excellence. And the faithful gather us because of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and for nothing else. Once cannot be attached to the cross of our Lord without being a missionary…”

    And the author of those words? One of the greatest missionaries of the Church in the twentieth century, a man who spent 28 very much hands-on years on the missions in Africa, baptising, teaching, ordaining priests and consecrating bishops, whose extraordinary work was recognised by Pope Pius XII, who appointed him Apostolic Delegate to Africa. That man was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

    What are the chances of finding an exhortation towards the following, contained in last year’s Declaration of the General Chapter of the Priestly Society founded by the Archbishop:

    “We reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation; our faith in its monarchical constitution, desired by Our Lord Himself, by which the supreme power of government over the universal Church belongs only to the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth…”

    Would it be too much to hope to read anything similar to the following magnificent words:

    “We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker – the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be set up unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the new City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants.” – Pope St. Pius X, Our Apostolic Mandate

  11. This is Archbishop Lefebvre’s sermon during the ordinations in 1982.
    ” As I said a moment ago, we would never have dared to put on the lips of Our Lord the words, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” So too, we would never have thought that evil and error could penetrate so deeply into the Church. But we are living in this age; we cannot shut our eyes. The facts are there; it is not merely a subjective impression. We are witnesses of what is happening in the Church, of the terrible things that have happened since the Council, the ruins piling up day after day, year after year, in Holy Church. The more we go on, the more the errors spread and the more the faithful lose the Catholic Faith. A recent study in France shows that hardly more than two million French Catholics are still really Catholic.

    We are nearing the end. Everyone will fall into heresy. Everyone will fall into error because wicked clergy, as St. Pius X predicted, have found their way into the Church and occupied it. They have spread errors from the positions of authority they occupy in the Church.

    Are we then required to follow error because it comes from someone in authority?No more than we should obey parents who are unworthy and ask us to do unworthy things, no more should we obey those who ask us to abandon our Faith and to abandon all Tradition. This is out of the question. Oh, of course, all this is a mystery, a great mystery, this union of the divine with the human.

    The Church is divine, and the Church is human. How far can human weakness how shall I say overshadow the divinity of the church?Only God knows. It is a great mystery. We see the facts; we must put ourselves in full view of the facts and never abandon the Church, the Roman Catholic Church, never abandon her, never abandon the successor of Peter, because through him we are united to Our Lord Jesus Christ, through the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter. But if, by some misfortune, under the influence of some spirit or other, or some weakness or pressure, or through neglect, he abandons his duty and leads us along roads which make us lose our faith, well, we must not follow, although at the same time we recognize that he is Peter and if he speaks with the charism of infallibility, we must accept his teaching, but when he does not speak with the charism of infallibility, he may very well be mistaken alas! It is not the first time that something like this has happened in history.

    We are deeply troubled, deeply anguished, we who love the Church so much and venerate her and have always venerated her. This is why this seminary exists,for love of the Church Catholic and Roman. This is why all seminaries exist. Our love of the Church has been badly bruised to think that her servants, alas, are not her servants any longer and render her no service at all. We must pray, we must sacrifice and, we must, like Mary, stay at the foot of the Cross and not abandon Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if He seems, as the Scriptures, say, “as it were accursed” on the Cross. Well, the Virgin Mary had the faith and she saw beyond the wounds, beyond the pierced Heart. She saw God in her Son, her Divine Son.

    We too, in spite of the wounds in the Church, in spite of the difficulties, the persecution which we are enduring, even from those in authority in the Church, let us not abandon the Church, let us love the Holy Church our mother, let us serve her always in spite of the authorities, if necessary. In spite of these authorities who wrongly persecute us, let us stay on the same road, let us keep to the same path: we want to support the Holy Roman Catholic Church, we want to keep it going and we will keep it going by means of the priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the true sacraments of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the true catechism.

    Why, my dear friends?

    You see, I was ordained in the traditional, immemorial Mass myself and all my colleagues, up to a certain age – they received the power to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in this immemorial Roman Rite. Remember that: I was ordained in this rite and I do not want to leave it, I do not wish to abandon it. It is the Mass for which I was ordained and for which I wish to continue living. It is truly the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church.

    Be faithful, faithful to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It will give you so many consolations, so many joys, so much support in your troubles, in your trials, in the persecutions you may well undergo. You will find the strength with Our Lord Jesus Christ to endure all these insults; you will find this strength in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In truly giving Our Lord Jesus Christ His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity to the faithful, you will give them also the courage to stay with the Church in her tradition and to model themselves on all the saints who have gone before, all who have been canonized, beatified, held up as examples of holiness in Holy Church. They will continue to be our models.

    May the Virgin Mary in particular be our model. Let us ask her to make of you, my dear friends, holy priests, priests such as she wishes. If you invoke her throughout your life, she will protect you and will make of you priests according to the heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ, her Divine Son. “

  12. I expect that will be enough talking points in this Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Francis to keep the Catholic blogosphere occupied until after Christmas.This would hardly be a post Conciliar document without mention of something New.

    “The new evangelization for the transmission of the faith” is of course mentioned, whatever it is actually meant to mean. “I wish to encourage the Christian faithful to embark upon a new chapter of evangelization marked by this joy, while pointing out new paths for the Church’s journey in years to come” (1).The Pope invites the reader to “recover the original freshness of the Gospel”, finding “new avenues” and “new paths of creativity”, without enclosing Jesus in “dull categories” (11). He re-emphasizes “the profound connection between evangelization and human advancement” (178).

    Well, truth be told, the New evangelization fig tree is getting a bit withered now. The great Romano Amerio, lay theologian, peritus at the Council and author of Iota Unum, summed things up very succinctly sixteen years ago:

    “The Holy Father still speaks of a “new evangelization”. This does not refer to the Good News, but consists in the novelty of an humanitarian pronouncement which refers only vaguely to the Catholic religious ideals professed with authority in St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (Eph. 4:5): One Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism.” The Holy Father sanctions an entirely human religiousity in which all religions deserve respect because they all tend to the good of humanity.”- Si Si No No, February 1997

    When it comes to the use of the word “new” there’s a bit of an issue for the exponents of the “hermeneutic of continuity”. Does anyone else sense this apparent obsession with novelty, which is one of the hallmarks of Modernism?

    Here is some Magisterial teaching on novelty:

    “This you (the bishops of the world) will do perfectly if you watch over yourselves and your doctrine, as your office makes it your duty, repeating incessantly to yourselves that every novelty attempts to undermine the Universal Church and that, according to the warning of the holy Pope Agatho, “nothing that has been regularly defined can bear diminution, or change, or addition, and repels every alteration of sense, or even words.” – Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari vos 15 August 1832

    “For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the Apostles and the new deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” Vatican I, Pastor aeternus, see Denzinger 1836

    For, far from the clergy be the love of novelty! God hateth the proud and obstinate mind. – Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi, 49

    “One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the Deposit of Faith delivered to the Saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words, and the gainsaying of knowledged falsely so-called…. We may no longer keep silent [against the Modernists], lest we should seem to fail in our essential duty.” – Pope Saint Pius X,Pascendi , 1.

    “Nor do we merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies, or what is called the spirit, of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties….
    The law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: let there be no innovation: keep to what has been handed down.” –Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922), Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914

    Amerio made the very informative connection between the New Evangelisation, and religion and the “good of humanity”. Maybe that helps explain why Pope Francis can refer to proselytism as “a solemn nonsense” while proclaiming the New Evangelisation. Extraordinary as that might be, it appears as though the two are not the same in the mind of the Holy Father. So much of what we have heard coming from the Popes of the last five decades has involved the “Cult of Man” (Pope Paul VI), “the greatness of man” (Pope John Paul II), some sort of glorified humanism, or the “human advancement” mentioned by Pope Francis.

    Well, we might be well advised to dwell instead on our final end, and the Church’s mission of the glorification of God and the salvation of souls.

    “Man may indeed be king, through Jesus Christ: but only on condition that he first of all obey God, and diligently seek his rule of life in God’s law.” – Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus #7

    “All Christians, rich or poor, must keep their eye fixed on heaven, remembering that “we have no there a lasting city, but we seek one that is to come.” Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris #44

    • Leo,

      I notice than none of the numpties who come on here day in and day out to criticise “Catholic Truth” and “Editor”, accusing us of looking for excuses to criticise the pope (not that there’s far to look :-) ) but I notice that they NEVER respond to your posts. Why? For the obvious reason they are first class posts, nailing the Modernist lies from every angle. You demolish their modernism with unanswerable quotes from pre-conciliar pontiffs which no amount of “hermeneuticing of continuity” can dismiss.

      Did I say “numpties”? I meant NUMPTIES !

    • Leo,

      How true! There always has to be something “new”. Well, right now I’d be delighted with something “new”….a new POPE!

  13. Madame editor,

    This thread is all about the spiritual shortcomings of Pope Francis.

    There is an item in this morning’s news about why Pope Benedict XVI resigned, based on an interview with Cardinal Arinze. The suggested reason is that he was unable to control the Vatican Bank and the vast amounts of money that are passing through it to unknown power groups in minor countries.

    Part of the role of the occupant of the Chair of St. Peter is the stewardship of the Church’s assets. Avoidance of money laundering and the depletion of the Church’s funds certainly fall into that category.

    Why is Pope Francis not clearing out those who direct the Vatican Bank and replacing them with men who will strive towards the restoration of the Kingship of Christ rather than the feathering of the nests of the current beneficiaries?

    • Leprechaun,

      “This thread is all about the spiritual shortcomings of Pope Francis.”

      That’s a statement that is liable to misinterpretation, so in case anyone gets the idea that we are making judgments on the soul of the Pope, allow me to clarify; it is more accurate to say that this thread is all about the way Pope Francis appears to be doing everything in his power to destroy the papacy.

      We can only make judgements based on what we can plainly see or hear. It would be ridiculous, based on what this pope is saying and doing to deduce that he holds the same views about the work of the papacy as did, e.g. Pope Saint Pius X. It seems very clear indeed to me, that we have a pontiff who hates the papacy.

      About his spiritual life, I know nothing, so am unable to comment. I certainly do not subscribe to the view that he is a very “humble” pope. Humility is in the soul, it’s not for show, and although I know the pope has described himself as “humble” (“I have the humility to do more” (ecumenism was the topic, I think…) it’s wise to recall the old adage: “Self-praise is no honour.”

      As to your question “why is Pope Francis not clearing out those who direct the Vatican bank?” – I think the answer is akin to the answer to the question why is Pope Francis not dealing with dissent – difficult, I suppose, since he seems to be one of the dissenters himself. In terms of the bank, though, I think it is true to say that there is a culture within the Vatican which led to the resignation of Pope Benedict; the modern popes appear to defer to their subordinates, and allow them to rule the roost. This is likely to have contributed to the Vatican bank scandal. A combination of weak character and weak faith at the top, has led us to where we are today. As Cardinal Ciappi (chaplain/theologian to five recent popes) said: “The Third Secret (of Fatima) reveals that the crisis in the Church begins at the top.” To which, since the election of Pope Francis, I would add: “not half”.

  14. Here is a great article from Jihad Watch which criticises Pope Francis’ recent remarks about Islam in Gaudium Evangelii, in particular his assertion that authentic Islam [...] [is] opposed to every form of violence.

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/11/pope-francis-authentic-islam-and-the-proper-reading-of-the-koran-are-opposed-to-every-form-of-violen.html

    The Holy Father says that in order to sustain dialogue with Islam, suitable training is essential for all involved. Training in counter-insurgency warfare comes to mind.

    • Miles Immaculatae,

      Thank you for posting that link – makes very interesting reading. There’s just so much that is quotable, but I selected this passage:

      “The Bishop of Rome, by virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, can, according to Catholic teaching, speak authoritatively about Catholic doctrine: he has the authority to delineate what is authentic Catholicism. This, however, is a statement about “authentic Islam.” It would be interesting to know how he came to this conclusion, since the Pope of Rome has no counterpart within the Islamic world: there is no Muslim authority to which he can appeal in order to discover what “authentic Islam” consists of, and many Muslim authorities would disagree with his statement that “authentic Islam” is “opposed to every form of violence.” To take just one of many available examples, I recently debated the Islamic apologist Shadid Lewis, who insisted (falsely) during the debate that Islam had no doctrine of offensive jihad, and that all jihad was defensive. However, he repeated several times that Islam was not a pacifistic religion, and that it did sanction and even mandate warfare under certain circumstances. This position is by no means unique to Lewis; it is quite common among Muslims, most of whom would freely acknowledge that Islam sanctions warfare in defense of the Muslim community or against “oppression.” But it contradicts the contention that Islam is opposed to “every form” of violence.”

      The Pope would be better advised to check up on what constitutes “authentic Catholicism” and, once over the shock, set about restoring the Catholic Church to its former glory. Let the Muslims worry about Islam.

  15. The Pope does not know what authentic Catholicism is because it contradicts his left wing agenda. And if he does know what authentic Catholicism is, he’s pretty darn terrified of it.

    ‘The Holy Father says that in order to sustain dialogue with Islam, suitable training is essential for all involved. Training in counter-insurgency warfare comes to mind’. I hope that you are joking Miles, but we must be vigilant.

    • I was kind of joking. I mean, Christians and Muslims are being murdered everyday by Jihad in some countries.

  16. Did anyone read Pope Francis’s exhortation, especially this little heresy in n.247:

    “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”.

    It gets worse. In the same passage he states:

    “As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God”

    Meaning that the Jews are not among those who need to convert to the Catholic faith. They no longer need to serve Christ. This is an explicit denial of Catholic Dogma, one of them being. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

    On the point of the Covenant not being revoked Pope Benedict XIV said Ex Quo Primum (# 61):“The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.”
    He cites the definition of the Council of Florence and declares in the Encyclical repeatedly that the Old Covenant was “revoked”, “abrogated” and “abolished”. The doctrine is repeated again by Pius XII in Mediator Dei

    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments… after our Lord’s coming… ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began… All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”

    Thus, if it is not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, then how can they serve the True God? Answer: they can’t.

    Full blown heresy!

    • Filii Ecclesia,

      Many thanks for drawing our attention to this aspect of the Apostolic Exhortation.

      It’s difficult to find words now to express feelings of increasing shock horror at the sheer volume of the onslaught against the Faith coming from this pontiff.

      Little wonder the “liberals” love him to death.

      • Editor,

        Maybe you should think of starting another thread about what position this leaves Francis in. I say this as we have just witnessed a “pope” officially teaching explicit and clear heresy that flatly contradicts infallibly defined dogmas of the Catholic faith

        If a Pope officially teaches heresy, then he’s a heretic. This rule would apply to anyone else.

        We don’t have the jurisdiction to pronounce a judicial sentence of condemnation. However, when a pope falls into heresy, Innocent III (Sermo IV) teaches that the pope “can be judged by men” because he has shown himself to be “already judged”. St. Robert Bellarmine teaches this more clearly. When the pope demonstrates himself to be a heretic, the Catholic conscience must recognize that he is not a Catholic.

        Now, I’m not 100% sure on all this, but is Francis an anti-pope?

        • Filii Ecclesia,

          The one crystal clear rule that we must cling on to is that nobody on this earth may definitively judge a pope – St Robert Bellarmine is very clear on this. We can recognise and publicise his errors and heresies, but we may not question his authority. He has been validly (if lamentably) elected and we need to live with it.

          This pope is causing such continual scandal that I did wonder if we ought to publish a “Pope Francis Latest” thread and leave it at that.

          Can’t do anything right now but will check back later. We could literally publish a new post every day on Pope Francis. He’s not an “anti-pope” but he is a truly terrible pope.

          • It’s all terribly confusing.

            He’s clearly taught heresy and if a pope teaches heresy the he’s a heretical pope. I’ve read elsewhere that a pope duly elected by a College of Cardinals, followed by a hierarchy of Bishops, and accepted by the Church as such – he is still a valid or a de facto Pope. To stop being a valid Pope, a considerable part of the members of this visible society called the Catholic Church should resist his authority and make it inefficacious. However, I don’t think that’s going to happen any day soon.

            • Fillii Ecclesia,

              That is not going to happen – there are far too many numpties who still believe the Holy Spirit elects the pope. Gimme a break. And far too many so called “orthodox” and “conservative” Catholics who are bolstering the dioceses, attending the new Mass, contributing to the overall destruction of the Church – and making daft excuses for their scandalous support for Modernism. Priests AND people.

              You don’t say whether you are keen on a permanent “Pope Francis Latest” thread – it is just not possible to post a fresh thread for his every mad utterance, so it’s either make use of the most recent thread on the pontiff, use the General Discussion thread, or let’s post a “Pope Francis Latest” thread and keep it readily accessible. Let me know your thoughts, folks, papolatrists excluded. We know what YOU want – undiluted praise for the pope no matter what he does or says. Not going to happen here…

  17. Miles Immaculatae

    Thank you for that link.

    The “suitable training” so “essential” to “sustain dialogue with Islam”, as Pope Francis puts it, should really include putting into action the words of Pope Gregory XVI:

    “Therefore, they must instruct them (Muslims) in the true worship of God, which is unique to the Catholic religion.” – Encyclical, Summo Iugiter Studio, 1832

    Once the introductions are out of the way, the Church’s representatives could start the “dialogue” rolling with the following absolutely, unmistakably non-negotiable position:

    “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her and asserts that all who are outside Her will not be saved.” – Pope Saint Gregory the Great, quoted in the same Encyclical.

    Of course, this follows on from the shocking message sent by the Holy Father to Muslims at the end of Ramadan, during the Summer. With so many causes for concern during this papacy, the Ramadan message didn’t get a great deal of attention. Whatever, the message really was objectionable. So we are to “respect” the “teachings”, “symbols” and “values” of false religions. How can the relativisation of religion and indifferentism be avoided if this is to be the mentality of Catholics? What exactly does evangelisation mean according to the Conciliar mindset?

    “Beware lest thou have a mind to imitate the abominations of those nations.” – Deuteronomy 18:9

    Here are the Pope’s words that leapt out at me from that Ramadan message:

    “Turning to mutual respect in interreligious relations, especially between Christians and Muslims, we are called to respect the religion of the other, its teachings, its symbols, its values. Particular respect is due to religious leaders and to places of worship. How painful are attacks on one or other of these! It is clear that, when we show respect for the religion of our neighbors or when we offer them our good wishes on the occasion of a religious celebration, we simply seek to share their joy, without making reference to the content of their religious convictions.”

    Can I suggest that His Holiness’ next such message or Apostolic Exhortation contains some of the following words:

    “He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father who sent Him.” – John 5:23

    “Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief. Be ye not therefore partakers with them.” – Ephesians 5:6

    I think it is very well worthwhile posting a link to the magnificent, truly Catholic words of Father de Cacqueray, the Society’s District Superior of France. They really should be read. The linked article also has the Holy Father’s full message.

    http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/dialogue-islam-our-call-alarm-2316

    Saint Pope Pius V, pray for us.

    • Leo,

      Am I correct in thinking that Leo XIII referred to Muslims as infidels? I’m going through the RCIA at the moment and I asked the Priest why it said in the (new) Catechism that Muslims and Catholics worship the ‘One, True God’. He said it is because they are a Monotheistic faith. You seem like a fellow who is in the know, so please would you tell me where the drafters of Nostra Aetate dreamt this up?

  18. I wonder what sort of “suitable training”, Saint Francis of Assisi considered “essential” in order to “sustain dialogue with Islam”?

    Whatever about training, here’s how the zealous missionary put the “dialogue” bit into action.

    On his third attempt, during the Fifth Crusade in 1219, Saint Francis reached the Middle East with the intention of proselytising the Moslems of the region. I’m sure many here are familiar with the story of the Saint, accompanied by Brother Illuminato, crossing the lines to preach to the Moslems led by Sultan al Malik al Kamil, who had previously promised a gold piece to anyone who brought him the head of a Christian.

    Having been beaten up and put in chains by their captors, when Saint Francis was eventually brought before the Sultan he boldly stated that he had been sent by the Most High God to point out to him the way of salvation and preach the one saviour of all, Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Sultan was informed that “if you do not wish to believe, we will commend your soul to God, because we declare that if you die while holding to your law, you will be lost; God will not accept your soul. For this reason we have come to you.”

    Saint Francis boldly told the Sultan that “if you wish to be converted to Christ along with your people, I will most gladly stay with you for love of Him. But if you hesitate to abandon the law of Mahomet for the faith of Christ, then command an enormous fire to be lit and I will walk into the fire along with your imams so that you will recognise which faith deserves to be held as the holier and more certain.”

    Not surprisingly, the same imams were not so keen on the challenge, having earlier insisted that the two missionaries be killed.

    The saint even offered to enter the fire alone, stating that if he was harmed it was due to his sins alone, but if he emerged unscathed, the Sultan and all his court must agree to convert. This proved too much of a challenge for the Sultan, who feared that “my people would stone me”.

    So that’s what the Old Evangelisation i.e. proselytizing was like. I don’t expect it would be widely approved of in these days of modernist “diabolical disorientation”.

    Saint Francis of Assisi had no problem with the concept of the Church Militant, in every sense of the word. He was no PC ideologue. He accepted the Crusade as both legitimate and ordained by God. At one time he remarked to his Friars that “…paladins and valiant knights who were mighty in battle pursued the infidels even to death” and “these holy martyrs died fighting for the Faith of Christ” (Legend of Perugia pp 1048-1049).

    He also left the Sultan in no doubt. How’s this for a bit of straight talking:

    “…it is just that Christians invade the land you inhabit, for you blaspheme the name of Christ and alienate everyone you can from His worship.” (Nova Vita di San Francesco, Arnaldo Fortini, p. 552)

    Not very spirit of Vatican II, that. Obviously dialogue, Dignitatis Humanae, and Nostra Aetate weren’t part of the programme. And most certainly, the spirit of Assisi meant something very different in the 13th century.

  19. Mind you, if the Holy Father wrote anything other than positive about the Religion of Peace, then it would lead to many murders, as was the case after Benedict XVI’s Regensburg address.

  20. Undoubtedly the Conciliar novelty of Collegiality has been a major factor in the five decades of doctrinal and liturgical anarchy, as well as the de facto schism that has been on display for five decades, all of which has led to an unprecedented and unquantifiable apostasy and endangerment of souls.

    The issue of Collegiality was involved in one of the most infamous examples of the Modernist tactic of ambiguity, during the drafting of the Council’s document, Lumen Gentium. The target was the Church’s hierarchical structure and the primacy of the papacy.

    Decentralisation was and is at the heart of the agenda of both the ecumaniacs and revolutionaries. Their influence has been very obvious during this papacy. The recent scandalous questionnaire circulated throughout the Church referred repeatedly to “local churches.” Hardly an accident.

    “The concrete realization of the collegial spirit”, Pope Francis states in His Apostolic Exhortation, “has not been fully realized” (32). A “sound decentralization” is necessary (16). It looks like the ambiguity has been pushed aside.

    Well here are some unambiguous, Magisterial, in every sense of the word, restatements of the Church’s constant teaching of the primacy of the papacy.

    “Moreover, it is heretical to propose that the Roman Pontiff is the ministerial head [of the Church], if this is explained to mean that the Roman Pontiff received, not from Christ in the person of St. Peter, but from the Church, the power of his office by which, as the successor of Peter, the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the entire Church, he has power over the universal Church.” – Pius VI, Constitution Auctorem Fidei, 1794

    “it is an article of faith that the Roman Pontiff, successor of Blessed Peter the prince of Apostles, not only has a primacy and honour, but also of authority and jurisdiction over the universal Church, and that, consequently, the bishops, too, are under his authority. That is why, as St. Leo goes on to say, it is necessary for the whole Church throughout the entire world, to be united to the Holy See of Peter, that is to say, to the Roman Church, and to have recourse to it as to the centre of Catholic unity and ecclesiastical communion…” – Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus #10

    “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power…let him be anathema.”- Vatican Council 1, Session 4, Chapter, 3, Canon 9, July 18, 1870.

    “But the power of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, universal, and definitely peculiar to in tself; but that of the bishops is circumscribed by definite limites, and definitely peculiar to themselves.” – Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 15), 1896

    “As successor of Saint Peter, the Roman Pontiff has the primacy not merely of honour but of jurisdiction over the universal Church. Subject to an essential dependence on the Pope, the council has supreme power over the entire Church; but there is no appeal from the Pope to the council.” – Pope Benedict XV, Codex Iuris Canonici (1917), canon 228.

    That’s all very unambiguous, all right. Tradition and continuity can mean only one thing, and that is not decentralization.

    • “The concrete realization of the collegial spirit”, Pope Francis states in His Apostolic Exhortation, “has not been fully realized” (32). A “sound decentralization” is necessary (16). It looks like the ambiguity has been pushed aside.”

      Precisely Leo. This has to be one of the most terrifying documents of all time.

      Don’t miss the post from Filii Ecclesia, 29 November, at 8.49pm. on Pope Francis’s “exhortation” about Judaism. Not for the faint-hearted.

  21. Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation contains the following:

    “In some people we see an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige, but without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact on God’s faithful people and the con¬crete needs of the present time.” #95

    I know the qualification “some people” is there, but really, what is the point of this statement if it is not just another thinly veiled criticism of those who hold to the true Mass, those “restorationist”, “triumphalist” Catholics?

    Why should any Catholic think that there is a contradiction between sacrality, reverence, solemnity and dignity, in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the proclamation of the Gospel?

    What are the “concrete needs of the present time” if not the glorification of God, propitiatory sacrifice (an absolutely huge need), and the sanctification of souls?

    I trust the Holy Father is not levelling any charges at two of his predecessors.

    Pope Pius XI, who stated that “it (the Mass) is the most important organ of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church”, summed up very well what has always been the mind of the Church down through the ages when he,in his 1928 Apostolic Constitution, Divini Cultus wrote:

    “No wonder then, that the Roman Pontiffs have been so solicitous to safeguard and protect the liturgy. They have used the same care in making laws for the regulation of the liturgy, in preserving it from adulteration, as they have in giving accurate expression to the dogmas of the faith.”

    “There exists, therefore, a close relationship between dogma and the sacred liturgy, as also between the Christian cult and the sanctification of the people.This is why Pope Celestine I thought that the rule of faith is expressed in the ancient liturgical.”

    Three year earlier,in his lamentably forgotten and buried Encyclical, Quas Primas, the same Pontiff explained that:

    “people are instructed in the truths of the faith and brought to appreciate
    the inner joys of religion far more effectively by the…celebration of our sacred mysteries than by any pronouncement, however weighty, made by the teaching of the Church.”

    Pope Pius XII, in his Encyclical Mediator Dei(1947),declared:

    “In the liturgy we make explicit profession of our Catholic faith;…the whole liturgy contains the Catholic faith, inasmuch as it is a public profession of the faith of the Church…This is the origin of the well known and time-honored principle: ‘the norm of prayer establishes the norm of belief’.”

    Whatever the many dangers to souls in this time of unprecedented crisis, they certainly do not include “ostentatious preoccupation” with liturgy and doctrine.

  22. Pope Francis tells is that “we cannot demand that peoples of every continent, in expressing their Christian faith, imitate modes of expression which European nations developed at a particular moment of their history” (118).

    The disciples of Bugnini, the Master of Liturgical Disaster, the innovators and showmen who I expect to regain their place of prominence, will be doing cartwheels down the corridors having read those words.

    The rest of us would do well to instead call to mind the words of Pope St. Pius X, in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis which condemns Modernism, and exposes what the modernists would attempt to do regarding worship in the Church. He prophetically stated that they would change the sacraments, particularly the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to accommodate the manners and customs of peoples:

    “The chief stimulus of the evolution of worship consists in the need of accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by usage. Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with existing forms of society.” #26

  23. Filii Ecclesia

    Thank you for that post. Sad to say, when it comes to Judaism and the necessity of conversion to the One, True Faith, Pope Francis appears to be taking the same line of departure as his two immediate predecessors.

    This is just one more manifestation of the Conciliar novelties, and contradictions with previous constant Church teaching. The first Pope proclaimed the need for conversion very clearly on the first Pentecost Sunday, and if anyone didn’t get the message then, Saint John and Saint Paul spelt it out in black and white.

  24. “Evangelization also involves the path of dialogue,” Pope Francis writes, which opens the Church to collaboration with all political, social, religious and cultural spheres (238). Ecumenism is “an indispensable path to evangelization”. Mutual enrichment is important: “we can learn so much from one another!” For example “in the dialogue with our Orthodox brothers and sisters, we Catholics have the opportunity to learn more about the meaning of Episcopal collegiality and their experience of synodality” (246); “

    What about our Orthodox brothers and sisters learning about the dogma of “outside the Church there is no salvation”? What greater charity is there than bringing souls to the truth that is the key to eternal salvation? I’d like to be wrong, but I’m willing to wager a hefty amount that meaningful, unambiguous mention of this dogma does not appear amongst the 51,000 words of the Apostolic Exhortation.

    What are the odds of the following examples of Magisterial teaching being presented to the world in the near future? Are they for the moment to be nothing more than conversation stopping stumbling blocks on the “path of dialogue”, wherever that is planned to lead?

    The dogma of outside the Church there is no salvation has been constantly thought be a host of Fathers of the Church, Doctors, Saints and Popes. When exactly are we going to hear it again? Here are a few suggested teaching points for the “path of dialogue”:

    “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin…Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” – Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, November 18, 1302

    “Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.” – Pope Eugene IV, Councils of Florence, Session II, 1442

    “There is only one true and holy religion, founded and instituted by Christ, Our Lord, Mother and cultivator of virtue, destroyer of vice, liberator of souls, guide to true happiness; her name is Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman.” – Pope Pius IX, Allocution to The Consistory, July 18, 1861

    “Also perverse is that shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory greatly at variance even with reason, By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honourable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as is there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial.” – Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus #15

    “The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ the Lord, leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress, He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ… He observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation.” Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #5

    “…if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands- as a heathen and a publican (Mt. 18:17). It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.” – Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis p. 16

    The “true Church of Jesus Christ…is the One, Holy, Catholic Apostolic Roman Church.” – Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis

    “To be Christian one must be Roman; one must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church, that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles, who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth.” – Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the Irish pilgrims, October 8, 1957

  25. Petrus, thank you for your outstanding header piece that I’ve only just seen, as I’ve been a-gallivanting around and so not able to look at the blog for some time. I have just put some thoughts on the Pope Francis thread that you might find interesting in the context of your own.

    I think that Pope Francis is dismantling the papacy precisely because he and his Jesuit order don’t want a papacy. In his election the Jesuits triumphed in the war against the Papacy described in detail by Malachi Martin in the book I refer to.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 123 other followers

%d bloggers like this: