Pope’s UnChristian Attack On Trump

Pope Francis continues to hit the headlines – this time declaring that Donald Trump, US politician and presidential candidate, is “not Christian”.  Click here to read one of the many reports available across the internet, and to see the Pope on video, speaking his mind to the journalists.

Then watch the short video below, where Donald Trump hits back, calling the Pope’s judgment on him “disgraceful”.

Comment…

The Pope will tolerate abortion (let’s not “obsess” about the murder of innocent babies) and he answers: “Who am I to judge?” when asked about homosexuality. Those who are living in sin, whether divorced and “remarried” or in civil homosexual partnerships, are to be welcomed and perhaps even permitted to approach for Holy Communion.  Donald Trump is the exception to all this “mercy “and tolerance.  Why?  Is a political party policy, or a personal opinion on  immigration – or any other social issue – more important than God’s natural moral law designed to safeguard human life, from the moment of conception, and traditional family life?

Is the Pope right to tell the world that a US presidential candidate is “not Christian”  just because he disagrees with his politics or is it Papa Francis who lacks the Christian spirit? 

129 responses

  1. So Pope Francis alludes to Donald Trump when he says that those who put up walls instead of building bridges are not Christian

    Ah! But where was Pope Francis when all of the world’s governments, Catholic Ireland and its largely apostate people included, imposed “Gay marriage”? Something tells me that Pope Francis has his priorities wrong, perhaps because his heart and mind are fixed more on this world than the next.

    It is unheard of that a Roman Pontiff interferes in this way in the political process of a nation, making very detrimental personal remarks against an individual just because said individual does not share his Socialist vision. I would say Pope Francis owes Trump an equally public apology for that scandalous outburst, which has once again disgraced his Pontificate.

  2. I have no doubt that if Donald Trump were a homosexual, Pope Francis would be groveling for an immediate photo-op, and give Trump his hearty endorsement. However, I have mixed feelings about Pope Francis’ (gasp!) “judgment,” because he did qualify his first blurted statement with this: “We must see if he said things in that way and I will give him the benefit of the doubt…”

    That said, the immediate reason for his rash remark about Trump was Trump’s position on illegal immigrants, which directly opposes the USCCB position (and the USCCB is known as the “Democrat Party at Prayer”) (thanks to Bernardin). What is the reason for the USCCB position, i.e. that these people should be welcomed? Simple: money. The Catholic Bishops get millions of dollars to relocate immigrants and refugees. And what do they do with that money? Much of it goes to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, which funds a broad cross-section of organizations who are in direct violation of Church teaching, frequently on homosexuality and gay “marriage.”

    As for Trump, he is no conservative – merely a politically incorrect populist with quite liberal views on many things, including abortion and gay “marriage.” It is his political incorrectness that makes him wildly popular on a couple of key issues, like Muslim refugee/terrorists being scattered throughout the United States by Obama. As for his claim that he is proud to be a Christian, I suspect that he pays visits to church buildings – of whatever denomination – only when it is convenient.

    Sidebar: I’ve noticed one very curious thing about this Presidential campaign-carnival thus far: there hasn’t been a peep out of the militant homosexual organizations about any Republican candidate, conservative or moderate, and no questions that I know of about gay vs. traditional marriage asked during the debates. Almost as if the radicals have been told to stand down…

      • Helen,

        No, a dollar is a dollar (worthless no matter how you slice it since the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913), but I wanted to specify that the USCCB is getting taxpayer money, not private money.

  3. Pope Francis has also said, in the interview with journalists on the plane, that “we are political animals” – click here to see the video/commentary

    And if you watch the tape with the latest news announcements across the video, it seems he has also suggested that there is a case to be made for women at risk of the Zika virus to use contraception.

    I used to finish my comments on such scandals with “is there no end to it?” But now I can only admit that, frankly, there IS no end to it.

    • Here’s the Pope’s comments on the Zika virus / contraception – shocking.

      I’ve just had a call from a newsletter reader (he’s not online) saying that these comments about contraception are much more serious than his comment about Donald Trump not being a Christian. It’s getting to the stage (long past, in fact) where we need someone to make a league table of the seriousness of Pope Francis’ anything-but-Catholic statements.

      But, even at this point in his pontificate, there are numpties who are defending him. Crazy people.

        • New Templar

          Good link. I went to the webpage and read some startling stuff, not least Pope Francis’ apparent endorsement of divorced and remarried Catholics. Truly scandalous. But where are the Cardinals and Bishops while all this is going on? Time for them to stop side-stepping these public scandals of Pope Francis and do their duty, as St. Paul did when St. Peter was “to be blamed”.

  4. Seems as if there is something about flying that makes this man shoot from the hip . Maybe his advisors would be better telling him to be more grounded in his comments . In the words of the Apostle “mind thy erring tounge ” for Gods sake and give us all a break.

    • What is the point of popes flying all over the world, anyway? As for this one, in particular, I’m shocked at his flagrant disregard for the environment by single-handedly adding such a huge carbon footprint, and after all he’s said about other people, too! I can hear my trees sobbing as I type.

  5. On second thoughts after REALLY listening to Donald Trumps address on Francis comments it’s probably gained him at least 10million votes in one go . When Trumps campaign manager dissects all of this boy will they not half be thanking The Vatican.

  6. The Pope should be telling American Catholics not to vote. The Pope must speak on moral and spiritual issues, such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexual ‘marriages’ and so on, as must the Bishops and Priests, and warn Catholics not to vote for particular parties or candidates lest they incur canonical penalties. Cardinal Burke warned in the 2004 election that Catholics who voted for John Kerry were in a state of sin and that he would refuse Kerry Holy Communion. Cardinal Burke was stating basic theological facts, not launching into Socialist and ad hominem attacks on Mr Trump. We know the Pope’s views on politics, he’s a leftie, but I don’t know +Burke’s views. I may assume he is right-wing, but I have only ever heard him state traditional Catholic doctrines, so I don’t need, or want to know his political bent. The Pope should have critiqued the policy of building the wall to stop Mexican immigrants entering America as perhaps a sin against charity or against the corporal works of mercy, i.e., feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless, but Pope Francis, like Trump often (!) makes sweeping generalisations. The USA does not need, or want, all of these Mexican immigrants, just as we do not want or need all of these refugees or other immigrants coming into Europe. The Arab refugees may be infiltrated by Islamic State and so may pose a major security risk and so we must stringently vet them before they enter and prioritise orphans, the sick, the elderly etc, but not young men. American must monitor Mexican immigrants, many of whom may be criminals or have links to organised crime. But American must assist the hungry, the elderly, the sick and genuinely helpless who come massing at its southern border. America does not have such a good record in Mexico and Latin America, supporting ‘banana Republics’ and brutal military dictatorships in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Argentina, Bolivia and so on, and has orchestrated military coups through the likes of the CIA and multinational companies such as the United Fruit Company. The poor ‘greasers’ and ‘wetbacks’ (to use popular American phrases to describe our Latin American brethren) have been long oppressed by the USA and the brutal and cruel dictatorships it backed in that region, and now America is reaping the consequences, as are Britain and other European countries, whose former colonial subjects believe they have a right to come here.

    I don’t know Mr Trump’s views on abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality, and he is supports these abominations, then the Pope has the legitimate and God-given right and authority to warn Catholics against voting for him. Suffice it to say, I would not vote in order to uphold my Catholicity because they are all anti-Catholic and against the Social Reign of Christ the King.

    • Don’t be silly.The Pope would never tell anyone,not to vote. We all have a Christian duty to vote, even if the choice was between Hitler or Stalin. we have got to judge which in the lesser evil, to our fellow brothers and sisters.

      • Hello Dano (and all your previous troll names). We do not always have a ‘Christian duty’ to vote. One cannot vote for evil that good might come of it.

      • Dano

        In the case of Hitler and Stalin the judgement of who was the lesser evil would have been impossible to make. They are both infamous murderers. So that kind of blows your theory out of the water.

        In a case where all political parties are more or less pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-sex ed, etc., unless one party, however small, provides a definite alternative for Catholics, at the very least by not publicly favouring the aforementioned immoralities, then none of us can be obliged to vote. Spoiling ones vote in such circumstances speaks louder for the truth than voting for a so-called lesser of evils party.

          • If ever you find it impossible to make a political judgement, ask the Lord for Guidance . then LISTEN!!

            Good advice. Try it.

          • Dano

            The Lord has already spoken through the moral teaching of His Church. Or have you not been listening?

            • Trust me I have listened, hence the reason I can always make the “Impossible Judgement” , are you sure YOU were listening? Both ears?

  7. Hillary Clinton is a Methodist who wants abortion up to birth. I don’t remember the Pope saying she’s not Christian.

    • CC & MM,

      I suppose the really important question is: But is the Pope fully Catholic?

      His admittance, against Apostolic Tradition, of women to Holy Thursday’s washing of the feet, his denouncement of proselytism and his comments about condoms and the Zika virus are just the latest anomolies that make the question ever more pertinent.

    • She is wicked as well. The Pope has not commented on her because, as someone above said, the USCCB is the Democratic Party at prayer, and because she is a pinko like Pope Francis.

  8. Catholicconvert

    I think the reason why Trump is so popular in America is because he speaks his mind and people are in awe of such honesty from a politician these days. He is not politically correct, he calls a spade a spade, and that’s something of a rarity, a breath of fresh air. It is just unfortunate that the man is not Catholic. However, there is a much greater chance of impressing the truth on an honest man like Trump than on the countless political puppets that surround him. People are crying out all over the world for honest governments to return. We have all been too long under the manipulation of international political conspirators who are robbing the nations of their freedom and morality in the name of democracy and human rights.

    • Athanasius,

      Absolutely true. I agree with you completely. I suppose Trump is a bit like Farage over here. As it happens, and I don’t want to give the enemies of this blog a stick to beat it with, but I support Trump’s comments on Muslims. They should be banned from entering every Western nation because their standards are totally inimical to our own, i.e. in opposition to Western civilisation, democracy and Christianity. Hence, that’s why I vote UKIP, so we can control our own borders and halt the free flow of people coming here, not to mention to regain judicial independence from the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court which prevented us from deporting Islamic terrorists such as Abu Qatada from Britain. We need to get out before Turkey joins- can you imagine 80 million Muslims having an open door to Europe. If I was French, I would vote either for the Front National or the Movement for France. I think the latter is far less thuggish, it is led by Viscount Philippe de Villiers, and the party gains strong support from traditionalist Catholics and has many Monarchist members, both of which are a bonus. They also oppose same sex ‘marriage’ and are pro-life.

      • I understand your concerns about giving enemies of this blog a stick to beat it with.

        I don’t necessarily think you’ve done that. However, aligning so closely with Trump and Farage, not to mention Front National, is quite revealing.

        As indeed are your frankly disturbing views on Muslims.

        It’s also interesting how you pick one of Trump’s policies (a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US). This is, of course, a daft and unenforceable policy, that would bar returning military, business people, diplomats, relatives attending a funeral, etc (if you think it doesn’t, I suggest checking what he actually said in his press release).

        But if you take Trump, you take the lot. That includes waterboarding and worse forms of torture, and a decidedly vague position on abortion.

        You also take someone with a rather elastic version of the truth, for example his comments about seeing “thousands and thousands” of people cheering as the towers came down, or the urban myth about Pershing summarily executing 50 Muslims, which Trump seems to think actually happened.

        • Andrew

          I get the point you’re making about Trump. But what about the alternatives? Are you saying the other candidates in the White House race are less dubious than Trump? I assume not, so people will probably go with the one who apparently shares their concerns and is not in the pay of the large corporate companies. That’s just the way things work these days.

          • A thoroughly depressing line-up in my view, but with Trump as the worst of a bad bunch (closely followed by Cruz, who vows to carpet-bomb Syria and see if the sand glows in the dark).

            I accept that others may find a different least bad option.

            However, I cannot agree that actively promoting Islamaphobic views, endorsing torture and advocating turning our backs on refugees are in any way compatible with Christian principles.

            • Andrew,

              On this blog we refuse to conform to the upside-down mentality of our culture which talks of “phobias” in a wholly inappropriate way. “Homophobia” and “Islamophobia” are coinages designed to suppress any and all criticism of same-sex activity and Islam.

              Both of these – homosexuality and Islam – are not pleasing to God. Individuals, of course, we cannot condemn, but we must seek to correct them, whether in their immoral behaviour or their false beliefs. That’s not “phobic” – that’s a basic Catholic duty.

              So, please find another way of expressing your opinions on this blog, since we will waste a lot of time, either repeatedly correcting the use of these misguided (if not mischievous) terms, or (when I see them) removing them.

              In general – regarding politics – I have expressed the view many times that I do not go along with the belief that we may vote for the “least offensive candidate” As I said before the last General Election, until we find someone who is not promoting evil policies, then, in my view, Catholics should spoil their vote, and the same applies to Catholics in the USA.

              The point of this thread, however, is not to discuss the policies of Donald Trump who holds views (e.g. about abortion) that rule out any Catholic voting for him. The point of this thread is to record our objection to the Pope – any pope – publicly pronouncing a judgement on someone because he disagrees with their political opinion on any issue. That’s outrageous. If Pope Francis can’t “judge” actively homosexual people, then he applies that principle across the board. But then again, he’s nothing, if not inconsistent!

      • Catholic Convert: It seems your wishes are being fulfilled, or even exceeded. Trump now has the support of David Duke and Jean-Marie Le Pen.

        Quite how this group has anything remotely in common with Christianity is beyond me.

        • Andrew,

          Would you now let the matter of Trump’s policies rest. I’ve just explained that this thread is not a politics thread. Please respect the topic as I’ve just outlined it above.

          • I will make no more comment on the matter, although it is interesting that you made no similar comment about earlier posts supporting policies of the extreme political right.

            • Andrew,

              Believe me, I subscribe to NO political policies, ESPECIALLY of the extreme right. I also ESPECIALLY do not subscribe to policies of the extreme left. And as for the wimpish liberal “centre ground” – keep it!

              Thank you for your promise to keep party politics out of the discussion – we’ve enough to do keeping up with the crisis in the Church, and the political machinations thereof!

                • Dano

                  Ah yes, Catholic duty! And what about the duty of Catholics to keep and practice the faith of their fathers? Now that’s a duty many modern Catholics have abandoned for the new ecumenical thing, and it’s a more serious dereliction than not voting. You strain on a gnat and swallow a camel!

    • Theresa Rose,

      For me, a more appropriate question would be, is the Pope even marginally Catholic? It seems to me he is out-and out- Marxist (some have called him a Peronist) attempting to cloak his secularist beliefs in a few trappings of the Church. But his rainbow cloak is full of holes…as he throws his support behind every facet of economic and cultural Marxism (e.g. open borders and “climate change,” abortion, homosexuality – and now, even contraception), either by deafening silence on Church teaching or by his scandalous statements and appointments.

      From my own personal experience attending an ultra-liberal Protestant church from about 1992-1998, before I returned to the Faith in which I was born, he is even further left than the United Church of Christ, which I used to call the “United Church of Marx.”

      I notice the article you link claims that The Remnant’s petition for Francis to step down now has “hundreds of thousands” of signatures. Does anyone know if that is accurate? Last I knew it had maybe 25,000 at most.

    • Theresa Rose,

      Thank you for the link to that Remnant article. I thought it a factual, objective and respectful piece that raises very genuine questions and concerns about this present Pope and the damage he is doing to the faith.

  9. The thing is, the Pope is not slow to criticise those who disagree with him; and in the Catholic sphere, to judge and berate those whom he perceives to be of a traditional mindset.

    Yet in no way will he “judge” others, even if they blatantly flout the Church’s teaching. It is thus blindingly obvious where his sympathies lie.

    In criticising Donald Trump, he has blown his cover for all to see, for the merciful non judgemental Pope only takes that tack, when one is in his camp; or is guilty of a lifestyle that the Church recognises as sinful, but the Pope does not.

    Hence his waffling, mesmerising, confusing, maybe aye, maybe no, gobbledygook ramblings. The worst type of dishonesty! For he hasn’t quite got the nerve YET to come clean on what he really believes…….or rather, doesn’t.

    Remember when in answer to something painfully obvious, folk used to say, “Is the Pope a Catholic?”
    Now some folk say, “IS the Pope a Catholic!”

  10. Spero

    I see that in his victory speech in South Carolina, Trump was making his own response to Pope Francis. To great applause he declared: “so it’s up with the wall, up with the wall. And who’s paying for the wall? Mexico is paying for the wall!” So it seems the Pope’s misplaced intervention has proved counter-productive. He needs to weigh carefully his words in future, like all the Popes before him who were prudent in their public comments.

    • With respect, I think Trump would have said that regardless of the Pope’s intervention.

      It seems that however (or even the more) obnoxious, unworkable, inhumane, crass or frankly bizarre his announcements Trump gets lauded by his followers.

    • With him on Trump, less so on Cruz – I’m unsure that pledging to carpet-bomb Syria, torturing people not found guilty of anything and having a passion for the death penalty are policies wholly in line with the Catholic Church.

      To his credit, I suppose, he doesn’t support Trump’s policy of forcibly deporting 11 million immigrants, perhaps showing that he is realistic enough to understand that wouldn’t end well.

  11. It seems likely that the Pope’s comments today on the capital punishment will wind up Trump even more, given Trump’s highly public call for the death penalty in the case of the Central Park Five (subsequently acquitted).

    Likewise, the Catholic Church’s stance on torture is at variance with the views of Trump, who not only strongly advocates the torture of suspects, but is of the view that (despite not being found guilty of anything at all) “if it doesn’t work, they deserve it”.

    • Andrew

      The Catholic Church Traditionally upholds the right of States to administer the death penalty. It is also Scripturally supported. What the Modernist liberals in Rome say about the death penalty today is not consistent with Traditional teaching.

      As for Trump, I don’t think he could be any worse than the immoral governments America has been under these past decades. Do you?

      • I find the death penalty extremely hard to reconcile with the teachings of Jesus, and I fully support what recent Popes have said on the matter.

        The moral issue of taking a life aside (not a minor point), not only does it have no demonstrable effect as a deterrent but it also leads to (or would have led to) horrendous miscarriages of justice that by definition cannot be rectified. The cases are numerous, and include the Central Park Five, the Birmingham Six as well as many, many others, both high profile and less so. Indeed, in Illinois the death penalty was abolished in great part because the number of people executed and subsequently exonerated was in danger of exceeding those executed and not subsequently found to be innocent.

        As regards your second paragraph, without in any way seeking to justify the moral record of recent US Presidents, yes, I do think, based on what he has publicly stated as his policies, Trump would be by some margin the worst among that company. I honestly fail to see anything Christian in what he says, indeed quite the opposite. His views on abortion are, to say the least, ambiguous, whilst his policies on torture, on immigration, and on other subjects are abhorrent.

        • Andrew

          We had a recent debate on the death penalty here on this blog, so you’ll forgive me if I don’t go down that route with you again today.

          Let us just agree that you can hold your liberal ideas in the matter and I’ll stick with the Church of the saints and martyrs, during which 19 centuries before the sentimental Modernists got hold of affairs, the death penalty was an accepted punishment at the disposal of Christian States for serious crimes against society. Had such a policy been against the teaching of Our Lord then it would never have been permitted as an option.

          It is downright idiocy to suggest that the Churchmen of this Modernist era are even remotely as qualified in holiness, learning and wisdom as the predecessors they now so arrogantly contradict. They are so blind, in fact, that they have even lost sight of the fact that capital punishment is upheld in Sacred Scripture.

          • Athanasius

            Sorry, I didn’t intend to divert the discussion to the death penalty, a different subject entirely.

            However, getting back to Trump I saw a clip today of his desire to punch a heckler in the face and to endorse him being beaten up to the point he would have to be carried out of the hall on a stretcher. His other statements aside, this suggested to me that Trump isn’t the most suitable person to be President of the most powerful nation in the world, and I find it hard to see such sentiments as being a witness to Christ.

            As to your last paragraph, I understand that you may have differences of opinion with recent Popes, but setting yourself in judgement of their holiness and understanding of Scripture is, in my view, bold to the point of arrogance.

        • Dano

          I did not read anywhere in the Scriptures about State murder. Murderers in Scripture suffered the penalty of capital punishment. Don’t confuse the two.

            • Dano

              Not quite. But He did accept the repentance of the good thief who was crucified next to Him, who, if you recall, declared that it was just that he should die for his crimes but that Jesus was innocent of all crime. And what was Our Lord’s response to the good thief’s confession. He said”today, you will be with me in paradise”. He did not say ‘Oh no, capital punishment is always unjust. You are no more deserving of it than I’. No, Our Lord did not contradict the good thief’s admission that he deserved the punishment he was then suffering for his crimes. I wonder why?

  12. Andrew

    “I understand that you may have differences of opinion with recent Popes, but setting yourself in judgement of their holiness and understanding of Scripture is, in my view, bold to the point of arrogance.”

    It is not me setting myself in judgement of recent Pontiffs, but rather recent Pontiffs setting themselves in clear opposition to the consistent teaching of a very great number of their predecessors. I’m just the one pointing out the obvious. And if there is arrogance to be denounced, it is in those who set themselves against the very clear teaching of Sacred Scripture, not just in the case of the death penalty but much more worryingly in very serious moral matters such as homosexuality and adultery.

    • I suspect we will have to agree to differ. However, I do think there is a significant difference between criticising the words and/or actions of recent Popes and claiming that it is “downright idiocy to suggest that the Churchmen of this Modernist era are even remotely as qualified in holiness”.

      As to their predecessors, the Papal history hasn’t to be honest been that great at times. Pope Alexander VI, Pope Stephen VI and Pope John XII are perhaps obvious examples, to take but a few. To some of them homosexuality and adultery were very minor and day-to-day transgressions.

      I expect you will disagree, but I do welcome the way Pope Francis seeks to inspire and to engage, and to make a thoughtful contribution to the issues facing society. That to me is a fundamental part of the Church’s evangelical mission, a mission that seems often to be forgotten in the midst of internal disputes, irrelevant and arcane to those outside the Church, almost as if the Church were re-enacting Gormenghast on loop.

      I suppose I am lucky to be involved in a Church that locally has four Masses each weekend full to bursting, plus an Italian Mass, with 130 children this year preparing for First Holy Communion (for which I help lead the children’s Catechists).

      If I were in a part of the country where attendance at Mass is only a few hundred on a good day and the Church wasn’t a fundamental part of the local community perhaps my view would be different.

        • Indeed, Editor, indeed. I came across a photo of one of my children making her First Holy Communion. There were 11 children in the group and my daughter is the only one who still attends Mass. Tragic.

          • Does that make the other 10 bad people.If I believed the mass is totally,totally wrong, as a lot of folk on this forum do, (It should be Latin only,We should kneel for Communion,and receive on tongue, no hymns from after 1884,etc,etc), then quite honestly, I would not entertain it. This may just be the thinking of the other 10.

            • Dano,

              You ask if the majority receiving Holy Communion in the hand are “bad people”…

              Well obviously small children who are doing what they have been taught to do are not “bad” for doing so. But as for those who have taught them to receive in the hand… well…

              To teach false religion to small children is singled out for particular warning in the Gospel. Better, Our Lord said, that a millstone be hung around that person’s neck and he be thrown into the depths of the sea. (Matthew 18:6)

              There can be no doubt that the scandal of sacrilege is seriously offensive to God. For an adult, fully able to comprehend the gravity of this liturgical abuse, to receive in the hand is one thing; to teach children to participate in it, is quite another. Millstones, necks, sea, depths thereof, should make them think twice about doing so.

              • No, what I asked was, Are the 10 that no longer attend mass bad people?after all if the Mass of today is so out of step with tradition, then surely it’s defunct.

                • Dano

                  Defunct is the wrong word. Dangerous is the word you’re looking for, as Communion in the hand and other liturgical abuses amply demonstrate.

                    • Dano

                      The New Mass was never in step with Tradition from the day of its creation. You speak of it is though it has some kind of noble heritage like the ancient Mass of the saints and martyrs. Your original question to Editor is therefore ridiculous.

            • Dano

              “If I believed the mass is totally,totally wrong, as a lot of folk on this forum do, (It should be Latin only,We should kneel for Communion,and receive on tongue, no hymns from after 1884,etc,etc), then quite honestly, I would not entertain it. This may just be the thinking of the other 10.”

              You exaggerate our position on this blog and you make our holy religion sound like it’s based on human emotion rather than supernatural faith. And yes, you should absolutely kneel to receive Our Lord on your tongue. It was the Protestant Reformers who originally manufactured your way of receiving, and that was to undermine the Real Presence. I wouldn’t follow that example. I prefer the example of all the saints.

              • You exaggerate our position on this blog..

                Spot on, Athanasius. Why is it that some people can’t – or won’t – read what is written, rather than what they think is written. Could it be bigotry?

          • No. It’s the safest and most humble way to receive the Blessed Sacrament; as a penitent, not as an equal, and as we are penitents to our Blessed Lord, and not equals, our wishes do not, and should not, enter the equation. “Pride cometh before the fall”, and we’re in for a long, long drop.

            If Our Lord appeared to you tonight, would you hold our your hand to shake His, or would you drop to your knees in adoration?

              • Dano

                Are you for real? I think you’re mixing up trust with presumption.

                I’m not going to list the many blasphemies that have been – are still are- being committed against the Blessed Sacrament because of communion in the hand. If you haven’t seen and read about them, then you shouldn’t be commenting; go and educate yourself – it shouldn’t take long, if you’ve the will. If you still hold to your opinion, all I can say to you is how dare you?

                  • Dano

                    You’re becoming a pest again under your new name, I can see you getting banned shortly. You are not interested in truth, only in you fixation with this blog. What on earth is driving you in this fanatical way of coming back again and again under different names to disrupt our threads. If nothing else, you are one reason why the Church really does have to get back to sanity, quickly.

                    • ATHANASIUS, Contrary to what you may think, I DO agree with a lot of what you (and others) say, NOT all, but a LOT. I am merely trying to play Devil’s Advocate, so to speak, in order to broaden the debate, ask what others may ask, or think, and for my own personal understanding of our faith. I do like to prod, but would never wish to cause offence. P.S.anyway,you can give as good as you get!!

                  • So explain “safest”

                    Well, it shouldn’t be necessary for me to do so if one has a modicum of common sense. However. Reception on the tongue is safest, because the consumption of the Blessed Sacrament by the recipient at the time of reception is the best proviso that we can sensibly enforce to ensure – as far as possible – that those who would wish to desecrate the Sacred Species will be confounded.

                    Understand?

                    • The Sacred Species should never be chewed or come into contact with the teeth, but be allowed to dissolve on the tongue, and I DO agree that receiving it on the tongue is the most sacramental way of doing so.when you mentioned safest I presumed you were talking from a hygiene point of view, like when a lot of churches in Ireland some years ago,emptied the fonts of Holy water,to avoid spreading the Foot and Mouth disease.

      • Andrew

        Whatever else you do, please do not encourage in any way those innocent little children to receive their First Holy Communion in their hands.Instill in them the greatest reverence and adoration for Our Lord by teaching them to kneel and receive Him on their tongues. Don’t encourage that horrible indult in them that Paul VI lamented in Memoriale Domine as a “contrary usage”. Remember, all adult Catholics who instruct God’s little ones will answer for any carelessness or neglect in the formation and sanctification of their souls. Communion in the hand while standing is, for me, one of the worst practices to teach First Communicants.

        • Just thought I’d share a personal story here: Raised in the NO was taught to receive in the hand. The Sunday after First Communion when I received at my parish I did as was taught. On way way back to the pew I distinctly heard “Don’t do that again” I somehow new it was in reference to the Hand held reception. I presumed it was my Mother but when I questioned her she denied it. Interesting, no?

        • The way in which Holy Communion is taken is not my decision. In our Church it is taken in the hand (although there are some who take it on the tongue). This is in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

          • Andrew,

            No, it is not in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Communion in the hand is not the Church’s discipline, it is an Indult conceeded by the modern Popes in the light of episcopal rebellion and disobedience. Read Paul VI’ Memoriale Domine.

            The present practice of the Church, the authoritative practice from antiquity right through to our present day, is that the faithful should kneel and receive Our Lord on the tongue. And it is the correct practice, a practice of reverence and humility. The alternative is irreverence and pride. Never mind what you think of everyone else, what practice do you follow personally? After all, we will all render a personal account to Our Lord for our treatment of Him in His Real Presence.

            • “The present practice of the Church, the authoritative practice from antiquity right through to our present day, is that the faithful should kneel and receive Our Lord on the tongue.”

              Except that isn’t the case. In the Early Church both methods of receiving Communion were common. Later, Communion on the tongue did indeed become universal practice. Now it isn’t and both are permissible.

              You may disagree with the Church, but that is quite different from dismissing the Church’s position as invalid.

              • Andrew,

                Both Paul VI and John Paul II restated that the Catholic Tradition is to receive on the tongue, and Pope Benedict only gave Communion to those kneeling and on the tongue.

                St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379) said: “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution.”

                St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

              • Andrew

                The modern practice you agree with does not remotely mirror the practice of the early Christians. If you took the time to investigate in so serious a matter, perhaps read Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s book on the subject or read what a number of prelates said when they finally outlawed the abuse in their dioceses, then you would realise that the practice you uphold is of Protestant invention.

                Yes, it is a Reformation abuse that was illicilty introduced into the Church by Cardinal Suenens. And, as some senior Vatican figures have noted, the Popes have only extended indults for it because the episcopate generally ignored Paul VI and allowed the abuse to spread everywhere as though it were the Church’s normal discipline.

                It is not the Church’s normal discipline, however, it remains an abused Indult that should never even have been allowed as an Indult becauseof its break with Catholic Tradition and the practice of the early Christians.

                It is also worth noting that since this practice you defend was illicitly introduced and spread around, countless thousands of sacrileges of the Blessed Sacrament have taken place, unheard of in the Church’s history. And that’s not counting the millions more souls whose reverence for the Real Presence has predictably gone cold over the years of this abuse. You cannot defend in any way this horrendous practice, and you most certainly will not be able to do so before Our Blessed Lord, who is worthy of all reverence and adoration, which both Protestants and Modernist Catholics refuse Him.

  13. I don’t know if anyone has already pointed out Trump’s perspicacious comments re ISIS but I think he hit the nail on the head in saying that the conquering the Vatican is the final goal of these heretical murderers.

  14. I do not care if Trump is Christian or not. What bothers me right now is if pope Francis is even Catholic. Both his selective judgemental comments about Trump and the statements about contraception this week are the straw that broke the camel’s back. I do not know what to think anymore, but I can no longer ignore the issue that this pope may be a heretic. I am praying God to keep me on the right path in this sea of confusion.

    • Seeking Wisdom

      You are undergoing in your mind the same turmoil that many Catholics, myself included, are undergoing. It is very difficult to have to admit that a Pope may be a material heretic. We give him the benefit of the doubt again and again and again until the time comes when there are just too many deviances from Catholic teaching to ignore. It is not impossible that a Pope could be a material heretic, material meaning he genuinely believes his errors to be true and thinks he does well for the Church, even though he’s destroying the Faith. That’s the deadly trap of Modernism when it takes control of the mind.

      As for Trump. Christian or not, Pope Francis was well out of line in making those personal comments, or at least by allowing the media to state that they were directed at Trump. It is not the Pope’s place to involve himself in secular politics and make personal insults.

      But remember this, Our Lord is in control of His Church and He will restore all in His good time. The Gates of Hell will never prevail. All we can do in the meantime is uphold and defend the Traditional Catholic Faith handed down to us, the faith of the saints and martyrs, keep our devotion to Our Lady, refuse errors of every kind, pray for the Pope and leave all in God’s hands, assured of eventual victory.

      • Thank you for your insights, Athanasius. I also shared my concerns with my parish priest yesterday for the very first time and he told me gently that only time will tell about pope Francis. I agree with him. And unlike the pope’s judgmental comments about Trump, it is not up to us to judge the pope. Only God can do that.

        • Seeking Wisdom

          I hope I’m not being to suspicious about your parish priest when I say that his response to you seems like a bit of a brush off. Pope Francis has had ample time in office to show us what he’s made of, and it’s not good. Also, we have to bear in mind the difference between judging the person of the Pope, which is forbidden, and judging his actions, which is a duty. The latter, if contrary to Sacred Tradition, should be respectfully but vigorously resisted.

  15. you DO NOT CARE if a fellow brother is christian.yet get yourself in a frenzy, because another fellow brother may not be Christian????. I would seek wisdom from Agnes !!

  16. Please note, I have been offline having lost my broadband connection. I am still having problems replying to emails. I can now download and read them, but am getting a message to say I can’t send out replies. Mystery.

    I note there is concern that Dano is the troll returned yet again. This is truly worrying – if this is the same person who is fixated with this blog and publishing comments in high volume and always challenging Catholic Tradition, then I am going to block him yet again. The fact that he is so inventive as to by-pass the scrutiny system makes me wonder about his mental state. We’re a small outfit, not particularly influential, so why he feels he has to disrupt us constantly, puzzles me to death.

    As soon as I have time to study his posts and make a decision – I will do so.

    • I had my first post published but not my second. Have I been blocked?

      Ed: I don’t see any post from you that is in moderation and I haven’t blocked you. However, you are definitely under suspicion of being a troll so I suggest that you organise an avatar to indicate that you plan to be a serious blogger here. Otherwise, if you appear to be trolling, you WILL be kept in moderation – which is where you are at the present time. In other words, all your comments will be read by me in advance and only released if they are deemed to be serious contributions, not troublemaking. So, if your “missing” comments was designed to disrupt and it came in with a bunch of others, it may well have been permanently deleted. Oops!

      • This is only my third post, and, now, two of them of them have been published. I have no connection whatsoever “with a bunch of others”!

        Editor: well, keep it that way! Let’s see that avatar.

%d bloggers like this: