Pope Francis Causing Catholics To Leave The Church – Can YOU Help Them?

worriedmanI’ve had a number of telephone conversations recently, today included, with very worried Catholics who are either losing the Faith themselves or who know others who are losing the Faith, because of the scandalous things Pope Francis is saying and doing. Some of these people made the mistake of “investigating” (i.e. searching online) for answers and, needless to say, some of them are now toying with all the wrong “answers” – notably sedevacantism. 

In all honestly, I have scant patience with some of these people (and said so) because they apparently failed to notice the modernism of each of Pope Francis’ predecessors. Pope Francis did not appear out of the blue – each of the post-Vatican II popes prepared the path for him to take the Church by storm, so it is irksome to see the new “converts” to the battle against modernism turn the fight into a battle against Christ’s Church. Significantly, some of these new “converts” are relatively recent “converts” from their novus ordo parishes to the SSPX. It is, therefore, twice as concerning to see them risking their souls by entertaining the “anti-pope”, “anti-Christ”, sedevacantist false “answers” to the current scandalous pontificate. Instead of doing their duty as Soldiers of Christ in the battle against modernism,  they become part of the problem, not part of the solution. 

In these contacts with worried Catholics, I’ve given as much Church history as it is possible to squeeze into a couple of hours of conversation and I’ve quoted  St Vincent de Lerins, in order to demonstrate the correct Catholic response to a bad pope, which is to resist his errors and cling to “antiquity” – that is, to Catholic Tradition – while never doubting that Christ has kept His promise to be with His Church until the end of time. Christ assured us that the gates of Hell will never prevail. He made no promise that the gates of Hell will never attack the Church, just that they will never prevail.  I get the feeling, though, that there’s always something more to say, which is where you lot come into the frame…

Explain – in as few words as possible – how you would advise those Catholic who are sorely tempted to abandon the Church and go it alone  – Catholicism to go, so to speak. Provide the links to articles or videos that you think will help, and, of course, pray for all Catholics who are tempted to doubt at this time.  I plan to send the link to this thread to all those online readers who have contacted me in recent times, in the hope that they find it helpful. 

Finally, please pray for Pope Francis who will one day be held to account by God, and made to pay for his dereliction of duty, for the scandal he is causing and for the souls which may be lost because of his false teaching.  His beloved God of Surprises is, as things stand, more likely to have a few shocks than surprises in store for him at his Judgment, so we do need to pray very hard indeed – and urgently – for the conversion of Pope Francis. 

OurLadyofFatima

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

 

116 responses

  1. That’s all very interesting.

    IMHO Catholics who are just waking up to the state of the Church get so shocked at Pope Francis, the worst of the modernist popes, really because they don’t understand that the pope is not a god. They think popes are perfect, and should never be criticised.

    Even if they know the pope is human and not perfect, they still get mixed up over the infallibility teaching. They think it means that the pope can never teach any error. They don’t realise that a pope can teach error, only he can’t teach it in such a way that it binds us. We don’t have to accept his opinion-teachings. They just don’t understand that.

    One thing surprised me though, that some of these concerned Catholics attend the SSPX chapels. I would have thought the priests there would be teaching their congregations about this, so that they don’t go astray down the wrong road. I’m really very surprised about that part of the article. If they’re not preaching about this subject, who will?

    • Lily,

      “If [the SSPX priests] are not preaching about this subject, who will?”

      A fair point. One of the problems with the SSPX is that the priests tend to think that because we are there in front of them, we know it all, understand it all. That is clearly not the case.

      • From my experience with so many SSPX priests, our priests are very much aware of the power of these excesses. I’ve heard all of our recent pastors repeatedly warning about them and have talked to our current pastor about them many times.

        Unfortunately, in our technological culture, there is much bad and compelling influence on the Internet and through rumor mills. So many are looking for ways to see through this confusion and the sedevacantist and “resistor” reasonings can be appealing as the “easy way out”.

        • Steven C,

          Thank you for that – I am very aware that the USA Society priests do preach on this subject to stave off the danger of people falling into these errors, so thank you for that reminder.

  2. I suggest to all these skeptical converts to meditate and cling to the teaching of the Saints who have been confronted with the drifts of many pastors throughout History and to limit themselves to that.

    • DOTF,

      Thank you for that – we have a link to the Archbishop’s Open Letter on our website here

      Another excellent book which can be read online, is Father Gruner’s (Fatima Priest – http://www.fatima.org) entitled: “Crucial Truths To Save Your Soul” which he had just finished when he died. May he rest in peace.

      However, the people who are the subject of the blog article, have moved on from wondering what happened at Vatican II, to wondering if the pope is the pope – that old chestnut again. Hopefully, we can provide some solid explanations as to why it is not within our power to deal with that question, that we have no authority to do anything about the problem of a bad pope in terms of judging him or removing him from office. So why waste the energy?!

      • It comes down to the differences between formal and material heresy, really. Also, the dogma of infallibility. The sedevacantists’ words and actions prove that they do not believe that dogma because every thought and word of the Pope is analyzed for heresy, when in reality Infallibility protects the Pope from teaching heresy ex cathedra ONLY. This is an important distinction.

        • Damsel of the Faith,

          I think the guarantee of infallibility also protects a pope from teaching error in the ordinary magisterium, when he is repeating what has always been believed. An example I’m thinking of is Humanae Vitae, which was not as ex-cathedra pronouncement, but because it repeated what Christians had always believed about birth control, and came with the pope’s authority, that would be infallible.

          If I’m wrong, just tell me but I do think I’m right on this.

  3. St. Francis de Sales had some very wise advice for us in situations that we are currently experiencing. He likened those who give scandal to “spiritual murderers”. So those who cause others to sin, or lead or encourage others into sin – whether they be sins of the flesh or spiritual sin like “losing one’s faith” – truly become responsible for that murdered soul just as surely as a murderer is responsible for the life he takes.

    To this extent the current incumbent of the Holy See is almost certainly a spiritual murderer and, as you say, will be held accountable by God for all his actions – as will we all. No doubt like many during this papacy, I have had dark moments of doubting whether the Church really is the true Church any more, whether the Pope really is the Pope, whether the Holy Ghost really is in charge of the Church of God – whether there is any way out of this abyss into which the majority of the hierarchy are hurling the Church on the coat-tails of this sociopath, seemingly oblivious to the consequences of their actions or inactions.

    However, St Francis de Sales also had a very stern warning for THOSE WHO TAKE SCANDAL. If the giver of scandal is a spiritual murderer then the “taker of scandal is a SPIRITUAL SUICIDE.” There will be no excuse for us before the judgement seat of God if He looks upon us and sees a soul which is so lacking in faith, hope and love that it was more willing to be scandalized than it was to put its trust in Him.

    We do not actually need the Pope to tell us what the Faith is, we do not need him to tell us what is right and what is wrong, we do not need him to tell us how to pray or what to believe – in fact he isn’t even mentioned in the Credo at all. We know everything we need to do to get to heaven already and we don’t need the Pope’s permission to do it. If he loses his mind and loses his way, that is his problem and we should pray for him, but that should never cause us to lose our mind or our way – it can never be an excuse for us to become spiritual suicides.

    We should rejoice that we live in a time when we can suffer pain and distress, rejection, ridicule and ostracism for being faithful to Christ. That is what He promised us, isn’t it? And whether he knows it or not, Fancis will go down in history as the Pope who made the rejection of Vatican II possible.

    • Thank you Deacon Augustine! Know your Faith. Follow your conscience. You explained it so well, made it so simple to understand, very much like my dad always did.
      Pray for the Pope!
      And thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre!

    • Deacon Augustine,

      Well said! Thank you so much for your clear-thinking comment. I’m sure that will help others to be more clear-thinking on this vexed subject.

    • Deacon Augustine,

      I do not think it extreme to call your comment inspired. Thank you for so wise a counsel.

    • Deacon Augustine,
      I took the liberty to translate your brilliant comment as I found it so pertinent; I hope that you do not mind:

      Le diacre Augustin a écrit:
      10 février 2017 à 1h 59

      St. François de Sales nous a donné des conseils très judicieux dans des situations que nous connaissons actuellement. Il a comparé ceux qui provoquent le scandale aux «assassins spirituels». Ainsi ceux qui font pécher les autres, ou conduisent ou encouragent les autres dans le péché – que ce soient des péchés de la chair ou un péché spirituel comme «perdre la foi» – deviennent vraiment responsables de cette âme assassinée tout aussi sûrement qu’un meurtrier est responsable de la vie qu’il prend.

      Dans cette mesure, le titulaire actuel du Saint-Siège est presque certainement un meurtrier spirituel et, comme vous le dites, sera tenu responsable devant Dieu pour toutes ses actions, comme nous le serons tous. Sans doute, comme beaucoup d’entre nous durant ce pontificat, j’ai traversé des moments sombres, doutant que cette Église soit réellement la véritable Église, que le Pape soit vraiment le Pape, que le Saint-Esprit soit vraiment chargé de l’Église de Dieu, ce qui est un moyen de sortir de cet abîme dans lequel beaucoup de membres de la hiérarchie précipitent l’Église sur les pans de ce sociopathe, apparemment inconscients des conséquences de leurs actions ou inactions.

      Cependant, St François de Sales avait aussi émis un avertissement très sévère pour CEUX QUI SE LAISSENT ABSORBER PAR UN SCANDALE. Si l’initiateur du scandale est un meurtrier spirituel, alors «celui qui se laisse absorber par le scandale» commet un SUICIDE SPIRITUEL». Il n’y aura aucune excuse pour nous devant le tribunal de Dieu s’Il regarde et voit une âme qui manifeste si peu de foi, d’espoir et d’amour de telle sorte que cette âme était plus disposée à être scandalisée que de mettre sa confiance en Lui.

      Nous n’avons pas vraiment besoin du pape pour nous dire ce qu’est la foi, nous n’avons pas besoin de lui pour nous dire ce qui est bien et ce qui ne va pas, nous n’avons pas besoin de lui pour nous dire comment prier ou en quoi nous devons croire, en fait il n’est même pas mentionné dans le Credo. Nous savons déjà tout ce que nous devons faire pour parvenir au ciel et nous n’avons pas besoin de la permission du Pape pour le faire. S’il perd la tête et perd son chemin, c’est son problème et nous devons prier pour lui, mais cela ne devrait jamais nous faire perdre la tête ou notre chemin; on ne pourra jamais justifier le suicide spirituel.

      Nous devrions nous réjouir de vivre dans un temps où nous pouvons souffrir la douleur et la détresse, le rejet, le ridicule et l’ostracisme pour demeurer fidèles au Christ. C’est ce qu’Il nous a promis, n’est-ce pas? Qu’il le sache ou non, François passera dans l’histoire comme le Pape qui a rendu possible le rejet de Vatican II.

    • Therese,

      I’ve been reading the first link you gave and I laughed because it shows that sedevacantism is actually modernist! Here’s the extract:

      “For one thing, this solution is not based on Tradition. Theologians (Cajetan, St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, etc.) who have examined the possibility of a heretical pope, but no one prior to the Council every devised such a theory.”

      LOL!

    • Therese,

      I didn’t know that sedevacantists don’t think the Pope should be prayed for in public. How shocking is that? We’re supposed to pray for everyone, especially those who are in danger of losing their souls! That alone should be enough to alert any real Catholic to the error (dangerous error) of leaving the Church to follow this sect.

      • Laura,

        That’s a very good point. Our Lady told the children at Fatima that many souls fell into Hell because there was no-one to pray for them. If anything, we should be praying day and night for this pope because he is putting his own soul and other souls in danger of eternal damnation. What kind of Catholic would not want to pray for such a soul?

        I also agree with you that sedevacantists are a sect. And now we know that they are just one more modernist sect, since they didn’t even exist before Vatican II.

    • Therese,

      I disagree with something in the second link where it says that it is unlikely that a future ecumenical council and pope will decree that the Council and new Mass were in error. I think that is exactly what will happen – both will be condemned by a future pope and probably Council.

      Your first link is excellent, though.

    • Therese,

      I’ve only read the first article you link to and it is very good indeed. There’s a footnote at the end which says it all, IMHO:

      “Fr. Munoz[4] points out that no saint in the Church’s history was ever a sedevacantist, while several openly and forcefully resisted a pope’s errors. Let us do likewise. (Translated from Sel de la terre, Spring 2001.)”

      That’s enough for me to know that sedevacantism is a very serious error. I think we should stick with the saints!

    • Therese,

      Thank you for that first link which is very good. It makes the point that heresy in a pope (in anyone, actually) “has to be formal heresy and would have to be open and manifest.”

      That’s not as easy as it seems. If you think about it, the Pope is refusing to answer the dubia on marriage teaching, sent to him in a letter by the four cardinals, Cardinal Burke being one. That could be, probably is, because then his heresy would be “open and manifest” and he knows it. The fact is, until that is the case, it’s only speculation, because as any lawyer would say in a court of law, we need concrete evidence, not just speculation.

      The other thing I liked about that article was that it pointed out that no saint was ever a sedevacantist but many saints fought against bad popes and corrected their error, as we know St Paul did when he contradicted St Peter “to his face”.

      I am praying for the people who are confused, the ones who phone editor and all the others. It must be terrible to think you have to make such a bad choice. Pope Francis does have a lot to answer for, but so do the people who make the wrong choices, because the grace will be there for them to make the right choice and stay in the Church to fight the good fight.

  4. I sometimes meet people who say they don’t think the pope can be a real pope but I always say the same thing – that Our Lady at Fatima spoke about “the Holy Father” (OK I got it from this blog, LOL!) and I think she would have mentioned it if there was going to be a false pope.

    That’s all it takes to prove to me that he is a true, although very bad, pope. He was elected by the conclave and there’s nothing we can do about it until the next conclave except pray for him.

  5. I would point out that the following have both been promulgated ex cathedra and are binding on all Catholics for all time. And, crucially, that they bind *the Church* too, and will do forever – long after Bergoglio, Spadaro, Kung and all the rest of them have departed the scene.

    Therefore, whatever drunken excesses come from the mouths of demons such as the revolutionaries, homosexuals, Masons and secular progressives who currently control the Church, I would tell them that CHRIST IS STILL IN CONTROL and is using the current crisis (which I myself believe to be Apocalyptic) to sort the goats from the sheep. They must hold fast to Tradition and to the Sacraments. Without these, we might as well jump off a cliff.

    So, to my short list:

    1. http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_bo08us.htm

    2. http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html

    I would also add http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12116c.htm which led to the very important Bull “Auctorum Fidei” of Pius VI (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02068b.htm), which should be read by all Catholics, as it shows the way to deal with Vatican II.

    Once your correspondents have these firmly grasped as immutable Catholic teaching, I hope they will be steadied in their struggles.

    I WILL also say that to try to persuade them that the Arian Crisis was worse or that this or that crisis was as bad is a mistake: no-one should be left in any doubt that the current disaster is the greatest challenge from hell ever. And with that knowledge the sheep will sort themselves from the goats.

  6. I always tell novus ordo Catholics who are shocked at Pope Francis preaching heresy, that Pope John XXII who lived sometime in the 14th century, also preached heresy.He taught that we do not get the Beatific Vision until after the Last Judgment, and that is completely the opposite to what the Church always taught. That caused uproar in the Church at the time, and cardinals and bishops objected but it wasn’t until just before he died that he retracted his error.

    Then the next pope issued a formal document (I think it was a papal bull) repeating what the Church has always taught, so that should remind us that we need patience until God, in his own good time, sorts out this pope and brings the crisis to an end.

    I agree with Benedict that this crisis is much worse than any gone before, including the Arian crisis, which is probably why Our Lady came to forewarn us in 1917.

  7. Editor

    My simple explanation to Catholics toying with sedevacantism (playing with fire!) is that they should first search their conscience and ask if they lean in this dangerous direction by example from Church history and sound theological conviction, or is it because they’re angry with the Pope and want payback.

    My overwhelming experience with sedevacantists, and I have corresponded with many of them over many years, is that they are fundamentally of the latter category, very angry people with no little pride. Once they fall into the error proper it is impossible to release them from it with sound and objective arguement because, deep down, they do believe that the Gates of Hell have prevaled and they will tolerate no alternative explanation.

    It’s not just Pope Francis who has the sedes reeling with fury, this has been going on since Paul VI. They say that all the Conciliar Popes, with the possible exception of John XXIII, have been anti-popes or popes automatically deprived of office by reason of their personal theological deviances. It’s such a crazy argument that a child could see through it, yet they maintain their absolute conviction that such and such a saint or a particular reading of a certain section of Canon Law gives them both the right and the duty to declare the Pope deposed, if in fact they ever recognised his papacy in the first place. Not to put too fine a point on it, sedevancatism is Protestantism disguised as concerned Catholicism and those who fall into the error are as separated from the Mystical Body as their Reformer predecessors, who also thought themselves justified in declaring certain (or all) papacies null and void.

    But put to them the question of what happens to the hierarchy if the Popes of the past 50 years have been void, and they can’t answer. The simple conclusion is that if the Popes have not been valid then the Cardinals raised by them have not been valid either, and that means there is no longer a papacy or a hierarchy to elected one, which means the Gates of Hell have triumphed over the Church. It beggars belief how even an angry Catholic could fall for so demonic a trick as sedevacantism.

    Personally speaking, when they tell me they’ve gone sedevacantist these days I just let them get on with it. These people have no trust in Our Lord’s promise and no proper understanding of the distinction between the Pope in his authoritative office and the Pope as a private theologian. The former can never formally IMPOSE heresy on the universal Church (and this remains the case under Francis). The latter may well cause heresy to spread by his personal words and actions, especially when like-minded prelates take his poison to diocesan and parish level. It doesn’t mean the Pope is not the Pope, or that Catholics have a right or duty to offer their own Formal declaration on the successor of St. Peter. If the faithful were so empowered then the Church would be chaotic.

    This is not the first crisis in history to involve a bad or dangerous Pope, there are precedents in history. That kind of kills the sede argument that this one is unique. It is more widespread than previous crisis, but it’s not unique. Popes can fail, Christ Our Lord will never fail. Lose trust in that promise and you’re a goner!

    • Athanasius,

      “It doesn’t mean the Pope is not the Pope, or that Catholics have a right or duty to offer their own Formal declaration on the successor of St. Peter. If the faithful were so empowered then the Church would be chaotic.

      That’s what struck me. If it were allowed for each of us to make up our own mind if such and such a pope was really a pope, then we all become our own pope – LOL! It really is a Protestant sect or cult, or whatever the word is!

      Great post from you – that was really interesting.

  8. Editor,

    (Don’t cut my Easter Bonus yet, I’m taking a writing break…)

    Besides a hearty “Hear, Hear!” to Athanasius and Deacon Augustine, a few things: first, it is precisely the pride which Athanasius describes which prevents sv’s or sv-leaning people to realize what Deacon Augustine so perfectly points out:

    We should rejoice that we live in a time when we can suffer pain and distress, rejection, ridicule and ostracism for being faithful to Christ. That is what He promised us, isn’t it?

    Second, we should recall what Fr. Amorth allegedly told Fr. Gruner shortly before he, Fr. G (R.I.P.) passed away in 2015: that the chastisement was about to begin. I think Fr. A. even gave Fr. G. a date or a month, but please correct me on that. At any rate, what happened to that prediction? The final report of the Synod Against the Family happened, which was the warm-up act for Amoris Laetitia. That is, our chastisement will come, and clearly is coming, from a wayward Pope and his supporters/enforcers.

    So the question should be turned on its head: instead of “Why do we have this madman of a Pope?”, the correct question is: “What have we done to deserve this?” And the answer is: plenty….

    Third, I have to wonder whether these new sv-leaners actually took their Faith seriously before the Francis Effect.

    Fourth, I think some of the responsibility goes to the neo-Catholic apologists like Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea and Michael Voris, who have all played a major role in promoting the error of papal impeccability, and no doubt contributed to the “boiled frog” syndrome.

    Finally, I would suggest that the sv-leaners, if they are really serious about this, go read True or False Pope?, wherein all their doubts will be thoroughly answered – moreover, in a depth and breadth which they would never have suspected (a depth and breadth which reflects the depth and breadth of the Church, in fact). However, since that is quite a lengthy and weighty book, perhaps they should first whet their appetite by studying this website created by the authors of that book: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/

    • RCA Victor

      Thank you for that great post.

      I can assure you that the people who have inspired this thread did take their faith seriously before “the Francis effect”, did express concern, for example, about the Assisi meetings but having been quite deeply involved in the novus ordo world, and now having moved to SSPX Masses, I think a couple of them feel overwhelmed by Pope Francis and they, sadly, are influencing the others.

      I didn’t think of True or False Pope when chatting on the phone yesterday, so thank you for that. I’ve not read it but I’m reliably informed that it is a really excellent read.

    • RCA Victor,

      That’s a great link to a piece from True or False Pope. It’s very clear, so I hope the people who are tempted by the SedeV cult, take the time to read it.

    • RCA Victor

      I found this YouTube interview with John Salza, about his book True or False Pope. I’ve not had time to watch it myself, but it looks interesting so I thought I would post it and then watch it (time management, LOL!)

  9. I wearily note that this thread has become yet another screed against sedevacantism. I am agnostic on the question myself. I deem it irrelevant whether one is or isn’t in the overall scheme of things.

    It seems self-evident that several great canonists and Saints have taught that a Pope loses his office by virtue of teaching heresy, but they differ on whether the visible exclusion from office comes at that moment or via a series of warnings etc. We can all agree on that statement, I assume.

    Who cares is my point? I do not understand why so many Traditionalists view SVs with such horror: for me, they are fellow Traditionalists who happen to hold a particular theological point that most others do not share. Why cast them into the outer darkness? They are accused of everything from heresy and / or schism. It’s all nonsense. Their intellectual rigour is a damn sight more than most Traditionalists’ while they are guilty of no discernible heresy that I can spot. Which dogma or doctrine do they deny? None. Indeed, one can argue that the SV position guards the dogmas of Papal infallibility and the indefectible nature of the Church better than most Traditionalist positions.

    Give the SVs a break. They are our fellow Traditionalist Catholics.

    • Benedict,

      Not a terribly intelligent opening line – it is obvious from the blog article that this thread is intended to protect people from various errors, notably sedevacantism. Because, contrary to your closing remark, those who follow this error, are anything BUT “fellow traditional Catholics”. They are Protestant. By definition.

      The people who inspired this thread have children, children whose souls are at stake. You belittle the gravity of this sect – for that is what sedevacantism is; a sect and a very dangerous Protestant sect at that. So, let me answer your question “who cares?” God cares. Very much indeed. He wants souls to be saved and that can ONLY happen if they are truly Catholic. No-one, as the Fathers and Doctors of the Church have always taught, can be saved who refuses either to remain or to enter Christ’s Church. As for your “I think we can all agree on that” relating to an heretical pope – read the first of Therese’s links which is an article on the SSPX website, giving a concise yet comprehensive response to your “assumption”.

      Interesting that in dismissing the danger of sedevacantism you appear to give no thought at all to the importance of the graces available to us through the Mass. Those who go down this route cannot, by definition, avail themselves of the graces of the Mass. If they manage to have one of their priests provide Mass once or twice a year, they count themselves lucky. These people are placing themselves and their children into a spiritual desert. That CANNOT be the will of God.

      It is because I cannot be party to such a fate for small children who depend on their parents to raise them in the Catholic religion, rooted in Tradition and Scripture and not in any modernist sect (Sedevacantism has NO roots in Catholic Tradition – it is a post-Vatican II novelty) that I am deeply concerned to do all in my own power to prevent these good, well meaning people, from falling into this major diabolical error.

      Thus, as you will read in our House Rules section, this blog has a policy of not giving any publicity to the error of Sedevacantism – we fight it as just one more problem afflicting Christ’s Church today. If you sympathise with it, please desist from blogging on this thread. The people who contacted me about this, are confused enough. The point of this thread is to explain what is the CORRECT attitude, the TRADITIONAL attitude to adopt during a time of crisis, and a bad pope. It is NOT to debate the error of sedevacantism; that it is a serious error and an insult to Christ who cannot lie and is, therefore, still protecting His Church – that it is a diabolical assault on the Church, is a given.

      Henceforth, therefore, I will delete any and all comments which seek to promote or excuse sedevacantism, so don’t waste any more time theorising about it. There are, believe it or not, websites where mathematicians debate whether or not one and one = two. Numpties. We do not wish to appear to be the theological/ecclesiastical equivalent of those numpties, so we’re sticking with the facts, as given to us by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and,of course, by Our Lord Himself. Anyone here who wishes to join the ranks of the armchair pseudo-theologians, is welcome to do so – but not here, not on this blog, please and thank you.

  10. I am amazed by your reply, which reads vastly more into my comment than it merits. I said I am agnostic on the idea of SV-ism, not “sympathetic”.

    No-one in vast amounts of reading has yet to show me why it is such a danger. If I am missing something, then please enlighten me.

    I also am a father.

    • Benedict,

      If you don’t know why it is a danger to remove your children from frequent Mass and the Sacraments and to keep faith with Christ in his promise never to abandon His Church, then I can’t help you. If you cannot see the sheer stupidity in claims that we are never going to have another pope unless God beams one down to us, then you are not going to find any answers here. Have you READ the links posted here? Have your read Athanasius’ post and RCA Victor’s post? Any of the posts?

      It is not possible to be “agnostic” about something so serious as this. That’s lazy. If there is one thing that irritates me more than a “modernist liberal” it’s an alleged “traditionalist liberal” – the hallmark is the same; an anxiety to be seen to be oh, so “reasonable”, to want to be open-minded – all things to all heretics, so to speak. Not on this blog.

      You say you are a father – would YOU want to try to teach your child how to be a faithful Catholic minus a pope? Gerragrip.

      Now, I suggest that you re-read this thread and then scour the Society of St Pius X websites (especially the American one, it’s the best, with Asia a close second) where you should find plenty of reasons why this error is so dangerous. That’s not the purpose of this thread, I repeat, very wearily, that the purpose of THIS thread is to bring together as many of the teachings, quotes, sermons, writings of faithful Catholics, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, etc. to show that it is our duty as Catholics during a time of Crisis, to cling to what we know to be true, that which has been believed by all Catholics, everywhere, and all times.

      Please do not respond to this unless it is to say “light dawned.” Otherwise I’ll delete, as I just do not want to risk losing my temper which is what will happen if I see this thread turned into a debate about the evil of sedevacantism – the Devil’s answer to the SSPX.

      And one of the reasons why I don’t want to lose my temper over this is… I’m due at Confession tomorrow, so have a heart!

    • Sent a couple of links further down on the thread Benedict. Given the state that Rome is in now and the latest plethora of posters being pasted around the Vatican City, exposing the current Pope and his entourage, I can understand why people are askance at the person of the current Pontiff…..the situation is deplorable as it is preposterous. Is it any wonder people are asking questions.

      • St Miguel,

        It’s no wonder people are asking questions but what IS a wonder (to me) is how few are educated enough to provide the right answers. Repeating extremist propaganda, engaging in Protestant-style cherry picking from Scripture to argue that there is no pope after all, that here we have the “anti-Christ” – as is widespread across the internet, although not here, thankfully – is not remotely intelligent, and in fact, only serves to reveal an unfortunate ignorance of Church history, and the fact that there have been heretical popes in the past, not to mention sexually immoral popes. I make a speedy exit from blogs where this “anti-Christ” baloney goes on, so I’m hoping that we can prove a tad more helpful to the people to whom I’ve sent this link.

        Please and thank you!

    • Benedict Carter

      It grieves me that you cannot see the danger that sedevacantism represents to the Church in general and individual Catholic souls in particular.

      You say you are agnostic with regard to the question of sedevancatism yet you appear to condone, even encourage, the error by declaring that you consider sedes to be just fellow Traditional Catholics. They are not fellow Traditional Catholics, they are schismatics and their error must be very clearly and sternly opposed.

      The devil is very clever and knows well how to lure souls away from the Mystical Body from both sides of the theological spectrum today. That sedevacantists appear to be outraged Catholics unable to come to terms with a pope or popes apparently doing their level best to destroy the Church seems at first glance to be a perfectly noble position to adopt. But look deeper at the pride and the bitter zeal that drives the sedevacantist to the point of no return and you see the devil right there at the heart of movement. The personal judgment on the souls of our Modernist Popes, a judgment that declares the forbidden formal rather than material heresy charge on their part, should suffice to demonstrate that sedevacantism is as dangerous and divisive in the Church as the Modernist disease it claims to be a bullwark against.

      Those “eminent canonists” you speak of who in past times have debated the possibility of a heretical Pope reached different conclusions as to what such a scenario might mean for the Church. This is perfectly in line with matters that theologians and canonists are permitted to discuss in theory. However, we must never rely on what one or two of those eminent men thought as a basis for declaring any Pope either formally heretical or deposed from office. The saints in question would have been horrified if they thought for one second that subordinates in the Church at lay level would assume such a prideful position on the basis of their theoretical exchanges.

      Just to give you one example of how great theologians and canonists can have their words and conclusions taken out of context and made to say what they never intended should be said.

      The example I choose is that of the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, who, say the Modernists and other armchair theologians, rejected the notion of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary long before it was declared dogma.

      In fact it was upon the principles formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas on the question that successive theologians and Popes finally came to unanimity on the truth of the dogma, which was then formally declared. That St. Thomas dealt in his lifetime with the pros and the cons, so to speak, playing the devil’s advocate in respect to the deeper theological implications of this sublime mystery, has been twisted by many Modernist types and presented as St. Thomas’ rejection of the proposition. So you see how the writings of even the Angelic Doctor can be moulded by determined people into saying something he never said? This is what sedes do with theological and canonical exchanges that great men in the Church have had concerning the possibility of a future heretical Pope.

      As Catholic lay people our remit is solely to resist firmly, but respectfully, the errors of deviant popes, while praying for their conversion back to the truth. We are not permitted to declare them apostate, deposed, anti-Pope, etc. These extremes are borne of pride and we all know who the master of pride is.

  11. Benedict Carter

    From my understanding of the matter, SVs believe that there hasn’t been an authentic Pope since Pius X11, and according to at least some sedevacantists they don’t even agree that he was Pope. So, the logic is that there hasn’t been an authentic Pope since circa 1958, and therefore all cardinals/bishops ordained since then aren’t cardinals, and therefore would be unable to elect a Pope. What, then, becomes of Our Lord’s promise that the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church?

    You ask, “who cares” about this? I do. Sedevacantists are not my fellow Traditionalists (I’m sure they would agree on that, actually), but no-one here has consigned them to “outer darkness”. Their confusion is understandable, but it has led them into error. I don’t consider that to be irrelevant.

  12. To get us back on topic, check out this list of quotes about The Authority of Tradition

    Identify at least one that you think is a stormer! One that really hits a nail (or two) on the head, one that is likely to resonate with someone thinking of leaving the Church due to the trial of a bad pope.

    It would be useful to post your choice here, since I’ve learned over time that there ARE people who actually do not visit the links given. No names, no pack drill, but it becomes pretty apparent during a discussion if someone or ten, hasn’t read certain or all of the posts and links. Over to thee…

    But first, here’s my favourite, one that I quoted to the lady on the phone yesterday…

    “What then shall the Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What other choice can he make – and if some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once, then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity (Tradition) which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty.” – St. Vincent de Lerins

  13. “The day the Church abandons Her universal tongue will be the day before She returns to the Catacombs.” – Pope Pius XII (a few days before his death

    • Good choice, Therese. Among other things, the quote from Pius XII should highlight for everyone the need to attend the TLM in this time of crisis.

  14. N O T I C E . . .

    There are a number of posts in moderation, all from apologists for sedevacantism. Some are lengthy. I stopped reading the minute I realised they were, as suspected, newcomers seeking to come on here to defend this error. They will not be released. Please do not post any sedevacantist arguments here. This thread is NOT about that cult. I’ve asked this more than once. All future posts from whoever, if they contain arguments to support or express sympathy for sedevacantism, will be deleted as being off topic.

    Thank you.

  15. A simple question for all those who are either sedevacantist already or are thinking about becoming sedevacantist: Why would you risk your eternal salvation taking up a theological position that Our Lord neither qualifies nor authorises you to adopt?

    All Our Lord expects from any of us today is that we hold fast to the Faith handed down, rejecting error and resisiting those in authority over us who have fallen into error while praying for them as divine charity demands.

    Why would anyone want to go beyond that to create further division in the Church, often bitterly so, on the basis of their personal interpretation of what certain saints, doctors or theologians of the Church merely theorised about. The eternal consequences of such an unnecessary and dangerous leap into the unknown are so dire that I have to question the sanity of those who insist in aligning themselves with the sedevacantist error. For me, they are people playing Russian Roulette with their immortal souls.

    Catholics believe the truths of the Faith because they are certain of their divine origin. It is not in our DNA to believe by speculation. But this is precisely what sedevacnatists do when they play the indefectiblity of the Church against the infallibility of Popes in an effort to rationalise their extremism.

  16. If the recent Popes led the church properly (by example), then there would be no need for ordinary people to theorise or question anything. Amoris Laetitia is the final straw and Rome these days are treating US with utter contempt.

    • St Miguel,

      And if the modern popes had been good popes, there would have been no need for Our Lady to appear at Fatima.

      We’re beyond that now. What do you think of St Vincent de Lerins’ advice to Catholics living at a time of Church crisis?

      • Well on a Wikipaedia search it describes him as a semi pelagianist/semi augustinean and has tract on his commintory, previent grace and predestination,not particularly impressed to be honest.

        • I wouldn’t use Wiki as my source for anything. It’s useful but not always accurate.

          Anyway, there are plenty of things that saints did and said that we might not like, but I think editor was expecting you to realise that he gave us the rule of thumb to use during a crisis in the Church – to stick to what has always been believed, everywhere, by all Catholics. That makes sense to me, even if he was a “semi-pelagianist etc.

          • To stick to what was always believed in the past infers that something was brought in to belief to begin with. Hence modern Catholics are being asked by the the current Pope/Rome/synods or whatever to start believing in NEW things which in time they will become by a process of evolution “sticking to things that has always been believed”. As regards others on the blog, the word resistance to the errors of the Pope while still praying for an end to his errors is flogging a dead horse in my opinion. Anyway I have read more than a few times about “resistance to nothing”, which translates to “nothing to resist” in my opinion.The four Cardinals are trying to resist and getting nowhere. So how exactly do we resist and remain Catholics in good standing?

            • St. Miguel

              “As regards others on the blog, the word resistance to the errors of the Pope while still praying for an end to his errors is flogging a dead horse in my opinion.”

              You have no faith in the power of prayer, is that what you’re saying? Or do you think that just adhering to the faith handed down without becoming a reactionary against the person of the Pope is insufficient Catholic Action in your case? Either way you’re on dangerous ground.

              The “Resistance to nothing” you refer to was Editor’s description of those who turned against the SSPX because they felt it wasn’t radical enough for them. The position of these “Resistance to nothing” people does bear a strong resemblance to the mindset of the sedevacantists and other schismatics, but has nothing whatever in common with genuine Catholic resistance to the errors of the Church’s authorities.

              The four Cardinals you speak of are resisting and their resistance is doing more good than you know. They have won many Catholics to their side, to the side of Sacred Tradition, by explaining where the Pope and some of the hierarchy have gone wrong. Let’s put it this way, the Church would be in a worse state without them. They are small in number but they win new allies every day.

              It seems to me that you’re looking for a quick fix to a very widespread and complex issue in the universal Church. That’s not going to happen unless by divine intervention, which is not God’s normal way of exstinguishing errors that afflict His Church. It also seems that you’re not prepared to leave matters in God’s hands. You want that quick fix and you want it now. Well I’m afraid you’re likely to be disappointed. You’ll just have to do what the rest of us are doing, which is to act as though all depends on you while understanding that all really depends on God. That should theoretically prevent you and others from becoming too angry and radical in your resistance to present errors.

              It’s the certain knowledge that Our Lord is still in charge of His Church that keeps us hopeful and within due limits with regard to our resistance..

  17. To ask another simple question, as Athanasius just did: what is “traditional, ” as BC seems to think, about claiming that we haven’t had a real Pope since 1958? Answer: nothing. Such an attitude is not even Catholic, as one would readily discover by taking the time to read True or False Pope? instead of claiming some sort of spurious and insupportable neutrality about the matter.

    And to respond to St. Miguel, here is another way of stating what I posted earlier: the Catholic response to Pope Francis is not anger directed at him; it is not confusion; it is not the neo-Catholic denial; it is not alienation. The first Catholic response is SELF-EXAMINATION, and meditation on these words of Our Lord: “I will visit upon mankind the malice of revolutionary men.” Francis certainly fits that profile, though I do not believe his “malice” is a desire to destroy the Church. I do, however, believe that the way he is enforcing his delusions is indeed malicious.

    And the second Catholic response is resistance to the revolution, according to our state in the Church. But resistance not only affirms Tradition and rejects error, it leads directly back to self-examination.

    In other words, this is a chastisement for our sins and a serious test of our Faith. Why do we look outside of ourselves as if God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, has abandoned us? Are we above being tested? Are we in a permanent state of grace and guaranteed salvation, as the Novus Ordo Church seems to think?

    Or, more to the point, would we have abandoned Our Lord during His Passion, by deciding that it was so unthinkable for Him to be condemned to death, tortured and executed that…He must not be the Son of God after all…?

    I have not seen a hint of that first Catholic response on The Remnant website, by the way.

  18. St. Miguel

    That’s just another angry retort, humanly understandable but divinely inexcusable. Charity demands that we keep our focus on upholding the truth without falling into bitter zeal. The Pope needs urgent prayers as well as respectful resistance to his errors. That’s it, period!

    I am always reminded of the words of St. James in situations like this, who said: “the anger of man worketh not the justice of God.” And was it the same saint or was it St. Paul who said: “Let not the sun go down on your anger”? Anger must never be given time to fester or it will kill charity in the soul.

  19. RCA Victor

    “…more to the point, would we have abandoned Our Lord during His Passion, by deciding that it was so unthinkable for Him to be condemned to death, tortured and executed that…He must not be the Son of God after all…?”

    Spot on!

    • Athanasius,

      Don’t encourage him. He’s already demanding a bigger than usual Easter bonus. At this rate, YOU will have to take a drop in pay… 😀

        • Athanasius,

          I’ve heard that my Easter Bonus consists of just one colored Easter Egg…for which I will have to search out in the grass on Easter Morning…while I’m searching for the population of Glasgow..

          You mean you get more than that?? Editor, I protest!

  20. Here’s a couple of points that I hope will convince those who are considering leaving Holy Mother Church to put all such thoughts aside, and for all sedevacantists to be aware of the very grave danger in which they have placed themselves.

    Our Lord, Faithful and True, is still in charge.

    Matt. 13:24-30

    AT THAT time, Jesus spoke this parable to the multitudes: “The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came, and oversowed cockle among the wheat, and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the good man of the house coming, said to him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them, An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him, Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said, No: lest perhaps gathering up the cockle you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest, I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.”

    Do you believe that the day of reckoning is near for evil men and women?

    Not as near as it is for the faithful.

    The separation of Wheat from the cockle and the Sheep from the goats.

    1 Peter 4:17 For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?

    18And if the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 19Wherefore let them also that suffer according to the will of God, commend their souls in good deeds to the faithful Creator.

    Harvest time draws ever nearer!

    Place your trust in the Sacred Heart Of Jesus and stand-fast, no retreat, no surrender, no compromise!

  21. While obviously not one of the Seven Sacraments, the Papacy is a sacrament in the Augustinian sense. (Augustine lived at a time when theological language was more fluid. E.g., he could use the word sacrament in relation to the celebration of Christmas and not be thought to be irregular.) Now, just as it is a characteristic of the seven sacraments that they do not compromise the free will of those who receive them, so it is with Papacy.

    Just as marriages may fail and ordained ministers may commit evil deeds, so Popes may err. Part of the problem is that we were dreadfully spoilt (most of the time) from about the Council of Trent onwards, and traditional Catholics in particular have a particular veneration for the Popes of the 19th and 20th centuries down to Pius XII. But never forget that not only does St. Thomas Aquinas contemplate the evil minister; he also addresses at length the phenomenon of the heretical Pope.

    • Prognosticum,

      That’s a very interesting and useful explanation, analogising the papacy with the efficacious sacraments, which,nevertheless do not prevent the exercise of the individual’s free will.

      Food for reflection, there. Thank you for that.

  22. Lest anyone think, from my post of 2/10 11:26, that I have successfully transcended my anger about this Pope, I’m sorry to report that I have not. In fact, I cannot even look at his face (scowling, laughing or otherwise) or read his incessant babbling without a visceral reaction of disgust and revulsion. So I have a lot of self-examining to do….not to mention praying…

      • St. Miguel

        The counsel of Our Lord, the saints and the Sacred Scriptures is that more hatred on their part means more prayers and penances for them on your part. That’s what true Christian charity demands, hard as it is for fallen human nature.

        It’s very easy to hate people who hate us; not so easy to love their souls and pray for their conversion. It’s at times like this that the Catholic is put to the test to discover whether his charity is true and deep or feigned and superficial. We all have to answer that million dollar question personally in accordance with own conscience. As I said before, too deep and lasting an anger leads eventually to hatred and bitterness and ultimately to a complete loss of charity, the only theological virtue to continues with us into eternity, faith and hope being for this life only.

    • RCA Victor

      Your anger is understandable, I think we all feel a bit of that towards the Pope right now. Still, like the rest of us you know that this is not correct and are seeking to self-examine and pray more. That means you’re nowhere near falling into the error of the sedevacantists, thank God.

  23. RCA Victor

    Your feelings about the Pope exactly match my own. I do think we are entitled to feel anger at his words and actions, but of course I agree that we should pray harder for him.

    • What if the Pope does not want our prayers, bearing in mind his previous mockery of Rosary counters? Does not look to me that he cares about Rigid/Trads/Pelagiansists praying for HIM.

      • St. Miguel

        As I said before, it does not matter what Pope Francis wants or appreciates. We just do our Catholic duty before God, which demands prayers for the successor of St. Peter.

        Our Lady of Fatima told us to pray and do penance for the conversion of poor sinners. She did not say pray and do penance only for those sinners who want them and appreciate them. I’m sorry but your reason for not wanting to pray for the Pope is fallacious and unCatholic. This Pope needs prayers more than any before him, so time to get on your knees and start offering prayers for the “poor Holy Father”, as little Jacinta Marto remarked when asking for more prayers for the Pope. There is no excuse for refusing prayers for the conversion of sinners, period!

      • St Miguel

        As Athanasius says, it doesn’t matter what Pope Francis wants, we must do our duty and pray for him. Christ prayed for those who crucified Him.

        Please don’t allow your justifiable anger to rob you of the charity which is demanded of you if you wish to be His follower.

      • Goodness, gracious. It never once crossed my mind to ask any of my lapsed relatives if they wanted me to pray for their return to the Faith, for their eternal salvation. Good grief! I’ve never heard such a thing in my life before. Some of them, at least, would say “no thanks, don’t bother, I’m quite happy enough with my life” – to which my reaction would be… MORE PRAYERS! We’re communicating with the all-powerful, all-seeing, all-benevolent God, remember, who longs for the conversion and salvation of every soul – including Pope Francis.

        I can only think that you are having us on, St Miguel – no Catholic would even question the need to pray for sinners, and we’re all sinners, without the sinner’s permission. Crackers. For the record, though, you have my permission to pray for me. 😀

        Incredible. Gerragrip!

  24. My first thought regarding St. Miguel’s comments was that he’s having a laugh! Imagine having to seek a person’s permission in order to be able to pray for him! Absolutely daft.

    • In this country NHS Nurses have been disciplined for even suggesting to a patient that “they would pray for them”. In an age of equality and diversity (viz wearing a cross to work) this will not be tolerated.Funny old world.And when a Pope makes Paul Ehrlich as guest of honour at the Vatican we know where WE stand.

      • St. Miguel

        All the more reason to pray for souls privately without announcement of the fact. Besides that, the NHS is not the Church and so the comparison is not a valid one. Mind you, there are times when Churchmen, the Pope in particular, seems to be more a Social Worker than the Successor of St. Peter. Still, prayers are the order of the day.

  25. Far be it from me to spread rumours from Rome, but they are coming thick and fast at the moment that the formal corrrection has been made privately, and if he does not respond it will go public. Also rumours that Cardinal Muller has resigned from the CDF and Cardinal Burke is cancelling all engagements.

    Who knows, maybe we will all believe in empty chairs before long? 😉

    • Deacon Augustine,

      Thank you for that – I received the rumour about Cardinal Muller’s resignation by email earlier, but Googling has not brought that news. I will post a thread dedicated to it if and when it comes, so I would appreciate if nobody would beat me to it, or we’ll end up with two discussions on the same topic. That becomes a pain.

      So, hang fire, everyone – I did toy with the idea of posting one of the speculative reports and then adding in the news if and when it came, but decided just to wait for now.

      I will check from time to time this evening, but be patient as – contrary to popular opinion – I’m NOT chained to my desk; I do, occasionally, have other things to do! Will be on the case asap, though – I promise!

      • “So, hang fire, everyone – I did toy with the idea of posting one of the speculative reports and then adding in the news if and when it came, but decided just to wait for now.”

        Very wise. On the odd occasion horrible rumours from Rome do turn out to be untrue – only on the odd occasion, though.

        • Thank you Deacon Augustine – I do believe these are more than rumours, but I’d prefer to wait for definite news and not waste cyber space in this age of recycling!

          Only, Deacon, I don’t this these are “horrible” events, if true. The resignation of Cardinal Muller and the cancellation of all appointment by Cardinal Burke, take us closer again to the climax of what we are suffering right now.

          So, as I say, one and all – hang fire! I’m a bad girl for breaking my own rule! Mea culpa! It’s not really my fault, it’s the Deacon you put with me!

        • Deacon Augustine

          This would not surprise me in the least. I think many in the Church have long anticipated a formal public standoff between Pope Francis and what remains of the Traditional Catholic hierarchy, even if they are not all fully Traditional in the sense that we understand. At least some of them are leaping to the defence of the moral teaching of the Church. Or we hope they are!

  26. Is there no end to the nonsense? Now we have a special envoy to Medjugorje! Gimme strength:

    Vatican City, Feb 11, 2017 / 09:21 am (CNA/EWTN News)- Pope Francis on Saturday appointed Archbishop Henryk Hoser of Warszawa-Praga as a delegate of the Holy See to look into the pastoral situation at Medjugore, the site of alleged Marian apparitions in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    “The mission has the aim of acquiring a deeper knowledge of the pastoral situation there and above all, of the needs of the faithful who go there in pilgrimage, and on the basis of this, to suggest possible pastoral initiatives for the future,” stated a Feb. 11 communique from the Vatican Secretariat of State.

    “The mission will therefore have an exclusively pastoral character,” it added.

    Greg Burke, the Holy See press officer, strenuously reiterated the pastoral, and not doctrinal, nature of Archbishop Hoser’s mission, while speaking at a press conference. Click here to read more

    • Editor

      Note when the Vatican Communique was issued, February 11, the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes. So on the Feast of a true apparition of Our Lady the Vatican issues a communique that breathes new life into the false Marian apparitions of Medjugorje. One wonders what spirit is operating in the Vatican right now!

    • St. Miguel

      That Washington Post article you linked by Emma Symons is just a hate-filled liberal rant that is not worthy of serious consideration. I suspect the author has a serious conscience issue of her own that she needs to be honest about. Waste of time reading that rubbish.

      • Yes, maybe, but the them is that there are a lot of people out to get Cardinal Burke…reminds me of old saying…”will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest”. Contrast this with Paul Ehricht at the Vatican and the still disbanded Pontifical Academy of Life and there is an obvious theme here that Tradition is not welcome.

        • St. Miguel

          They were out to get Our Lord in His time. Cardinal Burke knows this is the price of fidelity to the truth and he’s not complaining. All upholders of truth in these times can expect to be on someone’s hit list. Did not Our Lady of Fatima say “the good will be martyred”. This has always been the case in the eternal struggle between heaven and hell.

        • St Miguel,

          Tradition has not been welcome since the Modernists hijacked Vatican II. The only difference between the pre-Francis years and now is that this lack of welcome is no longer covert or disguised, but overt in spades. Previously, the China Shop of Tradition had its displays quietly re-arranged when most Catholics weren’t looking. Now, however, there is a bull in said shop, and most Catholics, thank God, are looking…at all the precious shattered fragments on the floor…

  27. If Pope Francis is going the clear out the “Far Right Rot” from the Church, then who or what organisations would be defined as ” Far Right Rot”…one wonders?

    • CrofterLady, yep I sent that link in recently and given the disgraceful treatment of Fra Festing of the Knights of Malta, the roasting of Cardinal Mueller, the Zika virus contraception (including abortifacients) and the Malteser International row and lastly the Paul Ehrlich at the Vatican caper I would NOT let Pope Francis take my dog for a walk !!!

    • The Pope can say that now. He IS the Pope and the SSPX are Catholic. This “agreement” will only sort out the canonical status. Everything else will remain the same. I don’t know how many times Bishop Fellay has to say that!!!!

      • BishopFellayFan

        Absolutely right! It would be nice if people would just trust Bishop Fellay, not to mention God Himself, in this matter of canonical status. I feel sure that Bishop Fellay knows more about the situation than Internet armchair theologians.

  28. A few months ago I spoke with Bp. Fellay and asked him if the Holy Father meant SSPX clerics and faithful when he warned against “rigid” Catholics. How does one reconcile remarks of that sort with the Holy Father act of extending the Year of Mercy in perpetuity? Bp. Fellay said that the Pope’s own people in Rome don’t know who he means, but they assured His Excellency that the Pope does not mean the SSPX! Strange as it seems, His Holiness appears to have in mind for his admonitions conservative prelates and faithful within the conciliar framework of the Church – and not traditional Catholics.

  29. I just received the statement below from a very, very devout traditional Catholic. No hint of sedevacantism there and he even, when necessary, attends the non SSPX Masses and had his children Confirmed by the local bishop. Regarding the regularisation of the SSPX:

    “I think Francis can’t help himself but try and trap them; don’t tell me he is in good faith. They should surely steer clear of him and retain the purity of the Faith until such time as we have a true disciple of Christ to lead us. They can read; they know what he is; why would you go anywhere near him. If he is so averse to orthodox orders and ‘rigid’ priests and any other ‘restorationists’, why wouldn’t his olive branch be poison ivy after all. He wouldn’t give them anything but a contagious disease, certainly not free rein to continue leading souls to Heaven. They would be required to lead souls very tolerantly and mercifully to Hell. It has to be a trap. “But then, who am I to judge? ” “

    • Olaf,

      Yet another “devout traditional Catholic” who (a) thinks he knows better than Bishop Fellay and (b) has no faith in the power of God to use even the modernist Francis to achieve His Will. “It has to be a trap” – why? We don’t have any faith in Divine Providence any more? Your friend was right about one thing, though – who IS he to judge?

      Never ceases to amaze. Never.

      PS if he had his children confirmed by the local bishop, he has no right to consider himself a “traditional” Catholic.

        • Ah, well that’s a bit different. Slap on wrist, moi!

          Still, I wish people wouldn’t speak as if Bishop Fellay were too thick to be on his guard. Clearly, he is not. None of the doom and gloom predictions have come true – he’s made it very clear indeed that he is not going to fall into any trap.

          These statements from those who think they are much brighter than Bishop Fellay, always remind me of the “bidding prayers” in the novus ordo Mass, as if God has to be instructed to bring peace to the Middle East or to feed the hungry etc. It’s ridiculous.

          There’s not much sense, in my humble view, in the SSPX waiting until perfect order is restored in the Church before charging in on their white horses, precisely at the moment when they’re not needed. Crackers.

          • Editor

            You’re absolutely right, they speak as though Bishop Fellay were some kind of idiot inferior to them in intellect and spiritual discernment. It’s pretty frustrating, well intentioned as some of them may be.

            • Just found this very good commentary on the Personal Prelature, over at Rorate Caeli. It’s the best, and most concise that I’ve yet seen:

              Should the Personal Prelature presented by Rome to the Society of Saint Pius X be accepted? Some present their negative opinion, based on the circumstances, but that is a badly formulated question.

              What should be asked instead is this: Can a canonical recognition be rejected when no unacceptable condition is attached to this concession?

              Abp. Lefebvre never refused a canonical structure by itself, when he was alive. He refused solely the demands conditioning the structure that he had originally sought and obtained, and that was unjustly removed from him. He never wanted to break, of his own will, the canonical liaison that linked him officially with Rome, and even to this Rome infested with Modernists. Quite the contrary, he refused it: he challenged the publication of the break of this link, and appealed the decisions of the ecclesiastical authorities.

              Consequently, Abp. Lefebvre never faced the situation in which we find ourselves: the Society is offered a canonical structure unconditionally. Incidentally, on what basis can it be refused if no condition is imposed (and even if the conditions were neutral), and if one considers that the Pope, due to the divine mandate granted by Our Lord to Peter and his successors, continues to possess the supernatural power of binding and unbinding, despite all his woes? Would the current crisis make the primacy of Peter and the power of the keys of Catholic truths which are embarrassing, optional, and superfluous? Click here to read more

  30. Tragically, I’ve just discovered that the wife and mother who rang for advice about sedevacantism, has decided to embrace that terrible error.

    Please keep her and her family in your prayers. Her beautiful children are now destined to be raised outside of the Catholic Church. Our Lady of Fatima, Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for them.

    I will now close this thread, with thanks to all who contributed to the conversation, in our [failed] attempt to help her to grasp the true and proper attitude of Catholics caught up in such a crisis in the Church.

    Please keep these souls in your prayers.

%d bloggers like this: