47 responses

  1. Veneration in church of a yet-living uncanonised man is out-and-out blasphemy which is forbidden to Catholics.

    One shudders all the more in this case. The Book of Daniel comes to mind.

  2. It’s just too ridiculous for words! I couldn’t believe it. Those people look so stupid venerating that statue. What sort or priest and bishop would allow that?

    • Presumption is a sin but I suppose the pope didn’t order the statue himself. Still, if he knows about it, he ought to order it to be put into storage until he’s officially canonised, LOL!

  3. It’s just too tragic for words. This is the kind of idiocy that occurs when the supernatural goes out of religion. The Pope should order that image removed from the church, immediately!

  4. That’s unbelievable, it really is. What clowns those people are. It really is hard to keep a straight face except it is such a cause of scandal, any Catholic worthy of the name should be furious.

    “Pope Saint Francis” – it’ll never happen!

    • Josephine, it could happen. gGiven the fact that Pope Francis is canonising everybody and anybody it wouldn’t surprise me if he canonised himself.

  5. Totally mad. I think Catholics in the main today are unhinged. I really do. Watching those people venerating that statue of a living pope – and one who talks rubbish most of the time – is mind-boggling. When is this madness going to end?

  6. How can this be? This is blasphemous. He is not dead. He has not been proclaimed a Saint. It is madness, yes. When will it end? When the Pope and all the Bishops consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I wonder if Pope Benedict is the “Bishop in white” who will finally do it. He doesn’t seem all that unhealthy or unfit to me. The earth is covered with crime!

  7. No one is “venerating” The Statue!. One woman kissed the Pectoral Cross. To repeat she kissed a Cross. Everyone else is acting like they do in Madame Tussards with the images there. No one is “venerating” the image.

    It would be better, by far, if the image was not anywhere near The Sanctuary, and ideally if it was in the Church Porch or The Parish Hall, if it needs to be anywhere.

    No matter how many criticisms we may have of current Papal activities, or matters surrounding him, it helps no-one to exaggerate or misrepresent though (although sometimes it has been difficult to exaggerate them, and some are beyond parody).

    • St. Martin

      No one is exaggerating anything. There is a life size image of a living Pope in a Cathedral near the Sanctuary. One person kissed that image, it matters not where. This is an outrage for any Catholic, an unprecedented scandal not seen in 2000 years of Church history. The image is there to be venerated alongside all the other images of the saints. It is quite obvious why it was placed there, so please spare us the feigned indignation over the Catholic reaction to such an abomination.

      With the very greatest respect, but in all truth, apologists like you do more harm than good. Your misguided charity weakens the Catholic immune system of the Church in its natural reaction to the deadly Modernist virus that currently infects it. There is absolutely no justification for what has occurred in that Cathedral. It is a disgrace and an outrage.

      • Please proof the intent on promoting veneration. I am sure you cannot.

        You can buy images and statues of any and every Pope. including ones you admire. I would be surprised if you do not have at least one such image in your home. (And quite possibly of an beatified or uncanonised Pope).

        Please gerragrip, as Editor would say.

        To repeat one woman kissed a Pectoral Cross, and from long experience I know some people venerate any, and every, such (religious) image as they as they pass them.

        • St Martin

          Please proof the intent on promoting veneration.

          What would be the point of having such a statue, if not to venerate the person it represents?

          • Therese,

            Nail on head. Well said. It’s a true saying: Wise (wo)men talk because they have something to say, Fools talk because they have to say something. πŸ˜€

            • Editor

              “Wise (wo)men talk because they have something to say.”

              I don’t know why but that comment put me in mind of the joke about the nun who joined a religious order dedicated to year-round silence. Once a year each nun was taken in before Mother Superior and permitted to speak a few words on life in the convent over the past 12 months.

              One nun went in at the end of her first year and when asked by the Mother Superior if she had anything to say, she replied “bed’s hard”.

              The next year she was in again and was again asked if she had anything to say, to which she responded “food’s poor”.

              The third year, when prompted, she said “I’m leaving”, to which the Mother Superior responded “well thank goodness for that, you’ve done nothing but complain since you arrived here”.

  8. St. Martin

    The intention is clear from a life size image of a living, reigning Pope in a Cathedral. If you cannot see the significance of this unprecedented act then I graetly pity you. What you need to do, if in fact you genuinely believe this to be a completely innocent affair, is demonstrate from Church history one solitary occasion when a life size image, or any image, of a living Pope was placed in a chapel. The only thing that was ever allowed was a picture of the reigning Pontiff in the sacristy or hall, never in the chapel. The chapel is the place where images are placed for veneration, or didn’t you know that?

    As regards images of past Popes. Yes, I have seen images of past Popes, even owned them myself, but never when they were still alive and never in life size. I’m sorry to be blunt but there is definitely something amiss with your sensus fidei.

    • There is something amiss in your ability to listen to others. In my first post I wrote: “it would be better, by far, if the image was not anywhere near The Sanctuary, and ideally if it was in the Church Porch or The Parish Hall, if it needs to be anywhere.”

      Clearly I do not approve it being there, but far more scandalous is attempts by you to claim to know the mindset of the Cathedral authorities and to use any stick to attack others.

  9. St. Martin

    If you do not believe it should be there then you are clearly and correctly at odds with the “Cathedral authorities”. The difference between you and all others on this blog is that we don’t bow in false submission to Church authorities who say and/or do outrageous things. Only dead fish swim with the current. It is the duty of subordinates in the Church to stand up publicly and denounce dangerous innovations and their initiators. Prelates and priests don’t get a special dispensation from public correction when they do things harmful to faith. Many will keep silent and pretend that they are being charitable and respectful, but they are really justr appeasers. The true Catholic speaks his mind when he sees the Modernist mindset at work in the Church.

    Anyway, I’m quite content to leave the debate at that. We are clearly not going to agree on the fundamentals. We on the blog are appalled by this scandalous development while you are clearly something of an apologist for those behind it.No point, then, in further unpleasant exchanges between us.

  10. There really isn’t a lot left to say about this scandal of a life-sized statue of Pope Francis in a Brazilian cathedral, or any cathedral, for that matter, so I am – with his kind permission – posting a letter penned by our very own Athanasius today and sent to the so-called Catholic Times in response to the latest dangerous rubbish from Monsignor Loftus – his heresy arises from Pope Francis’ false teaching, which is why I believe this thread is the most appropriate home for Martin’s letter. The letter is self-explanatory so even if you haven’t read the paper, you will get the point…. Essentially, what Monsignor Loftus is arguing is that we’re now beyond the debate about Communion for the divorced and remarried and we need to now accept divorce and remarriage Ramming home that Pope Francis has made it clear that the divorced and “remarried” are permitted Holy Communion, he insists: “Now we have moved on…can we short circuit the question of Communion for the divorced and remarried by removing the actual obstacle in the first place – disapproval of the civil remarriage?” The article progresses, moving from bad to worse to beyond any remotely Catholic belief…

    ATHANASIUS REPLIES…

    I hate to be the bearer of bad news to your wayward columnist but Mgr. Loftus’ “Good News”, that Pope Francis brings us new, more palatable, divine revelation on divorce and remarriage, is illusory. There is no such new revelation; remarried divorcees still cannot receive holy communion.

    Despite the Monsignor’s insinuations to the contrary, Popes are not empowered by God to alter either the Ten Commandments or the infallible moral teaching of the Church. The sixth Commandment forbidding adultery remains in place, as does Our Lord’s assurance that those who divorce and remarry break that Commandment.

    Like any good parent, God gave us His Commandments for our own eternal good. These are the boundaries within which we enjoy true freedom and a safe passage to heaven. Breaching any one of them is gravely offensive to God and deadly to the life of grace in our souls.

    One mortal sin, the Original Sin, was sufficient to cause the Son of God to have to become incarnate and die on the Cross to make restitution. That’s why He said “if you love me you will keep my Commandments”.

    Of course God is infinitely merciful, always eager to receive and forgive any one of His children who come to Him in true sorrow for having sinned. His justice, however, is turned against those who presume upon that mercy by making excuses for sin and refusing to regulate their situation. And if they further presume by going to holy communion in such a state of soul, well, the Church calls that sacrilege.

    In this regard Mgr. Loftus, to quote St. Paul, uses liberty as a cloak for malice by presenting relativist ideas as new Church teaching. By doing so he encourages people in irregular marriage situations to continue in their sinful state, assuring them of God’s blessing.

    This is what happens when the supernatural love of God and souls gives place in a cleric to emotional humanism. I believe Our Lord referred to this tragedy when He spoke of the salt that loses its savour.

    Had he remained faithful to the Mass of his ordination, the ancient Latin Mass of the saints and martyrs, Mgr. Loftus would have been regularly reminded of the prayer at the incensing of the altar that reads: “Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth, and a door round about my lips. May my heart not incline to evil words, to make excuses for sins.” Read today’s “pastoral sensitivity” as “excuses for sins” by any other name. END.

    • That’s a great letter, Athanasius.

      It’s a complete disgrace that Loftus is permitted to go on writing his shocking column but it shows that the editor is also a heretic. No way would he allow such blatant anti-Catholic rubbish to be published if he was a faithful Catholic. The same goes for his bishop in Aberdeen and the other one in Leeds.

  11. I was recently purchasing rosaries for the chapel bookshop and looking through the catalogue I couldn’t believe that some of them had Pope Francis centres. Needless to say I haven’t ordered any of them. Unless that is……..any of you want one.

    • Vianney

      Please don’t tell me that the reverse side is an image of Martin Luther.

        • Vianney

          Aye, right enough! The Blessed John Knox (not)! It would have been more entertaining had they called him Nick instead of John.

          • Reminds me of a quip made by a very witty friend of ours after Mass on Sunday, when I told him about this statue in the Brazilian cathedral. It was something to the effect that you’d think they had enough nuts in Brazil… ! Very irreverent. But you have to laugh…

      • I’m being a bit naughty here, but I don’t think there’s any need to turn the image round – Pope Francis seems to be going out on a limb to emulate Martin Luther! I. Fact, Pope Francis is more dangerous. At least the Catholic world, clergy, royalty and laity, united in its condemnation of Luther. Nowadays these mad popes cause nothing but confusion and division!

  12. The issue of veneration aside, which seems painfully obvious, there is an equally disturbing issue present in this video: admiration. Would someone mind telling me what there is to admire about this “vulgar little man” (as John Vennari, RIP, once described him)? It seems he has reduced his exalted office, and himself, to the status of a Hollywood movie star or a rock star, with his popularity broadcast and amplified all over the world by the minions of the underworld. I’m reminded of John Lennon, who allegedly sold his soul to the devil in exchange for success. And success he had….

    This man is doing to Catholic souls what Hitler did to the Jews – and yet they flock around him as if their personality-worship would heal all their diseases and grant them innumerable blessings. What a sad commentary on the state of the sensus fidelium.

    • Spiritus,

      That is Louis Verracio all right. I’m not one of his fans, so I was prejudiced form the start, but if you want to know what I think of that video – I think it’s not at all nice, and that’s putting it as charitably as I can. I think he’s become a sedevacantist and the point where he is singing an expletive, covered by the bleep and bubble out of is mouth, took him to a new low in my eyes. The jeans, the cigarette, the whole thing was not my cup of tea. I’ll be interested, though, to see what others think.

      • Michaela,

        I’m not a Louis V fan either, so I’m better keeping my opinion of his video performance to myself. I don’t want to have to pay another visit to the confessional so soon!

  13. Louis Verrecchio is parodying Billy Joel, which explains the jeans, the cigarette, the attitude and the tune. Apart from the bleep*, I am in sympathy and 99% agreement with the lyrics.

    *I don’t mean the word shouldn’t have been bleeped – rather than it shouldn’t have been included.

    • Therese,

      I knew he was parodying someone but that performance doesn’t endear me to him one bit, and although I am possessed of a very good sense of humour, his “humour” doesn’t appeal to me one bit.

    • Therese,

      I have never tried a frown, but this is how to do a smiley face or a wink

      1) type a colon :

      2) then, without leaving a space, write the word grin or wink

      3) then, again without leaving a space, type another colon :

      So you should see this, but without the spaces : grin : = πŸ˜€ πŸ˜‰

      Trying frown = :frown:

      Didn’t work but I’ll leave it up there to show you that with grin and wink you don’t leave spaces. Do as “frown” – I’m sure you can find out a way of frowning, by Googling WordPress smiley faces – I’ll try it for you when I find a minute. I just did! See below…

      : – ( (leaving no spaces) is equivalent to 😦 = a frown!

      Check out this link and feel free to practise – I will delete them in due course.

%d bloggers like this: