Maybe Cardinals Should Try Phoning Pope Francis: He Tends To Ignore Letters

Seven months on from the “dubia,” Pope Francis has received midway through this spring another letter from the same four cardinals, signed by Carlo Caffarra in the name of the other three: Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, and Joachim Meisner.

And to this letter as well, like to the “dubia” before it, he has not responded.

The four cardinals were asking the pope for an audience. To talk with him about the divisions generated by “Amoris Laetitia” and about the resulting “situation of confusion and disorientation” in much of the Church.

The letter was in Francis’s hands back on May 6. But the prolonged absence of a response has expanded its nature. As has already happened with the “dubia,” the four cardinals now think it right that the letter be offered for the reflection of the whole “people of God,” from which arises the demand for clarification to which they are giving voice.

The complete text of the letter, translated from the original Italian, is reproduced further below.

But in the meantime it is also useful to point out that, during the 45 days that have passed between the delivery of the letter to the pope and its publication, the Babel of interpretations of “Amoris Laetitia” – but not only this – has continued to grow.

The following facts can be presented in this regard:

– In Poland, the episcopal conference has announced that in October it will publish guidelines for the application of “Amoris Laetitia” that will hold firm, without exception, the teaching of John Paul II on the divorced and remarried, who will be able to receive communion only if they resolve to live “as brother and sister.”

– In italy, the episcopal conference of the region of Sicily has published “Pastoral guidance” on the eighth chapter of “Amoris Laetitia” that provides for “practical solutions distinguished according to the situations,” including absolution and communion for the divorced and remarried who live “more uxorio.”

– In Belgium too, the bishops with a “Pastoral letter” have given the go-ahead to communion for the divorced and remarried, even if simply “decided in conscience.”

– In Argentina, in the diocese of Reconquista, Bishop Ángel José Macín, installed there by Pope Francis in 2013, has publicly celebrated the full readmission into the Church of around thirty divorced and remarried couples that continue to live “more uxorio,” giving them communion – he said – at the end of a collective course of preparation based on the indications of “Amoris Laetitia” and of the subsequent letter written by the pope to the bishops of the region of Rio de la Plata.

– Also in Italy, the theologian Maurizio Chiodi has published in the latest issue of the authoritative “Rivista del Clero Italiano” an essay in which he argues in the light of “Amoris Laetitia” for the possibility of communion for the divorced and remarried on the basis of “a theory of conscience beyond the alternative of the norm.” The “Rivista del Clero Italiano” is published by the Catholic University of Milan, under the direction of three bishops: Gianni Ambrosio, Franco Giulio Brambilla, and Claudio Giuliodori. And Chiodi was appointed by the pope a few days ago as an ordinary member of the renovated Academy for Life.

– Again in Italy, in Turin, the Catholic priest Fredo Olivero has confirmed that the interconfessional group “Breaking bread” in which he participates meets once a month to celebrate the Eucharist now according to the Catholic ceremony and now the Protestant, all of those present receiving communion. He has said that he is sure this is the true “personal thinking” of Pope Francis, according to what he said on November 15, 2015 during his visit to the Lutheran church of Rome. He added that the dogma of transubstantiation must be reinterpreted in a “spiritual” vein, and that according to Jesus the Mass can be celebrated by anyone, not only an ordained minister. Fr. Olivero made this disclosure in the latest issue of “Riforma,” the weekly of the Waldensian Church.

– And finally, at the Vatican, it turns out that has been set up a commission charged with “reinterpreting” in the light of “Amoris Laetitia” the encyclical of Paul VI “Humanae Vitae” on contraception. The members of this commission are Pierangelo Sequeri, head of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, Angelo Maffeis, head of the Paul VI Institute in Brescia, and Philippe Chenaux, a professor of Church history at the Pontifical Lateran University. The coordinator is Gilfredo Marengo, a professor of theological anthropology at the aforementioned institute founded by John Paul II and a longstanding supporter of revisionist ideas.

This is the state of the facts. And this the letter to the pope from four cardinals who are not resigning themselves to it.

In addition to Italian, English, Spanish, and French, the letter is also available in Portuguese and German:

> “A nossa consciência força-nos…”

> “Unser Gewissen drängt uns…”

“OUR CONSCIENCE IMPELS US…”

Most Holy Father,      

It is with a certain trepidation that I address myself to Your Holiness, during these days of the Easter season. I do so on behalf of the Most Eminent Cardinals: Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, Joachim Meisner, and myself.

We wish to begin by renewing our absolute dedication and our unconditional love for the Chair of Peter and for Your august person, in whom we recognize the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus: the “sweet Christ on earth,” as Saint Catherine of Siena was fond of saying. We do not share in the slightest the position of those who consider the See of Peter vacant, nor of those who want to attribute to others the indivisible responsibility of the Petrine “munus.” We are moved solely by the awareness of the grave responsibility arising from the “munus” of cardinals: to be advisers of the Successor of Peter in his sovereign ministry. And from the Sacrament of the Episcopate, which “has placed us as bishops to pasture the Church, which He has acquired with his blood” (Acts 20:28).

On September 19, 2016 we delivered to Your Holiness and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith five “dubia,” asking You to resolve uncertainties and to bring clarity on some points of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, “Amoris Laetitia.”

Not having received any response from Your Holiness, we have reached the decision to ask You, respectfully and humbly, for an Audience, together if Your Holiness would like. We attach, as is the practice, an Audience Sheet in which we present the two points we wish to discuss with you.

Most Holy Father,

A year has now gone by since the publication of “Amoris Laetitia.” During this time, interpretations of some objectively ambiguous passages of the post-synodal Exhortation have publicly been given that are not divergent from but contrary to the permanent Magisterium of the Church. Despite the fact that the Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith has repeatedly declared that the doctrine of the Church has not changed, numerous statements have appeared from individual Bishops, Cardinals, and even Episcopal Conferences, approving what the Magisterium of the Church has never approved. Not only access to the Holy Eucharist for those who objectively and publicly live in a situation of grave sin, and intend to remain in it, but also a conception of moral conscience contrary to the Tradition of the Church. And so it is happening – how painful it is to see this! – that what is sin in Poland is good in Germany, that what is prohibited in the archdiocese of Philadelphia is permitted in Malta. And so on. One is reminded of the bitter observation of B. Pascal: “Justice on this side of the Pyrenees, injustice on the other; justice on the left bank of the river, injustice on the right bank.”

Numerous competent lay faithful, who are deeply in love with the Church and staunchly loyal to the Apostolic See, have turned to their Pastors and to Your Holiness in order to be confirmed in the Holy Doctrine concerning the three sacraments of Marriage, Confession, and the Eucharist. And in these very days, in Rome, six lay faithful, from every Continent, have presented a very well-attended study seminar with the meaningful title: “Bringing clarity.”

Faced with this grave situation, in which many Christian communities are being divided, we feel the weight of our responsibility, and our conscience impels us to ask humbly and respectfully for an Audience.

May Your Holiness remember us in Your prayers, as we pledge to remember You in ours. And we ask for the gift of Your Apostolic Blessing.

Carlo Card. Caffarra  [Ed: pictured above]

Rome, April 25, 2017
Feast of Saint Mark the Evangelist     – Source 

*

AUDIENCE SHEET

1. Request for clarification of the five points indicated by the “dubia;” reasons for this request.

2. Situation of confusion and disorientation, especially among pastors of souls, in primis parish priests.

 

Comment:

The absolutely scandalous writings of Monsignor Basil Loftus,  the Leeds priest who lives in the Scottish Highlands (a mystery in itself) continue to savage Cardinal Burke and anyone else who dares to question Amoris Laetitia.   This week, Cardinal Burke is rudely told  to “get a life”. That is, to stop “[yearning] for “all the episcopal carnival costume, music-hall headgear for the clergy, clerical dominance, virtual contempt for women, effective contempt for laity, legalism, literalism and dogmatism which were the hall-marks of the pre-conciliar Church.” 

Yip – for 2,000 years,  since the time of Christ Himself until 1962, the above describes the Church; in the new Religion for Dummies, nothing, absolutely nothing, was right until Vatican II.   When Our Lord promised his Apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit upon them to remind them of all that He had taught etc. He simply forgot to mention that said descent of the Holy Ghost wouldn’t occur until 1962. 

So, what are we to make of the fact that Papa Francis steadfastly refuses to respond to the concerns of his cardinals in the matter of  the unchangeable teaching of Christ on marriage, beyond the self-evident fact that it encourages blatant dissenters like Mgr Loftus to continue with their assaults on Holy Mother Church?  Is there anything that can be done to force the Pope to respond?  

89 responses

  1. My first thought after reading the above article/letter was what a dog’s dinner where dogma used to be” – none too grammatical, I admit, but, hey, a gal’s gotta say what a gal’s gotta say, whether grammatical or not.

    Pope Francis has some nerve to ignore, not just the original dubia, but this second letter from the Cardinals, who are doing no more than their duty.

    We are now marching through the Fatima centenary year (with scarcely a mention of it, from Papa Francis) and it may be that time is running out for Pope Francis; his letter writing days may well be over soon, one way or another. In the meantime, I’m looking forward to reading what other bloggers think can, perhaps, be done to force the Pope’s hand. Being a simple gal, if a tad ungrammatical on occasion, I can’t help wishing that the four cardinals would simply drop in to pay the Pope an unexpected visit when he’s least expecting it – yes, THAT “unexpected”.

    But maybe others have more imaginative ideas, she said humbly. OK then, over to thee…

    • Editor,

      I would have expected more mention of Fatima from the pope but at least he went there to mark the 100th anniversary and he did canonise the two seers. It will be interesting to see if he has more in store for us during the rest of this year.

      I do agree with “a dog’s dinner” – that is absolutely accurate IMHO.

      • Yes,he did go to Fatima and canonise Francisco and Jacinta, but he said as little as he could get away with saying. Nothing came across of the urgency of the Fatima message, no doubt because he, like his immediate predecessors, have refused to obey Our Lord’s request via His mother, for the Consecration of Russia. For some inexplicable reason, Papa Francis thinks that planting trees and talking about world peace will be more effective. Crackers.

        And yes, AL has made a dog’s dinner of Catholic dogma – without a doubt.

    • Bernadette Milliken,

      I agree with that but don’t know how it would be achieved, legally. I don’t like the idea of the laity taking it on themselves to declare him not a pope. That’s not right, but if the hierarchy can depose him legally, I’m all for it.

      • Nicky,

        I, too, would like to see Francis deposed, so I hope the cardinals CAN do whatever it takes to achieve this, sooner rather than later. His ignoring of this letter after ignoring the dubia is utterly disgraceful.

  2. A dog’s dinner right enough. But I have an inner feeling that Francis will never carry the Church with him.

    Cardinal Caffara’s letter, like the Dubia which preceded it, is utterly reasonable. How can a Pope in good faith fail to respond?

    But Francis is not in good faith. He is up to mischief and has been put up to mischief by his German friends desperate to save their own financial interests, and he knows it. The faithful know it too, and the conscience of the Church will not be led by a Pope who uses the mass media — an expression of the wordliness which he is always condemning, if ever there was one — as a stick with which to lay into the Faith.

    I have long been forced to conclude that he is a private heretic, an anti-Pope who thinks that he is on a mission to somehow update the Church which his friend Cardinal Martini thought was two hundred years behind the times.The man is an utter fraud, a modern Jesuit who vowed not to accept Church preferment and then did so on no less than four separate occasions: as Auxiliary Bishop of Buenos Aires, as Archbishop of the same Archdiocese, as a Cardinal, and, finally, as Pope. (By the by, all of these offices require making the profession of faith before entering into them. And said profession of faith is only valid if made on the Church’s terms, not on the terms on the one who makes it.)

    On the first three such occasions he can legitimately claim that he was subject to an overriding duty to obey the reigning Pope. But when he himself was elected Pope, fidelity to his Jesuit vow should have meant meant his refusing his election. Why then did he accept, this anti-careerist, this moralizer who wears his supposed modesty on his sleeve for the world to admire, always ready to point his finger and berate the supposed defects of his fellow priests and nuns (many of which are just pretexts, props to further ingratiate him with his friends in the mass media who seek the destruction of the Church), but who is completely blind to his own faults? For example, did he ever mention his belief that adulterers should receive Holy Communion to either John Paul II or to Pope Benedict? Did he hell as like. He kept silent like the Jesuit hypocrite he is, progressing through the ranks of the hierarchy until his moment came.

    And when his moment came, did he manfully manifest his conviction and direct the Church to follow him? No. But like the cowardly boy who throws the stone and then hides his hand behind his back, he resorts to an ambiguous footnote and authorizes others to interpret it. Imagine, fellow bloggers, what the mass media would do to a politician who indulged in such unsavoury behaviour. And yet Francis is acclaimed in liberal circles the world over.

    Pride has taken hold of Francis, and it will turn out to be his downfall. It blinds him to asking a fundamental question: if we the faithful are not to believe the teachings of his predecessors, why in the name of God should they accept his? If the Popes from St Peter to Benedict XVI were wrong in not giving adulterers Holy Communion, what is it that makes Francis right?

    • Prognosticum,

      You have given a superb overview of the situation – and your final sentence is just perfect. It sums up the situation perfectly.

      The Cardinals’ letter is also first class. I found it difficult to highlight any one part but this bit touched me deeply:

      ” – how painful it is to see this! – that what is sin in Poland is good in Germany, that what is prohibited in the archdiocese of Philadelphia is permitted in Malta. And so on.”

      This has never been the Catholic way and something has to be done to stop this pope from ruining the Church.

      Personally, I can’t think of any way to do this except for the Cardinals to somehow confront him openly in public. That would catch the media’s attention and perhaps bring ignorant Catholics into the light who really haven’t a clue about how wrong AL really is – they are all drunk with this “compassion” mantra.

      • Josephine,

        I agree – the cardinals should now publicly confront the pope and bring it all out into the open. Then they will have done everything, but everything, they could.

    • I agree that Francis will not carry the Church with him but the problem is, lots of members of the Church are being confirmed in their sins, and are able to squash their consciences because the pope is helping them to live in sin, without repenting and turning away from their sin. It is shocking, totally shocking.

    • Prognosticum,

      I can only cry a heartfelt “hear hear” in response to your first (hint, hint!) comment on this thread. I can see nothing, absolutely nothing in it with which to disagree. Sadly. It’s just unthinkable that we are here, discussing the apparent FACT that in Pope Francis we have an utter fraud/heretic.

      I totally agree with your speculation that “Pride has taken hold of Francis, and it will turn out to be his downfall”. Absolutely spot on.

      In the meantime, we must pray that more cardinals will find the courage within them to support the four who have bravely put their names to the dubia and now this letter requesting an audience.

      The Scottish Bishops maintain their anything-but dignified silence, leaving the pope to attack the Faith, without raising their voices even to the level of a whisper. Shame on them, each and every one.

    • Would agree with you and this man is certainly a Narcissist. God forgive me for am no Saint but the final nail for me was his gushing admiration for Luther. Not only did he take Luther on his so called Saintly Values he attempted to push the Heretic on to us . Well Francis we have given you an answer,if you want to be a Lutheran there’s not many Catholics will stop you . And as far as getting Francis attention am sure if these Faithful Cardinals want to get in touch with him they probably have to go through Mr George Soros the Devils Apprentice .

  3. On the issue of Fatima, The Pope was present at the Shrine for the centenary and canonised two of the seers.

    With regards AL it is important The Pope and the wider Magisterium proclaim, with one voice, authentic teaching on marriage wholly consistent with, and faithful to, Holy Scripture and Tradition.

    It is surely ironic that The Pope was the first the canonise a couple who attained sanctity through the living out of their God given vocation of Marriage, whilst being silent during a mass of confusion in The Church on issues pertaining to the same subject and one of the foundations of society.

    • Martin,

      Yes, he went to Fatima and canonised the seers but what he said bore nothing of the core of the full Fatima message. I think I remember reading that he is to attend the centenary of the Lutheran Reformation this year as well (September, I think?) so it will be interesting to compare what he says there to what little he said at Fatima.

      I do agree with your comments about AL and the rest of your post.

    • Martin,

      As I said above in response to (I think) Josephine, yes, of course, we must acknowledge that the Pope went to Fatima and canonised the two seers, but there was no urgency in what he said – for obvious reasons – i.e. the negligence of the recent popes, himself included, in seeing to it that the Fatima message reached its fulfilment (think Consecration of Russia/disclosure of entire Third Secret)

      With the rest of your comment, I am in complete agreement. Spot on.

      • It’s hard to believe this is the same Pope who had his Pontificate consecrated to Our Lady of Fatima, when, from all his words and deeds since then, it would appear that it was consecrated to Lucifer instead. Could he really imagine that Our Lady approves of his agenda?

        • RCA Victor,

          That is the puzzle with this pope – the contradictions, including his apparent determination to regularise the SSPX.

          But then, as Pope Saint Pius X points out in his encyclical on Modernism, it is precisely that contradiction which is a feature of the Modernist.

          • Editor,

            Yes, he is the classic modernist. I just posted this in answer to RCA Victor:

            “In his weekly Wednesday catechism lesson, Francis noted that the nuptial Mass invokes the help of saints to help newlyweds live as a married couple forever. “Not like some say ‘as long as love lasts.’ No: Forever! Otherwise it’s better to not get married. Either forever or nothing,” he said.”
            https://finance.yahoo.com/news/4-cardinals-press-pope-clarify-divorce-remarriage-stand-124359645.html

            • Margaret Mary,

              Apparently Modernists have a short memory, as well as other questionable traits. It seems Francis has forgotten that the first end of marriage, the procreation of children, was, at Vat. II, put on the same footing as “love,” thus opening the door to the degradation of marriage.

          • Editor,

            I wonder if there’s a difference between the classic Modernist behavior, whose aim was to deceive by hiding their heresies, and the behavior of Pope Francis, who seems to be so disoriented and full of pride that he’s not trying to hide anything!

            • RCA Victor,

              You make an important point – Papa Francis really doesn’t seem to be aware of how grave are his actions. And I use the word “grave” advisedly – his actions, AL and other scandals, are proving deadly to the Church and to souls. “Grave”… “Deadly”… Get it? 😀

              He seems,completely, to lack self-awareness. Or should that be “CHURCH awareness” – i.e. that the nature of the Church prohibits permitting public sinners to receive Communion etc. Incredibly, he seems not to know this basic fact.

        • RCA Victor,

          I agree – he keeps contradicting himself. Today I read this online, Pope Francis says marriage is forever!

          “In his weekly Wednesday catechism lesson, Francis noted that the nuptial Mass invokes the help of saints to help newlyweds live as a married couple forever. “Not like some say ‘as long as love lasts.’ No: Forever! Otherwise it’s better to not get married. Either forever or nothing,” he said.”
          https://finance.yahoo.com/news/4-cardinals-press-pope-clarify-divorce-remarriage-stand-124359645.html

          It’s really not easy to know what to think of this pope.

  4. The Cardinals’s letter is very measured and respectful. I’m sure Pope Francis has granted audiences for much less important matters, and it goes without saying that he is completely in error on re-marriage and Holy Communion.

    As to what can be done? My mind’s blank on that one. He seems to be determined to get his own way all the time, so I doubt if even meeting with the Cardinals would make any difference. He’s sold his soul, it seems to me.

  5. I think the voting poll on the website says it all, really – how can you expect a Pope who has almost no Catholic sense to have good manners and answer important letters from his cardinal (or any letters, really).

    It is basic good manner to reply to correspondence but if you lack basic good manners, don’t look for anything higher than that.

  6. The letter from Cardinal Caffara is actually a beautiful letter. It could not be more humble.

    Personally, I am now wondering if a more militant approach would be better. The respectful, humble approach has failed and I think that’s because of the seeming “graceless-ness” of Pope Francis, without judging his soul. He definitely “seems” to lack grace and so he may respond better to a more “worldly” approach. I do like the idea of paying him a visit, but I don’t imagine that will be possible, given protocol etc.

    I’m thinking maybe another letter, this time copied to major media outlets, in which there is a more dispassionate, blunt message and tone. That may grab his attention and lead to a damage limitation exercise. Just throwing it out there for comment, although I’m not sure anything will work. Pope Francis seems determined to either ignore or punish his critics, but I’m at the stage when anything is worth a try.

    • MICHAELA

      You say you do like the idea of “paying him a visit”.

      Would that be in the same way as Marlon Brando would have visited some of his family members?

      If so, you can count me in.

    • Therese,

      I agree with you agreeing with Michaela 😀

      Any practical ideas for militant action, that we you might put to the four cardinals? 😀

      • Editor,

        The cardinals should turn up at a General Audience with a loud hailer- that way Francis can’t ignore them. I think it’s called “doorstepping”!

  7. It does no good at all, in terms of the crisis of this Papacy, to be respectful and humble with this Pope, who is not only an intellectual and theological fraud, but a madman drunk with power and the hubris of the Modernists. I hope that this request for an audience, which will be ignored and berated (to say the least) by Francis’ fellow travelers, is the last step before the proceedings to depose him begin. Those proceedings must be undertaken by a Council, as outlined in True or False Pope?

    And what an act of obedience, humility and restraint from these four Cardinals! They are an inspiration to us all – they surely know they have set themselves up for a brutal scourging (see: Msgr. Loftus).

    Meanwhile, back to the Apocalypse and Fatima, if one-third of the stars in heaven will be swept down by the tail of the dragon, then I daresay we have yet to see the worst of this.

    • What I would like to know is this; why are there only FOUR cardinals acting in defence of the Faith after the AL attack on marriage by none other than the Pope himself – why only four?

      Why are MORE – many more – cardinals and bishops not stepping forward to speak out, write out, or phone up, whatever it takes to protest the destruction of our holy religion and God’s moral law. It should not be left to the four courageous cardinals who will, as RCA Victor rightly points out, be savaged by apostates like Mgr Loftus – who has demonstrated his apostasy now, beyond all doubt . Watch out for Cardinal Caffara’s name being dragged through the mud of that obnoxious publication for which Loftus (who “left us” some time ago) rants writes… He’ll get it in the neck, no doubt about it. I never buy the rag – and haven’t seen it for weeks, but a reader gave me a photocopy of the above quoted Loftus column last Sunday and it is truly vile. Now that he has a bad pope to support him, the Monsignor is showing his true apostate colours, with bells on, so to speak…yet again, ungrammatically 😀

      Yes, definitely a more militant approach is needed, as Michaela indicates. Instead of us all organising conferences and seminars the world over, we ought to be gathered at the Vatican, demanding that the Pope come to explain himself to US if he won’t give an account of himself to his four humble cardinals. He needn’t worry about being confronted with humble laypeople – we’ll tell it how it is, and if he doesn’t like it, well, too bad.

      • Editor, you ask why there are only 4 Cardinals speaking out in defence of the Faith. remember, when our faith was diabolically attacked during the Reformation only 1, yes ONE, prelate spoke out and that was John Fisher, supported by a layman, Thomas More. Strange thing is, everybody knows the identity of same brave men but virtually nobody remembers the names of the apostates! So it will be in future generations. The Cardinal Nichols, the Archbishops Tartaglias, the bishops Keenans etc., will all be history. Literally.

          • Olaf

            Let us not forget the Carthusian monks who were executed, along with the laity who were in the Lincolnshire Rising and The Pilgrimage of Grace. Not quite everyone was silent, and the vast majority who perished for their disobedience to the New Order were of the laity.

            • Therese,

              Olaf said “one prelate” only spoke out – I’m sure he knows that there were many others who did so, just as now there are laypeople speaking out and spearheading the fight against modernism, but only one bishop did in England and that was John Fisher.

              I didn’t know myself about the Carthusian monks who were executed, and the Lincolnshire Rising/Pilgrimage of Grace, so I’m glad to know all that.

              • Fidelis

                Olaf said that only one prelate spoke out, supported by a layman. I didn’t want us to forget the other laymen (and priests) who also supported the stance that Bishop Fisher took in defence of the Faith, at the cost of their lives.

                • Therese,

                  Got it. I read Olaf’s post the same way Fidelis read it, so thank you for that clarification. It is encouraging for us, if paradoxical and a tad dispiriting, to recall that it is always the laity who act to defend the Faith in times of crises, and that has been true throughout the history of the Church.

                • Therese,

                  I didn’t notice that, so I thought Olaf meant only one bishop. Sorry for my stupidity. I must read up on the Lincolnshire Rising. I’ve never heard of it, so thank you for that pointer.

                  • Fidelis

                    You’re not stupid – far from it. When you do read what happened to the laity and the few priests who did take a stand, it breaks your heart. The people of England did not go willingly into Protestantism. The majority did not at first comprehend what the break with Rome would mean to them; when they came to understand that their precious Mass was lost, they were appalled and very distressed. Those who dared to protest publicly were horribly slaughtered as a warning to the populace to shut up. It took years for the Protestant propagandists to poison the water and demonise the Church. They did a great job.

                    One of our Scottish members will be able to us the story of the “Highland clearances” which practically annihilated Catholics in that region. I think it would be called a “war crime” today.

                    • Therese,

                      Thank you for being so kind.

                      I’m no history expert, but this account of the Highland Clearances seems fair enough to me.
                      http://scottish-history.com/clearances.shtml

                      I’m ready to stand corrected by others with more knowledge, of course, but I agree with you that what happened then would be called a “war crime” today. Also, their descendants would be offered counselling, LOL!

      • Editor

        I would count it a privilege to be part of a mass gathering of traditional laity at the Vatican. I don’t think for a tiny second that Pope Francis would deign to grant an audience to those who are so clearly ‘out of love’ with him and his papacy, but the experience would be worth it just to be able to demonstrate to the world that the Church – although just a Remnant at the moment – is still alive and unchanged, and that NOTHING and NO-ONE can ever change that. We have that on the very best Authority.

        • Therese,

          I agree that we wouldn’t be entertained by the pope if we went en masse to Rome, so there’s probably no point.

          It really is hard to think of anything that would work, short of a supernatural intervention of some kind.

  8. All of Francis’ personal conduct, leadership and treatment of his Cardinals is a disgrace, quite unbecoming for someone occupying the Papacy.

    He is also a hypocrite – always waffling on about the peripheries and the excluded, at the same time marginalising and ignoring those who disagree with them and treating them publicly with open contempt. His treatment of these 4 Cardinals is downright rude.

    I think the 4 Cardinals have bidden their time long enough and should “get on with it”. I hope they have had the good sense to have been marshalling troops in the background, while this saga has played out

    I know Cardinal Burke has previously said some other Cardinals do support the Dubia, but hopefully they have continued to build consensus on the need to answer the Dubia, (or simply dispose of Francis by some mechanism).

    I think Francis and his henchmen obviously feel very confident in themselves, if they feel that 4 esteemed Cardinals do not even merit the basic courtesy of a reply to their enquiries. They are likely over-confident and hopefully this will be their downfall.

    In any case the situation cannot be allowed to persist. In parts of europe, whether you enjoy a life of grace or are in a state of sin changes, depending on what side of an imaginary border you stand on. Its an absurd situation which badly damages the credibility of the Church and threatens to reduce it’s reputation to the level of Anglicanism or something.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      Well said. And what’s the bet Archbishop Tartaglia of Glasgow would get a reply in a heartbeat?

      Talk about a picture being worth a thousand words!

  9. Gabriel Syme:

    “I think Francis and his henchmen obviously feel very confident in themselves, if they feel that 4 esteemed Cardinals do not even merit the basic courtesy of a reply to their enquiries. They are likely over-confident and hopefully this will be their downfall.”

    Spot on you! And who, only very recently, felt the same confidence and then toppled to the very bottom? Yes, Theresa May. Let’s hope the Pope follows suit!

    If he doesn’t, then I think robust action should be taken against him both by the Cardinals AND the laity. I’m all up for a march on the Vatican!

  10. I have a feeling that this Pontificate will be brought to an end not by any Cardinals, not by a Council, but by a bloody attack on Rome by one of Francis’ favored groups, the Muslims.After all, he did describe himself as a “bishop dressed in white” while at Fatima.

    Or, perhaps a Council will be called, and the attack will occur then.

  11. Here’s Christopher Ferrara’s latest on Antonio Socci’s latest dire report:

    http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective1034.asp

    I do wish Mr. Ferrara would take his observations to their obvious conclusion, namely, that the purpose of creating a non-Christian “church” is to integrate the Catholic Church into a syncretistic, one-world religion, bearing little resemblance to any of its components. This is clearly what has been decreed by the Synagogue of Satan, which took control of the human element of the Church at Vat. II.

    As for this thought: “And yet, for all of that, the Church cannot be destroyed completely, given the promises of Christ,” I wonder. If this is the Passion of the Church, then shouldn’t we assume that the same thing will happen to her as it did to Our Lord, i.e. His Physical Body was completely destroyed – put to death? That destruction is not the same as “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” because, according to True or False Pope? the “gates of hell” refers to heresy.

    And notice that “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will be preserved……” refers not to a series of buildings, or an institution or entity or clergy, but a dogma…

    • RCA Victor,

      I detect a touch of war weariness in your latest comment. So, I come to say to you, in fairest Glaswegian… keep the heid! (keep one’s head!)

      Reflect on this truth, which you appear to have overlooked in the article: As Socci concludes: “There is nothing left to us, consecrated and lay, but to keep the Tradition that has been handed down to us, reminding ourselves that it will never be diminished even if there is only one church left on the whole earth that celebrates Mass according to the divine, not the human will.”

      So, wonder not. The Church CANNOT be destroyed – that IS Christ’s guarantee, that the devil, the gates of Hell, heresy, modernism, you name it, will NOT prevail.

      I, therefore, repeat… keep the heid!

      • Editor,

        Don’t worry, I’m not weary. In fact, as John Paul Jones once said during the Revolutionary War, “I have not yet begun to fight!”

        I was trying to speculate on how far the parallel would go between the Passion of Our Lord and the Passion of His Church. But that is probably a useless and prideful intellectual exercise, so I will keep my heid low and hold fast to Tradition.

        (Now if only I could find my “heid”…..is that the organ that sits on top of the neick??)

    • Margaret Mary,

      The minions of hell will now descend upon this brave Bishop, may God bless him and protect him. Did you notice the reaction of the homo-fascists? “…this document is mean-spirited and hurtful in the extreme.”

      The word “hurtful” is frequently used by said homo-fascists to denounce affirmations of civilized morality. Some years ago I emailed one of those organizations (I think it was the Human Rights Campaign) to point out their hypocrisy in calling for “inclusion,” while they were screaming hysterically that some conservative politician or another should not be included at the table of some discussion. Their reply to me was that the positions of this politician were “hurtful.”

      It’s all about feelings, you see, not about truth, so apparently “feelings” justify hypocrisy – not to mention the return of pagan behaviors and the ruthless suppression of civilized behaviors.

  12. It is difficult to believe that anyone with even a basic knowledge of Catholic teaching, would consider AL to be an authoritative and binding document, but you can always count on Austen-Catholic Voices-Ivereigh. Unfortunately, over at One Peter Five, they are taking him seriously – click here

    • Editor,

      I’ll bet you a bowl of haggis that 1P5, by engaging yet another rotten Catholic in public, has given him (Ivereigh) a lot more attention than he deserves, and will also cause him to actually be taken seriously.

      For the life of me, I can’t understand this western obsession with Twitter, from President Trump on down. It creates an entire culture based on gossip, rumor and innuendo, like a bunch of high school girls vying for the attention of the captain of the football team, each trying to destroy the chances of the others.

      • Prognosticum,

        I think he worked for Cardinal Murphy O’Connor – not Nichols. He set up a group called Catholic Voices for the purpose of providing knowledgeable (joke) Catholics to whom the media could turn for commentary at the time of Pope Benedict’s visit to the UK. He is an out and out modernist so bear that in mind as you listen to him in the interview below…

        I’d be very interested to hear him speak on the subject of same-sex “marriage” now that it’s been legalised, and – of course – on the subject of Papa Francis. I don’t have time to search, but I bet it would be an interesting find!

        • Funny how bad Catholics always set themselves up to be the spokesmen for the Church through the media. In America, for many years, it was the former editor of the Jesuit magazine America,, Fr. Thomas J. Reese, a notorious liberal (or should I say, a notorious Jesuit?).

          • RCA Victor,

            Correct. In fact, however, in all fairness, most of the women I’ve heard speaking for Catholic Voices have been good – the two men I’ve seen – Ivereigh and Jack Valero are far from impressive. Valero once defended Pope Benedict’s gaffe on condoms for prostitutes and got himself tied up in knots in the process. Numpty. I did have a quick search just now to see if I could find that interview, but no luck (although there are plenty of other Valero clips.)

  13. There is a rumour that Pope Francis has formed a top secret commission tasked with implementing a new kind of “Mass” that’s acceptable to Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans, so reports the Italian journalist Marco Tosatti.

    https://veritas-vincit-international.org/2017/06/20/vatican-reportedly-working-on-ecumenical-rite-of-mass-for-joint-worship-with-protestants/

    This is what Pope Francis comes up with in 2017 exactly 100th centenary of Our Lady appearing to the three children at Fatima. He is the Pope and should be ordering the Bishops to join him in Consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The above link makes me angry, for there is no consideration of the chastisements that have happened and yet to come.

    If true, this supposed commission is obnoxious to say the least. That, on top of Amoris Letitia, I agree with Gabriel Syme.

    “All of Francis’ conduct, leadership and treatment of his Cardinals is a disgrace, quite unbecoming for someone occupying the Papacy”.

    • Theresa Rose,

      If that is really true then it definitely is the work of the devil.

      However, that site is a pro-Medjugorje site. That’s why I wouldn’t be too sure that it is reporting the truth. It also seems to be sedevacantist, IMHO, the way it is using the picture of the “two popes” and the quote from Anne-Catherine Emmerich.

      • Lily,

        Yes, I agree, if that is it true it is definitely the work of the devil.

        I was not aware of the site being pro-Medjugorje, so thanks for the warning. Strangely I found the article on the Fatima Crusader site. On the home page, on bottom right hand corner often has items such the day’s epistle, and, one or two other articles. That article was one of them. It can be so easy to be caught out.

    • The Pope seems to embrace people of all religious persuasions encapsulated within his Big Tent Mentality. Surely that is how he can speak to the diverse audiences of Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, and The SSPX. The common ground between such diverse groups is not obvious to most other mortals, other than his deep desire to embrace all. He may be the natural soul mate of HRH Prince Charles who expressed the desire to be The Defender of The Faiths. Perhaps they could set up a Faith Foundation together.

      • Martin,

        I agree with you about Pope Francis’s “Big Tent” theory. I’m sure that is true.

        Prince Charles spoke about being a “defender of faith”, not “faiths” – at least that’s my memory of it. Will defer to you, though, if I’ve got it wrong.

        • The point is that HRH is not concerned about “The Faith”. He was clear he wanted to defend all faiths, I believe that would sit uncomfortably within many who post here.

          • Michaela & Martin,

            You are both right! No, I’m not a Liberal MP in the making, but Prince Charles DID say that he would prefer to be “Defender of Faith” (not THE faith – although he, it seems, will keep that title) and not “faiths” although the reason he wished to change the title to “faith” from “the faith” was because he thinks one religion is as good as another.

            As we all know, King Henry VIII received the title “Defender of THE [Catholic] Faith” from the pope of his day (Pope Leo X) in gratitude for Henry’s pamphlet refuting Luther’s heresy – ironic, or what? – so it makes no sense for a Protestant king to have the title in the first place, let alone adapt it to the modernist heresy that one faith/religion is as good as another – or as good as no faith!

            Written at top speed, so I hope the above makes sense.

      • Martin,

        I believe Pope Francis’ Big Tent mentality is being used to place him in a leadership role in the formation of a One World Religion, within which the Catholic Church, no longer recognizable as Catholic, will be just another secularized component.

        Therefore his mission, whether he realizes it fully or not, is to drain the Church of her Catholic substance, in order to pave the way for this new “religion.” Since this is a clear betrayal by the very one who is supposed to be defending and preserving the Faith, it seems he is playing the role of Judas.in the Passion of the Church.

        What he perhaps also fails to realize is that a regularized SSPX will be – as it already is – directly opposed to his mission.

        • RCA Victor,

          We have to admit that Papa Francis would be the perfect leader for a One World Religion. No question about it! He is truly all things to all men, women, children, Anglicans, Presbyterians, atheists, blah blah. Credit where it’s due etc.

    • Yes, I have read the same article in which the aim is to destroy the Mass in order to be ecumenical and to make this possible by having a “Silent Consecration” so that the “Celebrant” can put in whatever words he or she fancies so that transubstantiation may or may not take place according to whatever denomination is using this form of “Mass”.
      I also read on “Spirit and Life” that Fr.Shenan Boquet is now certain that there is a new Commission to examine Humanae Vitae in order to modernise it for the fiftieth anniversary of the late Pope Paul VI’s declaration of that encyclical.
      So, there is now an attempt to undo the clear teaching of the Church yet again on the matter of artificial contraception.
      How much more damage is to be inflicted on Holy Mother Church by Modernism?

      • John R et al,

        This purported even newer new Mass is yet one more reason for everyone to vote with their missals and return to the traditional Latin Mass. Without delay.

  14. Haha you’re right. It is ominous though. I am just re-reading Malachi Martin’s Windswept House and indeed we are seeing that prediction unfolding before us. The anti papilism and the denigration of the papal office so that the Pope is just another bishop.

    • Crofterlady,

      You’re sitting about the place reading novels while I’m slaving over the July newsletter. What you LIKE, wummin?!

      I did start Windswept House once but never got close to finishing it. One of these days… 😀

    • Olaf,

      That is amazing for a theologian and former consulter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to call on the Pope to make a declaration of faith, “warning that unless the Pope safeguards doctrine, he cannot impose discipline.”

      Well, that’s just amazing. I have never heard of that monsignor but he has put his head above the parapet and I applaud him for it.

      Now we wait to see if the Pope makes such a declaration of faith, although I doubt it.

      • I have never heard of that monsignor but he has put his head above the parapet and I applaud him for it.

        I think he is certainly one of the good guys, perhaps all the more impressive given he was ordained in 1975!

        I recall he once wrote to Bishop Fellay, expressing a great desire for the SSPX for reach an agreement with the Church authorities.

        This was around 2012, under Benedict XVI (prior to that round of talks turning sour when the last minute demands about V2 were slipped into the mix by the modernists!)

  15. “Do not forget that, when one is applauded by the world, it means one belongs to it. In fact, the world loves its own and hates what does not belong to it.” (cf. John 15:19).

    I’ve often thought about the way the world loves this pope, from gay magazines to atheistic men in power. They all fawn over him. Surely he (the Pope) can see the irony in this situation?

    • Olaf, no, I think pride stops people from seeing the obvious, and sad to admit, I think this pope is a very proud man. He will be interpreting the world’s praise as proof that he is doing a good job. It’s really amazing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: