Catholic Truth Goes To Rome!

Blogger, Petrus, writes…

Last week I was fortunate to spend four days in the Eternal City. Having been to Rome four times previously, I was keen to ensure that I visited some of the lesser well-known churches that I hadn’t visited before.

Being a Dominican Tertiary, too, on my list were the two main Dominican basilicas in Rome – Santa Sabina, the mother church of the Order where an 800 year old orange tree, planted by St Dominic himself, can still be seen and still bears fruit, and Santa Maria sopra Minerva, the burial place of the great Dominican Tertiary, St Catherine of Siena.

St Catherine of Siena, who corrected the pope by letter and the spoken word, is a worthy patroness for anyone who speaks out and defends the Faith. The great saint exhorts us to, “Proclaim the Truth and do not be silent through fear.” Therefore, it was my privilege to kneel before her sepulchre, contained within the High Altar in Santa Maria sopra Minerva, and consecrate the Catholic Truth apostolate to St Catherine of Siena.


The  early editions  of our newsletter featured the following comment from St Catherine of Siena on the front page, so thank you for remembering us, and for dedicating our humble apostolate  at her sepulchre in Rome – that’s beautiful, and greatly appreciated! 

Tell us how you voted in the poll, and why, for our education and edification.  


30 responses

  1. Editor,

    It was my pleasure to kneel before the mortal remains of St Catherine and dedicate Catholic Truth. I’ve just voted “yes” in the poll. Last Wednesday I attended the Papal Audience in St Peter’s Square. To my surprise, I found myself within six feet of Pope Francis. Thinking that this was a “now or never” moment, I called out “Consecrate Russia” to the Holy Father! I’m not sure if he heard or not, but hopefully that act will gain some graces for him and he carries out the Consecration of Russia very soon!

    • Petrus,

      That’s great that you called out “Consecrate Russia” – at that closeness of distance, I’m sure he’d have heard. Brave to do that, so our heartfelt thanks.

      Thanks, too, again, for dedicating our apostolate into the care of St Catherine of Siena. Truly appreciated.

    • Petrus,

      I agree – well done you for calling out to the Pope to consecrate Russia. It would be great to know if he did hear, but I think at that short distance he would be likely to hear, so maybe you triggered his conscience (if he actually has one, LOL!)

    • Petrus,

      that was a marvellous act of faith! Thank you for shouting out on our behalf. It will bear fruit in some way, you’ll see.

    • Petrus,

      I bet a pound to a penny that the Pope heard you call out “Consecrate Russia”. That was a brilliant idea, so glad you did that.

      Also lovely that you dedicated Catholic Truth to St Catherine of Siena – that is sure to bring extra blessings on the work.

  2. As another DT I concur with Petrus” remarks. I’m reading St Catherine”s biography by Sigrid Undset, as it happens. What a model of Catholicism. Very much like St Peter Damian.
    God give us a Saint to rise up and denounce the imposter.

    • I don’t get “imposter”. Saint Catherine of Siena never accused any pope of being an imposter, she knew her place! She just corrected their errors and laziness and focused on getting them to deal with bad priests. She knew that just because they were bad popes didn’t mean they weren’t popes! Mind you, she did tell one to resign if he didn’t want to do the job properly, so maybe you could send a copy of her life to Pope Francis with that bit highlighted and see if he takes the hint, LOL!

      • Josephine,

        Yes, indeed!

        To be fair, I think Summa maybe used the word accidentally. Imposter isn’t an appropriate word and does give the impression that the pope isn’t a true pope. Saint Catherine of Siena would never have said such a thing and I don’t think Summa meant it in that way either.

        • Petrus,

          I’m very glad to hear it. I get irritated with the “anti-pope” and sedevacantist types. They are such a distraction in this crisis. I’m glad to take your word that Summa didn’t mean the word in that way.

        • Petrus,

          You could make a case for him being an imposter Catholic, though, LOL! He doesn’t seem to have a Catholic mind at all.

          • Indeed I did mean imposter. But anyone who knows me, knows that I’m no sedevacantist.
            One can be an imposter through acts of deception rather than fraud. Although I do suspect that a faction engineered this Pope to the Chair, I refuse to accept that he is not our legitimate successor to St. Peter.
            This Pope has deceived continually. He is unfolding the fabric of the Church, ethic by ethic. Yes he is an imposter. He is an imposition to Holy Mother Church.

            • Summa,

              Whilst I understand your frustrations towards Pope Francis, I cannot agree that “impostor” is a suitable word.

              An impostor is someone who pretends to be something in order to deceive others for fraudulent gain. I don’t think we can say this about Pope Francis. He doesn’t pretend – he’s very open about what he is!

              I think language matters and if we start saying he’s an impostor, then we give the impression that we are questioning his legitimacy as Pope, whether that is our intention or not.

              I think it’s best just to call a spade a spade and say he’s a bad pope. There’s no real need for the use of names.

            • Summa,

              The word “imposter” evokes a specific meaning: “a person who practices deception under an assumed character, identity, or name.”

              While Pope Francis certainly does practice deception on a daily basis, he is not doing so under an assumed character, identity or name. Therefore, your use of the word is wrong.

              Roberto de Mattei includes, in his latest article on Rorate Caeli, this:

              ” Regarding the doubts, then, about the election of Pope Francis, Professor Geraldina Boni, remembers that Canonists have always taught that the peaceful “universalis ecclesiae adhaesio” (universal ecclesial acceptance) is a sign and infallible effect of a valid election and legitimate papacy, and the adhesion or acceptance of Pope Francis by the people of God has not yet been doubted by any of the cardinals who participated in the Conclave. The acceptance of a Pope by the universal Church is an infallible sign of his legitimacy, and heals at the root every defect of the papal election (for example, illegal machinations, conspiracies, et cetera). This is also a consequence of visible character of the Church and of the Papacy.”


              May I suggest “deceiver” or “sower of confusion” instead of “imposter”?

              • I would hesitate to use “deceiver”. I don’t think Pope Francis is this either. He is certainly wrong in a lot of what he says and does, but I think “deceiver” indicates motive. I don’t think we can judge his motives. Again, I think it suffices to say he’s simply a bad pope!

                • Petrus,

                  I agree – “a bad pope” is about the worst thing you could say about a pope. Who wants to be “a bad doctor” or “a bad teacher” or “a bad” any job, let alone the most important office in the world!

                  He is a bad pope and that is the worst thing anyone can say about him. There’s no need for any other description, IMHO.

                  • RCA Victor,

                    Two things:

                    1) your “good point” comment must have gone up at the same time as mine…

                    2) why do you never say that I’VE made a good point?

                    • Editor,

                      Your question raises a very good point! I promise to henceforth make a point of complimenting you on your good points…..not, of course, with the motive of wanting to score any points, that is….

              • RCA Victor,

                I’m inclined to agree with Petrus and MM on this: the worst name we can call any pope is “bad” – imagine if anyone accused moi of being “a bad administrator”….

                Enough (not) said! 😀

  3. Okay so there seems to be semantic dispute here. However, I cannot for the life of me, think how anyone could deny that Pope Francis is a deceiver.
    Think of the couched ambiguities that are embedded in this Pontificate, think of the the decptice half buried footnotes that completely revolutionise the texts that they are meant to explain.

    Nope, sorry folks. If I am correct in thinking that this Pope deceives with intent, then he is an impostor, for impostor and deceiver are synonyms. It is erroneous to argue that one cannot both be a legitimate authority and a deceiver simultaneously.

    • Summa,

      With respect, name calling is not semantics! We can, and must, expose Pope Francis’ errors without resorting to name calling!

      • Well that’s not name calling. He is also a worldling, a heretic and a socialist. Those are mere descriptors of who he is.

        • Summa, I don’t think you can’t say that he’s a worldling, a heretic and a socialist – you’re right he is all of these things, and that’s not name-calling, as such, but the words “deceiver” and “imposter” do lend themselves to the idea that he’s an anti-pope, not duly elected etc, so I am inclined to go with the description “bad pope” (or dreadful pope!) rather than use a word that might suggest he’s not in fact the legitimate pope. Maybe if there wasn’t a movement to have him denounced as not the pope, it would be OK to call him a deceiver etc, but in the current climate and the context of the sedevacantist movement, I think it’s unnecessarily confusing to use terms like that, IMHO.

          Having said all that, I do sympathise with the temptation, LOL!

        • Summa,

          I’m not going to comment on this again. I fail to see why we need to assign these labels to the Holy Father. It doesnt serve any purpose other than causing confusing and a lack of Charity. I’d also say that declaring him a heretic is dangerous ground. Very dangerous. Yes, he may utter heretical statements but we have no authority to declare the Sovereign Pontiff a heretic. “Bad pope” is all that’s necessary.

          • Lack of Charity? LOL.
            OK then.
            They are not labels as I said, but descriptors.
            The fact that he is a heretic does not mean that he is not Pope.
            But let’s call it as it is. Let’s call a spade a spade.

        • Summa,

          I’m inclined to agree with Petrus that it’s best to avoid declaring Papa Francis a heretic. He definitely IS, technically, a heretic – of that there is no doubt, and if the cowardly cardinals (Burke et al) had kept their promise to publicly confront him with his heresy and he had then refused to recant, we could publicly declare him so to be. Best to err on the side of caution, on this, though, and always add that, while we know he IS technically a heretic (because someone who teaches/preaches heresy is by definition a heretic) we have no authority to publicly declare him a pertinacious heretic. He must first be given the opportunity to recant.

    • John,

      Nicky has posted that same article over on the Pope Francis thread – I’ve commented on it over there.