Pope Francis Guilty of Evil-Doing By Publicly Supporting “Nun of the Trans”…

Comment: 

We find ourselves with a Pope who is openly doing evil.  By openly supporting evil-doing, Pope Francis is doing evil – there’s no hiding the fact.  Objectively, he is an evil-doer. The Church is the guardian of the moral order – she did not invent the natural law, but is charged with defending and promoting it. This Pope is attacking it. That is objectively evil. 

Yet, apart from the few churchmen mentioned in the video, nobody is speaking out to correct his disgraceful errors – in this case, literally, surely, a crime against humanity. 

It’s almost impossible to know whether he is causing such mayhem  in the Church and the world  for the purpose of gaining popularity with worldlings, or if he actually thinks he is doing good (reaching out to the imaginary marginalised and all that baloney) OR – most horrendous of all – if he, in fact, believes that there is nothing wrong with the attack on our very humanity known as transgenderism. 

And note the comments from the trans person receiving Holy Communion (apparently) from a layperson;  she’s quoting Pope Francis, note.  What is he doing – and why?  IS he deliberately trying to destroy Christ’s Church?  Is he well-meaning but misguided?  Is he just a very stupid man?  A combination of the above – and more?     I can’t work it out… Can you? 

 

90 responses

  1. I am frankly astonished. Didn’t the Pope regularly rail against gender ideology? So why exactly did he refer to disturbed men who identify as women as “girls”?

    I will certainly agree that it is good to help people in need regardless of their sexual orientation etc., but it is absolutely NOT a good thing to reinforce their delusion or play along with their impossible identity by validating it. This nun may be led by good intentions, but she is also promoting moral evil.

    • Emanuele,

      That is a key problem with this Pope. He speaks with forked tongue, all the time.

      I can recall reports where he was quoted as saying that transgenderism is an attack on our very humanity, and then there’s this one:

      “You just can’t win with Pope Francis. One day he’s saying that Christians ought to apologize to the gay community and others marginalized by the church, and the next he’s back to marginalizing left and right by calling transgender people an “annihilation of man.”

      Francis made his latest anti-trans remark during a private meeting with bishops in Poland while on a pilgrimage there; The Vatican released a transcript of his comments on Tuesday…”
      https://www.out.com/news-opinion/2016/8/03/pope-francis-transgender-rights-annihilation-man

      This double-speak makes him twice as culpable. If – as of course he must – he knows perfectly well that the whole LGBT+ lifestyle (more aptly, a “sin-style”) is unnatural and against God’s moral law, then is it utterly shameful for him to appear to endorse it, for whatever warped rationale he is using to justify this evil-doing.

      • Editor,
        Double- speak, the essence of modernism. Well meaning or misguided?, Trying to destroy the church?, Just plain stupid?. Take your pick, the end result is the same, loss of souls.

        • Bill,

          I agree totally. Personally, I think there’s a bit of everything in Pope Francis, including the “stupid”. It’s a terrible thing to say about a Pope but I can’t pretend I have any regard for him. I do remember a prayer for him, every day, but that’s it. He’s a walking disaster IMHO.

    • How the church can be considered guardian of the moral order when it persecuted and killed Jews, pagans, promoted the most violent wars of religion, protected the pedophilic and many others crimes??
      Editor: you are flat out wrong in blaming the Church for anything; over time, churchmen have sinned, of course – nobody has ever claimed that Catholics are born free from the taint of Original Sin which makes us prey to temptation and sin. Any wars which have been undertaken in the name of Christ, however, have been defensive wars, not attacking enemies, but defending Christian civilisation against those intent on destroying it using physical violence. And if you knew anything of history at all, you’d know that many well known Jews have publicly spoken out to thank Pope Pius XII for his goodness during World War II – indeed the Chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism after the war and took the Pope’s Christian name for his own when baptised. Either that or named his son after the Pope, that detail escapes me at the moment. What you mean about pagans, I’ve no idea but they have no right to deny God so they need to accept whatever is coming to them. Tell them not to worry about the popes of yore, just to steer well clear of me.

      So YES pope francis is evil-doer… like every other pope.
      Editor: the definition of “evil” used on this blog is always the same: it is the definition given by St Thomas Aquinas that teaches us that anything which falls short of the good which we can expect, is “evil”. “Evil” is not restricted to terrorists and murderers as is the only definition recognised by the brain dead contemporary secular media. Thus, a Pope who fails to preach the Faith openly and fearlessly may be described as “doing evil” – and more so, when he publicly speaks as if moral evil is good. It is in that sense that we would use the word in describing Pope Francis’s words and actions in relation to LGBT+ issues. In your place, I’d go and check up on the facts of history to see just how wrong you are to describe “every other pope” as “evil”.

      Editor: rest of this post deleted – it offends our House Rule about personal remarks. Nasty personal remarks are prohibited here. Ignorance we can correct, as above, but bad manners, courtesy etc – that you should have learned at your mother’s knee.

      Now, here’s a suggestion for you, Ipizia – take your anti-Catholic bigotry elsewhere.

      • Comment removed.

        You need help, but since there are only 24 hours in the day, we can’t provide it. Once we’re properly out of the EU and Trump has been re-elected, there might be more time, but right now, we’re busy, busy, busy with serious stuff. Been fun while it lasted, though… thanks!

        …’bye now.

    • Emanuele Ciriachi,

      So am I astonished. It’s just beyond belief that this pope or any pope could make a public statement like that.

      Nobody would argue with him encouraging helping people in need but in that situation, I would think he would have to say something to that nun in public about yes, helping the homeless but not providing couples accommodation for so-called transgender people.

      God help the parents who are struggling with children in that terrible situation can you just imagine them saying “but mum, the pope is OK with it”.

      I’m disgusted with this pope. It doesn’t matter how often he says the opposite, just once giving his approval is enough to nullify everything else.

  2. Slightly off subject, but important to get this information out there regarding the “Unite for Freedom/ Mass Protest and March” this Saturday 29th August 2020@ 12.00 Trafalgar Square, London. Readers. please circulate and promote this information far and wide.

    “Nothing is more important as the Government is voting in September 2020 for a 2 year extension of their emergency Covid19 powers”

    https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=212425

    Well done Athanasius for article scene on Gloria TV

    • Francescomarta

      I had actually just read about the demonstration in London on August 29 before coming on to the blog. How coincidental is that? Very pleased to see this happen, I hope tens of thousands turn out.

      I didn’t know about my article being on Gloria TV but I did see it republished on this website: https://www.cfnews.org.uk/international-what-they-are-not-saying-a-response-to-covid-19-in-the-light-of-church-teaching/

      Thanks for the tip off, the more who read it the better.

      • Athanasius

        I understand there is a media blackout of the event and live webcams switched off in Trafalgar Square. Also a so called ‘leaked scare story’ to the press consisting of “85,000 possible Covid deaths expected this winter,” has also been used to counter attack the truth coming out from the rally. Not sure what is happening in Berlin but I believe Robert Kennedy Jnr might be speaking there. I’m sure Boris Johnson, Bill Gates and the Globalists had factored in all these scenarios well in advance when they first put into action the ‘Rockefeller Lockstep Operation.’ It will be interesting to see what the ‘fall out’ will be from more of the public finding out that the lockdowns and mask wearing is all a scam, pushing us towards the cashless society totally controlled by the New World Order and its Vaccines.

          • Francescomarta,

            Yes, word is getting out there but it’s also getting out there that there are a whole load of crude signs and posters used by those who protest “the virus”. They should be well enough prepared to make it clear that it’s the hyped up Government response/the bigger, sinister plan, not the virus itself, to which they object.

            I’ll never understand what gets into people that they can’t see that such props put them in the worst possible light. I’m afraid if I’d been there I’d have spent most of my time lecturing the alleged freedom fighters. Something is really lacking in people when they can’t sit down to write a sign and stop short when they find themselves choosing crude language.

            What is their aim? To make a serious point, achieve some level of success either in convincing others or forcing politicians to rethink the whole thing, or simply – and childishly – to let off steam. I genuinely don’t know, so if you do, spill !

            • Editor

              Yes I agree with what you say, although I’m surprised with the number of people who attended. Whilst on this blog I often wondered if anybody else out there was suspicious as to what was happening.

              We know the press will follow the governments line and call the protesters conspiracy theorists and anti vaxxers etc. However there is no such thing as bad publicity (banners excluded of course). For example the so called ‘Fact Checkers’ on the internet and main media have been censoring or deceiving the public over the expose by Robert Kennedy Jnr on Bill Gates and his deadly Vaccines on children. Robert Kennedy Jnr and his charity ‘Children’s Health Defense’ is now suing – the truth will come out one way or the other.

              Also, the people at the demos have relatives and friends who will be appalled at the things said by the press. These people at the demos have serious concerns with a fast tracked Vaccine, masks and the lockdown. They are suspicious as to how many have actually died of the virus. When the Vaccines are ready to be injected into the insulting reporters families, or inhaled through their children’s noses, these same reporters may deeply regret what they wrote.

    • Francescomarta,

      That’s good news. I’m also hearing that there will be some kind of protest in Edinburgh the following week. If anyone has any details, spill!

      • Dear Editor,

        It is getting more difficult to explain our Pontiffs’ mind. It is best to not forget who are his greatest admirers/sponsors. Soros, Biden, Pelosi and all the Marxist media. So they will be demanding their pound of flesh to the detriment of the Catholic faith.
        Do not forget the greatest priority of all this satanic plotting is to get rid of President Trump. Every event, riot, murder and action is towards that end.

        Yes some light at the end of the tunnel with the protests against Chinese Flu fraud.
        Meanwhile over in Berlin the powers that be have mobilised thousands of police to prevent a mass protest this Saturday which has been banned.
        So watch this space – I am sure that Boris Corbyn will planning similar measures. Then there is Mrs Sturgeon……

        • Patrick,

          I agree on all counts – this whole politicised virus is about getting rid of Trump to leave the way clear for one world tyrannical government. Just saw another red alert headline where Grant Shapps is saying “rules can change quickly”… This is to keep us in a constant state of flux and fear. Dreadful.

          It’s good news about the protests – let’s hope there are more … and quickly.

  3. While reading the detail of this scandalous event involving Pope Francis I came across a hugely significant comment he made to Sr. Carmona. Note also how he refers to her by her Christian name rather than her religious title, another very telling insight into his ideological leanings, which, sad to say, are proving more and more to be culturally Marxist.

    “Dear Monica, God, who did not go to the seminary or study theology, will repay you abundantly. I pray for you and your girls,” he said.

    What we are seeing here is the “we are Church” mentality of the anti-clerical forces. These words represent a clear disdain for the sacred celibate priesthood instituted by Our Lord as well as for the Traditional theology formulated by great saints and doctors by His grace to mould seminarians into other Christ’s. In other words, God is the author of both the seminary and the theology (Thomism).

    By these few words, almost overlooked in the heat of the scandal concerning the sinful nun, Pope Francis has once again made a very significant statement to the Church that highlights his dangerous and destructive mindset.

    And for those of us who recall his response to journalists on the plane about homosexuality, the infamous “who am I to judge” statement, here is confirmation of his utter departure from Catholic moral teaching as recounted in the same LSN article reporting this latest outrage:

    “…On October 2, 2016, Pope Francis referred to a woman who underwent a “sex-change” operation as a man. He referred to her as having “married” another woman and admitted to inviting and receiving them in the Vatican in 2015, describing the couple as “happy.” Clarifying his use of pronouns, the pope said, “He that was her but is he.”
    The Pope also said the woman, who “felt like a man” but “was physically a young woman,” eventually “got married” after a sex-change surgery in her twenties. “He wrote me a letter saying that, for him, it would be a consolation to come [see me] with his wife,” the Pope said. “I received them and they were very happy.”

    And you can add to that the fact that the Pope has openly promoted one of the biggest promoters of homosexuality and transgenderism in the Catholic Church in America – Father James Martin.
    The Pope named Fr. Martin to the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, and had Martin speak at the Vatican’s World Meeting of Families. He also met with him personally in an audience, the photos of which were used by Fr. Martin to attest to the Pope supporting his agenda – which has garnered opposition from several U.S. bishops…”

    Now compare the words and actions of this Pope with what St. Paul has to say in the matter in Romans I: 24-28.

    “…Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error…”

    Taken together with other manifestations of naturalism rather than supernaturalism as the driving force behind this Pontificate, such as Francis’ fixation with the climate, immigration, the poor, social justice, bodily health before spiritual health, etc., it is becoming increasingly evident that this Successor of St. Peter represents the ultimate goal of the Conciliar Revolutionaries, i.e., a Pope who promotes not the cult of God but the cult of man, as Paul VI described the Council.

    In this regard, it is the duty of every Cardinal and bishop and of every priest and lay Catholic, to resist him to his face, as did St. Paul with St. Peter, respectfully but firmly. Any Catholic who allows a Pope to set about the destruction of faith and morals in this personally subversive way, failing to fraternally correct him with indignation, though without bitterness and personal judgment, will answer to Our Lord for their cowardice. For by failing so catastrophically in their duty, in a matter of such import, they show that they value men more than God, a betrayal that may well result in their eternal damnation.

    As the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre once declared in respect to his refusal to obey the destructive innovations of Vatican II:

    “And if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this. At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me: ‘What have you done with your episcopate, what have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace’ I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible words ‘You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them.’ (Archbishop Lefebvre: Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p.163).

    • Athanasius,

      Yes, that shook me when I first saw it and thought about making it the headline – then I remembered all the “headline headcases” who would have heart attacks, so I decided against.

      It’s truly incredible, stuff, though – I don’t know which is more dangerous: the virus or Pope Francis…

      Say nothing!

    • Bernadette

      It has to be said in a non-sedevacantist way or it is an observation that sins against charity and justice. No matter what failings this Pope is guilty of, he remains the Successor of St. Peter duly elected.

  4. Pope Francis has the role of Judas in this Passion of the Church: a thief and betrayer for 30 pieces of silver (e.g. the lucrative secret deal with Communist China, allegedly made with the help of then-Cardinal McCarrick, which betrayed the Underground and True Chinese Catholic Church). I believe he is also a preview of the Antichrist’s agenda.

    His forked tongue reminds me, in terms of opposites, of what Our Lord said upon first seeing St. Bartholomew (aka Nathaniel), whose Feast Day was 3 days ago:

    “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile.”

    Sadly, Pope Francis is full of guile: malice, deviousness, dishonesty, greed, cunning, masked intent, double-speak, outright lies. But I think his character, besotted by pride, is only half the story. What about the St. Gallen Mafia who got him elected? This crazed man represents their purposes to a “T,” and is fulfilling them, I daresay, even beyond their evil hopes. What does the trail of evil accomplished by this Pope say about them?

    As for “working him out,” I think it is necessary to look beyond his endless twisting and turning to interpret what the goals are – goals toward which he inexorably moves, one step forward, two steps back, just like his Marxist mentors.

    -Elimination of the hierarchy
    -Doctrinal approval of homosexuality and fornication
    -Elimination of gender
    -Elimination of the Catholic Church as the sole means of salvation
    -Establishment of a “new world religion” which somehow amalgamates our Faith with that of the Jews and Muslims
    -Control of what’s left of the Catholic Church by Satanists and their organizations (the UN, Bilderberg, etc.)

    I’m sure there are more, but you get the idea…

  5. N O T I C E . . .

    I’ve just watched the Religious Sister (Deirdre Byrne) who addressed the Republican National Convention (RNC) – and was delighted with her talk until the made a huge theological error. I’ve tracked down the website of her Order and sent the following email. This is a very basic thing for a priest or religious to get wrong, and get they do it, just about every time Our Lady is mentioned in the context of pro-life work. Drives me nuts.

    MY EMAIL C/O LITTLE WORKERS OF THE SACRED HEARTS …

    With respect, I write to correct a major error in the address made to the RNC by Sister Deirdre Byrne.

    She remarked that Our Lady was “an unwed mother” – a common error in sermons these days.

    However, Our Lady and St Joseph were technically married. That is the meaning of betrothal, a legal first stage in the marriage ceremony, which is why St Joseph would have had to divorce her (as he was apparently tempted to do, prior to the revelation/assurance from the Angel). If, as is mistakenly asserted these days, “betrothal” [were] similar to a modern-day “engagement”, there would have been no need of divorce.

    This is a dangerous error which might easily lead people, especially the young, astray.

    I would be grateful for your assurance that Sister Byrne will read (or at least be told of) the contents of this message, and I would sincerely urge her to find a way of publicly correcting that error. That apart, her talk was excellent.

    God bless. (signed)…

    In case anyone else feels inclined to do so, there is an email form at the link below:
    https://www.littleworkersofthesacredhearts.org/contact-us/

      • Athanasius,

        I agree. It’s not going to encourage young people to be pure and wait for marriage if they’re told Our Lady was an unwed mother.

    • Editor

      Thank you for e-mailing the convent where Sr.Deirdre Byrne incorrectly pointed out that Our Lady was an “unwed mother”, I will also e-mail them. I came across this on Gloria TV, see link below

      https://www.gloria.tv/post/RoAG6BszUPSY4vaFKNaJFd1u8

      Mary and Joseph Lived Gift of Virginity by Pope St John Paul II

      “It should be noted that the Greek word used in this passage does not indicate the situation of a woman who has contracted marriage and therefore lives in the marital state, but that of betrothal. Unlike what occurs in modem cultures, however, the ancient Jewish custom of betrothal provided for a contract and normally had definitive value: it actually introduced the betrothed to the marital state, even if the marriage was brought to full completion only when the young man took the girl to his home”

      From what my understanding is, it is saying that Our Lady was not officially married to St. Joseph as he had not yet taken her into his home.

      Perhaps one of our readers who are more versed in Theology than me could answer this, as God’s justice demands that all lies are challenged and rebuffed.

      • Francescomarta,

        It simply means that – as you indicate – the marriage is not consummated until the husband takes his new wife to his home.

        The first part is purely the legal part – it’s as if a couple were to be married in a church or registry office and have to part for a time ( as many did during the war) and it is only on the return that the marriage is consummated. However, were either party to die in the meantime, then, legally, the living spouse would be the next of kin / entitled to inherit etc. In fact, it was often for practical reasons, business/financial, that couples did get married when they knew they could not consummate the marriage until later. What used to be delicately termed “the marriage act” is not – per se – the “marriage”.

        I hope that’s clear enough – but, as you say, if there are others more versed in theology, let them speak now or forever hold their peace!

        The key point is this: there is no way that God would permit even the appearance of such scandal. Imagine young girls today being taught (as sadly, is happening) that Our Lady had been an unmarried mother. Naturally, many would be inclined to think, well, if it’s OK in God’s eyes for Mary to be an unwed mother, why not the rest of us? It can’t possibly be wrong if God chose an unmarried girl to be the mother of His Son. It makes absolutely NO theological sense – in our times least of all!

        What underlies this, is the false belief that everything has to be made “relevant” to our times. Which – of course – always ignores those who are trying to be faithful to the moral law. I recall pointing this out once to a speaker addressing a hall full of young people, encouraging them to seek contraceptives. In the middle of her talk she announced that although 50% of girls are not sexually active at that age, she/we had to cater for the other 50%. When I suggested that that was exactly the opposite of the truth, she just couldn’t see it.

        Anyway, as you suggest, if others have more clarity on this, they are more than welcome to share it with us all.

      • Francescomarta & Editor

        When you actually consider this in context, it is the greatest nonsense to compare the situation of Our Lady, prior to living with St. Joseph, with that of unmarried mothers from the foundation to the end of the world.

        Our Lady conceived by the Holy Ghost, by grace, not by the normal means of conception. Hence, she cannot be compared to unmarried mothers who conceive by sin. Furthermore she is virgin before, during and after the birth of our Saviour, something that cannot be declared of the world’s unmarried mothers. Add to that the fact that St. Joseph maintained his virginity and it is easy to see what the Modernists are up to here. They are trying to despoil the unique miracle of the virgin birth of its supernatural potency by equating it with purely worldly comparisons. There really is no debate to be had in the matter, it’s a non-argument. Betrothed or not, the Blessed Virgin was carrying the God-man by a very special miracle of grace which is not to be compared with the purely natural method of conception under any circumstances.

        • Athanasius,

          That is all true, but it is crucial to consider that God would never allow even the appearance of scandal in this regard. He planned this hugely important event, in such a way that Our Lady was technically married and thus no charge of impurity could be made against her. No doubts were allowed to take hold. I once read a beautiful article on this in which this was the predominant theme but, typically, I can’t remember the source. I’ve noticed that my memory is getting worse as I get older. And my memory is getting worse as I get older…

          Given that modernists are forever trying to rationalise everything and make everything “relevant” to the young, it is seriously important that we are able to explain this clearly, to correct the error that Our Lady was “an unmarried mother” – it’s factually incorrect. “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life”… God is Truth. He doesn’t DO “factually incorrect”!

          Don’t you just love my teen-talk? Don’t answer that 😀

          • Editor/Athanasius,

            Thank you for your explanation of Sr Deirdre Byrne’s wrongfully stating that the Virgin Mary was an unmarried mother, I have also e-mailed the Convent, hopefully she will issue a public statement about her mistake.

          • Editor

            I found this definitive answer in the Jewish Encyclopedia:

            In the Bible.

            “Several Biblical passages refer to the negotiations requisite for the arranging of a marriage (Gen. xxiv.; Song of Songs viii. 8; Judges xiv. 2-7), which were conducted by members of the two families involved, or their deputies, and required usually the consent of the prospective bride (if of age); but when the agreement had been entered into, it was definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except that of actual cohabitation.”

  6. N O T I C E . . .

    I have received the following email today from our sometime blogger, Leprechaun – which I recommend to all our prayers.

    Through your blog may I please elicit prayers from your readership on behalf of my daughter?

    She provides HR support from home as a self-employed consultant to a construction Company whose business has been so badly hit by the Covid-19 scam that they are unable to retain her services. She is in discussions with another Company that provides support for the LBGTXYZ crowd and has very serious reservations about providing her services, but she has bills to pay and needs the money.

    I have asked her to break off her discussions, suggesting to her that Our Lord will reward her principled stand and temporary financial difficulty by sending her a better opportunity in His own good time. If your caring readership would bear her predicament in mind and offer up a few prayers on her behalf, in conjunction with our own, I am quite sure that some better solution to her dilemma will present itself.

    Thank you if you feel able to accept this plea. Ends.

  7. Editor

    I will certainly offer prayers for this lady and I would recommend that both she and her mother turn immediately to St. Joseph with trust and confidence. I can assure them he will not fail.

    • Athanasius,

      Thank you – I know the father will be reading this blog so he will take up your suggestion, no doubt about it.

      Actually, “the father” is our sometime blogger Leprechaun – I wasn’t sure that he wanted me to identify him, but I’ve received a subsequent email saying I may do that, so I’ve amended my original request accordingly.

      So, Leprechaun, we’re all praying for your daughter…

    • Athanasius,
      The thanking of St.Joseph has long had a regular place in my prayer routine. I trust that he will not be averse to yet further requests for his assistance, knowing that further thanks will follow.
      God bless the work,
      leprechaun.

      • Leprechaun

        Great to hear from you. I trust you and your dear wife are keeping well? Yes, St. Joseph is certainly worthy of our constant thanks. I have enjoyed the privilege of an astounding miracle in my regard thanks to this great saint, which is why I urge all to turn to him in their needs, no matter what those needs are. He will never fail you.

  8. I was very impressed by Sr, Deirdre Byrne but I immediately picked up on the “unwed” comment. I, too, have written to her convent.

    Poor USA, if they fall, the whole world will go too. I pray to God that President Trump will be re-elected. He signed his persecution warrant when he gave that speech some years ago (?2017) at Davros where he decried the globalist agenda.

    • Crofterlady,

      Thank you for writing to Sr Deirdre Byrne, as well. The more the merrier, so to speak!

      I’ve watched a lot of the speeches at the RNC and I’ve no doubt that he will be re-elected. I’ve also no doubt that the demons will be at work through the opposition, trying to thwart if. We’ll need to keep praying.

      • You’re right about the demons being hard at work and their leader in chief is the Pope! Who could have ever imagined such a thing?

  9. We’ll soon be posting a thread on the USA Election, but I can’t resist posting this, in advance, in case some, many, possibly most readers and bloggers here haven’t been following the Republican National Convention. Here’s how it ended… As one commentator remarked “the most Catholic moment in American history”…


    Remember, this is the President photographed with a priest and holding the statue of Our Lady of Fatima and a rosary…

    • Editor,

      I’m not sure but I believe that is the priest who performed an exorcism on the White House, at the request of Mrs. Trump, before the Trumps moved in.

      Wonderful Italian tenor! Ciò che una bella voce! He was almost overcome with emotion at the end.

      • RCA Victor,

        “…almost overcome with emotion at the end”…

        He and me, both! I think the First Lady had tears in her eyes at one point, but not sure.

  10. WONDERFUL!

    Can you imagine any of the UK Party Conferences ending like that? Unbelievable.

    SNP, Labour, Liberal, Conservative – all hell would let loose if anyone tried to just pray a Hail Mary at the end of their conferences, let alone sing it. That’s just incredible. The whole thing was beautiful. I notice that they put God first – the Ave Maria and then the national songs. That’s why I believe God will bless Trump.

    I remember that photo of the President with statue and rosary, I think we had it posted before, but it makes me full of hope that God is using him to stem the race towards totalitarian government. I sincerely hope so – he seems to be our only hope.

  11. Josephine,

    I agree – that was a wonderful performance and a beautiful end to the Republican conference.

    As for the chances of it happening here – dream on!

  12. “Pope”Francis has proven to all by his action s that he is not a Catholic, but a heretical Marxist who has no business in the papal office of Saint Peter. We must resist this Church of darkness and climb to Our traditional faith. This man has brought Looney tunes to the Vatican’s office. As a traditional Catholic, I resent every thing this man stands for. By reading the teaching s of St. Belarmine which teach that a Pope puts himself outside the Church when he commits public manifest heresy.

    • Teutonic Warrior,

      We are living through the greatest crisis ever to afflict the Church. Our Lady came to Fatima to warn us that this was coming. Every time she spoke about the Pope, she spoke about “the Pope” or “the Holy Father”. There was no hint that we would be without a pope. That’s not how God works.

      It’s a big mistake for any lay person to take it upon him/her self to decide to call time on any pope. That is not a judgment for us to make. We’ve had bad popes before, and so we need to recognise that in Francis we have another one, much worse than any who have gone before, but our duty is restricted to praying for him and resisting his errors. That’s it. We have no authority to do anything more.

      St Robert Bellarmine wasn’t writing for the hoi polloi – he was deliberating on various theological issues that are not within the competence of the laity (or even clergy), in terms of final judgement. Thus, it’s a waste of time – totally – to try to use his writings for the purpose of deposing Francis. No can do.

      In due time, if necessary, the legitimate authorities will act to remove him. I don’t think it will happen, for what it’s worth, because I just think he is one very bad pontiff. We know that we may never embrace any false teaching, and that’s all we need to know. The rest is God’s work to sort out, and He will do so in His own good time, using the appropriate authorities – and that doesn’t include Joe Bloggs down the pub.

      We have a policy here of not discussing or promoting sedevacantism, precisely because it’s pointless, a waste of time, so I’d be grateful if you would note my opinion and take that as a reminder that while everyone and their favourite blogger can have an opinion on this, none of us humble laity has any authority to judge or make decisions on the matter. No point, then, in saying more, please and thank you!

      • I thank you for your reply, but it seems as though you are not allowing for the laity to have a theological opinion. While, I feel, my opinion is justified by the crisis we are in, it is by no means dogmatic. And I do not pretend to speak with any authority other than a lay person, but am submitted to the Magisterium and the deposit of the faith which would include the doctors of the Church such as Belarmine, Cajetan and others.

        • Teutonic Warrior,

          Firstly, as long as people keep their “opinions” to themselves, that’s fine. It’s the public airing of this mentality which I find insufferable.

          There are a number of interpretations of St Robert Bellarmine – suggest your check out True or False Pope?
          http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/

          Now, I tried politely to point out that it is not permitted here to debate sedevacantism or Benevacantism or any other similar, pointless “ism” – since no lay person has the authority to decide on the status of any pope. It may seem highly intelligent to raise this issue but it is, in fact, very dangerous and may lead troubled souls right out of the Church. I discovered this first hand only this week, when I received an email from a lady who attends the same traditional church that I attend; she was concerned after a conversation with a woman who expressed her view that Francis is not a duly elected pope. The lady who emailed has not long since been attending the traditional Mass so, it seems to me (and I hope I’m wrong) that that person has shaken her faith quite a bit with her “Francis is not the pope” nonsense.

          It is sheer arrogance to take that role to ourselves – it’s a monumental waste of time, for one thing. Let’s say the entire Catholic community across the world sign a petition denouncing Francis as a false pope. What then? Who is in charge? Who decides the next step forward? All rhetorical questions because it is brain-dead stuff. We have a dreadful pope. End of. It’s a golden opportunity to exercise real faith in the Promise of Christ to be with His Church always, until the end of time. That is all we need to know. I just don’t get this fascination at all.

          Also, you appear not to know that before anyone can be declared a “manifest, obstinate, public heretic”, their heresy has to be pointed out to him/her and that person then must show said obstinacy by refusing to recant. I’ve never heard that Francis has been thus confronted. And I think we’d be sure to have been told.

          We are not entering into any conversation about this – All we do when this irritating subject rears its ridiculous head is merely try to correct that error i.e. the error which lies in thinking that, as a layperson, we have a role to play in determining the status of this (or any other) pontiff.

          Finally, I see that the video you posted below is over an hour long so not a lot of people will watch it, including me. I will skim it to check the conclusion, but if I find that it is promoting sedevacantism, it’ll be removed.

          I try not to moderate posts because I just don’t have a lot of time and I like to allow free and fair discussion without anyone acting as a supervisor, but I’m afraid if you persist with this line of debate, I’ll have no option but to screen your comments in advance, because we don’t want this blog to be the cause of anyone becoming troubled in the Faith. I trust you appreciate that this is not about stifling debate but about avoiding the possibility of leading people astray to the great detriment of their spiritual peace.

          I also apologise if I’m coming across as harsh – I believe you are well intentioned so please don’t take offence; this has been our position on the subject since it was first raised, years ago. I doubt if Francis will be with us for much longer, anyway, so hang on in there 😀

          • “I’ve never heard that Francis has been thus confronted. ” I must remind you of the “dubia” issued by Cardinal Burke and others earlier in this ‘pontificate ‘. Catholics have the right to think for themselves, with in the guidance of the Churches Magisterium, blind obedience is much more dangerous than what you are talking about. The Councillor Church is in complete schism with the Magisterial teaching of true Catholicism. To my knowledge, Sede Vacantism has not been dogmaticly condemned. So, it is a mere theological opinion for one who does not like to entertain cognition dissidents. It must just be too offensive To some Novus Ordo sensibilities.

            To hold that the hierarchy can teach outright heresy, and still remain legitimate is madness! “The human element of the Church has failed” if believed, this means the Second Vatican council created a new Church parallel to the One true faith. This is contrary to the One Catholic Faith which teaches the immutability of the faith.

            • Teutonic Warrior,

              There has been no public response from the Pope to the Dubia. That’s not the same as the required public correction and response to which I refer in a previous post.

              Nobody is advocating blind obedience. Quite the opposite. We do NOT obey false teaching, illicit commands. We resist, as did St Paul resist St Peter in the first century “because he was to blame”.

              As for sedevacantism not being “dogmatically condemned” – as a friend once said to me in another context, there are so many errors coming fast and furious, things that no previous pope would have ever dreamt would become an issue, that it would be impossible to have thought of everything that would need to be corrected (or condemned) in our times during this crisis – it’s not our place to decide the status of Pope Francis; that no previous pope ever thought to write an encyclical on the subject or issue a Bull, is hardly surprising.

              Instead of fixating on something about which you can do nothing, zippo, why not focus on publicly adding your voice to those of us who are condemning his various errors? I can’t recall your remarks about the subject of this thread, for example – and I wonder if you took note of my report about a woman in danger of losing her faith as a result of a fellow church-goer expressing the same views that you hold about Francis’ status as pontiff? Don’t you care about that?

              You are clearly intent on keeping this subject alive here but, note: the very lengthy post which you submitted is not going to be published, so you have wasted an awful lot of time, writing your thoughts on that, totally ignoring our House Rules which prohibit the promotion of sedevacantism on this blog I’m both surprised and disappointed at such disrespect. I cut you some slack at the beginning, recognising, I thought, that you were well-intentioned, but it is clear now that you are here to promote sedevacantism and that is explicitly prohibited as stated in our House Rules.

              If you have not already read our House Rules, I suggest that you do so before commenting further. Thank you.

              • “a woman in danger of losing her faith as a result of a fellow church-goer expressing the same views that you hold about Francis’ “-her faith must have been wrongly placed in a man, or an organization instead of Christ. This is a lot of Catholics who elevate The papacy too high, to a level of Popality.

                By the way, I only converted to Catholicism 5 years ago. If you don’t think this has been painful for me, and disconcerting. After 3 years in that liberal Novus Ordo, I couldn’t keep my faith in that environment. Sought out more traditional Catholicism. I have tried to reconcile Vatican II, only to conclude it to be a modernist New religion. Pray for me.

                Editor: I do, fully, sympathise with you (all the more so now that I know you are a convert) and of course you are correct in that no Catholic should allow his/her faith to be disturbed for any reason. That makes it a faith of poor quality, if faith at all, if it starts to question and doubt, whether in a personal crisis or – as now – in this Church crisis.

                It is, in fact, precisely because our faith is being tested to the very limits of endurance, that this subject is a grave danger. And, if you think about it, it’s because we must not allow our faith to be disturbed because of the antics of this pontiff, that we should not dwell on those theories about the validity of his election or his status due to the many horrendous things he has said and done. Here’s a favourite quote of mine, written by GK Chesterton in his Anglican days, before he converted to the Catholic Faith. His book is entitled Orthodoxy and, incredibly, he was using the Catholic Church as an example of the steadfastness of orthodox belief: “It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect.”

                Despite all of his machinations, the truths of the Faith remain intact. Francis can’t change that. God will not allow it – we have Christ’s guarantee. That is our only consolation – that and the promise of Our Lady of Fatima that the “diabolical disorientation” to come, would end when the Pope consecrates Russia to her Immaculate Heart.

                I’m sorry to have been so hard on you – it’s difficult enough suffering this pope when raised as a Catholic from the cradle, so I apologise if I seemed to lack sympathy with your deliberations and researching following the many shocking things he has said and done. However, I think that approach, despite the good intentions, is a one-way street, more likely than not to lead us out of the Church. Placing our unquestioning faith in Christ’s promise to be with His Church until the end of time, contrary to all appearances, will bring us peace. Nothing less.

                I would ask you, in all seriousness, to set aside the thinking of those who undertake such research. There isn’t anything any of us can to depose Francis. Much better (and certainly “the Catholic way”) to pray for him and for our own discernment, making sure that we know the Church’s teaching and being on our guard every time he speaks – especially when travelling in planes!

                God bless.

            • Teutonic Warrior

              Sedevacantism is not canonically condemned by the Church because it is a phenomenon of our time, unheard of in past eras.

              The closest error to sedevacantism to be condemned is Protestantism with its like rejection of the validity of the Roman Pontiff, albeit with a different set of sophisms.

              But sedevacantism doesn’t have to be formally condemned for it to be a very grave offence against charity and the unity of the Church. The only way sedevacantists can reach the conclusion that a Pope is no longer Pope is if they depart from charity to embrace a forbidden judgment on the soul of the Pontiff, as though they were God, assessing him to be a man of malicious intent. This switches the ball game from a legitimate judgment of probable material heresy on the Pope’s part to an illegitimate judgment of formal heresy. This latter evil is forbidden and has the hallmark of pride stamped all over it, not to mention bitter zeal.

              Even on a practical level sedevacantism is ludicrous, for it leaves the Church without a hierarchy and therefore without any means of electing a future Pope. It is in effect a declaration that the Gates of Hell have in fact prevailed!

              I can hardly believe that some Catholics have gone down this unfortunate schismatic route – for “where Peter is, there is the Church”.

              In fine, we may, as duty demands, challenge and resist a Pope when he errs, but we may never judge and depose him if we value our soul’ salvation.

        • Teutonic Warrior

          I’m sorry but the laity are not permitted to have theological opinions that lead to definitive judgments on a Pope’s validity.

          St. Robert Bellarmine was perfectly clear in respect to the limits of subordinates in the Church. We are obliged, says he, to correct an erring superior or resist his dangerous tendencies, but we can never judge and depose him.

          Saying that the Pope has deposed himself is just a disingenuous way of declaring that we have in fact decided that he is deposed, a very dangerous mentality since it requires a judgment of the soul which we cannot possibly know. Even if a Pope were of malicious intent in his soul, which is unknown to us, he would not by default cease to be Pope, just as a priest who lives an immoral life does not automatically lose his priestly office.

          I’m afraid you are on very dangerous ground here, ground upon which you are neither qualified nor obliged by God to tread. It is sufficient for the faithful to recognise the scandal of this papacy, to speak out against the Pope’s errors and leave the rest to God through the Magisterium of his Church. Remember Pope Honorius I, it was a future Pope and Council that declared on him posthumously, as it should be.

          God knows the Church has enough problems without subordinate laity setting themselves the task of judging and deposing Popes. That’s what the Protestants do and what sedevacantists do. Same proud rabble at the end of the day.

          • I am not judging his soul, only his public actions. If you continue to follow a corrupt leader he will lead you into sin. Catholic teaching does allow for laity to descent from a heretical Pope; St. Cajetan “to be silent before error is to be repulsive to God.”

            • Teutonic Warrior

              I’m not prepared to start batting back and forward quotes from this or that saint in long drwan out useless arguments on whether or not the Pope is the Pope.

              He is the Pope, like it or not. He was duly elected by the Cardinals and he is accepted by the entire Church. I don’t say he’s a good Pope, quite the contrary, but I do say he is the Pope. We are allowed to judge his public actions, as you rightly say, and we are permitted to resist his errors and fraternally challenge his destructive words and actions, but we are not permitted to say that he has sinned wilfully against the faith and is of malicious intent towards the Church, which lies at the basis of the sedevacantist argument. The most we are allowed to do is judge material heresy in the Pope while always maintaining that charitable benefit of the doubt that perhaps he really does think he’s acting in the best interests of the Church.

              This sedevacantist argument is a demonic distraction from the duty that Catholics have in this time of crisis to keep the faith charitably, resisting and challenging errors while praying for those in error. That’s the Catholic spirit.

              I have debated with sedevacantists for decades and found them to be hateful, entrenched people filled with pride and bitter zeal. I want nothing to do with sedevacantists, I consider them to have separated themselves from the Church.

              • Are you familiar with the conclusion of Fr. Bernard Lucien in his “Thesis Cassiciacum ” The person occupying the Apostolic See is no longer formally the pope: He no longer has any divinely assisted Pontifical authority; he however remains materially a pope insofar as he has not been juridically deposed.(known as Sedeprivationism)

            • Teutonic Warrior,

              I am puzzled that several of your posts have been published because I’d arranged for them to be pre-screened. I’ve been away from my computer most of the day, so I am surprised and puzzled that somehow there has been a blip in the system.

              I did release one post, a few minutes ago, after commenting within it, but I’ve now re-entered your details for pre=screening because, as I’ve already explained to you, our House Rules prohibit the discussion of sedevacantism. As Athanasius points out (although I paraphrase) it is a diabolical distraction, designed to unsettle souls and take people out of the Church. Completely contrary to the aims of our blog.

              I would ask you, again, to respect our House Rules in any future comments submitted here. Thank you.

              • Don’t worry, I will stay away from your forum and shake the dirt from my feet. Honoring Christ and truth is more important than an obedience to a corrupt organization.

                Editor: Sad to see you go. God bless

                • Teutonic Warrior

                  Your would do better to shake the pride from your mind and the bitter zeal from your heart! I can just imagine your reaction had you been there when Peter thrice denied Our Lord!

                • Teutonic Warrior,

                  It’s a pity you’re interpreting the comments here as being from a corrupt organisation – that’s not the case. I understand the frustration with this pope, definitely, but I don’t see what difference you think it makes banging on about theories about his election etc. We know not to obey any false teaching – that’s the main thing.

                  I hope you return just to take part in our discussions because I love your bright avatar! Not just that, I don’t mean to be trivial but it is an eye-catching colour, LOL!

                  • Joesphine

                    I think TW meant that the Church is presently a corrupt organization, which of course is an utterly false and dangerous claim. Churchmen may be corrupt, but never the Church.

                  • I’m too serious for these pseudo-traditionalists.
                    Editor: humility clearly isn’t your strong suit. Who are you to set yourself up as the “model traditionalist” – even if there were any such thing? You’re not. You told us you had converted to Catholicism – you’ve not. You remain a Protestant with a different name… sedevacantism is Protestantism, the latest branch.

                    You can find me at …
                    Editor: link to sedevacantist site removed – yet again you show your lack of integrity by displaying contempt for our House Rules. Disgraceful.

            • Teutonic Warrior

              Yes, we are allowed to dissent, which is what the SSPX does. What you and other sedevacantists do is go further than that to a forbidden judgment on the validity of a Pope, which is the Protestant schismatic mindset, not the Catholic charitable one.

          • St. Robert Bellarmine,( De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:) “For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ‘ipso facto’ deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.”

            St. Robert Bellarmine, (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:) “This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.

    • Warrior,

      Editor is correct about what she says. A pope cannot be ‘impeached’. Only a future pope can judge the present pontiff to have been a heretic, and an antipope. Fr Gregory Hesse explains this. He was a priest affiliated to the FSSPX and had doctorates in both theology and canon law. He spoke eloquently about this issue and his recorded interviews (on YouTube) are worth watching.

      • I’m familiar with Fr. Hesse, and know he also taught the opinion of St. Belarmine on the heresy of a Pope, which includes my stated view that a heretic pope would ipso facto put himself outside the Church when he become a manifest, obstinate, public heretic like Francis.

    • Wendy Walker,

      I hope those politicians and priests don’t give in to the bullying that will come their way – it’s long past due that somebody stands up to the people who are desperately trying to change western culture, not just to get rid of Christian culture but to adopt demonic culture instead. Thanks for posting that report.

  13. There’s really nothing left to say about Pope Francis – sorry, but I can’t help taking hope in his age, he can’t be here for much longer, IMHO.

  14. Dear Editor,
    If you have time please see
    Wwwspectaaror.org -Vatican -goes-to-bat-for-Biden
    It tells us all we need to know.

  15. This latest from Pope Francis is a shocker. Yes, another one…
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8717375/Pope-praises-sex-good-food-divine-pleasures-come-directly-God.html

    Now, he is technically correct in speaking of the moral law (although he doesn’t identify it as such) as being neither Catholic nor Christian. The natural moral law comes from God and it is the Church’s role to protect and promote it, defend it against attacks.

    However, the uninformed reader will see his words as condoning promiscuity.

    The man is a menace, the likes of which we’ve never seen before. Let us hope and pray that Francis The First is NEVER succeeded by Francis the Second. NEVER!

  16. Note: a “first comment” has appeared in the moderation queue, from someone who has chosen the Holy Name of Jesus as her username. Now, it is certainly true that Hispanics are often baptised with the Holy Name, although it is carries an accent over the final “u” and is pronounced Hay-soos”. I once worked alongside a colleague with that name – he was an angel, as it happens… Anyway, I am reluctant to release that comment due to the username here for a number of reasons – below is the text of the person’s comment, though, because it represents “fair comment” in the context of this topic. It is very easy indeed to answer, so if nobody beats me to it, I will answer her later:

    Wouldn’t Christ accept those who are rejected from society to make them feel included? Do you not see how anti-Christian you are being in looking to oppress these individuals due to the fact that you are so stuck on going by the Book that you actually refuse to practice the characteristics that embellish the spirit of Christ. Hope you actually find strength through him because this post was just heartbreaking to read.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: