Vatican Protects Pope Francis’ Image: Can’t Be Seen Endorsing Whisky – Come again? Is this a wind-up?

Pope Francis guffawed with laughter at his own joke – whisky is the real holy water

From the Daily Record… 

Footage of Pope Francis holding up a bottle of Scotch and proclaiming it “the real water of life” was censored by the Vatican ahead of a new documentary about seminarians at the Scots College in Rome.

The footage featured the Holy Father accepting a bottle of Oban malt from a group of Scottish student priests at a reception at the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace last year.

But Vatican media insisted Il Papa’s quip was cut from the film – narrated by Daniela Nardini – before broadcast this Sunday.

Director Tony Kearney, whose Solus Productions made the one-hour documentary Priest School, followed the Scots seminarians over 18 months in 2018 and 2019.

He said: “We filmed the students meeting with the Pope in the Apostolic Palace. One of them was tasked with giving the Pope a bottle of malt, because they know he likes whisky.

“He was really down to earth with them all and when they handed him the bottle, instead of just handing it to his assistant as he normally would with a gift, he held it up and said ‘Questa e la vera acqua santa’, which means ‘This is the real holy water.’

“He guffawed with laughter and it was a real ice-breaker with the students and put everyone at ease.

“But we’d agreed that the Vatican’s media office would be allowed to approve all of our footage before we broadcast it. So we sent them the files and when they sent it back, that bit of him saying that was cut out.

“We were really annoyed at first, but they insisted they didn’t want the Pope to be seen to be endorsing whisky. I think it’s quite funny how guarded his image is.

Comment:

It’s interesting that the Vatican acted swiftly to protect the Pope’s “image” on this occasion when a loud silence followed his assurances to atheists that they would be saved no matter what, no need even to believe in God let alone become a Catholic, and silent, too, on the confusion caused by Amoris Laetitia and the Pope’s endorsement of those living in adulterous unions receiving Holy Communion.  Then there’s the whole pagan worship scandal within the Vatican itself.  How did that go with the papal “image”?  These are just the first examples which spring to mind of a Pope whose “image” is the least of his worries.  It’s his lack of divine and Catholic Faith which really matters and he’s proven himself to be short of that, big time.  And that is definitely nothing to laugh about.  You’re welcome to share your shock thoughts about this Pope’s “image” – robustly if you please, but within our House Rules 😀      Source

Bishop: Please Pray – Only Divine Intervention Will Solve Francis Crisis

From Lifesitenews…   

For several past generations until our days there reigns in the life of the Church a kind of ‘pope-centrism’ or a kind of ‘papolatria’ which is undoubtedly excessive compared with the moderate and supernatural vision of the person of the Pope and his due veneration in the past times. Such an excessive attitude towards the person of the Pope generates in the practice an excessive and wrong theological meaning regarding the dogma of the Papal infallibility.

Editor’s(LSN) note: LifeSite is here publishing an important text issued [28 Feb] by Bishop Athanasius Schneider [right] commenting on some key questions that have been vexing many faithful Catholics in the midst of the current crisis in the Church under Pope Francis.

On the question of the true pope in the light of the opinion of the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy and the speculations about the resignation of Benedict XVI

The hypothesis of the possibility of a heretical pope derives from the Decree of Gratian (dist. XL, cap. 6, col. 146) from the 12th century. According to the opinion expressed in this decree, the pope cannot be judged by any human authority, except if he has fallen into heresy (a nemine est iudicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide devius). Basing themselves on this spurious decree erroneously attributed to St. Boniface (+754) and accepted by Gratian, the Medieval theologians and theologians of the subsequent centuries maintained as possible the hypothesis – but not the certitude – of a heretical pope. The eventual condemnation of a pope in the case of heresy by a so-called imperfect Council of bishops corresponds to the thesis of mitigated Conciliarism. The heretical thesis of Conciliarism holds that a Council is superior to the pope.

Even if — according to the opinion of the automatic loss of the papacy for heresy — the judgment of the loss of the papal office is pronounced by the heretical pope upon himself, and he automatically falls from office without any judgment by the Church, such an opinion contains a contradiction and reveals a hint of crypto-conciliarism. For according to this opinion, the College of Cardinals or a group of bishops would have to issue an official declaration about the fact of the automatic loss of the papal office. According to another opinion, the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy would be tantamount to a renunciation of the papal office. However, one has to bear in mind the inevitable possibility of disagreement among members of the College of Cardinals or the episcopacy regarding whether or not a pope is guilty of heresy. Hence, there will always be doubts regarding the automatic loss of the papal office.

The pope as pope cannot fall into formal heresy in the sense that he would pronounce a heresy ex cathedra. But according to renowned traditional theologians he can favor heresy or fall into heresy as a private doctor or also as pope, but only in his non-defining and non-definitive Magisterium, which is not infallible.

St. Robert Bellarmine’s opinion is that “a pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30). The opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine and other similar opinions on the loss of the papal office for heresy are based on the spurious decree of Gratian in the Corpus Iuris Canonici. Such an opinion has never been approved explicitly by the Magisterium or supported by an explicit teaching about its doctrinal validity by the Roman Pontiffs during a considerable period of time. In fact, this matter has not been decided by the Church’s Magisterium and does not constitute a definitive doctrine pertaining to the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. This opinion is supported only by theologians, and not even by all the Fathers of the Church from antiquity. This opinion was not taught unanimously and universally by the bishops and the popes in their constant Magisterium. Neither Gratian nor St. Robert Bellarmine, nor St. Alphonsus, nor other renowned theologians asserted with their opinions a doctrine of the Magisterium of the Church. Even some interventions of individual Fathers of the First Vatican Council, which seem to support the opinion of the automatic loss of the papacy for heresy, remain their personal opinion, but not a formal teaching of the First Vatican Council. And even if some few popes seemed to support such an opinion (as e.g. Innocent III or Paul IV), this does not constitute a proof for the constant teaching of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. One also cannot cite Pope Gregory XVI to support the opinion of the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy. For he supported this thesis in his book The Triumph of the Holy See and the Church Against the Attacks of the Innovators before he became pope, hence not in his papal Magisterium.

The automatic loss of the papal office by a heretical pope touches not only on the practical or juridical aspects of the life of the Church, but also on the Church’s doctrine — in this case, on ecclesiology. In such a delicate matter, one cannot follow an opinion, even if it has been supported by renowned theologians (such as St. Robert Bellarmine or St. Alphonsus) for a considerable period of time. Instead, one must wait for an explicit and formal decision by the Magisterium of the Church — a decision which the Magisterium has not yet issued.

On the contrary, the Magisterium of the Church, since Popes Pius X and Benedict XV, has seemed to reject such an opinion, as the formulation of the spurious decree of Gratian was eliminated in the Code of Canon Law 1917. The canons that address the automatic loss of an ecclesiastical office for heresy in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (canon 188 §4) and in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (canon 194 §2) are not applicable to the pope, because the Church deliberately eliminated from the Code of Canon Law the following formulation taken from the previous Corpus Iuris Canonici: “unless the pope is caught deviating from the faith (nisi deprehendatur a fide devius).” By this act, the Church manifested her understanding, the mens ecclesiae, regarding this crucial issue. Even if one does not agree with this conclusion, the matter remains at least doubtful. In doubtful matters, however, one cannot proceed to concrete acts with fundamental implications for the life of the Church, such as, e.g., not to name an allegedly heretical or an allegedly invalidly elected pope in the Canon of the Mass or preparing for a new papal election.

Even if one supports the opinion of the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy, in the case of Pope Francis, the College of Cardinals or of a representative group of bishops has not issued a declaration regarding the automatic loss of papal office, specifying the concrete heretical pronouncements and the date when they happened.

According to the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, a single bishop, priest, or lay faithful cannot state the fact of the loss of papal office for heresy. Consequently, even if a single bishop or priest is convinced that Pope Francis has committed the crime of heresy, he has no authority to eliminate his name from the Canon of the Mass.

Even if one subscribed to the opinion of St Robert Bellarmine, in the case of Pope Francis doubt still remains, and there is still no statement by the College of Cardinals or a group of bishops, affirming the automatic loss of the papal office and informing the entire Church about this fact.

Faithful Catholics can morally (but not canonically) distance themselves from erroneous or evil teachings and acts of a pope. This has occurred several times in the course of the Church’s history. However, given the principle that one ought to give the benefit of the doubt regarding the position of one’s superior (in dubio pro superiore semper sit præsumendum), Catholics should also consider the correct teachings of the pope as part of the Magisterium of the Church, his correct decisions as part of the Church’s legislation, and his appointments of bishops and cardinals as valid. For even if one subscribes to the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, the necessary declaration of the automatic loss of the papal office has still not be issued.

A moral and intellectual “distancing” of oneself from erroneous teachings of a pope also includes resisting his errors. However, this should always be done with due respect for the papal office and the person of the Pope. St. Bridged of Sweden and St. Catherine of Siena, both of whom admonished the popes of their times, are fine examples of such respect. St. Robert Bellarmine wrote: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 29).

Warning people about the danger of a pope’s wrong teachings and actions does not require convincing people that he is not the true pope. This is required by the nature of the Catholic Church as a visible society, in contrast to the Protestant understanding and to the theory of conciliarism or semi-conciliarism, where the convictions of an individual or of a particular group inside the Church are considered as having an effect upon the fact of who is the true and valid shepherd in the Church.

The Church is strong enough and possesses sufficient means to protect the faithful from the spiritual damage of a heretical pope. In the first place, there is the sensus fidelium, the supernatural sense of the faith (sensus fidei). It is the gift of the Holy Spirit, by which the members of the Church possess the true sense of the faith. This is a kind of spiritual and supernatural instinct that makes the faithful sentire cum Ecclesia (think with the mind of the Church) and discern what is in conformity with the Catholic and Apostolic faith handed on by all bishops and popes, through the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

One should also remember the wise words that Cardinal Consalvi spoke to a furious Emperor Napoleon, when the latter threatened to destroy the Church: “What we, i.e. the clergy, tried to do and we did not succeed, you for sure, will not succeed.” Paraphrasing these words one could say: “Even a heretical pope cannot destroy the Church.” The Pope and the Church are indeed not totally identical. The Pope is the visible head of the Militant Church on earth, but at the same time he is also a member of the Mystical Body of Christ.

The sentire cum Ecclesia requires from a true son or daughter of the Church that he or she also praise the pope when he does right things, while asking him to do still more and praying that God enlightens him so that he may become a valiant herald and defender of the Catholic Faith.
The former Pope Benedict XVI is no longer the pope. It suffices to re-read the core of Pope Benedict XVI’s declaration of renunciation to realize what it meant. The following affirmations of the former Pope Benedict XVI eliminate any reasonable doubts about the validity of his abdication, and his recognition of Pope Francis as the only true pope: “Among you, in the College of Cardinals, there is also the future pope to whom today I promise my unconditional reverence and obedience” (Farewell address to the Cardinals, 28 February 2013). “I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty, but with profound interior serenity” (Last General Audience, February 27, 2013). “There is not the slightest doubt about the validity of my renunciation of the Petrine ministry. The only condition of validity is the full freedom of the decision. Speculation about the invalidity of renunciation is simply absurd” (Letter from February 18, 2014, to Andrea Tornielli, published in La Stampa, February 27, 2014). During a conversation with a journalist from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, the former Pope Benedict XVI said: “The Pope is one, he is Francis.” These words of Benedict XVI were reported in the written edition of Corriere della Sera, June 28, 2019 and anticipated in the Italian version of Vatican News on June 27, 2019.

The Church is a visible society. Therefore, what was essential for the fulfillment of Benedict XVI’s resignation was not his possible internal thought but what he externally declared, for the Church does not judge about internal intentions (de internis non iudicat Ecclesia). Pope Benedict XVI’s ambiguous acts, like wearing a white cassock, keeping his name, imparting the apostolic blessing, etc., do not affect the unequivocal meaning of his act of renunciation. Many of his demonstrable and unequivocal words and actions after his resignation also confirm that he considers Pope Francis, and not himself, to be the pope.

Declaring Pope Francis to be an invalid pope, either because of his heresies or because of an invalid election (for reasons of alleged violations of the Conclave norms or for the reason that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope because of his invalid renunciation) are desperate and subjectively taken actions aimed at remedying the current unprecedented crisis of the papacy. They are purely human and betray a spiritual myopia. All such endeavors are ultimately a dead end, a cul-de-sac. Such solutions reveal an implicit Pelagian approach to resolving a problem with human means; a problem, indeed, which cannot be resolved by human efforts, but which requires a divine intervention.

One need only examine similar cases of the deposition of a pope or declaration of the invalidity of his election in Church history to see that they provoked rivaling and combatting claimants to the papal office.

Such situations caused more confusion for the Church than did tolerating a heretical or doubtfully elected pope with the supernatural vision of the Church and trust in Divine Providence.

The Church is ultimately not a human but a divine-human reality. She is the Mystical Body of Christ. Attempts to resolve the current crisis of the papacy which favor the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine with its concrete solution, or take refuge in the unproven theory of Benedict XVI still being the only true pope, are doomed to fail from the start. The Church is in the hands of God, even in this most dark time.

We must not be lax in proclaiming Catholic truth and warning and admonishing when papal words and actions clearly harm the faith. But what all true sons and daughters of the Church ought to do now is launch a serious world-wide crusade of prayer and penance to implore a divine intervention. Let us trust in the Lord’s words: “Will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them?” (Luke 18:7).
February 28, 2020
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of St. Mary in Astana

Comment: 

Catholic Truth is not permitted to advertise in the Catholic press, so we cannot launch any meaningful crusade of prayer in terms of numbers, but we can resolve to undertake a prayer crusade of our own, each of us, individually.  We celebrate the Feast of St Joseph, who is Patron of the Universal Church, on 19th March, so it would be good to ask that powerful saint to intercede for us in order to obtain the required divine intervention  in the crisis in the Church, which is worsening – and even gaining a title of its own – under the Francis pontificate.  The “Francis crisis” is deepening and widening with every passing day, so let’s seek the help of St Joseph in this month of March.  The prayer below, has been [cheekily] slightly amended…

 O most powerful patriarch, Saint Joseph, patron of that universal Church which has always invoked thee in anxieties and tribulations; from the lofty seat of thy glory lovingly regard the Catholic world. Let it move thy paternal heart to see the mystical spouse of Christ weakened by sorrow and persecuted by powerful enemies. We beseech thee, by the most bitter suffering thou didst experience on earth, to strengthen, in faith, our Holy Father, Pope Francis, and to intercede with the Giver of peace and charity, that every hostile power being overcome and every error being destroyed, the whole Church may serve the God of all blessings in perfect liberty, and in total fidelity to Christ who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Amen.

Pope Francis Latest – Brace Yourself… 

Comment:

A very powerful video – I hope everyone will take twenty or so minutes to view it right to the end.

Not only is the letter of instruction to the world’s bishops, featured early in the video, a novel way of “preparing” the faithful for an Apostolic Exhortation, it is misleading in the extreme in its claim of the need to be “in communion with Pope Francis”… What?!   All Catholics, including popes, must be in communion with the Catholic Faith, as it has been passed on to us from the apostles, so, only in the sense that a pontiff is in full communion with the Faith of our Fathers, might we speak of being in communion with the Pope – and nobody could accuse Pope Francis of such “rigidity”!

The minute any pope starts doing his own thing, inventing his own doctrine, he loses any right to the fidelity of the faithful.  We must continue to acknowledge and revere the office of papacy just as we must denounce any false teaching – and it sounds like the forthcoming Exhortation is worthy of denunciation of similar strength to that which followed the publication of Amoris Laetitia. 

This latest Exhortation is due to be published in the coming week, so this thread is by way of preparation – so that we may watch out for that recommended press conference in our own dioceses.  Let’s see if our local bishops are “in full communion with Pope Francis”.  That will be very interesting indeed – since, clearly, Archbishop Vigano, also featured in the Remnant video, is not! 

My own favourite quote from Archbishop Vigano follows… words  which ought to move every priest and bishop in good faith to follow his example: 

“To bear witness to corruption in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was a painful decision for me and remains so.  But I am an old man, one who knows he must soon given an accounting to the Judge for his actions and omissions, one who fears Him who can cast body and soul into hell.  A Judge who, even in his infinite mercy, will render to every person salvation or damnation according to what he has deserved. Anticipating the dreadful question from that Judge – ‘How could you, who had knowledge of the truth, keep silent in the midst of falsehood and depravity?”  – what answer could I give?”  (Archbishop Vigano)  

As Michael Matt says in the above video, Archbishop Vigano was a brilliant diplomat who realised that the time for diplomacy has come and gone. 

Quote that to the next priest or bishop you meet who claims to be of a “traditional leaning” but is waiting for “the right time” to surface.  Then simply repeat… “that time has come and gone…”   

England: Synod To Discuss Women Priests…Inching Closer to Open Schism? 

One of our English bloggers emailed this report from Gloria TV

I then checked out the website of the Diocese of Liverpool to find out more about their Synod 2020

If the Gloria TV analysis is correct, then somebody needs to remind Archbishop McMahon that he has no authority whatsoever to “make decisions” about the ordination of women – he must uphold the Church’s prohibition.  But what if he doesn’t do that?  IS the Church in England – certainly in the Diocese of Liverpool – heading for a complete break with the Catholic Church, given that male-only ordination is a teaching which the Church has absolutely no authority to change?

The address from the Archbishop in the short video clip below, plus the comments from the priests and lay leaders reveals nothing new.  They talk for around 7 minutes and say nothing.  It’s all the usual generic posturing.  Buzz words abound, but nothing concrete is said.  They all want everyone to know they are “called and gifted by God” but don’t give any concrete examples about what they are all called and gifted to do. One of the priests mentions “catechising stuff” in passing but – again – without defining what that means.  Still, we all know what it most certainly does NOT mean – it doesn’t mean teaching the Faith entire and true; that Christ founded only one  Church to be the Ark of Salvation and that is the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.   Below, the short video clip portrays the usual mix of confused but well-meaning laity and the totally clueless young priests, God help them.  No disrespect intended just, what they term these days, “speaking truth to power”…  😀 

Comments invited…  

With Apostasy Full-Blown Worldwide, Pope Warns of “Christian Decline”…

Pope Francis has [said that] “rigidity” in living out the Christian faith is creating a “minefield” of hatred and misunderstanding in a world where Christianity is increasingly irrelevant. Francis called for Vatican bureaucrats to instead embrace change during his annual Christmas greetings to the cardinals, bishops and priests who work in the Holy See, on Saturday (local time). Francis’ message appeared aimed at conservative and traditionalist Catholics, including within the Vatican Curia, who have voiced increasing opposition to his progressive-minded papacy. Their criticisms have accelerated over the past year, amid Vatican financial and sex abuse scandals that may have predated Francis’ papacy but are nevertheless coming to light now.

Francis issued a stark reality check to the men in the Sala Clementina of the Apostolic Palace, acknowledging that Christianity no longer holds the commanding presence and influence in society that it once did. He cited the late Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, a leader of the progressive wing of the Catholic Church, who in his final interview before dying in 2012 lamented that the church found itself “200 years behind” because of its inbred fear of change. “Today we are no longer the only ones that produce culture, no longer the first nor the most listened to,” Francis told the prelates.
“The faith in Europe and in much of the West is no longer an obvious presumption but is often denied, derided, marginalised and ridiculed.”

As a result, he urged the Catholic hierarchy to embrace the necessary pastoral reforms and outlook that will make the church attractive so that it can fulfil its mission to spread the faith.

“Here we have to beware of the temptation of assuming a rigid outlook,” Francis said. “Rigidity that is born from fear of change and ends up disseminating stakes and obstacles in the ground of the common good, turning it into a minefield of misunderstanding and hatred.”

He recalled, as he has in the past, that people who take rigid positions are usually using them to mask their own problems, scandals or “imbalances”.
“Rigidity and imbalance fuel one another in a vicious circle,” he said. “And these days, the temptation to rigidity has become so apparent.”

Traditionalist Catholics have denounced Francis’ emphasis on mercy and openness to doctrinal wiggle room on issues such as sacraments for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.  They also sharply criticised his recent synod on the Amazon, which called for the ordination of married men as priests, and what they considered pagan worship of an Amazonian statue of a pregnant woman that was featured during the meeting.

Francis has defended his outlook and priorities as a reflection of the Gospel, and the axiom that the true tradition of the church is one of a continuous, discerned path of change.  “Tradition is not static, it’s dynamic,” he said Saturday.

In a tangible sign of change, Francis issued a new decree Saturday limiting the term of the dean of the College of Cardinals, an influential job that had previously been held for life. Francis accepted the resignation of the current dean, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, and decreed that going forward, the future top cardinal would only have a five-year renewable term. Sodano had been the powerful secretary of state under St John Paul II, and was blamed in part for the Vatican’s refusal to crack down on paedophile priests, including the notorious Rev Marcial Maciel.

Sodano, 92, continued to wield behind-the-scenes influence in the two papacies that followed, acting most recently as something of a beacon for conservative opposition to Francis. As dean, he delivered his final Christmas greeting to Francis on Saturday.  Source – 9News

Comment:  From the writings of Pope Saint Pius X…

“It is an error to believe that Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and to all men.” (Pope Saint Pius X)

Clearly, Pope Francis doesn’t agree; he would class Pope Saint Pius X as “rigid”.   So the dilemma for any Catholic is to decide which Pope is right? 

Cardinal Newman – To Be Canonised in October – Traditionalist or Liberal?

From the “liberal” – i.e. anti-Catholic – Tablet, the following predictable commentary: 

“…Given the context, it is appropriate that the English priest will be declared a saint by a pope who has sought to implement Vatican II, and during the synod of bishops assembly on the Amazon, a structure established by Paul VI as the council drew to a close. Newman’s writing on the primary [sic] of conscience, which he described as “the aboriginal Vicar of Christ”, is also echoed in Francis’ family life teaching, Amoris Laetitia, which opens the door for remarried divorcees to receive communion. The pope has said Amoris Laetitia is an attempt to move away from legalistic casuistry, and canonical manuals to a deeper understanding of applying moral laws…”   Source

Typically, by quoting Cardinal Newman’s words on conscience out of context, The Tablet and other liberal outlets omit the following, wholly orthodox, conclusion reached by the Cardinal on the subject: 

“…I observe that conscience is not a judgment upon any speculative truth, any abstract doctrine, but bears immediately on conduct, on something to be done or not done. “Conscience,” says St. Thomas, “is the practical judgment or dictate of reason, by which we judge what hic et nunc is to be done as being good, or to be avoided as evil.” Hence conscience cannot come into direct collision with the Church’s or the Pope’s infallibility; which is engaged in general propositions, and in the condemnation of particular and given errors.” Source

Indeed, the Cardinal’s own words of opposition to the spirit of liberalism, taken from his famous “Biglietto Speech”, make absolutely clear that he detested liberalism in religion…

“…For thirty, forty, fifty years I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of Liberalism in religion. Never did Holy Church need champions against it more sorely than now, when, alas! it is an error overspreading, as a snare, the whole earth; and on this great occasion, when it is natural for one who is in my place to look out upon the world, and upon Holy Church as in it, and upon her future, it will not, I hope, be considered out of place, if I renew the protest against it which I have made so often…”  Click here to read the rest of this speech

Comment:

Prepare, in the months leading up to the canonisation in October, to hear plenty of propaganda about the “liberal” Cardinal Newman from the mainstream “Catholic” media,  with emphasis on his alleged (i.e. non existent) belief that conscience reigns supreme.  Conscience, as peddled by the liberals, of course, is no such thing;  it’s simply the self-centred human mind telling the self-centred human person to do whatever he/she wants, as long as he/she “feels” it’s OK.  Really deep thinking.  But, manifestly, not the thinking of Cardinal Newman.  Just how deceitful does a so-called liberal have to be to twist the Cardinal’s beliefs asbout conscience to mean the precise opposite? 

Your views on that question welcome, but keep the answers (reasonably!) polite. ..If necessary, check out the House Rules before you begin typing 😀

Also, if you have any favourite quotes from the writings of Cardinal Newman, or titles about his life which you would recommend, feel free to post them here.  

Pope Francis (not climate change) Is Leading The World Towards Disaster…

Pope Francis: Climate Crisis ‘Leading the World Towards Disaster’  From Brietbart… 

If only he were writing his resignation letter – Sigh…

Pope Francis painted a frightening picture of a global climate emergency Monday, saying we humans must “correct our path before it is too late.”

“Around the world, we are seeing heat waves, droughts, forest fires, floods and other extreme meteorological events, rising sea levels, the emergence of diseases and further problems that are only a dire premonition of things much worse to come, unless we act and act urgently,” the pope told a group of leaders assembled at the Vatican for a meeting titled “Climate Change and New Evidence from Science, Engineering, and Policy.”

“Time is of the essence,” the pope told the group, which included the president of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the finance ministers of various nations. “You are here today to reflect on how to remedy this profound crisis caused by a confusion of our moral ledger with our financial ledger. You are here to help stop a crisis that is leading the world towards disaster.” …

… The U.N. program endorsed by the pope goes well beyond addressing climate change, however, and encompasses “17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets,” some of which directly contradict the Catholic Church’s core beliefs regarding human life.  [Emphasis added, for what should be very obvious reasons…]

“We are committed to ensuring universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education,” the program declares, which includes the putative right to abortion.

The United Nations has been one of the most implacable forces behind a worldwide push for legalized abortion, under its umbrella goals of “reproductive health” and “gender equality.”

In the years leading up to Ireland’s 2018 abortion referendum, for example, the UN repeatedly attacked Ireland for its pro-life laws, employing its international muscle to demand that the predominantly Catholic nation repeal the Eighth Amendment to its constitution that protected the right to life of unborn infants.

One ruling from U.N. human rights “experts,” for instance, said that Ireland’s abortion ban “subjects women to discriminatory, cruel and degrading treatment.”

In 2017, the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) committee attempted to pressure Ireland into changing its abortion laws, declaring that the Eighth Amendment violated women’s rights because it “unduly restricts access to abortion.”

The U.N. committee insisted that Irish law be changed to allow “the introduction of amendments to current legislation governing access to abortion.”   Click here to read the above Brietbart report in full.  

Comment: 

We already know that this Pope is more interested in politics than Catholicism, that he accepts, without criticism, the latest scientific fad, while ignoring the Message of Fatima despite paying lip-service to some of it;  that he fears the destruction of the planet through man-made climate change more than the retribution from God which he is making more likely by the nano-second through his failure to act in accordance with his papal office.  He is duty bound to protect the Faith, to ensure that no changes are made to it and that the natural moral order established by God is obeyed. He’s doing none of that.  Quite the reverse – he has actively encouraged breaking with Catholic Faith Tradition and living in sexual couplings outside of marriage.  He’s easily the worst ever pontiff in the entire history of the Church – that is a fact, not up for discussion. 

Obviously, we need to pray for him – his very salvation is at risk; no question about it.  On the other hand,  are we – as we have been accused, often –  just a bunch of extremists, concerned needlessly?  After all, very few bishops are saying a word, and none of them are Scots, English, Welsh or Irish.  Why is that?  Could it be that the modernists are right, that we should be turning our attention to issues such as the environment, having “lost” the battle for traditional marriage, the sanctity of life and other fuddy duddy matters best forgotten?   Maybe, since the vast majority of Catholics are going along with what is going on in the Church right now, and since he’s a very popular pope – as would be any shopkeeper who turned a blind eye to the children nicking the sweets – maybe we just need to get with the programme and accept that things change, time to move on… After all, if the Pope himself can endorse the UN programme which endorses the right to contraception and abortion… Well – who are we to contradict him?   

Francis: A Totally UN-Papal Pope…

In the video clip below, Pope Francis clearly doesn’t want anyone to kiss the papal ring. Even such a small token of traditionalism causes him to flinch. Remember, on a human level, the reason for Our Lord’s first miracle at the wedding feast at Cana was to spare the bride & groom embarrassment:  who knows how embarrassed these poor pilgrims must feel at the Pope’s apparently rude behaviour…

 

Comment:

Pope Francis has made various remarks to indicate that he really hasn’t a clue about the papal office. Heck, he hasn’t a clue about the Catholic religion, never mind the papal office.   The above refusal to allow the faithful to kiss the papal ring is just one more example of his ignorance – not to mention his bad manners.  I don’t like the idea of popes resigning/abdicating – but I am willing to sacrifice my principles and make an exception in his case. I’d really like him to go – what about thee?   Or, perhaps you can think of a justifiable excuse for his apparent rudeness in the above video clip.  If so, let’s hear it!  

Cardinal Müller: the Faith first – if necessary, priests to disobey bishops…

The German episcopate is divided on the question of granting Protestants access to Eucharistic Communion, and the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reminds priests that they are not obliged to obey their bishops when they order them to commit acts that  go against the doctrine and practice of the Church.

Priests are “not bound by Divine Law to administer Holy Communion to a non-Catholic, and in any case,they certainly cannot be bound by any episcopal order,” declared Cardinal Gerhard Müller on December 11, 2018, in an interview with the information website LifeSite.

This statement from the former prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith comes one month after the bishop of Münster, Bishop Felix Genn, declared on the contrary that no priest has the right to refuse Communion to a Protestant.

Ever since Pope Francis’ visit to the Lutheran church in Rome (November 15, 2015), when in answer to a Protestant woman’s question on the matter, he evasively responded, “I would never dare to give permission for this because it is not in my authority. Speak with the Lord and move forward,” many bishops have rushed headlong into what they believe to be a carte blanche for intercommunion.

Cardinal Müller recalls that there are cases in which a priest has to resist his bishop “just as St. Paul resisted St. Peter,” quoting the passage from the Epistle to the Galatians (2:11). We might add that St. Paul was not only a priest, but also a bishop, and even an apostle, and that he took the liberty of publicly rebuking the first pope “because he was not walking uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel.” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did exactly the same thing.

The Austrian newspaper Salzburger Nachrichten’s interview with Fr. Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, on December 15, 2018, echoes this position, recalling that it is “inconceivable that the Church was mistaken for two millennia and that she found the truth about these questions only during the years of the Council, between 1962 and 1965.”   Source

Comment:

Before our enemies – or even some well-meaning readers – come racing on to accuse me of posting a misleading headline, because the Cardinal is referring to Intercommunion when he says priests are under no obligation to obey their bishops, allow me to point out that, logically, if a priest may disobey his bishop in a situation where the Faith is being undermined or openly attacked, then it stands to reason that this same “disobedience” applies to each and every instance where the Faith and Catholic Morals are under attack.  Yes? No?  Not sure?  Let’s hear it!  

Is Pope Francis right to think he will “go down in history” as a Schismatic? Gulp!

Extracts below, from Christian Order February 2018 editorial: Francis is So Bad, He’s Good  

 

If we speak explicitly, …what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly.” (Pope Francis)

“Let what you say be simply `Yes’ or `No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”       (Jesus Christ)

As underlined last month, the filthy fingerprints of the Father of Lies are now all over the Vatican (aka Sodomy Central). Hiding in plain sight, his ‘signature’ is not only apparent in orgiastic eruptions, however. It is also clear and ever present in the leitmotif of this papacy — deception.

This devilish modus operandi is expressed in the slithering papal strategy above, confided by Francis to his Special Secretary for the 2014/15 Sinods, Archbishop Bruno Forte. In October 2014, it was Forte who penned the infamous text calling for the Church to “value” homosexuality. And it was Forte who subsequently revealed that his boss had told him:

“If we speak explicitly about Communion for the divorced and remarried, you don’t know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

Far from “evil”, as Our Lord Himself designated such deceit, Forte found this papal ploy so clever (“typical of a Jesuit,” he sniggered) and so appealing, that he had no qualms whatsoever recounting it during a May 2016 conference on the equally deceitful Amoris Laetitia.

Wherever we look, it’s that sort of papacy. There was even a deceptive symmetry about the Pope’s Christmas message and subsequent stroll across St. Peter’s Square to view the Vatican Nativity. After vespers in St. Peter’s, having just bewailed a “wasted and wounded” year of “lies and injustices” (perpetrated by everyone except himself, of course) our pontifical hypocrite then visited and complimented a subversive depiction of Bethlehem; a ‘wound, lie and injustice’ that passed without papal comment, despite (or because?) it involved a blasphemous nudge and wink to the sodomitic culture he has cultivated.

Pink provocations

Under the pretext of clothing the naked, the life-size nativity featured a naked man lying on the straw right opposite the manger. He was being offered a cloth by a pilgrim, but as one of countless outraged onlookers truly observed, he was “too much a poster boy for the local gym to be a man in need of corporeal mercy.” Indignant Catholics were not alone in voicing their disgust. Even ultra-liberal Facebook drew the line. It rejected an advert centred on the scene with the following explanation: “Your ad can’t include images that are sexually suggestive or provocative”!

Unlike Francis, who blithely praised the Nativity as “inspired by the works of mercy,” its creator, Antonio Cantone, at least displayed signs of a conscience, albeit a guilty one. “It is not a campy nativity,” he pouted, before conceding that it did contain “provocations.” You might say! As Ann Barnhardt discovered:

It turns out that the whole Vatican Nativity scene was made in the Sanctuary of Montevergine, a Benedictine monastery outside of Naples. The Sanctuary of Montevergine has long been notoriously and blasphemously claimed as a mascot and meeting place for sodomites and transvestites.

[In 1256], a false story was started by sodomites that two sodomite men, after being caught, convicted and condemned to death by exposure for their sickening capital crimes by being tied to a tree, were miraculously saved by the Virgin of Montevergine, whereupon the two sodomites… wait for it… promptly celebrated by sodomizing each other because their “love” had been ratified by the Queen of Heaven, or something.

Blasphemy of the sickest and most demonic sort. This blasphemy spread, and now the Sanctuary of Montevergine is used by Italian sodomites as a mascot for gay pride marches and drag queen conventions. The biggest gay pride march at the Shrine of Montevergine, happens, even more blasphemously, on February 2, the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin.

So the Vatican Nativity scene was made at the Shrine of the so-called “Gay Madonna”, and there is an image of the Icon of the Madonna of Montevergine in the Vatican Nativity scene itself – a CLEAR SIGNAL to the sex perverts that the scene is a bow to them.
So, to all the people who remarked that the figure of the Blessed Virgin in the Vatican Nativity scene looks really, really masculine, almost like a man in drag, I think you have
been vindicated.

Just as Freemasons on every continent, but especially in Italy, imprint their occult symbols on monuments, buildings and structures of every kind, so the inclusion in the Vatican Nativity of male erotica, a masculine Madonna and, in one corner, a replica of the Icon of Montevirgine — known in Italy as “The Gay Madonna” and “The Madonna of the Drag Queens” — were Pink Mafia ‘calling cards which cried out: We’re everywhere! Subverting! Deceiving! Defiling all that is holy, wholesome, innocent and pure!

Such ‘pink provocations’ are now legion and flagrant.

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia has even befouled his coat of arms with the ‘gay’ rainbow (yet another beautiful symbol the sodomites co-opted to corrupt). He has no fear of papal rebuke since he was chosen by Francis to head the Pontifical Council for Life despite his public support of the homosexual political movement; support he further signposted by commissioning a homosexual artist to adorn his former cathedral in Terni with a massive “homo-erotic” mural featuring an “erotic” depiction of Christ.

Painted by Argentinian sodomite Ricardo Cinalli, the pornographic mural depicts an almost nude Christ figure lifting two nets filled with contorting human figures, including a nude depiction of Paglia himself. Cinalli confirmed that Paglia had approved every stage of the work. He added that Paglia had drawn the line only at depicting the figures in the act of copulating, but agreed “that the erotic aspect is the most notable among the people inside the nets.”

Creepy Curia

Thus, forever fixated on political deceptions and lies, our worldly pontiff happily ignores the deceit, mendacity and associated perversions tearing the Church apart. He ignores them because he facilitates and personifies those very traits — as the Forte revelation, the Paglia appointment and a Curia stacked with his creepy placemen make crystal clear.
Aflame with radical Modernism, Vatican Congregations, Pontifical Councils and Institutes, and other curial bodies are all billowing forth the smoke of Satan. Cleansed of orthodox heads and advisers they are now run by sinister figures like Francesco Coccopalmerio (Legislative Texts), Pio Vito Pinto (Roman Rota) and the aforementioned Vincenzo Paglia (Council for Life/Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences), to name just a few. Yet if there is ‘something of the night’ about all these men, and so many other Bergoglian appointees beyond Rome, it goes double for the man who appointed them. 

Schismatic agenda

Modernism alone does not account for Francis. Quite apart from doctrinal issues, he exudes a pungent combo of mental illness, complicity and blackmail. How else to account for the unhinged rants, the perverts he coddles, and, above all, the noxious path to formal schism he is not only set upon but talks of treading? Der Spiegel of 23 December 2016 reported him having said, “It is not impossible that I will go down in history as the one who split the Catholic Church.” A boast that flags his instability, it is not, however, an idle one. Daily reports confirm what we all sense: that his cherished place in history (infamy more like) is nigh.  [Emphasis added -Ed.]

Among several schismatic snippets filed at the time of writing, Bishop Bode, Vice President of the German Bishops’ Conference, wants to bless active homo pairs because he feels that “it is difficult to say from the outside whether someone is in the state of mortal sin.” [LifeSiteNews, 10/1/18] Yet in order to comprehend sodomy as mortally sinful behaviour, and so conform himself to the plain-speaking counsel of Christ, it is not so difficult for His Lordship simply to Google the hard science on destructive sodomitic fruits. Like his pontifical role-model, however, the Bishop “won’t speak plainly.” Instead, he babbles. “We have to reflect upon the question as to how to assess in a differentiated manner a relationship between two homosexual persons,” he proclaims. “Is there not so much positive and good and right so that we have to be more just?”

As Jesus taught, this sort of evasive, convoluted verbiage — ideological blather that will not countenance a “yes” or “no” — “comes from evil.” And schism is its evil end. To read the rest of this devastating editorial, click here…

Comments invited… 

And to subscribe to Christian Order (recommended) click here