Pope: I’m Not A Communist – Honest! 

Comment: 

The above video dates from 2015.  Questions were being raised even back then… and – in fact – from the day of Pope Francis’s election in 2013.  His “leftish” leaning was obvious from the get-go.  So, while he skirts, so to speak, the question about the papal red shoes, he cannot, quite so easily, conceal his modernism.  There are plenty of modernists reciting (without conscience) the Creed, some on a daily basis, so that particular reassurance is a bit like promising to take out a home insurance policy the day after you’ve been burgled. 

Anyway,  Pope Francis seems [albeit a tad weakly]  to deny the charge of “leftism”/Communism…

Are you convinced?    

Archbishop-Elect Dermot Farrell of Dublin – The New Judas On The Block… 

From The Catholic Thing – Some Troubles in Dublin by Fr Gerald E. Murray

               Archbishop-Elect of Dublin,               Dermot Farrell

The Archbishop-Elect of Dublin, Dermot Farrell, gave an interview to the Irish Times soon after his appointment had been announced by the Holy See. (Click here for a transcript of the interview.)

The new archbishop declares himself in favour of women deacons and married priests. He does not find in the Scriptures an argument against the ordination of women to the priesthood. He calls the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on homosexuality merely technical. He also says he has no problem with the private blessing of rings for divorced and remarrying couples and for homosexual couples (though he finds public blessings problematic because people often misconstrue them as actual marriages).

Amid so many other troubles, the Irish Church appears to be headed for more rocky days.

Farrell’s treatment of Church teaching and practice regarding homosexuality, for example, is dismissive: “It’s a technical description. People misconstrue that then because it is technical theological language.” He considers amending this technical language, because “I think Pope Francis has discussed that (removal). It came up at the last Synod.”

Really?  Farrell is referring to this teaching of the Catechism: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (CCC 2357)

In common parlance, calling language in a document “technical” can mean that it is unintelligible or is commonly misunderstood by the uninitiated, and is there to serve some arcane or legalistic purpose. Its removal is desirable but may be difficult to do if sticklers, purists, or legalists object. Better just to ignore it and treat it as a dead letter, as in “Technically speaking that is true, but. . .”

To describe the clear, unchanging, and unchangeable teaching of the Church on the inherent immorality of homosexual acts as technical language that could, and even should, be dispensed with is plainly a rejection of that teaching.

The rejection of homosexual activity, and the homosexual lifestyle, by faithful Catholics, however,  is not a misconstruing of “technical” language found in the Catechism. Those who want the Church to embrace and bless the homosexual lifestyle object to the language of the Catechism not because it is misconstrued by clueless people who think it means that no one should engage in homosexual acts because, being intrinsically disordered, they are immoral. Rather, they object because the language is easily and correctly understood to mean just that. The problem for them is not the allegedly confusing words used, but rather the clear meaning of those words.

Archbishop Farrell, in response to a question about blessing rings for divorced and remarried couples and for same-sex couples, says:

The difficulty with blessings is that they are very often misconstrued as marriage. Priests have given these blessings in the past. I remember one colleague of mine. I had said to him – he used to have this ceremony of the blessing of rings – I said to him I don’t have a difficulty with blessing rings if you’re doing that here in the house but if you go out into the public domain, in a church, and bless rings as you see it. . .they turned up with 200 people and they saw it as a marriage. Sometimes people use that phraseology. . .you’re into confusion there. It can be misconstrued as “yes, the priest married us.” Blessings are always going to be misconstrued and that’s where the difficulty arises because once you start blessing things like that people are going to construe that as a marriage. We can’t have that sort of situation in the Church because it creates all sorts of problems in terms of our own teaching and these teachings of the church have been constant.

Leaving aside the question of blessing the rings of divorced and remarried couples, what exactly are we to understand is the meaning of blessing the wedding rings of same-sex couples, whether in private or in public? Is it a misconstrual to consider that the priest who does such a blessing approves of the relationship that the homosexual couple has entered into (which is a counterfeit, pseudo-marriage), and asks God’s favor and approval upon that relationship as symbolized by the rings?

The Modern Catholic Dictionary defines a blessing thus: “In liturgical language a blessing is a ritual ceremony by which an authorized cleric in major orders sanctifies persons or things to divine service, or invokes divine favor on what he blesses.” The dictionary’s entry on rings states: “Conferring the ring is an integral part of the marriage ceremony to signify the mutual love of husband and wife, and wearing the ring symbolizes their pledge of marital fidelity.”

The main problem with blessing wedding rings of a same-sex couple is not that people will become confused and think that the priest was actually  marrying them. No, the main problem is that a priest who does such an unholy act is giving the impression that God will favour what He has condemned. Same-sex “marriages” are not marriages in any way, shape, or form. It’s a gravely sinful relationship in which two men or two women pledge to sodomize each other. No blessing should ever be invoked by a priest upon this unnatural relationship nor upon the pirated symbols of the holy estate of marriage.

Archbishop Farrell says: “I don’t have a difficulty with blessing rings.” If that’s true, what he does have is a more fundamental difficulty: God has warned shepherds who mislead their flocks into paths of sin and error that they will be held accountable. Let us pray that the new Archbishop of Dublin will forswear his comments and reaffirm the Church’s actual teaching and practice.  Click here to read at source

Comment:

There’s really nothing left for me to say – except pray for poor Ireland.  As if it’s not due a break.  From my trip to Dublin at the time of the abortion referendum I have one memory which will be forever fixed in my mind and it is this:  handing out our leaflets and engaging with the few members of the public who didn’t tell us to blankety blank off, I met one woman who expressed herself heart-broken about the state of the Church in Ireland, that it had come to this – a referendum on murdering the unborn. She told me that she had daughters who were going to vote in favour of legalising abortion, and her tears fell. My heart went out to her. Catholics have been very badly served by the clergy in Ireland.  And after the abortion and then the same-sex “marriage” votes, the Pope is still not satisfied; the people of Ireland need yet another bad bishop – and one who is not afraid to publicly display his fake Catholicism.

As I intimated at the beginning of this short comment – there’s really nothing left for me to say.  Over to you… 

Archbishop Viganò: Is Pope Francis Preparing Us To Accept The Antichrist?

December 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò (left), in a new interview with LifeSite, comments on LifeSite’s report that since the first coronavirus lockdown in March, Pope Francis is not anymore using the papal altar in St. Peter’s Basilica for his public Masses, an altar which is situated on top of St. Peter’s tomb. Instead, the Pope is using another altar at the basilica. For Viganò, this papal act is symbolic in light of the fact that Pope Francis himself ordered during the closing Mass of the October 2019 Amazon Synod that a bowl of plants dedicated to the false goddess Pachamama be placed on that very papal altar at St. Peter’s. Not long after that act, the Pope also decided that he would no longer use the title “Vicar of Christ” in the 2020 Vatican Yearbook.

The Italian prelate here finds strong words about the recent developments at St. Peter’s and the Vatican.

“In my opinion,” Viganò writes, “what we are witnessing represents the general rehearsal for the establishment of the kingdom of the Antichrist, which will be preceded by the preaching of the False Prophet, the Precursor of the one who will carry out the final persecution against the Church before Our Lord’s definitive and crushing victory.”

The Italian prelate compares the placing of a Pachamama bowl on the altar with the enthronement of the “Goddess Reason” at Notre Dame de Paris Cathedral during the Terror of the French Revolution in 1793. However, he explains, this time, the profanation of an altar came from within, committed by the highest levels of the hierarchy. “The Bergoglian church is giving itself an increasingly more disconcerting image, in which the negation of Catholic truths is accompanied by the explicit affirmation of an intrinsically anti-Catholic and antichristic ideology, in which the idolatrous cult of pagan divinities – that is, of demons – is no longer hidden, who are propitiated with sacrilegious acts and profanations of holy things.”

Pagan Ceremony in Vatican at opening of the Amazon Synod

He goes on to say that this “presence of an idol of ‘mother earth’ is a direct offense against God and the Most Holy Virgin” and “a tangible sign that explains in a certain sense Bergoglio’s many irreverent utterances with regard to the Blessed Mother.”

Here, the Italian archbishop sees a link to the warnings of Our Lady of Salette from the 19th century. For him it is not surprising “that those who want to demolish the Church of Christ and the Roman Papacy do so from the highest Throne, according to the prophecy of Our Lady at La Salette: ‘Rome will lose the Faith and will become the seat of the Antichrist.’”

Hideous nativity scene in Vatican, 2020

Commenting on the fact that Pope Francis removed from his entry in the 2020 Vatican Yearbook the title “Vicar of Christ” – he merely placed it at the end of his entry, under “historic titles” – Viganò states that “whoever refuses to be called Vicar of Christ apparently has the perception that this title does not suit him, or even looks with contempt at the possibility of being the Vicar of the One whom by his words and actions Bergoglio shows that he does not wish to recognize and adore as God.”

All these papal acts taken together are seen by Archbishop Viganò as a development toward apostasy and sacrilege, that is, demon worship. And for him, this development has its beginning at the Second Vatican Council. “I believe,” he explains, “that the premises that have been laid down up to this point – which in good part go back to Vatican II, but also to later events such as the Interreligious Prayer Meeting in Assisi – will inexorably lead in an ever more explicit way towards a ‘profession of apostasy’ by the leaders of the Bergoglian church.”

But Archbishop Viganò also gives us encouragement and strength. He recalls that “the Church does not belong to the Pope, and even less does she belong to a clique of heretics and fornicators that has succeeded in coming to power by deception and fraud.” He continues, by saying:

Therefore, we ought to unite our supernatural faith in the constant action of God in the midst of His people with a work of resistance, as counseled by the Fathers of the Church: Catholics have the duty of opposing the infidelity of their Shepherds, because the obedience that they owe them is aimed at the glory of God and the salvation of souls. We therefore denounce everything that represents a betrayal of the mission of the Shepherds, imploring the Lord to shorten these times of trial. And if one day we are told by Bergoglio that, in order to remain in communion with him, we must perform an act that offends God, we will have further confirmation that he is an impostor, and that as such he has no authority.                         

It is the archbishop’s hope that this crisis in the Church will open the eyes of many a lukewarm Catholic. He hopes that it will “permit us to see that where Christ the King does not reign, the tyranny of Satan is inevitably established; where Grace does not reign, sin and vice spread; where the Truth is not loved, people end up embracing error and heresy.” Perhaps, he hopes, this crisis will make many people who have difficulty adoring God realize “perhaps they can now understand that without God our life becomes hell.”

Archbishop Viganò concludes this interview with the hopeful words: “And let us pray that we will see the day on which a Pope will return to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice on the Altar of the Confession of Saint Peter, in the rite that Our Lord taught the Apostles and that they handed down intact through the centuries. This will also be a symbol of the restoration of the Papacy and of the Church of Christ.”  Source – Lifesitenews…

A bowl with symbols and flowers associated with the demon Pachamama was placed, at the explicit direction of Francis, on the altar of St. Peter’s Basilica, at the offertory during the closing (of the Amazon Synod) Mass. 

Comment:

Is Archbishop Vigano’s interpretation of Pope Francis’ actions correct – IS Francis preparing us to accept the Antichrist?    

Christmas Prayers Urgently Required For Conversion of Pope Francis – Please! 

Comment: 

Although billed as “Breaking News” , the above video was made almost a month ago (dated 28 November) and it was discussed briefly on one of the threads, but, as Christmas draws near, it’s worth reminding ourselves of the need to pray very hard for Papa Francis. 

Since words always fail me when confronted by the details of this Pope’s scandalous words and behaviour, I’ll simply reproduce three of the comments from the Lifesitenews YouTube platform – these good people say it all…

(1) Why does he not lash out [at] pro abortion promoters? Biden? Pelosi? Harris? Etc; (2) 
Maybe If we are not locked down we can get water to the children; (3)  A pope [who] embraces communism but sits on a throne of gold protected by guns, not wearing a mask. Lol

Add your own thoughts, but, above all, respond to John Henry Weston’s plea to pray for the conversion of this anti-Catholic pontiff. For some of us, this is an intention in our daily rosary, so if you are not in the habit of praying for the conversion of Pope Francis, please start now – it really is urgent, not least because of his age:  he could be called to his judgment at any time.  Our Lady & St Joseph, pray for him! 

Warning: SSPX Shock Approval For Covid-19 Vaccine – Catholics Beware…


A few weeks ago the SSPX USA District published an article on its website headed: “Is it morally permissible to use the Covid-19 vaccine?”  It was a rather short piece advising on the moral implications for Catholics weighing new and existing vaccines produced from the stem cell lines of aborted babies.

Short as it was, however, the article was read by many Traditional Catholics, myself included, as a scandalous capitulation to Modernist moral theological thought. I wrote immediately to the District Superior of the U.S., as did others, raising objection to the piece which was subsequently removed and replaced with a message that said something to the effect that the Society’s moral theologians and medical experts were now reviewing the content under the supervision of SSPX superiors and would re-publish in due course.

Well, the SSPX reposted their review on December 4 and it said exactly the same as the first time around, except this time with lots of added superfluous passages to make it appear more deeply researched and authoritative.

Here are the three principal erroneous teachings expounded in both the original and revised articles:

1: “The doctor who vaccinates a patient, or the patient who is vaccinated, has only distant cooperation, for these acts only encourage and promote the sin of abortion in a very remote and very slight way. For sufficient health reasons, such acts could therefore be morally permitted.”

2: “A young woman who is to get married can thus receive the rubella vaccine, although such a vaccine is almost always prepared on fetal cells obtained by abortion. The reason is the danger for the child: if a woman contracts rubella during pregnancy, especially during the first trimester, the risk of birth defects – eye, hearing or heart – are significant. These malformations are permanent.”

3:As cooperation is only distant, and the reason given is serious enough, it is possible in these cases to use such a vaccine. Moreover, it remains for each individual to judge, with the help of appropriate advice, this real need. ..It must be clearly stated that we are here in the domain of a prudent judgment, which cannot be uniform for all and in all cases. Moral theology says what is lawful or unlawful. It gives the principles. But it is for personal prudence to judge their application on a case-by-case basis.”

Concerning this third erroneous proposition, it seems to me that there’s a bit of sophistry being employed here similar to that used by the Francis revolutionaries who also use the ‘principle Vs. prudence’ argument in order to justify the admittance of divorced and remarried Catholics, cohabiting couples, etc., to Holy Communion. At any rate, I ran these past a trustworthy Traditional Catholic priest of more than 35 years and he in turn responded with the following three reasons showing why this SSPX advice is both ethically and morally wrong:

Vaccines Derived from Aborted Fetal Cells (Fetal DNA) are Immoral and Must be Rejected

(1) Reason 1: It is sinful to do evil to accomplish good (Rom. 3:8). Thus, it is sinful to make use of a good effect/benefit that has been derived or procured from an evil means. Using a covid-19 vaccine derived from, or tainted with, or tested with, aborted fetal tissue (fetal DNA) would constitute using an evil means, i.e., tissue (DNA) from an aborted fetus, in order to accomplish a good end, i.e., a medical cure. Therefore, the use of vaccines derived from, or tainted with, aborted fetal tissue is immoral and forbidden.

The “double effect” cannot be invoked: According to the moral principle of “double effect,” it is morally permitted, in cases of necessity, to employ an action which simultaneously produces two effects, one good and one evil, provided that: (1) only the good effect is willed, and (2) the good effect is not derived from the evil effect (for it is sinful to obtain a good end by the use of evil means). The principle of the “double effect” cannot be invoked in the use of vaccines derived from, or tainted with, or tested with, aborted fetal tissue (fetal DNA). The reason is because the good effect, i.e., medical cure, is obtained by means of the evil effect, i.e., the sin of abortion, from which the fetal tissue (DNA) was procured and used in the development and/or testing of the vaccine. Thus, the use of such vaccines is morally illicit.

[An example of a permissible action with a “double effect” would be a doctor’s prescription of a strong pain medication to relieve severe pain in a cancer patient, even though the use of such medication may also have the side effect to slowly shorten the patient’s life. In this case, the good effect, i.e., the present relief from severe pain, is the direct result of the pain medication, and is not derived from the evil effect, i.e., the shortening of life. Rather both good effect and bad effect are a simultaneous result of the use of the strong pain medication.] 

(2) Reason 2:  Just as it is forbidden to knowingly receive and use stolen money, especially if the victim was murdered in order to steal his money (for it is unlawful to benefit from a crime), so also it is forbidden to use a vaccine which is developed with the use of fetal tissue (fetal DNA) that has been stolen from an aborted (murdered) fetus—which is already a human person. Just as the stolen money always remains the property of the victim of theft or robbery, so also the vital organ (e.g., kidney, liver, etc.) and the tissue/DNA taken from it, always remain the property of the fetus—and connected to the physical integrity of his/her body. Therefore, it is immoral and illicit to use vaccines that have been developed or tested with the use of aborted fetal DNA.

(3) Reason 3: “Organ donation”: The use of covid-19 vaccines derived from aborted fetal tissue cannot be likened to the use of a donated vital organ, e.g., kidney or liver, for in the case of organ donation, the organ donor gives consent to donating his organ, i.e., he freely donates his organ. However, if an organ “donor” is murdered in order to obtain his vital organ, the use of such an organ, or tissue (DNA) from this organ, is immoral and forbidden. Consequently, since this is the method used in obtaining fetal tissue from an aborted fetus, it follows that using a vaccine derived from aborted fetal DNA is immoral and not permitted.”

Now some may argue that this response is merely the opinion of one priest setting himself against eminent moral theologians of the SSPX. My answer to that is to quote the following statements of far more eminent Church prelates whose words ring true in every properly formed Catholic conscience.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider

From a Lifesitenews article, for example, which includes an interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, we have this:   

Maybe I’m wrong, but I have the suspicion that partly this COVID situation was created not only to implement a new dictatorship and control of the population, but in some way to legalize abortion globally – the killing of unborn babies – so that the entire planet will be collaborating in the process of killing babies through the vaccine which will use parts of aborted babies. The vaccine will be imposed and obligatory – so that you cannot work, travel, go to school without it, obliging the entire population to receive the vaccine, but the only vaccine will be that made with cells from aborted babies. Perhaps they will not accept other vaccines, and they will lie, saying that these are not effective, that the only effective vaccine will be from aborted babies. I am not affirming now that this will happen, but it is my suspicion: it appears to me realistic that this could come. This is for me the last step of Satanism: that Satan and the world government – ultimately the Masonic world government – will oblige all, even the Church, to accept abortion in this way. And therefore we must resist very strongly against this, if it comes. We must even accept to be martyrs…Unfortunately, some Bishops, even good Bishops and priests, are already presenting what for me is a sophism in justifying that you can accept this vaccine from aborted babies according to moral principles.”

From the same article Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas concurs thus:

Bishop Joseph Strickland

  “…if a vaccine for this virus is only attainable if we use body parts of aborted children then I will refuse the vaccine…I will not kill children to live.” The bishop publicly re-issued this rejection of such vaccines: “I renew my call that we reject any vaccine that is developed using aborted children. Even if it originated decades ago it still means a child’s life was ended before it was born & then their body was used as spare parts.”  Source

Also, in an open letter published in May, several Catholic Cardinals and bishops led by former papal nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Cardinals Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Joseph Zen, and Janis Pujats said that “for Catholics it is morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses.”

Additionally, at the May 2020 Rome Life Forum Cardinal Raymond Burke said: “It must be clear that it is never morally justified to develop a vaccine through the use of the cell lines of aborted fetuses.” He added that forced vaccines violate the
“integrity of citizens.”

Cardinal Raymond Burke

These authoritative declarations conclusively show the moral theologians of the SSPX to have deviated from Traditional Catholic teaching in so grave a matter, a fact confirmed by the references they cite from more recent Vatican advice that just happens to be shared by most of the destructive Modernist hierarchy right up to Francis himself.   

And this is not an isolated incident. Recall, for example, the invitation extended to Fr. Sean Kilcawley to share the lecture podium with Bishop Fellay during the October, 2019 Angelus Conference. this Novus Ordo priest, said to be an expert on John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”, is touted as a pornography addiction counsellor. Here is one example of Fr. Kilcawley’s counselling, a highly controversial video statement that went viral:

“… simply invite Our Lord into our temptation and into our thoughts in the present moment. To say, “Jesus, I want to look at pornography right now.” Or, “Jesus, I’m having an impure thought right now. You’re welcome into my imagination. You’re welcome to watch these thoughts with me.”   [Ed: click here to read our discussion in response to that scandal].

Nor is it just in the sphere of morals that we have reason to question the direction of the SSPX right now, for there is also a definite lean towards embracing modern pseudo-scientific thought.

Most informed Traditional Catholics, for example, are fully aware that the Covid-19 plague narrative is a geopolitical ruse concocted by a world Socialist elite as a means of supplanting global democracy with Communist totalitarianism. Proper official science has long proven this Coronavirus to be harmless for 99.97% of the global population, a fact easily discerned from a mere cursory glance at national and global death figures, yet the SSPX raises the controversial question of vaccines for the virus as though the plague narrative were credible and the vaccine question of some urgency.

Covid-19 patient, 120 years, mother of 12, wheeled out of hospital after two weeks “with clean bill of health” to applause from NHS staff .

A similar example of drift towards pseudo-science was Fr. Paul Robinson’s book “The Realist Guide to Religion and Science“, a work that has nothing whatever to do with the supernatural mission of the SSPX but which nevertheless negatively impacts on the Traditional Catholic understanding of Genesis by attempting to reconcile the Scriptural account of Creation with the utterly ridiculous “Big Bang” theory.

This is all very concerning, indicative of a serious problem within the higher clerical structure of the Society of St. Pius X. Whether the issue is one of infiltration or weakening of faith, I cannot say. What I can say to all those who, like me, are decades attached to the SSPX, to the saintly memory of Archbishop Lefebvre and to the many good priests who still make up the majority in the Society, is that we must watch like hawks going forward!

Not only must we reject deviations such as the advice on vaccines, the Fr. Kilcawley experiment and the Fr. Robinson science fiction, we must also henceforth check everything the SSPX superiors propose touching on faith and morals against the Traditional teaching of the Church and we must be vigilant in particular with regard to what is being taught to children in SSPX schools.

While it grieves me very greatly to have to say this publicly, I’m afraid there is no other option given the gravity of the situation and a demonstrable track record of SSPX superiors treating the concerns of subordinates with a contemptuous silence and a “business as usual” attitude which is utterly destructive of trust.

We all know the subtlety of Modernism, how it creeps in by degrees and ends in the destruction of everything we hold dear. If Vatican II and its aftermath have taught us anything it is that silence in the face of error is fatal to faith and must therefore be stopped immediately at source. That’s our task now, to react instantly like an immune system whenever the least sign of Modernist poison is detected within the SSPX. So let us be vigilant and let us not fail to raise our voices dutifully in respectful correction whenever error is taught, regardless of the dignity of the one who teaches it. Let us also pray fervently for all our priests.   (Published with kind permission of the author, Martin Blackshaw aka Catholic Truth blogger Athanasius).

Comments invited…  

New Cardinals: Formal Action Against Francis To Protect the Faith – URGENT!

Comment:

Thanks to Lifesitenews for its detailed coverage of this scandal. It’s now long past time for an end to the superficial charity which too many laity, priests and bishops are extending to this appalling pontiff.  It’s long past time for our bishops to speak up, albeit belatedly, to fulfil their role as true shepherds to warn the faithful of the danger to Faith and Morals which this Pope represents. If they continue to fail to do so, then I say the same about them as I said years ago about  Archbishop-then-Cardinal Keith Patrick O’Brien:  to remain silent in the face of such scandal means – has to mean – that they are  compromised in their own personal (probably unrepented sexually active) lives.  That is the only explanation for such spiritual blindness. 

Those with authority in the Church – the hierarchy – MUST speak up, both to warn the faithful and to correct this scandalous pope, who is taking himself to Hell, and countless souls with him.  If our bishops continue in their complicit silence, then, at the risk of repeating myself,  they face a terrible, terrible judgment when they meet God at the moment of death.  

As well as praying very hard – especially and always for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary – we need to do whatever we can, personally to alert our own bishop to the need to act.  Search online for your own diocesan bishop’s contact details and write/email him to express your shock as well as your expectation that he will do something.  If nothing else, you can give him the link to this thread, pointing out that you are not alone in your concern; we have readers and commentators here from across Scotland and the wider UK  but also from various other parts of the world.

Nobody, no lay person, priest or bishop, is exempt from our Confirmation duty to defend the Faith under attack, whether from “foreign or domestic terrorists” – that is, whether from outside the Church or inside – and especially when the attacker, the evil-doer, is the Pope himself.  

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…