From Trump Tower To Papal Glower…

Vatican City: Pope Francis urged US President Donald Trump to be a peacemaker and gave him a copy of his encyclical on climate change at their first meeting on Wednesday, after the two men exchanged sharp words last year.   Click here to read rest of this report

 

 

Comment:

Pity Donald Trump didn’t hand the Pope back his “climate” encyclical and tell him what, precisely, to do with it.  But not until he’d expressed a very clear view about the cold climate in the Vatican; reading that report of the visit of Donald Trump to the Vatican,  doesn’t it seem that the Pope has insulted Trump?  Grins for Obama and  glowers for Trump?  Tells its own story.  Like, says it all when a Protestant president is more pro-life and more polite than a pope.  Does it not?  Not to mention the cheek of it, to put peacemaking onto the shoulders of the new President of the USA when he, Pope Francis, holds the key to world peace if only he would obey Our Lady of Fatima and consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart.  Some nerve, then…

Medjugorje True AND False! It’s A Joke!

“The Ruini Report”: If Only It Were a Joke
The Anti-Fatima Apparition Gains Ground

by Christopher A. Ferrara
May 18, 2017

The findings of the long-awaited “Ruini Report” of the Ruini Commission (named after its chairman, Cardinal Camillo Ruini), concerning the validity of the so-called Marian apparitions at Medjugorje that have supposedly been going on since 1981, have now been revealed. The result of the Commission’s labors, which began during the reign of Benedict XVI, is just what one would expect in the post-conciliar epoch: a refusal to state clearly that a proposition concerning the Faith is simply true or false, right or wrong.

This ridiculous report “splits the difference” between a declaration that the apparitions alleged by the six Medjugorje “seers” are not supernatural in origin and thus a fake, and a declaration — like those pertaining to Fatima — that the apparitions are of supernatural origin and thus worthy of belief. In other words: the apparitions are both true and false, depending on which ones you examine! If only it were a joke.

Catholic News Agency provides an overview of this preposterous approach: the first seven “apparitions,” allegedly occurring between June 24 and July 3, 1981, drew “13 votes in favor of recognizing the supernatural nature of the first visions. A member voted against and an expert expressed a suspensive vote….”

What about the thousands of apparitions thereafter, which allegedly continue to this day at pre-announced times even though the “visionaries” said they would end, and which are filled with repetition, banalities and statements by “the Virgin” positively contrary to the Faith?  For example, in one apparition “the Virgin” states: “Before God all the faiths are identical.  God governs them like a king in his kingdom.”

Here the Commission adopted an utterly absurd two-step analysis that allowed it to avoid declaring the whole Medjugorje event a fake:

“On this second stage, the committee voted in two steps. Firstly, taking into account the spiritual fruits of Medjugorje but leaving aside the behaviors of the seers. On this point, 3 members and 3 experts say there are positive outcomes, 4 members and 3 experts say they are mixed, with a majority of positive effects, and the remaining 3 experts claim there are mixed positive and negative effects.

“If, in addition to the spiritual fruits, the behaviors of the seers is also taken into account, eight members and four experts believe that an opinion cannot be expressed, while two other members have voted against the supernatural nature of the phenomenon.”

So, when the analysis considers the behavior of the “visionaries,” the credibility of their supposed visions diminishes and no consensus even on “good fruits” emerges, although only two commission members are willing to state outright the obvious conclusion that the apparitions are not supernatural and thus are fakes. Yet these same “visionaries” are deemed credible respecting the first seven apparitions by 13 members of this laughable commission of hair-splitters.

In essence, the Commission (except for two members) has decided that the “visionaries” were telling the truth regarding the first seven “apparitions” but that, since then, they have been conducting the longest running fraud in the history of Marian apparitions, concerning which the Commission labors to avoid expressing the truth openly. And these six fraudsters are supposedly the chosen messengers of the Mother of God.

If only it were a joke. Well, it is a joke, but the Vatican is evidently going to take this report seriously despite the objections expressed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which will be ignored just as surely as they were respecting Amoris Laetitia. As Pope Bergoglio remarked concerning the Commission’s “split-decision” during the return flight to Rome after his visit to Fatima: “At the end of 2013 or the beginning of 2014, I received the results from Cardinal Ruini.  The commission was made up of good theologians, bishops and cardinals.  Good, good, good people.  The Ruini report is very, very good.”

What is “very, very good” according to Pope Bergoglio is the Commission’s bogus distinction between “the first apparitions, “when [the ‘seers’] were young” and “the alleged current apparitions” in which the Virgin is depicted as “a telegraph operator who sends out a message every day at a certain time… this is not the mother of Jesus.” Indeed, it is not. Nor could it have been in 1981, for the Mother of God does not appear to people whom She would certainly foresee would perpetrate a decades-long fraud on the Church and the world in Her name.

Curiously, the same Pope Bergoglio who belittles what he views as the hairsplitting of theologians on matters as fundamental as the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, suddenly finds merit in the hairsplitting of this absurd theological commission respecting the manifest fakery of the Medjugorje apparitions. But then Pope Bergoglio has never failed to be consistent in his inconsistency.

And so, the anti-Fatima apparition gains ground, while the Message of Fatima is reduced by the Pope himself to a prescription for social justice and peace among people of all religions or no religion at all. What an insult to the Virgin Mother of God, Whose warning to the Church and all of humanity at Fatima continues to be spurned by the blind guides of the upper hierarchy, who march triumphantly toward the edge of the abyss into which they would lead the rest of us.   Source – fatima.org

Comments invited…

Fatima, the Left, and the Coming Terror

Latest Fatima Center E-Newsletter

“Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie.”
– Maximilien Robespierre, 1794


The Rage of the Left and the Coming Terror

In 1989, France marked the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution. It was a strained celebration, for even its most ardent apologists were compelled to admit the bloody and sordid nature of much that the Revolution encompassed. The guillotine remains its most enduring symbol.

The revolutionary leaders called for freedom, equality and brotherhood, and then proceeded to kill anyone deemed to stand in the way of these noble ideals, eventually murdering one another in the paroxysm of a brutal power struggle. (See:  “The 14 Bloodiest, Most Brutally Horrific Moments of the French Revolution”.)

In 1989, Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev went to Paris to participate in the bicentennial celebration and said, “The spirit of the French Revolution has always been present in the social life of our country.” As columnist Charles Krauthammer then observed: “Few attempts at ingratiation have been more true or more damning.” 

The bloodbath and horrors of communism have much in common with the bloodbath and horrors of what is now called “The Terror.” The Bolsheviks and the French Revolutionaries both relied on political assassination, domestic spying, denunciations and imprisonments, show trials and the criminalization of all dissent. Both terrorized the populace while committing their crimes in the name of “the People.” Tyrants always claim a democratic mandate.

 

The French Revolution’s Committee for Public Safety condemned to death almost 17,000 people in one year. (See:  “Reign of Terror”.)  This is a negligible body count when laid against the tens of millions that have been sacrificed on the altar of communism. We prefer to think that men such as Robespierre and Stalin are creatures of bygone eras and that conditions no longer allow for such horrors to be perpetrated. Perhaps, we should think again.

The Pope and the Antifa

Pope Francis has been called the new leader of the global Left. He has not demurred from the acclimation. He has been flatteringly featured in publications that can hardly be considered supportive of Catholic teaching, such as Rolling Stone. He has been praised by leaders of the pro-abortion movement, such as Hillary Clinton. Those who favor unrestricted Muslim immigration in the West and open borders feel they have a friend in Francis, and they are seldom disappointed.

But those who favor traditional Church teaching, including the indissolubility of marriage and the norms for receiving the sacraments, have felt the sting of the Pope’s rebuke and been subjected to personal insult. He does not answer dubia — questions concerning his positions; he denigrates the questioners. The ad hominem attack is his default mode. (See:  “Now Francis Targets ‘Rigid’ Youth: But what does “rigid” mean? And why does Francis never tell us?”.)

 Pope Francis acts more like a politician courting a constituency than the Vicar of Christ propagating a timeless teaching (See:  “An Interview with George Neumayr, Author of The Political Pope). His tactics are those of a candidate trying to undermine his opponent by character assassination. Missing from the voluminous homilies, speeches, interviews and press conferences of this pontiff is reasoned argument for his positions. (See:  “The Laity Roar While the Cardinals Meow: The Catastrophe that is Amoris Laetitia.) He relies on caricature, invective and vague “gospel” imperatives, which have an elasticity that can be adapted to most any circumstance.

Francis denounces “populism” as dangerous and fascistic whenever he disagrees with the “people.” Otherwise, he defends popular fashions in morals and ideology, often opposing the “living” reality of the times to the outmoded intransigence of traditional doctrine. He is with you so long as you are with him. We have never had a Pope who is so divorced from the normal exercise of his office and so eager for the approbation of the ruling classes, that is, the globalist Left. (See:  “For 2017 More of the Same: Leftist Politics Wrapped in the Language of Catholic Piety”.)

Meanwhile, the Left with which the Pope has aligned himself has suffered some setbacks, and it is not taking them well. Donald Trump has won the presidency of the United States; a “conservative” has been appointed to the Supreme Court. The unholy alliance of the “deep state” with its political masters is being exposed. The intelligence community is now known to be corrupt and untrustworthy. Democrats still control the media, but are hemorrhaging popular support. They appear more and more like generals without an army.

In Europe, the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. French nationalism is rising. Poland and Hungary are resisting Muslim immigration. And the narrative of current events is no longer tightly controlled by the propaganda arm of globalism — that is, the major news outlets — but is coming into public view, in factual and unedited form, from a growing number of information sites via the Web.

The Left has not, until recently, been called upon to defend itself. The ruling elites were protected from hard questioning by a supportive media that vilified anyone who subjected their positions to scrutiny. The media, like the Pope, resorts to the ad hominem attack as a matter of course. But their credibility is greatly diminished and the media’s fairness and accuracy are now being subjected to a scrutiny they have never before had to face. The control of the Left, which appeared so formidable for so long, is now unravelling.

The late John Vennari once memorably said that logic and liberalism cannot co-exist in the same head. Traced to its principle, a liberal position tends to fall apart from lack of coherence, internal contradiction or a collision with obvious facts. That Islam is a “Religion of Peace” is an example of a patently absurd liberal position; yet, every globalist, from George Bush to Angela Merkel to Pope Francis, has repeated this absurdity with the apparent expectation that it will be believed — or that people will fear to contradict the claim because the media will discredit and destroy anyone who dissents. (See:  “America Magazine Frets over Catholics’ Lack of Love for Islam”.) Facts, for the Left, are irrelevant. It is the narrative that is important, and the narrative can be shaped to suit the needs of the moment.

The Left is demonic in that its position is that of Lucifer: it wants to usurp the prerogatives of the Creator and refashion the world according to its likes and dislikes. It reverses Our Lord’s prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane and says, “Not Thy will, but mine be done.”  And it uses whatever tool is at hand to smash the natural order that stands in its way. Muslim immigration is just a tool for smashing what remains of European Christian culture. Transgenderism is a tool for smashing what remains of traditional sexual morality. Entitlement programs are a tool for smashing what remains of personal self-reliance. And all of this destruction is done in the name of compassion, of mercy. To oppose globalism is to be mean, bigoted, un-Christian. (See:  “Pope Francis Suggests Donald Trump Is ‘Not Christian’”.) It is to build walls instead of bridges. It is to invite finger wagging and invective from the Pope.

And while the Pope is vilifying the Left’s opponents daily at the Casa Santa Marta, mobs of masked “protesters” are appearing in cities across America and Europe. They are called the Antifa – for anti-fascists. It is a bit of Orwellian Newspeak from the Left’s Ministry of Truth. The Antifa disguise their faces, shout obscenities, beat people up, hurl trash cans through windows, set cars on fire, block traffic and shout down anyone who would say anything with which they disagree. They oppose free speech, freedom of assembly for any group they dislike, and are prepared to use violence if they don’t get what they want. The Antifa are, in short, fascists. (See:  “What is ‘Antifa’? And why is the media so reluctant to expose it?”.)

In Berkeley, they enjoy the protection of the University administration, the mayor and the police. (See:  “WOW! BERKELEY MAYOR Who Allegedly Told Police To ‘Stand Down’ Is Part Of Antifa Terrorist Facebook Group”.) We are asked to believe that the police force is no match for this rabble and therefore cannot guarantee the physical safety of conservative speakers, such as Ann Coulter. How stupid does the Left think the public is? There is collusion on a growing scale between the Left, the street mobs they incite and direct and the parts of the government they still control. That the Left is turning to orchestrated violence is a sign of things to come. If they cannot succeed through electoral politics, they will try to assert their will through social disruption, through fear, and then blame the chaos and bloodshed on the victims, the so-called fascists who had to be opposed for the sake of freedom and justice.

Just how far will the Left go to regain the power they have temporarily lost? This remains to be seen. One thing is apparent, however: civil discourse is no longer on the table. This is a struggle for raw power in which every outrage against decency is being justified in the name of “saving our democracy.” Network television programs now feature obscene rants against Trump and Republicans as a matter of course. The foulest language and fiercest hatred is countenanced as “entertainment.” It appears probable that the situation will only grow worse, for recent history shows that once the bar of decency has been lowered, it is never raised again. We can only descend at this point to ever more repulsive and brutish behavior on the part of the media in support of the Left.

 

The Long View and What We Can Expect

There is a professor in Berkeley named George Lakoff. He specializes in something called “cognitive linguistics.” Lakoff has long aspired to a role in politics, having offered his services to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He is now counseling the Left on how it should regroup in light of the Trump victory. What he urges is what he calls “framing” the debate through the use of metaphors — that is, inventing appealing names for repellent things. (See:  “Moral Politics (book)”.)

His premise is that of the elite class: most people are too stupid to know what is in their best interest. The direction of their lives is best left in the hands of their intellectual and moral superiors, i.e. Lakoff and the Left. Hobbled by a nominal democracy, however, the smart people are compelled to manipulate the obtuse proletariat. Lakoff says this can best be done by using words that bypass reason and reach the unconscious, for reason is wasted on the masses. (See:  “The Framing Wars”.)

Conservatives supposedly believe in what Lakoff calls the “Strict Father” model of the family, which he describes as authoritarian and cruel; it is opposed to the goodness and light of what he calls the “nurturant parent” model, favored by the benevolent Left. Lakoff wants the Left to use language to move people from the authoritarian model of the family to the nurturant parent model. But Lakoff’s strategy requires patience. It is also seen by some on the Left as academic theorizing that may or may not hold good in the real world. Meanwhile, the Left is opting for the fascism of the Antifa. It is trying to shut down the opposition through suppressing free speech.  But Lakoff’s approach may also be tried.

Lakoff wants Democrats to stop using terms such as “federal regulations” and to talk instead about “protections.” He suggests the word “taxes” be replaced by the word “investments.” The media is always amenable to offering what help it can to “progressives,” for whom Lakoff is a self-appointed strategist, so we are likely to hear more linguistic legerdemain in the near future. The Associated Press Style Book has long used its power to push the Left’s agenda. The AP forbids the use of “pro-life” and “pro-abortion,” allowing only the term “pro-choice.” Most every newspaper and news outlet uses the AP as its usage guide. The media are likely to become the linguistic arm of the Antifa.

We should be alert to the fact that the Left is regrouping and a new language is being invented for presenting its agenda. Meanwhile, we can expect the street violence and the media assault against Trump to continue unabated. The public may tire of the turmoil and decide that Trump is too divisive a figure, a claim which the media will amplify in every way as the next election cycle approaches. If and when the Left manages to defeat its opposition, it will exercise power with an unprecedented ruthlessness. It has already discarded civil discourse and adopted the position that anyone who opposes them does not deserve a hearing, as their opponents are presumed to be motivated by racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, religious bigotry and consummate evil and stupidity of every description.

Their opponents are deemed hateful, and why should hateful people be given any quarter? Why should such deplorables be allowed to speak, or even exist? The brigades of the Antifa will be let loose, aided by all the apparatus of the government and media. The spirit of Robespierre, the patron saint of the Left, will be triumphant. How bloody will it get? It is beyond present imagination, for we find it difficult to accept possibilities that are deeply repugnant to us. But we have history as a guide.

All of the above takes into account only the human factors that shape events. There is the overarching power of Providence that can intervene at any time in unforeseen ways. We have a Pope who has sided with the Left and is trying to convince, even compel, Catholics to support the globalist agenda. The doctrinal patrimony of the Catholic Church is endangered by Francis’ alliances. No human power can effectively oppose his politicization of the Faith. Where do we turn?

Our Lady of Fatima said, “Only I can help you.” Perhaps the time is coming when the whole world will realize the truth of Her words.

Comments invited…

Pope: God Not Able To Do Everything…

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not ‘a magician with a magic wand’  

Click on image to read that evolution is a fairy tale for adults…

The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared.

Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI.

Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they “require it”.

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said. “The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.

 “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

The Catholic Church has long had a reputation for being anti-science – most famously when Galileo faced the inquisition and was forced to retract his “heretic” theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

But Pope Francis’s comments were more in keeping with the progressive work of Pope Pius XII, who opened the door to the idea of evolution and actively welcomed the Big Bang theory. In 1996, John Paul II went further and suggested evolution was “more than a hypothesis” and “effectively proven fact”.

Yet more recently, Benedict XVI and his close advisors have apparently endorsed the idea that intelligent design underpins evolution – the idea that natural selection on its own is insufficient to explain the complexity of the world. In 2005, his close associate Cardinal Schoenborn wrote an article saying “evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process – is not”.

Giovanni Bignami, a professor and president of Italy’s National Institute for Astrophysics, told the Italian news agency Adnkronos: “The pope’s statement is significant. We are the direct descendents from the Big Bang that created the universe. Evolution came from creation.”

Giulio Giorello, professor of the philosophy of science at Milan’s University degli Studi, told reporters that he believed Francis was “trying to reduce the emotion of dispute or presumed disputes” with science.

Despite the huge gulf in theological stance between his tenure and that of his predecessor, Francis praised Benedict XVI as he unveiled a bronze bust of him at the academy’s headquarters in the Vatican Gardens.

“No one could ever say of him that study and science made him and his love for God and his neighbour wither,” Francis said, according to a translation by the Catholic News Service.

“On the contrary, knowledge, wisdom and prayer enlarged his heart and his spirit. Let us thank God for the gift that he gave the church and the world with the existence and the pontificate of Pope Benedict.”  Source – Independent    

Comment:

You know, despite everything, I’m still inclined to allow Pope Francis the benefit of any doubt – maybe what he actually said was lost in translation, and he really didn’t mean to say that that “God [the Creator]…was not able to do everything…”  Maybe he meant to highlight the Catholic position on evolution – which you can check out here – and just got tongue-tied… Or maybe he’s changed his mind since he first said that way back in 2014?

Yet, I can’t help wondering if the blogger over at the Independent site was onto something when he opined that Francis is “a closet atheist.”  Surely not?  

Pope Francis Positive Towards SSPX

In an interview with Regina Einig for the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost (March 17, 2017), Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, reviewed the progress made by the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) toward reaching a reconciliation with Rome since Pope Benedict XVI issued the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum in July 2007, almost ten years ago.

Archbishop Pozzo said that the Holy Father intends to maintain a “positive constructive attitude” in the dialogue with the SSPX.  If the Society agrees to a “Doctrinal Declaration” formulated by the Holy See, it may very soon receive from Rome a canonical mission within the structure of a personal prelature. This would enable the Society to keep its “spiritual, theological, liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral identity”.

Archbishop Pozzo admitted that he first heard from the media the rumor that the Society of Saint Pius X planned to purchase the Church of Santa Maria Immaculata on the Esquiline Hill. With gentle irony he noted that it is not his job to negotiate the sale of real estate.

With regard to the ambiguous formulations of the conciliar documents concerning ecumenism, dialogue with non-Christian religions, Church-State relations pertaining to religious liberty, etc., Bishop Bernard Fellay stated in an interview in 2016 that the SSPX reserves the right to denounce what it views as ambiguities and errors, but that it is up to the authorities in Rome to clarify and dispel the misunderstandings on these critical points.

The remainder of the interview with Archbishop Pozzo is given below in English translation:

…I think that even after the reconciliation these misgivings and difficulties that the Society points to should be kept in mind, so as to arrive at a clarification, a more in-depth and subsequently more precise understanding of these points. Moreover the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has intervened repeatedly over the last forty years to elucidate and rectify certain false interpretations or misunderstandings of the conciliar teachings. I do not see why this work of clarification and answering doubts and misgivings cannot continue, if they are presented in an ecclesial and not a polemical spirit.

To what extent do you observe agreement already?

There is complete agreement with the Society of Saint Pius X on one absolutely fundamental point: The Magisterium of the Church is not above the word of God, in Scripture or Tradition, but rather serves it by teaching nothing but what is handed down (cf. Dei Verbum, 10). The Magisterium, for its part, to which Christ entrusted the preservation, defense and interpretation of the deposit of faith, has the task of explaining and elucidating the earlier documents of the Magisterium too—including the documents of the Second Vatican Council—authentically in light of the unbroken Tradition, which certainly advances in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, yet never with any novelty that contradicts what went before, but rather with a better understanding of the deposit of faith “within the same dogma, the same meaning, and the same judgment” (cf. Vatican I, Dei Filius, 4 and Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 8). This principle must be applied also to the documents of Vatican II, which should be read and understood in the light of Tradition and in agreement with the constant Magisterium of the Church, as Archbishop Lefebvre himself acknowledge in 1981 in a letter to Pope John Paul II.

So that means…?

That means, if an interpretation or an understanding or an implementation of Vatican II is suggested that represents a discontinuity or a break with the Catholic doctrine previously defined or taught by the Magisterium, the interpretation must be rejected as false or inappropriate. The problem is therefore not the Second Vatican Council as such, but rather a certain way of understanding, applying and implementing the Council: the so-called “spirit of the Council”. Pope Benedict XVI spoke about a “true Council” and a “virtual Council”, whereby the latter is the product of the power of the mass media, of modernistic currents in theology, in other words of the “conciliar ideology” that was superimposed on the authentic “mens” [mind, understanding] of the Council Fathers.

In the current issue of the magazine Courrier de Rome published by the Society of Saint Pius X, the authors designate the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI as “Holy Mass.” Can this terminology be taken to mean that the validity of the new Missal has meanwhile been accepted within the Society?  *

As far as I know, the Society never called into question the validity of the rite of Holy Mass according to the liturgical books promulgated by Paul VI and John Paul II. As early as 1988, in the protocol prepared by then-Cardinal Ratzinger with the consent of Archbishop Lefebvre, the validity of Holy Mass celebrated according to the Novus Ordo was acknowledged. Because of other matters, then, there was no constructive sequel to the protocol. The Society’s misgivings with regard to the Novus Ordo seem to me to refer to some aspects of the Novus Ordo (for example the Offertory prayers, Communion in the hand, etc.) and also to the manner of celebrating the Eucharist which de facto can be observed in various localities and is often characterized by dogmatic errors and liturgical abuse. But this too can be discussed profitably and clarified. As long as the attitude is constructive, and not polemical or marred by prejudices, discussion about the aforementioned topics can contribute to greater clarity and more detailed definitions, so as to promote the correct, integral doctrine and to avoid the errors, misunderstandings and deficiencies or partisan, superficial interpretations that have been and unfortunately still are characteristic of a particular propagation of the Second Vatican Council and also of the praxis resulting from it in terms of discontinuity and a break with Catholic Tradition.

* [Editor’s Note: The interviewer is mistaken. The use of the expression “Holy Mass” in Italian is the conventional manner of speaking about Mass generally – the text is a translation of Critina Siccardi and therefore cannot neither be attributed to the SSPX. The use of this expression in the SSPX publication Courrier de Rome and other Italian publications to refer to the Missal promulgated by Paul VI should in no way be interpreted as approval for this deficient form of the liturgy. A further discussion of the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo Missae is contained below.]

Source – 1 April, 2017

Comments invited…

Real Presence: What Does Pope Francis Believe About The Blessed Sacrament?

(Milan) In the context of his visit to Milan today and the meeting with the clergy of the Archdiocese in the Cathedral of Milan, Pope Franziskus spent some time before the Blessed Sacrament. “He does not kneel, but sits down on a beautiful chair surrounded by other prelates who stand …”

Thus,  Antonio Socci criticized the scene, which provoked criticism from different sides. The traditional page Messa in latino added some comments. Its author criticized Francis’ attitude before the Blessed Sacrament, as had not yet been voiced by him in the four years of this pontificate. “The Pope did not visit the Blessed Sacrament on the main altar (which would have been a good and proper opportunity to provide visibility to the worthy worship of God, the climax of the liturgy and the cult), but in the crypt, almost as if it were a private act that is made in secret and in a hurry.

Francis before the Most Blessed Sacrament: “Apathetic look, no disposition of prayer”

A prie dieu was not even provided. That is, the master of ceremonies of the cathedral had instructions not to set him one up at all. The pope does not want to use the prie dieu and apparently does not even have one on hand. Francis did not even remove the white pileolus on his head before the Blessed Sacrament. It was once named Soli Deo because it is only removed for God in the Sacrament. Expression and body language, the folded hands, indicate that the pope is not taking a prayerful disposition before the Lord in prayer and worship, but just as if he were in a program and had to make an intermediate stop in the crypt which had annoyed him. The look seems apathetic as if he did not see God in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Pope Francis does not seem to have the intention of wishing to foster acts of worshiping God, as they are only due to God. He does not kneel down, as is known (he suffers, it is said, but not officially). But he sits instead of not taking the pileolus off and not to fold his hands? No, I believe he does not believe in the real presence! On Holy Thursday we will see it. It is pointless: I am told that I must love and respect this pope. I just do not succeed in loving him. It is hard for me to respect him. He is Pope by right, but he does not sanctify and teach it in his office.  Visit Eponymous Flower to read entire article  

Comment

Apart from comments relating the  Eucharist to “community” (Pope Francis said: “The Eucharist is the sacrament of the communion that takes us out of our individualism so that together we live our discipleship, our faith in him.”) I’ve not been able to find any quotes to reassure me that Pope Francis holds to Catholic dogma on the Real Presence in its entirety.  His behaviour in the presence of Our Lord, including his focus on the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday each year since his election, with no mention that I can recall of the institution of the Mass and the Priesthood – traditional sermon topics for that day – have caused me to question whether or not he really does hold to belief in the Blessed Sacrament.  What about you?