In an interview with Edward Pentin of National Catholic Register published over one week ago, Cardinal Burke was asked, Are you here making a final plea to Francis?
Cardinal Burke replied:
Yes, for these grave reasons, one year after rendering public the dubia, I again turn to the Holy Father and to the whole Church, emphasizing how urgent it is that, in exercising the ministry he has received from the Lord, the Pope should confirm his brothers in the faith with a clear expression of the teaching regarding both Christian morality and the meaning of the Church’s sacramental practice. [Emphasis added]
In this, Cardinal Burke is citing the words of Our Lord:
And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (Luke 22:31-32)
Note very well that Jesus has revealed to us that He intercedes for the pope in a unique way; i.e., He dispenses graces upon the occupant of the Throne of St. Peter that are specific to his ministry and mission, in a way that goes beyond His solicitousness for the rest of the Successors to the Apostles.
As I have written a number of times in this space, there are many reasons to believe that the resignation of Benedict XVI may be invalid – from statements he has made indicating that he was forced to so act (e.g., the absurd claim that no black cassocks were available in Rome upon his departure, and plainly revealing that he is “cloistered” and not free leave his domicile without Francis’ permission), to the defect of intent relative to “expanding” the Petrine ministry as suggested in his resignation statement and commented upon by well-regarded canonists.
Needless to say, if indeed the resignation was invalid, that would make conclave 2013 likewise invalid given that the See of Rome was not truly vacant at the time of its convention.
Sure, some will argue that the result of a conclave assembled under such conditions can still be valid, and with infallible certainty, provided only that a moral unanimity of the Church is deceived into accepting the man elected as pope.
Those who argue as much are unable, however, to produce even one applicable citation from a respected theologian in support of such a notion.
At best, they will cite commentary concerning defects in validly convened conclaves, but none concerning a conclave assembled under false pretenses.
All of this said, I’m well aware of the fact that many readers disagree on questions concerning the validity of Benedict’s resignation, but no honest observer can deny that questions exist, and furthermore, that many of them are being asked by men of high repute and are entirely legitimate.
I have also argued in this space, extensively, that Francis – if indeed validly elected – has done more than enough to reveal himself as a formal, pertinacious heretic and thus not a member, much less the head, of the Body of Christ on earth.
I realize that many readers disagree.
Returning now to Cardinal Burke’s response…
He is assuming, of course, that Francis is, in fact, the pope – both validly elected and still in retention of the Office of Peter.
As such, he is also assuming that Jorge Bergoglio is the specific subject of Our Lord’s prayer as quoted in the Gospel according to St. Luke and cited above.
But what if he isn’t? What if he never was? What would that mean?
It would mean that Jorge Bergoglio is not the beneficiary of Our Lord’s prayer that he, in a most specific and profound way, should be protected from Satan who desires to sift him as wheat that his faith may fail.
In other words, it would mean that he is no different in this regard than that idiot cardinal from New Zealand who injected his “creative initiative” into the Novus Ordo, or Cardinal “I wouldn’t deny Communion to anyone” Cupich, or Bishop “Maybe Hell is empty” Barron.
Based on Bergoglio’s behavior, that would make a whole lot more sense than any assumption to the contrary, would it not?
Seriously, from the very first moment that he was introduced to the world as Francis to this very day, what has he ever said or done to even hint that he enjoys the unique graces that accompany the occupant of the Office of Peter?
In all sincerity, I cannot think of one, single, solitary thing along those lines, but I can rattle off dozens of things that tell me otherwise.
Perhaps this is why Francis is so entirely unique in the history of the papacy.
In any case, here we are ten days removed from Cardinal Burke’s “final plea” to Francis, and ten days away from the beginning of Advent – ushering in the “days of great grace” during which, as the dubia cardinal suggested last year, would preclude issuing the “formal act of correction.”
If “great grace” is what Cardinal Burke really wants for the Church, he can do no better than to take that next step sometime in the next week.
I’m already on record as saying that I believe that he will, though to what end is anyone’s guess and likely not what most of us hope it will be.
Whether I am right about that, we’ll find out soon enough.
Kewpie-doll,noun. (also Kewpie) a US make of child’s doll with a fat, happy face, big eyes and a curl of hair on the top of its head. That’s the impression one gets from image of the Pope shown on the left hand side of the picture at the top of the article. In this case, the Kewpie-doll is not a prize but a punishment. Of course, it’s often said there’s a fine line between tragedy and comedy.
May one of the first acts of a faithful, holy future (next?) pontiff, after declaring Jorge Bergoglio a manifest heretic, be to remove this visage.
This is kind of complicated, but it’s an honest question: if Benedict XVI dies while Francis is still alive, but Francis is not really the pope, that means the seat will be vacant. But 99.99999% of Catholics believe Francis was validly elected, and therefore they wouldn’t know the seat is vacant. Then, when Francis dies, a conclave will be held to elect a new pope. But what if a large proportion, or even majority, of voting cardinals were appointed by Francis (and therefore are not really cardinals) — would the election be valid?
And what if a cardinal appointed by Francis, and therefore not really a cardinal, was elected pope — and therefore not really pope? It seems like the whole line of succession could become really confused, especially if 99.99999% of Catholics continue to believe that Francis was validly elected, even if he really wasn’t.
And it seems to me it will take the authority of some future pope to investigate and determine whether Francis was a real pope. But under the scenarios described above, when would there ever be another validly elected pope?
To add another layer to the confusion: what if Francis dies before Benedict, and a new conclave is held while Benedict is still alive — and they elect a young cardinal (real or not) who reigns for decades, but he wasn’t validly elected?
The confusion could reign for a long time before all is made clear. And in the meantime, there would be reason to doubt all the consecrations, all the sacraments, all the policies and statements and teachings, all the actions, by church authorities.
Mr. Verrecchio is very perceptive and, I believe, correct in his analysis. He has already commented to some extent on the Cardinal’s Keynote Address at the “Fatima 100 Years Later: A Marian Call for the Whole Church” Conference held at The Buckfast Abbey Conference Centre, Buckfast, Devon, England on 12 October 2017, but without having the whole text at the time. I must admit that this talk is the perhaps the strongest indictment against Francis that has ever publicly come from any Prelate or even Cleric to this date (except Fr. Kramer). It is lengthy as well as scholarly and hence can be a hard read. But it is well worth reading, for the way he sets out the characteristics of an apostate describes Francis perfectly.
The text of his talk had been available on LifeSiteNews.com as an inset within an article reporting the talk; however, it seems to have disappeared from that article. This I believe was done in order to prevent the contents from being further reported or exposed precisely because it was VERY evidently aimed at Francis. This address was given about a month after the Cardinal had visited the head of St. Thomas More as St. Dunstan’s in Canterbury, England.
There is no doubt that Cardinal Burke MUST be careful if he wishes to avoid the recent lot of two other “Dubia” Cardinals. The Devil is in control within the Vatican as Mr. Verecchio has intimated recently and as Our Lord says “the devil is a murderer….” We must pray for Cardinal Burke that he has the courage to do what must be done and the wisdom to know when, where and how to act.
Video of the talk can be found at: https://www.facebook.com/ewtnonline/videos/10155177081892582/. However, if any one wishes a copy of the authentic text, just email Fr. Belland at frdbelland@netscape.net.
If Fr Ratzinger dies before Jorge dies (or resigns) you’re going to have a slew of new sedecacantists.
My apologies for the mistake of when the Cardinal visited the head of St. Thomas More; it was just days AFTER his talk–not about month before.
Your points are well taken, Caritas, for the resulting confusion would almost be unsolvable. This is why I have have sent my thesis showing HOW Benedict is truly the Pope to Cardinal Burke and others who would be willing to take a public stand for Benedict. We need leaders to get something, but it is dangerous for those in authority in the Church. Thus I believe it is the task of the Faithful to MANIFEST what their sensus Fidei TELLS them–namely, that Francis is not the Pope but even worse he is leading souls to hell.
In my effort to spread my thesis, I don’t know how many times I’ve heard people say “That’s my gut feeling”, “I think you’re right”, or something to that effect. However, there seems to be something happening the likes of which Cardinal Cerejeira told the participants at the opening of a tour of the Pilgrim Virgin Statue of Our Lady of Fatima across Italy in 1959: “It is an apocalyptic hour for the world. These are frightening winds from hell which are blowing, and the elect themselves are allowing themselves to be carried away.” I think those “frightening winds” are the diabolical influence of Satan clouding minds to the reality of the situation in the Church.
Let me state right off that my thesis is based on fact, i.e., Benedict’s Renunciation–Official Latin text, the words of Our Lady at Fatima and Akita, the reports of Fr. Amorth, among much other empirical evidence. Hence, those who try to say that Francis has been voted in by popular opinion and Benedict voted out of Office by that opinion in favor of Francis cannot stand. It is a FACT that Benedict is Pope; a fact that must be recognized.
But only if enough of the Faithful say “We’ve had enough of Francis” and support Benedict, I believe we can bring the Prelates and Clergy to support him as well. Even with a Church very small Our Lady’s request for the Consecration of Russia can be done. Consider the words that Paul VI, a little before his death, confided to Jean Guitton, quoted by Antonio Socci in his interview with MASSIMO CACCIARI, I think are very apropos:
“There is a great disturbance at this moment in the world and in the Church, and that which is in question is the Faith. Understand in the present time that the obscure phrase of Jesus in the Gospel of St. Luke recurs to me: ‘When the Son of Man will return, will he find any faith left on earth?’ Realize that they publish books in which the faith is slipping away on important points, that the Episcopates [Bishops’ Conferences?] are silent, that these books are not considered to be strange. I sometimes reread the Gospel about the end times and conclude that at this moment some signs of this end are emerging. Are we near the end? This we may never know. It is necessary always to keep ourselves ready, but everything can last yet a very long time. That which strikes me, when I consider the Catholic world, is that at the interior of Catholicism there sometimes seems to predominate a thinking of a non Catholic type, and it can happen that this non Catholic thinking at the interior of Catholicism becomes daily very severe. But it will not ever represent the thinking of the Church. It is necessary that a little flock survives, however small it may be.”
There is little time left for Benedict is 91 and not getting younger!
I do not know or really care what anyone thinks about what I have to say , but I have to say it anyway. It is our story and it is the truth.
In 1978 I walked out of Eater Mass at our local RC Church because the pastor came in pranced around with his new portable mic glad handing and making jokes about some sports events. After the homily the pew people applauded, again about some sport event. It was Easter Sunday !
We go to Church to give honor and Glory to God, not some priest talking about sports. He died about thirty years later doing Community service down south after slipping his longtime Assistant Pastor 5 grand from the collection plate to leave the country because he was about to be arrested for molesting adolescent girls over the years in the confessional. The sports pastor covered it up as parents came in periodically over more than a decade complaining until they read one set of parents FINALLY went to the police. What followed was an active homosexual pastor who collected antiques and had bars put on the rectory after he solicited a straight guy for sodomy and he left and later broke in to beat the hell out of the gay priests.
We then joined a Catholic Eastern Rite parish . Our priest was a good man albeit, a recovering alcoholic. ( no wonder after dealing with a majority of Diocesans who were hx) So who could blame him? He left and after that we were treated to three perverts one right after the other. One has been defrocked , the second one was found dead on the floor of AIDS when the police arrived to arrest him leaving five deceased boys who committed suicide in his wake after he anally raped them.The third denied the Real Presence in a homily and came dressed as a woman to parish social dinners.
PLEASE do not tell me to go to SSPX . For months we traveled over an hour away in heavy traffic only to find out the priest we had there ( now gone out on his own with a few others ) was absolutely NO better .
Then there was Diocesan TLM Masses in two nearby Diocese.
In one , the dear old priest was given the boot and the bishop stopped the TLM . In another, again we were treated to a “Disordered” local Diocesan priest whose friend priests are all in a lavender clique together.
Ahh yes, we even traveled an hour away to another Catholic Byzantine parish ……..Hoping.
We took the priest out to dinner and during the conversation , despite having a grave marker for the aborted unborn with an eternal flame ( good sign) outside his church , after few glasses of wine during dinner we were treated to conversation about how he loved the eye makeup of the sixties with all mascara eyeliner and false eyelashes ! My Catholic convert husband appeared to be slowly sliding under the table just to get away. I called the one decent male pastor we knew who exited back to the Orthodox after decades in the Catholic Eastern Rite putting up with these fellow pervs and he warned us not to allow our children to go to Confession with the makeup freak because as the former pastor, parents called him from this parish to complain about the filth the new guy said to their children in the Confessional.
P.S. that so called priest was pulled out of his car stark naked by state police in the rain in PA one night after truckers reported him soliciting males on his CB for sex.
Am I concerned if Borgoglio is a real Pope? Not really , because an Argentine I trust told me when he was elected that he destroyed everything Catholic in his country !
We have already experienced what has been destroyed in our country with the last three or four Popes , and all the active homosexual priests ( and Bishops) so what’s one more?
Just a final nail in the coffin?
I figure God never made it my responsibility to try to discern all the legalities of RC Church Law, that is why we have Canon Lawyers and Theologians .
I just know when a Mass is no longer praising the Our Creator and His Only begotten Son, Our Savior ! I was taught never never to handle the Consecrated Host and have been glowered at by priests and whatever they are laity ,when not holding out my hand.
What He wants from me as a poor Catholic parent is to follow His Commandments ,
know and follow what Jesus and His Apostles taught us , give Him Honor and Glory on Sundays and the Holy Days , frequent the Sacraments,( VERY DIFFICULT NOW) Read His Word and Pray the Rosary…..and above all pass it on to our children.
( VERY DIFFICULT NOW ) Scripture tells us to follow what we have been taught by Tradition.
Sadly, despite all out travels and even relocations and despite what one convert with a blog preaches in her utter ignorance , WE HAVE NO CATHOLIC MASS TO ATTEND THAT DOES NOT OFFEND both our Catholic sensibilities and our sane God ordained moral judgement, after fifty years of marriage !
Now is the time for either decent fully male clerics, like the Sicilian priest who has spoken out against Amoris Letitia, to all stand up and make themselves known to the Faithful despite formal double or triple excommunication by their Ordinary fruitcake , OR resign themselves as obedient to all the fruitcakes
( while rationalizing stupidly to themselves that they are not part of the problem causing more confusion for the Faithful to follow the other fruitcakes into the flaming ovens of hell.)
……..I never liked fruitcake , even at Christmas! They nauseate me more than ever after having been force fed for so long.
Sweepoutthefilth–What you describe has been experienced by countless Catholics in varying degrees including myself. I have come to the conclusion that refraining from attending “mass” at diocesan “churches” does not mean one does not love the Catholic Faith. It is, if fact, a sure sign that staying away proves great love for the True Catholic Faith. I will stay away until they “sweepoutthefilth” (as you say). Until then I will stay close to Our Lady until She tells me what to do. While I once believed that the SSPX was the answer to this crisis, I have been greatly disillusioned and disappointed for some obvious reasons and also for various personal reasons. Even if we feel abandoned at times, Our Lord and Our Lady will show us the way. This is our belief and our faith.
So if you believe that Jorge is presently not the pope, then what will your official stance be when Benedict dies first? Will you at that point become a sede or will you believe that Jorge suddenly became the pope upon Benedict’s death?
Wow, that wore me out!
Waaaaaay too many of us have our horror stories, and St. John Eudes says we’ve angered a Mighty God when he has sent us these wolves!
Don’t listen to Barnhardt; she’s dead wrong about the New Order. No Catholic dares to step foot in that abomination. There are real and good ways to keep the Commandment when no Mass is available, and attending a circus isn’t one of them. We’re not the first Catholics to starve spiritually and we won’t be the last.
Keep the Faith. Keep It.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/crucified-cow-on-display-at-center-of-catholic-church-locals-outraged
sweepoutthefilth:
“PLEASE do not tell me to go to SSPX . For months we traveled over an hour away in heavy traffic only to find out the priest we had there ( now gone out on his own with a few others ) was absolutely NO better.”
What did you mean by this statement? That the SSPX priest was sexually abusing parishioners? That he was talking about “sports events” during Mass? Your clear implications are that an SSPX priest assigned to the chapel in which you assisted was either sexually abusing parishioners or promoting sports events during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And what did you mean by “going out on his own”? Are you saying that he started his own religion with some other priests?
As a member of an SSPX chapel and one who is supportive of this holy order, I am deeply troubled by this unsupported disparagement of the Society. Moreover, inasmuch as you have failed to identify either the priest or the chapel in which you assisted “for many months”, you leave every reader to speculate as to both the meaning and accuracy of your accusations.
Scurrilous attacks on the SSPX are readily found on the SSPX-Resistance pages, but that is expected. However, inasmuch as you leave the impression that you have a great many more issues with the Catholic Church, rather than simply with the SSPX, I’d suspect you are not in the Resistance camp. Nevertheless, when the sum and substance of your post is considered as a whole, it is very difficult not to read it as a very serious disparagement of the SSPX.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion in that regard, but when you tick of a virtual lifetime of disappointments at Catholic Churches that were fraught with sexually abusing priests, and then, almost gratuitously, give the back of your hand to the SSPX based on what appears to be a very limited experience with a single priest from the Society, common decency demands that you share enough specifics with respect to what you are alleging (the location and time period of the specific chapel you attended) so as to allow those of us who have respect and concern for the Society to research your accusations and come to our own conclusions.
Prisca above and 2 Cents below……….Thank you I just felt I had to explode here in print and Prisca you’re right on who put the final burr under my saddle.
2 Cents if I told you the priests, Bishops I have come up against face to face and even one Cardinal who admitted to me about Fr Ken Robert’s sodomite seducing habits, long before it was made known to the public. It sounds like a fiction .
More than one author has told me to write a book including my husband ! But to what end? Catharsis they say ,and some people tell me it would read like a thriller…But again ,to what end? Only those I know personally would believe it.there are too many voices already including phony religious like the Dimond brothers and Ryan Scott bilking desperate Catholics out of their money promising the tradition and truth they were once taught to believe in.
It’s amazing how effectively thorough the Marxist mason communist party has destroyed the true teachings of the Faith and destroyed the seminaries churning out a faith potpourri of all over the
chess board clerics , many of whom became Bishops Cardinals and yes even Popes.
One of the first things I will want clarified when I die from Fulton Sheen is why oh why did you not alert us to the names of the communist party homosexual wolves Bella planted in the seminaries and her Communist Party Cardinal bosses in the Vatican that she answered to way back in 1939?
Why? To avoid scandal?
The gripping heart wrenching scandals they committed on innocent children and Faithful Catholic families ,especially the mothers who suffer for the rest of their lives over whose company they innocently allowed their children to be in, through obedient blind trust in the priesthood. This has shredded the church apart and made our Holy Mother weep as She did at the foot of the Cross !
Shame shame, shame on that self serving lie of “avoiding scandal” because it is the very deceit of Satan that whispered throughout the Church not to see , hear and speak about the evil to warn the flock.
And now we see it in it’s full ugliness coming from the mouths of the Prelates who have refused to name mortal sins, under a guise of charity and mercy.
Mammon, they worship Mammon and it is destroying True Christian Love no matter how much they blather on about Mercy which they know nothing of. Cdl Burke included!
We have our Rosaries and Our Holy Mother and that is the true Mercy the Holy Trinity has allotted for our end times !
At what point do we stop going in circles? Most here agree on what the Faith consists of. Most here agree that VII was a big mistake. There is really no argument any longer. Are we all saying our rosaries?
Personally, I believe Benedict is Pope. Doesn’t stop me from saying prayers for the Pope, even if I’m wrong about who he is.
Fr. Kramer has recently released a paper that removes all doubt, in my opinion. I certainly hope that those that calumnized that priest will apologize.
Irishpol.
Since my lengthy first hand experiential reply may be deemed not to be posted by Louie just let me provide you with this warning for your discernment and yes he is now a Resistance priest.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-camp-counselor-arrested-for-raping-boys-in-post-falls-id/msg473502/#msg473502
https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/04/05/report-charges-cover-traditionalist-society/
I agree. Let’s stop spinning in circles and pray more rosaries.
Read the hundreds of comments to this story coming out of the Vatican City.
The visible institution is imploding thanks to the scandals they themselves have refused to monitor.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/catholic-officials-threaten-ex-seminarians-over-sex-claims-095954118.html
I just want add that neither is the mainstream SSPX filled with Truth either. On their “Angelus” some years ago they listed the personal relic collection Fr Angles ( now Fellay’s canonical advisor) left to St Mary’s college in Kansas. Included in the list was the skull of St Thomas More. ( you may recall recently Burke was interviewed at the chapel in the UK where the genuine artifact resides).
I sent the list SSPX posted to an Achamandrite friend who sent me the address of St More’s descendants and told me to notify them concerning the fraud as even though it is housed in a chapel ,it still belongs to his descendants.. I did, and the article was quickly removed from the Internet.
I am sure there must be a few good priests in SSPX However, the leadership in the SSPX was grossly lacking as is the education the priests receive in Winona.
How much has the collusion with Hitler and his nazi’ regime influenced the Society? Paul Touvier was supported on the run for forty years by a monthly stipend from the Knights de Chevalier de Notre Dame of which he was a member and ArchBishop Lefebvre was Grand Master.It was not “charity” extended to him by the SSPX in Nice , France . He was one of their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Touvier
Do you have a link to this article by Fr. Kramer?
There are of course *ahem* solutions, but none of them good.
– Benedict and Francis both die together or following each other in short order.
– Benedict is also judged and found to be a heretic for imagining he could alter the nature of the Papacy and thus based on this error ceased to be Pope regardless of a formal resignation.
Of course for the second point one would need to break into the Vatican and put a gun to his head and make him start talking. Or if certain conspiracy theories are correct then he’s a prisoner and will freely talk once freed from captivity.
But at the end of the day, until we put together an armed force and physically apprehend Benedict and Francis, nothing will get accomplished.
But my spider-sense is tingling and I feel we are seeing what the children of Fatima saw – a bishop dressed in white, who gave them the IMPRESSION of being the Holy Father.
In fact in what must’ve been an inspired moment, Francis himself during the Fatima anniversary explicitly referred to himself as being a Bishop in white!
Also, for the sake of argument, let’s just assume Francis’ papacy is valid… and let’s consider also for the sake of argument that Francis’ heresy is material and not formal… and-and… let’s consider for the sake of argument the sede belief that the Holy Spirit makes the Pope immune from all serious error whatsoever.
If we look back at Israelite times leading towards the first exile, that a number of Jews themselves believed that Judah would not fall. Because God’s Temple resided there and God promised that it would always be protected and therefore that Jeremiah and the prophets of doom were always wrong when they stated that the temple could be destroyed, which would renege God’s promises etc. etc. etc.
Well, we know how that turned out! But here’s the thing… conceptually, they were not incorrect to believe so as every strong indicator would tell them that the temple would continue to exist until the Messiah came. But what they failed to see was that God’s promise had to have been conditional, and that God Himself, in order to punish them in their pride and arrogance, had the power to limit and remove His protection for a period of time, then restore it at his pleasure later. This DOES NOT contradict God or His promises as we’ve seen historically, but in order to punish mankind, God does withhold His grace.
Should we not also consider that true for the Papacy? This can occur in two ways.
One – the sedevacantist theory – that true Popes haven’t been around for a while. And that this period is a kind of exile.
Or Two – that all the Popes up to our present confusion are valid popes, but that God has withheld His promised protection from them as a punishment on us. And this is so, just for the same reason that the Temple and Temple priests still held legitimate authority despite their immorality and heresy. And that just perhaps this punishment, like the destruction of Judah and the Temple, has been foretold prophetically, whether by the infamous St. Francis of Assissi one, or even within the 3rd Secret of Fatima. So parallel to that coming exile we see two camps. One blowing the obvious whistle that something has gone wrong with the Papacy in an unprecedented way, and the other side refusing to see it so and like the stubborn Israelites continue to chant “The Temple will stand” like “The Gates of Hell will not prevail” or “The Pope cannot ever be wrong” etc.
Let’s consider the fact that Sr. Lucia, who as a child saw Hell first-hand, and had no problem recollecting it to others and in writing… for some reason had immense difficulty and fear writing down the 3rd Secret.
Now let us ask ourselves, just what could be far more terrifying than seeing Hell itself?
The only thing I can conclude is this – that I and many others are much more likely to end up there now for some reason – or rather – that the instruments God gave us to escape Hell – the Mass and the Sacraments and the institution of the Church itself – are somehow going to be compromised or disappear or be extremely limited!
But I think the major clue we have comes from John XXIII who stated – “This does not concern my pontificate.” And also from Pius XII who said he was concerned about Sr. Lucia’s warnings about dangers that threatened the faith and the mass revolutions at foot that sought to change everything. And from other sources about “A Pope under the control of Satan.”
Why I believe the last part to be legitimate is that is precisely ties into what Christ said to St. Peter – that He was constantly praying that Satan would not get a hold of him. God was not just saying this as some throwaway poetical thing, but that the danger that threatened St. Peter was always there like a sword of Damocles, and this likewise hangs over his successors.
And we see this prophetically foreshadowed in instances where Pope Leo XIII – A Pope – sees a vision of God giving Satan a period of time to exercise unprecedented control. And Leo saw this “after celebrating Mass” then, “turned pale and collapsed as though dead.” A Pope falling down… as though dead… then he writes the prayer to St. Michael, whose full text indicates that the plan of the enemy involves that when the “Pastor has been struck” that “the sheep will be scattered.”
The ‘Pastor’ obviously must mean the Pope, and squares obviously with Pope Leo himself falling down as though dead, and that this Pastor is obviously a valid Pope that appears dead, and when this occurs the sheep will be scattered as we see today with liberals, heretics, conservatives, sedevacantists, resisters, etc. etc. that we are divided into several camps.
More importantly the whole portion of St. Leo states – “In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.”
So this indicates that this is a process in motion. The Pastor is still there and they are assembling this machination to replace him. The design is still in the preparation stages. This active/inactive nonsense of Benedict’s may factor into it. Benedict is either a participant of the plan, or this was the only warning he could deliver in hypothetical captivity.
The only way we can know is to have access to him in a public press conference or forum by people who will ask the right questions, but for some reason the one person who can supposedly clear up all these matters is inaccessible and they won’t do the most simple of things to get him to answer the issue of what Ganswein and Muller stated had “changed the nature of the Papacy” and not that vague nonsense about he didn’t actually ‘resign.’
I believe, and I state this here plainly – that the only possibility I see to get at the bottom of this ultimately requires military action. Rome will have to be invaded, either by armed faithful Catholics, or by taking advantage of a siege of sorts either conducted by Muslims or Russia. We need to get our hands on that Pope who flees Rome for some reason. Or Benedict and make him talk.
But I can tell you right now that no Catholic today has the balls to go through with option 1, and I count myself in that cowardice too, so we’re ultimately left waiting for either Islamic terrorism or the Russians to do it during a world war, or God Almighty Himself shaking the foundations and destroying St. Peter’s Basilica like He did the Temple of Solomon.
Perhaps the vision of the bishop in white will also come to fruition and God makes both Benedict and Francis deceased along with all the other heretical cardinals all within a span of each other, scattering the sheep until, just as post-exile Israel came together, He gathers us once again from all over the Earth to rebuild the Church.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I was thinking, if Benedict is still pope and Francis is not pope, and the scenario I described above (a new conclave at the death of Francis while Benedict is still alive, or a new conclave after they are both dead that elects a “cardinal” appointed by Francis but who is not really a cardinal) goes on for a long time, we could reach a point where none of the cardinals are real cardinals. And then, how can you have a conclave and elect a pope? I suppose this question applies also to the sede vacantists: if the seat has been vacant for decades, then how can we ever have another pope? How will he be elected?
Yes, I’m familiar with both the forum and the article, but it is also quite clear that I mischaracterized you as not being associated with the SSPX-Resistance movement. A quick perusal of some of your other posts suggest that the information provided by SSPX-Resistance movement quite obviously has much influence over your thought processes––especially with respect to the SSPX.
Nevertheless, the bots in the SSPX-Resistance typically launch half-truths and unsubstantiated slanderous hit and run attacks on the SSPX; but when pressed for details about what they are alleging, the usual response is non-sequiturs, more unsubstantiated attacks, or crickets. That appears to be what you have done in this brief exchange.
As I noted in my original response, I am a faithful member of an SSPX chapel and am openly supportive of the Society. For that reason I am both interested and concerned about the unsupported allegations you have made against a priest from the Society.
My very reasonable request of you was nothing other than the name of the chapel and time frame in which the impliedly alleged sexual misbehavior occurred. Common decency suggests that when one denigrates an individual and/or an organization, the accuser should have the courtesy of providing factual information to back it up.
Instead, you responded with a link from a scurrilous SSPX-Resistance forum, and a link from a secular media news site that is a virtual mouthpiece for the Modernist leaders in Rome––both of which links were nothing more than additional attacks on the Society. I would once again renew my request for the above-referenced information.
Ann Barnhart is very strong in her speech and writing, but she admits that she is still learning like the rest of us.
I have written her a couple of times to point out some things which are in error on her site, and she always replies directly with gratitude and humility.
The SSPX have valid masses and sacraments, no heretics in the pulpit, no scandals in the confessional, and no union with the apostate, formerly Catholic diocese. It’s 2017. The apostasy is only getting worse. I would be quiet and thank God that the Sacraments have not disappeared altogether if I were you.
Then kindly please do tell Barnhardt what a travesty her recent post advising us to go to the new order abomination is, that she is so wrong it hurts.
Her logic that since people were acting terribly at the Crucifixion somehow excuses Modernists, wolves, heretics’ antics, as well as Protestant theology in the very mass itself, is crap. There is no excuse for the abomination. It is our Catholic duty to avoid it. DUTY. DUTY. DUTY.
If she’s still learning (as we all should be), she’d do well to get it straight before advising countless Catholics that a bad new order is better than no mass at all. Sorry, but no “she’s a convert” pass on this one. Plenty of us converts understand the bastard mass.
“The Novus Ordo Missae is evil.”
-Fr. Jergen Wegner
It is the 4th article down on “Rad Trad Thomist” by Dr. Chojnowski. (Article from November 22, 2017)
I tried to post it 3 times here for you to click into, but it will no allow me to do so.
Does anyone EVER stop to think of HOW MUCH THEY REALLY DON’T KNOW?! Benedict has knowledge of the Third Secret which cannot be summarily dismissed; he has the 300 page report by the three Cardinals he appointed to investigate the Vatileaks affair; he has had 25+ years as the Prefect of the CDF as well as well as 8 years as an active Pope. Anyone who knows anything about being at the head of a business, a parish priest, the President of a country or King of a nation Governor of a state, knows that those at the TOP have much more information that those below. And if anyone reads the encyclicals of the Popes he well also know that many times the particular Papal author talks about the sight he has at the summit of the Church. And yet it seems that everyone wants spout as it they know it all. I think there is need for people to listen humbly rather that to think they can teach everyone. What the comments amount to many times is a cacophony of mother hens and sometimes like a Pentecostal prayer meeting. But when there is no leader to direct any discussion, then that is exactly what happens!!!!! And nothing is solved, on the other hand people come away even more confused!!!!!
Irish, you make a reasonable request. I believe it was
Sweepouthefilth that berated Abp Fulton Sheen for not naming names in order to avoid scandal, yet it seems in this case Sweepoutthefilth is guilty of refusing to name names. Sweep, you made an allegation about a SSPX priest. In order to protect other innocent youngsters from harm you have a duty to name names if the info is true. Otherwise you are just promoting gossip. If there is an SSPX priest out there that is a threat to innocent youth, you need to let us know.
Ps- I am not a supporter of the SSPX recognize and resist position at all. But they should not be accused of things they are not guilty of. There is enough internal contradiction in the SSPX position to negate their credibility without stooping to the scandalous behavior of a singular cleric.
Cardinal Burke says it is better to attend a bad Novus Ordo mass than a TLM celebrated by the SSPX. Where is the outrage from Bishop Fellay who stated that this remark was “stupid” but Burke is still a “friend to Tradition”. Weak—very, very weak!!! Is this how the Superior General defends the Society and SSPX priests???
Wrong Irishpol……..
We went to the SSPX chapel back in the nineties when there was NO Resistance Movement. Our disordered pastor was one the founders of that group. We only attended for three months . It was clearly evident there were big problems there theologically and morally.
Not to mention with the camps and the “Commando” groups for the boys. The praises of Hitler and the Nazis
was not what we wanted our children to listen to from the pulpit either.
We love the TLM as much as anyone posting here.
But we decided to forgo attendance at the Mass in lieu of all the other errors being preached. The priest made a pass at a friend’s son in law right in her home when he was invited for dinner. He squeezed the young man’s buttocks when he thought no one was looking.
Eighteen years later we were given more confirmation by a former Winona seminarian and two other twenty something young men who recognized our family and asked us to join them for coffee after Mass.
They all left that SSPX chapel for the same reason.
This was All BEFORE Hewko and his friends started their Resistance fraud !
The last NO we went to the priest made an “altar call” for all the recently Confirmed children. Embarrassed they walked up one by one. He giddily took several paper cups in hand and filled them with holy water while hopping and dancing around the pre teen group splashing them in the face. and on their clothing .Then he crumpled the cups and started heaving them into the pew people. everyone appeared to be confused wondering what the hell he was on ,including the kids . Then the audience was asked to applaud……I walked out.
The three young men which included a Deacon who had attended the seminary in Winona , also told us of other young men who refused to go into the priest’s confessional at the chapel we all attended.
I do Thank God sir , because He opened our eyes to what the Winona Seminary produced and Ordained as priests and all the confusion they incur too among the Faithful .
This was long before the Resistance movement .The children who died at their cams was quite enough.Two boys in the Missouri River ,four or five in the English Channel sent out in a plastic dinghy who could not swim ,had no boating experience and no life jackets. Fr Cottard got jail time for that but rest assured there were sspx parents of dead children in the courtroom there pleading for leniency for their “holy” priest ! I heard parents stating the one child who drowned was a member of the Society and thus a “martyr” while his friend that also drowned at the Camp and did not belong to the Society, was not.
The priests asked me to teach at a girls camp out of state. I saw what the staff eats and what garbage they fed the girls there. No you do not send young girls out in ninety plus degree weather with long sleeves for the sake of false modesty to run around and play games and then give them milk or water rather than some orange juice ( “because it is expensive”) to replace the electrolyte loss from profuse sweating and hyperthermia.
I guess I am a modernist too because I have a tad bit of common sense to go along with my medical degree. This is just some of the lunacy we all saw. I was especially impressed when an older couple came in for Mass off the street because they heard the choir. They could not even get through the door before some idiot women charitably ran up to the old lady to tell her she could not enter because she had pants on
( it was the dead of winter).
Look i am old enough to have been taught Gregorian chant and to have sung in the choir when I was young during High Mass, but I never saw or heard outright lunacy like I witnessed in the Society.
Maybe you all have changed ,I do not know . three months back in the nineties was quite enough for us!
As far as Barnhardt is concerned……just wait till you are old honey and traveling an hour to a TLM Mass ,SSPX or Diocesan, is no longer feasible for reasons of health. Wait till you are all in nursing homes or hospice care OR sck at home and try as one might the nursing team cannot get a priest to visit you ,SSPX or Nervous Ordo.
One elderly priest visited an 80 yr old friend of mine after she was in a car accident and hospitalized .The Diocese did not know he was doing this so he asked her never to call and mention his name……What he told her was ,”No dear you did not leave the Catholic Church,
the Catholic Church left you!” Her confession followed a 17 yr stint working in a rectory as the DRE ,the last five years for a “disordered”
pastor who let his hair down so to speak about his sexual proclivities in the rectory, while garnering the rep of a “real Trad” priest from the Faithful and all over the Internet !
People posting here..the time is later than you think.
Louie V: “Needless to say, IF INDEED the resignation was invalid, that would make conclave 2013 likewise invalid given that the See of Rome was not truly vacant at the time of its convention. Sure, some will argue that the result of a conclave assembled under SUCH CONDITIONS {i.e. an invalid resignation of BXVI) can still be valid, and with infallible certainty, provided only that a moral unanimity of the Church is deceived into accepting the man elected as pope. Those who argue as much are unable, however, to produce even one applicable citation from a respected theologian in support of such a notion. At best, they will cite commentary concerning defects in validly convened conclaves, but none concerning a conclave assembled under false pretenses.
.
JPeters: What the above quotation proves is that Louie does not understand the argument he is attempting to refute, and, conversely, does not understand the argument that refutes the notion that Benedict is still the pope, and PROVES that Francis is.
.
The theological argument proving that Francis is the pope is NOT that Francis became pope in spite of Benedict’s resignation being invalid. Put another way, the argument does not maintain that if Francis’ election was accepted by the Church, such acceptance would remove Benedict from the pontificate that he still retained due to an invalid resignation. That is a straw man argument, which is why no one has “produced even one applicable citation from a respected theologian in support of such a notion” to refute it.
.
The correct argument is this: Since Francis’ election was accepted by the entire Church from day one, it PROVES that Benedict’s resignation WAS valid. How so? Because the acceptance of a pope by the entire Church provides infallible certainty that 1) he is true pope, and 2) that all of the necessary conditions for him to have become pope were met. Since one of the conditions for Francis to have become pope is that the papal see was vacant at the time, his acceptance as pope by the Church proves that Benedict’s resignation was valid, since this condition was required for the see to be vacant. That’s the argument. The infallible certainty we have that a man who is accepted as pope by the Church is the true pope, provides equal infallible certainty that all of the necessary conditions were met. This is not difficult to understand.
.
Let’s use the following example to illustrate the point. Let’s say a woman baked a loaf of bread in the oven, but was not sure if she remembered to include the yeast. If she looks in the oven and sees that the bread has risen, she knows for sure that the yeast was included, since the bread would not have risen without it. Since putting yeast in the dough is a condition for bread to rise, if the bread rises, you know that the condition was met. In like manner, if a papal election is accepted by the entire Church, it not only proves that the man is pope, but it also proves that the necessary conditions were met. And the universal acceptance doesn’t take months, or even weeks. It happens at the moment that the entire Church accepts him as pope after learning of his election. In our day, this happens almost immediately.
.
Now for the “applicable citation[s] from a respected theologian[s] in support of such a notion.”
.
Cardinal Billot: “…one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an INFALLIBLE SIGN of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore ALSO OF THE EXISTENCE OF ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR LEGITIMACY ITSELF. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ … God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from THE MOMENT in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election OR A POSSIBLE LACK OF ANY CONDITION WHATSOEVER NECESSARY FOR LEGITIMACY. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”
.
Notice, from the MOMENT the pope is accepted by the Church, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts concerning defects in the election, nor is it permitted to raise doubts about “a possible lack of any CONDITION whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.”
.
Now, one of the conditions required for Francis to have become Pope is that the papal see was vacant, and the condition for the papal see to have become vacant is that Benedict’s resignation was valid. Therefore, since Francis election was accepted by the Church from day one, “it is no longer permitted to raise doubts” about the validity of Benedict’s resignation.
.
The legitimacy of a pope whose election is accepted by the Church is equivalent to a doctrinal definition from a council, and rejecting a pope whose election is accepted by the entire Church is equivalent to rejecting a doctrine defined by a council. After making this very point, John of St. Thomas went on to explain that the acceptance of a man as pope PROVES that all of the necessary conditions for him to have become pope were met:
.
John of St. Thomas: “Whoever is elected by the persons that the Church designates to choose a Pope in her name, BY THE VERY FACT THAT HE IS ACCEPTED BY THE CHURCH AS LEGITIMATELY ELECTED, IS IN FACT POPE. This latter is what the definition of Martin V, related above, as well as the acceptance of the Church, is really about. But from the de fide truth that this man is Pope, it follows as a consequence that all the requisite CONDITIONS must have been observe…. Because it is de fide that this man in particular, accepted by the Church as canonically elected, is the Pope, the theological conclusion is drawn that there were genuine electors, and a real intention of electing, as well as the other requisites, without which the de fide truth could not stand. Therefore, we have the certainty of faith, by a revelation implicitly contained in the Creed and in the promise made to Peter, and made more explicit in the definition of Martin V, and applied and declared in exercitio by the acceptance of the Church that this man in particular, canonically elected according to the acceptance of the Church, is Pope.”
.
The definition he referred to from Pope Martin V is from the Council of Constance. Bellarmine also discusses this definition. It requires those suspected of adhering to the errors and heresies of Wycliff to acknowledge that the pope who was accepted as pope by the Church at the time was the true pope. To clarify, the individuals suspected of heresy were not required to accept the papacy in general, or to accept that a pope who passed their personal test, but to accept the pope who was accepted as pope by the Church (whose name was to be given at the time), as the true pope. Needless to say the SV’s and those who claim Benedict is still the pope fail this test, along with the Wycliff heretics.
.
As we have seen, the argument is not whether Francis would have become pope by universal acceptance if Benedict’s resignation were invalid. Rather, the argument is that because Francis’ election was accepted by the entire Church from day one, it proves that Benedict’s resignation WAS valid, since a valid resignation was a condition required for Francis to have become pope. Just as you can be certain that yeast was included in the dough if bread rises, so too can you be certain that all the conditions were satisfied for a valid papal election if the newly elected pope is accepted as pope by the entire Church.
.
Tthis argument is not difficult to UNDERSTAND. It is only difficult to ACCEPT by those who have already made up their mind. Perhaps this last citation will help motivate those unbelievers to reconsider their false position and accept the teaching of the Church.
.
John of St. Thomas: “Whoever would deny that a particular man is Pope after he has been peacefully and canonically accepted, would not only be a schismatic, BUT ALSO A HERETIC; for, not only would he rend the unity of the Church… but he would also add to this a perverse doctrine, by denying that the man accepted by the Church is to be regarded as the Pope and the rule of faith. Pertinent here is the teaching of St. Jerome (Commentary on Titus, chapter 3) and of St. Thomas (IIa IIae Q. 39 A. 1 ad 3), that every schism concocts some heresy for itself, in order to justify its withdrawal from the Church. Thus, although schism is distinct from heresy, in … the case at hand, WHOEVER WOULD DENY THE PROPOSITION JUST STATED WOULD NOT BE A PURE SCHISMATIC, BUT ALSO A HERETIC, as Suarez also reckons.”
.
Dear Mr. Peters, what each of your citations regard is (1) the election of a Pope by a Conclave, or however it was done in the early days of the Church and (2) the Universal and Peaceful Acceptance of the one elected. THESE AUTHORITIES, IN THEIR STATEMENTS IN NO WAY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE POSSIBILITY OF A PREVIOUSLY ELECTED POPE BEING STILL ALIVE! But this is precisely what Mr. Verrecchio was referring to, and you not only avoid the assertion, but also accuse Mr. Verrecchio of not understanding the question!
If there is a question of a validly elected Pope still alive while another Conclave is held to “elect” another Pope, it is either a fact or it is not. and if it is a fact then there CANNOT be another “Pope” elected–PERIOD, WHICH IS THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. And no amount of popular support for the “newly elected” Pope can undo the still living Pope.
Now should there be a difference of opinion as to whether the still living truly elected Pope, the matter is something that MUST BE LOOKED INTO, and the Faithful should be given the results. On several occasions Pope Benedict quite vehemently stated that his resignation was valid; he calls himself Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI; he wears the white soutane; he lives in the Vatican. This cannot be denied–THESE ARE FACTS! So the question can legitimately be asked whether he really IS the true Pope. And if he is still Pope as he certainly claims to be, then all your verbiage is for naught.
Since there can be a question concerning the present situation in the Church regarding the Pope, it is necessary, in order to solve the problem, to look into the CAUSE of the problem. And neglecting to do so is to put one’s head in the sand! And the cause in this situation is precisely Benedict’s renunciation! But, unfortunately, there has been much confusion sewn by the inaccurate, if not deceitful, translations of the Latin text of Pope Benedict’s Renunciation Announcement. But neither confusion nor so called universal acceptance can do away with REALITY!
It can be proven that what Benedict did was to renounce the active ministry of governing and teaching, though not of the ministry sanctifying, and NOT the Petrine Office. I have sent you my thesis showing just this, but you haven’t even attempted to refute it. I say “I have sent you” because this is the same thing Mr. John Salza, Mr. Berry P. on the Remnant website and now Mr. JPeters say say. I cannot but ask the question if the last two names belong to Mr. John Salza and wonder why someone is hiding. Will the real author please stand up?
That’s precisely the problem. There is a lot we don’t know that occurred behind the scenes.
We need to put Benedict in the dock and questions must be put to him that he can’t wiggle out of.
Short of a team of Navy SEALS breaking in and busting him out with or against his will, I don’t see any progress being made.
my2cents.
It appears that you and sweepoutthefilth have figured it out. “Newer” Catholics (that is my term for those who “love” the Church but find all Catholic priestly organizations unacceptable for celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) need no longer attend Sunday Mass.
Any other rules other than praying the rosary and regularly criticizing traditional priestly organizations like the SSPX on websites like this one?
Interesting. Have you given any thought to what you might call your new religion?
Irishpol–I do not have it all figured out. I wish I did. I am as confused as countless other Catholics who are witnessing this horrible crisis in the Church we “love” (if I may use that word) . I truly believe that the SSPX validly provide the Sacraments which are being dismantled by the V2 N.O. Modernists. That is why I find it so disturbing that the SSPX leadership find it necessary to seek “regularization” from perverted, evil Rome and thank Francis for every crumb he throws their way. My religion is not new. It is the Holy, Roman Catholic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Invisible Head. The Visible Head, according to how the world sees him, at this time in history is Pope Francis, who is not in conformity with Christ. While not all who comment on this blog agree, I believe a number of us are kindred spirits who express their pain and frustration for what we have lost. It doesn’t mean we have figured anything out. It means much prayer is need to save our Church and our own souls. Our Lady warned that in the end we will only have Her Rosary and Her Scapular. Has that time arrived? Irishpol–If you have it figured out, please share your wisdom with those who are still struggling.
My2cents:
Thank you for a Kindly response to my obviously facetious comment. You have stated your concerns well. And while we, faithful (traditional) Catholics, are all trying to sort out the truth from the remnants of what now defines our Catholic faith, I honestly feel that we are also individually obligated to speak out when we believe our thoughts and advice may be of help to others. I candidly admit that at times I overreach in that regard.
You may have noticed, that I am a faithful member of an SSPX chapel. I have not always been so, of course, as like many others, I came from the Novus Ordo through the FSSP. Still, my allegiance is to the true Catholic Church, and like most traditional Catholic priests from all priestly orders, I long for the day when the true Church of Rome will be the only priestly organization recognized as “Catholic”. But we are not there at this time, and therein lies the conundrum for us all.
Admittedly, I am reflexively defensive of the SSPX. Indeed, I was no less defensive of the Catholic Church as a young man in the 1950’s. Nevertheless, I recognize that these are confusing times and there is no earthly guide to help us sort out the various issues we regularly see being presented. As a result, many of us have taken very different directions. Even more troubling is the fact that the “information” we are provided (e.g., on issues related to the SSPX negotiations with Rome) comes either from the Conciliar Church or the secular media––both, almost certainly, diabolically influenced if not controlled.
And while I have no theological training, in recent years I have devoted much time and effort into understanding the history of the Church and how she has has come to where she now stands. I have also spent my entire career grappling with complex issues in a variety of legal and political forums. Nevertheless, I still consider myself wholly unqualified to reach a conclusion on any of the issues related to the SSPX-Rome negotiations. Like everyone else I have my opinions; but at the end of the day they are just that, my opinions.
So in spite of the fact that many others have abandoned the SSPX because they disagreed with Bishop Fellay’s handling of the negotiations with Rome, I held fast (exactly as I did when Trump took some scary turns in the past election). When I joined the SSPX it was only after much prayer and thoughtful reflection. My wife and I ultimately concluded that, under the current state of the Catholic Church, the SSPX was the correct choice. And I say, the correct choice, because we have concluded there was no other option. Certainly the SSPX is not “the Church”, nor does the Society hold itself out as such. It is no more than a placeholder for when the true Church of Rome excises the Modernists and becomes unified once again.
So the answer to your final question (which I presume was rhetorical) is “no”; I do not have it figured out at all. Still, while I do agree that prayer is all important, especially saying the daily rosary, I believe that witnessing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as offered up by a traditional priest according to the 1962 Missal is more important by far. For that reason I would urge you to seek out some TLM on as regular basis as your schedule will allow.
Thank you again for your charitable response.
Irishpol-“It is no more than a placeholder for when the true Church of Rome excises the Modernists and becomes unified once again”. That is a great statement. Let us pray that the SSPX holds that place intact by not become unified with Modernist Rome. I believe we are on the same page. Your response proves that there are many kindred spirits who visit this blog regardless of whether they agree 100% or not. “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.”
Irishpol,
The ONLY thing I have figured out is to trust my very Catholic formed instincts . I was raised in the the TLM and Baltimore Catechism memorizing it all rote. It all served me well to see through the malformed disordered clerics we were privy to.
Listening to a priest extol the virtues of Hitler , forbidding girls to come to Confession until all the boys had finished ,then watching one little girl step out in tears because she had not arrived in time for the priest’s announcement and was ordered to get out, was all very troubling. This was not the Traditional Church of my youth!
Now reading the stories about the priests I knew in sspx who ended up founding the Resistance, harboring known pederasts and not reporting to the proper authorities immediately, is all confirmation and makes sense after what we observed and listened to from one of the founding Resistance priests !
We have no Mass to go to here , not even an sspx , that IS if I would ever go consider going there again.
As I stated, when one gets old traveling hours away on crowded highways is just not in the cards.
We know other people who see nothing offensive about the New Order and find they now can only watch the mass on EWTN !
Just think what a burden the policies of the Bishops have placed on them by shuttering the churches. Then consider those of us who wanted a reverent Liturgy to attend for almost fifty years.
Some Catholics really have no other options than the Rosary and the Scriptures . And just maybe that is what God deigned to happen for reasons only He knows.
Good for those of you who believe you have a solid Mass and priest to go to……you are Blessed .
We traveled far for the sspx and decided a good number of the congregants AND the priest were really way off the Catholic mark. Both hindsight AND first impressions have been 20/20 in our case.
What if the church overridden by. Modernist have brought about this outcome? Yes Our Lord said that the gates of hell will not prevail agianst his church, but that doesn’t mean she won’t be attacked, in order to prevail she must be subjected to attacks of heresy first.(simple logic and reason) Our Lord is speaking of future battles that the church will overcome. But according to you prevail means no attacks are possible. Yet here we are with a pope preaching a new doctrine, different from that which we received from the apostles. And we all know what St Paul inspired by the Holy Ghost had to say about that.
So you tell me is the Holy Ghost wrong ? And your personal interpretation is right ? .
Should we place doubt in the gospels and testimonies of the apostles for the sake of preserving this new defined structure of infallibility? This is a term being twisted and warped into many new components of arguements to back a papacy that is leading us into hell at the moment.
Jpeters, once again you pick the word of theologians outnof context. Why is it that you never quote authoritative papal sources? Always the same old theologians who were discussing undefined attributes of the papacy. What they were discussing has been settled and defined. The Pope is judged by no one. The Vatican Council (the only true one), defined this, Pope Paul IV made it clear no heretic could hold office, Pope Pius XII defined membership in the Church. The theologians you always cite are no longer relevant to the issue. True Popes have spoke and they did not come down on the side of the theological position you imply. This has been pointed out time and time again in these forums, yet you and the other Sicsoe Salza adherents won’t let it go. On the surface, your sources sound quite convincing, until one realizes that they hold no authoritative weight nor has any Pope ever confirmed what they speculated.
Sweepoutthefilth:
Please understand that I am not promoting the SSPX in any way. My wife and I have joined an SSPX chapel because we have become convinced that it is the priestly order that is most faithful to the true teachings of the Catholic Church. Others may disagree with that assessment and that is their choice. But regardless of the church or chapel one may choose to attend, any serious Catholic must acknowledge that they are obligated to attend Sunday Mass if it is available. Of course the TLM is the only Mass Catholics should be witnessing.
As I had mentioned to My2cents, although praying the rosary at least daily is a most important practice for all Catholics, it cannot even begin to compare to the greatest prayer the Church has ever known, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And while the number of negative experiences you have reportedly had with Catholic priests are almost a many as even read about (Al Capp’s Catholic Joe Btfsplk?), those experiences should not control your Catholic faith. If that’s what life has offered you have my sympathies and my prayers. I have been far more fortunate.
Nevertheless, I don’t believe you do either yourself or the Catholic Church one whit of good by publishing even one of those unfortunate experiences. Many of the less informed may very well be left with the impression that your experiences represent the behavior of Catholic priests in general. That is the narrative of the diabolically-inspired secular media and it is totally false. It is also the theme of many of the comments published by ruthless anti-Catholics in their effort to drive everyone away from God. But if, indeed, that is your life story, do the Church a favor and quit broadcasting them. It does no one any good to read about them.
That being said the advice most any faithful Catholic priest would probably give you (or anyone with such a jaundiced view of Catholic priests as you have been expressing), is to return to assisting at a TLM. Every priest celebrating the Mass does so in persona Christi. Regardless of how long the drive to church may be (God will reward you), and notwithstanding any of your earlier experiences with Catholic priests, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should never be neglected. I will say a special prayer for you tonight that you make the right decisions.
Thanks. Read it. Explains much. Father Kramer destroys Salza and Siscoe arguments.
Dear kellyann, let me try to address your objection with logic and reason. Just as the human body has intellect and will, so too the Mystical Body of Christ, which, on the natural level, is analogous to a moral person such as a business. Now a moral person has a head and a body, that is it has its principles, bylaws and a leader which direct its activity, its workers, and “doing business” to its proper end. The Invisible Head of the Church is Christ who has provided His Church with principles, doctrines, while the Pope is the visible head who must preserve and teach these principles and doctrines until the end of time. These matters belong, as it were, to the Intellect of the Church and affect the intellect of the Faithful.
But the Pope must also direct or govern the Church in such a way that the Faithful are directed in their activities to the end for which Christ founded His Church, namely, eternal salvation. The Church has Its laws, Its liturgy, Its missionary activity. On the other hand, these matters belong to the Will of the Church and affect the wills of the Faithful.
So there are two safeguards by which Our Lord protects His Church: Infallibility (concerning doctrine and the teaching of the Faithful) and Indefectibility (concerning the activities of the Faithful).
In order to help you to understand better, here is a quote from the old Catholic Encyclopedia concerning Indefectibility:
“The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e., the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it into being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly.…………….
“It was said above that one part of the Church’s gift of indefectibility lies in her preservation from any substantial corruption in the sphere of morals. This supposes, not merely that She will always proclaim the perfect standard of morality bequeathed to her by her Founder, but also that in every age the lives of many of her children will be based on that sublime mode. Only a supernatural principle of spiritual life could bring this about.”
Now, Francis is accused of many things. He is labelled a heretic; he is said to be spreading heresy, many say he is an apostate; among many other things. However, because it is the character of modernism to refrain from spouting outright heresy, that is, they do not directly contradict an infallible teaching of the Church, it is difficult, as can be seen with the difficult the Cardinals are having trying to “pin” Francis down, to bring the canonical process of proclaiming someone who is considered Pope a heretic to fruition.
Thus what the modernist does is to change the practices of the Church. In this way people are slowly, and at times swiftly, brought to a whole different belief system through bad practices. But those bad practices are actually sending people to hell, and this is contrary to the purpose for which Christ founded His Church. AND THIS MILITATING AGAINST THE INDEFECTIBILITY OF THE CHURCH–more than the Infallibility of the Church!
Unfortunately, throughout the history of the Church Infallibility has been the “Protection” that has been under scrutiny by the theologians, rather than the “Protection” of the Church by Indefectibility. So we are in an unprecedented time in the Church.
And I believe this is one of the reasons Our Lady came to Fatima and Akita–to advise us that the problem concerns Indefectibillity.
The solution to this problem in the Church, I maintain, lies in the renunciation of Benedict. Here you must keep in mind the message that Our Lady of Akita gave to Sr. Agnes that “the work of the devil will infiltrate the Church IN SUCH A WAY that Cardinal will oppose Cardinals and Bishops will be against Bishops”. According to Cardinal Ratzinger the message of Akita is essentially the same as that of Fatima. We also have the words of Sr. Lucia to Cardinal Caffarra that the final battle of Satan against God will be on the battlefield of Marriage and the Family. I don’t think that anyone can deny that what is happening in the area of Marriage and the Family within the Church is the main cause of Cardinals being against Cardinals and Bishops opposing Bishops.
But what visible person is behind what is happening in the area of Marriage and the Family such that it is dividing Cardinals and Bishops. Will anyone deny that it is Francis. But the question is: Is Francis under the control of Satan?
If such is the case, then it stands to reason that if Francis is truly the Pope Satan has indeed prevailed over the Church. Why? Because if Francis is truly Pope he is OFFICIALLY promulgating documents that change the practice of the Faithful, which in fact sends souls to hell. And this is contrary to the purpose of the Church and the promise of Christ, WHICH CANNOT BE.
Thus, in short, by renouncing the “ministry” of the Office but not the Office of the Papacy Itself, Benedict, a secondary instrumental cause used by God, assured that Satan would NOT have control of the Church through Francis, and hence preventing the promise to Peter at Caesarea Philippi from being made a mockery.
I hope this helps in understanding why Benedict did what he did.
Thank you , I appreciate any and all prayers.
I do not think Our Dear Lord wants silence anymore Irishpol. See no evil , hear no evil and by not speaking about these evils, the innocents suffer when it would be better for these men to have been sentenced with a millstone !
I believe your thesis is wrong and I also believe ArchBishop Sheen did us no favors by muzzling Bella Dodd,
Our Holy Mother reported the same evils at LaSalette
Just an FYI..The Othodox have valid Sacraments and valid priests and if we have no Catholic Mass to attend we may fulfill our obligations there according to Canon Law.. The Eastern Liturgies predate the the Latin Mass and are ancient and beautiful and there is very little reports of sodomite abuse of children by clerics.
Every single experience was absolutely true and there is much I did not relate.
SSPX has as much dirty laundry to air as any other group or Movement in the church, maybe even more.
God Bless Fr Rueda , Mrs Randy Engel, Paul Lennon,
Fr Gallagher, Fr Haley , Fr Sweeney, Fr Lucas, Fr Belisarius , Fr Minutella and all the good priests and laity who have been given the courage to speak out for the sake of the Truth !
Sorry if I made some feel uncomfortable. I was very uncomfortable after knowing about the deaths of children and molestation at the SSPX camps and outings. especially when the new clause appeared in the application forms that parents had to sign absolving camp employees and priests of liability.
Everyone should be aware of that.
johnno, your reply only shows how much you don’t know about the situation in the Church, as well as a lack of confidence in the Providence of Almighty God and the power of his Divine Grace. Too many can only suggest human intervention or action; the whole supernatural realm is totally forgotten–you really are doing precisely what all the modernists do, namely, thinking that any solution must handled by human prudence. Do you pray to the Holy Ghost before you opening your mouth?
Frfbelland: “If there is a question of a validly elected Pope still alive while another Conclave is held to “elect” another Pope, it is either a fact or it is not. and if it is a fact then there CANNOT be another “Pope” elected–PERIOD, WHICH IS THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
.
JPeters: Father D. Belland, you are missing the point entirely. If a papal election is accepted by the entire Church it proves that the man who was elected is pope. Period. That is the unanimous teaching of the Church’e theologians, and it cannot be rejected without committing a mortal sin.
.
Now, since the peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope provides infallible certitude that he is pope, it also provides infallible certainty that all of the conditions necessary for him to be pope were met. Since one of the conditions is that the see is vacant at the time, the universal acceptance of Francis as pope, following his election, PROVES that Benedict’s resignation was valid. IF BENEDICT’S RESIGNATION WAS NOT VALID, FRANCIS’ ELECTION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ENTIRE CHURCH. I don’t know why this is difficult for some people to grasp.
.
Here is another citation that refutes your erroneous position.
.
Van Noort: “Notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matters in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call ‘ecclesiastical faith,’ the following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held (tenendas). So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter’; similarly … one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.’ For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — WHEN SOMEONE HAS BEEN CONSTANTLY ACTING AS POPE AND HAS THEORETICALLY AND PRACTICALLY BEEN RECOGNIZED AS SUCH BY THE BISHOPS AND BY THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM IS GIVING AN UTTERLY CLEAR-CUT WITNESS TO THE LEGITIMACY OF HIS SUCCESSION.”
.
Pope Francis has been constantly acting as pope and theoretically and practically recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal church for over four years. This proves not only that he is the pope, but that Benedict’s resignation was valid.
.
I pray that you will have the humility to set aside your fallible private opinion and accept the infallible teaching of the Church concerning Francis’ legitimacy.
TomA: “Jpeters, once again you pick the word of theologians outnof context.”
.
JPeters: Nothing was taken out of context.
.
TomA: “Why is it that you never quote authoritative papal sources?”Always the same old theologians who were discussing undefined attributes of the papacy. What they were discussing has been settled and defined. The Pope is judged by no one. The Vatican Council (the only true one), defined this…”
.
JPeters: Vatican I did not define the limitations of papal immunity from judgment. The phrase “the first see is judged by no one” has never been defined by the Church. Vatican I simply repeated it; it did not define it. And if you want a papal citation stating that a pope who sins against the faith can be judged by the Church, here you go:
.
Pope Innocent III: ““For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God, FOR THE SLIGHTEST SIN COMMITTED IN THE MATTER OF THE FAITH I COULD BE JUDGED BY THE CHURCH.”
.
There’s a papal teaching that refutes your position. If you reject that papal teaching, explain why.
.
Fr Cekada doesn’t reject it. In fact, Fr. Cekada mocked the idea that “the first see is judged by no one” means a heretical pope cannot be judged by the Church. Here is what he wrote in response to Chris Ferrara’s assertion that “the first see is judged by no one” means the Church is forbidden to judge a pope’s “personal sin of heresy.” In response Fr. Cekada wrote:
.
Cekada: “Any first-year canon law student knows that it says no such thing. The maxim “the First See is judged by no one” is incorporated into the Code of Canon Law as canon 1556. …While it is true that the pope has the final say on doctrinal and disciplinary matters in the Church … the maxim itself merely means that there is no ecclesiastical tribunal before which one could summon the pope or to which one could appeal the pope’s final judicial decision.”
.
Fr. Cekada then quoted Pope Innocent III saying a pope can be judged for sins against the faith, and concluded by saying: “ If anything, one can conclude from this the very opposite of what Mr. Ferrara maintains: DEFECTION FROM THE FAITH IS THE ONE SIN OF A POPE WE ARE PERMITTED TO JUDGE.”
.
Again, contrary to what your SV heretics claim, Vatican I never defined the maxim “the first see is judged by no one.” All it did was repeat it, which is the same thing prior councils did.
.
TomA: “Pope Paul IV made it clear no heretic could hold office.”
.
That was a disciplinary decree that even Bishop Sanborn says no longer applies.
.
TomA: “Pope Pius XII defined membership in the Church.”
.
JPeters: Pius XII never addressed how a pope loses his office, nor did he clarify the degree of notoriety for heresy and/or schism to separate a person from the Church. Now, I agree that if someone openly leaves the Church, as you have done, they are no longer members, but not so if the person remains in the Church while holding heretical opinions. So you are definitely out of the Church, since you are a public schismatic who openly rejects the Church, but the Novus Ordos who merely hold erroneous opinions, yet who have not openly departed from the Church, remain within it.
.
TomA: “The theologians you always cite are no longer relevant to the issue.”
.
JPeters: You’ve been deceived by the dishonest SV apologists into thinking that the theologians whose teachings refute your heretical position no longer apply. That is totally false. The Church has never defined how a heretical pope loses his office and all opinions on the question are permissible – except the old opinion which maintains that a council has authority OVER a heretical pope. No theologian I cite holds that position, nor do I know of anyone who has held it for many centuries. It is a lie of your SV apologists that the teachings of the theologians who refute the SV position are no longer permitted due to a supposed later teaching of the Church. Don’t allow the liars to deceive you. Your eternal salvation is at stake.
.
TomA: “On the surface, your sources sound quite convincing, until one realizes that they hold no authoritative weight nor has any Pope ever confirmed what they speculated.”
.
JPeters: No pope has ever issued a magisterial document addressing how a heretical pope loses his office. The most we have is the teaching of Pope Innocent III who said a pope who sins against the faith can BE JUDGED BY THE CHURCH. The theologians who wrote extensively on the question are the only guide we have, and EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM REFUTES YOUR POSITION.
I’ve read Fr. Kramer’s article, as well as Salza/Siscoe’s book, and the majority of Fr. Kramer’s arguments are straw men. He accuses them of holding positions that they never defend in the book, and then “refutes” what he falsely claims they hold. He also accuses them of rejecting doctrines that they defend in their book. After reading Fr. Kramer’s attempted refutation, I don’t think there is any way he has actually read their book.
And Siscoe/Salza have never read Bellarmine nor do they understand most of what they cite from other authors.
JPeters, Mr. BerryP. and Mr. John Salza, “I pray that you will have the humility to set aside your fallible private opinion and accept the infallible teaching of the Church concerning Francis’ legitimacy.”
Fr. Belland: First of all, I have never denied or challenged what call the infallible teaching of the Universal and Peaceful Acceptance (U & P A) of a Pope! What I have done is challenge the application of that teaching, and one cannot be charged with being a heretic for doing so, either implicitly or explicitly. It seems many are “trigger happy” these days to discharge every kind of theological error at others who disagree with them.
Secondly, what we think doesn’t make reality any more than those who thought the world was flat made the world flat! One MUST work with reality, and only by beginning with reality can argumentation proceed to a certain conclusion. Now, it is the teaching of Holy Mother Church that there can only be one Pope. And as I mentioned in my comment above either Benedict, a truly elected Pope, is still Pope or he isn’t. I have shown in my thesis that there is a correspondence between the way Benedict is currently addressed, is dressed, where he lives, what he claims and what he said in his Renunciation. That is, I have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Benedict, by his renunciation, maintained the Papacy–this is a fact DESPITE WHAT PEOPLE THINK. Neither you nor anyone else HAS PROVED IT WRONG. Even Francis himself has acknowledged Benedict is a Pope! But since there can be only one Pope in the Church, a true Pope at the time of Francis’ so called “election” and is still living. And because Benedict being a Pope in FACT, any effort to conclude anything else is pure nonsense. You must prove my thesis wrong FIRST!
But for the sake of argument, let’s say that one can legitimately look into U & P A. So what is necessary for Universal and Peaceful Acceptance of a Pope? Canon Herve has, in his Manuele Theologiae Dogmaticae, stated the following: “But this assent [of the faithful] TRULY CATHOLIC, can be known in a multiplicity of ways: namely, by the explicit or the implicit profession of Faith: 1) by an explicit profession of faith, v. g. when the doctrines of Catholic heralds/preachers [in the Latin, ‘praeconum’] are openly approved or the errors of heretics ARE REJECTED; 2) by an implicit profession of faith, v. g. by means of practices, rites, prayers, or other external actions, by whichever things, on account of their connection with revealed truths, these truths are manifested…..”
Are you telling me, Mr. JPeters, Mr. BerryP and Mr. John Salza, that you want to believe that all the dissenters–who operate “Catholic” lgbt organizations, who teach heresy in universities and seminaries, “doing their thing” with the Liturgy, especially disbelieving in the Real Presence–and who call themselves Catholics, who may even be considered as canonically belonging to the Church in some way and who praise Francis for what he is doing because they believe what he is teaching, have a SENSUS FIDEI and thus are part of the Consensus fidelium that signifies an infallible Dogmatic Fact?
That is your prerogative but what does that do to the infallibility of the Church? What you are saying that those who call themselves Catholic but who really don’t believe in Revealed and Defined Catholic Teaching (only one Dogma needing to be denied) are capable of being part of a body that signifies a Dogmatic Fact. Oh, give me a break.
I’d rather take Canon Herve’s position. And if you don’t believe Canon Herve, please read Cardinal Burke’s whole speech given at the “Fatima 100 Years Later: A Marian Call for the Whole Church” Conference held at The Buckfast Abbey Conference Centre Buckfast, Devon, England, 12 October 2017, a copy of which I can send you. He minces no words in calling many in the Church APOSTATES. Unfortunately this talk received very little coverage in the news and internet. We also have Cardinal Ciappi who stated that “the apostasy IN THE CHURCH will begin at the top”!
So, do you all include those who may be apostates as capable of partaking in an authentic “vote” on a particular Pope? And how are you going to know if there really is a majority, even simple majority?
And more recently Mr. Penten is concerned about this paragraph in an interview with Cardinal Burke:
“Over and above the moral debate, the sense of the ecclesial sacramental practice is increasingly eroding in the Church, especially when it comes to the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist. The decisive criterion for admission to the sacraments has always been the coherence of a person’s way of life with the teachings of Jesus. If instead the decisive criterion were now to become the absence of a person’s subjective culpability — as some interpreters of Amoris Laetitia have suggested — would this not change the very nature of the sacraments? In fact, the sacraments are not private encounters with God, nor are they means of social integration into a community. Rather, they are visible and effective signs of our incorporation into Christ and his Church, in and by which the Church publicly professes and actuates her faith. Thus, by turning a person’s subjective diminished culpability or lack of culpability into the decisive criterion for the admission to the sacraments, one would endanger the very regula fidei, the rule of faith, which the sacraments proclaim and actuate not only by words, but also by visible gestures. How could the Church continue to be the universal sacrament of salvation if the meaning of the sacraments were to be emptied of its content?”
If this assessment of the situation today doesn’t reflect not just an implicit rejection, but an explicit rejection of the Faith, which is directly contrary to even an implicit profession of the faith, by which those who belong to the consensus Fidelium are identified, then what is your concept of the sensus Fidei? Really, how then can anyone say that Francis has been universally accepted by the consensus Fidelium? The interview can be found here: http://www.ncregister.com/b….