Considerable shock is being expressed by Catholics over that demonic little wretch who disrupted Christmas Mass at the Cologne Cathedral by jumping on the altar topless. Contributing in no small measure to the disgust of believers of every stripe are the words she had written on her body, “I AM GOD.”
It occurs to me, however, just how selective Catholic outrage can be in such matters.
Have you ever shared some personal concern with a non-believing friend or acquaintance, you know… an agnostic, atheist, humanist, “I’m a good person” type? The conversation often goes something like this:
Believer: “My grandmother had a stroke and she may not recover full use of her lower extremities.”
Good Person: “I’m so sorry. I’ll be thinking good thoughts for her,” or perhaps, “I’m thinking positive thoughts!”
In any event, what the “good person” is really saying in this case is essentially the same outrageous thing that tramp back in Cologne had written on her torso, “I AM GOD.”
Think about it, this particular brand of “good person” can’t quite get their hands around this far fetched God thing, and yet has somehow managed to convince themselves that the sheer force of their thoughts is enough to effect another person’s healing. Talk about high self esteem!
Upon examination, some may attribute the efficaciousness of their brainwaves to some amorphous Universal Energy, but in the end, it’s really just another I AM GOD moment with a dash of subtlety; one that yields precious little outrage on the part of those who should see it for what it is.
This brings me to another recent news item.
In his Urbi et Orbi Message on Christmas Day, Pope Francis stirred angst among some Catholics, albeit far fewer, while delighting many an agnostic, atheist, humanist, “I’m a good person” types when he said:
“I also invite non-believers to desire peace with that yearning that makes the heart grow: all united, either by prayer or by desire. But all of us, for peace.”
OK, I get it… a sincere desire for peace may, by God’s grace, serve as a stepping stone that eventually leads to Christ, the Prince of Peace apart from Whom no real peace can exist. To be fair, the Holy Father also said:
True peace – we know this well – is not a balance of opposing forces. It is not a lovely “façade” which conceals conflicts and divisions. Peace calls for daily commitment, but making peace is an art, starting from God’s gift, from the grace which he has given us in Jesus Christ.
Even so, when the Roman Pontiff gives humanists a reason to believe that seeking peace “either by prayer or by desire” are simply different paths that lead to the same destination, he is only confirming them in their error, an error that ultimately amounts to asserting I AM GOD.
This is classic Pope Francis, speak the truth in one breath, undermine it in the next; all things to all people, the world’s, and the worldly’s, darling. One thing it is not, however, is a departure from Pope Benedict (much less his predecessor) as some would have it.
On January 1, 2011, the Holy Father, engendering far too little outrage, said:
Therefore next October I shall go as a pilgrim to the town of St Francis, inviting my Christian brethren of various denominations, the exponents of the world’s religious traditions to join this Pilgrimage and ideally all men and women of good will. It will aim to commemorate the historical action desired by my Predecessor and to solemnly renew the commitment of believers of every religion to live their own religious faith as a service to the cause of peace.
Imagine, the Vicar of Christ encouraging followers of false religions (and as the event took place, atheists and humanists too) to persist in their error as if their “good thoughts” and pagan practices could possibly render a service to the cause of peace.
As Pope Francis gives sober-minded Catholics more and more causes for concern, Pope Benedict’s legacy seems to be taking on a quasi-mythological dimension.
Understandable perhaps, but for all of the papal gifts that left the Vatican in a helicopter on February 28th not to be seen again since, we must resist any temptation to glorify the Benedictine pontificate such that it becomes the new baseline for what one reasonably considers “normal” Catholic life, as such would be… well, outrageous.
“Peace calls for daily commitment, but making peace is an art, starting from God’s gift, from the grace which he has given us in Jesus Christ.”
Read in the light of Francis’ way of thinking…
“but making peace is an art”–you mean the self expression of one’s own idea of peace–as an art?
“starting from God’s gift”–of which God in particular is he speaking, “Catholic God”, Islamic God–what?
“from the grace which he has given us in Jesus Christ”–Jesus THE Christ or Jesus that great prophet who ranks right up there with the mythological Mohammed or Buddha or some other “anointed” one?
When he was Secretary of State under Pius XI, Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pius XII) confided the following to Count Enrico Pietro Galeazzi……’Suppose, dear friend, that Communism was only the most visible of the organs of subversion ranged against the Church and the tradition of Divine Revelation, then we are going to witness the invasion of all that is spiritual…….philosophy, science, law, education, the arts, press, literature, the theatre, and religion. I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to little Lucia of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the danger which menaces the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in its liturgy, its theology and its soul. I hear around me reformers who want to dismantle the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, to discard all her adornments, and smite her with remorse for her historic past. Well, my dear friend, I am convince that the Church of Peter must assume responsibility for her past, or she will be digging her own grave.”
These historic words resound today with the accents of prophecy. Cardinal Pacelli did not doubt that one day the ‘innovator’ would take the keys of St. Peter, and occupy the highest offices of the Church.
Could he have imagined that one of the successors of Peter would fulfill his terrible forecast? In the past decades we have witnessed a profound mutation in the Catholic Church; we have seen priests of Jesus Christ reject their vestments, and Rome has wept little for their passing, and begs pardon from the enemies of the Cross of Christ. Has the Church of Peter then already dug its own grave? Does she truly believe that ‘man’ has become God, and that His Son is only a symbols, a philosophy, like so many others?
Then we recall the words of Henri Massis: “To be right can cause for sadness, and it is particularly cruel to be in the right against one’s own. But nothing is worse than to confuse falsehood with ‘truth’, evil with good, the sterile with the productive; not to distinguish between them under the pretext of unity, not to place them side by side.”
We have the words of Cardinal Pie:
“My brethren, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, do not applaud it, never say to evil you are good, nor to decadence you are progress, nor to the night, you are light, to death, you are life. OPPOSE with all the energy you can call upon!”
There is a yuppie “peace” group in my town who stand on the corner in their long black coats with signs that read “Honk for Peace”. You can “honk” till the cows come home and it will do zilch to bring anyone peace. I could almost guarantee that this group are a bunch of atheists who don’t know the meaning of prayer. Change the sign to “Pray for Peace”—now you’re talking!!!
Pope Francis should not give the impression that “desiring” peace without prayer has any value whatsoever.
Thanks, Louie!!
I utterly agree with Louis’ statement “we must resist any temptation to glorify the Benedictine pontificate such that it becomes the new baseline for what one reasonably considers “normal” Catholic life, as such would be… well, outrageous.”
I never really bought into Benedict as an alleged “Restorer of tradition”. I personally don’t think he issued the motu propio with entirely good-intentioned motives. First off, he said the motu proprio “…is simply AN ACT OF TOLERANCE, with a PASTORAL objective…”:
EN ROUTE TO PARIS, SEPT. 12, 2008 (Zenit.org).- An allowance for the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal is in no way a return to the past, but rather an expression of pastoral concern, says Benedict XVI.
The Pope affirmed this today en route to France; he gave a brief press conference on the plane, answering four questions previously submitted by the journalists selected to be in the press corps accompanying the Holy Father.
The Pontiff said it is “groundless” to fear that “Summorum Pontificum” — which opened the way for a wider celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal — is a regression.
“This ‘motu proprio’ is simply an act of tolerance, with a pastoral objective, for people who have been formed in this liturgy, who love it, know it and want to live with this liturgy,” he said. “It is a small group, given that it presupposes a formation in Latin, a formation in a certain culture. But it seems to me a normal demand of faith and pastoral concern for a bishop of our Church to have love and tolerance for these people and permit them to live with this liturgy.”
“There is no opposition whatsoever between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy,” Benedict XVI continued. “Each day, the Council fathers celebrated Mass according to this old rite and, at the same time, have conceived a natural development for the liturgy in all of this century, since the liturgy is a living reality that develops and that conserves its identity in its development.”
“Therefore, there are certainly distinct accents, but a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the preceding liturgy,” the Pope affirmed. “I think that there is the possibility of mutual enrichment. It’s clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our times.”
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html [9/12/2008]
Secondly, he spoke of the “pacification of spirits” (a somewhat pejorative term I believe, as if trads are some sort of wild fanatics – promothean neo-pelagians I guess we would be called these days): “I was prompted to detail, in the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, the conditions for the accomplishment of this mission, in that which relates to the possibility of using both the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) and that of Pope Paul VI (1970). The fruits of these new dispositions have already seen [the light of] day, and I hope that the indispensable pacification of the spirits is being accomplished, thank God.”
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html [9/14/2008]
In sum, it seems that both B XVI and now Bergoglio are avid devotees of Hegelian dialectic philosophy: thesis, anti-thesis: synthesis i.e. an interpretative method in which the contradiction between a proposition (thesis) and its antithesis is resolved at a higher level of truth (synthesis). So, there need not be any apparent contradiction for the likes of Bergoglio between Catholic teaching that only the Prince of Peace can bring, well peace, to mankind, and paganism’s vain attempts at reaching peace; the synthesis of both of these thoughts being that both prayer AND “desire”, both Catholics AND non-believers can work TOGETHER (SYNTHESIS) towards the fulfillment of JP II’s “the Great” infamous utopic “civilization of love”: “I also invite non-believers to desire peace with that yearning that makes the heart grow: ALL UNITED [SYNTHESIS], either by prayer or by desire. BUT ALL OF US [SYNTHESIS], for peace.”
This philosophy which mixes in Christ’s truth with worldy thinking to create a higher truth (synthesis) does not come from any other place but from the bottomless pit.
Linda: you are absolutely right. Who is Francis really talking about? After confirming his true beliefs that Mary, who was, according to him, only human, and, therefore, could not have any comprehension of the invisible world as Mother Agreda wrote in the City of God, but, instead, could have blasphemous thoughts about God such as He “lied” to Her.
I am truly concerned that when this man “talks,’ he is revealing who he really is: not a believer in the Mystical Church of the true Christ, but someone who will help fool the world by introducing (ushering in?) a man who claims to be the Christ.
But don’t worry, Esquire magazine will help us unveil, the Mystery of Iniquity, or should we say the mystery of why gay people consider Francis the best dressed man of 2013. Who knows, maybe the antichrist will be the best dressed man of 2014?
Steve,
I hear you, my friend: the fact that Bergoglio keeps getting all these awards from all these nefarious places (TIME magazine – who also awarded Hitler and Stalin with “man of the year” awards, an LGBT magazine – forgot its name, and now Esquire magazine) literally sends a chill down my spine. Who on earth if not an incredibly evil man could POSSIBLY win so many awards from the world – ESPECIALLY from the SODOMITE LOBBY????
“Woe to you when men shall bless you: for according to these things did their fathers to the false prophets.” Luke 6:26
Saint Augustine wrote……”What more grievous death for souls than liberty of error!”
……from Dignitatis Humanae………”The Vatican Council declares that everyone has the right to religious liberty. It declares openly that the right to Religious Liberty has its foundation the very dignity of the human being made know by the word of God and of reason itself. Thus, man must NOT be forced to act against his conscience. But even further, he must not be hampered from acting according to his conscience, above all in religious matters. Therefore it is not on the subjective disposition of the person, but on nature itself, that the right to Religious Liberty is founded.” (and they call this being obedience to HERESY….John XXIII, Paul VI, JP II, Benedict XVI, Francis……..promoters and defenders of this blasphemy…….my emphasis). Miserere!
Leo XII declared in ‘Immortale Dei’; “If the intelligence adheres to false ideas, if the will chooses to attach itself to evil, neither will attain its perfection; both depart from their natural dignity and ARE CORRUPTED. It is therefore NOT PERMITTED to bring to light, and expose to the eyes of men, what is contrary to virtue and TRUTH, and even less, to place this license under the protection of Law.”
Holy Father Pope Pius XII foresaw these troubles, and opposed them with the strength of faith: “The objective against which the adversary today launches his assaults, openly or under cover, is not, as was usual in the past, one or other particular point of doctrine of discipline but rather the whole range of Christian doctrine and morals until the final consequences. In other words, we are dealing with all out attack with an absolute ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Under these conditions, the ‘true Catholic’ must remain all the more firm and unshakeable in his Catholic Faith.”
“Before such a dis-orientation, before such hatred and such darkness, the Church holds herself eternally vigilant with her light and her love. In the world today, full of ambushes and dangers, there are many who battle with tenacity to spread ‘error’ among the faithful. A bold propaganda, openly or with stealth, infiltrates among Catholics with the aim of removing them from fidelity to Christ and the true Church and at the same time, to uproot the Faith from their hearts. Unfortunately, besides those who courageously defend their belief, there are many who abandon it. TODAY the Enemy of God has seized ALL levers of command (prophetic words of the Holy Father….my emphasis). We must raise ourselves and stand up AGAINST corruption and the corrupters”……from “Peter, Lovest Thou Me?” by Abbe Daniel Le Roux
This ‘complete humanism’ seems to be almost the cornerstone, and the roots of the Conciliar Church of the Second Vatican Council…….Only the ‘blind’ and ‘deaf’ still doubt, to the joy of THE ENEMY WITHIN! Miserere, Domine!
Here Fr. Gleize quotes Fr. Julio Menvielle, before referring to Fr. Roger-Thomas Calmel:
“No pope will be able to betray the Church to the extent of explicitly teaching heresy with the fullness of his authority but Revelation nowhere indicates that a pope, when he exerts his authority without the protection of infallibility, will not play into the hands of Satan and encourage heresy up to a certain point.” “The modernist system, or more accurately the modernist device and procedures, offer the pope an entirely new occasion of sin, an opportunity to equivocate with his mission with which he has never yet been presented. This destructive consequence has followed: apostolic Tradition in matter of doctrine, morals, and worship has been neutralized, although not obliterated, without the pope, officially and openly, having had to deny all of it and proclaim apostasy. The pope has never said, and has never needed to say, “Everything that was taught, everything that was done before Vatican II, all doctrine and worship established before Vatican II, I hereby strike with anathema.” However, the result is plainly to be seen… To arrive where we stand, it was enough that the pope, without taking measures against the previous tradition of the Church, allowed modernism free rein.” Free rein: not blocking the countercurrent inside the Church, but nourishing it.
All I know is if the next magazine he is featured in is “Seventeen,” I’m done! LOL
It’s Sunday, so it must be time for the Armaticus Sunday rant. And since we are on the subject of outrage, here goes folks.
Something that I read today really “hit home” as the American expression goes. Over on Rorate Caeli, this post appeared:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/12/in-church-of-francis.html‘.
Here’s the skinny. It would appear that the “Church of Francis” celebrated a funeral mass for a “non-repentant” sinner. In this case, a transvestite. It would also appear, that the “Church of Francis” celebrated the funeral mass BECAUSE this wretched sinner was “non- repentant”. How else could you explain the priest addressing the deceased as “she” when in fact the deceased was a biological (objective reality) “he”. Strange but ok, it is the “Church of Francis”.
To be continued.
…
While reading the above post, I recalled another funeral which took place in the diocese of Rome a couple months ago. It was the funeral of one Erich Priebke, who by all accounts was a repentant sinner who made his last confession and his peace with his Maker before his departure from this life. The below is a part of the the post from Fr. Blake’s blog.
“Personally, I have no sympathy for murderers, anti-Semites and Nazis, as a priest I have a duty to be merciful to sinners even if I am revolted by what they have done. I would not want to celebrate Priebke’s funeral rites and certainly not in public but in his life Priebke was not excommunicated and according to his lawyer he died having been to Confession and therefore we presume was reconciled to God and his Church. Excommunicating someone post mortem which seems in effect to to be what happened to Priebke seems a terrible and unmerciful thing to do, something which belongs to the Church from a previous century. As Francis himself asked in the case of Mgsr Ricci, “Who am I to judge?” In the case of someone who has just died, who now stands before God’s throne Catholics are indeed not called to judge but to implore God’s mercy, the unfaithful become ‘the faithful departed’.”
The full link is here: http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-limits-of-mercy.html
So what is a Faithful Catholic to make of this strange situation?
To make things real simple just in case anyone missed it, what we have here is a situation where “Pope Francis’ Vicar for Rome, Cardinal Agostino Vallini, had forbidden every priest in the diocese to offer a Requiem for him.” i.e. the repentant sinner, however in the case of the unrepentant sinner, the “Church of Francis” give the deceased a “prominent Church funeral in the full glare of publicity, in the presence of civil dignitaries and in the main church of the Order to which the reigning Pope belongs…”.
And why did this happen? Well if you ask me, what I think has happened is that Vatican II DID NOT create a new religion, as I have previously thought. I must admit I was wrong. What VII in fact created was an IDEOLOGY. Think about it for a second. You could be in total accord with the Faith, and still be banned from having a Catholic funeral, while someone else could be a non repentant or even non Catholic and have “a prominent Church funeral” with dignitaries at the popes home Church.
Which leaves the following conclusion. It does not matter if you are Catholic or not in the eyes of the VII crowd, what is important (i.e. the criteria for having a Catholic funeral) is that your IDEOLOGY is one that is acceptable to the ‘Church of Francis” crowd.
In other words, what we have here is not a new religion, but actually a new political movement.
St. Michael Archangel, ora pro nobis.
S.Armaticus: I think it is as a movement religico-politcal? it is certainly positing itself as the enemy of the Catholic Religion while having the nerve to usurp the title ‘catholic’ for its own agenda.
is it the Church of Francis or the Church of Christ – these very words are an affront to everything Catholic. protestants have churches named after them – Luther Calvin etc.
this seems to be a perniscious war of attrittion against right thinking, right-practicing, right believing Catholics.
Louie wrote: This is classic Pope Francis, speak the truth in one breath, undermine it in the next; all things to all people, the world’s, and the worldly’s, darling.
it’s psychological warfare.
how far back do we have to go to remember who a pope should be? who was the last pope to wear the paoal tiara?
linda8264 said: All I know is if the next magazine he is featured in is “Seventeen,” I’m done!
agree, enough young minds have already been led down the garden path by his loose-lips.
shudder, I think there’s a real possibility he might end up on vogue.
S. Armaticus,
Wow, the situation with “pope” Francis is way more freaky than I even imagined. A repentant sinner who is absolved of his sins before he meets his Creator is FORBIDDEN a réquiem mass by none other than the cardinal vicar of Rome whilst a transgender pervert who may not even have been baptized and we have no reason to believe somehow repented before his death GETS A PUBLIC FUNERAL WITH FULL HONOURS AND COVERAGE FROM THE WORLD’S PRESS???? This is nothing less than BRAZEN, PUBLIC PROMOTION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION. For what other reason do you think they made his funeral PUBLIC, and in the MOST PROMINENT JESUIT CHURCH IN CHRISTENDOM??
This, my friend, is not prove that V II created an ideology, but further prove that V II indeed created a new religion, the “Church of Man” that promotes error and sin and rejects catholicism, in other words the “Church of Francis”.
I wonder when the people over at rorate will wake up to the fact that the “Church of Francis” = “Church of Antichrist”?
Edu:
The problem with your logic, in all honesty, is that the term “religions” (the plural form of that word) is an oxymoron. If one subscribes to the notion of the existence of an “objective” reality, there can only be ONE religion. Yes? Therefore, whatever VII is, it is not a new “religion”.
With respect to my post, the point I was trying to make is as follows: the criteria used by the VII crowd for assessing when someone is given access to the Church’s “faculties” has nothing to do with that person’s Faith, but everything to do with that person’s Ideology. Therefore, VII is by all accounts a political construct, i.e. an ideology.
But Bergoglio is still the pope. Objectively speaking.
Mr Armaticus,
“the criteria used by the VII crowd for assessing when someone is given access to the Church’s “faculties” has nothing to do with that person’s Faith, but everything to do with that person’s Ideology”
Really?
Do you know whether the sexually perverted tramp was even baptized in the faith? Or even if he was, whether he actually believed in the Catholic faith?
“But Bergoglio is still the pope. Objectively speaking.”
Just found out contumacious heretics could be popes. I guess St Alphonsus de Liguori, St Robert Bellarmine and countless other theologians missed that one.
I utterly agree with Louis’ statement “we must resist any temptation to glorify the Benedictine pontificate such that it becomes the new baseline for what one reasonably considers “normal” Catholic life, as such would be… well, outrageous.”
I never really bought into Benedict as an alleged “Restorer of tradition”. I personally don’t think he issued the motu propio with entirely good-intentioned motives. First off, he said the motu proprio “…is simply AN ACT OF TOLERANCE, with a PASTORAL objective…”:
EN ROUTE TO PARIS, SEPT. 12, 2008 (Zenit.org).- An allowance for the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal is in no way a return to the past, but rather an expression of pastoral concern, says Benedict XVI.
The Pope affirmed this today en route to France; he gave a brief press conference on the plane, answering four questions previously submitted by the journalists selected to be in the press corps accompanying the Holy Father.
The Pontiff said it is “groundless” to fear that “Summorum Pontificum” — which opened the way for a wider celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal — is a regression.
“This ‘motu proprio’ is simply an act of tolerance, with a pastoral objective, for people who have been formed in this liturgy, who love it, know it and want to live with this liturgy,” he said. “It is a small group, given that it presupposes a formation in Latin, a formation in a certain culture. But it seems to me a normal demand of faith and pastoral concern for a bishop of our Church to have love and tolerance for these people and permit them to live with this liturgy.”
“There is no opposition whatsoever between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy,” Benedict XVI continued. “Each day, the Council fathers celebrated Mass according to this old rite and, at the same time, have conceived a natural development for the liturgy in all of this century, since the liturgy is a living reality that develops and that conserves its identity in its development.”
“Therefore, there are certainly distinct accents, but a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the preceding liturgy,” the Pope affirmed. “I think that there is the possibility of mutual enrichment. It’s clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our times.”
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html [9/12/2008]
Cont’d in next post…
Secondly, he spoke of the “pacification of spirits” (a somewhat pejorative term I believe, as if trads are some sort of wild fanatics – promothean neo-pelagians I guess we would be called these days): “I was prompted to detail, in the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, the conditions for the accomplishment of this mission, in that which relates to the possibility of using both the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) and that of Pope Paul VI (1970). The fruits of these new dispositions have already seen [the light of] day, and I hope that the indispensable pacification of the spirits is being accomplished, thank God.”
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html [9/14/2008]
In sum, it seems that both B XVI and now Bergoglio are avid devotees of Hegelian dialectic philosophy: thesis, anti-thesis: synthesis i.e. an interpretative method in which the contradiction between a proposition (thesis) and its antithesis is resolved at a higher level of truth (synthesis). So, there need not be any apparent contradiction for the likes of Bergoglio between Catholic teaching that only the Prince of Peace can bring, well peace, to mankind, and paganism’s vain attempts at reaching peace; the synthesis of both of these thoughts being that both prayer AND “desire”, both Catholics AND non-believers can work TOGETHER (SYNTHESIS) towards the fulfillment of JP II’s “the Great” infamous utopic “civilization of love”: “I also invite non-believers to desire peace with that yearning that makes the heart grow: ALL UNITED [SYNTHESIS], either by prayer or by desire. BUT ALL OF US [SYNTHESIS], for peace.”
This philosophy which mixes in Christ’s truth with worldy thinking to create a higher truth (synthesis) does not come from any other place but from the bottomless pit.
Halina,
Do you know any pre VII sources containing the Fatima/Pacelli prophecy of the suicide to the faith in altering Catholic liturgy and theology? The earliest mention I can find is in Msgr Roche’s 1972 book on Pius XII. A Fisheaters poster alluded to a 1959 edition however I could find no further information on this. I tried contacting John Salza on the issue to no avail.
Thanks.
Edu wrote: “This philosophy which mixes in Christ’s truth with worldy thinking to create a higher truth (synthesis) does not come from any other place but from the bottomless pit.”………they have become the tool of the Devil raging against Christ The King!
A day will come (soon) when the divorce becomes complete…….and Catholic liturgy will become completely alien to Catholic faith….(just take a good look at your Novus Ordo family members and your neighbours). Those left around to recognize this will have to choose yet again between defending the Novus Ordo, and defending the salvation of their souls……these transformations, so contrary to faith and tradition ARE preparations for the consummation of THEIR vision……especially, in the light of the devastated condition of the Church, can it be best explained as a mystery of iniquity?
Jonathan, I will look into it. I must have something……..
Edu said: “Just found out contumacious heretics could be popes.”
Yes, it appears that the Holy Ghost does not work like the bishop of Rome or the sedevacantists would have one to believe.
Jonathan hope this will help:
The Pacelli/Pius XII prophecy on Fatima and the suicide of altering the Liturgy, the original quote came from 1937 but there is nothing that I know of in English.
Pius XII’s excellent encyclical on The Sacred Liturgy, Mediator Dei, 1947, wherein he wrote that to alter the Liturgy under the pretense of restoring it anew, abandoning the altar for a table, discontinuing the use of Latin, all this and more was akin to a “poisonous fruit growing on the infected branches of a healthy tree.” To advocate or effectuate such “liturgical reforms” would be equivalent to “straying from the straight
path” – another way of saying it would be suicide to alter the solemn Liturgy of old.
The Council of Trent Session VII, Can. XIII anathematizes any pastor who would despise or omit the traditional rites of the sacraments in favor of new rites (the New Mass) – this corroborates the Pacelli warning.
Fr. Kramer’s book ‘The Suicide of Altering the Faith in The Liturgy’, another book that is very worth reading is ‘Fatima in Twilight’ by Mark Fellows.
Another reliable source is http://www.fatima.org
Mr Armaticus,
And your evidence is…?
Edu:
On the conciliar church side, the entire demolition (i.e the euphemistic springtime) of the Church/Faith is ascribed to the work of the Holy Ghost since it was the supposed HG that guided the VII council. On the sedevacantist side, it would appear that when a pope gets “elected” (ugh!), the Holy Ghost somehow transforms that wretched sinner into a holy orthodox Catholic who can’t do any wrong. And if this test is not met, well than obviously the pope isn’t a “true” pope. And it just seems to me that the way in which the Holy Ghost functions is somewhere in the middle. But I guess that’s just the kind of guy that I am. Middle of the road as you get. In fact, it’s just me, the yellow lines and the dead armadillos out here.
Say what you want about Benedict, but at least he preached about the evil of relativism, and the decay of society. While he was a man of the council, he also saw the reality and tried to reign things in a little. Francis is going full speed ahead with his vision of the church. Mark my words, if he keeps going, there will be a schism in the church. This time not only do you have trads, but also conservatives up in arms. Conservatives will now see for themselves the decision to follow the pope or church teaching and tradition.
Mr Armaticus,
“On the sedevacantist side, it would appear that when a pope gets “elected” (ugh!), the Holy Ghost somehow transforms that wretched sinner into a holy orthodox Catholic who can’t do any wrong. And if this test is not met, well than obviously the pope isn’t a “true” pope.”
Never heard of such an idea. Would you be kind enough to tell me the source for this interesting notion?
Joe,
Apparently Fidel Castro once said that a revolution is like riding in a bicycle, you must continuously ride forward, lest you slow down too much and fall. Bergoglio’s election has been carried out precisely to speed up the conciliar revolution; maybe the revolutionaries felt that things were not going fast enough with Benedict and they were not going to take any chances with the success of their cherished revolution.
Thank-you Halina and God Bless.
Salza also made an interesting connection between the apparitions of Quito Equador and the then Cardinal Pacelli prophecy. At Quito we are told the Church will be filled with heresy, impiety, and impurity. Heresy will be associated with a rupture in theology, impiety the destruction of the liturgy, impurity resulting from the gutting of the soul of the faith.
Since someone’s mentioned John Salza – Mr Salza – where’s my book – I’ve emailed you too many times with ZERO response.
p.s. quote of the day, ‘Just found out contumacious heretics could be popes.’ Thanks for this.
The scandalous Popes
It is not incongruent to stop here to note stories of Popes which may or may not be entirely factual, but which refer to Popes we acknowledge were less than they ought to have been in personal holiness and Church Governance. To name a few of the most frequently noted ‘bad Popes’ and their suggested failures…
–
Pope Stephen VI –had his predecessor exhumed, put on trial and his three fingers for blessings hacked off before throwing the corpse into the Tiber. It may have been Stephen VI who, it is said, ‘toasted to the devil at the high altar in St Peters’.
–
John XII –said to have been born to a fourteen year old girl, with his grandfather being his father. He himself is said to have had an incestuous relationship with his mother. He was Pope at eighteen and is said to have died at 27 when murdered by the husband of a lover. He is also said to have been guilty of arranging several murders himself.
–
Benedict IX –said to have been promoted to the Papacy at some age between 11 and 20, and to have engaged in sexual practices with men and animals.
Boniface VIII –said to have engaged not so much in sexual sin as simony (the buying and selling of ecclesiastical offices, such as Bishop, Cardinal etc).
–
Urban VI –said to have been a man of violent temper with a sadistic pleasure in violence: he is said to have complained if his tortured enemies did not scream loud enough to satisfy him.
–
Alexander VI (the ‘Borgia Pope’) is the name typically associated with ‘bad Popes’ since he is said to have had at least four children; to have hosted orgies within the walls of the Vatican; to have bought his way into the Papacy (the sin of simony); to have had an incestuous relationship with his daughter Lucretia and to have initiated several murders.
What these Popes show is that the Church has never been without its Judas’s, and never will be, but that the promise of Christ that Hell will not prevail has stood the test of time. After all, no mere human institution could have lasted with such grave abuses at the very top of its structures.
“I remind myself that the Popes we get are not chosen by God by by the Cardinals; God simply works with the Pope we give Him and keeps the Church safe.”
http://catholiccollarandtie.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/a-problem-for-pope-francis-in-his-own.html#comment-form
Saluto,
Despite the horrible heinous crimes committed by some popes none of this proves that Francis is a “pope”. Let us see what the Church has to say with regard to someone who commits a horribly heinous crime, whether this in and of itself separates him/her from the mystical body of Christ:
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, HOWEVER GRAVE IT MAY BE, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
Let us see what the Church has to say with regard to contumacious heretics who claim to be “popes”:
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
God Bless you Edu. Honestly, I really liked the ‘contumacious heretics’ quote. It made a lot of sense, and thank you for responding kindly to my ignorance. I’m a convert. One parent was Catholic but it seems, if I get really mystical, messing with Holy week, messed with the grace of the baptized and confirmed; in the mid 20th century a concord was struck between the father of lies and the children who would otherwise have chosen the stock or worse for the sake of the Father of Truth. I see, I think, in great sadness, the ordained and the consecrated, cherishing and arrogance of humility (concord with the world) against their ineffable gift in the face of graceless seekers.