He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me (Lk 10: 16)
With ever more determination. Some fifty years after Vatican II’s Declaration Nostra ætate, regarding the Church’s relations with non-Christian religions. It’s a train wreck. Going off the rails. Like the train plunging downwards from the exploding bridge on the river Kwai. It’s a shipwreck. In the making now for over five decades. Going asunder. Like the RMS Titanic, which for all her imprudent navigation, at least tried to avoid the iceberg. It’s tragic. It’s epic. It’s unnerving. Mercy!
+Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905-1991), who was a Vatican II Council Father, said in 1987—sometime after the first scandalous inter-religious meeting at Assisi in October 1986: Rome a perdu la foi, mes chers amis / Rome has lost the faith, my dear friends.
Ever wonder why good St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226), is never remembered that his love of God’s beautiful Creation was perfectly compatible with his going off on those medieval Crusades to the Holy Land, and whose dialogue with the Muslims consisted of trying to convert them to Christ in the Catholic faith?
Naturally, many progressive-liberals scoffed then at the French Archbishop’s “exaggeration,” due of course to his “rigid adherence” to “outmoded pre-conciliar ways.” Got to go with the new Pentecost (sic), conciliar springtime (sic) “signs of the times!”
But how many Neo-conservatives at that time, who were rightly uncomfortable with all the conciliar and postconciliar novelties being ruthlessly imposed upon the Church, and were beginning their dangerous connivance with it all (i.e., if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em), also distanced themselves from +Archbishop Lefebvre?
Still, given the overwhelming and ever increasing evidence of his terrifying statement—that of Rome losing the faith—particularly with respect to the conciliar praxis of relations between the Holy Catholic Church and other Christian denominations and non-Christian religions, one cannot but wonder, in awe, what the good Archbishop would say today…
And especially after watching the recent Vatican-produced video with Pope Francis expressing his prayer intentions for the month of January, in the year of Our Lord, 2016. At the end of the video he says he confides in our prayer for his idea of inter-religious dialogue. Sorry, Holy Father, but we Catholics cannot—indeed, must not—comply with your specific request.
You see, the Catholic faith and Apostolic Tradition are above the Papacy. But Father—Neo-conservative voices will clamor—we Catholics follow the Pope! Well-meaning but… we follow Christ, actually.
And insofar as the Pope follows Christ, we of course follow the Pope. Now, Neo-conservative Catholics might affirm that this is a schismatic attitude, or even a Protestant attitude. The SSPX is oftentimes unjustly accused of that. But we know that’s not true.
How do we know for sure? Very easy. Just look how the SSPX is treated by some in the Church. If the SSPX were indeed schismatic, heretical, or Protestant, why are they not welcomed with big smiles and open arms, like the schismatic Eastern Orthodox or other heretical Protestant communities?
Among other reasons, this alone offers conclusive proof that the SSPX is just traditional, aka Catholic, you know, like the Church is Catholic…
The truth of the matter is: the Successor of the Apostle St. Peter, and Bishop of Rome, must be Catholic, too. That’s just the Catholic way of things. It’s always been this way. The Pope is nothing less—and also nothing more—than the Vicar of Christ on earth. The Pope is not Christ himself.
As Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary of Astana, so rightly mentioned in a Polish TV interview, sometime during the two nefarious Synods on (aka against) the Family: when Our Lord founded his Church on the rock of the Apostle Peter, it’s the Lord’s Church, not Peter’s. It would behoove all Catholics—but particularly Neo-conservatives—to remember that.
Much as Catholics love, obey, and pray for the Pope—whoever he is and wherever he is from—part of the Catholic identity bundle is that the Pope must be, well, Catholic. But Father—told was I—are you suggesting that the Pope is not Catholic? Oh goodness no, I’m not suggesting it, I’m rather lamenting it, actually!
When Father Linus Clovis gave a great conference on the “Francis Effect” in Rome in May 2015, in his intervention, he mentioned the humorous rhetorical question: Is the Pope Catholic? That’s no longer funny… he said, with a smile and a resounding applause from his listeners. No indeed, it most certainly is no longer funny. Nor—more importantly—is it a mere humorous rhetorical question.
So no, Catholics should most obviously not pray for the Pope’s intentions, as shown in this video. Why not? Quite simply, because they are not Catholic intentions, that’s why. This needs to be stressed.
This video makes that very painfully clear. It’s so terrifyingly obvious, it outright slaps one hard in the face. And oddly enough, it still doesn’t awake those who refuse to wake up.
No, Catholics will be much better off praying for Pope Francis himself—not to mention that he will benefit from it—and most certainly not pray for his intentions. At best, Catholics should pray only for Pope Francis’ Catholic intentions… if there are any.
Since the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls (cf. CIC1983 c. 1752), praying for Pope Francis and only for his Catholic intentions (if any), should suffice for the Indulgences during the Jubilee Holy Year of Mercy. But certainly not pray for his intentions in the usual, general sense.
The Vatican video lasts one minute, thirty-two seconds. And that’s quite long enough. Thank Heaven it doesn’t last one second longer. The more I watch it, the more scandalous it seems. Frankly, it’s unbearable: (in original Spanish with English subtitles) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6FfTxwTX34
We hear Pope Francis declaim in a nice tone that the majority of the inhabitants of the planet declare themselves to be believers. And this fact should provoke a dialogue amongst the religions. That we (Catholics?) should not cease to pray for this dialogue, and collaborate with those who think differently.
Then we see four people make a profession of faith. A woman says: I confide in Buddha. A Jewish Rabbi says: I believe in God. A Catholic priest says: I believe in Jesus Christ. A Muslim leader says: I believe in God, Allah.
The way this is represented is rather awkward, since the Jewish Rabbi and the Muslim leader claim to believe in “God,” whereas the Catholic priest merely believes in “Jesus Christ,” which of course is correct.
But in the context of the video, somehow it comes off like: I believe in Jesus Christ, i.e., in some guy called by that name. If the priest had said I believe in Jesus Christ, God made Man, it would have been better. Granted, this may be nit-picking, but together, as a whole, it strikes me as being very awkward.
Then we see and hear Pope Francis say: Many people think differently, feel differently. They look for God or find God in diverse ways. In this multitude, in this variety of religions, there is one certainty for us all: We are all children of God.
The overall impression of apostasy in this video is confirmed by the papal assertion that different people look for God (true enough), but… (and here is the problem) even find God in diverse ways. Which God? Does Francis mean finding different false Gods with false religions? It sure doesn’t look like that’s what he means.
So, does Francis mean that people find, or can aspire to find, the only real God that exists, the One and Triune God, i.e., the Catholic God, in or through diverse religions? It would certainly seem so given the context.
But then, the implied consequence is that there really is no need, therefore, to procure conversion to God—neither by proselytism nor attraction—from these other religions, since each of them can provide “diverse ways” of “finding God.” Thus, by diverse ways, people of different religions end up—or can end up—believing in the same God (sic).
But alas, Francis has even denied the existence of a Catholic God. Indeed, the God of Francis is one of surprises!
In an interview with atheist Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari, Francis literally said: And I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being. Do you think we are very far apart? (Interview 1 October 2013).
Thus, Francis attributes the existence of a God—not a Catholic God—who is the Father, light, and Creator. But though Jesus Christ is his incarnation—seemingly—he is merely his teacher and pastor, since God is the Father.
Does Francis insinuate that Jesus Christ is somehow not God like the Father is God? Stunning affirmations coming from a Roman pontiff.
But the overall impression of apostasy is likewise accompanied by good, old-fashioned heresy. Francis says quite clearly in this video: In this multitude, in this variety of religions, there is one certainty for us all: We are all children of God.
Yet St. Paul mentions that we are children of unbelief and children of wrath, until we become children of God through the grace of Baptism (Eph 2: 1-5):
And you, when you were dead in your offences, and sins, wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief: in which also we all conversed in time past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: But God, who is rich in mercy, for his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, by whose grace you are saved.
My dear friend, Louie Verrecchio, has tried his hand at providing us with another translation of this video. OK, so it’s not a literal one like the one provided in this article, but, though quite humorous, it is a very accurate interpretative translation of what Pope Francis “really means:” https://akacatholic.com/the-pope-video-updated/
This Vatican video will make any true Catholic cringe with brooding dread. Maybe even give you a searing headache, or perhaps even a bleeding ulcer. At the very least, it might well ruin your peaceful sleep with insomnia. Oh yes, it’s that bad, make no mistake.
True enough, not every Catholic will agree with that assessment, of course. Some will not see anything wrong with the video… at all. My goodness. Naturally, these are the same people who see no problem whatsoever with Francis’ calamitous pontificate.
Because it’s not just this one video. It’s his nearly three-year long pontificate: an obsession to grant problematic, off-the-cuff interviews—on land and in the air—along with the customary Vatican Press Office’s Father Lombardi, a posteriori “clarifications” of what Francis “really meant,” ambiguity, mixed signals, mass confusion, creating great expectations of “change” for the progressive-liberal (aka modernist) agenda, who enthusiastically praise him, constant scolding of—seemingly—traditional doctrine and liturgical-minded Catholics, whom he calls Neo-Pelagian, promethean, self-absorbed pharisees… Goodness gracious me!
But for some Catholics—pious, intelligent people, mind you—everything is just fine, as it should be. You know, business as usual with the proverbial British stiff upper lip.
It’s just Francis’ personal, refreshing style that we’re not accustomed to in a Pope. And all the confusion is due only to manipulation of the media. Oh, is that all? Pope Francis has no personal responsibility for this mess? Really??? Amazing, ain’t it?
Some Catholics, far from seeing the slightest inconvenience, even go so far as to actually praise this Vatican video: What’s wrong with it? Why, it’s beautiful! Do they mean the production values? No, of course not! They mean the content of the video is beautiful! Are they serious?
But Father, the Pope doesn’t renounce Christ (oh really?), he doesn’t say anything that goes against Catholic doctrine (oh, is that so?), he only desires inter-religious dialogue among the various believers of the world, to procure peace and justice in the world… ah, but as a first step to converting them (uh, say again)?
Inter-religious dialogue as a “first step” in order to procure their conversion from their false gods, to the Truth, that is, the Catholic faith in Christ, in some ulterior ”second step?” Where on earth do these people get that idea from in this video? Why, that would be proselytizing—aka evangelizing—them, God forbid!
Please, let’s be intellectually honest and serious here. The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no scrap of evidence whatsoever that supports the idea that conciliar and postconciliar inter-religious dialogue is the “first step” to evangelizing—aka converting to Christ—as the end objective of this abominably apostate Vatican video.
Catholics who claim this, do so only because they want to, because that is their wish, their desire, but most certainly not because there is anything that even remotely hints that this is the plan from what one sees and hears in the video.
This ludicrous idea that evangelization is really a multi-step, end objective of conciliar and postconciliar inter-religious dialogue, is mere wishful thinking. Fifty years of Nostra ætate has made that pretty clear.
And Pope Francis makes it sadly and tragically clear that evangelization is most definitely not the end objective of inter-religious dialogue.
All he says in this video is that different people think differently (so?), that different people feel differently about God, that they look for him and even find him in different ways, i.e., religions (gasp!), and that dialogue between religions should help all of us to come together and procure peace and justice in the world (and that’s it?, really)?
Yes, that is all. There is nothing more. That is all there is here. The video has a self-contained message. Evangelization is nowhere to be found. Not with the strongest magnifying glass would it be discovered. Evangelization shines brightly—a bit of humor here—by its sheer, total, and absolute absence.
Oh yes, all these people in the video say I believe in love, as if to suggest that this is what all of us have in common. Is this meant to imply also that we all believe in the same God, because we all believe in love?
Though St. John, the Beloved Apostle, reveals to us all that, in effect, God is Love (1 Joh 4: 8), this video seems more to present it this way: “All you need is luv,” instead of “All you really need is Love, i.e., God who is Love, i.e., the Catholic God.”
Again: there is no evidence—not even a microbe—of any “first step” to procure conversion to Christ from false religions, in some future “second step.”
The great Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson, would be utterly incapable of finding the slightest clue to remotely suggest it, even as a possibility. Quite simply, because there is literally nothing to go on. As Porky Pig would say, after stuttering several times: That’s all, folks!
But Father, surely in his internal forum, the Pope secretly prays for the conversion of these people belonging to these other religions! Fair enough, I’ll be generous and will go all out to give Francis the benefit of the doubt…
Even if this were true, we still would have absolutely no evidence, absolutely no indication, to infer that from this video. This is just more speculative wishful thinking.
And given the Pope’s numerous interventions, in the same pastoral line as in this video, with Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and other religions, it only confirms that conversion to Christ in the Catholic faith, is simply not contemplated.
We are nearly three years into his disturbing pontificate, and have been giving him the benefit of the doubt. Quite honestly, there is much more doubt than benefit in doing so…
And if it weren’t already quite bad enough, at the end of this insufferable video, a Baby Jesus is held in view, while the clearly identifiable religious symbols of a little statue of Buddha, a seven-piece Jewish candle stick, and Muslim prayer beads, are shown next to him.
Everything in this video gives the inevitably strong impression of complete equal footing among the four religions. Nowhere is Christ considered nor presented, in any way whatsoever, unique nor even superior. Flagrant apostasy before our eyes. Abominable beyond belief!
At Christmas-tide and Epiphany-tide, the Church’s sacred liturgy celebrates Christ’s birth as the supreme divine revelation to mankind.
The angels proclaiming Gloria in excelsis Deo to the shepherds of Israel (the call to conversion for the Jews), and the star-guided journey to Bethlehem of the Magi Kings from the Orient (the call to conversion for the gentiles, i.e., everybody else). What’s not to understand about evangelization?
But Father, it’s a beautiful video! It makes me wonder if we saw the same video… But, oh yes, it’s the same exact video, all right. Just radically opposed viewpoints from serious Catholics, that’s all. Francis can most assuredly be given credit for one thing: his pontificate is causing great division in the Church, on an unprecedented scale.
But that smacks of a diabolical nature, does it not? The Devil, Satan, Dia-bo-los in Greek, which etymologically means adversary, one that divides and separates from God. A truly frightening prospect, surely. But some well-meaning Catholics resolutely refuse to see any problem. It’s a curious mystery. But not for God.
The Book of Psalms may offer us an explanation. What does the psalmist say? But our God is in heaven: he hath done all things whatsoever he would. The idols of the gentiles are silver and gold, the works of the hands of men. They have mouths and speak not: they have eyes and see not. They have ears and hear not: they have noses and smell not. They have hands and feel not: they have feet and walk not: neither shall they cry out through their throat. Let them that make them become like unto them: and all such as trust in them (psalm 113: 11-16).
But though dark clouds obscure the skies of Eternal Rome (for the time being), here are two luminous quotes from pre-Vatican II Popes. With a clearly different pastoral approach to inter-religious dialogue:
To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name (Pope Leo XIII, encyclical Immortale Dei, 1885).
Hence, Venerable Brethren, springs that ridiculous proposition of the Modernists, that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. Hence it is that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous. Hence the law, according to which religious consciousness is given as the universal rule, to be put on an equal footing with revelation, and to which all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church, whether in its teaching capacity, or in that of legislator in the province of sacred liturgy or discipline (Pope St. Pius X, encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis, 1907).
Only our good Lord knows how many victims are lost in this conciliar and post-conciliar liturgical, theological, and pastoral quagmire. And, barring some sort of huge miracle—and I do mean a really big one—there is no reason, humanly speaking, to hope that things are going to get better.
Sorry, no. Quite the contrary, in fact. It has been announced that Pope Francis plans a monthly video in which he will continue to present his intentions…
Fear not! There is a wise and humorous saying that seems so fitting to our seriously worrisome ecclesial situation, which, alas, has gotten dramatically and frighteningly worse under Pope Francis. The eternal pessimist says: No! It can’t possibly get any worse! The eternal optimist more shrewdly says: Oh yes it can!
Outstanding post, Father Campo!!!! Bergoglio’s motto should be: “Speak softly, but carry a wrecking ball aimed at the Catholic Church.” The train wreck isn’t over. More to come. In this Year of Mercy, may God have mercy on us all by removing Bergoglio from the Papacy in any way He sees fit. Bergoglio is drunk with power and must be stopped.
No New Springtime, this is the dead of winter. I can’t wait for the thaw. Just hope it doesn’t take fire falling from the sky as Our Lady predicted in Akita.
PS. It matters. Fr. How does one receive a supernatural and all-comapsssing title that we accept him as an altar Christis?
What jumped out at me from the notorious video is Christ presented as a sweet babe. The Catholic image which would have spoken the truth among the pagan/jewish idols is the Crucifix.
Isn’t that what this mess is all about? No Cross, no salvation.
Barbara, you hit the nail on the head. The modern church has denied the Cross. It is so much more pleasant to present Christ as a beautiful, but helpless babe. The Crucifix is much too Catholic. Why insult our non-Christian brethren? The Muslim prayer beads are shown–but no Rosary!!!
“The risen Lord instructed his apostles, and through them his disciples in all ages, to take his word to the ends of the earth and to make disciples of all people,” retired Pope Benedict wrote. “‘But does that still apply?’ many inside and outside the church ask themselves today. ‘Is mission still something for today? Would it not be more appropriate to meet in dialogue among religions and serve together the cause of world peace?’ The counter-question is: ‘Can dialogue substitute for mission?’
“In fact, many today think religions should respect each other and, in their dialogue, become a common force for peace. According to this way of thinking, it is usually taken for granted that different religions are variants of one and the same reality,” the retired pope wrote. “The question of truth, that which originally motivated Christians more than any other, is here put inside parentheses. It is assumed that the authentic truth about God is in the last analysis unreachable and that at best one can represent the ineffable with a variety of symbols. This renunciation of truth seems realistic and useful for peace among religions in the world.
“It is nevertheless lethal to faith. In fact, faith loses its binding character and its seriousness, everything is reduced to interchangeable symbols, capable of referring only distantly to the inaccessible mystery of the divine,” he wrote.
Pope Benedict wrote that some religions, particularly “tribal religions,” are “waiting for the encounter with Jesus Christ,” but that this “encounter is always reciprocal. Christ is waiting for their history, their wisdom, their vision of the things.” This encounter can also give new life to Christianity, which has grown tired in its historical heartlands, he wrote.
“We proclaim Jesus Christ not to procure as many members as possible for our community, and still less in order to gain power,” the retired pope wrote. “We speak of him because we feel the duty to transmit that joy which has been given to us.”
The term: “Francis’ calamitous pontificate” summed it up for me. But, what to do about it-? When I think of Francis’ conduct, Christ’s words to Peter, saying: “Get behind me Satan” echo in my head.
With the 100th anniversary of the Fatima Message looming above us, it seems imperative a strong wake-up call needs to be delivered to get this Pope’s attention. I ponder on a daily basis how this could be accomplished. Truly, I’ve written my last innocuous letter.
Seeing this video – I remember the feeling I got when I was 13 years old and I’d feel embarrassed when my mother kissed me in front of my friends…..like…”mom! stop being such a Mother!” The “pope” seems a bit too embarrassed by Catholicism, he’s got to push it away to maintain his coolness factor with his new friends.
Michael F Poulin
Blah, blah, blah – the same old, boring, idiotic off-topic nonsense from you, to every single post here.
Here’s my stock response to nowatch, which still works:
Perhaps one day they should attempt a rebuttal. However, I could write it for them, and if I did, I could guarantee you’d post it here.
Blah, blah, blah – the same old, boring, idiotic off-topic nonsense from you, to every single post here.
Here’s my stock response to nowatch, which still works:
Perhaps one day they should attempt a rebuttal. However, I could write it for them, and if I did, I could guarantee you’d post it here.
“We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302 AD)
…Whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.[St. Cyprian,de unitat. Eccl.]
Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal.” St. Ambrose of Milan (“Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David” c. 389 A.D.)
“Even if the Pope were the Devil incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.” –Saint Catherine of Siena
Interesting quote from St Catherine. I think it really shows us that evil Popes still have the authority of Peter and cannot disobey them unless they give an evil command. Also keep in mind that St Catherine resisted and rebuked a Pope.
All Catholics are aware of these things. Being subject to the supreme pontiff (recognizing his authority) does not preclude resisting his attempts to harm the Church, as the theologians & popes themselves have taught.
Conciliar and sedevacantist commentators both conclude that the approach of the Society of SSPX to the crisis in the Church effectively resurrects the error of Gallicanism. In other words, the Society are neo-Gallican schismatics:
The conciliar commentators:
The sedevacantist commentator:
Note in particular how far the duty of obedience is thought to extend in traditional Catholic thought as is evident from the conciliar commentators.
St. Cathrerine of Sienna:
“Even if the Pope were the Devil incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.”
Pope Paul IV:
““6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, . . . or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
* * *
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]: that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories: . . .the laity . . . shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).”
I’m glad the Almighty in his providence sent us Pope Paul IV so we don’t have to obey the devil!
@Tufty: do you believe that “Pope” Francis is in union with his legitimate predecessors?
Pope Paul the IV said you could resist a pope. Your quote from Paul the IV is disiplinary and has been changed by Pius XII. To prove this i will ask you this simple question: how could having been a heretic and then repenting keep you from becoming pope? Furthermore, he probally meant a formal heretic and not a material one. I say that because Augustine defines heritic as one who is pertinacious in his heresy and nit just mistaken.
I assume that you and salvemur both think John XIII was an anti pope since you both seem to be hard line seds. This seems to me to be rediculous because that would mean 100% of Catholics were objectivly scismatic because they were in communion with a public and manifest heretic. Thus th Church as a VISIBLE society of men united to Christ would have defected because you cannot be both visibly and objectivly united to Christ and a heritic, though you could be subjectly not culpable because of ignorance. Furthermore, the peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope has always been thought to be an infallible sign that the pope is pope.
@Critical Thinker: Where in the quote from Pope Paul IV does Paul IV say that a Pope can be resisted? Point it out with particularity, or I will assume that you are a prevaricator.
Thanks for pointing out that neo-Catholics and sedevacantists share the same root error, that a [legitimate] pope cannot err (and can never be resisted, despite what the popes and theologians blessed by them taught.)
We knew that.
Perhaps you ought to take a stab at an actual rebuttal of my little piece there.
Do you consider St. Catherine to have uttered dogma here? Interesting.
In point of fact, her context here was a pope imbibed in personal sin, not one attempting to lead the Church astray.
You were beaten in a thorough examination of this subject here:
I would urge the reader troubled by sedevacantist arguments to examine the facts. It’s an emotional reaction that looks good on the surface, but crumbles quickly in the face of the teachings of the Church and even raw logic.
That is called changing the subject. I am more interested in your opinion why the conciliar and sedevacantist commentators are wrong – in your opinion why isn’t the Society basically neo-Gallican or neo-Jansenist in its approach?
So the only true Catholics in your estimation are those in the Society?
You can answer the same question directed above – why isn’t the Society neo-Gallican or neo-Jansenist?
To quote the conciliar authors from above:
“1. The Society establishes seminaries, churches, chapels, and priories throughout the world without any reference to the local ordinaries in whose dioceses it carries out these acts. This is contrary to the Code of Canon Law (Canons 234, 237, 1215, 1223-1228).
2. It ordains priests without the dismissorial letters required by Canon Law (Canons 1015, 1018-1023).
3. It hears confessions and celebrates marriages without jurisdiction (Canons 966-976, 1108-1123).
4. It gives Holy Communion to persons who are well known sede vacantists (Canon 844). This is in spite of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre himself regarded such movements as having a “schismatic spirit” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics (1986), p. 155).
5. It refused Pope Paul VI’s command to close the seminary at Econe and wind up the Society (see the letter of the Commission of Cardinals to Archbishop Lefebvre and that of Pope Paul VI to the Archbishop, dated 6th May, 1975 and 29th June, 1975 respectively. both of which are reprinted, together with the Society s responses, in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume One, pp. 57- 59; 112- 119).
6. It carries out confirmations in other bishops’ dioceses. This is contrary to the Council of Trent which decrees that:
“No bishop is permitted under any pretext or privilege whatsoever to exercise episcopal functions in the diocese of another bishop, without the permission of the Ordinary of the place and with regard to persons subordinate to the same Ordinary. If any bishop does otherwise, he will be lawfully suspended from his episcopal functions . . .’ (Sess. VII, cp. 5, emphasis supplied).
7. It purports to accept John Paul II as pope and yet rejects parts of the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by him in his capacity as supreme legislator (see, e.g., Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, ed. Fr. Francois Laisney (1988), pp. 176-178).
8. Finally, in 1988 the Society consecrated four bishops, knowing that this was against the express will of the pope, and then in 1991 proceeded to consecrate a further bishop in a diocese (Campos in Brazil) where, as the Society itself recognizes, there is already a valid bishop. This is contrary to Canon 1013. Furthermore, the Society of St. Pius X cites not a single declaration of a pope or a council (to say nothing of theologians and Church fathers) stating that there may be a legitimate episcopal consecration against the will of the pope. But according to Pope Pius XII, who was so revered by Archbishop Lefebvre. an episcopal consecration done against the will of the pope is an offense against divine law.
‘No one may legitimately confer episcopal consecration unless in advance the particular papal authorization is in [the consecrating bishop’s] possession. Through this criminal act there is carried out a most serious attack on the unity of the Church Itself. Therefore, for such a consecration performed against divine and human law, there is established the penalty of excommunication . . .’ (Apostolorum Principis ).
To sum up, then, here is an organization which pays no regard whatsoever to the commands and laws of legitimate authority in the Church and which refuses to do the express will of the supreme pontiff in matters of great importance for use visible unity of the Church. Put all of these things together and what we have is an autonomous organization, a petite eglise, an independent Church. If this does not constitute schism, what does? “
Father, spot on! Absolutely spot on to the letter. The only additional thing that I observed is the expression on Francis when he says his lines. The body language says to me something to the effect of “this will happen, I’m going to make sure it does and no fundamentalist Catholics can stop me. Do I make myself clear!”
I’ve been reading this blog for a while now. Can someone please point out where my reasoning is wrong here?
All popes must be Catholic
Jorge is not Catholic
Therefore Jorge is not a pope
The Roman Catholic Church cannot defect from the faith
The Vatican II church defected from the faith
Therefore the Vatican II church is not the Roman Catholic Church
I am using the rule of modus tollens. Either I’m using it wrong or my premises are wrong. Where am I going wrong here?
Dear readers: thank you all for your input. But this article really deals with Pope Francis’ January 2016 prayer intentions video. Though in it there are references to tangent subjects, i.e, the SSPX, most of the comments are straying from the central idea here which is a critical commentary of said video. I would ask readers therefore, to refrain from commenting about the SSPX and their canonical situation with respect to the Church: this is not the main topic of the article. Among many other reasons—much too numerous to comment here—why the SSPX is NOT in a state of schism—public declarations of Cardinals Cassidy and Castrillón Hoyos (former Head of the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei commission), Bishop Schneider’s recent Vatican-appointed Apostolic Visit to two SSPX seminaries, praising the ecclesial climate he found there, and stating in an interview that he saw no weighty reasons why the SSPX should be denied a canonical regularization AS THEY ARE, etc.), Pope Francis himself has given their bishops and priests, ordinary faculties to absolve sins in the sacrament of Penance for the Holy Year of Mercy. And the SSPX publicly thanked the Holy Father in yet another proof of their willingness to submit to the Pope. Look, the complex Rome-SSPX relations are NOT one of discipline or obedience, but one of DOCTRINE. I wish to be crystal clear about this. Until we get THAT into our heads, we will NEVER understand what’s really going on: in the SSPX and in the rest of Holy Mother Church. Even Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged this DOCTRINAL, NOT DISCIPLINARY issue in a heartfelt letter to all the bishops of the Catholic Church dated 10 March 2009, lamenting the “hatred” being dispensed the SSPX. So please, let’s just stop banging on the false accusation of schism. It’s just not true and it’s getting quite stale. If readers so desire, let them please comment on the content of the Vatican video. Thank you one and all.
And I am just using raw logic here. I don’t like sedevacantism. I don’t like believing that we are living in a wasteland with a unfaithful whore in Rome pretending to be a bride and saying that she will know no sorrow. I think it’s to the contrary. People reject sedevacantism because it’s too scary and depressing. The only reason to believe anything is because it’s true.
Thank you, Father Campo. I find that this blog is much more meaningful when the commentators stick to the topic. I also, at times, am guilty of this so I am not throwing stones at anyone. Maybe we could all be mindful of this. God bless you, Father.
I read the link you’ve offered here. So John Salza is actually, really, a mason? Despite the fact that he’s written best-selling books exposing the evils of masonry and illustrating its complete incompatibility with the Catholic faith? And has lectured on these topics and debated prominent masons – when they weren’t running from him, that is? Yes, that makes sense. Yes, it’s all just part of the act!
The notion put forth that those who call-out the sedevacantist error are “protecting” the pope is also completely laughable. Nothing more needs to be said for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
The author of this post should be ashamed of himself for committing the sin of calumny, as should anyone who furthers it. This is calumny plain & simple despite what the author opines in a comment – making an accusation that is completely unfounded is calumny, even if the author amusingly allows that he’s not completely certain of it. (If I say “my neighbor may be a child molester” simply because I don’t like him, is that calumny? Of course it is.)
But, no matter, as it is really counter-productive; in fact, this one little post is kind of the quintessential sedevacantist piece, demonstrating well its most intrinsic properties:
— Subjective judgement
— Weak (at best) inference put forth with near moral certainty
— Logical leaps unfounded by or running counter to the evidence
“Desperation” is what comes immediately to mind here: The sedes ignore the material (pronouncing the book they haven’t even seen as “nothing new” – which is far from the case) and go for the calumny of persons involved instead. In a sense its Sede 101 but it’s a new low.
By the way, I happen to know the guy, and can personally attest that he’s a devout Catholic and an enemy of freemasonry. It’s appropriate to offer such a testimony when this sort of thing is being spread.
Sedevacantism is an emotional response to the crisis in the Church. This is evident in many aspects of the movement – its bitterness and constant tendencies to calumny and personal insult. Most especially, though, it’s evident in the illogical nature of the argument itself and the illogical manner in which sedes cling to their thesis no matter what evidence is put in their path.
Fr. Campo, The Church could use millions of more Priests just like you. GOD BLESS you!
Father it was you who introduced the topic of the SSPX in your essay. Now you pronounce that we may not remark on that. You might believe that the issue is doctrinal, and the SSPX believes that the issue is doctrinal, but the Church has consistently held that the issue is obedience. The Bishops were not excommunicated for their doctrine. They were excommunicated for their disobedience. And they have been in an “irregular” status for 40 years now. Granted the SSPX has not been formally declared to be schismatic; but, their entire organization is without question materially schismatic. You are allegedly a priest in good standing yet you take it upon yourself to come into a public forum and viciously attack the Pope. If you have a issues with what the Pope is doing or saying, why aren’t you taking this to your superior, the Bishop, and voicing your objections humbly and respectfully through the proper channels? I think your behavior is far more seriously evil than the Pope’s. I know they won’t publish this, but I want you to see it. Once again I am forced to avoid another forum because the content has crossed a moral line. I have enjoyed reading many of your columns Louie, but I won’t be back as a result of this one.
Pope Paul IV says in cum exapostalata that you can resist a Pope but not judge him in the Papal Bull that you quoted from. Just look it up.
I am sorry you feel that way, tufty. Yes, I am a diocesan priest from Spain, in good standing. I do not accept that I have “viciously attacked” Pope Francis in this article. Calling for prayer for the Pope can hardly be considered vicious. The article merely presents the precise content of the Vatican video and the commentary is, yes, very critical, but not in any way vicious. Have you seen that video? You are Catholic and have no problem with it? What do you think of it? You claim that my article is more seriously evil than what Francis is doing in this video. I obviously disagree. As for voicing my concerns through “proper channels” I think it would be pretty useless. Who am I but a mere traditional-minded diocesan priest? Who cares what I think? Though I would say, with firsthand knowledge, that some bishops in full communion would substantially agree with the fundamental line of thought in my article. Though of course, would probably never come out in public saying so. God bless you, sir, and may He illuminate us all. +Father JM
tufty, Father’s behavior is more seriously evil than the Pope’s? That statement tells me that you are definitely in the wrong forum. It is a good decision for you to leave. Hope you find a forum more to your taste—Have you ever heard of Michael Voris??
I have a very good reason for bringing this up. First off traditionalists who take the sspx position are not neo Gallicans. Clearly John XXIII taught error and I have demonstrated above that he must have been a pope so therefore the r and r position as it is called is justifiable with at least John XXIII. If a pope can say something erroneous concerning the faith then it is common since that he can be contradicted. Now he may not have been as bad as later popes but the difference is to a large extent only a matter of degree. So if we know for a fact that John XXIII was a pope then it is likly that the other conciliar popes were in fact popes. What is good for defending or attacking the validity of his Papacy is good for the other popes as well.
I have been very upset with what has been going on in the Church for years.
One can not be aware of the teachings of the Church and not feel this way.
However, I try to remain conscious of the fact that nothing happens outside the will of God. There is no doubt that Pope Francis was intended by Almighty God to sit on the Throne of Peter. Who are any of us to rail against God’s selection?
And there is no doubt that God could remove Pope Francis at any moment if that is His will, and He also could restore the Church to her former glory at any time. He chooses not to do so. We all know that everything always works to the good for those who fear God. Who knows but maybe this is a part of our test: accepting God’s will in these matters, and offering prayer and sacrifice for the Pope and for the world.
It is not for any of us to sit in judgement of the Pope or the Magisterium for that matter. Our job is to conform ourselves to God’s will in all things.
Whatever is, including the current state of the Church, is God’s will.
Wrong. The Sedevacantist has reached this entire Catholic position by following the Catholic evidence despite the remonstrations of Novus Ordo Drama Queens.
Your reasoning is very Catholic. The conclusion is in line with sedevacantist positions as the most faithful response to the Catholic facts you point out.
VII created a new ecclesiology, a new doctrine of salvation, its heresiarchs replaced authentic rites with doubtful or outright invalid rites, they also demoted Christ below the UN and now we have the full-blown VII Vicar of belial usurping the name Catholic and the concept of Pope. Every Novus Ordo parish is a temple of schism and perversion of the faith.
Hi tufty. I do not exactly who you are, but nevertheless, welcome to the forum. From your responses I can see that your not a Traditionalist but more of a neo-conservative, but that’s OK. Remember that the popes (any popes) pronouncement is supreme but not absolute. A pope therefore can preach error and in such a case we are not as Catholics obliged to simply blindly submit. A popes duty is to lead his flock in accordance with Our Lords teachings and commandments. God has willed that Francis be pope and has also allowed him to stray into error just like some popes in the past. Fr Campo has merely pointed out that on this occasion (and countless others) the pope has, as regards his duty, gone off on a tangent and even gotten lost along the way. We have the express permission, as per Canon Law, to point out to our shepherds (which doesn’t exclude the pope) those things that pertain to faith. It is clear that Pope Francis has a different understanding of faith, the same understanding that the modernists have. That is, a faith that is “experienced” by the the individual in equal validity by any person in any religion. Fr. Campo has correctly identified that what Pope Francis has done in this video goes expressly against previous papal teachings. In other words, he’s doing his own thing, in his own way and those of us with two eyes open cannot follow. In turn, anything that Pope Francis says and does that is in line with Catholic tradition we must therefore follow. But not in this case.
@Tufty: J-bomb gave you this advice regarding the present situation in the Church:
“In other words, he’s [Pope Francis is] doing his own thing, in his own way and those of us with two eyes open cannot follow. In turn, anything that Pope Francis says and does that is in line with Catholic tradition we must therefore follow. But not in this case.”
The subject of this post by Father Campo is the apparent apostasy of Pope Francis. J-bomb advises you, without citation to any authority in the magisterium, that you should effectively remain in communion with Pope Francis and to sift his teachings and to accept them to the extent that the teachings are orthodox.
In contrast to the advice given you by J-bomb, two Popes gave diametrically opposed instruction. In particular, these Popes in certain situations advised the faithful not to remain in communion with the Pope, but rather “TO AVOID HIM AS A HERESIARCH”.
For example, in the case of a simoniacal Papal election, Pope Julius II enacted a constitution that, among other things, rendered the election null and void. A simoniacal papal election is an election arranged through bribery; i.e., the papal office is purchased. Pope Julius II enacted the following provisions in the instance of a simoniacal election:
“A simoniacal election of this kind is never at any time to be made valid by a subsequent enthronement or the passage of time, or even by the act of adoration or obedience of all the cardinals. It shall be lawful for each and all of the cardinals, even those who consented to the simoniacal election or promotion, even after the enthronement and adoration or obedience, as well as for all the clergy and the Roman people, together with those serving as prefects, castellans, captains and other officials at the Castel Sant’ Angelo in Rome and any other strongholds of the Roman church, notwithstanding any submission or oath or pledge given, to withdraw without penalty and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even if he has been enthroned (while they themselves, notwithstanding this, remain fully committed to the faith of the Roman church and to obedience towards a future Roman pontiff entering office in accordance with the canons) and to avoid him as a magician, a heathen, a publican and a heresiarch. To discomfort him still further, if he uses the pretext of the election to interfere in the government of the universal church, the cardinals who wish to oppose the aforesaid election can ask for the help of the secular arm against him.
Those who break off obedience to him are not to be subject to any penalties and censures for the said separation, as though they were tearing the Lord’s garment.”
As is evident from this section of Pope Julius II’s constitution, the faithful are both permitted  to withdraw their obedience from the simoniacal papal pretender;  to avoid him as a magician, a heathen, a publican and a heresiarch, and required  to return their obedience to the next valid papal claimant whenever one is elected. Note Pope Julius II did not authorize the faithful to commune with the simoniacal papal pretender or to accept his orthodox teachings. Why is this? Because the election of the simoniacal papal pretender is null and void and never becomes a reality. Since he never becomes Pope, the pretender can neither demand the obedience of, nor command the subjection of, the faithful.
The frequently-mentioned Pope Paul IV enacted similar legislation in his Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. When it appears that a papal claimant has deviated from the faith or fallen into heresy from a time prior to his elevation, Pope Paul IV enacted the following legislation:
“7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]: that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories: . . .the laity . . . shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).”
As is evident from this provision, Pope Paul IV followed the same model as Pope Julius II. When it appears that a Papal claimant deviated from the faith or fell into heresy from a time prior to his elevation, the laity are both authorized (1) to withdraw their obedience from the heretical papal usurper and (2) “to avoid [him] as [a] warlock, heathen, publican, and heresiarch”, and required (3) to return their obedience to the next valid papal claimant to be elected. Note that Pope Paul IV does not authorize the faithful to remain in communion with the heretical papal usurper, or to accept his teachings to the extent that they are orthodox.
Whose instruction do you feel more confident in accepting, an anonymous poster who cites no authority, or that of two Popes?
In life, people agree and disagree. That’s the normal way things go. But this article provides an exact and faithful English translation of what Pope Francis and the four individuals appearing in the video, say. What we see and hear is then discerned and, finally, a highly critical commentary is provided. Of course, I don’t expect every reader will agree with my commentary, nor its tone. And that’s perfectly fine. But I provide strongly reasoned arguments to criticize the content of this Vatican video the way I do. It would be great for those readers who disagree, to provide strongly reasoned arguments to the contrary. I am more than willing to listen. And willing to be convinced that I am wrong in my assessment of this papal video. In fact, I would love to be convinced. But quite honestly, I have no reason to believe otherwise than what is commented in this article. Strongly negative emotional reactions to my critical commentary are understandable, but they do not provide a very good platform for an honest debate. Again I say: reasoned arguments, for and against, based on facts, to say what we do. That makes for a healthy and stimulating exchange of viewpoints.
Dear Father Campo,
Your comments and tone regarding this disgraceful and disgusting video are exactly on target and well deserved. “Strongly negative emotional reactions” are exactly that–emotions based on feelings NOT facts. I look forward to reading responses to your challenge. The Pope is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ. Someone who is an ambassador FOR Christ. The Pope is NOT Christ. Our loyalties as Catholics belong to Christ and to the Pope when he fulfills his proper role as Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church. When he deviates from this awesome task, it is our right and duty to be “highly critical” as you have faithfully done!
Yes. We (I) can always learn from these discussions. What I NEED to learn is to criticize Pope Francis’ words and actions without imputing motives to him.
This is very tricky as in my anger I tend to shoot from the lip instead of bringing forth some charity and fact, then shooting from that lip!
I think one way (which I’ll try to use) is to take what Francis says, find out where he’s gone wrong, then show what the Church actually teaches on the topic – without personal comment about HIM specifically.
As well it behooves us all to read some of the information from Pius X on Modernism. This is a specific heresy, with specific identifiers. Learning this heresy, and the tricks used to spread it throughout the Church is also key. But it’s not enough to criticize – we must have the truth with which to counter falsehood.
The priest posters to do this – and I hope we (I) can learn from that.
You have demonstrated that only remarks that fall within the parameters which you alone establish have any merit. First, they can not concern the SSPX. Now they must be limited to direct contradictions to your “assessment of the papal video.” Anything else is simply an irrational , emotional response which should simply be dismissed. How about I set the parameter that only responses that deal with the morality of a priest openly and viciously criticizing the Pope in a public forum are permitted. I don’t choose to respond to your assessment, I choose to question the morality of your “assessing” the Pope at all.
You consistently make my point for me. Thank you.
Oh, and that will mark my last visit here. I’ve begun repeating myself.
tufty, please be aware that I am fairly lenient and don’t usually moderate the com box. I am not censoring reader comments which you seem to insinuate. Other blogs are far more strict. And pardon me for saying, but you would probably have been banned elsewhere for your insolence. If you or anyone else really wish to comment about the SSPX, you may do so… but could it not be within the context of my commentary on the Vatican video, please? You have as yet only attacked me and accused me of a vicious attack on Pope Francis. Yet you fail to point out the reasons. And you have yet to comment on what you think about the video in question… though I gather that you don’t consider it a vicious attack on the Catholic faith and evangelization. But if you merely persist in attacking me, and not contribute to an honest and open debate, for the good of Holy Mother Church, then perhaps it would be better if you leave.
tufty–If you mean I consistently defend the right(and duty) to criticize the Pope when he is wrong and a danger to the faith, then I thank you for the compliment. Since you have made your last comment here, I wish you well and Godspeed. Michael Voris is going to love you!
Hi St Cyprian, thanks for the insightful reply. Even though I do personally think Francis a heretic I am still on the fence. I have looked into Sedevacantism, but despite listening to many of their convincing arguments, I found much infighting and division amongst them. Some here would know of the SSPV and how some priests left and later became Thuc bishops and the SSPV priests don’t recognise their consecrations etc. The unfortunate problem I see with Seds is that they’re leaderless and don’t swear fidelity to anyone. They only stick around with a group while they agree 100% and once they don’t they move on. In other words Seds don’t agree with other Seds except on the chair of Peter bring vacant. I’m not against Seds as I consider them Catholic brothers in arms and trust them regarding aspects of the faith over those in the Novus Ordo camp. We’re in tough times now and I think more collaboration and less infighting amongst trads is the way to battle this current crisis. (Apologies to Fr Campo for straying off topic).
I totally understand your POV…..its all extremely confusing and that is 100% due to the non Catholic v2 council. The only thing I would say regarding those who believe the seat to be vacant is that their fidelity is to Christ and His Catholic Church. As far as sedes being leaderless, who do the trads actually call their leader on earth? Both of us despise Mr. Bergoglio.