A tale of two statues

Comments (48)

1. Louie, I’m so glad you wrote this article. The first time I saw a photo of this sculpture somewhere on the internet years ago, my first thought was “That’s ridiculous!!”

   I don’t have to add another word. You said it all!!!

   Thank you!

2. And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.”

   Matthew 8:20

3. That “sculpture” is nothing more than a visual blasphemy and a mockery of Our King, His Divine Majesty, Our Lord Jesus Christ. I don’t think even the most hardened heretics during the past 2000 years would have dared to depict such a hideously disfigured Christ. I mean, even the worst of heretics at least had RESPECT for the person of Christ.
   –
   “According to NPR, a cast will be installed on the Via della Conziliazione, the street leading to St. Peter’s Basilica, if approved by the City of Rome. Schmalz visited the Pope in Vatican City in November 2013 to present a miniature version of his statue. He recalled about the Pope’s reaction, “He walked over to the sculpture, and it was just chilling because he touched the knee of the Jesus the Homeless sculpture, and closed his eyes and prayed. It was like, that’s what he’s doing throughout the whole world: Pope Francis is reaching out to the marginalized.”
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeless_Jesus

4. But Jesus strode throughout Israel boldly, with power and truth – unafraid – manly – saying what He wanted to say, healing those He wanted to heal – admonishing many, and comforting others…the fact that He didn’t have a permanent abode did not make Him homeless, pathetic and weak.

5. speaking of pathetic and weak…

6. The image of “Homeless Jesus” reminds me of the return of Odysseus, disguised as an old, frail man, to his kingdom, Ithaca. The suitors who aimed to usurp his crown did not recognize him as King….until it was too late.
   Like the parable of the Tenants and the Vineyard (Luke 20: 9-19). “What then will the owner of the vineyard to them?” Pope Francis’ had better pray His year of Mercy is successful in ways he does not intend.

7. There is so much defiant pride in this false depiction of Our Lord and Saviour. It is making God in the image of Man. Yes, they know what’s good for God. Reducing God to a meme in their wicked socialist materialist propaganda. Lord, have mercy.

8. That one is weak.

   This one is downright demonic:

   https://mariamuir.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/10342000_10152371632337707_747374685554118429_n.jpg

9. CraigV–Was this the brainchild of Steven King? Frighteningly ugly! It is inappropriate for the Vatican—it’s inappropriate for a Horror Museum!!!!! The word “demonic” is almost too kind. On the other hand, perhaps it is VERY appropriate in the modern “church”.

10. And if you lift homeless Jesus’ cloak, you will find a waif-like being who looks like Kate Moss. So much of the statuary in the Novus Ordo church is repellent. Ugly, emasculated Virgin Marys and androgynous Christs. The more I read about the Luciferian influences on Vatican II it all makes sense.

11. Oops, that should read “masculine” Virgin Marys above.

12. “It’s one thing to see Jesus Christ in the face of the homeless; it is quite another to see the weak and the downtrodden in Christ the King” – this is a remarkably poignant observation. I am going to remember that line.

    [There are so many diabolically-uncanny nuances of this present crisis, one of them being that the temporally-centered modernists have co-opted the corporal works of mercy as their own. They are not!]

13. Completely off -topic , ongoing news– what many are calling the Star of Bethlehem is appearing tonight (June 30th) and for the next two weeks.
    __
    (9:26pm eastern time, 8:26pm Central Time and 7:26 Mountain Time)
    “look west, just above the horizon, you’ll see a bright object in the night sky as Jupiter and Venus come within 1/3 of a degree of each other. This is what they call “The Star of Bethlehem” conjunction because Jupiter and Venus did something similar near the star Regulus in 3/2 BC, more than 2000 years ago. Many astronomers say that this ancient celestial event is the one recorded in the Bible’s Gospel of Matthew. ”
    ___
    In addition to the fact that Our Lord told us there would be “signs in the sun, moon and stars” that we are to watch for, there is no telling what different religious groups, like ISIS, will make of this. Very strange times, we’re experiencing….
    Lord Jesus, King of all Creation, we place our trust in Thee. Ave Maria.

14. “……..note very well who it is that says, “as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.
    –
    It is the King!”
    —-
    And I am going to remember that line …………and your poignant analysis of Matthew 25:34-40.

15. Thank you Louie for the Matthew 25 quote: ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ a quote that has been truly misappropriated by the social justice crowd. They simply assume the leastofmybrethren means any poor down and out smuck. But when one reads the quote with no pre-conceived notions, you have to ask yourself “who exactly are these “brethren” that Jesus is calling his “least” ?” I believe it is clear that He is speaking of His own disciples, his precious “little ones” and He is telling the world, basically… “Look, you touch my boys, you’ll have me to deal with!” which is exactly what the Judgment of the Nations is going to be all about, as in the Book of Joel. It has nothing at all to do with “social justice” and all about God avenging His own. It is a mistake to think all of mankind, especially those who hate God, are our “brethren.” We who belong to Jesus are children of God by adoption, and no one who rejects Jesus is a “brother.” We have an obligation first and foremost towards our Christian brothers. We do not necessarily have the same level of obligation to none-Christians. All are creatures of God, but few are His adopted sons.

16. Amen!

17. Temporal Sufferings Should Be Borne Patiently, After the Example of Christ
    The Voice of Christ
    MY CHILD, I came down from heaven for your salvation and took upon Myself your miseries, not out of necessity but out of love, that you might learn to be patient and bear the sufferings of this life without repining. From the moment of My birth to My death on the cross, suffering did not leave Me. I suffered great want of temporal goods. Often I heard many complaints against Me. Disgrace and reviling I bore with patience. For My blessings I received ingratitude, for My miracles blasphemies, and for My teaching scorn.

    Thomas a Kempis
    Imitation of Christ
    Book 3
    Chapter 18

18. He has no form or comeliness;
    And when we see Him,
    There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
    He is despised and rejected by men,
    A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.

    Isaiah 53:2-3

19. Maradiaga’s comment is utterly hypocritical. The ‘hierarchy’ of which he speaks bow to nothing and serve only their own self-centred ideology. They have arrogantly and pridefully exiled everything they should serve and ‘suffer’ for – faith, morals, the Bride of Christ, the rights of the King of Kings seated at the right hand of the Father, who shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead…
    –
    The only poverty Bergolio-ism understands is an idol – it is material and they only way they understand that idol is through mind of men like Marx. The soul within the homeless person is superfluous to the idol of his material homelessness, which will end very soon, and then we face our eternal ‘homes’.
    –
    “Man does not serves God in performing acts of virtue unless he performs them virtuously…God cannot be content with our doing just things; He is content only with our acting justly. He is not satisfied with our doing true things, but only with our acting truly…”but doing truth in charity, we may, in all things grow in Him, who is the head, even Christ.” Eph 4:15. Fr Leen,, “Why the Cross?” — What Fr Leen is saying is that works without faith are dead. Faith adulterated is false – it is spiritually useless to ourselves and others. Our Lord prescribed the ‘narrow gate’ on the ‘straight road’: How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!

20. “By His wounds we are healed.” All nations and individuals, if they will conform their will that of their King will be healed. As a depiction of Christ, the statue is, as In Hoc points out, a blasphemy. It is part of the heresy JPII proudly proclaimed who stated that everyman is now Christ by virtue of the Incarnation; which is rubbish. As much respect as I might have for my my doctor, or the homeless person who said, ‘God bless you’, simply because I stopped to talk to him, neither, merely being human, can wash away my sins and, through human mercy, save my soul from the fires of hell.
    –
    “In those words is the faith of the Church. In those same words is the new truth, indeed, the ultimate and definitive truth about man: the son of the living God —”You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” ” http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/homilies/1978/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19781022_inizio-pontificato.html
    (note the colon “:” indicates that “the son of the living God” belongs to the introduction, “In these words is the new truth…about man”.
    –
    “In reality, the name for that deep amazement at man’s worth and dignity is the Gospel, that is to say: the Good News. It is also called Christianity. This amazement determines the Church’s mission in the world and, perhaps even more so, “in the modern world”. This amazement, which is also a conviction and a certitude-at its deepest root it is the certainty of faith, but in a hidden and mysterious way it vivifies every aspect of authentic humanism-is closely connected with Christ. It also fixes Christ’s place-so to speak, his particular right of citizenship-in the history of man and mankind.” http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_04031979_redemptor-hominis.html
    Fostering this narcissistic ‘amazement’ is not the Church’s mission.

21. OT and I will face the consequences.
    Dear Louie,
    Please may I express my great admiration of and appreciation for your sincere efforts to promote Catholic Truth? You are schooled in the Faith and do great good. I very much enjoy reading your blog daily and I have learned a great deal from you and those who comment there.
    Your recent comments and policies regulating the conduct of commentators in your combox are very reasonable indeed. I know I push the boundaries with the S-word, but I do so for love of our Faith.
    I believe that you and very many of the commentators are right at the line in the sand; right at the very brink. One more step and you will be safely in S-land. Careful reading of “Archbishop William E. Lori’s boat” makes this clear:

    1. “This is, after all, the fourth annual such nonevent designed by a committee of bishopcrats struggling to convince themselves, against all evidence to the contrary, that the stripped down, emasculated version of the Catholic Church that they represent is still a relevant part of the American landscape.”
    2. “Don’t get me wrong, the Fortnight for Freedom does serve an important purpose; namely, to demonstrate just how little authentic Catholic conviction remains in the post-conciliar church-of-man, and to do so with such stunning clarity that even a neo-conservative nincompoop can scarcely miss the point.
    3. “God knows, literally, that the post-conciliar crop of bishops have not the wherewithal to declare unto the civil authorities of this world,… Instead, they insist upon a bastardized version of religious liberty that renders no account whatsoever for the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King and the truth that He entrusted to His Church.
    4. “It is a fearful thing to imagine a Successor to the Apostles one day having to answer the Just Judge for praising those who reject Him and His Holy Catholic Church as “men and women of deep faith and deep courage.”
    5. “I don’t know what kind of “boat” Archbishop Lori is on with those “brave” Muslim “believers” to whom he looks for insight into God’s precious gifts, but I do know this; it sure as Hell isn’t the Barque of St. Peter.”
    No Catholic could with truth say such things about the Catholic Church. It is not possible for such statements to be true of the Catholic Church. You have made many similar statements in previous posts.
    The highlighted bits (I can’t get them to highlight in the combox) – “the stripped down emasculated version of the Catholic Church” – “the post-conciliar church-of-man,” “a bastardized version of religious liberty,” describe a counterfeit “church,” not the Catholic Church. Do you truly believe that the Indefectible Bride of Christ “subsists” (VII) in a “bastardized, stripped down, emasculated church-of-man” which “sure as hell isn’t the Barque of St. Peter”?
    I will not believe that you do Louie! There can be no concord between Christ and belial, therefore there should be no union – “una cum” – with a non-Catholic pretender in a white cassock. Every Catholic must ask himself in his heart of hearts: Is the novus ordo Catholic? Is the man in the white cassock the Vicar of Christ?
    One day each of us who are informed, will have to justify our answers to those questions to Our Lord Jesus Christ, Himself.
    If I have gone too far, block me from the site Louie, but I am forced by our Faith to speak according to my conscience.
    God bless you.

22. The Church is indefectible; she is not an instrument of defect, no matter the lack of holiness of her members. The ‘post-concilliar’ institution is defectible. It had to create a ‘bastardized’ Novus Ordo ‘code of canon law’ and Novus Ordo ‘catechism’ – these are necessary because they are in concord with the defection that is VII and the defections that are the new rites, the new ecumensim, the new ecclesiology – the whole Novus Ordo ‘magisterium’. The father-of-lies had to immitate the authentic code, the authentic catechism and the authentic rites in order for the deception to sustain credence.
    –
    “For, to the Catholic Church alone belong all those many and marvelous things which have been divinely arranged for the evident credibility of the Christian faith. But, even the Church by itself, because of its marvelous propagation, its exceptional holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works; because of its catholic unity and invincible stability, is a very great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an incontestable witness of its own divine mission.” First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius
    –
    “Christ our Lord instituted His Church as a perfect society, external of its nature and perceptible to the senses, which should carry on in the future the work of the salvation of the human race, under the leadership of one head, with an authority teaching by word of mouth, and by the ministry of the sacraments, the founts of heavenly grace…This Church, after being so wonderfully instituted, could not, on the removal by death of its Founder and of the Apostles who were the pioneers in propagating it, be entirely extinguished and cease to be, for to it was given the commandment to lead all men, without distinction of time or place, to eternal salvation: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations.”[Mt 28:19] In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present to it, according to His solemn promise: “Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world?”[Mt 28:20] It follows then that the Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles, unless we were to say, which God forbid, either that Christ our Lord could not effect His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted that the gates of hell should never prevail against it.[Mt 16:18]” Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos
    –
    “…the Church, although human faults can be found in her, is always the Church of Christ, and, as such, true and infallible in preserving and transmitting the sacred deposit of faith, that is, of truth and heavenly grace; and she is holy, in fact, the very same ‘Church of God, which He purchased with his blood’ [Acts 20:28]. God is always great and wonderful in his works, but He is especially to be considered so where his greatest charity is shown forth, where his most abundant redemption in our regard is made perfect, namely in the Catholic Church.” Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the Students of the Gregorianum, Oct. 17, 1953.
    –
    “The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. …But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life” Van Noort: Dogmatic Theology 2:114-115
    –
    “…although one of the Church’s marks is holiness because she is holy in her Founder, holy in her teaching, holy in the sanctity of a great many of her members, nonetheless she has also within her bosom many members who are not holy, who afflict and persecute and misjudge her.” Pope Pius IX, Allocution to Pilgrims from Savoy, Sept. 15, 1876
    –
    “She is the mystical body of Christ, the immaculate spouse of Christ, and consequently a most admirable mother and an incomparable and perfect teacher.” Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri
    –
    “In fact, only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine, law, and end in the midst of the flood of corruption and lapses of her members.” Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Editae Saepe
    –
    “‘She is a garden enclosed, my sister, my spouse, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed’ [Cant 4:12]. These words of Holy Scripture are applied, according to the Fathers, to the Catholic Church, the immaculate spouse of Christ….” Pope Leo XIII, Decretal Hortus Conclusus,
    –
    “Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy” Pope Pius XI Quas Primas
    –
    The Bride of Christ can no more be an adultress (adulterated in her rites, teachings and disciplines) than the Immaculate Conception. If we see defection and error and ‘blemish (contradiction to Holy Tradition)’ in any doctrine, worship or disciplines promulgated, they do not belong to the Mystical Body of Christ.

23. Prophetic to all you who insist you are in the barque of Peter and receiving true sacraments from true priests of Jesus Christ and His church. How the truth spreads:

    http://www.cathstan.org/Content/News/Homepage-Rotating-Articles/Article/Cardinal-Wuerl-blesses-new-statue-of-homeless-Jesus-outside-Catholic-Charities-building/2/409/6487

    I can certainly tell you as Cardinal Brandmuller has just said the coffers are filled (and Carols Keehan and Woo are both millionaires off the poor + many more), but the churches are empty and the poor (elderly and via abortion) are being murdered by Catholic Charities and Catholic hospitals and nursing Homes.

    http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2015/07/cardinal-brandmuller-churches-empty-and.html

24. Well said!

25. I mean in regards to what Thomas a Kempis said.

    But I DON’T like that statue.

26. The sculpture symbolizes the state of the Catholic Church in the eyes of the world. Taking delight in this distressing image of Christ looks like a kind of Masonic triumphalism.

27. Hoc, I have just watched the pallium mass on youtube held on 29 June in St. Peter’s. Bergoglio’s pallium is just the same as Benedict’s – black tips, six templar crosses and torch over shoulder and heart.

28. Dear Peter, Salvemur, and others who agree with your views on these important matters,
    In Louie’s recent post regarding “comments”, he expressed some personal disagreement along with real sympathy for your ideas, but also said he had gone through significant effort and expense in creating the Forum as a place to discuss such things- which tend to cycle endlessly -including the status of the Pope. We personally hoped those included the ongoing demands that everyone abandon the so-called “N.O. Church” under pain of being labeled “not-Catholic”, “willfully blind”, “sinful”, “ignorant”, etc. -which behavior we (two grandparents) feel created the very negative atmosphere being complained about at the time. It seems “new” people have been dropping in to add to those complaints of late as well.
    ___
    Peter, you seem to be saying you can’t control yourself- listing Louie’s statements as if too provacative- and telling him to go ahead and “block” you if he must, to
    stop you. If you are sincere about your reasons being Charity-driven, why not just cooperate by posting such an argument as the one above- on the Forum -and leaving a note on the blog to invite Louie and others to read it by choice, rather than leaving him only with the option of ending your participation? More than one commenter has expressed eagerness to continue hearing from you, which likely means there are others “out there” who silently feel the same.
    ___
    There are well-respected people who disagree with you, whose ideas you could take up in the Forum. The SSPX, for example– in a recent interview, Bishop Fellay called this ongoing dilemma in the Church “a work that has been entrusted to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary” and said “all we have to do is remain faithful to their will. This Church is the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who remains her head and will not allow her to be destroyed.”

    Regarding the “S” issue, he said: “.. The risk of separation is serious. Look at the caricature of Tradition that calls itself the “Resistance”, for example: it is a non-Catholic spirit that is almost sectarian. We wish to have nothing to do with it; it is a movement that is withdrawn into itself, with people who think that they are the only good and just men on earth: that is not Catholic. It is an objective, but relative danger. Most of the Society is healthy and will not fall into these illusions. This encourages us to rely upon supernatural means. God will show us what He wants of us; He will speak through circumstances.”…”we must avoid the caricature of wishing for a Church without wrinkles or stains here below: that is not what the good Lord promised us on this earth. That is not what the ‘Holy Church’ means; it means that she is capable of sanctifying using the means given by Our Lord: the sacraments, the Faith, discipline, religious life, the life of prayer.”
    ___
    And regarding the N.O., asked what he thinks of Cardinal Sarah’s suggestion of introducing the traditional Offertory into it, he said:
    “It is not a new idea; it has been around in Rome for ten years. I am glad it has been taken up again. Some criticize the idea, saying it is a way of mixing the
    profane with the sacred. On the contrary, in the perspective of bringing health back to the Church, I think it would be a great step forward, because the Offertory is a summary of the Catholic principles of the Mass, of the expiatory sacrifice offered to the Blessed Trinity, offered by the priest to God in reparation for sins, and accompanied by the faithful. And that would gradually bring the faithful back to the traditional Mass they have lost.” …”…we are on the eve of important events that we cannot yet define very well. I would like to call for prayers and end with a gaze towards God, which allows us to always have hope.”
    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/06/sspx-superior-general-after-vatican.html
    We suggest you do a forum on the matter you raised today.
    God Bless

29. Dear Indignus,
    You have given me food for thought and I have been thinking, but first I must add my hearty congratulations on your new grand child. What an ultimate joy they are. We should swop photos. We NEVER get tired of showing people photos of our grand kids, do we? 🙂 🙂
    You make several very good points. I have no wish to be a thorn in the communal side, although I know I can be by pushing too hard. I also respect that it is Louie’s blog and that he has most kindly tolerated me as a guest. He has also laid down very fair, reasonable combox rules.
    I don’t want to go to a S-word site. What’s the fun debating with people who all agree with you? Going to a neo-Catholic site is no fun either, besides the fact that they would block me after my first comment. That’s why Louie’s site is so nice. We are all pretty conservative traditional Catholics and are allowed to debate freely. I don’t want to go to the forum to start a S-word debate. All the basics have been discussed a thousand times here in the time I’ve been here. We all know the basic positions. A newby can find out about S-land on Novus Ordo Watch in ultimate detail. What fun is it for you to nestle among like-minded NO adherents? You would all decry the obvious deterioration in the Church endlessly without ever taking action, or drawing definite conclusions. That’s just chatting – not debating in search of the answer to our situation.
    We are in a pickle. We are true Catholics. We seek the Truth. There are three paths we may choose from: Stay in the NO church; join the S-crowd; Sit in between and R&R. Only one of these can be the True Catholic path, because these paths oppose and contradict each other. Here is ground for meaningful debate – to our own benefit and to that of others. All three positions will always crop up repeatedly in a Catholic site permitting free discussion and I believe that is a good thing and not an irritation, nor a focus for animosity and tribal aggression.
    Louie’s words which I quoted did not provoke me, but for numerous doctrinal reasons they can not be applied to the Catholic Church. They lead to a specific conclusion. This I most legitimately pointed out. I should have posted my comment in that blog posting and not in this one, but my comment was 100% appropriate to Louie’s post on Bp. Lori’s barque. I really think a combox like this only serves a purpose if free comment is allowed. How sure is one of one’s position if one has to ban one’s opposition? What has one achieved by silencing opposition? (I know you are not trying to do that.) Remember we are discussing very important matters concerning our eternal futures, as is our Catholic duty. A bit of irritation here, or there is of no consequence. But I will be aware of the forum and if a discussion looks like getting protracted I will move there. I will also try to keep my horns in and be a bit more discreet with the S-word – whenever possible. 🙂 🙂

30. Another aspect of the statue of “Homeless Jesus” that might conceivably make it more appealing to the author of Laudato Si’ is its consistency with the general academic consensus. That is, there is at least near-unanimous agreement among scholars that Jesus existed historically.
     

    Bergoglio, of course, freely discusses the “historical experience of Jesus” with the non-believer Eugenio Scalfari. At the same time, in his letter he reserves “the fact that Jesus is risen” as a fact “[f]or the Christian faith” (my emphases).
     

    In a similar manner, at the conclusion of Laudato Si’, Bergoglio provides a prayer that “we can share with all who believe in a God who is the all-powerful Creator”. That is, one we can share with those who, one might say, hold that “the Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order” (cf. Lamentabili Sane, #36).
     

    Traditionalists (aka Catholics) are familiar with the axiom: Lex orandi lex credendi. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains it thus:
    “[A]s a general principle it is obvious that people in their prayers say only what they believe”.
     

    Although I may be digressing from the main topic, it is the very dichotomy that 
    Louie raises in this post that has led me to this observation:
    I would say that in LS, Bergoglio publicly and officially teaches us to pray as if the Resurrection of Christ were not historically certain.

31. “It’s one thing to see Jesus Christ in the face of the homeless; it is quite another to see the weak and the downtrodden in Christ the King”

    ## The two ideas are complementary – not opposed. To see Christ in His brethren, and His brethren in Him, requires no less faith than to see Him as Present in the Blessed Sacrament. He is as truly present in His brethren, as in the Sacrament of the Altar. Not in the same manner, of course – but not less truly, even so. People see Him “in the face of the homeless” because they take St. Matthew 25.31-46 seriously: “Inasmuch as you did it to one of these, you did it to Me”, “Inasmuch as you did it not to one of these, you did it not to Me”. And the judge of the sheep and the goats is even called “the king”, in v. 34, & again in v.40:

    “31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’”

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=ESV

    St Matthew does not oppose “see[ing] Jesus Christ in the homeless” to “see[ing] the weak and the downtrodden in Christ the King” – why should we ? Far from seeing any opposition, St Matthew sees compassion to the needy as compassion to Christ Himself. This is the same idea as St Luke relates in Acts 9: “Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute Me ?” To persecute “the least of [Christ’s] “brothers”, is to persecute Christ. St Matthew presents Christ as King – so do St. Luke, St John, & St Paul: that He is a crucified & oppressed King is not a contradiction, but a paradox: He does not stand at a safe distance from the oppressed, but saves them by becoming one of them. That is how this king secures justice & equity for His subjects: by suffering death on a cross.

    As for seeing the weak and downtrodden “in Christ” – to see all things “in Christ” is not separable from “life in Christ”. Only by living in Christ, & seeing all things in Christ, is it possible for human beings to do their part in “restor[ing] all things in Christ”.

32. Mostly forgotten in all this is the urgent, desperate necessity to save souls – that’s what the pope should be doing, not movingly reaching out to touch, ever so gently, a cold, lifeless, ugly statue so as to move emotions.
    –
    For God’s sake, Francis, pray for the souls in your charge – work yourself to death to teach, preach, and model what’s necessary for our salvation. Please, please, please think of us instead of yourself!

33. Yes, Father Leen, and Why The Cross – terrific.

34. ““The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. …But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life” Van Noort: Dogmatic Theology 2:114-115”

    ## It is precisely because the Church cannot make such mistakes – even when it is impossible to deny she has done so – that there are Catholics who agree with Michael Voris & Catholic Answers.

    Traditionalism says: The V2 Church has made a heap of serious blunders [long list follows]; therefore, it is not the true Church.

    Conservative Catholicism says: The V2 Church is the true Church, therefore the alleged mistakes are not mistakes but are a legitimate continuation of Catholic Tradition; therefore those who want to be Catholic must accept them.

    The analysis is over-simplified, but not, I think, fundamentally wrong. If it basically accurate, there is a problem: for it appears that the two groups are reasoning in opposite directions, as it were. If so, then the two groups are never going to agree.

    If the Novus Ordo is doctrinally flawless – on the ground that the Pope *cannot* give the Church a doctrinally dodgy liturgy – then all who reject it, no matter what arguments they may bring, are rebels & trouble-makers.

    But that means that if the Pope gives the Church a liturgy that – judging it by logic and reason & theology – presents as sound what Tradition has condemned, then it follows that Tradition is of no more force or weight or obligation than the Pope permits it. Which means that Catholicism is no more and no less than what the Pope decides it is. Everything is “up for grabs”, if the Faith is, when all is said and done, nothing more than what the Pope says it is. Instead of the Pope’s being the servant and keeper of Tradition, the NuChurch – and the thinking in van Noort that paved the way for it, and is continued in “conservative Catholicism” – makes the Pope into the Lord & the Tyrant over Tradition. It makes the Pope nothing less than a god in & over the Church; a god-emperor, indeed. If that is not a perversion of Catholicism, what is ? Van Noort’s position results in Papalatry.

35. Very well said.

36. Indignus, trying to find an answer to ‘where is the Church?’ could never be ‘off topic’ in any conversation about the Church – her teachings and those who claim authority in her. Seems to me pretty much almost all Louie’s posts address those claiming authority to abandon the mission of the Church. Of the entities which present themselves as Catholic, determing which has actually abandoned/ changed Her mission, and which keeps Her mission is always on topic because this determines where we are to locate the teachings of the Author of Truth in order to follow that same Author.

37. Well spotted. Bergoglio’s ‘magisterium’ of hypocrisy continues.

38. Van Noort’s position, on the contrary, is in concord with the Holy See – the Solemn magistirum and the universal ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church. The ‘defects’ of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo belong to an institution which has forfeited Apostolic authority. Vatican II and the Novus Ordo comprise an entity which has substantially (not in mere ‘accidents’) diverged from the Faith, but which claims authority from the Author of Truth, whilst they promulgate error. That is why there exists the Recognise & Resist, and the sedevacantist positions – in response to the current crisis of this defective New Order institution making claims of authority from Christ, Who cannot authorize error.
    –
    Here’s a very simple and straighforward example: ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02FQW4nYLX0&feature=youtu.be-
    –
    The doctrine of the indefectibilty of the Church when teaching faith and morals is non-negotiable for Catholics. If we see error being promulgated by those claiming authority we know that their authority is suspect. The R&R and the sedevacantist, drawing on Church teachings – dogmatic teachings and general theological consensus, have reached two different conclusions on the the best Catholic response (it should be noted that the sedevacantist position concludes with St Bellarmine, who trawled through the early Church Fathers, and every notable theologian and papal word on the issue, and those theologians who followed him, that a defective heirarch and heirarchy has lost their apostolic authority).
    –
    “II. The Problem: The state of the church — How does one reconcile the present state of the Catholic Church with indefectibility? This problem, with its diverse answers, is at the root of most of the controversy among those who have remained faithful to tradition. The problem poses itself more bluntly this way: where is the Church? For no one can err in following the Catholic Church, at least in her essential roles of teaching doctrine, of leading souls to heaven through her general laws, and of sanctifying souls by means of valid sacraments. In order to save one’s soul, therefore, it simply suffices to know where the Church is. One can and must, in all good conscience, follow the teaching and prescriptions of the Church in order to save one’s soul, and to set oneself up against these is to be heretical, schismatic, or at least gravely disobedient. In any case one could not save his soul. This particular question is highly problematic for the fact that no matter how you answer concerning the Novus Ordo religion, i.e., yes or no that it is the Catholic Faith, you end up in some deep problems with regard to indefectibility. If you answer that the Novus Ordo is Catholic, then you are in the immense problem of the defection of teaching, the defection of the general legislation of the Church, and the defection of sacraments. It also reduces to absurdity — not to mention the sin of disobedience and schism — the systematic resistance to the Novus Ordo which has been maintained by “traditionalists”. If, on the other hand, you answer that the Novus Ordo is not Catholic, then you have the problem of finding the visible Church, since it would seem that the entire Catholic hierarchy has defected into this new non-Catholic sect. Thus the “yes” answer leads to the defection of the essential spiritual qualities of the Church, whereas the “no” answer seems to lead to the defection of the essential material qualities of the Church. Put in another way, the “yes” answer seems lead to the defection of the mission of the Church, whereas the “no” answer seems to lead to a defection of the structure of the Church. Yet we know from Pope Leo XIII that both are absolutely necessary for the Church, like body and soul for the human nature, and that both must endure until the end of time in order that the Church live up to its indefectibility…” Resistance and Indefectibility, Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=21&catname=10

39. Hey Jimmy,
    I find your logic and reasoning to be faultless and flawless up to the point of van Noort. I respectfully submit you have misunderstood him:
    –
    “The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. …But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life” Van Noort: Dogmatic Theology 2:114-115
    –
    The Indefectibility of the Church rests upon Our Lord’s promise of the perpetual guidance of the Church by the Holy Ghost and in particular, in His protection of the Vicars of Christ in maintaining the purity of the Deposit of Faith through the ages. He does this by protecting His Vicars from teaching error under the conditions required for infallible teaching, hence the dogma of Papal Infallibility. A true Pope cannot teach error, alter, or contradict the Deposit of Faith.
    Van Noort is emphasizing that the Infallibility of the Magisterium is not, (as is commonly and mistakenly thought), limited to the Solemn Magisterium, but also extends to the Ordinary Magisterium.
    What he is saying, is that if this were not so, then exactly what you say about the Pope becoming the Determinator and Dictator, would in fact happen.
    “Conservative Catholicism” in fact ignores and contradicts the teaching of van Noort, who rather than paving the way for their thinking, condemns it.

40. Thanks for clarification, Peter. What Jimmy says can be applied to the ‘me-popes’ of the past fifty years. They are their own ‘authorities’ which is why Bergoglio makes the Wojtyla-Ratzinger era outdated, just as the Wojtyla-Ratzinger era makes the Montini era outdated, just as Montini made the Roncalli era outdated. But what is most telling is that the voice of the Popes of the Bride of Christ all ‘condemn and proscribe’ the ‘magisteriums’ of the updaters of the Novus Ordo:
    –
    “…6. The “Church learning” and the “Church teaching” collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it only remains for the “Church teaching” to sanction the opinions of the “Church learning.” – [condemned and proscribed]…39. The opinions concerning the origin of the Sacraments which the Fathers of Trent held and which certainly influenced their dogmatic canons are very different from those which now rightly exist among historians who examine Christianity – [condemned and proscribed]…53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution – [condemned and proscribed]…59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places – [condemned and proscribed]…65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism – [condemned and proscribed].” Pope Saint Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907
    –
    So who is right? The people who took Lamentabili and the Syllabus of Errors and changed ‘condemned and proscribed’ into ‘to be adhered to’?
    –
    1989 New Ordo profession of Faith: “…Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.” – http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html
    –
    Paul VI invented the ‘authentic’ (sometimes translated ‘authoritative’) magisterium which, I guess for them, overrides the perennial magisterium of Holy Mother Church.

41. Knocking this statue is off-point. Christ is the original, so to speak, of everyone you meet. We are his images, for better or worse, depending on our openness to grace. The homeless most certainly are Christ.

    Those who hold the Catholic Faith in its fullness SHOULD LEAD THE WAY IN WORKS OF MERCY!

42. Of course Our Lord had a place to lay His head, He had a home in Galilee. He chose to leave His earthly home, though, and preach which meant He needed a place to stay nearby.

    Read John 1:39 “They answered ‘Rabbi’ —-which means Teacher—‘where do you live?’ ‘Come and see’ He replied; so they went and saw where He lived, and stayed with Him the rest of the day.” It then goes on to tell about Jesus being from Nazareth and Philip wondering if anything good can come from there:+)

    God bless~

43. Dear Peter Lamb,
    Thanks for all the good wishes. Much appreciated. Each new life is a wonder and a joy to us, although it’s sobering to think about what each of them has to overcome these days; and daunting to realize God intends us to be “good” examples to them, so they won’t grow up to misuse their gifts of reason and free will. 🙂 🙂
    __
    It sounds like you’re asking Louie to reconsider his decision to keep the “S” topic in the Forum, and tossing in an offer of a nicer-Peter-Lamb “debating” style as added incentive. We’re all FOR any improvements in manners that eliminate a hostile combox environment; but the complaints we’ve seen posted lately seem more about the take-over of the “S” issue on just about every post Louie made, and Louie said he agreed. We also have noticed the issue often being posted as responses to existing comments that didn’t adress it, which tends to exacerbate that problem.
    __
    You’re right that it’s harder to keep that “debate” style going in the Forum. But if it’s not wanted by Louie in the combox, the Forum might at least be a place to explain why you see the issue as so important, although you have the talent to start your own blog –so does Salvemur, IOHO.
    __
    We gave some thought to your question–“what fun is it to be among like-minded NO adherents?” Though our purpose in posting was not about “fun” we have to admmit that a more friendly, respectful atmosphere is naturally condusive to wanting to return regularly to read or comment on a blog. It’s human nature. Is it just to turn someone else’s blog into a place people don’t want to come? –Just something to consider.

44. Dear Salvemur,
    We’ve commented ourselves in the past that the Sede position seems to be very ON-topic to most of Louie’s posts these days. But it was his decision to have them addressed in the Forum instead of here, for reasons he specified, and it is his blog.

45. Indignus. Problem is, my comments are always in response to Louie’s post or people’s comment’s on Louie’s posts, so the forum seems a strange place to respond!?

46. Dear Salvemur,
    We know that. We weren’t trying to police the blog for Louie in our comments above–just responding to Peter’s — saying he was going ahead knowing it was against what Louie wanted, and willing to get blocked by Louie.
    Don’t know what if anything Louie will do, if he’s ignored, but we thought we’d suggest the Forum as at least something better than that for those who are passionate about the Sede position. Not really as a response to posts, more as a series of deeply held beliefs. We can see how it would not be very appealing.

47. Dear Indignus,
    Discussion is often fruitful. Argument is always unpleasant and usually fruitless. Enough has been said on this topic. Let’s leave the policing of his site where it belongs – with Louie. 🙂 🙂

48. Dear Peter,
    No intention on our end to come across as police.
    God Bless us all

Comments are closed.