Andrea Tornielli at Vatican Insider has provided excerpts of a private address given by Francis to a gathering of Jesuits while in Chile last month.
The money quote is in the headline:
“I don’t read websites that accuse me of heresy”
And here I thought he was an avid akaCatholic reader! Oh, well.
Before we get to the meat of the article, get this from Francis:
This pontificate is a rather quiet period. From the moment I realized what was going to happen in the Conclave – an instant surprise for me – I felt a great peace.
Someone is lying; more likely, lots of someones.
Readers may recall that Francis’ biographer, Austen Ivereigh, wrote of those lobbying for Bergoglio’s election (e.g., St. Gallen’s mafia) in 2013:
They first secured Bergoglio’s assent. Asked if he was willing, he said that he believed that at this time of crisis for the Church no cardinal could refuse if asked. Murphy-O’Connor knowingly warned him to ‘be careful,’ and that it was his turn now, and was told ‘capisco’ – ‘I understand.’
After this revelation led to charges that the election may be invalid, Ivereigh recanted and stressed that Bergoglio had not been asked if he was willing.
Maybe I’m just cynical, but this “instant surprise” claim coming from the same man who was recently exposed as having, shall we say, been less than truthful concerning his awareness of sex abuse claims made against Bishop Juan Barros, sounds an awful lot like protesting too much.
Add to this the widely circulated and broadly accepted report (also endorsed by Ivereigh) that Bergoglio was the runner-up in the 2005 election of Cardinal Ratzinger, and one is hard pressed to believe that he experienced an unpopular ugly girl made homecoming queen moment in conclave 2013.
In any case, the lying has just begun.
Later in the address, Francis told this whopper:
There are doctrinal resistances … When I perceive resistance, I try to talk, when dialogue is possible; but some resistance comes from people who believe they have the true doctrine and accuse you of being heretical.
This is the same guy who thus far has refused to grant an audience to the authors of the Dubia that he refuses to answer. Some dialogue, that.
Think about it: Only the truly disinterested are unaware of the fact that Francis does not try to talk with those who resist his agenda; he does the exact opposite. This isn’t a secret.
And yet, here he is insisting upon what everyone paying attention knows is false.
What we have here, folks, is not just your ordinary, garden variety obfuscator, but quite possibly a pathological liar – one who suffers with a psychiatric malady that causes one to lie even when the truth is widely known.
In any case, note the criteria used by Francis for determining when “dialogue is possible.”
According to his own admission, it simply is not possible with those “who believe they have the true doctrine.” In other words, faithful Catholics, who believe what the Church has always taught, and understand that it is immutable, need not apply!
I would submit to you (as I have in the past) that Francis doesn’t so much suffer a psychiatric illness as a spiritual disease; one wherein the presence of demonic influence is becoming more and more difficult to deny.
Francis continued, speaking of mental health:
When I find no spiritual goodness in these people, for what they say or write, I simply pray for them. I feel sorry, but I will not dwell on this feeling for my mental health.
NOTE: “These people” refers to those who “believe they have the true doctrine;” it is in these persons that Bergoglio finds “no spiritual goodness!”
Let’s be clear, he’s not discussing anonymous bogeymen, but rather real people like Cardinals Raymond Burke and Brandmuller, Bishop Athanasius Schneider and others, who although men of the Council and part of the problem, can hardly be dismissed as having “no spiritual goodness” – that is, not unless one has a diabolical hatred for the Catholic faith and those who wish to embrace it.
The lying continued, as Francis went on to say:
Before a difficulty I never call it a “resistance”, because it would mean giving up discerning, which is what I want to do instead.
Does he really think that we have forgotten the way he ran roughshod over the opposition at the sham Synods; simply because they stood for Catholic doctrine?
Recall the letter signed by thirteen cardinals and sent to Francis during Synod 2015 pointing out what is now obvious to everyone:
A number of [Synod] fathers feel the new process seems designed to facilitate predetermined results on important disputed questions.
His reaction to that letter?
To warn the entire Synod on the following day “not to give in to the conspiracy hermeneutic, which is sociologically weak and spiritually unhelpful.”
Amid all of the lying, Francis did manage to tell a few truths:
The famous “it has always been so” reigns everywhere, it is a great temptation that we all experienced. The resistances after Vatican II, still present today, have this meaning: to relativize, to water down the Council.
Commenting on the Church’s needs moving forward, Francis returned to this theme:
Take back the Second Vatican Council, the Lumen Gentium. While speaking to the Chilean bishops, I exhorted them to “declericalize.” Evangelization is made by the Church as the people of God. The Lord is asking us to be a “Church which goes forth” a camp hospital… A poor Church for the poor! The poor are not a theoretical formula of the Communist Party, they are the center of the Gospel!
In this there is nothing new, but rather confirmation of what has been said many times on these pages, Francis is a problem; an unprecedented problem, but he isn’t the problem, the roots to which run directly back to the Second Vatican Council, and from there, to the Devil himself.
And why, in sum, is the Council such a font of evil?
Francis couldn’t have made it plainer:
It removed Jesus Christ from the center of the Gospel, and in His place it elevated man. In this, one might rightly discern the Evil One bragging.
Francis went on:
It is on this line that I feel the Spirit is taking us. There are strong resistances, but for me the fact that they are born is a sign that we are going down the right road. Otherwise, the Devil would not rush to resist”.
See what he did there? He is calling those who hold fast to the true doctrine of the Church the “Devil,” and giving credit to the Holy Ghost for abandoning the same.
This has the Devil’s handwriting all over it, and note very well that it comes straight from the playbook of Bergoglio’s “bright light,” the soon to be “canonized” Paul VI.
Many people who should know better get this wrong:
When Montini decried the “smoke of Satan,” he wasn’t making a tacit admission that the Council itself is problematic; rather, he (just like his protege Bergoglio) was denouncing those who were resisting the Council as tools of Satan as he went on to say:
We believe in something preternatural coming into the world [the Devil] precisely to disturb, to suffocate anything of the Ecumenical Council, and to prevent the Church from blossoming in the joy of having regained full consciousness of Herself.
In total, this latest truckload of Bergoglian garbage amounts to nothing more than evidence heaped upon evidence attesting to fact that the man presently posing as pope is a magnificent deceiver who loathes the Catholic faith.
Blessed Lent, everyone.
“For certain men are secretly entered in, who were written of long ago unto this judgment, ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” Epistle Of Saint Jude 1,4
Unless there is some Divine Intervention, the NO V2 sect will not renounce V2, they will not forbid the NO, and they will not return to Tradition. Those who think a Burke or Schneider will rally the Neos and storm the Vatican walls are hopelessly naive. Resistance is futile. It has and will accomplish absolutely nothing. Long term sedevacantism is another dead end since it will lead to dozens then hundreds of divisions. Only one course remains that can offer the world hope, a conclave to elect a Pope. But this can only happen when all the trads admit that there is no Catholic Pope and modernists are not the Church. It’s time. In the early days after V2 prudence perhaps called for a wait and see approach. We have waited long enough and have seen the mess they have made. It is not going to get better. The NO sect is not coming home to Tradition. Time to cut loose the emotional tie that keeps some of us attached. We need only attach ourselves to those who profess the Catholic faith and Bergolio Burke and Co. are not them.
Cardinal Ciappi read the Third Secret and said that the great apostasy will begin at the top. How could the apostasy begin at the top if there were no Pope? And since Paul VI was the Pope, subsequent Popes were also legit.
Louie writes “According to his own admission, it simply is not possible with those “who believe they have the true doctrine.” In other words, faithful Catholics, who believe what the Church has always taught, and understand that it is immutable, need not apply!”
Gives new understanding to this quote: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/05/pope-francis-speaks-society-of-st-pius.html
Pope Francis: “In Buenos Aires, I always spoke with them. They saluted me, they asked for [my] blessing on their knees. They consider themselves Catholic. They love the Church. Bp. Fellay is a man with whom we can dialogue. It is not the case of other somewhat strange elements, such as Bp. Williamson, or others who have radicalized. I think, as I had expressed in Argentina, that they are Catholics on the path to full communion. During this Year of Mercy, it seemed that I should authorize their confessors to pardon the sin of abortion.[*] They thanked me for this gesture. Before that, Benedict XVI, whom they respect greatly, had liberalized the Mass according to the Tridentine Rite. We dialogue well, we do a good work.”
All good sedes know not to rely on private revelations. Otherwise indeed, how can one reconcile their position?
, St. Pius X had a vision of a future pope fleeing Rome. He said:
“What I have seen is terrifying! Will I be the one, or will it be a successor? What is certain is that the Pope will leave Rome and, in leaving the Vatican, he will have to pass over the dead bodies of his priests!”
Just before he died Pope St. Pius X had another similar vision, in which he saw a future pope of the SAME NAME fleeing over the bodies of his brethren, before being killed himself.
“I have seen one of my successors, of the SAME NAME who was fleeing over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in some hiding place; but after a brief respite, he will die a cruel death”.
Nice article explaining archbishop Lefebvre’s position:
-A Modernist hierarchy has no authority
-A Modernist hierarchy has unlimited authority
-A Modernist hierarchy legitimately exercises authority when it commands according to the faith but does not legitimately exercise authority when it commands against the faith
Latest option is the only logical option!
I asked sedes at NovusOrdo the same question:
1) How do we ever come out of the problem- If hypothetically, instead of resigning, 5 years ago, Benedict XVI “converted” while he was an “anti-pope”, denounced VII and excommunicated all enemies of the faith, would he by that act alone “become” a pope? Would sedes recognise him as pope and why? Because if heretic cannot become a pope, then surely that heretic does not become pope by the miracle of conversion 5 years into “anti-papacy”? Do all conciliar popes have this “potential” to become popes if they renounce their material heresies?
2) Why does Our Lady of La Sallete speak of “Two Worm Ridden Popes” in 20th century? Why does she not state 4? Why does she even call them popes if they are not?
3) Why does our Lady of Fatima show martyrdom of a POPE on top of the hill?
Sure, she speaks of “bishop dressed in white” with only appearance of the pope, but that is a no brainer if we look at the current situation of two claimants with the title “Pope” at the same time. Francis was invalidly elected while “Pope Emeritus” (whatever that is, is still walking around).
When Pius XII feared capture by Germans, he prepared acoringly. If he were to be arrested and conducted beyond the walls of Rome, he would have been immediately considered to have given up the throne and the prisoner would be Eugenio Pacelli (his baptismal name) and not the pope. Therefore, since pope Benedict did not become Joseph Ratzinger, but holds this absurd non-position of “pope emeritus”, either he is cardinal and Francis is pope. Or he is pope and Francis is anti-pope. Both cannot possibly be correct.
One has to take position of “ohh, but those private revelations that no catholic is obliged to believe as revelation finished with last disciple” to be able to disprove 2 and 3.
Sure, but is it a church approved prophecy? Surely there would have to be one approved prophecy in 20 centuries to warn us that there will be 60 years at least where Bride of Christ will be headless?
4) Anti-pope Francis and pope Benedict XVI die today. New conclave is assembled.
What are the conditions where sedevacantists exclaim “Habemus Papam” after it is done?
What freaking difference does it make Rush??? No trad acts like there is a Pope and that speaks louder than what they claim.
Does “at the top” mean The Pope or could it mean the person whom the world believes is The Pope. Perception is reality. Why didn’t the Third Secret say the apostasy will being with The Pope? It is because there is no Pope? So many ways to look at this.
Why didn’t the Third Secret say the apostasy will being with The Pope? Well the 3rd Secret may say that, we have not read it. It was Cardinal Ciapi who said it. So we need to rephrase the question. “Why didn’t the Cardinal say the apostasy will being with The Pope?” Possibly, Cardinal Ciapi did not want to say “Pope”, although that is what he read, so he thought it would be safer (for him) to say “at the top” and hope people with “ears to hear” will get it.
Because Our Lady said to pray and make sacrifices for the Holy Father.
What Pope did you pray for and make sacrifices for in 2005 during the intereggnum?
“The famous ‘it has always been so’ reigns everywhere, it is a great temptation that we all experienced. The resistances after Vatican II, still present today, have this meaning: to relativize, to water down the Council.”
Catholics resist Vatican II and try to relativize it because Vatican II resisted and tried to relativize the Catholic Faith.
“Many people who should know better get this wrong:
When Montini decried the ‘smoke of Satan,’ he wasn’t making a tacit admission that the Council itself is problematic; rather, he (just like his protege Bergoglio) was denouncing those who were resisting the Council as tools of Satan as he went on to say:
‘We believe in something preternatural coming into the world [the Devil] precisely to disturb, to suffocate anything of the Ecumenical Council, and to prevent the Church from blossoming in the joy of having regained full consciousness of Herself.'”
I never knew this. This is very informative. Thank you Louie.
It is surreal to find that Paul VI and Francis attribute to Satan the work of the Holy Spirit. The height of blasphemy!
“He is calling those who hold fast to the true doctrine of the Church the “Devil””. Only a modernist or a perverted mind would call good evil, and evil good. It is interesting to note that the clerical abusers from Chile used to exchange emails between them, using twisted biblical words and passages to call anathema and other names victims like Juan Carlos Cruz, because he came forward to denounce the abuses. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the Devil uses homosexualism to drag the maximum number of souls to hell. May God have mercy on us. St Michael, defends in battle.
Illogical. Just because a man sits at the top of a structure does not mean he has a divine right to do so. Of course materially is Pope but according to church teaching, he’s neither Catholic nor Pope.
Yes and might I suggest for further reading a study of P2 Grand Master Licio Gelli and his relationship with Escriva?
Gelli even traveled to Argentina and did some business with the Peron regime.
It appears that Borgoglio might be a continuation of the same P2 stated agenda .
David Yallop had a few things to say about the two in his book “In God’s Name” as did Hutchinson in ,”Their Kingdom Come”. 120 known P2 Prelates back in the early eighties in the Vatican was quite a significant number.
Before anyone writes Yallop off as an antiCatholic, let me preface my suggestion by stating he was raised in a large Traditional Irish Catholic home and told me his views on contraception were shaped by watching the suffering of his mother in poverty raising so many children. Nevertheless, his investigative and research skills were exceptional.
Nothing will change UNTIL the filth is swept out.
“The truth is, the Holy Catholic Church has been infiltrated in every diocese by homosexual men who are there for self-gain, lust and to destroy the faith. Every bishop, every cardinal who refuses to act against these filthy perverts, this scum, is guilty before God and man and will burn in Hell for their lack of faith and zeal. They are hirelings and wolves.”
“Beroglio says he does not read blogs for his mental health and that he knows who we are who call him a “heretic.”
“I will go further than calling “Pope” Francis a heretic. I will call him a derelict. A sodomite protecting enabler. A homosexualist and a liar.”
“Did you read that George?”
I agree with this caveat, a valid conclave can only occur when the imposter is hauled off the papal throne by military force. That force, may be the Italians, the Swiss Guard, the Poles, Hungarians, Slovaks, etc. You need Catholics with their eyes open. Austrians may work also.
The other caveat is that the infiltrators have to be removed by an inquisition. All priests, bishops and cardinals have to be faith tested and investigated for masonry ties, homosexuality, theological heterodoxy and ties to outside governments or organizations (banks, oil interests etc.). We want a pope who has Catholics interests in mind and are loyal to God, not mammon.
Everyone reading this realizes that the filth must be swept out. But how? Someone please tell me how this is to be accomplished. The average NO pewsitter wants absolutely nothing to do with us trads. Its time to cut all ties to these modernists. It will mean losing all the real estate but the Church is those who profess the true faith not those who reside in the old rectories. Way too many trads are obsessed with real estate rather than faith.
I answered you above. it is possible to sweep out the filth with military force and an inquisition. Military force was used in the past to remove legitimate popes and an illegitimate one, Anacletus II. It requires committed Catholics with military forces available.
Is there such a thing as the sin of “denial”? In spite of unquestionable mountains of proof of ingrained disgusting sickness, the “catholic” world accepts what is perceived to be The Catholic Church? Have we all gone mad!!!! There will come a time when the only Real Catholic is the “stay-at-home Catholic” who says truly Catholic prayers and clings to the true tenets of the Holy, Roman Catholic Church while sitting in their living rooms. How many of the Faithful are blessed to have found refuge with a validly ordained Traditional Catholic priest who celebrates the TLM without compromise and rejects every single aspect of the V2 “church”? For the rest of us, that time is NOW!!
I meant to add: Do you want the N.O. fake church to go away? STAY AT HOME!!!!
Can you provide a list of countries that you think would undertake such an expedition in the near future?
Mary, there is a significant difference in our current time in history that I think will prevent the military option you suggest from likely happening: there has been widespread propagation and infestation of the concept of “religious freedom” and primacy of (usually ill-formed)conscience within the “catholic” world since V2 – which logically leads to a underlying belief in universal salvation. Without a belief that countless souls will go to hell if someone in a position of power does not act (and that individual’s OWN fear of hell if they do nothing) the only ones who will take such a step would be one of the few who believe the true faith, and there seems to be a tragic drought in that regard, especially among those with power and resources. God can always intervene of course, but I feel like may choose to act directly.
Also Tom, I really believe there are some NO in the pews who would embrace the one true faith if they knew about it. Unfortunately, it has a very steep learning curve, and it takes time for most of us to figure it out. But I think God is working on an individual level with many people. I have seen it happening among a few that I know.
I did so in the above comment. The countries disenchanted with the EU over it’s attempts to impose policy changes and it’s evident atheism promote distrust of the EU and it’s leadership. The Church is siding with the EU on global warming, immigration and even it seems on abortion and birth control. Do you think Catholic Poles and Hungarians are blind? They will associate the leadership of the Church with the leadership of Europe that is attempting to rob them of their sovernity. The Austrians, the Swiss, the Swiss Guards any of these groups may coalese to overthrow the usurper. They should be encouraged by faithful Catholics to do so.
They are all Novus Ordo. Modernist will not challenge modernists. It is only through the jaundiced eyes of the west that we imagine Poland and Hungary to be traditional. They will be corrupt in one more generation.
Yes, on an individual level. I am one of those individuals. It is a very steep learning curve.
Don’t shortchange a military option. You are assuming the people with the troops have to be exemplary Catholics. They don’t have to be perfect, just knowledgable enough to address the basic problems. As I recall Emperor Sigmusmund who called the Council of Constance with the permission of one of the three popes reigning, was no boy scout. That council was not a meeting of the Third Order. Hundreds of prostitutes, ah, serviced the attendees. But what that imperfect council achieved, was the depostion of three simultaneously reigning popes and most importantly the election of Martin V, a good man and a great pope.
Might I add also, the possibility of another Ecumenical Council. Though I have to admit it myself, the prospects of a balanced, without interference, Council might be a fantasy, it is the way we have always set things right in the past…with anathemas.
Thank you again, Louie, for your insights. I would like to comment on one thought: “psychiatric malady”. So much makes no sense since VII. It has taken me a long time to gradually come to the realization that something is essentially amiss. I thought it to be modernism, which no doubt it is. I thought it to be infiltration which no doubt it is too. Once this Pope was elected, it has been really downhill ever since. So with all these huge contradictions, I have to ask myself “why?” After reading this article, especially that section, it makes me consider not an intention choice by the Pope, but a truly psychological one. Your questions about his denial are right on. How can he deny so very much which is so very obvious? I had a difficulty choosing the “evil intent” solution, but I have no difficulty with a psychological deficiency. Denial, projection, dependency, is so prevalent in society that they are often overlooked as a real root of a problem. I am neither psychologist nor theologian, but it is quite clear that making judgements on how we feel about issues can only lead to the unreal and untrue. What I mean to say is thank you for your insight that has helped me reevaluate what I judge to be the problem with our severe contradictions in Rome. The rest is easy and can be based on either human weakness or political/ecclesiastical correctness.
It has occurred to me that something extremely vile could come out that would cause Jorge Borgoglio the necessity of facing an angry mob.
Look what as happened with the case of Emmanuela Orlandi. Her brother Peter has stood in Vatican Square many times with other Italians holding posters and white balloons in solidarity with the family of the kidnapped Vatican employee’s daughter. They strongly feel someone or a group of Prelates knows who took her.
I am not saying this would necessarily be the angry mob, but I am saying that with this present occupant of the Chair of Peter , one never knows what will come out.
There has to be some equality of distaste for Francis, freemasons and sodomites inside the Vatican too, as people here feel outside it’s walls.
In order for an Ecumenical Council to be called, a legitimate Council, recognized by succeeding generations, it is necessary to first have a validly elected pope call the council. Francis I was a known heretic, and freemason, and likely a sodomite. According to the Encyclopedia of the Catholic Church of 1914, that disqualifies him from election as pope. A pope can not be elected who is a heretic. And a heretic cannot be a pope. If such a council were called with this “pope” the anathamas would be invoked against traditional Catholicism.
The only problem Tom is that many of the episcopal concentrations after 1968 are shrouded with doubt as to their validity. Some argue that invalid bishops cannot elect a true pope from amongst such.
I may be wrong but I do not believe there is any Divine Law that defines who may be electors. It would seem logical that the minimum requirement be that the elector at least profess the Catholic faith. That automatically would eliminate 99.999% of the entire NO sect.
Plausible, I think it more likely that a non Catholic power will eventually occupy the Vatican and do to St Peter’s what they did to St Sophia’s.
How do these less than exemplary Catholics who follow the Council, the New Religion (hence not really Catholic after all), address the “basic problems”? Getting rid of Francis isn’t enough.
“Take back the Second Vatican Council, the Lumen Gentium. ”
It is noteworthy that he chose to use “Lumen Gentium” as the focal point of the Council. It is in this document that the New Church was founded.
Yes, and it may mean (probably will for most of us) going to Mass less often and making long journeys to do so.
If you can’t kill it–starve it to death!
Our first course of action was to stop giving it money. Then we left.
2Vermont–The proper way to describe the Holy Roman Catholic Church is She or Her because She is the Bride of Christ. I guess we both agree that “IT” is more suited for the Novus Ordo establishment which is anything but The Bride of Christ.
Just who is whispering in Borgoglio’s ears?
I believe the horse was let out of the barn with V2, and the horse has now been locked up, to boot, in a different barn. The multitude of heresies and encouragements towards sin and sacrilege are so deep, and modernism has so thoroughly infected most people’s minds, I think only God can put the horse back in. He can work through others obviously, however, I just don’t see there being sufficient motivation for any country, or politician, to correct the Church at this time outside God’s very direct action. It seems that the people whose eyes are being opened, very notably, are NOT in leadership positions or positions of worldly power or resources. I’m not saying it can’t happen, obviously God can Will anything, but I wouldn’t hang my hat on it.
I can I just say I am so overwhelmed by having even my incomplete degree of awareness of all this evil. The sheer magnitude and its consequences create great spiritual challenges for me….
sweep–Since you are familiar with Randy Engle and her expose on the homosexual subculture in the catholic church, I was wondering if you had any knowledge of Father Enrique Rueda who wrote “The Homosexual Network -Private Lives and Public Policy” back in 1982. I checked the book on Amazon and the cost is quite high ranging from $100 to more than $500. Supposedly, it is a tell all book naming names in the Catholic hierarchy. So I guess this is not a “new” problem. However, I’m sure today it is more widespread and more evil. I think Francis will go down in history as the “I did it because I can pope”. No one dares to stop him.
Fr Rueda has since passed away and no this is not a new problem ,but a problem that was made new to the general public after 2000 with the revelations from the Boston Globe. Fr John O’Conner (RIP) made tapes entitled “The Antichrist” back in eighties which explained what was happening in seminaries and priestly Orders. He read and promoted Fr Rueda’s book having experienced the promotion of homosexuality in his own Dominican Order , especially for new seminary candidates who were asked if they accept the vice as normal as a prerequisite for acceptance. This was not limited to the Dominican Order for priestly candidates but was happening in many seminaries and even convents all over the country.
Indeed ,St Charles Borromeo ,which was described as one of the good seminaries by Michael Rose, in his book ,”Good Bye ,good Men” ,also had the same problem as recounted to me by close friends of young men who left. One vocation Director from the Diocese of Camden also was the pastor of a Catholic parish in NJ that was LBGTQ accepting. So if the seminary Rector did not accept the practices openly, in many instances the Vocation Directors for varying Diocese did.
A friend attempted to borrow Fr Rueda’s book from the Christendom college library
back in the early nineties and was disappointed to discover it was checked out but never returned. It was good priests who first sounded the alarm. It is good priests who still suffer the consequences along with the innocent .They have been bullied by the disordered and even gang raped by sodomites.
2 Cents, Fr Despard gave the most accurate account of what a priest goes through if he actually makes it to Ordination. His online book , although not very well written, is autobiographical and aligns with much of what I have heard first hand from priests in both the Roman and Eastern Catholic Rites. Most priests know they have to keep quiet in order to survive in their vocation and not a few attempt to maneuver around outside of the pro gay Bishops they are under.
Remember the LGBTQ agenda has brainwashed much of the Catholic laity that THEY should not be discriminated against ( Thanks to Borgoglio) ! So THEY are becoming bolder.
I saw Catholic parents screaming against the firing of an openly lesbian school teacher on the News.
Our Lady of LaSalette Pray for us !
Thank you, sweep. Because there is no accountability whatsoever, this horrendous situation will only get worse. I don’t doubt that there are a number of “good” priests out there, but the organization they belong to is vile. Keeping quiet and maneuvering to survive is not something to admire regardless of any good they may hope to accomplish. The N.O. establishment is rotten to the core. Why would a “good” priest want to save his vocation while surrounded by filth?
2 Cents , You might want to read this
I recommend reading the Book of the Apocalypse 18 for the fast forward version
I have strained my brain trying to understand this too 2Cents. Remember priests get pensions and healthcare. Maybe it’s financial and maybe they justify their decisions by rationalizing they can do some good for some Catholics . I just do not know.
Prior to relocating to another state , my daughter and I had the occasion to be seated in a diner in the next booth away from a notorious pedophile priest. He was dining with an obviously learning challenged young man. He was dressed as a cleric minus the collar . They were discussing the impending bankruptcy of the Diocese .He was actually laughing about the situation closing schools ,selling Diocesan owned nursing homes etc. He was bemoaning the case against, “Poor Bill Cosby” and said, “The police over react when they hear ‘sexual abuse’ from a complainer.”
My daughter rushed me out because she knew I was about to explode……I looked him up when I came home and saw he lives quite nicely in a home for retired priests even though he was removed from ministry. On our donations , I might add. This is him……
An elderly man sitting across the aisle in the diner ,recognizing he was a priest asked for his blessing and he beamed…..I literally went home and vomited.
Salu Tom, I think this is your BEST post thus far. Yes Antipope Bergoglio calls good evil and evil good – and he condemns the good works of the dubia & the 13 cardinals and approves of the evil works of modernist, communist or sergianist Bishops!
Once again, let me state my view: I believe it is backed by reason & the third secret, which intimates of two would-be popes dressed in white, one who was the Pope and one “whom we thought appeared like a pope.” Then I think Reason breaks defeats the Sede stance, which if followed gives way to further schisms and chaos. I have read theologians & canonists who show by their consistent logic that one cannot say the papacy was left abandoned by Our Lord in the late 1950s when Pius XII died. THe reasoning breaks down and there is no proof. THe documents of VII are ambiguous, the best term for them. SOme are perhaps helpful, like Lumen Gentium which is a loving look over the horizon by a confident and trusting CHurch. THe opposite is Gaudium et Spes, a work of the pseudo-science of a nascent sociology. Nostra Aetate is that sort of bad ecumenism we see today. Nevertheless, in the whole history of the CHurch there has been a very uneven display of theological opinion – and that is how we should take these two outliers. The point is, theydo NOT prove that hocus pocus we, just with the click of our fingers therebyall of a sudden PROVE we at that time no longer had the Catholic CHurch. Such an argument is magical thinking. The Church went on. The Lord surely would leave us with more of a sign that a few ambiguous documents of a council that in John XXIII’s words would be pastoral and not doctrinal. In other words no change of doctrine of the great Church. Okay granted with John XXIII we had a Liberal and with Paul VI we had a modernist; that also cannot overthrow the on-going Church. We have to see things from a large perspective, because after that we had John Paul II and Benedict XVI; there’s no proof they couldn’t be popes! THey both, furthermore, in the WHOLE picture of their words & acts, acted as brakes on the modernism found in Paul VI & even eventually (but it too was a gradual re-introduction back into the fold) on Holy Mass itself, which if used worldwide would be a real reversal- Benedict XVI’s stated goal of the Reform of the Reform & the Hermeneutic of Continuity.
THEN: Antipope Bergoglio. BUT the Lord did give us TELLING information that would give an orthodox Catholic pause: *threats on Benedict XVI xpoken of *ultimations by bankers *problematic theology of the Duo-papacy – one canonist saying that, like many others, he WAS PRESSURED, no matter what he himself says, the PRESSURE unquestionable, so the canonist said he planted seeds of error in the resignation ~ there’s error EVEN in the text, summing up with the over-the-cliff notion that this Emeritus Pope was still not, in Gansweins’ words which describe the Pope’s INTENT NOT RESIGNING the “contemplative munus petrinus” of St Peter’s Office! Say What? COuld Our Lord have left more certain dubias of EVEN the Resignation of Benedict XVI, BEFORE we even GET to the shocking and brazen St Gallen Plot to install ANtipope Bergoglio IN HIS PLACE? I believe the invalidity of Jorge’s (Call me George!) election have even MORE theological dubias! The Lord left no such concrete problematic data after Pius XII’s passing. One half was already undeniable – he was dead! And so many Sedes cannot prove NEARLY as many dubias in the election of John XXIII! Bergoglio’s election CLEARLY violates Universi Dominici Gregis! Even canonists have pointed out that John Paul II wrote this Apostolic Constitution in an obvious attempt to STOP a lefty liberal like Bergoglio & says the plotters & the beneficiary would ALL be excommunicated Senteniae Latae, without need of a council, and the election rendered non-licit & non-valid IPSO FACTO! So to make things shorter, I plead with you good CHrist loving Catholics to SEE the SIGNS of prophets and reason. Benedict XVI is the REAL POPE of two men dressed up as Pope that Our Lord, in His wise Providence has EVEN presented to our VERY EYES to choose one as the true and one as the false – some of the Saints predicted THIS VERY THING!!!