At the close of the Extraordinary Synod, Pope Francis delivered a closing address that deserves some close attention. Speaking before the august assembly, he said:
I can happily say that – with a spirit of collegiality and of synodality – we have truly lived the experience of “Synod,” a path of solidarity, a “journey together.”
We must give the Holy Father credit when credit is due, and His Holiness spoke very well when he suggested that we have just experienced (nay, endured) synodality at its finest.
At this, it is helpful to consider the purpose for which the “Synod of Bishops” was created.
Pope Paul VI, less than a year after placing an “explanatory note” in Lumen Gentium that was ostensibly ordered toward toning down the constitution’s inflated treatment of the college of bishops’ resident powers, threw what might be considered a bone to the “collegiality lobby” by issuing the Apostolic Letter, Apostolica Sollicitudo.
According to this Letter, which established the Synod of Bishops:
The Synod of Bishops has, of its very nature, the function of providing information and offering advice. It can also enjoy the power of making decisions when such power is conferred upon it by the Roman Pontiff; in this case, it belongs to him to ratify the decisions of the Synod.
1. The general purpose of the Synod are:
a) to promote a closer union and greater cooperation between the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops of the whole world;
b) to see to it that accurate and direct information is supplied on matters and situations that bear upon the internal life of the Church and upon the kind of action that should be carrying on in today’s world;
c) to facilitate agreement, at least on essential matters of doctrine and on the course of action to be taken in the life of the Church.
A sober reading of the synod’s job description reveals that it has ever been a ticking time bomb, but perhaps not so much in the way that most tradition-minded Catholics might immediately recognize; namely, as an instrument by which the bishops might one day exercise a decision making power that threatens to undermine the Church’s monarchical structure as instituted by Christ.
In fact, it really does the opposite.
As I read it, Apostolica Sollicitudo quietly, and with a subtlety worthy of the Master Deceiver himself, set the stage where upon the “God of surprises” would one day make an appearance in a production called “the Synod.” The actual play, however, wouldn’t be ready to open in earnest until such time as the intended audience, the faithful, were sufficiently stripped of their sensus Catholicus; a process presently completed in large measure thanks to the Mass of Paul VI.
Even then the spectacle would require the services of a very special Bishop of Rome; one “humble” enough to take on the role of the Almighty.
Pay close attention to the operative part of Apostolica Sollicitudo which states, “…to facilitate agreement, at least on essential matters of doctrine and on the course of action to be taken in the life of the Church.”
Really? Can someone, anyone, please tell me exactly which “essential matters of doctrine” are as yet so incompletely defined as to constitute a legitimate source of disagreement among authentic Catholics?
Clearly, folks, there aren’t any.
Even Pope John XXIII, in his opening address to the Second Vatican Council, made it clear that “the fundamental doctrine of the Church, which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians … is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.”
As such, according to John XXIII, no need existed for the Council Fathers to engage in “a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church.”
And yet, if one reads Apostolica Sollicitudo carefully, one sees that in establishing the Synod, Paul VI created what has always had the potential of being nothing less than Vatican II on steroids.
One must also take notice that in spite of the Synod being held up as a hub of collegiality, its “power of making decisions” only exists “when such power is conferred upon it by the Roman Pontiff,” and even then “it belongs to him to ratify the [Synod’s] decisions.”
In other words, the Synod is really nothing more than a pulpit from which the Holy Father is able to pronounce “essential matters of doctrine” as if the “God of surprises” has yet to aid His Church in settling such matters, and all of this under the guise of collegiality.
On 13 March 2013, a star was born…
This dog and pony show is precisely what we witnessed last week as Pope Francis forced the Synod’s stamp upon the abominable Midterm Report of October 13.
Incidentally, those who believe that the final Relatio somehow represents a corrective that has effectively rendered the Midterm Report little more than a bitter memory are sadly mistaken. We’ll review that document later, but for now, let’s continue to focus on the pope’s closing address to the Synod.
While the weak-kneed among us are hailing the closing address as an occasion wherein Pope Francis somehow defended the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine (which, by the way, is his solemn obligation), the truth is he did nothing of the sort.
What the pope really did was equivocate on the matter while pointing a finger of disgust at those who clearly recognize that there are no “essential matters of doctrine” up for questioning (aka Catholics).
Pope Francis said:
One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.
Get that? Those who have “certitude” in the “written word” (read: the “essential matters of doctrine” that have been taught with unfailing consistency throughout the centuries) not only lack “flexibility;” such persons are indeed “hostile!”
Those people have a name, of course, and it is a very dirty one in this pope’s mind, “traditionalist.”
And toward what exactly are those rascally traditionalists (aka Catholics) hostile?
Well, toward “God” himself; the same who has many wonderful surprises to reveal if only we will allow it!
This is what passes for a pope “defending the faith” to some. Amazing. For such individuals the bar hasn’t simply been lowered, it has been buried.
Among other “temptations” listed by Pope Francis, was this gem:
The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei,” not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…
What we have here is a pope publicly denigrating the Martyrs and the great ecumenical councils that respectively died and labored to convey the depositum fidei in “meticulous language;” the only language worthy of being passed down to future generations so that they too may come to know and to love God in truth, ordering their lives well upon His Holy Law.
And this as if beatifying Paul VI wasn’t thumb-in-the-eye of the Communion of Saints enough.
In any case, the pope went about describing a total of five “temptations,” any number of which were communicated in what he must imagine is the clever use of metaphors, but which ultimately end up meaning pretty much whatever the reader wants it to mean (as opposed to that damnable habit of speaking in the “meticulous language” of those whose “yes” means, yes, and whose “no” means, no).
The Bishop of Rome summed up his litany thus:
Dear brothers and sisters, the temptations must not frighten or disconcert us, or even discourage us, because no disciple is greater than his master; so if Jesus Himself was tempted – and even called Beelzebul (cf. Mt 12:24) – His disciples should not expect better treatment.
Let’s be clear, Jesus was never tempted from within as are those delinquents with crosier and mitre who speak of the doctrine of the faith as if it were but a lump of clay that is constantly shaped by the “God of surprises,” when in truth they seek only to mold the Church in their own image and likeness.
Pope Francis cavalierly, if not predictably, went on to credit the chicanery of the Synodal proceedings to the neo-modernists’ pet unstoppable force; “the spirits,” a close cousin of the “God of surprises.”
Personally I would be very worried and saddened if it were not for these temptations and these animated discussions; this movement of the spirits, as St Ignatius called it (Spiritual Exercises, 6), if all were in a state of agreement, or silent in a false and quietist peace.
Indeed, what a terrible tragedy it would be for the bishops to gather with the Successor of Peter as if all were in agreement as to the “essential matters of doctrine,” in which case there would no blessed reason for the Synod to convene in the first place.
I could continue pointing to the arsenic laced throughout the Holy Father’s address but will spare both myself and you, dear reader, the agony.
Let it suffice to say that Pope Francis ended the Synod, not by doing that which the Vicar of Christ is solemnly obligated to do, defend the Holy Catholic Faith and her children; rather, he simply made it rather clear (for those with ears to hear, anyway) that he has no intention whatsoever of doing so at any point in the foreseeable future (divine intervention notwithstanding).
In some large measure, we can thank Paul VI for this mess, and therefore can only marvel at both the fittingness, and the sheer arrogance, of the decision to beatify this destroyer of the Church of dreadful memory at the Synod’s conclusion.
Well played, Satan, well played.
Thank you, Louie, for your very accurate and heartfelt analysis of the mind and agenda of Bergoglio. If the Synod accomplished anything for the Modernists in control, it was to let the world know that everything is debatable, including the Dogmas of the Catholic Church. Therefore, the teachings of the Catholic Church are nothing more than opinion which can be altered at any time according to the culture of the day.
If Bergoglio dies suddenly without repenting, he will meet God and Boy! will he be surprised!!!!
Leaving aside for a minute the “meticulous language”:
“The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei,” not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of … a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! ”
For mine, both alternatives provide fitting characterisation of this man’s entire pontificate to date.
Bergoglio – he of the non-existent “God spray” – derides “making use of meticulous language”.
“Two chief motives for this can be cited. The first arises from the obstinacy of heretics. For since we confess the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost to be one God and three persons, to those who ask: ‘Whereby are They one God? and whereby are They three persons?’ as we answer that They are one in essence or deity; so there must also be some abstract terms whereby we may answer that the persons are distinguished; and these are the properties or notions signified by an abstract term, as paternity and filiation. Therefore the divine essence is signified as ‘What’; and the person as ‘Who’; and the property as ‘Whereby’.”
The best part of the speech was when he reminded the Synod Fathers that he, as Pope, has “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church”
I hope the Holy Father dusts off the Tiara and uses it when bringing down the hammer on the Burkes of the “right” and the Sister Maureen Fiedlers of the “left”.
I just got off the phone after talking to an elderly lady in my parish. Our priest upset her terribly on Sunday. He spoke out quite forcefully about the Synod and the Pope on the steps of Church after Mass at the meet and greet. He was in favour of neither and he kinda let himself go a bit. He’s young, and quite a tough guy – military chaplain etc. His sermons on Islam are not for the faith of heart.
Tears from elderly lady, as she ‘loves’ the Holy Father.
Then she goes home and calls the Bishop. He tells her to go to her computer and find the Holy Father’s closing speech to the Synod. He tells her to read it carefully, and prayerfully. And then she will feel all better.
So, Louie, thanks. I needed that slap of reality.
I am rather wondering just who this ‘god of surprises’ is because it does not sound like the Holy Trinity–you know that one God in Three Persons who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
I guess since I have Master’s degree and adhere to all the teachings of the Church as best I can, then I am one of those ‘intellectuals and inflexible traditionalists’ that the pope seems to hate and denigrate at many opportunities.
He told the young people to ‘make a mess’ and he is setting the example. But if the teachings on marriage go, so does the rock. I must continually keep in mind that the Church is the Bride of Christ and her Bridegroom will see to it that the gates of hell shall not prevail. But the demons are knocking hard at those gates right now and like the old lady that loves the pope and all the others that hang onto his every word as though they were infallible, there will be more loss of souls and more divisions to come. Those like C. Burke as a modern St. Athanasius: contra mundum.
I think all this is as big a heresy, this capitulating to the modernist immoral world, as the arian heresy of centuries past. Let us be the remnant for this too shall pass one day and also this pope will answer to the Lord.
I, too, read the final report and am puzzled at the chest-thumping I see on some blogs with statements alluding to the repudiation delivered to the Modernists at the Synod. Really? The vote in favor of the homosexual inclusion was only 2 measly votes short of being approved. I don’t consider that a wholesale correction: that’s a cautionary indication of the strength of the Progressivists. They’ll be back.
That’s what I said.
Moreover the fact these articles of faiths were even discussed (as if they could be changed!) is already a MASSIVE victory for Satan’s minions.
By rights, the holder of the Papacy should have fired those cardinals/bishops who tried to peddle the co-habitation, homosexuality, divorced couples, line.
The Pontiff is the only one with the power to be able to dismiss these “clergy”.
How these clergy were appointed as bishops and cardinals in the first place is worth considering also.
I’m glad I was not in front of the elderly woman. I’d be too confrontational and blunt for her sensibilities. I would ask her if she has read of the heretical outlook of this pope, and if not, why inot? Then I’d ask her if she is willing to follow a false prophet straight into heresy. We are both old, close to death, and the last thing we need is to stand before God with the belief that adultery and sodomy are okay, and that everyone is entitled to communion. Where on earth did her Catholic sense go?
This has always baffled me as well.
Yes, that (c) in Pope Paul VI’s letter is patently erroneous. But this most recent Synod looks as if it is being exploited for the purpose of purporting to change “essential doctrine” of the Church. Lord, help us.
Of course, you are correct. No one ought to be permitted to remain in the priesthood or episcopate if he rejects any of the Deposit of Faith or the Natural Moral Law.
You are right. It’s just that it’s not as bad as the diabolical mid-term Relatio. I suppose the enemies of the Faith have been succeeding in their evil doing within the Church for so long, that people can get very excited if there is any resistance to them, and a consequent mitigation of their evil aims (as there was at this Synod).
Dear Louie and all,
It seems we’ve all been destined to live through these times, and it’s a comfort to be reminded by holy people of the past, like Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, that God doesn’t always “surprise us” if we keep our eyes and ears open to the Truth. He gave her visions of the future that led her to willingly suffer more, for folks like us. Here’s a sampling that seem to us like they’re right out of the headlines:
“I saw again the new and odd-looking Church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it..” “I see many excommunicated ecclesiastics who do not seem to be concerned about it, nor even aware of it. Yet, they are (ispso facto) excommunicated whenever they cooperate in enterprises, enter into associations, and embrace opinions on which an anathema has been cast. It can be seen thereby that God ratifies the decrees, orders, and interdictions issued by the Head of the Church, and that He keeps them in force even though men show no concern for them, reject them, or laugh them to scorn.”
April 12, 1820 “I had another vision of the great tribulation. It seems to me that a concession was demanded from the clergy which could not be granted. I saw many older priests, especially one, who wept bitterly. A few younger ones were also weeping. But others, and the lukewarm among them, readily did what was demanded. It was as if people were splitting into two camps…”
April 22, 1823 “.. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant Church. Everyone was to be admitted in it in order to be united and have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics sects of every description. Such was to be the new Church …But God had other designs…”
“The Church is being so cleverly undermined, that there hardly remain a hundred or so priests who have not been deceived. They all work for destruction, even the clergy. A great devastation is now near at hand.” … “I saw what I believe to be nearly all the bishops of the world, but only a small number were perfectly sound. I saw a number of people looking quickly right and left, that is, in the direction of the world. “Then, I saw that everything that pertained to Protestantism was gradually gaining the upper hand, and the Catholic religion fell into complete decadence. … “In those days, Faith will fall very low, and it will be preserved in some places only, in a few cottages and in a few families which God has protected from disasters and wars.”
September 10, 1820
“I saw the Church of St Peter: it has been destroyed but for the Sanctuary and the main altar. St Michael came down into the Church, clad in his suit of armor, and he paused, threatening with his sword and number of unworthy pastors who wanted to enter. That part of the Church which had been destroyed was promptly fenced in with light timber so that the Divine office might be celebrated as it should. Then, from all over the world came priests and laymen and they rebuilt the stone walls, since the wreckers had been unable to move the heavy foundation stones. And then I saw that the Church was being promptly rebuilt and She was more magnificent than ever before…”
Source: The Life of Anne Catherine Emmerich – Carl E. Schmoeger http://www.catholic-saints.net/saints/anne-catherine-emmerich.php
Yes, the principle that the doctrine of the Faith cannot of necessity be a matter for debate or negotiation is one that has been destroyed in the minds of the majority of baptised by wicked leaders.
Thank you for posting that, Indignus.
If the lady’s “love” for the Pope is true Christian agape, she will pray for his repentance and conversion for his own soul and the good of Out Lord’s Holy Church.
Thank you, Indignus Famulus.
Cardinal Burke is true to the Faith. “Sr” Maureen is an enemy of the Faith and the moral law – no chance she’ll be disciplined.
‘Look higher still, and see the prelates of the Holy Church, pastors who have the charge of souls. Is the number of those who are saved among them greater than the number of those who are damned? Listen to Cantimpre; he will relate an event to you, and you may draw the conclusions. There was a synod being held in Paris, and a great number of prelates and pastors who had the charge of souls were in attendance; the king and princes also came to add luster to that assembly by their presence. A famous preacher was invited to preach. While he was preparing his sermon, a horrible demon appeared to him and said, “Lay your books aside. If you want to give a sermon that will be useful to these princes and prelates, content yourself with telling them on our part, ‘We the princes of darkness thank you, princes, prelates, and pastors of souls, that due to your negligence, the greater number of the faithful are damned; also, we are saving a reward for you for this favor, when you shall be with us in Hell.”‘
—-St. Leonard of Port Maurice
The Dictatorship of Relativism rules – tyrannically.
Why should Burke be disciplined?
I fear there’s plenty to tear down still, before “St.Peter’s” is left with only the Sanctuary and the Main Altar..
Yes, Ladies, you’re right, but don’t forget many of the elderly don’t spend much time online, and some don’t even have computers.
They also come from a generation that would never dream of criticizing the Pope – mainly because in their young days the pope was someone to love and trust!
I didn’t have the heart to disabuse this poor old friend and tell her all that has been going on. She has left our parish and will head on over to the Cathedral where her lovely, softie Bishop says the NO Mass. She’ll be happier there.
The One Thing Necessary: saving our own souls. Offer your death, and all the suffering attached to it, to God in union with Jesus as He offered His, and beg Him to allow you the sacraments before you die.
Offer The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as often as you can in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifferences with which He is offended.
I personally don’t want to greet any prince, prelate, or pastor of souls in hell.
Thanks, James, for the great quote. St. Leonard of Port Maurice also has a wonderful sermon on The Few in Number Who Will be Saved. It’s online. Scary stuff.
We’e beginning to think it’s already gone that far. With the attacks from the very top against the required state of Sanctifying Grace for un-sinful reception of the Sacraments-especially the Eucharist capping the last 50+ years of Liturgical abuses, it feels to us like we’ve just witnessed a lance being thrust through the heart of this Body of Christ, and pulled out again by some Faithful Cardinals and Bishops. We’re bleeding profusely. Cardinal Burke’s comment rings in our ears–about the damage being done in the parishes–so many clergy asking him what to do because the people say the Pope wants them to be able to receive Communion–despite the current public refutation of these errors. That’s where the real damage is taking place. What’s left on your list of things not yet attacked? We can’t think of a thing that hasn’t felt the devil’s clawing, can you?.
Beautiful reminders -especially that we’re all heading towards our deaths, and how significant an offering it is in union with Our Lord, and with Our Lady’s help.
If Burke should be disciplined for defending Catholic doctrine – which is the only possible criticism to be leveled against him – then the Church should never have been created.
Do you mean to assert that the Church dogma should lie somewhere between the “right” and the “left”? I am reminded of the statement of the patriarch of a hispanic family (“Papa Jorge”, ironically) present on a pilgrimage my wife & I traveled some years ago. When, at dinner, a woman in our group stated that she was pro-choice, Papa spread his hands apart and replied loudly, “You cannot say ‘God is here’ and ‘the devil is over here’ and ‘I will be in the middle!'”
Here is an interesting take on things:
See what you think about this article:
I read that famous sermon periodically and it never fails to make me re-double my efforts.
Can anyone imagine our present holy father quoting such a thing? Neo-conservatives jump for joy when he mentions Hell, but even atheists condemn people to “Hell” and this man’s abode of the damned is for traditionalists – that is, for good Catholics.
You made my day.
You write: “He’s (priest) young, and quite a tough guy – military chaplain etc. His sermons on Islam are not for the faith of heart.”
Yes, this is the future of the Church. 🙂
Deo Gratias. 🙂
You need to familiarize yourself with the concept of “Deus ex machina”.
Here is what Wikipedia says about “DeM”.
” Deus ex machina (Latin: [ˈdeus eks ˈmaː.kʰi.na]: /ˈdeɪ.əs ɛks ˈmɑːkiːnə/ or /ˈdiːəs ɛks ˈmækɨnə/; plural: dei ex machina) is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability or object. Depending on how it is done, it can be intended to move the story forward when the writer has “painted himself into a corner” and sees no other way out, to surprise the audience, to bring the tale to a happy ending, or as a comedic device.”
“A deus ex machina is generally deemed undesirable in writing and often implies a lack of creativity on the part of the author. The reasons for this are that it does not pay due regard to the story’s internal logic (although it is sometimes deliberately used to do this) and is often so unlikely that it challenges suspension of disbelief, allowing the author to conclude the story with an unlikely, though perhaps more palatable, ending.”
Sound familiar? 😉
On a P.S. Back to Wikipedia: “Sometimes, the unlikeliness of the deus ex machina plot device is employed deliberately. For example, comic effect is created in a scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian when Brian, who lives in Judea in 33AD, is saved from a high fall by a passing alien space ship..
Link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSY4fEEg4j0
W/r/t your observation that “The vote in favor of the homosexual inclusion was only 2 measly votes short of being approved.”, I would just point out that that paragraph was the “re-worked compromise” version. And that didn’t even get the required (by Bergoglio) result.
Yes, it’s bad. But it could have been a lot worse.
If we look at the wider picture, we are dealing here with ” a fraud being perpetrated” by a small cabal of fanatics with the ‘tacit’ approval of the bishop or Rome. The midterm Relatio was write before the Synod even began, and the fanatics tried to ram it through as a fiatt acompli. It took a Herculean effort just to bring the midterm Relatio back to reality. The bishops changed almost everything.
Hats off to them
Anyways, that is what I would be focusing on.
Off topic but…
If any of our commentors are in the process of ”building” a church or need some ideas about how to decorate their existing ” worship space”, here is an idea.
Link here: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/10/pictures-of-mural-of-crowning-of-virgin.html#.VEdYtVdfZ_Q
Will work well in ones piano noble at the family’s palazzo. 🙂
Feast of Christ the King is upon us.. this Sunday.
If you attend an Immemorial Mass of All Ages, and would be interested in taking and posting some photos, this site is for you.
Get the words out… is what I say. 😉
And on a more serious note.. this over at the Rorate Caeli.
Starring Archbishop “Tucho” Fernández
“There was only a group of six or seven fanatics, somewhat aggressive, who didn’t represent even 5% of the total [of the Synod Fathers].” … “If we don’t open up Pandora’s box, what is done is hiding the dirt under the rug.” … “Perhaps we missed saying, at the very least, with Pope Francis: ‘who are we to judge gays?’ ”
Ahemmm. Funny how 6 “fanatics” were able to reject the compromise version of the aberro-sex paragraph. Ah, the “god of surprises” must have struck again.
But anyways, reading the good fanatical Argentine bishop, I’m getting an urge to conclude his train of though using…what Mr. V. termed as pseudosacral homopoetic prose myself. Here goes:
“If we don’t open up Pandora’s box, what is done is hiding the dirt under the rug.” Now me: “However, If we do open up Pandora’s box, what is then being done is “deep sixing” the barque of St. Peter and consigning the Church and Faithful into the eternal shitter”.
Point counter point, yes:)
Come to think of it, maybe this is how we need to talk to these folks.
Metaphoric sound bites contra metaphoric soundbites so that the “sound bite papacy” BORF can understand. 😉
And this…Cardinal Piacienza speaks:
“Cardinal Piacenza: “If the Church Does Not Maintain Doctrine, It Will Not Progress”
“The priority”, to always realize, “is to be found in preserving the deposit of faith, unchanged through the centuries and millennia,” said Cardinal Piacenza. From this position, “the doctrine is that which is not an abstract truth, but a person, Jesus Christ, always and above all else.”
No pseudosacral homopoetic prose in that passage.
Better late than never… but at least they are starting to come out and speak. 🙂
Speaking of modernization of the Curia… B XVI Sec. of State Bertone to write his memoirs.
” The Memoirs of Cardinal Bertone — Does the Ex-Secretary Want to Pluck Some Hens?”
Link here: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-memoirs-of-cardinal-bertone-does-ex.html
“The literary genre of memoir is rare, especially when a Cardinal Secretary of State picks up his pen and writes about his work in the vicinity of the then reigning Pope. To be precise, there is still be no precedent for it. The Cardinal in certain circumstances seems to be directly focused on relating the attacks against his person and with his retirement. At that time, Bertone spoke of being the victim of “moles and snakes”.”
What could possibly go wrong? 😉
And for the ” Is it parody or not” category, this…
” Uh-oh. Ebola Czar Thinks Overpopulation is #1 Problem”
Now think about this for a minute….
Link here: http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2014/10/uh-oh-ebola-czar-thinks-overpopulation.html
Church of Obama… where reality subsists in parody. 🙂
Next post synodal commentary… big picture.
” Pope Francis, Barack Obama & The Rise of the Beta Male”
Link via Pew Sitter here: http://www.davidlgray.info/blog/2014/10/pope-francis-barack-obama-the-rise-of-the-beta-male/
How to Spot a Beta Male? The Five Things They Can’t Hide
1) Indeed, the first thing that Betas can’t hide is the fact that they’d sell their own mother’s soul to be liked and accepted.
2) The second thing that Betas can’t hide is their hatred towards Alpha Males.
3) The third thing that Betas can’t hide is their insecurity and cliquish nature.
4) The fourth thing that Betas can’t hide is their inability to lead.
5) The final thing that Betas can’t hide is their Machiavellian plots to get their way.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. 🙂
PS. I would add 6) The sixth thing that Betas can’t hisde is their use of pseudosacral homopoetic prose to express themselves. 😉
Head’s up Bert.
” De Mattei: Heading towards the 2015 Synod
– Numerical defeats never before witnessed by any Pope”
Link here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/de-mattei-heading-towards-2015-synod.html#more
Please take note:
“First, as several commentators have explained (including Yves Daoudal, here in French), the most controversial paragraphs were not even that controversial. The first (52), on communion for “remarried” divorced is a mere statement of fact: “many fathers” spoke against it, “other fathers” in favor, and that is it. But not even this managed to reach the 2/3 level. The same can be said of paragraph 55 on homosexuality, which in a sense just repeats what had already been written in a CDF document — but its rejection shows that even this language was too much for many bishops (and indicate that even Joseph Ratzinger’s CDF did not take into full consideration the sentiment of bishops in orthodox regions, including Africa). The new spin for the mainstream media is that “the fact that they discussed previous taboos at all means Pope Francis scored a victory” — which would in other terms mean that Trent was a huge victory for Lutheranism considering the fact that Lutheran theology was fiercely debated in that Council… Absolutely nonsensical.”
Please read the rest.
If we want to understand the significance of the Secret Synod and “JPII/Familiaris Concortio Miracle” Thursday where the Synod told Francis: BASTA!
De Mattei’s article is the equivalent of the “inside baseball” of how the Vatican works.
And the above…… they all know it.
No matter how many fanatical Argentine bishops or NYT/Boston Globe/Crax journalists claim otherwise. 🙂
Confirmation that the tide is going out way..;)
Bishop Tobin praises Cardinal Burke. 🙂
Link here: http://www.diocesepvd.org/from-bishop-tobin-random-thoughts-about-the-synod-on-the-family/
— Wherever he serves, Cardinal Burke will be a principled, articulate and fearless spokesman for the teachings of the Church.
— Pope Francis is fond of “creating a mess.” Mission accomplished.
The Poles say that “only a cow never changes its mind”. 😉
More great news…. new “quasi-parish” dedicated to the Immemorial Mass of All Ages established in… Pittsburgh.
Via Fr.Z blog, the link here: http://holywisdomlatinmass.org/2014/10/20/january-1-2015-we-are-a-parish/
The post quotes:
” It is with great joy that I announce the establishment of Saint John XXIII Personal Quasi-Parish. This new parish will serve those who participate in the celebration of Mass in the Extraordinary Form in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. This decision has followed nearly two years of prayerful dialogue and planning among members of your community, your chaplain, Father James W. Dolan, and members of my diocesan staff.”
On an aside, wonder if this had anything to do with the above decision: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sspx-gets-new-church-pittsburgh-4640
Now we remember from our logic class that correlation does not equal causality… but Deo Gratias Archbishop Lefebvre. 🙂 🙂 🙂 😉
That is quite a quote coming from Pope Humble I, a pope who prefers to be called the Bishop of Rome. He sure knows how to throw his weight around when he has to!!
He is dangerous!!!
More great news from North West London. 🙂
” The restoration continues: Willesden”
Link here: http://www.lmschairman.org/2014/10/the-restoration-continues-willesden.html
“The Shrine of Our Lady of Willesden in North West London, the restored Medieval Shrine visited by St Thomas More and St Josemaria Esciva, has been restored by its custodian, the Parish Priest Fr Stephen Willis. Fr Willis has also, at the request of Cardinal Nichols, started a weekly Traditional Mass in the church.”
Catch that? “Fr Willis has also, at the request of Cardinal Nichols, started a weekly Traditional Mass in the church.”
That’s two TLM parishes in the UK in just the last few weeks. 🙂
Archbishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis.
And now the “red meet” is coming out.
Magister writes: At the Synod and After, Revolving Door for Homosexuals
Link here: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350907?eng=y
” But the prehistory of these paragraphs is also indicative. Two of the three synod fathers who had raised this issue during discussions in the assembly – the only ones out of the almost two hundred present – in fact supported their arguments with statements of pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio.”
.Note* Gospel according to Jorge?
The three speakers who brought up aberrosexuals in the Synod:
1) John Ha Tiong Hock, president of the episcopal conference of Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei,
2) Director of “La Civiltà Cattolica,” the Jesuit Antonio Spadaro,appointed a member of the synod by Francis himself
3) Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the third to speak on the issue.
Just too funny is this line:
” And it is from this second talk (interview with Begoglio) that Fr. Spadaro – appointed a member of the synod by Francis himself – took an exact quote of the pope’s words regarding a girl adopted by two lesbian women, to urge the Church to a renewed and needed “listening and discernment” on situations of this kind.”
Now folks, this is what passes for “Jesuitical” thinking these days. No wonder the Argentine Society of Jesus was embarrassed by Bergoglio then. Wonder how they feel now? 😉
This from the Martyrology at Prime this morning:
“At Constantinople, (in the year 878,) the holy Archbishop Ignatius, who suffered much at the hands of the Caesar Bardas, because he rebuked him for having put away his wife, and was sent into exile, but was restored by Nicholas I., Pope of Rome, and in the end fell asleep in peace.”
Ah, the good ole days! When there were Alpha males all around. Imagine how our sons and grandsons would be set ‘on fire’ for the love of God and His Laws if they were brought up on these stories from the past – when men weren’t afraid, or cowed by their ‘wymin’, to stand up for what they believed in.
De Mattei’s piece is a bit long to put on a t-shirt but it would be great if do-able!!! What a wonderful summing up of the battle before us.
Please let us each choose a penance fitting to our state and perform it faithfully – fasting, prayer, and alms giving are the only way to defeat this demonic plan.
More Red Meet: How Kasper became cardinal. Fr. Blake has the scoop.
More Revelations asbout the Germans and Kasper’s elevation
“Deacon Augustine said…
“Kasper makes more threats.”
True to form then because that is how he was appointed a Cardinal in the first place. According to then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, JPII did not want to give the red hat to either Kasper or Lehmann. But the German bishops threatened to withdraw funding for the Polish Church if they were overlooked and JPII caved in. Their names were added to the list separately about 2 days before the consistory.”
Everyone needs to read the rest!
Bergoglio has “met the mafia, and it is us”. 🙂
It’s coming out of the woodwork. 🙂
Interesting take. The Beta category has irrefutable overlap with other categories, i. e. Modernist, Progressive, that we see in the Church today.
If he’s “the God of Surprises” he ought to change his name to Gomer Pyle! Surprise, Surprise!
You mean “Saint” John Paul put money ahead of principle?
If Cardinal Kasper was elevated because of what was effectively bribery, isn’t that simony? Aren’t offices obtained through simony invalid? Cardinal Kasper should be called out on this and humiliated with loss of office if this is in fact true.
Sorry for the repeat comment:
If Cardinal Kasper was elevated because of what was effectively bribery, isn’t that simony? Aren’t offices obtained through simony invalid? Cardinal Kasper should be called out on this and humiliated with loss of office if this is in fact true.
GREAT article. I literally LOL’ed at the Top Image. HAHAHA
Thanks also S.Armaticus for the link to my article, ‘Pope Francis, Barack Obama & The Rise of the Beta Male! http://www.davidlgray.info/blog/2014/10/pope-francis-barack-obama-the-rise-of-the-beta-male/
You also linked to Bishop Tobin’s recent comment about the Synod. He is agreeing that the Synod is an open door for the Church to devolve into Protestantism!
Quote: “The concept of having a representative body of the Church voting on doctrinal applications and pastoral solutions strikes me as being rather Protestant . . . Wherever he serves, Cardinal Burke will be a principled, articulate and fearless spokesman for the teachings of the Church. Pope Francis is fond of “creating a mess.” Mission accomplished.”
Great article. *
Munda Cor Meum linked to it earlier, but I didn’t think Munda did it justice. I had to get the bullet points out for all to see.
B/t/w, you missed one. 6) The sixth thing that Betas can’t hisde is their use of pseudosacral homopoetic prose to express themselves.
However, you are excused since this psychological phenomenon has only been identified by Mr. V a couple of post ago. It will take some time for it to get into the textbooks. 🙂
As to bishop Tobin, I can’t figure him out. It’s like he wants to stick his neck out, in both directions simultaneously. The last letter, he b***h-slaps Francis. Totally contrary to what he has been putting out pre Secret Synod. Maybe he is a good weather-vane (Mundabor’s expression) for which way the wind is blowing. Hope he’s correct. 😉
W/r/t the simony, we have a couple of resident experts on removing clerics from office here on this comment boxes. Presently they are debating the mechanisms for how to get rid of Bergoglio. But I think that the process might be the same for Kasper. 🙂
This from William Tapley (I’m still not sure what to make of his “apostolate” but he does post a few interesting videos):
This is another video by William Tapley where he discusses the evil symbols used by the Vatican during the recent canonization in Rome and Korea
Tapley believes he is one of the end time prophets in the Bible or something, if I remember correctly.
Just in case you haven’t seen the latest VM episod, here it is.
And it ain’t pretty. 🙁
Link here: http://www.churchmilitant.tv/platform/?today=2014-10-22
Disingenuous, at best. 🙁
Next batter up to the plate: Archbishop Chaput.
Archbishop Chaput blasts Vatican debate on family, says ‘confusion is of the devil’
Link here: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/21/archbishop-chaput-blasts-vatican-debate-family-says-confusion-devil/
“Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput, a leading culture warrior in the U.S. hierarchy, says he was “very disturbed” by the debate over church teachings on gays and remarried Catholics at this month’s Vatican summit, saying it sent a confusing message and “confusion is of the devil.”
No pseudosacral homopoetic prose anywhere to be seen. 🙂
Mea culpa. I will defend the man NO MORE!
One for the “you just can’t make this stuff up” category. 🙂
Archbishop Forte reports ‘widespread consensus’ on final Synod document””
Link here: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=22988
OK So he was against it before he was for it. 🙂
Tricky little rascal. How we know how he got to where he got to. 🙂
I never took the guy seriously to begin with. But even I am surprised by this last one.
Somebody needs to tell MV that we live in post ultramontanist times. Lumen Gentium if I’m not mistaken.
Been there, done that , got the t-shirt.
it was to let the world know that everything is debatable, including the Dogmas of the Catholic Church.
Could this not also be said about Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ?
And what about Louie? Does it not apply to him?
If Louie Verrecchio answers the two questions frankly he would be at odds with the SSPX
The issue is still dogmas and doctrines of the Church. In 1949 the Catholic Church changed its teachings on other religions and Christian communities and the leaders of the SSPX were not aware of it.
So now I’m confused.
Over at Pew Sitter is this interesting piece from Salt and Light.
Link here: http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_186216.php
Now Salt and Light is bashing Cardinal Burke.
Some lady writes the following”:
[His (cd. Burke’s) position can be summed as] ‘this is the truth, this is what should be happening, if you’re not meeting up to the truth, if you’re not living up to this ideal, you’re wrong. And there should be no conversation about how to bend to welcome people in, because then you’re bending on the truth.’”
Did you catch the problem in the above paragraph?
It’s with the following sentence: And there should be no conversation about how to bend to welcome people in, because then you’re bending on the truth.’”
Why do you want to “welcome people in” ?
Isn’t that saying the same thing as converting them?
Wouldn’t you be implying that you want them to join your club?
And if they don’t like your rules, wouldn’t it be much more charitable (and honest) to send these folks over the the denomination that best fits their lifestyle choice?
Episcopalians or Universal Unitarians come to mind for the progressives. Evangelical Pentagonals and Baptists for those intellectualists.
And wouldn’t sending these folks to the Episcopalians be what pope Francis really really wants?
Didn’t he tell us that proselytizing is solemn nonsense?
And didn’t he criticize then pope Benedict for created the Anglican Ordinariate?
And didn’t Francis tell the Anglican bishop in Buenos Aires that he wants the Anglicans to stay where they are?
And hey, come to think of it, didn’t Francis tell atheists that they could be saved if they just followed their consciences?
Yea. And all we are supposed to do is go out and meet our fellow neighbor?
And finally, wouldn’t the local coffee shop be a much better place to meet our fellow neighbor since one can’t really talk and get to know him in church?
What am I missing?
I’ll repost this here:
Louie has proved to be spot on with regards to Voris given the recent clarification Voris released:
This was also why I was surprised to see the initial Voris video and also hesitant that it would remain up or prove that he’d changed his stance.
Once again, Voris’ reasons don’t quite make sense in light of his actions.
From what I understand, it seems Voris’ stance is that only those consecrated clerics, such as Bishops or Cardinals, like Burke, have the position of criticising the Pope. Never laypeople.
But this introduces a conundrum, as given Voris himself routinely criticizes bishops and cardinals, then how can laypeople criticize an office above them (bishop/cardinal) which has the power to criticize an office above them (Pope)? Doesn’t this then suggest that laypeople should also refrain from criticising bishops and cardinals too? And as Louie pointed out initially, don’t Michael’s own criticisms of various bishops positions clearly also publicly stand against those of the Pope, even if Michael’s videos were never aimed at the Holy Father?
Now we can understand if Voris’ apostolate, which seems to be primarily aimed at making converts will run into trouble if Voris has to also criticise the very office he is trying to promote (the Papacy), and new people being exposed to Catholicism for the first time will encounter difficulty trying to reconcile what Michael is trying to teach them versus what the Pope is openly doing in violation of the very things he wants to instill in them. Thus, for his audience, dealing with this particularly papacy may be too much for them to deal with at this immature stage of their understanding and study of Catholicism.
But Michael should understand that Pope Francis is making it difficult for all of us! Does he imagine that Louie and co. are also having to deal with the difficulties of converting others? Does Michael acknowledge the trouble I run into trying to convert Protestants and Atheists who will throw Pope Francis’ words and actions back at me to either show that the Pope himself denies what I’m saying or that the current Pope’s actions can’t be reconciled with the Papacy I’m trying to convince them about?
There are other disturbing issues that CMTV has displayed. Aside form this recent clarification that shows that Michael is even willing to censor journalism to avoid criticism of the Pope and even apologize for reporting something truthful; (he can claim that his primary motive of CMTV is to create converts, but let’s not pretend that CMTV doesn’t also cater to informed Catholics already who count on them for current news and commentary, and who are undoubtedly their subscriber base (as am I), that pays for their service because we want to promote the good work Voris is doing); but it looks like CMTV is also engaged in selectively quoting the Pope in cherry picking Protestant-fashion, as a recent CMTV news segment did that reported Francis’ words tot he effect of that “laws of the Church, if not obeyed, are obsolete”, but never provided the full context of Francis’ words that he spoke them in order to change the discipline on preventing communion for adulterers because he feels the discipline and law itself doesn’t work instead of the actuality that the discipline and laws have been ignored & disobeyed by the clerics who have made the situation worse. CMTV’s quick report just quotes the initial phrase, provides no context and just leaves it out there for people to interpret on their own, a true vague V-II style presentation!
So it seems that Voris or his team is also engaging in selective deception of its own to try and make Pope Francis look good, rather than just refraining from criticising Pope Francis.
Michael Voris earlier used the account of Noah & Ham and Noah’s sons covering up his nakedness as a way of defending his actions, but again this makes no sense. The famous account of Noah’s nakedness, has through much commentary been revealed to be a euphemism, where nakedness actually stands for sexual relations, such as that of Noah’s wife. As the OT Mosaic laws make mention that one should not lie with ones mother, for that is thy father’s ‘nakedness’ (the body of the woman belongs to her husband), and to ‘see’ someone’s ‘nakedness’ implies sexual relations, thus the account is actually about Ham sleeping with his mother, and conceiving a child, which is why Noah curses ‘Canaan’, the son of Ham, as it would make no sense why he would do so in any other context. And the Bible uses the offspring of immoral or illicit relations and marriages as a means to show the beginning of other nations such as that of Canaan, which would become the enemy of Israel and a sexually depraved nation. So technically, Noah’s other two sons attempted to ‘cover up’ the incident, and avoid looking upon Noah’s ‘nakedness’ (his wife, their mother) either by keeping it from Noah, which is unlikely and futile, but more accurately it means that they’d either consoled their mother by covering her or means they themselves refused to engage in Ham’s immoral lust when Ham told them about it perhaps being a euphemism to have them join him in his opportunistic sin, while their father, who may be a type of the Holy Father was asleep at the wheel, while his bride was taken advantage of.
Mundabor’s latest post: “Si Tacuisses, Philosophus Mansisses” nails a core problem you (and St. Catherine) have mentioned a number of times before-that really strikes a chord with us.
-Citing Cardinal. Ravasi’s rejection of C. Burke’s invitation to the Pope to quench the heresy at the Synod on the grounds that “a Papal intervention would have ended the debate”, M writes:
“The stupidity of this is immense..” ..”Roma not only used to, but has to speak – for all times to come – exactly in order to end discussions that should not have started in the first place! Heresy is not on a par footing with Truth, and
the Pope is never ever to be neutral between the one and the other.”
….To him, [Ravasi] “Rome” has a duty to encourage discussion irrespective of what is actually discussed. …”A Church with such Princes is truly a Kingdom in serious need of repair.”
This key false-premise apparently drives Pope Francis to think he’s justified –reinstating heretics; exiling Burke(s); encyclically condemning/ persecuting “effectively jailing” those who “cling to tradition” who in his mind, stifle the “ongling dialoge with the Holy Spirit” with their unholy “rigidity”. If he can “demonstrate” that it IS God Himself -and not “Fr Bergoglio” leading this “continually new”, “ever-surprising”, “collegial” “discussion” what
faithful Catholic would dare stand against the new “majority view” he so often expresses ?
Before we new Louie Verrecchio existed, we learned the hard way how evil grows and spreads from years of “relative silence” on the part of the faithful- when we suddenly realized about 20 years after VII, that huge numbers of our own relatives, and billions of others like them, were proudly walking on the wide road to hell–having somehow learned in their Catholic parishes to justify sin and its tolerance in others; to berate those who object to unrepented sin as “uncharitable”; and to believe they are actually “more in touch with the “Real” Jesus and thus more Catholic” than those they berate-much as Pope Francis behaves. These extremely painful life- lessons ended our confusing “timidity” with true Charity and Meekness- we hope not to late to save others, if not our own. We continue trying to learn, comparing what we read and hear to what the magisteriums that went before us, consistently taught and officially defined and promulgated. And that’s your work, Louie, and this blog have been of great help to us.
Till we breathe our last, we will go on denouncing falsehood- even the thoughts of a reigning Pope who gives God’s teachings an “unofficial” even opposite meaning–twisting them like a pretzel, urging all to partake of this latest, soft bakery, fresh out of hell’s ovens-using the recipe from a dream he had, or a book he read that he thought was serene, and hoping to “collegially” demonstrate that it came from the Holy of Holies.
And because we’re much more aware now, of the dire consequences of the misuse of free will and living life by the seductions of Satan, we continue to pray for those whose evil ideas we necessarily must expose and denounce- with a fervor as genuine as if each of them were our own children whose salvation we hold extremely dear.
I think she just admitted that Cardinal Burke is not willing to “bend Truth” like Francis, in order to be more welcoming.
Well said,Indignus Famulus , well said
You are being sarcastic we hope, not thinking Rosica’s Salt and Light are traditional…
One of his producers, “Ambrosio” said that while there will be no doctrinal change in the Church’s teaching regarding homosexuality and divorce, there already is what she called a “change in tone.”
(Which she is gung-ho to promote, apparently):
“A change in — you know what — maybe we don’t have to tell people they’re wrong. Maybe we can work with them and find a way to welcome them into our community, even though they might not be perfect in our eyes. So, that’s going to be huge.”
(In other words, let’s tolerate sin along with loving the sinner, get with the world’s program, like Francis already has, don’t stay in that “Ivory Tower” with God and Cardinal Burke and all the others who call for repentance first before “welcoming”)
–“When asked by the host to comment on Pope Francis, Ambrosio called him “realistic” because “he’s ..one of the few popes we’ve had in recent times who has actually worked in the trenches, so to speak.”
Ambrosio said it is cardinals like Burke who have set themselves against the “direction” the pope is trying to move the Church.”
Liberal Blah Blah Blah… as usual.
Three interesting things here:
1. Chaput soundly thrashed the language used in the ” relatio” both versions:
“Such language, even if not final or official, was unprecedented for church leaders and it prompted a media tsunami….. and they spent the second week engaged in a concerted effort to water down that language for the final report.”
.. he was still concerned that it did not go far enough in clearing up the confusion and clearly restating church teachings on marriage and homosexuality.
2. He reinforced Catholic teaching- with the best of them:
“None of us are welcomed on our own terms in the church. We are welcomed on Jesus’ terms,” he said. “That’s what it means to be a Christian. You submit yourself to Jesus and his teaching. You don’t re-create your own body of spirituality.” and with a mind to further rebel against the sprit of the age:
3.He urged the nation’s Catholic bishops to consider stopping the signing of civil marriage licenses for all couples in response to what he called the “new marriage regime” of same-sex civil marriage. (Pennsylvania, along with more than 30 other states, now allows same-sex marriage.)
–[in U.S. practice, a Catholic priest, like any licensed clergy, acts as an agent of the state when signing a couple’s marriage certificate.]
“It’s hard to see how a priest or bishop could, in good conscience, sign a marriage certificate that merely identifies ‘Spouse A’ and `Spouse B,’ ” Chaput said…“Refusing to conduct civil marriages now, as a matter of principled resistance, has vastly more witness value than being kicked out of the marriage business later by the government, which is a likely bet,”
–Chaput said he wasn’t necessarily endorsing that move yet, but “in the spirit of candor encouraged by Pope Francis,” he said the American bishops should “discuss and consider it as a real course of action.”
Sadly, she is being failed, misled by those who have a duty to tell her the truth. Of course, if she was properly formed in, and knowledgeable of, the unchangeable Faith, she would recognise many of the Pope’s statements as being in conflict there with.
Dear Lord, guide and protect him in his holy priesthood! Would that I had regular access to the direction of such a good priest.
Run with the hare and hunt with the hound! As they reject objective truth and its attendant objective moral obligation, their measure is human respect, adulation of the fickle, easily-led crowd.
Robert de Mattei is an exemplary Catholic. Not for him, pretending not to notice papal attacks on the Faith, in order to maintain the approval of those in power, including his ex-bosses at Radio Maria.
I would argue that the validity of Walter Kasper’s cardinalature is moot, as over the decades he’s made it clear he rejects the Deposit of Faith and the moral law (adherence to which is required in their totality) and so is apparently excommunicate.
I was going to follow Johnno’s suit and repost my comment on that “clarification” video, which I’d placed under the preceding post (at No. 44) but as I can’t cut and paste it, suffice to say, what is said therein is absurd, irrational.
Amen, IF. It seems logic and reason are anathema to many prelates – the new zeitgeist in Rome.
Dear James<, I'm glad for you to come to that position. But having watched the link, I'd like to know that it was not said with sarcasm, (which can be so hard to discern here). M.V.'s stated position seemed no different from the manifesto and what he'd been doing since in the Vortex IMHO.
— I do agree with him that there are a number of bloggers/commenters who take their comments too far when directed at the pope, however I think he also takes his ridicule too far when he presents the faults and faulty positions of cardinals and bishops. Detraction can also be a grave sin… even though the subject matter is true, (unlike slander or calumny). It is still considered a sin against justice or charity.
— Regarding his rash "breaking news", I thought it was probably more due to the lateness of the day, the emotions of the week, the vino on the table and that it was ++Burke who was reported as saying those things. That could have given vent to the stress incurred from his having to muzzle himself all these months as the evidence kept becoming more certain Pope Francis was more the one that we deserved rather than the one we needed to bring the practice back in line with the constant teaching of the Church.
–One thing to watch though, with M.V., while I've thought he was hypocritical for railing against cardinals and bishops as he treated the Pope with kid gloves, it would definitely be so if the position they took is in line with Pope's preaching or behavior. If so, how could Michael be in full communion with the Pope?
Lynda, I “right-clicked” on the little clock next to your name at #44 and selected “copy shortcut”, and Voila:
Many good insights in your post. Michael Voris makes less and less sense to us, every time he talks about this issue of not criticizing the Pope. Are we alone in thinking it bizarre for him to have punished himself for making what he says was a mistake while overtired, by-after going to Confession-not receiving Communion on Sunday?
Mundabor has his own take on this new MV video, saying, among many other things:
—“Being Catholic has never meant to throw one’ s brain in the garbage can.”
—“Voris has chosen to believe that two and two is four, as the Church says; but also five, as Francis says. Which then leaves him in the impossible situation of having to attack Cardinal Burke (who at this point can only be a “spiritual pornographer”)for saying that it is four; whilst also attacking Cardinal Kasper for saying that it is five. This is too absurd for serious consideration. It does not pass the test of a seven-years old boy. It is as blatantly self-contradictory as anything under the sun.
“…is this Pope a threat to the Depositum Fidei or not? If you answer “no”, I question at the very least your discernment. If you answer “yes” I cannot see any way how you can escape a duty towards God that must..be infinitely preferred to any blind and senseless loyalty.
“… every talk of “communion” made dependent of ignoring the propagation of heresy and lie is a satanical self-deception of the first order. They can’t be both right. That’s it. This is reality no amount of “loyalty” talk will ever make any less real. ”
.. This willed, highly selective blindness is in nothing more intelligent than to condemn at every step Nazism, The Nuremberg Laws and the Holocaust, whilst stubbornly refusing to say a word against Hitler. ”
On Voris… saying that those who attack the Pope will one day answer for it.:
” Personally, I try to write every blog post as if it were the last one before a Boris Bus hits me on the head; and I would frankly be terrified of dying without having criticised the Pope…in a way commensurate (not even remotely, in fact) to the offense and scandal he is causing.
–Astonishingly, many people are apparently ready to believe this nonsense, and think that they will be fine if, when they die, they are on the side of the Pope. This is exactly the kind of people who will, one day, enthusiastically be on the side of the Antichrist, or of the False Prophet.”
To us is seems like the Diabolical Disorientation just doubled up.
Mike, thanks… I was not being sarcastic.
Do you think he could do something about the internet trolls?
I think it’s something we all could agree on. 😉
Sarcasm aside and irrespective of whether Salt and Light is a Catholic (or as you termed it “traditional), there is a much larger problem with what the S&L lady’s statement. The problem is the term “find a way to welcome them into our community”. Aside from being a perfect example of Verrecchian ‘pseudosacral homopoetic prose’, this phrase is also a euphemism for “proselytization”. If as the bishop of Rome, cum pope states, we are only to meet people and get to know them, then why in God’s name do we want them “in our community”. Isn’t the community that they are in just fine? Especially since even atheists can also be saved, what is the point of “pulling” people out of their community into our community. Doesn’t that also go against another fundamental “teaching” of pope Francis, i.e. strength in diversity. If we pull people from one community to another community, then are we not destabilizing the other community, and therefore acting against the diversity teaching? I am amazed (this is sarcasm now)that a person so close to the number 2 at the Vatican press office can be so ignorant of the teachings of pope Francis, teachings that here direct superior comments on as part of his daily duties.
…come to think of it, shouldn’t the New Evangelization be stopped immediately, on the basis of going against the Bergoglian “sin of non-diversity”
And now, the official N.O. “Welcoming Rubric” as per cd. Kasper.
Link here: http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.com/2014/10/how-to-welcome-gays.html
And how not to do it:
“The following example, therefore, is to be avoided, if possible..
“Dear brothers and sisters, welcome to St. Perpetua’s Church for this the 23rd Sunday of Ordinary Time. Before we examine our consciences and ask the Lord for His mercy, I would of course like to welcome everyone to St. Perpetua’s Church but particularly any gays, lesbians, blacks, transgendered, transvestites, bisexuals, unsure, questioning, disabled, wheelchair users, hard of hearing, blind, Filipino, Irish, Spanish, Portugese, Latin American, asexuals, sufferers with mental health issues (add other ‘types’ here) who may be in the congregation. If I have missed anyone out I do apologise, but in particular, welcome to any gays out there. Therefore, I hope you feel welcome. And lesbians too…and…(insert ‘types’ you re-welcome here)…”
And the special Kasper closing rubric:
” “…Therefore, I hope you all feel welcome, apart from any Africans. We don’t listen to you and you can’t tell us what to do. Your views are not wanted and your participation is not welcome here. By the way if anyone asks you whether I just said that, I didn’t. In the unlikely event I have been recorded, if you have recorded me saying that, I have powerful friends in journalism, so don’t take me on. I can destroy you, hear me? Yes! Destroy you!”
Once again, the church of Francis. Where reality subsists in parody. 🙂
One for the “Ministry of Religion” category.
“Austrian Government Proposes Dramatic Revisions In Law Governing Islamic Community.”
” The legislation also seeks to prevent the growth of a parallel Islamic society in Austria by regulating mosques and requiring clerics to be trained exclusively at Austrian universities. The new law would require Muslim groups to terminate the employment of clerics who have criminal records or who are deemed to pose a threat to public safety…..
The new Islam Law also requires the Austrian Muslim community to agree on a standardized German-language translation of the Koran, the Hadiths and other Islamic religious texts. The government has argued that an official version of the texts would prevent their “misinterpretation” by Islamic extremists.”
Let’s see how the Muslims like it! 😉
One for the Bergoglian “sin of non-diversity” category.
CBS News looks for “homo” Catholics,’ finds schismatics instead.
” Note the curious reference to the “Rev. Joe Akus.” He is described as “a priest who ministers to a congregation called Dignity, a network of LGBTQ Catholics.” That looks like fancy footwork to me; it avoids calling Akus a Catholic priest (i.e. one who may licitly celebrate Mass) and it avoids calling Dignity a Catholic parish community (because, as we will see, it isn’t one; it is based at an Episcopal parish).”
Once again: “…avoids calling Dignity a Catholic parish community (because, as we will see, it isn’t one; it is based at an Episcopal parish).”
So now we have:
3) Something in between.
Now this is what I call true diversity. 😉
PS The question that just begs to be asked is that if everyone is saved, (even the atheists) the difference between 2) and 3) is really a question of ……..?
One for the….”in a few weeks, this could be a real story” category.
“Pope Francis Not Sure What To Make Of His Papacy Thus Far”
Link here: http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2013/04/16/pope-francis-not-sure-what-to-make-of-his-papacy-thus-far/
“…he had been approached by the Pope one day and was quietly asked to consider the question, “Who do the people say that I am?” “At first I thought he was talking about Luke 9:18 when Christ asks that question to his disciples. But when I started to answer, he stopped me and said, ‘No, man…you’re not getting it. I’m literally asking what the people are saying about me.’”
Yes, we are not quite sure what to make of Francis’s papacy either. :/
….and this: New Evidence Reveals The Mass Was Founded In 1965
“Jenkins went on to say that up until then, no Mass was ever valid, going on to compare pre-conciliar Catholics with Jews during the exodus. “You see, the Jews did not have to wander the desert for 40 years. If was only because of the hardness of their hearts that God prolonged their wandering. So then is the case of the pre-conciliar Church. God allowed them to spiritually wander the desert of ignorance and hatred until they were enlightened in the 60’s. Only then were they allowed into the promise land of the Mass.”
How soon until we start hearing the above coming out of the daily “musings” at Domus Sanctae Martae?
“The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei,”
Would you say that was also an oversight of Archbishop Lefebvre ?
There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.-Archbishop Lefebvre
(Lionel:Wrong there is only one way of receiving it. De facto there is only the baptism of water. We cannot administer the baptism of desire to any one. We do not know any one who will be saved this year with the baptism of blood and so will not need the baptism of water. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre assumes that the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are explicit for us and so are exceptions to the traditional intepretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Otherwise why would he mention it? It is relevant only if it is explicit.He has accepted the wrong inference of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.)
You can respond even here :
More post Secret Synod commentary:
” More than any other Cardinal, Burke emerged as a clear and powerful voice in favor of orthodoxy and tradition. Despite Burke’s demotion, his leadership at the Synod may actually elevate him to the status of a papabile in the next conclave. How so? Apparently, the majority of Synod fathers are “furious and indignant with Pope Francis” for the manipulative tactics of the Synod – and these are not any bishops, but the most important bishops and cardinals in the world. It is highly possible that they are realizing that Francis is a huge disaster for the Church, and even those who may have cast a ballot for him might now be stepping back from the cliff after witnessing the auto-demolition of Catholic faith and morals almost accomplished this month. These “furious and indignant” bishops will most likely not be voting for a Bergoglian in the next conclave, but rather a man who can clearly, powerfully and charitably teach Catholic dogma. Burke has singled himself out for the job by his admirable performance in defense of orthodoxy before the whole world. We all prayed for Pope Burke in 2013; ironically, Burke may have a much greater chance post-Bergoglio. God may be preparing him for greater things during his exile.”
“I mentioned above that this Synod is a turning point in the pontificate of Pope Francis. Some have even narrowed this turning point down to Thursday, October 17th, shortly after 9:00am, when Cardinal Pell began the attack against Baldiserri’s manipulation. This is a turning point for Francis because it may amount to a vote of “no confidence” in his leadership. No doubt Francis will spend the next twelve months exacting retribution on the members of the conservative backlash in preparation for Synod 2015. He may or may not be successful. But the point is, the breach has been opened. Things will never return to the status ante-bellum for Bergoglio.”
The “collegiality” god of surprises ain’t what he was advertised to be. 😉
‘obstinacy of heretics’
Could this be an oversight like that of Archbishop Lefebvre ?
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire.-Archbishop Lefebvre
(Lionel: The baptism of desire refers to a catechumen who sought the baptism of water and was denied before he received it. For us this case is hypothetical. It is always invisible for us and known only to God. We cannot know any such case in 2014 and so it cannot be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.)
Does the doctrine of the Church also recognise explicit for us implicit baptism of desire? Visible for us implicit baptism of desire ??
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. -Archbishop Lefebvre
logic and reason are anathema to prelates.
Would this include Archbishop Lefebvre on this point?
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. -Archbishop Lefebvre
(Lionel: If they are saved in their religion by Jesus and the Church how is this relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Since this would be a theoretical case for us. Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions in 2014 to the literal and traditional interpretation of the dogma according to the Church Councils, popes, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston)
“”The general feeling is one of huge relief,” says an influential professor at a Pontifical University. “On Thursday, at around noon, John Paul II operated a miracle at the Synod.” (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/important-backlash-against-manipulated.html),
If an “influential professor at a Pontifical University” claims that 16th of October 2014 from this day going forward will be known as “JPII/Familiaris Concertio Miracle Thursday of the Secret Synod.” at the Armaticus household. 🙂
Besides, how am I to judge?
to quote the little anti-christ and pseudo ‘pope’ francisco – ‘hostile inflexibility’. Philosophically speaking therefore, is the ‘immovable object’ (God’s love and truth) and the ‘unstoppable force’ (God’s love and truth)……’hostile?’ um – no. Well, hostile if one is dead-set on lies and hate – work it out. False-church-false-popes-false-men cleave to lies and hatred of truth – the rest simper in a rather unmanly fear of being exiled. Therefore, with the resiliance of love we cleave to truth, no matter how hostile the world and its bergogliosii and coterie are.
To quote a ye olde Catholic: ‘despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt (only God can do so, and God does not despair). We do not. It is wisdom to recognise necessity when all other courses have been wieghed, though as folly it may appear to those who cling to false hope.’
The seat’s been empty for a while now, peeps. It may seem like folly to this who cling to lies…
PS. ‘those who cling to lies…’ that lie being that those who oppose Christ have his authority…it is so obvious, so greivous, so saddening that those who work openly and methodically against Christ are honoured by those who claim to live for Christ.
Consistency in Hypocrisy that was the title of the last post by Louie.
Pope Francis said this – and Michael Voris said that – but what about Archbishop Lefebvre ? No one on the board to defend him or admit that he made a mistake or overlooked something?
Please note that the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood are part of the teachings of the Catholic Church and so there is no error here.
It is when it is implied that the the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, then the error arises. It is saying that these cases are visible and known to us in the present times to be exceptions.They would have to be known to be exceptions. If they were invisible they would not be exceptions.
We know however that those saved with the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are in Heaven and known only to God and so they are invisible for us.So why did Archbishop Lefebvre mentioned them ? Just because the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentioned them? He did not realilze that the Letter had made a mistake ? Amd the same mistake, the same reasoning he carried over into Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8,NA 2 are EXPLICIT exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
From Laudes of Divine Office of1570:
See may we the day-time spend,
That, till life’s temptations end,
Tongue, no hand, or eye offend!
One, above us all,
Views in his revealing ray
All we do, and think, and say,
Watching us from break of day
Till the twilight fall.
The Almight yand Everlasting God knows every word we think, speak, and write. Would any of us want to defend our insults thrown around so freely?
My point is that there is little need for personal mocking or insult to anyone in the Church. We can quote and make comments, and give our personal takes on what is going on. But name-calling, insulting, and mocking should have no place anywhere. In my humble opinion ridicule lessens the impact of any statement.
Can we elevate the tone just a bit?
dear Indignus famulus,
It shouldn’t, IMO, be lost on us that MV’s a self-professed media man.
He might’ve merely used a strategy that garners attention from everywhere, including from haters and even those affected by simple morbid curiosity. Anyone of you brethren here who are involved in the media, even just radio, as I, I’m not so proud to say, once was, know what I’m talking about.
Voris’ offerings, going back many years, are laced with unsound theology. I hate to see young folk fascinated by him. The vicious quips calumnizing good Catholic men brought other aspects of his take over the top at the time. I judge not the interior of the man.
Lionel, your focus on Archbishop Lefebvre is interesting and you point out some things that appear to be inconsistent. However, the good Bishop himself never put himself above Church teaching or Tradition.
He was reluctant to train priests and form a new group – he was begged by seminarians desperate for solid formation and he gave in.
From then on he grew in knowledge of what was going on all over the world, and he began to speak up. But most of all what he did was put his hand to the
plow and work for their formation.
He never set himself up as a guru. He may have made mistakes (I don’t like that word – he may have held positions that are not what you think they should have been) but please, Lionel, stop holding up the SSPX as demonic because of your focus on these putative ‘mistakes.’
Whatever we may think about the SSPX, please realize that they are one of the very few apostolates holding FIRM in this world – holding on to Holy Mother Church and Tradition. We should get down on our knees and pray for them, and thank The Good God for them.
Good observation. I had the same thought myself.
The Poles have a saying that goes something like this: when you pound the table, the scissors answer. 🙂
That’s the way to go. SSPX has managed to keep the TLM uncoupled with the Novus Ordo for far longer than many expected, even post Summorum Pontificum. Until that happens I believe we can still depend on them to weather the ongoing storm.
And now for a time out from our “doctrinal nuance” war… for some eye candy.
40 Hours Devotion at St. John Cantius.
Link here: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/10/forty-hours-at-st-john-cantius.html#.VEkt6xa7ZKo
On a personal note. I grew up in a neighboring parish. When I found SJC was offering a TLM circa 1989, I became a regular. But years later, I moved. I remember a time when there was three of us at High Mass. My dad (God rest his soul) noticed one Sunday that I started going to church and asked me where I was attending. I told him, and he was the fourth.
Look at the place now. 🙂
God bless Fr. Phillips for what he has accomplished. And God bless cd. George for letting it happen.
And above all, God bless Archbishop Lefebvre, without who none of this would be possible.
Dear de Maria,
The concept of him looking for “attention” is one that never crossed our minds, and as a conscious act, one we find very hard to swallow. Yes, he appears to have had no problem playing the starring role of “media target” for many years, but we have to give him credit for being genuinely ready to sacrifice all for what he believed to be the good of the Church, and the combination of that “fire in his belly” and his “Irish” temperament, led naturally to all the attention he is accustomed to getting-without it being a personal satisfaction. That’s why the theory that he capitulated to large donor/s desires, doesn’t seem to fit the facts, either. We could be wrong of course, not knowing any of the details behind the scenes, such as Louie may be privy to, but the man seems genuinely to have made a very impulsive video for which he felt great remorse upon reflection, (sad as that is, to us). And we see enough reason in the difference between the report he based it on and the actual words of Burke, to justify his removing it. It’s may seem naïve, but the idea that he just went a little overboard late at night, seems to answer the question best.
There may be another angle you’re not considering here, regarding the “welcoming into” our community idea. We’ve more often heard it used in reference to those who are already Baptized Catholic, but living as lapsi or attending parishes and Mass, but “longing” for fuller communion while not being willing to give up the sin in their daily lives. While the “longing” may or may not exist in large numbers today, it is a pastoral problem faced by many parish priests today at least occasionally. The problem with that is, there should be no need to meet as a Synod to discuss what to do, as the teachings are unchangeable and clear.
We don’t really see a push on to pull people out of other types of communities, unfortunately. And of course if there were such an effort, it should be based on converting them. And in that case, as Archbishop Charles Chaput so rightly stated it -in the link you provided for #33 above:
““None of us are welcomed on our own terms in the church. We are welcomed on Jesus’ terms,” he said. “That’s what it means to be a Christian. You submit yourself to Jesus and his teaching. You don’t re-create your own body of spirituality.”
These secret synods make me nervous. Seems like Pope Francis is in the driver seat, sitting behind the wheel of a “secret system”. And what is all this talk about the Spirit bringing forth “surprises” that force the Church to adjust her ways and means? It sounds fishy to me. I thought revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? Or is there some nuance that I’m not understanding? Oh … it is not easy being me … I can’t seem to understand the modern Church … won’t someone please help me?
Nothing to understand. You just got to feel. 😉
Thanks for the Kasperian closing lines–we needed a good laugh. Well done.
dear Ignoramus Humungus,
It sounds to me as though you can be of help to a whole slew of other people, the fact that you can’t seem to understand the modern Church being a sign of your in- tact Sensus Catolicos. You’re not missing anything, my friend. Yup. Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Holy Mother Church is not on a journey, heretically stated by VII.
Love your name.
Ahhhhhhh, hahahahahaha-very good. Thanks, I needed the levity ! God love you.
What’s the big beef with the idea of God using surprises, anyway?
Remember the …sudden destruction of unrepentant homosexual sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the sudden destruction of unrepentant sinners in the time of Noah and the Flood….and the Sudden destruction of liars and contracepters via the ground opening up and swallowing them…
THEY were all surprised. Of course that’s because they all rejected Dogma.
I know. .His Humildad being the exemplar. Hence, let us revisit in order to bolster our resolve.
«Das Drama geht weiter!»
It is much more fitting to translate Drama with its neolatin meaning, aka a tragedy, not a mere show.
Anyway, a thing that will no doubt please you: I’ve also read some progressive news reporting about the Synod where the analysts perceived the event as a defeat for their camp, and expressed their grief over “a Church stuck in a pre-modern, pre-illuministic bubble, stuck with outdated moral notions and a political system resembling monarchy”.
Some were also blaming “conservative” Francis, who is not doing enough to bring “his” organisation in the now!
Lefebvre makes no sense.
If they’re saved IN their religion, how can Jesus and Catholicism be involved?
The moment they HYPOTHETICALLY receive B.O.D. or whatever Lefebvre had in mind, they cease to be “in their religion” and would become Catholic.
So essentially, it’s a terrible convoluted semi-heretical formula, no doubt concocted to please people.
You know, I’ve been wondering for months, just who Bergoglio reminds me of, and you are right: GOMER PYLE…
Alas, would that he be so innocent, I mean Bergoglio…
It is a most offensive way of calling his own ideas and plans, God’s ideas and plans. His contempt for God is horrific. Blessed Michael defend us in battle.
Look at the tone of criticism against Pope Francis and Michael Voris while there is such a switch around for Archbishop Lefebvre.He also was in heresy? To imply that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus is irrational. We don’t know any such person saved who is an exception in the present times.To change the traditional interpretation of the dogma is heretical.To teach a new doctrine is not traditional.
Sanctuary and Main Altar refer to the Eucharist.
So it stands to reason the time the vision alludes to is one where EVERYTHING in the Church is corrupted/destroyed except for the Real Presence / Transubstantiation.
Also, the vision seem to describe not merely attempts at corrupting/removing articles of faith, but successfull ones.
This can be interpreted substantially (de facto) as a majority of clergy and/or “faithful” subscribing to the new perverse doctrine even though it is not officially taught by the Vatican II entity, such is the case today for some things.
In this scenario we’re not quite yet, but the calvary isn’t very long, or at least relatively shorter than option 2, the following:
Or it could likely refer to formal (de jure) adoption of the new perverse doctrine, which entails official approval from the V.II entity via COuncils, synods, papal encyclicals.
In this case the road is long ahead, and we’ve merely witnessed an appetizer course so far.
The huge blessing of having a priest like we do is the MEN and BOYS love him. Masculinity has returned to our parish! What Father says GOES! There is no silliness of us telling him how to run his parish. But in spiritual direction, and in the confessional, he’s wonderful, understanding, gentle and knowledgeable. That’s what true priestly formation at the seminary in Nebraska produces.
But they were not surprises. God has gotta do what God’s gotta do. He states His case, and rewards or punishes those who put their will against His.
So surely, sudden, but not a surprise?
Well said. Exactly.
Excellent point. I would just add this, that if someone is in search of “religion” and does not agree with the church teaching, there are approx 25,000 different Christian denominations that that person can choose from.
So then the question becomes: why does that person want to be catholic?
The only thing that comes to mind is that that person thinks that there is something in the catholic church that is unique from all the other Christian denominations. But if that person changes the catholic church, then it stops being the catholic church and loses that uniqueness that draws him to it in the first place.
On a level of pure logic reasoning, it makes no sense.
This is the famous “logica contradiction” that Archbishop Lefebvre continuously pointed out. And how right he was.
this is a very interesting topic and one I have pondered at lenght.
Their reasons are twofold in my opinion:
1) Everyone, consciously or not, feels on some level the Catholic Church to be the one true Church and depositaria fidei.
Therefore they NEED Her confirmation on their particular opinion/lifestyle in order to be at peace with themselves etc.
Since obviously this can’t happen, they seek to change doctrine itself, deluding themselves into thinking it’s either just a matter of erroneous interpretation or playing fast and loose with what doctrine is/isn’t and its mutability/immutability.
2)This is connected to the “liberal” (marxist) mindset and freemasonic principles:
they can’t tolerate dissent and unconformity relatively to the extent of their world vision be it politics, morality, economy etc.
They cannot tolerate a Church with an alternative (opposite) understanding, interpretation, and normative praxis than their own (now extending to the entire Western civilisation).
Therefore they NEED to change it just enough to make Her fit into the “tolerable” diversity they have concocted.
Catholicism in this view needs to be dragged down and normalised as yet just one among thousands of acceptable, “moderate” religions, nay, relativistic opinions (notice how relativists hypocritically DO have dogmas!)