Rorate Caeli has provided an English translation of excerpts from yet another interview of Pope Francis conducted by Eugenio Scalfari, the atheist publisher of the Italian daily, La Repubblica.
It is true — Pope Francis answered — it is a truth and for that matter the family that is the basis of any society changes continuously, as all things change around us. We must not think that the family does not exist any longer, it will always exist, because ours is a social species, and the family is the support beam of sociability, but it cannot be avoided that the current family, open as you say, contains some positive aspects, and some negative ones …
The diverse opinion of the bishops is part of this modernity of the Church and of the diverse societies in which she operated, but the goal is the same, and for that which regards the admission of the divorced to the Sacraments, [it] confirms that this principle has been accepted by the Synod. This is bottom line result, the de facto appraisals are entrusted to the confessors, but at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask will be admitted.” [Rorate translation, emphasis added]
Today, however, Edward Pentin of National Catholic Register is reporting that Fr. Federico Lombardi refuted the interview, saying that “what is being reported by him [Scalfari] in the latest article about the divorced and remarried is in no way reliable and cannot be considered as the Pope’s thinking.”
According to the Register, Father Lombardi said he would not be issuing a statement about the matter as those who have “followed the preceding events and work in Italy know the way Scalfari writes and knows these things well.”
Edward Pentin ended his article with a rhetorical question:
Why does the Pope continue to speak to someone such as Scalfari, and discuss such sensitive subjects with him, when he knows he is unreliable but likely to report his words without reference to a recording or transcript?
The answer is entirely obvious; Jorge Mario Bergoglio (aka Pope Francis) is a dyed-in-the-wool modernist, the same of which Pope St. Pius X wrote:
None is more skilful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they double the parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and since audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. (Pascendi Dominici Gregis 3)
The Holy Father, Pius X, went on to warn that the activities of the modernists are indeed “well calculated to deceive souls.”
And so it is with Pope Francis.
We’ve seen this act before, folks. As I wrote in a recent post, this pope has a history of leveraging the power of trial balloons in order to float scandalous notions that, while entirely his own, are initially kept at arm’s length.
Specifically, Pope Francis knows very well that this most recent Scalfari interview, in combination with the Holy See’s refusal to issue a clear refutation of its contents, effectively accomplishes the following:
– First, it serves to prepare the soil for what lies ahead by allowing the children of the Church to become used to the idea that the civilly divorced and remarried will be invited to approach the sacraments by virtue of their desire alone; apart from any authentic remedy of their sinful situation (e.g., a firm purpose of amendment).
– Secondly, and closely related, Pope Francis knows that even apart from any official decree encouraging this practice, an environment of expectation is being created that will undoubtedly lead to precisely the outcome suggested in many places.
– Thirdly, the underlying principle suggested in the interview – namely, that the desire of the communicant alone is enough to open up Holy Communion to those in objectively sinful situations – will in many places be applied to justify calling to the Communion rail as well, not only active homosexuals, but also non-Catholics. Again, this will be the case even apart from any official decree to that effect.
As recently announced, however, an official decree is indeed forthcoming (and perhaps even already written); with Pope Francis expected to issue an Apostolic Exhortation in follow up to the Synod in the not-too-distant future.
The Scalfari interview only reinforces my expectation that this document will deliberately misinterpret the notion of “discernment” as expressed in Familiaris Consortio in order to stress the primacy of the “internal forum” (aka the individual conscience); thereby making “sincere desire” tantamount to a proper disposition, and this in spite of one’s perseverance in an objectively sinful situation.
While the results of the Synod do not afford Francis with the luxury of claiming recourse to the mind of its majority, I expect him to cite the very points floated in this latest Scalfari interview; namely, “the diverse opinion of the bishops” as a reflection of the “modernity of the Church and of the diverse societies in which she operates.”
This, he will ultimately leverage to suggest that entrusting the task of appraising the state of would-be communicants to confessors, such that “all the divorced who ask will be admitted to Communion,” is a principle has been accepted by the Synod.
In this way, Francis will force, in a dictatorial manner, precisely the result he desired all along, while hiding behind a synodal façade.
We’ve already known for some time that this is exactly what he wants. Now, it is starting to become a bit clearer as to how he intends to get it.
Incidentally, I sense that the appearance of synodality is of great importance to Pope Francis relative to what appears to be a steadfast desire to leave behind a lasting legacy; namely, the destruction of the Church’s hierarchical structure as constituted by Christ. (How very humble!)
In a recent interview with Religion News Service, Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke about Francis’ commitment to so-called collegiality:
“His principle is that he must set in motion a process which is irreversible,” said Cardinal Walter Kasper, a well-known German theologian and former Vatican official who is close to Francis.
Kasper, sitting in his apartment across the street from the Vatican, said he does not expect a lengthy term for Francis and thinks the pope needs a few more years to give his initiatives a better chance to endure. But Kasper believes that the system for promoting collaboration among bishops “is already done, and no successor can go back.”
Returning to the Scalfari interview…
Look, Francis has already demonstrated that he is more than crafty enough to use Eugenio Scalfari as a strategic tool for furthering his modernist agenda. In fact, it may very well be the case that Bergoglio and his atheist sidekick have entered into a private agreement to secretly collaborate as co-conspirators in the effort to bring the Holy Catholic Church to her knees before the god of humanity.
Truly, would anyone in their right mind be surprised to discover concrete evidence that this is indeed the case?
Recall, if you will, the first Scalfari interview dated 1 October, 2013.
After its initial publication and the firestorm that ensued, Fr. Lombardi likewise called into question its reliability while stopping short of directly refuting any of the claims made therein.
The interview was even published on the website of the Holy See where it remained until the 15th of November, at which time Fr. Lombardi announced that it had been removed by order of the Secretary of State. but not due to any doctrinal issues.
Fr. Lombardi made it a point to say that Scalfari did not record or otherwise transcribe the pope’s words, but simply reported them from memory.
Seriously?
I didn’t believe it then, and I disbelieve it even more today thanks to the bitter experience of the past two years.
It simply beggars belief that Eugenio Scalfari – who, in spite of whatever one may think of his opinions, is a professional journalist – simply took it upon himself to craft papal quotes amounting to some 3,000+ words, gathered over the course of a lengthy interview, by sheer memory alone.
Nonsense. All indications are that these two men are kindred spirits, close collaborators and confidants.
In any case, by the time that initial interview was removed from the Holy See’s website, it had already served the Bishop of Rome’s agenda well enough.
Let’s briefly review some of the controversial statements attributed to the pope therein:
– “The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old.”
– “The Son of God became incarnate in order to instill the feeling of brotherhood in the souls of men.”
– “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense … our goal is not to proselytize but to listen to needs, desires and disappointments, despair, hope.”
– “I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation.”
At this, I ask you, in the time that has since passed, has Pope Francis said, written or done anything whatsoever that would lead a reasonable person to believe that Eugenio Scalfari somehow misrepresented the pope’s core beliefs, or gave readers the wrong impression with respect to his intentions for the pontificate moving forward?
Clearly, the contents of the first Scalfari interview have only been confirmed, time and again, throughout the duration of this dreadful pontificate.
Of even more relevance as it concerns the future under this pope are the following, also taken from this same interview:
– “Heads of the Church have often been narcissists, flattered and thrilled by their courtiers. The court is the leprosy of the papacy.”
– “Carlo Maria Martini … is very dear to me … When Cardinal Martini talked about focusing on the councils and synods he knew how long and difficult it would be to go in that direction. Gently, but firmly and tenaciously.”
– “Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good. And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them.”
Do the math, my friends; it all adds up to one thing…
The atheist Eugenio Scalfari has never been anything other than a close collaborator to Pope Francis, and a loyal servant to his cause. As such, we do well to take this latest interview for what it truly is; a sure sign of things to come:
A papal decree that makes of the so-called “internal forum” a license for inviting all manner of unrepentant persons to Holy Communion, and a concerted effort to cement the Bergoglian legacy by establishing a quasi-democratic church in place of the one that hierarchically constituted by Christ.
“And I saw another beast [False Prophet] coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns [bishop mitre], like a lamb [Bishop, of Rome], and he spoke as a dragon [obvious]” (Rev 13:11)
Good post, Louie. When Cardinal Pell reads the latest pearls of wisdom from Francis what will he think? Pell was so positive after the Synod that all was well, no doctrine had changed, the Church was still on the right course, and there was no need to worry.
–
Can he believe that today? Can he be so naive as to think Francis and the other Modernists in the hierarchy won’t get their way in the long run just by keeping on keeping on?
–
And by the way, how come Francis has such odd friends? There’s an old saying: by his friends you shall know him. We can be acquainted with atheists, heretics, sectarians, and others who hate our Faith, Our Church, and most of what we stand for. But to be best-buddies? People you chat on the phone with? Pals for years and years? People who can make personal requests of you and you always say yes? People you make vids of to support their sectarian cause? And you’re the POPE?
–
Some would say there is nothing wrong with befriending people who hate what you represent and believe – for you and me, maybe but the Pope? No. Something wrong there.
No, despite all these things, overwhelming victory is ours through Christ, who loved us.
Romans 8:37
Louie writes of, “the destruction of the Church’s hierarchical structure as constituted by Christ”.
Some people believe that a heretical pope needs to be formally judged as such by some clerical body or other. Are they certain that that body will still exist in the future?
I am getting to the point where just looking at a photo of Bergoglio makes me sick. I think I’ll buy stock in Pepto Bismol. I never thought the day would come when I could feel this way about a Catholic Pope. Wait a minute—–What am I saying???? Bergoglio isn’t Catholic!!! I feel much better now!!
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.”
Francis too hates the Faith, our holy religion and our Church. The Atheists and Heretics may keep him.
Watching Bergoglio do the cha-cha with the atheists – with no intention of converting them; it’s the same sort of sick feeling as when you get a letter from your credit card company informing you that they are “changing the terms of the agreement.” I was baptized in 1961, and I now know what the Church that baptized me at that time taught, and it ain’t the same thing Modernist Rome and the Vatican II mafiosi is teaching now; of that I am sure. So I feel like I’ve been swindled, someone has change the terms of the agreement arbitrarily; or as if someone had broken into my house and stolen the family photos. I feel no allegiance what-so-ever to the God -damned (and I do mean that literally) Modernist perverts. By the way, the Church I was baptized in, Saint Matthew’s Church in Indian Orchard Massachusetts, is now a mosque – thanks to Roncalli and his gang of morons, communists, leftists, heretics, atheists, humanists and other assorted fairies. Where are the men to stand up and do what needs to be done? Since no bishop will indict this man as a heretic, it just convinces me more that they are all Sons of Satan.
Michael Francis Poulin
Those bishops (a small handful) do exist in the world, they just arent acknowledged by the vatican 2 false Church, which sadly includes the SSPX. I doubt the SSPX ever wakes up but if and when they do things might start to change.
Any bishop who considers himself a part of the vatican 2 false church, no matter how “traditional” he may come across, is surely….as you say…a “son of Satan”. We cant sit here and (rightfully) denounce the heresies of vatican 2 but then turn around and acknowledge the scoundrels….ANY of them….as good men. None of them are good men. For whatever reason a lot of seemingly decent people have a really hard time calling a spade a spade when it comes to these Catholic impostors.
About 35 years ago my mom was working at a Catholic school luncheon and another mother there told her that they were about only the parents in the class paying full tuition. This mother had asked the priest why he didn’t let her know that she could get a discount since she spent 40+ hours a week volunteering at the church and he said because you never asked. [30 years later I told this story to a parishioner and w/in a month he and his wife were becoming extraordinary ministers of holy communion and w/in a year his wife had a job teaching at the school.]
But, anyway, my view is that this communion policy has been in effect for 40+ years (first in regard to birth control), but then abortion, divorce and remarriage/ co-habitators, and homosexuals (Mo Rocca) and non-Catholics like Bill Clinton and Brother Roger. The way Cardinal McCarrick phrases it: “McCarrick says his position is in line with Catholic teachings: “The individual should be the one who decides whether he is in communion with the church, and if you are in communion with what the church teaches, then you have the right to receive Holy Communion.”” 10/1/2004
http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/the-man-in-the-red-hat/
Yes, Scalfari and Francis are brothers in arms, but the latter is a lot more harmful to souls, and this is why he is being actively used by the NWO one-world government and its agencies for their domination of all people through mass murder, destruction of morals, destruction of marriage, family and Church.
As far as I am concerned, this entire Synod fiasco has nothing to do with divorced and remarried Catholics receiving Holy Communion. Those who want to receive are already on the Communion line with one hand over the other to receive from a Eucharistic Minister who, in many cases, doesn’t have any more faith than they do. The remainder of the divorced and remarried probably haven’t step foot into a Church since their first marriage and couldn’t care less. The purpose of the Synod is to destroy whatever faith has survived after the Second Vatican Council. I agree with mpoulin. The Catholic Church is under siege by ruthless modernists who actually hate the Catholic Church. Catholics have been robbed of their birthright.
Anyone who enters a N.O. church and puts money into the collection basket is a huge part of the problem. Wake up!
Scalfari and Bergoglio: BFF
Then there was the lesbian buddhist who was living w/her “partner” for 20 years and who rec’d communion (but denied by the priest) at the Catholic funeral of her mother (who turned out had assisted w/Dad at the “gay” ‘wedding’ of her daughter) and of course ALL the ‘traditionalists’ were ‘scandalized’ (like they are now – for the umpteenth million time!). LifeSite News and Rorate weighed in (could be this blog also), but turns out the Lez Buddhist taught art at Elizabeth Seton (Catholic) High School for years – does anyone think she didn’t receive communion when she taught there and does anyone care about the teens the woman was allowed to corrupt? “In the past decade, Johnson had returned to her alma mater, Elizabeth Seton High School in Bladensburg, to teach art, a move she said was part of a process of coming back to Catholicism ON HER OWN TERMS.” (my emphasis)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/denying-communion-a-priest-and-a-lesbian-set-off-a-catholic-culture-clash/2012/03/15/gIQA9roNJS_story.html
“The Archdiocese of Washington issued a brief press release saying Fr. Guarnizo’s actions were inappropriate. “When questions arise about whether or not an individual should present themselves for communion, it is not the policy of the Archdiocese of Washington to publicly reprimand the person. Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting.”
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archdiocese-of-washington-reprimands-priest-for-denying-communion-to-a-lesb
I agree with your points. This seems like a dog and pony show with a hidden agenda. The goal is not to bring catholics back into the church and into the communion line. I think the goal is to just generally break down catholicism and christian morals in general to prepare people to enter some sort of one world judeo-masonic religion. And then…well then we will have peace on earth, of course. I believe this is the way these modernists think.
All of this is made for a prime time movie. It’s filled with conspiracy theories, but the sad thing is that they are all true. So many good lay people see it clearly for what it is. Who is the source of confusion? What is his name? the father of what?
You are good and holy and keep us ever mindful, Ever mindful. Thank you.
Exactly correct.
“ ‘His principle is that he must set in motion a process which is irreversible, said Cardinal Walter Kasper…. But Kasper believes that the system for promoting collaboration among bishops ‘is already done, and no successor can go back.’”
Wrong, Kasper the Unfriendly Heretic. The Pope is a monarch, the bishops his princes, not little demigods. Jesus will send us a new Peter, who will reverse the errors of Francis — albeit after unimaginable suffering by the dwindling Catholic faithful.
The Society has refused to accept Vatican II wholecloth for its entire history and still does so. If you want to accuse them of accepting Vatican II and Roman Modernists, you had better listen to the January 1st, 2015 sermon of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. He speaks for many, many priests, religious, seminarians and lay faithful attached to the Society. Tradition still lives in the heart of the Society and Mr. Verrecchio will be the first to say so. How dare you? It is Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society that has held the line for 45 years since the advent of the Conciliar Church. It is the Society that you have to thank for the Traditional Masses you now enjoy, by the grace of God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqRd7914Jb0
Is the common cause for which Scalfari and the “heretic-in-white” are both working that of Freemasonry? That would make a lot of sense to me.
I’ve done a brief google search on Scalfari and Freemasonry and there does seem to be a connection between the two. Scalfari’s father was a prominent FM and the founder of a lodge:
http://www.libertaepersona.org/wordpress/2009/10/de-benedetti-ed-eugenio-scalfari-e-la-massoneria-1133/
In addition, this site lists Scalfari as a FM or associated with FMry:
http://www.webalice.it/carlotn/xgruppo_rass_stamp/x_temi/LeSette/Massoni_nomi.htm
Besides, who isn’t a major media publisher these days and isn’t either associated with FMry or some other occult group associated with the powers-that-shouldn’t-be (CFR, Bilderberg group, Trilateral Commission etc etc) all essentially working hand in glove to promote the satanic NWO?
It seems to me that Scalfari is much more a “spokesman” for Bergoglio than the spin-master official Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi – whoever wants to get into the “mind” of the heretic-in-white should pay close attention what the atheist FM (an oxymoron – FMs in theory all believe in a “deity”, the “GAOTU” – but no one is a true atheist – you either worship God or the devil, there is no other choice, especially these days) Scalfari has to say in his Bergoglian interviews.
We must remember this is SATAN’s goal. He simply uses idiots to put his plans into place in the natural world. The whole spiritual world is at constant war while our leaders lay down their arms.
For a little context, read the Book of Ezechiel. We are in the captivity of ‘the world.’ And our leaders have urged us to follow them right into the gates of Babylon.
Hymn from Terce in the Roman Breviary this morning. It is the Holy Ghost who will bring light to those who are blinded by lusts and false teaching. Let’s not forget to ask Him to enlighten Francis and his cabal!
–
Come Holy Ghost, who ever One
Art with the Father and the Son,
It is the hour, our souls possess
With thy full flood of holiness.
Let flesh and heart and lips and mind
Sound forth our witness to mankind;
And love light up our mortal frame,
Till others catch the living flame.
* Almighty Father, hear our cry,
Through Jesus Christ, our Lord most High,
Who, with the Holy Ghost and thee,
Doth live and reign eternally.
Amen.
Birds of a feather……!
“Catholic” “nun” has advice for bloggers like Louie.
http://aleteia.org/2015/11/03/10-tips-is-my-online-behavior-inviting-others-to-the-church-3/
Watch out, Louie. I think I see a blackboard eraser comin’ at ya!
One possible response to the clear agenda of dispensing Holy Communion to Adulterers is to accuse those who desire it of harboring a secret loathing of Adulterers for giving them Holy Communion will serve to intensify the pains they will experience forever in Hell if they die unrepentant.
Saint Paul warned us that to receive Holy Communion in a state of sin is to eat and drink judgement unto one’s self
1 Cor 11:27-30
That spiritual truth is ineluctable and so why would it be unreasonable to say that those who chant mercy, mercy, mercy as regards Communion for Adulterers can be susceptible to the charge that they actually hate Adulterers because, by their actions in dispensing Holy Communion to them, they are helping them to increase the intensity of punishment they will experience in Hell if they die unrepentant?
This is not mercy for Tradition teaches the nine ways we may be culpable in another’s sin;
counsel
command
consent
provocation
praise or flattery
concealment
partaking
silence
defense of the ill done
so, Franciscus and those who desire dispensing Holy Communion for Adulterers are not only susceptible to being accused of hating Adulterers, they are (or will be) , by their actions, participants in the sins of the Adulterers.
This macabre evil can not have the shroud of mercy cover it for it is a mephitic evil stinking to the high Heavens.
Thank Louie for this post. Clarity is a beautiful thing. This Scalfari denial from Fr. Lombardi is so insulting to our intelligence.
Let me present this situation:
Imagine if a son received a confusing message from his father that would lead to immediate death and cause deep offense to Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Alarmed by such a claim, the son immediately goes to the father’s house and says to his father’s servant:
“There is a man who is spreading lies about my father. A man by the name of Scalfari is saying such dreadful things and he is attributing them to my father. I am very worried and concerned about this.”
Now instead of speaking directly to his son, the father sends a messenger with this reply: “Son, what is being reported by this imposter in the latest article about the divorced and remarried is in no way reliable and cannot be considered as your father’s thinking.”
The son is deeply disturbed and the confusion about the father’s comments, is now world-wide. The father’s Communication staff, responsible for surveying media, are very much aware of the world-wide disturbance.
Given this scenario, I ask:
Wouldn’t a loving father do all that is necessary to clear up the confusion of his son?
Wouldn’t a loving father first rebuke the liar that could have easily caused his son’s death and cause deep offense to Our Lord?
Wouldn’t a loving father go to his son and say:
“I am so sorry there is so much confusion. Do not believe the liar who spreading the lies.
A loving father could immediately (with the help of an entire staff dedicated to disseminating messages of the father) record a video and upload it on YouTube within minutes.
It’s insulting to one’s intelligence to think that the “loving” college-educated father couldn’t easily remedy the confusion.
Bishop Atanasius Scneider’s essay on the evil attack on marriage and the Eucharist, by the Synod as shown in its Final Report. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.ie/2015/11/rorate-exclusive-bishop-athanasius.html?m=1
The pope and his communications office, including Fr Lombardi, insult our intelligence by having us believe anything other than Francis chose the medium of his collaborator, the anti-Catholic, anti-morality Scalfari, to inform the world (especially the enemies of the Faith) that he despises the Faith, marriage and the Blessed Sacrament and wants by this particular means to destroy the Faith and moral law and the Church and as many souls as possible through mortal sin and egregious scandal to be effected by priests and bishops.
Sorry, no sale my friend. Im very familiar with the SSPX….my parents have been attending their masses for years (I did for a short time as well a few years back). When the SSPX comes out and fully denounces the “pope” and his “bishops” for the filth that they are then please get back to me as Im sure my view of them will have changed greatly at that point. Until then though, they are enablers (Fellay especially) of the problem even though I know that most of them sincerely do not see it that way.
So many declare their priests are “faithful” w/out realizing while they may assert Church teaching from time to time (especially in private to said declarers), these priests, like their bishops, have other faces. If these priests/bishops are so faithful, why haven’t they been dismissed for telling someone in the confessional that contraception is a mortal sin? Here is one priest’s testimony who left NY seminary in 1971 for Econe:
“As a condition of ordination, for example, he had to accept that the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception could not be applied in the practical order.” @ 6:59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT0ua4LqOH0
Cupich states that “conscience is supreme” and all traditionalists cry foul, but how many of their parents, siblings, friends (even themselves) are using birth control because their conscience is supreme? How many of these (and I include you here LV) go to “masses” at which the priest turns a blind eye to contraception in the confessional?
Same priest quoted above has said that at that time the priests in the parishes where the seminarians assisted were called together and told that they all had to be “on the same page” concerning contraception, i.e. some could not forgive it while others didn’t, so ALL would state, “follow your own conscience.” Just like in the seminary, almost all went along. The family thus became a fabrication (lie) a banal product (that is disintegrating before our eyes). And abortion was legalized nationwide w/in 5 years.
I wonder if Francis’ Mercy Priests are particularly intended for dioceses where the bishop doesn’t seem inclined to go along w/the program (like Myers)–so that the whole church can be on the same page. Really, why should just Teddy Kennedy, Andy Cuomo and Mo Rocca (or Weakland, Lynch, McCarrick, Wuerl, Lori) get communion? Why not all practicing adulterers and sodomites? Seriously I don’t understand what objection “traddies” could have—since almost all if not doing so themselves, go along w/their family members and friends who practice contraception, fornication, divorce, living together, etc.—certainly none in N.O. would deny they go along w/people in the pews next to them doing it! How many of you feel culpable for that sacrilege and lack of mercy?
Well, gee, short of wrestling people to the ground in the Communion line, how do you suggest we stop anyone from contracepting and then receiving Our Lord?
We can tell others, show others, pray for others, but we are each responsible to God for our actions. Find a good priest. Tell him you will support him in his faithfulness when things get rough for him. Tell him he can come live at your place when his bishop cans him for being too orthodox. Offer to lead classes on the evils of contraception or whatever at your local parish if the priest is a good priest. DO SOMETHING.
Mr. Matt claims (which is probably right) that the final Synod report allows public adulterers to be God parents and religious education teachers. Does anyone know the paragraph #? Also does anyone know why Louie does not want to switch to a format that one can follow replies on a thread in his email inbox? Thanks and God Bless!
Dear Danielpan, I believe it’s n.84. I strongly recommend you read Bishop Schneider’s denunciation of the Final Report.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.ie/2015/11/rorate-exclusive-bishop-athanasius.html?m=1
Louie, Good Article.
May I suggest all of us are spending an inordinate amount of non productive time and energy on Don Francesco aka PF. His actions are those of a Mafia Don. In many ways the latter has more honor. At least they don’t seriously pretend to be what they are not. Like any stone cold modernist apostate, PF is very easy to understand as long as you remember the following:
1) If his lips are moving he is spinning at best and bald facing lying at worst
2) As a Modernist he denies he means and means what he denies.
3) Modernist are apostates and heretics bent on destroying the OTF.
4) Modernists are a danger to your Eternal Salvation. Faithful BEWARE.
You tell ’em, peraspera. Anyone who can’t see that has serious spiritual issues. Reality has no meaning for them. They hiss and snarl at those who are holy. Perhaps they need an exorcism. An enema wouldn’t hurt either.
GA
I would engage you here but out of respect for the rules of the blog I wont. Rest assured though that I am fully aware of the “reality” of the situation.
General question. What is the point of quoting Pascendi while being in communion with the ‘noxious artists’ it condemns?
–
Re: the Scalfari ‘social species’ quote; perfect for horizontalizing the members of the ‘Noxious Arts’ communion. Gorillas are a social species too. Does that make Bergoglio the current silver-back?
Off topic…but missing the wise reflections of Indignus famulus…pray you are both well
I would like to post an article here from the website of Fr Hunwicke.
This article is an excellent and timely reminder that the authority of the Pope’s comments must be kept in proportion.
It never ceases to amaze me now that both total liberals AND seeming conservatives are quoting Pope Francis to prove every detail of doctrine.
And none of them seem to be questioning a word he says.
Fr Hunwicke I think gets a right perspective on this.
Here is his article:
***************************
22 October 2015
Ultraultraultramontanist ultraultraultrapapalists again
Some Cardinal called Wuerl has said “There are always people who are unhappy about what is going on in the Church, but the touchstone of authentic Catholicism is adherence to the teaching of the Pope”. Sounds good; sounds obvious. But ….
Note that he says, not popes, but pope. So he must mean just the Pope, the present Pope, the pope-for-the-time-being. And note that he can’t just mean “the ex cathedra teaching of the Pope”, because in that case his words would mean nothing since Bergoglio has defined nothing and it is questionable, to put it mildly, whether Evangelii gaudium and Laudato si are in any sense Magisterial.
So, when a pontificate follows a pontificate, this strange man clears his mind of the teaching of all the previous popes (except possibly when ex cathedra), so as to have a tabula rasa upon which to inscribe whatever idiosyncrasies and obiter opinions the new pope turns out to possess. And this is what he is recommending to the rest of us. Have I got that right?
I find myself wondering how these rabid ultra-extreme fundamentalist papalists imagine their pronouncements must sound to non-Catholics. Do they seriously imagine that Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox are likely to be attracted to the idea of a Papacy in which every whimsy of the current occupant of the See of S Peter has to be swallowed without question, otherwise one has abandoned the ‘touchstone’ of ‘authentic’ doctrine? Furthermore: one of the Anglophone circuli reported that ‘one bishop’ claimed that “the pope can, in effect, twist the hands of God”. Oh yeah? Have you tried that crazy idea out on your local Presbyterians and Baptists? And are you absolutely sure you would still believe it yourself if some future ultra-regressive pope started ‘binding’ all sorts of things you yourself didn’t think ought to be bound?
Do these dubious papal extremists have no respect for the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Creeds, the Councils, the Tradition, the (plural) Popes? Are they completely indifferent to our partners in ecumenical dialogue?
Would it be cynical to suspect that the Wuerl Dogma is a convenient and plausible mantra to shout from the rooftops so as to shut other people up when one agrees with a pope, but a principle one quietly buries if one doesn’t?
Posted by Fr John Hunwicke
Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood.
I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch…
-St. Paul
Go, and now sin no more.
-Jesus
I’m no biblical/doctrinal scholar, but I’m confident that the definition of sin has long been been decided and is not up to “the diverse opinion of bishops”.
What makes you think traditional folks are contracepting? It’s been my experience in the two traditional places I go that most families are big and constantly growing.
I would imagine we should be hearing something here soon from the Pope before the year of mercy begins on Dec. 8th.
Rich. These are ‘hard sayings’ but true. Faith and reason don’t contradict God, unlike the SSPX. Every SSPX chapel declares VII ‘Christ’s’, by hanging pictures of the VII Counterfeit heresiarchs on their walls; and whispering their wretched names during Mass – thereby invalidating It (unless they are integrating the Novus Ordo and therefore shout it out loud and proud as is happening with more frequency).
What were you calling off topic, EM? Be interested to know?
Reading this article it seems that a Pope is something superfluous. It also seems indifferent to the fact that VII has happened, and instant media has put a heresiarch on the cover of every major secular magazine on the planet lauding his anti-Catholicism. But, as the article encourages, chillax.
As of December 8th, the SSPX has authority to hear confessions and give absolution. Maybe, Bergoglio would like to pay them a visit and take advantage of this wonderful act of mercy.
Heheh. Except who do the SSPX confess to in order to be absolved of the sin of complicity with belial?
–
PS. Gallows humour.
I agree that this attitude of servile obedience makes catholics look like idiots. Liberal modernists, such as Cardinal Wuerl (as well as ultra traditionalists) use this false notion of obedience to bind people to their political positions. The Pope is not a 100% perfectly infallible potentate at all times that must be blindly followed by the catholic sheep. And then Cardinals like Wuerl spout that one is not a true catholic unless you follow the pope into the pit or, on the flip side, the Pope is instantly judged by internet theologians to be an anti-pope. Ridiculous. Truly simple minded people need things to be black or white in order to cope with reality, the rest of us must come to terms with situations and make important distinctions to react properly.
This doesn’t make the Pope superfluous, just a man, with an office, that he must remain faithful to, or else he should be resisted.
Salvemur as we should all know by now, unless the incense is burned and the declaration of infallibility publicly declared for all to hear, the pope and his bishops can put forth whatever they want to regarding faith and morals (heck they can even convene an entire council and publish multiple documents) but we Catholics dont really have to pay attention because its NOT binding…its all pastoral. Thats right….the Church, as long as the almighty declaration of infallibility hasnt first been issued….CAN teach error and it doesnt matter because unless something is officially labeled “ex-cathedra” the pope and all his bishops are free to veer away from Church Dogma as much as they want.
(Sarcasm aside, anyone who thinks that the heresies of vatican 2 havent been set forth as official Church teaching and are therefore infallibly a part of the magisterium does not know what they are talking about….this idea that you can adhere to them if you want but dont have to adhere to them if you dont want is complete UN-Catholic insanity…..either vatican 2 must be adhered to or vatican 2 and anyone who abides by it in any way are not part of the Catholic Church…its one or the other).
The pope cannot promote error as part of the magisterium. That is pretty black and white to me.
salvemur–That’s your opinion–doesn’t mean it’s true. I wondering if you mean that this type of humor could send you to the gallows!
Dear Salvemur,
I was concerned about the health and wellbeing of Indignus famuluus, noting no comment from them for a long while…
Thanks for pointing that out but no Pope has done this, that is, pronounce error as if it was part of the magisterium…but then we need to define just what is meant by “magisterium” and since you want to keep things “black and white” I’ll leave any distinctions that need to be made to some other internet theologian of your choice.
By magisterium I mean anything that is to be believed/adhered to by the universal Church. For example, after each of the 16 vatican 2 documents/declarations the following is written:
“Each and all these items which are set forth in this decree [Dogmatic Constitution, etc.] have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.”
That above is both part of the magisterium and infallible (assuming you actually believe that vatican 2 is part of the Catholic Church). When a true pope affixes words to a document like that then I seriously cannot fathom how you can say as a Catholic that you can resist it (or the pope who commanded it).
Rich, a full ecumenical council with the approval of the Pope and with the intention to define doctrine is part of the infallible magisterium of the Church, but in the case of Vatican II this was certainly not the case. You seem to be looking at Vatican II as if it was set up to be like the Council of Trent or the Council of Florence etc. It wasn’t. It is a different animal altogether. The Pope who called Vatican II and the Pope who closed Vatican II explicitly set the council up as “pastoral” not “dogmatic”.
“What conclusion, therefore, can be drawn about the authority of Vatican II? That, according to the two popes of the council, it was merely pastoral in nature and is not to be accorded the authority of the essential Magisterium of the Church. In holding that understanding, Catholics are simply obeying the words of the two popes themselves. Vatican II, therefore, as a pastoral council, has no dogmatic force and can be held to be imprudent or even in error, with no compromise to one’s Catholic faith.” SOURCE: http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/faq08.txt
I invite you to go to the above web link Rich and read the rest. I’m glad we got to make this distinction. I can hardly imagine that all this time you were thinking that the novel teachings and confusing double talk in the Vatican II documents were part of the infallible magisterium. Of course I know your answer Rich. You will say that the holy Catholic Church is indefectible and would not promulgate double talk so you will declare that it really wasn’t the Catholic Church that was in Rome for Vatican II. But what grounds do you have?
“There is a kind of papolatry (attribution to the pope of divine powers, which he does not have) going around. It acts as if no matter what comes out of Rome, it must have been inspired by the Holy Ghost. This line of thinking holds, for example, that if Vatican II was called,
it means that the Holy Ghost wanted to call it. But this is not necessarily the case.” http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/faq08.txt
“To call a council is a practical decision of the pope. A person may piously believe that God inspired it. But no one can say that this is an object of faith.” –Fr. Gregory Hesse, “Outside the Church there is No Salvation”, Catholic Family News, February 1997 [IV:2], pp. 13 et seqq.)
CraigV – well, I’m sure at whatever parish you go to MOST families won’t be sodomites or adulterers (unless you go to the LGBTQYZ parish~). Guess Francis and MOST bishops are faithful MOST of the time also. As Fellay (famously) said 95% of Vatican II is faithful. So why worry about what Francis is doing?
Barbara – my post was addressed to folks criticizing Francis while giving a pass to the “good” (or “faithful”) priest that they had “found” (i.e. not suggesting lay people take the role of the priest). If you’re willing to give your “good” priest a pass from applying church teaching for any reason (including he might get canned — seriously, do you know what martyrdom means (and getting canned doesn’t even approach that)?), then why not give Francis the same “understanding”? Francis couldn’t be doing what he’s doing if so many ‘good priests’ weren’t going along and behind them so many “faithful Catholics” because getting “canned” or “kicked out of the parish” (i.e. not even being imprisoned or burned at the stake) is too much persecution for Jesus’ sake.
Please consider that not only priest above, who said in 1971 any ordinand had to agree not to apply church teaching on contraception in the practical order (i.e. confessional), Michael Rose and others have testified no-one can get into seminary who doesn’t accept sodomy and women priests and who knows what else (i.e. communion for divorced and remarried, non-Catholics, etc. whatever VC2 has coming at us down the pike). All FSSP already agree to say N.O. mass, even though they think there’s something wrong w/it or wouldn’t be FSSP.
As to contraception not being practiced in the N.O.( i.e. Indult and FSSP mass attendees) you may want to check out this article from 1997 by FSSP priest James Buckley:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1114
My view of FSSP and Indult masses are that people do what they want same as in the N.O. — attend the indult/not (depending on how I feel about driving, what time I can go to mass etc.), wear a dress/wear slacks, wear a mini-dress or a dress that covers my knees, sleeves or sleeveless, head covered/not, communion on my knees/standing; communion on the tongue/or in the hand; have children/don’t have children; natural family planning/artificial contraception, sex outside of marriage/not, sex with the opposite sex/same. Unfortunately, as LV noted in post on sermon on Christ the King, even those who would like to know traditional church teaching (and maybe believe they are getting it) are getting the NO poison fed to them at the “traditional Latin mass”.
http://kwtraditionalcatholic.blogspot.com/2012/08/latin-mass-expands-to-six-arkansas.html
Perhaps they took up another pseudonym or just moved on. Or perhaps, they couldn’t continue to defend the indefensible. Who can say? The sun still shines, but these are terrible times.
Dear Barbara,
Although we never give up praying for the conversion of these men, please read 2 Corinthians 1, 3-4. I posted the verses after another blog post of Louie’s a couple of weeks ago. I do not think these verses are well-known.
Our Lady protect you.
Rich is giving us a proper Cathlolic reality check when he says, “this idea that you can adhere to them if you want but dont have to adhere to them if you dont want is complete UN-Catholic insanity…..either vatican 2 must be adhered to or vatican 2 and anyone who abides by it in any way are not part of the Catholic Church…its one or the other”
–
“Regarding the ‘Universal Ordinary Magisterium’, the Church herself teaches us that she is infallible and indefectible, not just in the teachings of her extraordinary Magisterium, but also in her ordinary and universal Magisterium; in her laws and in her liturgy and in the universal teaching that she conveys to the faithful on a daily basis through every means by which she manifests her faith… Catholics must believe with divine faith everything whatever the Church teaches to be divinely revealed, either by a solemn judgment [extraordinary Magisterium] or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. (Dz 1792) The two are correlative. They command the same level of assent. They are equally infallible. The First Vatican Council concentrated on the infallibility of the papal extraordinary Magisterium because it was the doctrine at that time being called into question in some quarters – notably in France…The infallibility, of the Ordinary Magisterium under certain conditions was a truth so well known to all Catholics that it needed no more than a brief mention. The infallibility of the solemn papal definition needed to be specially underlined…Today in, the traditional movement, the opposite seems to apply and could be forgiven for thinking that by defining the infallibility of the Pope’s extraordinary Magisterium, the Church had condemned to oblivion the dogma of the infallibility of her ordinary and universal Magisterium. In fact this error was creeping in well before Vatican II. (‘Must I Believe It?’ Canon Smith, Clergy Review 1940s: “It is by no means uncommon to find the opinion, if not expressed at least entertained, that no doctrine is to be regarded as a dogma of faith unless it has been solemnly defined by an ecumenical Council or by the Sovereign Pontiff himself. This is by no means necessary. It is sufficient that the Church teaches it by her ordinary Magisterium, exercised through the Pastors of the faithful, the Bishops whose unanimous teaching throughout the Catholic world, whether conveyed expressly through pastoral letters, catechisms issued by episcopal authority, provincial synods, or implicitly through prayers and religious practices allowed or encouraged, or through the teaching of approved theologians, is no less infallible than a solemn definition issued by a Pope or a general Council.”)…every papal encyclical and every bishop’s pastoral letter and every approved catechism and every prayer of the Missal or breviary and every law in the Church’s Code of Canon Law reflects this ordinary teaching authority of the Church. Yet obviously they are not all infallible in themselves like ex cathedra pronouncements…When the Ordinary Magisterium is accepted universally or applied universally this is a sign of its infallibility. Therefore the ‘common’ discipline, teaching, worship is infallible. Therefore, given that the common teaching of the conciliar church is VII, and the common worship is the Novus Ordo – if these come from the Church they have to be considered infallible and therefore there is no call for any adherent to have complaint about them or to refrain from pariticpation. Given that we know, the Novus Ordo and VII are dangerous to souls and teach error we know they represent a substantial departure from the Faith.” http://www.thefourmarks.com/Daly.htm#crisis
–
Fr Perrone on the magisterium. “The Church when she discharges her function of teaching performs a three-fold office – the office of witness, of judge and of magistera/teacher. She performs the office of magistra…daily wherein by verbal and by practical inculcation – viva voce praxi – she instructs to the faithful all those things which conduce to their training in pure doctrine and morality and leads them, as it were, by the hand along the path of eternal salvation; and that Christ has endowed His Church with infallibility for the performance of these several offices is the truth which Catholics maintain and all non-Catholics deny…”
–
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio Paul IV: “Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those (any manifest heretic) thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs. http://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm
Oh but it is true. The SSPX are playing relativity with the magisterium – universal in space and universal in time. They operate under the conviction that the entire Church acting and speaking against the faith (the Councilliar Church as they know it) is not necessarily a sign of defection since the space of time (since VII) is confined. Therefore, they accept the defection and call a heresiarch a pope. They can, as Novus Ordo Watch so aptly put it, ‘have their pope and beat him too’.
–
PS. The gallows should be present to every Catholic everyday.
John
Again, I submit what was written after each of the 16 decrees of vatican 2:
“Each and all these items which are set forth in this decree [Dogmatic Constitution, etc.] have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.”
Not that the Church has EVER promoted the idea that it could promote error to the universal Church if it was being done “pastorally”, but if it had (it wouldnt) it surely wouldnt follow up these possible “pastoral” errors with the above words.
The notion that the Catholic Church could universally spread error….and therefore lead souls to hell….as long as its done in a “pastoral” sense is heretical.
Rich…regarding the quote you keep recycling:
“And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.”
To the point—I would not use this quote anymore because it proves nothing other than what they have “decided” be published. What was their intention in doing this? Two Popes explained that it was not to bind anyone.
Salvemur…You quote John Daly “When the Ordinary Magisterium is accepted universally or applied universally this is a sign of its infallibility.”
To the point: John Daly preaches universality of ordinary magisterium by “place” not “time”. Our Faith is “quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus.” Daly leaves out the “quod semper.” By this logic the Church ended centuries ago at the Arian crisis.
The “space of time” being “confined” is a valid point since our Faith is that which has always (semper) been believed. And before you issue a condemnation of a whole group why don’t you define your terms, such as the meaning of indefectible. Otherwise you come off as sloppy and mean spirited in your comments.
John
I used the quote twice in my life (both times in this post–im not constantly recycling it)….and the quote, which you sweep under the rug as if it is meaningless, is pretty self explanatory. They are not just deciding what was to be published…they are COMMANDING that what they published be PROMULGATED. If the tenets of vatican 2 are wrong then the Church taught error. You, me and basically all on this blog see the error…..what about the other 95% of Catholics in the world who follow this way of thinking???? The Church cannot promote error my friend. This “its pastoral so you can either take it or leave it” idea is a simple defense mechanism used by people like yourself to try and explain away a supposed Catholic council promoting heresy. No, the Catholic Church CANNOT promote heresy because then it would cease to be the Church.