In spite of all the subterfuge and deception that surrounds the Third Secret of Fatima, we know very well based upon the testimony of numerous honorable men that Our Lady’s most dire warnings concern a crisis of faith within the Catholic Church.
Prior to his elevation to the papacy, for instance, the future Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, shed light on the Blessed Mother’s warning, writing in part:
I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul … A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God.
If we pay close attention to what Cardinal Pacelli is saying, we cannot help but recognize that he is speaking of an internal crisis of faith that necessarily includes the pope.
Think about it: Suicide is death self-imposed at the hands of the very one who rules over the body. If the head is not willing, the hand cannot act.
In the case of the Church, it refers to a threat that comes from within; one that involves the very head itself, and that is, of course, the occupant of the Office of Peter.
With this in mind, let’s examine Cardinal Pacelli’s warning a bit more closely with the very important question in mind:
Does it concern future events alone, or are we living through those events right now?
In the interest of space, I’d like to focus primarily on two lines in particular:
A day will come when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God.
To begin, we might ask, how did Peter, he who made that magnificent proclamation of faith at Caesarea Philippi, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” doubt?
We might immediately think of what happened just after that profession of faith.
St. Matthew tells us:
From that time Jesus began to show to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things … be put to death, and the third day rise again.
Peter replied, “Far be it for you, Lord!”
To which Our Blessed Lord responded, “Get behind me, Satan!”
There’s quite a bit to discover in this scene about the nature of Peter’s doubt; for one, his doubt is two-fold, in a sense.
On the one hand, he doubts that Jesus is to suffer and die. This much is obvious, but it’s important to note that in doing so, he is precluding the very possibility of, or we might say doubting, the resurrection.
Is this the kind of doubt that plagues the Church, and specifically the Office of Peter, in our day?
Pope Francis, while apparently not doubting the historical fact of the resurrection, most certainly does entertain a very doubt-filled sense for its meaning. We’ll return to that point momentarily.
For now, let’s take a look at another scene that sheds even more light on the nature of Peter’s doubt as described two chapters earlier in Matthew’s Gospel.
There, we read about how the Apostles were in a boat when a storm hits and begins to toss the boat about. Off in the distance they see Our Lord walking on the water, and they’re afraid.
St. Matthew tells us:
And immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying: Be of good heart: it is I, fear not. And Peter making answer, said: Lord, if it be thou, bid me come to thee upon the waters.
And he said: Come. And Peter going down out of the boat walked upon the water to come to Jesus.
But seeing the wind strong, he was afraid: and when he began to sink, he cried out, saying: Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretching forth his hand took hold of him, and said to him: O thou of little faith, why did thou doubt?
Here, the nature of Peter’s doubting is coming into sharper focus.
It’s not that he doubts that Jesus is truly in his midst. He knows that it’s Him. Jesus identified Himself, once by name, and a second time when He beckoned Peter to come.
Peter for his part, confirms that he knows that it’s Jesus when he calls out in fear, Lord, save me!
So what exactly is the nature of Peter’s doubt?
The answer is very important for us to recognize as we consider the prophetic warnings issued by Our Lady at Fatima and commented upon by Cardinal Pacelli:
Even though Peter addressed Jesus as “Lord” twice, he doubts that He is God.
In other words, Peter knows very well that it is Jesus the man toward whom he is walking, but he doubts that Jesus Christ is Lord indeed, even as his lips profess it.
This is the case even though Peter had already witnessed Our Lord’s power over creation when He calmed the angry seas. I’m sure you recall the scene…
The disciples are in a boat once again, but this time they’re together with Jesus when a wicked storm kicks up and tosses the boat about.
As the disciples are fearing for their lives, Our Lord, apparently unaware, is sleeping.
When at last they awaken Him, Jesus says, “O’ ye of little faith!”
At this, He raised His hands and commanded the winds and the seas and all became calm.
In the aftermath of this great miracle – a miracle performed with the intention of verifying who Our Lord truly is – the disciples, Peter included, questioned among themselves, “What sort of man is this that even the seas obey His commands?”
Peter knew that Jesus was a man, but he harbored doubts as to His divinity; i.e., he doubted that He is God.
A day will come when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God.
These two warnings go together, because you see, the corollary to being tempted to believe that man has become God, is the temptation to treat Jesus Christ as if He is but a man. It is doubting as Peter doubted.
With the nature of Peter’s doubt now made clear, we return to the difficult but very important question that we asked at the outset:
Has Peter’s doubt as to the divinity of Christ in some way managed to infiltrate and infect those who speak in the name of the Church, up to and including Peter’s successor?
It’s a terrible question even to ponder, but Pope Francis has been answering this question for us from the moment he assumed the papacy; never more clearly than during the sermon given on the Feast of the Lord’s Resurrection – Easter Sunday – when he said:
Out of love for us, Jesus Christ stripped Himself of His divine glory, emptied himself, took on the form of a slave and humbled Himself even to death, death on a cross. For this reason God exalted Him and made Him Lord of the universe. Jesus is Lord!
So, what do we see here?
Like Peter when he stepped out of the boat, Pope Francis calls Jesus “Lord,” twice no less, but also like Peter, he doubts that He is Lord indeed.
This much is obvious when he says, “Jesus Christ stripped Himself of His divine glory…”
Let’s be very clear; Our Blessed Lord did not strip Himself of His divine glory; indeed, such a thing is utterly impossible!
If He were to be stripped of divine glory, however, this would render Jesus what?
Little more than a man.
The Church will doubt as Peter doubted…
Now, as you’re going discover, Pope Francis’ Easter message was far more than just a moment of sloppiness on his part; rather, it’s reflective of what he truly believes.
It’s bad enough that he imagines a Christ who “stripped Himself of His Divine glory unto death,” but his view of the Risen Christ isn’t much better.
Consider, for example, one of his many homilies lashing out at tradition-minded Catholics. Pope Francis said:
This group of Christians in their hearts do not believe in the Risen Lord and want to make theirs a more majestic resurrection than that of the real one. These are the triumphalist Christians.
This raises some questions, most importantly, what precisely is this “real” Resurrection that some Catholics supposedly tend to exaggerate?
According to Pope Pius XI, writing in Quas Primas, it was the Resurrection from whence Our Lord:
Took the opportunity to call himself King, confirming the title publicly … solemnly proclaiming that all power was given Him in heaven and on earth … words that can only be taken to indicate the greatness of His power and the infinite extent of His kingdom.
That’s the real Resurrection, and I’d say it’s pretty majestic, wouldn’t you?
In fact, we might well wonder how it is that Pope Francis can believe that it’s even possible for the human mind to imagine something that’s more majestic still.
The answer is at once simple and tragic; it is because his view of the resurrection, and likewise his view of the Risen Christ, is one that pales in comparison to the “real one.”
He doubts as Peter doubted, but let it be known that Francis’ doubt is infinitely more tragic.
Remember, Peter’s doubt was strictly momentary. Our Blessed Lord had yet to undergo His passion, death, and most importantly, His glorious Resurrection. Pentecost had yet to take place. Peter wasn’t even a priest during his moments of doubt, much less was he the pope!
So, as we consider the prophetic words of Our Lady as commented upon by Cardinal Pacelli, let’s be sure to keep Peter’s moment of doubt in perspective relative to the doubt of his current successor, and likewise the impact that the latter has on the Church, the world, and the eternal state of so many souls.
When the reigning pope himself imagines, as Pope Francis does, a Christ that is stripped of His Divine glory, and a Christ whose Resurrection is in some way lacking in majesty; i.e., when the temptation to overlook the divinity of Christ takes hold even in the slightest in the mind of His Vicar, and this temptation creeps its way into his words and deeds, this is what it means for the Church flirt with suicide.
The divinity of Jesus Christ is the very Life of the Catholic Church!
Apart from a solid embrace of the Divine Life of Jesus Christ, the Church is imagined to be, and is treated in practice, as but a human organism; an organization with a mission that is earthbound, focusing on man’s temporal needs and his natural ends, to the near exclusion his spiritual needs and his supernatural ends.
It is then that the disciplines of our Holy Catholic faith, in the eyes of the doubters, begin to take on the appearance of mere rules and regulations; internal ordinances that need to be molded by experts, like Synods of Bishops, to meet the exigencies of modern men.
When this happens, the immutable doctrines of our Holy Catholic Faith are rarely presented to the world for what they truly are; namely, the timeless decrees that invite man into communion with Jesus Christ who is true God.
My friends, this is precisely the crisis that is plaguing the Church at this very moment:
A considerable number of those men who speak in the name of the Church, up to and including the pope, doubt as Peter doubted; they’ve lost sight of the divinity of Christ to the point where they are tempted to believe that man has become God, and thanks to their stunning lack of faith, the Church gives forth every appearance of flirting with suicide.
The evidence is all around us.
Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis!
Uh oh! This post by Louie will send the sede’s that frequent this blog into a tizzy. 🙂
Que the links to NovusOrdowatch.
He also said….
Feeding the birds is also a form of prayer
Pope Pius XII
How so? I for one, think it is very insightful indeed! Only, I would be much harsher on the Patriarch of the World.
The doubts of Peter referred to were understandable. They were prior to Pentecost and the descent of the Holy Ghost, which would have given the Apostles the gifts of wisdom, understanding, fortitude, etc. Our Lord told them they would not understand Who He Was and what His mission was, until after his Resurrection, his appearing to them after death, his Ascension, and the Coming of the Holy Ghost to them.
And even before Pentecost Peter was able to say, what I hope we are all able to say…
“Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.”
Yes, Peter submitted to the Lord, albeit that he didn’t fully understand the Incarnation and Passion and Redemption before Pentecost when the Church was supernaturally established and given its sacred unchangeable mission.
Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote, commenting on the second temptation of Jesus in his 2004 book ‘On the Road toward Christ Jesus’ (referring directly to Soloviev’s ‘A Short Tale of the Antichrist’):
“And a phrase of Soloviev’s is illuminating: The Antichrist believes in God, but in the depths of his heart he prefers himself.”
400+ years ago in the early 1600’s, Our Lady of Good Success (Quito, Ecuador) asked for special prayers for those living in our times, when even priests would lack guidance, and the few good ones would suffer greatly.
” This will mark the arrival of My hour.”
-“O, if mortals only understood how to appreciate the time given to them, and would take advantage of each moment of their lives, how different the world would be! And a considerable number of souls would not fall to their eternal perdition! ”
“Therefore, clamor insistently without tiring and weep with bitter tears in the privacy of your heart, imploring our Celestial Father that, for love of the Eucharistic Heart of my Most Holy Son and His Precious Blood shed with such generosity and the profound bitterness and sufferings of His cruel Passion and Death, He might take pity on His ministers and bring to an end those Ominous times, SENDING TO THIS CHURCH THE PRELATE WHO WILL RESTORE THE SPIRIT OF ITS PRIESTS.”
Much to offer up right now, while we live through this chastisement.
If you will excuse my submission of a piece published in Rorate Caeli on March 1, 2007, I believe you will find the subject matter apropos to this present discussion.
“Anti-Christ is among us. Pope’s Retreat Preacher Speaks on Antichrist as a ‘pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist’.”
Global Warming/ Climate Change – man is in control of his own destiny.
I do not believe this is man made, nor can man cure this ill. It is only God who can make this right, and our response to God. Soon, He who is sleeping in the bow of the barque of Peter, will be called forth by a Pope’s obedience to Our Lady’s call for the consecration and He will calm the storm. But, only through the hands of Mary!
I don’t think sedevacantists do tizzies – that’s the remit of Bergoglioists.
is it also possible Peter’s doubt took place after the Resurrection and Pentecost, namely, as it was written by St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, in the dispute he had with St. Paul over the judaizers who insistent that salvation for the gentiles required that they be circumcised (i.e that they adhere to the Mosaic Laws of the Old Covenant). Now it’s not the act of circumcision per se that is at issue here, but the general old covenant ‘works of the law’ (i.e. the Mosaic Covenant) which St. Peter would not entirely relinquish in place of the ‘sacraments’ or ‘mysteries’ introduced by Christ himself to replace those old covenantal ‘works of the law’. Therefore, insofar as the conciliar church clearly refuses the principle of supersession, we can say that the conciliar church doubts as Peter doubted prior to his filial/fraternal correction of St. Paul (i.e St. Paul’s tongue lashing at the council in Jerusalem). Therefore, insofar as the conciliar church has watered down all of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist in its NO liturgy and the Sacrament of Confession, which is almost entirely ignored by the rank and file Catholics post VII, one can say the church now doubts as Peter doubted in raising up false ecumenism to the reciprocal detriment of the Catholic Sacraments and Mysteries.
Pray for me.
Would Pope Pius XII have mused that Holy Mother Church can promulgate universal evil in her Rites, Disciplines and Doctrines? I would guess no – such an evil would have to come from something that is not ‘Church’ even if, like a squatter, it appears to be ‘inside’. This is why the heretic (one without the faith) is not a Catholic and is ‘outside’ the Church. If Pius XII had intended that faithful to be guilty of promulgating such evil he would have been denying the infallible perennial magisterium, and there is no fault to be found in Pius XII’s doctrinal legacy. He had a long pontificate with the wolves gathering around him at the end. The unfortunate liturgical innovations introduced before his death are refuted in his encyclical ‘Mediator Dei’ which was pretty much thrown out the window at VII and with the Novus Ordo. However, in terms of promulgating universal evil, the New Order has done just that – it can and does promulgate evil because it is not Christ’s Church. It has no infallible magisterium. It has a shifting murky magisterium that revolts against the Magistrium worked by the Holy Ghost.
“internal crisis of faith that necessarily includes the pope”. I agree, in that the See has been made Vacant now for decades whilst modernist interlopers have paraded in white cassocks imposing upon the parishes of what was left of Christendom another religion which diverges substantially from the True Faith in her worship, discipline and doctrines. The First Vatican Council teaches us dogmatically that the See of Peter can never become extinct and that same Holy See can never impose universal evils. It does not proscribe the long absence of a True Successor however – as now, in this time of the occupation of Rome. When Pius XII speaks of a suicide – I would hazard to guess – he had a presentiment of the death of the valid Rites of the Church in what were then the valid Catholic parishes of the earth. The Novus Ordo Rites depart substantially from the Roman Rites and the NO Rites of Ordination are more than likely invalid. The NO episcopal rite is taken from an induction rite of the east for a Patriarch (who has already been ordained a bishop). The ‘suicide’ has happened in the Rites. If so, the ‘lay-clergy’ of the majority of the Novus Ordo cannot confect the sacrament and the laity cannot, therefore, have access to the Real Presence or even absolution from their parish ‘priest’. Pius XII forsaw a time when the lay faithful were search in vain for the tabernacle that housed Our Lord and, IMO, I think this is where the ‘suicide’ for the thousands upon thousands of good authentic Catholic Parishes occured.
A nagging problem with the ‘Recognise and Resist’ position is that it accuses the Holy Ghost of imposing some terrible crimes across all the seminaries and altars, missals and Rites and doctrines of the Church in ‘recognising’ the Vicar of Christ in the recent men in white cassocks – it does this because these evils were universally applied – not one offs or anomalies. For the sedevacantist all the changes imposed upon the dioceses are ‘null and void’ and not to be recognised because no valid See has promulgated them. Another difficulty with the R&R is that if Jorge Bergoglio (heretic before he was elected (therefore null and void), heretic afterwards (therefore null and void) is to be recognised as having divine authority to rule the Church, only his peers (other Bishops), for a start, have the right to criticize him.
“It would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd”, said Saint Robert Bellarmine exploring the problems surrounding heresy and the Roman Pontiff. His findings were that no such thing could be imposed upon the Holy Spouse by Her Heavenly Bridegroom. Yet the R&R say, yes, Our Lord Jesus Christ has sent us a ‘manifestly prowling wolf for a shepherd’. They are saying effectively, the Father has given us stones instead of bread. I will not say that and the Church backs me up on this stand.
I think the use of the ‘doubting Peter’ as a papal ‘type’ fails because St Peter did not doubt once he was instructed in Truth. The doctrines regarding the Judaizers was yet to be ‘declared’. Therefore St Peter in no way ‘doubted’ anything that was accepted and declared doctrine of Christ or His Church.
From the First Vatican Council: “Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.” I would be interested if someone can point out an instance where St Peter doubted the ‘declared’ meaning of sacred dogmas of the Church.
“The most evident mark of God’s anger, and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world, is manifest when He permits His people to fall into the hands of a clergy who are more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. They abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world and, in their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits. When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people and is visiting His most dreadful wrath upon them.” Saint John Eudes
“He who hears you hears Me…I will send the advocate Who will teach you all things and abide with you…” God may be angry, but He doesn’t contradict Himself and He is not the author of error. He promised a visible and unerring Church founded upon the Holy See of Peter. ‘In the Apostolic See the Faith has always been kept unsullied and Holy’. In the Novus Ordo ‘see’ this is not so. The Novus Ordo ‘see’ promulgates error and contradiction with the true faith from the top down. The Visibiliy of the Church demands that we recognise who is Catholic/authentic and who is not/false. The pope must be Catholic and therefore cannot be a public heretic. Pope Pius XII taught that heresy, schism and apostasy automatically removes one from communion in the Church.
In the Church, universal ‘laws’ are protected by infallibility. If the pope legislates upon the universal Church, it is infallible. Therefore if error or evil is promoted throughout the universal Church it cannot possibly come from a Pope. http://www.restorationradionetwork.org/season-4-from-the-pulpit-episode-41-satan-will-try-to-deceive-even-the-elect-part-2/
“He who hears you hears Me.” I guess if people can put their hand on their heart and say, ‘yes, when I am instructed in Catholic faith and morals by Bergoglio’s homilies, speeches and encylicals, I hear the voice of my Lord Jesus Christ and no other’, then things are wierder than I thought.
What an excellent, lucid comment Salvemur!
You have a penchant for putting things in a nut shell. One little point:
“… only his peers (other Bishops), for a start, have the right to criticize him.”
Catholic Thinker recently provided a good list of quotes affirming that laymen may legitimately criticize any ecclesiastical superior who teaches error, i.e. not only Bishops may criticise the pope.
“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul”
I’m not sure if this question has popped into the minds of many here, but how could Card Pacelli in the 30s (when he wrote the letter from where the quotation comes) know about the “Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima.”? Because, the secrets of Fatima were not written till the early 40s, well before the quoted words.
Did Cardinal Pacelli have some sort of divine apparition telling him the essence of the secrets of Fatima? Did he have some sort of interior illumination regarding the same?
What is more striking is that Card Pacelli seems to be referring to the 3rd secret, wherein:
“In the Third Secret, it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” (Cardinal Ciappi)
“It suffices to cast a rapid glance at what is happening at this moment in the world, in order to recognize that without the intervention of the Mother of all mercy near the All-Powerful, the world risks becoming pagan once more, a paganism more deplorable than the first paganism, because it is aggravated by apostasy. We are witnessing a veritable deluge of sins, a deluge which leaves behind it a nauseating quagmire, infected by immorality, lies and blasphemy…” (Dec 15, 1960)
Is this correct Salvemur ? I think this is why St. Paul rebuked St Peter over this issue which he – St Peter – had already defined at the Council of Jerusalem. St Peter was going back on this in order to please the jews with whom he was associating at the time.
CraigV’s quote of St. John is so apt a description, almost supernaturally apt, of our time. It spells out for us why what is happening, is happening. The Wrath of God is being visited upon us as punishment for our sins.
Salvemur counters that the Holy Ghost protects the integrity of His Church for all time and therefore the True Church cannot promulgate error, nor the Catholic hierarchy turn into ravening wolves.
Both comments are Truth.
How can the prediction of St. John (which mirrors the prediction of Our Lady of Fatima) contradict Catholic doctrine? It cannot and does not.
The mechanism whereby this apparent contradiction is achieved, is alluded to by Our Lady:
The evil one (judeo-masons) infiltrate the Church from the top and create a false church of darkness, the ape of the Catholic Church, the NO church, which eventually eclipses the true Church. The ravening wolves of the NO are loosed upon Christ’s flock. The sheep are scattered, but the faithful ones huddle together in far flung stables, safe and unscathed, under the protection of the Holy Ghost and wait, in prayer and confidence, for the Shepherd to quell the attack.
CraigV and St. John describe the current scenario, Salvemur and Our Lady confirm the outcome.
Regarding the incident in Galations, the Church has long considered the fault of St Peter a sin of ‘venial imprudence’. St Peter, for fear of offending the Jews withdrew from the table of the Gentiles and St Paul rebuked him. Most noteworthy is St Peter’s great humility following this rebuke. If anyone can come up with an instance where St Peter overturns accepted teaching or denies accepted doctrine it would be that that would be a ‘type’ for the ‘papal doubting’ I would think.
Thanks for that, Peter. ‘Fraternal correction’, the aim of which is to denounce the public boo boos of a Pope (all popes are sinners) is legit. No theologian “extends it to rejecting a pope’s universal disciplinary laws or the teachings of his universal magisterium”. http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?catname=10&id=70
In other words, if one truly believes a man to validly hold the Papal Office and to be Christ’s Vicar, his magisterium is not to be resisted. The Novus Ordo ‘popes’ promulgated and continue to promulgate a universal worship, discipline and doctrines that are at odds with Catholic authenticity. So if one chooses to resist the New Order it confounds me how one can still consider the promulgators of that New Order to be the Vicars of Christ. Am I making any sense?
What an interesting observation Hoc. Perhaps transmitted to him orally by someone who had spoken to Lucy? A good question for the Fatima Centre?
Another great quote from Cardinal Ottaviani.
Please can you tell me: How is it possible that with the predictions from Our Lady and so very many others, about what would happen to the Church; with our knowledge of the tenets and aims of judeo-masonry; with all the incontrovertible proof of judeo-masonic infiltration of the Church; with popes who openly wear the ephod and the torch; with Catholic doctrine and the blatant contradiction thereof by VII and the conciliar popes; with all that is before our eyes; how is it that so many informed Catholics stubbornly and despite everything they see and hear and read, still cling to the NO church of darkness? Are they willfully blind, or simply lemmings happy to be lead over the cliff?
An alternative explanation to the confused theology, and the most likely explanation is that the man is ignorant. Equally ignorant about his faith. Here is how Jack Tollers summed up Francis:
“Take Bergoglio, for example. His studies amount to nothing substantial. The Jesuits over here have no professors worthy of the name, the subjects were tossed about in an un-scholarly manner, the philosophy would never be properly taught (and, it would only be crassly digested Suárez in the best of cases). The theology seats had been all but captured by badly trained Jesuits who were prone to repeat the last of Teilhard’s work, or Rahner’s, when not divulging the Liberation Theology’s tenets (the Nouvelle Theologie never made it over here, few people could read French or German, and St. Thomas was all but perfectly ignored).”
So the alternate and short answer is that Francis will say anything that we thinks will make him more popular. A run of the mill careerist if you ask me.
Perhaps you need to look more carefully into the article:
“If we pay close attention to what Cardinal Pacelli is saying, we cannot help but recognize that he is speaking of an internal crisis of faith that NECESSARILY INCLUDES THE POPE.
Think about it: Suicide is death self-imposed at the hands of the very one who rules over the body. If the head is not willing, the hand cannot act.
In the case of the Church, it refers to a threat that comes from within; one that involves the very head itself, and that is, of course, the occupant of the Office of Peter.”
Salvemur, you are making perfect sense and you are perfectly correct in what you say. Absolutely! I misunderstood.
Francis is “ignorant about his faith.”?
Perhaps (although I still would vehemently deny that), but at any rate how could he become properly instructed in the faith when he himself admits he does NOT CARE about it? IOW – if what you say about “ignorance” is true, it DOES NOT excuse his ramblings and heterodox statements – he is WILLFULLY ignorant.
His “perhaps this may be heresy” statement is the “coup de grace” which proves this to be the case beyond any reasonable doubt .
A “careerist”? Definitely.
A “populist” (as per your June 10 article 😉 ? Even more so.
PS I was referring to this article
This is the quote that sums Pope Francis and I don’t think anyone can argue with it
“Apart from a solid embrace of the Divine Life of Jesus Christ, the Church is imagined to be, and is treated in practice, as but a human organism; an organization with a mission that is earthbound, focusing on man’s temporal needs and his natural ends, to the near exclusion his spiritual needs and his supernatural ends.”
I think in addition to prayer we lay people need to visibly and publicly protest this pope. He seems to be motivated by vanity. If Catholics protested him let’s say when he comes to Philly that may give him pause.
The difference between the NO and Protestantism is that while in the latter one CANNOT be a catholic by definition, in the Novus Ordo – as incredibly as this may sound – one CAN remain a Catholic (and yes – it is difficult with all the forces pushing one towards Protestantism.)
The “Church Militant” apostolate is a good example. Even as they cling to the Novus Ordo, you won’t hear any words of heterodoxy from their speakers – although admittedly that does require a lot of twisting and bending of Vatican II and the like on their part in order to “fit” into their orthodox catholic beliefs. But it does prove my point – one CAN be a catholic in the NO.
I think it is fair to say that most, perhaps even all, of the people commenting on this site have “been” in the NO at some point in their lives, and no one will say that they ceased remaining catholics during that time.
This is what makes the NO such a “messy” thing to begin with – it pretends to be in theory catholic, while in practice it is not. The same cannot be said of Protestantism.
The welcome graphic for the Encyclical on the Vatican website.
Not very subtle about its target.
OF THE HOLY FATHER
ON CARE FOR OUR COMMON HOME
1. “LAUDATO SI’, mi’ Signore” – “Praise be to you, my Lord”. In the words of this beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us. “Praise be to you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with coloured flowers and herbs”.
2. This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor; she “groans in travail” (Rom 8:22). We have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the earth (cf. Gen2:7); our very bodies are made up of her elements, we breathe her air and we receive life and refreshment from her waters.
This is true.
Yes, the permissive will of God allows the evil consequences of evil acts by persons.
This is where Louie (and you) once again reveals he doesn’t even know the Faith. “Out of love for us, Jesus Christ stripped Himself of His divine glory, emptied himself, took on the form of a slave and humbled Himself even to death, death on a cross. For this reason God exalted Him and made Him Lord of the universe. Jesus is Lord!” In this quote, Frances is simply paraphrasing St. Paul (Phil 2:5-11). Jesus revealed his divine glory to Peter, James and John in the transfiguration, but my understanding is that no-one who is not pure (100%) of heart will see God in His Divine Glory (Matt 5:8) and that is why there is purgatory.
Meanwhile, Louie lets this statement pass w/out comment: “warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, [in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul]”
The Faith that Jesus Christ gave the Apostles and that has been handed down to us CANNOT be altered (the marks of the Church are ONE, Holy, Universal (Catholic), and Apostolic), and yet like the Corinthians (2 Cor 11:3-4) we have gone along beautifully w/the altering of the faith in Her liturgy, theology and soul.
What is the proper behavior of one who holds the faith to one professing another faith? What does a sheep do when he recognizes a wolf?
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” Gal 1:8
You and Louie have one job here on earth which is to get yourselves to heaven. I pray you both make it, but I also caution you: Every idle word will be held against you. And if you lead anyone astray (to follow you down a dead end path, i.e. to commit suicide by playing with wolves and following heretics to hell), you become a wolf yourself.
Many believe that the image left on the Shroud of Turin was the result of an unimaginably brilliant light at the instant of Our Lord’s Resurrection. Sounds pretty majestic to me! Comparing this supernatural event to anything worldly is a sure sign of Bergoglio’s love of the world. Borrowing from a political slogan, Bergoglio’s allegiance could be “Of the People, by the People, and for the People.” This slogan may be acceptable for a politician—-but Never, Never for a POPE! A Pope must always have his soul, heart, mind and entire being focused on Christ!
Thank you, Louie, for another great analysis of this dreadful papacy!
Of course, it is not ignorance. Any child having attained the age of reason and having been taught the Faith in its fundamentals (so that he could be confirmed) knows that what the Pope is doing is against the Faith and God’s Law.
Naturalism is a portal to satanic oppression and possession. Malachi Martin SJ had two examples of such priests in his book describing cases of diabolic possession.
TWN – First, I appreciate your prayers. They’re much needed.
I am well aware of the Scripture verse that Pope Francis had in mind when he put forth the false notion that Jesus “stripped Himself of His divine glory.”
I addressed the Church’s understanding of “kenosis” (the emptying of self mentioned in Philippians) in a post back in April:
I once heard a catechist say that even the little children she had imparted the faith to knew it better than Francis…
Nowhere does St Paul say that Christ “Stripped himself of his divine glory.”
Comment from Dumb_Ox from linked article by Mr Verrechio:
Jorge Bergoglio says: “Jesus Christ stripped himself of his divine glory, emptied himself, took on the form of a slave”.
Pope St. Leo the Great, Doctor of the Church (died, 461 A.D.), on the other hand, writes the following (Sermon 23):
“[A]s the form of God did not do away with the form of a slave, so the form of a slave did not impair the form of God…. [F]or that ’emptying of Himself,’ whereby the Invisible made Himself visible, was the bending down of pity, not the failing of power“.
TWN, You are a master of false dichotomies and non sequiturs. You also seem to find pleasure in attempting to fear monger and destroy individual’s inner peace. Be careful who you point the wolf finger at.
Both are whack jobs.
You should consult TWN prior to any further blog posts Louie. Since you obviously don’t know the Faith and TWN has a heroic gift for fraternal correction. 🙂
In my opinion, he says those stupid things partly out of ignorance and partly for the shock effect. If there is one overiding characteristic that describes Francis is his narcisim. Here is one post that explains it quite well.
I answered those questions in the survey as if Francis was answering them. He scored 36 on a scale of 1-40. 12-15 is average, 18 is what celebrities score and > 20 is narcissim. Francis gets 36!
And I did not do the post so that it could be funny.
Hoc, One certainly can be a Catholic in heart and remain in the NO church – through ignorance of the facts. Millions of good, holy, sincere Catholics do so, with absolutely pure intent. Just like all of us did for years and years. The problem arises when, one way ,or another, one becomes informed and aware of the facts, contradictions and heresies. Then it’s a different story. I would hazard a guess that not a single person on this site denies that VII, or any conciliar pope, (except perhaps JPI), has not promulgated heresy, or been a heretic. We know, for certain, that a heretic cannot be Pope formaliter. We know that the NO religion contradicts traditional doctrine and is not Catholic, neither in its practice, nor in its theory. If something is not Catholic then it is non-Catholic. Protestants and all sects outside the Church, including the NO church, are non-Catholics. Therefore a Catholic who knows, cannot remain in the NO church. To do so, is simply to join a non-Catholic sect. Many who know the errors of the NO and who know that the NO religion is false, somehow still consider it to be “The Church” and that “The Church” can and must be reformed “from within.” They don’t see the intrinsic contradiction in their logic. If the NO church is not Catholic, it cannot be the Catholic Church. Nothing can be one thing and at the same time not be the same thing. When this realization dawns, they must leave the NO church, or become non-Catholics. Of course NO Catholics are still legally Catholics, but if they know what’s cooking, I believe that they are misguided by remaining in the NO church and become by there mere presence, complicit in its evil.
Hoc, I’m not quite sure if you are referring to my comment, or not. I think your interpretation of the suicide involving an internal crisis and the Pope is very good. However, it would necessarily refer to a false pope, because a true Pope cannot teach erroneous faith, or morals to the universal Church.
At the end, we will find ourselves face to face with the infinite beauty of God
Dear Em and all,
Mother and sister are nice warm personifications, unless you’re a new ager as so many are today, in which case they are your goddesses.
– Our Lord reminded us that His “mother and sisters” are—those who keep His Father’s Commandments.
The proper balance seems missing from the Pope’s hierarchy of values. Scripture tells us how God weighs things. We were created in His image, possessing eternal souls, and are to seek First, His Holy Kingdom, which is not of this world.
It is true that in Genesis we are also commanded by Him to increase and multiply-filling, subduing, and ruling the earth; using its plants and,(after the flood) its animals for food; while remembering the anathema of Cain- that we are forbidden to murder our fellow man. So justice requires we take due care to avoid deliberately poisoning the environment of our fellow man.
But the achievement of that goal must never aid the loss of our most important God-given freedoms and rights-to know, love and serve Him in Truth in this world, and to share that knowlege and love with others, for the salvation of all souls. This is what makes it so horrendous to witness a Pope promoting worldly (socialist)ideals and using people of false beliefs to present this mis-guided work to both the Church and the world. The authority he would like to set up to rule us, is a direct threat to those freedoms and rights it is his duty to protect. If only he would use this world pulpit to do his real job.
What does it profit a man that he gain the whole world, and lose his soul?
I agree that it appears for all intents and purposes that the post-Vatican II/conciliar/NO church is a Church of Man centered on Man and not on God the Creator. Your proposition that Bergoglio’s allegiance could be “Of the People, by the People, and for the People” is quite interesting. Libertarians such as Thomas Di Lorenzo would probably say that phrase by President Lincoln was both duplicitous and malicious insofar as in stating it Lincoln was behaving unconstitutionally trying to circumvent the constitutional powers of both the Senate and the States by appealing directly to the People. If we extend your analogy further and to the Church, what, in this Americanism — this appeal to the People —- being espoused and propagated within the Church by the post-VII Vatican hierarchy, is the post VII church attempting the circumvent? And, by appealing directly to the People, not only what but where is this thing they are trying to circumvent?
Were Dante living today, he would place many modernist Catholic prelates in Hades in the company of Oedipus with their eyes repeatedly and savagely gouged out for eternity in darkness by Byzantine caesaropapists.
Yes, the shedding of Divine Glory is not substantive, only in superficial form. Remaining fully God, He retained the Glory of God, though as a man that would have been hidden to those without the inner sight of the Holy Ghost.
Cardinal Pacelli’s commentary upon Our Lady’s prophesy is very interesting.
Cardinal Pacelli’s statement “A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted.
She will be tempted to believe that man has become God”
The world has always denied God. That denial has come in to clearer focus recently because more of the world denies God these days, compared to Pacelli’s time.
Has this denial manifested itself within the Church also? And was this denial there before? I’ve no doubt that members of the Laity and the hierarchy doubt the divinity of Jesus. We had members of the clergy who sexually and physically abused children, officiating at Mass and touching and holding The Real Presence that is God. That level of denial where a member of the clergy engages in diabolical acts of sexual depravity, did then celebrate Holy Mass with no compunction, proves to me that denial has been there for decades.
Jesus himself was surrounded by those who denied him, and he was even betrayed by one of his own handpicked apostles.
I don’t know if the Pope denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. If he does deny the divinity of Jesus Christ then he will have to answer for that. Second guessing whether or not he does deny Jesus divinity is just that, second guessing.
As regards doubt and faith. Doubt and faith have always been linked. Saint Peter in his humanity doubted Jesus. But Jesus forgave Peter for his human reaction. We are all human and we are all subject to the frailties that St.Peter and countless others have had. Jesus forgave St.Peter to the extent that He built His Church upon the rock that is St.Peter.
That is how much faith Jesus had in St.Peter!
If we are honest, we all doubt from time to time. When something happens, an inexplicable tragedy occurs for no apparent reason for example, we ask “How could God let that happen”. We question God. We debate with him “why did You allow this tragedy to happen…….”
If we had proof there would be no need for faith. From doubt greater belief can stem. Doubt can often propel us to search more thoroughly to try to find an answer.
Of course, doubt can also become fixed and it can creep deeper and deeper inside to undermine faith as well.
I’m convinced that there is no such thing as a foxhole atheist. It may be the case that many of us will need to endure incoming artillery fire in our human foxholes to connect, or to reconnect, with faith.
The big lie is that climate is static. It’s not. It has always changed. There has always been change in climate – that is how God made the world.
It has no relationship to CO2, which is good, and essential for plant life, etc. The more CO2, the more plants flourish. However, CO2, is only a minuscule part of the atmosphere – about 8 thousandths of one per cent. As for the “Greenhouse” gases which have some effect on temperature, CO2 accounts for only 3.4% of these. Water vapour is by far the greatest part of such. (Which is why Governments when “modifying” weather, manipulate cloud.)
Greenland was called “Greenland”, not out of some warped sarcasm but because it used to to be green, very green. In the Roman warm period, the Romans grew vineyards as far north as York. On the bigger scale, we are still in a “Cold Period”. Apparently in the last hundred years, 9 of the top 10 hottest years were in the 1930s.
I don’t know what Francis believes but I would like to offer a sociological axiom: If I can change a person’s behavior, I can change his beliefs. This is called behavior modification and it is true. Scripture tells us over and over again that if anyone preaches or teaches a doctrine that is different from the one taught by Jesus and consequently by his apostles, let him be anathema. When teaching/preaching departs from the true doctrine of the faith as it is handed on to us through the Magisterium of the Church, we know it is false. Francis has said and done many things that depart from the true teaching/preaching of the Church. Clearly his behavior and his speech have been disparate one from the other. Is he a legitimate pope? I don’t know for certain but he himself has recently stated in a video for all to see and hear that what he was about to say could be heretical…but he said it anyway. Would a true pope, w/o hesitation or compunction, do a thing like that? Is that the true nature of Christ?
Philippians 2: 5-8
“Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus who though he
was by nature God, did not consider being equal to thing to be clung
to but emptied himself, taking the nature of a slave and being made
like unto men. And appearing in the form of men he humbled himself
becoming obedient to death, even to death on a cross.”
I would answer that question about the true nature of Christ which humbled, emptied and obediently died on the Cross to save us from sin as the quintessential difference between Francis and Christ. There is no question in my mind as to the dissimilarities Christ and this man who calls himself the bishop of Rome.
We hope people will take note of this very important point, as it affects not only how we perceive Our Lord before and after His Resurrection, but how we perceive ourselves, as His disciples. There is a nobility attached to being a true Christian, -being part of the Royal Family, that remains hidden in all of us, too, while we, like our Divine Master, are often treated with scorn by the world that rejects Him, but go on with full knowledge that everything is to be revealed in the end.
-There is something about knowing your older brother is the King of Kings, that can help keep the inner man going strong – even in times like these.
–Our thanks to you Louie, for this excellent teaching. We recommend folks review the link.
LOL! A foxhole atheist – what a wonderful metaphor! I’m sure you are correct that there never was one, nor ever will be one.
Cardinal Ottaviani on the infiltration of apostasy and heresy into the Church, in January 1953:
– It is fashionable today[…] to judge, criticize and get rid of everything that doesn’t sound modern, novel, or subversive. […] And the poor Catholic is bewildered hearing so much bitterness from the mouths of little sacristy-communists, hearing in many ways, how everything is outmoded. […].
– […]The only effect of their social action in the end, is to break up, throw out , destroy and raze to the ground to make way – for whom? We need only look at who is holding the cord of this devastation. We say and we fear no contradiction – [it is]for the Antichrist. The Antichrist for us, is anyone who stands for a society in opposition to God or even one simply without Him. And whoever aligns with these people, or lends a hand and obeys them, makes way for the Antichrist, even if unwittingly.
– When a priest is corrupted, he becomes the worst and the speediest agent for social decay.
– Unfortunately the world has become so pagan that some of its materialistic influence has infiltrated into Catholic consciences.
– We are in times when one must resist not only adversaries but also those inside the Church who look outside [ Her] with more sympathy to the other camp and they do more damage inside, as if they had deserted Her already.
– Our thoughts are veiled in sadness when we envisage the many souls poisoned or contaminated by the oozing filth of so much obscene literature; in so many the light of faith is obscured by the murky darkness of books written by atheists. In addition, there is much vacillation also in literature, even if not obscene or blasphemous, which plants doubt, uncertainty, confusion and sets minds in new ways which are not those of the Lord.”
Interesting points. One thing to add about doubt. The Church distinguishes between Voluntary and Involuntary doubt.
-Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. -Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated, doubt can lead to spiritual blindness, and Voluntary doubt of a teaching is heresy. (CCC 2088)
Objectively, he shows himself the be a manifest pertinacious heretic. He constantly departs from the Deposit of Faith and morals in a very deliberate manner.
Dear IF, that is critical. I wanted to say that but couldn’t think of the necessary words to so do. God bless.
Dear Louie and all,
Looks like Mike Voris is STILL sticking to his story. His Breaking Report -Papal Encyclical A First Look, is a sad attempt to paint the Pope as a victim of bad advice.
He praises all he can find in it that doesn’t contradict Church teaching-including words against abortion and human trafficking, but when he gets to actual proposals on the environment, all we hear are denunciations of the bad science, excuses like -the pope is a chemist, but chemistry is not Climatology…. and more and more mentions of the Counsel of ignorant, wicked men….bad advisors..
even one claim that “the good and kind nature” of the Holy Father can easily be taken advantage of”…. With examples of JPII and the Marciel scandal to remind us of how that can happen. He Asks for prayers for the holy father to get good counselors, and reminds us we are under NO obligation to believe anything not part of the deposit of the Faith–such as things about Climate change, the U.N.and an international enforcement agency proposal. After all, if we don’t have to believe even something as well accepted as Fatima, we certainly are not bound to believe these matters outside the Pope’s area of Faith and morals. .
What ‘s really sad about this, is that the Church has reason to be concerned with how we treat the planet, and Michael is so aware of the damages this thing could cause, he’s acting as if it’s none of her concern.
This must be how the Holy Spirit provides. We just happened to be looking that topic up last night, for a family member. 🙂 🙂
Could MV be the victim of bad advice??
“With examples of JPII and the Marciel scandal to remind us of how that can happen.”
Can anyone imagine or contemplate St Pius X befriending a sodomite priest (as JP2 did), and holding up his priestly society as an example to the Church for years?
There is a saying that goes something like, “show me your friends and I will tell you what kind of person you are.”
So much for the glorious “sanctity” of JP2…
Knowing how opus dei operates, I would say “yes” (I would venture to guess from none other than Fr Nicholson.)
I would say that decreases his culpability, but to what degree is known by God.
“The [civilized] world has always denied God.”
Look at the magnificent cathedrals built during the Middle Ages throughout Christendom.
Consider the efforts of the Spanish Monarchs in spreading the Faith throughout the Americas.
Think about the great masterpieces of visual and musical art created throughout the centuries for the greater glory of God, often created through the patronship of monarchs and important figures.
During the ages when catholic monarchs ruled in Europe, there may have been individual heretics and evil doers, or even, most wicked rulers, but society AS A WHOLE put God in the summit of their life, or at least in a pre-eminent position.
This is one of the worst examples of diabolic disorientation. The mental acrobatics are dizzying. This is wilful blindness. And his ignoring the truth, is in effect cooperation with evil.
On the contrary, the Encyclical is very much concerned with Faith and morals, in that it is generally opposed to the Deposit of Faith and morals. And therefore, Catholics are bound to reject it, as not being in full conformity with the Faith and the moral law.
If one departs from a single doctrine of the Faith, one is anathema.
Could MV (also) be the victim of bad advice?
Where do we quit playing these games with where the buck actually stops, and start admitting that these ideas being proposed are ultimately the responsibility of the person whose name is at the bottom–or on the video –reflecting their own bad judgment?
Agreed. There are definite Church teachings on our moral responsibilities regarding the care of God’s gifts, as well as against atheistic totalitarian regimes–which this proposal of a new non-religious body with specific law-enforcement powers, represents.
Dangerous stuff that must be vigorously opposed.
IF, Thank you for pointing out the distinction – something I didn’t know even existed – between voluntary doubt and involuntary doubt.
Christendom was on it’s last legs after the fall of the Roman Empire.
The spread of Christianity stopped when the Roman Empire died – and that faith that had been planted throughout those territories literally was extinguished.
Thankfully, and solely due to the great Irish missionaries of the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries did Christendom in Europe become reignited.
I wish I could agree with you that the monarchs of territories such as Spain did what they did for benevolent reasons. But temporal reasons drove their lust for commodities such as minerals and territory, not religious faith.
The world has for the most part either ignored or rejected God outright throughout times past. Today the western world places man and materials ahead of God. History repeats itself unfortunately.
Thank you for your insightful comments. What is Bergoglio trying to circumvent? The teachings of Christ, it seems!
“No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”
You’re very welcome. It’s a big guilt-reliever for questioning minds. 🙂 🙂
The lively debate here prompted me to have a look through Haydock’s commentary (which assiduously compiles the teachings of the Fathers, Saints and accepted theologians for real Catholic interpretation). The Church does not call that moment in Matthew 16, ‘Peter doubting’ (although protestants find plenty of ‘doubting peters’ and ‘arrogant peters’) . It interprets that moment as Peter exhibiting ‘mistaken zeal’. As Louie points out in his article, it is important to note that St. Peter was appointed pillar of the Church after the Resurrection and it was only later that Christ prayed, “Behold, Satan hath desired to have thee; but I have prayed for thee, that “thy faith fail not,” and thou being once converted confirm thy brethren.” Luke xxii. 31.
St Peter could and did fail in morals and facts (not impeccable – “not liable to sin” – from pecare “to sin”) but not in Faith as a true shepherd commissioned to ‘confirm they brethren’ (promise of infallibility).
11 good points within the encyclical
“The spread of Christianity stopped when the Roman Empire died”: Again – a most emphatic “not so”…
Germany, the Nordic countries, and Eastern Europe still remained to be evangelized after the fall of the Roman Empire. Not to mention Asia, the Americas and Africa.
Charlemagne helped in the evangelization of northern Europe.
St Cyril and Methodius still had to evangelize the Slavs when the Roman Empire crumbled. I think the point is obvious enough.
If you think that the Spanish monarchs had no concern whatsoever for Catholicism, you seriously need to delve into the history of that period. Did you know that Philip IV of Spain formed a long lasting friendship with the Ven Maria de Jesus de Agreda, author of the masterpiece, “Mystical City of God”, wherein they exchanged many letters throughout many years?
Did you know that St Teresa of Avila considered Philip II, whose forces (together with other allies) vanquished the infidels in Lepanto, to be a saintly figure?
Do these seem to you like monarchs SOLELY concerned with temporal needs, or “lust for power”?
To claim that the catholic monarchs were solely concerned with lust for wealth and power is erroneous and a vast oversimplification, and does not consider the prevailing mentalities and attitudes of society at the time.
I repeat: the great catholic cathedrals of the Middle Ages (or the great Renaissance churches of Italy) WOULD NOT have been built by a faithless, neo-pagan, society such as ours, which is quite literally incapable of producing such masterpieces.
Could you elaborate on the “mistaken zeal” exegesis on the Haydock commentary? It seems like an interesting point.
To me “mistaken zeal” seems to indicate one believing himself to have a stronger faith than what is really present.
And with a weaker faith – isn’t this where “doubts” begin to creep in?
Which it seems to me brings us back to Louie’s interpretation of “Peter doubting” – as in not having enough faith that Christ is God?
Can’t say that rorate is very subtle about it’s assessment of “Laudi Si’ “:
“He that cometh from above, is above all. He that is of the earth, of the earth he is, and of the earth he speaketh. He that cometh from heaven, is above all.” (Jn. 3:31)
This is an interesting take on the most prominent words used in the so called “encyclical” (the word w/o the quotation marks seems to me like an abuse of language):
Louie writes: “Pope Francis, while apparently not doubting the historical fact of the resurrection, most certainly does entertain a very doubt-filled sense for its meaning”.
On my reading of it, Bergoglio’s
letter to a non-believer makes quite clear his belief that the Resurrection is a truth of faith only, and not part of the historical experience of Jesus of Nazareth. He writes to Scalfari as follows (bold added):
“[Y]ou note [in Lumen Fidei] the absence of a section dedicated specifically to the historical experience of Jesus of Nazareth…. The letters of Saint Paul and the Gospel of Saint John, which are referred to especially in the Encyclical, are founded in fact upon the messianic ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, which reaches its culmination in the Pasch of his death and resurrection.
It is necessary, therefore, to look at Jesus from the point of view of the actual circumstances of his existence, as narrated by the oldest of the Gospels, Saint Mark”.
So, according to Bergoglio here, St. Paul’s Epistles and John’s Gospels are not historical sources. Only Mark’s Gospel may be used to determine the actual circumstances of Jesus’ life. Bergoglio continues:
“The question which arises repeatedly in the Gospel of Mark, ‘who is this that…?’, concerning the identity of Jesus, arises from the recognition of an authority that is not of this world, one which is not intended to impose itself on others but rather is directed to the service of others….
It is precisely at this moment [of the Crucifixion] – as the Roman Centurion exclaims… – that Jesus reveals himself, paradoxically, as the Son of God, the Son of a God who is love…. For the Christian faith, this is confirmed by the fact that Jesus is risen; not to bring the weight of his triumph to bear on those who have rejected him, but to show that the love of God is stronger than death….
Thus you are correct, Dr. Scalfari, when you recognize that the Christian faith hinges on the incarnation of the Son of God”.
Bergoglio writes of “the fact” that Jesus is risen, but states that this fact confirms that Jesus is the Son of God only “for the Christian faith”. If by “fact” the reader thinks that Bergoglio means a fact of history (and not just of faith), what does this historical fact confirm for anyone who does not hold the Christian faith?
Again, how likely is it that Bergoglio means here “historical fact”, when he has already discounted as historical sources the writings of both St. Paul and St. John, precisely because they are founded on Jesus’ “messianic ministry” that culminates in the Resurrection?
Not likely at all, in my opinion. And I mean that not because I am trying to accuse Bergoglio here. I believe I am merely emphasizing the point that he wants to get across – that the Christian faith hinges on the birth of a man who “remained faithful to God, to the end”.
That there are individual “good things” taken on their own, within the document, is of little significance. Once the document departs from the Deposit of Faith or Natural Law, it is objectively evil and must be rejected. In fact, the inclusion of “good things” (good, when taken in isolation) makes it more dangerous and more likely to mislead souls.
One cannot sever the “good things” from the objective evil of the document, as a document that departs from (opposes) the Deposit of Faith and moral law. To do so is false. The document is irreparably erroneous because of its departure from the Faith, from essential truth.
The absurd intellectual contortions of some public commentators to present some good in the document is intellectual dishonesty at the least and morally dangerous to souls.
Another superb & directly to the point comment from you, which I’ve come to look forward to reading. And, if you don’t mind, may I say-yes, “reject” is indeed the operative word.
A couple of interesting & revealing quotes:
“[an authority] which is not intended to impose itself on others but rather is directed to the service of others” (Again, talk of “Service”, rather than Christ’s words, “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.” (Matthew 28:18)
“not to bring the weight of his triumph [of the resurrection] to bear on those who have rejected him” (rather than Christ’s words: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16) That sounds to me like a pretty big condemnation of those who “reject him”…
The Roman Empire died around the 4th century. And the spread of Christianity throughout what that empire was stopped dead in it’s tracks.
Christianity had died throughout Europe by the 6th century. If it not for the Irish missionaries such as St.Columbanus, St Columcille, – Columbanus founded approximately 80 monasteries in Ireland, Britain and Europe – travelling to Britain and Europe to re-evangelise that territory, Christianity would have remained extinct.
These men and the thousands of other Irish clergy are responsible for the restoration of Christianity in Europe.
The regimes of the monarchs of Europe were interested in land grabbing and the theft of minerals from captured territory and imposing punitive taxes upon the conquered people in those territories. Ethnic cleansing, enslavement.
Walk along the boulevards of the great cities of Europe –
Paris, London, Madrid, Lisbon, Rome – the old buildings which you see in those cities are the proceeds of crime.
“There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition”
Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
In this day and age of apostasy, it is a sad reality than many good willed catholics attempt to clutch at whatever straws they can from the words of the man sitting in the throne of St Peter…
This is a natural reaction from the part of a catholic layman, naturally inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the pope, but absolutely unexcusable for those Bergoglian apologists in the blogosphere.
The truth can indeed, be a terrible thing to consider.
PS What kind of an “incarnation” were Bergoglio and Scalfari thinking about?
Because it seems to me that THE “incarnation” without the HISTORICAL resurrection doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
What I mean is that, if by incarnation, one understands the “hypostatic” union whereby the divine and human nature are united into the God-man, how can one not believe that the same divine nature had the power to raise the human nature from the dead, in a real, historical way?
IOW, if your conjecture about Bergoglio having doubts about the historical resurrection is true, what kind of “divinity” does he believe in?
Doesn’t this lead us all the way back to Louie’s post about “Peter’s doubt” in the divinity?
“The truth can indeed, be a terrible thing to consider.”
This is very true Hoc, so now let’s gird our loins and face it squarely.
Bergoglio and his hierarchy (accomplices) are apostate. They are not members of the Catholic Church. No word from their mouths is of the least relevance, or importance to informed Catholics. It is best to simply ignore anything and everything they “teach” regarding the Faith. They have nothing, except evil, to offer anybody.
So, here we go again, discussing one point in Louie’s post to the exclusion of all else. The sedevacantists who comment here always turn our eyes off the main point so that we begin to argue over whether the pope is the pope or not.
Don’t we realize this is a trick of Satan? Getting us to argue over what kind of hats the school children will wear, so we forget we didn’t want them to wear hats at all.
That Marxist Saul Alinski and his followers do this to us all the time. Get the principle to the forefront and let’s not bicker over a point over which we will always disagree!
this is in response to TWN’s comment waaaaaay up – don’t know how I ended up here at the end of the line.
Yes, it is a ‘form’ of prayer but Poor Francis would have us think it is the only form of prayer (other than kneeling before the poor).
When we hear nothing out of Poor Francis than exhortations to stop offending mother earth to the exclusion of exhortations to stop committing mortal sins of greed, covetousness, envy, gluttony etc. we know we are in big trouble.
When we hear from Cardinal Burke that we must examine our consciouses nightly and go to Confession regularly and often, we are hearing what Poor Francis should be saying…
But to keep arguing that there is no pope instead of listening carefully to Our Lady: that the pope will become infected with evil, is to stretch this out farther than it’s meant to be stretched.
No this is not logical.
You are saying:
The pope is the vicar of Christ
The pope teaches error
Therefore the pope is not the vicar of Christ
But logic says:
The pope is the vicar of Christ
The pope teaches error
Therefore the pope, the vicar of Christ, is in error
This is not an exact exercise in logic but it’s close enough to show the danger of bringing an argument to a conclusion you want rather than a conclusion drawn from the facts.
“So, here we go again, discussing one point in Louie’s post to the exclusion of all else. The sedevacantists who comment here always turn our eyes off the main point so that we begin to argue over whether the pope is the pope or not.”
True, Barbara. For as little as I care to play combox cop, I’m going to put an end to it soon. I’ll post on this in the next few days, and it may well be that the end result will be less commenters.
The sedevacantist question does apply to the article, since if no one after Pius XII is Pope, any doubts about the divinity of Christ ascribed to his imputed successors would be moot in regard to Louie’s point.
In regard to the sedevacantist position, it seems to align with those who accept so-called “transgenders.” Just a Bruce Jenner is still a man, despite looking like a woman, the Catholic Church is still the Catholic Church despite looking Protestant. The Popes, from John XXIII through Francis, are real Popes despite looking like anti-Popes.
Yes, and all the Saints tell us that the very first thing – the very FIRST thing, before ALL is the salvation of our own souls.
Revelation and Holy Mother Church show us, individually, how to do this.
Only THEN do we look around to see what else is out there – so nothing, not children, family, neighbours, friends, the ‘world’ must come before our own salvation.
Our response to others, and to the world, must be how we work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
Poor Francis has got what little theology he was taught horribly muddled. Poor St. Francis of Assisi – to think his love of God – so profound – which spilled over into all of creation – is being used to promote the cult of earth worship.
I spoke to someone just this morning who said this encyclical sounds great – that we are to love the earth, and our neighbour.
Then I pointed out that there is JOB ONE to do first – that everything else SPILLS over from that – Love God, save our souls, love neighbour.
Yes, the teachings of Christ, but more important for modern Catholics is the circumvention of 2,000 years of Tradition. Going back to ‘the teachings of Christ’ alone is protestantism – the many paths, convergence heresy.
But Jesus DID mean to ‘impose’ what He said and did on others! Jesus actually said those who believe, and live, His word will be saved, and those who do not will be condemned. Pretty strong stuff.
Everything that comes out of Poor Francis mouth is twisted, or incomplete, or interpreted in such a way that ‘man’ is at the centre, instead of God.
This is more than bad theology – it’s bad philosophy.
…and nothing Poor Francis says lacks his man-centered philosophy that ‘service’ is at the heart of The Faith.
IT IS NOT.
Love of God, and through this, love of neighbour, is at the heart of The Faith. The Incarnation is at the heart of The Faith. What do we pray at Mass with the priest as he Consecrates the wine into Our Lord’s Blood? …”this is the mystery of Faith”…
I think it is important to contrast every word of Poor Francis with perennial teaching to show the shallowness in it, and the obscuring of the True Faith.
Dear Lynda and de Maria numquam satis,
Thank you for the precise and appropriate comment… I must now resist any temptation to wooly-thinking waffling, in pursuit of the pleasure of your sweet sweet correction!
OK Louie, I’m off. No point in waiting to be shoved. I have constantly and intentionally pushed sedevacantism as hard as I could, whenever I saw an opportunity, because that is my mission. I am a deeply committed Catholic and I see it as my duty to defend the Catholic Faith to my very utmost ability. To bleat as loud as I can when I see the wolf. I believe with all my heart that the sedevacantist position is the only truly Catholic position to adopt in these predicted times. What questions could be of more fundamental importance to all Catholics these days than whether the pope is the Pope, or whether the NO church is the Catholic Church? These questions are fundamental to every single post on your blog. If I have helped to convert a single soul, or just planted a tiny seed somewhere I am recompensed for my effort. Debate is only fruitful between open, objective minds.
I really enjoyed meeting so many very nice, good Catholic people, including yourself, on your blog Louie and I will miss you all. I really enjoyed being here. Thank you and God bless you all!
Dear Mr. Verrecchio
Thank yu Mr. V., & all my dear brethren here,
Just want to say bye to all of you — for years of erudite and (mostly) gracious interraction, fascinating plus edifying convo, and even a bit of humor. And for the final time, may I ask
dear salvemur–for one more Ave for you know who?
May the Peace of His Majesty Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Peace not of this world, be to all of you I’ve met here.
We’d read Fr. Z’s list earlier, and found it amazing that out of 172 footnotes and 246 paragraphs, only 11 statements stand out as “good points”, and they are rather ordinary; while one of the Pope’s most steadfast and ardent defenders, Michael Voris, is spending his time and energy warning people that a significant amount of information about the environment contained in it, is obviously the product of “evil counsellors” and a Pope who is too gullible to realize he is surrounded by them. It seems more reasonable to warn people of these facts, than to list the 11 “safe” items a priest was able to find, and recommend it be read. -just our opinion.
dear S.Armaticus & A Catholic Thinker,
Want to just say thank you both for the cool conversation over the years spanning other major changes to Louie’s site. You have both shown, over time, true consideration becoming of Catholics in general to those who do not hold your position, as well as expressing particular & indeed personal kindness to me.
In so doing, you’ve both set a fine example. It’s my hope that those who detest sedevacantists, unlike yourselves, will at least become knowledgeable on the position so to engage in a cordial manner as have you both. I’ve always been of the opinion that one has to actually know what they oppose in order to oppose it.
May God Bless you both- I will miss interracting with you here & thank you once more.
Bearing in mind that you’ve, not that long ago, asked for prayers here, know you are not forgotten. I implore you once more to hold to your heart the knowledge that, with no doubt, much suffering & consequences (shared by hundreds of thousands worldwide,) which are involved in moving into the Faith undefiled by VII, you possess that Pearl of Great Price, that Gem of which -holding steadfast-no one can rob you.
Dear Mr Lamb and de Maria, I hope you don’t go. It was good to hear from committed Catholics such as yourselves, particularly as we are a tiny remnant in a hostile world. We need to help and support each other. God bless and protect you both, and your families.
Please know for sure that if I, as a sedevacantist since the early 80’s, am banned from Louie’s site–know you have my help & support always. I met most folks here right after emerging out of homelessness as most here know, so I for sure comprehend what you mean when you say how crucial help & support are. I do hope the high road is taken& the elmination of the Catholic voice of those who follow the Religion undefiled by VII doesn’t take placed This is not to say , though, that I don’t understand the immense pressure to do so, bc I most assuredly do. It has been a pleasure to read you, Lynda.
Be well Peter. You’re a good man.
Dear de Maria, I am your sister in Christ. I have been homeless in the past (with a young child) and even now still in danger of losing my home (can’t pay mortgage due to illness, though recently promised a 2 year stay of execution), so I know the hardship. God bless you always.
Dear EM, Methinks you are pulling my leg! I was just making the objective point, certainly not correcting you for bringing attention to an article! God bless.
We’re a visible Church under a flesh and blood Pope. That is as Our Lord provided for. The Sedevacantist position is untenable. That Louie’s com box is cluttered with the natterings of so many of these wrong-headed people promoting their agenda has perplexed me.
If the stories are true about contemplative convents being “visited” by Papal- appointed officials who give them psychological tests; and then tell them they need to revise their lives and thinking to get back in touch with the outside world–as if loving the strict contemplative life is a mental aberration; then the sinister nature of this ideology that centers everything on “visible” worldly works, is like a poisonous snake in the Catholic grass.
Our Lady of Good Hope said,
“Woe to the world should it lack monasteries and convents! Men do not comprehend their importance, for, if they understood, they would do all in their power to multiply them, because in them can be found the remedy for all physical and moral evils…
… whence comes the salvation of souls, the conversion of great sinners, the end of great scourges, the fertility of the land, the end of pestilence and wars, and the harmony between nations…. All this is due to the prayers that rise up from monasteries and convents.
The Queen of Heaven told Mother Mariana that this battle would reach its most acute stage because of various unfaithful religious, who, “under the appearance of virtue and bad-spirited zeal, would turn upon Religion, who nourished them at her breast.”
So while we are reminded by Scripture that Faith without works is dead, we need to remind those who focus on “works” that there is great value in what done on a daily basis, and often seen only by God.
St. Peter was inspired by God (2nd letter) to remind us all not to center our lives as much on the earth around us, as on the promises of God to provide a new heaven and earth, while we focus on doing penance for sin, because of what is coming:
“But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of the ungodly men. … The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.  But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, and the elements shall be melted with heat, and the earth and the works which are in it, shall be burnt up.
 Seeing then that all these things are to be dissolved, what manner of people ought you to be in holy conversation and godliness?
… But we look for new heavens and a new earth according to his promises, in which justice dwelleth.  Wherefore, dearly beloved, waiting for these things, be diligent that you may be found before him unspotted and blameless in peace.
Always a good opinion…and well noted
Two criminals were crucified with Christ.
One was saved – do not despair.
One was not – do not presume.
I’ll tuck this in here because the replies are getting long…
de Maria said: “I do hope the high road is taken & the elmination of the Catholic voice of those who follow the Religion undefiled by VII doesn’t take place. This is not to say , though, that I don’t understand the immense pressure to do so, bc I most assuredly do.”
This may be a misunderstanding of our position. I, for one, AM a Catholic who follows the religion undefined by VII. That’s the difference. I simply follow my Faith. I act as if VII did not happen. It’s not that hard.
I can still acknowledge the popes since Pius XII have been an unmitigated disaster without saying ‘we have no pope.’
I wish everyone who wants to leave the blog well, but I won’t ask them to stay – because we will go round and round again very soon. And it’s pointless. There are sedevacantist blogs out there, but this is not one of them and I would leave myself if it continues on in this way.
But Louie will make his own decisions without any assistance from me.
The Haydock commentary says: “He [St Peter] did not understand that there was nothing more glorious than to make of one’s life a sacrifice to God” when he reacted to Our Lord’s revelation of His sacrifice.
de Maria, Peter and other’s who go, ‘no way, jorge’, stick around – if Louie doesn’t start modifying the ‘Resist because we Recognise that ain’t Christ’s Vicar’ crowd off the site. Reading Louie’s articles have been an important voice of Catholic sanity and in response to his articles I have learned a great deal from the comments here, sedevacantist and R&R. If the conduits of sharing Tradition=Catholicism shrink even more…well I guess then it really is ‘the rosary and the sign of the cross’.
PS. de Maria and Peter. On the Novus Ordo Watch site, if you click the ‘permalink’ – it’s pretty small – at the bottom of each article it will take you to the permanent page and you can leave comments there if you are on disqus. Keep telling the truth guys – we cannot ‘hide under a bushel’ the ‘hard sayings’ or else the boiling frogs will become comfortable – and we might even become one of them!
Those ‘natterings’ have, as far as I can remember, almost exclusively been based on the perennial Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic faith. Having an authentic understanding of Holy Mother Church and her teachings is the issue. Louie, our host, has been generous in the scope of debate that can happen on this site. But if it’s time for the most verbally attacked people who comment here to be given their marching orders, I will look out for the post Louie promised.
Natterings? As an infrequent commenter on this site, but a daily reader, I say that your comment is way off base. There are quite a few espoused sede’s who frequent this site who do NOTHING but promote our faith. I know there is one in particular who is crass in his remarks and who could easily rub someone the wrong way, but the majority are not like that at all. Your dismissal of the comments of the good Catholics I allude to as “natterings” is not fair in the least.
I personally see the writing on the wall here and will obviously respect the wishes of the man who runs the site….but be respectful.
I recently read about a Saint (I’m sorry I can’t remember his name other than St. Peter of…? I’ll try to find it again and put it up) who was put in a prison cell with a heretic of his time.
This Saint found an old blanket and piece of rope and actually strung this up to put a physical barrier between himself and the heretic!
No contact. No taint. No putting one’s self in the occasion of sin by anger or resentment between the two men. What a concept!
Here we have a pope who is so ignorant of Church History that he puts himself in grave danger, and puts his flock in grave danger, by listening to and hiring, a known atheist who wants to kill billions of people in worship of mother earth.
One drop of poison taints the whole meal.
Barbara – I am saying that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and the Vicar of Christ is protected from teaching false faith. Anyone who teaches false faith is not Catholic, let alone the Vicar of Christ. The Church teaches this. It’s worth repeating that St Bellarmine said we must not recognize a manifestly prowling wolf as a shepherd, to do so is to accuse God of giving us stones instead of bread when He promised quite the opposite. Excuse if my above ramblings were less than lucid.
I always read that comment by Cardinal Pacelli and wonder why the later Pope Pius XII had Bugnini Change Holy Week. It’s like he was concerned and alarmed, then did it himself